Slashdot Mirror
Universal Music Group's New Music Sharing Service
First I had to decide which reseller of UMG music to use and decided on Liquid Audio's On-Line store. One reason I picked this service is because they are the technology backers of this venture, so who better? I'm really glad I picked them, and you will see why after you read about the issues I faced.
Of course, there were plenty of music choices to pick from and it was pretty easy to find artists I was looking for. I first noticed that not every track is 99 cents. Some are higher -- it seems that the less popular stuff cost a little more. Some singles cost $1.49, but I found one free track on this CD.
After finding a CD I wanted, I purchased and downloaded the tracks individually and as one large download, since they provide both options. After downloading the files I could not get any of them to play. For some time this confused me, then I tried clicking on a link provided in an e-mail that was sent to me to confirm my order. Well, they did not tell me this on the website, but clicking that link authenticated me to listen to the tracks. This was a bit frustrating, but survivable. Also, I found you can only go through the process of purchasing and downloading with IE. I use Mozilla by default and was not able to purchase with that browser. You also need to use IE to open the URL in the e-mail that authenticate your tracks.
Once done with that I attempted to burn tracks to a CD. I was using a machine with Windows 2000 SP3 and Windows Media Player 9 (current release candidate for Win2K). Whenever I'd try to burn a track, the Roxio software would die. So I gave up on Media Player 9 and downloaded Liquid Audio's Player (v 6.1). When trying to burn with this player it could not initialize my HP DVD writer (model dvd200i) and for some reason was calling it a 200j instead. I also tried downgrading to Windows Media Player 7.1, but that did not work either. The burning software did not even know my DVD Burner was there. I also tried Real's RealOne player, but it can not burn WMA files.
So I gave up and contacted Liquid Audio's Customer Service. They informed me (via e-mail exchanges) that their software could not recognize my DVD Burner and I would only be able to burn using a CD Burner, not a DVD/CD Burner. I was offered a refund, but I did not want that. I've got a CD Burner, but on another PC. So I thought I'd be able to move the files and burn there. I came to find out find out that I can move files to listen to them on another PC, but they can't be burned on a PC other than the one to which they were first downloaded. So Liquid Audio sent me another link to download tracks with after hearing I had to go to another PC. Then I was able to download and burn tracks with no problem.
You can play the tracks as much as you like on your PC, burn to CD as many tracks as you want, copy the burned CDs, and use the CD to make MP3s. Keep in mind there is supposed to be some form of digital watermarking on the tracks though. So if you give the music to anyone else, they (UMG) are supposed to be able to know it was you who violated their copyright.
So overall it was pretty frustrating making my first CD with this service, but I'll probably be using it again in the future. Like Tuesday, when some new music comes out. I have been boycotting UMG for almost a year, since when I heard they would copy-protect CDs. With this service I have officially ended my boycott.
Pros:
- Easy to download and burn a CD if you have Windows, IE and a CD Burner (not a DVD Burner).
- Easy to find tracks from UMG artists that are well known.
- Good customer service. They really helped as much as they could given the software limitations and offered a refund even though I would have been able to keep playing the tracks on my PC.
- No need to go to the store in the Winter!
Cons:
- No player seems to be able to burn using a DVD burner.
- Tracks are not authenticated till you click a link in an e-mail sent to you.
- Unable to use the service to purchase tracks using Mozilla.
- No small intro type tracks available, even when you buy a full CD of tracks.
Slashdot welcomes reader-submitted features and reviews -- thanks to darnellmc for this review.
One thing you don't mention is whether the files are compressed? If they are compressed using lossy encoding, like mp3, that would reduce its appeal to me, since I prefer my 44.1kHz pcm audio. I'd resent paying for inferior quality data, but that's just me. Oh, and since I don't have Windows or a Mac I can't use IE anyway, so it's all academic.
Even if this isn't everything we might want in a downloadable music service, I think that supporting this service will help convince UMG and other companies of the effectiveness of this business model. This is a step in the right direction...
Why go through all that BS to pay the same amount for a CD that you can go to your local RecordStore and pick up. Is it worth it to say "I made all by myself?" Next question: Will it work on *nix/Mac?
Anything involving windows, IE and Media Player is too suspicious for me giving it a try.
You also need to use IE to open the URL in the e-mail that authenticate your tracks
The price is not the problem. The problem is what they allow you to do and what they don't. Next.
I pay the same or more for the download service as for the CD, download the tracks slowly, install their software several times until it works, burn it on a CD, rip it, encode it, then listen to it? And the music companies wonder why their online services aren't insanely popular...
So... how long until somebody figures out how to remove the digital watermarking? Maybe it wouldn't be the easiest process in the world, but it probably would scare the pants off of them as a proof-of-concept.
And probably get their lawyers all excited with the possibility of DMCA-related charges.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
Must remember to surf with IE rather than a browser you prefer.
Must remember to download tracks only while sitting on a machine with a CD-R or CD-RW
Must remember to never let your machine die or be replaced. If you do, you'll never be able to reburn the audio.
Thanks, I'll stick with Slamjamz
The pricepoint is a little higher than what I'd like to see, but this is definitely a step in the right direction for the music industry. Kudos to them for actually trying to solve the p2p "problem" by giving consumers (almost) what they want instead of trying to lock down every electronic device. It may be a clumsy interface, but it seems like a good first stab at a compromise between consumers' fair use rights and copyright holder interests.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
How about simply supporting those whose music you enjoy?
since it's easier to use free p2p
Uh, but isn't the whole point that this is a _legal_ way of attaining the music. So first the excuse was that the music was too expensive, now it's that it isn't quite convenient enough?
The point is if they find a watermarked mp3 that you created is being illegally distributed (using a bot on a p2p network or some other means), they can trace it back to you.
They may partner with companies that make mp3 players, but I seriously doubt that any would conform to notifying UMG, unless they were legally bound to include such functionality.
Fair use is entact in this case. You can listen to it on your iPod without risk. You can even share it with your friends, but you are liable if they in turn (or someone else in the chain) mass distributes the mp3.
This authors experience bodes well for Apple if they can get the licensing straight. If they can interface with these music sites and make them as easy to use as say the iPod, then they'd have a killer combo. Imagine being able to add tracks to your inbox, pay for them, click a button and have it download AND burn for you automatically. Or download/convert to mp3/shove it over to you iPod automatically. This could be another area where the Mac shines, again, if they can get the necessary buy in.
So, let me get this straight...you are proposing to convert WMA->WAV->OGG to get rid of a watermark that supposedly *cough* doesn't have any influence on the music itself....and think you'll get a result that even resembles digital quality audio?
Not likely....
Btw. the first problem is that you got to have IE ofcourse...I have finally (after several years) deleted Windows entirely (after not using the partition for months and finally needing the space :), so I can't use IE, not to mention WMA files.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
Or, you could email them and complain about how they implemented the business model, requiring IE in order to use their service. I would not pay for a service that requires IE. I hope their customer service lines are flooded. It sounds like it is a total hassle to set up and download music, even if you do have IE. It is amazing that we are this far along in e-business, and companies still don't get it.
But thanks for the review, it was definitely worthwhile. I won't be using liquid.com any time soon.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Back in the 90's, Phish made some copies of some studio work that they didn't want people distributing, so they digitally watermarked every copy they gave out. I think it was like 20 copies, so they could tell if someone allowed it to be copied. Funny part is: It worked! I have yet to see copies of that stuff distributed. Seems those who got the copies were afraid it'd be tracked back to them and they would loose the trust of the band or something.
I can envision people discovering the waremarking technology though. You and a friend register and download the same track, then run a binary diff on the files. Should be pretty easy to determine where the watermark is and change it though.
M@
Krispy Cream is people
I'm sorry, not trying to start a flame war or anything. But who is this story for? Windows users?
This service needs IE, WMA, and a Windows Box? It won't work under my MacIntosh, Linux, or Home Entertainment system(s)? The songs won't work in my car, walkman or the kids boom-box?
Well maybe this is news I can use. I know I won't be using my disposable income on this service.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
You do say there is watermarking... which listening tests have shown is subtle, but still audible, so you're already at a loss of quality here.
Also, for cost - popular tracks as high as $1.50, regulars for a dollar... Let's just pick a currently popular, common CD, like The Eminem Show...
20 tracks (though, 5 of those are skits, which you said you're not able to get...) - really 15 audio tracks... At a dollar each, that's 15 dollars. At a dollar each for most, plus $1.50 for the current singles (White America, Cleaning Out My Closet, Soldier, Without Me, Hailie's Song, What You Say) is 18 dollars.
Now, my local Newbury Comics is selling this same album for $14.99 (and with a coupon from the Sunday paper, I can knock 3 dollars off of that).
So, I can either tie up my cable modem and 'puter and download a watermarked, questionable quality version for 15-18 dollars, or I can pay 12 for the original, plus the non-music tracks.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see what the point is...
Of course, say I don't want all of those songs, but five from this album, and five from the previous, and five from the one before that... Then, there is a savings, but it's so miniscule - I'd be getting the popular singles off each album, so at 15 tracks * $1.50, I'd be paying $22.50... and if I bought the albums, either on sale or used, I'd be paying no more than $25-30... and get a bunch of tracks I'd never have heard otherwise that I might like. Plus, 3 separate booklets, liner notes, etc.
There's no way they're going to attract people from P2P sharing if their chosen method is slower, more expensive, and of questionable quality.
-T
NOTE:
This isn't intended to be a troll or flamebait post.
One of the issues that surrounds the music industry is the way that large record labels treat the artists who have signed with them.
Now a record company has suddenly made it (more or less) convenient to download songs legally, and as soon as it gets easy, the ol' consumer mentality will kick back in and the artists will end up forgotten.
The artists won't be thought of, just like most people don't really think about the sweatshop laborers in foreign countries who make clothing, or code cheap software, assemble appliances, etc. Give us what we want, and give it to us cheap. To hell with the people who have to work to produce the lifestyle we get to take advantage of.
*sigh*
The music industry isn't really upset that you're copying copyrighted material. They're upset that you're no longer a consumer. They want you to consume their services, and if they re-work their existing services in a manner so the production costs are cheaper than current costs, but still charge you the same and still screw over the recording artists, then they see it as a major win.
Maybe I'll get lucky and someone will reply and tell me why UMG isn't as bad as the others.
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
It's more likely based on encoding things into the audio that you can't hear. Sort of like "encrypting" data into an image; steganography You could reduce the quality such that the watermark is no longer detectable, but what use is that? You'd get a crappy music file that you could trade freely with your friends, but they wouldn't want it. (Calling Dr. Felton! ;-) )
;-).
Also, as the reviewer chose the Liquid Audio site, I thought that would mean that they would provide the tracks in LiquidAudio format, but it's WMA? When I try to listen to or buy a track on their site, it seems to suggest that the tracks are in LiquidAudio format.
For general downloading or purchasing music online, I personally would avoid Liquid altogether. WMA/Real are acceptable as a last resort. MP3s are better than either WMA, Liquid, or Real. OGG would be the best of the lossy formats. However, couldn't they at least provide SHN or FLAC files? The SHN files I've downloaded from Archive.org[Etree] and recompressed into FLACs generally get about 2:1 compression. That's not bad considering they are lossless, "CD-quality." Please note that my mini-review of the formats is NOT based on quality. I've checked out the OGG listening test at vorbis.com and could hear no difference in the files. My preferences are mostly based on ease-of-use. MP3, OGG, FLAC and SHN are easier to use from my current computer to any other computers I may have in the future.
Maybe the general populace doesn't care enough about the quality of music on their PCs. So far, they've been able to get it all for free. However, when they start to be able to pay a bit for a downloadable song, they will (hopefully) demand more of their online music store. (e.g. They'll demand that it be like their brick and mortar music store, but online).
And, where are the liner notes? Lossy music, crappy software, no artwork?! Uhh.. Some of my parents' old vinyl records have really neat artwork on them. It's as though, as production costs have decreased, so has the product quality.
Not that I think the music that these companies churn out is always that great, but there are certainly lots of intelligent people working behind the scenes that know how to market a product well. Where are they?
Here's what I mean WRT the marketing: I know people here love to make fun of Microsoft (what would a Slashdot story be, without Microsoft?) but, honestly, if you can find it, watch the "Ray of Light" commercial for WinXP where people jump and jump and eventually take off and are flying around. It's horribly hokey and easy to make fun of, but they really make you WANT Windows XP. Not that I think: "Ohh, if I had Windows XP, I'd fly!" but they make you think that it's actually going to give you the freedom that you always thought it would. Please read the word "think" with emphasis
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
I read the article and could not help but wonder "What was he so happy about?". I would like to be able to download music but I accept that this service is not for me. I have a DVD/CD burner and want to be able to use it as well... it just seemed like reason after reason to go elsewhere.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
PROS
Service:
there's a real nice looking girl and she knows a great deal about music.
Prices:
It's much cheaper than your service as I can find whole CDs between 1 and 3 euros. Yes, they are used, but it's because the shop re-buy from its customers. They are as perfect as new ones. You can buy new CDs at regular price also. People are not doing it to rip them since the shop existed before cd writers.
CDs:
I'm not limited to one company, as a matter of facts I'm not limited at all since they sell all kind of music from all kind of compagnies from all countries.
Choice:
There's another shop just the same 30 meters away. Only there isnt a nice looking girl there.
CONS:
half an hour of subway.
This is a step in the right direction.
I don't have a Windows computer. This is not a step in the right direction. Before this service I had nothing. With this service I still have nothing, and there is one more pillar under the Microsoft monopoly.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
If they can get this to be cross platform (will they ever support Linux? I doubt it), and get the bugs worked out, it would be better than buying a CD from a store. But would it be better than using Kazaa?
This is the problem that these media companies need to contend with. What people want is huge repositories of music for a fixed price that's easy to use, and without stupid DRM restrictions. The advantage that this has over Kazaa is that it's easy to find exactly what you are looking for, but being charged a $1+ per track and having to go through the DRM rigamarole, why would you bother?
Most everybody I know would be willing to pay anywhere between $10-40/month to get access to a huge music repository that they could use without burdensome restrictions. I currently subscribe to emusic for this reason, it's only drawback is that they tend not to have the newest albums. Maybe do a tiered pricing system where you get the back catalog for some more modest price and then you can sign up for a premium membership that will give you the newer music.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I was expecting less when I first heard about the service, and have been pleasently suprised one several counts, first and foremost the customer support: when contacted and asked, they didn't give any run-around, telling him the problem and offering a refund.
Also, the ability to easily burn them to CDs, despite the lack of DVD support, is a nice feature. I can even forgive the digital watermarking: it's my music to listen to (as I bought a license), but the content still belongs to the company, and giving it out in a easy-to-steal format is against their best interests. I'm all for free music, but this doesn't seem unreasonable.
The only fear I have is in the verification: what is the music file doing to check authentication, and is that exposing my computer or I to unique identification by some third party company or group? Or does the link just add something to my registry and check locally? All in all, this isn't reason enough to avoid at least giving it a try, as driving to a record store costs half as much as a cd itself.
Mozilla support would be nice, too.
Because sometimes long term objectives are more important then short term pleasures.
Hell, by your reasoning, why boycott ANY product if the product is enjoyed? Sometimes it is more then just the product, but how the product is made or where the money used to purchase the product goes.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
over the last several years, if it is WMA, it would be lousy as well as lossy. I have never heard a WMA file (and I have listened to many) that sounded as good as a well-encoded mp3 at comparable bit-rates. The trouble is, there are a lot of poor mp3 encoders/decoders out there that give mp3's a bad name quality-wise, so some people think that WMA sounds just as good. Not in my book.
Sigs are bad for your health.
Their Liquid Audio player for Mac does not run under OS X, nor does it even run under Classic!
Now, I know that Apple is obviously the Big Evil One to Hollywood because they allow *gasp* MP3's by default with iTunes, but come on, people.
I want to see a song I like.
I want to pay $1 or $2 for said song.
I want to either put song on a music CD (they can mail me the CD, I don't mind), or put the song right on my iPod.
This should not be difficult. But it is - because the music company is so concerned with *their* wants rather than *my* wants.
And I'm even willing to pay for it. Go figure.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
However, if I'm listening to music on my computer, or in my car, the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps encoded mp3s is undetectable [1].
I'm not a musician (at least, I wouldn't call what I can squeeze out of a guitar music at this point), and I'm not a high-end audio geek. I do most of my music listening at my computer or on the bus with an MP3 CD player, or in my car. In those environments, there isn't much difference between 128kbps and 256kbps.
That said, when I do play MP3s through my stereo -- a ten-year-old mid-range Kenwood rack system -- 128kbps sounds pretty poor, 192kbps sounds fine if I'm not actively listening for MP3 artifacts, and 256kbps sounds as good as an uncompressed CD except in a few odd cases. I know people who claim to be able to detect the difference, but fortunately for me, my ears aren't that good, and frankly, CD-quality audio is overkill for the Sex Pistols anyway.
For $9.95 a month, and in my normal listening environments, eMusic is a fabulous deal, and I hope they do well. I also hope they offer higher bitrates in the future, and I'd be willing to pay for it. In the meantime, being able to legally download a few dozen albums every night or two is really nice.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The traditional answer would be "whatever the market can bear". If, for instance, somebody digs up sheet music for a hithertoo unknown symphony by Beethoven, and it's judged to be authentic, then it wouldn't be surprising if the first recordings commanded a markup.
Unfortunately,
(1) The RIAA isn't fully allowing a free market, because of price fixing, and
(2) Consumers may decide that the only price they can bear is "free" -- in other words, that they'll be happy downloading music so long as it's somebody else that already paid for it. If very few people are willing to pay, then the marketing machines can no longer survive. This might be good for artists that are already famous and don't need much publicity, but otherwise... *shrug*
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
So imagine you're a record company. You see a problem: People are downloading .mp3 files that they can then do what they want with of your intellectual property off the internet. You know from seeing it happen that people like .mp3 files that they can do what they want with. You think, "Gee. I'd like a piece of that action."
.mp3 files that people can do whatever they want with.
.mp3 files they can do what they want with?
.mp3 files are free, people for the most part want .mp3 files that they can do what they want with.
.mp3s they can do what they want with, and,
So this thing comes out. You can download music off the internet now, and it's legal! It's not ridiculously priced, but there are problems-- it's not
The question becomes, then: Were people interested in digital music that they didn't have to go to a CD store to get? Or were they interested in
I suspect that, particularly since the
So, if you're a record company, how should you go after a piece of that action?
Well, let's look at p2p programs. Say you want the latest track from Foo, called Bar. You ask for bar on the p2p client. You get back 142 responses. Now, of these 142 responses, 100 were bogus entries trying to get you to download their porno virus spam. 30 are busy and won't talk to you now, 5 have something completely bogus, 5 are people on the wrong end of a 14.4 modem, and two actually have what you want and open slots to download it, but one of those has it at 96 kilobits.
Now, if I haven't made it sufficient of a hint, perhaps the proper way to sell digital music online is to
a) Sell people
b) Make a reliable service to get them in good quality so you don't have to sort through 142 options to find the one that actually has what you want and will disconnect you halfway through the download anyhow.
How do you make money selling something that's free? Make it convenient. You can offer people both of those things and still get as much money for them.
-JDF
So you download (need Windows/IE), burn (slow), rip & reencode in order to get a more lossy version of what they could have put up for download in the first place.
Tell them to get back to me when I can download using Windows/Opera in mp3/ogg and burn with Nero. This one is not about price, but about convienience. They've got a bit to go there, spending an hour or more to get mp3s out of it is not my idea of fun.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings