Slashdot Mirror
Last.fm To Start Charging International Users
tdobson writes "The popular online radio service Last.fm has announced that users outside of the UK, USA and Germany will need to start paying 3 Euros (about $4.40 USD/£2.80 GBP) per month to continue streaming music on their service. Last.fm doesn't offer much of a reason as to the change, other than writing on their blog that '[t]here will be a 30 track free trial, and we hope this will convince people to subscribe and keep listening to the radio.' Already, there appears to be quite a backlash in responses so far, amongst subscribers and non-subscribers of all nationalities — has this killed Last.fm's appeal, globally?"
has this killed Last.fm's appeal, globally?
Depends on what they're using it for. I might be a minority, but I hardly ever use the radio feature - I use the site as a way to track what I've been listening to, and use the recommendations to find new artists to buy or download from iTunes or Amazon.
Goo goo g'joob.
Music wants to be free.
(Also movies, games, software and books. Porn is already free.)
I'm with you AC except for that line. If you are willing to pay for a tangible thing or a real world service that you love, why not an internet based one? Or you only love it because it was free and nothing else? I find that reasoning very popular with other people too. Any insights why people?
Shoutcast to the rescue, yes you have no control over the track selection but it's free, the actual streaming providers are completely decentralised and I've found that recently I'm not really using the next and ban features of Last.fm. Yes Last.fm will be missed but it was by no means indispensible.
This is simply a realization that free won't pay for their massive bandwidth costs (and no doubt the royalties they need to pay).
A million websites have been launched, and died, after their operators realized that advertising could never cover their costs.
If you look around, banners for sites that have 2 million page views p/month go for as low as US$ 45 p/month. Even if you plaster a site with them you can't scrape a living out of this. Sure, some struck it lucky, but most will die.
Facebook, Twitter, cool toys, but dead men walking ; and they will be replaced after they die. Will you pay a monthly subscription fee to use either one of them?
Facebook is just a blog, a few hacks can string existing blogs together and create the same functionality. Twitter can be done in P2P fashion.
The good times were good, now the money men come calling.
I'm willing to pay for good enough internet services (like Linux Weekly News for example) though, but this is like a punch in the face. Most of the content in last.fm is fucking user contributed!
I also used to pay for Spotify but I cancelled my account when they suddenly decided to drop just about all independent and small-label bands that they didn't have formal on-paper contracts with. 90% of my crust-punk and power-noise/industrial playlists went red because of that, and they still haven't re-added a single band that were dropped. At the same time they also implemented region-based limits.
Back to CDs I guess... or.. err.. what.cd? I dunno...
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
I will NEVER pay for an internet service.
Okay, you're certainly within your rights in chosing to never pay for an internet service. So, in your ideal world, who exactly should be paying? There is a substantial cost involved in offering services on the internet to a large group of users, especially bandwidth-intensive services such as streaming music. On top of that, you have to pay a license or royalties. So who should pay for that, if the beneficiary of these offerings, the end user, is already taken out of the equation? Sure, free lunches are nice, but how do you explain that you should be the only one who should be getting one, and why other people (such as the operators of last.fm) should be paying for your free lunch?
I haven't touched last.fm since I got spotify. I've heard it's not available world-wide, but seeingas it's free and legal, surely this is the future of public music?
It has an iTunes-ish inerface, but has access to millions of artists, and the normal selection of radio-stations. As Well as the great features of being able to make and share play-lists with friends or create an open playlist for a party.
Do many people here use it? IS it a known service? And does anyone want an invite?
The big thing is international licensing. Pandora doesn't limit its services because it's xenophobic or because it thinks foreigners shouldn't be able to listen to online music---they do it because the copyright holders are nutty about controlling the markets abroad. I recall reading somewhere that the licensing costs generally don't justify the expenses for international audiences. (Something like this.) So you can either block access to international traffic, or you can try to make it profitable. Last.fm probably isn't losing much (relatively speaking) by losing its international audience, but apparently they still want to keep their service available overseas.
So, to the posters above, please stop complaining about discrimination. This policy is most likely just the trickle-down piss from the record companies.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
Is this IP-based discrimination okay? We should have a (global, of course) law against it...you should neither be discriminated against because of skin, color, race, nor IP :)
Honestly, I *don't* like geographical borders re-emerging in the _global_ Internet world...this is not a good direction. Resist the beginnings!
If they are based in the EU can they stop people from other EU countries using their service?
Also, will i still be able to listen while i'm stuck in some god awful business hotel in france or spain?
Pandora, spotify, last.fm, Hulu. None of which are available in canada or most places outside the US. Bittorrent however is still free in both senses. That they couldn't roll these out internationally is bull. Maybe a few months lag time max to fix the deals internationally. Plus last.fm clearly has SOMETHING in place since they used to stream to everyone. It is somewhat amazing that i've been able to illegitimately listen to streaming music for 10 years now and business STILL hasn't got it right. I guess I should expect a good legit streaming show/movie site in about 2030.
I'm actually a Last.fm subscriber, and am more than happy to pay the meagre 3 euros, but being forced into it? Personally I don't use the paid features much at all, it's as much wanting to support the (excellent) service as it is trying to get value for money.
I wonder if they'll lose that sort of support when they move their business toward a more corporate stance.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
What is the problem then? If you get nothing out of Last.FM as an internet service, and can do better yourself then create your own streaming music service.
The contradiction of saying that you get nothing out of a service while at the same time complaining you don't have access to it is clear. As is the arrogance of saying that internet services have no worth because 'I can do it myself better'. If you can then why don't you?
Your argument that a service has no value because it doesn't offer something you can keep is rather flawed. Would you not buy a hotdog because you can only eat it once? Would you not go to the theatre or cinema because it is a finite experience?
About anything. Seriously, it's three dollars a month! I've had a subscription for some time now because I've found TONS of music I would have never found otherwise. Their streaming is great. If my ten cents a day helps keep them afloat and allows me to keep discovering new artists, it's completely worth it. And if you're that cheap anyway, hit up a proxy or do without. There are always shoutcasts and icecasts out there. They suck, but it's an alternative for the financially challenged.
Those last responses don't hold up to even a superficial analysis.
a: Get nothing out of it
It's already been established that the person in question (possibly you) "loved" the last.fm service and used it regularly, so claiming they "get nothing out of it" is obviously hogwash.
b: I can do it myself better
This isn't always the case, and in this particular example doesn't seem to be. The OP stated they'd found new bands via the last.fm service, so at the very least last.fm must have music s/he/you doesn't have. Further, last.fm has access to a large database of listening habits it can use to recommend things to you, which is something which I'm pretty sure even a mighty AC doesn't have. Also, are there any alternatives? implies knowledge that it is providing something they can't provide themself (or they can't provide themself, if you're the same AC).
I think the "tangible" argument seems reasonable, in a completely unrational kind of way (but we're humans, so we're supposed to be irrational). So, last.fm is a streaming service where you'd be paying for an "experience" rather than an actual product you can keep. What about paying for music or games or videos that you download, rather than coming in a box? Are these intangible as well, even though you can interact with it and keep it forever (I'm assuming no DRM so you can make backups and burn physical copies and so on)? Where does the line between "tangible" and "intangible" get drawn, for you?
Assuming you pay for your internet connection, what makes that tangible? It is, after all, just a service that will cease to be of any benefit to you if you stop paying the monthly fee. What about electricity bills?
I guess these fall under the "cannot do myself" reasoning; what I don't understand is why internet services are automatically excluded from this, despite it being quite obvious that there's a lot of things you can't reasonably do yourself that others can. Yes, you could build your own last.fm-like service and somehow get loads of people to use it, but I don't think it meets the "reasonably" criteria; as in, it'd be a fuckload of work. But somehow not having to do all of that work while still enjoying the benefits it'd bring isn't worth a few dollars a month?
No, they just have a policy of not selling on their DB to third parties, that huge DB of listening habits is used for the service alone.
Wes
Dear last.fm, I have deleted my account because of this ethnic discrimination.
I've been a subscriber for a while because I liked the added features at the time (artist and tag radios), and 3 (see if you can pay in GBP, that's a lot cheaper ;) a month is close to nothing if you get any value from the service. I pay even more for spotify, and I'm happy with that too.
I think the reason it is simplistic is because the issue is simplistic: run an online service paid for by advertising to your users and you are not likely to be profitable, end of story.
[FUCK BETA]
Why would I pay for it just because it comes from a web site?
Perhaps because it is possible to influence the type of content played to a much wider degree than by changing frequency and it have the ability to give recommendations based on your preferences. Which airwave radio station can provide that service?
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
I'm located in Sweden but regularly buy CDs from Amazon.co.uk after following links of recommendations on last.fm.
That's a referral, isn't it?
Besides, I just can't believe event promoters aren't flocking to the service and then paying last.fm based on the number of "I attended this event" or some such.
Considering the potential gold mine that last.fm surely must be I can only speculate that this move was intentional to avoid hefty infrastructure investments for markets with only marginal direct contribution to the bottom line.
Short term - great move.
Long term - it'll be just another MTV.
OK the case for me purchasing an account on one of the US vpn providers keeps getting stronger. 4.40*12=52.80. Witopia provides VPN at USD 36/yr, and allows me to use it for the general case of any US service that geolocks (Hulu, Pandora, and the list keeps getting longer)
Why would I give Last more money for effectively less service?
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
If you pay you get to listen to the music you want and not the music the ads industry wants you to listen to.
...the world wide web gets chopped into bite-sized chunks, to be gobbled up by overweight bonus-grabbers, their quivering jowls dripping slime while they stuff their gassy wobbling guts. Just like with the whole globalisation thing really... borders which are broken down for the grabbers are reinstated for the 'consumers' using licensing and technology. Vote with your wallets, people! It is the only vote which counts in a capitalist world.
--frank[at]unternet.org
We Europeans already have Spotify and plenty of other sources. I'd be MORE inclined to pay if everyone had to pay, not only we. I'm tired of being treated as "less worthy" just because I'm from mainland Europe. I say let them stay cocks, see how many customers they make. What laws prohibit them from making money here? Advertisements are allowed and as far as I know our laws are generally quite lax.
Last.fm *is* advertising.
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
>>>Tangible things are just that, tangible. I have it now, I have it tomorrow, so the value retains.
So you never rent VHS or DVD movies??? Or a car? Or a plane or train ride to XX destination? Simply because you can't keep those services in your pocket or on a bookshelf?!?!? That's just weird. Renting last.fm is no different than renting Satellite radio, satellite tv, or cable tv on a monthly basis. I'd happily pay that fee.
You're just one of those stupid Entitlement Generation persons, who thinks he should be able to steal service from others without payment. "I want it free therefore I should have it!" Reminds me of my 8 year old.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
There's nothing stopping them from becoming the Nielsen of music. Theres lot's of ways to sell aggregated analysis of the database without actually selling the database.
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
>>>Don't even start by saying you have to pay royalty fees to the Media Nazis, that's just pure corruption.
Yes but still relevant. I couldn't afford to create a radio station due to those fees. Neither could you. Like it or not, those fees must be factored into your costs - either cover them with subscriptions, or go bankrupt.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Does that actually count as coffee? If so, then it shouldn't.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
Nope. AFAIK You can't leave Pandora streaming in the background while you work without it nagging you once an hour to ask if you are there.. and if you don't respond, it shuts off. :-p That and their recent US only policy (see comment below.)
Depends if they're smart and do the geolocation on the audio servers as well. Streaming audio through Tor would likely be so high latency as to be unlistenable.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs