Slashdot Mirror
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?"
So when they realize we are able to copy the music, what happens?
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.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
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...
'Sensible' is a curse word.
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.
RTFA, please. At least the first sentence:
Universal Music, the world's largest music company, has agreed to back a new venture that will allow consumers to download songs for free and instead rely on advertising for its revenues.
This is a big deal.
I've wondered how long it would be before a consultant somewhere said, 'you know, we should adapt or we risk dying', and this is what it is, finally a company with a financial interest in the matter is sitting down and trying to hash out an idea of how to make the new medium work for them.
I will probably go watch some ands and not hear the music (as it will probably require windows) just to show support for a company that is taking some initiative. I hope it makes them billions of dollars and all the other companies sit and wonder why they didn't think of it.
You don't like Godsmack? 3 Doors Down?
And Elton John is arguably one of the most popular recording artists ever.
Man, what do you listen to? Barry Manilow?
My blog
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?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
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...
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
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!
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Free music *check*: ads *check*: crappy artists *check*:
If it looks like a duck.... then yeah. its not too much different than radio.
When iTunes was young, some guy tried to resell a song on ebay:
Here is the story .
AAC is NOT an Apple-only format. The Fairplay DRM that Apple uses on their songs purchased through iTunes is Apple-only, but non-DRM AAC is available on any music player that wants it.
Artists receive royalties every time their song is played on the radio.