Universal to Offer Music for Free

wild_berry writes "The BBC reports that Universal Music has signed a deal to make its music available for a free and legally-licensed download. Available from a new music site called SpiralFrog, the deal will allow users in the USA and Canada to listen to Universal's music, which Reuters' news site reveals is paid for by targeted advertising, but no details of possible community or playlist sharing features of the SpiralFrog service. Is the immunity from litigation enough to make up for having targeted advertising on each page and not being able to write the music to CD or a portable player?"

Comments

Good News ... but ....

[eldavojohn]

Well, that's good news.

Now if only I were a fan of some of Universal's Artists.

Guess I'll have to wait and see if the big companies follow suit.

Not being able to copy the music?

[Anonymous Coward]

So when they realize we are able to copy the music, what happens?

Re:Not being able to copy the music?

[jZnat]

Er, isn't the music already available on P2P networks? I don't think transcoded crap from DRM downloads will make it in the P2P world when direct transcodes from CDs are already available.

Re:Not being able to copy the music?

[pixelpusher220]

Agreed that would be pointless. The 'ads', as far as I understand, will be placed on the website, ala iTunes Music Store, where you actually go to download the songs.

Once the file is downloaded, just about *any* advertising is going to be too much for the avg person to deal with.
Ads in the songs is ridiculous?...wow it's radio!
Ads on the Application playing the songs?...as you mention it's useless since most people don't 'watch' their music play ;-)

That seems to leave ads for when you're searching, getting, downloading the music from the service.

Is it enough?

[GundamFan]

Yes.

Ads are only a minor issue, I have seen ads all my life I know how to ignore them.

The proponets of free content will whine... but this way the record company gets what they want (money) and the consumer gets free (of cost) music.

Nothing ever has been truely free, if you aren't buying (or stealing) something someone else is paying to put it in your hands for there own reasons. That is the way the world has worked for a long time.

Re:Is it enough?

[mwilliamson]

The European model of forcing you to watch ads will probably be used. People WILL view the ad when it contains strong sexual innuendo, or at the very least, BOOBIES!

For me, cost isn't the issue.

[Richard Steiner]

Cost isn't the main issue I have with digital music. Freedom is the main issue.

I want to be able to play the music that I purchase on whatever device I choose. Period.

If I can't do that, then I won't participate in the service.

Re:For me, cost isn't the issue.

[Duds]

If it's a free service you haven't purchased anything.

I suspect I'll leap on board this, it might even inspire me to go get the odd CD. I'm with you though, as soon as they expect money, I expect freedom.

Re:For me, cost isn't the issue.

[UbuntuDupe]

I'd like to violate every agreement I make for short-term benefit too, but I don't justify such desires on grounds of "freedom".

They produce the music so they can make a profit. I'm sure it would be great if everyone worked for free, but they don't.

The produce it knowing that they can sell it with certain conditions attached. Then they sell it with those conditions attached. Then people start to claim their "freedom" is being violated, and that they have the right to unilaterally violate those conditions.

Sure, music companies "should" just "trust" people not to give it away to everyone, really, they can't.

So what should they do? Just not make music for profit? Or, you accept that the artist "deserves" a cut proportional to listeners, but that the "record companies" take "too much". Do you know how difficult, and what a crapshoot it is, to promote an artist?

I'm not trying to troll. What should an artist and record company do?

Re:For me, cost isn't the issue.

[DerGeist]

Let me start by saying I have no issue with the preceding comment, however that same "demanding idealist" attitude is often echoed by those who are, quite simply, addicted to free content and use their perceived moralism as justification for continuing their actions.

Trust me when I say I am no fan of the RIAA's tactics regarding their customers, but at some point they need to make money. If you're willing to buy a DRM-free CD that is rippable, burnable and whatnot and don't mind paying $9.99(on sale)-$13.99+ for a CD, then by all means go ahead. (Unfortunately this means they will be able to again use their common sleazeball tactic of 11 filler songs + 1 decent piece). For those who complain about being "too poor" but still want to enjoy music, I think this is an excellent service idea, so long as it remains non-invasive (ie, no required spyware download).

At the very least they're trying to meet the consumer halfway, it's a lot more than previous offerings which have been akin to "sell us your children, listen to the music in a confined soundproof chamber for no more than 95 seconds and then commmit suicide." Again I remain cautiously optimistic about this latest offering but am acutely aware of the slime-baggery that sometimes sprouts from these services, like invasive spyware, unreasonable terms, or even charade services that are just completely unreasonable phony attempts that they know will fail, so that they can say "we tried, it didn't work!"

Re:For me, cost isn't the issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a time when there were no major labels. Artists made it through performances. The modern world of music was created when we developed the technology to record music for playback at a later time. Fact is, the ONLY reason music labels have made as much money as they have is because they were the only ones with the ability to create and mass-distribute the content.

That has changed dramatically with the invent of the personal computer and home electronics which can now rival the industry's equipment on some level. The music labels don't like the fact that the world has changed. I have Z-E-R-O sympathy for this fact. Artists need to start looking to other means of content creation and distribution. The record labels are fast becoming obsolete which is why they are making such a stink.

I think this idea is a good one but it doesn't make me care. There are plenty of ways to profit in music still and there always will be - but just because they can't make 10000% profit on it anymore and will have to learn to live with that fact doesn't make me a concerned citizen for the industry big-wigs.

I don't think they have a choice of whether or not to "trust" the public. Fact is, if they treat everyone like criminals then people will give em the finger eventually because they don't like being treated that way. This is life and they need to change their approach cause its not going anywhere - like it or not.

Not Bad, but not a Music source

[Daniel_Staal]

What they are really saying is that they will let you try listening to their music without paying for it first. If you want to do anything with it, you have to pay.

Which isn't a bad idea, acutally...

Re:Not Bad, but not a Music source

[Qzukk]

Which isn't a bad idea, acutally...

I agree, I'd definately look into using this to try out some new bands by listening to a few songs before I decide to buy their cds which I can do whatever I want with.

Now the question is, how much of my identity do I have to hand over to these people for their inevitable laptop theft so that they can target their ads, and are they going to let me listen to whole albums, or just the best songs that get heavy rotation on the radio anyway?

Ads

[johnlittledotorg]

I wonder how long it will take them to work the ads into the audio files themselves. 3 minutes of music sandwiched between 2 30 second commercials is probably inevitable.

Re:Ads

[Constantine XVI]

Already exists. Flip the scaling of ads to music around, and you have what is commonly known as "FM Radio"

Re:Ads

[0xABADC0DA]

What do you think pop music is? Like Saturday morning cartoons used to be (transformers I am looking at you), Pop music is the ad so you'll go buy the band's CD / concert ticket / merchandise.

Music used to be about expressing some emotion, a message, or telling a story. Now it's all about "we're so cool go buy our CD."

Oh damn you can bitch about anything can't you?

[merlin_jim]

Is the immunity from litigation enough to make up for having targeted advertising on each page and not being able to write the music to CD or a portable player?"

As if you even needed immunity from litigation, or you had some intrinsic right to this music. The only people that need immunity from litigation are those breaking the law

Here's a content producer. They want to GIVE you their content for free online, in a distribution model simliar to one that most of slashdot has been having wet dreams about since Napster 1.0 was released. Shit know when you got it good and stop your bitchin lol!

If someone wants to give me something for free I'm not going to whine just because they want me to do a certain thing with it - free restricted music is better than no music at all...

Re:DRM encumbered?

[Half-pint HAL]

So while the music may be free as in beer, it'll likely only be free in the most limited sense of the word. Thanks, but I'll pass.

You don't watch TV or listen to the radio then? I do: they're free, and they're supported by adds. But it doesn't give me the option to view or listen to the program at any time I want. So sometimes I buy DVDs or CDs.

The proposed service has more freedom than radio, if we disregard DRM for the moment, so what's the big deal?

Plus, if you're one of UMG's artists, you can download your own song twice a day for a source of extra income!

Re:Enough ads!

[RobotRunAmok]

The way I see it, subscribing to slashdot (for example) puts money towards content and away from useless ad people.

And the money the "useless ad people" give to slashdot and other sites in exchange for page space, what does that go towards, spoons?

Chew on this: the "subscription only" model is the elite and priveleged track. Ad-sponsored sites allow anyone with web access, even from a public terminal, to be "empowered." Think of all of Negroponte's poor, starving 100-dollar laptop children; don't they deserve free, legal music too?

What makes you think those are the choices?

[Colin Smith]

Pay vs adverts?

What most people will continue to do is ignore itunes and spiralfrog and simply continue downloading the music for free.

Re:What a load of crap

[russ1337]

30 second annoying junk you have to listen to before the song starts and of course

um, so how does this differ from a radio station? (or radio station broadcast over the net / satellite radio?) Obviously there is an 'on-demand' aspect, but really.

Free music *check*: ads *check*: crappy artists *check*:

If it looks like a duck.... then yeah. its not too much different than radio.

Re:Woncer what DRM they will use...

[vallette]

All together now, AAC is an open format the DRM layer known as FairPlay is Apple only

No more excuses...

[Atraxen]

What is the usual chorus of self-justification we hear from pirates?

"I pirate to try out bands for free - I buy new bands all the time by discovering them this way, so I should be allowed to pirate because the artist makes money!"
"I only get stuff I wouldn't have paid for anyway, so no one's losing money anyway."
"I want to listen to music where I want, and if I can't pay and maintain all my rights, then I won't pay and will simply pirate the music!"

Well, since this is free and semi-portable (i.e. any web-accessable computer, but not your car/at the beach), none of the above arguements hold water - you can try out bands for free (I'm not taking the bait on arguements over what version of the word 'free' we're using...), you can try out stuff you wouldn't have paid for anyway, and while you can't listen to it anyplace-in-space, you aren't losing rights you paid for (since you didn't pay.)

This looks like a good thing, and a smart play from the music industry - attack piracy justifications by making them irrelevant. If it's less-than-perfect by your definition, you don't have to play, and the topography of the game doesn't change (other than undercutting piracy justifiactions.)

Keep in mind that piracy!=filesharing!=breaking DRM - all those aspects are separate (and I'd argue, straw men against this specific point.)

Leave it to Slashdotters to criticize FREE music

[Artifice_Eternity]

Hilarious. A record company finally offers free downloads, and what responses do we see on /.?

"Horrors! I won't sit thru ADS to get free music!"
"It's encumbered with DRM! Help, I'm being repressed!"
"Bah -- the artist selection sucks!"

Ever heard the saying, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"?

Re:Pay vs Adverts? Easy Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

But if I can't put it on a CD to play in my car, or in my music player to play on the train it is pretty much useless to me as I don't listen to much music at other times. (Well, there's work, but I doubt I'd be able to reach this site through work's firewall)