Emusic Relaunches - Cheap, DRM-Free Downloads

An anonymous reader writes "Emusic.com has relaunched today. This is important for several reasons. 1) They sell MP3s. No DRM. I can play them on my Linux box or wherever. 2) They are encoding at 192Kbit/s VBR. That's near CD quality (and how I rip my own CDs). They are focusing on lesser known independent music and providing some editorial content to separate the good from the bad. I see lots of great jazz, classical, and folk/country stuff in their library. 4) Subscription rate is 9.99/month for 40 tracks. That is $0.25 a track. Much cheaper than everywhere else. It's near my pricepoint. This is the first online music store that I will seriously consider. (And actually the first that I _can_ consider since I'm a linux user.)"

Comments

Want to see what they have?

[DrunkenTerror]

Here's the link to browse their catalog!

Stupid promo redirect.

Re:Want to see what they have?

[DrunkenTerror]

And here's a Coral link!
She's getting hammered, as of 20:19 UTC.

Re:Want to see what they have?

[gfody]

why don't more sites use a simple query tool like newegg's? just about every site tries to categorize everything into drill down categories that actually maximizing the amount of clicks it takes to find what you want.

here is what it will take for me to pay for music:
1) must host every song ever, available for immediate speedy download in more than a few different formats/bitrates
2) a query tool (genre, artist, date of release, lyrics, etc) at LEAST a simple search utility
3) when I select a song I want to see the list of "other people who selected this song also selected.."

thats it.. first site to implement these 3 features gets my money. I don't care what it costs.

Re:Want to see what they have?

[bubkus_jones]

Major label bands have their (outdated, some say) distribution model. Indie bands don't have as many resources, and have to work harder to get thier music out to anywhere outside their local touring area.

This provides a means of doing it that's 1) cheap for the consumer, 2) not giving it away, and 3) not trying to control the use of the file.

I wouldn't want to see big-name bands on systems like these, because they'd push out the lesser known/indie bands, and the major labels would probably force emusic to use DRM'd files, which would defeat one of the big pro's of this service.

Re:Want to see what they have?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the opposite. I'd like the major bands to stay away from services like emusic. Why? Major bands are pricier, they will require a higher price, that'll confuse things at the least. Also major bands will overwhelm the indies and we'll be back to square 1. What you're suggesting is the crap that's happened over and over again in USA with Walmart, Starbucks, McDonald's and all the other "major" shops that crowd out individuals and entrepreneurship and invite in the big brother.

No. Keep the major bands in itunes and its clones, leave the indies alone in emusic and its clones. If you like both kinds, nothing stops you from using two or more services simultaneously.

Re:Want to see what they have?

[schnell]

here is what it will take for me to pay for music:
1) must host every song ever, available for immediate speedy download in more than a few different formats/bitrates
2) a query tool (genre, artist, date of release, lyrics, etc) at LEAST a simple search utility
3) when I select a song I want to see the list of "other people who selected this song also selected.."

thats it.. first site to implement these 3 features gets my money. I don't care what it costs.

iTMS has items #2 and #3. Every song ever? Come on, nobody has ever had that, nor would anyone want to. It wouldn't be worth the disk space to store or even the cost of electricity to rip the hundreds of thousands of old albums that will never, ever be purchased by anyone again. And nobody but geeks ask for multiple encoding rates ... the same Slashdot audience that whines about 99 cents being too much to pay for a song. Not exactly the target market businesses want to cater to.

I'm not suggesting that you personally are doing this ... but some people in the past have made deliberately unachievable "want" lists for online music distribution as a justification for pirating music. (And before you ask, yes, I have downloaded music that I don't own; I can rationalize it [not available except on vinyl and I don't have/want a record player] but I know that it doesn't make it right.)

I can say "I won't buy a satellite TV system until it has a.) 1000 channels and b.) costs less than $9.99/month." I can refuse to buy a DTV or Dish system because it doesn't meet my criteria. But it doesn't justify my going out and pirating satellite TV. The point is that you can sit on the sidelines of the legal downloading market for as long as you like, waiting for your wishlist of features, or you can use what's available to you now if it's good enough. Just don't use "it's not quite the way I want it" as an excuse for doing something wrong.

Again - not saying the parent poster is doing this. But just throwing out a little cosmic karma caution to those who may be doing it.

I for one...

[XaviorPenguin]

...welcome our Cheap, DRM-Free Music Downloading Overlords!

I am signing up...

[grasshoppa]

...if for no other reason than to encourage this kind of service.

I haven't even seen the catalog yet. :)

monthly/per track pricing?

[wheezl]

are they hoping you might forget to pick up all 40 of your tracks? odd.

allofmp3.com is still superior

Re:monthly/per track pricing?

[mOoZik]

Yes, that's the business model, it seems. At first glance, it seems like a perfect deal, until you realize that maybe you don't need 40 tracks a month, and maybe just one or two. But guess what? According to the Slashdot summary, you're still gonna get charged the $10 a month. This is for those heavy music buyers. I'll stick to iTunes, thank you very much.

Re:monthly/per track pricing?

[jschottm]

Yes folks, the dubiously legal (at best) russian site that doesn't actually pay the artists (anything appreciable) is somehow able to undercut the legal service that tries to make sure that everyone gets paid, yet offers reasonably high quality recordings with NO DRM and restrictions for personal use. Hands up those who are surprised.

As far as the 40 tracks/month thing, well yeah. It's called being in business. No pricing policy will ever suit everyone's needs, but these folks have chosen one that appears to work for them and their clients. If you only want one or two tracks a month, this is not the service for you. I've been a subscriber for some time, and it works for me, even though there've been some months I don't use up my quota. Big deal. The monthly fee is about the cost of a decent meal.

As a point of information, a nice thing about their DRM-less existance is that they keep track of what you have download and let you redownload the same tracks for free. So if your hard drive crashes or if you want a copy of a song while you're at work, just log in, go to the page of what you've downloaded in the past, and download it again.

Re:monthly/per track pricing?

[Txiasaeia]

What are you talking about, not being legal for USians? From the linked site:

"Anyway, my friend and I were scouring the net looking for info on this site, and the controversy surrounding it. Here's the final word...from the horses'...well, I'll let you decide which part of the anatomy you insert there.

After checking with the RIAA and other licensing agencies, KCTL Kansas City; the radio station for KCTalk.com; has switched from paying $1.00 per song with Napster, to using the "pay per meg" service at allofmp3.com.

After the RIAA confirmed in an email that the service is in fact legal, just under a different contract due to the site being located in Russia, the switch was made immediately. All downloaded music from the site was quote "able to be used in a full broadcast and media capacity".

KCTalk.com just wanted to pass this information on to others that have been searching for a real site to download stuff from without paying arms and legs. Thank you to Dies Irae for pointing out this service.

Furthermore, KCTL has started replacing thier songs that were previously encoded at 128k, with the cheaper, yet better sounding, 192k that allofmp3.com provides. We have downloaded 9 songs, and have not quite used $0.75 yet. Great service!

Go, check it out. This radio station has done all of the "legwork" for us. Download, and be merry!"

Pricepoint?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is $0.25 a track. Much cheaper than everywhere else. It's near my pricepoint. This

First it was anything but $0.99/track is not cheap enough. Then $0.99 is not enough,.. Now people are not even willing to spend a whole quarter for a song? I think there are some people here who will still be complaining when they are free, just because they aren't encoded at a high enough bitrate!

Re:Pricepoint?

[Anonymous Coward]

About a year ago you could get unlimited downloads for $9.99 a month. Emusic stopped that when it was sold. I canceled my account the day they announced the move to 40 downloads a month.

You may think 40 downloads is a lot, but for the type of music available at Emusic, it isn't. Most people who posted in the forums at Emusic liked to try different artists and styles. That was easy to do with unlimited downloads. The majority of the music at Emusic is material most people aren't going to know, so being able to experiment was a big part of why customers stayed with them. It's hard to experiment with 40 tracks. I listen to that much music almost every day.

The problem with Emusic's change in service is that many posters on the forums said they would have paid $50 for an unlimited service. I certainly would have. It's their loss.

Re:Pricepoint?

[nathanh]

First it was anything but $0.99/track is not cheap enough. Then $0.99 is not enough,.. Now people are not even willing to spend a whole quarter for a song?

Different people. Even when some people were saying "$0.99/track is OK" there were others saying "no way, that's the same as CD, I'd rather just buy the CD'.

Here's a hint. At the top of each message is a name. That name indicates a different person. By reading those names you can see that different people say different things. I can see how it might have confused you with lots of people saying different things on Slashdot. You clearly thought it was a single person with schizophrenia. But armed with this helpful hint you should now be able to distinguish different participants. HTH.

I think there are some people here who will still be complaining when they are free, just because they aren't encoded at a high enough bitrate!

That's a pretty safe prediction because those sorts of people have already said as much in previous stories. Many of them want FLAC instead of a lossy MP3 or AAC format. Zero Nostradamus points for you, I'm afraid!

Re:Pricepoint?

[Chris Burke]

I was an absolutely ecstatic Emusic subscriber, and I would plug them in just about every /. article on online music, DRM, etc. because they were awesome.

My standard model, which apparently was pretty common, was to download a single album from ten bands, burn it on a CD and listen to it at work for a week or two and decide what I liked. Then I'd get more of those bands, burn a CD for work, listen for several more weeks. Repeat a couple times, and I'd have enough new music to last me for several months. I wouldn't download much in that time, but I kept the subscription because when I wanted to experiment with some new bands, I could.

The new model, while still better than some of the other schemes kicking around including others suggested by Emusic, doesn't lend itself well to this experimental style.

It might still work, but the amount of experimentation would be more limited, and I'd have to wait a month to turn experimentation into aquiring more songs from the bands I liked. Eh, maybe I'll try it for a month or two.

Finally, an online music store I'll take serious

[YetAnotherName]

The iTMS was the only online music store that really had me sit up and take notice. Now eMusic is making me do the same thing.

iTunes is nice since it's cheap per song, but the selection, though huge, misses out one some less mainstream, more niche genres. eMusic seems to fill in the missing areas pretty well (although still not enough psychedelic trance) and provides DRM-free tunes. This company could go quite far.

For most consumers, though, I think the price-per-song versus a monthly price could still be the deciding factor.

I let my account lapse 3 months ago

[mekkab]

I had the "Platinum" membership- and to tell you the truth despite my very non-mainstream tastes, they didn't have a whole lot that I liked. Also, I hated how their electronic music was organized (there was little-to-no Drum and Bass/Jungle in the Drum and Bass/Jungle section!) Additionally, a 30 second sample (taken from the first 30 seconds!) of a 10 minute electronic music track (that takes 2 minutes to build up anywhere) is a use-less way to "try before you buy."

Additionally, there are too many Live recordings (read: poor sounding recordings). For example, they have a bunch of The Selecter tracks, but they're all live. Sorry, I want to studio versions.

I hope its useful for you. But I paid my money, downloaded some good tracks, a bunch of bad tracks, and walked away.

I still remember

[LetterJ]

When Emusic.com had unlimited MP3's for something like $14.99 a month and I was a subscriber for a couple of years. Then they "relaunched" with monthly limits and I jumped ship. I was willing to try new music when there wasn't a limit, but as soon as there was a ceiling, I stopped experimenting with the music in their catalog and dropped the service.

Now, they're "relaunching" again with what looks like a smaller catalog, the same monthly restrictions, etc. I'm trying to see how this is better. Most likely an attempt to appear as a "new" alternative to iTunes, et al when in fact they've been there all along and are actually on a downward spiral.

What Relaunch?

[mmmmmhotpants]

I think this anonymous post was an advert.

Emusic used to be $9.99 per month and unlimited downloads, over a year ago. It was an absolutely amazing service and had me thinking that the world of digital music could be great for all parties.

I was wrong. Last Fall Emusic was bought out by some other company who changed the policy to the $9.99 for 40 or 50 tracks and its been that way for over a year. I cancelled my subscription.

After the annoucement was made, but before they switched formats, they pulled horrible stunts like not actually allowing you to download unlimited music (per their contract) but putting some aritifical cap on your downloading. They also used to incriminate people for downloading too much even though there was a unlimited deal in the contract. I started to lose respect for them.

I don't think there has been a relaunch. I think there is an executive at Emusic trying to get more business via Slashdot.

If you are reading this Emusic executive, bring back the old unlimited format (even at a higher cost)! Honor your contracts!

*thumbs up*

[incast]

I was an emusic subscriber for the earlier part of this year, and it was pretty darn good. My only complaint is that I ran out of stuff to download. That is why I cancelled my account. I'm a big fan of indie music, but I found that there wasn't quite enough to keep me going. And new releases don't show up very quickly.

But, the revenue sharing program does give 50% to labels/artists, so I found that if I did have extra credits in a month, I would download albums that I had once (illegally) downloaded. This made me feel better about myself.

I lasted for about 9 months on the old emusic, and it was $100 well spent.

Allofmp3.com

[Xerotope]

The poster has forgotten my favorite quasi-legal russian music service, http://www.allofmp3.com/

They have no DRM what so ever, so it's great for you Linux users. Also, it's based in Russia, so it lends itself to those classic Slashdot "In Soviet Russia..." jokes. (In Soviet Russia, Music DRM You!", sorry, the lamest I could come up with)

It also has the most complete catalog (including Beatles), is priced right at $0.01 US per megabyte, and has a multitude of on-the-fly encoding options, including ogg Vorbis, Flac and mp3 up to 384 kbps. (however, I think FLAC and other "premium" encodes runs you $0.05 US per megabyte).

Suposedly it's perfectly legal under Russian copyright law, as long as they compensate the artist directly. Perhaps it's just paying for illegal music downloads that you could otherwise get off Kazaa.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[prostoalex]

How Russian music licensing works.

Compulsory licensing, so it's legal as far as they care. It's not really legal to distribute that music outside of Russia though.

there is also magnatune.com

[bluelarva]

You might be interested in http://magnatune.com/ as well. It's also DRM free and half the money goes directly to the artist. Also there is no subscription fee.

Only on slashdot...

[TiggertheMad]

We whine and bitch endlessly for and end to stupid, pointless DMR schemes. We pine for non-propritary formats. We wail when downloads are expensive.

And we complain when someone tells where it is.

You guys rock!

Bleep

[vitaflo]

This is the first online music store that I will seriously consider. (and actually the first that I _can_ consider since I'm a linux user.

That's not entirely true. You can buy from Bleep.com, and it's basically the same thing. Non-DRM 192kps MP3s. You just have to like their selection (mostly electronic music on Warp Records). It's been up for a while now, and you pay per song (or album), not a monthly fee (which I prefer).

encourage magnatune

[chocolatetrumpet]

I am the last person to "promo" a record label, but I can't believe I haven't seen it on slashdot yet.

Magnatune
Free mp3 streaming of the entire catalog.

If you want, pay $5-$18 (you choose!) for an album download (40+ minutes) in mp3, ogg, wav, or whatever it is you like. Artist gets 50%.

If you want a physical cd, pay $15-$30 (something like that.. you choose!) and the artist gets 100%.

There is *no crap* in magnatune; all of their members are peer reviewed. It's solid.

I don't work for them or anything, I am just a very happy customer!

Re:Uh... near CD quality?

[brxndxn]

I encode all my CDs in 2822 kbps mp3s, thus exactly doubling the quality of the original CD.

Re:Uh... near CD quality?

[dasmegabyte]

What you're talking about is bit quantity. CDs use 1411 kilobits to image a given data sample...44000 packets of two 16 bit values per second.

This is not the same as quality. Quality in music is the amount of discrete dynamic information recorded within a sample. Believe it or not, storing an accurate representation of the data at a given sample rate and bit strength is not necessarily the best way to preserve quality. It's certainly not the most efficient. With a 1411 kilobits, psychoacoustically compressed sample, you could easily have a much higher bit strength or sample rate with more discrete dynamics than even the CD. Shit, even lossless compression could get double the quality or more at 1411 kilobits than a CD can.

That number is mostly meaningless for this reason. So is the term "CD Quality." I've seen it used for 192 kbit MP3, 128 kbit AAC, 64 kbit WMA...fact of the matter is, "CD Quality" is whatever you perceive it to be. I happen to really like AAC at 128 and higher bitrates, it preserves the precision I expect when encoding a rhythm section without creating shimmering or tiering. It's great for rock and hip hop. And that's all that matters.