Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Businesses The Internet

Digital Music Stores Reviewed 420

Kozz writes "If you've thought about trying the new Napster 2.0, or perhaps MusicMatch, or even WAL*MART music service, you really need to read this review at BBspot.com. Brian takes a break from his standard satire fare and writes a comprehensive review not only of the previously mentioned stores, but also of BuyMusic.com, eMusic, Apple iTunes, and RealOne Rhapsody. It breaks down the features of each service, the prices, restrictions, general pros and cons, and really gives you an idea of which one(s) you should try depending on your needs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Digital Music Stores Reviewed

Comments Filter:
  • How about... none. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ldspartan ( 14035 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:03PM (#7791843) Homepage
    Why is it not okay to buy CDs, but fine to buy music piecemeal via the internet? I don't want to give the RIAA my money, and distribution via the net doesn't change that at all. I buy the few CDs I want at concerts, in the hope that I'll still get legitimate music and the RIAA will get less money.

    Hypocrisy sucks, pick a stance and stick with it.

    --
    lds
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Hypocrisy sucks, pick a stance and stick with it.

      Let me guess, you also have a collection of about 10,000 mp3s. How much did the artists get for those?

    • by satanami69 ( 209636 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:11PM (#7791877) Homepage
      No joke. This /. crowd seems to have some sort of ADD..ohh shiny.
    • by Mononoke ( 88668 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:25PM (#7791941) Homepage Journal
      I don't want to give the RIAA my money, and distribution via the net doesn't change that at all. I buy the few CDs I want at concerts, in the hope that I'll still get legitimate music and the RIAA will get less money.
      Unless you are buying music from unsigned bands at these concerts, then you're not doing anything different from buying at Walmart.

    • I completely agree. As much as i want to click on the music store button in itunes, i force myself to vnc over to the winbox and fire up kazaa.
    • by 77Punker ( 673758 ) <(spencr04) (at) (highpoint.edu)> on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:45PM (#7792040)
      How about buying CD's from bands that aren't from the RIAA? I like punk rock, and most of the good honest punk rock bands aren't on the RIAA. If you're not sure who is (it can be hard to tell) try here [magnetbox.com] and it'll tell you if they're part of the cartel. Good Stuff.
    • Agreed [spywareinfo.net]
    • by acomj ( 20611 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:59PM (#7792091) Homepage
      If you don't like the RIAA don't buy music. You should note that the record labels pay the RIAA, you don't directly.

      Note if you have a song from a band and you didn't pay for it the RIAA isn't getting money, but neither is the band.

      The band might only be getting a little bit from the sale, but they signed with an RIAA label and a little is better than 0.

      If you like the music support those making it.
    • Why is it not okay to buy CDs, but fine to buy music piecemeal via the internet?
      Don't any of the online stores reviewed have indie music?

      I'd think online stores would be more likely to offer indie labels because the price of carrying stock is next to nothing.

    • by WaKall ( 461142 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @11:31PM (#7792224) Homepage
      That totally depends on why you aren't buying CDs. Some folks don't want to line the pockets of the RIAA (which is a fine reason), and others just don't like the format (rather buy songs than albums). I bet there's even a group that just finds buying online easier.

      For the second group above, online music buying is pretty attractive, as they can buy individual songs w/o paying 5$ for a CD single.

      Personally, I'm all about CD albums - I like the physical product, and I like being able to encode it to match my own preferences. I use iTMS to buy songs occasionally to see if I like a band/album by example, or to get 'that song' that I like from that artist that I could care less about. It means I don't have to boot up the PC, run Kazaa, hunt through dupes, and get rid of incompletes.

      Now, if you're into a band and can buy their music at the concert, or directly from the band, DO SO. They'll get a bigger cut. It won't show up in Billboard (via SoundScan, the aggravating labels that are on top of the jewel cases), but the artist gets more money, and the RIAA gets less.

      Finally, for an example of a band that has said 'screw the labels' and gone their own road, there is Marillion. They got their fans to front the cost of the last album (and the next one, which is due out next year) many months in advance of shipping, without even hearing a thing. To have a band that is that in tune with it's fans is an amazing thing. With the exception of electronic delivery, this is the revolution in music authoring and distribution that was supposed to happen.
    • by IthnkImParanoid ( 410494 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @11:31PM (#7792227)
      Hypocrisy sucks, pick a stance and stick with it.
      Yeah! Come on slashdot! I know I'm talking to 750,000 unique visitors to this site, each their own unique combination of cultural, social, and genetic influences shaped by widely differing personal history, but can't you collectively reach a decision?!

      It's so damn hypocritical when one /.er says something, and another comes along and contradicts it when placed in a slightly different context. I mean, look at the Borg. THEY never have a difference of opinion! Why can't you be more like the Borg?

      [/sarcasm]

      Hey, if you cloned someone 750,000 times, I bet you couldn't get every clone to agree with any one opinion, let alone 750,000 individuals.
    • Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Monday December 22, 2003 @11:45PM (#7792280)
      Some of the readers of this site still fail to realize this is not the Borg hive-mind.

      SOME people are boycotting the RIAA. SOME people aren't. We all post on slashdot.
    • You obviously want to buy your music through eMusic, which is one of the services covered in the article. They work with independent artists, which should be obvious when you see that they distribute the music as unrestricted VBR MP3s.

      Their service also allows non-US users and explicitly supports Linux.

      One of the indie music directors from the online college radio station linked below in my sig has bought tons of music from eMusic. If you've ever known someone in that position, I don't think I need to s
    • Hypocrisy sucks


      No way, I saw them twice on this tour with Dimmu Borgir, Nevermore and Children of Bodom and they were awesome, they kicked the asses of pretty much any ba... ...oh.
    • by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @12:52AM (#7792558) Homepage Journal
      "Hypocrisy sucks, pick a stance and stick with it."

      It's not about taking down the RIAA, it's about them providing the services we want. They're starting to do that. If they make money on these services, we'll all end up okay.

      Lighten up.
  • Wal-Mart? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Metallic Matty ( 579124 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:03PM (#7791844)
    Something in the back of my head is echoing that soft warning that I always hear when I think of wal-mart. Watch, they'll undercut and dominate this market place too.

    Wal-Mart is going to be the Microsoft of the general retailer consumer good and grocery markets, I swear.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:06PM (#7791853)
      Something in the back of my head is echoing that soft warning that I always hear when I think of wal-mart. Watch, they'll undercut and dominate this market place too.

      Its going to be hard to undercut free. But if wal-mart ever start paying people to download mp3s, I'll be there.
    • Re:Wal-Mart? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rolocroz ( 625853 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:09PM (#7791864)
      Going to be? It is. Check out this article [fastcompany.com] about Wal-Mart's ruthless business practices.
      • Re:Wal-Mart? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "We want clean air, clear water, good living conditions, the best health care in the world--yet we aren't willing to pay for anything manufactured under those restrictions."

        Indeed. Welcome to capitalism.
      • The Fast Company article is excellent! I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Wal-Mart.
      • by Doppler00 ( 534739 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @11:02PM (#7792106) Homepage Journal
        All those pickles... wasted!
      • by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Monday December 22, 2003 @11:20PM (#7792172) Homepage
        Psst.

        You didn't hear it from me, but Wal-Mart is in secret talks with Sony to produce walking Greeter Robots [sony.net], Checkout Clerk Robots, Stockboy Robots, Cleanup Robots, and Union-Buster Robots! In related news, McDonalds is laying off 95% of their human resource grunts to be replaced by Burger Flipping Bots [marshallbrain.com], and Spit-in-a-Cops-Burger Bots.

        Getting rid of all those pesky human employees means much, much lower prices for... for... hey, where did all the customers go? Waiting in breadlines?

        --

      • And then check out the following articles, which explain why your article is full of hot air.

        Link 1 [townhall.com]
        Link 2 [reason.com]
        Link 3 [sbsc.org]

        (Quoted from your article:)
        By selling a gallon of kosher dills for less than most grocers sell a quart, Wal-Mart may have provided a ser-vice for its customers. But what did it do for Vlasic? The pickle maker had spent decades convincing customers that they should pay a premium for its brand.

        So, Wal-Mart demonstrates that Vlasic pickles aren't worth quite as much as Vlasic claims, and w

        • Re:Wal-Mart? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by LtOcelot ( 154499 )
          "Pity" and "scolding" don't enter into it. The articles you linked refer to effects on customers, whereas the main point of the article you're responding to was that dealing with Wal-Mart is dangerous for suppliers. Vlasic was in a position where 30% of their business came from Wal-Mart, and they couldn't afford to abandon that -- so Wal-Mart played hardball and essentially forced Vlasic to provide Wal-Mart with a free advertising campaign that killed Vlasic's profitability.

          Since Wal-Mart has a superior
    • Re:Wal-Mart? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Petronius ( 515525 )
      Wal-Mart, a great company [pbs.org].
  • by jstockdale ( 258118 ) * on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:06PM (#7791850) Homepage Journal
    The only down side in reading the review, is that it's highly windows-centric. The reviewer fails to point out obvious things like the fact that iTunes works seamlessly between Windows and Mac platforms (while most of the other services break completely). Besides that, it was definitely a good read.
    • by _spider_ ( 171782 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:13PM (#7791892)
      Agreed.

      I have had only one problem with my Itunes for windows, its too easy to spend a bunch on music (I spent $120 on itunes last month!)

      I also think that the sharing of playlists from different people over the network is really cool.
    • The emusic download manager [emusic.com] has clients for windows/mac/linux and they all seem to at least minimally work.

      I've found emusic great for older jazz artists, finding albums I wouldn't have otherwise been able to get my hands on. It almost seems a bit cheap in fact, but then I remember they have essentially zero costs once they've ripped the CD.

      One thing I would really really like is access to the cover artwork and linear notes ... none of the services seem to provide this.
      • One thing I would really really like is access to the cover artwork and linear notes ... none of the services seem to provide this.

        I think iTunes will provide album art, but yes, liner notes would be a big plus.

        Frankly, I wasn't impressed by eMusic - maybe my tastes are a bit antiquated, but their library was just as bad as iTunes when it came to older back-catalog recordings. No Four Freshmen, no Julie London, no Nat Cole for chrissakes (well, there was ONE compilation CD.) Getting high-quality MP3
  • by east coast ( 590680 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:08PM (#7791860)
    It's called Kazaa. They have tons of MP3s, games and p0rn all for free! They're just giving it away. It's great.

    BTW: Hot Tip! Check out that Metallica band. They have lots of stuff on Kazaa and it all rocks!

  • by Doppler00 ( 534739 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:08PM (#7791862) Homepage Journal
    "File Type: Songs bought from Napster were available as protected .wma files ripped at 128 k."

    Great, not only is only 128k, it's probably lower quality than OGG, and I'm guessing that if you're computer hard drive were to fail (likely) you would lose every song you 'bought' because the license file is probably tied to your OS in some way.

    Maybe paying $10/month and using it like a radio station wouldn't be to bad, but letting people think that they 'bought' the song when you have no ability to make back up copies is stupid. Yes it mentioned burning it to a CD, but that would be an extra step re-encoding it back into the PC, and the quality would be lower.
    • If you break a CD from the store, are they obligated to give you a new one? What if it gets stolen? This is no different from the way it's been in the past. I see it as 'you bought something, so it's not their responsibility anymore'. Besides, iTunes (and perhaps others) allows you to copy the track to 2 other machines.
      • by Doppler00 ( 534739 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:26PM (#7791950) Homepage Journal
        Exactly, that's why I'm saying it's important to be able to make back-up copies of your music. With licenced music, you have to worry about the songs only working on a few computers, if that. If it was one of your favorite songs, do you think those few systems could withstand say 20 years? Will the online music website be there to re-verify your license files on Windows 2023? Will all these online music stores survive that long? Maybe not. At least with physical CD media you don't have to worry about such things.
      • by hendridm ( 302246 ) * on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @12:38AM (#7792505) Homepage

        > If you break a CD from the store, are they obligated to give you a new one? What if it gets stolen? This is no different from the way it's been in the past.

        I'm not willing to accept that. If it was, indeed physical property I was buying that I could do what I want with, I might buy that argument. But according to the RIAA, I don't own the song - I have been issued a limited license to use it. Because of this restriction, I figure the least they can do is have some sort of "locker" or "purchase history" where I can re-download songs I've purchased licenses to in the past. I've sever other services that do this (font stores, stock photo libraries, etc) - why not digital music? Perhaps they could charge a *reasonable* bandwidth fee for the extra download(s)?

    • Actually, if you don't back up iTunes songs, you can't download them again, even on machines that are authorized. I bought an audiobook ($18), went to lunch and when I got back, my hard drive had crashed. When I went to Apple and asked where the link to download music I'd purchased was, I was informed that I would be allowed to download it again, but to be aware that they were doing me a favor and it wouldn't be allowed again.

      So, if you buy from ANY of these stores, be sure that you're first action (even b
  • Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:10PM (#7791868)
    The idea of actually paying for music online is still regarded as satirical by some?
    • Re:Perhaps... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @01:21AM (#7792682) Journal
      The idea of actually paying for music online is still regarded as satirical by some?

      I'd be glad to pay for music online. I want to be able to buy music online. I'm willing to pay a fair price. Otherwise, I can't easily get music, because, as an ethical matter, I'm unwilling to play music I haven't acquired legally.

      But these services don't sell music. They rent licenses to play music, and give no assurance the license will remain in existence if they go out of business, or my hard drive goes tits up, or I move to Canada, or I get a new portable.

      iTunes does allow me to preserve a copy if I'm willing to sacrifice a CD-RW on the way to getting it on my hard drive where it's actually convenient.

      But if I'm going to do all that, I'd just as soon buy a CD -- iTunes isn't that much less expensive -- and be able to re-rip if I decide to change formats in the future. (Eventually storage will be cheap enough for me to store FLACs or another lossless form of CDs on my hard drive.)

      So buying online gives me instant gratification but future frustration. Buying in a store takes longer, but gives me a format that remains usable into the future, because I can control the format. So what's the compelling reason to buy online for me?
  • Try cdbaby.com (Score:5, Interesting)

    by key nell ( 55408 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:10PM (#7791869)
    Ive said it before and ill say it again, cdbaby.com kicks ass. They let you listen to 2 minutes of 5-7 songs off an album to see if you like it, if you do buy it, if not go on to the next one! All their albums are reviewed by the editors to give you description of what the music is like. Plus, after your first purchase, they send you a free cd with each purchase thereafter (usually a mix cd which is pretty good.)

    Disclaimer: all though this read like an ad, its not. Im just a satisfied customer.

    This is a great alternative to emusic and such pay for play setups where you waste a quota trying to find music you like.
    • CDBaby was supposed to set something up with the iTunes Music store, but after the initial announcement and ballyhoo, I didn't hear anything else about it. Anyone with any CDBaby + iTunes experience yet, or more info on it?

    • You didn't even mention, cdbaby is not the RIAA in another form, they're fiercely independent. Even when it comes to operating systems: [cdbaby.com]
      Our servers are running 100% OpenBSD - the world's most secure operating system. Powered by Apache, PHP, and MySQL... No Microsoft products were used in the creation of this website.
  • Is there a standard? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gtrubetskoy ( 734033 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:11PM (#7791876)
    Perhaps my question is off-mark, in which case mod it down, I'm a bit new to the downloadable mu$ic scene.

    What I find interesting is that some songs are available in one service, but not others. So if you think of downloadable mu$ic as equivalent of a physical music store, it's not quite, becase a CD is a CD, and no matter where you buy it, you can play/rip it anywhere, on anything (capable of playing CD's, that is).

    So there's still an insentive to buy CD's. But not as much, not enough to keep CD stores in business, I would not be surprised if they start closing soon. After that happens - what do you do to get a song that's only available from one service, but not the other?

    Will there ever be a way to buy once play anywhere?

    • by wessto ( 469499 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:29PM (#7791964) Homepage
      You raise some good points. I would like to add that I think the music store will not become useless to me for several reasons:

      1. I like to have a physical product
      2. Physical product serves as a backup should my data become unuseable.
      3. Lyrics, artist information, etc. are nice to have in cd inserts
      4. I can rip to whatever format I want, I'm not limited by whatever format the online store provides me. This means that future formats can be utilized without a lossy conversion process.

      These things being said, I do value the online store if for no other reason than I can preview most tracks from the comfort of my home.
  • Digital music?! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by F'Nok ( 226987 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:17PM (#7791908)
    Until they realise that people don't want to pay for music per listen - but buy the right to listen to a song as many times as they want, whenever they want, in whatever format they want - these online stores are never going to be very successful.

    If I have to deal with one more WMA file I think I'll go nuts.

    The simple fact is, most people like to have a 'hard' copy of their favourite music, and the only reason that many don't buy them is because of the price.
    If it were $5 a CD I would buy every album I liked (and I would buy a hell of a lot). What they really nede to do to increase sales is introduce some sort of 'decent' rewards program, where the more often you buy music, the cheaper it is for you. (not the crappy buy 4 CD's and you can have one of these UNHEARD of bands albums!)

    P2P is winning not because people *want* to steal, but because the prices of CD's are too prohibitive for many people, and many find it offensive that the bands get so littl of the profit!

    They need a policy change, NOT a retailer change.
    • Re:Digital music?! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ziggles ( 246540 )
      I always find that "bands get so little of the profit" argument so weak. The band knew what they were getting into when they signed the record contract (and if they didn't that's their own fault). If they wanted a larger percentage of profit per cd they should try distributing it themselves. It's not the consumer's responsibility to make sure the artist gets enough money. It's the artist's responsibility to make sure the artist gets enough money.
      • Re:Digital music?! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @12:00AM (#7792345)
        The other problem with this lame argument is that these people are trying to justify not paying for the album -- essentially saying, well my favorite artist is only getting X cents an album, so I'll just prevent them from getting that as well! After all, if they don't get the majority of the money per CD, why get any?

        Wonderful logic.

        I support my favorite artists by seeing them live. I buy their CD's, and if they aren't making money off them that's their problem. The market will work itself out.
    • You might want to check out www.allofmp3.com [allofmp3.com]. They have the idea right. And it's legal (in Russia - well, maybe, who really knows). Now if we could do this, even at somewhat higher prices, in the US, it would be nearly perfect. Obviously, they'll never sell entire albums for 75 cents in the US, but at lower prices, and without the nasty DRM, I'm a lot more willing to explore a new album, even if it's something I might only listen to occasionally. Which of course isn't really what the RIAA wants - they
    • Re:Digital music?! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Monday December 22, 2003 @11:56PM (#7792329)
      Until they realise that people don't want to pay for music per listen - but buy the right to listen to a song as many times as they want, whenever they want, in whatever format they want - these online stores are never going to be very successful.

      Apparantly you are not familiar with iTunes?

      The simple fact is, most people like to have a 'hard' copy of their favourite music, and the only reason that many don't buy them is because of the price.

      What exactly is a 'hard' copy? I get the feeling most people are just fine with a digital file on their hard drive.

      If it were $5 a CD I would buy every album I liked

      Yeah, and if it were 25 cents a CD, I would buy every album I liked ... what's your point? Apple charges 99 cents a song, and 9.99 for most albums. This is, to me and most people, a fair price. In exchange, you get massive convenience, fair DRM, the ability to backup the files to CDROM and use them on any 3 computers you want, the ability to pick and choose songs off albums, etc.

      P2P is winning not because people *want* to steal, but because the prices of CD's are too prohibitive for many people, and many find it offensive that the bands get so littl of the profit!

      They need a policy change, NOT a retailer change.


      They've MADE a policy change! Was there a way to buy music like iTunes before iTunes? No. You rented the music, or you downloaded it off a P2P network (at your own risk). People said, give us a way to easily buy the music from you for a reasonable price, and we will. Apple listened and delivered. End of story.

      Their selection will grow, their clout with the labels will grow, we will see competition amongst the online music retailers like Apple, and we have a good shot of 'winning.'

      I don't think it's reasonable for someone to justify downloading music off P2P networks for free by saying, "Well, if they sold me the albums for $X then I'd stop downloading them for free!"

      I'm satisfied with iTunes, and I put pressure on my favorite artists and their labels to sell their albums on iTunes.

      AND I DON'T EVEN OWN AN IPOD!
  • by gantrep ( 627089 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:19PM (#7791917)
    This is interesting because I just read on CNN that 2004 is to bring loads of free music [cnn.com] Could it be that the business model of the way that music is sold is changing due to all these online stores?
  • Audible.com comment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fleener ( 140714 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:20PM (#7791922)
    I wanted to buy a book on tape as a Christmas present for my offline mother, but I didn't want to pay for express shipping to receive it in time. Amazon.com referred me to an online download at Audible.com. "Great," I thought, "I'll buy an MP3 file and burn it to CD."

    I rushed into the purchase without reading the fine print. I didn't realize I was buying a proprietary "MP3 quality" recording and not an actual MP3 file. I didn't realize I had to download Audible.com software to listen to and manipulate the audio file.

    The audio software failed to recognize my CD burner, so I requested and received a refund. I was miffed at not having an MP3 file and the prospect of spending time with a tech support person to route around a problem that wouldn't exist if I had been given an MP3 file to begin with.

    As luck would have it, I bought the book on *CD* from the manufacturer for only $2 more, plus $6 standard shipping, and it arrived today.
    • by jerk ( 38494 ) <cherbertNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:43PM (#7792035)
      Why didn't you use iTunes? Most (all?) audible.com content is available on the iTunes Music Store and iTunes has excellent support (in my experience) for CD writers.
      • Why didn't I use iTunes? Because I did what the average person did. I went to my regular online store (Amazon) and accepted the referral service. My bottom line, though, is that I want an audio file that has no strings attached. The ability to burn the file to CD is still forboden in my book if it comes with strings attached. The day I have to use a specific media player or media burner for content is the day I stop using that content. Yep, I know what that means. Copyright fanatics will make me a better pe
        • The day I have to use a specific media player or media burner for content is the day I stop using that content.

          There was a time when that theory meant you wouldn't be burning MP3 to an audio CDROM. Content evolves, new formats come out, new software is needed to manipulate these formats.

          I don't see how loading iTunes to buy and burn a CDROM is any different than loading any other CDROM burning software to burn MP3's as audio CD's.
          • by fleener ( 140714 )
            I wasn't talking about iTunes. I know nothing about iTunes. However, if iTunes requires me to use *its own* software to manipulate the audio file, I want nothing to do with it. I'll only support file formats that are commonly accessible and modifiable from a range of open source software.

            Here's the issue. When MP3 becomes outdated, I'm certain I'll have many choices for software that will convert to the next standard. I have no such guarantees with proprietary formats exclusive to a single company.
            • When you get tired of your eBook being locked in a propretary DRM, you can just burn to CD and re-rip (with iTunes). That's why I like iTunes and the ITMS, because I know even if Apple folded tomorrow I would still be able to convert songs to whatever format I liked at my leisure without worrying about music expiration. Wait until some of these services start folding... sure MP3 books would be nice but ITMS gets, as the engineer in the classic joke would say, "close enough".

    • iTunes online books are though Audible and iTunes lets you burn them to CD.
  • by Eberlin ( 570874 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:24PM (#7791936) Homepage
    Online Features? What exactly DO we need in features? Near CD-quality, not very restrictive DRM, a good selection, and a decent price. Searches, reviews, and recommendations would be cool, too. You can get most of that in a record store with a knowledgeable music buff on the other side of the counter.

    What you don't get is the rustic appeal of going into a music store and enjoying the crowd and ambience. It's not the same when you're quoting NIN lyrics to a friend while passing by people who are shopping the contemporary christian aisle. Not the same as being able to watch people in goth clothing walk by. Not the same as being able to say "Chris I-Suck" (Chris Isaak) in public.

    Shop online for convenience, but it's still an experience. Brick and mortar stores still have something to offer. If nothing else, it makes getting music a social event instead of a personal thing. If you're the type to get the latest Britney Spears album, though...you may want to buy online and save yourself some ridicule. :)
    • Jeez, now I remember why I hate going into stores that sell CDs. Going to the dentist to have your wisdom teeth removed is an experience too, it doesn't mean that I am volunteering to have any other teeth ripped out of my head.

      You and your scruffy, NIN-quoting, black-clothes-wearing haters might enjoy going to the music store to make fun of all the people with actual lives, but the rest of us would just as soon skip all that fun and just get our CDs, by mail preferably. The last thing that I want to do

  • Caveat emptor (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lurker412 ( 706164 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:30PM (#7791972)
    Let the buyer beware. As far as I can see, all of the existing online stores only lower prices to the consumer to the extent that one can buy a single track of an otherwise uninteresting CD. Now, that is better than nothing. But it is a far cry from the potential that online music sales offers.

    From what I have read, about 45% of the final sales price of a CD is based on retail, manufacturing and distribution costs. If that is so, then the current online offerings actually raise the profit margin to record labels and the RIAA without benefiting the artists at all. Should I be grateful? I think not.

    There is tremendous potential here for artists to go directly to consumers. The costs of setting up a digital recording studio are no longer prohibitive, though they are not trivial. It is reasonable to expect that sites will spring up soon enough to provide the infrastructure that independent artists need to distribute their music and collect on the sales with a reasonable overhead. The current online stores seem to be a last ditch attempt to maintain control by the music industry. Nothing surprising there, but we should think very hard about whether we want to support a timid change when the potential for radical change exists.

  • Services are only available to people in the US. We just can't trust people in other countries yet.

    Ugh. So frustrating. So many updates to iTunes, yet I still cannot purchase music. If the retailers aren't careful, they might forget that they are excluding 1/2 the world's market by not permitting EC, UK, Canadian and Asian countries from participating.

    Then again, you just cannot trust those crazy beaver loving weirdos to the North [wikipedia.org]. There's trouble brewing up there in Soviet Canuckistan [wikipedia.org].

  • EULA Reviews? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by raydaniels ( 636506 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:48PM (#7792055) Homepage
    Anybody know of a good review of the EULA's of these stores? I think that's a pretty important part, and this reviewer seemed to kind of gloss over that part, perhaps not having read them all (understandable.)
  • The next .com bust? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by billyradcliffe ( 698854 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:48PM (#7792058) Homepage
    I don't know if you've noticed or not, but everyone and their brother is setting up their own freakin' online music store. If they all offer nearly the same exact content in the same exact form, why should I go with one over another? The online music market is still in its infant form, and it's already becoming saturated with too many stores. Coke setting up their own music store? What the hell?!

    I find it laughable that people would actually spend $1 to buy a song. That's insane. For a full CD, you're almost talking $15...for songs I can only listen to on my computer...in a lousy format...and I don't get any case, media, or art with it. Thank you, I'd rather pay the $13 and take my music wherever I want to. Does anyone else find it shocking that these stores are actually able to stay afloat?

    Let's give it a year. I'd love to see an "online music store" year in review next December. Who will stand and who will fall?
  • I looked at my Itunes bought music folder today.. 113 songs in 7 month... YIKES!!!

    Its like music crack. They keep make it easier to find songs too..

  • by b17bmbr ( 608864 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:53PM (#7792074)
    apple has a fairly liberal usage/rights policy with their music. but, there is an easy way to overcome this. after downloading an album, burn the album to cd, but choose to burn an audio cd. next, you'll need cdda2wav and bladeenc (or lame, not playing favorites here) easily obtainable at fink, or on any linux box. after you burn the cd, pop it in the computer. from a terminal, simply run cdda2wav dev=/dev/cdrom etc. then when it's done, run bladeenc on each file. (make a perl, bash, applescript, etc, to automate. i'm thinking of writing a cocoa wrapper for it.) you're left with 128kbit mp3's. sounds fine. so, you can use your mp3's wherever you'd like. is it something granny can do. no. is it 37337? hardly. i gotta figure that apple knows this. they can't be that stupid.

    i don't know if you can do this with any other service. this alone makes iTMS a great choice. i know with any windows media format you're gonna have lots of restrictions.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      burn an audio cd. next, you'll need cdda2wav and bladeenc (or lame, not playing favorites here) easily obtainable at fink, or on any linux box. after you burn the cd, pop it in the computer. from a terminal, simply run cdda2wav dev=/dev/cdrom etc. then when it's done, run bladeenc on each file. (make a perl, bash, applescript, etc, to automate. i'm thinking of writing a cocoa wrapper for it.)

      Uhhhhh, or step 2 could just be "rerip the CD in iTunes". If that's too hard for anyone, I'm not sure how th
  • by MrLint ( 519792 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:56PM (#7792082) Journal
    "Who does not want to use iTunes?
    Someone who wants a player to listen to their .wma files. Someone with a digital music player other than an iPod. Someone who wants streaming music"

    Dammit you mean all that streaming music i have been listening to in iTunes was in my head the whole time. Well at least im a lot more creative than i thought i was:)
  • by 26199 ( 577806 ) * on Monday December 22, 2003 @11:07PM (#7792122) Homepage

    Forget the 40 song limit -- it used to be 'unlimited', which in practice meant 2000 tracks a month.

    At one point the download manager files were an open format, and they encouraged third party download managers...

    Then they decided to encrypt the files, and to their credit released download managers for Windows, Mac and Linux at the same time.

    Unfortunately all three were riddled with bugs and oversights. To this day the reliability of downloads is decidedly sub-par.

    If you do use EMusic, there's a perl script available which will decrypt the files and launch wget for you -- it's far more reliable than the official download manager.

    But personally I ended my subscription when the new limits were introduced... more because of their lousy approach to customer service than anything else. (They actually had the audacity to remove the message boards completely when they announced the changes).

  • They won't let go (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BrianRoach ( 614397 ) on Monday December 22, 2003 @11:56PM (#7792327)

    The problem with all the online music stores is ... control. You can't just download a high-quality MP3 and use it how you'd like.

    Don't think that the RIAA doesn't "get it". They do. They just don't want you to "get it". "It" being music at a reasonable price in the format you want without restrictions on how you can use it.

    The RIAA's (their members', actually) business is based on control. They want to control what you hear and how you hear it. Without this control, their entire business model breaks. If any old artist can self-publish online (or be published online by a 3rd party for a reasonable fee) with world-wide exposure ... they become redundant. I honestly believe this is their big fear.

    Everyone knows what the public wants: .mp3's (or OGG for the tech savvy) at a high bitrate for a reasonable price, conveniently. In any other industry, you'd see the producers of a product jumping on the chance to produce something that millions of people want.

    - Roach
  • by autechre ( 121980 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @12:30AM (#7792473) Homepage

    I see a lot of people complaining in this story about restricted formats, money still going to the RIAA, and Windows-only. None of you read the article.

    eMusic gives you unrestricted VBR MP3s at well under a dollar per song. They deal largely with independent artists who are not beholden to the RIAA, which is a big part of why they can offer these distribution terms. They also explicitly support Linux, as well as Windows and Mac OS.

    "But I don't like that music!" Well, you _should_ :)

    Yeah, it takes more effort to find music, but I've been on both sides of the fence and I've found the indie side to be far more rewarding. Bands like Enon, Quasi, El Guapo, Freezepop, Call and Response, Stereo Total...they will probably never hit mainstream radio, and there's absolutely no good reason why.

    With a band like Freezepop, you don't even need an eMusic! Their CDs are cheap, and you can download full MP3s of many of their songs from their own site for free. Lifestyle, a side project of one of their members, has an entire album's worth of tracks that basically fall in between the first and upcoming second album. All for free.

    There's plenty of crap in indie too, of course. Here, I'll have to give a blatant plug to the site linked in my sig, wmbc.umbc.edu. We are currently on hiatus until the spring, but you can listen to the automated music stream that usually fills in between live DJs. You can also look at our Top 30 chart, which is actually a representation of the 30 albums the DJs chose to play the most, not a pre-mandated playlist. And hey, we use Debian! And our music database software is available on freshmeat!

    See, you can discover independent music the same way you used to discover mainstream. There are many other stations like ours (and I'll admit that some are probably better). You could also take eMusic up on their 50 free tracks offer, or check out cmj.com, where most college stations report their top 30. I'm almost positive you'll find something you like, and you don't have to feel bad for buying it.

  • by donutz ( 195717 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @12:47AM (#7792533) Homepage Journal
    from the article:
    What rights do I have with the songs?

    The songs you buy you can burn to a CD, transfer to a wma player and listen to on up to three computers.


    That's not true -- with Wal-Mart's music downloads, you can only listen on one computer. I downloaded a song on my laptop, then when I copied it to my desktop and tried to play it there, I got this "License Acquisition" dialog box:

    Song License Not Available
    The license for this music download is not available. Music download licenses are delivered one time only to the computer you use to play the song for the firs time. You may have already downloaded the license to another computer, or the song license expired before you played the song for the first time. If you have any questions about recovering lost music and license, please contact one of our Customer Service associates by sending an email to musicdownloads@walmart.com, or by calling 1-800-222-8132 from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (CT), 7 days a week.


    So it's pretty clear to me that I'm only allowed to play a song I downloaded on one PC (although I'm allowed, according to the download page, to back it up to a couple other computers, whatever they mean by that).
    • The Benefits of Music Downloads [walmart.com], according to Wal-Mart.

      On this page, they tell you that "Download music to 1 computer and back up to up to two additional computers". I guess the "two additional computers" means you're allowed to copy the file to two more computers, besides the 1 you're allowed to play the file on. God forbid Wal-mart stops by your house and see's the file sitting on four computers! Not that it will play anywhere but the first computer...
  • by h3 ( 27424 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @01:00AM (#7792604) Homepage Journal
    Just wanted to point out another option if Clear Channel pop isn't your thing. Audio Lunchbox carries an interesting line up of indie label music, the file format is unencumbered, and songs are $.99. The have "bulk" rates, too, if you purchase a "lunch card".

    http://audiolunchbox.com [audiolunchbox.com]

    I haven't bought anything yet (and I have no relation to the company), but I'm keeping my eye on it.

    -h3
  • by rhild ( 659603 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @01:12AM (#7792645) Homepage
    I've been using Rhapsody [listen.com] for over a year. I love it.

    First, you can do all the normal stuff you'd expect from an on-demand streaming service; make playlists of songs, add entire albums to your library, listen to pre-programmed channels, or create your own channels by selecting a list of artists, etc.

    The sound quality is high and the connections reliable. It's not for dial-up users. You need broadband.

    In addition to streaming the songs most can be burned to CD for 79 cents/each. I seldom use this feature. I use this gadget [rca.com] to get the audio from my PC to the stereo while streaming.

    Here's what really makes Rhapsody valuable to me: The Rhapsody desktop app integrates the Muze [muze.com] database, the same database you'll find at music store kiosks for doing searches. With this you can do searches by artist, album, and song title. Also, for each artist you see similar artists, influencers, and followers, all hyperlinked together. I can spend hours just following links among artists, finding music new to me that I'm more likely to like.

    Music is also categorized by genre, with a playlist of typical songs for the genre and a list of albums and artists considered important to the genre.

    A small negative: I'd like to see the ability to search by genre and include boolean expressions in the search.

    Price: $10/month ($8 if paid quarterly). Not bad.
  • by Not Quite Jake ( 315382 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @01:54AM (#7792797) Homepage
    I don't know how the slashdot crowd has slept on this one so long but there is a service called Audiolunchbox [audiolunchbox.com] that has DRM free music available for download. It's all web based so it is platform independent and the files are available in OGG or MP3 formats (192k variable mp3 and level 6 variable OGG i do believe) and the kicker is that all the labels are independent...i hope everyone picks up on this and soon

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Working...