Ad-Supported Free Music Downloads Doomed to Failure? 226
madonna writes "CNET extensively explains why the new We7.com download service — which offers ad-embedded free music downloads without DRM — is doomed to failure. 'This service absolutely, categorically will not succeed. You can quote us on that. It's true the best way to combat piracy is to provide a realistic and affordable alternative, and free is certainly affordable. But music downloaders are not going to switch to using a service that costs the same as using BitTorrent or Limewire, but comes with abominable disclaimers or advertisements.'"
Depends on the catalog (Score:2)
Re:Depends on the catalog (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, I like my usual strategy these days of picking and choosing songs I really like and buying them.
On the other hand, if it's true you get an ad free version eventually, I might just download hundreds of them and not listen until I get the unencumbered version. Of course, I haven't RTFA, so I don't know that you could get away with that, but seems like a good strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your player insists on not being able to fast forward through certain tracks
Re: (Score:2)
1. your player sucks if it cannot fast-forward (whether it's obedience on their part, stupid technical limitations, etc.). it just sucks.
2. i just read the data that's physically on the desk. it's in plain bytes. it's easy. i.e. my player can fast-forward anything.
3. to me, a player that lacks fast-forward is antiquated and that a player that can fast-forward is better because it contains an essential feature.
does this actually mean that my 400mhz PC with a 1x DVD drive, no region codes,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come to think of it though, company logos on armor and stuff could be fun. "This guild officially sponsored by Toyota!"
How do they say that, I wonder. (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that "wee-seven"? Or do they try to amalgamate the words into "weven" or something?
Who here thinks that having a short URL was a key part of their plan to get venture capital...? (Raises hand) Who thinks this will save them...? Anybody?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no problems here (Score:5, Funny)
Re:no problems here (Score:4, Funny)
We're sorry, the number you have reached has been disconnected. To continue watching this HD-DVD, please install Linux, and call 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
I think a lot of folks would (Score:2)
If they have a way to get the stuff morally, they will because a lot of people are as moral as they can afford to be.
Morality is hard to define (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
PS: IANAPhilosopher, but as best as I can tell, morality doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting statement, too bad you didn't back it up with any sort of an argument. To me, personal interest is the basis for morality, quite possibly the only valid basis. To date I have found no better source for moral behavior than the golden rule, and what is that based on other than personal interest? Of course, most people also extend this concept of of morality beyond simple perso
Re: (Score:2)
For example, you want to be heroically saved by doctors regardless of how much pain you are in.
My morality is based on: Voluntary consent by an informed rational person.
If you don't have voluntary consent, you are probably doing evil to them. People are not really rational until a certain age. And if you have lied or tricked them with false information, then that's not right either.
Otherwise,
Re:Morality is hard to define (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't say it was perfect, just that I hadn't yet found anything better. The golden rule is fantastic because it is simple and obvious, you can quickly determine a course of action, and live your life. For more complex scenarios, the golden rule may fall down, but in those cases you also usually have more time to mull it over. However, in your example case, I think the golden rule still works. Personally, I want people to respect my decisions, particularly regarding my own fate, and I believe that most people feel likewise. Therefore, if I was a doctor, and a patient had told me ahead of time that they do not want some specific procedure performed, even if it would otherwise mean death, then I believe it would be immoral for me to perform the procedure anyway against the patient's wishes. This is actually seen all the time in actual practice. Now, if it is an emergency situation and you have not had time to communicate with the patient ahead of time regarding their wishes, then you just have to use your best judgment, based on what you would want in that situation. Obviously, anytime you try to guess someone else's wishes it is fraught with peril (and potential lawsuits), which is why doctor's are usually ultra-conservative, and try to save the person's life, regardless of it's a good idea or if they would personally want that.
My god, how do you ever get anything done? Are you constantly questioning people over the simplest things in order to get their consent? For example, how do you decide not to ram your cart into other people at the supermarket? Do you ask each and every person that you come to whether they would consent to a cart-ramming? Or do you instead make assumptions on what you think their answer will be, possibly based on what you yourself would want in similar circumstances (i.e. the golden rule)? For that matter, how do you decide that no-cart-ramming is preferable to cart-ramming? Is it again based on your own preferences? How in the world can you decided if someone else is "rational" and "informed"? Doesn't that preclude you from dealing with most people that you encounter? If you decided that someone is not rational or informed enough, do you go ahead and ram them with your cart? If not, why not? How else do you deal with those who are not rational or informed? Can you never do anything "nice" for them? How does your morality determine what is nice or not-nice (right and wrong)?
If you and another "rational, informed" person voluntarily consent that it is okay to throw rocks at squirrels for fun, does that make it moral?
Interesting assertion, do you have any arguments to back it up? What about the case where you need to do things without someone's consent in order to prevent harm to others? Is it moral for the government to collect taxes from its populace? Most people do not voluntarily consent to pay taxes, they do it under threat of severe penalties.
And usually not even then (besides, who chooses what age?). Humans aren't rational, they are rationalizing. Can you prove to me that you are rational? At all times, on all subjects?
Under your morality, why do you even need the creator's consent? There seems to be an assumption on your part that the creator has more r
Re: (Score:2)
>Interesting assertion, do you have any arguments to back it up?
Just my conclusion. But it seems more reasonable than "a big imaginary guy said it is bad". As you say for your golden rule, it's not perfect but it's the best I've found.
>Under your morality, why do you even need the creator's consent?
Because it's their stuff?
>Now you are pushing off responsibility
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I spend all my points upmodding inappropriately downmodded people.
I get your point and know exactly where you are coming from.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the definition of "human" has changed with time, and only recently have blacks, women, and people who don't own property have joined this elite cabal of fully human. But if you went to a slave holder and asked them to kill a random white property owner, their morality would have stepped in the way. Ethics are universal, it just depends on who we accord worthiness to that is variable with time.
I personally have a hard time
Re: (Score:2)
You are unlikely to get caught price gouging, or copyright infringing so the law doesn't really enter the equation for either side. In this case, morals is a fall back. If one side acts immoral, the other side has to try that much harder to stay moral. It's very easy to slip into: 'Well if he can be bad and get away with it, I will be bad too.'
It's
Re: (Score:2)
How hard is that?
Re: (Score:2)
How hard is that?
Simple: once I take it, now it belongs to me.
Therefore, it's not theft anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you are the leader of a country and you are "nationalising" someone else's stuff.
Or you are taking taxes (okay- excessive taxes like the 90% we had in the 1940's)
Or lots of other exceptions.
Re:Morality is hard to define-but infringment's no (Score:2)
Hey, hey, hey! I don't smell.
Re: (Score:2)
I think artificially creating scarcity is what should make folks feel guilty. Legal or not, it's morally wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thomas Jefferson felt that the jury had the ultimate right to find people not guilty of laws which the jury felt were unjust. But you must lie to hold this view. You basically just repeatedly say, "not guilty, I'm not convinced." Never say why (they can throw you off if you do).
"Costs the same"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about the FP author, but I consider "legal" a pretty big point to factor into "cost"!
And I say that as someone who loathes ads.
Re: (Score:2)
This applies only to commercial crap (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have a problem with DRM or with copyrights or with the RIAA or with the cost of music, it's your choice: you choose to listen to crap, and crap with strings attached is what you get.
There is 100 times as much music out there as is delivered by the mainstream western labels. Go find it, and enjoy. And when you choose to pay for something that you think is really terrific, you will be rewarding musicians, not shareholders.
It's your choice. You know how to Google.
Alright then... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know you meant that as a joke, but the GP has an unintended point - Yes, we can find 100x as much music out there, free even, as RIAA offers. But the vast majority of it quite simply sucks.
I've personally found a few dozen artists I enjoy via the web (more than half from mp3.com, back when it still existed). But for each gem, I've listened to hundreds of steaming piles of crap I wouldn't inflict on Gitmo detainees.
Personally I find local college
Re:This applies only to commercial crap (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with the above, is that what defines 'crap' is purely subjective.
In my case, almost all forms of alt/grunge/punk/whatever that stem from Nirvana all the way down are, to my ears, unmitigated crap. Have been since day one. If all of your indie bands are making music of that genre, it's just more crap that isn't on major labels. Conversely, some of the stuff I listen to might be unmitigated crap to you. (Shocking as it might sound.
But, an indie version of Green Day doesn't interest me any more than the actual thing.
There's a lot of music which falls into that category, but it may not be possible for everyone to lay hands on it. Record stores (most of them) offer up way too much floorpsace for the mainstream stuff to be able to stock anything with any reliability -- that's because that is what will sell.
I listen to loads of stuff which is very far removed from mainstream. Unfortunately, the recording label is still a member of the RIAA, so it's not like you can get that far removed from it. Even if the artists basically say "go ahead, share our music with your friends", the RIAA might still decide to sue on behalf of them, and against their stated wishes.
Short of everyone going on some quest to wander about in the forest of lesser-known music, it's simply tough to find stuff which diverges from the mainstream. That, or you're ordering really obscure imports, or small runs from indie groups, or what have you.
And, really, you can't google for "find me some non-mainstream music I'll like".
In my case, my music collection is self perpetuating because I keep looking at stuff on the same recording label (Six Degrees) or from other artists I've found who are associated with some of the groups I've found. But, I'm nowhere near being able to find music I like without actually relying on an actual label who is, nonetheless, a member of the RIAA.
Cheers
It isn't compleatly doomed to failure (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think they can make any money of the service, so OK I guess it is doomed to failure.
Personally, I've been listening to ad free (varied full tracks, including big name bands) music legally for a few weeks from Last.fm and I'm quite happy.
The Elected Ones (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Removing the ads (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How are they going to stop you using something like that?
Re: (Score:2)
From a business perspective, every ad-embedded download is almost guaranteed to result in at least one exposure for the advertiser. That's a better guarantee rate than
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it just be easier to listen to the 5 second jingle?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon. This is the recording industry we're talking about here...
In my day.... (Score:4, Insightful)
In my day we called that "commercial radio".
Talk radio... the evil infiltrator . (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember when commercial radio was like this... where you could passivly listen to music, 2-4 songs and then an equal amount of time was dedicated to commercials and dj jabber. Odds were you could hop stations if the commercial breaks really bothered you.
Now... I have a hard time crusing the FM dial without finding some radio station that hasn't been infiltrated by the "talk radio craze", which is some solo jackass with a string monologs lasting for 8 hours, n
Re: (Score:2)
And furthermore... (Score:2)
While I agree that the concept of ad-supported download services would be a failure, the presence of ads won't be the reason.
I'm sure plenty of people would just as soon use the ad-infested service just for the sake of legitimacy. Hell, I would, just to say I was downloading music legally. Limewire is notorious enough as an eff
Been done before (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember this from amp3.com, a defunct and unlamented mp3.com clone.
I've still got a couple of tracks somewhere with the amp3.com ad header on them; however, it turned out that they had stuck the header on by directly fiddling with the mp3 stream, and simply by running the file through a mp3 sanitiser, the header would magically vanish.
I wish we7 lots of luck, but if I were to start using them I'd damn well write an ad removal program.
disingenuous? (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean why would it? Must be a coincidence, surely...
Notable advertising failures. (Score:5, Interesting)
At some point, ads get too intrusive. Some notable failures:
Besides, music already has ads. 50 Cent mentioned 20 brands in his songs in 2005, according to American Brandstand. "Mercedes emerged as the top brand of the year, and 50 Cent outbranded the rest to become the top brand-dropping artist... Meanwhile, weapon brands surged..."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this because the people that received those books already paid for them? For most people, books are things to stay, things to collect and having ads in them destroys the perception of value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flawed Analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
"don't waste your time in thinking this is going to do anything positive to the industry"
I've heard that so many times about services which have actually revolutionised industries, many of those services are no longer in business but that didn't stop them being positive influences on the industry.
Case in point: A few years ago in the U.K., Altavista advertised an flat-rate, £10 a year internet service at a time when virtually all domestic ISPs only offered per-minute deals. Several other ISPs then started offering competing flat-rate offers.
The Altavista service never even ended up launching, but it had already caused other ISPs to offer cheap flat-rate deals. As a result, Altavista are often credited with helping to give the U.K. some of the cheapest internet deals in the world.
Maybe this service won't be a massive hit, but to instantly dismiss an innovative idea is extremely stupid!
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard that so many times about services which have actually revolutionised industries, many of those services are no longer in business but that didn't stop them being positive influences on the industry... Maybe this service won't be a massive hit, but to instantly dismiss an innovative idea is extremely stupid!
i agree. sometimes the first few iterations of an idea need to crash and burn before the market leaders can lead the way... like the monkeys they shoot into space to test the waters for space travel.
Re: (Score:2)
Extortion racket? (Score:2, Interesting)
Pay more to remove something that shouldn't be there anyway - something THEY added to stop you having fair use of the music.
Seems like an extortion racket to me.
Except for one thing (Score:2)
It's not extortion because you don't have to buy music at all. They provide something and set a price. If consumers think the product is ok at the price, it'll sell. If not, it won't.
And...yuck. I think I just defended those guys. Think I'll go take a bath.
It's clearly extortion (Score:2)
Doomed to Failure? (Score:2, Insightful)
Broadcast radio has followed this model since the beginning and it didn't hurt them until "commercial-free" paid services came on the scenes. What would have probably been better for the record industry is the inclusion of ads in songs and albums from the early days of records. That way they could have now charged a premium for ad-f
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant "alternatives to the bland, top-down managed, lowest-common-denominator 'hit machine' based homogenized national advertisements" came on the scene. IMO, radio is killing itself through a slow wasting process of terminal mediocrity. It just took a bright alternative to throw it into contrast.
Prefixed with an ad (Score:2)
We7 claims that after listening to ads four or five times, they'll disappear from your music. That's interesting, considering the files are in MP3 format and as such are incap
DRM (Score:2, Interesting)
It's actually DENIAL of FAIR USE. DFU. Call it DFU. When you're explaining why it's DFU instead of the industry's pet name, just say "Disney Fucks U."
DFU. That's the framing which will help to change people's minds. Don't say DRM any longer. It's not about their rights, it's about OUR fair use rights as citizens.
I. Like. It. (Score:2)
Define the battle on our terms, not theirs.
They already got one past the media with "Piracy". It's NOT PIRACY. It's copyright violation. If it was piracy, we already had laws on the books against that. By tying the two together the public thinks they must somehow be similar. And they are not. People are very rarely fired upon with cannon shot when their software is infringed upon.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the difference?
For those who didn't actually download from We7 (Score:4, Interesting)
- There's a 10 second ad clip in the beginning for We7. After that, the music starts.
- Half the song later, no second ad, just music.
- The music inexplicably stops 10 seconds before the song's done, but there's still no second ad.
I don't know how they make money off of advertising their own service in the beginning of the song. Does anyone have an answer for this? And couldn't anyone just download a song, then import it in an audio editor like Audacity, delete the 10 second ad in the beginning and export it back? A quick scan of the terms [we7.com] doesn't seem to prohibit that.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, their intent is to get buzz now, get bought out later, and then get rich selling ads from real companies. That's basically the business model of every significant Internet startup.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't, that's filler until they get more advertisers onboard.
Yes, or better yet use MP3DirectCut, which allows cutting and joining mp3's without de/recompression - (assuming they use mp3, I didn't look). However the hope is presumably that people are very l
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, this would recompress the lossy file, making it sound like shit. I'd rather have the ads. There is however mp3-splt [sourceforge.net] that won't reencode.
My experience... (Score:2)
The sign up process is crap with a bunch of information that they don't really need and will probably sell (year of birth and gender (but only male and female...) for example).
The actual ad at the start isn't that bad, but after a while I would definitely get sick of it... So, as has been mentioned, a program to skip the ads... But the music is so crap th
Re: (Score:2)
Biology is destiny.
Music previews (Score:2)
Pot meet kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure ads are annoying but music is good and free music is better. If not just pay for it. You can you know. cnet might have learnt that if they even tried looking at the bloody frontpage http://www.we7.com/ [we7.com]
* If you want a track now with no ad, then we will give you a way to buy the track at normal price.
* If you want a track that is free, legal, safe and the artist gets rewarded then we add the ad. However, you don't have to have the ad forever, as with We7 technology, after a period of time (4 weeks) you will have the choice to have the track 'ad free'. So, enjoy We7 and the new digital music download model.
My suggestion (Score:2, Informative)
Removing the ads (Score:2)
mp3splt's [sf.net] silence detection works great on all the We7 files I tested!*
mp3splt -s downloaded.mp3
* Grand total: one. But still. It appears the "Web 2.0 based, 'pat.pending' MediaGraft engine" is just prepending a ten-second mp3 with a polite period of silence before the music begins.
Service + Audacity = Legal, Ad-Free, No-Cost Music (Score:2)
it will fail, but not for that reason... (Score:2)
No Thanks (Score:2)
I quit listening to broadcast radio because of too many ads.
Marketers are WAY too aggressive invading our eyespace. I got so fed up with ads and telemarketers that I pulled the plug on the radio/TV, got an unpublished phone #, and signed up for the federal do not call list.
I'm in no hurry to sign up for we7, thank yo
Maybe not doomed, but perhaps predisposed... (Score:2)
In contrast, We7 embeds short ads at the beginning of every song. This isn't something consumers are used to, and seems a bit annoying. I wouldn't advise any of the clients our agency works with to use a fo
domain name? (Score:2)
Removing adverts is not legal (Score:2)
It's not legal, because you are making an unauthorized derived work.
Re:Big Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't like listening to ads before listening to music? Shock and awe.
Tell it brother!
I have DVDs which are years old and they still play these gawddam previews for upcoming films of years past. I'm ticked because my DVD player gives me guff when I try to fast forward, skip chapter or go directly to the menu, with the circle with a slash through it stating such behaviour is vorboten. I must sit like a good little monkey and watch whatever shite they deemed necessary prior to enjoying the content I shelled many quid for, however many times I want to watch the films.
Come to think of it, it's a very strong argument in favour of ripping, editing and burning your own videos to get around this abhorent behaviour.
Now if they think I need to listen to the Coke or some sports figure hawking the latest rubber shoe straight outta China before I can listen to my toonz, they can forget it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big Surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
Looks like you can DL the song, shelve it for a few weeks, then have it add free. Sounds good to me.
I hate ads, but I like free music. I can wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's legal, free, and easy to use. There's three good reasons to switch.
Bittorrent is also free and easy to use. And it's only illegal if you get caught. Why should I switch again?
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing valuable about people actually knowing a product exists? Or put another way, there's no value to me (the consumer) knowing a product exists that will meet a need I have?
I'm pretty anti-advertising, but that's mostly because of obnoxious, intrusive, and/or ubiquitous marketing. The fundamental purpose of advertising is to introduce the buyer and the seller, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)