Universal Music will allow free downloads

[NashVegas]

Universal Music, home to artists such as U2, The Killers, Audioslave and Sugarland, will make its catalog of recordings and music videos available free on an ad-supported Web site launching later this year, the site's operator said Tuesday.

The two-year deal calls for New York-based SpiralFrog.com to split advertising revenue with the recording company, said Lance Ford, chief marketing and sales officer for SpiralFrog.

Users can download an unlimited number of songs or music videos if they register at the site.

The tracks cannot be burned to a CD, but users will be able to transfer music to portable media players equipped with Microsoft Windows digital rights management software, Ford said.

However, the service will not work with Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh computers or its market-leading iPod music players.

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060830/BUSINESS11/608300380/0/BUSINESS01


I don't care that they're shutting out iPods, I'm just glad that peeps are finally getting wise. (might not be a bad idea to short Apple)

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. I hope more companies do this

I think in the long run the groups may make less money selling CDs, but they'll make a lot more money from tickets and merchandise sales, because they will have more exposure.

[NashVegas]

5. I Think It Will Be the Opposite - Depending

On some of the corporate-drivin "hits," you'll see less sales, but of bands that people find out of their own curiosity, that radio refuses to play, they'll go up.

[tuvor]

7. Kinda sucks if your band doesn't tour.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Kinda sucks

if your band isn't going to get airplay anyway.

[tuvor]

11. There are exceptions.

I was thinking in particular of XTC, part of the Universal "family" I do believe.

[bluestateguy]

2. There has got to be a catch to this

Nothing is really "free".

[acmejack]

3. They will get your IP address.

You had better never, ever download another thing that they consider "a violation of copyright" or "Intellectual property" again.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

4. I heard that the "ad supported" means a bumper ad at the start

of every mp3. (source - bloke on Channel 4 News in the UK, FWIW)

[jayctravis]

27. Aha!

DJ's usually talk over the intro to a song...there's no reason why they wouldn't put, "This free music download is brought to you by CRUMBELIEVABLE Cheese! MMm....it's tasty!....Eeeeverybody huuuurrrrrts...."

[Atman]

6. There is...if you don't log in and watch ads, you lose your music

This isn't much different than being tethered to the "rented" music from other services. And the ads are LONG. Very long. Set your watch, and then time out how long a 90 second ad is. By contrast, most TV spots are from 10-30 seconds long. A lot of street lights aren't as long as the longer 2-minutes ads you must watch to maintain your service. They say young people will like this, but since when do people like to spend MORE time doing something, especially with their sleek new wicked-fast computer? And then, I have to make sure I keep coming back to watch more ads or you're going to take my music back? This may seem cool for the first month, but a year from now, a lot of people are going to damned tired of realizing their spending more time watching the ads than listening to the music. And then, of course, Universal changes the terms.

What the bloody fuck is wrong with just being able to buy music and listen to it? If you don't want to buy it, get a freakin' radio. Sure, radio sucks, but that is the price you pay. As you said, ain't no free!

[NashVegas]

13. What Do You Want When It Comes to Free Listening?

Your choices:

radio, where 95% of what gets played is not decided by anyone who is particularly passionate about music, and those who willingly or unwillingly subert what they know about what's good and what's not accept a paycheck in return for keeping their mouths shut, and 12 minutes or more advertising per hour.

constant downloading with no compensation to the artists, producers and other people who make the recording possible, and no respect to the artists wishes about the tracks' availabilty & flexibility of format.

the 30 second clip iTunes gives to you to decide whether or not you'll pay .99

an ad-supported model where you can listen to a full song, any song you are curious about and want to hear, as often as you want, in return for giving up some control about format flexibility?



the main downside of this is that they won't be supporting Macs.

[Atman]

16. Personally, I like the iTunes model.

I get to keep my music. No one ever, for any reason, is going to take it back if I don't jump through their hoops. Again, my point about the ads...they aren't the short little spots common on Salon and other sites. We're talking about 1 1/2 - 2 minutes ads. That is an incredibly long ad. And you have to go back and watch ads even if you're not downloading music. Just to keep your music "active."

As for iTunes 30 second clips, it doesn't bother me. First of all, I tend to know what I am looking for when I shop for music. I mean, seriously, I am not making my purchasing decisions on the thirty second clip. However, I also like surprises. Before iTunes, in the age of CD stores, I frequently went in and grabbed a couple disks I'd never heard of, based only on the little side notes in Rolling Stone, or stuff I'd read in the alt papers.

Again, I think you're going to tire of those 2-minute mini-movies REAL fast. But I could be wrong.

[NashVegas]

18. Two Minutes Is a BIT Much, I Agree

And if their potential customers feel there are too many hoops, in addition, the service will fail.

[reprobate]

21. Can't work. Attention spans are now too short for the ads.

And it's the media that's responsible for this. They're the ones who programmed the under 50 generations to be unable to sit thru anything longer than 30 seconds. They're the ones that will pay the price.

[Massacure]

15. Paid for by advertising.

They will basically just bring up an advertisement and let it sit around in the browser window for 30 seconds before redirecting you to the download link. Fortunately for us Firefox users, we can just browse in a separate web tab while letting the script work its not so amusing magic.

[Atman]

17. Not 30 seconds -- try 1 1/2 - 2 MINUTES.

That is an eternity. And it isn't rolled out yet. I can assure you, they'll find away to avoid the tabbed downloads. Too much money is at stake.

The lunacy of this plan is that it won't work with the media players which virtually owns the market, the iPod. How are investors buying into this? It's like saying you're coming out with a great new video player, it just doesn't work with color televisions. This service will die rapidly, just like all the rest of the services started up by dorks in suits instead of hippie-geeks in turtlenecks who actually "get it."

[quiet.american]

9. Well... doesn't look like it'll be any use to me at all.

It looks like they don't have any artists I listen to, and my MP3 player is an iPod. Oh well.

[tuvor]

14. They have no artists you listen to? Really?

Isn't Universal the biggest music company in the world?

[quiet.american]

24. I don't know -- guess I'll have to look up their stock symbol. :) n/t

[Javaman]

10. This will vanish. nt

[NWHarkness]

12. Here's The Catch

The music is term limited, you don't get to keep it permanently. After 6 months it doesn't work, and you have to go download it again.

[Atman]

19. Read this article for the stuff the OP left out...

Weird what the Tennesseen focused on, as opposed to the Hartford Courant. The Courant has more details about the business model and the costs/restrictions. The Tennesseen article in the OP focuses almost entirely on what platforms it will work on. Combine the two for a more complete story.

http://www.courant.com/hc-music0830.artaug30,0,351529.story

[NashVegas]

22. Thanks

This makes those 12 minutes/hour on the radio I was talking about look tame.

[mike_c]

20. not for me thanks....

I'd rather pay for music-- that's right-- and get it WITHOUT Microsoft's DRM attachments. DRM is a Very Bad Thing because it restricts your ability to use media content that you own-- in essence, the music and film industries are trying to redefine the concept of ownership. This scheme is really no different-- Universal says they're going to give the music away in return for downloaders viewing ads, so once the music is in your possession it should be yours to use as you choose, not as Universal chooses. People should not let them dictate the terms of ownership like this.

[Occulus]

23. Oh, but don't you hear the content provider worshippers?

YOU DON'T OWN IT- you own a license to PLAY it! And, if you don't agree to their terms, they yank your license. Why, it's the very epitome of Capitalism!! Don't you CARE about compensating the artists? I bet you LIKE depriving their children of hot meals and even roofs over their heads! They HAVE the RIGHT to control what you bought after you've bought it because... because..... they're CONTENT PROVIDERS, for Chrissakes! They're BETTER and SPECIAL!

:sarcasm:

[mike_c]

25. egg-zackly....

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[confludemocrat]

26. It'll probably be at some lowfi bitrate like about 48 Kbps

not even the fairly low, except for rock, 128 Kbps