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.
From the article, First I had to decide which reseller of UMG music to use and decided on Liquid Audio's On-Line store.
In other news, Liquid Audio's CEO resigned. Here's the link
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
Doesn't sound too bad, but I think I will stick with IUMA. I would rather support independents than coorporate whor....errr, I mean popular artists.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
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?
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.
I'd be interested to know how anybody could tell if you've shared the music and what this 'digital watermarking' is all about. If you made MP3s from the CD you make, how would UMG know you violated the copyright? Is my iTunes gonna email them when I play the pirated MP3?
This sounds dubious but will no doubt be tested by tons of people to see if it's true.
It also begs the question of what consititutes illegal sharing and fair use. Shouldn't I be able to listen to this stuff on my iPod? Would UMG know?
It's been said before, and it should be said again. If you wantw true value for money, emusic are a better deal. Pure MP3s, no corrupt watermarks, and no DRM. And cheaper, too - one monthly fee equals full unlimited downloads.
If I was going to go for any of these services (I'm not, yet) that would be my choice.
And it took me all of 10 minutes in store, no hassle, I'm listening to em right now.
I can copy, rip, whatever I please. I'm willing to pay an extra 10 bucks per disc for a) good music and b) missing out on the hassle that you went through.
My time is certainly valuable. The only benefit of online downloading was saving me the 15 minute drive to the store. The downside is no cover art, no reliable copy, and no fun unwrapping process.
For those interested:
The Roots - Phrenology (w/ DVD)
Thievery Corporation - The Richest Man in Babylon
The Lenny White Collection
-Greg
-Greg
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
Wouldn't ripping the tracks from the CD into Ogg Vorbis defeat the track watermarking. I'm guessing that their watermarking technique is based on the properties of the MP3 algorithm, which would be diffrent in Ogg.
Holy cow!!! That's way too easy! At this rate, it sounds like they're going to have Kazaa and all the other P2P file sharing programs on the run in just a couple of months.
I guess that when we threw down the gauntlet and said "Ok, Music Companies, let's see some real innovation and get an easy to use, cheap, my-mom-could-use-it service for music" they went and did their homework. I bet my mom's already signed up, downloaded lots of tracks (on 56k), failed to burn copies, downloaded all the different players (again 56k), tried burning her music with them and failed, called support, copied the tracks to her other computer, failed to burn again, contacted support again, redownloaded the tracks again (56k, remember), and finally got them to burn so she could listen to them in her car.
It's that easy. Wow.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
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?
"Hint: if you don't have IE handy, you might not find this service very friendly. "
Does the BBC know?
cheers
front
Sounds great for windows users...
I use Linux on all my boxen. No MAC user will be able to use this either as it requires DRM stuff.
Of course as they say.. if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
I know of no other industry who makes people work so hard to use their product. If only the quality of the product was enough of a carrot to justify the effort.
Sounds to me like they still need to work out issues before making it a service that the average Joe and Jane can use.
:) Maybe for a certain quality, and raise the price up from there for better quality encoding and/or more flexibility. (i.e. pay 99 cents and you can choose your format of choice to download...etc, pay $1.49 and get dvd quality audio...you get the picture :)
What kills it for me (but then again I'm probably not in the majority they are targetting) is the requirement of Windows 2k/XP and Windows media player...
Well its not like I'm downloading MP3s left and right anyways. Most of my music is bought at a store or via one of them music clubs...(Where you can get like 11 CD for 1 cent, so long as you buy 4 more at regular price in 2 years time...which if you play smart you can gets tons of CDs cheap, assuming you dont need the latest release)
Maybe by the time I get a broadband connection, these services will use a more open standard format, and the service will be a lot more flexible.
A price reduction would be nice, would encourage people to buy the songs the like from a website instead of leeching off gnutella or [insert favorite file sharing client/server here].
50 cents a song sounds good to me
Maybe they can come up with better pricing though.
Hey I can get 4x6 photo prints of my digital photos for 50 cents from Kodak online services!
(Well yeah shipping is like $2.99 though hehe)
.... ... }
int main (void) {
If you're looking for some UMG artists, try emusic. Emusic is owned by UMG and contains quite an extensive UMG listing. For $10/month, you get some UMG artists as well as really good indie labels. If you're into industrial a couple of the labels like Metropolis and Cleopatra are there.
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.
This seems like just the solution I've been looking for. Oh, and the DRM and the problems with the DVD burner. Except for those four little things, this is it.
So if I mark darnellmc as a friend, then he should be able to (with out any moral problems) share his music with me right? I'm mean how the the record industry get me because I share with my freinds :-)
/.!
Thanks
some good sites to find cheap prices :
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.
Hrmph. 44.1kHz just doesn't cut it for me; I prefer my audio at 196kHz, 48 bits per sample, 6.1 channels, and I resent paying for anything less. But then again my computer is a Thinking Machine CM5, which doesn't even come with a sound card, so I guess it's all academic for me, too.
I tried this service too. It worked pretty well for me, though I had to click the download link twice to get the file. Some comments:
1) they're selling the files in 2 formats, the Liquid format and Microsoft's WMA format. I tried both and the Liquid format only works in the Liquid player, while the WMA files will play in Winamp, MusicMatch, WindowsMedia Player, and others. WMA seems to be the default except in a few cases, so check your format before you buy (and you probably want WMA).
2) surprisingly, there are no burn count limits! When you download, the site tells you what the content usage rules are, and you get unlimited burns!!! Sure enough, I made a few burns of the stuff I downloaded and when I checked the properties, there is no burn counter (you can check the license properties on XP in the WMP).
3) portable device support is limited, but they've covered the major players. Again, this varies by format, but for WMA files you can use your Rio X00 or Creative Labs Nomad. I've got a Rio800 and it worked fine. Another surprise - no transfer limits!
4) I was worried about the audio quality, but the files sound great vs your typical kazaa download.
5) I found the different track prices confusing, but eventually I realized that not all of the content in the liquid store is UMG's.
So I found the whole thing to be remakably easy to use (I didn't have any of the download or burn problems mentioned in the original post) and I was pleasantly surprised at the lack of burn or transfer counts. The files do use DRM, but they've got relatively loose rules. My primary complaint is that the selection is still not fantastic. A bunch of things I searched for were not up. Anyway, it's a good start and I hope that the other music companies follow UMG's lead.
I always hear about music lovers wanting to pay for music without all the hustles. They will continue to use P2P until purchasing music is hastleless (and reasonably priced). In fact...I bet some people would even pay for music which has already been downloaded by P2P to make amends. Why do these music industries try so hard to put DRM into everything? Let people pay for the music and do with it as they wish. Listeners are not stupid, they know they need to support the artists which they enjoy. Does there have to be so many restrictions? Is the music industry afraid that the music industry would die and we would have no more music? I doubt that would happen!
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.
Then don't purchase it. I think Ferrari's are too expensive, but I don't break into them and go for joyrides and call it "protesting my rights".
(So does MS Office and Quicken.)
FWIW, you could run IE in Linux if that was really the only issue you had. If you want it to be really, really easy and support Wine development, purchase Crossover Office from Codeweavers for a measly $55. (Try getting a Windows license for that!)
I'm simply a happy customer of theirs, no affiliation.
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
The DRM thing is stupid, though, considering that once I jump through your hoops I can record it to Red Book/CDDA. Just sell it to me through an SSL-encrypted connection and shove the files at me.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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.
According to this which reproduces what is apparently a recent letter from Emusic, there are limits. The letter uses the "all you can eat buffet" as a point of comparison. I'm not judging Emusic here, since they appear to provide a very good service and to be only going after abusers, but the term "unlimited" seems somewhat misleading (a.k.a. marketing speak).
Sigs are bad for your health.
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.
versus Napster: they only sell the stuff the labels want to sell. On Napster, I could get live stuff, tracks that were on out-of-print soundtracks, b-sides, all sorts of stuff I couldn't buy from the record stores, Amazon, or CDNOW no matter how much money I was willing to spend. That's pretty much all I used Napster for anyway (I know, the typical Napster user just wanted to get the latest Eminem CD for free). I see nothing here that suggests that the record companies "get" this.
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
All it takes to produce good music is talent. And both of those are actually optional.
It costs a lot of money to build a Ferrari, and only a couple cents to press a CD. With this service, that cost actually goes up. (Contrary to popular opinion, large chunks of bandwidth ain't cheap.)
The biggest cost should be paying the salaries of the music company (Which only needs to be a few executives and a good team of technicians, not the bloated beuracracy you normally saw in the 90s and, to some extent, today.), and then maybe fifteen or twenty cents (per track) for the artist.
Even if the artist only sells a mere 1,00,000 tracks, (more likely, considering unwanted tracks will no longer be a deterrant from buying an album), that's still $150,000. For more popular artists, or artists who'd rather release better stuff, but less often, you could raise that by ten cents and they'd have $250,000 to hold them over while they produce their next batch.
At this point, even niche artists make a good living, while consumers pay only a fraction of the cost they pay now.
What's this Submit thingy do?
Would you please explain why $10.00 is too much for an artistic work? While you're at it, name five other mass produced serious artistic works that are sold for under $10.00.
Letsee...
Movie tickets in my area are $7.5, but I can't take the movie home and watch it whenever I want.
Books, if I wait for a paperback, then it might be under $10.00 depending on author, age, and genre.
Umm... That's all I can come up with.
Even Dischord, a well respected independent label, sells their CDs for $10. Kill Rock Stars, another indie, sells 'em for $11 - $13.
There are plenty of caveats with the Liquid Audio system. The one great thing about it though is "CDs" never have to go out of print again.
For some time I was looking for an obscure CD called "The Great Game" by Brother Sun Sister Moon (now called Luminous for their second release). Impossible to find on CD, and impossible to find on peer to peer networks (except one track as noted below, which helped get me hooked) I looked on. But it was on Liquid Audio, and despite my reservations about a proprietary file format, I plunked down the $10 for the entire digital album.
Download: There were problems downloading. As in the Liquid player crashed during download didn't recognize that the album had been partially downloaded (files were not there), and didn't let me re-download the missing files. Cleared up by customer service.
Audio quality: decent. I think I've read that the Liquid Audio is really mp3 @ 192kbps inside their "secure" wrapper.
Compatiblity: Bad. I use WinAmp, and hardly ever listened to the Liquid tracks because I couldn't listen to them in WinAmp.
Portability: Disappointing. Only playable on the machine you download them to without a MS Passport, or something like that.
Burnability: Good, once I got a CD-R drive in the computer I downloaded them to.
Security: Puzzling. What good is distributing music in "secure" files when the Liquid Audio software lets you burn them to an unprotected CD format? I ripped then of course into mp3 format (using a very high bitrate to avoid as much as possible problems with recompressing already compressed audio) and the results are not bad. Now I can listen to them in WinAmp! (nearly every day)
(btw, in case anyone out there is an Information Society fanatic, Paul Robb is one half of BSSM/Luminous. Definately worth checking out. The one song that I found on p2p was Bangkok, off some movie soundtrack if you want to have a listen first.)
Commercial downloading will continue to fail until the industry offers:
1) Breadth and depth of available music - some progress here
2) Cheap tracks ($0.10 US to $2.99 US is a reasonable range) - almost there
3) The purchase of a track entitles the customer to:
A. Unlimited downloads on ANY machine by authenticating the customer (customer ID/password perhaps)
B. A wide variety of track file formats, including: MP3 at several different bit rates, WMA, OGG Vorbis, and a lossless format (FLAC, Monkey's Audio, and/or Shorten)
C. If the customer chooses MP3 VBR, the customer can later download the FLAC version (see A)
4) If two separate customers buy track X, download track X and both download it in format Y, then do a bit-for-bit comparison of the files, they should be identical. This should apply for any separate users.
By offering standard file formats, there isn't the lame "digital rights management" issue where DRM interferes with the customer's legitimate use (i.e. the author's attempts to burn using a DVD burner, and the author's being forced to redownload to burn on a separate computer).
What will stop people from sharing usernames/passwords or downloading then sharing the music?
Nothing. But because the service is CONVENIENT, EASY TO USE, and DOESN'T INTERFERE with what the user tries to do, the vast majority of people will not need to bother pirating the music.
And here's a clue for the clueless in the industry: your music is already available online for free right now, today, so all the DRM and/or watermarking (which means ruining the music by adding noise) you add accomplishes NOTHING. Sorry, that's not true. It accomplishes this: it encourages otherwise honest users to avoid your service and seek their music elsewhere because your DRM interferes with fair use.
So...
When you offer all these features, I'll sign up in a heartbeat. Until then, my CD collection is sufficiently large to keep me happy. I don't need to add to it until the music industry offers me something that meets my needs.
Honestly, this is more lke a Lexus ES300 You might see a good car, but all I see is a souped-up Toyota Camry --- and a big pit with 10k buried in it.
That is irrelevant. The point is not are they charging a "reasonable" price for what they are selling, the point is using that as a justification for engaging in illegal acts. The fact that the ES300 is nothing but a relabeled Camry doesn't give you the right to "steal" an ES300. Market forces will dictate how good of a "deal" this is. After all, to my wife, a Ferrari is nothing but a pretty car that goes fast, nothing remotely worth the premium you pay over a Toyota. I on the other hand don't see the point for a piece of squashed carbon selling for 5 figures that's about the size of a pea. I can't affort the Ferrari and I choose not to "waste" money on the rock, my choice.
Plus, how do you "value" the content anyway? Should all cd's cost the same assuming a single cd? After all, bit's is bit's right? Once the glass master is made the quantity on the disc doesn't matter. If an artist spent 5 years of their lives to create the content, shouldn't they be allowed to charge more than some bubblegum group whose song writers boiler plated the songs in two weeks? Or should it be based on the people who may purchase it?
Having recently seen this on /., I wonder if it is going to result in a conflict of interests. Are you still going to want to download all those CD's if you're worried Comcast may charge you for using too much bandwidth? Not to stray off topic, but it seems like the point of broadband is so you have quick access to media (among other things). The end result could stifle this potential industry.
:-)
Of course, I, personally, would rather spend more on the internet than on gas (pollution, etc.), but I wonder how Joe Public will act in the future.
However, if these cap doesn't go into effect, I suppose this means nothing
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.
From my understanding, a "watermarked" audio stream is one where identifying information is included in an imperceivable portion of the audio stream.
Given that lossy encoders (MP3, OGG) use psychoacoustic-models to reduce data in the audio stream that it considers outside of the human audible range, wouldn't encoding to MP3 or OGG damage or destroy the watermarking?
Actually MS did make a version of IE 5 sp1 for solaris, if you happen to be running that. While their official page says they don't distribute it anymore, it is still there
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
I'd be interested to know how anybody could tell if you've shared the music and what this 'digital watermarking' is all about. If you made MP3s from the CD you make, how would UMG know you violated the copyright? Is my iTunes gonna email them when I play the pirated MP3?
I'd be interested in knowing about a watermarking scheme that survives being encoded into an OGG or MP3 format. After all, there is little point in watermarking audio if you can hear the watermarking distorting the original sound. As most compression techniques take the most important components of the sound (fourier transforms, wavelet transforms, whatever) I suspect that the watermarks are at least damaged by using lossy compressions and may be untraceable. If the watermark is only present in the highest frequencies of the recording, then a simple low pass filter will remove it. If it is present in the least significant bit of each sample, then it will span all frequencies with equal amplitude, but will almost certainly be lost when encoded to OGG/MP3.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
amost Everything you want in a downloadable music service.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
An alternative view:
.WMA files. The download topped out my DSL at 1.5 Mbit. I immediately burned the tracks to CD, which was one of the only disappointments in the process. The standard (free) Liquid Audio software only burns at 1X. The other problem is that the Liquid Audio format does not include a track number, so I had to arrange the tracks manually.
.WMA format. The download took something like 30-45 seconds. I don't need a whole CD for one song, so I burned it to CD-RW in Media Player (quickly, this time) and ripped it to MP3. It cost me $.99, instead of the the $15-$18 for the whole "new" Nirvana album of music I already own.
First off:
ALBUMS ARE $9.99
ALBUMS ARE $9.99
ALBUMS ARE $9.99
ALBUMS ARE $9.99
Three quarters of the arguments here are about how expensive this is. It's not! I bought the newest Beck album through this service for $9.99. This was the best price I could get outside Best Buy, which is $11.99 and about 20 miles away.
I downloaded the album in Liquid Audio format, because I didn't want Microsoft to get the commission on
Immediately after burning the CD, I ripped it to MP3, (which is what I would have done if I bought a physical CD). These tracks aren't going to P2P or anywhere else. I just want the MP3s for my own personal use, and I paid for them.
THE TRACKS SOUND FINE. I do not have a $50,000 audio system, nor do I have $50,000 ears.
Not caring for my Liquid Audio experience, and wanting the new Nirvana track, I paid for and downloaded that one in
In summary:
1. I paid $9.99 - no tax - no shipping, for the new Beck album. I downloaded it immediately and quickly. No re-tagging, no broken downloads, no bad rips. I burned it on to CD (slowly, this time).
2. I paid $.99 for the new Nirvana track. I wasn't buying an album of music I already own to get one track I don't. And I didn't have to.
I have always said that if 'they' offered this stuff for a reasonable price and so that I could do what I wanted with it, I would buy into it. I'm practicing what I preached.
1. I download in a protected format, but I can burn to CD, which is what I would do if I were downloading MP3s,
2. Once it's an audio CD, I rip it to MP3, which is what I would do if I bought the CD itself.
3. I pay for music instead of getting it free, which I always said I would do. It feels good to practice what I preach, instead of constantly bitching and then changing my tune (haha) solely to allow myself more bitching.
4. The albums are $9.99, which is MUCH less than I would pay for anything new.
This is a good thing. Pity that most of you can't see that, even though this is very close to what many of you asked for all along.
CLR Instantly disolves Watermarking! How long before some teenager figures out how to remove these?
This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
I think he was just happy that he was finally able to finish the complete transaction so that he could write his review for /.
I'm sure any sane person would have taken the refund. Or not started at all.
Really, every word sounded like the only goal was to get from start to finish, just to write about it.
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.
Thats how the music got out of my hands.. And must be how all that other copyrighted software got on it, as *I* would never do such a thing..
Now, prove im lying.
In all seriousness this DID happen to me once... but all was done was they setup an IRC server.. but the point is still valid..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I want to see an exact accounting of what portions of the price of my purchase go where. Last I checked, for CD:
Cost of pressing CD: Pennies. (Let's assume $1 at worst)
Amount of money that gets to artist: Pennies
Let's assume that distributor and retailer are getting 50% of the retail price of the CD (I don't find this unreasonable, say 25% each)
So for a $15 CD, where's the other $7 going?
I want to see proof that the artist is getting at least 20% of what I'm paying for the content before I start buying music again.
I think this is one reason why people don't rant as much about the movie industry.
a) Movies cost a LOT more to produce
b) Movies cost on average only 10-30% more than their soundtracks, despite containing a LOT more content. (4 gigs of data vs. 650M, which was probably harder and more expensive to create byte for byte)
c) We can see plenty of proof that the actors aren't getting shafted, since their pay for a given movie is often public knowledge.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Seems like a reasonably good start. I would think that watermarking the file would be good enough without hobbling them with encryption, because they could easily track pirated files if they ever escaped onto a P2P network. Oh well
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
3.14!!
nice sig, might I suggest Requiem For a Dream if you have not already seen it.
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
Digital watermarks work great for one-to-one relationships, say like putting your name/copyright on an image or in a song. Quite difficult to remove, as they're all that way.
Removing any unique ID on the other hand is fairly trivial by comparison. Basicly it means getting two (or more) versions of the song, and find the difference (as you're burning directly to CD, it should be a digital copy and identical each time, no D/A or A/D distortion).
Also, it's a lot easier to distort a watermark than it is to replace it. So unless you need a valid watermark for some purpose, you don't even have to know perfectly how the watermark works to remove the ID.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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
I don't know when they are going to get it, but all this drm this and watermark that is way complicated for music. Try this: I put in the plastic and I get my tracks in mp3 format. And charge less than a buck for three minutes of entertainment.
-- $G
Dude, you need to move over here - no laws regarding encryption
There may be no crypto export controls in the UK (I haven't checked that department), but the UK surely has its own DMCA: section 296 of the copyright law.
(Incidentally, section 301 provides for a statutory perpetual copyright on a particular set of works, something that can never happen under the current constitution of the United States.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
That's probably because I never wrote one. Thanks for the input though.
Sigs are bad for your health.
and then maybe fifteen or twenty cents (per track) for the artist.
In the United States, the songwriter gets eight cents per track as well.
If a recording artist wants to learn to write his own songs, how can he make sure that he did not unconsciously copy an existing copyrighted song?
Will I retire or break 10K?
It was long ago, and taken care of the *same* day he got in ( i DO watch for things.. ). It was just a 486 serving as a NAT box... so nothing lost on my part but 20 mins work.
:)
Also contacted the 2 people on each side of me he used in the process, so they could clean up their systems..
Plus it was dialup.. so really the guy wasted his time.. And was sloppy to boot.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Movie tickets in my area are $7.5, but I can't take the movie home and watch it whenever I want."
I'd easily pay $7.5 to go listen to 1.5 hours of stadium or concert quality music from my favorite artist -- once or twice a month.
What i won't do is pay $10 for crappy audio that's a pain in the butt to listen to.
I also won't pay $15 - $20 for an audio only CD.
I only pay $12 - $18 for a DVD with audio/video/special effects/behind the scenes documentary/more. Now that's a good deal.
BTW how much of that $10 do you think goes to the artist?
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I looked up 6+ albums, and they were all cheaper to download/burn than to buy the CD from Amazon or Borders.
Cheaper? Did you forget the $350 Wintel tax? If your current computer is a Macintosh, or a Sun, or anything other than an x86 computer[1] running a recent version of Microsoft Windows, you're looking into paying $200 for a Microtel PC and $150 for an OEM Windows license just to get started. Even if UMG's new service does save $5 per CD vs. buying it at CDNOW, you need to buy 70 CDs this way in order to pay for the Wintel terminal that the service requires.
[1] I assume here that Connectix Virtual PC for Mac does not support recording CDs from within emulated Windows.
Will I retire or break 10K?
PROS
Service:
there's a real nice looking girl and she knows a great deal about music.
SOLD!
Prices...
CDs...
Choice...
Huh? Oh, there was more?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
So for a $15 CD, where's the other $7 going?
For more information, ask Courtney Love, who did the math.
Movies cost on average only 10-30% more than their soundtracks
A movie soundtrack containing popular music (that is, not the movie's score or some other music composed specifically for the movie) typically contains music from several artists on several labels, and it costs big $$$ to negotiate with those labels for those tracks.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The P2Ps are so slow that it's ridiculous.
The P2Ps peg my dial-up at 4 kilobytes per second. I don't download enough music to make paying for broadband ($20/mo over what I currently pay for internet access; see my comments in Xbox Live discussions) and downloading albums less expensive than CDNOW. Besides, I just want the singles so I can do my own continuous mixes.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sounded like a semi-fair deal to me. I broke out my credit card a cruised to their site. 15 searches for bands/artists that have been on my mind lately...Results = 1 album from 1 band. That is not very good coverage. If I wanted "hit and miss" availability for my tastes -- I could hang out at the cut-out bins or used CD isle. I think this is a step in the right direction -- but what they need to keep in mind is what made the P2P services so popular (other than the price) was the shear volume of music for EVERY taste.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Sure emusic will let you have "unfettered" access to MP3s and what not, but if you're an artist read further:
EMusic has digital distribution contracts with over 650 independent labels. Because we focus on labels, we are very busy. We do not offer deals with unsigned artists.
So why isn't RIAA hounding emusic? Why aren't they flaming emusic down 'cause they don't have no DRM'ed tech? Could it possibly be that emusic business model protects their "interests"?
Oh, I see now. Someone with a Sam's club card can buy a collection of royalty free music in a niche market that may have been recorded decades ago for about $2 a disc so all music discs should be under $10. I'm blinded by the clarity of your logic.
No, really, why is $10 for 10 songs... Better yet, let's take a real example. I paid $18 for a 12 songs by Flogging Molly. That's $1.50 per song. Why is that ripping me off? "Because it's a fraction of what it cost to produce" isn't a valid answer. Price is determined by what the market will bear. $1.50 is less than a hamburger, almost the price of a large bottle of coke. It's *cheap* for what you're getting.
By you're reasoning, the entire disc should cost as much as a Coke. I'm so glad you value your Mozart as much as a Coke. If artists truly aren't compensated for their work, then I definitely see how lowering the price of CDs help get them paid.
And you're argument about software being a durable good is crap. I use my CDs for years. I have CDs I bought 15 years ago which I still occasionally listen to, many from 10 years ago I listen to on a regular basis. I don't have a single program from five years ago.
Would I buy a book of ten poems for $10 bucks? Hell yah if I liked the poems. A buck a poem. Fuck, I spend more on a large cup of coffee every morning and it's through my body in two hours and down the drain. A good poem will stick with me for Life. I'll recite it at my wedding, to my children, whisper as my wife goes to sleep, give the book to my grandchild.
Same thing with a song. I'll play it to my children explaining it was the song that hooked there mom or it was song my dad played to me, etc...
For $1.50, that song is a steal.
Considering the economics of producing an album work, I don't expect much gets back to them. But then, the artist does get an advancement, and the record company pays for promotion and studio time. And if the album bombs, the artist isn't liable for the expenses.
In the case of Dischord and Kill Rock Stars, I expect it to be different because they work more closely with the artist and are there for the music not to make a fortune.
I still don't see how a $10 CD helps get the artist more money. Logically, if you want the artist to get more money per CD, shouldn' t you be in favor of raising prices? No one's going to give up what they're already making, so you much increase the money coming in if you're going to give more out.
For the artist, an album is a gamble. If it makes it big, then they'll be millionaires. If not, they have to make money by touring.
Again, why is $10 - $20 unreasonable for an artistic work? When you work out the cost per song it comes out to about the price of a large cup of good coffee.
But then you must question yourself, is it really worth it to do so. And then you go beyond the point of somebody who is simply "trading music" to being somebody who is making a conscious effort to rip the company off (after they supply - to some extent - what many have been asking for, no less!).
Yo, Chemical! No-one else will probably see this, but: I got my DSL from BoStream (~HomeStream) in the lovely country of Sweden. They've upped their charges since then very considerably, the current prices are approx. like this:
0.5 MB xDSL: $30/month (no static IP)
2.5 MB xDSL: $50/month
8.0 MB xDSL: $70/month
Execept for the budget version (0,5), you will get a static IP! There's nothing in the contract that says you cannot run severs! I have my own domain, own mail, own web, own everyting! Yeah! Go BoStream!
I'm still bound by the old contract, until April... Even so, I will gladly pay $50 a month for my STATIC IP TRUE SERVER status
I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.