Music Download Service question

[EinBebop]

So all of the music download services are finally here to cash in, but are they worth it?

See, I'm a little confused. Am I actually buying these songs, or just renting them for the life of my computer? (Or with Napster, my next three computers, I guess.)

Also curious to know what you who are using the service like and why. Thus far I've tried MusicMatch and Napster, preferring the latter because I can stream any song I want to at any time. MusicMatch seemed to want to force me to listen to 'similar' songs rather than the ones I chose.

[RogueMartian]

I think this thread tread's on dangerous ground, so I will walk lightly.

I think that the pay download services are a day late and a dollar short as the saying goes. Had they come out a year before napster, things might be different. They might have held onto control over the market a little bit longer, but the result would still be the same. The average downloader can use a pay service and spend a buck on a song and download it, or download it for free elsewhere. It's that simple.

If the song actually deteriorates over time, then it's even less worth it. I can get a song for free elsewhere and it will last as long as I want it to. Hell, it's beyond worthless if the song deteriorates. Buy the stupid cd, it will probably cost the same and you keep that for life.

As long as the recording industry is still under the impression that it can maintain control, they will fail. And these mp3 pay services, they may be mildly successful, but i believe in the end, they will still fail.

The lack of availability is another problem. I'm guessing that you will find many titles unavailable, as many people are still fighting mp3s.

[Ben]

The lack of availability is another problem. I'm guessing that you will find many titles unavailable, as many people are still fighting mp3s.

Actually you'd be surprised. I've been impressed with the iTunes store, they even had two albums by a group that was so niche they moved to an indie label after only a few years on A&M. No Beatles, and a few other notable exceptions, but really it's pretty amazing variety-wise.

[EinBebop]

You signed up for their subscription services? Why?

I'm really impressed with being able to click a button and legally listen to (almost) any song I want as well as set up radio playlists and such. It's worth $10 a month, and I have my computer wired to my stereo.

And just how obscure are the songs you're looking for if MusicMatch doesn't offer them?

It's not that they're obscure, it's that music match WON'T let me do what I listed above. If I go click on a Shania Twain song, it will play a random song buy her rather than the one I wanted, or sometimes even an "artist who people liked Shania Twain also liked..." I'm actually very surprised at some of the obscure titles that I've found.

[Good Ol' Batmanuel!]

I actually just got an e-mail yesterday announcing Napster Version 2.0. They're charging 99 cents per song or $9.99 per album. I think I'd rather just buy the real album somewhere, even if it's a couple of bucks more.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I think that the pay download services are a day late and a dollar short as the saying goes. Had they come out a year before napster, things might be different. They might have held onto control over the market a little bit longer, but the result would still be the same. The average downloader can use a pay service and spend a buck on a song and download it, or download it for free elsewhere. It's that simple.

The iTunes Music Store was never meant to counter a serious music pirate. There are two kinds of people who downloaded stuff from Napster:

1. The hardcore pirates who went, "Cool, free music" and stole everything they could get their hands on.

2. The average citizens and nerds who went, "Cool, music on the Internet" and took things because there was no legal alternative and no other way to try new music. They also tended to share more of their own stuff than the pirates.

The iTunes Music Store sold 13 million songs six months after launch, and that was when it was only available to the 2% of us using Macs. They also sold 1 million songs in 3.5 days when they opened their doors to Windows users. It's simply not true that people won't pay to download music. If it's easy enough, cheap enough, and doesn't force you to rent your music, people don't seem to have any problems paying for downloaded music.

BTW, I'm a fan of the iTunes Music Store, but that's because I own a Mac and one of the first-generation iPods, and for a while they were the only game in town. From what I've seen, it's still the best game in town, although the only portable MP3 player it works with is the iPod. From what I've heard, the new Napster and MusicMatch services are equal to the iTMS and will work with other MP3 players. All of them can be downloaded for free, so I'd suggest getting all of them, installing all of them, and seeing which you like best.

-- Ed/Ace

[Shawn Hopkins]

I'm interested in iTunes, but since I use Windows ME I'm currently out of luck. The people in my office are fans of Emusic.com, but I have no personal experience with it.

[Magwheel]

I'm interested in iTunes, but since I use Windows ME I'm currently out of luck.

Out of luck? Not for long! Check this out: Apple Releases iTunes for Windows, and "most songs" priced at 99 cents.

I wonder if there have been any comparisons yet on how good/convenient/useful these services are, and if they're going to differ a lot when there are more of them. Certainly is an interesting, but not surprising, direction in the industry. But EinBebop's experience sounds like a terrible system. I hate when computers are used to try to guess what they can sell me next :P

[WillemJoker]

Actually you'd be surprised. I've been impressed with the iTunes store, they even had two albums by a group that was so niche they moved to an indie label after only a few years on A&M. No Beatles, and a few other notable exceptions, but really it's pretty amazing variety-wise.

No Beatles?!!!!!!!! I shall smite them!

[SSJPabs]

The only reason I've stopped illegal downloads (for now) is that I got my internet cut off by the MPAA when I downloaded a movie. I didn't even LIKE the movie! So I'm an I-Tunes member bought about 3 song but, I'm looking into "other options" right now.

I-Tunes is nice, but it doesn't have any of the J-Pop or rare techno stuff that I like. Those are still easiest to get online

[Shawn Hopkins]

Nope. It's compatible with XP and 2000, not ME.

Out of luck? Not for long! Check this out: Apple Releases iTunes for Windows, and "most songs" priced at 99 cents.

I wonder if there have been any comparisons yet on how good/convenient/useful these services are, and if they're going to differ a lot when there are more of them. Certainly is an interesting, but not surprising, direction in the industry. But EinBebop's experience sounds like a terrible system. I hate when computers are used to try to guess what they can sell me next :P

[Enrique]

i'm surprised no one's mentioned yahoo's launchcast. it's a GREAT subscription service, in my opinion, with possibly more tracks available than any itunes-like service (they already had 4 major labels months before itunes came out). you can rank music by genre, artist, album, or individual song. plus you can let your friend's stations influence your own. and if you sign up for the paid service (only $36 a year), your music is commercial free.

this service is perfect for me because i have taking CDs back and forth between work and home. i used to load mp3s into my laptop also, which became a hassle because the music on the laptop started getting old while the music on my desktop at home grew and grew. now with launchcast, i don't even have to take my laptop, i can listen to my station at home or work or even if i'm on business travel.

[Magwheel]

Nope. It's compatible with XP and 2000, not ME.

Aww, stank. One more reason to feel sorry for WinME users? Not that I've used it, but people I know who have it are disappointed - more so than 98 and XP users! Well, sorry if I got someone's hopes up about iTunes

[SonGoku V3]

And blame Michael Jackson for the lack of Beatles songs at any of the legal music download stores.

aww dang, and I could have swore I heard news that the Beatles said that they didn't want any of their material available for download... If MJ used a Beatles song for a shoe commercial, what makes you think he wouldn't have allowed it on iTunes?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/3190052.stm

_ Quote from article:

The Beatles have been traditionally slow to adopt new music formats and were one of the last big-name artists to put their music on to compact discs.

[atf487]

I like napster's subscription idea. Even though you don't own the songs, I'm still getting it. It's not like I'll use the files as a replacement for CDs anyway, because the quality is worse, but for 10 a month, I think it's pretty reasonable. I use MP3s for previews, mostly.

Beats P2P in almost every way, except for price, but I'd rather have all the songs I want downloaded instantly, then to wait a long time. It's taken me like 2 days now to get 4/5 of a sebadoh CD, and no one else has it but this guy on 56k. Napster would avoid that.