Rhapsody Relaunches with iPod-Compatible MP3s

[MacRumors]

Rhapsody announced the opening of a DRM-Free MP3 store today. The music tracks will be compatible with the Apple iPod as well as most other music players. This represents a significant shift in strategy for the company, who previously sold tracks on a subscription model exclusively. Rhapsody, however, has not completely abandoned the subscription model and still offers this option to their customers.

Rhapsody believes that their incompatibility with the iPod was in part to blame for their lack of market penetration:

"We're no longer competing with the iPod," Rhapsody Vice President Neil Smith said. "We're embracing it."

The new MP3 store from Rhapsody is only available to U.S. customers and contains 5 million songs. Music will be priced similarly to other services at $.99 per song or $9.99 per album.

One unique feature to Rhapsody's service is the ability for customers to preview an entire track, rather than a 30 second window.

Article Link

[kbmb]

C'mon Apple.....your on deck. Let's get this done on iTunes.....do what it takes.

Very cool you can listen to the entire track before buying....I like that.

-Kevin

[Doctor Q]

Part of their strategy is to sell from various sites owned by Viacom. That helps them attract attention to the service.

I'm surprised to hear about the full-song previews. Why weren't the record companies too paranoid to allow this? How much concern do they have that some people will capture the preview audio rather than make a purchase?

I've been fine with 30-second previews. Only once have I purchased a song without realizing it was an alternate take and not the version I wanted. I don't always play the entire 30 second preview as it is (I'm a busy person!), but of course being able to listen to more of it, or choose which portion to sample, can be a nice convenience.

[macnews]

Originally Posted by kbmb

C'mon Apple.....your on deck. Let's get this done on iTunes.....do what it takes.

Very cool you can listen to the entire track before buying....I like that.

-Kevin

I don't need an entire track preview to buy a song. Likely I have heard it on the radio already for free, which is why I'm looking to buy it.

Plus, doesn't that open up the potential for people just coping the song? I know of a few programs that will capture anything played through your speakers. Spend $20 for one of those programs and 20 previewed songs later I have made my money back.


As to Rhapsody doing DRM free and "embracing the ipod" I think it has more to do with the integration of iTunes and the iPod than just mp3. Not saying the DRM free mp3 won't be used by some, just think they still don't completely get it.

[kbmb]

Originally Posted by macnews

I don't need an entire track preview to buy a song. Likely I have heard it on the radio already for free, which is why I'm looking to buy it.

Plus, doesn't that open up the potential for people just coping the song? I know of a few programs that will capture anything played through your speakers. Spend $20 for one of those programs and 20 previewed songs later I have made my money back.


As to Rhapsody doing DRM free and "embracing the ipod" I think it has more to do with the integration of iTunes and the iPod than just mp3. Not saying the DRM free mp3 won't be used by some, just think they still don't completely get it.

I realize you don't *need* it. Just saying it's a nice feature to have. Sometimes I hear part of a song on the radio and want to make sure it's the same song in iTunes and the 30 second preview doesn't tell me for sure. Or, there are multiple versions of the song and I want to make sure it's the right one.

Hey, if the labels are ok with it....so am I.

Sure, some people are going to pirate the previews. But they are not good quality at all. If you are stooping to that level, there are plenty of other sites out there that will let you download higher quality music for a lot easier.

The kid who sits and has downloaded 1000's of pirateded songs from newgroups/online/bit torrent......certainly isn't sitting here thinking....oh boy, the whole song from Rhapsody....I'll just get it there even though the quality stinks.

-Kevin

[137489]

Originally Posted by macnews

Plus, doesn't that open up the potential for people just coping the song?.

Recording over the airways is free and not illegal as the song has been modified for marketing and is usually not the version on the CD.

Recording using a software package that plugs into your speaker has long been debated as being similar to recording off the radio. Sound quality (depending on the stream) is clearer, but the song may also be altered if you are recording it from a radio station's webstream.

Most websites you can not just copy the song (by doing click and save as), as the song is usually buried in a flash player.

Also, preview of songs are most of the time, not CD quaility.

The method of copying songs (webstream, peer-to-peer, downloading from the internet, etc), being able to backup your music, taking your purchased tapes, CD's etc and remixing to your own favorite CD's has long since been debated.

Truthfully, I am not sure if we will ever hear the end of it.

to me, do not go after the person who is recording or downloading the music (unless they are downloading 1000's of songs at a time); go after the people putting up the websites and who are offering music for free illegally.

I do not listen to mainstream music, so most of my collection is from startup Christian Artists who offer their music on their own websites for free, until they become popular and can sell their music. plus I also listen to a lot of old hymns and Gospel, many of songs are which now public domain.

[goosnarrggh]

Originally Posted by shervieux

plus I also listen to a lot of old hymns and Gospel, many of songs are which now public domain.

Careful with that. Under US copyright law, the lyrics, the tune, and the musical arrangement are each copyrighted separately.

In addition, even if the words and music are individually out of copyright, every individual audio recording of a performance of a song is also copyrighted separately.

To date, most audio recordings ever produced in the USA have not yet reached the age at which they are automatically fully assigned to the public domain.

All recordings published before 1972 will be fully in the public domain on February 15, 2067.

For recordings published after 1972 but before 1978, it they bear a complete copyright notice, they will enter the public domain 95 years after publication, and in the year 2068 at the earliest. If they do not bear a complete copyright notice, they are in the public domain.

For recordings produced after 1978 but before 1989, if they do not bear a copyright notice, and they were not subsequently registered, they are now in the public domain. If a copyright notice is present or if the recording was subsequently registered, they will enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the producer, or for corporate productions, 120 years after the date the recording was made, but under no circumstances before February 15, 2067.

For recordings produced after 1989, regardless of whether copyright was registered and regardless of whether a copyright notice is attached to the publication, they will be under copyright for 70 years after the death of the producer, or for corporate productions, 120 years after the recording was made.

Of course, the producer has the right to release anything (s)he produces into the public domain at any time, if (s)he wants to and if (s)he has permission to do so from the owners, if any, of any lyrics/tunes from which the recording is derived.

[137489]

Originally Posted by goosnarrggh

Careful with that. Under US copyright law, the lyrics, the tune, and the musical arrangement are each copyrighted separately.

In addition, even if the words and music are individually out of copyright, every individual audio recording of a performance of a song is also copyrighted separately.

To date, most audio recordings ever produced in the USA have not yet reached the age at which they are automatically fully assigned to the public domain.

All recordings published before 1972 will be fully in the public domain on February 15, 2067.

For recordings published after 1972 but before 1978, it they bear a complete copyright notice, they will enter the public domain 95 years after publication, and in the year 2068 at the earliest. If they do not bear a complete copyright notice, they are in the public domain.

For recordings produced after 1978 but before 1989, if they do not bear a copyright notice, and they were not subsequently registered, they are now in the public domain. If a copyright notice is present or if the recording was subsequently registered, they will enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the producer, or for corporate productions, 120 years after the date the recording was made, but under no circumstances before February 15, 2067.

For recordings produced after 1989, regardless of whether copyright was registered and regardless of whether a copyright notice is attached to the publication, they will be under copyright for 70 years after the death of the producer, or for corporate productions, 120 years after the recording was made.

Of course, the producer has the right to release anything (s)he produces into the public domain at any time, if (s)he wants to and if (s)he has permission to do so from the owners, if any, of any lyrics/tunes from which the recording is derived.

Yet another wrinkle to the old, vauge, and hard to enforce law..... Copying is as old as the hills. Look at how many times the uncopyrighted "Man of Constant Sorrow" has been released

First there were way to record your own lp's and 45's. I am too young to remember that, but told it was possible. then there were ways to record your own 8-tracks. Again, I am too young to remember that, but I had a few 8-tracks that were hand-written in my collection until the collection was lost in a fire in 1995.

Fast-foward to my life:

Cassette recorders in radios, cassette duplicators (dubbing) in stereos.

Now CD/DVD burners.

I have seen companies release an in-PC cassette player to burn your old cassettes to MP3.

Here is a link to a review of one:

http://www.redferret.net/?p=2448

And there are various ways to record your lp's /45's (old vynal records for you younger folks) to mp3 or CD. Just google it.

so the fact of song copying is a losing issue for all sides......

I have seen versions or interpretations where it reads that once your original purchased copy had been destroyed, you are also to destroy any copies you have made (so much for backups).....

[Small White Car]

Originally Posted by macnews

Plus, doesn't that open up the potential for people just coping the song? I know of a few programs that will capture anything played through your speakers.

That's the "old" way of thinking: That if we can somehow stop pirates from getting music, piracy will stop! It's this though-process that lead to DRM in the first place.

Problem is, it doesn't work. Somewhere, someone has already ripped the CD and put it on a bit-torrent, so why would anyone go to the trouble you've just described here? A better copy is ALREADY on the internet for free!

The new idea behind all of these MP3 sites is that there will ALWAYS be pirates and they will always be 20-25% of the population and there's nothing we can do about them. Businesses have finally figured out that they're not hurting the pirates, but that DRM is alienating the 75-80% who WOULD buy music online. Why not get money from them, since they WANT to be paying customers?

I could steal music, but I don't. There are lots of people like me. The labels have finally decided to base their plans on pleasing me (the customer) rather than fighting the pirates (who never stopped anyway).

It's slow...they won't let iTunes go DRM-free yet...and the movie people haven't figured it out yet...but it's slowly changing.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally Posted by Small White Car

It's slow...they won't let iTunes go DRM-free yet.

This is the most interesting point in this story, which I think everyone is missing. From what I've been reading, the supposed reason why (most) of the labels haven't given Apple permission to sell music without digital locks is because they're unhappy with Apple's insistence on flat-rate pricing. But then we see that Rhapsody is selling all of their DRM-free tracks for $0.99 and albums for $9.99. So obviously something other than pricing is the issue. If anyone could get to the bottom of this question, then they'd have the real story.

[cmendill]

This story is a little bit misleading. Windows users with the rhapsody client installed could always purchase $0.99 mp3s that were ipod compatible. They could also download subscription music onto non-ipod rhapsody-compatible players for free. Rhapsody also has a web version of their service that up until now, just did streaming through your web browser. Now they've added the ability to purchase mp3s over the web. That seems like a good move, but the online store seems poorly integrated with the standard streaming site, not integrated at all actually. They seem to be two separate sites.

Rhapsody has been offering 30 free streaming songs per month for a while. These are the "free previews" they are talking about. They are not decreased quality, they are the standard 192 kbps .rax encode that us members get.

So there is nothing new here in terms of "pirating the previews," you could always do that, and as people have said, it is painstaking and pointless to do so.

I can't find what their mp3 download bitrate is. But it is probably 256 kbps as is amazon.com.

I'm still puzzled as to why these DRM-free sites are sticking with the MP3 codec instead of using AAC. Are their any players out there today that don't play AAC/m4a/mp4 audio?

Being DRM-free is paramount for me, and amazon.com is usually $7.99 - $8.99 for an album. I can deal with the slight quality trade-off to actually own my music.

If you are in front of a computer for most of you day, as am I, the rhapsody streaming service is still an unbelievably good deal.

[nagromme]

Originally Posted by IJ Reilly

This is the most interesting point in this story, which I think everyone is missing. From what I've been reading, the supposed reason why (most) of the labels haven't given Apple permission to sell music without digital locks is because they're unhappy with Apple's insistence on flat-rate pricing. But then we see that Rhapsody is selling all of their DRM-free tracks for $0.99 and albums for $9.99. So obviously something other than pricing is the issue. If anyone could get to the bottom of this question, then they'd have the real story.

What the labels are unhappy with is Apple's SUCCESS. They don't like so much power being in the hands of this newcomer in their industry.

They want to smack Apple down and get multiple online stores in competition, and ironically, giving up their precious DRM--which they surely HATED to do--has proven to be the only way to pull that off.

And for extra irony, this particular situation puts the music labels (kicking and screaming) on the same side as consumers: promoting DRM-free music and the competition between multiple vendors to choose from.

I welcome the new options like Amazon and Real. (The iTunes store isn't going anywhere, and neither is the iPod.)

Originally Posted by jcshas

"We're no longer competing with the iPod," Rhapsody Vice President Neil Smith said. "We're embracing it."

So correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the intent of the record companies decision to not allow DRM free music on iTunes to steer consumers AWAY from the iPod?

It's an anti-Apple move in general, and specifically an anti-iTunes Music Store move. Not so much an anti-iPod move: iPod owners are a huge portion of the labels' market to sell music to.

In addition, I think they saw DRM-free music as a risky, scary experiment--one they had resisted for a long time. They didn't want to start that scary experiment with the leading biggest music store (iTunes)--better to experiment with a less-established store (like Amazon).

[7031]

Originally Posted by macnews

Plus, doesn't that open up the potential for people just coping the song? I know of a few programs that will capture anything played through your speakers. Spend $20 for one of those programs and 20 previewed songs later I have made my money back.

Audio Hijack Pro? Heh. Not trying to sound like a fanboi or whatever, but on Windows you can actually do that with some soundcards (such as a Creative Labs) through the 'What U Here' device.

Of course, if anyone knows of a (free) mac solution, let me know. (actually, I think you can do it with Soundflower).

[samh004]

I think the entire-track-preview is much more of a gimmick than an actual feature that wont help switch users over. It could even lead to piracy of the previews.

Granted sometimes the previews on iTunes aren't in the spot that identifies the song, I don't think I'd be more likely to use a service because I could listen to the whole track.

[Buschmaster]

I think that entire track previews could lead to piracy when these are the things that are supposed to lead us away from piracy.

Hm...

[Orng]

What's wrong with these companies that they can't pull off an international rollout for an online service in this day and age? I'll keep using iTunes partially because I like it, and partially because I have to.

Originally Posted by Buschmaster

I think that entire track previews could lead to piracy when these are the things that are supposed to lead us away from piracy.

Hm...

The previews are probably encoded at a very poor bit rate.
Of course, in iTunes the actual tracks are encoded at a mediocre bit rate. Honestly, if Rhapsody can figure out that some of us like our music encoded at a decent bit rate, I might consider it... if they ever offer their service outside the US, of course.

[Fotek2001]

Originally Posted by Orng

What's wrong with these companies that they can't pull off an international rollout for an online service in this day and age?

Blame the licensing issues for that one. Having worked at a company that deals with music rights licensing in the past, I can tell you it's an absolute nightmare to sort out licensing when a 'song' can have many rights holders for various parts of it lyrics/recording/music etc. and each of those can be different depending what country or region you're hoping to license in.

[Loge]

Originally Posted by Fotek2001

Blame the licensing issues for that one. Having worked at a company that deals with music rights licensing in the past, I can tell you it's an absolute nightmare to sort out licensing when a 'song' can have many rights holders for various parts of it lyrics/recording/music etc. and each of those can be different depending what country or region you're hoping to license in.

Yet Apple has gone to that trouble to offer iTunes music in about 22 countries (last time I looked), but Amazon just have a vague statement about some international presence before the end of the year, and Real don't seem interested at all.

[kbmb]

Originally Posted by samh004

I think the entire-track-preview is much more of a gimmick than an actual feature that wont help switch users over. It could even lead to piracy of the previews.

Granted sometimes the previews on iTunes aren't in the spot that identifies the song, I don't think I'd be more likely to use a service because I could listen to the whole track.

Piracy....don't think so. Listen to one. 8-track quality.

I like it for the exact reason you said....getting the exact part of the song in that 30 second clip on iTunes is sometimes difficult.

I don't think it will make people run to the Rhapsody store just to hear the whole song, but it is a nice feature.

-Kevin

[macintel4me]

I guess I now know where I am going to preview my songs. Doesn't change by buying habits via iTunes. iTunes integration is too good (iPhone, AppleTV, iPod) and too complete. Once I preview it in Rhapsody (if I cared too), I am only 20-60 seconds away from hunting it down in iTunes.

Oh yeah, I can still buy songs on in my iPod touch or iPhone via iTunes as well. I guess Rhapsody is grasping at straws since they are failing so they have to do something different. Far from compelling with this change alone.

[GSMiller]

Now they'll just come out with a confusing advertising strategy:

"All the music you want for only $14.99 a month, now compatible with iPod"

[justreading]

Apple needs to be listening to the part about DRM free music.. previews are nice... DRM free keeps me going to amazon.

[LillieDesigns]

I think Apple is just waiting to lose a percentage of market share. Record companies will think they succeeded in taking the 'monopoly' away from Apple and then Jobs can announce 100% DRM free music store and weekly sales been with various artists.

I can't see Apple sitting on their prices and limited DRM free music unless they are forced.

[Small White Car]

Originally Posted by justreading

Apple needs to be listening to the part about DRM free music.. previews are nice... DRM free keeps me going to amazon.

It's not Apple, the labels have to let them.

They're all ticked that they gave Apple so much power and so they're 'punishing' them by forcing them to use DRM while letting others sell plain MP3s. The labels are hoping that this will give the smaller companies an edge and let them catch up. They want a world with many online providers, not just one.

Of course, it's they're own darned fault in the first place...DRM is what prevented that from happening...but now they've wised up and are trying to fix their mistake.

I'd imagine they'll let Apple go DRM-free in a year or two. But they'll wait for Amazon's store to grow before they do it.

[El Pájaro]

Can't go wrong with a full preview - allows you to hear it in all its glory.