Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs and the State of Legal Music Downloads
An anonymous reader writes "Rolling Stone has published an interview with Steve Jobs about the current state of the music industry. He is a smart man, that guy. 'When we first went to talk to these record companies -- about eighteen months ago -- we said, "None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.s here who know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."'"
Smart guys. If you can play it, you can copy it. Either someone breaks the copy protection (Jon J) or you plug a digital out into a digital in.
Trouble is the record companies know this but still keep trying which just makes it harder and more frustrating for the avarage guy/girl who wants to listen to ligit tracks on a mp3 player.
Actual current numbers for the sub services:
Rhapsody (from Real Networks): 250,000
MusicNet: 175,000
Napster (formerly pressplay): 80,000
MusicMatch MX: 150,000
Total here is over 600,000. These services tend to run about $10 per month, yielding a total revenue of over $6 million per month across all services. iTunes has sold 20 million songs in 7 months, or less than $3 million in revenue. Profit margins on subscriptions are higher as well.
I use Rhapsody and it kicks iTunes ass - there's just no comparison, given my listening habits (I'm almost always online). Looks like there are plenty of people who agree with me.
here
of course you cant to most of that with cd's... but the labels at least have to try.
2 1337 4 u!
RealPlayer sucks, Real sucks as a company, and their RealOne subscription service is worthless. However Real had nothing to do with the development of Rhapsody. They acquired Listen.com, which developed Rhapsody, earlier this year and (so far) Real hasn't changed anything. I started using Rhapsody back when Listen was an independent company.
Thanks, Dr. Richard Paley. BTW, the iron core of the moon still reverberates with the original aramaic words that created the universe.
Ever heard about iRATE?
Free, legal music downloads... it's even tuned to your taste! And yes, it does run on linux (and on Windows, and on MacOSX).
OK, maybe the interface isn't so sexy as iTune's... but it's still worth a try, imho. It worked great for me :)
My journal. Mainly about freedom.
i have lots of kiddie picture discs with pinocchio and donald duck etc. on the entire surface of the disc.
i also have these really old acetate 78 10" records that had animations on the label that you could watch with a little mirror zoetrope that sat on top of the spinning record.
also there are weird ways of having two distinct grooves on a record so that depending on where you put the needle down a different song plays. tool did this as well as numerous underground resistance recordings.
clear vinyl is nifty too.
" Why not offer something for $20/month that lets you download all the music you want"
I'm doing that more or less right now. It's called Rhapsody. I'm paying $10 a month and I can play any of their 300,000 songs whenever I want. For $1, I can burn a song to disc.
There are a few cons to it, though:
- I can't keep the music I download. If I unsubscribe, I cannot play the music anymore.
- It uses a custom client. Linux users need not apply.
- Not every song is available for purchase, but on the plus side at least I can listen to it.
- I *must* be on-line to listen to the music.
- No uploading to your music player, unless ya burn the CD and re-encode it. Ouch.
Those negatives sound bad, right? So why do I do it?
- $10 a month is less than one-album a month. No more CD purchases for me.
- The search engine's great. I'm able to find just about any song that intrigues me, and have it playing within moments. It's pretty good at helping me find other music I might like as well. It has everything neatly cross-referenced. "If you like Prodigy, you might like Chemical Brothers", etc.
- The internet thing kind of sucks (no taking my music on the road), but most of my 16 waking hours are nearby a net connection. I have wireless set up at home so it is not often that I find myself unable to listen to the music.
- Fast fast fast. It's not streaming in the RealPlayer sense. It starts downloading into a cache, and once a few blocks are down it starts playing. Rhapsody, by default, sets up a 1 gig cache to store the music in. So unless you have a LOT of songs on your playlist, they don't disappear. So it's not like you have to have broadband to listen to the music. (Though it helps for the initial download.)
It sounds like this might be the service you're looking for. I can tell you I'm happy with it. If I unsubscribe, I'm really going to miss it. You may find yourself in the same situation. If you go to www.listen.com you can try it free for a week.
Cheers
"Derp de derp."
Duplicating a song that you do not own a copy of is theft.
Incorrect.
It is copyright violation.
And if I'm in one of the jurisdictions around the world which is not a signatory to the Berne Convention, it's not any kind of a violation at all.
I've noticed that a few new CDs are being advertised on television bundled with a DVD. Yeah, you might be able to download the DVD content online, too, but this is perhaps a sign of the music industry trying to do more to entice CD purchases (although there are still those who clamor for them to increase the quality of the actual music first).
I import quite a bit of Japan (yes, I watch too much anime), but the Japanese pack their initial releases with tons of goodies that definitely entice people to buy the actual products. Silkscreens, postcards, DVDs, other kinds of knick-knacks. Looks like the US market might be following suit a bit?
And for the record, I think despite these rewards, the Japanese also have a problem with piracy, partially due to the fact that their distribution is loaded with so many middlemen that their prices are even more outrageous than in the US.
If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
Monty Python's _Matching Tie and Handkerchief_ had the double groove on one side. 33-1/3 rpm LP with two distinct programs on one side and one program on the other.
Jobs' comment that "a legal alternative to stealing music hadn't been invented until six months ago" takes "arguable" to new heights. When you quote someone, you might want to ensure that it is something they actually said. It might not fit your argument as well, but it will greatly increase your credibility. If you read the whole interview, you will see Jobs' is talking about a legal alternative that offers the same benefits as illegally downloading music. In fact, he says he is talking about (and this is a quote from the article) "a legal alternative that offers those same benefits [of illegal downloads]." He doesn't say instant gratification is a right, he simply points out it is something people want in digital music and something that can be provided legally. I don't see the problem, but maybe I am missing something.