Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

RealNetworks Invests in Legitimizing Free Music 298

Posted by timothy from the hammers-not-only-for-murder dept.
Rollie Hawk writes "Want some free music? Silly question, I know. But how about legally? That's exactly what RealNetworks is offering. You may remember RealNetworks from about ten years ago when it was one of the leaders in audio streaming technology. After a decade of steaming becoming more widespread in both audience and medium, RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing. This, however, didn't stop them from jumping into the post-Napster song-swapping vacuum with their Rhapsody program. I can't comment on how good Rhapsody is since I've never met anyone who used it. That probably says enough right there. In an attempt to rev-up their subscription-based music service, they are now resorting to giving away 25 songs each month. According to RealNetworks chairman and chief executive Rob Glaser, "by having a free service that is legal, it flattens the issue of 'Why use an illegal service?'" Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RealNetworks Invests in Legitimizing Free Music More

RealNetworks Invests in Legitimizing Free Music

Comments Filter:

  • steaming? (Score:5, Funny)

    by august sun ( 799030 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:04AM (#12356822)
    I imagine a decade of steaming (sic) would takes its toll on anybody

  • Man flamebait or what. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ckwop ( 707653 ) * on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:04AM (#12356825) Homepage

    <news>"Want some free music? Silly question, I know. But how about legally? That's exactly what RealNetworks is offering.</news>

    <flamebait>You may remember RealNetworks from about ten years ago when it was one of the leaders in audio streaming technology. After a decade of steaming becoming more widespread in both audience and medium, RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing. This, however, didn't stop them from jumping into the post-Napster song-swapping vacuum with their Rhapsody program. I can't comment on how good Rhapsody is since I've never met anyone who used it. That probably says enough right there.</flamebait>

    <news>In an attempt to rev-up their subscription-based music service, they are now resorting to giving away 25 songs each month. According to RealNetworks chairman and chief executive Rob Glaser, "by having a free service that is legal, it flattens the issue of 'Why use an illegal service?'" </news>

    <flamebait>Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs."</flamebait>

    I'm not interested in the opinion of the submitter, timothy, I just want the god-damn news. Yes Real media are an easy target but you hurt the bloggers fight for acceptance as part of the media when you post stuff like this. Do you ever see the BBC saying "Real media is just crappy because I say it is?". I think not..

    Simon.

    • Holy shit, I know. Why do we need all the hating for a news entry? This could have been 1/3 the size and we could have saved hating on Real for the comments. This is when a moderated story system would come in handy, because this would definitely receive (-1) Flamebait.
      • Ahh, but you see, to edit a story submission would involve, well, editing, which is something the editors won't stoop to do. I mean, journalism is all about running submissions verbatim, isn't it?

    • Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by august sun ( 799030 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:14AM (#12356872)
      At the same time, a large part of the added value of blog news is the unique perspective of the poster injected into the stories. If I wanted the facts and nothing but the facts I'd stick to FoxNews (joke!). I (and I don't think I'm alone on this) come here for the techie perspective, be it on the front page, or in the bowels of the comments. Besides, it's very clear where he's opining and where he's reporting facts (you did well enough sorting it out for yourself)
      • Its not a "techie" perspective, its a biased opinion from someone who doesn't like to pay for music.

        The point here is to be balanced, not something that pushes a single point of view to inflame or troll. This is not a high school newspaper.
      • I (and I don't think I'm alone on this) come here for the techie perspective, be it on the front page, or in the bowels of the comments.

        What is the "techie perspective?" In my experience, it falls hugely, dramatically, and beyond-reunification-ally into two camps: (1) those techies that run, or understand the running of businesses, and (2) those that don't.

        That dichotomy, which of course spins off in all sorts of directions (like, should businesses be allowed to exist at all, and similar pablum), cert

    • Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:5, Funny)

      by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 ( 812236 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:18AM (#12356885) Journal
      The summary is just trying to live up to the /. motto. Here's a rule of thumb:

      <news>*</news> = News for nerds
      <flamebait>*</flamebait> = Stuff that matters
    • As time goes by whatever value it has gets hidden behind more and more horse shit.

    • I'm not interested in the opinion of the submitter [...] you hurt the bloggers fight for acceptance as part of the media when you post stuff like this

      Come on now, the only people I know that give any credence to bloggers in the first place are themselves and the odd 'traditional' media-related reporter without a clue (e.g. The Guardian's Media Online section in the UK).

      If I actually want to see technology news, rather than opinion from the off, I read The Register and New Scientist, not this place re-ha

      • I've seen quite a few bloggers post about new hardware, software, and reviews of stuff that isnt offically released.

        Hell even journalists and reporters are using blogs to give more details that released in the news.

        Also, if you live in a place like China, a US blog site might be a place to post about information that you cant otherwise talk about.

        Blogs might be teh suck, but they have a place in a sound bite you get only 1 point of view news sites.

        Like my Slashdot blog post? (-;
      • And yet, here you are. What brings you here?

    • Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @06:05AM (#12357058) Journal
      Do you ever see the BBC saying "Real media is just crappy because I say it is?". I think not..

      No, of course not. Mainstream news outlets reserve those kinds of comments for companies that will never advertise with them. You'll find lots of (paid-for) faux-news reports on mainstream media that talk about how bad Kazaa and other P2P programs are, because they say so (or rather, their advertisers say so).

    • Even the paragraphs are slightly biased. Using words like "resorting" as though its a fact. The wording should be less biased and more neutral. The word shouldn't have been included. It should have read:
      In an attempt to rev-up their subscription-based music service, they are now ... giving away 25 songs each month. According to RealNetworks chairman and chief executive Rob Glaser, "by having a free service that is legal, it flattens the issue of 'Why use an illegal service?'"

    • Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:5, Informative)

      by aichpvee ( 631243 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @06:14AM (#12357090) Journal
      They're not even "giving" away 25 songs. It's 25 plays.

      From this [excite.com] more complete AP article:

      Users who download RealNetworks' new Rhapsody software will get to select the 25 tracks - it could be 25 different songs played once apiece or the same song played 25 times - from a library of more than 1 million tunes, the company said Tuesday.

      Forgive me if I'm not busting down Real's door to get this.

    • I love generalizations in articles. I tried the free Rhapsody player for 30 days back when they had it for free -- this was summer of 2002 approximately. I showed it to two people, both of whom still subscribe to this day. By those standards, Rhapsody is used by 67% of people who try it.

      My day would go by a lot faster if I read news without having to look around the gigantic chip on the writer's shoulder.
      • Ditto to that, when I signed up for cable through RCN in the Boston metro area, they gave me a 30-day trial of Rhapsody, this was two years ago, my subscription's still going strong. They've even got some moderately obscure stuff that I listen to, even a couple video game soundtracks (albeit GTA soundtracks.)

  • Free... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bobvanvliet ( 569014 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:07AM (#12356836)
    From TFA:

    For $9.99 a month, users will get an unlimited number of songs each month. For another $5, they can transfer the tunes to selected portable music players.

    So your free music is DRMed to death? You're also gonna have to pay to put your "free" tunes on a DAP? Free as in beer locked in a safe I guess.
    • Basicaly what you have here is exactly the same service as napster.com , its a complete rip off , and im betting as soon as you stop paying that fee the musics DRM would lock you out
      • Erm, no. For those of us who listen to music on our computers, it's a fscking bargain. For less than the cost of a CD per month, I can legally and hassle-free[*] listen to just about anything ever recorded.

        [*] Well, other than running Windows...
    • The worst part is that although they advertise the price as a monthly fee, you're charged $10/mo for a whole year right from the start. Want to use their service for a month? $120. (actually i seem to remember it being more like $90 or 100, but whatever. a lot.)

      I got a free two-week trial... was a mess, and their online unsubscribing option was broken. Had to cancel the credit card payment and send a bunch of e-mails to get my money back after they charged me. All of these things don't really help th

  • Maybe on Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kerrle ( 810808 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:09AM (#12356841) Journal
    ...RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing...

    Certainly that was the case the last time I tried to install it in Windows, but I've actually been fairly impressed by their current Linux client.

    I still use Totem for most of my A/V needs, but RealPlayer is actually fairly competent on Linux, without being overblown.

    • Re:Maybe on Windows... (Score:3, Informative)

      by B747SP ( 179471 )
      RealPlayer is actually fairly competent on Linux, without being overblown.

      Real Player is actually fairly competent on Win32 if you install it in the form of Real Alternative [codecguide.com]. Its effectively Real Player without the ad/spy/bloat ware and Media Player Classic bundled in a Win32 installer that Your Mumma could install. Very nice.

      Just noticed that the same folks are doing something called Quicktime Alternative [codecguide.com]. Must give that a try too :-)

    • The latest version, 10, has actually been very well behaved on several XP computers I've installed it on. Maybe the combined pressure of the BBC and offended geeks has made a difference. Nowadays I'd pick Realplayer over Windows Media any day.

    • Re:Maybe on Windows... (Score:3, Informative)

      by rokzy ( 687636 )
      Mac version is fine too (am currently using to watch snooker live on BBC).

      I think the problem is just that MS treats its users like crap so everyone else just follows their lead. Linux and Mac don't have a large enough user base to play the "fling enough shit... some will stick" game with them, and the Mac/linux users are also more likely to seek out alternatives.
    • Works fine on my macs too. I don't know what version I have, it is a few years old, but new enough to deal with the streaming audio sources I use. I actually click on realplayer even when I have a choice as it works as well or better for NPR shows (the main taudio I stream) than other methods.

  • How free? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bugbeak ( 711163 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:09AM (#12356842)
    How free is this music? What can I do with it once I download it? Can I take it somewhere else and listen it? Can I pass it onto my friend?

    Most imporantly, who does that file belong to once it's downloaded?

    • Re:How free? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by damsa ( 840364 )
      It's free as in beer, not free as in speech.

    • The free songs are streamed, not downloaded (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CdBee ( 742846 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:37AM (#12356969)
      I read yesterday that Rhapsody is a streaming and download service, and the "free" songs are songs you listen to by streaming. they aren't really free as you don't get to keep them. (its actually "25 free streamed songs per month", not "25 songs to play as you like, every month"

      the whole service is based on listening to remote files. If you want to burn CDs you pay an extra charge over what you already stumped up, for a DRM-controlled AAC download. Which to me makes Rhapsody a rather expensive radio station.

      • Re:The free songs are streamed, not downloaded (Score:4, Insightful)

        by phalse phace ( 454635 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:47AM (#12356999)
        "the "free" songs are songs you listen to by streaming. they aren't really free as you don't get to keep them."

        Unless you capture the streaming audio

      • Minor wording nitpick, you actually do get to keep the files, Rhapsody stores any song it completely buffered in a file under the Rhapsody directory called radfile.rcf. No clue as to what format it's in, although I recall sniffing traffic one day and noticing that Rhapsody does all of its authentication and downloading of music via HTTPS.

        It'd be a blessing if someone could spend the time to come up with a proxy to authenticate Rhapsody locally, since once it's buffered a song it doesn't download it again,
      • Which to me makes Rhapsody a rather expensive radio station.

        This promo sounds lame, but don't discount Rhapsody's model. It has nothing to do with radio -- it has to do with listening to any of 50,000 CDs, instantly, from your computer. I understand that you can't keep them afterward and you can't put them on your iPod and it doesn't have every single CD, but still -- you can listen to any of 50,000 CDs, instantly, from your computer. That's all they promise, and it's hard to understand how cool it is unt

  • not everything can or should be free (Score:4, Informative)

    by R.D.Olivaw ( 826349 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:10AM (#12356847)
    " Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs."

    You want the whole universe of music to be free? 25 songs is about a free CD every month. That's a good bargain. Do you usually buy more than one CD per month?
    Furthermore, you can select 25 songs from 25 different albums if you so wish. This wy you can get onl ythe songs yo ucare about r if you really want to sample albums to see whether you like them or not, then that give you quite a range to select from.
    all that assuming that they have an extensive store. Of course it all doesn't matter if they only have 20 albums that interest you

  • The've released Rhapsody 3.0 too early (Score:5, Interesting)

    by behemot ( 653227 ) * on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:14AM (#12356866)
    I've been looking forward to a new version of Rhapsody for some time and was disappointed after trying it today. While the media indicates that Real is banking its whole business on Rhapsody, it did not invest nearly enough into developing the software and into testing it before release.

    New features in Rhapsody 3.0 attempt to mimick iTunes functionality - now Rhapsody allows users to add music tracks from the hard drive to its library. Rhapsody crashed on the very first run when trying to conenct to my account, exhibits bad behavior when resizing windows, has very limited interface options. It does not match the even the functionality of iTunes and certainly not its ease of use. You cannot remove 2 second gaps in CD recordings made in Rhapsody, there is no cross-fading between tracks and there are no criteria for creating automatic playlists.

    Overall it seems like a very last-minute update to the previous version which was done without much design effort going into it. I do not think that it will create any waves of excitement among users.

  • Commentary??? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by smokeslikeapoet ( 598750 )

    Is this Slashdot: News for nerds or Slashdot: commentary for the mindless.

    I know that most paid music services are a waste of money if I want quality music. But why do I need a /. contributer to tell me that Rhapsody is worthless.

    This is how the article should have read:
    In order to enlist a subscriber base Real's Rhapsody service is now offering 25 free songs for members.

    There, no opinion, only news. Or is Slashdot so unpopular that the contributors need to generate news via provocation?

    • Right, and that would have been roundly shouted down as nothing more than a Slashvertisement, by people such as yourself... "Facts" isn't equivalent to "news". In fact, for the ininitiated, (accurate) context and commentary can be as important than the unvarnished facts, because facts can be misleading:

      "Real Offers 25 Free Songs Per Month!"

      To my elderly maiden Aunt (or any fuckwit who doesn't bother to RTFA), that probably sounds like a great deal.

      To anyone who knows Rhapsody, or who actually reads th

  • 25 Songs (Score:2, Funny)

    by blindcoder ( 606653 )
    Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs.

    Well, it _does_. At least the universe of music worth listening to.

  • i hope its not crap still (Score:3, Informative)

    by phreakv6 ( 760152 ) <phreakv6@gmCOLAail.com minus caffeine> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:15AM (#12356874) Homepage
    Nice move.
    but.. i hope its not slow and bloated still. I bet its still a complete adware-loaded pile of garbage.If you don't care what Real does to your computer (i.e. pop-up messages, registry files, all sorts of advertisements), then go right ahead. I long for the days when Real Player really WAS a free and hassle free download.Its a pain clicking thru the ad-bloated pages for a download of Real player these days.
    • You know there's an alternative [free-codecs.com] right?
    • It has actually got a lot better. Real 8 was horrible, but 10 is much less hassle. It's a good player, really.

    • but.. i hope its not slow and bloated still. I bet its still a complete adware-loaded pile of garbage.

      I get really tired of seeing posts like this. All they do is perpetuate something that hasn't been true for quite some time.

      About as helpful as me saying Redhat 6.2 sucked at hardware. If you want to have endless problems with your network and sound cards, go ahead and install it.

      Look, if you haven't tried the latest version, you really have no business commenting on how faulty it is or isn't.

  • 25 Songs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NitsujTPU ( 19263 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:15AM (#12356875)
    Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs

    It might be RealNetworks, and hey, you may have a problem with them (plenty of people do), but 25 songs/month = 300 songs/year.

    Just how much of a freebie do you want from a service that ostensibly sells you music?
  • So I decided to see what this company is actually worth....considering I never use their products nor do I know anyone who does...and according to Nasdaq [nasdaq.com], they're worth over a billion dollars?

    Damn....I can't remember the last time I gave up on a RealPlayer install. Who uses this stuff, and how the hell are they worth over a BILLION dollars today....let alone being worth ten times that 5 years ago [nasdaq.com]
    • Heck, even beleagured companies that are going to die any day now, honest - like Apple - have billions of dollars just sitting in the bank in case they decide to buy something.

      For values of "something" that exclude Real, obviously.

      Like the necessary ingredients to get in the record books for "world's largest smores."

      (Why yes, I have been awake too long, why do you ask?)
  • Yeah, we should be grateful for $15.00/mo free music.


    Because before all this happened, there was no legitimate free music. Just like software, music is something that "if you didn't pay for it, it's stolen".


    gdlive.com

    • Re:Movin' the goalposts (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stereoroid ( 234317 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @06:49AM (#12357184) Homepage Journal

      Just like software, music is something that "if you didn't pay for it, it's stolen".

      And if you pay Real Networks their $15.00, how much of that will the artist(s) see? Most major label music, especially the back catalog, has been "contractually" stolen from the artist.

      Sample scenario: an artist writes songs, the record company offers them a contract which takes ownership of the songs. The artist goes into a studio, records the songs, and the album is released. All the costs of recording are charged back to the artist, including lawyers fees and expenses, dinners, even the cost of the tape/HDD the music was mastered to.

      In short: for first albums at least, the artist pays all the costs and loses the assets they created, but retains some rights to play the music live. It's like taking out a mortgage, using it to buy property and build a house on it... after which the bank owns the property, but you have a right to live there, if you pay a reduced rent.

      So if you're concerned about the artist getting properly compensated, don't buy any major label music, from Real Networks, iTunes, Microsoft, or Tower Records. Go direct, and support independent music.

  • Not much to do... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KiroDude ( 853510 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:18AM (#12356889)
    How on earth does somebody think that a FREE model will be ever replaced by a NON FREE one??

    Face it, even if it is illegal, downloading from a P2P network is free. sure, there is a risk of 1 in 6billions of being caught, but a lot of people are willing to take this risk.

    Even if a system comes out that allows you to d/l legally your song for say 0,001$, a vast majority will continue to get their stuff for free.

    What I mean to say here is that there is no turning back, songs have become free and will stay like this from now on, what they have to do is to find a new business model that will allow them to get money from something else related to music, but not from the songs themselves.

    The big thing here is that we're getting the goods directly, with no third men involved, and it is preciseley these 3rd men that are in trouble.

    Bands make huge amounts from concerts, and they might make nothing from record sales, but their free music will make more people know them and eventually go to their concerts.

    • Re:Not much to do... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NetNifty ( 796376 )
      I think if you could legally download a song for $0.001, MP3 or OGG, it was DRM free and decent quality it would do very well to compete with p2p networks.

      Don't know how much mainstream music costs in the US but I bet it's cheaper than here in the UK (£13-18 for a new album, which is about $26-$36), so the main reason people download it here illegally is the price.

      We do have music services which are much cheaper than the CDs, such as Tesco.com's music download service (about £8.99 for an alb

  • If I were to use legal musicservices (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    it must have all the music I listen to.
    Punkrock, grindcore etc.
    These legal services only seem to have popular music or music that have been popular.

    I want that track från a 7" EP that was released in only 100 copies. I doubt a legal music download service can offer me that or any other song I wish to download since I rarely listen to mainstream music.

    • Re:If I were to use legal musicservices (Score:4, Interesting)

      by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:55AM (#12357023)
      Yeah, you are a member of The Long Tail [wikipedia.org].

      Ever wondered why Amazon, Wikipedia and other popular online services are successful? Because they don't particularly focus on the popular because they know that lots of not-so-mainstream records/books/articles give you more core mass than being focused on only the popular things would. I'd like iTunes for example to realise that, or a new company selling music.
      • I do know there's at least a bit of music being offered through iTunes that one can't get elsewhere (not just "exclusive" alternate performances or remixes of widely-available material, but entire compositions unavailable at all elsewhere), though it's not the sort of thing to interest most people (then again, if it were, it would probably be more widely available).

        They have some film and TV scoring [apple.com] that hasn't been released on CD, at least some of it for reasons having to do with the extremely limited ma

  • Rob Glaser, chairman and chief executive of RealNetworks, said the primary targets are the millions of users of file-swapping networks, where music can be obtained for free but often in violation of copyright laws.

    Yes, everyone should realize that downloading the Beck discography on e-mule and listening to all the albums over and over again while smoking massive amounts of pot is not the way to go about things. Also, just because one can download way more than 25 *albums* a day with BT is in no way a det
  • Assuming you live for 80 years and that you purchase music from the age of 10, a $9.99/month subscription to Napster would end up costing you slightly over $36,363 for access to their entire portfolio.

    With iTunes, that same amount would get you 36,363 tracks of music (or about 3,030 albums) which would also last you your entire life.

    If you intend on purchasing huge volumes of music, then the Napster deal is far better - however this doesn't take into account the fact that if the service closes earlier,

    • however this doesn't take into account the fact that if the service closes earlier, you could end up with no ability to play your music

      Sounds like a very good argument against this type of DRM! This is the sort of fun fact we should tell the public about DRM... yes, not all flavours of DRM have this problem, but all's fair in love and war, so let's spread a little FUD of our own.

      This is also why people want to own content rather than rent it... it kind of sucks if you suddenly find yourself locked out

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Sorry for the rant... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Capt'n Hector ( 650760 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @05:40AM (#12356980)
    But what's up with this wholesale, mass production "song" business? The only time there was so much music out there that sounded exactly the same was the baroque era. Giving away 25 free songs a month doesn't help shake that stigma. Because of the Napster revolution (or perhaps IN spite - that's a pun by the way), the music companies have had to go for quantity, and in the process have devalued the intrinsic worth of the music that they're selling. iTunes has what, 10 MILLION songs? At what point is enough enough? Instead of getting 9 symphonies from a composer in their lifetime you get 9 albums each with 15 piecemeal songs that do their thing in 2 minutes 30 seconds, tops. This isn't going to change soon, so I guess what I'm saying is: if you're going to get 25 free songs, don't waste them on cookie-cutter stuff, get some Mahler or Shostakovich, music that takes 45 minutes to take you on an epic journey. Just like sex, no music should last less than half an hour.
  • I will just continue downloading music, since this is legal in the Netherlands. there is no such thing as illegally downloaded music. the same goes for movies.

  • Dear music industry.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MartinG ( 52587 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @06:07AM (#12357065) Homepage Journal
    I have hundreds of UKP per year to spend on music (and that doesn't include concerts)

    I _WANT_ to buy more music and a WANT TO PAY YOU for it.

    But I will not part with a SINGLE PENNY for DRM'd crap.

    Seriously, you are LOSING BUSINESS and LOSING PUBLIC SUPPORT by continuing with this.

    I agree that there is a lot of online unauthorised redistribution of your works, but evidently DRM is doing nothing to stop it.

    You need to find another approach. Change your business model, lower your prices... I don't know, I'm not a business person but I am a consumer and I do know that you are turning us all off your industry and before long if you continue treating us like criminals more of us will end up downloading everything for free instead.
    • You're absolutely right. If only the music and movie industry would turn into something like Allofmp3 [allofmp3.com], I'd be a loyal and happy customer. With such easy downloading, a choice of encoding formats, and the option to encode on the fly to a bitrate of my choice, I wouldn't mind paying a buck a song, which seems to be the price for "official" online music.

  • Free and legal music downloads already there (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why should anybody want to download Real's so called "free" music that is DRMed to death, as another poster here put it, when there are countless bands out there that give MP3s of their music away for free, without DRM crap?

    It's not that hard to find homepages of bands that give away free tracks or even whole albums. But since these are mostly unsigned bands and not controlled by the big media corporations, I guess this must be illegal...

  • A real free service (Score:5, Interesting)

    by biglig2 ( 89374 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @06:18AM (#12357102) Homepage Journal
    I must mention irate radio (http://irate.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]) as a very interesting example of free music downloads.

    It's a simple java applet that downloads free MP3s for you. You listen, say if you like it or if it sucks, and on the basis of your reply it downloads other music that it thinks you might like.

    This sort of thing is the future of music. Things like garageband mean that musisicans can make music cheaply. Make some of it freely available. Then, a blogger I trust recommends it, I download it, like it, go to your web site, and buy some more.

    And the "Long Tail" dictates that this is the best way to find music that I really like.

    Take my current favourite artist. Now, lots of people like her music, but enough for a record company to make a profit on her CDs in a record store? Probably not, hence her current lack of a deal. But I don't care. I bought her latest couple of CDs direct from her on the web. Paid what I'd pay in a record store, but I have a warm glowing feeling because none of that money paid for some wanker in a marketing department to interview focus groups. It paid to put groceries on her table.

    Oh, and on her web she recommends another artist I'd never heard of who she is working with. More free downloads. I liked that too, so that's another CD sale. And I went to see them both play a gig in London (which was utterly superb) and as soon as their support act finishes their first CD I'm going to download that as well.

    You see how it can work? That's what, 4 CDs and a show ticket, no marketing wankers required.
  • "We believe that once consumers experience Rhapsody and share it with their friends, many people will upgrade to one of our premium Rhapsody tiers," Rob Glaser, chairman and chief executive of RealNetworks, said in a statement.

    Or they will go back to getting songs illegally. Really, nothing annoys me more than video/audio that is only in Real format. RealNetworks has a reputation for intrusive software and crappy video streams. Being that their direct competitor is Napster, who has a much better name/repu
  • I can't comment on how good Rhapsody is since I've never met anyone who used it. That probably says enough right there.

    Well, I had Rhapsody for perhaps six months. A few days ago, when I realized I was paying for something I hadn't used at all for a few months, I cancelled. To do that, you have to call and talk to a human. This not only deters you from canceling, they get one last chance to talk you out of it. The droid I got, apparently in India, was very clearly programmed to do this.

    Rhapsody's model

    • I initially signed up with Rhapsody about nine months ago when I was trying to fulfill my Freeipods.com requirements (which I did - I did receive a free iPod, for all the doubters)... but anyway, I've kept it because for $10 a month, I can choose to listen to more than a million tracks, out of which I've found most of the albums that I've wanted to listen to. Yes, I need to be online, but as a college student, I always have a LAN or a wireless LAN available. Obviously you don't own the music, but consider

  • 25 downloads? Or 25 "listens"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shag ( 3737 ) * on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @06:39AM (#12357157) Journal
    I was a little disappointed by the utter lack of an OS X client, but I fired up Virtual PC and Windows XP SP2 (finally! something to use XP for other than running Windows Update! :) and went to check it out. The signup screen indicated that I get 25 "listens" per month. I wonder what a "listen" is... that doesn't sound quite like a "download." :(

  • Would you please STFU. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @06:52AM (#12357191)
    After a decade of steaming becoming more widespread in both audience and medium, RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing.

    Sorry, but you are babbling utter crap. The Realplayer is up to date the only true commercial cross plattform player avaiable, and, legends to the contrary, a very good one. Maybe not up to date with the latest and gratest rich client technologies but SMIL is an open, official full range multimedia document description language and the RealPlayer is it's player, y'know?
    So if you wan't to do some good you should favour Real Streaming over Quicktime and Mickeysuck WMV whenever a site offers it.
    Take this from a Mac User who installed the Reaplayer on top of Quicktime.
    • You should simply favor downloads over streaming and don't support a pile of shit like wmv,asf or the real- or quicktime streaming formats. Yeah, all streaming formats I encountered are shitty, seems to be inherent to their design although one should think they would be more robust to damage, all of them seem to have huge issues with some damaged bytes.
      • You should simply favor downloads over streaming...

        Why? Sometimes we just don't want to keep the media, such as a news report. We just want to hear/see it once. News is perfect for streaming, really. The only time I'm interested in keeping the media is if it has some sort of replay value (a good song). Not all media out there has that value.

  • It's not Quantity NOR price. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geminidomino ( 614729 ) * on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @06:54AM (#12357195) Journal
    Why can these fools NOT wrap their mind around it?

    Those with Clue(TM) are not going to pay $5, $1, $0.15, or $0.00 for music that TELLS US WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IT! Lose the FSCKING DRM!

    • " Why can these fools NOT wrap their mind around it? Those with Clue(TM) are not going to pay $5, $1, $0.15, or $0.00 for music that TELLS US WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IT! Lose the FSCKING DRM!"

      Take a look at the iTunes Music Store if you ever have a chance. They've managed to turn selling DRMed music into a wildly successful business. I know, I know, it's one of those boggling mind-warpers, but nonetheless, they've managed to make it work, and "fools" is not a word that I would choose to describe them.

  • It is not so much that something is free that makes the alternatives (illegal or not) more attractive -- it is more that it is free of Real Networks' horrible annoyware.

    They could be handing out their entire catalogue for free for all I care; I still would not bother to use it because I don't want to have any product from Real Networks installed on my machine. I'd rather go buy the CDs in a store, rip them and put them on my mp3-player.

    Seriously.

  • 25 free PLAYS not SONGS (Score:4, Informative)

    by zeromemory ( 742402 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @07:07AM (#12357237) Homepage
    According to Rhapsody.com's front page, you get "25 full-length songs per month - FREE". Upon further investigation [real.com] you only get to 25 free song plays. You don't get to keep the songs you play, and playing a song twice counts as two songs.

    In other words, it's misleading advertising (oh what's new?) and if Rhapsody thinks this is going to help them compete again iTunes, they're very wrong -- iTunes gives away at least two songs a week that you get to *keep* and play as many times as you want.
  • I'm a comcast subscriber, and comcast subscribers get an included subscription to Rhapsody.

    Well, I loaded the Rhapsody client, and its really just a modified version of the Real software.

    After installation, I checked what was going on in the task list. The Rhapsody install loaded a bunch of software and drivers onto my PC that ran all the time, even when Rhapsody wasn't running. That's unacceptable to me. WMP 10 does that, and I don't like it, but I have little choice with the OS vendor into that market

  • RealNetworks had streaming audio ten years ago, over modems. Ten! They were way ahead of anyone else, but threw it all away and by trying to turn it into an invasive advertising platform. Real could have absolutely owned streaming audio, but threw it all away. Everyone else caught up years ago. They deserve it.
  • It annoys me that you to go through a long convoluted process to download their free software, which in my case meant accidentally subcribing to a paid radio service I didn't want. What really annoys me is that the great BBC web site (http://www.bbc.co.uk) demands you use Real. At least they have now provided a special edition of RealPlayer for that purpose.

    P.
  • If they would just lower the price of individual CDs, down to about $5, I'd buy about 2 a week. As it stands right now, most albums average $15-20. That's too much. So I buy albums very rarely. I think they would make up all the profits in sales if they just lowered the price to acceptable levels.

    • "If they would just lower the price of individual CDs, down to about $5, I'd buy about 2 a week."

      Hmmm.... that'd mean selling into the channel for about $4... that $4 would have to pay for production, manufacturing, royalties, shipping, marketing, unsold inventory, and so on. Not going to happen -- selling at a loss is not a good long-term business strategy. I don't think we're going to get record company or record store employees to give up their salaries, so I wouldn't count on this happening.

      "As

  • I've downloaded Rhapsody again (had it installed when it first came out, just to see how it feels) so I can use these 25 free plays a month to preview stuff before getting it from iTunes, which is truly iPod compatible.
  • For those of you complaining about how bloated Realplayer is , Google for 'Real Alternative', download and install it. We are barred from having RealPlayer at work, and you can't install software here without admin priviledges, but Real Alternative installed quickly and works great. There's also a 'Quicktime Alternative' I grabbed and installed. With both, I can view most of the web content I couldn't see before.

  • Wow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GarfBond ( 565331 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @09:59AM (#12358503)
    This is probably the most flamebait posting I've seen in a long long time. Nevermind the fact that RealPlayer 10 does not suck and in no way resembles the "glory" days of RealPlayer 7/G2/8 (Would you like to subscribe to the following newsletters? Don't forget the 5 or so at the bottom of this list), it's still cool on slashdot to make inflammatory comments with zero justification (Yes yes I know this *is* slashdot).

    Anyway, this service is nowhere near the hype that Real made it out to be. It's basically a slightly better version of the free trial that most of the legal music services out there. The files are streamed to you (this is the standard method on Rhapsody, but it does a really good job of hiding the process so that you don't even realize it's streaming all this) so you cannot keep them. Instead of getting a whole month free after which they charge your credit card, for this system I don't think they even ask for your credit card as they plan on keeping the basic 25-song plan perpetually free (so long as enough users sign up for pay-plans and the advertisers keep staying along obviously).

    Yes, this is advertiser supported, and yes, this gimmick will probably end if all of them decide it's not effective enough. But for now, you might as well try it out since it won't cost you anything.

    It's an interesting way of trying to get new users hooked on the new service, though, and considering that I prefer Rhapsody's subscription plan and my Napster university account expires soon, I might just pick this up for the summer. I can't speak for the original poster though, something tells me there isn't an attractive pay-music service model in the world that'll convince him otherwise.

  • Wow guys... give a little more credit. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xENoLocO ( 773565 ) on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @10:58AM (#12359198) Homepage
    I've been a rhapsody subscriber since before Real bought them out. It's a GREAT program and Real just made it better. All the music you can handle, 0-day releases and sometimes PREreleases... I never have to buy a CD! And now, you can download songs to your devices as part of your subscription... Now if they only supported the Omnifi DMP1 20gb HDD player I have in my car... They do support a huge range of portable devices though. Give it a try... seriously.

  • Check this out, REALLY FREE MUSIC EXISTS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vhogemann ( 797994 ) <victor AT hogemann DOT com> on Wednesday April 27, 2005 @11:00AM (#12359217) Homepage
    Here at Brasil, some independent bands are already releasing their songs directly to the Web on MP3 format. They don't care about piracy, or lost CD sales since most of their money come from shows. They want people to know them, and to listen their music so they can sell more shows. One of these bands is Mombojo [http://www.manguebit.org.br/mombojo/], you can get a full Album from teir site on MP3 format! Free as in Beer, with no DRM, and under the Open Commons Licence!!!

    Other artists, like Lobão and Supla, are selling their Albuns on newstands, with a Data track containing pre-ripped MP3 for redistribuition! The CD come as a supplement of a magazine, so it can be sold on newstands! Very clever indeed.

    There are lots of small bands, and independent artists out there, some are good, other not so much. But their work is FREE, lets support them! Also, most commercial music is pure crap anyways... why even bother?

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close