Slashdot Mirror
RealNetworks Invests in Legitimizing Free Music
Rollie Hawk writes "Want some free music? Silly question, I know. But how about legally? That's exactly what RealNetworks is offering.
You may remember RealNetworks from about ten years ago when it was one of the leaders in audio streaming technology. After a decade of steaming becoming more widespread in both audience and medium, RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing.
This, however, didn't stop them from jumping into the post-Napster song-swapping vacuum with their Rhapsody program. I can't comment on how good Rhapsody is since I've never met anyone who used it. That probably says enough right there.
In an attempt to rev-up their subscription-based music service, they are now resorting to giving away 25 songs each month. According to RealNetworks chairman and chief executive Rob Glaser, "by having a free service that is legal, it flattens the issue of 'Why use an illegal service?'"
Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs."
<news>"Want some free music? Silly question, I know. But how about legally? That's exactly what RealNetworks is offering.</news>
<flamebait>You may remember RealNetworks from about ten years ago when it was one of the leaders in audio streaming technology. After a decade of steaming becoming more widespread in both audience and medium, RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing. This, however, didn't stop them from jumping into the post-Napster song-swapping vacuum with their Rhapsody program. I can't comment on how good Rhapsody is since I've never met anyone who used it. That probably says enough right there.</flamebait>
<news>In an attempt to rev-up their subscription-based music service, they are now resorting to giving away 25 songs each month. According to RealNetworks chairman and chief executive Rob Glaser, "by having a free service that is legal, it flattens the issue of 'Why use an illegal service?'" </news>
<flamebait>Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs."</flamebait>
I'm not interested in the opinion of the submitter, timothy, I just want the god-damn news. Yes Real media are an easy target but you hurt the bloggers fight for acceptance as part of the media when you post stuff like this. Do you ever see the BBC saying "Real media is just crappy because I say it is?". I think not..
Simon.
From TFA:
For $9.99 a month, users will get an unlimited number of songs each month. For another $5, they can transfer the tunes to selected portable music players.
So your free music is DRMed to death? You're also gonna have to pay to put your "free" tunes on a DAP? Free as in beer locked in a safe I guess.
Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs
It might be RealNetworks, and hey, you may have a problem with them (plenty of people do), but 25 songs/month = 300 songs/year.
Just how much of a freebie do you want from a service that ostensibly sells you music?
So I decided to see what this company is actually worth....considering I never use their products nor do I know anyone who does...and according to Nasdaq, they're worth over a billion dollars?
Damn....I can't remember the last time I gave up on a RealPlayer install. Who uses this stuff, and how the hell are they worth over a BILLION dollars today....let alone being worth ten times that 5 years ago
How on earth does somebody think that a FREE model will be ever replaced by a NON FREE one??
Face it, even if it is illegal, downloading from a P2P network is free. sure, there is a risk of 1 in 6billions of being caught, but a lot of people are willing to take this risk.
Even if a system comes out that allows you to d/l legally your song for say 0,001$, a vast majority will continue to get their stuff for free.
What I mean to say here is that there is no turning back, songs have become free and will stay like this from now on, what they have to do is to find a new business model that will allow them to get money from something else related to music, but not from the songs themselves.
The big thing here is that we're getting the goods directly, with no third men involved, and it is preciseley these 3rd men that are in trouble.
Bands make huge amounts from concerts, and they might make nothing from record sales, but their free music will make more people know them and eventually go to their concerts.
As time goes by whatever value it has gets hidden behind more and more horse shit.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
It's free as in beer, not free as in speech.
Rob Glaser, chairman and chief executive of RealNetworks, said the primary targets are the millions of users of file-swapping networks, where music can be obtained for free but often in violation of copyright laws.
Yes, everyone should realize that downloading the Beck discography on e-mule and listening to all the albums over and over again while smoking massive amounts of pot is not the way to go about things. Also, just because one can download way more than 25 *albums* a day with BT is in no way a detraction from going to rhapsody to get your 25 "plays" of the new britney spears CD.
Cue the finance wonk who is a music expert...
"The value proposition of $15 a month is quite a compelling, competitive challenge for Apple," said Phil Leigh, senior analyst at Inside Digital Media in Tampa, Fla. "It enables you to listen to so much more music."
But wait! How do they pay for it? Is it a bird, is it a plane? no! It's Google and Chrysler (hey--is Chryler supposed to be bleeding money already? why the hell are they jumping on this train of wreckless abandon that's headed into hundreds of clones of ICP?)
Because RealNetworks must pay an undisclosed licensing fee every time a song is played, even if it is free, the company is turning to ads from Chrysler and an arrangement making Google Inc.'s search toolbar an optional download with Rhapsody.
It amazes me like companies like "Real Networks" have market caps at 1.1 billion... and this is *after* the bubble burst...
Meanwhile on the front...
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. launched on Tuesday a custom music CD service for those who may not have a CD burner or a high-speed Internet connection. Customers select songs from an online catalog, and Wal-Mart will put the selections on a CD and mail it. A three-song CD costs $6.59 with shipping. Each additional song costs 88 cents.
Yay! Now people can download crappy music from their trailers!
I read yesterday that Rhapsody is a streaming and download service, and the "free" songs are songs you listen to by streaming. they aren't really free as you don't get to keep them. (its actually "25 free streamed songs per month", not "25 songs to play as you like, every month"
the whole service is based on listening to remote files. If you want to burn CDs you pay an extra charge over what you already stumped up, for a DRM-controlled AAC download. Which to me makes Rhapsody a rather expensive radio station.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Unless you capture the streaming audio
I have hundreds of UKP per year to spend on music (and that doesn't include concerts)
I _WANT_ to buy more music and a WANT TO PAY YOU for it.
But I will not part with a SINGLE PENNY for DRM'd crap.
Seriously, you are LOSING BUSINESS and LOSING PUBLIC SUPPORT by continuing with this.
I agree that there is a lot of online unauthorised redistribution of your works, but evidently DRM is doing nothing to stop it.
You need to find another approach. Change your business model, lower your prices... I don't know, I'm not a business person but I am a consumer and I do know that you are turning us all off your industry and before long if you continue treating us like criminals more of us will end up downloading everything for free instead.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
And if you pay Real Networks their $15.00, how much of that will the artist(s) see? Most major label music, especially the back catalog, has been "contractually" stolen from the artist.
Sample scenario: an artist writes songs, the record company offers them a contract which takes ownership of the songs. The artist goes into a studio, records the songs, and the album is released. All the costs of recording are charged back to the artist, including lawyers fees and expenses, dinners, even the cost of the tape/HDD the music was mastered to.
In short: for first albums at least, the artist pays all the costs and loses the assets they created, but retains some rights to play the music live. It's like taking out a mortgage, using it to buy property and build a house on it... after which the bank owns the property, but you have a right to live there, if you pay a reduced rent.
So if you're concerned about the artist getting properly compensated, don't buy any major label music, from Real Networks, iTunes, Microsoft, or Tower Records. Go direct, and support independent music.
(this is not a
Why can these fools NOT wrap their mind around it?
Those with Clue(TM) are not going to pay $5, $1, $0.15, or $0.00 for music that TELLS US WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IT! Lose the FSCKING DRM!
Anyway, this service is nowhere near the hype that Real made it out to be. It's basically a slightly better version of the free trial that most of the legal music services out there. The files are streamed to you (this is the standard method on Rhapsody, but it does a really good job of hiding the process so that you don't even realize it's streaming all this) so you cannot keep them. Instead of getting a whole month free after which they charge your credit card, for this system I don't think they even ask for your credit card as they plan on keeping the basic 25-song plan perpetually free (so long as enough users sign up for pay-plans and the advertisers keep staying along obviously).
Yes, this is advertiser supported, and yes, this gimmick will probably end if all of them decide it's not effective enough. But for now, you might as well try it out since it won't cost you anything.
It's an interesting way of trying to get new users hooked on the new service, though, and considering that I prefer Rhapsody's subscription plan and my Napster university account expires soon, I might just pick this up for the summer. I can't speak for the original poster though, something tells me there isn't an attractive pay-music service model in the world that'll convince him otherwise.
That people are calling Rhapsody a failure is ridiculous. They've got 1M subscribers, which I believe is more than any other service. Here's a hint to some of you: just because you personally don't like something doesn't mean it's fair to declare it an objective failure without valid reason. For example, some of you are self-absorbed gasbags who can't see past your own perspective to fathom how anything you dislike could possibly have even a modicum of value; I don't like you because of that, but that doesn't mean you're not successful at what you do.
Same goes for Microsoft or non-OSS, etc. This place is quite the revival tent, sometimes. It's funny how most people here smugly mock religious people, but there's more religion here than on http://www.orm.cc/.
I've had Rhapsody since they just about came out. It's mainly streaming, not DRM'd, unless you download the song to disk. Think of it as a jukebox that you pay $9.95 per month that has just about every song you've ever heard available on it. Now it doesn't sound so bad! I've got my system at home, work, and at a couple of friend's house. They let you install it on 5 machines. At home, I've got it hooked up to a wireless router, which serves music to my stereo system via analog conversion. (of course, now you can see a way to un-DRM it . . . ) As of yesterday, I can download the songs locally so I don't have to stream them. Sure, I've got to have the service to listen to them, but I can burn them on CDs and take them to any of the 5 systems I've got Rhapsody installed on. I'll never understand why slashdotters are so anxious to rip shit they haven't even tried . . .