Would You Rent a Song For a Dime?

An anonymous reader writes "What's worse than a padlocking every song so that they will only play on certain devices? How about selling (renting) you songs that work on no devices? Astonishingly, this is what the music industry thinks we need. Warner Music is spending $20 million to back Lala, a startup devising a service to convince people to 'buy' 'web songs' for 10 cents each; these are then kept for safekeeping only by Lala with no download privileges. Industry insider Michael Robertson leaks the facts on this scheme, along with a seekrit URL so you can try it out."

Comments

Imaginary Property

[NoobixCube]

So now we're meant to pay ten cents for the right to imagine we have imaginary property?

Re:Imaginary Property

[TubeSteak]

So now we're meant to pay ten cents for the right to imagine we have imaginary property? There are plenty of programs out there that can snatch streaming audio/video from an embedded flash object.

I wonder what the quality of the audio is?

Re:Imaginary Property

[zenslug]

You build your online music collection by uploading your own music or by paying 10 cents to add music you don't already own. Once in your collection, stream as much as you want for no additional cost.

If you want to get the MP3, you pay 89 cents to download a high quality version.

Re:Imaginary Property

[Akaihiryuu]

10 cents is the maximum I would be willing to pay for a downloaded song in a lossless format with no DRM. Rent? Not a chance.

Re:Imaginary Property

[Murphy Murph]

Creative Labs SoundBlaster Audigy ZS2 "What-U-Hear" Recording controls say differently. i gotz mp3's now bitchez!!!!

Congratulations, you have successfully saved the .wav output of a low-bitrate MP3. You going to save that to 500Kbps FLAC, or are you going to do a (nasty) low-bitrate lossy to low-bitrate lossy transcode?

Doesn't seem so bad...

[pirodude]

So they're letting you listen to a digital copy one time? Time to start firing up the flash ripper and start scraping the site. Chances are they're not sticking stupid DRM or watermarking in their own 'secure' player.

Granted having your entire music collection in fla is annoying, you can probably can convert it to something a little more usable.

Sounds like a great source for large volumes of music.

Re:Doesn't seem so bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

To expand on that previous finding, here's a script that lets you download any song you want:

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use LWP::Simple;
use Data::Dumper;
use JSON;
$|=1;

die "$0 <search param>" unless $ARGV[0];
my $root_url = "http://next.lala.com/api/AutoComplete/songAutoComplete";
my $content = get "$root_url?prefix=$ARGV[0]";
my $ref = from_json($content);
my $num = 0;
foreach (@{$ref->{data}->{list}}) {
  print "$num : $_->{artist} - $_->{title}\n";
  $num++;
}
print "Download which? > ";
my $req = <STDIN>;
die "not valid" if ($req < 0 or $req > $num);
my $download_url = "http://next.lala.com/api/Player/getTrackUrls?flash=true&webSrc=lala&widgetId=LalaHeadlessPlayer&T=" . $ref->{data}->{list}->[$req]->{playToken};
my $play_url = get $download_url;
my $play_ref = from_json($play_url);
my $download_link = $play_ref->{data}->[0]->{url};
print "Getting: $download_link\n";
my $filename = $ref->{data}->{list}->[$req]->{artist} ."-" . $ref->{data}->{list}->[$req]->{title} . ".mp3";
print "Downloading to $filename\n";
system("wget -O '$filename' $download_link");

It's quick, it's dirty, but it works:

perl download.pl tiesto
0 : Tiesto - Ten Seconds Before Sunrise
1 : Ti&#195;&#171;sto - Forever Today
Download which? > 0
Getting: http://cfs-listen-52.lala.com/contentfs/content?t=NjU1MzVVNDM2OTE1OQ%3D%3D-vSOzDPPcV8VwbKW6Bwdv%2FQ%3D%3D
Downloading to Tiesto-Ten Seconds Before Sunrise.mp3
--2008-05-27 18:16:09--  http://cfs-listen-52.lala.com/contentfs/content?t=NjU1MzVVNDM2OTE1OQ%3D%3D-vSOzDPPcV8VwbKW6Bwdv%2FQ%3D%3D
Resolving cfs-listen-52.lala.com... 209.237.235.158
Connecting to cfs-listen-52.lala.com|209.237.235.158|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 3609494 (3.4M) [audio/x-mpeg]
Saving to: `Tiesto-Ten Seconds Before Sunrise.mp3'

Re:Doesn't seem so bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a better version that gets many more results from a different webservice.  Apparently the front page one is very limited:

This one will do paging, use n/p to go next/previous  when prompted.

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use LWP::Simple;
use Data::Dumper;
use JSON;
$|=1;

die "$0 <search param>" unless $ARGV[0];
my $ref;
my $offset;
my $req;
while(1) {
  $req = "";
  my $root_url = "http://next.lala.com/api/SearchUtils/search/v19.110.0-24?Q=$ARGV[0]&sortKey=relevance&sortDir=desc&Nb=100&Sk=$offset&webSrc=lala";
  my $content = get $root_url;
  $content =~ s/new Date\((\d+)\)/$1/g;
  $ref = from_json($content);

  my $num = 0;
  foreach (@{$ref->{data}->{songs}->{list}}) {
    print "$num : $_->{artist} - $_->{title}\n";
    $num++;
  }

  print "Download which? > ";
  chomp($req = <STDIN>);
  if ($req =~ /n/) {
    $offset+=100;
    next;
  }
  if ($req =~ /p/) {
    $offset-=100;
    $offset=0 if $offset<0;
    next;
  }
  if ($req !~ /\d+/ or $req < 0 or $req > $num) {
    print "Invalid!\n";
    next;
  }
  last;
}
my $download_url = "http://next.lala.com/api/Player/getTrackUrls?flash=true&webSrc=lala&widgetId=LalaHeadlessPlayer&T=" . $ref->{data}->{songs}->{list}->[$req]->{playToken};
my $play_url = get $download_url;
my $play_ref = from_json($play_url);
my $download_link = $play_ref->{data}->[0]->{url};
print "Getting: $download_link\n";
my $filename = $ref->{data}->{list}->[$req]->{artist} ."-" . $ref->{data}->{list}->[$req]->{title} . ".mp3";
print "Downloading to $filename\n";
system("wget -O '$filename' $download_link");

Eh?

[TheRealMindChild]

I don't hate the idea... so long it isn't the only way to obtain music. Sometimes I get a song stuck in my head and I only want to hear it once or twice, then forget about it for another few years. That's worth the $0.20 so that I don't have to hunt for a torrent or other file sharing media... and wait. But make no mistake; This is no alternative for being able to purchase a whole, unencumbered album that I can listen to indefinitely.

Re:Eh?

[Idbar]

As far as I understood, you can hear it once with no charge, then you have to pay to put it in your locker and listen to it as many times you want.

Although, I think the idea is not bad at all, I believe is way ahead of its time for one reason:
I could use my cellphone (smartphone, iphone like) and listen music over internet, but I'd need an Internet plan. That's not a problem for people using iPhones, but they will certainly prefer to use iTunes. I don't know about the rest.
If I'm not able to listen to my music, without paying for an additional Internet service, the music turns out to be more expensive than it really looks like, and it will interfere with my eventual browsing due to bandwidth consumption.

So, why would I use it anyways?

Every permutation...

[ConceptJunkie]

Every conceivable permutation of DRM restrictions has to be tried and failed until the barely-chordates in the music industry will realize it's a terminally flawed business model.

I imagine the schemes will become more and more elaborate, more and more draconian, and more and more amusing for those of us who've had a new thought since the compact disc was invented.

I'm very happy with mindawn.com and emusic.com, and physical CD purchases for those other things I "just gotta have". Everyone else can take a flying leap.

I will just sit back and enjoy watching the churn.

i like Rhapsody

[FredFredrickson]

Ok, so, I don't like this idea, as many people here will agree- it's just another sign that the labels are out of touch with reality.

That being said- I would like to point out that it's already a losing model with something like Rhapsody in existance, which, btw, I absolutely could not live without! (Thanks to my new Squeezebox Duet, per recommendation of the slashdot crowd. thanks guys!)

Anyway, my point is this: They're late to catch on. Nobody will pay 10 cents to listen to a computer. Listening on the comp should be free, people want to and will pay to take it with them. That being said, 89 cent mp3s are a good idea, this might gain ground.

Re:i like Rhapsody

[shark72]

What if lala were to magically appear on your Duet's screen? That would equalize the playing field a little more. Depending on how bit your Rhapsody library is, it might save you money in the long run to use lala. You're already paying a rental fee to listen to Rhapsody on your Duet; the key difference is that Rhapsody is $14 a month for all you can eat, while lala is a la carte rental.

Much of my music listening is ephemeral. I recently added the new Donna Summer album to my Rhapsody library (it's actually pretty decent). This is how it would break down for me:

• via Rhapsody: $14 a month to keep and listen to the new Donna Summer album for as long as I like
• via iTunes: $10 to have a copy forever
• via lala: $0.80 to keep and listen to it for as long as I like

The thing is that I don't want to have it forever. It is simply not a great album and I'm sure that next month I'll be on to something else.

The other thing is that lala does not carry this album, so it's moot. A 5MM track library makes no difference if they don't have enough of the stuff that you want.

Cracking the "DRM"

[Captain Perspicuous]

Anybody interested in finding out how to get those tracks for free? Turns out these are mp3s, downloaded normally over http. The url something like

http://cfs-listen-80.lala.com/contentfs/content?t=long-list-of-random-chars

Unfortunately, the song seems to not getting stored anywhere on the local hard disk. And when one tries to start downloading the url a second time, a "not found" message is given. Anybody interested of analyzing it some more? :-D

Do it the old school way

[Serenissima]

Buy a 7-dollar cable from Radio Shack and route the Headphone Jack directly into the Microphone jack on your computer (or use 2 computers - how many Slashdot readers really only have one computer?) and then use a free program like Audacity to record it and make an instant, non-DRMed MP3, OGG, etc. 10 cents is not a bad price.

Actually...

[TheSHAD0W]

10 cents is actually my price point for music; when iTunes started selling it for a buck I poo-pooed it and said I'd wait for 10 cents. If it actually happens, I'll start buying music again. If it weren't for the record labels, and independent bands were allowed to sell their own music, even a mediocre band should be able to survive on the income and a great band should make oodles and oodles of cash.

But it'd have to be BUYING the music, not renting. I want a high quality VBR MP3 or AAC file, at the minimum.

If the first time is free, so is every other time

[Tango42]

I don't get it... it says you can listen to a song for free once, and then you have to pay. How do they know I've listened to it before? I can delete cookies, and I can sign up multiple times if I have to. Unless they require some kind of verifiable identification to prove you're a new user (which I do not intend to provide), I can listen to as much music as I like for free. Sounds like a great site to me!

Re:It's called a jukebox

[Martin Blank]

There's a difference between the jukebox at the diner (played for public consumption) and playback in one's home, car, bike, etc (played for private consumption). The intention is the differentiating factor: even if you can hear it outside the house, it's intended primarily for the people in the house, and therefore a private playback.

Re:If you can listen, you can save

[MyDixieWrecked]

However, the quality of the vast majority of streaming music that's available online is not good enough for anyone who cares about what they listen to.

There are these services that are popping up left and right that enable you to download music from youtube (it basically rips the audio out of the FLV files and makes an mp3 that you can download or just creates a playlist of the video files without displaying the video for you to stream from your browser). I hate those things because the quality of youtube (both the video and the audio) are very low. It reminds me of what passed for normal desktop video in 98/99.

For the last decade I've been ripping my CDs the moment I get back to my computer and there are many tracks that I'd never listened to in their full quality. Being that I started ripping at 128kbps and switched to 192 shortly thereafter, I've been throwing out a big chunk of audio data. It wasn't until I listened to some full-quality, lossless tracks that I realized how much quality I was actually throwing away.

Low quality online-only audio is ok for streaming, especially if you're using it as background music from your PC speakers, but if you're going to listen on headphones or through any kind of decent speakers, even the iTunes purchased tracks aren't high quality enough... how can they expect us to pay [anything] for such inferior quality?

Re:It's called a jukebox

[Martin Blank]

I agree that the business model is poor. I won't do it (I buy most of my music as CDs), and I expect it to fail miserably. But comparing this to a jukebox isn't quite accurate, as the copyright laws covering the two situations are different.

Re:It's called a jukebox

[martin-boundary]

It's not *intention* that's the difference, it's *enforceability*. In general, people only pay for goods and services that they cannot or will not make for themselves.

If you're at a diner, then dragging in your own jukebox and playing from that is not possible, because the owners of the premise will object and throw you out. So you can't fill the airwaves with your own music at a diner, and paying for it on the diner's jukebox is the next best thing. But the crucial point is that the owners of the diner are able to enforce this restriction on you the customer.

If you're at home, then nobody can stop you from filling the airwaves of your house with music from your own jukebox (assuming it's not too loud etc), so you just do it, and you wouldn't dream of paying for the privilege.

Enforceability is the key with all those issues. Take the diner's owners. They might play whatever music they like in the diner for their customers without licensing the music, as you can easily do in your own home or car. But public premises can be entered by anybody, so it's easy for the local RIAA outfit to *enforce* the licensing requirement in this case - they just send someone to check up on the business.

So it's not really *intention* that matters, it's whether someone else can reasonably do something about it and will.

Re:(cue piano music)

[MerrickStar]

Don't forget she can also seemingly recognize good songwriting when she hears it, even if she doesn't know where it came from.

Re:Mr Robertson is himself a huge problem

[billcopc]

Yeah you hit the nail in the head. Michael Robertson did one good thing years ago, that was to found MP3.com. Then he proceeded to destroy it. That was enough to make me hate him, but of course he had to continue ruining everything he touched.

Linspire ? joke.
SIPphone ? stillborn.
MP3tunes ? *crickets*

There's one thing music people hate: sellout, and this guy is the king of selling out. He's just a dollar sign with a big, arrogant mouth.

Ssshhh! Don't tell them about "What U Hear"

[Joce640k]

Select "What U Hear" in my sound card settings means I can record whatever I'm listening to.

Free music!