Slashdot Mirror
Universal, Sony Cutting Prices on Downloaded Music
Don Symes writes "Sony Music and Universal appear to be getting ready to allow downloads of singles for $.99 and albums for $9.99 without crippleware or restrictions on personal copying/burning." Another semi-interesting piece submitted by several people is this propaganda from the recording industry. 2.8 million copyright-infringing CD-R's were seized in the U.S. last year (9 million world-wide); from that the IFPI extrapolates that 950 million copyright-infringing CD-R's were actually sold, world-wide. How do you get from 9 million to 950 million? Mostly hand-waving .
About time they eased up on prices a bit, but that probably means they are getting over on us even worse than we all thought ;o) .
Regarding that CD-R article, I'm sure the RIAA would just love to ban the things. How about they just ban all dual-deck tape recorders too. Write you representatives folks. Don't let them lobby to take away all that is left of Fair-Use.
Yes, you heard correctly - secret watermarks. Want the music cheap? Sure, here you go. Of course, if you do trade it online, we'll get back to you on the number of times we find it on other computers and charge you full price plus treble damages. It's not as if we couldn't see through this business model by now...
...Althought $5-$8 would be a lot better. Problem is, if I buy an album, I want 44.1khz PCM data, and not a compressed stream with a not-insignificant portion of the data missing.
.94 cents buys .05 of an ounce of cocaine to line the nostrils of a record exec.
If my $.99 bought me the raw stereo PCM data to burn, MP3, ogg, or sample then I would consider this reasonable.
Of course the artists probably get less than $.05 of that sale. The other
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Any reasonable cap shouldn't be a huge problem for downloading MP3's. MP3's are small compared to things that even "normal" users might download. I suppose it depenes on how many MP3's you plan to download, or upload to others. Or how many gnutella packets will pass through your system.
The bandwidth cap is more likely to prevent you from running:
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
not 128kbs, but at LEAST than 196kbs, otherwise it isnt worth the cash outflow...
personally if im going to pay for something I want a solid object in my mitts, a physical CD, liner notes, pictures, etc....
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Everyone has their opinions. Who says it won't work? I've been getting my MP3s for free since I started downloading them on my 'BRAND NEW 14.4!' back in the day. BUT, if a company were to promise me good download speeds (40k/s would make me happy), high availability at any time, a HUGE selection covering all the genre's I like, then I'd happily pay $9.99 for a CD or a buck for a single song. In all reality, P2P programs annoy the bloody piss out of me. I can't stand their spyware, and their connectivty scheme tends to chow ALOT of bandwidth. IRC is quite a pain in the ass too. 700 people in one channel, you can't even go in there on dialup because the user list will cause loads of lag. So if a company could legitimately sell me a high quality MP3 for a buck, and I could find it easily in a search engine, and then download it right away with no queues, then I'd be a happy consumer again.
Can all fish swim?
And ... isn't money laundering something that makes money on its own too? In fact, the only relationship between money laundering and CD IP theft seems to be that, if there were no copyright, there would be no need to launder the money made.
In fact, wouldn't the best way to cut off the legs of organized crime in this area be legalization, or, heaven forfend, reasonable prices from the recording industry?
If these are the best arguments against piracy, I think I'll go steal some music now.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I'd be happy to pay $0.99 for some songs. I think it is a reasonable price, leagal, and the artist just might get something out of it.
It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
And do you know what? This will flop. Terribly. Why? Because the same people who have been shouting that they'll pay for music will, in the end, not pay for music.
Once, a few years ago, I pirated music using Napster. I got quite good at it, amassing more than 5 GB of songs. But eventually, I had to face the facts: I was stealing music. A few of my friends asked me to justify what I was doing, and I couldn't justify it. I was stealing music. I thought about "making up", by buying all the CDs that I wanted music from, but I didn't. And do you know why? Because it would cost money.
I know it's not hip to agree with the RIAA on Slashdot, but in this case I feel that it's correct to. The pirate community has been screaming that they want low-price music, and now they're offering it to them. But it will flop, because in the end, people don't want cheap music.
They want free music.
Yes, but a legitimate purchase of good music by a band I like at a reasonable price sure beats steasling, copyright violation, and screwing over an artist whose music I like.
That sure competes well with "free" to me.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
I was just reading through the posts here and noticed a lot that read "well, I'm not going to do this, because the artist would only get $.05 of that $.99, so forget paying for these songs, I'll just go download them" or "MP3 is lossy, so I'm not going to pay an entire dollar for these tracks".
People, this is what we have all been screaming for...no restrictions on downloads and a fair price for the songs themselves, instead of $18-$20 for a CD that contains 2 decent songs and 12 crappy ones. If we don't take some kind of action and show these studios that consumers are willing to pay for decent service, that service is going to disintegrate and leave us with a lot of bad laws in its place. You have to crawl before you walk, and especially for a first offering, I don't think the details of this look bad at all. Please at the very least consider paying a couple of bucks the next time you get the urge to grab some music.
(Note: for all you people actively boycotting the RIAA for their other stunts/attacks, this post was not meant for you, but rather people who simply don't want to pay for MP3's)
You rush a Miracle Man, you get rotten miracles - Miracle Max, TPB
The music files will be avaliable in Liquid Audio format.
"Liquid Audio files are scrambled so they can't be freely copied from computer to computer. But Universal has decided to let buyers burn the files onto conventional CDs in unscrambled formats, meaning they could be copied or moved freely from that point."
People wants MP3s. We have MP3 walkmans, players, car stereos, stereo components. We don't want a crippled version of song no matter the price.
Universal- will allow buring to CDs with you can then rip into MP3 format.
Sony- will not be allowing any burning
It is copyright infringement, not theft. There's a significant difference.
It's regrettable, because this is a step in the right direction, but this won't fly.
The article mentions that the tracks discussed by Universal are to be in Liquid Audio format.
(More about them is available here)
Closed-format music that I can't play in non-Windows operating systems or in a dvd or car cd deck that can decode mp3 CD's doesn't interest me in the slightest. MP3 succeeds because it's portable and small. Liquid audio files may not be very large, but they're not portable at all (except to Rio players).
By the time I've converted to CD and then ripped to mp3 again, I've spent way more than $1 worth of time, and I'm inclined to just go get an mp3 rip of the song and have done with it.
Sorry guys, try again. They're halfway there, but it's got to be MP3, or bust. The really depressing part of all this is that when this fails, it will fail because the dirty thieves on the internet want something for nothing, not because they tied themselves to a wrongheaded proprietary format that nobody asked for and nobody needs.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
From dictionary.com (emphasis mine):
theft
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same ; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
SO give me a high bitrate MP3... 128Kbit is not an acceptable quality at a buck a song.
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
Yeah, but that was years ago. RIAA should have reduced their prices long ago. At the very least when Napster hit the scene. Instead they sued Napster into oblivion, increased their prices, and watched more P2Ps pop up. Now they want to drop prices and hope people will come back? No, it doesn't work that way.
If you could have sold 486 technology to IBM in 1980 you could have made billions of dollars. Now, you can't sell 486 technology to anyone, period. In 1980 you were in a good bargaining position, today that bargaining position is gone.
Likewise, the RIAA was in a monopoly position for decades. They were in a good bargaining position, still, in 1990 and could have reduced prices to fend off the "need" for users to go to P2P to get their music. Now, P2P is everywhere and they can't control it--and now they want to make a counter-offer? It doesn't work that way... They are no longer in a position to negotiate.
I will no longer pay for music, period. Only if I happen to be at the mall and happen to remember a CD I want and happen to know that there are at LEAST 3 tracks that I want. That last criteria (minimum 3 good tracks) is usually the deal-breaker.
Fact is, many people (including me) have been exposed to free music. Not only is it free, it can be obtained in a heartbeat and without having to identify yourself or give up personal information or a credit card number.
Even if the price is 1 penny per song I am not going to leave P2P to go to some corporate website to give them my name, address, phone number, credit card number, and email address to get my music. P2P is safer, more convenient, and faster.
Sorry, game over.
Of course, the labels don't really want this to work. They want it to fail so that they can go back to Congress and say "See! We lowered prices and they're still stealing! They wont pay 99 cents! We're bleeding from our arteries here! You guys have to do something to protect our profits, er, the artists!"
If they want to make this work they have to devote themselves to it. But for a label there's not much reason to do it. There's no way that selling over the internet isn't going to cut into their gross for a while. People wont pay $16 for an album's worth of MP3s.
But it's not a zero-sum game, because RIAA can't control their end-users. Their music is digitalized and distributed for them, at no cost to anyone. Actually, for RIAA they may just be stuck.
Music distribution is no longer tricky. Just stick mp3s on your website. Finding new talent can be done just as well by a bunch of independents as it can by a giant music conglomeration.
In the next decade, music may just go back to being an art instead of an industry.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
- Use 320kbps mp3 (or ogg) files, NO RESTRICTED FORMATS
- Embed lyrics in the mp3 files, because why the hell not?
- Sell them to us at 99 cents a song or less, eight or nine bucks for a whole album
If people take the files and try to trade them on Gnutella or the like, DON'T sic the lawyers on them. A certain amount of copying is unavoidable, and there are ways of making that more trouble than it's worth if a guaranteed good copy of the song is readily, legally, and cheaply available. Most people will then choose to buy the song, those who don't probably don't have much money in the first place or they wouldn't waste their time.All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
of these CD's and CD-burners were sold by Sony?
The price is perfect. For $10 you can mix a CD that only has the music that you want, instead of having to buy one that only has one or two songs that you like and the rest is filler.
This puts the ball in the consumers court now...and it will be up to them to show they are willing to pay a reasonable fee to burn legally.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Calling that little PDF hand waving is being too generous, it's fraud. Notice the little bar graph about "disc piracy" and how CD-Rs are fuelling the growth of piracy?
Well, take another look, this time at the cute pie graphs. You'll notice that while CD-R piracy increased from 165 million copies in 2000 to 450 million copies in 2001, cassette piracy dropped from 1.2 billion to 900 billion.
Out with the trusty HP calculator: 450 - 165 = 285, and then 1200 - 900 = 300. Oooh, look at that: 285 < 300. Cassette piracy dropped more than CD-R piracy increased.
Lets add in the pressed CDs: 500 million in 2001, 475 million in 2000. That would mean an increase of 25 million. So, takin all formats into account, we have an increase of 10 million. A whopping 0.5% increase from 2000!
Gee, wonder why they didn't include cassette piracy in that bar graph, huh? Would have spoiled their party.
Now, if my sources are correct, the annual growth of the population of the world is somewhere around 1.3% annually, which is more than 0.5%. I guess this means that piracy per person, at least where physical copies are involved, dropped.
But of course, the goal is to levy tax on CD-Rs as "compensation" to the music publishers, so why look at the facts?
>an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
:-) I think the defence would rather be under the mallet for petty theft rather than $250k + 5 years imprisonment for copying even one song.
Music is not property. IP is a farce and is not defined in the dictionary.
Property requires ownership. Stealing requires taking of owned property.
A person with a purchased CD does not own the music. They own the shiny disc, which is incidentally encoded with the sound (ask any lawyer).
You cannot steal what is not property; property requires ownership; ergo you can only steal music if you remove ownership of it from its owner by putting your name in as the author.
>According to this, all that's neccesary is an unlawful taking.
Unlawful taking is not stealing. They are very separate issues that are shown to be black and white when one says "taking a life" rather than "stealing a life".
>If you commit piracy, you are a thief, and I am correct to call you one.
Care to back it up in court?
BTW: Do you also call one who runs a pirate radio station (a true use of the word piracy) a theif even if he only plays his own music on airwaves not designated for his use?
Everything is stealing if you use the word incorrectly.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I'll tell you *my* problem with Liquid Audio!
.WMA format) play on quite a few devices and software packages. If I purchase online music from a vendor, I'd like to be able to dump it straight into my car MP3 player (Rio MP3 Car).
It's a format created and supported by only one software development firm. How many software programs have you seen that play Liquid Audio format files? I'm betting none, other than the one produced by Liquid Audio themselves.
MP3, on the other hand (and even more and more, Microsoft's