Slashdot Mirror
HMV to Sell Digital Downloads
An anonymous reader writes "Sales of digital music downloads on sites like PressPlay and MusicNet have been a bust so far and for good reason. They cost too much, have too many restrictions and the palette of music you get to download is too limited. They have almost nothing to offer over what the various P2P networks give you for free. So why do record chains like HMV want to get in the game? Simple, these services cut out the middlemen and if they should ever succeed record retailers would be left out in the cold. Research shows there is a percentage of consumers who will pay for digital tunes if the conditions are right. They aren't now, but market forces will push them to improve the terms or die. PressPlay has already capitulated to some of these limitations. To protect their interests in the long term, retailers like HMV and Tower records have jumped on board and signed on with On Demand Distribution (OD2) - a company co-founded by Peter Gabriel to be a wholesaler of digital music tunes - to provide the music and the back end to their new services. HMV's service launches in September at five pounds at month (about 7 bucks), a price point which will mean nothing if the song selection sucks."
I hate the concept of subscription models. All of these services want to rope you into month after month of fees. Everyone from Microsoft to music wants the luxury of a constant income stream.
I don't buy CDs every month, why would I pay to download songs every month? Same goes for software.
Let me come in, buy one or two songs for a buck (and give me my fair use rights to them), and maybe I'll be back in a couple months to spend more.
As it currently stands, the majority of dance/electronic music is only released on vinyl. However the CD dj is no longer a novelty, but the problem arises of finding music on CD. But the current amount of CD dj's don't warrant the need for widespread CD releases. It seems like a PERFECT idea to sell this type of music online, with the intention of people buring the music for their own use. You can't even find much new dance music on P2P networks, so there isn't a whole lot of competition. And I think that many DJ's would jump at this opportunity. You can buy or pirate pop/rock anywhere, but the dance music scene is no where to be found in many american outlets.
Only the meek get pinched. The bold survive.
...but soon realised that people weren't willing to stand around for hours putting together a CD that cost an arm and a leg.
Hats off to them for trying, but he DRM will probably kill it stone dead. People are far too used to being able to do what they want with what they've paid for.
This will stop people from ripping music and offering it for free to others how?!
Honestly, I think the part many are missing is the fact that most people still need their music to reside on a physical piece of CD media before they can enjoy listening to it.
This is the real reason behind your statement (and consequently your logic) that you'll opt to go "buy a CD" instead of download a file.
There's an entire infrastructure built around the public listening to their music on compact discs - and no p2p network can change that fact.
The recording industry needs to address this before they begin trying to make money on downloaded MP3 songs!
As I've said many times before, a really good alternative for them would be building computerized kiosks that let the customer burn his/her own selection of songs onto a high-quality CD - and pay for it by the song. (Probably by taking a resultant printed receipt up to the counter/checkout lane with the shiny new disc)
This would eliminate the issue of requiring huge amounts of physical store space to display all the music. (Instead, they might have a tradeoff of a little bit of "back room" space taken up with a server containing all the digital data that makes up the music collection, and some boxes of blank media to reload the kiosk with when it runs out.)
I would think most retails stores would absolutely love this idea, as would consumers who can finally buy their own "custom mix" CDs - instead of paying for songs they don't like/want, just to get a few that they do. By tallying up exactly which songs sell best, the recording industry gets much more accurate feedback of what's "hot" and what's "not", too.
Selling downloaded MP3 music has only very limited appeal in a world where many people don't even own the tools required to move the songs onto media playable in their car/home stereo. (The rest of us do, but we don't always appreciate taking all the time/effort out to do so.)
Speaking as someone who hasn't bought a cd in almost 10 years, I was really suprised when I learned of EMusic. I am a fan of punk, ska & hardcore, and glady pay EMusic $15.00/mo in order to download their vast selection of music in that category. Granted, their other sections lack content, so my girlfriend gets upset when she can't find her newest pop album, but I am rather happy with the selection that they offer me.
I'm not even so concerned with "CD quality" not being good enough. I think it's plenty good enough for me. I know they have newer, improved fornats like DVD-Audio out there now, but they don't particularly interest me. I don't own multi-thousand dollar speakers or even an extremely expensive home stereo receiver, so I doubt it'll be that dramatic an improvement to my ears.
What I *would* like to see, though, is MP3s encoded at 256 bits, or at the very least, 192 bits. These are in very short supply on the free p2p networks, as 99% of people think "128-bit is good enough for me", and seem to value saving a little disk space over the improved quality. I can almost always tell a definite sound quality differnce between 128 bit and 192 bit + encoding. The 128-bit stuff just sounds "dull" or "lifeless" by comparison. You wouldn't necessarily even realize what you were missing if you didn't compare the same song, side-by-side, at both encoding rates -- but once you do, you'll never want 128-bit MP3s again.
Let me come in, buy one or two songs for a buck (and give me my fair use rights to them), and maybe I'll be back in a couple months to spend more.
One problem with such an arrangement is that you'd be forced to buy mislabled songs, corrupted songs and so forth. If they charge on a per song basis, customers will demand some sort of quality control so they don't end up spending money downloading crap. And that means a lot more work for the downloading service. On KaZaA I find lots of songs that are mislabled (wrong band, wrong song, etc.). Doesn't bother me too much because I can always try to download the correct song later. But if I was paying for those downloads, I'd be mucho pissedo (that's Spanish for "very upset", BTW). Another problem would be the RIAA flodding the service with those bogus MP3 files which have been discussed on slashdot before. Purposely corrupted MP3s that cost you money to download.
Your idea is nice but, as you point out, the downloading service is gonna want a steady revenue stream and they certainly don't want to have to inspect each MP3 on their service for quality and accuracy. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a per-song downloading service.
GMD
watch this
HMV's new service will cost five pounds or around $7.00
I assume that that's per month.
US for an undisclosed number of tracks.
Oh yes, sign me up! How many tracks, what format/quality and what can I do with them - that's irrelevant.
PressPlay recently changed their model to offer unlimited streams and downloads for $14.95 a month.
I believe that this is still a rental model. Stop paying, tunes gone. PressPlay go tits-up, tunes gone. Such a deal - not!
Dear Music Industry:
I've got a huge pent up desire to spend money on downloadable tunes. I used to own almost two thousand LP's (yes, I'm over 35). CD's came out and I thought "good quality, lousy price. I'll wait until the price gets reasonable". I'm still waiting. I bought some cassettes in the mean time and a total of 16 CD's to date. I do not download your copyrighted material - as much as I hate you big record companies, I don't feel that it justifies grabbing your tunes without permission. I have downloaded from IUMA and mp3.com over the last 4 years. They both hit a sweet spot in the crap:quality material ratio a couple of years ago and have been sliding ever since. 4 years ago it was about 500:1, 3 years ago 350:1, 2 years ago 250:1, 1 year ago 300:1 and today 500:1. I have also bought from independent artists and labels who deserve the money a lot more than you do. But mostly I do without these days (effectively, I boycott you dopes).
I see nothing worthy of attention in the articles posted. Someday, maybe someone will "get it", but not yet - you marketeers would rather screw with consumers than get serious.
It seems absurd to have to post such basic guidelines for you idiots, but I guess all the money drug-abuse has addled you brains. Here they are and I'll spend money only when they're met. I want:
1) Reasonable price ($0.75 - $0.99/tune if all other conditions are met)!
2) Extremely broad choice/selection!
3) The ability to audition tunes before I buy!
4) To buy, not rent - after I pay once, it's mine forever!
5) QUALITY encoding at reasonable bit-rates! (VERY NEAR CD at least).
6) Service!
7) A demonstration that you value me as a customer rather than a sucker!
8) Goto 1) and repeat until you morons get it, or die!
Call me when you're ready, music industry. I've got some money to spend. But don't waste my time with all this other trendy rental/subscription marketing bullshit. You're not in the cell-phone business and I don't need your 'product' to survive.
It seems so obvious... the problem is not that the music services make you pay, it's that they don't provide what people want.
I'm willing to pay, but what frosts me is the idea of paying for something that's NOWHERE NEAR AS GOOD as what I was getting for free.
I enjoyed downloading really weird stuff from Napster and AudioGalaxy. Are the Sonys and Vivendis of the world ever likely to provide Harry Champion singing "I'm 'Enery the Eight I Am?" Cab Calloway singing "Nagasaki?" Joe Venuti playing "The Hot Canary?" Raymond Scott playing the Clavivox? Charles Trenet singing "Fleur Bleu?" Kay Thompson singing "Eloise?" Bernard Cribbins singing "'Ole in the Ground?"
Or will they just have Britney Spears?
The solution is obvious. Let people upload and share material. "Electronic record store" is the wrong model. "Electronic flea market" or "electronic swap meet" is the right model. The only thing that needs to be changed from what Napster was doing is to do what flea markets do: charge a small fee to participants.
I have these items because other people that share my weird tastes were willing to provide them. Nobody has to wait for some executive to decide whether there's money in releasing them. If anyone thinks they have something that might interest someone, they upload it and if you're right, they download it.
This frees the service from all the cost of acquiring and converting recordings themselves.
Now, how much does sharing REALLY cost the record companies? There's not a doubt in my mind that a) the amount it affects them is tiny, almost lost in the noise; b) if it does represent lost revenues, it's a TINY loss; and that c) a solution along the lines of the "blank VCR tape tax" or the similar charge for home audio digital media could take care of it.
The other piece of the puzzle is micropayments. Why does EVERYONE want to charge me $4.95 and $8.95 and $11.95 per month? To cover the costs of charging me, or something? A jukebox will play a single song for a single payment $0.25. If we can put a man on the moon we should be able to provide an Internet service that delivers what a jukebox can deliver.
So, what you have a service patterned on the very successful Napster or Audiogalaxy, the only difference being that to access it, you need to charge $15 to set up your account, and every time you download a song, $0.25 gets deducted from the account.
There's no reason in the world other than pigheadedness why this couldn't work, and could be very profitable for music companies.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
And so are the moderators who modded you up.
/. article a while ago about a small label hand burning CD's and mailing them to you for $4.95, shipping included. And making a profit doing it. $1 of that went to the artist. Assuming there are at least 10 tracks on the CD that's 50 cents per track. And that includes a physical CD, hand burning each CD, and mailing it. Large volume file downloads are practicly free in comparison.
The suggestion is for the the MUSIC COMPANY to sell downloads of the music they sell anyway. THEY HAVE THE MASTERS. It would take gross negligence for them to sell you a mislabeled or currupted song.
I ran some of the numbers. As long as they do a large volume of sales I think they could be rather profitable at 25 cents a track. The volume of sales and free publicity are guarenteed at that price. The bandwidth, 24-hour staff, and location costs combined are pennies per download. A few cents per download for the artists. Sell it as 80 downloads for a $20 subscription to avoid micropayments. And it makes a great gift-certificate.
Sceptical they could do it for a quater a download? There was a
At 25 cents a track for legitimate, high quality, and well indexed music, it WOULD be cheap enough to defeat P2P.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
May be interesting that he has a new album to be released in September.