Slashdot Mirror
PressPlay + Roxio?
securitas writes "The NY Times and the LA Times (via SJ Mercury News) report that Roxio is close to a $30 million deal to buy Pressplay from Universal and Sony. The struggling joint-venture has less than 50,000 subscribers after three years. Roxio bought the Napster brand and assets at a bankruptcy auction last year and plans to resurrect Napster as a legal service."
No login link
If the New York Times reported it...then it must be true!
(in my opinion, that is)
I honestly feel that the decline of music quality and the tiredness of the rock genre after nearly 50 years of three-chord songs has helped to contribute to the alarming rate at which people steal music from online sources.
Who in their right mind would pay eighteen dollars for a CD that probably contains only one or two good songs?
I'm not saying stealing is the right thing to do, and I certainly wouldn't teach my children how to steal music online, but I kind of feel like the music industry "had it coming", so to speak.
Wasn't the whole legal arguement of Napster being that it was somewhat peer to peer? If Napster was not actually storing the data on their site, why did they need all of that storage?
Not neccesrily!
I don't own a Mac & I don't plan to right now ($$$!) I would love to be able to leagally get the songs I want and I don't want to wait until the end of the year when Apple gets iTunes out for the PC. I would gladly welcome a viable iTunes-like PC solution!
But that's just me... Most people are just happy with Kazaa (regaurdless of the leagalities of it)
~ tmasman
Oh! And this one time, at band camp...
Just like the previous how many attempts to make a legal way of handling this. Just stick to an open p2p network, its up to your morals on what music you download.
Roxio bought the Napster brand and assets at a bankruptcy auction last year and plans to resurrect Napster as a legal service.
Yea, I am going to let Napster represent me in a court of law!!
Great Linux Site
finally got the suits at Universal and Sony to recognize that it wasn't that people weren't willing to pay for music, it was that they weren't willing to subscribe to a bad service with ridiculous restrictions that offered very little value. Of course this raises the question: how well positioned is Roxio to create a for-money "Napster" that would have the ease of AMS?
and they buy a music serive...hmmm..sounds a lot like what apple is doing with music store...perhaps roxio will set up a similar system?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Similarly, the best way to hurt the intellectual property merchants is not through creating alternatives, but by overwhelming "piracy". Creating alternatives, whether free software or free music, only encourages and reinforces the idea that it is right and just that these companies maintain their disgraceful and unjust forceful monopolies.
A better, more powerfull blow is to encourage fullscale and massive piracy of every one of these attempted monopolies on ideas. Pirate Microsoft Windows, do not use Linux. pirate music, do not create free alternatives. In this way, when the great majority of people are breaking the law, but effectively demanding their rights through action, the law will have to be amended. In a democracy, the criminalisation of the overhwleming majority will not be countenanced.
Pirate well, and pirate today, for Justice!
I was wondering what was next for Roxio. They made EZ-CD creator the most reliable, bug-free piece of software I ever used. I wondered where they were going to redirect their efforts since EZ-CD is so perfect it will never need updates or support ever again. I was worried their staff would be fired or have to sit around bored because their wonderful perfect EZ-CD creator has no bugs to fix and generates no support calls to return. Now their very bored staff will have something to do. Moving resources into new effort might challenge companies lesser than Roxio, but when you write perfect software like they do, you'll have plenty of time left over to make all your new plans successful. Go roxio!
They own the old Napster rights and they own Easy CD Creator?
First, Roxio's plan was as follows:
1) Buy Napster
2) ?
3) Profit!
which did not work out. Apparently, they think that step 2 is "Buy PressPlay".
Napster did not make money. PressPlay (AFAIK) did not make any money worth mentioning. The Apple Music Store has set the bar now, and Roxio's attempt to become "the tech savvy player in the digital music business" has - if not failed - become more difficult.
Forgive my ranting, Roxio just canned me recently...
A.C.
Here is a snippet of the Press Release:
Roxio acquires Pressplay as the foundation for the re-launch of Napster®
The Global Leader in CD and DVD Recording Software Adds Premier Legal Online Music Service to its Digital Media Assets
Universal Music and Sony Music Entertainment now Minority Stockholders in Roxio
SANTA CLARA, CA, May 19, 2003 - Roxio (NASDAQ:ROXI), The Digital Media Company®, provider of the best selling digital media software in the world, today announced that it acquired Pressplay, the nation's premier online music service. As a result of this transaction, Roxio has acquired a legal digital music distribution infrastructure and catalog rights with all five major music labels. Pressplay will serve as the foundation for the launch of Roxio's new legal on line music service under the Napster brand.
"Roxio's acquisition of Pressplay significantly accelerates the development of our online music business which is central to the strategic development of our company," said Chris Gorog, Roxio's Chairman and CEO. "With our acquisition of Napster we obtained the most powerful brand in the online music space. Now, with our acquisition of Pressplay, we have the most complete and scaleable legal technology infrastructure to use as a platform to re-launch Napster. After taking the necessary time to add features, enhance functionality and improve usability we will launch a new service with an extremely compelling consumer experience that builds on the qualities of the Napster brand."
Full details available here.
Aren't they coming a bit late to the party? People are doing much more exciting things with file sharing nowadays. It was the idea behind Napster and the time it hit the scene which led to it's success, as opposed to the (very simple) technology. The addition of the type of features which I'd want to see in an online music service (searches, previews etc) would lead to a product completetly different to Napster.
The success of ITunes shows that a decent product will do well in the popularity stakes regardless of brand. Though the Napster brand will bring a bit of recongnition, I can't see it making customers any more likeley to buy overpriced, bad or crippled (in terms of usage) music.
Vacancy for signature. Apply within.
If they can quickly "get in on the ground floor", Roxio stands to make a killing if they rearchitecture Pressplay into a system modeled after Apple's music store but PC-accessible.
Essentially, Roxio has 6 months or so to enter the market with a comparable product. If they're late, Apple's planned PC port will enter and become entrenched. If Roxio enters first with a decent product, they will become entrenched in the PC market and Apple will be forced into a niche market of Mac users.
In short, Apple was incredibly stupid not to make their store web-based or have plans for PC availability in the very short term, as it leaves the PC market wide open for someone to copy Apple's service and take over the market. I'd love for Apple to win this, but now they had better move quickly or they'll be forced to stay in their niche.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
and the folks at Apple Music Store. They'll be glad to know that their efforts won't work.
PressPlay and Rhapsody were the two services Steve Jobs mentioned when he introduced Apple's iTunes Music Store, and he concluded that compared to iTMS, they both suck. They're both subscription services, and they place restrictions on what you can do with the songs you download. Apple also uses DRM, but Apple is MUCH more lenient about how you can use music you've purchased.
If Roxio is buying PressPlay, that can only mean increased competition among music providers, and competition is always a good thing.
By the way, although Apple hasn't had time to work out any deals with independant artists, many of them have been clamoring to get on board as quickly as possible, and Apple says they will definitely be working with them once they've had a chance to get more popular "Big 5" stuff added first. I haven't heard much interest in PressPlay distributing indy music. Probably doesn't hurt that so many musicians are Mac users.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Apple has proven that it can.
Leave it up to morals? I think the outrageous success of Kazaa and gnutella are testament to the effectiveness of this strategy. You can't rely on people being honest when there's money involved. Sad as it is, we're all thieves when we get the chance.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Bands played live, recorded music wasn't avaialble.
Recordings are cheap, I wouldn't pay much for one.
I would pay to see a band live.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I don't own a Mac & I don't plan to right now ($$$!) I would love to be able to leagally get the songs I want and I don't want to wait until the end of the year when Apple gets iTunes out for the PC.
Yes, but the problem with that is that a "iTunes-like PC solution" is going to disappear without a trace in a few months when Apple ships the actual iTunes for Windows.
Most people are just happy with Kazaa
Most people don't steal their music, dude. Most people know right from wrong. The people who use Kazaa are in the TINY minority compared to the people who actually pay for what they take.
Why do these three chord songs continue to be popular? Is it a result of marketing or do they have a particular resonance within us as humans which makes us go, I'm no monkey but I know what I like? On another note, I've recently been exposed to music from the Baroque and classical periods to a large extent and find it very enjoyable, but most people my age find it boring. It could be a result of attention spans that have been consistently shortened. Good music might not necessarily result from a new business model, just wider distribution of that which is listened to already anyway.
Hopefully Roxio will sort out a good system. EZ-CD kicks arse so hopefully they can do something like Apple. The biggest problem they have is cost. I think the per-song price needs to be lower. If it was 20-50 cents, I believe you could make it work. I for one would buy. I don't particular like using napster, kazaa etc. With all the broken files and poor quality etc its just a pain but I put up with it cause its cheaper and I can get songs that you can't buy at the local Justin Timberlake/J.Lo store.
Maybe the success of Apple is making the record companies take notice. If Roxio offered competitive pricing and a large back catalogue they could be onto a winner.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Along with wanting to give a strong push to the Apple platform, Apple did not immediately rush out a Windows version because they knew that it wasn't something they needed to rush. It is not that easy to create a fully integrated tool/service/device system like iTunes/Apple Music Store/iPod. Beyond the purely technical (frontend and backend, which are each daunting) there are the esthetic/UI functional elements and the business deals that had to be put in place to create the entity as a whole. This was a not a flash in the pan. It was a well thought out, well executed business plan.
I think everyone who has seen the iTunes Music Store immediately began wondering who would lead the pack in bringing this model to the unwashed masses of Windows users...Apple? Someone else? Multiple companies simultaneously? Would there be a clear leader with marketplace domination?
These questions are still unanswered, but at least we know Roxio is among those entering the race with Apple.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
this is funny.
And it echoed my sarcastic thoughts exactly.
The Apple music service is great for people who only listen to music on their ipod and computers, but most people do not own or can even justify spending $299 on a portable music player. For a music service to be successful on the PC it needs to be using a standard format (MP3) that can be used in a variety of devices (portables, Audiotron, etc). The Apple Music service is useless to me because I play all my music on my stereo via an Audiotron. Converting to mp3 sounds like shit, and the quality of 128 AAC to begin with is not high enough for a good stereo.
Again the major problem with Apple that we see time and time again is the strategy of trying to use their software innovations to sell their hardware. This is fine if your selling to Apple enthusiasts and users, but it will not work with the other 97% of computer users.
I had no idea Napster ended up in a bankruptcy auction. I used to work for a company that were working with Bertelsmann to buy Napster (remember that?), so a big hello to Paul V. at iFormation! Would you put a guy with his finger as far from the pulse as possible on a project like that? I mentioned at the time that buying Napster was the stupidest idea ever because it was seen as being free gratis & for nothing, but egos tend to get in the way....I wonder how much cash went up the wall? iTunes works because it's not been free from Day One and has a reputable backer - but more people use Kazaa. (Or Kazaalite if they're smart.) Whatever. Cheers S.
They're there for a reason
Seriously though, I was thinking about the Apple thing the other day, and 99 cents for a song is too much. I'm sorry, but aside from the stuff I legally own on cassette tape that I want on MP3, the stuff I download is stuff they play on the radio, which if I really wanted to could tape *gasp* off the radio and still not buy the stupid CD.
Unlike some of you (and like many of you) I buy a limited amount of CD's, but only from artists that release albums that are (IMHO) mostly good. So if there are 10 songs on a CD and 8 are good, as far as I am concerned its a good CD. If 1/10 are good, then not only am I not going to buy the CD, but I sure as heck am not going to pay anyone for that one song, which was probably forced out by the record label.
Lets think about purchasing a movie on DVD (after all, CDs and DVDs are roughly in the same 15-25 price range). Not many people are going to buy a movie if only 15 minutes of it is worth watching. Why do these record companies think that we will pay for single songs when the rest of the album blows? That'd be like spending a buck to get the Qui-Gon Darth Maul fight at the end of Episode 1, which unlike the rest of the movie was pretty damn good.
Add to that fact that there is no reason to have CD prices of 10-20 year old albums in the 15-20 price range. Its rediculous. The majority of the costs are already covered, and all the only reason I can think of is that they dont want people listening to older less money making (no concerts of dead bands, or videos, or product placment, or whatever) from a band that rocked in the past but is now gone.
I'm sorry, 99 cents a song is absurd. I dont know how they charge you, but unless the price was 25 a download sold in 5 dollar increments (so you buy 20 songs at a time, which makes more sense than 1 for 1 {note, I am assuming that if I buy 1 song, they charge me 1 dollar, and if I come back 3 hours later and get 3 songs, they charge me 3 dollars} and umpteen 1.00 transactions, which is just plain annoying).
One last thing. Treat me as if I am a thief, and I will be a thief. If you already think I steal from you RIAA, then I will continue to steal from you. Its easier to fire up Kazaa than it is to search any database you currently have.
Well, thats my rant for the day, I apologize if its less than coherent at certain points, its early and the Dew hasnt kicked in yet... =)
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
What the heck is meant by saying Pressplay has bee offering subscriptions for three years? As it currently exists, Pressplay has only been around for perhaps one year? The consumer reviews of its music service came out last year.
You know, I guess I'm blessed (?) or just lucky that the wiring in my brain has enabled me to truly enjoy (for nearly 20 years now) independant music and at the same time that wiring has enabled me to loath and detest "commericial mainstream" music. So, when I want to downnload MP3's of music I enjoy... its never done "illegally" as 90% of the bands/artists I like generally thrive on the free exchange of their music.
Also, and here's the kicker, these bands generally make money off of me because after I download and burn 2 or 3 MP3's, I then buy the CD (and also get past CD's if applicable).
So, the whole point of "legal" vs. "illegal" burning/copying MP3's is quite irrelevant if one just opens up to independant/diy music.
I generally use places like diysearch, victory records (who always has a nice selection of their artists mp3's available).
The stuff is out there, in all genres, you just gotta find it, and be open to it.
sad robot making broken music
Yes, but the problem with that is that a "iTunes-like PC solution" is going to disappear without a trace in a few months when Apple ships the actual iTunes for Windows.
The AC is right. Why is this at -1?
Most people don't steal their music, dude. Most people know right from wrong. The people who use Kazaa are in the TINY minority compared to the people who actually pay for what they take.
The AC is wrong. Most people steal their music, currently because they are forced to. iTunes offers superior digital copies to mp3 (even the best rips) for a small, One-Click(tm) price. Roxio/Pressplay's "solution" will clunk like a square-wheeled bike, mark my words.
Cause Apple is gonna own this bitch in no time once their Windows version sees the light of day. If I were Apple I would have every available resource focused on getting that Windows version out there while the positive press is still fresh.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Considering the Roxio line-up, Jam could easily go into Apple's current pro music offerings (like Logic) as well as being a standalone product. On the consumer side, imagine Toast being built-in to Mac OS X...that would be very nice. Then Apple could sell an iTunes "Pro" to Windows users with Easy CD Creator bundled/built-in, and it could sell off GoBack, VideoWave and PhotoSuite to some other company.
That's true, but there's two mitigating circumstances:
1) they're buying pressplay - all jokes aside, I'm assuming they do have some know-how and architecture in place, even if they did shoot themselves in the foot with that subscription plan.
2) They have the benefit of seeing the reaction to Apple's site, to decide what to copy and what to change. Remember, "First to market" is as often a curse as a gift.
Bottom line, the 6-month lead that Roxio will have will definitely help them play catch-up, and I wouldn't bet against them being able to turn pressplay into something viable by the time Apple manages to port their system to windows. I know it'll take more than slapping a new front end, but it still could be do-able.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Aren't they coming a bit late to the party? People are doing much more exciting things with file sharing nowadays.
It ought to be pretty obvious that this has nothing to do with file-sharing or P2P. This is about creating a legal alternative to file-sharing and P2P -- a label-friendly environment where people can actually shop for and buy music, rather than just take it. Apple proved in two weeks that people will buy downloadable music if it caters to their needs. Now Roxio is going to follow suit and try to beat Apple to the PC market.
These new online music shops will find customers, because people still want to buy music. Likewise, P2P will still survive, because people still want for porn, warez and back episodes of Adult Swim cartoons. The real question is how much these new online shops will cater to independent labels and artists. If Apple, Roxio and RealNetworks (which recently bought Listen.com) treat those not associated with the Big Five like red-headed stepkids, then these new stores should be shunned.
Apple has indicated they want to help the indie labels. That's a good start, IMHO.
The addition of the type of features which I'd want to see in an online music service (searches, previews etc) would lead to a product completetly different to Napster.
And is that such a bad thing, really? Wouldn't you rather have the product you want rather than another P2P system? (That's what Roxio is betting, anyway.)
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
Napster was part of Internet history; now they're going to tarnish the name by slapping it on a DRM-encrusted, non-P2P music service.
Take a look at the end of the URL that the parent sends you too, very interesting.
T UN E.html?ex=1053921600&en=563cfca1e07d15b9&ei=5062&p artner=SLASHDOTSUCKS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/19/technology/19
Most people don't steal their music, dude. Most people know right from wrong.
As true as the second statement is, EVERY SINGLE PERSON I KNOW has Kazaa on their computer. And that's not because I only know hoodlums & thieves. It's because most people don't have the option to fork up $18 for the 2 songs on a CD that they actually want to listen to.
It's not about knowing right from wrong, it's about what's reasonably realistic. $18 for 2 great songs & 8 horrible sounding pieces of CRAP is not a reasonable method to get your songs.
$0.99 a song however is a great idea & Most of the people I know would gladly pay that amount.
~ tmasman
Oh! And this one time, at band camp...
Qu'allez-vous faire quand ces patriotes 2înch courent sauvage sur vous, le premier frère de troll de station?
I'm hoping Apple gets this Windows version out there asap. It would be nice to see them be the first to do something right and then actually get to capitalize on it's acceptance by those unwashed masses. Hopefully the record labels in their paranoid glory will be slow to try anyone else in this and Apple will get the time it needs to get the other 90 some odd percent of the world connected to their budding money machine
I'm still at a loss to explain why they didn't get that Windows version ready to go from day one though. That would have been amazing. If the Mac users pulled down a million songs in a week (and even then it was only the OSX users) and were able to get that much positive buzz about their numbers then can you picture what it would have been like if a Windows client had been available from the outset? What would people have been saying if they had cranked out ten million songs in the first week?
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
But it would be nice if they would include an tag in their comments. ONLY the part you are quoting should be italisized (sp?).
</Grammer Police>
I would love to be able to leagally get the songs I want and I don't want to wait until the end of the year when Apple gets iTunes out for the PC. I would gladly welcome a viable iTunes-like PC solution!
Don't worry, I'm sure Microsoft is hard at work on a third rate clone of the Apple Music Store to bundle with Windows in the very near future. It will be released early, feature incomplete, and founded on Windows Media. Of course it will contain MS style DRM, and, in standard MS fashion, be gradually improved over time until it is 'good enough' to keep people from looking at alternative solutions. Who got this 'competition' rumor started anyway?
The success of the AMS might drive the majors to be more willing. But it just as easily might make them angry, bitter and greedy.
Why would you want to start a music store under Napster's name? Granted it has good name recognition, but it's often recognition associated with pirating music. It seems to me it would be more of a burden to lift the stigma of the name than the name is worth.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
All the companies involved see is that people are buying music from Apple. So, they figure that selling music the same way they've been trying to only with an established brand name (Napster) will sell even more music than Apple - after all, people must be buying now because it's from Apple, and will buy even more from a trusted name like Napster! It's just an attempt to leverage a brand into selling music. It's the same stuff underneath with a shiny coating, if you will... they don't seem to have learned to "think different" (or even examine how much the Napster brand is worth at this point).
That's how they think, anyway... and so the service will just be a repeat of Pressplay.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But it's FREE! I mean i'm sure you can even add your own contributions to your legal defence. Then you can spend all that money you saved on a legal team paying the plantif because the the judge found against you.
Translation: We surrender!
IAALS.
Two things:
Because of Pressplay and other services absymal feature set, there is no way that I would have ever signed up. I was an E-Music subscriber for a number of years, but when my subscription ended, the genius marketing folks over there never bothered to auto-renew it! Because they were so stupid at marketing over there, I just never bothered to go through the trouble of signing up again.
As one of those souls who happen to *buy* all my music, Apple is the way to go. I hope Roxio has good luck, but I can't see how they are going to even use the Napster name or technologies in any way without giving the record companies the willies. Then again, perhaps they have something in mind that will blow our minds in a few months.
Newsfollow.com
Microsoft?
.Net technologies. Count on it.
Do you really expect Microsoft to sit idly by while Apple makes $$$$ hand over fist, winning over converts in the process?
Microsoft may not be the most ethical of companies, and they may not be the producer of the most stable or the most secure software in the world, but one thing they're not is stupid. If there's any money to be made in the software and Internet content businesses, you better believe Microsoft will be standing there making it. And the delivery system will be centered around the fully-DRM-enabled Windows Media Player and
My journal has hot
I know quite a few people who make a living from.
Playing in pubs,
Busking etc......
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Roxio Acquires Pressplay As The Foundation For The Re-Launch Of Napster(R)
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
SANTA CLARA, Calif. -- Roxio Inc. (ROXI) acquired online music service Pressplay, which it expects to be the basis for a new service under the Napster brand.
Roxio acquired substantially all of Pressplay, a joint venture owned by music units of Vivendi Universal SA (V) and Sony Corp. (SNE), for $12.5 million cash and about 3.9 million common shares. Based on Roxio's closing stock price on Friday, the deal is valued at about $39.5 million, excluding about $1 million in transaction costs.
Also, Sony Music Entertainment and Vivendi's Universal Music Group will each have the right to earn up to $6.25 million, based on cash flows from the new Napster service, Roxio said in a press release Monday.
The company plans to invest about $20 million to fund the relaunch of Napster, but expects the new business to produce negative cash flows until it is widely adopted.
As a result of the deal, Roxio said it acquires a legal digital music distribution infrastructure and catalog rights with all five major music labels.
Roxio said the deal significantly accelerates the development of its online music business, which is central to its strategic development.
Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment will each name a representative to Roxio's board. Pressplay President Michael Bebel will report to Roxio Chairman and Chief Executive Christopher Gorog, and its senior management will remain in place. Pressplay will also maintain its offices in Los Angeles and New York.
As reported in Monday's Wall Street Journal, the deal results in a major irony for Vivendi and Sony, who launched Pressplay as a legitimate alternative to illicit free song-swapping and who will wind up as shareholders in a new service bearing the Napster name. The old version of Napster was shut down in the summer of 2001, as a result of a copyright suit filed by the music companies.
Pressplay currently is a subscription service that requires users to pay a monthly fee for unlimited, but temporary, access to songs from the five major music companies. Customers can also pay to permanently download songs. Roxio is expected to make significant changes to the service, The Journal reported.
Digital media company Roxio, which is best known for its software that allows users to create their own compact discs, paid $5 million last November to acquire the name and intellectual property of Napster.
The company expects to discuss the impact of the deal on its fiscal first quarter ending June 30 during its fourth-quarter conference call scheduled for Wednesday.
A survey of five analysts by Thomson First Call yielded a consensus first-quarter earnings estimate of 11 cents a share for Roxio, which reported pro forma earnings of 3 cents a share in the year-earlier period.
Roxio's shares recently traded at $7.54, up 9.3%, on Nasdaq composite volume of 1.5 million shares, well above average daily volume of 323,078 shares.
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!
It looks to me like they are going to rebrand PressPlay as the new legal Napster and hope that people buy it because of name recognition
Well, this will certainly be the end of Roxio. The Napster model just will not work expecting users to pay for the service and also spend their own bandwidth and hard disk storage to supply music files Roxio can make money on. Also, they will not have good results trying to get people to pay for music when the quality is as questionable as what might be found on a random user's system. And there would even be resistance on the user community's part against anything that made a buck for the RIAA. As a "free" underground system the Napster approach worked well, but it's just not viable as a pay system, never was.
Considering the direction other Roxio products have taken, good ridance.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Anyone know if Shawn Fanning (my closest guess to his name) still has any part of Napster anymore. As a fellow drop out of Northeastern he's definately my favorite underdog. So is he going to benefit from this or has he just moved on?
get em girls. daddy needs new shoes.
That's a good point - one could argue both sides. It could make Roxio's job easier - the labels could be eager to get a "music store" in the hands of more than 5% of the population. Or, like you say, they could decide they want a bigger piece of the pie already. Indeed, I wonder if Apple's impending PC "store" doesn't give the labels huge leverage. Ie, either give us better terms or Apple will put you guys out of business.
Should be interesting to watch this one. Because if Apple wins, it would give them one big "switch" ad. Imagine all the banner ads seen by windoze users.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I hear this arguement time and time again, but never with any direct evidence linked with it.. The last three albums I bought (Avalanches, White Stripes, Red Hot Chili Peppers, which span about 10 years) go in the CD player and are played, only being stopped at the end or if loudness needs to halt.. Looking at my collection there has to be less than 10% that I have done any 'Rip/Mix/Burning' with and they were mainly best-ofs and other compilations...
What sort of percentages are other people seeing to justify using that arguement all the time?
What the fuck is your problem? Take your meds already. I didn't say I could do better, but Roxio might. I'm sure Apple's version will be good but, as they've found out time after time, that doesn't always translate into market share or profitability, now does it?
I swear, there are too many morons on here who start flaming as soon as someone intimates that their favorite OS doesn't do everything better than all other OS's. You people need to get lives.
we're all thieves when we get the chance.
It's interesting that you think you can speak for the entire human race. I guess as "Jesus" you think you have the right. You are probably the type of person that would find a wallet (with ID in it) and just take the money and drop the wallet.
The truth is, we are NOT all thieves. I don't know why someone thought you were "Insightful".
...that independent artist who depends on P2P for exposure will be the biggest losers. Without P2P, the independents will have to pay to get their music out.
Just think about, every executive and lawyer of the Big Five could drop dead tomorrow (ahh, nice thought) and music would probably only get BETTER.
Well, I guess that's the Corporate States of America is for... to enable the American Dream for the already rich, and to shut up the poor and keep them going to Wal-mart and McDonalds...
Users are willing to go with the AMS DRM because of it's flexibility. While stopping the most casual piracy, it allows users the freedom to listen to the music in the ways that they want to.
Microsoft will push the WMP system because they assume that end-users don't have any other choice than to go through them. My guess: People will hold off until AMS comes to Windows, or some equivalent service appears. And it won't use WMP.
With Trusted Computing on the way, all M$ has to do is refuse to provide Apple with the proper signatures so that AMS will run on Windows. An old Microsoft saying goes 'DOS [Windows] isn't done until Lotus [Apple] won't run.'
My journal has hot
Unlike Mac users, PC users don't drop their pants and bend over like you do.
It maybe easy to do this with Mac users because they are so stupid, easy, use to it, and love it, but I doubt they can pull this kinds of stuff off on real computer users.
Unlike Mac users, windows users are not that dumb to fall for it.
I honestly feel that the decline of music quality and the tiredness of the rock genre after nearly 50 years of three-chord songs has helped to contribute to the alarming rate at which people steal music from online sources.
If it is music I don't want to hear, why would I bother to steal it?
So, how long will it be until officially sanctioned cover bands step in to replace the Stones once they get too old to tour, but are still a profitable commodity?
The Gall Stones?
A physicist is an atom's way of thinking about atoms
huh? Have you used OS X? There IS integrated CD burning through the Finder (drag, drop, burn) and it's much faster and useful than the constant errors Toast for OS X throws up. CD burning in iTunes is way better than Easy-CD creator (one button click turns a playlist of songs in any format into audio or mp3 cds... it's easier than Easy CD and it actually works).
Boy, this is a first rate post. I am impressed with your use of the English language.
it's uglier than being honest about who you really are.
I personnally think the idea of paying for your download is a dumb idea, given the current state of P2P software out on the internet. I use overnet to download all my music :)
Most people steal their music, currently because they are forced to.
Sorry, but that's just bullshit. Look up the numbers. N billion CD's were sold last year. M million (not billion) songs were downloaded. N >> M. Ergo, most people buy their music; most people don't steal it.
The "everybody does it" thing isn't fooling anybody.
Roxio/Pressplay's "solution" will clunk like a square-wheeled bike, mark my words.
Absolutely right.
I'm still at a loss to explain why they didn't get that Windows version ready to go from day one though.
Simple. The record companies wanted to test this boat in a small pond before letting it out in the open ocean. It was they who decided that they would be willing to do a Mac-only service before comitting to a larger audience. Hopefully it's success means that Windows versions will be forthcoming from a number of players, Apple included.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
EVERY SINGLE PERSON I KNOW has Kazaa on their computer.
So? How many people do you know? A dozen? Two dozen? That means NOTHING. In fact, I dare say it says more about your peer group than it does about any broader trends.
It's because most people don't have the option to fork up $18 for the 2 songs on a CD that they actually want to listen to.
Well, what you're really saying here is that your friends lack a basic understanding of right and wrong. "I can't afford to pay for it, so I'll just steal it." The very thought makes right-minded, law-abiding people sick to their stomachs.
It's not about knowing right from wrong, it's about what's reasonably realistic.
No. It's about right and wrong.
Most of the people I know would gladly pay that amount.
I doubt that. It sounds like most of the people you know are fucking thieves who would rather steal than pay ANY price.
It's not about price, dude. It's about right and wrong.
I don't think, in today's post-antitrust verdict world, that Microsoft can afford to be so blatant. They can't simply "make it so that iTunes won't run." They would be forced to be far more subtle than that, I can assure you. Not that they aren't unscrupulous enough to do it - they are. Just that they do have to pay lip serivce to playing nice and that means no in-your-face antitrust violations like you're describing.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
More like Crud, if you ask me...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
A big roadblock for Apple's successful creation & deployment of a Windows client is probably hardware support. Making a client capable of browsing, purchasing, and playing music at their store is relatively trivial. The hard part is making sure that the key element to all this (write as many CDs as you like) actually works smoothly. With all the flaky cd writing hardware "supported" under windows, Apple has to do some serious development & testing to make sure they don't get millions of angry emails (and thus negative buzz) from proud Magnetbox or Sorny CDR owners. Deploying on the Mac platform only ensured a positive experience for all users with no, "I downloaded 40 songs and it was really cool, but I can't burn any of them!" anecdotes floating around out there. Nod to apple for taking the time to get this right - unfortunately WMP has a head-start in this (cd writing on windows) arena. Hopefully apple won't take too long getting this thing off the ground.
If it was 20-50 cents, I believe you could make it work.
Not feasible. Federal regulators have set the price of licensing the musical work itself (the melody, independent of any recording thereof) at about eight cents per copy (pegged to the Consumer Price Index), which would leave little or nothing for the label, artist, or service provider.
Will I retire or break 10K?
there's no reason in the world why other MP3 makers can't include it in their firmware, or even offer a patch.
Other than that an AAC decoder is more expensive than an MP3 decoder?
Will I retire or break 10K?
there is no reason to have CD prices of 10-20 year old albums in the 15-20 price range.
Yes there is. The CDs still cost $15 to $20 because they're only 10-20 years old, which is brand-new in comparison with other copyrighted works. Expect a price drop around ninety-five years or so.
I'm sorry, 99 cents a song is absurd. I dont know how they charge you, but unless the price was 25 a download
Twenty-five cents per download is also absurd. Federal regulators have set the statutory licensing rate for the musical work alone (independent of any sound recording thereof) at eight cents per copy, to increase in step with the Consumer Price Index, payable to the songwriter's publisher (which generally splits it 50-50 with the songwriter). This would leave little or nothing for the record label and the service provider.
Will I retire or break 10K?
A niche that is becoming more and more irrelevant as Serial ATA and FireWire take over for SCSI.
I thought FireWire and Serial Attached SCSI were implementations of SCSI over a serial link, and Serial ATA was a subset of Serial Attached SCSI.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Unlike some of you (and like many of you) I buy a limited amount of CD's, but only from artists that release albums that are (IMHO) mostly good. So if there are 10 songs on a CD and 8 are good, as far as I am concerned its a good CD. If 1/10 are good, then not only am I not going to buy the CD, but I sure as heck am not going to pay anyone for that one song, which was probably forced out by the record label.
I'm confused. If one song of ten on a CD is good, then why would you not pay for the song? If it is priced at one-tenth the price of a ten-CD album, you're actually paying less for that one song than if you purchased a $10 CD in order to listen to the eight songs you liked from that CD.
Plus, if the one song on the CD is good, what does it matter if the record label "forced out" the song. If it's good and you like it, it's worth listening to, right?
As for the manner in which songs are purchased, you don't actually wind up with umpteen $1 purchases. You can either use a shopping cart approach to buy in batches, or you can buy individual songs. Either way, Apple sends you receipts for all the songs you purchased in a given period of time (several hours). I've purchased from the store on several different occasions, and never found the billing process annoying.
I get the feeling you've never tried the Apple Music Store. In many ways, it's one of those things where the combination of many small things done well adds up to a far better end result.
A buck a song may be absurd to you, but I love not having to buy an entire album in order to get the three or four songs I really enjoy. Basically Apple is offering me more choice than the record labels, and I'm not ripping anyone off. It's cheaper for me, the labels make money, the artists get exposure, and I don't have to watch out for spyware or spend all kinds of time searching for the right songs on P2P networks.
As for your comments about the RIAA turning you into a thief, you're not alone in your belief, but the fact that it's "easier to fire up Kazaa" doesn't mean that you've got any moral supremacy over the RIAA.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Labels can and do negotiate deals where they pay less than statutory rate, especially when the band that did the recording is the same as the one that wrote the songs.
I understand that many recording artists can give a discount because they write their own songs, but how many artists like that are very popular with high-school and university aged Americans? (Clue: Britney Spears does not write her own material.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
After living costs, expensis etc....
$24,000 - $30,000 a year isn't bad free spending money. in 10 years you could have $240,000 - $300,000 in the bank and retire.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Leave it up to morals? I think the outrageous success of Kazaa and gnutella are testament to the effectiveness of this strategy. You can't rely on people being honest when there's money involved. Sad as it is, we're all thieves when we get the chance.
I'm not sure how the above post got moderated insightful. The success of Kazaa and gnutella have nothing to do with the collapse of morals, and everything to do with a new concept admirably executed and easy to use.
All the songs were already available on the web and by ftp/irc. It was a slight effort so most people didn't bother. With Kazaa you can start playing a CD quality tune seconds after the name pops into your head. And it's not as though it got the edge competing with a RIAA backed service but by being free... the music industry point-blank refused to set up an online service which customers obviously demanded.
Which is easier? Typing the name of a song you want to play into Kazaa (Lite) and listening to it instantly? Or searching the web to find what album it's part of, hunting around web sites to find out who sells the album cheapest, finding your credit card, ordering the album online (bit dodgy using your credit card but taking the risk anyway), waiting several days for it to arrive on CD, and then inserting into your computer only to find the new copy protection stops it from working in your CD-ROM drive?
You can rely on being honest when money is around because most people are honest. This is why security with credit cards and cheques isn't as high as it could be... fraud is low enough just to build it into the cost of running things. The fact is you are sad enough to repeat the RIAA myth that by default we are all thieves.
You may be a thief when you get the chance, but please don't speak on the behalf of the rest of us.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Sorry, but that's just bullshit. Look up the numbers. N billion CD's were sold last year. M million (not billion) songs were downloaded. N >> M. Ergo, most people buy their music; most people don't steal it.
You are correct. I will rephrase: "Most people likely to buy music online have used file-sharing services to obtain mp3s."