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!

Music 20 Cents a Track in India

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the cheap-tunes dept.

Music 346

xzap writes " , an Indian portal is now offering "International Chart-Busting" music for download legally at Rs 10 (20 cents U.S) a song. They say they (through a partner) have tied up with music labels like BMG, EMI, Warner, Tips, Times Music, Lahari, Enrico Hindustan (which is the oldest catalogue of HMV) and Archies Music "." I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it.

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

First Post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350375)

Maybe not, but it was an honest effort nonetheless.

Re:First Post? (-1)

Yr0 (224662) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350427)

Yr0 casts a +1 Firstpost Stealing Spell!

Yr0 Has Stolen your First Post!

WOW! (0, Offtopic)

boy_afraid (234774) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350381)

I'd definitely do it!

I'd buy that for a dollar!

P.S. Finally, first post.

Re:WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350395)

I think not, my logged-in nemesis. Way to throw your karma away for a second post.

Re:WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350436)

A DOLLAR? Are you stupid? That would be pretty much the same price of a brand new CD...

Re:WOW! (-1)

Yr0 (224662) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350513)

ha ha you lose

Re:WOW! (-1)

Yr0 (224662) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350612)

I of course, have won.

This will get to the US soon enough. (2)

Marx_Mrvelous (532372) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350383)

I'm sure that the record companies will give in eventually.
When a business model fails, it is not the government's responsability to make laws to sustain it. There might be a temporary period with a oush for that with lobbying $$, but it'll stop eventually. New marets will open, and purchasing music online will take over.

Re:This will get to the US soon enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350559)

"When a business model fails, it is not the government's responsability to make laws to sustain it."

Um, just one problem there, pard'ner. Laws already *exist* and it *is* the government's job to prosecute them.

Have fun in San Quentin! Oh, I'm sure you won't go there for music piracy, but with depth of insight like that, I'm sure you'll end up in legal trouble someday.

anonymous bastard

Re:This will get to the US soon enough. (5, Insightful)

Big Sean O (317186) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350601)

"When a business model fails, it is not the government's responsability to make laws to sustain it."

Robert Heinlein, I had no idea you were still alive...

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." -- Robert Heinlein

In related news (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350637)

Netcraft confirms the truth: *BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dead

number (-1)

Troll McClure (571760) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350389)


Im troll MccClure!

Why the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350432)

So, it costs 20 cents a song in India to download the song legally

And it costs like like $20 ($2) a song here to buy it off the shelf. CD's only costs a few cents to make and copy onto,

So i ask, Why the big difference?

I just can't wait until someone asks the RIAA, "Why can't you offer that here?"

Re:Why the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350496)

Maybe because 20 cents in India is worth about 2 dollars here? Man, do you people even wake up before formulating your arguments?

Re:Why the difference? (-1)

Yr0 (224662) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350548)


Re:Why the difference? (2)

alen (225700) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350510)

CD's cost more than a few cents to make. You have manufacturing, transportation, cover art, marketing, advertising, studio time etc. Then you have the retail markup. Stores have to make a profit too. If you only want to pay $1 for a CD, you're free to go visit the factory and buy it without packaging or cover art. Of course getting to the factory may cost you quite a bit more.

And then the average per capita income is less than $1000 in India. So you have to take that into account too.

Har har har. (0, Troll)

dj28 (212815) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350391)

"I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it."

No you wouldn't. You will still complain that the record labels are ripping you off. There would still be thousands of rationalizations for pirating music. The problem is not going to be solved by dropping prices or have a per-track fee.

Don't be so cynical (1)

g_bit (253703) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350479)

It takes a long time on the computer to find exactly the song(s) you're looking for. You'd pay $0.25 to download what you want, when you want.

C'mon, for an album of 12 songs that's only $3.00 you'd have to be an idiot to waste even 1 hour (unless you make bare minimum wage of course ;)

Also, at that price I could build my own 'Internet' jukebox for clubs and bars and make a fortune!

Re:Don't be so cynical (2)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350516)

and to make it even easier, they could get Kazza and morphius to move over to their network so that people can actualy use those popular tools to BUY the MP3s....I would support a law that outlawed apps that have a function that allows the downloading of MP3s illegal MP3s. that is short enough in scope to not hurt any application, and keep functions like looking for porn films still viable on kazaa :-)

Re:Har har har. (2)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350480)

perhaps not in the 1% minority that actualy pirates, but for tha majority of folks, it will work...that and reducing the cost of CDs to $10

Re:Har har har. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350495)

Yes it is! I'd happily pay that sort of fee provided I knew that ALL the money was going to the people who'd worked on the track.

Re:Har har har. (1)

timothy_m_smith (222047) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350519)

Let's face it though, the labels will never sell us MP3s. They would still have the same problem that the music could be easily distributed with no copy protection.

Re:Har har har. (-1)

Yr0 (224662) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350587)


I guess you've never used (2, Interesting)

allism (457899) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350533) [] does something similar, except instead of paying a quarter a track, you pay a monthly fee for unlimited downloads. Before we lost our high-speed bandwidth, we were using this service on a regular basis, even if we found we could get music for free. Not EVERYONE is out to pirate music, I'm just not willing to pay $15-20 for a CD I can't listen to tracks to before buying and may (probably does) suck.

Re:Har har har. (1)

hymie3 (187934) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350543)

No doubt. I've got about nine gigs of music that I've downloaded off the net which I don't give a flip about. If that partition crapped out, big deal. I definitely wouldn't want to pay for it.
I've got around eight gigs of stuff downloaded from and sxsw [] which is free, so I don't have to pay for it. I've also got about four gigs of music I care deeply about. I own CDs for almost all of those tracks, so I don't have to pay for that.
I've got about 300 megs of stuff that I'd *consider* paying for if I could pay $0.25 per five minutes of tunes.
Typical users, when given the choice between paying and not, will typically choose not.
If forced to choose between pay for the music you listen to and don't listen to music at all, my informal survey of friends says most people would rather not listen. Which is why digital radio and anything paybased the big guys come up with is doomed for failure.

Re:Har har har. (1)

hymie3 (187934) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350614)

Ack. Not to follow up to my own post or anything, but the link should have been to: sxsw [] .

Re:Har har har. (2, Insightful)

Jaycatt (530986) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350572)

Finding music illegally isn't always easy. I'd pay $0.25 a song if it was a fast reliable connection, and the song was really the one I wanted recorded with a high bitrate. Knowing you're not wasting your time downloading something mislabeled/corrupt is worth $0.25 to me.

Re:Har har har. (3, Interesting)

evilned (146392) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350584)

While I agree that the mp3 piracy most probably will continue even if they did that sort of plan, I personally would pay a quarter a track for a high bitrate mp3 or ogg vorbis file. Secondly, the tracks I get off of the trading services have a bad habit of being cut off early as well. If they give me high bitrate and guaranteed download, thats worth a quarter to me. In fact thats the main reason I still buy CD's, 128 sounds like garbage to me on both ogg and mp3, and 160 is barely usable on ogg, and I always know when I do my own rips, that I am getting the full song. The record companies have to market themselves differently, they have already lost the price war, so the only thing they can market themselves with is quality, but they will be carried kicking and screaming down that path.

a confucian principle (1)

dryueh (531302) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350393)

You know, this kind of thing isn't that unusual (in principle anyway). Go to China and music is distributed (whether that's domestic or imported labels) without paying any regard to copyrights, etc etc etc. A forever and constant -twang- in the sides of capitalist artists.

The Confucian influence is, after all, good for some things, eh?

The Master said, "Groove."

I'd pay up to 50 cents a track... (1)

SpotBug (228742) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350396)

... as long as it really was only 50 cents. No extra charges. Shipping and/or handling wouldn't make sense, but I can see them figuring out a way to tack on extra fees.

Re:I'd pay up to 50 cents a track... (1)

ThinkingGuy (551764) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350473)

The most likely tactic would be trying to offer "upgrade" deals, like "for an $_____, you can download the HIGH BITRATE version of this song!"

Re:I'd pay up to 50 cents a track... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350658)

Fifty cents per track is about as high I would go. And that would be for 192kbps or higher bitrate.

Slashdot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350397)

You all are a bunch of losers! You Nerds!

Re:Slashdot (0, Offtopic)

hummerman (562331) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350561)

To anonymous coward why are you dissin on us slashdotters when obviously you are surfing the site too!

25 cents a track? (2)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350398)

They could go for volume, but I'd rather pay 5 cents a track. And the option to "return" them if it's not what I want.

Re:25 cents a track? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350438)

"And the option to "return" them if it's not what I want."

Oh yeah, that would fly. I can picture it now: "I just downloaded 2000 tracks that I didn't want, please refund me even though you have no guarantee that I will delete these tracks from my hard drive."

Get with the program, moron.

Re:25 cents a track? (2)

mblase (200735) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350553)

They could go for volume, but I'd rather pay 5 cents a track. And the option to "return" them if it's not what I want.

As if three or four songs by a given artist wouldn't tell you whether or not to keep downloading them. You'd demand the right to return an item that cost you $0.05 to purchase in the first place? What are you going to do, download their entire library and send back everything you don't like?

hell yeah! (2)

diesel_jackass (534880) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350406)

$0.25 a track?

I'd definitely be in for that shit. Screw kazaa and the myriad of hidden programs inside of it.

Re:hell yeah! (0, Offtopic)

azosx (568180) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350542)

yeaaaaaaah, sifl & olly ROCK, yeaaaaaah, ROCK!

Re:hell yeah! (1)

Chuqmystr (126045) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350550)

"Screw kazaa and the myriad of hidden programs inside of it."

That's the one thing I worry about though. Not that we'll ever see anything like this in the US in our lifetimes. But hypotheticaly speaking, if we just happened to have such a service, then just how much crap would they sneal into the legit clients? Oh, and how many peopled would get DMCA'ed into oblivion for hackin up a clean version or for writting one of their own, ala OSS?

Not quite so fucking good.... (-1)

Profane Motherfucker (564659) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350407)

As cheapass cigarettes for less than a penny a pack. You know what stupid white fucking soho trendy assholes pay for the same pack of Bidis: close to $5. Talk about a fucking markup. And in India, they're fucking ghetto swill. Poor person smokes. Here, they're fucking frat boy smokes.

Soundbuzz (5, Informative)

proxybyproxy (561395) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350411)

Although not mentioned in the article (why?), the site is already up at []

They can't extort these people (2, Interesting)

sketerpot (454020) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350413)

They are doing this in India because they can make more money there by selling the tracks cheaply than overcharging horrendously, as they do in rich countries where they can get away wih it.

If they did something like this in America, I would use it. I would very gladly use it if the monet wet to the musicians via FairTunes (FairTracks?), without the big record companies and the RIAA getting their cut of the loot.

Don't believe it (1)

yatest5 (455123) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350416)

I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it.

If the same tracks were available free then people would still rip them off. End of. Full stop.

Without protection to stop people doing this, it will never be financially viable - its not like CD's where you get something 'better' having an original...

Re:Don't believe it (4, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350536)

its not like CD's where you get something 'better' having an original...

Oh yes you do:

1) Guaranteed quality - no chance of an incomplete, low bit rate copy of a CD that skips part way through the track
2) Guaranteed availability - no searching for tracks, only to find that the host is too busy, just go to the website and there it is, quick 'n' easy
3) Peace of mind - no worries about getting busted for having illegal copies of music on your machine, no worrying about your ISP logging your activity, etc

Okay, so 3) is pushing things a little, but I'd pay for 1) and 2). In fact, I only started using P2P apps to find music when I was unable to find a way to legally, quickly obtain a certain song that I just had to listen to (I get like that sometimes). I couldn't even find anywhere online to buy a CD single of it, let alone download it.

20 minutes later, I'd installed Kazaa (yeah, I know now, and it's history), found it, and downloaded it. At the time, I would have happily paid 2 or 3 pounds sterling (roughly 3-5 dollars, or around 10 times as much as in the article) to have legally downloaded a high quality electronic copy.

Of course there will be people who will download illegal copies regardless of how cheap, quick and easy it is to buy them legally, but I think you'd be surprised how many people will think "how cheap? At that price, I might as well just buy it"



Re:Don't believe it (3, Insightful)

Dephex Twin (416238) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350555)

If the same tracks were available free then people would still rip them off.

Yes, there are always people who don't pay for things. But if they were truly reasonably-priced, of high quality, were easy to get, and had no strings attached, I think you'd be surprised how many people *would* pay.


Hmm....... (-1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350421)

Then they'll discover 20 cents ain't enough to cover the bandwidth supplier and go out like another .com.

.25 US per song..hell yes. (2)

billmaly (212308) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350423)

If I could buy a quality MP3 of a song for .25, store it forever, and burn it to my own CD's for personal use, I'd do it. I'd even let them tack on a "protection device" to prevent me from letting others use the copy (of course, no reasonable device yet exists, but all things in time). Instead, @$20 for a CD that all too often contains 50% or more mediocre content. Hmmmm...wonder which plan will eventually win??

Re:.25 US per song..hell yes. (2)

wurp (51446) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350669)

To protect it from copying would require that your PC have hardware to prevent any unauthorized copying. (Well, even that would only stop the honest citizens, not criminals). Don't under any circumstances let them get their foot in the door to controlling what content you watch on your PC. Before you know it, they'll restrict you from downloading 'unapproved' music, movies and programs and you'll be force-fed nothing but corporate America, all the time.

Not quite. (1)

haunebu (16326) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350425)

I still believe that if P2P apps allow us do it for free, we'll keep using that.

quarter a track? (1)

AsnFkr (545033) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350426)

no, i dont think so. i can still get em free on kazaa, ill use my quarters for gumballs.

Which is what in comparison? (5, Insightful)

Burgundy Advocate (313960) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350434)

You have to remember something about this:

There's a huge difference between 25 cents here and 25 cents in India. The average income is much lower.

For instance, 25 cents in India could equate to around $4.00 there.

Now do you really want to pay four bucks a track? $40.00+ per CD?

I didn't think so.

read the damn article (1)

MrP- (45616) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350461)

hell, just read the description in the slashdot article itself, it says "Rs 10 (20 cents U.S)", they arent paying 20 cents, they are paying "Rs 10" (whatever that is), and thats equal to 20 cents in america

Re:read the damn article (1)

Britissippi (565742) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350530)

Rs = Roupees, current exchange rate is about 1 dollar = 49 Roupees.

Studies vary, but the "average" family income in India works out at about $450 per year.

Re:read the damn article (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350659)

what about the average income of an average internet connected family?
But anyway I agree with you on one point : this would make the same songs around 40$ each for a 90k$ earning family which nobody wants to spend.

learn your damn economics (2)

ShavenYak (252902) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350608)

If you're going to be inflammatory in your subject line, you should at least have a cursory understanding of the topic.

You are suffering from a confusion between the exchange rate of a currency, and the purchasing power of individuals in other nations. The exchange rate is (apparently) 1 Rs to 2 cents. That does not mean that the average Indian makes Rs 25,000/week if the average American makes $500.00/week.

The original poster was indicating that for an average Indian citizen, the Rs 10 was roughly the same in relation to his income as $4.00 would be to the average American.

These numbers may not be exact, in fact they were probably pulled out of the Management Information And Statistics System (MIASS). The concept is correct, though.

Land of Pirates (1)

DJOrient (573868) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350435)

It'll be interesting to see how sucessful this venture is going to be - considering that India is within the Land of Pirates - Somehow I doubt that this is going to be financially rewarding...

money matters. (1)

QualityWithAKei (156466) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350442)

How much does $.10 buy in india?
i'm guessing its worth a lot more then it is here.
i bought lunch for $.30 in china.

Nope (0)

Kami-sama (175495) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350443)

I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it.

I wouldn't. The big labels have zero to offer. I don't even bother using Napster/Kazaam/Mopeus/whatever because of this.

Decent labels have free samples of their own. Make it a decent label like Warp Records or Alien 8 Recordings and I'll consider it.

Well FINALLY! Some questions though... (2)

ari{Dal} (68669) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350447)

Someone's doing something right! It's about time they attempted a business model that's more in line with the price/times.

One can only hope that this doesn't fall flat on its face. I'd hate to see this service cancelled because the record companies scream too much about 'lost revenue' due to trades/etc. But from the few details in the article, they have a decent business model set up.

Having said all that, there are still alot of questions that need answering. The article's short on technical details. I'd love to hear from someone who's familiar with the business. What format will the songs be in? Have they come up with a proprietary file type? How'd they manage to get the record companies to agree? How do they control who gets to download the music (ie - can I download from their site even though I'm not in India) ?

I'd be very interested in statistics on usage, downloads, burn rate, etc. This is going to be a fun one to track.

hey.... (2)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350456)

you can actualy use this from the US. perhaps the recording industry will see how much cash they will get from having unrestricted MP3s sold for 20 cents and say "hmmm perhaps we have had it all wrong from the start."

Entertainment Industry piracy (2)

Sydney Weidman (187981) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350460)

They steal culture from people, suck the life out of it, shrink-wrap it and sell it back to those who created it in the first place.

I'd pay 20 cents a download if I knew the money was going to artists and not to Virgin or BMG or whatever.

Take a closer look (1)

sameerd (445449) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350463)

Take a look at ic download.asp"

Tell me what you would buy for 20 cents.

The entire CD for music like this would retail for something like $3 or $4. 20 cents per song seems reasonable.

Re:Take a closer look (1)

sameerd (445449) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350522)

Corrected Link ic download.asp


Re:Corrected Link (1)

sameerd (445449) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350593)

Corrected link []
If a space appears between music and download delete it. Why is slashdot mucking up URLs in text mode?

Downloading music (1)

technopinion (469686) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350464)

If I could "preview" (ie, bad quality streaming) music tracks for free, I would totally be willing to pay 50 cents or even more per track for good quality downloads.
Oh, but I have to be able to use them on more than just the one computer I downloaded them with (ie, play them in the car, and on a portable player)

What is that in Ruples? (0)

taya0001 (457928) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350467)

I think 20 cents is the average annual income in India. The music industry has gone to far! Taking food away from the mouths of poor indian children so they can be forced to pay for the music they download

Re:What is that in Ruples? (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350662)

20 cents, last I checked (about 1 minute ago) was about 9.8 rupees. Sounds like a good chunk of change to be paying for music over in India, if you ask me.

You're quite welcome. :)

Buying Power Is More Like $2.50 USD (2, Informative)

Josh (2625) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350471)

Please understand that most all of the costs in this situation are sunk costs and that the buying power of 10 RS in India is perhaps equivalent to $2.50 USD or more. It is not really so different to what would be charged in the U.S.

Blowing smoke (4, Insightful)

NiftyNews (537829) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350476)

"I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it."

Don't delude yourself. As long as something is free, people won't pay for it. The only correlary is that some people will pay more for convienience. But again, be serious...if you bought more than one or two albums worth of songs each week it would STILL be money you don't have for beer. Free is always cheaper than cheap for most people.

Re:Blowing smoke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350611)

Free is always cheaper than cheap for most people.

Isn't free cheaper for all people??

Convenience two ways (2)

yerricde (125198) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350613)

The only correlary is that some people will pay more for convenience.

Legitimate music download services such as eMusic [] and the one that this article mentions provide more convenience than Gnutella, KaZaA, and WinMX in two big ways:

  • The downloads work over HTTP and thus work better over connections that severely throttle non-RFC-defined services, such as the router on Rose-Hulman [] 's T1s.
  • Three nines availability. There is negligible risk of "Connection reset by peer" ... Resume ... "User offline".

The music industry would still not move (1)

cholokoy (265199) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350490)

Changing their business model is anathema to them as this will lessen their profits so no more executive bonuses. Who, in his right mind, as PHB would want to do that?

Some new entrants will have to come in and develop this new model. I don't know if there are some venture capitalists out there thinking of how to exploit the new model. I believe the barrier to entry is quite big or else some should have done this before. Well, there is always a first time.

Return the bells of Balangiga...

But... (3, Funny)

r_j_prahad (309298) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350491)

This is hard to make a valid comparison to U.S. business model, since Indian music is sooo much better than U.S. music.

What, me biased?

Yours objectively, Rajendra.

Very, very unlikely (1)

brain-in-a-box (168001) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350493)

that they have a contract for distributing the music internationally. Probably only for India.
A little calculation:
an normal audio CD has max. 20 tracks
20 x 0.2 = 4 $
(legal) audio CDs cost much more than 4$.
And CD production and distribution isn't so expensive.
There are 4 explanation for the above sheme:
a) Their contract forces them to pay $$$ to the label and they think they can make the money by the famous crack-pot-dot-com business plan. -> instant financial death.
b) They made the contract with the famous WarezH4x0r label.
c) They big labels can't calculate.
d) They big labels think the music will be only distributed in India because their business drones stuck their fingers/tongues into the 230 Volt plug.

You can't force people (2, Insightful)

tom_newton (179430) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350498)

Laws can only be so effective, the easiest way to make people abide by the law is to make it the easiest option to do so.

If it were easy (read: cheap, fast, convenient) to get music legally, I'm quite sure the illegal methods would become much less popular. On the other hand, squash one illegal method with the "might" of the law, and another springs up to replace it.

At the minute, it's very easy to get music illegally without being caught. It's going to cost a lot of money to make it a lot more difficult whichever way you look at it, so a scheme like tis seems the only viable option!

not that different from (2, Interesting)

ip_vjl (410654) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350499)

You can download tracks you want right now.

eMusic's offerings are subscription based, but allow unlimited downloads.

I poked around their site, but don't yet see enough artists/titles in their database to be worth my $9.99/month yet. Too bad. It's sort of a catch-22 for them. Probably need more subscribers to build their collection, but can't get more subscribers until their collection is bigger.

25 cents? Hell yes. (2, Insightful)

The Mainframe (573877) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350503)

I agree.. I'd even be willing to pay a buck a song. I know that from time to time I want a very specific song, and a buck is a fine price to pay. Considering how much it costs to print and ship actual CDS, the labels would be raking it in. I've tried this with a couple of sites (like [] ) that claim to support "downloadable MP3s", but they are always crippled. Getting these MP3s to play, even under Windows (which is always the only OS supported) requires a net connection, a special player, and all sorts of authorization.
In short, let me buy and download MP3s for a buck (real MP3s that will play on any platform) and I'll stop about 75% of my pirating... it's not that I"m not willing to pay, I"m just too lazy to get to the record store, and I don't always want the whole album.

cause and effect (1)

brian6string (469449) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350505)

The music industry's real (self-inflicted) problem is that their product is largely crap. No one wants to buy a whole album, b/c VERY VERY few whole albums are worth having.

So, downloading songs (even for pay) addresses the symptom, but not the disease. A & R reps. at record companies need to stop going for the flashes in the pan.

Pros and Cons- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350512)

Of course some people would still download music illegally, but with a service like that available in addition to anti-piracy enforcement, I am sure that number would go down a lot, at least in America.

I would totally buy songs for 25 cents, but I really dont see anyone in China and I am not sure anyone even in India doing it. 25 cents over there will buy you a lot more then in the U.S., food-wise.

Buying music by the track. (2, Interesting)

PhunkyOne (531072) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350515)

I think this is an awesome idea. I would drop 50 cents or whatever a track of music. I think there are two problems with this and the weak minded music industry.. First is that they have no way to control us - ie there is no good copy protection (well at least not yet). And hell I would require my right to personal reproduction if I bought the damn track. Secondly musicians would have to work a little harder, I can't think of all that many CDs that I think every song is great. Most of the time when I buy a CD there are a couple of good songs and the rest is fluffy poo. It's disappointing that I have finally just accepted it but for the norm that's the way it is. Of course I think the RIAA is screwing most musicians though so who knows... I for one might even pay a buck a song for's cheap when you think about it...hell they have to pay bandwidth and stuff also and if it was something that I wanted the entire CD I could just buy the entire CD. I wish the Music Industry would just catch on and see how much they are missing out on by everyone having to rely on Morpheus or some other thing like that.

Dumb fucks. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350523)

Every one of you dumb fucks talk as if all music came in three minute "songs". That is NOT the universal unit of music.

Dumb fucks.

ten cents a pop (3, Interesting)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350526)

I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it.

25 cents a track is three bucks for a CD's worth (twelve songs) of music. I can do better than that by clever manipulation of CD clubs [] .

I think more like ten cents a pop would defintely do it - think ten bucks, one hundred songs.

And if we cut the middlemen out, most artists would probably end up ahead.

Worth it. (2, Insightful)

realmolo (574068) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350529)

I'd pay 25 cents a track. Lots of people would. could get any track you wanted. Imagine if the labels had giant servers that contained their entire catalogs in 192kbps MP3 format. No more hunting around for what you want. MP3s ripped by people that know what they're doing. Ahh ;)

THAT would be worth 25 cents a track.

oldest catalogue in HMV? (3, Informative)

YakumoFuji (117808) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350541)

hmm bollocks. I work in the data warehouse of HMV UK (where HMV started), and I can tell you its not the first entry in the master catalogue!

not sure where indiatimes got their info from...

bastards (2)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350563)

well the US folks can use it, but they only sell non-US music. so that means no Korn, no britiny (if you like that) and other crap that is US based.

well, I guess I could get into the south pacific nations music :-)

Artist Beware! (1)

explosionhead (574066) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350573)

The issue here is will the artist actually get anything from this, the current music distribution systems being implemented in the states don't actually give anything direct to the performer. [] And moreso, recording contracts are now loaded with clauses to cover "future distribution technology"

Complete with Digital Rights Management (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350574)

//... Start now!! It's finally easy... Buy and //download legal Commercial tracks using our //secured payment platform and Digital Rights //Management system...

No plain old mp3's here? Can you play your legally downloaded music on anything but Windows or Mac?

25 cents... and "we" would pay? (2, Insightful)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350591)

Let us compare:

25 cents


0 cents (and a nil chance of getting busted).

Let's try again:

You have to wait until the Tuesday of release.


You can go out, get a full promo copy of a cd that isn't out yet (El-P - Fantastic Damage, Blackalicious - Flaming Arrows) or a cd version that will never be released (N*E*R*D - In Search Of (import version), Latyrx).

Hmmm, ok. No, there has to be something that will prove that an honor digital music system would work:

You get to be monitored by a large corporate service and are accountable to the government.


Complete and utter anonymity (for sake of argument).

Conclusion: There is no way in Hell that commercial digital music sharing will take off as long as a viable free PtP service(s) exists.

microsoft reliability (0, Flamebait)

apachetoolbox (456499) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350597)

Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e31'

[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Timeout expired

/buylist.asp, line 612

Pay For Play? (4, Insightful)

Luminous (192747) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350603)

I'm equally skeptical that people will pony up money when they can still easily get it for free, BUT I have a Lockian sense that people will choose to do what is legally and ethically correct more often than not. Which means if an easy to use service, with a simple User Interface were to appear which was tied to an account (not a credit card, but an account that money can be deposited into in order to control willy-nilly downloading), offered free streaming music a la spinner, offered oddities like, allowed artists/record labels to offer tracks for free, and was a no brainer to use - people would use it.

I am the type of person who listens to Spinner, hears a song I like, goes to the new Morpheus and looks for it. I may be atypical, but I don't think I am. I think a lot of people would do the same if given the opportunity. Hear a song on the radio and have the option to buy it immediately . . . it is a great sales strategy. Music stores do it, they play stuff that they think people will buy once they hear it.

Get the service software bundled with PCs with the downloading option disabled until an account is activated, people will still get the radio ability which can have little ads between songs letting people know that if they really liked they song, they can download it.

Quarter a track? (2)

dcavanaugh (248349) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350622)

"I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it."

I would cheerfully pay $0.25 per track (for uncrippled MP3s). That would be infinitely more than I spend now. Currently, my music budget is $0.00 because I won't pay $17.99 for what amounts to be one track, distributed with some other junk, all of which is potentially crippled by copyware. And to think RIAA blames their problem on piracy! Idiots!

RIAA better get smart before everyone's music collection is limited to what they bought during the heyday of "orange book compliance". Then again, waiting for them to get smart is like waiting for hell to freeze over.

taco snot is bad for your health (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350623)

I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it.
actually, they have no other choice than whining about the mp3 we d/l for free :-)
I would'nt pay this quarter for music I am curious to listen to only once (especially when I don't have to pay to hear it on the radio) but I'd definitely be more generous if I had access to loads of unknown artists'mp3.
Britney wins more than enough by just showing her bra in soda ads.

Heck ya! (1)

mr_zorg (259994) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350626)

You bet I would go for that. 'Tis what I've been saying all along they should. Heck, I'd even go as high as $1/track. That's about what they charge for a CD, but it allows be to get just those cool songs I like without the crap that comes along for the ride...

Up to a dollar would even work (2, Insightful)

md_doc (8431) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350631)

I do not use music swaping software much but when I do use it it is usually a time consuming task to find the songs I actually want. I know I would be personally happy to go to a site like where I could preview each song (30 seconds) and then download the song for anywhere between 50 cents to 1 dollar.

I cannot see how anyone else out there would not be willing to do this as you would get exactly the songs you want and you would download them at a fast rate. Downloading over a DSL line with at a max rate instead of at 5-20k a second would be well worth the 50 cents to a dollar.

I know I would still go out and buy the cd's because there are some kewl things that come with cd's like memberships to sites to download other hidden tracks and lyrics or what not but I can promise, like most people, that I would go to a site and pay 50 cents to a dollar before I go to limewire because I know it would take a lot less time.

It depends... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3350636)

If we're talking high-quality MP3 that I move to my iPOD or burn onto a mix CD for my CD changer then, hell, I'd do it. Otherwise the big music companies can continue to kiss my ass.

Of course we would... (3, Insightful)

Colin Winters (24529) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350639)

Download music for 20-25 cents a track. Consumers would be happy being able to pick out music they like and not have to pay $15 for one track+a lot of garbage. Unfortunately, this will never ever happen. Think of the cable industry-how cool would it be to pay $1 per channel for normal channels? I don't know anyone who watches more than 10 channels, the rest are all wasted on them. But if the cable companies were to use this pricing scheme, they'd go bankrupt quickly. By packaging content as a whole, they are able to subsidize crappier channels, just as the music industry subsidizes crappier tracks/albums.

Colin Winters

RIAA Strawman? (4, Interesting)

Corporate Drone (316880) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350644)

OK... so you've established that $0.25 / track is worth a whole lot more in India than in the States.

Why, then, are the bells going off in my head, telling me that RIAA will use the argument, "We tried. It cost only a quarter a song , and it failed. See! That business model doesn't work!"

Problem with this model (1)

cholokoy (265199) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350645)

One of the issue that I think the record labels are hesitant to move into this model is equitable pricing. I'm not sure if they go with the model, they can still make a profit. The reason is that economies are different in many part of the world so that it would be difficult to create this model.

In first world countries like the US, Europe and Japan, $0.25 is practically small change even for a minimum wage earner and is not a big dent on one's income even it they buy 50 songs a month or even more.

Compare this from a viewpoint of someone buying the song in a third-world country. The $0.25 cost is now probably equivalent to an hour's salary for a minimum wage earner, consenquently enabling people there to buy only a few songs.

Now, if the labels will charge for less for songs bought in a third-world country, there currently is no mechanism that will prevent someone from a first world country to buy songs from them if say, they only would charge $0.05 per downloaded song. With credit cards, this is not a big issue since servers can be located in high-bandwidth points.

Twenty Sensa-Trac (0)

Massacrifice (249974) | more than 12 years ago | (#3350672)

Twenty Sensa-Trac?

Isn't Sensa-Trac a brand of razor?

Why would Indians base their currency on razors? So they can stay on the cutting edge?

Those crazy Buddhists...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?