Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JimH]

We've had a conversation with one of the major record labels in which they have offered us access to most of their catalog for streaming purposes.  The quality would be representative of their entire catalog.  This might include 30,000 tracks initially and would continue to grow.

What this means is that we could offer a legal version of streaming from user to user, if you're willing to pay.  The cost works out to about $6 or $7 per month for two hours of use each day, though we may be able to offer an unlimited version for this price.

This wouldn't be another radio service.  It would be "on-demand" playback of the licensed files.  We would use Music01 for this, for those of you familiar with it.

It's also possible that we could offer the capability for you to legally burn a CD.  The cost would be about $1 per track.  If you compare this to a CD you'd buy in the store, it may not seem like a bargain, but remember that the tracks would be only those tracks you like.  You wouldn't be buying a CD with 12 tracks to get the 2 you like.

I'd be interested in your reaction to this possibility.

[Xstatic]

streaming itself is not as interesting as downloading, at least not for me.

Re. quality - what would be the limitations if any?
Could it be both mpc and ape files, or only mp3 128? If the latter, I wouldnt be interested.

Re. the price, obviously we cannot and basically should not avoid the fact that it is only fair to pay for something
that you get, so the 1 dollar per track seems ok for me, if the audio quality of the format and encoding is very good.

[Michael Horton]

I'm xstatic about the previous response as it sums up my position pretty well, though I'd likely sign up fairly quickly if the initial offering was less than desirable, but with hopeful improvements pending as you've indicated (in order to help get the project streaming along, so to speak.)

[JimH]

mhorton,
You get the Shameless Use of Language in Pursuit of Humor award.

[Michael Horton]

lol

my wife would would second that, but would admit she prefers it to my other shameless pursuits

[Badger]

No interest in streaming here (even if it is free).  Regarding paying per track...If I'm going to pay for music, I'll just pony up the $15 for the whole CD, read the pretty packaging, rip it, and then trade it for something new (usually old, but new to me) at my local used CD store.

[Scronch]

I personally wouldn't use streaming, as it requires the connection (no portability).  I have even avoided services like eMusic, because I want 160kbps minimum, and prefer 192 or higher.

Scronch

[Harry|PLS|The|PLS|Hipster]

Won't work, Jim. First, time-limiting the stream usage is nuts. I stream my files all throughout the day, and there are a number of 10- and 12-hour days in the mix. I'm not about to pay any premium for heavier usage. That sounds like a Rock-ola jukebox - keep pumping nickels in. And why should I pay any fee for the privilege of streaming music I own, particularly if I'm in private mode?

As loyal as I am to MJ, I'd migrate to Streamsicle before I'd pay for that privilege. They're being unrealistic, probably buoyed by the webcaster royalty recommendation from the PTO.

On burning: also negative. Ask yourself what it is I'd be paying for. Not the right to rearrange files I already own on portable media - I already have that right, although its being squeezed on all sides, and I simply will never pay for that.

So what's left? Price? Remember Musicmakers? That site allowed a limited variety of mix and match burning for $1.99 per track (I recall). So for 9-10 tracks, about average for a jazz CD, you'd pay a premium over what even Tower or Virgin would charge. At $1 a track, you're not much better off, are you? What do I get out of that?

It comes down by a process of elimination to using their library material and reassembling it as I see fit. I suppose it depends on the library, but I'm probably better off sampling through the streaming service, deciding what I like and then shopping for the CDs at the lowest price point in a truly competitive environment - say on GEMM. The likelihood is - with jazz anyway - that the greater number of tracks on any given CD will be acceptable to me. Once I own the CDs, I'll continue to rip, encode and burn for personal use as I see fit. And as a matter of principle, I'm unwilling to pay for access to an essentially anti-competitive program. After all, where will there ever be price competition for this company's product the way there is now (for example) between Dufflebag and Cheap Thrills, on GEMM.

Sorry your first response has to be from a hardcore case. BTW, is there a suggestion in all of this that they intend to hit you with webcaster royalties if you don't sign up for their Brave New World?

Good luck.

HTH

[Gatobrit]

JimH - I'm interested but it would depend on the label / catalog. Having 2 hours of streaming each day works well if there is 2 hours of music I want to listen to with some variety etc. Downloading would be preferable though.

So, 120 minutes a day, that's 30 tracks x 4 minutes per track. Plucking a number out of the air - I'd want to want to listen to 300/500 songs in the catalog in order for it to be worth it to me as a simple steaming service.

But for $6 / 7 I'd give it a try - depends upon the commitment.

[JimH]

HTH,
Presumably, streaming from your own machine would be exempt from charges.

Effectively, the remaining streaming might also be unlimited.

Sorry to be somewhat vague about details, but I'm not certain what we could offer, other than the fact that the content would be high quality music.

Did I say "lots of jazz"?  

[harry|PLS|The|PLS|Hipster]

<...lots of jazz....>

Know how to get my attention, don't you? Well, I never let principle stand in the way of enlightened self interest.

Seriously, would need to know much more about quality, portability, etc. to react more favorably to the burning proposal.

You will recall a notion I floated a while ago that would in effect limit the number of ccs that could be cloned from any given track or file. The idea was to discourage p2p by telling end-users they had the ability to create (say) 3 ccs of a track for personal use, and that every copy they distributed reduced their own ability to copy for purely personal use.

Well, IBM apparently is outing a DRM program that allegedly would do the same thing:

"The EMMS tool will enable retailers or end users to package and send protected content to several parties in a distribution chain, such as attaching a music track to an e-mail with multiple recipients. Content owners will be able to define the conditions under which recipients may use the data.

Initial recipients may have full usage rights, but if the same music files or e-books are re-sent, the next recipient in the chain may have more limited ability to preview it until full usage rights are purchased from the original distributor. Copies of songs downloaded from pirate music sites or transferred by e-mail or other sources may not be allowed to play fully, or more than once, or at all."

See article at http://www.idg.net/idgns/2001/01/22/UPDATEIBMUnveilsNewAntimusic.shtml

This is the first focused attempt I've seen to protect the fair use rights of purchasers while limiting outright dissemination. If whoever you're talking to would incorporate that protocol, it would make the service more attractive to personal users by limiting the overly-intrusive effect of current DRM programs.



HTH

[ZRocker]

I with Scronch...

I just want a service where I can download 160kbps or higher quality MP3s.  eMusic is great (darn fast download speeds) and lots of great music, but the 128kbps quality threshold is a drawback.  160kbps would be acceptable.  I know it would require more server space on their end (about 25% more), but I'd buy the service if they offered it (@ $130 / year).

[JimH]

There is some reason to believe that emusic will improve the bitrate being offered.

[Ruud Bijvank]

How about classical music ?
How about different rates for different qualities ?

On the other hand, I'm listening my MP3s mainly via headphones, so quality is important, but not that much. And with 30000 tracks against these prices, you cannot compete with EMusic.

rg. Ruud

[Gatobrit]

Ruud Bijvank - the counterpoint to your good point about Emusic is the quality of the 30,000 titles.

I subscribe to Emusic and there is a lot of variety but not a lot I'd want to listen to every day. I download a lot of songs but I also end up deleting a lot after listening to them.

30,000 titles by major artists would be, to me, interesting.

[cjdshaw]

> It's also possible that we could offer the capability for you to legally burn a CD. The cost would be about $1 per track. If you compare this to a CD you'd buy in the store, it may not seem like a bargain, but remember that the tracks would be only those tracks you like. You wouldn't be buying a CD with 12 tracks to get the 2 you like.

Half the fun of buying a CD is hearing the songs you aren't familiar with. If I know I like 2 on a CD, chances are there'll be a couple of other good ones too. What about $1 to burn a single, and the B side or a couple more from that album thrown in for free?

[KingSparta]

Let Me Ask A Few Questions? (And Open A Can Of Worms At The Same time, it Is Fun That Way)

It sounds like J River would Have A Server With 30,000 MP3's On It so that a user could burn good quality music to cd-rom\download?

And As You Said "the content would be high quality music" Sounds Like Good Quality Jazz

What Would The Kbps Rate Of Each File Would Be for streaming, or Downloading?

Could You Still Share Your Own Music With Other Users? And Would This Count Against The 2 Hour limit Of Streaming?

If You Used Your 2 Hours Of Streaming Up For That Day, And Found 12 Songs You Liked Could You Still Download The Files And Then Burn Them To A CD-Rom For What Ever Charge It May Be?

And Now That We Are Downloading And Burning The Songs To CD-Rom Is The Quality Of The File Going To Be Good To Burn To A CD-Rom?

What Happens If Your Downloading And The File Has Errors In It, Is The User Charged For Downloading Or Is It Just When They Burn To CD-Rom?

If You Can Stream For 2 Hours How Many Downloads Can You Download Per Day, Week, Or Month?


Full Of Questions, I Have No Answers (I asked my mom about 50 questions every hour when i was a kid)

[Alonso Nefarious]

And how would this be different than other available sources?  Different catalogue?  That being the case folks are going to, what, subscribe to a half dozen sources a month?

The time limit is a non-starter.  

I've got no interest in 128CBR files.  160VBR begins to be attractive.  Good Jazz at lower bitrates sounds oddly empty to me.  Like eating "Lite" Creme Brule.  Leaves me unsatisfied, edgy, and annoyed.

Streaming music only has limited atraction, given the quality of VerizonDSL service.  If the raw, compressed file is streamed then it's more atractive, because then I could capture it and play it w/o the glitches.

So.  To sum, I'd try it if: No time limit, high quality, storable, replayable files.

Reasonable?  Don't know, but that's what would be interesting to me.

-Nef

[geekboy200]

Personally, I wouldn't be interested in streaming at all, and IMHO, $1/track is outrageous.  Yes, I know it costs money to make such a service possible, but there are zero manufacturing costs associated with that kind of distribution. And, I'd wonder, what percentage of the $1/track does the artist see?  I prefer to do what I do, which is download music where available for free, and support the artists who truly deliver the goods by buying their CD's. Which has me wondering . .  does anyone know the URL for the site that allows "direct tipping" of artists?

[RAVMAN]

This sounds interesting to me. For one you could listen to the songs first and then decide which ones to buy and burn so you would only be paying for songs that you like. Bitrate of burned songs should be of CD (or very near CD) quality.

[KingSparta]

I would think that there would be someway to tell users what would be the most popular streamed files, most popular downloaded files, Most popular files burned to cd-rom.

this way users could see what other people are playing

[JimH]

> It sounds like J River would Have A Server With 30,000 MP3's On It so that a user could burn good quality music to cd-rom\download?

This is completely up in the air.  I don't know the answers to your questions, but I'll answer anyway.  The files could be anywhere.  The metering would occur at the m01 server and would be governed by a List of Good Tracks.  Meaning, if the file is on the list, we pay, no matter where it comes from.

> And As You Said "the content would be high quality music" Sounds Like Good Quality Jazz

I just said that so HTH would relax.  It would be a wide variety, representing the full catalog of the label.

> What Would The Kbps Rate Of Each File Would Be for streaming, or Downloading?

I _think_ we could do anything.  

> Could You Still Share Your Own Music With Other Users? And Would This Count Against The 2 Hour limit Of Streaming?

Sharing with others would count.  You're broadcasting.  They are listening.  People need to get paid.  But the 2 hours I quoted was an example.  We think we can make it unlimited.

> If You Used Your 2 Hours Of Streaming Up For That Day, And Found 12 Songs You Liked Could You > Still Download The Files And Then Burn Them To A CD-Rom For What Ever Charge It May Be?

No idea.  

> And Now That We Are Downloading And Burning The Songs To CD-Rom Is The Quality Of The File Going > To Be Good To Burn To A CD-Rom?

Yes.

> What Happens If Your Downloading And The File Has Errors In It, Is The User Charged For Downloading Or Is It Just When They Burn To CD-Rom?

No way.  We'll make sure you don't get gypped.

> If You Can Stream For 2 Hours How Many Downloads Can You Download Per Day, Week, Or Month?

Downloads are paid differently ($1/track) so I don't think there would be a limit.  We might be able to get a better price for quantity too.

> Full Of Questions, I Have No Answers (I asked my mom about 50 questions every hour when i was a kid)

Why?

[RAVMAN]

Jim,

The streaming burning downloading music01 sounds good. First thing I have heard that I would consider subscribing.

[KingSparta]

JimH

> Why?
That was the most asked question by me

I would get some answers untill she got tired answering "Why"

I have always asked the "why" question to try to understand why

[Shumi]

This could work, if the 2-hr per day limitation is re-looked or lifted.

However, there are tones of original second hand CDs c/w jewel case and inserts located at the neighborhood stores or on eBay/Gemm that are going for $2 - $5 each.

But why would anyone want to take the trouble, time and cost to pay for an original CD/LP, rip it onto his hard disk in his PC which incidentally, is also a cost; together with all the necessary OS, media softwares, and running costs etc., and pay for subscription with Music01 to broadcast. So that others can benefit?

Is he being obstinate or overly charitable? Or is this the culture that the Internet has inculcated and has been reaping on?

[gvag]

So I forgot with all the software I install that Music01 was a trial thing that might turn in to a subscription service.  I'm running 7.2 waiting for MJ8 release and was looking forward to being able to share music, sniffle.  Pay for it?  No way!

Download $1/track not likely.  Remember LPs $4 a pop, then along came cassettes $9 a pop, then CDs $15-$20 a pop and the cost of producing each new format was cheaper than the previous one.  All this talk of protecting the artist -- no argument there  -- but who's protecting the artist when a record label gets hold of them and sits on their work and lets it go out of print.  I'd sure like to know where the money goes when I buy a CD re-issue of an original LP recording and the guys who cut the tracks are dead.

Sorry. Some days the cost of staying connected seems too great -- stress-wise and $-wise.  

I subscribe to eMusic and I'm essentially happy with it.  Do I wish the quality was better than 128, yes.  Do I wish they had more selection?  My answer -- do a label search for "Bluenote".  Would I pay a 50% premium for access to out-of-print LPs, you bet.

As for streaming, if I ever figure out how to make MJ do true non-repeating random play I've got all the streaming music I need, more every time I manage to rip another LP or CD that I already own.

[Scronch]

>If I know I like 2 on a CD, chances are there'll be a couple of other good ones too.

Unless it's a Stones album.  They perfected the art of one or two good songs per album.

[Roger the Shrubber]

Scronch

>>If I know I like 2 on a CD, chances are there'll be a couple of other good ones too.
>Unless it's a Stones album. They perfected the art of one or two good songs per album.

Well said dude!

[david]

Want to use my computer for making money, then tell me what you will pay me for such use?

I guess anyone can try and sell the Brooklyn Bridge, but when it comes to time or bandwidth on my computer, show ME the money.

[Jazzwolf]

I'm definitely NOT interested in streaming. I use a dialup connection and that would just be a waste of time for me, besides there are too many free alternatives like Spinner which actually works pretty good with my dialup

[zevele1]

First on a very general level i find funny that streaming looks like the solution for them to"keep they music"away from p2p and players.I have hours and hours of streaming music on cds.I just use an official software from a well know compagny,no more

Now,more of the answers are from people who have MediaJukebox.For other people,they will have to pay $25 for the jukebox and $6>10 for 2>24 hours a day streaming?I am not sure but do  you have to pay on the top of the free or registered  version of MusicMatch to get radio?If yes it is ullimited
I see it like a gun in the mouth
Streaming from a label catalogue against money 2 hours a day?Or streaming from house to work  and streaming from one another as well in the 2 hours?
If streaming has it is now is part of the deal,who and how do you pay labels,artists?
I have a live bootleg of frank Tatatata in my playlist.King streams it,how do you pay Frank Taratata?
I have 'Man Alive" indee pressing of 100 cds from a Jerusalem band,how do you pay them?

Which kind of streaming?Songs?Full albums?
Which kind of music?The Emusic calalogue is a picture of my records collection.So i pay for it
If you give me a free trial streaming,mp3 of MTV songs,i will never use it.But for others it is the opposite.And again one label.
So lets take HTH.He has Emusic=$10 a month,a streaming deal around$12 a month,he takes the JRiver deal,$12 unlimited streaming.He needs a fast connection.He his close to $ 70 a month for get "air".Better to buy cds.News and second hand,you can get a lot every month

$1 a song?It means a sub standart quality for the same price ,if not more than the price of a cd with good sound,sleeves,lyrics,if you buy all the songs of an album on mp3
It can be a good deal for a kind of Greatest hits.But a greatest hits from ONE label....
I know there is a coast to put mp3 on the weeb.But it is a way to make more money,not instead of the main money comming from records sales.Try to sell hamburgers at the price of TBsteaks and you close the shop.A sub standart,is going to coast the same,if not more than the real thing!New word:less cost more.The day second hand cars cost the same than new ones,no way to sell them
I will use P2P softwares as i do since years.Get a message from Karolus or MHH"do you know this band,this one.try it they are great.I go to Audiogalaxy,get some songs in no time,listen to it,and 90% of the time i buy the cds.OK ,you need to have people of good tastes around you,to buy 90% of what you download.But Karolus and MHH are people of good tastes.....
The only price i find acceptable to get a full album on mp3  on one to one basis is the price of the cheaper ones on mp3.com,$4 the full album
I will not pay for ever of both formules.Or,if an illimited streaming,i will take a month,rip any songs and put it on p2p.Not as something against you,but against the labels.One label in this case,is name may start with a U i think
I will pay a small price or on the top of the jukebox.Kind of $25 ONCE to use Music01 as it is now.

I spend around |PLS| $500 a month on music,so money is not a problem.But if there is good programs as Emusic

[Harry The Hipster]

Zevele, you made that up, didn't you?

HTH

[zevele1]

Yes!Taratata,bla bla bla,i do not know what you use in english
When you do not beleive what someone says"it is just bla bla bla 'The main language in politic........
You found this money in the street?Taratata[=of cause i am sure not]
I am very down this evening:the new jukebox all blue!

[JimH]

We'll make today's build pink.

[Michael Horton]

MJ may now be a little blue, but I bet you'd find all kinds of colours were you to reinstall other jukeboxes right now: MM would be green, R One yellow, Winamp a nice shade 'a' red, and the remainder (blaze, Siren, et al) would be white.

[zevele1]

7.2 is the same color than my Windows settings right now.Do not like WinAmp.HATE MM.Do not know about RealOne.I still have RealJukebox plus.First it takes the Windows colors settings,second there is "themes" to change the look

JimH
I do not know if "themes" and skins are the same things.If not,maybe a solution for the mega look?
I had a time with shaved head,little bearlike a chinese, but cut in the middle and round pink glasses.  The shaved head was a cure for hairs after long time with a Hendrix/Clapton hair cut

MH
Cinerama is closer to Go-Betwens that to Grand funk.But it is only well crafted pop
G B are much much much more than it
Found that i have one more Passion Fodder on cd...A?

By the way,why blue is THE COLOR on the net?
Any raisons like better for eyes?
Just a fashion?

[KingSparta]

>> We'll make today's build pink.
You have something against A Rainbow Color Scheme?

maybe a pot of gold, and a small green man holding a toothpick