MTV Getting into Music Download Business

Pranjal writes "According to this article at Economic Times, MTV is getting into the music download business. MTV chief Tom Freston announced on Monday, the service would debut within the first half of next year. Looks like the online music download business is heating up."

Comments

I'm from Saint Louis, and I've never said "herre"

[sweeney37]

seeing how this is MTV, this really should be:

"from the getting-crowded-in-her r e dept."

Mike

Pity the RIAA

[SMOC]

I really do feel bad for the RIAA members (not the RIAA itself). They are stuck having to eventually face the fact that they are 80% of the way to extinction. Can anyone realy imagine a future 50 years down the road where anyone is interested in buying a piece of plastic with music on it?

Yes, storing it in a way that does not rot too fast or get deleted for video game space is valuable, but I see the future retailers of music being the clubs that host musicians. They should strike a deal with the performers that they host to sell the music via a Web site and via a kiosk at the show.

Here's one business model for that:

Club makes USB-fobs that contain the customer's name, credit info (or a key that they look up the credit info in their database with) and email address. The customer goes to a show and likes it, so they walk over to the kiosk and plug in their fob to order the "album" on the way out. The kiosk notes the purchase in the database and sends email to the customer with a link to download the music from the Web site.

Quick, easy, and here's the best part: you don't care about file-swappers because you get the customer at the exact point where they decide they like the music. You don't care if the 5 billion people who never come to your club swap this music around. What you care about is that your club (and the artist who gets a cut) made some extra money from a customer. You win, they win and the band wins.

But, I still feel bad for the labels who are doomed because they can't make a "star" anymore out of some semi-talented performer who they can stick on MTV. Or more to the point, they can make the star, but there's soon going to be no point in terms of selling CDs.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Golias]

Can anyone realy imagine a future 50 years down the road where anyone is interested in buying a piece of plastic with music on it?

Electronic transmission of text has been easilly available for several decades now, yet people still buy stacks of paper with words printed on them.

As long as owning an album one a removable storage media means actually owning that copy, people like me will pay for it when the music is good enough to be worth buying.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Evil Adrian]

Club makes USB-fobs that contain the customer's name, credit info (or a key that they look up the credit info in their database with) and email address. The customer goes to a show and likes it, so they walk over to the kiosk and plug in their fob to order the "album" on the way out. The kiosk notes the purchase in the database and sends email to the customer with a link to download the music from the Web site.

Um... why couldn't you just swipe a credit card and give them your e-mail address? What is the point of the USB-fob? Seems unnecessary.

Quick, easy, and here's the best part: you don't care about file-swappers because you get the customer at the exact point where they decide they like the music. You don't care if the 5 billion people who never come to your club swap this music around.

But then, why would you pay for the music in the first place? Why wouldn't just one person go in there and buy it, and swap it around with everyone else?

Re:Pity the RIAA

[TopShelf]

There's a major difference between music and text, however - people greatly prefer reading newspapers or books because of portability, legibility, etc. By comparison, there is little or no difference between listening to a music CD and music stored in some other medium like a HD or Flash card. Once they resolve the licensing issues this will become a no-brainer. It sounds like iTunes is making good progress on that front...

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Evil Adrian]

Yes and no.

The difference in quality between an MP3/WMA/OGG/whatever and an uncompressed format like CD-Audio is noticable instantly to people with sensitive ears.

Without a huge increase in bandwidth in the near future, people are still going to want some kind of physical medium to listen to uncompressed, deliciously tasty audio rather than compressed, semi-delicious audio.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[TheMidget]

And there's the issue about cover art and the gimmicks you get along with the CD. These too are part of the experience.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[CynicTheHedgehog]

What would be nice is if the fob had 256 MB of storage space, and you could grab the album right there at the kiosk, plug the FOB into your portable MP3 player, and listen to it on the way home. Like a nomad with a public/private keypair. Plug it in, your account is debited, and the music is transferred to the device. Impulse buying at its finest.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[keester]

A club is very different from a recording studio. Club for live shows? Maybe. People will still want studio enhanced music. I agree though, Music CD manufacturing is on it's way out, and so are the inflated prices.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[andreMA]

Um... why couldn't you just swipe a credit card and give them your e-mail address? What is the point of the USB-fob? Seems unnecessary,

That was my initial reaction as well on reading SMOC's post. On further reflection, though, I see a few advantages to the method:

• encapsulation of user-defined data: the user could program it with any email address he wishes, for example.
• seperation from actual credit card: a parent could program in a cap and loan it to their teenager as she heads off to a concert so they could buy the album if they enjoyed the concert.
• ability to use without a credit card by pre-paying. I'm imagining something like a USB based programmable phone card where the balance can't be tampered with, but the user can program email address, per-transaction, per-date and other such limits into it.
• more likely "impulse" buying because (to some folks) it will seem "less like spending money". Remember, 50% of people are of below-average intelligence!

All that said, though, I don't see a need for the email phase of the original scenario. At POS, just load a URL and a key into the fob. Much preferable, I think; using the email address would create a "business relationship" and no doubt result in spam. Such a scheme would need to be looked at carefully though, to ensure it provides at least the modest degree of privacy found in normal credit-card transactions.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Creepy Crawler]

So then why do Audiophiles REFUSE to take part in a double-blind test of music of multiple genra's?

Ex: 128Kb MP3 , 192Kb MP3, 44KHz 16bit stereo pcm
Go from Classical, jazz, electronica, and rock

Most audiophiles wont take those tests cause they know they wont prove anything, except they paid waaaay too much for those iridium/gold/palladium low impedance wires with the radium/gold tip to improve electron direction. Only 1200$ for that 5 foot cord that makes the sound much more vibrant with a tinge of orange. (gag me)

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Evil Adrian]

So then why do Audiophiles REFUSE to take part in a double-blind test of music of multiple genra's?

I have difficulty believing this to be true, since most blanket statements are untrue.

I don't consider myself an audiophile, but I work with music every day, so go ahead and double-blind me. I can definitely hear the difference.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[emilymildew]

Since when are all mp3s illegal? I have hundreds of mp3s that were acquired through perfectly legal means - I bought a CD and then ripped it.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Scrameustache]

Can anyone realy imagine a future 50 years down the road where anyone is interested in buying a piece of plastic with music on it?

Electronic transmission of text has been easilly available for several decades now, yet people still buy stacks of paper with words printed on them.

Music has been distributed on changing media for about a 100 years, before that it was live or sheet music.

Words have been distributed on changing media for 5000 years, and on stacks of paper fo what, a thousand, two thousand? I'd say the written word has a bit more inertia to it than music.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[timeOday]

Can anyone realy imagine a future 50 years down the road where anyone is interested in buying a piece of plastic with music on it?

Electronic transmission of text has been easilly available for several decades now, yet people still buy stacks of paper with words printed on them.

Is that a good example? 100 years ago newspaper WAS the media - the papers were to be feared. The movie "Citizen Kane" is about a newspaper baron. Today there is hardly such thing as a "newspaper baron," the business is hardly hip or profitable. This not where the music industry wants to go!

Anyways, just look how the napster craze hit music... not books, or music, or anything else. Even if we can't agree on an explanation for that, music is obviously in a uniquely vulnerable position.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Golias]

When I said "stacks of paper," I was mostly talking about books, which is still the medium in which 99% of the world prefers to read their text-based fiction. Project Guttenberg is great, but all those public-domain books they host still get sold at your local Barnes & Noble store.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Evil Adrian]

What if you forgot your fob?

You could just buy a CD...

Re:Pity the RIAA

[nat5an]

Uh, I might be wrong here, but, as I understand the definition of "double-blind," it means that neither the subject, nor the person administering the test, know the purpose of the test. Hence, you don't say, "Hey, I'm doing a double-blind test on audio formats, want to participate?" Instead, you just invite people into to listen to some stuff and answer some questions. And you hire some undergrads to ask the questions who don't know the purpose of the study.

While it may actually be the case that audiophiles would prefer not to find out that they were ripped off for their audio equipment, a "double-blind" is not the kind of study you're looking for.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Sj0]

It's funny that you think you own that copy. You've liceowned it. All the bad parts of ownership, combined with all the bad parts of licensing.

What's funny to me is that DRM on digital music is supposed to be so limiting, but in reality, it's no different than the legal quagmire that is the CD you "own".

Re:Pity the RIAA

[orionware]

"Until the day comes when you move to a new PC and have to move all that music...or the HD crashes...or someone uses that Flash card and wipes your music...or any of the other millions of ways that large quantities of data are frequently lost"

Two 120 gig drives, mirrored... Unless there is a disaster, I'm pretty confident my music is secure.

"All my CDs work. I can keep all of them working very easily. Even if one does get scratched, I can rebuy it without having to replace all my other CDs. I cannot say the same for my computer data."

I can.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Laur]

It's funny that you think you own that copy. You've liceowned it. All the bad parts of ownership, combined with all the bad parts of licensing. What's funny to me is that DRM on digital music is supposed to be so limiting, but in reality, it's no different than the legal quagmire that is the CD you "own".

Wrong. When you buy a CD you own it outright, you aren't licensing a thing. You do not, however, own the copyright and so you are forbidden by law to make unauthorized copies. When you buy DRM crippled music online, you ARE licensing it per the Terms of Service.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Saeger]

Two 120 gig drives, mirrored... Unless there is a disaster, I'm pretty confident my music is secure.

Tip: Have a 3rd 120GB drive ready to swap in a heartbeat, because Murphy's Law will kill your only remaining drive during the time you're waiting for a new one to arrive. "Oh, no, that'll never happen", says I. :)

--

Re:Pity the RIAA

[timeOday]

There's never been a napster of books, so the analogy between books and music must be flawed.

What is the flaw? My guess is it's because you can't publish a book on a home computer. A real, bound book is quite different from a big stack of copy paper, and from reading onscreen. Music, on the other hand, comes from speakers regardless of whether it's read from a disc, or disk, or network, it's all the same.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[shark72]

"I really do feel bad for the RIAA members (not the RIAA itself). They are stuck having to eventually face the fact that they are 80% of the way to extinction. Can anyone realy imagine a future 50 years down the road where anyone is interested in buying a piece of plastic with music on it?"

The fallacy here is that a record company's sole purpose is to manufacture plastic. This is the job of a CD replication house, not a record company.

The recording industry has survived many media changes in the past century -- from wax cylinders, to 78's, to LPs and 45s, cassettes, 8-tracks, and most recently, to compact discs. I think they'll survive the move to online distribution. Perhaps CD replication plants may see reduced business going forward, but the CD replication is just a small part of the cycle.

Remember, a record company's primary function is to provide the resources necessary to produce, promote and distribute music into the sales channel. So what if the sales channel changes from brick-and-mortar retail stores selling hard goods to online purveyors like iTMS, Napster and (now) MTV? This might actually be a good thing for the record companies. As anybody who's run a business knows, inventory management is a huge issue. Returns, price protections, shipping costs -- it's all a tremendous pain in the ass and it costs money... and that cost are reflected in the retail price.

The far more important purpose that record companies serve is providing the resources to get the music produced in the first place, and promoting that music so that people actually know that it exists. The record companies make a tremendous cash investment in the course of doing so, and they recoup their investment off of sales of the music -- whether it's online or on a CD.

I can guess the argument here -- "with the wonderful power of the Internet, I can record music on my home studio, make my own deal with iTMS, borrow money from my rich uncle and go in deep on my credit cards to advertise and promote my music so people can find it, and I'll become rich! Who needs the record companies when I can do all my production, promotionm advertising and retailing myself!"

The problems with this, as somebody put it the other day, is that generally a CD recorded in your bedroom for $20,000 sounds like a CD recorded in your bedroom. And effectively promoting your own stuff is hard work and costs money. Many artists simply do not have the resources, skills or even desire to be businesspeople.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[gorilla]

No, double-blind means that they don't know which items are being tested. It's perfectly ok for them to know the purpose of the testing. If you know that can A contains coke, and can B contains pepsi, then you can use your biases to choose can A over B. On the other hand, if you don't know which one is which, then you can't.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Xerithane]

For clarification on this, "they" (double-blind means that they don't know which items are being tested.) is both the administrators and people being tested.

Not to step on your toes mate, I just wanted to clarify your answer a bit further.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Ogerman]

Quick, easy, and here's the best part: you don't care about file-swappers because you get the customer at the exact point where they decide they like the music. You don't care if the 5 billion people who never come to your club swap this music around. What you care about is that your club (and the artist who gets a cut) made some extra money from a customer. You win, they win and the band wins.

That's a great idea and really the direction things need to head: the music industry should be rooted solely in income from live performances. I would go further to say that larger bands should have their own "club" of sorts to remain in complete control of their enterprise and to remain as connected as possible to their 'customers'.
They also ought view their recorded work (studio or live or both) as either cheap or free promotional material, useful to increase concert ticket sales and merchandising. Although I would say that some people still like to pay a few bucks for a high-quality CD with nice over art, insert, etc. even if the content itself is free.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[Lord_Dweomer]

What I've really been waiting for has been a way to purchase songs that I hear at clubs during a live mix. For those of you who like electronic music, you may be familiar with the frustration of hearing a bangin tune, and not knowing the name, and nobody else around you does. So unless someone was kind enough to post a tracklisting online (which doesn't usually happen for small events) you're screwed. If I had a way to dial something on my cellphone and purchase the song and get an email link to it at home, I would use it VERY often.

Re:Pity the RIAA

[geekee]

" I really do feel bad for the RIAA members (not the RIAA itself). They are stuck having to eventually face the fact that they are 80% of the way to extinction. Can anyone realy imagine a future 50 years down the road where anyone is interested in buying a piece of plastic with music on it?"

Saying a record label relies on cds to survive is like saying banks rely on paper money to survive. Banks make money by loaning it and collecting interest. Record labels make money by investing in bands that they think people will want to listen to. As long as there a fair copyright laws, record labels will be able to make money.

Better late than never.

[greyrax]

No, wait. Better never in this case.

And where is the RIAA?

[edgrale]

Somebody should sell them a Clue(TM). The ball has started to roll (with iTunes and Napster 2.0) and all they do is bitch!

Re:And where is the RIAA?

[Short Circuit]

A lot of artists have contracts with their record label that prevents them from selling their music through any other source. (Heck...most authors end up having their work owned by their distributor) The online download services almost certainly have contracts with the labels to get permission to resell their music.

Re:And where is the RIAA?

[thenextpresident]

Yeah, you know, because they aren't making any money from these services.

Do you want to be a Clue(tm)?

Re:And where is the RIAA?

[UrgleHoth]

re Clue(TM)

Speaking of clues, maybe we should put some blue paw prints around so the RIAA can figure out what the music consuming public is thinking.

Re:And where is the RIAA?

[Technician]

They are not far away. Is is suprising that the most popular formats MP3 and Ogg are not supported? If it was a true business that listened to it's consumers, they would realise there is a huge market for high quality product. Their presense is why it's mostly DRM incompatible with anything I use to play music. Good business would be to sell to the industry standards. If I sold videos the way the RIAA forces music to be incompatible with most of the market, it would be the same as selling PAL Betamax videotape movies in the USA. Somehow I think VHS and DVD's would be easer to sell. (MP3 and Ogg to the music guys)

The bottled water people got it, the music industry didn't. (well Napster did, but they were not shut down for having a product that nobody wanted).

Re:And where is the RIAA?

[glenstar]

As someone involved in such a venture, let me clarify the above. Not only are we required to have deals with each label we carry, but most of those deals are very restrictive. For example, they might specify the one, and only one, format we are allowed to carrry (usually WMA). That being said, there are several labels that don't care and we will be offering WMA/MP3/OGG for those labels.

Re:And where is the RIAA?

[cens0r]

MP3 and Ogg the most popular formats? You're either smoking crack or living in a dream world. I'll give you MP3 as the most popular format by far. But I would make a guess that the second most popular format is WMA and the third AAC. WMA is the codec that windows media player rips things to by default, how many people out there are ripping like that? Many more than use OGG. Plus most ever portable player supports WMA and MP3 and many convert everything to WMA first.

Re:And where is the RIAA?

[westlake]

If I sold videos the way the RIAA forces music to be incompatible with most of the market, it would be the same as selling PAL Betamax videotape movies in the USA.

Utter nonsense. Media players compatible with Apple and Microsoft DRM are to be found on all but the tiniest percentage of machines. It is Ogg that is likely to become the Betamax of digital music, the "technically superior" format that no one gives a damn about.

Re:And where is the RIAA?

[47Ronin]

You don't ALWAYS have DRM in iTunes.. only when you buy music from the iTunes Music Store. You can rip your CDs to AIFF, MP3, or AAC without any form of DRM, or you can import your existing sound files into iTunes without reencoding. Just because iTunes contains a store component doesn't mean that DRM'd files are the only way to get stuff into the player itself

MTV and music?

[mckeowbc]

I thought they only showed crappy shows like "Made" and "Road Rules". Since when has MTV been about music?

Re:MTV and music?

[Tyler Durden]

This reminds me of a great Lewis Black joke...

"MTV is to music what KFC is to chicken."

So true.

Re:MTV and music?

[LeoDV]

MTV is to music what appetizers are to world hunger.

Re:MTV and music?

[JustAnotherReader]

I thought they only showed crappy shows like "Made" and "Road Rules". Since when has MTV been about music?

Consider yourself lucky. The only "Music" I've seen on MTV lately has been Rap Crap, Metal with crap Rap screaming, or the latest Britney clone singing the latest version of her "Baby Baby Baby" song. Let's see, then there are the bands made up of 3 identical girls singing more "Baby Baby Baby" songs. And then there are the generic rappers in oversize basketball shirts and big gold rings singing "Baby Baby Baby" songs. But at least we don't have to listen to bands made up of 5 boys with headphone mics singing their "Baby Baby Baby" songs.

So yeah, consider yourself lucky that you havn't seen the "music" on MTV lately.

Re:MTV and music?

[DrCode]

Waaaaaay back in the last millenium, when I was young, you could turn to MTV any time of day and see music videos. Ah, those were the good ol' days.

Re:MTV and music?

[toddestan]

All I wish is that cable would carry MTV2 and dump the worthless original channel. While they are at it they can dump VH1 too as far as I'm concerned.

If that became the case, I might actualy have a slight desire to own a TV set again.

MTV and Launch

[AssFace]

I always thought that MTV would get involved more with Launch.com - or in a buyout. Granted, Yahoo bought them out (Launch), but there was plenty of time beforehand.

Between the videos and the radio that they have, it seems like a good spot to them say "want to buy this song/album? click here"

Hotting up

[ashkar]

For those who want to use proper English in the future, the term is "heating up". Thank you and have a nice day.

Re:Hotting up

[Maskirovka]

For those who want to use proper English in the future, the term is "heating up"

If you read slashdot more often you'd be able to subconscously correct minor typoes like that.

Re:Hotting up

[mcpkaaos]

If you read slashdot more often you'd be able to subconscously correct minor typoes like that.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I always saye.

Video etc

[squaretorus]

Music download is all well and good, but I wish this new stack of legit music download services would offer me the video of these songs (if available).

Some bands, Beasti Boys, Super Furries and Moloko jump to mind, really put some effort into their videos. MTV would be well placed to offer this as a USP for a while, probably having better deals and leverage than anyone in that area.

Charge me more or throw it in as an incentive I dont mind - just give me the option!

Re:Video etc

[BWJones]

MTV dropped the ball big time and they should have seen the writing on the wall as soon as Apple released iTMS. Besides, I spent some time watching MTV a couple weeks ago and all the music they were playing was "do me baby rap" and commercials. I remember when MTV first started out when they billed themselves as 24 hour commercial free music. Nah, MTV has lost this game. Apple is ideally situated to provide just this sort of music video service. They already have the infrastructure in place to deliver movie previews (and have had for some time), and have been interested in expanding the content available to folks who are interested in downloading music with album covers etc....

The other thing I would like access to with the music is lyrics, liner notes etc... My guess is that all of this is coming.

Re:Video etc

[DrEldarion]

There are actually a bunch of sites online that you can watch music videos on - they don't offer downloads usually, but you can watch them.

This site comes up first on a search on Google, and a whole bunch more.

Re:Video etc

[British]

All the music videos moved to VH1 Classic and a few others.

Now if VH-1 Classic offered an online video download service(that I can save & replay anytime I want, in a non-proprietary format), I would get that in a heartbeat. Imagine being able to get all the videos from $OBSCURE-NEW-WAVE-BAND.

Cheap
Non-proprietary
Wide selection

Pick 2.

Re:Video etc

[NaugaHunter]

Actually, iTunes does offer videos. Currently they are only 'Artist exclusives', but the last time I checked both R.E.M. and Bob Dylan each had one - just go to an artist's page to check. There are definitely others.

I don't know how likely it is for them to offer more in the future, whether Quicktime streaming or individual. Video licensing is at least as complicated as music licensing, and probably more difficult. Though if others have done it, than Apple probably could as well if they put their mind to it. Thinking further, it actually makes sense. They've been slowly losing ground in other streaming video areas, mostly because Quicktime is an addon to Windows. If iTunes succeeds in grabbing a large market it could pull Quicktime with it and combined with cheap xServes it could lead to an eventual comeback.

For the curious, here's an example of video licensing problems: The best parts of Beavis and Butthead were the music video commentaries, which aren't available on video/DVD due to licensing expenses*:
{Video of Balls to the Wall}
Beavis: Yah! Fire! Fire! Heh-heh.
Butthead: Dammit, Beavis, just because a video has fire doesn't make it cool.

They were the MST3K of videos.

*(As near as I can figure, the on air show could use virtually any video playing on MTV, since MTV already had the rights to broadcast. However, distribution would require aquiring rights for each video individually. Kind of a pain if each episode averaged 20-30+ 15 second clips. This is probably a main factor in preventing them from syndication. An interesting parallel is Daria, for which videos/DVD have some background music missing, but most of the episodes on Noggin are intact with just the occasional redone credits to remove songs.)

Re:Video etc

[Insightfill]

I remember when MTV first started out when they billed themselves as 24 hour commercial free music.

The problem MTV ran into with the "we're a video radio station" format was that advertisers they eventually courted couldn't pick a demographic. For example, if you were a manufacturer of audiophile electronics, you couldn't be sure your spot would be stuck in the middle of a 'ten song Britney block' or something.

They slowly moved to blocks of genres, and in-house programming, and the rest is history.

Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's heating up, Apple did it, so now every lame no-vision copycat has to do it also. Same as always, except now it isn't just Microsoft doing it, it is MP3 makers, computer-case designers, and now internet music retailers.

Re:Of course

[MacDork]

Yeah, but this time, we don't have to add "and then company X came along, pretended they invented the whole thing, and made all the money." Putting together a music store, a portable player, and the software to run it all is a lot less simple than sticking a WiFi card in your notebook line :-)

Re:Of course

[YouHaveSnail]

You're right. I sure haven't seen a lot of colored plastic inserts on hardware since Apple dropped the colored iMacs and went with white, silver, and gray. Now it seems that most of the hardware I see is... ...white, silver, and gray.

This just in: MTV sucks more soul from humanity

[sielwolf]

Well I thought they might've been slacking since they are only starting up a magazine (print) and selling mp3 players (electronics) after already cornering the market on useless musical merchandise. Even an ex-Road Rules contestant and ex-FOX News reporter is lead on that new morning show, Cold Pizza, on ESPN2. They are seriously becoming an omni-brand intent on a flat-entertainment experience.

Not like most people would notice any difference...

The MTV Effect

[FrankNputer]

Oh, great - so now instead of worrying about how my MP3s will sound I have to worry about how they look too??

Re:The MTV Effect

[millahtime]

It's MTV. It'll all be just teen pop music on their service.

Can you say market dilution?

[stratjakt]

Witness the fad of the 2000's - online music services.

You know which one will survive? The one the RIAA sets up for themselves.

Re:Can you say market dilution?

[Wah]

hehe, they don't need to set one up. Since they hold all the rights, they can use them as strings on the puppets to keep the services in line.

RIAA: What?!? You are thinking about lowering that price to $.50 to compete? No more licenses for you. (to be more precise, your fee is now $.51 per song).

Re:Can you say market dilution?

[synergy3000]

RIAA sets up one. The bomb is the anti-trust case brought against them.

The article's *really* light on specifics

[mattbot 5000]

I learned two things:

- MTV's music download service will "compete with iTunes and everyone else"

AND

- "MTV will also be competing with a relaunched Napster and recently launched BuyMusic.com"

Wait, make that three things: there's no way to get back the five minutes I spent reading that article.

Re:The article's *really* light on specifics

[Lord_Dweomer]

You might have gotten one more thing out of it. The inherent competition that will follow which can only benefit the consumers in the long run. I look forward to as many players in this field as possible.

The more the merrier...

[trix_e]

It'll be interesting to see how long it is before music download services become completely commoditized. They're already dangerously close to that now. The 'goods' they sell are roughly equivalent between services, the breadth of selection, and the restrictiveness of the DRM being the two areas of differentiation I can see.

Don't know how much the RIAA will let these guys loosen up the DRM, and the catalogs look pretty equivalent and will become increasingly so IMO, so all that's left is price.

I'm guessing Amazon will jump in soon as well. They've got the traffic to drive sales, all other things being equal.

It'll be interesting to see where the cost per song/album comes out. iTunes is promoting an upcoming promotion (don't think about that too much) with Pepsi, where some of the prizes are iTunes downloads. I don't know the specifics, but that certainly looks like it holds promise -- advertising subsidized downloads.

Re:The more the merrier...

[thryllkill]

I am not so interested in how things turn out as long as two things remain the same. Emusic.com sticks to a flat $9.99 a month fee providing me with a large selection of indie music (their selection has gotten a little "lighter" recently e.g. where are all the F.Y.P. records they used to have?) and IRC trading stays strong.

emusic is the best example of legal audio downloads. I don't pay something silly like $0.99 a song. I pay 10 bucks a month, and have unlimited downloads. Yes I don't get the new NSync albums and stuff, but I do get access to an ever expanding catalogue of independent music, which IMHO is better than most pop dreck.

Also (I believe, I haven't read my user agreement recently, and those things do change) there are no restrictions on the mp3s I download. No direct to cd burning. If I want to make a ton of mix cds with the tracks I get, go me. Scratch one up? Burn it again. If you download just one cd a month, you still save 5-10 bucks. I download several a week, so I have saved a ton of money, found bands I would have never gotten a chance to listen to (most of which you can't even find on Kazaa) and most importantly, my 10 bucks is not getting into Metallica or Dr Dre's pockets (or whoever has their panties in a twist about mp3s this week).

No I do not work for Emusic, and if stuff like emusic and kazaa (k-lite, which ever doesn't have all the spyware) ever get shut down, well, I'll go back to IRC and see how they are doing.

Re:The more the merrier...

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Better check your mailbox mate, emusic changed into exactly a .99 a song service. It was great while it lasted though...

Re:The more the merrier...

[Chemical]

Are you sure? I use Emusic and it's (or will be on 11/8) $10 for 40 songs per month. That's $0.25 a song, which is a damn good deal.

Re:The more the merrier...

[marmoset]

No it's not. It's a subscription, so even if you don't use up your 40 downloads, you pay for them. On top of that, there's no "per album" price, so that single punk album with 20 2-minute tracks will exhaust half your download allocation for the month. They could have put more thought into their pricing structure, IMO. As it stands now, it's in a really awkward no-mans-land between subscription service and a la carte.

Re:The more the merrier...

[Dot.Com.CEO]

I quit within 2 minutes of receiving the email, tbh. The changes in the past month already alienated most of their fans, especially that idiotic, 40 track limit on the download manager. This was really a last straw.

I don't see the new model as a subscription. I see it as a once-monthly low price for 40 mp3s. But, yes, I do agree with your "no-man's-land" comment...

Re:The more the merrier...

[jgalun]

I also think it interesting to see how long before mp3 downloads become completely commoditized. But I'm not that concerned about the RIAA loosening up DRM - I just want a reasonable DRM standard that all mp3 vendors follow. I am really interested in buying mp3s online, and I'd be using iTMS already were it not for the fact that I don't want to be forced to use iTunes (and as a result buy from the iTMS) for the rest of my life because Apple uses a DRM scheme that is different from other vendors and that does not work with MusicMatch (or vice versa).

But wait a minute...

[GTRacer]

Won't the service only be available from about 11pm to 10am? Since the rest of the time the only downloads will be Real World/Road Rules and "Real Life - I'm a Hacker" eps...

GTRacer
- Commercial entertainment quality is teh suck.

Ya Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Like I want to download rap crap. MTV Blows.

Now how long till mostly non-music content?

[I-R-Baboon]

Had to take that stab at em, mod as need be. :)

Wondered when they would start to offer this service, and along with previous posters I am wondering when they will offer the music videos as well and really offer some content (Aside from Troll subject). Wait a minute...I think a faltering .com's business model has patented that already. (Again mod as needed)

MTV Video Downloads ... already do it.

[adzoox]

They pretty much already do that at MTV. Most TRL videos are online. I do agree with you though:. Just as Apple has the iPod, and dell has (cough cough) their iPod clone for their service, maybe MTV should have this. (The RCA Lyra Video/Mp3 jukebox)

Read my journal entry from yesterday on my Apple perspective about this story:

http://slashdot.org/~adzoox/journal/51035

Re:MTV Video Downloads ... already do it.

[cens0r]

Mac users aren't going to use anything but iTMS. It makes sense just to concede them and focus on windows.

Please MTV please

[L-s-L69]

1. Have mp3s to download not wma rubbish
2. Be cheap
3. Let people in the UK use it please!
4. Have a mix
5. Dont just market it at helpless teeny boppers
6. Please, pretty please

Re:Please MTV please

[fr0m]

I have another one:

7. Please offer music in STEREO!

At least in Europe(tm), MTV is only broadcasting in mono. I don't like MTV so I don't really care, but it is a bit wierd.

Re:Please MTV please

[goldspider]

"2. Be cheap"

If you don't consider Apple's $.99 per song cheap, I think you need to re-evaluate your expectations. In case you haven't noticed, you can't get a candy bar for a nickel anymore either.

Re:Please MTV please

[falcon5768]

Its not MTV who decides who out of the country can use it, its the company who controls the music copyrights in said company

If people hate it so much bitch at the freaking suits there, not at the companies trying to do it but unable to do it cause people want more money

Re:Please MTV please

[cens0r]

It may be cheap, but it's about the same cost to me to buy an album in a store, where I get much more for my money. For me to be interested in paying to download you need to give me a substantial discount over the store.

Re:Please MTV please

[goldspider]

"It may be cheap, but it's about the same cost to me to buy an album in a store"

...provided that you like EVERY song on that album. Chances are that you'd normally buy that album for 4 or maybe even 5 songs that you like, while still paying for the ones you don't like.

The value-added here is that you only pay for the songs you want, and instead of paying $45 for 3 full albums, you only pay $15 for the 15 songs from those 3 albums that you really wanted.

Of course, as another poster correctly pointed out, the only acceptable cost to them is $0.00.

Re:Please MTV please

[cens0r]

If I don't like every song on an album I don't buy it. I tend to think of albums as continuous works and not collections of songs. Sure there are songs that i like less than others, but they are there for a reason and I feel the album as a whole looses something without them. Quality artists put out quality albums. If they don't have enough material for an album they put out a single or an EP. Now I'm not going to say there aren't people who don't write 2 or 3 songs and the rest filler, but if that's the case I'm never going to buy their work anyway.

I smell

[jlechem]

another .com bust in the making.

Threadkilling since 1992

Re:I smell

[ahfoo]

That was what I was going to say, but I knew if I kept reading I'd find someone else saying it because it's just too obvious.
Perhaps I'll be proven all wrong, but watching the markets over the last few months it seems a bit odd how there's all these sudden rushes where the Dow jumps a hundred points in the first few minutes of every other few trading days and just languishes or slightly drops most of the rest of the time. It sure seems like there's a big concerted push to get past that Dow10K point before cashing in and riding the next one down.
I mean techs and telecoms and now on-line music? It seems beyond irrational and into blatantly manipulation. I still don't see any good reason to upgrade these old 400Mhz machines and yet I'm hearing about the natural upgrade cycle for those ancient 1Ghz dinosaurs. WTF? And music sales are the hot new thing after years of free for all downloding and CD burning? I'm utterly baffled.

Re:Hotting up?!

[Anonymous Coward]

You prove your own point. It is spelled "dimwits."

Obvious question...

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

How long before all the music is gone and replace with divx formatted recordings of psudo-reality show?

Music stores?

[klyde256]

Does anyone even go to music stores anymore and buy CDs? There just seems to be so many online alternatives (legal and otherwise) to buying plastic that the business model of a CD shop in the local mall is going buh-bye.

Re:Music stores?

[Skater]

Do you mean CDs in general or brick-and-mortar stores in specific? I still buy CDs in general, but not usually through local retail outlets...

--RJ

Re:Music stores?

[klyde256]

CDs at the music store in a mall. It's becoming less of a viable option now that there are several places to purchase (or steal) digital copies of music online and several places that you can play it back. MP3 players are showing up everywhere, including new cars (many of Fords new car stereos have options for MP3 playback), all current DVD players offer MP3 playback, computers are becoming more of a livingroom/family room appliance, portable MP3 players, MP3 players built into cell phones, etc.. What's the point of buying stamped music CDs when you can just download the music files, put them on the digital media of your choice and go? You'd almost argue that it is more environmentally friendly.

Re:Music stores?

[cens0r]

There was just an article in Rolling Stone about how it's never been better to be a brick and mortar independent record store. They have things online stores sometimes don't. Their prices are good. They offers services you can't get at places like Amazon.com. They usually have used CD's, plus new and used vinyl. All my local indie record shops are always busy.

Oh goody! MTV blazes new frontiers!!! :(

[RobertAG]

Considering MTV's track record with music videos, I shudder to think at what they could be offering:

1. Waves and Waves of boy bands and Britney/Christina clones.

2. Non-stop product endorsements embedded in MP3s and video downloads.

3. Downloadable versions of Real World and other "reality" shows.

4. "Special" IM clients that ensure a "safe" environment for children (no perverts, etc) while allowing only "approved" advertizing to float by the screen. Note: This software will automatically monitor you computer to make sure your "children" don't "accidentally" download copywrited material. Anything not digitally signed will be automatically deleted "for your own good."

My inlaw's computer is a cesspool of Ad/Spy ware caused by the various crap their 16 year old daughter's downloaded over the past two years. I routinely have to uninstall garbage that she installs just to get past annoying popups.

Re:For the ignorant

[Frnknstn]

Oh yeah? From your "good reference":
informal
adj.
1 Not formal or ceremonious; casual: an informal gathering of friends; a relaxed, informal manner.
2 Not being in accord with prescribed regulations or forms; unofficial: an informal agreement.
3 Suited for everyday wear or use: informal clothes.
4 Being more appropriate for use in the spoken language than in the written language.

Note point number 4: This page counts as written language.

Re:MTV sucks--what music

[dlur]

Oh come now. Cribs is a great show. I love to see where all the money I used to spend on buying CDs went to...buying extravagant houses and cars for people with the talent to only create 1 good song and 8-10 songs not even worthy of being dubbed "music". Bling bling.

TRL: download!

[mschoolbus]

Oh great!! People will love this until they realize they get the same 45 seconds of a song just like when played on TRL!

MTV sure knows how to make Music Television...

Big F'ing Deal

[grub]

Does the world really need another source (legal or not) to download the Top 40 lame bands of the week? The only thing interesting about this is that it's MTV and unfortunately they've come to the party too late.

ROFL!

[FunWithHeadlines]

"5. Dont just market it at helpless teeny boppers"

Wait...did you just ask for MTV to NOT pander to helpless teeny boppers? Dude, that's their market!

Re:MP3s will sound

[Technician]

Am I missing something? I haven't seen any indication they would offer MP3's. Let me know where you got the info. I've been looking for MP3's. I can't play WMA9 DRM stuff in my car MP3 player. My car also can't play any streaming format.

If they are offering a useful format, please reply to this post!

It will never fly...

[phillymjs]

Here's why: the iPod.

The iPod has serious street cred (and market share) amongst MTV-watching teens. For MTV to make their service acceptable to the record companies, it will have to have ham-handed, crippling DRM. For MTV to make their service successful, they'll have to make it work with the iPod, arguably the most popular/cool MP3 player amongst their viewers (I mean, OMG, 50 Cent had one in his video!!!)

Without both sides of that above equation in place, the service will be a failure right out of the gate. And with the iTMS now available for Windows, it's not in Apple's interest to assist a third-party music service by making the iPod work with it. People will have a more seamless experience with their iPods if they just stick with the iTMS, and Apple will make a few more bucks out of it that way.

So, the MTV online music service is analogous to a racehorse that drops dead while being walked to the starting gate.

~Philly

Re:It will never fly...

[danharan]

And with the iTMS now available for Windows, it's not in Apple's interest to assist a third-party music service by making the iPod work with it.

If I were Apple, I might let MTV use their service with iPod, and then give the gadget to every single artist that will use it in public or on their video :)

How many more iPods will they sell, and will that cancel out lost iTMS sales? Will MTV users switch to iTMS once they expand their musical tastes, or simply because the iTMS interface is much nicer?

Plus, once they have an iPod, they're not only primed for using iTMS, but also for buying a new laptop, desktop... So I'm not so sure it's necessarily a bad idea in their case not to interoperate.

Re:It will never fly...

[cens0r]

For MTV to make their service acceptable to the record companies, it will have to have ham-handed, crippling DRM.

Or the same DRM that iTMS has. It seems to me that none of the online record stores have DRM much different then apple's. The only difference is on streaming music which iTMS doesn't provide. Other than that it's just a difference between DRM'd WMA versus DRM'd AAC. And WMA is supported by more portable players.

MTV is owned by Viacom

[hideotokisue]

Please don't think this purely as evidence of the complete democratization of the media industry. MTV is owned by Viacom. If you live in an urban area in the United States, Viacom probably owns half the major radio stations. (ComCast owns the other half.) This is a continuation of Viacom's move to control promotion and selling of entertainment.

RIAA

[Jonathan Platt]

I don't know why everyone thinks this is a victory against the RIAA. Really this is a victory for them as well. They are there to support the recording industry, so that they have the ability to charge for the property they so rightfully own. It really doesn't matter how.

RIAA has supported this idea from the start, but as so many of you selectively note the RIAA is not a company. They can not start there own venture, only attempt to stop illegal ones; which is why they should and will continue to shutdown illegal P2P activity.

Due to the lower price of distribution, imports, exports, tariffs etc. this method of providing music should stop the whiners, because now they have access to music at an affordable price, and should have no need for illegal P2P.

So everyone wins. Well everyone who isn't solely driven by greed at least, and will continue to use the substandard illegal P2P programs.

Re:RIAA

[sacrilicious]

I don't know why everyone thinks this is a victory against the RIAA.

My take would be that the RIAA no longer controls the official (non-p2p) presentation of music to end consumers. The RIAA has lost the gate. Now it's Apple who will be deciding what inducers and superlatives and featured artists get splashed across the showroom floors.

Re:RIAA

[KojakBang]

I really do feel bad for the RIAA members (not the RIAA itself). They are stuck having to eventually face the fact that they are 80% of the way to extinction. Can anyone realy imagine a future 50 years down the road where anyone is interested in buying a piece of plastic with music on it?

Yes, storing it in a way that does not rot too fast or get deleted for video game space is valuable, but I see the future retailers of music being the clubs that host musicians. They should strike a deal with the performers that they host to sell the music via a Web site and via a kiosk at the show.

Here's one business model for that:

Club makes USB-fobs that contain the customer's name, credit info (or a key that they look up the credit info in their database with) and email address. The customer goes to a show and likes it, so they walk over to the kiosk and plug in their fob to order the "album" on the way out. The kiosk notes the purchase in the database and sends email to the customer with a link to download the music from the Web site.

Quick, easy, and here's the best part: you don't care about file-swappers because you get the customer at the exact point where they decide they like the music. You don't care if the 5 billion people who never come to your club swap this music around. What you care about is that your club (and the artist who gets a cut) made some extra money from a customer. You win, they win and the band wins.

But, I still feel bad for the labels who are doomed because they can't make a "star" anymore out of some semi-talented performer who they can stick on MTV. Or more to the point, they can make the star, but there's soon going to be no point in terms of selling CDs.

Re:RIAA

[cens0r]

Not necessairly. Apple probably signed the same sort of deals with the labels that most record stores sign. They are required to give "shelf space" to certain artists, and advertise certain releases. Also, a sizeable chunk of money goes back to the RIAA and the RIAA can probably end the contract if they see fit.

Re:RIAA

[shark72]

"Now it's Apple who will be deciding what inducers and superlatives and featured artists get splashed across the showroom floors."

Huh? The "featured artists" you're seeing on the legal download services are co-op ads, just like the ad you might see run by a record store in a newspaper. The record companies still actively promote their artists. That is their job.

Likewise, the ads for music, software, books and DVDs you see on the Amazon home page are paid for by the manufacturers of the items. iTMS, like Amazon or a record store, may feature "editorial picks" or "staff recommendations," but generally speaking, if you see a particular product advertised by a retailer, the manufacturer has played a part in this.

An important function of record companies is to promote their artists in the sales channel. They do this whether the sales channel is a brick-and-mortar establishment like HMV, a web site like Amazon, or a download service like iTMS or Napster.

Re:RIAA

[Ogerman]

Due to the lower price of distribution, imports, exports, tariffs etc. this method of providing music should stop the whiners, because now they have access to music at an affordable price, and should have no need for illegal P2P.

$1 per track is still not "affordable" to many people and worse yet, this money is largely still not getting to the artists if they are RIAA-member signed. Then you have the problem of old music where the authors are dead or else long retired. Under a reasonable copyright system, say 14 year terms, this would all be public domain. People should not be expected to pay for this content.

So everyone wins. Well everyone who isn't solely driven by greed at least, and will continue to use the substandard illegal P2P programs.

No, actually the only people that win are the people solely driven by greed: the big RIAA members. Everybody else gets substandard compressed-audio with annoying DRM, lack of standards, lack of platform support, etc. And once again, the artists are still screwed.

Re:RIAA

[mcubed]

I don't know why everyone thinks this is a victory against the RIAA.

Because chief among the RIAA's disingenous contentions was that P2P networks hurt the opportunities for "legitimate" online distribution. The RIAA publicly blamed P2P for the consumer disinterest in their member labels' own download services. Obviously, P2P wasn't the cause, since P2P is still as strong as ever and consumer uptake of commercial download services has been stronger than anyone expected.

RIAA has supported this idea from the start,

No, RIAA paid lip service to supporting the idea. Even Hilary Rosen, after she stepped down as RIAA's president, expressed dismay at the labels' inability and unwillingness to design a service that would appeal to consumers.

but as so many of you selectively note the RIAA is not a company. They can not start there own venture,

The RIAA is a trade organization essentially controlled by the five international conglomerates who distribute 80% of music worldwide. The RIAA acts as official mouthpiece for the positions of these companies -- and those are the companies that can and did start their own ventures, and failed with them. A "victory" or "defeat" for the RIAA is, in common parlance, a victory or defeat for those five companies. The fact that those companies have acted anti-competitively and illegally to maintain a lock on the distribution of music, and that lock is now rusting, is what people mean by a defeat for the RIAA.

Due to the lower price of distribution, imports, exports, tariffs etc. this method of providing music should stop the whiners,

It remains to be seen ... we are talking mostly about the U.S. here. So far as I know, there is only one service currently available in Canada. How many in the rest of the world? With the commercial services in the U.S., the breadth and depth of music available even on Napster 2.0 (which has the largest catalog, for now) doesn't come close to what can be obtained on several P2P networks or through other channels like IRC or USENET. And the files are all lossily compressed, which isn't the case on USENET at least, where there are a substantial number of losslessly compressed files available. So, pay for substandard, lightly DRM'ed audio, or download the real thing for free? Hmmm...tough choice! Tariffs have rarely been an issue; the real issue is copyrights, and who will or won't allow their music to be available on these services (like what's left of The Beatles, for instance, who won't) and to what extent they will allow them to be sold. Hopefully, these are just growing pains, and eventually the holdouts will come around, and the confusing restrictions on what can be streamed vs. downloaded on Napster 2.0 that people are already complaining about will cease to be an issue. But you're being a tad optimistic, aren't you?

and should have no need for illegal P2P.

P2P isn't illegal.

Michael

Re:RIAA

[sacrilicious]

... but now an aspiring artist can choose to make a deal with someone other than the RIAA. Like Apple. Apple may not be cutting these deals yet, but I doubt they've contractually given up the possibility. And if 2/3 of current revenues go to the RIAA, there's incentive there for Apple to make itself more than the middleman.

Re:This just in: MTV sucks more soul from humanity

[sielwolf]

Truly sitting around the artist collective in our double breasted suits drinking cognac has been destroyed by these perpetrators.

But you do bring up an interesting point: folks here seem to equate freedom of musical choice with a better preception and appreciation of music. I remember reading an article on the illegal cd market in Mexico and although it seemed that Mexicans were buying more music the problem was that they were becoming even more fixed in their tastes.

It's one of those "if you never hear anything new how do you know you'll like it?" things. I think that is the greatest shame about MTV and all this P2P stuff. People can get that one big single from that one novelty (to them anyway) band and completely ignore the rest of their body of work or any tangentally important work.

All this new technology and it seems that everyone's view of the world is getting smaller.

good to see MTV gettin back in the music biz

[kaltkalt]

been at least a decade or so. unless you count the videos shown during beavis and butthead.

MTv's not even in the music PLAYING business...

[Darth23]

anymore. At least we should be able to download the lastest episode of Jackass or the latest TRL now.

Re:MTv's not even in the music PLAYING business...

[zenbrew]

Does eMpTyV even play music at all anymore? I was under the impression that it was left to VH-1 now.

Music at first

[ennerseed]

But before you know it, it will be bad audio game shows, then conversations of spoiled little kids placed in a hip living situation bitching at each other... no thanks.

Re:Hotting up?!

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It's a usage that's more common in British than American English -- equivalent to "heating up" on this side of the Atlantic. Like "bloody" and a couple of other common British usages, it seems to be getting slightly more use in American English as well, though I suspect it will never be quite standard.

Re:Remember when?

[reboot246]

You may be right. Some XM channels already carry commercials. When the other ones start playing commercials, I'll end my subscription.

XM is pushing to reach a million subscribers. I don't think they'll change until they have a lot more than that. It would be very easy for me to just turn them off and listen to AM and FM.

Re:This just in: MTV sucks more soul from humanity

[mekkab]

Truly sitting around the artist collective in our double breasted suits drinking cognac has been destroyed by these perpetrators.


At least we still have our beloved Moet et Chandon! They can't co-opt that from us!

All this new technology and it seems that everyone's view of the world is getting smaller.
Information overload, my man. Its what I imagine the high-level A&R or mid-level record exec goes through- stacks upon stacks of CDs and cassettes (well, not cassettes anymore) Trying the find hte next "It" band...

I myself have reams of songs I've never listened to- some CDs spanning back to my days as an undergrad DJ (WHSR! 530 AM! No, your radio dial DOESN'T go that low! And even if it did, you can tune us in anyway!)

Re:For the ignorant

[mashx]

Heh, you telling me that /. is formal writing? I don't know about you, but I class /. as more spoken language, more informal than just 'written' language.

But yes, in that case, troll I am..

phthpthphphtp

MTV can....

[UnixChild00]

Bite my shiny metal ass

Where have I seen this Business Model before...

[Orne]

1. Litigate the Free music trading services into the dust, regardless of legality of content traded on the services.

2. Introduce your own music trading services, except this time you make people pay for any content (even if the artists elect to distribute their music for free, like MP3.com).

3. Profit!

Re:Hotting up?!

[l0wland]

Hey, "cool down" man... ;-)

DON'T DO IT

[serutan]

The general public can either pay to listen to recorded music or get it free. Musicians can either make nothing from recordings, like they did all the centuries before the recording industry, or they can make nothing from recordings like they did DURING the century of the recording industry. Remember the basic truth that what musicians get from the distribution of recordings is EXPOSURE. They can get the same exposure and make the same amount of money by letting recordings be distributed FREE.

Live performances will always generate income for musicians. Recordings never will, because the middlemen don't want it to work that way any more than they want you to download tracks for free. The difference between free downloads and pay downloads is whether you and I pay a talentless middleman, who then becomes the focus of the whole process and gets to dictate terms to musicians.

By becoming a customer of ANY pay download service you are helping perpetuate the recording industry, or at least a recording industry-like model where people pay these middlemen to get access to music. Please don't do it!

Hawks and mice?

[grocer]

From the article (and all you need to know):

"There's no doubt it's a strong brand, with a strong profile of viewers," said Phil Leigh, senior analyst at Inside Digital Media, about MTV's plans. "But they can't rely solely on their brand come next year ... After iTunes launched in April, MTV should have been like a hawk on a field mouse."

Oops, I think maybe MTV is the mouse now...I do wonder what gives MTV any kind of credibility selling music when they basically invented reality TV and ran with it, dropping music into 1am to 8am slot or whatever...now they have viewers but I don't think they have any kind of serious listeners.

MTV moving in...

[locarecords.com]

...

There is a good article in The Financial Times today about the future of music and the threat from music downloads.

It's coming there is no doubt about it. At last with the ipod we have a usable MP3 player and with iTunes a service that can mean you can be legal... But will the record labels be able to move in and dominate the online distribution industry before it even begins?

I certainly question their expertise in this area and perhaps an online retailer is better to deal with the customer than through these dinosaurs. In any case they squandered millions on rubbish plastic acts over the last decade and I sincerely hope that the online world opens up the field to other (quality) musicians...

I wish

[ucsckevin]

it was mtv 2.
they have a much better selection

good for MTV

[guLin]

Dont you see all those people lined outside the MTV studio's everyday. Thousands of teens , I shouldnt say people sorry, call to have THEIR video number 1. (I never understand when somebody says a video is theirs. its not. whatever) My point being, they have people who watch and it is only simple logic that they will buy too, especially the 15 year old girls. Good for MTV, I guess.

Don't be such a wanker...

[sczimme]

"Hotting up" is the UK version of "heating up". Not everyone speaks US English.

What about the Patent on this ?

[Dave21212]

Cool idea, but I'm sure that someone already has a patent from 1980 on "Delivering music content at a live event to a small device"

Re:What about the Patent on this ?

[Eccles]

Cool idea, but I'm sure that someone already has a patent from 1980 on "Delivering music content at a live event to a small device"

A 1980 patent would have expired by now.

Re:What about the Patent on this ?

[Dave21212]

Cool idea, but I'm sure that someone already has a patent from 1980 on "Delivering music content at a live event to a small device"

"A 1980 patent would have expired by now."

True, I should have said late 1980's - apparently someone patented "download of digital music and video over the Internet" back then ;)

OT: best way to dump spyware

[mblase]

My inlaw's computer is a cesspool of Ad/Spy ware caused by the various crap their 16 year old daughter's downloaded over the past two years. I routinely have to uninstall garbage that she installs just to get past annoying popups.

With all due respect to your family, as well as your personal preferences, this is exactly why I insist on keeping a Mac in my house for my family to use. Multiple accounts under OS X, practically virus-free, they can't install applications outside their own home folder, and I can control exactly what apps they can and can't launch.

Can't play the latest games? Save your allowance and buy a PS2, kids. I bought my first Nintendo with birthday cash; you can, too. Can't use the latest software? Probably just as well; 95% of the stuff that has no Mac equivalent isn't worth using, anyway.

Spyware, IMO, is the second-best argument (after VB viruses) for dumping Windows from the family computer entirely.

what about interoperability

[Wordsmith]

With all these services cropping up, I'm beginning to wonder about the limits of the interoperability (and longevity) of the formats used for the files I buy (rent?).

I can go out to any CD store, and I can bring my CD home and listen to it in any CD player from any company. This will remain true long after CD is supplanted by the Next Big Thing (TM). It's not difficult to find a record player, although they're not as omnipresent as they once were. It takes a little more work, but I can find someone to sell me an 8-track player or a reel-to-reel, too. Worst case, I can build one with the right components and little know-how (that I don't happen to have).

When I buy a song from Itunes, its in a proprietary format I can only read with apple's products. That's fine for now (they're great products), but what am I going to do 10 years down the line if Apple gets out of the music business. The selection is a little more flexible on the WMA-based music side, as Microsoft is licensing the format and its DRM to anyone and everyone, but ultimately, you can run into a lesser version of the same problem.

I don't want to have to install 10 different proprietary music players and buy 10 different portable devices just to shop from 10 different online stores. And I don't want my purchases to become useless just because a company goes out of business or drops its music player/sales line - or because I switch operating systems or even upgrade to a new OS revision that isn't supported.

For now, I'll stick with ripping my own CDs to unprotected MP3s (sorry OGG, I have a nomad). I'll reconsider once (if) everyone settles on a defacto standard for a format that's not too restrictive to but useful.

Re:what about interoperability

[molarmass192]

Ummm ... I don't know what you're talking about. You can burn *ANY* tunes you buy from Apple to a CD-R and use that 20 years down the line assuming the CD-R is still good. WMA dies when MS decides it wants you to upgrade. In terms of easy to use, AAC doesn't fly for non-iPods and I hate having to boot Win2K under vmware to burn CDs via iTunes. However, it's liveable (more liveable than WMA) until Apple puts out a Linux version of iTunes.

Re:what about interoperability

[Wordsmith]

Those are the reasons I prefer Itunes AACs to WMAs, but you still wind up with vendor lock-in problems.

For instance - lets say I don't have a pressing need to burn my AACs to CD format, I figure I can do it later. Only Apple goes out of business (isn't that always supposed to be right around the corner?), and my copy of Itunes no longer has a way to verify its authorized to use my purchased AACs. At this point, I'm screwed.

Also, even though I CAN burn a CD, the actual purchase is for a music file. I want to know that I will always be free to buy a player capable of making use of that file - and not just from one company that could go out of business or change its services at any time. I want to know any other company or dork with a Radio Shack nearby can get me a player in the distant future.

More to the point, even though Apple's AACs aren't bad, it still locks my into using Itunes/IPODs and only Itunes (or maybe, eventually, some licensed players). To use anything else, I have to burn and rip - effectively transcoding and losing quality.

So lets stay I stick with itunes. Sure, that's great, except how am I supposed to play these files I bought from Napster, and these others I bought from MusicMatch? Oh, there's dedicated players for that. So now I need to have seperate libraries maintained in Itunes and MusicMatch, and maybe napster's player too. In the cases where the DRM lets me burn a CD, I can transcode, but that's not allways an option and when it is, its far from ideal.

When I buy a CD from Best Buy, I don't have to use the special Best Buy player, which doesn't play all the same music as my FYE player or my Virgin Megastores player. I don't want to jump through hoops and lose quality to put all my music in one place, or in one format.

The media muckety-mucks need to get together on a standard that can be used on any player (not suggesting backward compatability, but a standard would catch on quickly) and survive longer than their business models. Until then, I'm not buying.

Re:what about interoperability

[cens0r]

You have CD-R's that last 20 years? tell me where to find these, mine start to go downhill after about 12 months. And they aren't nearly as scratch resistant.

WMA dies when MS decides it wants you to upgrade.

Pure FUD. Microsoft hasn't ever released anything that couldn't read in the old formats and convert them to the new. WMA and AAC have the same kind of DRM options, it's really a toss up between them. The difference is WMA is supported by more players.

Re:what about interoperability

[Da VinMan]

You have CD-R's that last 20 years? tell me where to find these, mine start to go downhill after about 12 months. And they aren't nearly as scratch resistant.

What is the practical useful life of the typical CDR? I'm talking about CDRs that aren't used that often (maybe once a month at most), don't get abused, and are stored in a nice sleeve in a CD case. I've often wondered about this, so if you could provide insight about this, it would be appreciated.

Re:what about interoperability

[cens0r]

I would guess they have a shelf life of 3 or 4 years, but I have had a few go bad in as little as 1 year with very little use. If I use them alot I find that I'm lucky to get 6 months out of them.

Re:what about interoperability

[slagdogg]

The selection is a little more flexible on the WMA-based music side, as Microsoft is licensing the format and its DRM to anyone and everyone

Not exactly. At any time, Microsoft can force an upgrade to your system's DRM components -- and deny the issuing of licenses to you until they are upgraded. It's already been done once, to work around the 'freeme' crack for DRMv7. Granted it requires that the company implementing Microsoft's DRM software actually set the appropriate individualization options, but of course in the music world they will all be doing this to protect the content.

Re:what about interoperability

[Nasarius]

Plus, unlike the real CDs, you're buying a lossy format. If someone sold FLACs with the cuesheets necessary to recreate the original CD exactly, I might consider it. But the higher quality and all the benefits that come from having a tangible product are worth the extra $2-5 (see Amazon.com), IMO. If I want all the convenience of a digital format, I can rip the CD into any format I like, ensuring maximum quality. It's a few dollars difference. Unless you're buying a ton of music and you're not all that concerned about quality and such, I just don't see the point.

I'll play mtv music downloads on my mtv computer

[witts]

Anyone else remember a story on slashdot from a long while ago about MTV-branded computers being sold on college campuses? Lots of messages on slashdot to the effect of: they'll be crap computers, but dummies will buy it anyway. Well, whatever happened to these MTV computers? I've never heard of them being sold anywhere. Is this vapor hardware?

there is hardly such thing as a "newspaper baron"

[da5idnetlimit.com]

Hey mate, ever heard the name Murdoc ?
I think this guy is trying to get a worldwide presence and is already on 3-4 continents.

I guess Newspaper Baron is one of his lesser titles, among "TV King", "Radio Magna" and "Weekly Press Emperor", so it's natural you didn't remind him...

also, he got a few friends playing the same level, but I'm too lazy to open the Financial Times.

There is going to have to be an industry standard

[Stone316]

With some many vendors going to offer a download service there is going to have to be a standard license agreement set by the industry. Imagine the hassle with the current systems in place. Some allow X number of burns copied to Y systems. Some don't let you burn, some only offer Z format. (X,Y and Z are variable.)

I'm not sure why the RIAA and Labels are being so anal with some companies and not with others.

That's Great

[ThisIsFred]

Will I actually see competitive pricing with music, or is the RIAA still Supreme Commander of Distribution Channels? Right now the first signs of real price competition are appearing on Internet mail-order sites. I'm starting to see "older" CD releases dropping in price, and I mean former top-10 stuff, not just the obscure stuff.

Basically, we've got two variations with online music: Either you "buy" a track outright for $1, which is no deal to me, or you pay a fee and "rent" it.

Let me know when I can get a popular song for 25 cents, that I can keep indefinitely, and has no DRM.

Re:That's Great

[grocer]

Erm, it's 10 bucks a full album on iTunes for most older commerically sucessful releases...and a dollar a song is reasonable considering it's 15.99 to go buy a 12-15 track CD from your local retailer or 11.88-14.85 to buy it on iTunes...which makes up for the electricity and CD-R to make the CD, IMO, plus the savings on gas and sales tax.

DRM is fine as long I get a CD with no strings attached to do whatever I feel like with...it's M$ and the **IAA pushing draconian DRMs to keep media digital where the problem is. Apple said "okay" and then kludged it... (I think when iTunes was licensed no one took it seriously at all...they laughed and then realized it works...hence the ugly WinMediaPlayer 9 DRM)

Re:Hotting up?!

[Negatyfus]

This is what you get when geeks spend too much time behind their computers. Obviously, this has everything to do with those funny-looking creatures with the weird bumps on their chest. On MTV they're always prancing around saying stuff about being "hot" so I assume it's called "hotting around." I don't get MTV.

OTHER VIDEOS WITH iPOD!

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

I mean, OMG, 50 Cent had one in his video!!!

Interesting you mention that and the "street cred". Good point. I also remember seeing Jenniger Lopez, or "J-Lo(TM)", listening to an iPod in her Jenny From The Bronx video.

Any other major (sic) "artists", anyone see with an iPod in a video?

And yeah, 50 Cent gave the iPod major video time, and close zoom-ups too. Very kewl.

Not for me.

[magiluke]

Unless they are offering songs other than the ones they play on tv, this is definately not for me... I haven't actually like very much (or any at all) of the music that MTV has played since the 80s to early 90s

You're one of the few

[ianscot]

It's nice that you're idealistically hanging onto a service without major label artists and with a subscription model that's basically been shown to be unattractive to most listeners.

The traits that made iTunes stand out, though, were largely the price-per-song model and the fact that Jobs got the various labels on board for fairly innocuous DRM in the files. It was exactly the contrast with services like eMusic that made iTunes' store work. Ask anyone. It wasn't the interface -- the store's basically a nicely-designed Web page, and the jukebox is handy but has its faults. It's the sales model you're saying is so "silly" that appeals to people.

Not that you can't opt for your model. You just may have to switch from eMusic to do it, as they've gone pay-per-song now too. Marketed as "discovering" independents that aren't with the RIAA buggers, this model may still have a niche. That wouldn't compete with the mainstream players who're going to be all over this market by June next year, though.

Yeah, but it is MTV

[ruiner13]

So you'll be downloading something by radiohead, and all of a sudden your download will be inexplicably transferred to brittany spears or the backstreet boys. Either that, or you'll go there looking for music and all you'll find is stupid documentaries on musicians (and I use that term loosely) you could care less about. When will clear channel have their own service? It is only a matter of time.

Economy 101: Where're the profits?

[jazuki]

This all strikes me as dot-com redux: Let's sell stuff, and figure out later how we're going to make money from it.

I can see why Apple is in the music download business, even given the terms that pretty much limit profitability to the labels. For them, music downloads are sort of a loss leader/tailer to extremely profitable iPod sales. Other music download companies, unless they own the music they're selling and thus can keep the royalties, are going to have a very hard time making any money on this.

Let's say they are able to squeeze maximum efficiency out of the business, and somehow are able to attain marginal profits of about 10 cents a song (US). If they manage to sell 100 million songs a year, that comes out to a measly $10 million profit. That's not nothing, but what's the investment required to get here, and what're the ongoing costs to maintain that level of sales?

The numbers I've seen bandied about in the press don't look so promising.

The problem is downloads are essentially a commodity product. Yes, they could compete on quality and levels of DRM, but that's up to the labels, not the download companies. For Apple, downloads help sales of their non-commodity product, the iPod. For AOL, downloads will drive sales of their service. For Microsoft, they will drive sales of WMA licenses.

That's why I predict that only Apple, AOL, and possibly Microsoft are going to be long term players in the market, and that's because they don't need music downloads to be profitable, but to drive sales of their other products. The others will stay niche players or eventually get swallowed up, perhaps Roxio-Napster by Samsung, and MusicMatch by Dell.

And even though MTV, unlike those two, doesn't actually need to make money on downloads, I don't see what they gain that they can't get by just partnering with one of the other services, like AOL is doing with Apple.

MTV Runined its music cred and its ruining MTV2

[evilned]

This is not going to go well, as its been noted MTV doesnt play videos anymore except for TRL and late night. What is more disturbing is what they have done with MTV2. During the day, it seems to be competing with BET for the rap and R&B market. To hear anything else, its always late at night and at weird times. Any show that plays anything slightly out of the American mainstream, like 120 minutes or AMP has to be shown at a time people like me are either asleep or watching a live concert somewhere. Now they want to sell me music online? Nope, sorry, your brand name stands for the same sort of Clear Channel homogenization that I can't stand. I'll stick with iTunes.

The future of music

[maccw]

I think that "stealing" mp3's was ultimately a situation that needed to change. But, it loosened up the whole industry and got people listening to all kinds of music that they wouldn't have otherwise. Music became interesting again because it seemed to be back in the peoples hands and out of Casey Cassim and Dick Clarks hands. It got people interested in music again. It was culturally a great thing. Suddenly every DVD and CD player was wired for MP3's. This happened well before there was a "legal" way of getting MP3's. Besides making your own which just seemed stupid if you already have the CD. I think the future of music is going to suck. Slowly but surely all the new channels of distribution are going to be controlled by money hungry execs. Its already the case. Within a few years the RIAA will have an online music store too.

MTV - Here is a clue

[Glonoinha]

There are a zillion places to download music in MP3 (or whatever) form, iTunes being legal to boot.

That niche is being served.

MTV didn't get to where it got by playing music, they got to where they are by playing MUSIC VIDEOS. So put all the videos (particularly the old school stuff) up for purchase as downloads and use a decent codec that doesn't require a spyware laced install on the client.

Damn, I should patent that.

We already have MP3s. Sell us MPGs of the music videos.

This clue brought to you by the number 4 and the letter V.

Re:MTV - Here is a clue

[tipsymonkey]

MTV didn't get to where it got by playing music, they got to where they are by playing MUSIC VIDEOS

I don't understand what MTV has to do with music. Now if they were selling crappy reality tv shows online then I would understand.

Re:MTV - Here is a clue

[Cyno01]

MTV already has tons of videos avalible on their site, realplayer and not for download, but still...

Re:MTV - Here is a clue

[ShavenYak]

MTV didn't get to where it got by playing music, they got to where they are by playing MUSIC VIDEOS.

No, you're thinking of MTV2.

Re:MTV - Here is a clue

[LoudMusic]

I am so all about backing that up. Like, with my money, not my offline storage (:

I got half way into the tag-paragraph and had the same idea. If music from iTunes is a buck a pop, I could probably go for 2-3 $ for a music video, so long as I could tote it around and use it wherever I please. If they have bandwidth issues with that I'd additionally have no issues cueing a CD/DVD worth of videos to be burned / stamped and shipped to me. It would be even nicer if they had an automated service that burned a DVD with menu and all.

Man that'd be pimp-tastic.

Re:There is going to have to be an industry standa

[Basehart]

Standards used to make sense before Microsoft became the behemoth it is today. I would othwerise agree with you, about the need for standards, but for right now I'm enjoying the fight.

We all know deep down that as soon as Microsoft has figured out who is winning this fight it'll put a target on them and introduce a system that works exactly the same way, and become that licensing standard you were talking about, but with WMA as the standard format.

I didn't know...

[callipygian-showsyst]

I didn't know that MTV was even in the music business anymore! How are they going to have any credibility in the music download business.

--

I sold my iPod on eBay to get a dellPod! The best choice I ever made.

Re:MTV sucks--what music

[Creepy]

dead on.

Even major artists make the majority of their money touring, which is why the Rolling Stones, Kiss, Simon and Garfunkel, etc. go on tour and don't even bother to release a new album. Now go out and buy some concert tickets so us artists can afford a sweet crib :)

Yawn.

[torpor]

Wake me up when Nokia gets into it.

Re:This just in: MTV sucks more soul from humanity

[mekkab]

How come I get flame bait and you keep getting insightfuls?!

Oh, thats right. I forgot. Carry on, then!

Late into the game?!

[Ridgelift]

Analysts said MTV, with its global presence and ubiquity in the living rooms of teenagers and young adults would have a leg up on established competitors but was slow in entering the market for music downloads.

Apple launched a Microsoft Windows-compatible version of its software in October and its online music store has sold approximately 13 million songs since its launch in April, analysts said.

Let's see, MP3's have been around for years now, and Apple _just_ got into the game this past April, and has soared to the top of the charts. But MTV, who've been around for decades, are late to the party?! Even in internet time, it seems a little silly to imply that MTV has a lot of catching up to do. Selling online music is a new industry, and has to compete with the well established free MP3 "industry", not Apple.

Re:This just in: MTV sucks more soul from humanity

[sielwolf]

'cause I don't forget to bring the funny ;p

Candy Bar vs MP3

[LPetrazickis]

Paying for a candy bar covers:
a) the recipe
b) ingredients
c) packaging
d) shipping and handling
e) display
f) cashier's salary

Paying for an mp3 covers:
a) the recipe
b) bandwidth (a cent at most)

Yes, ninety-nine cents for a copy of a work of art is a total ripoff that's not justified by anything. Also, the fact that the recent Canadian music service used $.99 CAD (about $.75 USD) for the same imaginary product should be a dead give away that the price has nothing to do with their actual costs.

Re:Candy Bar vs MP3

[cmstremi]

Are you drunk?

You think they get free:
a) Studio Time
b) Engineers
c) Promotion
d) Management
e) Administration

Add to those all the other costs of doing business - even if the result is a PRODUCT that doesn't take up physical space on a shelf... It has to cost something.

It's up to the market to decide what consumers will pay. If that number is lower than the cost to produce the product, the companies would stop making them. Consumers are buying this product at the current market price. So lowing the price would be retarded for music companies (from the musicians to the retailers, etc.)

Re:Candy Bar vs MP3

[LPetrazickis]

You think they get free:
a) Studio Time (one-time non-scaling cost whereas the mp3 can be resold n times where n approaches infinity)
b) Engineers (one-time non-scaling cost whereas the mp3 can be resold n times where n approaches infinity)
c) Promotion (what promotion? how much does it cost to offer a few thousand reviewers free downloads or even send them old-fashioned CDs?)
d) Management (more like mismanagement)
e) Administration (outsource the bean-counters to India or something)

Add to those all the other costs of doing business - even if the result is a PRODUCT that doesn't take up physical space on a shelf... It has to cost something.

And that something isn't $0.99.;)

It's up to the market to decide what consumers will pay. If that number is lower than the cost to produce the product, the companies would stop making them.

Well, RIAA members are making a very healthy profit. Presumably, it's not because they are cutting their throat by offering it at $0.99 per track. Anyways, the market is not involved because copyright is by definition a monopoly, while artist contracts tend to prevent even comparable products from competing.

Consumers are buying this product at the current market price. So lowing the price would be retarded for music companies (from the musicians to the retailers, etc.)

Many consumers are also buying CDs at $19.99. That doesn't mean that there's a good reason to charge more than $1.99 for them.

A retail blank CD in a jewel case and a piece of cardboard together cost less than $1.99 virtually everywhere. Wholesale, the whole thing is in no way costs more than $0.10. The added value of putting a copy of something they already have onto the CD is absolutely not worth more than two dollars.

Re:I seriously doubt MTV will venture

[cens0r]

MTV2 does play alot of of indie music. So do some of the other channels they own (VH1 Classic, MTV Rock, MTV Hip Hop). I forsee them having the exact same songs as everyone else.

Music?

[billyradcliffe]

Since when did MTV card about music?

Yay

[fetus]

Finally! A pay-music service that will supply us with those rare, hard-to-find, underground artists and tracks! Viva la MTV! Down with mainstream crap!

Mod parent up!

[phillymjs]

As someone who fondly remembers the MTV of the 80's, when they actually showed videos from diverse acts for most of the day, I agree wholeheartedly with the parent poster. These days on the rare occasions when they do play music, it's the same ten or so shit videos every time, and the segments between them are supremely irritating.

~Philly

Re:MTV == MUSIC?

[LoneStarGeek]

I have to agree. MTV is about ratings with the 18-25 crowd. That is fine by me. I haven't watched MTV myself since Alternative Rock started in about 1989. If you are an old fogey (over 30) like myself then you can always tune in to VH-1 for 70's,80's and 90's artists. There you can relive all the heartaches, drug addiction comeback stories and the poorly directed/acted music videos. But one theme rings through and that is originality. Remember back in the day when you had to be able to play an instrument and sing. I do. Now it is all about urban rap and drudging along with a sythesized, sampled and altered song that have already been released. Mixed down voices and harmonies that blend like Coffee and Jack Daniels at 4am. Where is the originality in that? Now MTV will be littering the Web with paid downloads for the likes of Brittany Spears, Justin Timerlake, Emenim and others. I can't wait. Dammit all, Metallica look at what you started! At least on Napster you could get thsi stuff for free.

Re:This just in: MTV sucks more soul from humanity

[mekkab]

True that.

Where is this heading?

[Clarencex]

It will be interesting to see how all this competition plays out in the "free" marketplace. Karl Marx discovered that, in a free market, the price of a commodity will fluctuate towards the value of the commodity, where value is determined by the amount of labor that goes into the production of the commodity. Music files that can be replicated to infinty by the touch of a button have no value under this definition. No labor = no (exchange) value.

Prediction: As more and more companies come online selling music files, there will be a race to the bottom as prices drop like a rock.

MTV And Music Downloads

[E-Rock-23]

Yeah, right. This will fail, big time. First of all, the M in MTV hasn't stood for music in over a decade. They have shows featuring complete idiots doing mindless crap (Jackass, any Real World or Road Rules), celebrity-obsessed losers, and hardly ever shows a full music video without having some crazed Teenie Bopper screaming about how much she loves the artist (TRL).

No, the M in MTV stands for Moron. Why? Because only complete morons tune in to it anymore. MTV hasn't been worth anything since the day they decided that Rap and R&B were more important that the genre that made it the cable giant it is: Rock. And when they do talk about Rock, they usually only mention these dime-a-dozen Pop Punk bands.

MTV Sucks. All should either look into the new Napster or just deal with iTunes. I wouldn't trust MTV's judgment of "good music" any further than I can throw Carson Daley...

We have iPod ads on radio here

[Shivetya]

In Atlanta there have been several iTMS and iPod ads on a local station. This station is also giving them away in a contest.

It does seem that Apple is getting the word out.

Why MTV?

[gordgekko]

Why MTV though? The closest they come to being about music is the first letter in their acronym.

Re:Oh goody! MTV blazes new frontiers!!! :(

[gmhowell]

I had to clean out some cruft on my mother's and brother's computers. I suggest you install spyware and/or ad-aware and force them to run on every boot. Tell your inlaws that if you come over, and it's not installed, or not running, you won't work on the computer.

I don't know how my spybot install went, but the last time I had an issue, it was to tell them that if Windows Update wasn't running and up to date, I wouldn't work on their machines. Sure enough, they listened, so they were pretty much safe from the MS mail worm of the week.

Hah

[shift82]

For a minute I thought they said that MTV would start playing music (MTV Getting into Music Business). That'll only happen when Microsoft stops sucking.

Damn...

[filmsmith]

It looks like the Microsoft FUD is working.

As another poster already said, iTunes doesn't naturally rip DRMed files. Please do your damn research BEFORE you post.

In typical /. fashion

[filmsmith]

I only read the last four words of your post. Now what?

...what?

........what'd I miss?

I agree...

[Cyno01]

I'm not gonna argue with you that RealOne Player is shitware, i'll wholy agree with you there. Its not that bad though, you can turn off most of the real annoying stuff within the program and its easy enough to change the Evntsvc and RNdal bits from *.exe to *.old without affecting the player.