×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Would You Rent a Song For a Dime?

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the twenty-million-says-you-will dept.

Music 580

An anonymous reader writes "What's worse than a padlocking every song so that they will only play on certain devices? How about selling (renting) you songs that work on no devices? Astonishingly, this is what the music industry thinks we need. Warner Music is spending $20 million to back Lala, a startup devising a service to convince people to 'buy' 'web songs' for 10 cents each; these are then kept for safekeeping only by Lala with no download privileges. Industry insider Michael Robertson leaks the facts on this scheme, along with a seekrit URL so you can try it out."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

580 comments

Would you lick my balls for a quarter? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563411)

I would rent a song for a dime if you would lick my balls for a quarter.

Re:Would you lick my balls for a quarter? (4, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563563)

It's easier than what the RIAA makes us do for two and a half songs.

Re:Would you lick my balls for a quarter? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563691)

10 cents might be more like 1 cent if the banks guess correctly [abc.net.au]. There might be a sudden growth in the ball licking business in teh US soonish.

Imaginary Property (4, Interesting)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563433)

So now we're meant to pay ten cents for the right to imagine we have imaginary property?

Re:Imaginary Property (4, Insightful)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563529)

So now we're meant to pay ten cents for the right to imagine we have imaginary property?
I think they are anticipating the death of radio, which is essentially the same thing except they determine what kind of rubbish you listen to in between the ads. Here you get to pay 10c per song to choose what kind of rubbish you want to listen to whilst (probably) having to read ads anyway.

Re:Imaginary Property (4, Informative)

Unending (1164935) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563613)

it looks like they are offering the songs in MP3 format for 89Â... I'm not sure, but I think the summary isn't giving the full picture.

Re:Imaginary Property (2, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563631)

So now we're meant to pay ten cents for the right to imagine we have imaginary property?
There are plenty of programs out there that can snatch streaming audio/video from an embedded flash object.

I wonder what the quality of the audio is?

Re:Imaginary Property (2, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563697)

From my experience using Audacity (for non-commercial music that I didn't want to hunt to download, so you can back off RIAA inquisitors), if you save it in a lossless format there is little difference, but if you try to encode it as MP3 or OGG at any but the highest bitrates, the quality noticeably suffers.

(cue piano music) (5, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563639)

Imagine there's no Lala,

And paying for is to buy.
No Warner below us,
Above us, metro wi-fi
Imagine all the artists
Getting paid the full amount.

Imagine there's no IP
Nor music tax for you
Nothng to lawsuit over
And no Sony too
Imagine all the people
Owning what they have

You may say I'm unAmerican
And your lawyer's just begun
I hope someday you'll .torrent
And the world will be as one.

Re:(cue piano music) (5, Funny)

willyhill (965620) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563729)

Completely offtopic here, but the other day I overheard the 14-year old daughter of a friend of mine remarking on what a beautiful song David Archuleta had written to sing in American Idol, and how he should have, like, totally won the competition if only for that.

I excused myself, went to the bathroom upstairs and laughed uncontrollably into a towel (to muffle the sound) for about five minutes.

*laughs* (5, Funny)

OMNIpotusCOM (1230884) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563805)

I wish I had mod points for you two. For $0.10 apiece you can pretend I modded you up.

Re:*laughs* (5, Funny)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563883)

I wish I had mod points for you two. For $0.10 apiece you can pretend I modded you up.
Mod Point Rule #1: The Mod Point Fairy only gives you mod points when you don't want them.

Mod point fairy (0, Troll)

OMNIpotusCOM (1230884) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563933)

So that's the reason... that bitch!

Is rule number two that the mod point fairy only gives you mod points when you completely disagree with what someone has said but can't express your thoughts into a coherent or humorous paragraph?

Re:Mod point fairy (1, Insightful)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563965)

Is rule number two that the mod point fairy only gives you mod points when you completely disagree with what someone has said but can't express your thoughts into a coherent or humorous paragraph?
Yep. That would be it. And rule #3 is that I will get modded redundant/offtopic or something because I'm agreeing with you and we're not talking about music anymore.

Re:(cue piano music) (5, Funny)

AtariKee (455870) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563821)

These are the kids that will be running the country soon. I would have suffocated myself.

Re:(cue piano music) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563925)

Abortion is legal it only takes a second to put retroactive in front of it.

Re:(cue piano music) (2, Insightful)

exley (221867) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563975)

Hey, give the kid the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she's unaware of the premise of American Idol, and furthermore she clearly doesn't know the song was written by someone else. This wouls show that she's ignorant of both TV and pop music, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like, totally!

Re:(cue piano music) (2)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 5 years ago | (#23564001)

I would have vomited out of my eyeballs in anguish....

Still, that is freakin' funny. A 14 year old watching American Idol.... BWAHAHAHHA! Doesn't she know it's a kids show?

It's called a jukebox (5, Insightful)

ReverendLoki (663861) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563735)

We so need to organize a protest at this one diner near where I work. They have the audacity to "rent" songs for a whole quarter a song (or 5 for $1), for just one listen! If I'm paying for it, I want the right to my song, dammit!

Look, I'm all for actually owning the digital music you buy, but I think we're jumping on this for the wrong reason. It's not so much that they are ripping us off of our rights (which they aren't), as it is a stupid business model. There are so many other, better legal alternatives out there, I don't see this one flying.

Re:It's called a jukebox (3, Interesting)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563911)

There's a difference between the jukebox at the diner (played for public consumption) and playback in one's home, car, bike, etc (played for private consumption). The intention is the differentiating factor: even if you can hear it outside the house, it's intended primarily for the people in the house, and therefore a private playback.

No you aren't (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563789)

No you aren't. Just keep your dime.

The service is only for people who want to pay the dime.

For people who have nothing to offer but complaints and an unearned sense of entitlement, there is no service.

Re:Imaginary Property (1)

jeevesbond (1066726) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563941)

So now we're meant to pay ten cents for the right to imagine we have imaginary property?

Yeah, but so what? I just tested, and it works in Linux! ~

If you can listen, you can save (5, Insightful)

Palmyst (1065142) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563441)

If you can listen, you can save, and it won't be long before a hack for that is posted on slashdot.

Re:If you can listen, you can save (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563457)

So, depending on how good the quality is, 10 cents to 'rent' each track could be quite good value.. mwahahahahahaaaaaaa!! When will they learn?

Re:If you can listen, you can save (2, Insightful)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563569)

mwahahahahahaaaaaaa!! When will they learn?
And considering for less than 10c you can copy it from a mate, that's even better value, without breaking the license agreement any more or less than you were implying.. heh heh heh!

Re:If you can listen, you can save (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563655)

They are "trying to maintain" 128kb/s. That's quite good.

Every song can be listened once for free, so grab the stream and save it on your hd -> free music!

Now we only need a Firefox add-on to automate the process...

Re:If you can listen, you can save (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563757)

After I got a pair of decent headphones I got fed up of the quality of my 128kbps ripped albums and re-ripped everything to 192kbps MP3s.. definite difference in the clarity of the treble, hi-hat clicks, that type of thing. Of course some songs have actually sounded better at 128kbps but maybe that was to do with the quality of encoding, or just because they work better with a feeling of more bass because of the lack of upper frequencies.. meh.

Re:If you can listen, you can save (1)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563497)

If you can listen, you can save
True that, but you can always make saving such an endeavor the vast majority of people will choose to buy instead of using whatever work around is available. But even then it's only a matter of time before ease of use would catch up...

I'm still trying to see what makes this diffrent from some sort of personalized internet radio station, which isn't a bad idea for some. It certainly shouldn't be the end of discussion for legit music over the net tho.

Re:If you can listen, you can save (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563861)

If you can listen, you can save, and it won't be long before a hack for that is posted on slashdot.

...or a Firefox Addon. Come to think of it, there may already be one... [mozilla.org] (well, you'd probably have to modify it a bit to grab just the audio...)

/P

Do it the old school way (2, Interesting)

Serenissima (1210562) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563885)

Buy a 7-dollar cable from Radio Shack and route the Headphone Jack directly into the Microphone jack on your computer (or use 2 computers - how many Slashdot readers really only have one computer?) and then use a free program like Audacity to record it and make an instant, non-DRMed MP3, OGG, etc. 10 cents is not a bad price.

Cheaper Piracy (1)

Aquaseafoam (1271478) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563467)

If it can be played through your speakers, then it can be used as a cheap venue for Piracy. All they are really doing is making it cheaper for pirates to initially grab your .mp3's for distribution.

A-Hole vulnerability (2, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563469)

They are only "locked" if people don't record the analog output from the computer.

How many people really want music that can only be played from the internet? For some people this would work, sure.

Apparently they don't think many people like iPods and other portable music players.

Re:A-Hole vulnerability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563693)

Proved to be no match for dwhelper, although I did have to listen to the whole song to download it. ten cents for DRM free music that is downloadable... something to think about here.

Doesn't seem so bad... (5, Interesting)

pirodude (54707) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563479)

So they're letting you listen to a digital copy one time? Time to start firing up the flash ripper and start scraping the site. Chances are they're not sticking stupid DRM or watermarking in their own 'secure' player.

Granted having your entire music collection in fla is annoying, you can probably can convert it to something a little more usable.

Sounds like a great source for large volumes of music.

Re:Doesn't seem so bad... (5, Informative)

pirodude (54707) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563615)

http://next.lala.com/api/AutoComplete/songAutoComplete?prefix=bt [lala.com]

Pass URL encoded downloadToken to:

http://next.lala.com/api/Player/getTrackUrls?flash=true&webSrc=lala&widgetId=LalaHeadlessPlayer&T= [lala.com]

url gives you the mp3 url, it's not a full mp3, sounds backwards, but it's a start to downloading from them.

Re:Doesn't seem so bad... (1)

pirodude (54707) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563751)

Nevermind, it gives you the full mp3, the song I picked was just a short sample played backwards :) That was pretty easy.

Re:Doesn't seem so bad... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563999)

To expand on that previous finding, here's a script that lets you download any song you want:

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use LWP::Simple;
use Data::Dumper;
use JSON;
$|=1;

die "$0 <search param>" unless $ARGV[0];
my $root_url = "http://next.lala.com/api/AutoComplete/songAutoComplete";
my $content = get "$root_url?prefix=$ARGV[0]";
my $ref = from_json($content);
my $num = 0;
foreach (@{$ref->{data}->{list}}) {
  print "$num : $_->{artist} - $_->{title}\n";
  $num++;
}
print "Download which? > ";
my $req = <STDIN>;
die "not valid" if ($req < 0 or $req > $num);
my $download_url = "http://next.lala.com/api/Player/getTrackUrls?flash=true&webSrc=lala&widgetId=LalaHeadlessPlayer&T=" . $ref->{data}->{list}->[$req]->{playToken};
my $play_url = get $download_url;
my $play_ref = from_json($play_url);
my $download_link = $play_ref->{data}->[0]->{url};
print "Getting: $download_link\n";
my $filename = $ref->{data}->{list}->[$req]->{artist} ."-" . $ref->{data}->{list}->[$req]->{title} . ".mp3";
print "Downloading to $filename\n";
system("wget -O '$filename' $download_link");

It's quick, it's dirty, but it works:

perl download.pl tiesto
0 : Tiesto - Ten Seconds Before Sunrise
1 : Ti&#195;&#171;sto - Forever Today
Download which? > 0
Getting: http://cfs-listen-52.lala.com/contentfs/content?t=NjU1MzVVNDM2OTE1OQ%3D%3D-vSOzDPPcV8VwbKW6Bwdv%2FQ%3D%3D
Downloading to Tiesto-Ten Seconds Before Sunrise.mp3
--2008-05-27 18:16:09--  http://cfs-listen-52.lala.com/contentfs/content?t=NjU1MzVVNDM2OTE1OQ%3D%3D-vSOzDPPcV8VwbKW6Bwdv%2FQ%3D%3D
Resolving cfs-listen-52.lala.com... 209.237.235.158
Connecting to cfs-listen-52.lala.com|209.237.235.158|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 3609494 (3.4M) [audio/x-mpeg]
Saving to: `Tiesto-Ten Seconds Before Sunrise.mp3'

Re:Doesn't seem so bad... (1)

pirodude (54707) | more than 5 years ago | (#23564017)

someone mod this parent up, it's source code that rips music from their service.

Re:Doesn't seem so bad... (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563625)

Granted having your entire music collection in fla is annoying
Until your favourite media player starts supporting it, which shouldn't take long.

Re:Doesn't seem so bad... (0)

mr_e_cat (611996) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563971)

Time to start firing up the flash ripper and start scraping the site

Which is of course, theft.

What? (5, Informative)

willyhill (965620) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563483)

The website clearly says "Get MP3s for your iPod". Is the submission incorrect, or is there a catch to said MP3s? Because the submission clearly states that anything from Lala won't play on any devices. That was the whole point of posting this here for people to be outraged, I imagine.

Re:What? (1)

poeidon1 (767457) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563589)

It says that you can buy mp3s for ipods which may be interpreted that you can get a mp3 for (most probably) a higher price.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563601)

It's kdawson, what did you expect? Something to actually be outraged about?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563705)

The website clearly says "Get MP3s for your iPod". Is the submission incorrect, or is there a catch to said MP3s? Because the submission clearly states that anything from Lala won't play on any devices. That was the whole point of posting this here for people to be outraged, I imagine.
From the website: "To listen to web songs you've added to your collection on a non-internet connected device, you can download the MP3 file for an additional charge. The 10 cents you've already invested toward this purchase will be deducted from the final MP3 price."

Re:What? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563717)

From http://next.lala.com/#howitworks :

Want MP3 downloads?
You can buy DRM-free MP3s for your iPod or other portable device for just 79 [cents] more.
So, it's a lot like Amazon MP3 but with a "trial version" feature, except you have to pay for the trial.

Also, my CAPTCHA is "patents". How apropos.

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

IP_Troll (1097511) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563783)

I believe this "submission" a way to get people on the site so that lala can tell their investors "We had 1 million hits within one day of launch."

Slashdot fell for it and is now giving a never heard of site massive traffic which will appear positive to investors.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

tripmine (1160123) | more than 5 years ago | (#23564015)

So what? This site is a stupid idea. If they go ahead with it just because of the slashdot effect, boy will they be in for a surprise.

Re:What? (1)

Pinky3 (22411) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563819)

Quote:
Want MP3 downloads?
You can buy DRM-free MP3s for your iPod or other portable device for just 79 cents more.

Re:What? (1)

willyhill (965620) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563875)

If the initial $0.10 goes towards the purchase, that's not so bad. I buy DRM-free MP3s from Amazon all the time at $0.89 a pop.

I think this is a lot less sinister than the hysterical submission suggested.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563935)

Those cost 79 cents more ...

Eh? (3, Interesting)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563511)

I don't hate the idea... so long it isn't the only way to obtain music. Sometimes I get a song stuck in my head and I only want to hear it once or twice, then forget about it for another few years. That's worth the $0.20 so that I don't have to hunt for a torrent or other file sharing media... and wait. But make no mistake; This is no alternative for being able to purchase a whole, unencumbered album that I can listen to indefinitely.

Re:Eh? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563653)

And that is what YouTube is for. Seriously, you can listen to any song for free without the hassle/legality of Torrenting it. And because the song is in analogue audio, you can even dump the stream to "download" it.

Every permutation... (3, Interesting)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563519)

Every conceivable permutation of DRM restrictions has to be tried and failed until the barely-chordates in the music industry will realize it's a terminally flawed business model.

I imagine the schemes will become more and more elaborate, more and more draconian, and more and more amusing for those of us who've had a new thought since the compact disc was invented.

I'm very happy with mindawn.com and emusic.com, and physical CD purchases for those other things I "just gotta have". Everyone else can take a flying leap.

I will just sit back and enjoy watching the churn.

ok then (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563531)

Warner Music is spending $20 million to back Lala
I guess that's $20 million down the drain, as I don't see this method of music distribution becoming popular. If they keep this up maybe they'll do us all a favor and bankrupt themselves eventually.

Sshhh don't tell anybody about this (5, Informative)

blhack (921171) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563539)

Click here [imeem.com]

Unlimited free music with links to purchase it if you want. 100% legal. 100% major labels. Tons of obscure stuff too.

i like Rhapsody (2, Interesting)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563553)

Ok, so, I don't like this idea, as many people here will agree- it's just another sign that the labels are out of touch with reality.

That being said- I would like to point out that it's already a losing model with something like Rhapsody in existance, which, btw, I absolutely could not live without! (Thanks to my new Squeezebox Duet, per recommendation of the slashdot crowd. thanks guys!)

Anyway, my point is this: They're late to catch on. Nobody will pay 10 cents to listen to a computer. Listening on the comp should be free, people want to and will pay to take it with them. That being said, 89 cent mp3s are a good idea, this might gain ground.

It's not that people won't pay for music (2, Informative)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563561)

It's not that people won't pay for music, most people would happily pay for high quality DRM free music, but they don't want to offer that. They'd rather come up with stupid schemes like this. This crap isn't worth a dime when I can get the same songs for free in a much more friendly format.

Re:It's not that people won't pay for music (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563775)

>It's not that people won't pay for music, most people would happily pay for high quality DRM free music, but they don't want to offer that.

I'll add that I will happily pay for music that is not only DRM free, but also will play in all my devices, not try to root my computer, not phone home, etc. Just put good music on Red Book Standard CDs, and it will sell.

Lala sounded familiar... (2, Informative)

QRDeNameland (873957) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563593)

I thought I had heard of Lala before.

Sure enough, Lala [wikipedia.org] started as a physical CD trading website. I remember reading about this and wondered what I was missing about their business model.

Judging from this, I don't think they knew either.

Re:Lala sounded familiar... (3, Funny)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563645)

> I thought I had heard of Lala before.

Me too. And if TimeWarner is listening, I have a startup that needs funding. We're calling it Tinky Winky.

Re:Lala sounded familiar... (1)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563873)

My wife did the CD trading thing. Was a really nice service.

They also host woxy, the best internet radio station, imo.

It just seems odd that they would be going in this new, stupid direction.

Not as bad as it is made to seem (1)

poeidon1 (767457) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563623)

The site says that you can also get mp3 (yes, mp3) for presumably a higher price. So, this is more of a rental model, listen to the *locked* version for a dime or own the song for a higher price.

What about rent to own? (0, Redundant)

Proudrooster (580120) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563657)

American's like to own and collect stuff. That's why houses, TVs, and MP3 storage capacity keep getting larger and larger. If I simply rent songs, what is the point of buying a 500GB video IPod or having the 5 Terabytes in my MythTV media center? The only way I see this plan working is if I rent it 10 times, that entitles me to own it. 10 rents = 1 purchase and you have to give me 1 penny back to be the same price as ITunes. Got it looosers?

I have no bank account, no pay pal account (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563661)

I'm not about to get one. How do you expect me to pay this "dime"? Screw that. Too much good stuff out there without such nonsense. They should be paying me to distribute their content. Electricity ain't free, ya know.

Renting isn't so bad (5, Insightful)

steveha (103154) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563673)

My major objection to DRM on music I buy is simple: if there is DRM on it, I don't really own it.

If I am renting the music in the first place, DRM doesn't bother me so much. Exhibit A is the Rhapsody online music service, which is essentially a flat-rate music rental service. I have discovered that I like Rhapsody very much. I am finding new bands that I like, bands I had never heard of before, much faster than before I had Rhapsody.

Depending on what you get, Rhapsody is $12 to $15 per month. If this plan really is a dime per track, that's a cheaper rental than Rhapsody. The big question is coverage. If the new plan only lets me rent the latest pop acts, I'm just not interested. (Rhapsody has over 4 million tracks, including all sorts of cool things: Herbie Mann flute albums, Bill Cosby comedy albums, progressive rock, etc.)

When Rhapsody helps me music I really like, I then go and buy the music on CD, so that I will really own it. I'd be happy to do the same thing with this new service.

Will the service succeed? I'd say that depends very much on the specifics. How do you pay them that dime per track? If they have a convenient way to add dimes to your account, such as selling gift cards in Best Buy, it might become wildly popular; if you have to jump through a bunch of hoops (agree to a 20-page EULA, pre-register, enter a valid credit card number, pre-pay in $30 chunks, etc.) most people will just say no.

Assuming it's convenient, would I "rent" a song for ten cents? Sure. Why not?

steveha

Disclaimer: I work for the company that owns Rhapsody, but it's not my job to sell it to you or anyone else.

Somebody will make a downloader... (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563675)

Somebody will make a downloader like Free Music Zilla [freemusiczilla.com] (which does IMEEM and Pandora, among others), which will mean $2 albums. I'm not complaining!

DLing still cheaper than iTunes (1)

p0werhouse (1045446) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563687)

You can buy DRM-free MP3s for your iPod or other portable device for just 79Â more. That's 89Â, which is cheaper than iTunes DRM-Free music.

Price Point - (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563699)

Hey, give them some credit - at least they've figured out the right price point. Now they just have to fix the distribution model (i.e. no rental - you own the song and can listen when and where you want).

Awesome (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563709)

Meanwhile, as this swirls the drain, people will still continue to pirate music. That's right, spend your billions on failures.

The point? (1)

Splork2 (152140) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563715)

This is stupid. Why would I need this when I can just bring my iPod to work? Or, fire up iTunes when I'm at home.

Since did anyone pay for music? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563753)


 

I like it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563763)

If the concept is that you can listen as often as you want online, but can never download the song to anything in any format, then I think it's priced right and is a good product. My reasoning? This is essentially how I value *all* DRM-protected content. In fact it's better in some ways because they obviously have to try to keep the music available and I don't have to worry about backups or proof of ownership. $0.10 is seriously cheap. I could replicate most of my library for $100 and be able to listen to it forever anytime I was online. As "online" becomes more and more pervasive, it would suffice for more and more of my listening time. Compared to $100 to replicate my library by most other offerings, that's a good deal.

Website copy needs more work... (1)

Protoslo (752870) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563765)

"Lala is an online music service where you can listen, upload, trade, and buy music. Unforuntely[sic] it requires javascript, similar to most major websites on the internet."

Whew, rather defensive there...

LALA = Nice Web 2.0 Interface (1)

Proudrooster (580120) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563803)

http://next.lala.com/ [lala.com]

It actually has a nice Web 2.0 interface and is currently playing FREE music if you want to try it. However it doesn't have my favorite Yngwie Malmsteen CD, but has a good selection. Oh, and if you don't know who Yngwie Malmsteen is, then go listen for free right now.

Re:LALA = Nice Web 2.0 Interface (1)

jsnipy (913480) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563867)

Too much hair, too few vowels :) (listens to youtube clip whilst writing) Bad ass guitarist!!!!111!! o_O /me looks for some dimes

Easy answer = no (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563815)

They must be nuts.

Even if i were to rent music, which i refuse to, when would i ever be able to listen to it? The only free time i have now for music is during my daily commute. No ipod, no listen..

Potential for Problems (2, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563831)

I think other reviewers pretty much hit the nail on the head when they say that price is not really the issue. That said, I don't really like the idea of having to use a client to access the music off of a site. For one, you're dependant on the reliability of the media server. For another, you are banking on the fact that the client won't create a root kit for an intruder to gain access to your machine. Obviously, making a tcp or udp connection to the media server pokes all kinds of holes in a firewall. So, I Warner can keep its 10 cent music. It would cost me way more than 10 cents to fix a computer that has been rooted and assimilated into a bot net.

Wasting Our Music Budget on Silence (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563835)

If these clown record labels spent 1% of the money they insist on wasting fighting their customers and the free promotion and distribution we do for them instead on paying good bands for some of the good new music that kids are always coming up with to amuse their friends, there'd be lots more sales of T-shirts, concert tickets, special "Premiere Day Downloads", licensing to commercials and movies, and all kinds of other ways to milk people's love of good music.

Instead they spend all the money they rip from us for $1 songs and $15 CDs and $20 DVDs on more idiots trying to stop us from listening to music. But then I guess all their "decision makers" wouldn't get paid.

Can't Spel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23563845)

"Lala is an online music service where you can listen, upload, trade, and buy music. Unforuntely it requires javascript, similar to most major websites on the internet."

Cracking the "DRM" (2, Interesting)

Captain Perspicuous (899892) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563853)

Anybody interested in finding out how to get those tracks for free? Turns out these are mp3s, downloaded normally over http. The url something like

http://cfs-listen-80.lala.com/contentfs/content?t=long-list-of-random-chars [lala.com]

Unfortunately, the song seems to not getting stored anywhere on the local hard disk. And when one tries to start downloading the url a second time, a "not found" message is given. Anybody interested of analyzing it some more? :-D

Only a dime? (2, Insightful)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563881)

Hard to find a jukebox these days that charges less than 25 cents a play.

Yeah, I know it's not the same, I'm just saying that the idea of charging per play is hardly a new, untested, unworkable one.

Sounds like a bargain to me (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563901)

Sounds like a bargain to me - and a way to vote with your dollars. Wins all around.

My iTunes library has 968 songs that have been played more than 0 times (meaning played at all). The total song plays (start to finish) is 2233. $223.30 is a heck of a lot cheaper than $968, and that's playing some of the songs more than 15 times (a few over 20 times).

The more a song gets played the more the artist makes? They make songs people want to listen to more? There are more songs I enjoy listening to? Who's losing here? People who make crappy music and people who sell crappy music? How is this bad?

Actually... (2, Interesting)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563905)

10 cents is actually my price point for music; when iTunes started selling it for a buck I poo-pooed it and said I'd wait for 10 cents. If it actually happens, I'll start buying music again. If it weren't for the record labels, and independent bands were allowed to sell their own music, even a mediocre band should be able to survive on the income and a great band should make oodles and oodles of cash.

But it'd have to be BUYING the music, not renting. I want a high quality VBR MP3 or AAC file, at the minimum.

If the first time is free, so is every other time (2, Interesting)

Tango42 (662363) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563909)

I don't get it... it says you can listen to a song for free once, and then you have to pay. How do they know I've listened to it before? I can delete cookies, and I can sign up multiple times if I have to. Unless they require some kind of verifiable identification to prove you're a new user (which I do not intend to provide), I can listen to as much music as I like for free. Sounds like a great site to me!

How about telling the MIDDLEMEN to get out of it? (2, Informative)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563921)

I'd gladly give the artist 10 cents, but the recording execs won't get one penny out of me and mine.

Heck, most of my CDs I've bought from the artists themselves, knowing they tend to get HALF the money I give them, as opposed to buying through a label that gives them less than 2 cents for a CD.

Lets see... (1)

skipsbro (1154639) | more than 5 years ago | (#23563963)

I can listen but I can't download... sound like last.fm or pandora to anyone else? But those are FREE, so why the hell am I expected to pay for a song I can't own?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...