Music Industry finally gets with the times

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Just heard about this.  Apparently, several of the big music companies have finally stopped fighting changes in the music industry and decided to embrace them.  A new music service has opened up where folks can download as much music and other files as much as they want, as often as they want, for free, legally, and with full licenses to whatever they download, using a specially design ptp system.

There are a couple of catches, though.  One, there are advertisments.  Two, the software tracks the files downloaded through it in order to make sure folks get paid the right amount.

Still, it will be worth it for many folks, and could be the turning point for the whole industry.

Full article here.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article3261591.ece

[thalaw2]

Well this looks like a good stat.  The music industry will generate it's own money and listeners get the music free...wonder if game companies will do the same thing?  They could put non-intrusive ads in games and let us download for free.

[Panther_Gunn]

It *sounds* like a good idea, but the question is, what will the file format finally shake out to be?  Sound quality on mp3's isn't an issue if you go up high enough on the bit rate (128 is *not* CD quality, I don't care what anybody says).  And, last I checked, ipods played mp3's with no problem.  Whether you can transfer & play DRM mp3 files on them, I don't know (haven't been bothered enough to try it yet).

[lugaru]

A step in the right direction. Yesterday I was cleaning my room and actually threw out a few old cd's... that's how over CD'S I am and ready for digital.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

According to the article, they won't work with ipods, at least not yet, but the service is looking at a way to make their downloads compatible.

[bredon7777]

I think its gonna turn out to be too little, too late.  Had they introduced this in the early days of Napster, things might've been different, but Americans are too used to getting music ad-free for free by now (even if its not legal). 

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I disagree.

I think the average American, and folks form other countries too, wants to do things legally and above board, but feels that if there isn't an alternative, they'll do what they have to.  I think the success of itunes proves that, once given an alternative, people will take it.

[Protomorph]

I would agree with the Cat. Most average consumers out there would be happy to get their music legally, even if they have to suffer through a few ads to get it. iTunes and (The New)Napster have proved that. These services are raking in the cash.



Of course, there is this...

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article3267255.ece

[the_ultimate_evil]

and it falls at the first hurdle

http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2248278,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Qtrax off track after labels deny deal


Universal, EMI and Warner say no deal has been finalised with file-sharing site claiming to offer free music downloads legally. Sony BMG expected to follow

Rosie Swash
Monday January 28, 2008
Guardian Unlimited

The future of Qtrax, a new file-sharing website which promised legal downloads of over 25m music tracks, is in doubt today after three of the four major record labels denied giving the site permission to use their music.

Announcing the details of its new service at the Midem music conference in Cannes this weekend, Qtrax promised access to a database of over 25m tracks. Its owners described the service as a legitimate alternative to illegal file-sharing, claiming that money lost on sales would be recouped through advertising revenue.

Article continues
Today, however, Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Warner Music have all said that no deal has been finalised with Qtrax, with the latter confirming that it "has not authorised the use of our content on Qtrax's recently announced service". The fourth major record label, Sony BMG, has not made an official announcement regarding their relationship with Qtrax, but digital business website Silicon Alley Insider reports that they too are still in discussion with the website and have not finalised a deal.

Qtrax has touted its service as being "fully embraced by the music industry" in a press release but now faces being forced to climb down after seeming hesitation on the part of the industry.

The company's marketing executive Robin Kent admitted to Silicon Alley Insider at the weekend that despite saying they had "the blessing" of all four major labels, "two of the four are more happy about it than the other two" and could not confirm any actual deals had been finalised.

Qtrax today responded to Warner's denial that an agreement had been reached between the two companies by saying: "We are in discussion with Warner Music Group to ensure that the service is licensed and we hope to reach an agreement shortly." Warner Music are expected to make a further statement regarding their position later today.

[bredon7777]

I'd like to think you're right cat, but I really don't think you are.  The vast majority of people I know  don't really care about legitamacy.  I dont know if such things are measured, but I'd wager that itunes downloads are a statisically insignifcant portion of all downloads.And about the only other thing I can say without getting this thread locked is that I don't know a single person that doesn't think artists should receive fair compensation for their work - but the definition of fair varies widely.

[TheMarvell]

either way, I think this is a good start, even if it falls through for now...

[zuludelta]

Any advertising-based free downloading initiative is bound to be opposed by the large record companies since it makes them largely irrelevant in the music production pipeline. Such initiatives could enable artists to bypass record companies altogether and approach the ad-based hosting/sharing service directly.

It used to be that record companies were essential for a musician to gain any significant commercial success... only the big record labels could pay for professional recording facilities, promotion, and record distribution. But now, commercially available (and sometimes even free) recording software has made it so that anybody with a decent computer and the right expertise can create a professional sounding record and the word-of-mouth of the internet has made it so that anybody, with luck and the right sound, can have a successful grass-roots promotion and distribution campaign.   

[Protomorph]

Oh, I totally agree that the artists need to be paid for their creativity. But the labels don't need anywhere NEAR as much as they collect.

FWIW, recently Radiohead had their entire new album avaliable online for FREE. When it was released, a few weeks later, on CD in stores it still sold enough to be #1 on the charts.

[zuludelta]

FWIW, recently Radiohead had their entire new album avaliable online for FREE. When it was released, a few weeks later, on CD in stores it still sold enough to be #1 on the charts.

The thing about Radiohead is that they're already an established act with thousands of devoted fans who will support their releases, so I don't know how well In Rainbows can be used as a standard for judging the released-online-for-free promotion model. It's a good bet that In Rainbows would have moved a significant number of units, regardless of whether the group released it for free online as a promotional campaign (not to mention that many people also willingly paid for the online version of the album), although the free release campaign was a promotional coup all things considered and engendered the group a lot of consumer goodwill.

I think a better precedent upon which we can judge the success of any legit "free release" promotions are all the smaller acts that use social networking sites (MySpace, Facebook, etc.) and media sites such as Youtube and even P2P-sharing networks to promote their music. Many of these artists have accepted the current reality that most new acts aren't going to be making a quick inroads into the record-selling business but they've realized that having a higher Q rating will help garner them a music licensing deal with advertisers, TV and film studios, game developers, and other secondary music markets; and it will also get them more buzz when they play live.   

[Previsionary]

The radiohead situation is quite different, as Zulu has pointed out, as they already have a fanbase. They could afford to take the risk. Also, it wasn't exactly free. It was a "pay as much as you want" for the album type deal, but it was still sold in stores and other online sites later, iirc [though I think it made less money than their last album]. It was also advertised on a few tv shows as well (G4). I don't know how well that'd work for upcoming artists, but it did add something new to the industry that they should probably pay attention to and utilize in the future.

[Ajax]

Jim's Big Ego an folk/indie/rock band from Boston doesn't care if their fans download their music as long as they keep the "[song title here] by Jim's Big Ego" on each song. After doing this more people have listened to their music and their CD's have been selling better.

[thalaw2]

I say make it all open source!  We should have an open source music movement like the software movement.

[lugaru]

Jim's Big Ego an folk/indie/rock band from Boston doesn't care if their fans download their music as long as they keep the "[song title here] by Jim's Big Ego" on each song. After doing this more people have listened to their music and their CD's have been selling better.

Same with a whole lot of metal bands... they say "If you copy our music then also copy the album cover and lyrics and give it to your friends". They understand that Metallica wouldent exist without bootleg tapes in the 80's and most metal bands from sweeden, poland and finland wouldent play the US if it wasent for mp3's (not that the US is the best market for metal...)