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).
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!
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.
Hmm... doesn't work in tunnels, plays music... brilliant, they've invented the radio. Oh wait... no, we've had that for about 100 years now.
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.
Correct. And the PRS is a British organization, so the deal is national rather than international.
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.****
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.