MP3tunes Offers Music Service Without DRM 399
ThinSkin writes "Former MP3.com chief and Lindows CEO Michael Robertson will reenter the music world next week with MP3tunes, a service that promises music without DRM restrictions. MP3tunes hopes to attract users who are fed up with restrictions on copying music from sites that use digital-rights-management techniques, such as iTunes."
Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
*Cough*
Anyone can do music without DRM.
Can they do music people want?
Spare me the arguments about how "it's not really what people want" because it's force-fed by Clear Channel, the labels, and a corrupt industry, and people just *think* they want it. Believe it or not, some artists on major labels have talent. Some don't. *Gasp!* Some completely unknown, independent artists may have talent, but might never have that talent shaped as well as it could be in the hands of professionals - and by "professionals", I don't mean music industry shills, I mean people who have done this for ages. Perhaps there are some bands out there who have the musical talent, business prowess, and personal presence to pull it off themselves. And maybe you think Open Source and "music/information wants to be free" socialistic type ideas - not using that in the pejorative sense - is the way to go. Fine. But the fact of the matter is that the MAJOR labels will demand DRM, unless one of them rolls (very unlikely), or a new paradigm takes over. Sure, maybe a DRMless music store will be part of that new paradigm. But at least realize that the vast majority of people won't give a shit about the vast majority of music on a DRMless service.
Do any of us like or want DRM? Hell no. But some of us realize that it's an extremely imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem. And, right or wrong, it's frankly their content to protect and do with as they see fit, as recognized under our system of laws as set forth by our elected officials, regardless of whose pockets you think they're in. If you are the ultimate cynic, and think everything is shot as it is, then you'll likely not understand any of this at all, or the fundamental desire of people to protect and secure their property or things they have invested in, no matter how unbalanced YOU might think it seems. But no one is forcing you to buy or listen to major label music. No one is forcing to you buy an iPod or use iTunes. Perhaps some of you put your money where your mouth is, but most of you are hypocrites. And the worst among you are those who think you can steal things who don't belong to you. And yes, it is stealing. An apt excerpt [slashdot.org]:
[...] different types of stealing are covered by different laws because they differ in the details. Theft through breaking and entering: burglary. Theft from one's employer: embezzlement. Theft by committing fraud through the mail: the aptly named mail fraud. Theft by the unlawful copying of somebody else's property: copyright infringement.
And the "deprivation" argument is pure shit, so don't even go there.
I wish them luck. I really do. I'd love to have no DRM on all of my video, television, movies, music, and be able to use things I *bought* any way I see fit on any device at any time. No broadcast flag, no forced no-commercial-skip, no DRM.
But I'm also practical.
That, and not a, you know, moron.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
And one that is at least logically consistent with your beliefs and ideals.
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, after reading this sentence for years, in one form or another, I call bullshit.
I mean, how do you constitute major label? Granted, we all know the big ones. But do you actually keep track of the gazillions of record labels, big and small, who gets bought out by who etc.?
Seriously. Let's say there's a small indie label who put out a couple of artists you like. How do you know if they get bought out? And if they do, do you immediat
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple- I never buy CD's at all. I long ago finished collecting all the old music I'll ever need for my life. Small artists who I support, also support their fans- by making money off of their CONCERTS instead of their RECORDINGS, and by releasing lower quality, but still good, recordings for free on the web themse
Re:Hooray! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/ [downhillbattle.org]
Brilliant site (Score:3, Informative)
Now, we all love our iPods, etc. etc. But keep this in mind:
Re:Hooray! (Score:2, Funny)
iTune Music Store: Facelift for a corrupt industry.
In the beginning there was no DRM, and it was good (Score:3, Insightful)
The only credit I give to this project is the credit that Michael Robertson can cause a big enough stir to give it a chance of being noticed.
You're right about the labels demanding DRM. I think the only true way to escape it is to get the artists to migrate away from the labels.
They can obviously have more freedom without them. The only obstacles are exposure and money. Those are pretty much intertwined. Get those up to par and it will work.
Re:In the beginning there was no DRM, and it was g (Score:3, Interesting)
But even in a DRMless world, there are going to be some "fat cats", as it were. Even if the labels are toppled, in a manner of speaking, there will still be some groups that are the "best" to be associated with - for exposure and money. The people who have the best connections, the biggest website, the hottest PR folks (anything that penetrates the mainstream will have amazing PR). And all over again, it repeats: it won't be an even playing field, and never will be. And on
Saying so doesn't make it so. (Score:2)
No, just a cynic.
And just because you add copyright infringement at the end of a list of other types of thievery does not by fiat make it a form of thievery. That's just rhetorical parallelism. And calling an argument "shit" to short circuit its use also does not, in fact, actually render it shit.
Copyright infringement is exactly what it says: Infringing on somebody's exclusive right to distribute something, namely by distributing it for them. Even under the most cons
Re:Saying so doesn't make it so. (Score:5, Insightful)
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. More broadly, and correctly, in my personal opinion, it is also stealing. Just like embezzlement is embezzlement. But in a more generic sense, it's also "stealing". I'm not talking statutes here. I'm talking ethics and morals. And by my understanding of the English language and the meanings of words, copyright infringement is a form of "stealing".
It amazes me how people always want pre-existing laws and legal principles to apply to the internet, or technology, or information if it is in their own favor or somehow benefits them, and then go out of their way to make crazy rationalizations about how downloading things that don't belong to you and that you didn't pay for isn't "stealing", it's "copyright infringement" simply because it's been duplicated, with complete ignorance of the ease that one work can be distributed globally in literally hours with virtually no work by any interim party, and no considerations for the owner's rights, not to mention what a horribly pathetic and downright destructive ethic that is encouraged by taking things without permission simply because YOU think they're too expensive or YOU don't agree with how business X has done Y or Z; and since copyright = bad or favors the corrupt and powerful, you personally find it invalid, and therefore, it's "okay" to infringe against copyrights owned by big, evil, blood-sucking, money-grubbing corporations.
Do I have that about right?
Re:Saying so doesn't make it so. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not in my estimation, no. Let me dispense with something immediately: I don't think copying is OK because *I* think something is too expensive, or *I* am morally offended by corporate practices, or any other rationale that justifies copying as a form of civil disobedience or protest. These reasons only underscore my thinking, but are not the basis for it.
crazy rationalizations about how downloading things that don't belong to you and that you didn't pay for isn't "stealing"
These things don't belong to me, true, but they do belong (in my book of ethics) to the person providing them (the file sharer). And the file sharer is providing them freely, and, I would argue, ought to be able to. I am receiving what they are offering.
I am not sneaking into their computer, or making an image surrepitiously--I am making an image of an image they are freely providing. And they, in turn, HAVE paid a consideration to the original creators by buying the thing from a retailer. Or if not them, then the person who freely provided THEM with the image may have, or the one before them, or whoever. The point is that the work was not swiped from the artist (in this example), but purchased, or bartered, or obtained by whatever agreement the two parties entered into. If the store says to have this CD you need to fork over $15, then fine, those are the terms, and to take it otherwise IS stealing. But notice that, likewise, at every point down the file sharing chain, the file sharer and file seeker are similarly freely entering into an agreement of transaction regarding something the sharer now controls.
I have no moral qualms with this arrangement whatsover. I know it's illegal, but not, in my book, immoral.
The key here is control. The artist surrenders control to the publisher. The publisher surrenders control, partially, to the consumer. The part they do not surrender is, at least according to the law, the right to distribute. But ought they be able to withhold that right? What does the consumer's consideration actually buy them? A license? (..and all attendant complications with that?) And why does the publisher's right of control trump the consumer's rights of control? And what happens when the publishers, in their efforts to retain control inadvertantly, impact other consumer rights, weakly called "fair use," but more broadly, what ought to be my right as a consumer to manipulate, transform, transfer or otherwise with something I bought?
None of this even touches the problems a sibling poster notes about the artificial creation of scarcity copyright protection produces, given that, yes, reproduction of information has vanishing marginal cost, and, shitty as it may be to you, there is not material deprivation of the producer (sorry, but it's true).
This is simply about control. Control of the product by the seller or buyer after a sale.
Re:Saying so doesn't make it so. (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't really get past this...so you're saying that because it has been obtained once somewhere along the line legally, that any "sharing" from then on is absolutely justified, no matter how many times removed, and no matter how widely it is "shared"? How can you make that logical jump? That if any sharing is ok, it ALL is ok? That if "fair use" allows for sharing a couple copies of something with fa
Re:Saying so doesn't make it so. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have bought into the idea that copyright is for-profit, inherently, and primarily. This is a relatively new notion, really. In fact, if you go back and read the prime mover behind copyright in the first place, it was all about something I mentioned above: the public good. Profit was strictly a secondary concern. Specifically, the primary concern was to incentivize artists to release their work so the public could enjoy it.
Many people know this in their heart, but haven't heard it expressed or read the relevant laws. But in essence what everyone wants is for the artists to make a living, and for tons of people to enjoy their music however they like. But somehow, we've moved past that into this realm where we want to defend an artist making a living, a middleman making millions of dollars, and limiting our audience to the music as much as possible (yes, I consider selling a $0.10 CD in a store for $18 a crime).
Essentially, my position (I won't speak for NoData anymore) boils down to the argument that the artists has every right to make a living. But if the artist makes a living (even a modest one), the public should be able to enjoy the artist's work. For those that cannot afford the $18, there is no case of a lost sale, there is no money lost, there is only gain.
This is the system that should exist. The real querstion is: how do we get there from here? There may be no way, but one thing is certain in my mind: things are not OK the way they are. We live in a time where there are plenty of us to pay for CDs, and those that cannot can still enjoy the music.
Rush might have put it best:
Begin the day
With a friendly voice
A companion, unobtrusive
Plays that song that's so elusive
And the magic music makes your morning mood
Off on your way
Hit the open road
There is magic at your fingers
For the spirit ever lingers
Undemanding contact
In your happy solitude
Invisible airwaves
Crackle with life
Bright antennae bristle
With the energy
Emotional feedback
On a timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price ---
Almost free...
All this machinery
Making modern music
Can still be open-hearted
Not so coldly charted
It's really just a question
Of your honesty
One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity
For the words of the profits
Are written on the studio wall,
Concert hall ---
Echoes with the sounds...
Of salesmen.
This was written in 1980, long before MP3's, the internet, or P2P. But all the ideas are there, and more. In fact, Neil even alludes to the two freedoms that we commonly mention in regards to free software; he talks of both free in price, but also freedom to be artistic in your music without "selling out". But his final stab, after verses about comprimising to make a buck, is that the whole industry, from the studios to the concert halls, is not about the artist, and it's not about the audience. It's all about the salesman.
Defend the system all you want, but it's broken, and it's been broken for 25 years, at least. It's time to move on and get something better, not take the latest crop of problems and blame them on peer to peer file sharing.
Re:Saying so doesn't make it so. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I don't look at a billboard - it's theft. If I don't watch a commercial - it's theft. If I don't visit my local music store - it's theft. If I post a negative review of an album - it's theft. If I simply state a negative opinion of an artist themselves - it's theft. If I don't provide my kids with enough allowance - it's theft.
Potential sales do not equate to theft.
Nor can you reasonably assume each downloaded copy would have otherwise been a purchase. Nor can you reasonably assume that no downloaded copies lead to later purchases.... or lead to additional purchases beyond the material downloaded.
But again - potential purchases do not equate to theft.
Re:Saying so doesn't make it so. (Score:3, Informative)
you: No, he's not, because he's not breaking the law. 1.) This actually IS what we call "fair use", which the downloading crowd is trying to bastardize to consider every person on earth a "friend" that they're "sharing" with...
Sorry I have to jump into this heated debate... but NO, that is not
Re:Saying so doesn't make it so. (Score:3, Informative)
Per 17 USC 501, copyright infringement is an infringement of an exclusive right of the copyright holder under section 106, taking into account sections 602 and 107 through 122.
While you may be thinking of 18 USC 2319, it does not define infringement as theft, and in fact since only some infringements actually qualify under 17 USC 506, and therefore under section 2319, this leaves a large number of actionable infringements from 501 outside of the realm of any crime.
You shouldn't treat the
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
For such a shit argument, I haven't seen any good refutations. Frankly I think those who try to increase their profits by creating artifical scarcity are the ones who are guilty of stealing.
Re:Refutations (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you charge someone when they ask you what time it is? If you open a door for a little old lady, do you demand payment? When you make love to your girlfriend or wife, do you charge for that too? Your perception of the world is clearly filtered through the corporate green lens of "what's in it for me?"
Did Isaac Newton get paid for inventing the Calculus? If not, why the hell did he invent it?
Here are some possible an
Re:Refutations (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Where did I state, explicitly or implicitly, that I worship Newton, or think he was the greatest human to draw a breath of air? I used the fact that Newton wasn't paid for his creation to give lie to the quoted assertion made by the GP.
Like it or not, but capitalism has had more success at creating the goods th
Hey, I will pay Apple... (Score:2)
Re:Hey, I will pay Apple... (Score:2)
BLEEP DOT COM - THE ORIGINAL DRM-FREE (Score:2)
I really don't have much ethical issues with downloading bootlegged music, however, $10 is well worth it for instant-gratification. I don't have to search P2P networks, wait in queues, etc. I just find something I like, and grab the whole album at high speed.
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Insightful)
Every revolution has to contend with two powerful forces: those currently in power who resist it the revolution for their own gain, and, more importantly, the lazy masses wh
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Insightful)
Dumbass: (Score:2)
Oh, what's that? I didn't? Ok, fuck off then.
But you managed to mention it 7 times in your post. Hmm. AND take time out of your day to call a post "Apple fanboyism" that has nothing to do with Apple. Wow, the smart one you are!
OGG/Vorbis support (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OGG/Vorbis support (Score:3, Insightful)
Good post, regardless
Re:OGG/Vorbis support (Score:2)
What is more interesting to me is whether they'll offer it in FLAC format. That way you can convert it to any format you want without losing vast amounts of quality. Since they are pushing the fact that being DRM-less allows device portability, why not give format portability too?
Re:OGG/Vorbis support (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OGG/Vorbis support (Score:2)
That's all well and good, but if you can't tell the difference between measured commentary, sarcasm, satire, and/or trolling, then you'll never make it on slashdot, or on usenet.
Re:OGG/Vorbis support (Score:2)
Hope he's proved right (Score:5, Insightful)
I like many others are happy to pay for music, its just there's no way I can BUY music online that isn't crippled. I'd rather buy a CD and rip it.
Jolyon
Actually, in Soviet Russia, the music frees you! (Score:5, Informative)
I wish more music services would follow this example.
Of course, I also wish every music site out there used their pay by the megabyte approach, at ridiculously low rates. I actually end up spending much more on music, because I'm not afraid to waste a dollar getting a few new albums. It's proof that cheap, DRM-free online distribution can work.
Re:Actually, in Soviet Russia, the music frees you (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from that I read on their site that some money actually does go to the artist. Not much, and I have no way of verifying that, but take a wild guess how much of that is *my* problem. There are middlemen taking a cut here and in Russia, the difference is here they take a bigger cut and the listener gets screwed worse, whereas the Russians take a smaller cut and the artist gets screwed worse. Take another wild guess why ppl love the Russian site so much.
So yeah, if I ever meet the guys from Social Distortion (which is very possible since I cruise bars in LA a lot) I'll buy them a beer or 5. But don't you dare expect me to cry for them Argentina. I sitting here with a crappy new haircut in "business casual" looking at an hour+ commute home to an apartment. Let them bear the brunt of the industry's greed.
Re:Actually, in Soviet Russia, the music frees you (Score:3, Interesting)
Being as someone that worked for MP3.com since almost its beginning, I think I'm ok in saying the following:
1. Beam-it was a legal crapshoot, we knew this, and we lost. The day it was announced at a company meeting almost everyone knew we were going to get the shit sued out of us for doing it. There was a small legal gray area in copyright law Michael Robertson tried to exploit.
2. If not for losing hundreds of millions of dolla
Re:Hope he's proved right (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just wait... (Score:2)
What's with the names?? (Score:3, Insightful)
sounds good, but.... (Score:2, Insightful)
remember those car insurance companies that used the sales pitch "we will give you our quote and of 3 other competitors" ? yea, it may get you attention, but ultimately, how likely are you to break even?
not that i'm complaining, i'd love to be able to (somewhat cheaply) buy music and *keep* it.
Re:sounds good, but.... (Score:2)
Strangely enough both State Farm and American Family were cheaper..?
Here's what I don't get (Score:5, Insightful)
So services like this that sell songs without DRM shouldn't be a threat to the industry.
Re:Here's what I don't get (Score:4, Insightful)
"Since just about every song anybody would want that is available on most pay services is also on P2P networks, what's the harm of removing DRM? People pay these sites for convenience. All these songs are available elsewhere, but it's more difficult to find and download all the songs on an album on edonkey or kazaa. So all they are doing is annoying their customers, since even if these songs did make it on a P2P network, it wouldn't make much of a difference."
A common question, particularly among P2P fans who figure that if they and their friends use P2P, then everybody must use it.
A similar question is "why inconvenience car buyers with locks that they have to keep locking and unlocking, when breaking into a car is so trivially easy for the pros that if they want your car, they'll take it anyway?"
Another one is "why do retail stores use obnoxious anti-shoplifting measures, like stopping me at the door to check my receipt, or those annoying electronic tags I have to take off, when the good shoplifters will find a way to take what they want?"
The point that is vital to understand that the DRM on, say, the iTMS stops the casual pirate, just as the car lock stops the casual car thief and anti-theft measures in stores scare away the kids and the first-time shoplifters. And that's good enough.
And, although many people reading this will simply not believe this, there are lots of people who've purchased from the iTMS but who have no interest or need to install a P2P app. Just as there are red states and blue states, our society has room for people with different moral compasses as it relates to copying somebody else's work without their permission.
You're not the first person by far on Slashdot to see this as a binary, either-or solution: "DRM can be cracked and it can annoy paying users, so don't even try." Unfortunately, in the world of DRM, as in the world of auto security or retail, things aren't that simple. When it comes to security and protecting one's bottom line, a little goes a long way. If you're still not sure what I'm talking about, just ask anybody who's worked in retail.
"So services like this that sell songs without DRM shouldn't be a threat to the industry."
I agree with you here, but probably not for the same reasons. I think DRM-free sites are a great idea, but notice that they largely cater to the unsigned and fringe acts, the ones who vitally need the exposure (an exception is allofmp3.com, of course, where the DRM-less files are put up without the artists' permission). There's definitely a place in the market for them. But when artists and bands get past that point where they're starving for exposure and it's time to finally make some money to make up for all those years of toiling, they'll head to the big boys. Remember, much if not most of the content on iTMS is non-RIAA -- indie labels are flocking to it, too.
OK but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OK but... (Score:2)
It's going to be great for indie labels and experimenting to see if a new model really can work (with lower middleman costs...)
This just in... (Score:3, Insightful)
I swear, people are never satisfied. Apple is doing a great thing, but people will always find something to complain about.
Re:This just in... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This just in... (Score:2, Informative)
If DRM upsets you that much, you can get a wav/mp3 writer plugin for your audio player and roll your own DRMless copy. If this isn't possible with your media player
And it isn't. The Secure Audio Path in Windows ME and Windows XP provides a way for a restrictions-managed WMA stream to play only on drivers signed by Microsoft WHQL, and Microsoft WHQL will sign a driver only if it doesn't mix the Secure Audio Path into cleartext digital outputs. For recordings that require Secure Audio Path, you'll need t
Congratulations (Score:3, Funny)
Congrats. You've managed to state stupid apple fanboi reason #1 without a hint of irony or sarcasm.
You're serious.
Therefore, you win this week's Apple Fanboi of the Week award.
This entitles you to pick the Powerbook of your choice, pay full price, and then you get to come on
Insightful? (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM does upset me "that much", and my solution is simply to not provide any funding to companies who have anything to do with it. I also talk about it with people who will listen. ("Complain", if you will.)
Your "solution" won't work. First, the potential legal ramifications are no better than for downloading the file illegally in the first p
Re:Insightful? (Score:2)
Does that same thought hold true for something licensed under the GPL? Do you really have the right to do whatever you want with it, regardless of what the creater/owner/distributor wishes?
The letter and spirit of the General Public License is held in high regar
Re:This just in... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, Apple is doing a horrible thing, in my opinion. Follow along:
You see, the record companies / tv stations / movie producers want full DRM to where they can control EXACTLY what you watch, how you watch it, where you watch it, how many times you watch it, etc.
Many people, myself included, want to be able to do what we want with the movies and music we purchase. This is where Apple comes in.
You feel that Apple is doing a wonderful thing by coming to a compromise with the music industry to give us mild DRM. It seems fair to everyone, right? For the moment......
You see, the music industry has been battling piracy for years. They finally found an opportunity to win a small battle, courtesy of Apple. They now have DRM's foot in the door of many homes, with people like you defending it the whole way! What would stop the record companies from later on demanding more restrictive DRM? Apple would have to play along to keep them on board so that they could keep iTunes up and sell more iPods. You are probably saying to yourself that I need my tinfoil hat right about now, but think about how guns have been eliminated in many societies. They start out by 'regulating' who can buy them. Then they move on to 'regulating' who can carry them and when (this would be the equivalent to Apple's DRM). And finally they just outright ban them. Why do they take such baby steps? Think about what would happen if you banned guns outright in America. People would go nuts. But if you do it slowly, people get used to the idea slowly, and you can eventually make your final move. The Apple DRM situation is the same thing. The final move will be made some day. And people like you will have defended and praised Apple for doing such a wonderful thing the whole way through.
No DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry. I just don't see it. iTunes is doing better than ever, and may well have reached critical mass by this point. I've never hearde one person complain about the DRM - except here on Slashdot.
Re:No DRM... (Score:3, Insightful)
But if there is a service that sells MP3 in the first place, people with non-iPod music players will weigh the inconvinience of re-ripping against any usability or selection problems of the new website or client application. MP3Tunes de
Re:No DRM... (Score:3, Interesting)
I just spent a couple of hours trying to recover DRM keys for a friend of mine who didn't know enough about digital audio to uncheck the "protect my content" box in the 'rip' dialog of Windows Media Player.
Over the previous year he'd built up about 20 Gb of ripped WMAs until one day Windows decides that it can't find the licence key for any of his tunes. This wasn't due to a hardware change or even a Windows Update (ironically i
Cool... but success depends on the labels (Score:5, Informative)
I think he's probably right, but I wonder if the bigwigs at the record labels are willing (or even care) to listen to his argument. It's not as if Apple didn't try [rollingstone.com]:
I think the general consensus is that even though Jobs and his "Ph.D.s" knew DRM is always crackable [hymn-project.org], Apple still needed to implement some form of DRM in order to convince the record labels to open their catalogs. For the record companies in April of 2003, ever chary of the Internet, DRM was non-negotiable.
My question is: what's changed since then that would cause them to reconsider? After all, iTunes has shown that a service offering DRM tracks can be wildly successful. So why would the record labels want to open their catalogs to a DRM-free solution from some dude who made his name pawning a Linux desktop?
Anyway, this is definitely something to watch. I sincerely wish him luck. I just hope he can get the labels to open their catalogs.
Re:Cool... but success depends on the labels (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cool... but success depends on the labels (Score:2)
Re:Cool... but success depends on the labels (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Cool... but success depends on the labels (Score:2, Interesting)
What you probably are is someone who doesn't know the difference between data rates and sampling rates.
Is it or isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
MP3tunes will use a service or tool called "MP3beamer", which Robertson said would reconcile the need to store music in a centralized file store with the ability to play back the music anywhere, on any device. He declined to comment further.
(From TFA, for those who didn't R it)
If this service stores music somewhere you must somehow log into, and does not -upload to you- a DRM-free MP3, this service is NOT free of DRM, just using a different version of it.
Re:Is it or isn't it? (Score:2)
I seem to remember it even had a similar name.
Re:Is it or isn't it? (Score:2)
Already Available (Score:5, Informative)
Big Money? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been a member for over two years. It's great. Once you realize that just because the major studios christen a song #1 doesn't make it good and start looking at some of the GREAT music that independent labels put out you see what a rip off the other places are.
MP3Beamer? (Score:4, Insightful)
MP3tunes will use a service or tool called "MP3beamer", which Robertson said would reconcile the need to store music in a centralized file store with the ability to play back the music anywhere, on any device.
Any ideas what this might be? Google isn't very forthcoming, as I suspect there's little info available as yet. If it's a "required" (aka installed) program, will it:
Just curious.
Re:MP3Beamer? (Score:2, Insightful)
DAMN, I JUST want a freaking MP3 file! Is that so hard? Back to getting 320kbps quality music for FREE in MP3 format I guess. What a clueless industry.
Re:MP3Beamer? (Score:3, Informative)
1. Go to local music store or online equivalent
2. Purchase CD
3. Convert CD tracks to 320kbps MP3s using your favourite encoder
4. Listen to said MP3s
What a clueless industry.
I would actually say "what a clueless poster" for not realising that you can still get your MP3 file rather easily.
Re:MP3Beamer? (Score:2, Informative)
I don't want to drive to the music store. The whole point of an online marketplace is to give an EQUIVILENT product at a faster and easier speed.
iTunes missed the clue train.
Re:MP3Beamer? (Score:2)
Ah, that must be why it's been such a failure.
Nothing New (Score:2, Informative)
emusic is already selling mp3s... (Score:2)
I dunno (Score:2)
Oooh, can I write the future? (Score:2)
While MP3tunes hoped to attract users who were fed up with restrictions on DRM crippled music, it also attracted dozens of lawyers.
In an unprecedented move, 16 labels sued the company today in court, claiming that the company violated antitrust laws by allowing the distribution of "all music not controled by the label cartel"
When asked to comment, J
Not "funny" but "sad" (Score:2)
In an unprecedented move, 16 labels sued the company today in court, claiming that the company violated antitrust laws by allowing the distribution of "all music not controled by the label cartel"
Unfortunately, the events of your satiric story are plausible. Instead of the record labels, it would be the music publishers, claiming that independent recordings are unauthorized covers of commercial songs. A music publisher even sued an artist over "subconscious copying" and won [columbia.edu]. In fact, with the finite num [slashdot.org]
Seen it, Done it (Score:5, Informative)
How long until Michael offers us "mp3 lockers" so he doesn't even have to pay his own artists for downloads anymore?
Depends (Score:2)
MP3tunes hopes to attract users who are fed up with restrictions on copying music from sites that use digital-rights-management techniques, such as iTunes.
Is this the windows portion of iTunes users they are trying to attract? You just know mac users won't drink any other Kool aid?
Btw, I'm a mac user with a sense of humour.
Re:Mac users are part of the problem alright (Score:2)
Didn't he try this once already? (Score:2)
Is it just me, or does this sound almost exactly like the last thing he tried before he founded Lindows-- remember, my.mp3.com [google.com]? And if I remember correctly, in the end that one shut down because the courts decided that never mind all that stuff we said in the early 20t
Hrm... crafty little devil... (Score:2)
Apple has DRM? (Score:2)
Currently my wife (iPod + 20" iMac) and my daughter (Windows + Yep) are both buying music from iTunes and swapping music lists with each other.
They had one little blip the first time and they figured out how to register it to the other computer in about 20 seconds -- I didn't even get involved!
It won't work (Score:2)
Sure, they might get a real musician or band every once and a while... but I can't see this model becoming successful.
Incoming! (Score:5, Insightful)
At the show, two of Robertson's engineers at MP3.com will introduce SwitchVox, which will
combine PBX features with VOIP...
Oh crap that's me! Yeah, we have a fancy-pants gui front-end to asterisk. At the risk of further slashdotting ourselves, here's the site: http://www.switchvox.com [switchvox.com].
Now to go find some bandwidth.
That bad ole Clear Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
For what's it's worth, most of us Clear Channel programmers would love to have deep, eclectic playlists loaded with interesting songs and artists.
The problem is that not enough people would listen to our stations for us to keep the lights on.
We're not force-feeding anything. Our short playlists are dictated by the market, and we spend million each year researching the musical tastes of our various target audiences.
While people bitch and wail about short playlists, the fact is that when we exercise poor music discipline, our ratings generally decline. Since commercial broadcasting is still predicated on a free radio, advertiser-subsidized model, low rated stations go away pretty quickly. We're a publicly held company, and have to return value to the stockholders (this could mean you).
We know tight playlists aren't for everyone, but they're for *most* people. Amazing as it may seem, radio listeners actually like hearing their favorites on a regular basis. Adults, in particular, punch out more often than not when something new comes on -- no matter how good it is.
Real music enthusiasts with well-developed tastes have a lot of options open to them these days, if they don't mind paying for them. Hell, I own an iPod, too. But free radio is still out there, playing the hits, ready whenever you need a pop fix or breaking news.
Okay, flame away. But that's the deal.
Where do they get their favourites from? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:CORRECTION TO MY POST! (Score:3, Interesting)
Radio *does* feed listener tastes. But so do sales and live performance, TV, MTV, club play, and word of mouth.
Which is why we play currents. Carefully, in adult formats. You'd be surprised how interested we are in local CD sales. Our current-based station -- a lot of them, at least -- pay a lot of attention to things like Soundscan. It's a service that tracks how many units of what are moving in the stores.
We can't see who (age, etc.) is bu
ha! (Score:2)
Fed up? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hones
iTunes Music Store is MUCH better (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I don't mind paying money for good songs at all. I use JHymn to play songs on other platforms for which iTunes is not available. JHymn works beautifully for this purpo
I want my lunch... (Score:2, Insightful)
MP3 and OGG, NO DRM!!!!!
It has been out for a while you know.
Have a good one.
Slightly OT: Robertson is an ass (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, he may not be worried about the labels... (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason why Apple's setup worked so gosh-dern well is that they had all of their ducks in a row, as has every other label-sanctioned music service. The fact that he's going to launch this thing without even talking to them makes the promise of his service sound a little foolhardy. He had this same problem with MP3.com, remember; he had no way to control the quality of the artists.
Labels, love them or no (I certainly don't), tend to at the very least fliter out the amateurs and guys covering Chic songs with a mandolin and an egg shaker, so that you can actually hear someone with actual (or inflated) talent. The filter usually works as a loss to the customer, because the close-but-no-cigar artists are the ones that get filtered most unfairly. But in this case, the filter's a benefit -- it cuts out the armchair Garageband players.
I could launch a service like this tomorrow. Just give me MS Frontpage, a couple MP3s from that album Bronson Pinchot did back in 1988 at the height of his "Perfect Strangers" fame years, a streaming shoutcast link and a link to Paypal, and I can also I manage to successfully do everything that Michael Richardson is promising in this article. But do i have any connections? Nope.
In my scenario, the business plan fails, and pinchotTunes goes kaput in three weeks, but Bronson Pinchot has a second wind of fame as a result.
You know, if you were coming with your A game, Michael, I'd applaud you, but I keep seeing B- and C+ games out of your various companies.
"Fed up"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I don't get out enough, but I don't know anyone who is "fed up" with the DRM on iTunes. To be "fed up" implies that you've used it and dealt with it for long enough that you just can't take it any more. The only people I hear with big gripes about iTunes' DRM are people who never used it in the first place for that reason. They don't count. The people who actually buy music from iTunes are generally satisfied customers, as far as I can tell.
Maybe they meant "fed up with the fact that they can't find legal music to download without DRM".
Re:fp (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great...but it wont work (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not go out and support indie labels and the bands they have? Bands like The Shins, The Postal Service, Joe Strummer and the Mescaleros, Porcupine Tree, and Iron & Wine are all more than deserving of your dollar.
P.S. Downhill Battle encourages piracy. They care nothing about the artists, and seemingly, neither do you.
Re:Great...but it wont work (Score:2)
fuck the artists. i don't care about them. making money is their problem, not mine.
i care about *me*. i care about:
1) OWNING music that i purchase. moving it anywhere, copying it without restriction, giving it to my friends if i feel like it. never having it expire, not having to pay a subscription service to keep accessing it.
2) convenience and simplicity. when i feel like acquiring a song, i want to download it, now. i don't want to driv