Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Universal to Offer Music for Free 356

wild_berry writes "The BBC reports that Universal Music has signed a deal to make its music available for a free and legally-licensed download. Available from a new music site called SpiralFrog, the deal will allow users in the USA and Canada to listen to Universal's music, which Reuters' news site reveals is paid for by targeted advertising, but no details of possible community or playlist sharing features of the SpiralFrog service. Is the immunity from litigation enough to make up for having targeted advertising on each page and not being able to write the music to CD or a portable player?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Universal to Offer Music for Free

Comments Filter:
  • Enough ads! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cybert4 ( 994278 ) * on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:00AM (#15999819)
    I've tried to take a stand against ads myself. I'll subscribe to whatever I need, as long as I don't see ads. The way I see it, subscribing to slashdot (for example) puts money towards content and away from useless ad people. The only ads I want to see are when I do a google search. That's it! I'd rather subscribe (or even better, donate). I'm sick of the ad culuture, and it's got to stop. I won't be using this free music source because I already subscribed to Urge (plays for sure). At least more of that money is going to artists. With this, you have all sorts of ad brokers taking a cut.
  • DRM encumbered? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:03AM (#15999844)

    TFA doesn't say anything about whether or not the music in question is DRM-encumbered. I see no reason at all to believe that it won't be.

    So while the music may be free as in beer, it'll likely only be free in the most limited sense of the word.

    Thanks, but I'll pass.

  • finally. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jnf ( 846084 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:09AM (#15999894)
    I've wondered how long it would be before a consultant somewhere said, 'you know, we should adapt or we risk dying', and this is what it is, finally a company with a financial interest in the matter is sitting down and trying to hash out an idea of how to make the new medium work for them.

    I will probably go watch some ands and not hear the music (as it will probably require windows) just to show support for a company that is taking some initiative. I hope it makes them billions of dollars and all the other companies sit and wonder why they didn't think of it.
  • by 2.7182 ( 819680 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:26AM (#16000039)
    When iTunes was young, some guy tried to resell a song on ebay:
    Here is the story [com.com].
  • by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <[slashdot] [at] [keirstead.org]> on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:27AM (#16000048)
    AAC is Apple-only. WMA has been cracked. What are they going to use for DRM? Sony ATRAC? (UGH!!!!)
  • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:30AM (#16000076) Journal
    But what if you use AdBlock or a hosts file to block advertisers sites? They won't be getting any money then, will they?


    But then I guess that's a win-win situation. People can now, finally, get something for nothing AND stick it to the music companies by not having to see/watch ads to get the product.

    The only question is, and the article is short on this matter, will people be able to take the song and put it in any format they want for THEIR use?

    This article [redherring.com] does say that DRM will be incorporated into the songs to try and prevent sharing of the music but that still doesn't answer the question. The article also talks about how the ads might be inserted but nothing definite.

  • by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:31AM (#16000089) Homepage Journal
    This is an attempt to bring the old business model of terrestrial radio to the Internet. It's no different than listening to a commercial radio station's Internet stream, apart from the lack of cheesy locally-produced ads for Slappy's Bait Shop and Ice Cream Stand.

    For those unfamiliar with Terrestrial Radio, it's that thing with all the monopolies that is being pummeled by the more interesting stuff on Internet Radio and Satellite Radio.
  • Re:Enough ads! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:45AM (#16000185)
    D00d, you didn't answer my question; here it is again, ad-free for your enjoyment: Should the content on the World Wide Web, and, by extension, entertainment in general, be available only to those who can pay 'extra?'
  • Re:Artists rejoice! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by snark42 ( 816532 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:58AM (#16000307)
    How is this any different than the radio? That's free, has popular music and is paid for by sponsors. Of course this on-demand model works better than a request to the radio, especially since lots of stations have stopped taking them.
  • by ursabear ( 818651 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @12:36PM (#16000571) Homepage Journal
    In my opinion, the article's concept is likely to have a good impact, but on many levels. I think it is important to see that if this isn't directly successful, it may be the precursor to something much more successful.

    First, free music is pretty cool, especially if it is from known artists (although I have amassed TENS of fans from many countries and sold TENS of CDs and a hundred or so downloads from iTunes et. al internationally while giving away more than half my catalog on price-optional sites like iSound.com [isound.com], pureVolume.com [purevolume.com], and audiri.com [audiri.com]). Free music as incentive for something else is a model that is evolving pretty hard right now, but I bet it will stick around for a long time.

    There are lots of examples where successes have occurred with ad-driven services: broadcast TV; "free", ad-driven internet provider services, tons of "free" web sites and site hosting, etc. I don't know that the average John and Jane Q. Publique will mind the ads in this case... time will tell.

    A Big Record Company is trying something fairly broad with "free" music. This is a positive step - trying to redefine oneself in business is akin to survival. I think it was W.E. Deming [wikipedia.org] who said, "It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory." So, perhaps this record label is trying to change for its betterment.

  • by crabpeople ( 720852 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @01:00PM (#16000750) Journal
    Nice thinking inside the box there..
    Here is what they should do
    1) make all art copyrights last 7 years.
    2) release all music /film / etc from greater than 7 years ago into public domain.

    The drug companies dont seem to have a problem making billions of dollars on 7 year expiring patents.

    This is a short term solution. Ideally, we would live in a world where we dont need to preserve artificial scarcity but we will probably have to wait for nano forges for that. Humans expressing themselves through art will not end because no one pays for it. Not to claim art, but these comments here are proof of that. No one is paying me to write on this fourm and yet I do it anyways. An artist needs to create as a slashdot poster needs to comment.

  • by McLuhanesque ( 176628 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @02:31PM (#16001321) Homepage
    User listens to music for free, but there are ads. Where have I heard of this before? Lots of Internet radio around, like Pandora [pandora.com], that nominally doesn't allow the music to be captured, played on a portable device, etc., except if you find where the files are cached, and rename them to SomethingUseful.mp3.

    Really nothing to see here, except for the fact that Universal now realizes that music being heard leads to music being bought.
  • by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @03:14PM (#16001649)

    "The incremental damage done to a record company (since that's the focus of the article) is quite correctly thought of as insignificant by the individual performing the copying."

    What do you mean by "quite correctly" ? The only head of a record company I've known ran an indie label with ten employees. At around the start of the P2P explosion he was paying himself about $25K a year. When people started sharing his music in lieu of buying, he had to lay off of his friends.

    Naturally, that was his problem to deal with, and not anybody else's, and it was his sole responsibility to deal with the "people want something for nothing" maxim combined with the explosion of P2P. But nonetheless, he indeed had to cut costs and fire some of his friends. This was not insignificant to him, nor his friends whom he had to lay off. The fact that more people got to listen to his music was not enough.

    Pirate or don't pirate -- I don't care what people do. But we should not make the mistake of assuming that the economic impact is "insignificant" if we opt to P2P in lieu of buying.

    At any rate, I have another question for you. If piracy is economically insignificant to record companies, then why are they doomed to go out of business?

  • by ozbird ( 127571 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @03:49PM (#16001912)
    ... or you could use BitTorrent.

    My recent music purchases (30+ CDs, 5 music DVDs and several t-shirts) have been entirely due to bands I've discovered by trying the albums via BT or sample tracks on their websites. (My brother has bought hundreds of CDs the same way; I'm more picky about my music.)

    The sample excerpts on Amazon etc. don't cut it - many bands who sounded interesting from samples turned out to be like most Hollywood movies: the trailer was the only good bit. I watch movies and listen to albums, not snippets.

    Other bands like The Gathering [gathering.nl] were an absolute revelation - they alone account for a full third of those recent music purchases. If the music is good, people will buy it - even if it means international postage and currency surcharges. Now if only I can convince them to tour here...

    Universal's move is a step in the right direction, but I'd like to see music companies release entire albums to try-before-you-buy. They could make them, say, 64-96kbit MP3s - good enough for a fair representation, but with the incentive to buy the full-quality CD. The bandwagon is already rolling, the only question is whether the record companies want to jump onboard or get churned under the wheels.

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...