p2pnet - rss feed: Yahoo downloads for $1.10?
p2p news / p2pnet: Yahoo Music has come up with a new kind of consumer intelligence test.
If it offered ‘unrestricted’ mp3 downloads, would you go for it?
And ————->
Would you pay $1.09 for one that that had absolutely no limitations on its use and could be transferred to any portable audio player or computer?
The above two questions are Yahoo’s way of finding out if you’ll not only do what iTunes users do, ie, stand still while you’re being ripped off for a music download supplied by the Big Four Organized Music gang members, but if you’ll also willingly pay 10 cents more for the privilege.
Warner Music, Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal and EMI have spent a fortune on trying to sue you and your friends into spending $1 and up on their lossy, cookie-cutter, low-fidelity product.
You’re not going for it and you never will, but Yahoo doesn’t understand that and having failed dismally at trying to rent the downloads to you, it’s now trying this on for size.
“Everyone who has been following the tech scene knows that the first company to offer mainstream music in unrestricted MP3 format will see a huge spike in their business and may garner lasting dominance,” says Hans Maast on his blog.
I wouldn’t hold your breath, Hans.
The as yet non-existent corporate music business might pick up, a little, but until the labels stop trying to rob their customers, the likes of Apple and Realnetworks, by charging between some 60 and 85 cents wholesale for each file, the vast majority of people will continue to avoid Yahoo, et al, like the plague.
Meanwhile, there’s no mention on whether or not ‘absolutely unrestricted’ means sans DRM.
Also See:
blog - Yahoo! Music to offer unrestricted MP3s?, July 18, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
July 19th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
I would buy … for about 10 cents a piece.
Many would for THAT price, I believe.
10 cents is reasonable for a SAMPLE quality tune.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
It’s a step in the right direction, but I personally got bored with music and have found other things to do.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
I would like to buy direct from the artist and not some corporation.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
GREAT IDEA! So would I.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
The record companies are going to let Yahoo sell their “mainstream” (read [genre] top 40) catalog in an unrestricted format? I’ll believe that when I see it.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
I want good quality CDs/DVDs with NO C.R.A.P./DRM!
I want to be able to burn backup Disks without having to worry about frying my computer …again… because of C.R.A.P/DRM. I want to be able to make MY OWN collection of songs from the CDs/DVDs I buy so I can seamlessly listen to my favorite songs while driving, therefore allowing me LESS distraction from the roads I’m driving on, thereby allowing me to be a SAFER driver.
In other words: I WANT ‘FAIR USE’ BACK THE WAY IT ___WAS___! …BEFORE the RIAA/MPA decided to effect NAZI/SS tactics in order to BRIBE their own customers.
July 20th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
I’d pay $2 to $5 per album for lossless downloads. So yeah, about $.25 to $.50 per song.
I also want it DRM free - just a FLAC file thank you.
I also want lifetime access in case my computer fries and I wasn’t smart enough to make a backup.
For my favourite artists, I’d pay $7 to $10 for a nice CD in a durable cover (jewel cases suck!) with a detailed, colourful insert. That would be enough to make me pay the extra $$ for the nice features.
We’ve had CDs for over 20 years now, and how much innovation has there been in packaging? DVDs have been popular for 5 years or so and they have some imaginative packaging, particularly the TV show sets.
Wake up RIAA. Get creative and embrace technology, or the next generation of listeners won’t have anything to do with you.
July 21st, 2006 at 7:19 am
Digital downloads aren’t quality the way they are now configured. Why on earth would I pay that much for a lossy file? Of course when you add DRM to the picture it becomes worthless at any price.
I can rip all I want off the cds I have at present. The cartels aren’t making anything that I am interested in so it makes the choice easy.
No Thank You.
July 21st, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I am old enough to remember 45’s. For those of you who aren’t, a 45 was a disc of hard vinyl about 8 inches in diameter played on a record player at 45 RPM. One side contained a hit song and the other side was usually a song you didn’t care much about. The 45 was hard to keep in pristine condition and typically developed hisses and crackles (and the dreaded scratch that would cause the record to skip) in short order. 45s would be comparable, I suppose, to MP3s.
Here’s the point, in 1974, I was paying between 75 cents and 1.00 each for these 45s. In today’s economy that would amount to, I guess, about 3 or 4 dollars per record. I also had a pretty good collection of these gems.
When you think about things in those terms, suddenly, 1.10 doesn’t seem like a bad deal, with the added advantage of being able to copy the music or play it wherever you like. Considering that tape recorders were rare and expensive and frankly a record player is not portable enough to use while jogging, I’m glad to have an MP3 file.
Lest you think I’m some sort of RIAA shill, I am not. I have downloaded enough MP3 files from bittorrent sites to listen for months without hearing the same song. I’m just providing a another perspective.
July 21st, 2006 at 6:37 pm
“When you think about things in those terms, suddenly, 1.10 doesn’t seem like a bad deal, with the added advantage of being able to copy the music or play it wherever you like.”
I can do that now, for free, by borrowing a friends CD.
It’s a bit of a hassle, but the price they are asking IS TOO
HIGH .. period.
Someone mentioned above. .25 cents ??
That’s more like it. It’s worth a quarter to avoid the pain-in-the-ass
factor. AS LONG AS IT IS TOTALLY DRM FREE.
July 21st, 2006 at 6:40 pm
“added advantage of being able to copy the music or play it wherever you like ”
Isn’t that “fair use” ?
Isn’t that already a consumer right ?
Isn’t what they are doing .. charging us MORE for
the priviledge of excersing what is already a right ?
Fuck that.
July 21st, 2006 at 10:09 pm
As long as P2P is alive I will never pay a penny for music and movies.
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:42 pm
I think you misunderstood. My point was that 45’s couldn’t easily be copied in 1974, nor played wherever you like. I never said that it wasn’t fair use, nor a violation of a consumer right. If you want to push the point further, you pay 99 cents to legally purchase a DRM laden song on iTunes. Yahoo is charging 1.10 for a legal song without DRM. 11 cents sounds like a deal to me.
This trend is disturbing to me. I’m beginning to think that most people who post here are only interested in one thing: to protect their ability to DL songs and such for free. The fact is that I’m here because I want to see copyright reform. I want the RIAA and MPAA to stop terrorizing consumers. I want to be able to take a song or movie that I have legally purchased play it wherever I want and to make a backup copy so that if the original is lost I can still listen. I am also for a fair price and compensating artists for their work. Fair price is determined by the market (agreement between the consumer and producer), be that .25, .50, 1.00 or 10.00. I beleive that government intervention by the draconian laws have unbalanced free trade so that consumers are at a disadvantage in the marketplace. This, to me, is the fight.