AfterDawn: Tech news

Sony and Universal ready to commercially compete with P2P softwares?

Written by Lasse Penttinen @ 06 Jan 2003 11:11 User comments (16)

Mercury News has posted an interesting article about Sony's and Universal's commercial streaming service. It seems that there is quite a bit of doubt concerning the success of this kind of a business model.
Personally I think that if an online service would sell the music with reasonable pricing and in high sound quality, it might have plenty of potential customers. If you would get a commercial quality service with a fair pricetag, why bother hunting the files with P2P software?

2002 will be remembered as the year the recording industry showed it could sue and sell at the same time.

After trying only to shut down peer-to-peer networks on which their music is pirated, like the late Napster and its robust offspring Kazaa and LimeWire, the major labels have finally begun to compete with them.

Not all that successfully -- at least not yet. No one said that coaxing people to pay for what they can readily steal would be easy. Some analysts predict it will be futile.

But give them credit for the belated effort. The major labels have transferred much of their catalogs to the Internet. They have built a model, based on paid subscriptions, that they hope eventually will lure a generation of consumers who, by the labels' own fault, have come to view free music as a birthright.

Take the latest version of Pressplay, a joint venture of Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group. It has the basic features that music buyers have been demanding: one site where you can go to play and buy individual tunes from all of the major labels. Beginning at $10 a month, you're offered unlimited access to listen to and to download whatever you want from thousands of tunes. The tunes will be playable on your computer as long as you pay the subscription.

If you want to transfer a favorite song to a portable player or burn a copy to make your own CD, you can do that, too, at $1 per song. Competing sites, like Listen.com and MusicNet, have or have announced similar services.


Mercury News

Previous Next  

16 user comments

16.1.2003 12:29

I dunno if i see them competing properly with p2p!!

26.1.2003 15:06
T2K
Inactive

Is this a joke!! Its another Microsoft type cooperation trying to weasel there way in a scene that they don’t belong in! leave it to us real file sharing people that have been doing this since the 80's and aren’t trying to make a profit!!


T2K

36.1.2003 16:27

Too little, too late; I don't give a sh--; I have no sympathy; I loathe and refuse to accept their user-restrictions and 'DRM Initiatives'; I haven't heard *squat* from anyone about the quality of the downloaded music files; and I have NO intention of giving them ongoing access to my credit-card to maintain a mandatory monthly subscription just in order to purchase online the few tracks that I *would* like to have!, bla-bla-bla, etc. etc. (Can you imagine walking into a public record store and have the sales clerk tell you that you have to have a 'subscription' fee charged to your credit-card every month just to be able to be a customer, and buy (outright) any given music cd on the shelf?) 2002 may "be remembered as the year the recording industry showed it can sue and sell at the same time", but I will also remember it as yet another year in a long-line of years that the music companies sat around on their butts avoiding the *real* issues with their heads' stuck up their asses, sobbing into their martinis about the 'death' of the business due to P-to-P, and calling all of us blatant thieves and Pirates. They make me sick. Perhaps after they tire of watching their bottom lines steadily erode year after year, they'll do something useful for the consumer and music artists alike. But don't hold your breath waiting. I'm not. I admit, individual downloading of *any* (NOT a select *few*) favourite track, <provided that track is not _riddled_ with DRM, AND it's audio-quality is half-decent> is a welcome idea, and I would be quite willing to give my credit-card number out, *Maybe* !!! (There's a lot of "if's" in there, aren't there)? The ability to download personally-selected individual tracks would be a nice alternative to buying the pre-packaged "Greatest Hits" compilations that contain 40% filler and omit 2 or 3 obvious core choices, plus all of the other little "tricks" the music companies have foisted on us over the years. Nahhhh..... you'll be waiting till 2005 before any of this stuff will be worthwhile. -- A_Bitchy_Klingon --

46.1.2003 16:35
T2K
Inactive

heh heh, I like your attitude mr. klingon its people like us that keep these scavengers from assimilating everyone. ps. resistance is far from futal.


T2K

56.1.2003 16:44

"They Have NO Honor". :-) -- mgb --

66.1.2003 16:51
T2K
Inactive

right on brother!


T2K

77.1.2003 4:36

$1 a song, I dont think so $0.10 probly

87.1.2003 10:56
T2K
Inactive

PAHTOCK!


T2K

97.1.2003 18:26

I'd pay $1 for a song, IF: a) It was a really *great* song, and perhaps, hard to find anywhere else. b) It was *freely* playable anywhere, anytime, on any equipment. (Read: NO DRM!) c) The track was available separately for one-time, outright purchasing. (NO monthly subscription fee required). d) The track didn't sound like it was recorded in a Campbell's soup tin. In any case, it would be good, too, if one could listen to (or download) a sample of the track just to make certain that it IS the track he/she was looking for. The track would have to be burnable to a standard red-book cd if I wanted to do that. If ALL the criteria above could be met, I bet I would visit the site a LOT, and I bet a lot of other people would too. (It ain't never gonna happen, tho). -- Klingy --

107.1.2003 21:55
T2K
Inactive

"YOU WOULD DISHONOR YOUR FAMIALY, PAHTOCK!" J/K ps. Antaginizing a Klingon is NOT a good idea!, hehe


T2K

117.1.2003 22:13

Sure! (But only under the above conditions). Think about it: You buy, say, 12 tracks. 12 tracks = 12 bucks; less than the price of a really good music cd. You will know in advance *exactly* what you are getting, unlike some "Greatest Hits" albums that substitute some *live* tracks for the ones you thought were the original studio hits (and then you don't find out about it until *after* you break open the seal, and see "live" in tiny letters). Also, they can't leave one or two *really terrific* necessary tracks OUT of the package like they normally love to do, in order to make you go out and buy something else to complete the set! You would be able to get long-out-of-print but *superb* albums, <back-catalogue> without having to place an order at the retail counter (if the album is still even obtainable), without waiting for 6 months (!) like I had to wait for Iron Butterfly's "Metamorphosis" album. Plus, you could download the track(s) right away and not have to drive to the store sometime tomorrow to get it. (It's 4:00 in the AM right now as I type this). Oh yes, IF I can get what I want in *unrestricted* decent-sounding form and at a reasonable price, I would likely "bite". (And so would you I bet). But like I say, it ain't likely to happen in either my or your lifetime. -- Mike --

127.1.2003 22:29
T2K
Inactive

Ok, Ok you've got a really good point. The artist won't be getting ripped off (leeched from) and the consumer gets a fairly good deal as well. So I give this one to you, our friendly neighbor hood klingon. Ps. Iron Butterfly, I can dig it --Tim2K


T2K

1318.1.2003 13:19

It wouldn't matter if they charged 1 cent a year for the service, you can't access use it outside of the USA - STUPID! Do the record companies not know the internet extends beyond the US boarder? (Probably not)

1420.1.2003 20:08
T2K
Inactive

hehe


T2K

1520.1.2003 20:39

"Oy!" -- mgb -- -- Another meaningful post brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood Klingon. --

163.9.2006 23:27
SamNz
Inactive

never goin to happen who is goin to pay for somthing they get for free but if they had a few really rare hard to get on p2p networks songs then maybe ill pay

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive