Slashdot Mirror
Real Cuts Prices for DRM-Restricted Music
Flint Dragon writes "A story on MSNBC details RealNetworks' next step in converting iPod users from iTunes to their own online music store. Not only can you play music downloaded from their site on your iPod now, you can, for a limited time, purchase music for 50% cheaper (.49/song, 4.99/album)! This is the price that I'm willing to pay for. Too bad it won't last..."
Cause we all trust real enough to give them our money even though we don't trust them enough to install their crap.
I thought that these companie barely even made a profit at $1 per song. A limited time low, loss-inducing cost might attract customers for a while but the low switching cost between services means that they won't stay when prices going up, especially if your sound quality is not as good.
Some how I don't think their conversion-to-iPod feature is going to last, at least not once the new revision of iPod software comes out.
But I'd refuse to take DRM music even if it were free. The Audio Home Recording Act gives me the right to make backups of my music, to make compilations of my music, and to share those compilations with as many friends as I'd like, as long as I don't charge anything.
ANY system that interferes with those rights is unacceptable to me.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I find it exceedingly amusing, and telling, that RealNetworks, after years of pushing proprietary audio and video formats, is now fighting Apple's use of proprietary hardware. They have to market to iPod users because mp3 players using Real format music have been blown out of the water.
Its too bad their software was always ad-ridden garbage. They will have to do a lot more than a loss-leader sales ploy to get my trust back.
This is a great move by Real. I will definatly be a buyer since there are many albums that I have been on the fringe of buying but have now wanted to spend 12-15 bucks on, but would def be wiling to spend 5.
This move will help increase competition in the market and I think will be beneficial to the consumers in the long run. As much as I like Apple, I like good old competition more cause it means better products at lower prices! Gotta Love Capatalism!
My Web Site - www.ocean-liners.com
..then a new 'firmware' update comes out for the iPod and your new library quits working...
Until the dust settles I'd not buy anything from real in hopes of it working with my iPod. Not like they support my platform anyway (Mac)
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Real, have you looked at your player software?
And is there an easy way of downloading your free player without you trying to get me to download your non-free player every step of the way?
No matter if you as an individual have issues about either of these companies. This is a good example of the free market working as intended. Too bad all industries don't compete internally like this.
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
And still morally wrong and illegal to steal. How do we expect the RIAA, MPAA, etc to embrace technology when the most public geeks make comments like that? Sure music is overpriced and a lot is crap, but it's still stealing. At least iTunes and Real are going about this the right way.
That said, I'll NEVER install anything from Real on my system. It's as bad as Bonzi Buddy to get rid of.
Burn karma burn, slashdot inferno...
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
why Apple is so upset about Real being able to its music work in the iPod?
Because they have to *support* Real's format. When Real's shit breaks on iPod, the users will view it as Apple's fault.
Free XBox, PS2
Who is going to buy DMR'ed music from a company that is struggling financially with no guarantee that the RM part of the DRM will function in 6 months.
Their ads should say...
RENT AN ALBUM FOR $4.99
ACT NOW, THIS FUNCTIONALITY WON'T LAST
Considering that in order to use Real's music you must transfer it using Real's Harmony software and any errors you get will be in that software... I think people would generally be more likely to blame Real rather than Apple.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Real's "Freedom of Choice" campaign is pure hypocrisy. What about my freedom of choice to use OS X or Linux? Where is Real's support for those operating systems? I guess they consider choice Windows 98, Windows 2000, or Windows XP.
After reading the headline, I thought, "Wow, for once this makes sense." What I mean is, they are selling an inferior product at a lower cost. This is standard business practice, and as long as they openly admit to the DRM, I've no problem with it.
Then I RTFA and changed my mind. This isn't giving the people a choice of an inferior product for a lower cost, this is a "sale" to try and win people away from iTunes. It's only supposed to last an undefined "limited amount of time." Probably until they feel they've won enough customers from apple. I guess it still makes sense business-wise, but I don't like it as much.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
Probably because Apple see that in the future the store (more importantly FairPlay) *will* be the profit center. They want to leverage the best selling MP3 player (their iPod) into establishing FairPlay'ed ACC files as a standard. Set the standard, pocket a few cents from every tune sold. This is why Apple just did a deal with Moto. on iTunes and cell phones.
There's a much better article about this that was published a few weeks ago, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
I still use my ultra-cheap alternative: allofmp3.com. They operate using a Russian broadcast license...
Instead of 99 cents a song, you pay a penny per megabyte. Often you can pay as little as 5 cents for a 128 bit MP3. Other formats and bitrates are available.
Best part? Since it's a Russian "broadcast", the RIAA doesn't get any of it. Tasty!
I hear you! With all of the spyware in Real's software and other annoying features, they've lost my trust and that of a lot of other people. As it stands, I only use Real Player when I absolutely have to. And since I'm pretty happy with my iPod and ITMS as it is, I won't be switching anytime soon.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
"Apple has said their Music Store is not meant as a profit center"
No, but it is nice when it is...
And I believe last quarter, they actually made about a million on their iTMS division. Its chump change compared to everything else, and not much when you consider what they are spending, but its still nothing to sneeze at because it is profitable.
Past that, if you buy from Real, you can use any music player. If you buy from Apple, you can use the iPod alone unless you are willing to burn to CD first.
Personally, I don't see the problem with what Apple is doing. Apple gives anyone the right to put music on their machine in a number of different ways. If they want to protect their content, maybe they should build something into the iPod that doesn't require the use of Apple's intellectual properties. After all, its a bit hypocritical to steal someone elses IP to protect your own.
I've never seen Apple get pissed off at the Linux on iPod project...I know at least one Apple guy that has this running on one of his iPods and thinks its cool. So -- if you want to build your own OS for the device, Apple isn't stopping you...
But I agree with ya -- Apple's online service is much better than the competitors who all had much longer in the business of content delivery including paid content delivery and most of these companies were the 'big dogs' (how fucking hillbilly is that phrase) before Apple decided they were going to get into the system.
Apple didn't force their way to #1 -- they made the better product both in hardware and software.
I'm right there with you. I can already buy cheaper music that can play on an iPod. No reverse engineering is needed: the format is called MP3, you may have heard of it. The prices range from free to whatever. Finding something I like involves a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work... but I actually find that more interesting than being spoonfed Very Popular Radio Hitz complete with useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief. I keep a few bucks in a Bitpass account, a few bucks in my Paypal account, it's all pretty easy.
Another technologically advanced method I find usefull: I actually have the data in question mailed to me on a cunning media called a compact disc. It serves the same purpose as the download and acts as an archive to boot. Why it even plays on numerous standalone devices I happen to own. And since I again opt for the more unusual sources over the semidigested pablum that drecks all over the radio and tevee, I don't have any problems with DRM and usually pay around 50 cents a track anyway. It may be a minority but who's spending smarter money? I've had numerous opportunities to get free iTunes tracks. No interest. Why muddy up my collection?
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
And roses will spring from the ground wherever you walk, female nudity will become common in the workplace, and an honest, non-corrupt, black woman will be president.
And what equilibrium existed before? Before MP3s the music industry had everybody by the balls - the consumers, the artists, and the distributors. Why do you think they were convicted of price fixing?
Like they say, you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay $.99 a song and get to keep it rather than paying $.50 for a crippled song that comes from a company with a dodgy past. Somehow I doubt this will cut into Apple's sales that much.
"Bah! Still ~10x higher than allofmp3.com. "
Bah! The music companies are actually getting paid unlike the pirates at all of mp3 dot com. You REALLY don't think its legit do you? Seriously? Its out of the same country where you can buy adobe products for $5 each from sites that look just like this and claim they are all legit as well. You can get photoshop in lossless formats as well!
I work for musicians...they don't get paid anywhere near the amounts people think they do -- and they have to pay for people like me. Fucking slashdotters get pissed off that the mean ol' record companies are screwing over the artists -- of which, I've never heard ANY of them bitch except the superrich crack heads like Courtney Fucking Love that wasted all her money on smack and wonders where it went (rehab is a bitch, and costs a lot). Yet, the minute it becomes opportune to rip off the same artists, we do so in a heart beat.
Hypocrites.
What was so hard about that?
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
If Apple wanted FairPlay'ed AAC files as a standard, they would have licensed it to Real.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
And don't give me that typical crap line of "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so I'm not depriving them of a sale." If you don't really want it, or can't afford it, that doesn't justify copyright infringement. And I fully support the RIAA's actions against you, because by your own admission, you are not their customer.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I agree. Apple makes the iPod, but let's not support their OS. We'll let them fuel iTunes like they did before iTunes was for Windows. Where most of thier market is anyway.
Can someone provide me a link or any information that breaks down how and how much Real and iTunes is giving back to the artists?
I heard somewhere approx 60% of the mp3's that you buy now were the exact same ones that your got free from Napster a few years ago. So whose getting this money, cause lets not forget the whole reason why the RIAA claims to be protecting our music from ourselves, "to make sure the artists can still comfortably produce new songs".
It just seems a little fishy still, being that downloading music used to be a crime, but because someone started charging for it, its okay now.
You know if you buy a stolen car from a guy on the streets, its still stolen whether you or not you physically boosted it yourself.
I think of Real as more or less of a spyware / adware company that packages their crap with a marginally useful media player. To me, no better than KazzaGold. And, since it's marketed to the same crowd of users (i.e. the AOL crowd), I end up paying very little attention to what they are doing at Real.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Robinson-Patman Act sorta address predatory pricing but it is a very subjective thing. Just selling products at a loss is not enough. You have to prove intent, feasibility to recoup losses, etc. Like most anti-trust violations it is really something that would only come up after the fact. You don't typically see companies with 5% marketshare being brought up Anti-Trust charges.
It is limited: you can only make 7 copies of the exact same playlist. You'll have to reorder it or otherwise change it to make 7 more, and so forth.
Personally, I don't find that limit at all onerous.
Do not speak unless you can improve on the silence.
Gee, another wonderful (albeit DRM-laden) online music store where I could pay for my music instead of using Kazaa. Available only to US residents. How long is it going to take to move these store out of the US? iTMS keeps promising. There's only 2 options here, and none of them I like (proprietary software being the primary reason). *launches Kazaa*
It is limited: you can only make 7 copies of the exact same playlist. You'll have to reorder it or otherwise change it to make 7 more, and so forth.
Something many people seem to miss whenever this comes up: You can easily copy the audio CD after it's been burned once. Sure, you're not using the little radioactive "burn me" button in iTunes to do it, but it's still possible...
Or just copy the CD...
when prices go back to $ 0.99 each I doubt that most people will stay with Real
But by then they'll be locked in to their drm system, unless they can find a way to move that music to another one. Of course this is true of ITMS as well, but at least they have the virtue of having the best interface with the widest selection.
There are two answers as to why Apple should be upset. The first is the long boring one about how Apple is maneuvering for a central position in online distibution of media of all kinds, which has been explored in some depth.
The second explanation (which should not be dismissed lightly) is that Real has been marketing crappy obnoxious invasive software for years, and their mac versions were doubly crappy and obnoxious, not to mention rarely being up-to-date. Despite these fundamental flaws their early lead in streaming video and audio entrenched them in the marketplace. Now that they are losing their advantage and dying as they should have long ago, they have decided to latch their crappy obnoxious invasive software and systems onto Apple's golden boy - the iPod - , whilst bad-mouthing Apple and the iTMS itself. Mac users have every reason to be pissed off. If you're wondering why you're seeing so much vitriol from the Apple rank-and-file, this is why.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Maybe, but I also think that they're pushing iTunes as a future moneymaker as well. Again, this is a very formative time. Apple is in the lead (selling more downloads than anyone else) and its going to want to protect the leverage that comes with that lead. License to Real and Real can still pull this "we'll undercut you" stuff. This is *great* for users, but is no good for Apple. They want to be able to get to the point that they can dictate terms with the records labels / industry.
Uh, how?
Artist signs a contract with an RIAA member label, trading the exclusive copyrights to their songs for X dollars per CD sold and Y cents per radio play. The artist then receives X*CD + Y*play, so long as they're good about letting the RIAA know how to reach them.
There are a couple of key differences between this and the Russian method. First, the artist decides whether or not to sign the contract. They're in control of their rights, and how their songs are managed. It is completely within their abilities to tell the RIAA labels to go fuck themselves. I know many bands who self publish and self promote and who do all right (though they sell much fewer records than they would with a nationally exposed label and rarely get any radio play at all outside of free play on college and community station). Second, the amount of money that they will receive is set in the contract and is legally enforcable...if the label does start to screw you, you can fight back.
With this Russian deal, the artist has no choice. They don't ask for the deal nor can they ask to be left out. They get no say in the money they receive nor do they have any recourse if they don't receive it. Less money and no control.
Anybody who thinks this is a better deal for the artist simply because the price is cheaper, or the artist gets a bigger cut of fuck-all than they would under the RIAA, is an asshole. Supporting AllOfMp3 is far worse than support Kazaa because at least with KaZaa, you KNOW you're stealing.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Plain and simply I will never buy online music until I can get lossless CD quality recordings for less than I can buy a physical CD.
... but I'll be able to listen to my lossless version on my home system and I'll be able to reencode if a better format comes out in the future.
I understand DRM and don't have a big issue with it when it comes down to it (I don't -like- it but as long as it gives me my fair use I'll live with it).
I'm simply not willing to pay for lossy encodings. I would rather pay $9.99 for an album that is CD quality than $4.99 for a lossy encoded version. I would prefer it to be like FLAC where it is a compressed file, but nothing less than CD quality. CD is the -minimum- I am looking for. However I should be able to buy for $4.99 + a small added bandwith charge.
Will I rip down to a smaller format for my portable player? Sure
Until then, since I buy less than 1 disc a month, I'll stick with hardcopy.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
I'm a little confused as to why a lot of Slashdot readers are so supportive of the Apple/iPod thing. Attempting to force owners of iPods to buy their content through the iTunes store no better than the printer manufacturers who try to force you to buy ink refills from the manufacturer. It's the equivalent of Sony selling you a DVD player that only plays DVDs.
If I bought an iPod, and someone offers to sell me songs that will play on my iPod, and Apple then does something so that the iPod will no longer play those songs, why is that OK? Where's the slashdot overreaction to this unwarranted control of hardware I own?
paintball
And we all know that the RIAA would never exploit a loophole, right?
RIAA Continues Distributing Dud CDs to Satisfy Settlement
This whole thing is about DRM ubiquity. Real is scared to death of the Windows DRM so they go after Apple. Makes sense in a twisted sort of a way.
Real and Virgin are going after Apple for "not licensing Fairplay to them". The more likely scenario is that Apple wouldn't license Fairplay to them unless they used it exclusively and both Real and Virgin have their own DRM schemes and that wouldn't help them to get their DRMs into the market. Apple licensed Fairplay to Motorola. I'm sure that it is an exclusive contract that means that more users will be using Fairplay.
Real wants people to use their DRM and so does Virgin. So, they both complain that Apple refused to license Fairplay to them, when the more likely scenario is that Apple refused to license Fairplay to them without them agreeing to the contract, like Motorola did.
So, Real releases Harmony, which will allow their DRM'd files to be played on the number one media player, the iPod, by faking out the Fairplay DRM software to think that the Real DRM is the same as the Fairplay DRM. Whether this is legal or not stands to be proven. Then Real undercuts the standard prices by half and sets about creating FUD about how Apple is evil and won't let them play together and starts a "freedom of music" site designed to attack Apple only. Seems far fetched.
Virgin meanwhile attacks from their end, in France, and says that they've been shut out by Apple, the obvious monopoly (hardly) that they are.
This is a DRM war. The one that has more media that supports their DRM out in the market is going to win in the long run.
A couple of points that the Real site is misleading about:
1. The price to burn a track to CD is $0.79 not $0.49.
2. The price per album is 1/2 of what it cost before, as low as $4.99, so not all albums are $4.99.
Seems that they are trying to open the iPod to their proprietary DRM format, which isn't really open at all either.
Also bear in mind that Apple is guaranteed to release an update to the iPod software that will disable the Harmony software from helpiong to keep the DRM working on the iPod too.
iTunes also has over 1 million songs in their library while Real has almost 7 hundred thousand.
Who will win? Only time will tell. Seems to me that Real is playing dirty to try and make a minor inroad that won't pay off in the long run. How long can they support losing money in order to try to bring people over?
FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY.
Real has offered a crap-free version of their player for quite some time now, yet every time I read a story about real I hear people bitching about Spyware. Download it, try it, and shut up or don't use it.
Current standard film still records at 24 frames per second. If you watch closely during any sequence that has any action in it you will see how poor and antiquated that frame rate value truly is. And yet because we have become accustom to it nobody seems to question it. (Except for that crazy Lucas guy who wants everyone to convert to digital video.)
Audiophiles similarly have become accustom to all sorts of crazy arguments about what you can and can't hear. CD's arn't as "warm" as LP's, tubes are better than transistors, high quality MP3's don't sound like the CDs. However I'm quite sure that if you were to sit down two people who had not heard any given track that was played on a CD and then on a very high quality compressed format they would be hard pressed to pick which was which. (Given that it's a 50/50 chance a more controlled method of testing would have to be done but I think you get my point.)
Now I still personally will never pay for any stripped down, DRM crippled, poorly encoded music but I don't think that using a compressed format, done right, is a bad thing at all.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
You can also just reorder it, then reorder it back to the earlier order, then burn some more.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
All Apple has to do is send out a warning that music purchased from other places not selling MP3's will not work, then throw the switch...
I think the majority of people would blame Real, not Apple - they know where they bought the songs from. It has the potential to be a huge blunder for Real with very little risk for Apple should they decide to counter.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
At one point Real had a serious head-start on everyone else in terms of streaming audio and video technology. I remember the first time I used Real to listen to streaming audio and watch streaming video. I was blown away and everyone else played catch-up with them for a while. Remember that?
I've said it before: Real should have been the ones to create the iTunes music store and the software and maybe even the iPod, but they squandered their lead. Now they want to latch on to the company who beat them at their own game? They should stop hiding behind embarrassingly disingenuous claims of concern for the consumer. If Real were genuinely concerned for consumers, they would never have let their products become as crappy as they currently are and would never have tried coasting for as long as they did on what little innovation they managed in their heyday.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Right. Can you prove that there's spyware in RealPlayer? I'd very much like to see current stats on that.
I'm not talking about RealPlayer 8, or the 'Message Center' (which can be turned off), or any autoupdate features. I'm talking about honest-to-god spyware found in RealPlayer 10-10.5beta. You know, spyware that actually spies on what you browse and reports on it back to Real (the bundled Google bar doesn't count either, cause that's, well, Google).
Most people at least say "they did it before, not sure if I trust them just yet," but *you* made the claim that they're still doing it. Now I say prove it.
If Real reprogrammed their code to spit out un-DRM'd AACs, or MP3s, Apple would still have to support this format.
Apple's problem is not with Real producing files that can be played on an iPod, it's that they've locked those files using the DRM system built into iPods. This is about DRM, not file support.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There might have been a small consortium that started these formats but the reality was that there were other formats competing for the same dollar from the consumer. ONE COMPANY'S standard eventually won out and THEN it was licensed to others. It's not like you could play a Betamax tape on a VHS machine, why should you be able to play a Real file on an Apple machine? Apple has already "licensed" iTunes so you can play their tracks on ANY personal computer. It's obvious that once they sew up their format and DRM as the market standard they will license it to other portables as well. The reality is that there is still enough risk in the marketplace (re: Microsoft) that they can't just freely license things now otherwise they'd lose their revenue streams.
Even if the outlets you mention understood the political reasons not to use a particular streaming technology, what alternative would you suggest? Apple, Real, and Microsoft all have many bad spots on their records. Yet, there's really no fourth platform that would reach any sizable audience.