stories filed under: "downloads"
Questionable Site Claims To Legally Offer Unlimited MP3 Downloads... Record Label Lawyers Already Springing Into Action
from the sounds-dodgy dept
What is it with random companies springing up claiming to have legal download offerings that don't pass the laugh test. Remember a year ago, we talked about a company called Bluebeat.com that claimed to be the only site where you could legally buy Beatles MP3s, based on a bit of absolutely ridiculous logic, that it was using "psycho-acoustic simulation" to recreate the tracks, thereby giving it a brand new copyright. That company also got a registration for these "new" works by the Copyright Office, hoping that most people wouldn't notice that the Copyright Office registration process is a pure rubber stamp effort, and conveys no actual legitimacy to a bogus copyright.Well, it looks like we've got another similar situation, as some mysterious company called ZapTunes is claiming to offer unlimited MP3 downloads for $25/month -- with an initial "free" period, though you have to hand over your credit card details. The whole thing sounds highly questionable, however. The store claims to have licensed the work from all the major labels, including being able to offer Beatles MP3s and AC/DC MP3s -- which have not been offered in MP3 format anywhere.
In the comments on that Hypebot article, some point out that the company appears to just be scraping Last.fm data, as it found a track that one guy had created himself, which only lived on his computer (but which had been "scrobbled" and the info was sent to Last.fm). The company also claims to have raised "about $5 million in funding from various Venture Capitalists," but doesn't seem to name any of them.
Despite the claims from the company that they've secured the necessary licenses for this, it appears not everyone agrees. EMI is apparently already starting the legal process. The whole thing really makes me wonder if these sites honestly think that people will buy their claims when there seems to be little evidence to support them. There are plenty of sites out there that offer up such content in a clearly unauthorized manner -- but at least they're honest about what they do. It seems pretty silly and destined to fail massively to falsely claim the legal rights to music you almost certainly did not license.
Filed Under: beatles, copyright, downloads, licensing, mp3s, music
Companies: emi, zaptunes
New Zealand Media Claiming That Huge Local Film Success Story Is Being Harmed... By 200 Downloaders?
from the say-what-now? dept
Reader Matt Perryman points us to a bizarre story down in New Zealand, which he claims is all over the news. Apparently, a local movie, called Boy, has been a huge success -- having the third most successful box office of a New Zealand film ever. Not bad, right? But, months after the film has been out in the theaters, it's now been leaked to the internet, and suddenly the media frenzy is about just how much this is "costing" the filmmakers. No evidence (at all), is presented. They just claim that a leak like this will cost a million dollars. Even more amusing, at the time these reports came out, they said that the movie had only been downloaded 200 times. But, if you look at the comments on that article, a ton of them are thanking the publications for letting everyone know the movie was available for download. Of course, many of the commenters are also pointing out that they don't live in New Zealand, and there was no way for them to see the movie otherwise... meaning that those downloads aren't losses at all. But, it seems the reporters never bothered to mention that rather important fact.Filed Under: copyright, downloads, losses, movies, new zealand
Yet Another Attempt At Ad Supported Music
from the if-it's-more-annoying,-it-won't-work dept
Back in October, we wrote about plans for yet another "free, but ad supported" music download startup, but didn't see how the economics could work out. That site, FreeAllMusic, is apparently now getting set to launch, but it still doesn't make much sense to us. Basically, you can download music (two of the four major labels have signed up) for free -- and it's not encumbered by DRM (that's good), but you have to sit through some sort of video ad before you can get the music and you are limited in how much music you can download. The site's CEO claims "We have made this process easier than stealing."We'll ignore the confusion (most likely intentional) about the difference between infringement and "stealing" and focus on all the other problems with this service. First of all, it's not easier than infringing. You have to sit and watch an ad. You don't have to do that on file sharing networks. Second, the assumption behind the service is that people would use this the same way they use iTunes: meaning only a very small number of downloads per month. Initially, that means 20 downloads per month, total, and no more than five per session. That may be how people use iTunes, but that's because each download costs money in iTunes. One of the reasons people prefer file sharing systems is because they're not limited that way and can really easily sample lots of music quickly.
But the biggest problem with this concept remains with the basic economics. Since the argument remains the same as I stated a few months back, I'll just repeat it:
You've got the record labels, who are used to getting approximately $0.67 per downloaded song. Assuming that needs to be made up by the ad (and even ignoring any profit for the site), then every single ad shown needs to cost that same $0.67. Translated into traditional ad terms, that's a CPM of $670. Yikes. I don't know any advertiser will to pay anything close to that -- even if it's targeted and you have a half decent chance of the person paying attention. Most CPM ad rates online these days are in the sub-$5 area. Convincing advertisers to jump to a $670 CPM on an unproven model? Good luck.I'm all for experiments and new business models -- especially those that make use of free music. I just don't see this particular one getting very far. The economics are just not that compelling for anyone involved.
Filed Under: ad supported music, ads, business models, downloads, economics, free, music
Companies: free all music, freeallmusic
Once Again, You Don't Compete With Innovative New Services By Being Lame
from the in-case-you-weren't-paying-attention dept
A couple years back we pointed out how the entertainment industry kept trying to "compete" with new (legal and not-so-legal) online services, but always seemed to do so by being incredibly lame. And, you don't compete by being lame. It appears that this message still hasn't quite gotten through to some yet. With the movie industry facing new challenges concerning online distribution and innovative services like Redbox, here are two stories of old school players trying to "compete" but missing out on the part where they make their offering compelling.The first comes from Josh in CharlotteNC, who points out that Blockbuster is trying to compete with Redbox and its widely available kiosks (and Netflix with its larger library of downloadable movies) by setting up kiosks in its stores where you can download movies. But... you can only download them to proprietary SD cards, and then it can only play on special proprietary hardware that participants in this program need to have. How is that a better experience then, well, anything? If you want a movie that can be downloaded, why not just let people download it at home? Why have people go out to download it?
Then we have a story sent in by Loydster, about how Sony Pictures is offering owners of new Sony/Bravia HDTV's the chance to download and watch the movie Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs before the DVD release. While that is actually a nice tie-in between Sony's content business and its consumer electronics business, Sony (of course) has to screw it up. That's because the company thinks it can charge $25 to download the movie. The company seems to admit that it's charging this much because it doesn't want to piss off its retail partners (like WalMart), but it's difficult to see why it's worth doing the project at all if the pricing is going to be so ridiculous.
Experimenting with ways to compete is good... but being so obviously lame is not.
Filed Under: competition, downloads, kiosks, movie rentals
Companies: blockbuster, sony
Movie Makers Use 'Fake' Piracy Numbers To Score Distribution Deal
from the well,-good-for-them? dept
The NY Times recently had a blog post noting that the makers of an $850,000 romantic comedy called X's and O's were thrilled that their movie was widely shared on file sharing networks, because the attention it got helped land them a big DVD distribution deal, and potentially a television deal, helped along by the attention received from that file sharing. Of course, there's just one little problem. The FreakBits guys noticed that the number of downloads the movies' creators are citing are almost certainly false. Apparently some sites post fake download numbers as a part of their advertising, and the movie makers used those fake numbers. But... it seemed to get them attention to get more deals, so more power to them. No matter what, it suggests that (once again) obscurity is a much bigger problem than piracy.Filed Under: bittorrent, downloads, fake, movies, obscurity, publicity
New Study States The Obvious: Kids Download A Lot Of Music
from the this-is-not-going-away dept
Over the past few months, there's been a push among some to suggest that file sharing is really a marginalized behavior, only done by a small group of people -- and that with just a little education (and maybe a few big legal victories, such as the ones against Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum -- combined with new services like Spotify), perhaps it can be brought "under control." The "evidence" given for this has often been a case study in how to use statistics to delude yourself, often looking at the total percentage of people or internet users who engage in file sharing. But, the fact is that ignores the real issue: which is that kids today (tomorrow's consumers) are file sharing at a very high rate. A new study, sponsored by UK Music (the UK organization that's looking to get ISPs to put in place some sort of blanket licensing plan) has found that over 60% of kids in the UK admit to file sharing, with 83% of those admitting to doing it regularly, and those surveyed claiming to have downloaded an average of 8,100 tracks. Think about that for a second. 8,100 tracks.While the defenders of the old system want to liken file sharing to a problem like shoplifting, at some point you have to realize it's something entirely different. This isn't a marginal behavior done by "bad kids." This is about as common as can be. Oddly, the BBC tried to spin this report to say that file sharing has dropped, but that "drop" was only 2% and it's within the margin of error of the survey -- meaning there's no actual evidence that it dropped. The study also contradicted that other study we wrote about recently (also in the UK) that claimed that kids were replacing downloading with streaming services. In this survey, 78% said they had no interest in a streaming service, and 89% saying they'd never pay for such a service.
Given the two conflicting studies (both sponsored by biased parties), you have to question the results of both. But, given the fact that kids are more likely to deny file sharing activity these days, rather than admit to it (knowing they could get in trouble for it), you have to wonder if this study even undercounts the actual activity.
Now, once again, let's make a clear point: I'm not saying this is right or legal. I don't think anyone should download music from an artist who does not authorize it. But the fact is that file sharing is not a "small thing" among kids today, and to think that there's some sort of magical method of getting it to go away is wishful thinking. Given that we're seeing more and more artists learn how to embrace file sharing to do better with their own business models, at some point it's time for those fighting against it to recognize -- from the copyright holders' perspective -- that it's better not to fight what consumers want, but to embrace it, combined with a smart business model, and stop worrying.
Video Game Downloads Harming The Used Video Game Market?
from the well,-that's-a-flip dept
We've had a bunch of articles in the last couple years about video game execs complaining about the used video game market, saying that they deserve a cut of any such sale -- or that the used market should be banned altogether. This, of course, is short-sighted, as studies have shown that a healthy secondary market improves the primary market by adding value to the product (i.e., people may be more willing to buy the new product, knowing they'll be able to resell it later). And, of course, the market has a way of dealing with these things.So, it's a bit amusing to now see sort of the flip side to that story (sent in by the amusingly named "Just Another Moron in a Hurry") -- with some warning that the rise in direct downloads of video games is threatening the used video game market, and that may be bad for consumers as well. Obviously, those games can't be resold (at least not easily), and thus there isn't a cheap price entry point for consumers, as there is with used packages games. Again, even though this is complaining from the other side, I'm not sure it's really that big of a deal either, as the market again should start to deal with this situation. Being able to offer games direct to consumers should lower video game production costs (no more packaging/shipping/logistics/hard goods/etc.) and, even they don't initially, eventually the prices should reflect that, as well.
Filed Under: downloads, used video games, video games
eMusic Also Took Away Right To Download Songs Already Purchased
from the thanks-for-nothing dept
In all the fuss over eMusic's poorly managed plan to sign Sony Music and raise prices at the same time, the company apparently also was able to sneak through another anti-customer move. For years, as an eMusic customer, you were able to go back and access songs you'd previously downloaded. This is, for obvious reasons, a very useful feature -- especially considering the fact that people change computers or lose hard drives and such. However, apparently, along with the price increase, eMusic has quietly dropped this feature as well. It's not clear why they would do this. Perhaps Sony didn't want this, but that doesn't explain why the feature was removed for everyone. It's like eMusic is punishing their loyal customers. The company claims that it will allow people to redownload if there's a technical problem, but the convenience feature is just gone.Virgin Does Music Deal With Universal; Everyone Involved Forgets The Past
from the let's-look-back-a-bit dept
There's lots of news coming out today about how UK broadband ISP Virgin has signed a deal with Universal Music to allow unlimited access to Universal Music's catalog (downloads and streams) for a set price. Various execs and politicians are talking it up like it's the greatest thing ever. It's as if they think that people can't remember back just a few months.That's because it was just a few months ago that Virgin was set to launch a similar offering that included all of the major record labels, but then a few of them got greedy and said they'd only agree to it if Virgin also employed Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) techniques to track the file sharing and cracked down on any sharing of MP3s. Virgin resisted -- after all, just a few months before that, it had insisted that it would never cut subscribers off the internet for file sharing. So... wouldn't you know it... a part of this plan is to cut file sharers off the internet.
So, let's take a look at this "wonderful" and "amazing" new agreement. You get a vastly limited catalog (only Universal Music -- and who the hell knows what label their favorite bands are on these days?). It's not clear how the usage is tracked, but given the earlier reports, we have to wonder if it involves DPI spying on your usage... and Virgin is committed to cracking down on file sharing and even "temporarily" cutting off access to the internet (Virgin claims its okay, because the cutoff is only "temporary"). Perhaps there are some folks out there who will sign up for such a service, but it's difficult to see who. They aren't offering any benefits or additional value.
Filed Under: downloads, music, services, uk
Companies: universal music, virgin
