This is a question I got while reading the limewire thread, but I'm really not interested in joining the current file sharing debate. So please don't let this thread become yet another debate on filesharing.
I have question about the subscription services that pH and others are talking about in that thread. If I got the $15/month deal, do I get to keep the songs if I cancel the service later? I could subscribe for some months, but would have to cancel whenever money is really tight.
I gather that I could burn mp3 CDs with that service, but could I then transfer those songs to other computers? I'm not talking about other people's computers, I'm talking about MY computers. Can I change the format, burn again and again, etc?
That's what I meant when I asked the question on the first page of the other thread about truly owning the song. Can I keep it after cancelling, and can I change the format, put it on a new computer, etc.?
I'm NOT talking about sharing with other people.
Also, what's the best subscription service?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Actually it's quite different than you described. I'm speaking specifically for yahoo, as that's the service I use, however I think it's generally true for all of them.
First, the files are all WMA, not MP3. So you'll need to make sure your portable player supports this format. WMA uses Digital Rights Management technology (DRM). This technology can limit the ability to burn the file as an audio track to a CD. It limits the number of times it can be copied or a period of time for which it can be played.
So no you will not be able to burn any of the songs to CD. Also, once you cancel your subscription, all your music will expire within a few weeks and you will no longer be able to listen to it. You're limited to the number of computers and devices you can have your music on as well.
Don't think of it as purchasing music...think of it as incredibly flexible and high quality XM Radio or something like that.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Heh, WMA files aren't all that secure. There are several programs which can convert them to more... flexible formats.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And I think that you should be able to convert and burn them if you payed for them.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
But like BaoQingTian said, it's probably better to think of it as a really flexible radio than to think of it as a purchase of songs.
I really don't like DRM on purchased music (such as off of itunes), but for a service like this it doesn't really seem to be a problem.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I had this same question.
pH said she was able to play songs from a subscription service in her car. Doesn't that imply they're transferable?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, to her portable mp3 (and obviously, other formats ) player.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
But do they just automatically delete themselves when their time is up?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
They probably just stop working.
That's what happens with ebooks I get from the library.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
For a subscription service, you can pay $10/month just to download and play an unlimited amount of songs. But only on your computer. So if you take your computer somewhere, your downloaded songs will still work (IIRC, I haven't done this in a while) as long as your subscription is good. You can have your library on 3 (I think) different computers. You can have your licenses re-issued if your computer goes on the fritz. They have really good tech support.
On the $10/month plan, you still have to pay 99 cents a song if you want to burn/transfer the music. But then you've bought it, and you own it, and it doesn't matter if you keep your subscription or not. Music you haven't purchased will only play 30 second clips after your subscription ends.
$15/month gets you unlimited song transfers to any of three compatible portable devices. You have to plug in the devices to your computer once a month even if you don't want to put new music on them so that they can check and make sure you still have the licenses to play the songs. If you don't, they won't play on the players anymore. If you want to own the song and burn it to a tangible CD, you still have to purchase it for 99 cents. But frankly, I find CDs too cumbersome after becoming used to plugging my mp3 player into my car (I use a cassette tape adapter; you can also use an FM transmitter).
I've used a subscription service for over two years now. I use Napster. I'm sure all of the services have differences, so I can really tell you the exact details about Napster. But the licensing works the same on all of them, as far as I know.
-pH
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
My solution:
1. Subscribe to Rhapsody (It's run by RealNetworks...blech) 2. Buy songs & burn to CD ($1/song) 3. Burn CD, of course 4. Rip CD, obviously
MP3 is my format of choice. Yeah, some formats are better, but I'm partial toward compatibility and the lack of Digital Rights Management crapola.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: My solution:
1. Subscribe to Rhapsody (It's run by RealNetworks...blech) 2. Buy songs & burn to CD ($1/song) 3. Burn CD, of course 4. Rip CD, obviously
MP3 is my format of choice. Yeah, some formats are better, but I'm partial toward compatibility and the lack of Digital Rights Management crapola.
I'm confused as to why you would do this with Rhapsody and not iTunes, which requires no subscription and has a significantly larger available library.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Is the ability to pick and choose your songs really worth paying the same amount (roughly) per song that you would on a CD?
If there are 10 songs on a CD for $10, that's already $1 a song. If there are 15, the CD might be $15. I know that ratio isn't true all the time. But my point is, if I'm going to download a song, shouldn't I pay less than it would cost me on a CD? They don't have to pay for packaging.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
The actual CD and packaging material costs them almost nothing. This is one reason people are upset that the prices of CDs remained high, even after their initial introduction.
My personal opinion on why songs are ~$1 a piece is that out of an album of 15 songs, maybe 1-3 are really good. So they've got to make some money back on the good songs that they lose by not selling the less than good songs.
Here's why I'd never purchase music online: 1) I hate DRM. It has its place with subscription services, but if I'm purchasing something for ownership I don't want cumbersome software restrictions. Defeating these measures is illegal. 2) The quality of online purchased music isn't sufficient for me. Remember, MP3 is a lossy compression. You are sacrificing CD quality for file size. Although 192 Kbps is becoming common, many earlier purchasers of online music had to get 128 Kbps songs. Even 192 falls short of CD quality 256 Kbps. Nothing you can do will ever increase the quality- and as some mentioned in the other thread, if you decide to rip a copy from a friends CD of a song you have purchased online, that is technically illegal, even if you just did it to make up for the inferior sampling rate of the same song you purchased. I would prefer it if purchased music was in a FLAC like format (lossless audio compression). 3) Used CDs can be had for about 3 bucks. You can then rip them to FLAC if you keep your music on your computer and use the CD for backup. Or you can rip a downsampled version for a portable audio player, I've found 64 kbps wma equivalent to 128 kbps mp3 and the filesize is puny. In short, you have a myriad of options and always have the original version on a stamped, legit CD.
However, if you want the latest hit song, quality isn't a big issue for you, and you want it now without buying the whole album, a $.99 download may fit the bill.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Is the ability to pick and choose your songs really worth paying the same amount (roughly) per song that you would on a CD?
If there are 10 songs on a CD for $10, that's already $1 a song. If there are 15, the CD might be $15. I know that ratio isn't true all the time. But my point is, if I'm going to download a song, shouldn't I pay less than it would cost me on a CD?
Well, full albums on iTunes are almost always $9.99 regardless of the number of songs on the album, and many older titles even cheaper.
For many people, the ability to buy just the best songs from 10 different bands without having to buy 10 different full length CDs makes the ability to pick and choose very worthwhile.
Personally, I try to stay away from buying online songs for many of the same reasons that BQT cites, though I have spent over $500 at the iTMS. Sometimes it's just more convenient when I want a song or album right now instead of having to try to find it at a record store.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The subscription service is worth it for me because I download well more than $15 of music every month. And albums are $9.99 for purchase on Napster, too.
-pH
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:I'm confused as to why you would do this with Rhapsody and not iTunes, which requires no subscription and has a significantly larger available library.
That's a really good question. Maybe I'll try it in the future. So far, I'm not terribly disappointed in Rhapsody's selection. I'm quite certain that even on iTunes, there are missing songs.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) player.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)