Slashdot Mirror
Labels Agree On Free Music Downloads To Cell Phones
An anonymous reader writes "CNet's Crave reports on a potentially revolutionary digital music service set to launch worldwide later this year. It's offering free, unlimited over-the-air downloads to cell phones, with music from all four major record labels, with no subscription. And the selections that users download get automatically downloaded to their PC or Mac. Rather obviously, the tracks are DRMed, but unlike the similar Nokia service unveiled last year to much disappointment, this MusicStation Max service will have exclusive handsets from LG and no additional fees to customers. This is a little similar to an idea talked about last year, but with all four majors on-board it seems to have greater potential."
"...Rather obviously, the tracks are DRMed..."
They still don't get it! Do I say more?
...but I still don't get why a telephone should have any functions other than MAKE PHONE CALLS and STORE PHONE NUMBERS.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Hammertime!
Apparently nobody with power has been listening at the **AA, not even a little bit. I couldn't even work up a yawn for this new service, never mind enough excitement to contemplate what missing features will be on the phone and what 'extra' goodies will be there to track my every move or some attempt at that.
ooops, there, I yawned.
Did I hear someone just call them fucking idiots?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
All 4 major labels are involved, why didn't they include the part about getting sued?
I do not see the little detail of advertising in the write up. There is no free lunch, even for a pre-announced product (*vapour-ware*, cough, *vapour-ware*).
This doesn't add up to me. Free downloads, no subscription fees, transferable to your home computer - so why will I need to buy any music ever again?
What's the business model for the record labels?
And then I saw that it had DRM. And was limited to certain LG phones. Wow. Underwhelming, sad to say. Not that it'll appear down here, like, ever. Moving on.
And hell, it's *NOT REALLY FREE*. You need a special contract. Oh yeah. Sure, each track is free, but you're still paying a premium for it. I don't mind that, but it's a bit misleading. Not that I'm surprised.
They haven't even said which player will be able to play the files. It looks like Windows Media Player is a contender.
All-in-all, not impressed.
I'm not willing to download 98% of the music they produce these days, for free via P2P. However, I'm at the point in my life where I could maybe afford an album per month... sucks for them I guess.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Dear first-hit-is-free music companies.
Keep your DRM music. I don't want it and I don't want to get hooked on your free sample. (One day I may change phones and I'll still want that music). Nice try though.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
It's DRMed service which you will pay for. Nothing FREE in any sense of the word.
Limited songs on limited phones with limited transfer on limited equipment....
Have it right now MP3, BitTorrent, Piratebay and my WiFi enabled smartphone...
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Music companies just found another tech company to take a bajillion dollars to promise them that sweet, sweet DRM.
How many times does that make now? I can think of no better evidence that cocaine makes you dumb.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The majority of people want to have four digital devices with them at all times: a phone, a PDA, a camera, and a music player. They also do not want to carry separate devices to do these things. So, they get bundled. A cell phone is a PDA/C, a personal digital assistant/communicator. The PDA/C allows the user to organize contact information, schedules, etc. The audio capabilities keeps the user entertained while travelling. The video capabilities allows the user to capture spontaneous moments, or take video notes (pictures of signs, etc). Oh, and it also allows the user to communicate. That means sending text, pictures, and of course, two way audio. Cell phones are starting to have internet browsers on them. In the future, look for them to have docking stations with full sized keyboards and monitors, as the cell phone and the notebook merge.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I think it's great, everyone has been bitching that the music business has an outdated fucking business model.
Now they have a nice shiny new business model one.
What's that, I still hear bitching out there still? Shut the fuck up.
If you don't like their DRM go elsewhere. It's really that simple.
Sony BMG, Universal, EMI and Warner have a right to make money.
Sony BMG, Universal, EMI and Warner have a right to put DRM in their music.
You have a right to hate DRM.
You have a right to refuse to run DRM in the first place.
Tell your favorite band to switch labels.
Fuck man, go visit Nuclear Blast, Astralwerks, Reprise, Relapse, Atlantic, Caroline, Warp, Touch and Go, Vagrant, Columbia, Caroline, Myspace, Drive-Thru, MetalBlade, Octone, Mute and on and on and on... there's thousands of labels out there.
Shut the fuck up already. If you don't like DRM, don't buy their shit. If your such a purist, then the first thing you'll want to do is check what label a band is with.
I am glad they finally came up with a business model for hard working musicians. Who knew it was going to be on Cell Phones. From the Gramaphone to the Cellphone amazing.
This doesn't harm you, you can still create your own ringtones, so shut the fuck up.
Jesus Tit's get a job and go fucking buy something.
I can't fucking believe you guys are still complaining when they actually fucking came up with a good business model.
Anything on your phone, Come On, That's the shit man!
One of my favorite bands is U2, what are they on? Universal--IIRC. Now I could get it on my phone -- that's just awesome. What the hell is wrong with that. That's MORE choice.
Bundling some sort of a music fee into digital items is not a bad business model. The record companies get their piece of the pie, consumers can get a set of appliances where they can have their music.
This actually isn't that different from the software model, pre-Microsoft. Software was ultimately bundled in with the hardware and service contract costs and so everyone could just sorta of copy software all over the place. Heck, Microsoft owes a lot of its success to this sort of model for Windows largely due to its lack of DRM. If Microsoft required the sort of authentication with DOS and Windows 3.1 that it requires for Vista, it is very doubtful they would be in the dominant position they are in today. DOS used to be $10!!!
Of course, this bundling sucks for Linux and completely free software, but one could envision a distro actually having a service plan with it for DRM content. If you throw in a few extra bucks, the content plan could actually be used to help fund further Linux development. Thus, tacking a few bucks onto teeny boppers wanting to get the latest Hannah Montana on a Linux box could actually be used to help pay for things like additional FireFox, Open Office and other Linux core applications development.
The one thing that really hurts the credibility of the music industry, aside from the obvious and vile thuggishness with which RIAA presses its claims, is that, the artist's share of the proceeds is rather small. In the CD / Vinyl days, a large cut for the industry was reasonable because of all the people that the business needed to pay to make physical copies. Now, with electronic distribution, there's really no moral reason why the artist can't get a larger piece of the pie. But as we have seen with the writer's strike, it seems that the content industry isn't really interested in promoting, well, the truly gifted people that make content, but rather, exploiting them, and that completely undermines any legitimate claim onto the advantages of copyright. The recording industry isn't really an enabler of artists, as much as it is more like the Islamic caliphs of old sitting on overland trade routes, exploiting them until the Europeans figured out how to sail around them and avoid the ridiculous surcharges.
To have an efficient capitalistic economy, you want to reward investment in people that actually add value, and record companies don't. So, having a more consumer friendly business model won't fix the problem. Record companies have to actually pay the artists a real percentage of the music sales. IF shareware distributors can thrive taking 10-15% of a sale, leaving artists with the lion's share, then so can record companies. The situation is different with movies, which are much more collaborative and capital intensive thing, but, even there, there's no reason that the principals of a movie can't get a bigger piece of the pie.
This is my sig.
It's not free. It's built into the price of the handset/subscription.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I only wish the major labels would get some talent to make this service worthwhile.
I started reading the original article, and stopped at this line:
"Every time you download a song to your phone, the same song is downloaded to your computer for playback through your PC speakers."
Just how the heck do they know when my PC is on, much less download songs to it? I don't want them downloading songs onto my PC without my knowledge. This service seems insidious. So you're saying every time I want to download a song, your proprietary player needs to be on a computer that's on and hooked up to the internet? Gee, there's no potential for abuse there.
What if someone sends me a rogue music file? If the same file is downloaded to my computer, isn't that going to mess up my machine? Virus writers are going to have a field day with this. Shame on Omniphone for promoting this garbage, and what is LG thinking, buying into this deal?
This will not replace p2p. It will barely make a dent. How can you justify charging for premium unlimited data when the same thing can be done with any smart phone on a wifi network for free? Really, these companies need to go back to their boardrooms and either disband or think of a better business model.
I'm not worried about the DRM. Whatever DRM these files come with will be broken the day that the first music file is downloaded from this service. I just don't understand why they even bother, anymore.
Can't teach a dinosaur new tricks, I suppose.
Yeah, yeah, I know it's a real stretch to compare the two, but I'm still waiting to see what the penalties are that come with use of the device/service. A gilded cage is still a cage.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
It's going to be what? Six months to a year before we have open source phones via Android or OpenMoko. I'm guessing some sort of music downloading software via either WiFi or cellular internet won't be far behind. Limewire's already written in Java, so a port for Android can't be that hard. Even ignoring open source phones, we're not far from the day when internet through the cell phone is standard. Especially as free WiFi becomes more widespread, people are going to start to expect their cell phones to tap into that even if they aren't paying for internet packages and the cost of those internet packages is going to have to drop as people get used to the idea of free internet. I think it's pretty clear who's going to win when MusicStation Max is forced to compete on an open market against the likes of iTunes. I hope the people behind MusicStation Max have to sense to realize that their business model is only going to be any good in the very short term.
And if you think a CD has "one or two good tracks on it" then please be a little more selective in your music choice. Don't buy the dross in the charts, there are thousands of classic albums out there that are good from start to finish and are worth every penny you pay for them.
Please don't entertain these idiot music moguls - they want to ***RENT*** you your music and rip you off in the process.
BUY THE CDs - then it's yours to KEEP.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Reminds me of when Microsoft included basic in rom in the early home
computers. Microsoft got their royalties (or one time fee with
certain computer manufacturers) upfront and the consumers
didn't feel like they were paying for basic separate from the
computer hardware.
This avoided the problem they were having with their paper tape
basic being copied.
Wish I had mod points for you.
Agree 100% - There are very few tracks I couldn't download for free right now if I wanted but 99% are not even worth the bandwidth. That is the problem they need to fix.
isn't giving people the impression that they're now allowed to commit piracy a really bad idea, even if they are technically paying for it? I think this service will just legitimize and thus boost actual piracy.
stuff |
And I can listen to any tune instantly, between imeem.com, last.fm, deezer and one of the other less legal sites one of them is bound to have the exact music I need. Downloads are of course needed so that the internet connection isn't continually active which will never scale.
While the obvious answer is "None!", somehow I still suspect that DRM would remain, and User B copying a file from User A, instead of downloading it for free from the overloaded servers would still be inviting an RIAA lawsuit!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It adds up perfectly well the moment you realize that this shuts out all the Independents. And the significant possibility that the four Major Labels have a deal that they're only In on this while the Independents are Out. That's a trade that I think their bean-counters would consider worth making.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
My cell phone battery says 'thank you'.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
This sounds a lot like that one other site that claimed the same.. what was its name again? I already forgot. Although it does say 4 labels are already onboard.... I wonder how true that is. If so, it might work out.
Tech/Reviews blog
Well, I think what you're really arguing for isn't so much the removal of intellectual monopoly but for mandatory licensing fees. In my opinion something like this would actually be great. If you could print your own version of the Da Vinci Code, or Britney Spears, or whatever media for a certain compulsory fee to the content creator they'd be rewarded for their work and there could be distribution competition. If Google wants to create a completely free set of music that's totally Ad Supported with the compulsory fees soaked up by them then they'd be able to do so. Google Books would be a viable business model if monetized properly. Currently you have to get permission from every single vendor which really just makes this sort of thing inane and creates too high of a barrier of entry. Too bad this post is probably coming a few hours too late for anyone to really read it. I hate Slashdot for that sometimes.