Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 16th Apr 2011 16:01 UTC
Google So, Google has been working on setting up an internet music service for a while now, and we even know some of the details about what Google wants it to look like. Sadly, however, rumour has it the negotiations with the music industry have been so frustrating, Google is contemplating abandoning the entire project altogether. This has led some to wonder - why doesn't Google, or a consortium of technology companies, just buy the music industry outright?
Thread beginning with comment 470315
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
still not doing it right
by muszek on Sat 16th Apr 2011 21:29 UTC
muszek
Member since:
2007-04-25

Asking a per-song payment is the wrong way to do it. Distribution of music over the Internet costs pretty much the same whether I download one album a month or 50. And I want to be able to download 500 a month just because it does not cost anyone a significantly more. Like that song? Download (or have access to) the whole discography of the band just because it's convenient.

I have a pretty basic model in mind - it's so simple that it must have been laid out by someone else a long time ago. Here it goes:
Customers pay a fixed monthly fee ($10? $20? $50? does not really matter here. I'll use $10 as an example.
For that $10 I can listen (download or stream) to anything I want. At the months end, my $10 (or whatever's left after all the costs are covered) is divided among rights' owners according to my usage stats. Say the costs (service provider's fee, taxes, bandwidth, etc.) were $3. I downloaded 3 albums by Pixies, 1 by Massive Attack and 1 by Bonobo. Pixies get 3/5 of my $7 and so on.
Once I unsubscribe, I lose the right to listen to any of that music.

I don't mind paying a considerable amount of money for music. I just won't participate in a crippleware-like system where I'm denied an access to the World's entire music collection.
Please show me some flaws of this solution.

Until something similar is implemented, I'm gonna use a wonderful BT site that gives me access to pretty much every album I search for in every form one could wish (different kinds of lossy and lossless formats, different editions of albums, etc.).

Edited 2011-04-16 21:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: still not doing it right
by Eugenia on Sat 16th Apr 2011 21:38 in reply to "still not doing it right"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Mateusz, that's EXACTLY what I mentioned earlier: unlimited streaming with an offline mode, for a fixed $10 a month.

This is EXACTLY what I've been advocating through my blog for months now too regarding the future of music playback. And in the US, there's MOG and RDIO that do EXACTLY that. You can stream as much as you want to, to anything you want to, and if you're away from wifi/GSM, they have an "offline" mode where you check which albums you want, and then they sync a blob of (encrypted) data to your PC/mobile device (not individual copyable files). This has worked wonders for me with RDIO. They even have a Roku app now, so you can connect your Roku box to your audio system and listen to the music via big speakers in your living room! And sharing music is easy, since RDIO is social, so your friends simply have to have an account. For $10 a month is affordable by everyone really.

BUT, the problem is that the big labels DO NOT want this plan! Because currently they make more money through individual buying. Thing is, consumers don't want that, so it drives lots of them to piracy. With such a $10 plan there would be no reason for piracy because in fact, you'd spend less time searching and downloading and being in jeopardy for an ISP or RIAA legal action.

Really, the only thing that's missing is licensing of that music. A way that people can license for very little money a song to use with their videos online.

Reply Parent Score: 2

cranfordio Member since:
2005-11-10

Although I think the subscription model is good for some people, probably most. I am one that likes the pay per song model. I may spend between $30-$40/year on songs, usually albums. For me the subscription model would be expensive. I don't disagree with the model though, I just feel both models need to be in place to suit the needs of customers. If eventually only subscription models are available, then I won't be listening to new music.

Reply Parent Score: 2

mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

Mateusz, that's EXACTLY what I mentioned earlier: unlimited streaming with an offline mode, for a fixed $10 a month.


Except it can't and won't work. While you and I and others like us are honest, the sad fact is that piracy is rampant not because music costs, but simply because it's possible. The younger generation, teens through 20's, will still see that they have $10 to spend on alcohol, cigarettes, clothes or partying if they just pirate the stuff they want to listen to. Nobody wants DRM on music, which would be the only way an "offline" mode would be policeable, and even then DRM is easily broken so it still doesn't prevent piracy.

This means I applaud any private effort to break the insane power the content industry holds.


How would this be "breaking" power? It's just shifting it to another location - as if Google don't already have enough. You and your cohorts want everyone to believe that Google are this shining light of all that is good in content delivery yet you constantly fail to acknowledge, possibly through lack of understanding, possibly naivety, or maybe it's just the blinding sparkle coming off the Google logo, that you're still paying for the product..

It never ceases to amaze me that people can scream blue murder at governments for imposing indirect taxes, yet have absolutely no problem whatsoever in paying for goods / services indirectly as they do with Google, and it's a lot more than you might think as anyone who runs a successful adsense account will attest.

Certainly shows the hypocrisy of the modern world tho...

Reply Parent Score: 0