Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MP3.com Removes "High-Bandwidth" Streams

Posted by Hemos on from the what's-the-future dept.

mshiltonj writes "I noticed today that mp3.com no longer offers high-bandwidth streams for its genres or stations, although it looks like artists' playlists and individual songs are available in high bandwidth. mp3.com has lots and lots of free music that was free and legal to listen to online, and a good number of my "music bookmarks" were on mp3.com. I'll live (I've still got my favorite stream), but I don't think it's a good sign. Is streaming music doomed to die, not because of RIAA litigation, but because of expensive bandwidth costs?" I don't think bandwidth will be the determining cost - that's a price that has been falling and will continue to fall. But are things like iTunes store the future, or is it streaming?

3 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. Well, imagine that. by binarytoaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    MP3.com discovered that legal fees and bandwidth costs couldn't be covered by the very very small amount of cash coming in from ads.

    Rather than go to a pay model they just decided to drop their higher streams... Maybe they should have had a system where you can pay some negligible fee (25 a year, perhaps) to hear the high bandwidth streams, and the low ones are free?

  2. That's not the point, here's the real point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some tunes are available only if you pay, but you can stream in hi-fi quality (128 kbit/s). Now, why would anyone pay for the tune, when they can just capture the hi-fi quality stream into an .mp3 file??

    Before you call this stealing, think. It's just capitalism in action. Greedy agents acting on behalf of their own interests and agenda. If they can get something for free, they will. Morality has nothing to do with this.

    It's business. It's the same thing the companies have been pulling, but now consumers can actually leverage their greediness directly.

    Sucks to be the artist, though. But they would make peanuts with mp3.com in any case (been there, done that).

  3. Launchcast by sparkhead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've found Launchcast is much better than mp3.com for streaming stations, though if you listen to more than a certain number of songs per month (350? 400?) it goes into low quality mono for the remainder of the month.

    Highly customizable though.