Universal Music: Music shall be free

[zboy2854]

From here:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...-entertainment

Universal Backs Free Music Download Service
The move reflects music companies' willingness to experiment as they try to capture some profit from the boom in digital distribution.
By Charles Duhigg, Times Staff Writer
12:03 PM PDT, August 29, 2006

Universal Music Group, the world's largest music company, has agreed to make its entire library of songs available for free Internet download as long as consumers watch advertisements while downloading the tune.

The experiment between Universal Music and New York-based SpiralFrog marks a significant shift for an industry that has long sought to force people to pay for music.

SpiralFrog will allow consumers to download any Universal Music song free of charge, as long as they watch a 90-second advertisement per song. Video downloads will require viewing a 120-second ad. Additionally, users must log onto the website once a month and watch additional ads to keep the tunes.

In return, users can listen to songs, ad free, as many times as desired on a computer, portable music player or music-enabled cell phone.

The 90-second download is significantly longer than the 15 to 20 seconds it takes to download a ditty from iTunes, where songs cost 99 cents. But SpiralFrog believes that young consumers will be attracted to its slower but free model.

"The currency we're using is time," said SpiralFrog Chairman Joe Mohen. "Young people are already downloading free songs illegally on peer-to-peer networks. We believe that advertisers will pay to show those consumers ads, and that those payments will rival what music companies get from iTunes or other online retailers."

[danasti]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

From here:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...-entertainment

Good! It's about time that we all started working for free and degrading our product.

My children and I really don't get enough advertising in our diet these days!

Another genius idea from the music industry - they are just churning them out these days, one after the other.

Moving even furthur away from quality and closer to strapping everyone in a chair with their eyelids pulled open.

The problem is that people who don't have a clue about music and audio are making decisions about music and audio. I seriously don't understand why these idiots can't go work for the government with the rest of the people who ruin everything they touch.

[dolo72]

Damm im glad I havent got anything in their back catalogue hope Virgin( or whoever owns them now ) dont go the same way tutt .
I dont remember giving my consent to turn my tunes into Coca-cola, maybe i should have read the smallprint.

[nukmusic]

Humm

question is....What will they be advertising?

There's a lot of cash in the advertising market. Companies spend shit loads of cash on it each year.

I guess the copyright owners will get a slice of the pie too

[knightsy]

Seems like a workable option, guys, what's the problem? It seems like there's nothing actually forcing the end user to literally watch the ad, they can probably just wait the 90 seconds for the ad to finish. The end user gets the music, the label gets paid, and hopefully that means the label starts advancing money to artists for studio time again.

We can complain about commercialism all we want, but this looks like some adaptive thinking by the labels. Should the labels be criticised for that?

[Reptil]

Ok, so what is music then for them?
A soundtrack for commercials?
Is thát all they can think of?
Stupid fools. Yeah downgrade music, that will pull ppl. over to buy it. No way. Ppl. will only shell out their cash for something that has value for them. I wouldn't want this company to "distribute" my music. If you write for commercials, sure, why not? But that is NOT the same.

Oh Lord, won't you buy me
A Mercedes Benz
My friends all drive Porsches
I must make amends

[indie]

unbelievable. I wonder how the songwriters get paid!!!!!

[Gregg Sartiano]

Is this the way to stop internet piracy?

It's about time. If the music arms of these entertainment conglomerates become the most profitable divisions, there will be more money to go around -- for everyone.

I've been harping on the advertising thing forever. I, for one, hope it works. If it does, it'll evolve into something very consumer-friendly, even if it starts out clunky or clumsy. It has to. Just watch.

Posted in '04:

Originally Posted by Gregg Sartiano

If you extrapolate the delivery of data to an infinite speed and (perhaps) wirelessly (i.e.: the internet delivers you what you want, when you want it -- no waiting), then there is no need for a tangible format. CD's, DVD -- bye, bye.

SOOO -- current marketing models cease to work. But what marketing model works with wireless delivery and no format?

TELEVISION!!!

Television makes $$$ through advertising and has no need to charge fees at all. And then, there's cable (or whatever) -- subscription-based viewing. If you watch CNN all day, you don't pay CNN more -- you pay the cable company the same fee, and CNN gets more advertising $$$.

O.K. -- Let's apply it to the music biz. iPods sound like s&^t, but three years from now, something will sound good -- promise! The general public has no issue with paying cable & internet fees, so let's take it one step further and integrate a music subscription fee. Now, if you wanna hear Led Zeppelin Houses of the Holy (which I do right now, dammit!), you download it onto your SuperPod. Then it's there. iPods are already integratable into certain BMW's, so let's extrapolate that -- you take your SuperPod into your (whatever) car and listen to HOTH as you drive to the studio. And you don't worry about erasing HOTH off of your SuperPod 'cause it's easy enough to DL again. Of course, there's no need for mp3 p2p sharing 'cause this system has a great catalog and is fast, well marketed, and convenient.

Now, let's play follow the money.

The DL statistics dictate how the artists'/publishers' share of this pool of $$$ is divided up -- much as ASCAP and BMI currently dispense royalties based on performance rights/intellectual property.

Artists could also pump up their incomes by putting an ad at the top of the song: "Hi, I'm ____, and I love my [guitar brand] guitar. Hope you love my music!" Talk about cross-marketing...

THAT'S IT. In one stroke you've eliminated the threat of CD burning (DL's are convenient enough to make CD burning just another user option), mp3/p2p/file sharing (why get the milk for free when it's sour half the time, anyway?), and you've brought an entire industry back to economic vitality.

[knightsy]

Originally Posted by indie

unbelievable. I wonder how the songwriters get paid!!!!!

Well the auditing process could be interesting, but then it always has been. The label would still have to pay a royalty to the artist... that's enshrined in law.

[danasti]

Originally Posted by dolo72

Damm im glad I havent got anything in their back catalogue hope Virgin( or whoever owns them now ) dont go the same way tutt .
I dont remember giving my consent to turn my tunes into Coca-cola, maybe i should have read the smallprint.

That's a good point. And a good legal arguement for sure.

Is an artists' music being associated with corporations that they morally oppose?

I'm usually pretty open to ideas for growth and promotion but this one just plain sucks IMO. I can't see myself ever liking this.

[Reptil]

Yes, what about the EXPERIENCE of music?
offered for free? coupled to a commercial? Commercials do get stuck in people's heads.
I'm afraid you guys totally underestimate the power of subliminal messages.

IMO all this might sound like an interesting new twist, but is essentially completely missing the point of music.
1. because they offer it "for free". They're not, but the general public doesn't know this. and will regard other music also as "without value"
2. because music is now a soundtrack: of secondary importance.

and yet another thing is wrong about this whole plan:
users have to come back to keep their music files functioning.
how on earth they want to do that is beyond me, but looks like an invitation to hackers.

Paid downloads. It's working right? why not go that road?

[initialsBB]

This doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me. I'm surprised a major label is actually going through with it though. I am skeptical of the "entire library of songs" claim but it's inevitable that it will happen someday.

To everyone who is hostile to the idea, how is this any different than radio? And how does free music with advertising cheapen and commercialize music any more than selling it as a commodity on plastic discs?

[Reptil]

my main objection is that music will be coupled with visual images (probably synced if these ppl. are worth their salt) and therefore linked in the head of the user.
that is fundamentally different from radio.

Janis Joplin? Never heard of her. Oooh you mean the Mercedes commercial. Yeah I know thát one.

It'll be like MTV on steroïds.

[not_so_new]

I think you guys who are so against this might be missing the point here.... or maybe I have this wrong....

LOL



The 90 second advertisement happens while downloading the tune. The music and the ad are separate from each other. You watch the ad while the song is downloading and then you can play the song as many times as you want until the next month with no ad at all.

Really not a bad idea at all, as initialsBB said exactly how is this different than radio.. except for the upside that you get one ad for each song but that song can be played multiple times after that with no ads.

Seems like a really good idea to me.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Reptil

my main objection is that music will be coupled with visual images (probably synced if these ppl. are worth their salt) and therefore linked in the head of the user.
that is fundamentally different from radio.

Janis Joplin? Never heard of her. Oooh you mean the Mercedes commercial. Yeah I know thát one.

It'll be like MTV on steroïds.

I would assume that it would be a different ad for each person that was downloading the song and the next month odds are that you would get a different ad as well. As I said, you watch the ad once, not like MTV at all where you watch the ad every time you hear the song....

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

...............
The 90 second advertisement happens while downloading the tune. The music and the ad are separate from each other. You watch the ad while the song is downloading and then you can play the song as many times as you want until the next month.
......................

mmm, it says the user will have to go back. how are they going to do that? My guess is that there has to be an internet connection. challenge and response sort of thing? I imagine the advertisement has to be coupled to the music. that is the basic idea. That the user may use the song for a month is a reassurance for initial sceptics. (like me LOL) Of course the companies paying for the music want their products coupled to succesful music. Fine with me, but not something you'll want as a dominant business model. IMHO

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

I would assume that it would be a different ad for each person that was downloading the song and the next month odds are that you would get a different ad as well. As I said, you watch the ad once, not like MTV at all where you watch the ad every time you hear the song....

mmm if that is the case, you can ignore the commercial. But just like MTV the advertisers are not going to pay for something that can be ignored. They pay for high impact. I'm sure the label is selling the "content" like that to them. So that is why I don't think so.

[zboy2854]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My concerns are:

1. It will sever the final tie to people's concept of music having any intrinsic monetary value.

2. Those using P2P file sharing networks will feel vindicated and empowered to continue file sharing. After all, if the labels are giving away the music for free, trading it for free on a P2P network can't be wrong anymore, right?

Who wants to take bets on how soon after this service goes live that some kid comes up with a Tivo-like software program to download all you want and skip the commercials?

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

....And how does free music with advertising cheapen and commercialize music any more than selling it as a commodity on plastic discs?

Because it's coupled to an advertisement. That's the whole idea isn't it?
I think it can be a good idea, for a lot of pop music. sure. but MTV started out good. And I look at what all parties want. Ppl. are so used to commercials on TV. Do we want the same thing to happen to commercial music releases?
(ps, I live in a part of the world where some tv channels actually don't have commercials)

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by Reptil

advertisers are not going to pay for something that can be ignored.

That's the nature of all advertising though. Are you really going to get up from your computer for 90 seconds while the song is downloading or will you just sit there and watch the ads?

Come to think of it, 90 seconds is a bit excessive. You can't expect users to watch the equivalent of a couple of TV commercials for 3 minutes of entertainment. 15 minutes worth of ads to download a 10 track album? 90 seconds of ads for the entire album would be more like it.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Reptil

mmm if that is the case, you can ignore the commercial. But just like MTV the advertisers are not going to pay for something that can be ignored. They pay for high impact. I'm sure the label is selling the "content" like that to them. So that is why I don't think so.

As I said I could have the whole thing wrong.

How I would do it as an IT guy (that is my other gig)...

I would set up the download page to open an advertisement full screen that plays while you sit and tap your fingers or go get a snack (just like TV). Just like TV the advertisers know most folks will do this but some will watch and that will raise their product recognition.

After the ad is finished your download begins and the download is time stamped. 30 days after the time-stamp on the downloaded file the download becomes corrupt in some way (not hard to do at all just not sure how they would do it, I am a networking guy not a programmer). At that point you have to go back to the site and start the whole process again.

I don't have any problem with that at all. As a matter of fact the more I think about it the more I really like the idea.... if I have it right that is.

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

That's the nature of all advertising though. Are you really going to get up from you're computer for 90 seconds while the song is downloading or will you just sit there and watch the ads?

Come to think of it, 90 seconds is a bit excessive. You can't expect users to watch the equivalent of a couple of TV commercials for 3 minutes of entertainment. 15 minutes worth of ads to download a 10 track album? 90 seconds of ads for the entire album would be more like it.

sure a lot of ppl. can live with that. but that is the start. ppl. will get used to it, the next step would be that you can't play a song without having the ad on the screen. and of course images will match the music. A bombardment of commercial ideas. You can imbed the advertisement in the file, so the player (realplayer, Itunes, windoosmediaplayer) will allways play that. If you put a screen on top of the player, it will pause. That is how I would do it, if I was an advertisement guy.

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

As I said I could have the whole thing wrong.

How I would do it as an IT guy (that is my other gig)...

I would set up the download page to open an advertisement full screen that plays while you sit and tap your fingers or go get a snack (just like TV). Just like TV the advertisers know most folks will do this but some will watch and that will raise their product recognition.

After the ad is finished your download begins and the download is time stamped. 30 days after the time-stamp on the downloaded file the download becomes corrupt in some way (not hard to do at all just not sure how they would do it, I am a networking guy not a programmer). At that point you have to go back to the site and start the whole process again.

I don't have any problem with that at all. As a matter of fact the more I think about it the more I really like the idea.... if I have it right that is.

ladies and gentlemen hackers, start your engines

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Reptil

mmm if that is the case, you can ignore the commercial. But just like MTV the advertisers are not going to pay for something that can be ignored. They pay for high impact. I'm sure the label is selling the "content" like that to them. So that is why I don't think so.

One more thing that I touched on above someplace.

Advertisers know that a certain % of the target market will ignore the ad or walk away from the ad.

They pay money based on how many people will potentially see the ad, even part of it, because that increases their brand recognition. They are not counting on you going to the store that minute and picking up their product, they are hoping that when you are in the store next time you will remember their product. They only really need you to see the add many times, even if you only see it for a few seconds.

Repetition is the name of the game, quantity over quality, I know it sucks but it does keep radio and TV stations on the air... on second thought that might not be a good thing,

LOL

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by Reptil

the next step would be that you can't play a song without having the ad on the screen. and of course images will match the music.

But at that point the artist's permission would surely be required.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Reptil

ladies and gentlemen hackers, start your engines

A very good point.... it never ceases to amaze me how humans can be so intelligent and so stupid at the same time. *sigh*

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

But at that point the artist's permission would surely be required.

IMO not if it has become the dominant business model. The computer as home entertainment centre? This fits right in. What does an individual artist do, if he/she has to choose? Yes or no airtime? That's how MTV etc. works now. (not when they started out and were fresh. I LOVED MTV! Now I can't watch it anymore, because I'm all the time waiting for something interesting in between the BS.)

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

..........My concerns are:

1. It will sever the final tie to people's concept of music having any intrinsic monetary value.

2. Those using P2P file sharing networks will feel vindicated and empowered to continue file sharing. After all, if the labels are giving away the music for free, trading it for free on a P2P network can't be wrong anymore, right?
.......

Exactly that will happen. Why? Because these guys see music as just another commodity. And in their misunderstanding of what value (raw) music really has, will devaluate it and kill the market, even more than they've done now. IMO this is a "dumping" tactic.
IME People love music. Always have always will. Make sure they get it, from the source, and they will pay for it. IMO there has to be something of value. It has to be SPECIAL because ppl. want something that gives their live value. Something to aspire. People also want to spend money. It is a fable that they don't want to pay. (look at Itunes etc.) People want to belong. People want to be part of "the thing"..
Just give them that. But the "suits" are too dumb to recognise something good when it kicks them in the face. Because they're "suits". THAT is what is wrong. IMVHO
Pirating is a result of a flawed business model, (milking the product too long), degrading the product (less artist development, and focus on marketabillity, instead of content) and a changing global market structure. (look what happened to DVD with the stupid greedy regioncodes plan)

my 2¢

[indie]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My concerns are:

1. It will sever the final tie to people's concept of music having any intrinsic monetary value.

2. Those using P2P file sharing networks will feel vindicated and empowered to continue file sharing. After all, if the labels are giving away the music for free, trading it for free on a P2P network can't be wrong anymore, right?....

I completely agree! "The kids these days" have a severe mental block about the subject of stealing music.
I had a conversation with a college age girl at an Apple store not too long ago -- she could NOT process how downloading "free" music from a peer to peer server is stealing. I said it's no different than going into Tower and shoplifting...she didn't get it. VERY scary.

Not that I'm old (34) but it's shocking to not be able to correlate downloading to stealing.

[Absolute]

If music was free...there would be no music.tutt