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."
I imagine a decade of steaming (sic) would takes its toll on anybody
<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.
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?
You want the whole universe of music to be free? 25 songs is about a free CD every month. That's a good bargain. Do you usually buy more than one CD per month?
Furthermore, you can select 25 songs from 25 different albums if you so wish. This wy you can get onl ythe songs yo ucare about r if you really want to sample albums to see whether you like them or not, then that give you quite a range to select from.
all that assuming that they have an extensive store. Of course it all doesn't matter if they only have 20 albums that interest you
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?
Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs.
Well, it _does_. At least the universe of music worth listening to.
See my blog for my free opinions.
Nice move.
but.. i hope its not slow and bloated still. I bet its still a complete adware-loaded pile of garbage.If you don't care what Real does to your computer (i.e. pop-up messages, registry files, all sorts of advertisements), then go right ahead. I long for the days when Real Player really WAS a free and hassle free download.Its a pain clicking thru the ad-bloated pages for a download of Real player these days.
fifteen jugglers, five believers
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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...
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?
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.
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
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
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!
According to Rhapsody.com's front page, you get "25 full-length songs per month - FREE". Upon further investigation you only get to 25 free song plays. You don't get to keep the songs you play, and playing a song twice counts as two songs.
In other words, it's misleading advertising (oh what's new?) and if Rhapsody thinks this is going to help them compete again iTunes, they're very wrong -- iTunes gives away at least two songs a week that you get to *keep* and play as many times as you want.
I'm Trappped at Berkeley.
I initially signed up with Rhapsody about nine months ago when I was trying to fulfill my Freeipods.com requirements (which I did - I did receive a free iPod, for all the doubters)... but anyway, I've kept it because for $10 a month, I can choose to listen to more than a million tracks, out of which I've found most of the albums that I've wanted to listen to. Yes, I need to be online, but as a college student, I always have a LAN or a wireless LAN available. Obviously you don't own the music, but considering how much I've listened to over the past $90 worth of subscription fees, it's more than worth it. If I find an artist I really like, I can go to CDNOW and probably find the CD in their "preferred members club" catalog for $9.99 or less (the "club" is really just buy a CD over the course of a year and you've fulfilled your membership requirements).
And I admit I had been very skeptical of any subscription-based model - I do like own what I pay for - and of course buying the CD and ripping it is the best option, but I must say that Rhapsody just *works*. Glad to see they're doing well for themselves.
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 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
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 . . .