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."

Comments

Man flamebait or what.

[Ckwop]

<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.

Re:Man flamebait or what.

[august sun]

At the same time, a large part of the added value of blog news is the unique perspective of the poster injected into the stories. If I wanted the facts and nothing but the facts I'd stick to FoxNews (joke!). I (and I don't think I'm alone on this) come here for the techie perspective, be it on the front page, or in the bowels of the comments. Besides, it's very clear where he's opining and where he's reporting facts (you did well enough sorting it out for yourself)

Re:Man flamebait or what.

[evilviper]

Do you ever see the BBC saying "Real media is just crappy because I say it is?". I think not..

No, of course not. Mainstream news outlets reserve those kinds of comments for companies that will never advertise with them. You'll find lots of (paid-for) faux-news reports on mainstream media that talk about how bad Kazaa and other P2P programs are, because they say so (or rather, their advertisers say so).

Free...

[Bobvanvliet]

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.

25 Songs

[NitsujTPU]

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?

Not much to do...

[KiroDude]

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.

The free songs are streamed, not downloaded

[CdBee]

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.

Re:The free songs are streamed, not downloaded

[phalse phace]

"the "free" songs are songs you listen to by streaming. they aren't really free as you don't get to keep them."

Unless you capture the streaming audio

Dear music industry..

[MartinG]

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.

Re:Movin' the goalposts

[stereoroid]

Just like software, music is something that "if you didn't pay for it, it's stolen".

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.