Slashdot Mirror
Digital Music Stores Reviewed
Kozz writes "If you've thought about trying the new Napster 2.0, or perhaps MusicMatch, or even WAL*MART music service, you really need to read this review at BBspot.com. Brian takes a break from his standard satire fare and writes a comprehensive review not only of the previously mentioned stores, but also of BuyMusic.com, eMusic, Apple iTunes, and RealOne Rhapsody. It breaks down the features of each service, the prices, restrictions, general pros and cons, and really gives you an idea of which one(s) you should try depending on your needs."
Something in the back of my head is echoing that soft warning that I always hear when I think of wal-mart. Watch, they'll undercut and dominate this market place too.
Wal-Mart is going to be the Microsoft of the general retailer consumer good and grocery markets, I swear.
"File Type: Songs bought from Napster were available as protected .wma files ripped at 128 k."
Great, not only is only 128k, it's probably lower quality than OGG, and I'm guessing that if you're computer hard drive were to fail (likely) you would lose every song you 'bought' because the license file is probably tied to your OS in some way.
Maybe paying $10/month and using it like a radio station wouldn't be to bad, but letting people think that they 'bought' the song when you have no ability to make back up copies is stupid. Yes it mentioned burning it to a CD, but that would be an extra step re-encoding it back into the PC, and the quality would be lower.
The idea of actually paying for music online is still regarded as satirical by some?
Until they realise that people don't want to pay for music per listen - but buy the right to listen to a song as many times as they want, whenever they want, in whatever format they want - these online stores are never going to be very successful.
If I have to deal with one more WMA file I think I'll go nuts.
The simple fact is, most people like to have a 'hard' copy of their favourite music, and the only reason that many don't buy them is because of the price.
If it were $5 a CD I would buy every album I liked (and I would buy a hell of a lot). What they really nede to do to increase sales is introduce some sort of 'decent' rewards program, where the more often you buy music, the cheaper it is for you. (not the crappy buy 4 CD's and you can have one of these UNHEARD of bands albums!)
P2P is winning not because people *want* to steal, but because the prices of CD's are too prohibitive for many people, and many find it offensive that the bands get so littl of the profit!
They need a policy change, NOT a retailer change.
Online Features? What exactly DO we need in features? Near CD-quality, not very restrictive DRM, a good selection, and a decent price. Searches, reviews, and recommendations would be cool, too. You can get most of that in a record store with a knowledgeable music buff on the other side of the counter.
:)
What you don't get is the rustic appeal of going into a music store and enjoying the crowd and ambience. It's not the same when you're quoting NIN lyrics to a friend while passing by people who are shopping the contemporary christian aisle. Not the same as being able to watch people in goth clothing walk by. Not the same as being able to say "Chris I-Suck" (Chris Isaak) in public.
Shop online for convenience, but it's still an experience. Brick and mortar stores still have something to offer. If nothing else, it makes getting music a social event instead of a personal thing. If you're the type to get the latest Britney Spears album, though...you may want to buy online and save yourself some ridicule.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
How about buying CD's from bands that aren't from the RIAA? I like punk rock, and most of the good honest punk rock bands aren't on the RIAA. If you're not sure who is (it can be hard to tell) try here and it'll tell you if they're part of the cartel. Good Stuff.
Anybody know of a good review of the EULA's of these stores? I think that's a pretty important part, and this reviewer seemed to kind of gloss over that part, perhaps not having read them all (understandable.)
Also, I personally would rather buy music from iTunes, because the M4P format has been cracked. That means that I can completely un-DRM the music and listen in any AAC-supporting player of my choice, on any platform. You don't have that freedom (yet) with WMA.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
If you don't like the RIAA don't buy music. You should note that the record labels pay the RIAA, you don't directly.
Note if you have a song from a band and you didn't pay for it the RIAA isn't getting money, but neither is the band.
The band might only be getting a little bit from the sale, but they signed with an RIAA label and a little is better than 0.
If you like the music support those making it.
They do pay for bandwidth and maintenence of the servers to host the music. These aren't single machines sitting in some geek's basement you know, they;re rather large and distributed facilities to enusre a decent level of performance when users log on.
Maybe 'few' wasn't a strong enough word in my original post. The only CD I've purchased in recent memory from anyone who wasn't a (clearly unsigned) collegiate acappella group (call it 18+ months) was for my girlfriend, at a Rider's in the Sky concert.
I think I'm doing my part.
--
lds
Not true. With iTunes you can burn a CD and play that on any CD player, totally DRM-free. If you want to you can also re-rip those songs off the CD into any format you choose, again totally DRM-free. Then they can be played on any player you want.
The M4P format has not been cracked at all. What was done was someone patched the binaries of iTunes so that they could capture the unencrypted data while it was being played (or streamed, I forget which). That data can then be re-captured into a DRM-free format. It's basically similar to burning a CD and then ripping it, without the CD step.
The advantages to iTunes and the iTunes Music Store are the awesome user interface, the minimal DRM, the song selection, the exclusive tracks. the iPod, its cross-platform nature, and the fact that it will be around for a while considering it has at least 50% of the market.
Sapere aude!
The issue at the end of the day is this - when I go on Kazaa and download a song - what format is it likely to be in?
If you don't like the RIAA don't buy music
Spoken like a true RIAA propagandaist..
What about indie bands? Oh thats right, they aren't signed with the RIAA and thus don't get any money, so therefore its not music in your world.
That totally depends on why you aren't buying CDs. Some folks don't want to line the pockets of the RIAA (which is a fine reason), and others just don't like the format (rather buy songs than albums). I bet there's even a group that just finds buying online easier.
For the second group above, online music buying is pretty attractive, as they can buy individual songs w/o paying 5$ for a CD single.
Personally, I'm all about CD albums - I like the physical product, and I like being able to encode it to match my own preferences. I use iTMS to buy songs occasionally to see if I like a band/album by example, or to get 'that song' that I like from that artist that I could care less about. It means I don't have to boot up the PC, run Kazaa, hunt through dupes, and get rid of incompletes.
Now, if you're into a band and can buy their music at the concert, or directly from the band, DO SO. They'll get a bigger cut. It won't show up in Billboard (via SoundScan, the aggravating labels that are on top of the jewel cases), but the artist gets more money, and the RIAA gets less.
Finally, for an example of a band that has said 'screw the labels' and gone their own road, there is Marillion. They got their fans to front the cost of the last album (and the next one, which is due out next year) many months in advance of shipping, without even hearing a thing. To have a band that is that in tune with it's fans is an amazing thing. With the exception of electronic delivery, this is the revolution in music authoring and distribution that was supposed to happen.
Let's give it a year. I'd love to see an "online music store" year in review next December. Who will stand and who will fall?
Apple.
No one can hope for anything better than breaking even on their music store, not when they are selling songs for 99 cents. Walmart will be even less profitable than most services. Apple has said that iTunes is just a loss leader to sell iPods.
People are buying iPods. People aren't buying Dell DJ's or Gateway Music DJ's or whatever those Napster players are called.
pirates
The article did have some good information but I found it was not consistent throughout. Some features were listed as pros for certain services, but not mentioned for others that also had that feature. For example: He mentioned that one allows for gift cards, but failed to mention so does itunes. He also said musicmatch offers cover art with the downloads, but failed again to mention itunes also does. I think it would have been better if there would have been some type of chart that listed all the features and simple indicated if that service had them or not.
Some of the readers of this site still fail to realize this is not the Borg hive-mind.
SOME people are boycotting the RIAA. SOME people aren't. We all post on slashdot.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
With iTunes you get 10 CD burns per playlist. However, just make a new playlist and drag the songs over to it and you get 10 more burns, repeat ad infinitum. There really is no limit to the total number of CD burns.
The DRM in the iTunes Music Store is more of a speed bump than a road block. It's pretty much the bare minimum needed to be able to sell the music. You hardly even notice it because it is so minimal. I bet you can count on one hand the number of people who LEGALLY need to burn a playlist to more than 10 CDs.
Sapere aude!
The problem with all the online music stores is
Don't think that the RIAA doesn't "get it". They do. They just don't want you to "get it". "It" being music at a reasonable price in the format you want without restrictions on how you can use it.
The RIAA's (their members', actually) business is based on control. They want to control what you hear and how you hear it. Without this control, their entire business model breaks. If any old artist can self-publish online (or be published online by a 3rd party for a reasonable fee) with world-wide exposure
Everyone knows what the public wants:
- Roach
For example, if I'm a Nirvana fan, I have all their albums. Then they release a "greatest hits" CD with 10 songs I already have, and 2 new ones. Spend $15 for stuff I already have, -- or -- $2 for the ones I don't have. It's a no-brainer.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
You obviously want to buy your music through eMusic, which is one of the services covered in the article. They work with independent artists, which should be obvious when you see that they distribute the music as unrestricted VBR MP3s.
Their service also allows non-US users and explicitly supports Linux.
One of the indie music directors from the online college radio station linked below in my sig has bought tons of music from eMusic. If you've ever known someone in that position, I don't think I need to say anything else.
You shouldn't "hope" you're not buying RIAA-backed CDs. It's pretty easy to tell at many concerts; if the band is good and their CD is between $5 and $10 (or even $15), it's not from the RIAA because they wouldn't be allowed to charge that little.
(I read the article earlier today and emailed some corrections, but I read BBspot every day).
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
"Hypocrisy sucks, pick a stance and stick with it."
It's not about taking down the RIAA, it's about them providing the services we want. They're starting to do that. If they make money on these services, we'll all end up okay.
Lighten up.
"Derp de derp."
But AAC is a lossy format which you'd be burning to a CD and then re-encoding into probably another lossy format (MP3). Quality will be crappy. Where are the music services that offer FLAC downloads or some other lossless music file format with or without DRM? The RIAA wants them to charge based on what a CD with 12-15 tracks would cost, but fails to properly warn the public that what they're downloading is far inferior to the audio quality you'd get with a real CD. Personally a cheap knock-off 192kbps mp3 or AAC encoded music track is only worth about 5 cents to me. If it was in FLAC I'd consider it for $1 since if I uncompressed it I'd have the exact same thing I'd get with the CD.