Slashdot Log In
Review of Amazon's DRM-Less Music Download Store
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Sep 26, 2007 03:30 PM
from the gosh-you-mean-if-i-buy-it-i-can-keep-it dept.
from the gosh-you-mean-if-i-buy-it-i-can-keep-it dept.
fdmendez writes to tell us that he had a chance to check out Amazon's DRM-less music download store that was recently released as a beta trial. "Amazon one-ups the iTunes store in every way except for popularity. Never once did I find an album to be more expensive on the Amazon store in comparison to the iTunes store. The download experience was pleasant, and the lack of DRM truly makes it YOUR music. I don't know of any other download service that could top the Amazon MP3 store."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Amazon DRM-Free Music Store Goes Beta 349 comments
LowSNR writes "Amazon this morning moved their DRM-free music store into open beta. According to the release, 'Since all our digital music downloads are DRM-free, you can play them on anything that plays mp3s including PCs, Macs(tm), iPods(tm), Zunes(tm), Zens(tm), iPhones(tm), RAZRs(tm), and BlackBerrys. Plus, our Amazon MP3 Downloader application makes it easy to add your downloads to iTunes(tm) and Windows Media Player(tm), so you can sync up your devices or burn your music to CD hassle-free.' Not to mention Linux." Of course, without DRM few of the major labels play with them.
[+]
Apple: Amazon MP3 Vs. iTunes Music Store 310 comments
Ali writes "As discussed here recently, amazon.com has launched a public beta of Amazon MP3, a digital music store that provides DRM-free downloads of over 2 million songs from 180,000 artists and 20,000 labels. In comparison, Apple says the iTunes Store now contains over 6 million songs. Here is a head-to-head comparison."
[+]
Apple: iTunes DRM-Free Tracks Now Same Price As DRM Tracks 250 comments
jawtheshark writes "Apple has made the decision to revise the pricing of Plus songs on the iTunes Music store. Whereas previously the DRM-less tracks were more expensive than the 'normal' option (at $1.29 vs. $0.99), DRM-less tracks bought via ITMS will now be priced on the same level as DRM'd tracks. 'Apple plans to expand iTunes Plus to include certain indie music labels starting Wednesday, October 17 (or sometime this week, at least) ... This expansion won't include all independent music labels just yet, although we're optimistic that more will be included in the future. While we have no information on whether the iTunes Plus songs are selling well, we assume that the decision to drop the price is a response to the Amazon MP3 store. Amazon sells individual tracks for between 89 and 99 apiece, all without any DRM restrictions. With that in mind, it's kind of hard for Apple to compete at $1.29.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Review of Amazon's DRM-Less Music Download Store
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 437 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Obligitory (Score:5, Funny)
Bittorrent?
Re:Obligitory (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.jerrywong.net/)
You mean the service where everybody leeches, resulting in complete lack of bandwidth available to downloaders unless you're in an exclusive, ratio-metered club?
Or the one that really only works for popular albums, as anything old or otherwise unpopular and non-mainstream will have no seeders?
Even accounting for the $0 price tag, Bittorrent has a LONG way to go to rival ANY paid music store.
Re:Obligitory (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe MAJOR artists dont get paid but cdbaby's (cdbaby.com) sure do
Re:Obligitory (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obligitory (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obligitory (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't be serious. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.theninhotline.net/)
That's funny! At one time I thought the same thing. Anecdote: I was going through the tedious task of ripping my CDs, and after going through my collection of Nine Inch Nails and Autechre discs, I got the bright idea that instead of ripping my Aphex Twin collection, I'd just download a torrent. Same end result, right? I figured Aphex Twin fans would be fairly careful about audio fidelity, so I grabbed a torrent of some giganto Aphex Twin collection.
The end result was all over the map. Sure, there were a number of albums that were alright, some of them were terrible, with skips and low bitrates and mistitled songs, not to mention whole albums of "rare and unreleased" mislabeled garbage that wasn't even by Aphex Twin. I would have better spent my time continuing to rip them myself.
Alternatively, if I didn't already own the CDs, I would have happily bought large chunks of the Aphex Twin catalog from Bleep.com, which has been doing the DRM-free $1 MP3 download thing for over three years now.
Re:Obligitory (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 01 2005, @10:40AM)
I say theoretical, of course, because I don't pirate music. But if I did, they wouldn't.
Plenty of Sony 'compact discs bought at retail' are guaranteed to give you a root-kit.
And that technology was in use two years ago - I can only imagine what they are putting on retail CDs now.
Re:Obligitory (Score:5, Funny)
(http://ymgve.net/)
And that technology was in use two years ago - I can only imagine what they are putting on retail CDs now.
It's even worse now. They've started putting Britney Spears on them again.
I do... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday April 03 2006, @07:23PM)
AllOfMP3.
Re:I do... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday April 27 2003, @04:05PM)
Re:I do... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday July 18 2004, @01:51AM)
It's like settling for a JPG of the Mona Lisa.
Re:I do... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like settling for a jpg of the Mona Lisa. It's like buying just the Mona Lisa jpg instead of a collection of artwork that includes the Mona Lisa. Maybe the rest of that artwork is crap.
Back to the album...maybe you don't want to go through the trouble of converting it yourself. Maybe you don't want to mess with CDs at all. There are plenty of reasons why it's a better choice to buy a single off an album rather than the entire album.
Re:I do... (Score:4, Insightful)
But that has nothing to do with what I enjoy. They dont get to tell me how I have to enjoy their music.
And I cant think of a single album, ever, where I've ever wanted to listen to it all, end-to-end, or even give a rat's hairy butt about listening to them in context with each other.
In every cases, I'd prefer to listen to 1, maybe 2 (in exceptional cases) songs from an artist, then I want something different. Listening to the same singer/artist over and over again just bores me.
Time = Money (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.last.fm/)
So while I agree that you end up paying more for less (no album cover, no liner notes, no physical media) it comes close to being a wash (not quite) with the immediacy and the convenience.
Re:I do... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
It's legal to download music because it's legal, not because of the blank media levy. Whether or not the industry is bilking you of that money, you have that right. It's not illegal. The media levy doesn't make it any more or less legal, though it may assuage some of the guilt people feel.
If you put a levy on bullets to ease the pain and suffering of families that are broken apart by gun violence, it doesn't make shooting people legal. It's an illegal activity no matter what.
The levy is a smoke screen so that we don't notice if they try and legislate our IP rights away. It's a random and immoral money grab. It presupposes guilt when you buy media for any purpose, even if the media has non-infringing purposes. We should all hate the levy.
Re:I do... (Score:5, Funny)
What's the point of legally owning an mp3?
I tried it out yesterday (Score:5, Informative)
(http://venganza.org/)
Re:I tried it out yesterday (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday October 19, @09:21PM)
It's only been available since yesterday.
Re:I tried it out yesterday (Score:5, Informative)
If you use Linux, you can currently buy individual songs. A Linux version of the Amazon MP3 Downloader is under development, and when released will allow entire album purchases.
That is really nice to see!
Re:I tried it out yesterday (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I tried it out yesterday (Score:5, Insightful)
BZZZZT (Score:5, Informative)
-------------------
You have selected to purchase:
GREATEST HITS by Elton John
(Amazon MP3 Purchases are limited to U.S. customers.)
You must install the Amazon MP3 Downloader to purchase albums. (learn more)
* It automatically adds your music downloads to iTunes or Windows Media Player
* It takes just a few clicks and less than 30 seconds to install
DOWNLOAD NOW -- WINDOWS XP & VISTA
I agree to the terms of use | Download Mac OS X version
Re:BZZZZT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:BZZZZT (Score:5, Funny)
Competition is good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Competition is good. (Score:4, Interesting)
But I fully agree, I really hope the record industry takes note and realizes that people actually will pay to download DRM-free music, it's profitable. That's what's gonna matter to these guys. When they realize they can sell the same album with NO media costs they'll jump (like they are selling ringtones!).
Missing something? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MP3 piracy irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday October 19, @09:21PM)
It's too good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I Can Think Of A Better One (Score:5, Funny)
Magnatune has lossless downloads (Score:5, Interesting)
-S
Re:"in every way" (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://thepeckfamily.us/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 08, @11:19AM)
Re:"in every way" (Score:5, Informative)
AAC "quality" irrelevant ... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Isn't that 256kb AAC the optional higher priced version?
More importantly the improved "quality" of 256 kb AAC over 256kb MP3 is largely hypothetical, few if any could tell the difference. However even if we accept marginal quality and size improvements these are overwhelmingly outweighed by the universal nature of MP3 files. Every digital player supports MP3. Portables, cars, home stereos, etc. There is no vendor lock.
Re:AAC "quality" irrelevant ... (Score:4, Informative)
As many others have noted, Amazon uses LAME, which is the best MP3 encoder. At equal bitrates, LAME MP3 should be roughly equal in quality to iTunes AAC. At 192kbps MP3 vs 128kbps AAC, LAME should be clearly better. At 256kbps, there should be no difference to all but those with canine hearing and zillion-dollar stereo systems.
Roberto Amorim [rjamorim.com] and Sebastian [listening-tests.info] (who appears to be continuing Amorim's work) have done some interesting "public double-blind listening tests."
Re:AAC "quality" irrelevant ... (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday October 03 2002, @10:53AM)
There are sites out there offering decent rewards (in the thousands of US$) to anyone able to tell the difference between 256kb MP3 and uncompressed audio in double-blind A/B tests (of course there are specifications on which version of LAME and options are used for the encoding). I just googled around and couldn't find the links, sadly; I'll see if I can dig it up later.
On a somewhat related note, the most recent edition of the Audio Engineering Society's journal [aes.org] includes the interesting study"Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback", E. BRAD MEYER AND DAVID R. MORAN, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007. It pretty conclusively demonstrated that 16/44 (normal CD quality) and 24/96 (Super Audio CD/HDCD quality) raw audio are also essentially indistinguishable (using a long-term double-blind testing with hundreds of trials including college students, subscribers and editors of a well-known audiophile magazine, and professional mastering engineers). It notably included long-duration testing as well--not just the typical "listen for a few minutes to A, then a few minutes of B and try to distinguish". It was possible for some listeners to pick up differences under extreme conditions (scaling up the audio and jacking up the decibel levels), but not under normal "listening to it played normally on high-end audio equipment" conditions.
That's not to say that your SACD collection is worthless, but it's the care that goes into mastering products aimed at an audiophile market rather than the extra bits that might make it sound better (meaning that it's unlikely to be any better than that well-done Mobile Fidelity or whoever "audiophile" mastering of a standard CD, unless better mastering sources are found or something like that).
Re:"in every way" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"in every way" (Score:4, Informative)
Classical selection... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Classical selection... (Score:5, Informative)
Just for some balance,
I mean, it seems to me like they're on the right track, but someone hasn't put too much thought into the fact that classical music tends to have a lot of very short and very long tracks. Evidence of this -- compare the prices for the complete set of Prokofiev symphonies in those three recordings:
Who's going to pay more than three times as much for a Naxos set as for the Berliner Philharmoniker???
Re:Not exactly DRM free (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have a site for the watermarking?
I just downloaded a tune... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:US Only (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
-jcr
Record label needs to recoup investment*s* (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Well the main reason is the consumer's willingness to pay. But record labels also need to recoup their investments and one "successful" artist has to pay for many "unsucceful" artists.
Artists need a label if they desire a certain level of commercial success. It takes a lot of money to promote an artist and bring them to the attention of the mass national or world market. Artists can not afford to do this on the money they making playing in small venues, among their core audience. If they manage to feed themselves they are doing above average, if they can support a family they are so rare they are nearly an anomoly.
The label system persists because there will always be some artists who want large scale success. Of course these successful artists gripe when they think about the small percentage they receive themselves but the truth is they are getting a small percentage of a much larger pie. If you are only getting 5 cents on the dollar, but you are generating several hundred times (or more) the revenue then they are far ahead.. To be faiir to the labels they need a disproportionately large cut from one artist to pay for the dozens of other artists they had *speculatively* financed they did not attain large scale commercial success. Please understand that I am not saying the current label/artist split is correct, I have no way to calculate what the split should be. I am merely arguing that the label system is quite logical and it is economically justifiable for the labels to receive a large percentage due to the speculative nature of their investments.
Artists have almost always needed patrons throughout history. Centuries ago it was the church, royalty, or the wealthy. Today the record label fulfills that role.
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
As one who has never used a subscription service (I'm one of the low-volume types) I ask this: if your subscription ceases, do you still have access to the music you already downloaded?
Re:$8-$9 is too much (Score:4, Insightful)
"Why can't they charge much less and make up the profits on volume?"
Well, first -- if by "they" you mean Amazon, my highly educated guess is that Amazon is making 15 points on the sale. They don't have much room to move.
Many people tend to put too much faith in unit elasticity: if you cut the price of oranges in half, you'll sell twice as many; double the price and you'll sell half as many. The real world seldom works that way, so lots of research is done on pricing theory. My industry (computer peripherals) does it, countless others do it, and it's a safe assumption that record labels and Amazon do it, too -- despite the fact that every Slashdotter just knows that music is overpriced and sold at obscene profits.
Putting costs of production aside (assuming that they have the ability to sell at any price and make a profit), it might simply be that they do not believe that they will double their sales if they sell albums at $4 rather than $8. I know it certainly wouldn't be the case in my situation; I would not spend appreciably more on music if prices were lowered. I buy all the music I could possibly want on iTunes (and I'll soon be trying Amazon). My interest runs out before my budget does. And, as nonsensical as this might seem, there are millions of other consumers just like me.
When you step closer to the real world and take into account the costs of sale, elasticity becomes even more of an issue. If (say) that album has a cost of sale of $3.90, then they'll make a dime per sale at $4, or $4.10 per sale at $8. So even if they double their sales by cutting the price in half, their net revenue would still drop by 95%. In this scenario, sales would need to increase by about 20X to make the same amount of money, and that's very unlikely to happen.
Wait wait wait...I'm confused (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday February 09 2006, @01:35PM)
UK Works (Score:4, Informative)
Because the "cost of doing business in the UK is higher" songs from Apple are _twice_ as expensive than in the US.
All I have to do to use Amazon is get a Zip code that fits in a selected state and bob's your uncle! Half price music!
"Love it!" and How to increase sales (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what I've been waiting for, I bought over 160 songs last night... The experience is great, one click will buy and import into iTunes just like apple. The 30 second previews load in just a couple of seconds. The music for the most part is cheaper than Apple. I got a couple of double-CD sets for under $10. I think this is one reason Universal is snubbing Apple, they wanted some control over song pricing and Apple only allows the flat 99 cent rate ($1.29 for the non-DRM songs). Some songs are more expensive on Amazon, I think I saw a few that were $1.99, but most are only 89 cents.
I love previewing the songs, what would be perfect is if Amazon had radio stations to play the song previews. I could sit all day and just listen to the previews to find new music. I spent four hours yesterday looking for music. If it was just playing in the background all day I could open my browser and buy a song when I heard one I liked...
Re:iPod sync? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://thepeckfamily.us/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 08, @11:19AM)
You appear as an idiot. If the distinction is meaningful is up to you.
Re:MP3 sounds bad to my ears (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~err)
I'd bet ANYTHING that you cannot differentiate between 256kbps MP3 and FLAC.
Rather than mod you as a troll... (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday December 09 2004, @09:25AM)
I can't tell the difference between a 256kb MP3 and a FLAC. I've done the ABX, and my threshold on good equipment is somewhere in the 224 range, give or take a bit depending on the program. That said, I can usually tell the difference between a 256mp3->128kbmp4 and a FLAC->128kbmp4. Bad experience with past formats made me re-rip my entire collection to FLAC. Those are my "masters" and I recode to the format-of-the-hour (on the fly to my portable with media monkey) for use on the road.
I like the Amazon store, and I'm pretty likely to use it. I'd be happier if they offered FLAC. Hell, any uncompressed would be okay, since I'd just transcode to FLAC, but getting it native would be nice.
Re:MP3 sounds bad to my ears (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday October 03 2002, @10:53AM)
Every actual study I've seen shows that except on certain "hard" classes of recordings it's wishful thinking or other psychology--with 99% of normal music (be it well-recorded classical, a capella voice, rock, whatever) the 256kbps VBR LAME settings Amazon uses haven't been distinguishable to anyone in any scientific study I'm aware of.
I've had this argument many times, and there are some recordings that reveal obvious flaws in even 320 kbps CBR mp3 to my ears with my headphones and amplifier
If you can do it regularly, then you should pretty easily be able to make thousands of dollars for a few hour's work by claiming any of the numerous prizes offered for people who can succesfully distinguish 256kbps VBR MP3 of a wide array of popular music from uncompressed originals in a double-blind A/B test.
Now, if you're just talking a handful of special-case horrible-for-mp3 recordings (like, say, the well-known Eig [hydrogenaudio.org] "LAME killer" sample) then that's another story; some people can certainly pick that one out at 320 kbps VBR.
You can easily start off using a free ABX program like PC ABX [pcabx.com] (Windows) or LinABX [beryllium.net], or a more expensive hardware solution. Just see if you can actually ABX them at home and if so, you should be good to go claim some cash.
It's pretty fun to see what you can actually distinguish, too. I have a nice setup with a good pair of Grados; out of my library of 4000+ songs there are maybe 3-4 I've found so far that I can pick out a 192kbps Ogg from FLAC. Before doing such testing, I was "sure" I could pick out the difference between the original and the 320kbps encodings I usually make. Most people who come over to my place can't distinguish 96 kbps from uncompressed except on a handful of nasty test samples, but if you actually learn what the common artifacts are it gets a bit easier for some people.
Re:MP3 sounds bad to my ears (Score:5, Interesting)