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?
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.
And tiny fonts on the phones.
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
Quick, get off his lawn before he eats us! Run!!!!
Exactly! It still boggles my mind that computers do anything other than do math! Whats all this graphics and gaming crap they put on computers these days- just grab a pen and paper or go outside! *humph* "applications" on a computer... what a waste.
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...
Each to their own man.
You only want a phone to make phone calls to your Turok friends, good for you!
I want to send emails and surf the net dinasaur hunting, good for me!
Pre-teens who want to turn their phones into an artfully crafted public-transport-torture device, unfortunately good for them!
And people who want to use their phones as music players rather than carry round two devices... is it really that bad?
Tsk. Tsk. You and your fancy "number storing" telephone.
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.
This comment pops up in EVERY damned discussion of advanced phones and it's ALWAYS moderated insightful by mods with more points than sense. It is NOT insightful. It is nothing more than a statement of personal taste by someone with luddite tendecies.
Phones already exist for luddites. This discussion is not about those phones. If you want to discuss those phones go and find somewhere else to discuss them, or submit an article of your own to the Firehose.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Dinosaur? I think you more likely have a case of functional fixedness rather than a case of old age. Dinosaurs didn't use cell phones and they enjoyed having a peaceful, uninterrupted dinner.
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!
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
We got computers that do more then math becuase people wanted to do more then math with computers. But that doesn't mean we get rid of calculators becuase calculators are far cheaper and smaller then computers with an interface far more suited to doing math. Unfortunately that same can't be said about cell phones.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
And in the age of the lemming, words of wisdom get modded down with prejudice.
I'm in this boat with you; a phone is a phone is a phone. Every single one of its features should be directly tied to communication. If I wanted a cheap chinese gadget that tries (and fails) to be a game boy, media player, webcam, AM radio, IUD and chia pet all at once, well... I'd have to hire someone to end my miserable brainwashed life.
My ideal phone features ? address book, call history, voice mail, SMS / pager, maybe a simple date planner and/or notepad. No camera, no music, no Java, not even a stupid web browser.
I might be less opposed to convergence if they could actually do it decently. The last thing I need is yet another overpriced fragile thingamajig that can't do anything right. I'd much rather buy separate devices that each excel at their single task.
To compound things, I really don't understand why the music "industry" is trying to shove tunes into people's cell phones. Perhaps I'm being far too logical for the common peon, but I would assert that the type of person who listens to music on an LG cell phone probably isn't the biggest music fan on the block. I'd be surprised if that individual were more inclined to buy music on other platforms, if they're content with the free low-bitrate junk they save to that stupid little memory card sticking out the back of their phone, piped over those horrible earbuds that come from wherever Taiwan outsources the work even their sweatshops consider too cheap.
I'm certainly not plugging a phone into my lovingly-tuned DRM-free car stereo, or my carefully selected home speakers. I wouldn't even disgrace my Sennheisers with such a perverted audio source. Once again, the music industry has failed the very people that once consumed its wares. There's already so little music worth hearing these days, if you're going to shove it into a pathetic cell phone, well you might as well just go deaf once and for all.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Ummmm...YES it is that bad when it becomes increasingly difficult to find a simple phone that doesn't have all the bells, whistles, tampon remover, etc. Just recently they posted a story on how they are planning on using GPS in phones to tell traffic congestion. Great! Now phones are talking all by themselves without my express permission.
More importantly than the features that I don't need or want is the hidden strings attached to the service contract for those unwanted services.
This is along the same lines as being charged for cable channels you don't need or want or are actively filtering just so you can get the ones you do want. How hard is it to just give people only what they want without all the strings?
Oh, and get off my lawn too!
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Cheap? check!
small? check!
does very little more than make calls and store numbers? check!
they dont make LOTS of phones like that, because there isnt much demand for them, but the do make them
First, phones have those features because the vast majority of people find them desirable. Not everyone wants them, of course, but way more than half. Each different phone has a full set of engineering, manufacturing, marketing and packaging costs, which are substantial and have to be spread across a lot of phones to make them affordable. Thus it's cheaper to make, package, and market 100,000 phones than it is to make 1,000 simple phones plus another 99,000 complex phones. It's basic economies-of-scale.
Next, very few phone features turn into service charges, and none of them are particularly easy to access. (Verizon is the most guilty party there, as they deliberately cripple phones preventing you from uploading and downloading media without using their pay-per-use network.) And sure, I can see the providers charging for Assisted-GPS service -- so don't use it. But I've never heard of a cell phone provider charging you simply because your phone CAN do something -- they charge when you USE their services.
As far as using the GPS in phones to measure traffic congestion? It's an interesting theory, but I doubt seriously that it'll go any further than an NPR story. Besides, your phone is constantly talking all by itself. Every few minutes it makes contact with the tower. Your cell provider already knows which tower your phone is near whenever it's powered on, so if you're that paranoid you should consider turning the thing off unless you're on a call.
Seriously, how inconvenient is it to have the camera? Does it turn on in your pocket, and make embarrassing shutter noises? Or does the calendar chirp at you when you're trying to make a phone call?
There are still a lot of phone options out there, including some pretty simple phones with large, easy-to-read screens for you old people who have kids on your lawns. I know because my mom wanted one, and she's old, and the kids are on her damn lawn, too. And you know what? Even she figured out how to personalize her phone, with a different ring tone and a new background picture and everything.
P.S. If you think cell phones are bad, it is nothing like cable pricing. Cable is very different in that each and every channel they deliver to a subscriber has a price tag that they pay on your behalf (and extract from you), and the bundling of "super-basic" channels with their "premium" channels equals truckloads of extra money for everyone but us. So if you want Sci-fi in HD, well, you can only get it with the "Premium-overly-complex plan" with hyperbundling including unwatchable crap stations like the Faux News channel and the Oprah channel. Mistakenly applying that pricing logic to your cell phones would indeed give you the nightmare of charges that you seem to be imagining.
John
I'd just like to point out that at&t / Cingular do indeed charge you based upon your phone's capabilities, not simply data usage. Case in point there is MediaNet Unlimited (unlimited data for crippled phones that only have a built in browser), BlackBerry (unlimited data for BlackBerries), DataConnect (unlimited data for laptops), and PDA Personal (unlimited data for PDAs or phones with QWERTY keyboards); all of these (except DataConnect) also have two-tiered pricing depending on whether your device can tether to a laptop. This was all very confusing to me when I signed up for a plan with my own unbranded phone. I just wanted unlimited data; I could not figure out why in hell there were 8 different prices for the same amount of bandwidth. It's all designed to go with the device you buy. In other words, if you buy phone with features X, Y, Z, they only offer data plan A. If you buy a phone with features X, Q, T, they only offer data plan B.
Oh yes, let's not forget the iPhone plan which charges you for unlimited data whether you want it or not simply because your phone is capable of browsing the web.
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.
You make good points, but I'll also disagree with you on one area. Having a camera can be a detriment, because there are work environments where one is allowed to have a cell phone, but not one with a camera. Thus the phone with a camera gets left in a locker, at home, in a car, or in some other place where it cannot be used in a pinch, and the camera without the unneeded camera is on your person and available. A small point, but still it is relevant to quite a few people.
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 |
It took me about 30 seconds to find a phone that you can use just to place calls. No contract, no nothing, just the phone. It is indeed the minority now and I would now have at least bluetooth.
The fact that the majority is available with all extra options does not mean that the others do not exist.
Also adding the extra is sometimes cheaper then making two different moddels. Some more features will mean a LOT extra different models. Cheaper for the manufacturor means also cheaper for the buyer.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
It's the same thing I keep telling Batman: dude I still don't get why a belt should do anything other than hold your pants... err... briefs?... up.
I like basketball!!1!
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.
Belgium?!?! All the way to Belgium for a phone? And the price is in Euros which are in short supply in West Virginia where I live...
In either event, I never said "impossible" I said "increasingly difficult" which it is. You can't walk into a store and get a plain Jane phone that doesn't do text, internet, GPS, etc. Go and try it. Try to look for a phone that is ONLY a phone.
So you get off my lawn too...
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
I have a Samsung C165. It costed 65 dollars. It makes phone calls, has a phonebook, and BIG fonts. I just asked for "the cheapest prepaid phone available", and got this.
The nokia 11xx has been such a phone since the beggining of [GSM] time.
Is it that old gizards (I mean older than me, I'm 30!) don't know how to buy a phone anymore?