Free Legal Music To End Piracy?

[admin]

Free music services such as Spotify is battling music piracy in a totally different way, but is it working? Spotify and other similar services already have millions of users, despite most being region limited at the moment, and having almost no studio involvement other than the license fees being paid. They work by asking users to put up with ads during the music playback, or to pay for a monthly subscription which, for the cost of a couple of song purchases on iTunes, gives you access to a huge library of music.

A Guardian article (posted via The Age) examines these services and ask why are the music studios not putting more effort into these kind of services, instead of spending huge amounts of money on court cases and political lobbying. It also highlights the issue of "lost profits", arguing that those who download illegally are not the kind of people to ever pay for music, even if the illegal sources are wiped out, and that those who love music may also downloads lots of illegal song and at the same time, also buy a lot of illegal songs. It also correctly points out that singles sales for 2009 are at an all time record (in the UK, where the article was originally published), and this is before the Christmas period is counted and during one of the worst recessions the world has ever endured. Piracy rates have also been high during this period, so you do wonder about the connection between piracy and "lost" profits.

More:

http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/mp3s/the-death-of-dodgy-downloads-20091125-jq9n.html

[drfsupercenter]

I'd dig free legal music, but only if you could *download* it.

Why would I stream music that has ads if I could just go listen to the official music video at YouTube? Or even Imeem?

But yeah, if they had downloadable mp3s that were of good quality (like, not 128kbps), I'd be for it.

[admin]

Spotify does have an offline mode, allowing you to store 3,333 tracks locally, but you need to be with the premium paid account to use it.

[drfsupercenter]

Oh, it has its own software client?
That reeks of DRM.

If they were mp3s I'd consider signing up...

[admin]

Yes, DRM is involved, but it is necessary in this case. If they used DRM free MP3s, then how would they be able to stop you from listening to the songs once you stop paying for the subscription? Spotify is a music leasing system, rather than a buying system, and digital leasing systems will always have to have some sort of DRM.

I don't mind DRM if it is transparent and causes no fuss for the end user. Spotify users are usually quite thrilled with the service, so the only real complaint about the DRM system is the lack of interoperability. Spotify doesn't work on iPods and other music players, but it does on iPhone, android and Symbian phones, which covers nearly all the smart phones, if you have the premium account, which costs around $USD 14 per month.

Spotify is really just a trial at the moment though, a very limited one for only a few European countries and the UK, so nobody else will be able to sign up ... yet

DRM for purchased tracks, now that's a different matter, and luckily, it's mostly history.

[drfsupercenter]

Well if I were to go that route - a more "leasing" route, I'd get a Zune Pass, seeing as how I have a Zune and that just makes sense. Not sure how the prices compare but that's an "all you can eat" music downloading program - the only catch is that like Spotify, once you cancel, your songs no longer work.

The problem I have with DRM is that I don't use Windows Media Player... and I hate using those software clients... I want songs I can just put on one of my several portable media devices with no fuss, not that PlaysForSure crap, as my Rockboxed mp3 players certainly can't play that.

I'll stick to just buying the songs, or CDs and ripping them myself as I usually do... until they come out with a free mp3 downloading system, in which case I'd be all for it.

[MilesAhead]

Hmmmmm, now if I could just get Wal-Mart to give all their stuff away to prevent shoplifting!! I mean, I'm seeing Wal-Mart ads on TV all day anyway so...

[Budreaux]

hmmmmm, now if i could just get wal-mart to give all their stuff away to prevent shoplifting!! I mean, i'm seeing wal-mart ads on tv all day anyway so...

qft

[admin]

Well, you can now get free movie tickets by helping to promote the movie on social networks and blogs here in Australia, so free stuff at Walmart may not be too far away ...

[drfsupercenter]

I got a free ticket to The Dark Knight just for buying some food at Kroger.

Just depends how badly the studio wants your loyalty.

[admin]

I would say that with digital content, it's much easier to give away then say even movie tickets, because there are physical properties associated with going to the cinema that cannot be discounted.

If you had a magical device that allowed you to clone any item in Walmart and then you take this cloned item out of the store, have you really committed shoplifting? This is why those "would you steal a car" ads are so misleading, because you're not stealing a car, you're cloning it, and the original owner of the car wouldn't notice, or even if he notices, wouldn't really care. The only people who do care are the car manufacturers and the car showrooms, because it might mean one less car that they sell (although if you argue you would never have been able to afford a car anyway, then have they really lost anything)?

So it is still theft, of intellectual property, as you are not paying for someone's work and design, but there are fewer victims. That's the "problem" with digital, it's just too easy to copy. But by the same notion, one can increase consumption by decreasing the price without having to suffer a hit from increased manufacturing costs, and probably end up making more money. You can't make it free, but you can make it cheap enough so that it's not worth it to obtain the illegal version, and I think given the option of something cheap and something illegal, hardly anyone will choose the illegal option (unless they can't even afford the cheap, in which case, it means no lost sales anyway).

Content owners will think it risky, because once you lower the price of something, it's hard to get it back up again. But one day, someone will try it and I think it will be successful.

Anyway, this is all going a bit off topic, but what Spotify is doing is no different to what radio and TV stations have always done, provide free music in exchange for ads. And their subscription model is basically the same model as cable/subscription TV.

[dr_ml422]

I could count the CDs I bought in my 45 years on this planet. While I don't scour the net for music, as my DJ friend gives me all I need, I would though given not only the ridiculous prices, but also the remaining fact that since day 1, in every CD there's only about a few good songs anyway. So basically they're a bunch of moronic cry babies. I even know a singer that started crying about Piracy, and how it was affecting her. I almost offered her a drink after the the 2nd or 3rd pour me, pour me, pour me a drink.

Otn, Block Busters is closing a lot of stores here in the Apple. Now if it's economy related, or pirate related I don't know. I love the 1 by my place though, they've arrived to the point of giving you 2 free boxes of chocolate, a micro-popcorn, and a Sprite. Rent 3 flics and it's a pretty decent night. I'll leave the rest to your imagination regarding the 3 flics. Lol...