Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AOL Enters Music Service Fray

Posted by michael on from the buy-the-cow-or-get-free-milk dept.

Masem writes "Several sites, including The Washington Post and News.com report that AOL is planning to enter the online music service market with its own MusicNet offering. The service rates vary from $4 to $18/month, the latter giving you unlimited downloads and streaming content and 10 burnable tracks a month to CD. Future plans will include a pay-as-you-burn cost as well, expected later this year. However, the service is strictly limited to AOL customers, making many wonder if it will grab enough attention of the current subscriber base to actually be of value."

62 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. AOL CD's by guacamolefoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sort of gives a new meaning to AOL CDs.

    GF.

    --
    Lots of petrified grits
    1. Re:AOL CD's by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps they should include a blank CD-R with each of the Spam CD's that they mail out. Better yet, send the AOL software out on a CD-RW!

  2. Now we know where the music we listen to... by corebreech · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...in hell comes from.

    --
    Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
  3. You didn't think... by keyslammer · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... that AOL would launch an online music system that didn't involve mailing out CD's, did you?

  4. aren't most of their subscribers dialup? by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    how many of the 22 million people that use AOL are either doing AOL High Speed or using it over a TCP/IP connection from another broadband provider? Is it really a good move for them to do this when they have such a large dialup userbase? There already seems to be financial trouble ahead for the ISP as the appeal of dialup dwindles even further...

    No thanks, I am not paying $23 + $4 - $x for songs when Kazaa is still fucking free.

    1. Re:aren't most of their subscribers dialup? by goldspider · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "No thanks, I am not paying $23 + $4 - $x for songs when Kazaa is still fucking free."

      It's statements like this that validates everything that the RIAA claims.

      If you want to positively change the music industry's approach to digital media, this surely isn't the way to do it.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:aren't most of their subscribers dialup? by kilonad · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "It's statements like this that validates everything that the RIAA claims."

      Umm... no, it doesn't validate the RIAA's claims. Not quite anyway. Had the parent poster said that he would never pay $18 to download and burn 10 songs when he could get a CD for less (yes people, you CAN find CDs out there for $12-$15, quit shopping at the mall), he would have been making a good point. But his comment still echoes the viewpoint of most internet users -- when faced with the choice of going legit and overpaying for music, or grabbing it for free, they're gonna grab it for free. The music industry has done nothing to make their online offerings attractive yet (it needs to have some compelling reason to do it, be it extras or just plain cheaper than buying a CD). If the RIAA was complaining that nobody buys CDs anymore and then jacked up the price of a CD to $20-$25 (for a single CD, so $35-40 for a double), and people said "oh I'm never buying a CD again," it doesn't validate their claims. It's business 101. If people aren't flocking to your offerings, odds are you're doing something wrong.

    3. Re:aren't most of their subscribers dialup? by goldspider · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Allow me to be more precise.

      Perhaps I should have phrased it "validates everything that the RIAA claims to gullible lawmakers/ignorant public.

      "If people aren't flocking to your offerings, odds are you're doing something wrong."

      100% correct, but you forget that thanks to millions of lobbying dollars, it now means (more and more with every new law passed) that we must be doing something wrong!

      My point was that the original poster's statements (whatever kind of music he may or may not have been referring to) can only be used by the RIAA to reinforce their position.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    4. Re:aren't most of their subscribers dialup? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "t's statements like this that validates everything that the RIAA claims."

      It might validate them in their eyes, but as far as it being a good argument, that's questionable. He does bring up a good point about the pricing.

      My math was a little different. You get 10 tracks a month, but you pay $18 a month. So you're buying an album for $18, that's a little spendy.

      The flip side is that you get streaming options (presumably from the actual content...) and your CD is nothing but music you want. That's not all bad.

      But there's still the sticker shock deal like the guy mentioned. Yeah, he sounds bad for saying Kazaa is "fucking free", but when you think about what he's really saying here, Kazaa is just plain a better service. I imagine lotsa people'd be happy to pay $20 to use Kazaa, just for the right to use it legally. (Note: that's completely different than paying $20/mo to use Kazaa because the company demands it.)

      The RIAA hasn't figured out yet that the price tag isn't the major issue here (Lots of people are buying $50 games when the tools the pirate them are there and waiting to be used), it's a matter of the service. The RIAA still has a wonderful opportunity here that they're arrogantly overlooking. They should set up their own music download service. All the songs they can muster, they guarantee the quality, and they provide a server that can handle quick downloads. That's it. Don't make it more complicated than that.

      I mean seriously, every single music service I've seen has pricing policies that resemble cell phone plans!

    5. Re:aren't most of their subscribers dialup? by wkitchen · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The RIAA hasn't figured out yet that the price tag isn't the major issue here (Lots of people are buying $50 games when the tools the pirate them are there and waiting to be used), it's a matter of the service. The RIAA still has a wonderful opportunity here that they're arrogantly overlooking. They should set up their own music download service. All the songs they can muster, they guarantee the quality, and they provide a server that can handle quick downloads. That's it. Don't make it more complicated than that.
      That's it exactly. Opportunity has knocked. But instead of letting it in, the music industry is standing at the door with a shotgun.

      Downloading music is easier, cheaper, and thanks to the new copy protected CD's, of greater utility than buying it at the store. Heck, it's easier and cheaper and of greater utility than driving to a store even if they were handing out the stupid copy protected CD's for free.

      The right way to take advantage of this situation seems obvious to me. Imagine:
      • A subscription service priced a little above what the average music buyer spent on recordings a few years ago.
      • Artist royalties paid in proportion to each artist's downloads and total subscription revenue.
      • More music to choose from than with traditional distribution (after all, old and/or very obscure titles consuming a little disk space is much less of a problem than unsold physical inventory)
      • Reliable servers with enough bandwidth and physical locations to make it easy to get what you want whenever you want it.
      • Consistently good quality files available in several formats. No hassles with downloading a song only to find that it's incomplete, recompressed, or otherwise poor quality. No downloading an ogg file only to find that some idiot converted it from an MP3.
      • An easy user interface. Finding and retrieving the songs you want should be a no-brainer. Convenience sells.
      • Very high download limits, if any. Subscribers should be able to hear what they want, when they want, without having to maintain a huge local collection. The only incentives to keep local copies should be to avoid download time & network outages, or to transfer to other media for portable use. Essentially, being a subscriber should be a lot like having the world's largest music collection, only more convenient.
      • Losslessly compressed files available, though possibly with a somewhat more expensive account to offset the higher bandwidth consumption. If this service is to replace CD's for all purposes, it will have to provide equal or better sound quality.
      • NO copy protection of any kind. The songs are not the product. The service is. People will be more willing to pay for that service if it is more useful to them. DRM can only reduce the value of that service, and thus reduce customer's willingness to pay for it.
      While this would almost certainly result in people paying less per song, I believe that most people would be willing to spend more on music per month than average CD purchases. The recording industry would get the increased income it wants. Consumers would get the music and fair-use rights that they want. And independent artists would get an opportunity to gain more exposure and get paid at least something for their music, instead of having to give it away on MP3.com and only hope that someone might occasionally buy a CD.

      Music retailers would, however be screwed. But so be it. Holding back digital music distribution for the sake of the record stores would make about as much sense as holding back automobiles for the sake of livery stables.
    6. Re:aren't most of their subscribers dialup? by SacredNaCl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to agree with that, $18.00 to burn a mere 10 songs? Forget that, that's robbery.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
  5. Another one that flops before it starts.... by grapeape · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok lemme get this straight for $18.00 a month I get to listen to sub par streaming radio and get roughly one cd's worth of music...what a bargain :(

    Of course when it goes down in flames they will blame it all on piracy and claim they offered an practical alternative.

    1. Re:Another one that flops before it starts.... by Reziac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In a previous discussion, I'd suggested that AOL is perfectly positioned (what with the content TW owns outright) to offer music and movie downloads as premium content ... but not like this.

      If they want it to work, it needs to be a flat rate, like $9.95 per month (in addition to your AOL membership) for all the unencumbered MP3s you can download. That would make the music downloaders happy and would give AOL a marketplace advantage in the ISP arena.

      But nooooo, we're *so* afraid one naked MP3 might escape our grasp... :(

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Another one that flops before it starts.... by DrTentacle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any subscription service like this is going to remain a niche market until they can offer a very broad selection of music. Deals are done to provide content with the labels - However, people's tastes are rarely defined by the output of a particular label. How many subscription services will I have to subscribe to to get access to all the music I want?

      But you're right...of course, it'll All Be Down To Piracy.

    3. Re:Another one that flops before it starts.... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "If they want it to work, it needs to be a flat rate, like $9.95 per month (in addition to your AOL membership) for all the unencumbered MP3s you can download."

      I respectfully disagree.
      It seems to me that since AOL bills it's customers every month, via credit-card, they have a wonderful way to get around the problem of micro-payments.
      They charge downloaded MP3's at 50p per-track, or whatever, with no subscription costs, and at the end of the month, add up all the 50p downloads, and stick it on the AOL credit-card charge.
      £15.99 plus 12 MP3s @ 45p each = £15.99 + £5.40 = £21.39.

      You get a detailed online bill, in your account details somewhere, with each track and cost, and you can buy a track as you feel like it, you don't have to pay any stupid subscription service, and the scheme is feasible since it doesn't incur the prohibitive credit-card payment the card company charges for using it's services, that would apply to small amounts: one big charge, inclusive of all micropayments.

      What am I missing? It seems so simple, I've got to be missing something.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    4. Re:Another one that flops before it starts.... by Reziac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While I agree that your idea would work well in the world of micropayments and pay per use (it certainly takes care of the "how the hell do we bill 10 million teeny little charges??" problem), such schemes tend to fall flat in the real consumer marketplace.

      People generally prefer "all you can eat for $9.95" to "only a quarter per carrot" and having to keep track of how many carrots they ate so they know how much the bill will be at the end of the month. Anyone with kids would be sure to get at least one $100 surprise bill!! And that would lead to a new requirement -- that subscribers be able to limit or more likely totally BLOCK the service (so their kids don't get out of hand).

      See, the best way to get people to UNsubscribe from a service in droves is to surprise 'em with a higher bill than they expected. Remember how people fled from AOL at the first opportunity, back when flat-rate ISPs began supplanting AOL's pay-per-minute use fee?? Remember when 900 and 976 number blocking became mandatory in the U.S. because of "surprise bills" run up by people's kids?

      Anyway, that's why I think flat-rate, all-you-can-download would go over better in the realworld marketplace, even if it wouldn't be as attractive to people who only want a few files per month. And it's a lot easier to advertise an "unlimited" service as being the greatest whizbang deal to ever come along.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  6. They've done it again by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 3, Funny

    Another product by AOL aimed at the poor masses who don't understand that most of these services are free and/or can be found at cheaper prices. (Although only with AOL can you hear an exciting 'You've got music!' sound, so that's a plus.)

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  7. Re:Unlimited downloads, but... by scoove · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How can they let you download them, but stop you from burning them to CD?

    Actually, they let you burn anything you want, but stop you from downloading them.

    AOL at 56 Kbps for MP3 downloads? And booked as a pay service? Maybe they'll get granny to believe she has broadband now that she can download music...

    *scoove*

  8. Re:Unlimited downloads, but... by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The songs you download will probably be in an encrypted format that CD-burning programs can't read. Of course this won't stop that encrypted format from being broken quite quickly, but still... it requires the resources of those crazy Russian hackers about 30 seconds to break this kind of stuff, but only when they want to. What's the point of breaking AOL's encryption when all the music is already on KaZaA? Breaking this encryption would obviously be illegal (sous DMCA), but that wouldn't stop anyone.

    Anyway this is al speculation. That is what has happened in the past with other subscription services, though. You get the files as a .AOM (American Online music) file or something that is encrypted.

    --

    Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

  9. Usage Rights on burned CDs? by syf0n · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am wonderign what the usage rights will be on CDs you burn using songs from their service. One copy only?

  10. Not AGAIN!! by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 4, Insightful


    To make this clear, first you PAY to download the music, then you PAY for the super fast net connection so you can get it this week, then you PAY to burn your own CD on your OWN time.

    Yeah, I can see why consumers are going to love this idea.

    I was a sub-sub contractor for a project like this that Sony wanted to do.

    I spent days TRYING to talk them out of it.
    They were convinced that the whole napster phenonminon proved that users wanted to burn their own CDs... not that it had ANYTHING to do with getting something for free.

    CD's bought in a store are a convienence! The only convienience this gives me is that I don't have to buy a crappy song to get a good one. Yippie!

    --
    I would rather be ashes than dust!
  11. Sounds Fair... by Talez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $18/month for unlimited downloads plus you get a free CD of tracks you actually like in the process. Sure you need to keep subscribed to listen to the songs but many people spend more than that on their CDs every month.

    Pay by the song will be interesting so long as the price point is sufficiently attractive ($0.25-$1 per song) as well as the conditions (physical PCM on the CD, no DRM bullshit).

    Maybe they're sick of fighting us and actually want to give us what we want? How many people were saying they'd start buying music if they were given a chance?

    1. Re:Sounds Fair... by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Interesting
      No it does not sound fair, actually.

      $18 for unlimited download and streams? DRMed music using AOL propriatory player?? 10 tracks a month to burn? using AOL propriatory burner? doesn't sound good to me at all


      Note there is STILL NO PAY-PER BURN ability at the moment. How long have those services existed? A year? Two? Why is it that they have a fixed set of tracks-to-burn? Are they even aware that they are serving customers that might want... *gasp*... 11 tracks?


      I, personally, *would* use a cheap mp3 service instead of gnutella... But it has to be mp3 (for my own players/burner...) and I fail to see why should I pay for priviledge of buying music from someone (i.e. monthly fee).

  12. A Step In The Right Direction by goldspider · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I hope this is successful for AOL, and more importantly, if it does succeed, I hope the RIAA pays attention.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA either A. raises holy hell about how this will cut into their CD sales, or B. demands a goodly chunk of the revenue generated to compensate them for their perceived loss.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  13. In another announcement by N8F8 · · Score: 3, Funny

    AOL announced in will be proactivly blocking all filesharing programs since they are a menace to society -For purely altruistic reasons.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  14. Selection? AOL/TW signed artists, who else! by flokemon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Can we really expect any music from bands/singers that are not signed to a record company belonging to AOL/TW?

    As opposed to Rhapsody (which I haven't tried), emusic has a great selection and uses the MP3 format, but 128kbps is not good enough for me.

  15. From the inside.... by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 5, Funny
    INT. DAYTIME - AOL CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS

    THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS CONVENED TO DISCUSS THEIR NEW ONLINE MUSIC STRATEGY.

    AOL SUIT #1
    So, the idea is this - we've already got subscribers, and the music people want subscribers, so lets turn OUR subscibers into THAT kind of subscribers! I'm frickin' brilliant!

    AOL SUIT #2
    But, what if they pirate the music they download? Can't they just play it out of their headphone jack, onto a MiniDisc, or basically anything else?

    AOL SUIT #1 motions to the gorillas standing guard at the door. With a quick motion, AOL SUIT #2 is sent through a trap door under his chair. At the same time, his stock options are released from a hatch in the ceiling and all the other SUITS scramble to collect them.

    AOL SUIT #1
    Now, as I was saying...

    FADE OUT

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    1. Re:From the inside.... by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Funny
      AOL SUIT #3: Uhhh... Splunge?

      AOL SUIT #1: That's brilliant! I hereby promote you to CIO...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  16. It's about time... by peterdaly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now that last year they lost more money than most small countries ever hope to see, they are starting to get their act together.

    AOL should have been doing this two years ago as a way to boost subscribers to AOL Broadband. AOL should be throwing as much "fat" content like this, and their movies libraries down the AOL Broadband pipe for as close to free as possible. Something needs to stop the upgrading to (other supplier) broadband hemoraging which is sweeping through their user base like ants when one discovers candy on the ground.

    Really, they were very stupid for not doing this a long time ago. This is a lot of the reason they merged in the first place.

    -Pete

    --
    Soccer Goal Plans
  17. Well, now we know... by gsfprez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the true intent of the media companies is to go out and "prove" that internet distribution is "not workable".

    Who in their right fscking mind would pay $18 to burn 10 tracks? If i want to take it in the ass, i'll go and buy a cd for $18 in the store! Hell, it may have 12 tracks on it?

    And, of course, the AOL 56k modem crowd is really looking forward to downloading music over 56k because that's not the 21st century's version of Chineese Water Torture.

    Look - lets all be reasonable - the media companies are dead set against the internet as a form of distribution, because the old form of distribution is what they know, and makes them money by the truckload.

    Do you blame them for selling (essentially) $.50 of materials for a markup of 3600%?? If i could shit in my hand and sell it for $5 a pop, you're damn right i'd be eating "Britanny Spears Bran Flakes" night and day too.

    I swear to .... if Gutenberg were alive today, they'd have his nuts in the courts for trying to "take down the industry" of scribes. Because that's all that this is... this is the 21st century equivalent of scribes who copied books.. who now see their liveihoods being threatened by that newfangled contraption which is pirateing away their profits...

    Who's going to write books if everyone can get a copy for nothing?

    The Brits have a term for people like this....

    WANKERS!

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    1. Re:Well, now we know... by garcia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And, of course, the AOL 56k modem crowd is really looking forward to downloading music over 56k because that's not the 21st century's version of Chineese Water Torture.

      Fortunatly for AOL most of their users are on it for one of several reasons. I will list the ones that I have seen most recently:

      1. They want to connect w/o surcharge to a national ISP.

      2. They don't know any better, dialup is what they have had since 1999 and DSL/Cable is foreign and/or too expensive for them.

      3. They like keeping the same email address (why this bothers people I have absolutely no idea). They feel that it is a big hassle to email the 21 people on their addressbook to tell them that it has changed.

      4. AOL users are just casual Internet users.

    2. Re:Well, now we know... by selderrr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is a big difference : when Gutenberg introduced printing over scribe, the price of a book went down to 1% of its original value, but the amount of published books increased by factor 100.000 or so, resulting in 1000fold increase of profits.

      In the case of online music vs CD, there is a yet-to-be-determined increase of copied audio files (an increase that still has to reach its peak) but the price of the good has dropped to zero% of the original. That means a net profit of 0$. Coming from a billion dollar industry, that hurts and the folks behind that industry will fight with all their power to stop the evolution. (not that that will work in the long run)

      the ONLY solution is if someone comes up with a busines model that gives profit for the salesmen side. Right now, the profit is all on customer side, so there is no money to be made business-wise.
      To make the prob worse : I fear that there is NO profitable model ! Any model that requires payment is doomed because it can not compete with Kazaa-like stuff. Any model with encryption is doomed because any encryption can be broken. Hell, in the end you could connect your audio-out to your microphone and record the damd thing the good old analogue-way! (with no environment noise offcourse)

      the issue is that the Internet has made any digitally duplicatable resource worthless, just as light bulbs made candles worthless (except for cuddly types) and CDs made vinyl worthless.

      --
      When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
    3. Re:Well, now we know... by moonsammy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any model that requires payment is doomed because it can not compete with Kazaa-like stuff.

      I've used services like kazaa quite a bit in the past, but I wouldn't if there was a good alternative service. By good, I mean it has to:
      - Not be outrageously expensive (pay-per-track would make the most sense).
      - Have a large library of songs. Even if it wasn't run by a group of record companies a very respectable library could be had if they just...
      - Pay the artist (or their corporate masters in the case of major-label bands). I'm not going to pay a penny for a work of art if it doesn't benefit the artist.

      I would probably subscribe to a service that meets those three points. I certainly like being able to get music for free off of kazaa, but it has some annoying limitations that an "official" service wouldn't - I can't always find what I want, when I do find something the file could be mislabled or severely corrupted or of poor quality, there's no uniform naming scheme, the id3 tags are frequently missing album info etc. With an official service you would always know what to expect. I think that is a *huge* incentive right there, as current p2p apps are crap when it comes to knowing what you're going to get.

      DRM is another sticky issue of course. Any subscription service would be afraid all of the files they distribute would be vulnerable to further distribution after the initial download. There isn't any easy way around this that I'm aware of - either you have DRM and annoy the bejeezus out of the end user or don't and risk that someone will use the media in some infringing way. But there will always be risk in any business, that's part of the nature of capitalism - if someone else can do it better and for less you're in danger. There's no way any service can be cheaper than free obviously, so its the 'better' part that needs to be focused on. Make a service that is convenient and delivers exactly what the customer expects (and doesn't annoy the bejeezus out of them preferably), and you'll have plenty of business. People don't mind paying for things, they just hate throwing their money away.

      Gah, that was a longer rant than I was expecting... back to work.

  18. too little too late by Suppafly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The service rates vary from $4 to $18/month, the latter giving you unlimited downloads and streaming content and 10 burnable tracks a month to CD. Future plans will include a pay-as-you-burn cost as well, expected later this year. However, the service is strictly limited to AOL customers, making many wonder if it will grab enough attention of the current subscriber base to actually be of value.

    Considering that the majority of AOL's customers are on 56k dialup that actually gets connection speeds similar to 33.6, I don't really see how this is going to take off. $18 a month on top of the $25 people already pay for AOL isn't that good of a deal, you might as well start buying cd's again. Broadband + kazaa is cheaper than aol + aol's music service and is definitly more unlimited than anything aol can come out with.

    1. Re:too little too late by jamesangel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This isn't a bad move by AOL. True, most of their customers are on dialup, but they would like them to be on AOL broadband. So they offer extra content on broadband (there will undoubtably be 'six months of songs free when you switch to AOL broadband'). They don't expect this to take off with dialup users, but to serve as bait for them to switch.

  19. WMA by diablobynight · · Score: 2, Informative

    Maybe they are going to use WMA format. Which is a pain in the ass to convert to MP3 or wav when it is copyrighted

    --
    Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
  20. Dear AOL-Time-Warner, by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    See, the way is works is, if you want to change your business model, you can't keep the old one around "just in case".

    Nobody is going to pay $18 bucks a month to download and burn 10 songs. You need to offer 100 or 1000 (or unlimited downloads) for $18 a month. "But!", you say, "That's not profitable! We won't make any money!"

    Right, you won't make any money because you haven't thrown out the OLD system yet. These two ways of doing business are mutually exclusive. Either you're selling CD's, or your selling the rights to listen to music. You can't do both. Right now, you spend millions a year on production and distribution...so much money in fact that you have to charge $18 for 10 songs (be it in CD format or downloadable format).

    The solution is CUT COSTS. Stop spending millions a year on pressing and distributing CD's and just put everything in an online library. It's just that simple. Then you can offer more because it costs less to produce. Then people will buy...but not until you make the leap.

    1. Re:Dear AOL-Time-Warner, by IndependentVik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see a small problem with this idea: Not everyone has an Internet connection, especially poorer folks.

      Problem is, these poorer folks still spend money on entertainment. My kid sister held a job at a movie theater about a year back and she always had to deal with people who were angry that the movie theatre didn't advertise showtimes in the paper everyday. She'd tell them to just check the website for showtimes and she got a lot of (often angry) responses that some people don't have money to spend on "the Internet".

      There's still a digital divide, people, no matter how much we'd like to think otherwise. Until everyone who listens to music is online, then ceasing the production of CDs makes no business sense.

      --
      I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
    2. Re:Dear AOL-Time-Warner, by stmfreak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nobody is going to pay $18 bucks a month to download and burn 10 songs. You need to offer 100 or 1000 (or unlimited downloads) for $18 a month. "But!", you say, "That's not profitable! We won't make any money!"

      Read the article. The $18 price includes unlimited downloads as well as 10 burns per month. If you just want the unlimited downloads, it's only $9 per month. So the burn price is $0.90 per track.

      This means the AOL subscriber can listen to everything, indefinitely, on their home computer and only buy the stuff they truly like. It's the ultimate try before you buy program. Heard the new ________ album? Go get it! Listen to it... decide it sucks, go download another! And then you can burn a compilation CD of your favorites.

      I do the same thing with my X-Box Magazine subscription (~$2 per month, but includes those damn pop-up ads :). Get the magazine, get the demo disc, play the demos, figure out which game to buy this month.

      Yea, there's still Kazaa, but I turned off sharing with other users a long time ago because I don't want to become an RIAA case study.

      --
      These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
  21. Monthly fees by Therlin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am so tired of monthly fees for everything. I pay $20 here, $9 there, $40 for tha tother thing.

    I'll pay $1 a song, but I will not subscribe to any more services. It adds up quickly.

  22. Paralysis by Analysis by errittus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the end, it comes to the record comapnies still fighting for a way to make the money and stop the bleeding. I truly believe that they want to offer an innovative way of releasing music "tailored" to the consumer and at the same time protecting "their " property. I still buy CDs , but 18 bucks for 10 burnable tracks per month?! I wouldn't DRIVE to get 10 tracks for $18! someone will soon get pay/play system down in retail stores that might make the grade. Tear it down and build from the ground. The way they used to do business still works but it wont for long. Adapt or cease to exist.

    --
    you never lose in ure razorblade shoes......Beck-Hotwax
  23. Emusic by bluegreenone · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'll take this opportunity to again sing the praises of emusic.com, which sounds like exactly what you want. Unlimited MP3 downloads for $10 or $15 a month. Their selection is mostly limited to non-major label stuff, but if you can do without Britney there are tons of good tunes to be had. Their jazz section especially is very good.

    1. Re:Emusic by ALpaca2500 · · Score: 3, Informative

      emusic kicks so much ass. the reason i started my subscription was because the had a deal with they might be giants to get a bunch of exclusive content, as well as all their albums (that weren't on the electra label, anyway). i signed up for the 12 month thing, at $10/month, which is pretty damn cheap for unlimited downloads. even if i download 1 good album a month, it's still cheaper than buying CDs. i've spent hours looking through all their artists. occasionally i'll find one i've heard of (Reggie and the Full Effect, Alkaline Trio, Dirtbike Annie, all stuff i'd been slightly interested in but wasnt gonna shell out $15 for a CD), and they give you recommendations based on the stuff you download, and sometimes those turn up somthing good. plus they have tons of jazz, blues, classical. and they're always adding new stuff. i check all the new albums once a week or so, and i usually find something good. emusic isnt a replacement for buying CDs (or however you get your music) because the only have a limited catalog. if the major record labels had something like this, i.e. unlimited (or even limited, like 5 albums per month) in plain old MP3 (maybe you'd like ogg or something) i'd gladly pay $10, or $15, or maybe even $20 per month, and i'm sure tons of other people would too. i guess that's all i have to say for now.

  24. Re:Unlimited downloads, but... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    AOL is trying to get away from the whole dial up ISP business and move into the pay-for-content business. Dial up is a dead saturated market but the hope is that they can make money by offering the huge amount of highly valuable content they have behind them exclusively to subscribers.

  25. Devil's Advocate by NaugaHunter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, I saw this and the first thing I thought was "Maybe it is time to get AOL." Many people have said that they would pay for songs if they could. Well, here's a chance. Hopefully they will release what their catalog plan is before long, as not many will jump on without know what is available. And their count of burnable seems low. But if it works out that they have the songs I want, and in a year it comes out to better than a per CD cost (especially since it may take 8 CDs at $15 a pop to get what 10 songs I want), then I will seriously consider it.

    If we want our entertainment companies to take us seriously, we must in effect stage personal strikes. I don't buy CDs not simply because I can't get the mix I want, but because I think it is ridiculous that 25 year old albums cost $14+, especially when they're sometimes of LPs of less than 40 minutes of music. They can argue all they want about how much it costs to produce new albums, but if it went platinum over 15 years ago I'm pretty sure the costs are now negligible.

    --
    R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
  26. Info from a current user of AOL MusicNet by paladino · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am a current user of AOL's Music Net service. They gave me a 30 day free trial and I thought what the heck. The amount of music in the catalog is very limited right now and you must use an AOL provided software to listen to the music. The AOL software is also the only way to burn the music to CD. The software is not very good when compaired to listen.coms RHAPSODY software of which I am also a user. In the end I will not continue with the musicNet service after my free 30 day trial as they just do not provide anything that I think is worth even $4 a month.

  27. Really Queer Strategy by LumberJacket · · Score: 2, Informative

    Quote "AOL will charge $17.95 per month for the right to burn 10 songs on a CD, roughly the same price consumers pay for CDs in a music store."

    In Canada I pay about $17.95 (+15% tax) for an entire CD (usually more than 10 tracks!) and I don't have to pay for an extra CD to burn it. At the current conversion rate this works out to about $29 CDN for ONE CD. There is no way this scheme should be attractive to anyone. Advice to all: Don't buy it, AOL will just have wasted their money investing in a huge online service that is ultimately designed to go to shambles. Unless, of course, they significantly lower the price; at which point if I was silly enough to join AOL, I may consider it.

    I wish I had the smarts to work at AOL.

    8|

  28. A REAL music service by heidkamp · · Score: 5, Informative
    I've signed up for an subscription service, emusic, that does it right.

    Its cheaper than this AOL crap, and allows unlimited downloads and unrestricted use of the music.

    The downside is that it doesn't have Top 40 type stuff, and all files are 128kB/s, but they got tons of good music if you're willing to dig a little. (It helps if you're into jazz and/or punk).

    I just wanted to bring them up as an example of a site doing it right, and worth checking out. I signed up not on principle, but because they had a bunch of albums I wanted.

  29. Meet the Basic Requirements of Consumers! by asv108 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The problem with this service is that it does not meet the demands of the average music enthusiast. MP3 devices are pretty much ubiquitous these days, even in non-techie circles. Nobody is going to subscribe to a service that does not maintain fair use rights. When I purchase a CD or download a song from a pay service, I expect to be able to play that song on my Ipod, put it on a samba share to play on an audiotron, or burn it to a CD for my car.

    If your going to provide a pay service, it must be in a standard format. MP3 is the current standard, and if it is not in MP3, it will go under. With this current strategy, Musicnet users can only play downloaded tracks through AOL! The CD burning feature is such a joke, 10 tracks? 10 tracks, considering the average song length is not enough to fill a 74 minute CD.

    The most ridiculous part about this whole service is the requirement of an AOL subscription. So in order to use this service a prospective customer needs to pay $25/month for an AOL subscription and $18/month for unlimited downloads of a DRM crippled format and the ability to burn 10 tracks. So for $43, users can download low quality, DRM crippled songs from a 56k modem, and every month they can burn half of a mix CD with 10 tracks!

    I've said it before and I will repeat it again, because apparently nobody at AOL/TW reads /. If you are going to charge for a service, any service whether it is downloadable music, catering, or blowjobs in a cheap motel, you need to meet the basic needs of your potential customers.

  30. Re:ACTUALLY... by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 3, Informative

    Too bad that it won't be an mp3. No where are mp3s mentioned. Now thats not saying that you cannot still get a digital copy of it--it has to be decoded to be sent to the sound card at some point--but it does mean it won't be as easy as:

    1.download from AOL.
    2. Burn to CD with nero.

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  31. allofmp3 by geniusj · · Score: 3, Informative

    well.. I doubt this would be legal if it were in the US.. But if the RIAA could come up with a site like this, I'd be there. Just like I'm at this site :).. Check out http://www.allofmp3.com/ .. $0.01/mb for MP3s. Many tracks are "online encode" as well, which means you can encode them to whatever bitrate and format you want, including WMA, MP3 and OGG (yes, OGG).. Be sure to click the 'English' link at the top if your russian isn't that great ;)

  32. Emusic rocks my world by Groucho · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't care if this is redundant and costs me points, it needs to be repeated as often as possible:

    Emusic has unlimited downloads of excellent indie, electronic, blues, jazz and classical ,etc. etc. music - full albums, ten bucks a month if you subscribe for a year. Well encoded except for the metal, where the distorted guitars suffer a bit from the 128k bit rate.

    They have the entire Matador catalog, and oodles and oodles of other off-center selections. The first few days I was subscribed I downloaded 2 gigs of stuff and felt faint and woozy with music lust.

    There's no Britney or Zeppelin, but who cares? If you're a Slashdot reader you probably have offbeat tastes, so go dig in!

  33. When FreeP2P will fail by mR3p · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The time that free P2P will fail is the time that subscription services like this can offer better service than all the other free P2P networks combined. This includes file availability, speed, and price, though the price will fall in if the first two factors are well met. This AOL service is a far cry from being anything close to affordable or useful. No one wants to pay $18 for 10 tracks, equivalent to buying a regular old CD at regular old price.

    That old system is idiotic, and the entire way that the music industry does business will change. No longer will they sell albums at huge rates like we see today. If they want to survive, they will have to sell each track individually and to keep the 'album system' intact, they will have to have the price of albums significantly lower than those of the combined prices of the tracks on that album. As it is, there is no reason why a soundtrack should cost more than the movie itself, as there are obviously no development or research involved in either of the medium, there is virtually no cost to produce either medium, and the content on the DVD is greater than on the CD. Yet the RIAA blames their slumping sales *completely* on piracy.

    While these are not by any means new arguments, the industry just doesn't seem to be getting the picture. By offering services like these to "cater" to your average Joe KaZaA user, they are simply outlining the fact that they don't understand why KaZaA is so successful. It offers what users want at low rates (in this case free), and for the industry to compete with that price, they will simply have to offer a better product, and people will pay for it, *somewhat* like the idea of open source.

  34. listen.com by Hollins · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been subscribing to listen.com since they came out with their new subscription model a few months ago and have been very pleased. $10/month for unlimited music on demand, with a very broad catalog. Even more reasonable is the $4/month radio plan. You can create stations based on favorite artists and hit a button to skip songs you don't like.

    They typically charge $1 per song to burn, but have an offer going through March 31 to charge $0.49 per song. This seems to be the pricing point that folks on Slashdot have been claiming they would support. I plan to burn a few CDs just to show my support.

    Also, when I had problems getting their new software to work through my University's firewall, a developer worked diligently with me through email before finally sending me a patch to test. It worked great and ended up being included in the next release. It was a level of support I don't encounter with software much anymore.

    I'm not affiliated with listen.com, but I do endorse them and I seriously doubt AOL/Time Warner will be able to match up.

  35. When will they learn by tmortn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html

    Intresting link with a good all round look at the DRM vrs Fair Use issue. Peronally I don't think the companies get it. They need to get back in touch with the fact that the customer is always right. Right now the customers who have braod band access are thumbing their collective noses at the music industry because the industry is thumbing their noses at them. Get with the times folks, your hoarding bronze weapons when steel is on the market.

    In regards to this joke of a music service being offered I have this to say. As long as they are going to practice highway robbery there will be pirates aplenty. Pave a 6 lane highway with no speed bumps and you might be amazed how many people are willing to pay to use it. You know this service reminds me of the end of Blazing saddles where they put up the Toll booth on the prarie only they expect it to work in real life.

    --
    I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
  36. You can't sell what's already free... by ksyrium · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You simply can't sell what the public knows it can get for free. Someone at AOL must have more balls than brains...who would even _propose_ this idea in a meeting? The pop-music-swapping demographic they're aiming this at is the same that's grown file sharing to what it is today -- there's no way they'll pay for crippled versions of the same product they now consume for no cost, ethical or not.

  37. In other, slightly related news... by Scorchio · · Score: 2, Informative

    "The volume of CD albums shipped in 2002 reached another all time high: 221.6m units"

    Source: British Phonographic Industry

    So sales haven't declined at all. I guess they just haven't risen as much as they hoped. At least in the UK, that is...

  38. Music Match MX is the best I tried by sumengen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Music Match MX is the best. They found the correct way of providing this service. Both sound quality and pricewise. For me the sound quality is much more important though. Other than MX, I did like emusic.com but their 128 kbit Mp3's were awful for me.. I am still subscriber for them too.

    Music Match MX, I think, uses MP3pro instead of Mp3. That probably explains the good quality. If you select CD quality for MX, the sound quality satisfies me. I am usually satisfied with 256kbit Mp3's minimum.

    MX Gold ($3/mon) gives you something like a radio, you select an artist and listen to similar artists. You can skip songs if you want. Great for new music discovery. But MX also has a Artist on Demand feature if you buy the platinum service ($5/month). So you can only listen to songs from one or more groups. You don't get to select the songs, but you can skip to the next song if you want. Usually first songs are the popular ones.

    You can create your radio stations based on artists, era, genre, and select the weighting of these. The system works great for me.

  39. Music subscription economics by bmarklein · · Score: 4, Informative
    It would probably help for people to understand the current state of licensing for music subscription services. I am presenting this without any comment on whether legal subscription services are a good value or are likely to succeed, so don't flame me.

    The current "on-demand" subscription services (the major ones being Pressplay, MusicNet, Listen.com's Rhapsody) all have licenses from all 5 major labels plus a number of indies that allow them to do the following:

    • on-demand streaming (e.g., search for a track and stream it)
    • tethered downloads - DRM'd downloads that can only be played on the PC they were downloaded to
    • burnable/portable downloads
    The licenses from the labels generally require the subscription service to pay a small fee (say, 0.2 cents) for each song streamed or each time a tethered download is played. Each time a portable/burnable download is purchased, the label gets about 50 cents. The music publisher gets an additional fee of roughly 8.5 cents.

    The prices now are all about $9 to $10 per month for unlimited streams and tethered downloads plus about $1 per track for burnable/portable downloads. Rhapsody and MusicNet currently don't offer transfers to portable players, only burns, but of course you can rip to MP3 after burning.

    Currently the selection is variable, with some albums or tracks not available at all, some only available for streaming/tethered downloads but not for burning, etc., but the selection has been steadily improving over time. For example the current no. 1 album by 50 Cent is available on all of the services, and is available for burning. The Norah Jones album that just won 8 Grammys is as well. Some artists like Dave Matthews, Madonna, Metallica and the Beatles own their own digital rights and have not allowed their music to be made available on the subscription services yet.

    Another issue affecting availablility is publishing rights - the subscription services need to make deals with publishers representing songwriters in addition to the artist or label who controls the master (recording) rights. In many cases this is why only certain tracks on an album may be available.

  40. A business model that people might actually like by jms · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok. Here's a business model that I would really like, with the potential to make a lot of money:

    Offer a music service that, either for free, or for a fixed price, allows you to download all the songs you want, from fixed servers or from other peers, in some compressed format.

    Provide software or a web site that allows you to easily design a "mix" CD, based on either songs you already have on MP3, or lists of songs that you don't have from a catalog.

    Once you've selected up to 80 minutes of music to fill your mix CD, you design the CD label. You can pick from a template, or upload your own disc art. You can also design your own template. More on that below.

    Then you select "purchase" to order a custom CD.
    o The custom CD is burned to a CDR, using full resolution, uncompressed WAV files.
    o The CDR is printed on a high-resolution full color inkjet or dye sublimation printer, using the disc art that you selected or designed.
    o The CDR is placed in a white sleeve, and mailed to you.

    The cost would be say, $11.95 per disc plus $5.00 fixed shipping and handling charges no matter how many discs you place in a single order. Keeping the per-disc cost low and the fixed charge high is advantageous, as it would encourage larger orders.

    This way, you could use the P2P system to "sample" and explore music, and find the music you really like, then order an uncompromised, top notch, attractive product:

    1) The music you really like in uncompressed format -- the same bitstream as the original CD, as opposed to lossy MP3s.
    2) Attractive, highly professional custom-printed CDRs with zero effort, instead of piles of hand-labelled CDs.

    The "user community" would be built around bulletin boards, mix lists and disc art. Once you had paid to burn a CDR, you could opt to save and publically "publish" your mix list and disc art, so that other people could make identical copies of your mix CD by clicking a "purchase" button. You could also upload your own cover art templates that could be used to print any track list. There would be no way to download other people's disc art -- the only way to get it would be to have a CDR custom burned. This would create an additional incentive to use the pay service. There would be a system for people to rate and rank mix CDs and cover art, and a regularly published top 100 list. You could set up a system where if 1000 people use your mix list or disc art, you get a free CD, thus encouraging people to put a lot of time and effort into coming up with really good track lists and sick disc art.

    It seems like it would be fun to me. Sound like a good time? Would people pay for that?

  41. Article Incomplete - Cost not $18 by Pinky3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article at the Washington Post is not as complete as the one at the New York Times. In particular, AOL is trying to sell a value-added service to consumers who already have broadband service.
    "In the next few weeks, AOL is going to introduce an improved $15-a-month service, with a bundle of content and services meant for people who already buy broadband connections from their cable or telephone companies. That offering will include a limited version of MusicNet that will let users download 20 songs a month and listen to another 20 one time."

    For those who don't want the regular AOL, "for $8.95 a month, users will be able to listen to a catalog of music, now at 250,000 songs and growing, on their computers... The standard $8.95 version of the service will allow users to listen to an unlimited number of songs on demand ...They can also download the songs to their computers for higher sound quality and the ability to listen to them when not on the Internet." What you will not be able to do for $8.95 is burn CD's from the downloaded songs. "A subscriber can listen to MusicNet's downloads on no more than two computers. They also cannot be copied to other devices or sent to other people."

    The premium service is $17.95 and allows the burning of 10 songs a month in addition to unlimited listening.

  42. Sum Mo Fax by Glonoinha · · Score: 2, Informative

    >Odd. For home defense, I'd think that an automatic small-caliber weapon designed to wound a person would be ideal.

    Nope. Movies and special effects not-withstanding, an automatic small-caliber weapon will make a LOT of noise and will spray bullets all over the place, possibly hitting an intruder (possibly not) but not your best use of force. Submachine guns jump around too much for my preferences, good for keeping someone's head down but not something you want to use in your own home - it would be analogous to using a flamethrower : effective at scaring away the bad guys but bad for your belongings. Get a 12 gauge shotgun and alternate buckshot and slugs.

    Want to prove it to yourself? Take a heavy duty 1 gallon plastic jug full of water to the range. A Borden's Milk Jug works and if you don't drink milk then a 3 liter Coke jug works. Full of water, with the cap screwed on tight.

    Walk it out to the other side of the range.

    Put 9mm round nose ammo into you SMG (the manufacturers recommend full metal jacket round nose for proper high speed feeding) and point in in the general direction of the jug and spray bullets. If you hit (not particularly easy at 50 feet) walk over to the still full jug and watch the water dribble out. Takes a while. When the jug is empty, that is how long a guy with a bullet in a good place will last. Hitting the jug more than once at 50 feet during a spray of 25 bullets off-hand is going to be magic or luck. People don't simply fall down and die when they get hit - people die / go down / stop hassling you due to : shock from combined blood loss and seeing their blood all over (could take a while), lack of oxyen to the brain (depending on the size and placement of the holes in his body could take a while), cut a nerve cord (spinal cord) that makes the bottom half go limp (not very likely unless you get real lucky.)

    Take a new jug and shoot it with the 12 gauge slug. No gray area there, if you hit a 1 gallon jug full of water with a 12 gauge hollow point 1oz slug the shock value shatters the jug and sends little pieces in all directions and the water rains down for about 15 seconds. For good reason, the sound of a 12 gauge shotgun pump action racking a shell into the receiver translates correctly in every language on the planet :)

    In home defense if you are going to shoot somebody, shoot to kill them. If they live they are going to a) sue you in court (and possibly win), or b) come back and shoot you because getting shot hurts like a MOFO.

    >Automatic weapons are illegal because

    Let me reiterate this. Automatic weapons are not illegal. Live near Austin, Texas? Give me a call and if you have a clean police record and $6,000 we can go buy you one. No joke. Not cheap, and it isn't cash and carry (there is a background check before the transfer goes through) but if you have $6,000 and a clean record you too can legally own a machine gun. Short-barrel shotgun too, if that is your fancy - it is called a Class II weapon and if you submit the proper paperwork it is also legal.

    Note that it is against the law to possess a machine gun without the proper tax stamp (costs $200, for the record) that you can only get during the transfer of the weapon, but then again being in the possession of a car or a computer that you did not obtain in the proper legal manner is also illegal.

    As for hunting big game with a submachine gun the hide of a rhino or elephant would stop 9mm bullets from doing much damage, fired from your normal H&K MP5 etc... Even if they penetrated the skin and muscle there would be slim chance of them doing enough massive damage to internal organs to stop them from coming over and destroying you before limping off into the forest to die four days later of blood loss.

    >They may be inaccurate, but if I believe that they are true

    Fair enough. I can find a better way to spread the truth than by diss'ing on you. I will work on that, sorry.

    http://www.cox-internet.com/arielinc/MP5PI006.jp g
    http://www.cox-internet.com/arielinc/MP5PI013.j pg
    http://www.cox-internet.com/arielinc/MP5PI020. jpg
    http://www.cox-internet.com/arielinc/MP5PI023 .jpg

    Oh so off topic, and yet so informative. Mods would have a field day if we weren't hidden down so far :)

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer