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."
Certainly that was the case the last time I tried to install it in Windows, but I've actually been fairly impressed by their current Linux client.
I still use Totem for most of my A/V needs, but RealPlayer is actually fairly competent on Linux, without being overblown.
How free is this music? What can I do with it once I download it? Can I take it somewhere else and listen it? Can I pass it onto my friend?
Most imporantly, who does that file belong to once it's downloaded?
I've been looking forward to a new version of Rhapsody for some time and was disappointed after trying it today. While the media indicates that Real is banking its whole business on Rhapsody, it did not invest nearly enough into developing the software and into testing it before release.
New features in Rhapsody 3.0 attempt to mimick iTunes functionality - now Rhapsody allows users to add music tracks from the hard drive to its library. Rhapsody crashed on the very first run when trying to conenct to my account, exhibits bad behavior when resizing windows, has very limited interface options. It does not match the even the functionality of iTunes and certainly not its ease of use. You cannot remove 2 second gaps in CD recordings made in Rhapsody, there is no cross-fading between tracks and there are no criteria for creating automatic playlists.
Overall it seems like a very last-minute update to the previous version which was done without much design effort going into it. I do not think that it will create any waves of excitement among users.
Is this Slashdot: News for nerds or Slashdot: commentary for the mindless.
I know that most paid music services are a waste of money if I want quality music. But why do I need a /. contributer to tell me that Rhapsody is worthless.
This is how the article should have read:
In order to enlist a subscriber base Real's Rhapsody service is now offering 25 free songs for members.
There, no opinion, only news. Or is Slashdot so unpopular that the contributors need to generate news via provocation?
it must have all the music I listen to.
Punkrock, grindcore etc.
These legal services only seem to have popular music or music that have been popular.
I want that track från a 7" EP that was released in only 100 copies. I doubt a legal music download service can offer me that or any other song I wish to download since I rarely listen to mainstream music.
But what's up with this wholesale, mass production "song" business? The only time there was so much music out there that sounded exactly the same was the baroque era. Giving away 25 free songs a month doesn't help shake that stigma. Because of the Napster revolution (or perhaps IN spite - that's a pun by the way), the music companies have had to go for quantity, and in the process have devalued the intrinsic worth of the music that they're selling. iTunes has what, 10 MILLION songs? At what point is enough enough? Instead of getting 9 symphonies from a composer in their lifetime you get 9 albums each with 15 piecemeal songs that do their thing in 2 minutes 30 seconds, tops. This isn't going to change soon, so I guess what I'm saying is: if you're going to get 25 free songs, don't waste them on cookie-cutter stuff, get some Mahler or Shostakovich, music that takes 45 minutes to take you on an epic journey. Just like sex, no music should last less than half an hour.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
It's not that hard to find homepages of bands that give away free tracks or even whole albums. But since these are mostly unsigned bands and not controlled by the big media corporations, I guess this must be illegal...
You're absolutely right. If only the music and movie industry would turn into something like Allofmp3, I'd be a loyal and happy customer. With such easy downloading, a choice of encoding formats, and the option to encode on the fly to a bitrate of my choice, I wouldn't mind paying a buck a song, which seems to be the price for "official" online music.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I must mention irate radio (http://irate.sourceforge.net/) as a very interesting example of free music downloads.
It's a simple java applet that downloads free MP3s for you. You listen, say if you like it or if it sucks, and on the basis of your reply it downloads other music that it thinks you might like.
This sort of thing is the future of music. Things like garageband mean that musisicans can make music cheaply. Make some of it freely available. Then, a blogger I trust recommends it, I download it, like it, go to your web site, and buy some more.
And the "Long Tail" dictates that this is the best way to find music that I really like.
Take my current favourite artist. Now, lots of people like her music, but enough for a record company to make a profit on her CDs in a record store? Probably not, hence her current lack of a deal. But I don't care. I bought her latest couple of CDs direct from her on the web. Paid what I'd pay in a record store, but I have a warm glowing feeling because none of that money paid for some wanker in a marketing department to interview focus groups. It paid to put groceries on her table.
Oh, and on her web she recommends another artist I'd never heard of who she is working with. More free downloads. I liked that too, so that's another CD sale. And I went to see them both play a gig in London (which was utterly superb) and as soon as their support act finishes their first CD I'm going to download that as well.
You see how it can work? That's what, 4 CDs and a show ticket, no marketing wankers required.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
"We believe that once consumers experience Rhapsody and share it with their friends, many people will upgrade to one of our premium Rhapsody tiers," Rob Glaser, chairman and chief executive of RealNetworks, said in a statement.
Or they will go back to getting songs illegally. Really, nothing annoys me more than video/audio that is only in Real format. RealNetworks has a reputation for intrusive software and crappy video streams. Being that their direct competitor is Napster, who has a much better name/reputation, I don't see this service taking off.
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask... Does it support iPod?
Well, I had Rhapsody for perhaps six months. A few days ago, when I realized I was paying for something I hadn't used at all for a few months, I cancelled. To do that, you have to call and talk to a human. This not only deters you from canceling, they get one last chance to talk you out of it. The droid I got, apparently in India, was very clearly programmed to do this.
Rhapsody's model is admittedly interesting: unlimited online listening to anything in their library for a flat monthly fee. That does fill a different niche not covered by the iTunes model of selling downloads of individual songs, and it doesn't cost you anything to explore music and artists you haven't heard before.
But aside from being tethered to a network connection to be able to listen to anything, the Rhapsody implementation of this model has two fatal flaws. First, you have to use their own proprietary user client, and it's only available for Windows. Naturally, I avoid Windows like the plague.
Second, their library is, as a Talosian might say, "shockingly limited". It seems that every time I'd look for a particular artist, either they didn't have anything at all, or only one or two albums. Sometimes I'd find an album only to discover that Rhapsody got rights to only a couple of songs, with the rest missing.
I still think the best way to build a usable personal online music collection is to buy the CDs you want, rip them onto your own server, and put the CDs into storage as an offsite backup. Oh, and if you want to explore new and obscure artists, patronize the more enlightened and progressive labels like Magnatune.
I was a little disappointed by the utter lack of an OS X client, but I fired up Virtual PC and Windows XP SP2 (finally! something to use XP for other than running Windows Update! :) and went to check it out. The signup screen indicated that I get 25 "listens" per month. I wonder what a "listen" is... that doesn't sound quite like a "download." :(
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
After a decade of steaming becoming more widespread in both audience and medium, RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing.
Sorry, but you are babbling utter crap. The Realplayer is up to date the only true commercial cross plattform player avaiable, and, legends to the contrary, a very good one. Maybe not up to date with the latest and gratest rich client technologies but SMIL is an open, official full range multimedia document description language and the RealPlayer is it's player, y'know?
So if you wan't to do some good you should favour Real Streaming over Quicktime and Mickeysuck WMV whenever a site offers it.
Take this from a Mac User who installed the Reaplayer on top of Quicktime.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
And yet, here you are. What brings you here?
#define DRM chmod 000
I've been a rhapsody subscriber since before Real bought them out. It's a GREAT program and Real just made it better. All the music you can handle, 0-day releases and sometimes PREreleases... I never have to buy a CD! And now, you can download songs to your devices as part of your subscription... Now if they only supported the Omnifi DMP1 20gb HDD player I have in my car... They do support a huge range of portable devices though. Give it a try... seriously.
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
Here at Brasil, some independent bands are already releasing their songs directly to the Web on MP3 format. They don't care about piracy, or lost CD sales since most of their money come from shows. They want people to know them, and to listen their music so they can sell more shows. One of these bands is Mombojo [http://www.manguebit.org.br/mombojo/], you can get a full Album from teir site on MP3 format! Free as in Beer, with no DRM, and under the Open Commons Licence!!!
Other artists, like Lobão and Supla, are selling their Albuns on newstands, with a Data track containing pre-ripped MP3 for redistribuition! The CD come as a supplement of a magazine, so it can be sold on newstands! Very clever indeed.
There are lots of small bands, and independent artists out there, some are good, other not so much. But their work is FREE, lets support them! Also, most commercial music is pure crap anyways... why even bother?
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex