Burn A Song For 99 Cents

tusixoh writes "CNN is running an article about an online music company, Listen.com, who has signed deals with Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group allowing users to burn songs from both companies' catalogs (more than 75,000 available tracks) on Listen's Rhapsody music subscription service for 99 cents per track. Until now, Rhapsody had primarily offered only streamed music to subscribers from all of the world's largest record labels as well as several independent labels." The upside of this, of course, is that it won't be necessary to pay for songs that are just "album filler".

Comments

Neat.

[MAXOMENOS]

Now: let's see if they also allow independent artists distribute their music the same way.

Re:Neat.

[Camulus]

Actually, there is something that pretty much does. eMusic has a massive list of music you can grab. They don't have all of the major artists on tap, but they have a lot of good music there from small/indie artists. 10$ or 15$ a month for unlimited completely legal mp3's (and no I don't work for them, just happy with the service). I have been using it for about 2 months now and it has worked great for me. I have downloaded around 10 gigs of mp3's so far and have listened to a lot of music I doubt I would have heard otherwise.

Re:Neat.

[geekee]

Whos is this mysterious "they" you are referring to. Independent artists have nothing to do with the RIAA. They can distribute their music any way they like if they hold the copyright.

Re:Neat.

[glesga_kiss]

They don't have all of the major artists on tap, but they have a lot of good music there from small/indie artists.

Isn't that a good thing? ;-)

I had a nosey around there last night, they had something from most of the acts I listen to (downbeat/trip-hop), but then again, you won't find any Britany on my hard-drive...

Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[unicron]

They're actually changing their business model to coincide with modern times. I'd like to believe music companies generally care about their customers. This may be the first step to realizing that dream.

Honestly, from this point on, if I want an mp3, I'll check to see if one of those labels are the labels that the artist in question is on, if so, they get my 99 cents.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Honestly, from this point on, if I want an mp3, I'll check to see if one of those labels are the labels that the artist in question is on, if so, they get my 99 cents."

You know, a couple of years ago when this started to heat up, I would have been the first customer in line to use this service in order to prove that I'm willing to be legit about music. When they started doing things like proposing the SSSCA and accusing Apple of promoting piracy, they made me mad. So now my attitude is 'screw them'.

Am I being rational? Not really. Consider this my way of saying "I want the RIAA to apologize to Apple for their accusations, and to all of us legit consumers who were never given a chance to show their good will." I doubt that'll happen. Hopefully I'll grow up one day. heh.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[SubtleNuance]

Im with you. The RIAA will never get another dime. Ill use the Library and burn CDs i like -- if im not happy w/ the mp3s i dload.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[TheTrunkDr.]

except now you're paying $1 a track, and a full cd will run you about $15-$20, so about the same it costs now... but you're providing the media, and doing the replication yourself. hmm now the price is the same, but now there's no packaging, no shipping, no reproduction costs, no nice art on the CD or case. Sounds to me like they've just figured out how to keep the cost the same and totally cut their overhead resulting in larger profits for RIAA. If it's costing that much less, why isn't that saving passed on to the consumer? It's not worth the price if you ask me! should be closer to $.25.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[!splut]

Yes, it's a model that adapts to modern times... But that's not why Warner and Universal have signed on. With CDRW drives all but standard with new computers and CD burning so popular, offering this (which is priced to compete with CDs, not CDRs) won't put an end to home CD burning. And they know it.

To me, it looks like these two giants are making a small investment now so that if and when Palladium and trusted security prevents the average non-techie home Windows user from burning his or her own CDs, Warner and Universal will have ready a business model and the associated infrastructure capable of filling the ensuing vacuum. Then it's just sit back and reap the rewards.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[SquadBoy]

No because for me and people like me instead of buying 10 cds to get 10 songs that I like I can now pay $10 and get one cd that I can listen all the way through. This is passing savings onto me. So while I won't be using this cause I don't run winders at home it is still a cool concept.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[krogoth]

No, no, no, and no. As far as I can tell, that's not how it works. If you want an MP3, you'll have to go to a filesharing program. If you want to buy music from them, you'll have to (1) run windows, and (2) download their proprietary bloatware player.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[nut]

I think that attitude - and I totally agree with it BTW - is the best indication of what the music industry giants have done to their marketplace.
People see these media giants as pirates holding their monopoly by any means available, and the law as just another tool they use to do this.
Consequently they no longer respect the law.

I also think that breaking the law is a valid and effective means of protest. I smoke marijuana too :-)

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[iSwitched]

Uh...

If you read the fine print, only WINDOWS users are allowed the priviledge of paying for Listen.com's 'service', so the 'day has come' for them I guess (any Windows users want to comment). Fact is, I don't download copywritten material I don't already own, but even if I wanted to buy Listen.com's music, I can't.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"People keep saying they'll stop trading illegal copies when they have the option to pay for them online. Now that the day has come, they're making up stupid excuses to continue not paying."

You might have a point if the RIAA had a drastic loss in sales over it. They didn't. They've had a minor drop in sales which, coincidentally, happened during a time of high unemployment and no interesting music coming out.

So those people 'pirating' music are still buying stuff from the RIAA. Therefore, the RIAA's unwillingness to enter into a new market is based on an unfounded assumption.

Call it 'making excuses to continue not paying' if you like, the simple fact of the matter is that the RIAA is not responding to supply and demand. If you're on your high-horse because you're buying CD's and not downloading music, you are the one getting screwed the most. Don't believe me? Buy a CD, listen to it for an evening, then take it back because there's only one song you liked on it. You'll get told 'no because the package is opened.' You'll be crying over not knowing what was on the CD until you bought it. Well, sorry friend, it's too bad you didn't go hear the album on the web before you made your purchase. Damn P2P for ensuring customer satisfaction.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[PhxBlue]

You know, a couple of years ago when this started to heat up, I would have been the first customer in line to use this service in order to prove that I'm willing to be legit about music. When they started doing things like proposing the SSSCA and accusing Apple of promoting piracy, they made me mad. So now my attitude is 'screw them'.

Translation: You still want an excuse to download music over P2P. Hey, that's fine, but don't try to cloak it in self-righteousness.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"A lot of web sites provide previews for most if not all cd tracks now as well, so not knowing the quality of a song is a flimsy excuse too."

Not so flimsy. I can go to Kazaa, pop in a name, click a bunch of songs that are interesting to me and it'll go get them. Web sites don't make that so easy. You need real player or some other stupid app to stream it down. You have to register to get that service. You different sites for different songs. You get inferior quality recordings.

" Just because you buy cd's doesn't give you the right to pirate other music."

Just because there are a few music pirates out there doesn't give the RIAA the right to not respond to consumer demand. It also doesn't give them the right to grease up politicians for millions of dollars to lockdown computers. It also doesn't give them the right to attempt DoS attacks on people they think are pirating music.

"So, basically your arguements help show the validity of my statement, now that there is an option to buy people will just come up with new excuses to download music for free instead of buying it."

If that happens now, it's because the RIAA made an enemy out of people. If they had provided this service back in 98 or so, then they'd have a right to complain if people were downloading them for free. I'll say again: The RIAA has not lost a significant portion of sales due to MP3 trading. As a mtter of fact, at Napster's height, music sales had gone up.

"Morals aside, why would you pay $1 for a song when you can get a good enough quality copy for free?"

Why would I buy a guaranteed quality song off a single fast download site for a reasonable price? There wouldn't be much reason not to buy it if they provide a better service. Even today they could be more appealing than P2P through faster downloads and a huge collection of music. That window is closing rather rapidly though. It's their own fault for not being innovative.

"The issue is copyright, which should be respected regardless of profit/loss"

Consumers don't care about copyrights. They care about music. When the consumers said "we want individual songs sent straight to our computer", the RIAA said "Nope. You can only have over-priced albums with songs you don't want, and you can only play them on your CD players." The RIAA doesn't care about copyrights either. They're using copyright as an excuse, but they aren't treating copyright holders fairly either. If they were, then the copyright holders could decide if internet trading was okay or not.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Translation: You still want an excuse to download music over P2P. Hey, that's fine, but don't try to cloak it in self-righteousness."

Self righteousness doesn't contain phrases like "Am I being rational? Not really." and "Hopefully I'll grow up one day."

Trnaslation: You didn't really read my post.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[NanoGator]

"Translation: You still want an excuse to download music over P2P. Hey, that's fine, but don't try to cloak it in self-righteousness"

Excuse me, why are you jumping to the harshest conclusion?

If I say I agree with the AC are you going to assume I want to steal music? I got news for you buddy, I spent a good deal of money legitimizing my MP3 collection. There was a time I had a CD containing the song of every MP3 I had. Why did I have MP3s? Two reasons: 1.) To try out music, 2.) so I can listen to my music from work without having to shuffle CDs all day. Never mind that the RIAA was making money from my downloading. No no no, everybody who has an MP3 is 'downloading communism'.

I agree, they owe everybody an apology. When we get it, I'll resume legitimizing my MP3 collection.

I don't really give a flying fuck if you think I'm trying to justify not paying for music. You know damn good and well you wouldn't get gas at a station that raised your car 5 feet in the air to prevent you from driving off.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[Anonvmous Coward]

Before I say anything, I want to let you know I appreciate your reformatting your post. I worked a little too late tonight. I'll work on being less abrasive.

"You don't need a great quality copy to preview a song and WMA is supported most of the time. It's no more difficult. Another flimsy excuse."

I disagree. Unfortunately, this is not a debate that can be scientifically decided. I guess all that can be said is 'some people will be turned off by it', and I'm one of them. As a matter of fact, I tried out an album over at Mp3.com. Now I can't get them to stop sending me unsolicited mail.

"The RIAA has the right to do business anyway they choose within the law. That means they they can give you music in any form they damn well choose. You do NOT have a right to tell anyone how to do business."

That's a fair comment. However, I'm not advocating that everybody should go download music. All I was saying was that I don't feel motivated to try it. I don't care if it's stealing or not. It's not that I don't want to pay for it, it's that I don't want to do business with the RIAA.

Is it stealing? Sure, whatever. I have no desire to impress anybody. I just wanted to express my dissatisfaction with the way they do business. They are extremely inflexible, they don't respond to supply and demand, and they don't care about customer satisfaction. So I have no guilt about duplicating bits. Money is not the issue. Don't assume it's a matter of my not wanting to pay for music. Despite how easy it is to get music from Kazaa, I'd much rather have a legit source with guaranteed quality.

"They have no obligation to give you what you want and in whatever format you demand."

I'm not demanding a particular format, I'm demanding better service. They got beaten out by that. If they were a legit business, they would have found a away to compete instead of sic'ing the lawyers on places like Napster.

You'll notice that the games industry isn't dealing with this problem. You'd think they'd have a much larger problem than the RIAA, but they don't. The reason is that despite the much higher price tag for games, the game industry responds to supply and demand. They provide games for rental at a fraction of the cost, they provide playable demos, and they don't pull stunts like trying to make you buy 5 games for $250.

If your assement of my character would imply that I have downloaded a bunch of games from Kazaa. Your assumption would be wrong. I have no pirated games. I have never even searched for a cracked game. I have plenty of game demos and I have plenty of games I have legally purchased.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[Samrobb]

No, no, no, and no. As far as I can tell, that's not how it works. If you want an MP3, you'll have to go to a filesharing program.

As mentioned elsewhere in these comments, the service will burn Redbook audio CDs... so if you want mp3s, or oggs, you'll be able to rip them yourself at whatever bitrate you want, in whatever manner you're accustomed to. Besides... how long would it take someone to put together a "CD" driver that took the audio stream and converted it directly to another format?

If you want to buy music from them, you'll have to (1) run windows, and (2) download their proprietary bloatware player.

Oh, come on. Have you downloaded their player and tried it out? Did you rip it apart to see how well it was put together? Or are you just guessing that it's bloatware? (Well, OK. It would be an eerily accurate guess. But you didn't actually bother to check, did you?) As for it being Windows only... let them know that there's a market for non-Windows systems, and see how they respond before blasting them. Even if they insist on keeping it Windows only, I'd bet that you would be able to run it under Wine before too much time had passed.

For the record: I've taken a look at this (signed up for their free service). The player does look like a custom "browser" written in MFC (kinda like GameSpy). OTOH, their artist list is pretty impressive - they have enough of my favorite artists that paying $10/month to put together a custom playlist is pretty much a pittance. If the service takes off, though, they're going to need some mondo bandwidth just to keep it usable, let alone handle peak demand (new album releases, etc.)

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[Registered Coward v2]

If it's costing that much less, why isn't that saving passed on to the consumer?

Because pricing is based on demand, not costs, and companies seek to maximize profit, not volume. (Unless you're an internet company, that seeks to sell dollar bills for 90 cents but make up for it in marketshare.) If I can make more profits selling 10 items for a dollar than 20 for 50 cents, I'll stick with the dollar.

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[krogoth]

"Oh, come on. Have you downloaded their player and tried it out? Did you rip it apart to see how well it was put together? Or are you just guessing that it's bloatware?"

I saw the interface :)

Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"If you civil disobedience as a means to protest laws you don't like..."

Heh. The law is a different matter. I'm talking about expressing my dissatisfaction of the RIAA by not buying their music. That's what my original post was about.

It's not about not wanting to pay. (As mentioned in my previous posts I buy lots of games despite that it's relatively easy to get free copies around the web.) It's not about the law. I'm not happy with the DMCA either, but I'm not fighting that battle with P2P.

*Shrug* I think you're still operating under the idea that I want people to follow me or that I want to be some kind of martyr. Assuming I'm right, you're letting your imagination get ahead of you. I've done nothing to encourage 'followers'.

1 Song For Just 99 Cents........

[richlb]

Then, all you have to do is buy 10 more songs at our regular price of $2.99 and you're done. There is nothing more to buy... ever!

Outstanding....

[sm0kes]

Now I don't have to bother will all those inconvient P2P networks.

So this is better how?

[kryonD]

Metallica S&M would run over $20 on this. I'd rather pay the $16 for the CD and be able to burn it in the for4mat of my choice. (i.e. ogg)

Re:So this is better how?

[NumberSyx]

Metallica S&M would run over $20 on this. I'd rather pay the $16 for the CD and be able to burn it in the for4mat of my choice. (i.e. ogg)

This is better, because now you have a choice. If you want a whole album, you get a discount by going to Wal-Mart and purchasing the CD for $16. If you just want one song off the album, you pay 99 cents.

Re:So this is better how?

[mr_zorg]

Previous comments about this being a 2 disc set retailing for $25 not withstanding, let's pretend this actually was a $16 CD.

Yes, if you like the whole album, then go down to your local music store and buy the whole album. But how many times have you spent $16 on a CD for only 3 good songs? Would you rather spend $18 for a CD of 18 songs you like or $108 (3 songs x 6 CDs x $16/CD) for 18 songs you like?

Come on, we've been harping on the RIAA and music labels for some time to give us this very thing. Let's pat them on the back for finally doing it.

As for your ogg comment, please. You'd be ripping it to ogg from what? A CD . And what do you make using this service? A CD . Duh. Burn the freakin' CD and then rip it to ogg.

Re:So this is better how?

[GreenPhreak]

Yes, albums with lots of short, good songs are probably better purchased in the normal fashion. Take for instance: They Might Be Giants' album Apollo 18. That has about 20 song tracks collectively entitled "Fingertips". Each song is 5-20 seconds long, and together they are a great listen, but this and similar albums aren't the best candidates for this service. What I like is that now we have a CHOICE between doing it the old fashioned 'buy the whole cd' way, and just buying the music we want way.

Re:So this is better how?

[orthogonal]

Try FLAC, it's open source and just as good, or maybe better.

But that's exactly my point. With a lossless copy, I have exactly what's on the CD. So I can convert it, at any later time, if a better format comes along. I can't do this with a lossy format.

Re:So this is better how?

[GregWebb]

I'm a little worried about all these people who seem to only like 25% of most of their albums... Personally, I buy from good bands and probably like 60-70% of tracks on average. I've got albums way below that, sure, but if you buy from decent musicians the hit rate is normally well clear that.

As a music fan, though, it bothers me that this might become the standard. If it does, we'll hit two problems. Artists won't have an incentive to put out the really cool tracks because they don't get the radio airplay and so don't sell in this 'I can buy only the singles' business model. Yes, it's cool in some ways but it'll hurt in others because they lose any incentive to put out the non-radio friendly songs, which tend to be easily my favourites.

Two, I don't want all by albums to sound like the radio. I want an ablum that develops and has structure as a whole, rather than is just a series of songs. First example that springs to mind is Santana's 'Supernatural' - an album which builds beautifully. Stick the last track at the start and it'd sound daft. Or the first in the middle.

Album song order has a purpose and I don't want that incentive to go.

Finally... Good songs for a decent price...

[vwpau227]

This is wonderful news. I think this is what I wanted all along: good songs for a decent price. Seems like the record industry is finally coming to the point of realizing that people aren't out to rip the artists or the music labels off... just have a good deal for their music.

bah too expensive

[Quasar1999]

make it 25 cents a minute. Canadian!!! I can't afford 99 cents per track... That's like $18 a cd!!!

Re:bah too expensive

[littlerubberfeet]

Not if you are buying Wagner....

Re:bah too expensive

[Triv]

Yes, but it's 18 dollars for 18 tracks you WANT, instead of 18 dollars for 2 tracks you want and 17 tracks of filler. Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Oh wait. What's the catch? There's gotta be a catch. $5 shipping? 3 weeks to make? Unrippable? Not supported by Apple? there's ALWAYS a catch.

Triv

Re:bah too expensive

[Triv]

Yes, but it's 18 dollars for 18 tracks you WANT, instead of 18 dollars for 2 tracks you want and 17 tracks of filler.

Wow. SOMEONE (ahem. me) should've hit preview.

(runs in fear from rabid MathTrolls)

Triv

Re:bah too expensive

[pcidevel]

Yes, but it's 18 dollars for 18 tracks you WANT, instead of 18 dollars for 2 tracks you want and 17 tracks of filler. Doesn't sound too bad to me.

You could do like me and only listen to bands that make full CDs of good music. I can't imagine only wanting to buy a part of a CD. IMHO a band isn't worth listening to unless they build a decent albumn. In fact, a good deal of the best CDs in my collection are intended to be played from start to finish as one full serving of excellent music, not as a collection of individual songs.

Re:bah too expensive

[Triv]

Oh, I can think of tons of discs like that - Ben folds five's "Whatever and Ever Amen", Shawn Colvin's "A Few Small Repairs" and, well, obvious ones like "Dark Side of the Moon", but that doesn't mean there aren't songs out there I've heard and wouldn't mind paying a buck for but would steadfastly refuse to pay $18 for ('cuz that's essentially what you're doing - buying an album for one song you know you like, hoping there's something worth the cash on the rest of it.)

Personally, I've got nothing against random play, but you can listen to your tunes in any manner you desire. :)

triv

Re:bah too expensive

[The Good Reverend]

You could do like me and only listen to bands that make full CDs of good music.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'll change my musical tastes today so I stop liking songs unless I like EVERY song by that artist on that album.

Sometimes, I like a pop song. I don't want the album, but one track may catch my ear. And how exactly do you know beforehand? What happens when a band you like releases a third album with a poor track? Do you throw it away?

Your post just sounds haughty. Not all people only like music that comes as "one full serving".

Re:bah too expensive

[pcidevel]

Altough I agree with you when you say ``listen to full-disc bands'' or something, there ARE great one-musics band of course. Say Steppenwolf. I listened to their record but the only one I really like is Born to be Wild.

But it's very personal. I dig Jethro Tull, but many friends only enjoy Aqualung, or lets say King Crimson: Red is the only thing some people want to hear.

Well, I think I've been horribly misunderstood. I came off like I was saying "My bands are superior because I'm superior" but I was really trying to say "Boycott filler bands, they don't deserve any money at all. Instead buy only the CDs of bands that you think are putting out a quality music, if we all do that, the music industry will change and we'll all get to listen to quality music."

What for

[Joe Jordan]

Why would I want to pay $0.99 when I can already burn songs for free?

Re:What for

[cebe]

Because you get what you pay for in this world. when I download an mp3, it might not be at the bitrate I prefer.. but it's hard to find more than a few copies of it, so i get it anyway. Or you get to the end, and there is no end. The reason I never used napster (not once) is b/c the idiot filter just wasnt there for me.. way too many kiddies who didn't know how to encode worth shit.

I'm not saying I will jump to sign up for $9.99 a month, or use listen.com at all.. I'm pretty bitter about the RIAA's behavior in the past few years, it will probably take me a while to get over it, but at least now I *can* pay for an mp3 and I know that if I pay for it, there better be a fsking ending on it, and maybe even a selection of bitrates to choose from.

Re:What for

[SideshowBob]

I can think of 2 reasons:

1. Existing p2p networks are slow and unreliable. I hate getting half way through a download only for the guy at the other end to disconnect from the network

2. The quality of rips varies *wildly*

Re:What for

[Amazing Quantum Man]

granted, a dollar a song is too much if you want the whole album.

Then if you want the whole album, go out and buy it! You can then rip it to your hearts content.

Re:What for

[Amazing Quantum Man]

So you'd pay more for the album by downloading it??? That was my point. If it costs $15 to download a whole album (see the OP), then just buy the fsckin' thing.

Re:What for

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Oh, I agree. But this thread was due to the original post commenting, "granted, a dollar a song is too much if you want the whole album".

If you want the whole album, just buy it. That way you get the CD to rip and the cover art/liner notes/whatever. If you don't want the whole album, this is what people claim to have been asking for.

What can you get for a buck nowadays?

[Da J Rob]

Please God!

Please don't let them get Alf and Terry Bradshaw to do thier commercials.

I can't take that anymore Lord.

Re:What can you get for a buck nowadays?

[dimator]

Terry Bradshaw: America's Favorite Jackass!

S&M is a 2CD Set

[neurostar]

Metallica S&M would run over $20 on this.

Metallica's S&M CD is a 2 CD set. It retails for $25.

$ .99 * 21 songs = $20.79

You save $4.21!

neurostar

Windows only, 10 songs/month only

[cweber]

I have two problems with this new service:
Their client, Rhapsody, is Windows only, and you can only burn
10 songs per month. Nice try, but lame.

Re:Windows only, 10 songs/month only

[divesnob]

This is the old model. WHen you download v. 2.0 next Monday it'll allow you to burn more. Read the article.

EMusic has done this for years

[linuxbaby]

EMusic, for that same price, lets you download fully unlocked standard MP3 files.

$9.95 a month gets you unlimited downloads - not an additional 99 cents per song. You can burn 'em and do anything you want with 'em.

Emusic a very underrated site, now that their big-advertising VC stuff has gone. Really wonderful. (NO I'm not affiliated.)

Re:EMusic has done this for years

[Kevinv]

that's who i use too. It's not unusual for me to download 10 albums in a weekend (not every weekend)

Re:EMusic has done this for years

[bo-eric]

Yes, emusic would be really wonderful if they started using a decent encoder. Right now they use lame 3.88 @ 128 kbit/s, which sounds terrible in headphones. Luckily they give you a free trial period so that you can see for yourself if it disturbs you or not.

Re:EMusic has done this for years

[GullCity]

Over the past two days Emusic has been terminating the accounts of subscribers with the gall to use unauthorized download managers. This may not be a company you want to have a long term relationship with.

Burned vs Downloaded

[GreenPhreak]

So I'm confused how this works. Is a customer to look at their catalog, decide which songs they want to purchase, select those songs, and then a cd is sent to them that have those custom-selected songs burned on them already (at $.99 / song)? Or is this a situation where if you purchase the songs you get some sort of portable file sent to you over the net? If it is the latter, I wonder what encoding scheme they are using...mp3, wma, ogg? The article was a little low on details.

These aren't exactly the best prices I've ever seen on tracks, but it is nice that one can have the opportunity to only get the tracks they want. I think this is definitely a step in the right direction.

hold on

[psin psycle]

Do you need to subscribe to one of their monthly plans first? This could cost you an additional 9.95/mo or 4.95/mo depending on the package they make you buy. $0.99 per track doesn't seem like such a good price anymore...

Maybe it's just me, but...

[BurntHombre]

I don't get all this talk about "album filler." No, I don't doubt that there actually are albums out there with only one or two good songs -- but I know I don't own any. Doesn't the average Slashdot reader have musical tastes that preclude this sort of bait-and-switch marketing? Or do we decry artists like Britney and N'Sync, while turning around and buying their albums? I mean, avoid the Top 40 and you should be pretty safe.

And if you're going to argue with me, you have to own up to at least two CDs you bought "with only one or two good songs"...so that we can make fun of you. :)

Re:Maybe it's just me, but...

[splattertrousers]

I don't get all this talk about "album filler."

Me neither. Some of my favorite songs are the "deep tracks" that never make it to the radio, which is why I never buy "best of" CDs, and why I wouldn't pay per track.

And one of my favorite albums makes a lot more sense if you listen to all the songs, in order.

Re:Maybe it's just me, but...

[Dr. Evil]

Off the top of my head, when a band sinks, they usually put out one of those albums. Metallica's black album, REM's "Monster", U2's Zooropa.

Bait and switch... maybe. But don't attribute to conspiracy anything which can be more easily explained through simple blunders.

The only way to avoid the top-40 these days is to visit small local bars.

Re:Maybe it's just me, but...

[Peter H.S.]

And if you're going to argue with me, you have to own up to at least two CDs you bought "with only one or two good songs"...so that we can make fun of you. :)

Well, I certainly own more than two records "with only one or two good songs", that is something that happens when you buy records of bands you don't know; some bands seems to have just one or two good songs in them.

That said, I personally always goes for the whole album. A lot of the bands I like (or perhaps their producers) seems to compose their albums, so even the order of the tracks is part of the listening experience. On a lot of my vinyl albums there is even a distinct difference between the A and B side, regarding sound and mood /feeling.

Right now I am listening to a "best of Madness" album. Since I bought most of their records as they came out, it is a somewhat bizarre to hear a selection of "random" tracks, taken out of their context and even out of chronological order.

So I would never use a "buy one track at a time" service. But perhaps this is not meant for people like me who buys lots of records(*), since all serious record buyers I know, have the same "the whole album or it sucks" attitude.

Perhaps this is service is meant for those who don't buy that many records, and who gets musical inspiration from mainstream music channels.
I would make sense if it were so, since the "hits from Top 40" buyers, are the majority.

(*) I actually don't buy that much music anymore, I am getting old :-(.

Re:Before you jump in...

[sweetooth]

I believe that thier 10 tracks a month is only refering to their subscription service which is $9.95 a month. This new service would be pay as you go $0.99 per track. Also if you dig a bit deeper on thier site you'll find it's not even available yet.

Stop Crying Damnit

[Anonymous Coward]

This requires Windows. So, when Version 2.0 comes out and requires a Palladium-enabled version of Windows, how exactly will this be a good thing? Not to mention they've replaced standardized components with their own. What will happen when this software starts burning special copy-protected CDs only and your CD-R reaches the end of its lifespan?

Re:Stop Crying Damnit

[unicron]

That's a pessimistic view. I'm more realist. I really don't see the dark ages of computing just around the corner.

And please, for the love of God please, no one respond with "well the DCMA got passed!". I get a massive laugh out of that.."Damn DCMA got passed..doesn't seem to have effected my download of 20 gigs of warez and mp3's a day, but it's still evil!"

Re:Stop Crying Damnit

[FurryFeet]

I like this idea, and I will buy several (many?) songs as they become available.
If they go Palladium, I'll stop buying their music.
If enough of us do it, they'll have to wake up and smell the coffee...

Re:Stop Crying Damnit

[bigbigbison]

.."Damn DCMA got passed..doesn't seem to have effected my download of 20 gigs of warez and mp3's a day, but it's still evil!"

but isn't that kind of the point of why people don't like it? It doesn't do anything to stop people from downloading music, but it does stop people from doing other things that aren't nearly as questionable leagally.

Re:Stop Crying Damnit

[willfe]

It hasn't affected your downloading warez and mp3's yet. That's an important distinction to note. Remember, the RIAA and MPAA have both openly stated they fully intend to begin poisoning peer-to-peer networks with bogus files to deter people downloading content and go after individuals (that is, not corporations or groups -- but single itty bitty people like you and I) sharing their music.

Of course they haven't started invoking the DMCA in all the evil nasty ways everyone here is predicting. It's too soon. It makes far more sense for this law to stay on the books for years, fall into obscurity, then suddenly reappear with big nasty pointy teeth to bite every music and movie sharing human right in the ass.

That "dark ages" you describe is close and getting closer; the world's most prevalent computing platform (Windows, sad as that may be) is already chock full of "Digital Rights Management" functionality to limit what consumers can do with their music and videos. CPU manufacturers are already building copy-protection schems straight into their hardware right now; the next generation of CPUs will cheerfully obey the MPAA and RIAA's wishes, refusing to run binaries that aren't blessed by someone with deeper pockets than we have.

Someone recently said it perfectly, that this "Trusted Computing" initiative isn't quite how it sounds -- Microsoft are pitching it to sound like we (consumers) can "trust" their operating system. In reality, it's an initiative to make a platform that the MPAA and RIAA can trust -- they can trust that it will only let us do precisely what they grant permission for us to do with the content we pay for, and nothing more. Do you honestly believe "compress to an unencrypted, open format with decompressors and players available for free on all platforms," "compress and transmit to my friends on AIM," and "store for future playback without the original media and license file" are going to be on that list?

Getting back on subject (today's conditions), note that students have been thrown out of dormitories (and sometimes ejected from school entirely) for sharing music, companies (namely Napster) have been sued out of existence not for sharing music, but for enabling others to do the same, and ISPs are being forced to spy on their customers' activities just to avoid lawsuits and criminal prosecution under that lovely law that supposedly hasn't affected you.

Remember: the DMCA created brand new crimes out of thin air. I can literally write "this string is encrypted", forbid you from decoding it without buying a license from me, and if you point out I've ROT26'd it, you've just violated the law. If an RIAA minion catches you handing a CD-R with a copy of a new album on it to a friend, you can be thrown in jail for copying and distributing the material, and your friend can be thrown in jail for receiving it. The DMCA is being invoked more and more every day. I imagine you might be pretty surprised if the cops break your door down to confiscate that evil, crime-breaking computer of yours that's sharing your favorite Pink Floyd tunes, and to haul you to jail for it. You can literally spend more time in jail for a criminal violation of the DMCA than you can for certain violent crimes.

But you're right. I'm just being pessimistic. The DMCA doesn't affect us. Not one bit.

Re:Stop Crying Damnit

[glesga_kiss]

While I do agree with your points, there are a number of things you've overlooked.

Firstly, there is a wealth of mp3 and divx files everywhere. From your hard-drive, to optical media and on the web. Are the DMCA police going to search every single place a person could hide digital media, to make sure it's all removed?

Until they do that, there is nothing to stop me giving a friend a copy of an album or movie, if I wanted to. Drugs are illegal, yet it doesn't do much to stop the trafficing in them, and they are socially frowned apon. Most folk couldn't care less about piracy.

Also, there is a huge amount of non-DRM hardware out there. The DMCA police can pry my car mp3 player from my cold dead hands. Ditto every single PC and Linux disto in the world. Even if some manufacturers make DRM only PCs, there will always be one that doesn't. The US IT industry could be crippled by this, when the other countries step in to make up the consumer demand for non-DRM hardware, but it's your call, if you want to make one of the biggest business mistakes in history, go right ahead. Making the sales of such hardware illegal is also silly, online shopping and local businesses can not be policed to the point that no one is selling any non-DRM hardware. That's not even counting DIY-modifications to the kit.

The DMCA only applies in the USA, WinMX, for instance, doesn't have a US presence. I believe they are based in a European country that doesn't have piracy laws. You could never make enough trade deals and "force" every country in the world to adopt these laws. So, the p2p software will always be available.

So, the only way that the DMCA could stop p2p, would be if the ISPs start blocking it, e.g. by the port number. Then p2p will switch to random-port allocation and the ISPs will have to monitor the traffic, not just the protocols, at a much greater expense. Throw in encryption, tunneling and proxies, it's an impossible task.

I have to laugh when you see the media companies taking all the action to try to stop this. It's a losing battle and I feel that no one in their ranks is brave enough to step up and point out the failings in their policies.

Years ago, they said the internet would change the world. It will, and it's currently doing it right now. Any dinosaur that drags it's heals will soon find itself extinct. Darwin evolution applies to business as well. Thankfully.

Re:Stop Crying Damnit

[glesga_kiss]

The problem is the hardware coming down the pipe -- DRM is fast making inroads, and soon there'll be too much momentum to stop it.

For that to happen, every single manufacturer in the whole world would need to adopt DRM. That's never going to happen. I don't care what laws they try to pass. Modern govenments are too corrupt, accepting legal bribes (campaign contributions), perhaps implementing these laws could lead to a big shakeup of the system. DRM is going to fail. It's an all or nothing, if there are non-DRM products out there, the market will lap them up.

Other countries are already bowing to US pressure to adopt international cyberterrorism laws

Proper cyberterrorism laws do make sense. For instance, if a hacker were to bring down VISA for even a few minutes, it would cost millions in lost sales. The internet is global and laws to keep it from becoming a battle ground must also be internationally accepted.

However, there are a couple of European countries in the world who don't even have piracy laws. They are not going to implement DRM, despite anything the US can do. Trade embargos would only serve against the US's interests, as it would create a lot of Euro-USA tension. The US government isn't an ominipent as it thinks. I'm not sure how the US media reported it, but they got bitch-slapped in the UN over Iraq, hence Bush backing down. It's almost as if Bush is trying to piss the whole world off...

buh-bye, Linux

Not a chance. As I said, there will always be non-DRM hardware available. You can't ban something globally.

that eliminates our right to use encryption at all.

Again, no chance. Big Business would never allow that, they need encryption to operate, especially with the increase in teleworking. That wouldn't be possible without technolgies such as SSH and VPN. Encryption is here to stay, the question is; will the general public be using it in 10 years. I'd like to think so, but I wonder why we haven't seen a rollout of a SSL based SMTP system yet.

What happens when ISPs switch those connections to the firewall model -- one where only "approved" uses are permitted and only known "safe" ports are open

The public wouldn't stand for this. We are supposed to be living in a democracy. The internet is bringing people together politically, but it's a slow process. Recently in the UK there was a legal proposal to increase the number of groups that could access personal data, such as phone records. A completely new grassroots organisation grew in under a week and the overwhelming response to MPs forced them to back down. With a bit of luck, the internet will continue to give the power back to the people. Provided they can draw themselves away from the titties.

The problem is the RIAA and MPAA lobbyists are working long and hard to change our country's laws.

They aren't in my country! And that's the crux of the problem. The American phyche doesn't generally realise how insignificant you are in the world. You automatically assumed that everyone reading your mail was from the USA. It's not your fault, you grew up on TV shows where the invading aliens always went to the US president first. Sure you might have the best military in the world, but that only makes bullying small countries easier. It doesn't sway the big ones, we aren't going to go to war and we both know it. You can't invade someone over DRM. I don't mean to flame or annoy anyone, but that's the way it is. You can do what you want in your own borders, but the rest of the civilised world (ignoring the mess that is the middle east) will also do what they want.

Slashdot Better Like This

[KaiserSoze]

I'd better not hear one peep out of the Slashdot crowd on this one. All anyone ever says on here is "well, I would buy the songs if they were cheap and by the track so I didn't have to buy a whole album". Put up or shut time, /. Most of the posts I've seen so far have been either "they had better let indie artists do it too" or "they don't have anything I want".

Personally, it's nice to own the music I listen to, and if this makes it so I get the songs I want for $15 on one cd rather than for $225 on 15 cds, great. Now, the article seems rather slim on the facts in this case, but I would hope that (a.) the music is in a machine readable format (not copy-protected), or (b.) available in MP3 or some other open format as well.

Re:Slashdot Better Like This

[Kevinv]

i don't think a dollar a track is cheap enough for online delivery. that's still $15 for 15 tracks which is pretty typical for most CD's. I'm paying for the CD and my part of the bandwidth and my burn time....

good start though.

Re:Slashdot Better Like This

[KaiserSoze]

You know what? Reading other posts, I can admit when I'm wrong. It seems the article was a bit short on information. I saw the 9.95/mo price, but did not realize that you could only burn 10 songs per month. Apparently my $1 per track is only good up to a limit. Following another post, I checked out EMusic and it seemed cool at first, though I don't see a whole lot of enticing selections from their sample pages. For example, I like urban/hip hop so I did some searches for artists. One Eminem song, no Dr. Dre songs, no Ludacris. On the other hand, if you are looking for more non-commercial stuff I found 3 Dilated Peoples compilations, 3 Atmosphere compilations, etc. So, if you are looking for commercial, mainstream stuff, Emusic probably (though not definitely) doesn't have it. Yeah, I know there will be many derogatory comments about hip-hop in general, but I like it. I apologize.

Re:Slashdot Better Like This

[k_187]

hat's still $15 for 15 tracks which is pretty typical for most CD's.

Yes, but you're paying $15 for 15 songs you like, which is one of my biggest complaints about CDs anyway. 15 songs, 1 or 2 good ones, 13 pieces o' stinky poo. I think this is a good start, as we can see a couple of the companies trying something new instead of attempting to legislate the new ones out of existance.

Re:Slashdot Better Like This

[fliplap]

While I don't think this is a good idea (CDs are over priced, and they CD Burning option isn't even available yet on this site) I do think they're heading in the right direction.

Take into consideration that most people pay a flat rate for thier bandwidth and don't use all of thier available bandwidth every month. Also, they are also paying for bandwidth.

Also consider that you don't have to pay for gas to goto the record store, and with blank CDs going gor about 30 cents now, there's the money you would have spent in gas. And you don't even have to leave the house! Nor do you have to wait for the CD to be delivered.

I could see this idea working if they got rid of all the DRM crap and let people download plain old high quality MP3s.

Are they starting to wake up?

[mao che minh]

Are the record companies actually starting to wake up? Have they realized that it is easier to adapt then it is to lobby for laws that strip the public of their basic liberties and transform modern computing into a one big right-restricted mess owned and operated by Microsoft?

I doubt it. Likely, there are a clever people at Listen.com that marketed this out of Warner Bros and friends, but will have no effect on the RIAA and MPAA's attempts to take over the world Pinky!

Two questions...

[yamla]

Why $0.99 per song? That seems excessively high to me. I mean, most new CDs here with, say, ten songs on them sell for $14 Canadian (around $8.50 U.S.) while even non-new CDs rarely retail over $17 (about $10.50). It seems to me that this company doesn't provide the same nice CD inserts and the like so really, shouldn't they be charging less? Also, I am assuming they provide you with the uncompressed music burnt onto a custom CD for you. If it is MP3 and/or you download it yourself, $0.20 or so seems more reasonable. And yes, I would pay that. Perhaps a little more, say $0.25 or $0.30, for uncompressed music burnt or pressed onto a CD and sent to you.

Secondly, how much of this money goes to the artist? On the assumption that $1.00 of each regular CD goes to the artist, I would expect to see about $0.10 from each track be paid directly to the artist. Yes, that's while I'm paying approximately $0.20 per track. I don't want to pay per track if the artist simply will not see any revenue whatsoever from this. At least if I buy a CD, there's a chance the artist will see some profit from me.

Re:Two questions...

[Reziac]

I think the unrealistic price is a case of marketing gushing to management about how rich they'll get from downloaded music. "There are billions of songs downloaded every day -- just imagine what that's worth at a buck apiece!!" Not to mention a likelihood of "Besides, the artists don't have any royalty rights from any unspecified distribution media, so it won't cost us a cent!"

Anyone know for sure how current artists' contracts handle media other than the traditional vinyl and CD?

Re:Two questions...

[jelle]

I was thinking exactly the same, a dollar per song is waay to pricey.

However, if they made the songs available in uncrippled mp3 (or ogg), and had a nice gui program that would allow you to quickly 'sample' music to see if its worth downloading and burning, and if it would include a 'people who downloaded this song also downloaded these songs'-type of search-helping features, and if it would send me weekly emails of new music I might like based on what I already downloaded, or based on bands that I selected, and if it would have _all_ music available (including all latest, oldest, and international titles), then I'd even pay a hefty flat rate of $80 a month for unlimited burning on a superlong three year contract. And I'd love it, even though I'd probably get a lot less than 80 songs per month (not enough time to listen to it anyway).

It's all about value and convenience.

So close... yet so far...

[ChaosDiscord]

It sounds so good, then I see the details.

A dollar per track is a bit high, but I would certainly be interested in buying some tracks for that price. However, that price is "in addition to paying a monthly subscription fee of $9.95." I can't imagine buying more than ten songs per month. Once that's worked in we're up to two dollars per track. Two dollars? Too much.

Furthermore, I expect that this new functionality will be available through their proprietary software. I don't want to deal with your unknown software (even if it did run under my primary operating system: Linux). I want to open a account with some money, then download songs off your web site until my account is empty. Nice and simple. Do it for one dollar per song and I'll very occasionally use it for catchy tunes. Do it for fifty cents and I'll regularly use it. Do it for twenty five cents and I'll make heavy use it, regularly buying music on a whim.

Re:So close... yet so far...

[steppin_razor_LA]

Agreed!!!

Re:So close... yet so far...

[Reziac]

Right on -- at 25 cents per high-bitrate MP3, it's not worth my while to chase the same song all over the net. At 50 cents -- well, I'd restrict my use to cuts I'm already sure I can't live without *and* can't find on a used CD somewhere else.

Additionally, let me browse the catalog before I sign up, so I know whether there's even anything in it that I want, and offer low-bitrate (64k mono is fine) free samples, so I can check out stuff I've never heard of.

step in the right direction

[dirvish]

This sounds like a step in the right direction. It is the kind of music pricing/distribution paradigm that makes the most sense to me. I only hope that this can also lower the barrior for new artists. If they will give new artists a chance on their web site it could decrease the power of the record companies.

Re: mod parent up

[Splork]

yep. i just downloaded another gig from emusic today.

at emusic you truely get what you pay for. unlimited downloads for a flat monthly fee. they are all in 128kbit/sec mp3 format. ie: not really CD quality but plenty for most uses. (and if i want full quality on anything i can always bend over and get the CD)

uh

[tps12]

How can they possibly control what I burn? Do they come into my house and install a coin slot on my CD-R drive?

The company also plans on introducing a service allowing you to brew coffee for only 30 cents a cup.

Imagine the savings!

[Hershmire]

$.99 a song? That's great! For a CD with 15 songs, why that's only ... $15 ...

Hey, wait a minute!

I guess they don't want my business

[CoughDropAddict]

In order to register for Rhapsody, you must use one of the following browsers:

* Internet Explorer 5.0, or newer
* Netscape 6.0, or newer

(Please note: In order to use Rhapsody, you will need Internet Explorer 5.0 or newer.)

Oh well.

Re:I guess they don't want my business

[bLanark]

Complain using their customer feedback form. I always complain, if I have the time and a site is bust with my browser. And I did today, to them, too.

We had a recent win with an online supplier in the uk.comp.os.linux newsgroup after several complaints.

This is a chance to make them take notice of the rest of the world.

(Opera, if you ask)

CD value is nothing compared to DVD

[Frank of Earth]

As a few people have already mentioned this; when is the record industry going to realize that the product they are trying to sell isn't worth the money when compared to other items you can buy.

For example, on Amazon.com you can buy Mariah Carey's Glitter cd for 13.28

Even if you're a die hard Mariah fan, there are really only one or two tracks that made it onto the charts. Not to mention that two of the songs on the CD are the same, where one is just a remix.

Compare this to the The Lord of the Rings for 17.97.

Hrm.. a cd that probably was thrown together in a month [free nervous break down included] compared to a movie, like LOTR, which I won't even begin to comment on how magnificiently it was created.

Add in the fact that it would take about 10 minutes to download and create your own glitter cd for free. Unless you're buying this as a gift, most people would just download the one or two popular songs and be done with it. Currently, it's a huge pain in the ass to download avi files. It's easier just to buy the dvd.

Anyways, the worst part about this post is now Amazon is reminding me on the left hand side that I looked at the Glitter cd. If it starts recommending ...

Re:CD value is nothing compared to DVD

[MyHair]

I started to make a similar point in a similar story but realized it's not really a fair comparison. Movies make most of their money in the theater run, and DVDs, pay-per-views, premium cable runs and so forth are secondary revenue streams, so the DVD production has been subsidised by the box office income. A music CD production doesn't have any such subsidy I can think of; it's the primary revenue source.

I still believe CDs are way overpriced, though. And I got burned a few times buying a band's CD from hearing one good song on the radio only to find out I paid $15+ for one good song that constantly plays on the radio plus 10 really crappy songs. So I have bought hardly any CDs lately. I'll only buy if I know there are several songs I like.

no love for Opera users :(

[m.lemur]

[trying to sign up for trial] "Please upgrade your browser. In order to register for Rhapsody, you must use one of the following browsers: Internet Explorer 5.0, or newer Netscape 6.0, or newer (Please note: In order to use Rhapsody, you will need Internet Explorer 5.0 or newer.) Get the latest version of Internet Explorer Get the latest version of Netscape"

I'm late, but... concerning quality

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

According to their website, these guys are distributing music from .MP3 format -- they use lossy compression, which devastates the quality of the audio.

If you want to see how bad the loss is, load up CoolEdit or Audacity and view your mp3s under "Spectrum View" with a range up to 22050 -- I promise that just everything above 16000 will be missing and black, though the original CD audio will have all that quality intact. It's what gives MP3s their "flat" sound on any decent equipment.

I know CDNow uses the original data for their custom CDs, so just buy it from them.

Re:I'm late, but... concerning quality

[Snork Asaurus]

You must be psychic. I just spent several hours with Audacity doing that very thing. I was trying to profile the results of several encoders at different bit rates against a baseline ripped wav (I wish that Audacity would let you display several spectral analysis displays at once). You're absolutely right that at 128 kbps, there is a sharp rolloff at 15-16 kHz. Once you get to 256 kbps, though, its up around 20 kHz - outside of most peoples' hearing range. Even at 256 kbps, you still get the losses from the spatial (spectral?) redundancy reduction, so there is still a slight perceivable loss of quality if you do an A/B. But, for most of my listening, 256 kbps mp3 encoding (using a GOOD encoder) is just fine and even 128 kbps VBR (using a GOOD encoder) is quite acceptable. A lot of bad sounding mp3's that I've encountered are the result of poor encoders, poor source material, bad EQ'ing, clipping, etc.

The down side...

[BigJimSlade]

The upside of this, of course, is that it won't be necessary to pay for songs that are just "album filler".

The down side is that $8 punk album I just bought would cost $29.69 online.

Re:The down side...

[Polo]

Yeah, but an entire Grateful Dead album would be $0.99... ;)

They're kidding, right?

[kaustik]

How is this going forward? I can walk to the record store and purchase a CD with 16 tracks for about $12 - cool case, cool cover, lyrics, everything.
Or, I can spend my time searching for the tracks I want, pay for my own blank CD, bandwidth, wear on my burner, and end up with a crappy copy (marked with a Sharpie, of course) and a few more files in my playlist for a few dollars MORE!

My worthless two cents:

[mcc]

$10 for the month's subscription, plus $12 for 12 songs.. $22 for a 12-track mix tape, seems to me like not a *great* deal, but that's really not bad either since i get to pick what the 12 songs are. I'd almost be inclined to say they "get" it. In fact, i'd be inclined to say, "yeah, i'll pay for that."

Except, oops, it looks like you have to have windows in order to do any of this stuff. I don't own windows, just this macintosh. My college does have some WindowsXP labs with CD-Rs drives, but the since the user-permissions policies here are currently in the process of changing i'm not sure if i'll actually be able to use their client there. And i do not feel like badgering one of my friends to let me take over their computer for a few hours each month so that i can compose and make for myself mix cds.

Looks like listen.com just lost a customer. Too bad they chose to tether their downloads to DRM technology.. then they wouldn't have to limit themselves to customers who use one software platform.

In the meantime, this emusic thingy that i found linked on this same slashdot forum looks *great*. Looks like i'll be taking my $9.99 over there instead..

More for less

[Rip!ey]

It's just more for less. A step in the right direction, but still somewhat disappointing.

What do I mean?

It's simple. $0.99 for each song. That's in American dollars so for me that comes to around $2.00 each. Add it up and I'm paying the same as I would if I purchased a new release at the local retailer. This is based on the fact that if I look through my CD collection, they average around $25 - $30 each (new release), with an average of 10-15 songs.

If it's an old release, I'm paying more.

At the same time, the pressing and distribution costs for the distributor have substantially decreased. So it adds up to more profits for their bottom line.

Will that in turn mean more money for the artist? Somehow, I doubt it.

Not having to pay for the album fillers is about the ONLY benefit here I can see. Thing is, for most of the music that I buy, I really don't find to many of them.

Am I being pessimistic?

Too bad

[Tuffnut]

Its too bad all those P2P kids don't have credit cards, otherwise this would be a good idea.

this is bad.

[1lus10n]

this is bad. not good. for one simple reason - you are still getting hosed. $.99 is a rip off when you have to pay for the bandwidth, and the materials (blank cd) to make a single track usefull.

not to mention the only reason i use p2p is to find non-mainstream non-commercial stuff. if i wanted to listen to some friggin skinny blonde chick sing about her teenage crush i would go buy her CD ! i want indie artists and sampling.

if you dont own the CD how are you supposed to know what you want to download ? pay $.99 per track off the album plus for your bandwidth and the blank CD ? so ....
15 songs 15 x .99
1 blank cd 1 x 1.00 (guessing)
bandwidth .30 (guessing)
= $ 16.15 per CD.
wow that sounds like its STILL A FRIGGIN RIPOFF !

ill give them credit when they come up with a better soulution for ME ! the CUSTOMER. NOT THEM the EVIL MEGA-CORP.

although i will give them credit for trying. albiet a shitty attempt.

Burn? Not exactly.

[Eric Seppanen]

The article title "Burn A Song For 99 Cents" is misleading. They're offering the same crap we've seen before; encrypted DRM-laden tracks that you can't use anywhere but your machine, without their approval. Check out their FAQ:

9. Can I burn CDs?
Yes. If you subscribe to any catalog that offers CD burning, you can burn up to 10 tracks a month.

10 tracks per month? That's not even one whole CD! Give me a break. And it's pretty obvious that not all of their "catalogs" will allow burning. This is a perversion of fair use: "oh, you want to take it with you? Well, that'll cost you another $___".

I will never pay a single dime for crippled formats.

10 song per month CD burning limit

[systemapex]

Read the FAQs. This is horrible. You can't even burn one average-sized album onto a CD. Not to mention the proprietary CD burning component isn't available yet.

Re:10 song per month CD burning limit

[BoneFlower]

Calm down.

This is the first time the big labels have done soemthing like this to my knowledge. They aren't going to replace their main business model yet. They will test the waters, and tweak things according to their pocketbooks. If they see that it can make money, they will look at what customers say about it- What would get customers to spend more money here, and what would bring more customers into the fold. Whatever tweaks get them the most money they will make. Use the service if you can afford it, and make damn sure the company knows what you like, what you don't like, and what new things you want to see added that could get you to spend more. They may well ignore your recommendations. But if you don't let them know what they are, they WILL ignore them.

Perhaps I'm in the minority...

[Yobgod Ababua]

...but I will lament the lower circulation of "other" tracks. In my experience, there is usually a track or two on every album that are grossly underestimated by The Recording Industry(tm) and thus don't receive the advertising, airplay, or circulation that they deserve.

It used to be, once I got that album home to listen to, these provided a pleasant surprise, and often became some of my favorite tracks.

Now I (and I presume everyone else) will be significantly less likely to hear those tracks (because we'd have to pay for them before receiving, and are unlikely to have heard them through 'regular' channels) and even more excellent music may be lost to the common consciousness.

How do we know whether a song is "filler" or "underappreciated gem" until we hear it?
How do we hear it before we pay for it?

great content

[Sebastopol]

i guess it works if i happen to be a fan of brittney spears, shakira, blink-182 or what other crapstar of the moment the RIAA happens to be hawking. too bad.

it sure would be nice to put together a frontline assembly mix without all those damned remixes! (damn you bill leeb, and your little sequencer too!!!)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Four times cheaper for back catalog access

[yerricde]

Sure you get to cut the worthless songs but even then the prices match the store prices

The price matches, but the quality I can get for a given price increases dramatically. When I go to Best Buy and plunk down my hard-earned 13 USD for an album with 13 songs on it, I want 13 songs I like, not three. The way I see it, these CDs will be four times cheaper than[1] the CDs I can buy at Best Buy.

[1] Pedants: "Cheapness" here refers to the number of discs I can afford with a given amount of money. Thus, "Four times cheaper than" means "one-fourth as expensive as".

This is not far enough a benefit to make it a sustainable venture.

How can you be sure that four times cheaper for the average fan of oldies singles isn't enough of a benefit?

Re:Four times cheaper for back catalog access

[Sethb]

If the music industry wants my money, here's what they need to do. I want an online/kiosk service where I can choose from every song ever recorded, arrange them in the order I'd like them to appear on my CD, and pay 25-50 cents per track. The CD would either be burned on the spot at the kiosk, or delivered to me in the mail at home, complete with liner notes with all the lyrics for each song, and the option of including MPEGs of the applicable music videos so that I could watch them on my computer. There is not a single technological reason today why this couldn't be done, and I think most people would agree that it's a pretty reasonable business model. Heck, go one step farther, and make it a dollar per track, but I'm licensed to use that track for my entire lifetime, in whatever current music format is popular, that way I don't have to re-buy the song for my 8-track, cassette, LP and MP3 players. Let's also do away with the traditional album format of 3-4 good songs, and 10 songs of crap, let me mix and burn my own music without the need of my own PC, and give me something (liner notes, lyrics, videos, & cover art) that I can't easily produce on my own. And, while we're on the subject, why does a CD cost more than a cassette, though cassettes cost more for the record labels to produce? And why does a CD with one hour of audio (which cost thousands of dollars to produce) cost as much as a DVD, filled with several hours of video AND audio that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce? If the record companies and artists can't make a profit at the price I'm proposing, then they deserve to fail.

Re:Four times cheaper for back catalog access

[jelle]

You forget that you're paying for the distribution (Internet connection), for the media (cdr's), and for the manufacturing (cd burner) too.

99 cents per song is a good start for early adopters, but way overpriced for the mass market.

Re:Four times cheaper for back catalog access

[Rinikusu]

Here's what the music industry needs to do to get my business (my apologies to Braveheart):

They should pay ME to use their service. They should then apologize and beg the forgiveness of every musician they've ever ripped off. They should then bend over backwards and kiss their own asses.

sorry.

Closer

[limekiller4]

My gut instinct was to say "nonsense, still way too expensive," but I think this is a step in the right direction (but still nonsense).

The problem is ...true, this will allow users to eliminate filler content but -- and here is the problem -- it still won't encourage musical exploration. In other words, I can dive right into all the genres I want via [insert your favorite p2p program here] and dig a bit deeper for those I decide I like. A buck per song doesn't even come close to the impulse buying pricepoint that is the pivot for a lot of people.

Give me a mechanism to download all the music I want for free and make tracks I keep longer than 48 hours cost 20-40 cents and I'd probably never touch Kazaa again.

By and large this is pure gravy for the artists and labels since it is very, very likely that even without any p2p client available to me, I'd never have purchased that album. No packaging, no distribution, less marketing. Pure profit.

So ...again, too little too late, but who knows. Maybe, just MAYBE they're getting a clue.

Diceptive article introduction

[iCEBaLM]

After checking out listen.com and the article the into is very deceptive. You can't just pop off $0.99 and download an mp3. You have to sign up for a $9.95 /mo plan and *use their "rhapsody" software* which looks to be windows only and *then* pay $0.99 on top of that for every track you want. Hardly worth it.

-- iCEBaLM

IF, the catalog you subscribe to

[Archfeld]

allows CD burning you can burn UP TO 10 tracks a month !!! This is no better than any of the other offers. There is no further understanding of the medium or compromise, just more of the same crap with a different description.

Pardon me - how much disk space?

[Snork Asaurus]

From the website : MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS: Windows PC, 350 MHz, 250 MB HD Space

It looks like MS has the full DRM module ready.

Re:Pardon me - how much disk space?

[Snork Asaurus]

Sorry for the AC post above. Opera ate my cookies a few hours ago and I have to use a different browser (which I forgot to do for this post) until I get time to find my Slashdot password.

Curious

[limekiller4]

I'm wondering what stops someone from doing this exact same thing for 1/5th of the price from a country that does not respect the United States intellectual properties laws.

math

[jdkane]

[snip] the ability to burn tracks on a pay-as-you-go basis, in addition to paying a monthly subscription fee of $9.95.

I did some figuring out of curiosity ....

From a price point of view that's about $120/yr so you can burn songs for 99 cents a piece.

The average list price for a CD is US$18.98 including the tracks you want and don't want. Let's say about 10 songs per CD, then I'm paying $1.90 per song off the shelf. From the subscription service, if I purchase 10 songs per month then I will be paying $19.85 for that month (close to the same cost of a retail CD).

Consider that Amazon often discounts CDs. On average an Amazon CD will cost about $14.99 ($1.50 per song based on 10 songs). In this case you only have to burn 5 songs per month to make up the equivalent off-the-shelf Amazon price. Not bad.

Of course the more you burn per month (beyond these numbers) the more money you save compared to shelf prices.

And you can't beat the listenting pleasure of hand-picked music. That's worth a whole lot more.

Not as good as it looks....

[carlmenezes]

Sure, less than a buck a song sounds good...UNTIL...

You realise it'll take you 20 bucks to burn one CD's worth - ie. 20 Mp3s, which won't fill up a CD - so now, for one Mp3 CD which can hold, say 100 songs at a conservative estimate, you're paying 100 bucks! Think about that.

The idea, however, is good. It gives the customer a little more choice. The price, however, is NOT. This is not an example of businesses meeting the customer...it's an example of businesses MILKING the customer. Wait, don't flame me yet - I have justification :
The recording studios are already charging say...between $14 and $18 for an audio CD - we're talking uncompressed, high-quality music.

Now, they want me to shell out more for something that is of lower quality? I'm sorry, but this sucks. Also, what about copyright information embedded in the Mp3? I bet there'll be some. Or even water-marking perhaps. Do I, as a customer, have control of that? I don't think so.

Give me the same thing for about 50 cents a song with the choice of what format i want it and I might consider it. After all, this is lower quality audio that won't sound better no matter what i do since it is lossy compression in the first place.

album filler, etc

[syrinx]

I *still* like my nice packaging and nice looking CDs, rather than a CDR with "Bob the Box - I Like Potatoes" or whatever written on it with a Sharpie.

Also, as other people have commented, the whole "album filler" thing seems a bit off to me. In general, my CDs have one or two songs I don't like, or even songs that suck, but those are the minority.. I don't get the "one song rocks, everything else sucks" thing.

And even if you could weed out the songs that suck, how would you know which ones suck and which ones don't, unless you already know them? Many times the best songs are the ones that hit me suddenly after weeks or months or years of having the album, and never really noticing it before, and suddenly, bam, wow, that song rocks, why didn't I notice it before?

well, that's just my 2 lire (I don't presume to think that my opinions are worth as much as $0.02.. ;) )

10 cents a track and you could have a winner

[LoRider]

If they didn't charge a monthly fee and just let you throw $20 into an account and let you download until you ran out of money and only charged $0.10 a track and you could download mp3s and politicians started telling the truth and if I could walk outside my house or turn on the tv and not get bombarded with advertising and if greed wasn't everyone's sole motivator and if the US (my homeland) stopped pissing on everyone else in the world then I would use their service.

If they accomplished everything before I started ranting and raving about stupid shit that no one really cares about, I would use their service.

But how much do the artists get?

[PhantomHarlock]

Can someone provide a breakdown of that 99 cents, and what goes where? I'd rather use a service that interfaces directly with the artists, so that the artists get to keep 80 of those 99 cents. If a few major musicians band together and create something like that, many more will follow. Janis Ian are you listening? The catch is that the artists who have already signed their rights away to the labels in perpetuity will never have this option. The most often heard piece of advice for new artists negotiating contracts is "get a lawyer!"

--Mike

Still too expensive

[cornice]

Until the record companies get serious about on-line music and begin to understand what people really want to do with music, this won't work. Where did this $1 per song come from? It's not even competitive with a CD with more songs, cool artwork, built in convenience, etc. The problem is that the record companies don't want to hurt their current channels of distribution - which they have a strangle hold on. There is plenty of room to drop prices for on-line music. Consider a $20 CD. It's likely been through two tiers of distribution, each making a keystone markup. This would mean that the distributor price is about $5. This is what the record company would have to stream the CD for, with everything else being equal, to make the same wild profits that it makes now. I would bet that the transaction costs and bandwidth costs could easily be lower than the production and distribution costs of CDs. So why don't they want to make this happen? Because they already own the current market. Because someone else could easily undercut them at this game. Because they haven't figured out a way to guarantee their dominance in this market...Plus the CD retailers would throw a fit.

Re:positively redundant

[chris_mahan]

Nahh,

I want to go to their site, listen to the music, then "order" a custom-made CD with 15-18 WAV tracks with the track titles I choose from the "extensive" library, in the order I wish, delivered to my house, with a nice jewel-case, and an insert with photos and lyrics, delivered in 3 days.

Then I'll pay the 99c per track. Heck, my wife is arranging music for a party. She has a list long like her arm. She would already have ordered 3 CDs like that. Instead, she's scrounging to find the tracks with friends.

Re:There are ways to burn whatever you hear. . .

[cweber]

Correct, but I'd much rather have a service that works right out of the box and allows what we need/wish/want/do anyway. It's called customer service and customer satisfaction.

Microsoft doesn't want another black eye.

[yerricde]

if and when Palladium and trusted security prevents the average non-techie home Windows user from burning his or her own CDs

And that's a big if, to which the answer is "probably not." Microsoft has repeatedly stated that Palladium will not interfere with any applications that don't know anything about Palladium, such as CDex or CDRDAO. The only way your scenario will play out is if a future version of Windows places CD audio extraction and recording into a Palladium vault, which I don't see as likely to happen given the big stink that users raised about CD writing software not working with Windows XP. Microsoft doesn't want another black eye.

The devil's in the details

[TheTick]

I'm happily pay for music (or movies or tv shows or books) I might download, but the details have to be acceptable.

1. The cost has to be sensible. I'm not going to pay more for music than it would cost me to get it on CD, unless there is comensurate value added. I'll pay a dollar a song as long as I can listen to a sample version first and decide if it's something I want to have. (Wouldn't it be nice to avoid paying for the "filler" often found on an album?)
2. I would much prefer to buy by the song than pay a monthly flat rate.
3. "Space shifting" is my prerogative. There should be no limitations on my fair use of the content just because I'm downloading it instead of purchasing traditional media. I don't want to steal it and give it away to others, but I may want to burn it to a CD for my car.
4. I don't want any special clients or software. I'm not a windows user, and I won't become one just to get some tunes. Just give me a web catalog with a sample link and an "Add to cart" link.

These aren't difficult requirements to meet it seems to me, except by panicy and sluggish business entities that can't read the writing on the wall.

Re:Burn? Not exactly.

[bmarklein]

Wrong!

There's no information on Listen's site about Rhapsody 2.0, which will feature burning. The FAQ you list applies to their current service, specifically the Naxos Classical subscription.

The new service will have no DRM, and you will be able to buy as many tracks as you want at 99 cents each. The interesting thing is that they are going to stream PCM audio directly to the burner. So, DRM won't be the issue, buffer underruns will be when their streaming servers can't keep up with your CD player!

Conspiracy Theory Time

[futuresheep]

It's my belief that sites like Listen.com are set up to fail, not succeed. The Record Companies don't want them to become popular and profitable. They want to see the use of P2P outlast them. Why?

This way they can cry, "We tried offering a way for people to get music online, but they STILL don't want to pay! Please help us out with more restrictive legislation to punish these evil pirates!" Their real goal is to get complete control over their product, and destroy any fair use rights that you have left.

Remember how to boil a frog.

Excellent!!!!

[ToasterTester]

Finally the artist will get their royalites and users will get inexpensive music. It's a win-win situation.

Songwriter gets a royalty

[yerricde]

One "set charge per track" will break in a lot of ways.

Yeah, but it's the law. In the USA, a songwriter gets a fixed 8 cent cut per song five minutes or less in duration. (The royalty increases with the duration of the composition.) The songwriter typically splits the royalties 50/50 with a publisher, meaning that on a typical album with twelve songs, the songwriter gets just under half a buck a disc.

is this a hoax?

[GoatPigSheep]

Is this for real? I'm sorry I have trouble believing it! Are record companies actually acting smart and reasonable? What next? MTV playing GOOD music?

CD fillers avaliable!

[mrbrown1602]

Oh boy, I can see it now. They'll disable the songs that people actually want to hear and let you burn the CD fillers. Yay!

Let's clear up some misconceptions

[maleficentgruel]

Hey guys, I work for Listen.com and am the main technical producer of Rhapsody. It's great to see such heated discussion and there are a lot of great points here. However, I gotta point out some misconceptions:

1) the FAQ is OLD. We're launching on Monday with what we call "a la carte" CD burning. This means you can burn as many CDs as you want. No monthly restrictions, no restrictions at all.

2) The audio format on the CD is regular redbook audio. No DRMs, no restrictions. They're yours after you pay the $.99

3) If you want to check out Rhapsody without paying, just register and download it if you want to see the artist list. You can listen to 30 second clips and a selection of radio stations without paying us.

(remember that this is not released yet. wait 'til next week. ok, back to QA...gotta burn me some CDs ;)

Re:Let's clear up some misconceptions

[Joey7F]

Okay so here is one for you, do you still pay the monthly fee? Is it 9.99 per month plus .99 per download?

If that is the case, there is no way I am doing this. I barely buy 5 cds a year. If it is truly ala carte, then this is the closest thing to our requests (other than the windows only part) and I will go for this!

--Joey

All those songs and no search function?

[minus23]

I checked the site out... I couldn't actually find a search function. Sure I can browse... but not my idea of fun. -- I'm sure you get the search feature after you register... but requiring people to register to even see what content is offered is not a good idea.

I'm very lazy... I'm also the common man on the internet.

Mix discs without a PC?

[yerricde]

make it a dollar per track, but I'm licensed to use that track for my entire lifetime, in whatever current music format is popular, that way I don't have to re-buy the song for my 8-track, cassette, LP and MP3 players.

That's what the current model does. A 10-track disc costs $10, and under the Betamax precedent, you can copy it to whatever writable medium is popular at any time.

let me mix and burn my own music without the need of my own PC

Mix your own music without a PC? How are you supposed to do beat-matched crossfaded transitions between songs? Yes, I do that on my own mix discs, even of rock music.

And why does a CD with one hour of audio (which cost thousands of dollars to produce) cost as much as a DVD

A soundtrack album (or any other CD for that matter) is as expensive as the movie because unlike the movie, you can play an CD in your car, in the kitchen, in your pocket player while jogging. Unlike a movie, a recording doesn't demand your full attention. Thus, you play it more often.

Re:Mix discs without a PC?

[DEBEDb]

how many people listen to music at 140 BPM?

Like, a lot? :)

Re:Mix discs without a PC?

[GMontag451]

A 10-track disc costs $10, and under the Betamax precedent, you can copy it to whatever writable medium is popular at any time.

The Betamax case says absolutely nothing about media-shifting, only time-shifting. Now if you had mentioned the Diamond case, you might have a point. Please, get your facts straight when you want to talk about the legality of an issue like this one.

Re:Mix discs without a PC?

[commodoresloat]

Mix your own music without a PC? How are you supposed to do beat-matched crossfaded transitions between songs?

I use this thing called a "turntable." It's really cool, if a little unweildy, and the music is recorded in the entirely noncontroversial LP3 format.

Re:Mix discs without a PC?

[Pogue Mahone]

LP3 format.

Isn't that "LP33+1/3" format?

Re:Mix discs without a PC?

[radish]

Mix your own music without a PC? How are you supposed to do beat-matched crossfaded transitions between songs? Yes, I do that on my own mix discs, even of rock music.


Errr, no wait, I know this one, err......just a second...if I could just remember...GOT IT! Get some decks, learn to mix. The results will be far better and you'll have some fun at the same time.

Re:Mix discs without a PC?

[glesga_kiss]

Why on earth would you want to buy a mixed disk? You are paying for each song, why ruin them by overlaying another song at the start and end?

By all means, give us the ability to make good mixed disks at home, but surely you don't want your personal master recording unable to be put on any other disks or mixes you make because it has elements of other songs in it?

By the way, if you are into mixing, check out Stanton's Final Scratch. It's a linux distro that hooks up over usb to normal turntables. You use a couple of special vinyl disks with encoding on them, and it translates the position and speed of the disk onto the PC, which manipulates the mp3/wav/ogg in the same way. Apparently you can mix between digital and vinyl music transparently, using normal DJ skills.

I've not tried or seen this product, but it sounds pretty neat.

For a software product that is similar, check out Traktor. I have tried this products demo, and it's pretty cool. You need two soundcards to get the most out of it, otherwise you won't be able to preview the mix.

Note the Traktor does BPM calculation and automatic sync'ing (if desired), a travesty according to my DJ'ing friends. Final Scratch doesn't (AFAIK), it just lets you use digital media on a turntable. You need your own decks, mixer and DJ skills for this.

What? They're not PAYING me to burn their tracks?

[IdleTime]

I give up!!!

You kids are killing me. For ages you have been complaining about not beeing able to do this or not beeing able to do that. Finally when the industry puts out a model where you can actually buy the music YOU like, for a given price (we can ofcourse discuss if it should be 99 cents or 90 cents or 80...), you all start screaming "Bloody Murder!"

What will the industry have to do to satisfy you whiners? Pay you to download and burn a track to CD?

I'm getting sick and tired of your downright stupid comments. Give the industry a chance, give them feed-back. Say that 99 cents is too much, but don't expect them to give away the music for free. They are not in the P2P busines, but in the music business to MAKE money, not for charity.

If you can't afford to buy music by paying 99 cents a track, get an education, then get a job that pays you enough to download the music. Personally, I have no problems paying the charge, $20 is less than what I make an hour after taxes and other deductions.
Get a life, get a jobe! Pay for the stuff you enjoy, don't steal!

Brave New World

[Henry V .009]

Welcome to the future. They aren't even selling you the music anymore. They're selling you a proprietary DRM format that can only play on a computer--with the option of paying extra to burn 10 tracks (per Month!!) to a CD. (I wonder if it will even be a normal mp3 or audio CD. Maybe they'll just stick their proprietary format and player on the CD.)

A couple of years from now, the new plan will be to only let you listen to it 3 times before you have to buy it again or some such.

Goddamn, doesn't anyone realize that a system that sold tracks for 25 cents a piece in whatever format you wanted would make a ton of money? The worries about piracy in that sort of system are completely irrational. But then anybody could do it...and no control for the big boys is just intolerable I guess.

Forget burning... iPod/mp3 player support!

[NickV]

If they supported my iPod, and I was even forced to download directly to the iPod and not even keep a copy of it on the computer, I'd be very happy.

Don't they realize that the people who will sign up for this service are the cutting edge music-listeners, the ones that will probably own an mp3 player and not a discman for their portable music needs?

Here, at last...

[ArthurKing]

...is something that I would pay for. The idea of being able to pay for music that I would enjoy is very appealing to me. My main reason for not buying a CD is that I have to pay for one or two songs that I would actually enjoy listening to as well as eighteen or nineteen that I would never listen to in my life.

Some people have commented that $0.99 per song is too much to pay, but I think that's preopsterous! Compare $0.99 per enjoyable song to $10.00 per enjoyable song (assuming that you like two songs on the disc you purchase).

Although I'm sorry to say it, however, I don't think I would pay even for this, good idea though it is. The reason for that is simply that I have very fickle taste in music... my $10 or $20 investment might, in as little time as a month, seem completely foolish to me.

What strikes me as most interesting is that the record labels were willing to work with this site on this issue. They must be getting rather desperate for any money they can get. Food for thought, eh?

Deceptive description

[InnovATIONS]

Apparently 9.95 buys you unlimited listening of a wide variety of music, no burning (yet).

A separate 9.95 buys you unlimited listening of the entire Naxos library of classical recordings plus the ability to burn 10 of them per month onto CDs (is that where the 99 cents number comes from 9.95/10?). Anyway once you are talking about classical 10 per month is a lot (would the entire 70 minute 9th symphony of Beethoven count as one song? If so it is a steal)

Anyhow from some of the posts here it is clear that some folks just want something for nothing and are able to go to some twisted rationalizations to justify it.

Not only the 99Cents per track

[thumbtack]

but the monthly subscription fees as well, of 9.95. This according to the PR Guy from Listen.Com (Matt Graves) on the Pho List..

First, you must be subscribed to the Rhapsody "All Access" plan ($9.95/month) to purchase and burn tracks; people that aren't subscribed will not be able to purchase & burn tracks.

There is unlimited burning allowed at 99 cents per...but the catalog is quite limited, only 75,000 tracks..

Beat-matching in kiosks; DVD format-shifting

[yerricde]

I've found for my type of music they tend to detect the BPM at half the value it should

Which, for the record, does not affect the beat matching, as matching one beat of one song to two beats of the next song (e.g. a 90 bpm slow rock song to a 180 bpm speed-metal song) can be made to sound quite nice. But anyway, misdetection of tempo isn't much of a problem in kiosks, as the xml file that holds artist, title, price, etc. can also hold time-signature and tempo terms.

There's no reason [that digital beat matching] technology can't be integrated into a kiosk.

Other than that the record labels aren't smart enough to want to provide that functionality for those who demand more from their mix discs. <roleplay role="record label executive">If catering to the "three second gap between songs" crowd is enough to turn a decent profit, why add more features?</roleplay>

I can [space- and format-shift the music on] a DVD.

But can you do it for songs for which the band has not released a music video? And, for movie soundtracks, can you remove the dialogue when the actors speak over the soundtrack?

Re:Beat-matching in kiosks; DVD format-shifting

[shepd]

>But can you do it for songs for which the band has not released a music video?

My "Blue Man Group" DVD would say so. :-) (Depending on what you're meaning -- this is an Audio only DVD with only 1 or 2 static images per song).

>And, for movie soundtracks, can you remove the dialogue when the actors speak over the soundtrack?

Yeah! Alternate audio is a huge feature of the DVD format. There's no reason you can't have a soundtrack track, and a soundtrack+speaking track, etc, etc. Unfortunately I don't DVD supports mixing the tracks, though.

Multiple angles would be the best way of dealing with the no-music-video problem... Daft Punk did an OK job of using multiple angles, but unfortunately not as I'd like.

I've yet to see a DVD fully take advantage of the features available with DVD, though.

>If catering to the "three second gap between songs" crowd is enough to turn a decent profit, why add more features?

Good point, but as someone who DJs for fun on College radio, I'm really starting to hate all these continuous mix CDs that are coming out. One or two are good for when you need a break, but not everything. :-)

Re:Beat-matching in kiosks; DVD format-shifting

[willfe]

I've yet to see a DVD fully take advantage of the features available with DVD, though.

Hehehe, you must not watch much DVD pornography, then :) It's been said time and again -- porn always seems to drive technology. Lots of adult DVDs these days have multiple camera angles. Sometimes they do a crap job (i.e. to keep one "angle" you have to switch angles around as each stream has edits in them where they switch to different cameras), but sometimes they do pretty well with it.

I don't know if I'd want a pornography director to bother with multilingual audio and subtitling, though. Pornography with 5.1 audio? "Man, oh, man, it sounds like she's right there in your living room, er, moaning and stuff!"

Re:What? They're not PAYING me to burn their track

[GuNgA-DiN]

You are absolutely right in saying that the record companies are not in the charity business. But, they aren't in the music business either. They are dead weight. Outlived. Dinosaurs. They are trying their damndest to carve out a job for themselves.

But, the truth is that we (the listeners and creators) of music don't need them any more. They are just trying real hard to be the middleman. I won't support their hair-brained schemes.

Some guy in the 1890's used to have the market cornered for buggy-whips. But, he was no longer needed and his source of income disappeared. The record companies (as they exist now) will be gone before you know it!

I buy music. I support local bands. And, I support artists who allow me to sample their music in non-proprietary formats (like OGG or MP3). And, I buy music from artists who sell directly. There is no need for me to give my money to the RIAA.

it happens

[MrChuck]

You're in a studio. You've spent WEEKS laying out a 10 tracks. Everything is fine. Except the contract with the evil record company says "at least 11 tracks" and you're short some minutes.

Okay, that song you've been toying with a bit gets recorded. Its ok, not ideal. But if you spend another week in the studio, you're paying even MORE for the time and your contract says this will be ready to be mastered by next week.

You're not proud of it, but it's good enough to slide in between tracks 6 and 8.

It happens. Really.

Bad is when you have 4 - 6 songs like that.

The grateful dead cut side two of an album up into several tracks to meet warner brothers contracts requiring "n tracks" per album.

Music and law meld as well as music and big business.

It's a step - inadequate, but a start

[MrChuck]

okay, CD's came out for around $10/CD when record albums were around $6-$8 per.

Why?
Cause there was something like 1 CD burning plant in the hemisphere. Costs were high. Understood.

Since then (1984?) costs have plunged. The entire cost of the CD, case, liner notes, etc. is around $0.80. Art work might be a little more, but CD's are too small to really have good art.

So record companies rake it in. Artists don't get any more money with the overhead being down, they just bend over and hope the record companies have KY.

Now the companies want to remove the case, the artwork, and everything but the raw bits from the equation. Yeah, someone pays for bandwidth. 1 cost after the master is burned.

And the prices are higher per song that most CDs.

F*ck that. Give me a decent indie band and I'll Paypal them a quarter per song and the artists will make far more money per song than they would in the "big leagues".

I'd also do the micropayment model that's been around:
Everytime I listen to a song, the artist gets 1/4 cent from me.

When my account is dry, I can't listen to the song anymore.

Hows that?

The problem with 99 cents

[cdf12345]

The problem I have with this is that the record industry feels that if you buy a CD track by track, you should end up paying the same as you would if you went to the store and bought the cd.

Online distro should be and is cheaper than printing and distributing regular CDs, so consumers should see that savings also.

I mean theres no way I'd pay $1 a track for a 24 track techno cd.

Creepy Terms of Use

[Tremblay99]

3. UPGRADES

You acknowledge that Listen may issue upgraded versions ... from time to time, and may automatically electronically upgrade the version of the Application that you are using on your computer. You consent to such automatic upgrading, and agree that this Agreement (as amended from time to time) will govern all such upgraded versions.

In effect, you agree at the time of initial installation of the software to all future installations of software from them. You are also bound to any and all future EULAs by agreeing to the first one, as borne out by:

13. Modification

Listen may modify this Agreement at any time in our sole discretion. A change of terms notice will be posted at the top of this Agreement located at [URL nuked], and we may also notify you by email in some instances.

Nice. They automatcially update your EULA, but reserve the right to not directly inform you about it -- it's up to you to periodically check in.

They might be getting some of the content distribution stuff right, but they're lousy on customer service ... and rights.

That is not correct

[YourGarbageMan]

"That's what the current model does. A 10-track disc costs $10..."

No it will cost you $20, becauase you can only burn 10 tracks per month. $1 per track plus $10 per month. They also have a $5 per month service, but the previews are only 30 second clips.

15 dollars a month, all you can burn

[SirSlud]

emusic.com

deals with about 650 'second tier' labels.

if you like hiphop (which I do), they have lots of good shit. check it out.

I won't subscribe to any of the big label stuff until i can burn without minimums.

Betamax and Diamond precedents

[yerricde]

The Betamax case says absolutely nothing about media-shifting, only time-shifting.

The Betamax case (Sony v. Universal) states in specific that time-shifting is not infringement. It also states in general that devices can have substantial non-infringing uses, as the Supreme Court outlined in what came to be called the "Betamax Test".

Now if you had mentioned the Diamond case, you might have a point.

Wasn't the Diamond case decided on the "Betamax Test" of substantial non-infringing use? But anyway, thanks for the pointer. Now I can use both Betamax and Diamond against those who try to argue anti-emulation and anti-homebrew positions.

99 cents... plus $9.95 a month

[IsoRashi]

Uhh, did everyone miss the fact that there's an additional charge of $9.95 for every month? 10 tracks for just under $10 doesn't sound so bad, but it actually costs me at least $19.85 for those 10 tracks. It costs me more than that, actually, if I don't find those 10 tracks I like within a single month. So this is just like Pressplay, where you have to subscribe to their service (which lets you listen to the music) before they will even sell you anything.

Methinks this is crap. 99 cents sounded good until I read about the required subscription.

Re:99 cents... plus $9.95 a month

[cmpalmer]

I agree -- I want a micropayment style service. I would prefer to set up an account and not pay a subscription fee. Then, if I download 15 songs in a month, I'll get a one time charge of ~$15 at the end of the month.

I've been one of the people saying over and over that if I could reliably download a legal MP3 for $0.99, I would much prefer that over P2P. But, as a general rule, I would not pay $9.95 or $14.95 a month for the right to do so

I *might* consider it if I got 10 or 15 downloads "free" per month, but even then I don't want to enter into a commitment contract (not even a "cancel at any time" one).

Still not good enough.

[the endless]

This still isn't good enough. Why? Oh, god, let me count the ways.

1. Track length. I seem to be paying the same per track if I'm downloading Tori Amos's Boys For Pele album (18 tracks between 1:07 and 6:07 long) or Godspeed You Black Emperor's Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennae To Heaven (4 tracks averaging 22 minutes each, spread over 2 CDs). Personally, I'd happily spend a few quid for the twenty-odd-minute epic Storm, but I can't see how they can expect more than a small stack of pennies for the one-minute-seven Mr Zebra (even though it is a pretty good one-minute-seven). Disclaimer: GYBE! are not going to be on this roster. No, really. I don't even have to *look* to be sure of this... leading me neatly on to...
2. Choice. Sorry, but I'm not really interested in this nice long list of major-label artists. There's only about eight major-label artists I pay any attention to (R.E.M., Radiohead, PJ Harvey et al). Everything else I listen to is independent label artists (Jennifer Terran, You're Pretty, Beth Thornley, Vienna Teng, etc etc etc). I wouldn't be interested until artists like these are on the roster... but hey, hang on, these artists are already offering some of their songs for free download anyway! And I've bought their albums on the strength of those free MP3s!
3. Money. Where's the money going? To the artists? Really? Hang on a moment, my sides are splitting with laughter. When I buy CDs from CDBaby, I know that a good chunk of my money is going to the artists. When I buy CDs direct from the artist, I know that a good chunk of my money is going into their pockets. When I see bands live (tomorrow is The Rock Of Travolta, can't wait!), I know a good chunk of my money is going into their pockets. The RIAA can carp on and on about how we're ripping off artists, but we all know who the real rip-off merchants are.
4. Availability. It's too easy to complain about the fact that I couldn't be interested in this shit even if I wanted to be, due to the service being "available to U.S. residents only". Oh well, better stick to my life of crime by not paying the RIAA-tax.

In conclusion, I'm sticking with the indies. Go, baby, go!

And for People Living Outside the USA?

[SailorBob]

12. Is Rhapsody available outside the U.S.? Due to licensing restrictions, Rhapsody's on-demand music subscription service is available to U.S. residents only. However, anyone, regardless of his or her geographic location, can take advantage of our free radio stations, which feature professionally programmed stations. We are working on expanding our subscription service outside of the U.S. in the future.

Re:Listen more = costs more???

[RagManX]

A soundtrack album (or any other CD for that matter) is as expensive as the movie because unlike the movie, you can play an CD in your car, in the kitchen, in your pocket player while jogging. Unlike a movie, a recording doesn't demand your full attention. Thus, you play it more often.

Pardon me if I'm dumb, but how does the number of times I play a CD/DVD or the attention required to "enjoy" it affect the cost to produce it? I'm not sure I follow your logic, but would love to hear this explained.

RagManX

"Monopoly" in economics

[yerricde]

how does the number of times I play a CD/DVD or the attention required to "enjoy" it affect the cost to produce it?

It doesn't, but it does affect what you're willing to pay, that is, what you're willing to buy at any given price level (i.e. the "demand curve"), and that's all that matters to a monopolist. A monopolist computes the marginal revenue curve from the demand curve and then compares it against the marginal cost curve, and where they cross is the optimal price and quantity.

Re:There are ways to burn whatever you hear. . .

[artemis67]

...except that if you are going to break the licensing agreement, why pay for the songs in the first place? Legally, you don't have a leg to stand on.

I like the direction they're going, and I think 99 per song is reasonable; there's a lot of stuff out there that I'd never buy the whole album, but I'd like to buy a couple of singles.

However, it seems strange that they don't even mention the word "MP3" anywhere on the website. I realize that they are using a proprietary format, but they are trying to mislead people into thinking that this is the legit version of Napster when it's not. Until they are ready to give me complete control over the music I'm buying, I'll never subscribe. Better to buy your CD's used on Half.com (because the RIAA doesn't get a penny from it) and just rip those to MP3. All you need is a little CD polish and one good read, and then you're set.

Not that high, really...

[artemis67]

Why $0.99 per song? That seems excessively high to me.

No, .99 is about right; it follows the standard pricing rules of any other retail product.

Next time you go to your grocery store, take a calculator and go to the soda aisle. Notice that they have four sizes of Coke; a 3 liter bottle, a 2 liter, a 16 oz., and a 12 oz. can. With your calculator, you can see that the 2 liter costs a little more per ounce than the 3 liter; the 16 oz costs more than the 2 liter, and the 12 oz is the most expensive of all.

It's just standard pricing policy in retail that, as you break out a product into smaller units, you increase the price. Even beyond the increased packaging costs. It's not unusual for a manufacturer's smallest product units to be the most profitable.

Granted, you don't have the extra packaging and all to pay for with digital music, but consider that there is a lot of profit built into selling a whole album for $17; but if you only buy one song off an album of 10 songs, and price/profit remains constant, then the manufacturer has done the same amount of marketing for 1/10th the profit he used to get. He now needs to increase his marketing budget tenfold to get the same amount of sales he used to get. (Of course, even with this example, you're still getting a deal because 1/10th of the album should cost $1.70, and you're getting it for .99.)

Besdies, .99 is the starting point for music pricing. If the internet manages to break up the RIAA cartel, then that price should come down over time.

Re:Not that high, really...

[artemis67]

Exactly. Buying an album is like buying a Grab Bag; there's some good and some bad, but the perceived value is that you are getting 10 songs by an artist you really like, so the consumer is enticed to buy all 10 songs in the hopes that the good outweighs the bad.

Once you start breaking it out and pricing it, as you suggested, according to the quality of the song, then you start running into problems. First off, there's a marketing term called "price signalling"; that means that the price, itself, is used to create the perception of value in the consumer's mind. If you sell three songs off an album for $1.50, and the rest for .50, you are signalling to the consumer that, yes, we know that 7 of the 10 songs are crap, and it works against the label. It also means that the record company is going to look to replace the income lost from not selling a whole album. They will either do this by increasing the volume of music sold (a likely possibility, given that industry revenues were up before the RIAA started cracking down on P2P), or by increasing the price of individual songs to compensate. If it's the latter, then hit songs should really be priced around $3 - $5 and crappy songs around .50 - $1, recognizing that only rarely will they actually sell an entire album. Most people will buy one song at a time, from the best to the worst, until they reach a point where the perceived value is nil.

Bad for artists?

[Hepkat]

I have a sinking feeling this is not going to benefit the artists monetarily at all. The companies are probably going to say something like "Well, it's not the whole album, and it's not a single, it's BARC(Big-ass Record Company) sampler, so you don't really get royalties for it" or something equally lame...

Re:Really stupid

[pcidevel]

Modern music naturally comes in song form, not album.

Incorrect. Modern pop music maybe, but I never said I listen to pop.

Am I to understand that you deliberately ignore songs that you like unless they're accompanied by 10-15 others that are of equal quality?

No, but I rarely like a band that doesn't put out consistant quality music. If I do like a band that has one decent song and an album full of crap, I just don't buy their CD. I take it that if you see a VCR that has one feature that you like, but is otherwise a total peice of crap you buy it and add it to your VCR collection? I personally don't waste money on one feature. I only buy CDs that are quality through and through, just like with any other product I purchase. It's called being a consumer awareness.

One song for $ 0.99????

[rew]

As far as I can see, the service is $9.95 per month, allowing you to burn 10 songs per month. Yes, that comes to $ 0.99 (or with proper rounding $1.00) per song, but it does NOT allow me to buy/burn 100 songs this month and then buy none next month.

The only way to get 120 songs is to subscribe for a year and pay $9.95 the whole year.

Roger.