Posted on 02/26/2003 11:20:20 AM PST by freepatriot32
In the strongest attempt yet to create a legitimate alternative to free music-trading sites, America Online will introduce a service today that lets users download and listen to a large catalog of songs.
For $8.95 a month, users will be able to listen to a catalog of music, now at 250,000 songs and growing, on their computers. Moving songs to CD's or portable players will cost more.
AOL is selling a version of a service from MusicNet, which is a consortium of RealNetworks; the BMG unit of Bertelsmann; EMI; and Warner Music, which like America Online is a unit of AOL Time Warner. AOL refused to introduce MusicNet's first product a year ago, arguing that it was too hard to use and did not have enough music.
Now AOL says that the service has improved enough to offer it to its 27 million members. That represents the most important test yet for the concept of selling music as a subscription service rather than as discrete discs.
For AOL, MusicNet also represents a crucial part of its strategy to increase its tiny share of the market for Internet users who connect over high-speed, or broadband, connections. AOL is already promoting its free music content, which includes hundreds of songs, videos and original recordings of musicians.
In the next few weeks, AOL is going to introduce an improved $15-a-month service, with a bundle of content and services meant for people who already buy broadband connections from their cable or telephone companies. That offering will include a limited version of MusicNet that will let users download 20 songs a month and listen to another 20 one time. Others can buy this limited version for $3.95 a month.
The standard $8.95 version of the service will allow users to listen to an unlimited number of songs on demand while they are connected to the Internet through a technology called streaming. They can also download the songs to their computers for higher sound quality and the ability to listen to them when not on the Internet.
Unlike music downloaded from Napster, the defunct free music sharing service, and its successors like KaZaA, a subscriber can listen to MusicNet's downloads on no more than two computers. They also cannot be copied to other devices or sent to other people.
But a premium version of the service, for $17.95 a month, gives users the right to burn 10 songs a month onto a recordable CD. These will be in the standard, unprotected format used by all music CD's, and thus those songs could be copied, converted to a popular format like MP3 and sent over the Internet at will.
So far, legitimate music download services have not been a success with consumers, not only because they charge a fee but also because the first versions had very limited numbers of songs and even more draconian rules about what users could do with them.
MusicNet initially had songs only from its owners and some independent labels. Its main rival, PressPlay, was formed by Sony Music and Universal Music.
By late last year, MusicNet and PressPlay each reached agreements with all the major labels and many independent labels as well. An independent service sold by Listen.com, called Rhapsody, also allows users to listen to songs from all the major labels and to burn some of them to CD's for $9.95 a month. Rhapsody is trying to attract attention with a limited-time offer that allows users to download individual songs at 49 cents, half its regular price.
With its $8.95 standard tier, AOL is undercutting the $9.95 basic price of PressPlay, which is mainly sold by Yahoo and Microsoft. The only other version of MusicNet, offered by RealOne, costs $4.95 a month for 100 downloads and 100 one-time streams.
So far, none of these services have attracted more than a few tens of thousands of subscribers. Somewhat more popular are online radio services that let users pick the style or even artist they want to listen to but not the actual song. MusicMatch, for example, has 120,000 subscribers to its radio service at $2.95 to $4.95 a month.
Kevin Conroy, the AOL senior vice president for entertainment, said its version of MusicNet would be far more popular because it would be integrated into the AOL service. Users will simply add the MusicNet fee to their existing AOL account and credit card numbers. And for those who subscribe to the MusicNet service, AOL's music programming, which attracts 12 million users a month, will be laced with links that will start songs playing.
Mr. Conroy added that he thought that even some users of KaZaA would be attracted because AOL's service downloads faster and does not have the errors and delays of the free music trading services.
" Right now it takes 8 or 10 searches to find what you are looking for on services like KaZaA because so many files are mislabled," he said. "We have forced people to do illegal things because we have not offered an easy, convenient mainstream way for them to do what they wanted."
AOL said that it had rights to another 80,000 songs that it would add to the service in coming months. This represents about half the popular music that is now in circulation. Much of the most popular material, from artists like Madonna and the Beatles, has not been made available on these downloading services, however.
But new artists generally sign deals that give labels the electronic rights to their works. For example, "Come Away With Me'` by Norah Jones, which won the Grammy for album of the year on Sunday, is available on the service for listening and downloading, but it cannot be burned to a CD.
The labels, artists and music publishers are paid a share of the monthly fees on all of these services in proportion to how much their songs are listened to. They also get a share of the fee paid when songs are burned to CD's.
Paul-Jon McNealy, the research director for media at Gartner G2, said that with the latest releases of MusicNet and PressPlay, the music industry has eliminated most, but not all, barriers to creating an online service that will attract music fans.
"This is close to what people will find palatable," he said. The MusicNet on AOL service, he said, will be a good introduction to online music for a mainstream audience, but the limitations are still significant.
"People want to buy their music once and own it forever," he said.
Does anybody know what quality the stream will be?
They will probably have streams of all the cd's... If the streams are CD quality.... well, there are ways to rip them :)
I give it two weeks before a teenager figures out how to bypass these limitations.
$15? Hmmm, interesting offer, but I'm not that desperate for cash. I think AOL would have to pay me at least $25 or $30 a month to accept their service. Although if I never had to login and use it, or let anyone know that I had AOL, I might take $20 a month.
I am getting my money's worth out of Rhapsody.
So9
If these streams are CD quality then you can rip them and burn for free.
Nope, not without way too much trouble to save a buck.
The streaming listening tracks are MP3 quality, and all tracks of both types are available only to the Rhapsody software.
That's not to say I can't move the CD to my other machine and rip it.
So9
MP3 is a compression format. Hence, there is no such term as "mp3 quality". Find out of what the compression rate is to determine the quality. Generally 128kb/s (roughly 8:1 compression) is acceptable as CD quality(though many prefer 192kb/s). If the streams are at least at 128kb/s you can rip them and burn them. There are apps available which will intercept sound streams from other applications...
Sure can, try Total Recorder from http://www.highcriteria.com/ , $11.95US to register. I've also had at least one free upgrade from them. It also has a scheduler built in to start recording at a pre-set time, e.g. if you want to record a show on an internet radio station. Records direct to MP3's. Best money I've spent for a long time ...
I don't believe MP3 is a lossless compression. Like JPG photo compression, quality can vary from mediocre to rotten depending on the compression ratio, but there is no way to get all the original back from it.
So9
Screw all this "dollars per month" stuff. Give me a datbase of songs to buy from. I will "charge" my account with, say, $25. Then I get to download 25 songs ($1/per song). No drafting my checking account or credit card every month, no restrictions on what I do with the song I download.Keep it simple and I bet they make big bucks.
I never claimed it was. My point was that the term "mp3 quality" is not really helpful since it can be 32k/s or 256k/s. Sure you'll loose quality, but at I bet you won't be able to tell the difference at 192k/s (and higher bitrate) compression.
Why do some folks use those high bitrates (300+)? It makes as much sense as sampling at 192kHz...
I think the difference between 128 and 192 is noticeable (specially the highs)...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.