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.
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?
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.
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
Yeah, you are a member of The Long Tail.
Ever wondered why Amazon, Wikipedia and other popular online services are successful? Because they don't particularly focus on the popular because they know that lots of not-so-mainstream records/books/articles give you more core mass than being focused on only the popular things would. I'd like iTunes for example to realise that, or a new company selling music.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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
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?
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
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'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."