Slashdot Mirror
Music Streaming to Overtake Downloads
Barence writes "Streaming will overtake download services to become the dominant force in the online music industry, according to industry insiders. The claim comes in the wake of the PRS cutting the amount of royalties streaming services have to pay songwriters to about a third. Sites will now pay the PRS 0.085p per track, compared to the 0.22p they paid previously. On-demand streaming services still have to pay the record labels about 1p for every track streamed, however. Steve Purdham, CEO of music service We7, says the move will accelerate the growing trend towards online streaming which has seen newcomers such as his site and Spotify attract millions of users in less than a year. 'Over the next 12-24 months you'll see a move towards listening [online],' Purdham told PC Pro. 'Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC? The streaming idea is really the future.'"
Sometimes, I want something to actually be MINE.
idk, because you're not always connected to the internet?
because possession is 9/10ths of ownership (if it's not, it should be).
Sites will now pay the PRS 0.085p per track, compared to the 0.22p they paid previously.
I assume that one p means 0.01 UK pounds but I could be wrong about that.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Can't load it onto your iPod.
Unless you are tied to a PC all the time, (or have a fancy-schmancy iPhone or touch), this idea won't be as universal as good old MP3/WMA/AAC.
I have at least 5 different devices that cannot stream that I use weekly. Also why waste the bandwidth playing the same songs over and over again, yesterday I listened to almost 2 gigs of music and some days I might listen to 3-4x that amount when I listen to my 1980's punk FLAC-encoded albums. I use Comcast that would mean I would use 1/3-2/3 of my bandwidth per month just for background noise.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
What do they know? If there was some knowledge in the industry about the future we wouldn't have the mess we have right now.
I for one have used Spotify in the past. I no longer use it because every couple weeks I had to hunt down a British proxy in order to log in--Spotify isn't available in the US yet, hence the proxy. However for the two months I did use it, I loved it. The music library is a decent size, the playlists work well, and it even has the ability to have collaborative playlists. The creator of uTorrent, Ludvig Strigeus, is involved with Spotify. Granted, Spotify did not stop me from downloading music due to needing to put music on my iPod, I did download a lot less during those months. Spotify allowed me to listen to complete albums without needing to download first. This resulted in me only downloading the albums I really wanted on my iPod. Also, probably the most convienant part of Spotify was that I was able to set my laptop out at parties and people could add almost whatever song they could think of onto the playlist.
Spotify will not replace downloading, but I do believe that it will significantly reduce it.
While I like my CD collection, I have to admit that Spotify is really really handy for casual listening. I have a jukebox of ridiculous proportions at my disposal, for the relatively cheap price of a few audio ads a day. (Which I could also get rid of with the subscription option.)
Streaming has the additional benefit of making it impossible to lose / delete what you don't story anyway.
I don't really think a lot of people will find the buying option very attractive once 3G cell phones acquire this ability... I'm waiting for Spotify for my phone, (they already hired an S60 developer,) but then again I live in Finland. ;)
.: Max Romantschuk
You know, in a world without iPods - these insiders might be right. However that's not even remotely like the real world we live in. It does seem to bear a striking resemblance to the world U.S. cellphone company executives are trying to pretend we live in, though - that world where we pay them some amount of money to buy a service that duplicates what we can do for free without their hardware (yeah, Verizon, I'm looking at YOU).
I for one listen to a heck of a lot more music while I'm out and about than when I'm sitting at/near my computer. I realize I'm probably in the minority in that regard - but I think it's a safe bet that almost everyone that purchases music nowadays wants to listen to it on the go at least part of the time. Without ubiquitous, unlimited, cheap internet access that's not going to be music that's streamed.
#DeleteChrome
Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC? The streaming idea is really the future.
Wait a second. What goes for bandwidth issues that has been a hot topic lately regarding BitTorrent traffic, how will this be any better? If every song you hear through your PC is streamed, my guess is it would choke internet more than the current BitTorrent traffic.
I am the lawn!
A person who owns and runs a streaming music site is saying that people will actually start using the system?
Please that is worse then the head of Government Motors saying that US citizens are going to purchase those small cars he wants to force on everyone.
The future of "radio" is on the Internet, period. Although we'll probably never be fully free of the copyright cartel's grasp when it comes to music, the Internet levels the playing field and gives independent artists and stations equal footing and gives the listener a potentially unlimited amount of choice. And really, it's already happening. You can find sites and streams playing really good music by independent artists that meets or exceeds the quality of any professionally-produced stuff, just like open source software tends to best proprietary offerings because the creators are focused first on quality and their own idea of what's "good" instead of rushing to meet deadlines or achieve monetary gain.
After all the crap that the RIAA has pulled over the last decade, I try very to find music and streams that don't fund them or their artists every time I listen to or buy a song. On of my favorite "stations" is scenesat.com. They play music only from demoscene artists who give their work away freely. If you're into electronica, you'd do well to give them a listen. It's not all chiptunes and rehashed trance, some of it beats the pants off the offerings of similar commercial artists. I'd like to see more stations like this around. If the RIAA and PRS aren't careful, they could start to see some real competition in the near future from musicians who do what they do not because they want a phat paycheck someday, but because they love what they do and want to share their art with anyone who cares to listen.
If you know of more stations that stream independent royalty-free music, please share with the rest of us.
Use Virtual Audio Cable or a program that records everything going through your computer, to record all the music being played, then go back and remove the ads.
The whole issue presupposes a US-centric model, where nearly everybody has access to a decent broadband connection. Here in Australia the best that most people can get at the moment is ADSL2+, which is quite good in itself, but suffers from the fact that we have a skinny pipe between here and the rest of the world. But outside major metro areas, there are still many areas where the best we can get is dialup. I have a property in Tasmania, which despite all the noisy promises about broadband rollouts looks like it is going to completely fall off the radar, and neither the politicians nor the telcos could give a fuck.
In any case, those of us in metro areas are typically capped at something like 4GB/month for AU$49 depending on your plan. Having to stream all content would quickly make a savage dent in that.
If you like transcoded quality, buy your streams all you want. The quality is very low, unless your hearing is as bad as your sight then you may not notice how bad it is.
This is how it works. Take a mp3. Let's call it 128 kbps. Serve is up as various rate streams: 32, 64, 112, 192, 256, 320. All from the same 128 kbps mp3. That's what is done. And no, a 320 kbps transcoded from 128 kbps mp3 is not better, it's likely much worse: the 128 kbps encode removed 90% of the matrial. The 320 kbps transcode of that will remove another 35%, leaving you with, if you like the math, roughly 3^ of the original material. And that's a 320 kbps transcode, nevermind the others.
I also listen to music when I'm travelling around town, etc. but I actually spend more time at work listening to internet radio. If this article, which is undoubtedly astroturf, defines satellite radio as streaming, then that will also draw millions of more people into the streaming category. Like everyone at 24 hour Fitness is listening to the satellite radio service piped through the speakers...
Trying to get people to pay for internet radio is an unrealistic fantasy, though. When I look at sites like cbsradio.com, I wonder if they're planning to switch to a subscription model or try to build revenue through ads..
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I still prefer physical media, like CDs, but I'm warming up to the idea of downloads (legal)..
Now, why not have streaming AND downloading? They both serve a purpose..
Take Spotify; I like having a lot of music at my fingertips, being able to try new stuff, find new stuff by pure coincidence, etc..
The only black cloud on the music-sky is really the labels.. They insist on regions for music. Wait a minute.. regions? I can buy a CD from whichever country I want (unless there's some embargo-crap going on), but once it's online distribution, they want to tell me what I can and cannot listen to? Hell no!
I remember having various odd tracks in my playlists.. I had the theme from Psycho Soldier, The Bottlerockets - Nancy Sinatra, Kim Chi - Octopus Song, and a remix from some DJ-mixalbum of Hyo-ri's Dark Angel.. All those were removed from my view..
Here's a novel idea; let anyone who wants to pay, stream and/or download, no matter where they are.
*joking* I guess culture really IS the new munitions! */joking*
Music companies would love to see digital downloads to disappear. It's destroying thier business model and it seems they are trying a new approach.
If they push the idea that digital downloads are now 'old hat' or 'not needed' and 'persuade' people that streamed music is the 'future'/'cool way' of listening to music then they can retain far more control of the format. Sure lock the vendor(e.g. radio station) into a 3-year deal - when the deal expires hike up the fees and/or the record companies force vendors to stream music directly from record company controlled servers only - thus full control of music property is preserved, artificial scarcety remains and profits increased for record companies.
This has already happened to the newspaper industry here in the UK. A central body controls all publishing rights to newspaper articles.
Of course mobile phone companies like this scenario as well.
I want my music (paid for) to be available for MY convenience to listen to not the other way round.
This stinks of serious astroturfing and a feeble attempt to change consumer's attitudes to ownership.
Just say NO!
Personally I would to see something like; offer a 'lossy compressed' track for very low cost or free. If you really like it - buy a pristine copy of the music (e.g.lossless compressed - flac) the difference in sound quality is obvious. Of course DRM would kill this idea.
Then again record companies seem to be risk adverse or just don't get the nature of the Internet.
Out-of-touch music executives (looking at you Sony!) are hurting the music industry more than anybody else and you cannot blame pirating of music for the decline of an industry. Ultimatly, pointing your finger and blaming something else is not your answer. You need to take stock of your business and figure-out how can you change to meet the ever-changing state of the market. If you think it should be the other way round - well you are doomed to failure - it's inevitable.
There must be "internet savvy" executives out there who can do something credible and create a workable solution.
1) You might not always have a network connection but still want to listen to music (for example, if you are traveling or your network is down).
2) You might want to take your music with you on a portable device.
3) Streaming kills battery life on mobile devices, especially if embedded in flash.
4) Your streaming music provider might not have, or might stop carrying, a song you really want to listen to.
5) Streaming providers may not have that eclectic genre of music you like.
6) You will likely have to pay subscription fees at some point, which means you keep paying for the same music over and over again.
7) Streaming does not necessarily provide music at its highest quality (in fact, it likely does not). If you want to listen to a recording at its original fidelity, streaming is a bad way to do it.
8) Streaming makes you dependent on whatever technology your streaming provider chooses to use. If you don't want to, or can't use that technology, you are out of luck.
9) You can't sell your copy of an audio stream to someone else when you no longer want it.
10) Streaming often takes much more CPU than local playback (for example, Pandora, which uses Flash)
11) Streaming often has advertisements in it, but you don't want to listen to ads or see them so you can listen to music.
12) Streaming may eventually come to be dominated by companies such as clearchannel, which will provide streams that cater to the largest groups of listeners, but exclude what you really like.
to quote " 'Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC? The streaming idea is really the future.'" Basically, lets use our computers for radio, so we can go back to the good old days like frakin clear channel or some other obnoxious controlling entity. Keep the downloads up, the trading up, and soon we will rid ourselves of another obnoxious leftover from the 50's business model.
****Trying to understand and learn, all the time.****
Yes, I do see some valid advantages of streaming audio, especially for radios. I use iMeem on my gPhone extensively since it plays just fine and lets me discover new music similar to my taste without forcing me to pick song by song myself. On the other hand, personally selected songs/albums will never make sense to store exclusively online. Yes, some sort of repository for me to download it do various devices would be cool but do not expect me to let go of physical posession of at least one copy of my stuff. Unless the big record company bosses come to their senses and switch to a mass distribution model ready for this century. Make songs 10c and albums 2$ and see how your unit sales explode. If you make music so affordable and convenient to download it beats the pirate model, just as many (or close to that) people who now pirate the stuff will buy it.
"Industry Insiders' seems to be Steve Purdham, CEO of a music streaming service. Nice plant.
Long before nubs found napster..
We have a laptop hooked right into the mixer
The club hooked up DSL for 2 nights
Were uploading the stream to our Shoutcast server
Parties in Toronto & Chicago are picking up the stream
by the way... there is a nice little open source app called streamripper that allows you to record the music should it be good enough.
So yeah... good idea recording industry stay ahead of the curve..
Kill your TV
I use itunes all the time, and rip my own CDs (and download the albums I own on vinyl), in total I think my library is around 140 gigs. Streaming as an alternative would suck because I would NEVER be able to remember all those albums and artists! I love to browse through the music that has taken years to accumulate and spot something I haven't heard in ages and play it.
If someone deleted my iTunes library I would never be able to get it all again precisely because I would never be able to recall everything in there.
Having said that, streaming services like Spotify are fantastic for their own niche. A lot of people I know that are maybe not as into music as some, use spotify as their sole music source and find that satisfactory. Then you have the great ability to just type in some artist or famous song that you wouldn't like enough to buy or even download, but want to check out.
and there are the communal aspects of it, like making a playlist for a party that anyone who is invited to can add songs to. This is a very useful service I've used a few times to great effect.
then I would change to all streaming. I think it would be great to enter an artist or album name and stream all that music or to be able to pick and to create a playlist of specific songs that I can stream to my devices. Until then I'll download my music and create my playlists on my iPod. Give me more options is what I, and it seems a lot of people, want. So, I'll continue to stream music to find new artists and download them to create my perfect playlist.
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
This looks to me like just the next step beyond DRM.
With DRM, you possess a copy but can only use it ways the copyright holder lets you. With this "streaming" model, you don't even possess the copy.
Probably the "industry insiders" think this is a way to get people to rent music instead of buying it (you pay for what you listen to, every time you listen). Good luck with that.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Instead of playing that recording you made you can just tune in again
Not in the United States, where 3G service is still over $700 per year, even in 2009. A lot of people who don't use a lot of voice minutes carry an iPod Touch and a prepaid phone instead of an iPhone for precisely that reason.