Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Audio Lunchbox: Music with no DRM

Posted by michael on from the tanstaaflb dept.

An anonymous reader writes "MacCentral just posted an article on Audio Lunchbox, an online music store dedicated to music by independent artists and labels. ALB offers all of its music in DRM free MP3 (192 kbps) and Ogg Vorbis (Q6) formats with iTunes style pricing and a completely web based and platform independent delivery system."

20 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. $0.99 ?? by strictnein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Am I the only one not busting a nut at the chance of paying $0.99 to download one song? Or $9.99 to download an album? To me this is hardly an improvement over current pricing. Maybe it's just that the stuff I listen to isn't typically available (live trance sets) but I really can't see paying much more than $0.25 for a single downloadble track. Maybe $0.50 if I really enjoyed the artist.

    --
    Casual Games/Downloads
    1. Re:$0.99 ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Looks like it's the attack of the idiot moderators again. A story about a online store that, along with not using DRM, sells tracks for $1 and full CDs for $10 comes onto slashdot. Someone comments on how he (she?) finds those prices too high. The post is then marked as offtopic. This is very strange.

    2. Re:$0.99 ?? by smonner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is that the credit card fees make $0.99 just about the minimum you could charge for a single song and not lose money. Their lunch card idea is pretty good (pay one flat fee and get free songs), and does bring the cost per song down, but you end up having to commit to a certain number of songs. I'm thinking that might be a bit of a tough sell. They might have been better off going with only lunch cards and really pushing the fact that, though you have to pay $10 up front, you are getting songs for $0.50 each (or whatever it works out to).

    3. Re:$0.99 ?? by Krondor · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm not suggesting that it's as hard to make an album as it is to write a book but there's at least as much creative talent at work here

      .99 cent song downloads aren't an album it's a song. It's like 99 cents for a chapter of a book. I won't argue the crateive talent at work (except by pop stars that don't do their own work, oh those unsung studio musicians), but I do think that 99 cents is a bit high. Although if it is actually good I would pay that. I do like how single song downloads would make artists more prone to focus on making a few good songs then a lot of bad ones.

      ...bitch about RIAA taking 90% of that $0.99 when all they did is market the artist in question.

      Hmm suspiciously similar to my post that got modded flamebait, but anyways I totally agree with this. However, it's not the RIAA it's the record labels that are members of the RIAA just a small distinction. Anyways, here's a great site for information about how iTunes abuses artists just as badly as the old distribution systems. I wonder if the new one will work more fairly. I certainly hope so.

    4. Re:$0.99 ?? by mandalayx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Am I the only one not busting a nut at the chance of paying $0.99 to download one song? Or $9.99 to download an album? To me this is hardly an improvement over current pricing. Maybe it's just that the stuff I listen to isn't typically available (live trance sets) but I really can't see paying much more than $0.25 for a single downloadble track. Maybe $0.50 if I really enjoyed the artist.

      But if people will pay $5-15 to eat out when they can have subsistence at home, then what's up here?

    5. Re:$0.99 ?? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's even more than paper and bookstores. A lot of other people go into writing a book. My book, which goes for about $40, had an editor, a copy editor, a typesetter, an indexer, an artist for the cover, and a small army of reviewers who received honoraria. The postage alone when we were doing the final phases of reviewing ran into the hundreds of dollars. In the end, yeah, I get about five bucks a copy.

      Mind you, this is a technical book from a major reputable publisher (Addison-Wesley), so it got the luxe treatment. Fiction would get a different treatment.

  2. It had to happen sooner or later by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how RIAA will take notice (rest assured they will take notice)? Will they view it was a threat and try to buy out these independent artists to close this down, ignore it, or see that it actually works?

    I'd like to think they'd know a good thing when they see it but I'm not that optimistic (or naive depending on your viewpoint). I'd lean towards them trying to buy out any independent artists who make it big using this method -- and with the way the current world works (money == good) they'll probably succeed.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:It had to happen sooner or later by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is about a lot more than just the flow of money. Right now the RIAA speaks for all the major record labels... and that sucks. They present a united front to legislaters when they make demands for DRM and the like. They can fix prices. And they can make claims like "Our industry will die if ... So you need to ...".

      Hopefully the people involved in this program understand the politics of what they're doing as well as the monetary aspect. And if they do, I don't think they'd sell out to the RIAA. You never know; some people are just greedy. But I'd hope to see these guys grow to be the advocate for lesser known bands and really make a lot of money for themselves as well as for their bands.

      And it would be great to have a member of the record industry who understands what their customers want and are willing to give it to them.

      Everybody Wins!!!

      --

      Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    2. Re:It had to happen sooner or later by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure we'll see the usual gamut of heavy-handed tactics (as not so long ago seen with 'net radio) from them. From this brief conversation at least some of them seem pretty damned smug. It's a humourous exchange:

      Jan: Depending on how you treat your musicians, you may or may not be evil. How do you treat your musicians?

      Exec: Well, I think we treat them pretty good.

      Jan: Do they make any money?

      Exec: Um... well, you know. It varies from contract to contract.

      (No affiliation with Magnatune, I just think it's a good idea).

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

  3. Smart move! by toesate · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Looks decent.

    With this, my good friend's band could have a revenue stream finally.

    --
    Hey, that's my password you are typing
  4. Re:They need help by Shihar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "If you're not sure what to buy, buy from several bands and try them all. If you don't like any of it... buy a lot anyway! Help them give the boot to the established (bully) companies out there."

    And here lies the problem. Some people enjoy gambling, some people don't. It never sat well with me that I could walk into a record store and gamble my money away on some unknown CD I have not heard. I dislike the idea even more now that I have seen the alternative in the former E-Music and peer to peer.

    Simply put, I will spend X number of dollars each month. It doesn't matter how much music is out there, I have a set amount of money I am willing to spend. I don't want to gamble one wasting my money on things I don't like. I don't even want to bother researching the music to improve my odds. I simply want to listen on my own time, and if I find something I like, keep it instead of deleting it.

    Until someone accomidates me I am simply going to follow the path of least resistance. E-music used to be that path. I happily shelled out my money and downloaded and listened when I had the chance. Since E-music when to their foolish new pricing plan I have simply gone back to peer to peer applications. The advertised service means nothing to me. I simply want to download music at a fixed price and forget about it. I don't ever want to sit there and make a judgement call as to if I am wasting my money by buying one song or another.

    Hurray for independent labels and no DRM, but stuff like this is for someone else. I'll stick to stealing.

  5. Works great. Very happy. by DdJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've already purchased two albums from them, pict.soul and Error. What's interesting is that both are available from the iTunes Music Store as well as from Audio Lunchbox, at exactly the same price (here and here). I buy plenty of music from the iTunes Music Store, but I am willing to go a little bit out of my way to avoid the DRM if I can get the same price without it.

    They take PayPal too, so I didn't have to enter credit card info into... anything at all.

  6. Re:$0.99 ?? Not if I have to DL it myself. by Darth23 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    $0.99 PLUS you're paying for electricity, computer, bandwidth, AND you to put your time in downloading each track.

    For a buck a track I want some nice artwork, maybe some printed lyrics a piece of plastic that I can out into a player. That way I can rip the songs myself and CHOOSE what bitrate to use.

    Some occasional free posters and stickers would be nice too. Music buying has sucked since the death of the 12" vinyl album. Consumers are getting less and less while paying more and more, and record companies (and even indies) are keeping all the benefits and savings that result from new technologies fro themselves.

    --

    -------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

  7. Royalties upon Purchase by stecoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It wouldn't be so bad if you owed royalties when you bought the music. I mean when you buy a song then its your to put on any media. Let's say right now CDs are popular. Tomorrow it's going to be, say, Memory Sticks.

    Now if the vendors could figure out how to make money and when you buy the music you can listen to it however you like and not a simple one time download but its your to move to various media, always own, sell, etc.

    I went though many tapes because the tapes failed over time. It seems I should own the rights to listen to the music upon purchase.

  8. Re:$0.99 ?? Not if I have to DL it myself. by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Interesting
    $0.99 PLUS you're paying for electricity, computer, bandwidth, AND you to put your time in downloading each track.

    Are you serious? Even with dialup you should be able to download most songs in under 30 minutes. How much are you paying for electric that 30 minutes of computer usage is an issue?

    For a buck a track I want some nice artwork, maybe some printed lyrics a piece of plastic that I can out into a player. That way I can rip the songs myself and CHOOSE what bitrate to use.

    Then your going to have a nice fat middleman like RIAA sucking up the money. I'd rather get digital music direct from the artists and have them get the money thank you very much. You do have a point on lossless downloads though. I'd happily wait the hour or so it would take to download a 700 meg image. Not really an option without broadband though -- unless you are really patient.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  9. A dollar a pop to listen to a bunch of nobodies by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, get over it.

    Free downloads make so much more sense for a band trying to reach a wider audience.

    Most people will only pay for music that's already "made it". They like that song thats always on the radio, "who are those guys? Im gonna get that CD."

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  10. Re:$0.99 ?? Not if I have to DL it myself. by BHearsum · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Uhm. Audio Lunchbox gives you that when you buy an album. The MP3s + Oggs, artwork, and lyrics.

    But don't believe me, see for yourself

  11. Artists get 65% of revenue. by Aaron+England · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like Audio Lunchbox is a lot more fair to the artists than iTunes and other online music stores are.

  12. Re:Nice. by vonFinkelstien · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I almost never listen to rock. I listen to Classical, Jazz, Blue and Folk

    iTunes's organization of Classical music is wonderful. It could be better, but there are plenty of subgenres for me to easily find what I'm looking for.

    It wasn't always like that. I added a suggestion on how to organize their Classical selections and was surprised to see that they followed up on it (probably due to many others with the same suggestion).

    If you want more categories, then click on that that little button that allows you to give Apple feedback.

  13. Re:Good deal by nosilA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Lunchbox takes 35 cents from each sale. About two years ago I worked out a business model for this and found out that I would need 25 cents per song to cover my costs (development, bandwidth, maintenance, salaries, advertising, acquiring talent, etc). This was of course based on a more modest estimate of how many sales I would get through (and how many artists I would host) but 25 cents is going to be hard for anyone to do.

    If the incremental cost is less than I calculated, say 10 cents/song - you'd need to be 6 times more likely to buy the song for the artist to get the same total amount of money. You can't neglect incremental cost.

    -Alison