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?"

Comments

Depends

[Gothic_Walrus]

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.

Re:It was nice while it lasted

[RuBLed]

I will NEVER pay for an internet service.

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?

Re:It was nice while it lasted

[ItsColdOverHere]

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.

Economics, not discrimination

[guyminuslife]

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.

Bittorrent ftw

[Idiomatick]

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.

Re:It was nice while it lasted

[MrAngryForNoReason]

Internet services are even further out of the question, since I
a: Get nothing out of it,
b: I can do it myself better

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?

Re:It was nice while it lasted

[totally bogus dude]

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?

Re:The free Internet was fun, its over

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

I'm not sure what you mean by Facebook and Twitter as "dead man walking." Aren't these two of the fastest growing websites (in terms of members) on the internet? (And if you mean "they'll die eventually" then you too are a dead man walking...)

Wild inaccuracies aside, I think the GP meant that, so far, Facebook has yet to turn a profit. It's getting bigger and bigger and becoming ever more full of features, but there business plan seems to be "if we get big enough, we'll eventually make money through scaling".

I don't know, though... given their vast userbase and the site's general usefulness (*so* much better than Myspace ever was), it really seems like they should be making a good deal of money. But they're not. Even venture capitalists will only throw money at something for so long. :)