Beta
×

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!

Get Ready For a Streaming Music Die-Off

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the tiny-pieces-of-a-tiny-pie dept.

Music 370

walterbyrd writes "Streaming services are ailing. Pandora, the giant of its class and the survivor at 13 years old, is waging an ugly war to pay artists and labels less in order to stay afloat. Spotify, in spite of 6 million paid users and 18 million subscribers who humor some ads in their stream, has yet to turn a profit. Rhapsody axed 15% of its workforce right as Apple's iTunes Radio hit the scene. On-demand competitor Rdio just opted for layoffs too, in order to move into a 'scalable business model.' Did no one wonder about that business-model bit in the beginning? Meanwhile, Turntable.fm, a comparatively tiny competitor with what should have been viral DNA, just pulled the plug on its virtual jam sessions this week—and it just might be the canary in the coal mine."

cancel ×

370 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's a doomed race against time (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619065)

The next generation may be the one that grows up without music.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (4, Insightful)

Whorhay (1319089) | about 10 months ago | (#45619117)

Or maybe just not listening to music every waking moment possible. I like music but I frequently would just as soon not have any playing while I'm focusing on something else.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (5, Insightful)

fatgraham (307614) | about 10 months ago | (#45619203)

Conversely, I find it hard to work in silence. Music, radio, (with inane chatter) or even a TV in the background helps me so much more.
I find silence distracting as I instead here little irregular noises here & there (doors slamming in the building, people shouting in the street etc)

Re:It's a doomed race against time (-1)

glrotate (300695) | about 10 months ago | (#45619319)

Please learn what the word converse means.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (5, Informative)

somersault (912633) | about 10 months ago | (#45619415)

You know what is one of the traits I like least in a person? When they assume that it's everyone else who is ignorant, rather than check their facts.

Yes, one meaning of converse - apparently the only one you know - is to take part in a conversation. However, there is another meaning which has a similar meaning to inverse and obverse.

converse
adj
(prenominal) reversed; opposite; contrary
n
something that is opposite or contrary
a categorical proposition obtained from another by the transposition of subject and predicate, as no bad man is bald from no bald man is bad
Etymology: 16th Century: from Latin conversus turned around; see

So basically, your post is laden with iron. Very irony in fact. Such disdain. Wow.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (4, Funny)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 10 months ago | (#45619519)

"So basically, your post is laden with iron."

I saw that too, and wondered, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? IF they know what converse means, then they're being ironic, if they don't then it's ironic that they don't, so no matter what you do, it's ironic, only the irony is directed differently depending. In fact, it becomes tautologically ironic, because he might be ironically posing to not know what it means, and thusly showing his irony in a self conscious way. It's like Goedel's "This sentence is false". Only dumb.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (4, Insightful)

Xicor (2738029) | about 10 months ago | (#45619399)

or just get the music and put it on your own streaming server that you run for free...

Re:It's a doomed race against time (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#45619133)

The next generation may be the one that grows up without very expensively produced music.

FTFY.

Humans will have music for as long as we can find something to bang on rhythmically. But, in the future, most production will probably happen in small and home studios, as opposed to the monolithic labels owned by RIAA members.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45619217)

Making high-quality music used to require investment. Expensive instruments at a minimum - but if you didn't want to sound like Kenny, you'd also need high quality microphones, sound damped recording studio, mixing desk, specialist technician to operate it and several high-end recorders capable of syncronised operation.

That's all changed now. One person working on consumer, affordable equipment can - on a purely technical level - match that quality with comparative ease. It's down to the level where people can and do make music as a hobby, without any expectation of payment.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619237)

Just one Antares VST plugin (Auto-Tune 7), and you sing as well as any modern pro can.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#45619369)

Just one Antares VST plugin (Auto-Tune 7), and you sing as well as any modern pro can.

Always wanted to play with it, never wanted to spend the money.

Still waiting on a FOSS alternative.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (5, Funny)

mugnyte (203225) | about 10 months ago | (#45619475)

The FOSS auto-tune alternative has been around a long time. It's called "practice"

Re:It's a doomed race against time (1)

sdoca (1225022) | about 10 months ago | (#45619531)

I'd mod you up if I could. But, I think "talent" also needs to be added ot the answer.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#45619597)

Talent, or skill? Talent is developed over years of practice, skill is what you're born with.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#45619589)

The FOSS auto-tune alternative has been around a long time. It's called "practice"

Ba-dum psht.

Don't get me wrong, I don't need it, I just have a few ideas I want to toy around with.

Like making a monotone recording and mapping it to a crazy guitar solo, or patching it through an electronic drum kit to try and create a funky stutter effect.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 10 months ago | (#45619511)

Just one Antares VST plugin (Auto-Tune 7), and you sing as well as any modern pro can.

Always wanted to play with it, never wanted to spend the money.

Still waiting on a FOSS alternative.

Here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnTpRWf_kmY [youtube.com] There are some others as well...

Re:It's a doomed race against time (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#45619363)

Making high-quality music used to require investment. Expensive instruments at a minimum - but if you didn't want to sound like Kenny, you'd also need high quality microphones, sound damped recording studio, mixing desk, specialist technician to operate it and several high-end recorders capable of syncronised operation.

Actually, that's largely been a myth since the advent of consumer grade, multi-track tape recorders.

For instance, the Sublime album Robbin' The Hood was recorded exclusively on a 4-track tape machine, and it sounds awesome. The problem, however, comes in with mastering the tracks. Not sure how they managed it back in the early 1990's (I'm guessing they went to one of those expensive studios), but the solution today is as simple as downloading a free copy of REAPER [reaper.fm] and learning how to use it. If you don't mind spending a fair amount of cash, there's a plethora of other DAW options out there; I'm a fan of Logic myself.

Hell, I bet dedicated audiophiles could probably come up with studio quality stuff using nothing more complex than Audacity. [sourceforge.net]

Re:It's a doomed race against time (3, Insightful)

ausekilis (1513635) | about 10 months ago | (#45619401)

You're forgetting why bands sign to labels to begin with: Advertising.

The record labels are the ones that can (and do) do the legwork to set up and promote concerts, to help design and create the T-shirts, to get the bands name out there for the masses. When the labels die out, there will be a mess of indie and smaller players, and the signal to noise ratio will get worse and worse. Something similar is happening with the games industry right now, there's only a meager handful of AAA games released each year, and lots of indie games.

Of course, this could also be a great thing. I'd much rather get to the steam-sale level of purchases for albums. Dropping $3-5 on a band? why not, check them out. Spending $20 on someone you've never heard of? not likely

Re:It's a doomed race against time (3, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45619455)

I have wondered if the increasing importance of the music video was in some way a collective response by the majors to keep costs high. They must have realised that their production advantage would lessen as the cost of making music came down. How better to counter that than to popularise the music video, an extra that serves as powerful promotion and still requires a substantial amount of money to do well?

Re:It's a doomed race against time (3, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#45619545)

You're forgetting why bands sign to labels to begin with: Advertising.

The record labels are the ones that can (and do) do the legwork to set up and promote concerts,

Which is now done by the band themselves on social media.

to help design and create the T-shirts,

Social media + boutique, online print shops (CustomInk, VistaPrint, CafePress, etc.).

I found one site that does custom graphics for kick drums, too.

to get the bands name out there for the masses.

Did I say social media already?

Social media.

When the labels die out, there will be a mess of indie and smaller players, and the signal to noise ratio will get worse and worse.

Only if you operate under the assumption that "major label bands" > "indie bands."

Which is a false assumption to make. For example, look at some of the top acts from the late 1980's and early 1990's - Nirvana's first album, Bleach, was produced by a nobody studio known as SubPop Records; Sublime founded their own label, Skunk Records. These are but two examples of many great, at least moderately successful bands who broke into the industry without first selling out to the major labels.

Personally, I see it the other way: the big labels do nothing but pump out pile of crap after pile of crap, generic poppy garbage that all sounds the same, from talentless hacks who, if there was no such thing as AutoTune, would still be asking SAG card holders if they want fries with that. The Indie scene is were we get modern wonders like Jonathan Coulton, DeadMau5, LudaCris, et. al.

Seriously, the Thing A Week album series? You'd never see anything that progressive coming from an RIAA member.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (2)

sinij (911942) | about 10 months ago | (#45619141)

Please, music is in human nature. If everything else fails (for any definition of fails) "the next generation" will still be sitting around campfires beating cow-skin drums and chanting. "Without music" will never happen.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | about 10 months ago | (#45619379)

I totally agree with you, but I don't think it will be just drums and chants! Home production of first-class music is now available to almost everybody.

The problem remains distribution and promotion.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45619477)

We've got distribution covered. Small bands can set up a website for a little money making tracks available for download, and if traffic grows there is p2p to turn to.

Still to solve: Promotion and (optionally) monetization.

Music choice is social: People tend to see out the music they see their peers enjoying. On a large scale, this leads to a shifting series of fads.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619509)

Promotion? Maybe, but all the cool kids get their promotions pushed through social media these days. Distribution, not so much; that was solved as soon as the first mic/line-in was hooked up to a computer on the Internet and converted analog to an audio file.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 10 months ago | (#45619165)

maybe the entertainment cartel is doomed, maybe a generation will rise up and put those and similar parasites under six feet of dirt

Re:It's a doomed race against time (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 10 months ago | (#45619259)

Six feet? Nah, just dust them over. They deserve to have their bones picked at.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 10 months ago | (#45619253)

At the fault of no other than the RIAA.

Gotta love the irony: their desire for control/restriction of use is dying out their very method of profit/industry itself.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (2)

tibit (1762298) | about 10 months ago | (#45619359)

Yeah, because if we don't listen to internet radio, we're growing up without music. Ha ha. Frankly said, I find music radio to be almost unbearable, whether delivered over teh interubez or via airwaves. I like buying my music, and exactly the music I want.

Re:It's a doomed race against time (2)

rosseloh (3408453) | about 10 months ago | (#45619407)

I like my Pandora list, because it introduces me to new artists.

Not as much now as it did when it was new, sure, but I still find stuff I like by using their algorithm.

(Granted, this is Pandora piped through Elpis, so I don't have ads or "are you there" confirmations or anything...)

Grow up without music? (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 10 months ago | (#45619451)

Could you please point to a generation that had no music? Cavemen had music, as far as I can determine. Which generation since has done without music?

The problem here is, that people expect to MAKE MONEY off of music.

I don't pay money for music, yet I have music. If the web just dried up, if television and radio stopped broadcasting music, I would still have music. Two of my three sons have learned to play guitars. I used to play the trumpet, I could relearn all that I've forgotten.

Grow up without music? Come on, just try to get in touch with reality.

Big deal, the big corporate honchos may find that they can no longer make mega-bucks from music. It's not like they actually CONTRIBUTE any thing to music. They are frigging parasites. Let them die off. Just starve them. The world won't miss them.

We will still have no-name kids playing music because they love music. And, if they are actually any good at it, people will reward them for playing. People will still be entertained.

Grow up without music. Preposterous.

The article is FUD (5, Insightful)

sinij (911942) | about 10 months ago | (#45619085)

The article is FUD. Why? Because there is still demand for this service.

Sure, current generation of services might die off, but as long as there is demand there will be a way to make money off it. Just look at the radio - they found a way to keep music "streaming" and pay the bills for the past 100 years or so. It is just a matter of finding correct monetization strategy.

Re:The article is FUD (-1, Troll)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 10 months ago | (#45619119)

Sure, current generation of services might die off, but as long as there is demand there will be a way to make money off it.

So you're saying the same thing the summary is. Do you just like arguing?

Re:The article is FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619155)

Do you just like arguing?

The GP actively made a post on Slashdot. Do you seriously NEED to ask? Come on, man, pay attention.

Re:The article is FUD (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 10 months ago | (#45619171)

You realise you're arguing against something the article never says, while providing a hypothesis which is exactly what the article thinks will happen?

Ultimately, the record labels are still calling the shots. And upstarts like Spotify, Rdio and the rest are learning that lesson the hard way, calling for sympathy while the shot-callers wring them out. In this old game, the dealer always wins. That is, unless you're a company with an excellent poker face and deep pockets to boot—and only Apple, Google and Amazon spring to mind as that kind of player.

Re:The article is FUD (1)

sinij (911942) | about 10 months ago | (#45619267)

The article premise boils down to "there will be no streaming music at some point in the future". To that I responded that I think they are WRONG because of REASONS. What is your point exactly?

Re:The article is FUD (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 10 months ago | (#45619335)

That's simply not the article's premise. The article's premise is almost exactly what you so smugly proposed should be its premise.

Did you not read it?

Re:The article is FUD (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 10 months ago | (#45619547)

this is /. you should know by now no one RTFAs

Re:The article is FUD (1)

kick6 (1081615) | about 10 months ago | (#45619235)

The article is FUD. Why? Because there is still demand for this service.

But, because most people want to stream to cellular devices, their demand is capped at ~2GB per month. Streaming can't live under the current scenario of very limited data packages at high costs on cellular devices.

Re:The article is FUD (1)

Sique (173459) | about 10 months ago | (#45619563)

Some people live in countries with more sensible data plans available. (I don't actually know if there is a cap on my data plan at all, but on the other hand, I don't use the Internet capabilities of my mobile not very often. And no, I don't use any music streaming services either. Never had, and probably never will.)

Re:The article is FUD (5, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about 10 months ago | (#45619251)

The record labels want online streaming to die. I've not followed the pricing too closely, but the cost per stream is something like 10x the price of a terrestrial radio station. That is why Pandora I believe was trying to purchase an FM station somewhere. The rates are lower if you have a terrestrial radio signal that then also streams IIRC.

Re:The article is FUD (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 10 months ago | (#45619287)

Just look at the radio

I don't think that's how radios work.

Re:The article is FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619507)

+1 well played

Re:The article is FUD (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about 10 months ago | (#45619377)

The underlying issue is probably the billions they are paying their own execs.

Re:The article is FUD (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 10 months ago | (#45619411)

The demand for music streaming may be affected by the experiences of those who pay a provider for a few years then all of the sudden have their whole music world shut off when their provider goes belly up. They'll find another service, but will it have all the same music? Maybe some of those folks will wish they had purchased the music instead of paying subscription... or maybe they'll move back to the pirate world.

Re:The article is FUD (5, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 10 months ago | (#45619505)

it's FUD because Pandora isn't fighting to pay artists 'less' it's fighting to be treated the same as radio...which, in the 21st century...is exactly what streaming services are.

The RIAA has set pricing on streaming licenses ridiculously high - hence why no streaming service can reliably make a profit.

The organization trying (and succeeding) at ripping off artists isn't the one actually playing the music...

Who cares. (4, Funny)

nospam007 (722110) | about 10 months ago | (#45619101)

The musical taste of an peson set at age 14.
So just download the last 20 years of music in about half an hour you have your music for life.

Re:Who cares. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619275)

No.

Re:Who cares. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619623)

>> the last 20 years of music

Yeah, it's like it's been a golden age for music or something. -rolls eyes-

FUCK YOU **AA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619107)

Those shit heads at **AA would love to go back to the old cd album days and is doing their best to kill off any streaming at all.

Re:FUCK YOU **AA (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 10 months ago | (#45619321)

They'd probably prefer to outlaw CDs and tapes and go back to the days when music was released on vinyl records which weren't easily duplicated.

Re:FUCK YOU **AA (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 10 months ago | (#45619387)

Interestingly enough, it *is* fairly easy to duplicate vinyl using fairly basic equipment. Yes, it involves wax and metal casting, but in principle everything you need to make a few dozen copies of a vinyl LP could be sold as a $200 kit, with much cheaper refills for subsequent duplications.

Too many? (5, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 10 months ago | (#45619111)

I wonder how much of this is just adjustment of the market to over-saturation.

That is not to say the RIAA is not shooting itself in the foot by pushing for higher royalties then the consumer will bare, but I do wonder if the explosion in sites has lead to more then there is room for.

Re:Too many? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619413)

I don't think 'bare' means what you think it does...

Re:Too many? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619417)

higher royalties then the consumer will bare

And now a message from the RIAA "If you enjoyed this song, we require that you remove your bra."

Nope (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 10 months ago | (#45619113)

This is just the beginning of the end for the corporate music industry. This has been going since the Napster days, and is just jumping from format to format. There is no profit left in corporate music (Labels). The number of good music acts is increasing as the wealth that was centralized by Labels becomes decentralized. Will there still be megabands and huge starts? Of course. However, the number of quality musical artists, who are able to reach a much wider audience, will spread out the available dollars to a broader selection of talent.

The real money will be made playing music live for fans to enjoy. Here's to hoping for the death of the "boy bands" and talentless whores who take off their clothes and call it a musical act.

Re:Nope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619227)

This is just the beginning of the end for the corporate music industry. This has been going since the Napster days [...]

Yes, that old chestnut HAS been repeated since the Napster days. And we're nerds, so of course we know what we're talking about: As soon as the corporate music industry's ever-inflating profits are high enough, they'll overflow a signed int and then they'll be in horrible debt, killing them instantly! I mean, come on, it's an old system, it couldn't possibly be using 64-bit signed ints, right?

Re:Nope (5, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | about 10 months ago | (#45619301)

The number of good music acts is increasing as the wealth that was centralized by Labels becomes decentralized.

Huh? No, technology has advanced such that good musicians/songwriters/performers can become good acts without a middleman. That's all. The Labels are not becoming decentralized, they are becoming deprecated.

Re:Nope (0)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about 10 months ago | (#45619327)

The real money will be made playing music live for fans to enjoy.

That's *always* been where the real money was, at least for the artists. The contracts that the studios locked them into pretty much ensure that 99% of them will never see a livable income just from CD sales.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619331)

Considering the boy bands and whores are the only music acts the big labels promote, it won't be the death of them.

The indie artists however, who actually make good music, have one less avenue to promote themselves with the death of internet radio, because you never hear their stuff on the normal radio.

Re:Nope (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45619493)

Not entirely true. They also promote rap artists. Not the good ones - just the ones who like to sing about how rich they are, show off their collection of 'bitches' and use certain words I can't even type here at work without setting off the racist content filter.

Re:Nope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619355)

That's like saying "its the beginning of the end of venture capital." The record labels are just venture capital for artists. As long as there is an appetite for superstars and the desire by artists for that up-front investment, the corporate music industry will be relevant. Digital revenues are growing (even if the growth is slowing), and if you look at the news out of Sony Corp's latest investor day, you'll notice that the movie side of the business is still down-sizing while music was left untouched.

Re:Nope (2)

gsslay (807818) | about 10 months ago | (#45619381)

The value of your insight is severely compromised by your idea that you can quantitatively measure "good music acts" and "quality musical artists".

The quality of the act and the music they play is almost entirely a matter of opinion. It cannot be measured without being influenced by your taste in music. Therefore you cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way that they are increasing in number.

Fact is, the "boy bands" and "talentless whores" you describe will continue to make money because people are willing to pay them. Even when playing live. Your evaluation of their quality makes zero difference to their business model.

Re:Nope (2)

mlts (1038732) | about 10 months ago | (#45619389)

I'm hoping you are right. Recently, one of the biggest changes in mainstream music was that the big labels stopped signing bands and started building bands. This difference doesn't sound big, but it means that instead of having an album from a group that has its own sound, stage presence, and lyrics, it means one is getting a singer who is especially chosen because he/she can follow orders, lyrics specifically chosen to appeal to a certain market segment by the MBA types, and then form a band around that.

The only downside of CDs not being a way of making money is that there are a number of bands which make better music in the studio than on stage. They are better off crafting their work and recording it than trying to get everything together in real-time and gigging. Plus, finding venues to gig in can be very difficult in some areas.

Re:Nope (2)

starX (306011) | about 10 months ago | (#45619429)

The real money will be made playing music live for fans to enjoy.

Point of fact, that's how the real money is made right now. What most people still don't realize is that a recording contract with a major studio is not a payday, it's a loan; all of that studio time and promotion is something the artist has to pay back through album sales. Where the artist really makes bank is in touring and merchandise sales while on tour.

Is there money to be made from a recording contract? Absolutely, but just like in TV and Hollywood, not much for most of the people who sign one. Big stars can set more favorable terms for themselves, of course. This is where the real shift is coming in: once upon a time, it was completely possible to be a working musician without ever signing a recording contract, you just had a very small chance of achieving elite status and popularity. Ever since the Napster days, artists have gotten more savvy about how to produce and promote their own work and make enough a name for themselves that, when the time comes to talk to a larger studio, they have better leverage going into the negotiating room. It's much harder to pressure someone into unfavorable terms when they're doing pretty well on their own.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619503)

The real money will be made playing music live for fans to enjoy.
 
Actually, the real money is in replaying a bands songs and offering it up with next to no compensation for the artist. So be smug about the end of "the corporate music industry" but at least they put their money where their mouth was by signing unproven artists while the Pandora and Spotifess of the world pay even less to those who actually produced a product to sell than the record labels did. Odd how you got modded +5 for totally skirting the heart of the matter. Must be a bunch of consumers with mod points. The ultimate "I got mine, screw you" mentality shown in its truest colors.
 
And what of the musician who doesn't do a music that is concert friendly fare? You'll probably be saying screw them too as you Bit-torrent their entire catalog. Your excuse will be "If they can't draw fans or perform their music live because of its format than they don't deserve my money as I consumer their product."
 
The boy bands aren't going anywhere. Most of them probably never made their real money from the album sales. They're secure and you're both short sighted and a selfish twit. You're the face of the future on consumerism and it's pretty bleak.

Well DUH! Free isn't a business model (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619131)

No business can survive giving shit away. Naturally the fucktarded shitdot sheeple will not see it that way because they are nothing more than a bunch of communist loving fucktards who should go and collectively slit their fucking wrists.

GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR
WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED MODPOINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Well DUH! Free isn't a business model (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about 10 months ago | (#45619205)

what are you blathering about? all those businesses charged money for something. some similar businesses even managed to make a profit doing the same thing.

WOOT! I PISSED OFF THE FUCKARDED SHITDOT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619245)

AND GOT A FLAMEBAIT MOD!!! WOOT!! The fucktarded shitdot sheeple can't hand the truth that communism will never work without a totalitarian government. The fucktards only care about getting shit for fucking free while others work their asses off. That is why they, like their butt buddies Richard (RMS Titanic) Stallman and Linus Torvalds, love communism and hate capitalism.

GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY
OR WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED
MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE OR BETTER
YET GO SLIT YOUR FUCKING WRISTS
FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE

LMFAO NERD RAGE IS THE BEST RAGE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619365)

Especially when it comes to you fucktardewd shitdot sheeple! LMFAO!!!
You communist, nigger lovers can't handle the fucking truth about your precious communism and communist open-sores which is why you rage mod comments that goes against what you fucktarded shitdot sheeple believe. You do it soooo much like you rage quit in games that you constantly lose because you are all soo fucking stupid. You will never get any pussy. Oh wait, you hate pussy and prefer to suck on each others cocks. So go ahead and rage mod this comment while every sane person, myself included, will laugh at you and your social ineptness and stupidity.

GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY
OR WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED
MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE OR BETTER
YET GO SLIT YOUR FUCKING WRISTS
FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE

Competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619147)

So competition works. The strong will survive. How is this news?

Re:Competition (1)

jythie (914043) | about 10 months ago | (#45619271)

Because analyzing what a market is doing and what forces are shifting it is interesting to some people?

pay artists??? don't the labels take a big cut of (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 10 months ago | (#45619173)

pay artists??? don't the labels take a big cut of that so they only get like $0.02 a play and only after they pay off there fees?

Grooveshark (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619179)

And somehow Grooveshark manages to stay afloat. With an ad blocker installed, it offers a massive library of on-demand songs with no advertisement whatsoever. Anyone care to explain exactly how that works?

Re:Grooveshark (1)

jythie (914043) | about 10 months ago | (#45619315)

Grooveshark is being sued for copyright infringement, so historically they have 'stayed afloat' by not paying royalties. It is much easier to keep costs low and provide a cheap (or free) product when your bypass such fees. The other services that the piece goes over are all paying royalties to one degree or another.

Re:Grooveshark (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about 10 months ago | (#45619341)

It won't, if everyone using it is blocking the advertisements.

Re:Grooveshark (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 10 months ago | (#45619375)

And somehow Grooveshark manages to stay afloat. With an ad blocker installed, it offers a massive library of on-demand songs with no advertisement whatsoever. Anyone care to explain exactly how that works?

and this is why websites hate adbockers you are using their service but not paying or veiwing ads.

Oh snap! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619183)

Back to downloading music for free and setting up playlists then!

Re:Oh snap! (1)

komodo685 (2920329) | about 10 months ago | (#45619565)

You could even put that playlist on a local music server.
Sockso [pu-gh.com] is good though when I last used it (~2 years ago) some features didn't work it didn't play all file types so I had to convert music files to, I believe, .mp3 (maybe .ogg).
The program itself is just an executable jar you have to configure, comes bundled with a tomcat if I remember correctly, just double click and you have a music server.
I can confirm, that at the time, it ran out of the box on 10.04 Ubuntu.

Re:Oh snap! (1)

komodo685 (2920329) | about 10 months ago | (#45619619)

The program itself is just an executable jar you have to configure, comes bundled with a tomcat if I remember correctly

uh I mean tomcat server [slashdot.org] not this [xkcd.com]

Suck it, Millennials! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619195)

"I won't ever have to buy music again! I'll just pay $15 a month for access to all the music I could ever listen to?"

So how's that working out for you? About as well as that "free health care" and "I'll pay off these huge college debts when I get a job" plans?

Boomers and Gen Xers are going to leave you nothing but debts and higher taxes.

Don't worry, though. We'll let you keep your ironic hipster facial hair, as long as it doesn't interfere with the latte machine...

Re:Suck it, Millennials! (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 10 months ago | (#45619279)

It's probably still working great for them. Pandora, Spotify, etc. are still in business.

Radio Vs Stream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619219)

Pay for Bandwidth OR Pay for Tower

As long as you're paying an ISP to connect your server to other people, the overhead will be too high. Songs take up an inordinate amount of bandwidth; though it does make me wonder about netflix. Anyone know how music licensing compares to television licensing? Is it a matter of per play/acquiring monthly rights?

Re:Radio Vs Stream (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 10 months ago | (#45619423)

Given that inordinate amount of bandwidth is already taken up by streaming video, and there's not even a single extra inordinateness left since video is more than 50% of traffic nowadays, I'd tend to say that internet radio at 128kbit/s is but a drop in a bucket. Certainly not inordinate by any stretch of imagination.

Ownership (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619221)

Sure, I listen to streaming music. But I still prefer ownership of the soundfiles. Call me old fashioned.

Re:Ownership (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 10 months ago | (#45619357)

Exactly. This is why I've never signed up for any streaming music service and why I buy DVDs of shows that are available on Netflix (I do usually wait for bargains/used copies, though). The advantage of streaming services was the "play-anywhere" ability, meaning you didn't need to worry about having a (backed up) iPod with you all the time, but Google Music (and to a lesser extent the Apple and Amazon competitors) has made that issue moot.

Alternate business model (3, Insightful)

shuz (706678) | about 10 months ago | (#45619249)

Or all these services could embrace the google business model which is to supplement services paid or unpaid with heavy data mining and profiling of people. The real prize is being able to target an individual with information that has a high likely hood to cause that individual to spend more money. It really doesn't matter who or what they spend the money on. If the individual spends more as a result, then the original company that data mined and profiled the individual can monetize the entire process in their favor.

1. Give individual service for reduced cost
2. Profile individual
3. Sell or use profile
4. Profit

The only other option is to offer a service at the true non-competitive cost, which the majority of people are not willing to pay.

Did someone forget YouTube? (4, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | about 10 months ago | (#45619285)

Its doing quite nicely thank you - admittedly thanks to googles large bank balance - and its what pretty much everyone I know uses to listen to music on now. If you want to download music of course thats a different matter , but to just listen to ad-hoc music in the background while doing something else YouTube is as good as any.

Re:Did someone forget YouTube? (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 10 months ago | (#45619361)

"Doing quite nicely thanks to Google's large bank balance" is actually what the article expects to happen.

Re:Did someone forget YouTube? (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about 10 months ago | (#45619409)

No one I know uses their computer to listen to music anymore. It's always on their phone or tablet.

Data caps? (2)

mwn3d (2750695) | about 10 months ago | (#45619345)

What about the effects of cell phone companies moving away from unlimited data? I never got into it just because of that.

Re:Data caps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619541)

WTF?
Quote
"Data is priced between $20 and $500, for between 300MB and 50GB of usage."
This is for the latest AT&T plans PER MONTH

Verizon claims average billing per user to be $129 PER MONTH. Guess who's taking the piss then?

Using data with phones on these networks is just frecking stupido.

Re:Data caps? (1)

GodInHell (258915) | about 10 months ago | (#45619553)

Minimal if any. Even if you only have 2-3 gigs a month - if not music, what ARE you moving on that connection?

Free Music? Yes, That "Business Model" Does Work (0)

DERoss (1919496) | about 10 months ago | (#45619347)

I listen to streaming broadcasts sent over the Internet directly by radio stations. Most of these stations are non-profit, many of them part of National Public Radio. They seem not only to be surviving but even thriving. Three of the stations are sufficiently close that I can listen to them over the "airwaves". The rest of them are available only via Internet streaming.

Of course my taste in music is mostly classical, music that is still entertaining and appreciated more than a month after it is first released. In many cases, the recordings are no longer available commercially. If the cited trend in this article is true, perhaps young listeners might learn of the majesty of Beethoven, the emotion of Tchaikovsky, the joy of Gershwin.

Tried Pandora (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619433)

I tried Pandora, still garbage, nothing better on it than broadcast radio.

Blame the artists and record companies... (1, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 10 months ago | (#45619441)

FM radio stations all get to play music for free and in some cases they get paid to play it. Yet on the internet BMI and ASCAP turn into vampires sucking dry anything that is different.

The blame is The labels, BMI, and ASCAP. Those are the ones that deserve all your anger, ire, and hatered.

Magnatune (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 10 months ago | (#45619517)

I don't know if Magnatune is financially viable, but I appreciate their business model. They used to actually sell albums, now they just do a monthly service thing but you can download/listen to as much as you want, as I recall? And they don't try to own your files once you download them, etc. And, from what I recall, artists get 50%, Magnatune gets 50%.

It seems fair, and there are a lot of decent artists, especially if you are into world or folk music. Lots of good classical stuff, too (smaller ensembles, not really big orchestra types).

Die off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45619573)

I'm still waiting for COBOL to die off!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?