Slashdot Mirror
The Perfect Online Music Store?
brace asks: "With the proliferation of online music sales, more and more companies are jumping onto the bandwagon and trying to sell you downloadable music. Some of them do a good job, some of them are just bad at it. The question I have for Slashdot readers is essentially 'What would the perfect online music store offer you?' Should it have OGG and FLAC tracks, as well as MP3? Would you rather pay per-song or per-month? Would you want the option to purchase hard-copy as well (like the actual album, or even band merchandise)? Should the song samples be 30 second downloads or full-song streams fed on-demand? Is a radio station important for an online music store?"
"Personally, I'd like to see a store that has a 24/7 internet radio station, on-demand streaming, $0.99 downloads (and $9.99 album downloads), links to purchase actual albums or merchandise, and with MP3, OGG, and FLAC support. I'd also like to see the artists being paid more than 10%..."
allofmp3.com is already amazing. super low prices and i can get most of the music in ogg q5. :)
After 3 years of boycotting music and not buying any, I finally started using iTunes 4 months back. Since then I've purchased 10 albums. I tried MusicMatch and looked at Real, but honestly iTunes is the most user friendly.
I wouldn't pay for any downloadable music that wasn't CD quality and storable to as many CDs or MP3 players as I wanted.
TT
No one has done /. better, and no one has done iTunes better, and didn't someone say, "Bring 'em on." Nah...
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
>'What would the perfect online music store offer you?'
FREE MUSIC!
www.allofmp3.com does it just fine. :)
Allofmp3.com already has FLAC, Vorbis, and VBR MP3 files for the taking. They're DRM-free and play on anything.
I would happily pay $.99 a track for what Allofmp3.com offers. Of course, they only charge $0.01 per megabyte.
Of course, Allofmp3.com is probably illegal, at least in the US. But the RIAA should learn the lesson that the MPAA has learned:
Give people the content they want (movies, some of them costing $100s of millions to produce), at a fair price ($15 DVDs), in a format that's convenient (DVDs have good quality and nonrestrictive DRM) and there will be no incentive to pirate your content.
The author's idea of a music store is pretty much aligned with my own, except for one thing - I'd like to have the ability to (for an additional fee even) download the .wav file.
.wav just gives me that warm fuzzy "I can do whatever I please with it" feeling.
Then I can do whatever the hell I want to with it. Yes MP3 and OGG are nice, and yes FLAC is lossless, but the ability to download a
Ah, yes, and I'd like the ability to download the track I purchased 3 times, just in case. Making sure I could grab my music again if my hdd fails would be an extra warm selling point too.
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
that was a great site, with informative reviews, and vast selection of music. still miss it.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
How Napster used to be.
Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.
Guaranteed sound quality, and the ability to re-download any track I've ever purchased. (Ya just never know when ya might lose it.)
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."-THG
Thats why you would have the additional charge for more exotic codecs. 99.999% of people will be going after the mp3's if given the option. But a few people would rather grab oggs or flacs.
And, the topic did not say your ideal music store had to be feasable with current technology.
This is just what I think would be best format wise, but until the entire recording industry gets its head out of its ass and starts: distributing good music, at a decent price, with a decent chunk going to the artist. I won't be buying shit from them.
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
It has to have CD quality or better, no DRM, and substantially cheaper than buying on CD.
No fucking way am I gonna pay a buck a song and ten bucks an album for downloads unless I really like the work and can get pristine quality. Thus far I would say Magnatune does it best: you can listen to anything they have (and you can actually hear it because the quality doesn't suck) and, if you want to buy it, you can set the price and download it in high quality formats. I've bought a few albums there and have actually found myself going back to buy a work again because I decided I liked the work more than I thought and I felt bad about being such a cheap bastard.
if the record companies would trust people to do the right thing and stop calling us all thieves they could make a LOT more money. If I can buy a used CD for five bucks, rip it and get the quality I want, why the fuck would I pay twice that for the download? Magnatune gets it... the others don't.
1) Submit story to /. /. community critque existing Music stores /. about new music store
2) Have
3) Implement Recommendations
4) Submit story to
5) Profit!
When you look at pricing selling bits is a losing game. First lets just get past the whole DRM, no I repeat NO DRM has ever worked. Just look at the warez groups and software, every game comes out with DRM and within hours its down like panties. The next fact we need to look at is just the econmics of the music buisness. Albums will never avarge over $20, the current sweet spot is $9 - $15. The per track sweet spot is $.99 (pick your currancy its all .99). Now lets look at concert tickets and expendatures. A decent show will start at about $30 per person, (figure you need to shelp a girl that makes less then you along so your paying her way). Add in tshirt (gotta get the sweet brittny t) and maybe a few beers, and you can esisly kick that outing up to $100s. So we have a situation where the concerts are brining 10x what the album sells for, and we are talking about albums? Jebus, why not just take 10% of the gate and give the bits away for free? So this is how it should work. First encode all the albums in just about every decent format that someone might want, and give them away for free. Allow people to download them directly from your website, share them p2p, it doesnt matter its just bits. Now Sell albums with something that they dont get by downloading. Keep the CD at about $15, but include a head of line copuon for the next concert. Most people if they like the ablum and buy it, and get it gets them into the concert. Now whamo this is where you start to cash in as we have seen the concerts is where people spend real money. The mp3s, flacs, aac's are just marketing to sell more concert tickets, shirts, and beers. Hard Copy CD's stay at $15 so they break even, but again just push people into the concert. The scary thing is the same model works for movies. How many Starwars fanboys would preorder the DVD's if they got into the premier of the next episode a day early with the movie critics? This also fixes the DRM arms race as by not playing that game. I mean how can kazaa compete when I can get the album, for $15 but a $20 rebate for the concert? If I show up for the concert the 'album pays for its self' in my eyes, but since they jack up the price of the concert, add in the price of the tshirt and the 'CD of the concert' vendor the music industry, artist, and promoter makes back the cash hand over fist.
And thats why hes asking it here, on /. /. public is definitely different than "normal" public, but seeing how much time we spend online and how many of us there are (slashdotted sites everywhere?), it makes sense to open a music store aimed at "geeks", doesnt?
The general
Recorded music isn't worth anything to me anymore. I'll pay to see a concert or buy merchandise if I am compelled to do so. But unless it is for a ridiculously low price, say a dollar a month for infinite music, then its just not worth it.
Even if I did join some service, almost none of the music I listen to would be available. I listen mostly to groups like machinae supremacy, who give their music away for free anyway, classic rock which I already have on vinyl and thus am legally allowed to have mp3s of, ocremixes, and foreign music. It might be possible to pay for some of the foreign music on some of the services, but either I wont be able to read it or it wont work with Linux or it will costly ungodly amounts of money.
In conclusion I would actually pay for music if.
1) Every song ever recorded was available.
2) I could choose my format and bitrate freely.
3) Absolutely no DRM encumberance.
4) Works with Linux.
5) Super cheap, we're talking pennies or half pennies per song.
It's a good thing not too many people feel like me. The record companies would be screwed.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
What makes the ones and zeroes on your bookshelf more real than the ones and zeroes on your hard drive?
If I was a Britney fan, I'd probably agree with you, I like to think that real music has some soul to it, and having a CD with interesting cover notes or band information I can roll over in my hands and read while listening to the music means something to me.
It's not something I can quantify, it's an emotion about the music. I love music, I just hate what MTV, the Pepsi generation and (gasp) The Internet has done to it.
Of course, you can back order through them but then you will have to go twice to the store. Why not buy online then.
My local outlet is quite comprehensive (even more impressive considering this is a town of less than 30,000 people), but is it such a bad thing having to go and browse twice?
Music should be something social. It's great being in a store and bumping into someone with similar tastes and interests. This may come as a shock but it's a great way to work on those people interaction skills, just getting away from the computer for things like this.
It worries me that we've become so complacent with human interaction in the quest for convenience and quick delivery.
Personally, I'd like to see a store that has a 24/7 internet radio station, on-demand streaming, $0.99 downloads
If $0.75+ out of those $0.99 didn't go to record companies, who then use the money to buy lawyers to make sure that things end in tears, I would be a happier bunny. I'd like to see more independent artists and online stores bypass the middle-men for mutual benefit. But that may be wishful thinking...
Or is it? Here's a cool indie music site to cheer you up (including political tracks of the season). Their artists "are given 65% of the end-user sales price". Hope they fix their site images up real soon.
And it doesn't really have anything to do with getting caught; it would be trivially easy for the US to track down every single person that gave these people money - all they need to do is compel the cc companies to report such use (just as they do already with many illicit businesses). It's more a matter of commerce in the new world of capitalism, and PR regarding enforcement. It's alright for Dow to pay a buck a day to exploit workers in a nation with no enforcement of environmental laws, spew toxic crap into the world with no regard for safety (remember the chlorine leak in India?), but it's not ok for us to order music from a nation with the "intellectual property" equivalent to this sort of non-protection?
I don't think so.
You are not allowed to keep the ripped versions once you've sold or given away the "worthless shell". You might as well be downloading the music off eDonkey because what you propose is just as illegal.
I like buying CD's from Amazon too, but not when the CD contains one song out of thirteen that I want to hear and I'm expected to pay for all of them. This is where Apple's store excels; you buy exactly what you want. Sound quality is good enough; if you're listening through those lousy iPod earbuds or average desktop speakers, 128 bit AAC files are fine. If you're an audiophile, only 30ips reel-to-reel analog tapes are good enough for you, so what are you doing here anyway? :)
If I purchase an album digitally, I'd still like to download a PDF/Flash/something of the album art and liner notes. It's important content that the artist (or perhaps the label) feels complements the music, and that's why they are sold together. Although I'm puchasing music in a different format than a jewel case, I still want the same experience.
Understanding "lawfully" as "lawfully under US law" is nonsensical. US law does not apply to copying in Russia. Consequentially copies made by a foreign company in a foreign country can not be unlawful under US law. The only sane way to interpret "lawfully" is "lawfully under applicable law".
Why do the artists get nothing? allofmp3 do pay their licensing fees. There may be a question what the Russian government does about passing those fees on to the artists but realistically, the copyright model is such a tortured, twisted shadow of the original intentions, that I feel no guilt about buying music there. I am breaking no law but yet I am not supporting Big 4 concept that would spend my money on 'pop idol' and the top 40. When they realise I am a discerning consumor and not a 13 year old girl perhaps they will market products that interest me. Until then, I will buy my music where I please and support my artists at gigs and festivals.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
Napster was notable only for being the first. Other than that it was a crappy underdeveloped implementation of the technology.
1. It didn't support resumable downloads. You know all those half finished tracks you keep pulling off [insert p2p network of choice]? They probably came from Napster and
2. It didn't group songs and download from multiple sources.
Audigalaxy was close to my idea of perfect. The interface was minimal and the seperate satellite was a genius idea.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
Why do the artists get nothing? allofmp3 do pay their licensing fees.
Look at how much you pay for allofmp3.com, and you will understand that artists cannot get anything from it.
This is the kind of crap that caused the American Revlutionary War. This is the kind of crap that caused the economic boycott by opporessed population in the Southern US. This is no different than the British Government saying the Indian people can't make salt from thier own sea water, Yes, the government and corporations must be recompensed for thier useful work. However, neither has an inherent right to exist. The US corporations have all but stated they agree with this statement by artificially moving much profit out of the US, which is where most executives live, into lower tax havens. I wonder if they even check to see if some of these havens perhaps provide financial services for unfriendly military organazations.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I really don't think most of the people who post care if artists get paid. I mean, look at the comments on this board. They want what they want when they want it at the price they want it--which is--essentially, free. And they create all manner of tortured justifications for why they shouldn't pay for music. The RIAA is evil. New artists don't produce any good music (but it is evidently good enough to download and listen to). A dollar is too much for a track. I don't like DRM. And on, and on, and on. But essentially, these folks have discovered that they can "share" music with relatively no consequences, and they don't care if the people who make it get paid. Drumroll please, and cue the "The RIAA doesn't pay artists either" justifications. And don't forget to mention that anyone who has this opinion is a shill for the RIAA. All I'm saying is that I, for one, like music. And much of the music I like is/was released on RIAA labels (much wasn't). And the music and artists I like are capable of releasing albums with 10 or more good songs (I always wonder about the people who find only 1-2 good tracks on an album--what kind of crap are you listening to, anyway?). And finally, for me, a dollar a song is not a lot to pay for something I may listen to and enjoy hundreds of times. But I accept that my views are not shared by everyone.
Go to the store and buy the damn CD. You have your WAV files in uncompressed format. The price is right. You have the artists artwork for ideal physical storage. The record label is happy. And when the next best audio compression format comes along, RIP again.