Universal Music Group going to free downloads with SpiralFrog
By Ryan Block 
posted Aug 29th 2006 11:21AM
posted Aug 29th 2006 11:21AM
Alright everybody, witness the latest trend to sweep the out of touch music industry: free ad-supported music downloads. And one company planning to offer such a gig, SpiralFrog, has found itself a pretty big taker in the Universal Music Group, whose catalogue of artists (some of which include Eminem, U2, Kanye, Bon Jovi, etc.) will be online and freely downloadable to those willing to sit through "non-intrusive, contextually-relevant, targeted advertising," according to SpiralFrog. It's a step in the right direction, but what do you think the odds are that Universal is still going to require DRM even on free downloads? Now, DRM-free costless downloads with ads, that's fine, but when is someone just going to offer what we really want: straight up DRM-free media downloads? We're willing to freaking pay for it, you know? And we're sure a lot of other people out there are willing to, as well.[Via Reuters, thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Seriously, there's a ton of sites out there that claim to be free and legal until you read the fine print and it says something like "1st download is free, anything after is $5 each" (That's pretty much the Ruckus model... Free while in college. Graduate, and its $30 per month to keep your songs). If this site is free no matter what, then it's easily the best one out there.
And I've been using Spiralfrog.com for over two months. Still no fees. Oh, but I had to fill out a small survey about my music tastes. I mean, try it. There's no harm
itunes is close enough to drm-free as far as I'm concerned. download-burn to cd-rip to mp3. if you want a whole album's worth, buy the album and convert it.
While I'd love drm free downloads (and would pay for them), I don't see it happening. The industry's too afraid of what happened with napster - too easy to abuse.
I wouldn't mind seeing a "library" feature added where I could "loan" my drm music to a friend - with an expiration date (sort of like what libraries do with playsforsure). When the date expires, it pops back in my library for me to listen to or loan out again...
Well, what about eMusic? They have a subscription service with 100% DRM-free music.
yea thats a spiral seamonkey....not a spiral frog
"but when is someone just going to offer what we really want: straight up DRM-free media downloads?"
eMusic. Of course, it's not the major labels. But doesn't that just make it better?
eMusic!!! I have a subscription with them, it has a very good service, DRM free mp3 downloads.
jr:
The problem with that approach is myriad. I know many people do this and say "So, you can get your iTunes music into whatever format you like - what's the problem?" Here's the problem: format transcription.
None of the music compression algorithms are identical, and in the process of changing a file's compression format you inevitably lose some data. The only exception to this is the lossless formats, but music downloads are NEVER lossless so that argument is void.
There are two (really 3) important considerations: how good the formats being transferred from and to are at retaining detail (and what are they do best at - transients, midrange, vocals?), how many transcriptions are you going to have to do, and (for MP3 at least) which encoder are you using (LAME is by far the best).
Take the case of a downloaded iTunes track: Apple has compressed the file (probably using a fast, non-optimized algorithm for speed) from the original, you burn this lossy file onto a CD (expanding its bitrate from ~128 kb/s to 1411 kb/s. Changing bitrates is BAD, and worse if they are not even multiples), and finally you are re-compressing what you burned to MP3 or AAC, probably using iTunes' non-optimized algorithm again. Yes, you got rid of the protection - but I count 3 transcriptions, 2 of which involve changing bitrates, not to mention the CD you just wasted. You have lost a considerable amount of data from the original, which is unacceptable.
Many people fail to take this kind of data loss into consideration, or even realize it is a very real effect.
Note that I would be fine with this process IF AND ONLY IF the downloaded file was lossless (not available) and the end result could be veriafiably confirmed to be identical to the doanloaded file.
I buy CDs because I want control over the ripping and encoding process. Exact Audio Copy to extract the data losslessly from the CD, then FLAC to encode lossless (if you must compress, use LAME with the best quality but slowest options checked).
They've noticed AllOfMP3.com enough to make a stink out of it, I don't understand why they haven't nmoticed that they have a pricing/distribution model that blows everyone else away. I know a ton of people that wouldn't spend any money on music if it weren't for this site and now they're spending $100 plus a year that before they kept to themselves. Unfortunately the artists aren't seeing any of that revenue, but they're probably not seeing any of the money the RIAA is scamming from people either.
downloadpunk.com
Of course its aimed at mainly indie stuff, but there is plenty to choose from, all in good ole mp3 format.
"itunes is close enough to drm-free as far as I'm concerned. download-burn to cd-rip to mp3. if you want a whole album's worth, buy the album and convert it."
The problem is iTunes' quality is not good enough to really do this. I'm convinced this is actually part of their DRM strategy. Those who would purposely strip the DRM are going to be the hardcore music lovers and the hardcore PC users, and they're the ones also most likely to be bothered by quality issues.
If you're converting from a 128k file (and I don't care what codec it's using) to any other codec, you're going to end up with the equivalent of something like a 100k file in sound quality. So for me, buying music from iTunes is still pretty useless. I mean sure, I have an iPod, but I don't only listen to music on my iPod or my PC. I also have a work PC, my wife has a PC and an iPod, and I'm not buying the same songs five different times for all these applications (much as the RIAA would like me to). But I'm not satisfied with the quality if I convert to mp3.
I also think 99 cents per track is overpriced, honestly. I'd pay 99 cents per track if it was full CD quality, losslessly compressed, and if I could somehow get physical liner notes and packaging for the tracks I download (why doesn't one of these music sites partner with Shutterfly or something and just send you a printout?). In other words, I would pay the same price as a CD if I was actually getting the same quality product. But for a digital track with no physical anything, 99 cents is too much.
So I'm curious to see what this Spiralfrog actually is. No doubt it will be DRM-encrusted, but hey, the price is right. It's one thing to pay for a crippled music file, but maybe Universal is finally acknowledging the true value of these files :)
I'd download a file with DRM on it for free. I just wouldn't pay 99 cents for one. I'll probably try this service out.
Totally agree with Josh Warner.
The real crime here is lossy .mp4's and .mp3's being passed off to the unwitting public as worth the same price as the lossless CD. They don't sound the same. The problem is, if you don't have the original CD to compare with the 128 mp3, 90% of people aren't going to notice the difference. But for those that do, it's no different than selling a DVD that's been copied from a VHS tape.
Of course, the greedy music industry's answer to this at some stage -- I GUARANTEE YOU -- will be different price points for different bitrates; meaning that while a 128 kb mp3 costs .99 cents, a lossless copy (probably still riddled with DRM) will cost $1.99.
Pandora is the answer.
I don't care about free music, I'm perfectly willing to buy it. But I have two requirements: 1) No friggin DRM and 2) Lossless formats.
For a music business model I respect and would really like to see more of on the net, go here:
http://www.magnatune.com
I've never bought a song from iTunes Music Store, Napster or any mainstream service, and I probably never will.
Jeff I agree with you on most of your post. Just wanted to point out that you can use one iTunes account on 5 computers and an unlimited number of iPods. So your wife wouldn't have to rebuy and music you bought, or the other way around.
Anyways this sounds great to me, as long as the audio quality is at least as good as an iTunes Music Store song, and it doesn't use Windows Media DRM.
Thanks for the support Brent, but I'm not sure I completely agree with your guarantee.
Here's why: The people who want lossless quality are usually the ones who don't use these services anyway. We tend to be more educated and cynical about online distribution in general. The trouble is, they cannot entice me without offering lossless quality for $0.99.
Why, you ask? Simple math. At ~$1/track, a downloaded album costs approx. the same as a DRM-free, lossless CD I can buy in any retail store. Right now I do not buy online, because I believe a 128 kb/s file containing less than 10% of the original at 1411 kb/s (grab a calc if you don't believe me) should be priced accordingly, at about 9 cents/track. This would be for DRM-free files; including restrictions lowers the value further to practically nil.
Getting back to the main point: if they go and charge any more than $1/track for a lossless (likely DRM-laden) file, there is no way I would participate because at that point it is CHEAPER TO BUY THE CD.
The problem is that the pricing for downloaded tunes are about ten times higher than they should be, if you really examine what you are getting. This effect makes the availability of lossless files untenable, because introducing them would force a drastic reduction in cost of the current offerings. If a drastic reduction was not realized, people would simply shun online distribution and buy the CDs which have more value anyway.
Do I wish this would happen? Yes. I would love to be able to buy and download a restriction-less, lossless copy of a particular album. But due to the artificial price inflation imposed by the RIAA, offering lossless files is not a reasonable pursuit for online music distribution sites for the near future.
There ARE places to buy legal mp3s encoded in really high quality vbrs (hint: and they're not in Russia!). eMusic has already been mentioned, but there's also playloudershop.com, bleep.com, and tunetribe.com, for starters! Those three all operate on a pay-per-track model, so if you're not keen on eMusic's subscriptions, they're the way to go.
Sit through ads to get free downloads.....Hmmmmm sounds harmless enough until we find that our downloads are ridden with spyware and other garbage. There is a reason a such a large label spending millions on artists would allow people to "cheat the system" by downloading their music for free.
"It's a step in the right direction, but what do you think the odds are that Universal is still going to require DRM even on free downloads?"
100%, give or take absolutely nothing.
Josh Warner: The RIAA has artifically inflated prices of digital downloads? That's an interesting statement, almost as interesting as your method of pricing. The problem is that the cost that went into a song is the same no matter what file format you're talking about. I can envision a day in the near future when lossless files can be purchased at or close to current prices (and if all goes well without DRM). But because a file was compressed doesn't mean any label is going to drastically chop the price.
Look at it this way: You're not getting one-tenth of a song when you buy a compressed file. That would be around 30 seconds of music. What you're getting is the entire song with a slight (or maybe more than slight, depending on how you look at it) difference in audio quality. Slight? Yes. Most people can't tell the difference between an MP3 and a CD. It's true. Maybe you can. You may have good ears. I can tell the difference. But most cannot.
Zunior.com sells DRM free albums in MP3 and FLAC formats. Mainly indie but they do have some of the popular stuff like Neko Case, MC Lars, Barenaked Ladies,
I have to jump on the eMusic bandwagon here. The songs are non-DRM'd MP3 files from a lot of big names (not as many as iTunes, however). No, I'm not a huge fan of the MP3 quality when compared to some of the more robust formats... but eMusic is exactly what you are asking for in the post.
Josh: There have been reports that the app Apple uses for labels to ready the tracks for the iTMS now has an Apple Lossless Codec option for the files, which might mean we are closer to seeing iTMS offer lossless tracks (at what price... who knows?).
Glenn:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you're looking at it very one-dimensionally. You really do get less than one tenth of the data - the difference is that the codec compressed it in such a way that it sounds quite similar but has little or none of the depth of the original studio recording.
You're right, it seems like you're getting an entire song, which is what the average Joe thinks too. Here I will digress and propose an analogy.
You are building a house, and you ask the builder to make your walls 2 feet thick filled with concrete (bear with me). Your builder thinks he can pull a fast one, and instead makes your walls 2 feet thick - but hollow - and charges you as if they were filled with concrete.
Does it look like you have 2 foot think walls? Yes. Are they really? No, not in any way, and you would be justifiably outraged if you ever found out. Similarly, downloaded songs seem to be complete and "worth it," when in fact they are missing 90% of the data they should contain for the price.
Glenn, think of it this way: the value of a song depends not only on length but also on bitrate (what has been cut for downloads). Think of them as 2 sides of a rectangle, and the area as the value of the track - and one side was reduced by 90%. The value is reduced by the same factor.
Whether you agree or not, hopefully this sheds some light on why I believe bitrate IS an important consideration.
Guys, DRM is never going to be gone. The record companies aren't stupid, they're greedy but not stupid. I hateeeeeee DRm stuff as much as the next guy. I want to have compatiblity across the board with all my devices too. But you know what it's not just a simple black and white issue. Part of it is due to greedy record companies and then dishonest folks.
For every 1 honest person there's gonna be at least 2- 3 dishonest dudes who'll spread the movie/music file to as many people as they want via p2p or bit torrent. I mean if i was a company would I want some guy to pay once and then give him the chance to give to as many people a free copy of whatever he brough? But whever you answer here is gonna be wrong because you have to deal with the idea of "rights, ownership, and fair use".
See you have to have the right to share what you brought. But the term of "sharing" becomes a very loose term when it comes to digital data. In the past shareing a dvd movie or cd was either physically giving it out or making a copy of it. Now yes i'm sure if you're technically inclined you can burn a copy of whatever and pass it out as often as you like. Even then there'd be a cost of the blank dvd or cd paid by someone. Not to mention it's still a challenge for the not so inclined. But for digital data it's just a copy and paste. I don't lose my copy if I gave you a copy. Heck I can place it into a p2p folder, leave my computer one and everyone can get a copy.
Did I mention greed? Greed, the companies are greedy as hell. I mean okay you want to use drm fine, use drm but why use so many different flavors? Why not use one format so that whatever we buy can be played on whatever device we own? Again greed, every company wants to license their own format out. And then you have the device manufactures are also play the same games.
As for purchasing DRM data, I don't think quality is ever going to be that high. I don't know about you but when I used to buy cd's I would find 1 - 3 songs out of 15 or 12 for 16-20 bucks that really liked. The rest were "okay" and i could live without them. So it definitely not a bargin. I mean yeah the song qaulity but really how much am i paying for per song especially if i don't like and don't want to listen to the other songs? Fro me it's essentially 4-5 per song. Now if i-tunes or whoever said okay guys here's a full wave at 5 bucks. Would you buy it? I mean the record companies know that on average most people will like maybe a few songs out of entire album. Now sometimes you might get that cd filled with not by great songs or maybe you'll find one cd that has songs yuo really like. Guess what, you go to itunes or where ever and listen to the previews if you feel like you really like the entire album then go out and buy the whole cd at the store.
I'm not advocating that the studio's, record companies and etc are correct. But out of all the other online place itunes is pretty much the most fair in my view. There's no subscription, you can burn it a few times onto a cd, you can share them to people a x number of times.
DRM free music you pay for mp3search.ru most are about .15 a piece
I have a feeling it was the record companies that insisted on lossy compression in the iTunes store, just as they insisted on copy protection. Have we already forgotten how hard it was for Apple to get the labels to go along with download sales?
I think the copy restrictions at iTunes are reasonable, but until the record companies start using the Apple loss-less compression, which is what I use when I rip my CDs, I think the iTunes store is a waste of money.
waddo
http://www.waddo.net/
The 'Social Media' weblink on the Press information page ( http://spiralfrog.com/press.aspx ) confirms that the music will have DRM:
"Digital rights management technology is built-in to all audio and video content as part of measures the company and its partners are actively taking to address piracy."
I get all my music from YourMusic.com. All CDs are $5.99 with free shipping!
God. I miss my walkman.
The following is from BusinessWeek:
"SpiralFrog.com is experimenting with an altogether different, and little tested, approach. Beginning in December, SpiralFrog.com will offer free downloads, but serve up advertising in the form of rich media, video, and banner advertisements during the 90 seconds it takes to download the song. Once downloaded, the songs can be played on portable music devices for up to six months."
Full article at http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2006/tc20060905_083985.htm?campaign_id=rss_null.
So if I understand this right, no matter your bandwidth DL speed it is going to take 90 seconds to receive each song, to allow for the full ads to play. About a third of the time it would take to play it. I could deal with that if there is an option to queue more songs while DLing, but somehow I doubt it as that would negate the point of sitting through the ads. Then after I spend 2 1/2 hours DLing (not counting search times) just to get 100 songs, they are only good for 6 months. Do you think someone is going to create a way to remove the time restriction?
this site sounds good. All other say it is free till u read the fine print then u have to pay i this this will be good.
...