Login:
Password:

Music Industry Investigated Over Pricing

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

December 24, 2005, 12:31 AM

The music industry has made no secret of its desire to raise prices of legal music downloads, but the record labels have instead raised the ire of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer has subpoenaed the four major music companies as part of an investigation into collusion on the pricing of digital music.

Although Spitzer's office has made no public comments on the specific nature of its investigation, Warner Music Group revealed it had received a subpoena in a SEC filing on Friday. Sony BMG and Universal Music Group have also confirmed receiving the subpoenas, and sources say EMI has as well.

The "industry-wide" investigation likely centers on whether the four major record labels colluded to set the pricing of song downloads on iTunes and other online music stores. Currently, songs are usually priced at a flat 99-cent rate, but the industry has pushed for higher prices.

At the Apple Expo in Paris in September, Steve Jobs called the labels "greedy" and said iTunes was "trying to compete with piracy." He added that, "if the price goes up a lot, they'll go back to piracy. Then everybody loses."

But that hasn't stopped the pressure facing Apple as it endeavors to renegotiate its music contracts. In November, EMI Music CEO Alain Levy claimed that, "There is a case for superstars to have a higher price," saying, "the issue is when."

Most critics view the demand as an affront to raise prices across the board, while only lowering the price on acts that very few listeners will purchase.

Some smaller labels have gone even further in voicing their disapproval, saying such a move could kill the digital music business altogether and wipe out indie music companies that are already struggling in a tough industry.

Analysts suggest that Spitzer's investigation is fueled by complaints from such small labels and music services like iTunes. Record companies are reportedly charging wholesale prices of between 67 and 82 cents per song, leaving little profit to begin with.

"As part of an industry-wide investigation concerning pricing of digital music downloads, we received a subpoena from Attorney General Spitzer's office as disclosed in our public filings. We are cooperating fully with the inquiry," Warner Music Group said in a statement.

Sony BMG, meanwhile, said it "will respond to the Attorney General's subpoena request and intends to cooperate fully."

Spitzer has previously sued the big four labels over a "payola" scheme that involved sending payments and expensive gifts in exchange for radio airplay. Sony BMG paid $10 million to settle the case in July, while Warner Music settled for $5 million.

Add a Comment (48 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By twosheds

edited Dec 28, 2005 - 1:50 AM

Douglas Adams had a great idea: a world facing planetary annihilation sends out three space-arks with it's citizens onboard. On one ark are all the doctors, engineers, i.e. useful people. On another are the janitors and public service workers, etc that we all need. On the last are the middle-men, executives and parasites.

They send the last one out first. Strangely enough, the other two Arks never turn up to join them.

Put the Music-Industry execs, RIAA etc in *that* ark.

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

edited Dec 27, 2005 - 6:45 PM

So the government found a new way of making money, thanx to Mr. "Spitzer". Hooray!

Score: 0

By dannyboydano

posted Dec 27, 2005 - 11:16 AM

I make music. It's free. It's about punching a guy in Paris.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Dec 27, 2005 - 2:02 AM

Hey, as long as other people buy CD's and rip them, and then put them on P2P, who the eff cares how much they charge?

Frankly, I like the system how it is. Let the RIAA rip off the technically inept, and continue to provide me free stuff. The best part is that if P2P went away tomorrow, it would be a bummer, but I'm still not going out and buying CD's. I'd still borrow and rip from CD's purchased by the aforementioned inept friends. Nothing personal; they're great people. I'm just here to say that the RIAA isn't relevant.

If they serve me with a letter, I'll fight them. Until then, they're irrelevant.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 11:07 PM

As long as I can pay 8 dollars a month to listen to whatever I want to and transfer them to my mp3 player, fine. If they raise mp3s to more than 1 dollar a song, as God, or whoever/whatever our creator is, is my witness. I won't be buying another mp3, not from anyplace American. All4music, is illegal in MY eyes, but I'll be shopping there for my music if yahoo/virgin/musicmatch/rhapsody/walmart/etc. charge a penny more than $1 for a song.
Cuz this right now is blatant greed.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 27, 2005 - 8:47 AM

All4music??

Never heard of 'em.

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

posted Dec 27, 2005 - 6:40 PM

O, come on - never heard of 'em? You must be kidding.

Maybe you know "All5senses" - sure, you've heard of these - right?

Score: 0

By JJaguarX

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 10:51 PM

Go ahead and raise the prices you greedy fools, I make 3-4 CD purchases a YEAR now because of high prices. I have only bought from iTunes once, if it goes over a dollar per song, it will be the LAST time I purchase ANY more music from ANY source.

As every thing else continues to get more expensive and I am forced to sacrifice unnecessary purchases, CDs and downloads will be some of the first things to go. Radio is still free and I can buy used CDs.

I will never purchase from Napster or Rhapsody or services like that, I have no intention of RENTING music, sorry - I ain't that stupid! Greed is, has never and never will be something that the intelligent human being will accept, I don't have to accept it and I won't.

Score: 0

By Dayzed

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 11:27 PM

Unbelievable...why not raise the prices on everything? I mean after all the people that think this up are the marketing execs and managers that already steal so much from the artist. These are the same people that think up every ad campaign we hate, every style change in artists that we once loved, and every price hike known to man. WHY, do they make so much? I don't want to pay more just to see more advertisements interrupting the music or the programming. If only we had a world where the suits with red faces and marketing skills, along with the managers that have "people skills" were on the bottom rung.... bet it would be more advantageous for a ton of talented people and dreamers.

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 5:32 PM

I have to say I would pay for music if I found anything worth paying for. Numerous times I have downloaded a song on p2p networks and said. boy am I glad I didn't waste my money on this piece of crap. No I don't still have the song either. Why cause it was crap. Period. the industry will not admit that PART of the problem is not just piracy, or cheap legal internet music, Or Free FM radio. Its that they have not produced much in recent years that people are willing to buy. PERIOD. When I find a CD I like I buy it. and normally I rip it right away and put it on my MP3 player. Why? cause then I have it and I don't risk my CD getting scratch in my car player or whatever... I take all my music with me in a convenient unit. and If I want to share it I plug in speakers and there we go...

If the industry were to make some GOOD product. people would buy it again. Guess what? They still don't get that. They actually think the stuff they are producing is good. That's the FIRST PROBLEM RIGHT THERE! so they make up excuses for it not selling. and Bribe people to broadcast it over and over and over again. Radio used to be a good medium for tracking good music. Its not really anymore. P2p is however. Highly rated songs on p2p networks SELL. Sorry but its true. if its a hit on p2p you can almost guarantee its a hit in sales as well. this just goes to prove that people that use p2p services ARE the people that buy music. But the industry is again completely in the dark about this and has to make up propaganda to support their concept of poor sales because of free p2p. Whatever. Sales are down because of 2 things. 1 lousy music products, and 2 reduced production of Cd's in the market. So every time you quote this years sales were less than last. well yea you made less Cd's to sell so of course they are lower. sheesh... You think we are STUPID OR SOMETHING RIAA? I guess you must...

Score: 0

By Truth

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 2:54 PM

Yes, the major labels are corrupt & overpaid. They do exploit artists (both mediocre & great ones) by any means possible. They do it for the money.

Yes, FM radio ntwrks are corrupt & cater to the Labels in order to stay in good standing with companies that spend their advertising $$$. They do it for the money.

Yes, the P2P gang is also corrupt & simply wants free music by any means possible, thus also exploiting the artists...using their "anti-major-label" & "poor-boy-me" rhetoric as a pathetic excuse. They do it to save money.

All three groups are basically greedy in their own particular way and it's always the artists who create-produce the music (your entertainment) who lose out.

So let's see the entire mess cleaned up in this manner:
1)The SEC should crack heads within the greedy Major-Label circles.
2)The FCC should crack heads within the boring & redundant Radio Broadcast industry.
3)The RIAA should continue to crack heads, hard-drives within the greedy little (underpaid) P2P punk crowd.

A brand new US goverment agency should be created to crack heads within todays brain-dead music consumers which continually tune in & listen to the same old repetitive FM crap & in so doing, maintain the status quo.

Let the lawsuits fall where they may so that the greedy lawyers can make their next BMW payment!

Score: 0

By 2brothers_amps

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 1:03 PM

Whew! I'm just glad we have a conservative administration in place that refuses to bow to the lobbying of the labels...otherwise non of this would have taken place!

Music is for the individual and the masses. It mixes with business about as well as healthcare mixes with business. Both are progressive human arts where business has no role of leadership. The internet now makes it cheaper and easier than ever to distribute. The labels are logically running scared as they attempt to maintain the status quo of yesteryear. Best of luck ; ) ROFLOL

Score: 0

By Doc_Thunderbird

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 12:14 PM

After skimming too much money for themselves while the artists starved, (figure of speech but not far from it),
And getting caught, the Recording industry felt it's back against the wall and decided that in order for them to sign "authentic" talent, they would just have to pay the artists more.

This cut into their own money and they felt they had to skim or steal money from other areas in order to keep their lavish RIAA lifestyles intact.
This "extra" money was sucked from the consumers via the jacking up of CD prices, while introducing new "talentless" acts to rake in pocket change.

The quality of these "untalented" artists along with the RIAA's greed, has finally begun to bear fruit, albeit the fruit is rotten.

So the RIAA decides to increase the price of online sales to make up for their own ineptitude and IT BACKFIRES!

I predict we will see the greedy RIAA in court more than once in the coming years.
I for one appreciate Mr. Spitzer.

Score: 0

By geobeck

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 11:57 AM

"Most critics view the demand as an affront to raise prices..."

Affront? I think you are using words that do not mean what you think they mean.

Score: 0

By minus_seven_fold

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 10:49 AM

The RIAA was asking for this all alone. We all saw these coming.

HATE TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 10:14 PM

Its about time!!! This is what I have been saying...

Score: 0

By Adrian79

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 6:22 AM

lol ohhh wow..u mean people pay for music by downloading?? LMFFFFFAO!!

piracy to the rescue!! :-) j/k no i'm serious ;-)

Score: 0

By extremely well

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 2:11 AM

No no no, you got it all wrong. The ones who dictate the rules these days are us, the users of p2p. I'm willing to pay 25c per song I really really like. Open a tip jar for every artist and take what WE ARE WILLING TO PAY.

There's no way to protect against determined/poor folks from stealing music without getting caught. It used to be taping from the radio, making tapes of records/CDs of friends... In the future it'll be Shared Network Folders that you'll give TRUSTED people access to (with individual access-codes to ensure no leakage). Even if (big "if") encrypted music catches on, the imperfect analog/TotalRecorder rip will be "just fine"(TM) for most everyone (better than $1/song!).

Some folks will end up doing what I do every few months: I hate listening to radio (or watching MTV) cuz 80% of the songs suck (and that pisses me off). So to grab new hot tunes among the sea of crap I leave a recorder running for 48hrs then quickly sift through everything to find the jems. For analog stations you can use HarddiskOgg and for web-stations TotalRecorder. The songs can be trimmed-out of the file, or just search for them on your favorite p2p network...

The music industry needs to wake up and realize the future generation will be extremely tech-savvy and just as they now know to use p2p networks, in the future they'll use some new scheme to avoid paying 1 whole dollar for a song (especially when they just GOTTA HAVE at least 100 new songs a month).

Oh yeah, and enjoy the ringtone money orgy while it lasts... The most basic future cellphones will let you assign any MP3 (or movie clip) as ringtone. High end models do that already (although the fkers from Verizon try to butcher those features on their subsidized phones).

Score: 0

By Dirrty_Harry

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 5:11 PM

MWHAHAHAH STUPID LOOSERS!!!!

just gonna loose more ppl...
doesnt matter tho i have been downloading for years, 60,000 songs should keep me happy for a while.

Score: 0

By kompression

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 7:28 PM

60,000 songs? That's freakin insane! I only have half of that! Oh....did I get the RIAA on my a$$ now...

Score: 0

By plumlipstick

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 3:08 PM

The recording industry still doesn't get it! They seem to be hell bent on alienating their customers. For the last few months, I have played by the book and belong to Napster and Rhapsody. I'd always told myself that I'd quit using filesharing networks if I could buy digital music legally. Making the choice to go legal and stay that way has become an ordeal. I cannot use my preferred audio players. Winamp is a figment of the past. I am forced to use Media Player or Real Player. Yuck! I have been plagued with various technical problems as well as restrictions on what I can play my music on. When licenses become corrupted, you have to download your music all over again, and God forbid you change out your hard drive! Raising the price would seem like the last straw for a lot of the people I know. I'm already asking myself if it's worth the headache as it is. (sigh)

Score: 0

By 2brothers_amps

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 1:30 PM

I'm EXACTLY in your corner plumlipstick! I refused to be held hostage by big labels that manipulate costs of music according to their stock price performance. I don't mind paying a fee for production, what little distribution is necessary and to the artist, however, the breakdown in costs should be made public so we see exactly who is getting what. Much like the non-profits are required to expose regarding donation. Then, the consumer would have long overdue discretion with the behavior of recording industry bureaucracy!

Score: 0

By 2brothers_amps

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 1:29 PM

I'm EXACTLY in your corner plumlipstick! I refused to be held hostage by big labels that manipulate costs of music according to their stock price performance. I don't mind paying a fee for production, what little distribution is necessary and to the artist, however, the breakdown in costs should be made public so we see exactly who is getting what. Much like the non-profits are required to expose regarding donation. Then, the consumer would have long overdue discretion with the behavior of recording industry bureaucracy!

Score: 0

By 2brothers_amps

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 1:25 PM

I'm EXACTLY in your corner plumlipstick! I refused to be held hostage by big labels that manipulate costs of music according to their stock price performance. I don't mind paying a fee for production, what little distribution is necessary and to the artist, however, the breakdown in costs should be made public so we see exactly who is getting what. Much like the non-profits are required to expose regarding donation. Then, the consumer would have long overdue discretion with the behavior of recording industry bureaucracy!

Score: 0

By 2brothers_amps

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 1:22 PM

I'm EXACTLY in your corner plumlipstick! I refused to be held hostage by big labels that manipulate costs of music according to their stock price performance. I don't mind paying a fee for production, what little distribution is necessary and to the artist, however, the breakdown in costs should be made public so we see exactly who is getting what. Much like the non-profits are required to expose regarding donation. Then, the consumer would have long overdue discretion with the behavior of recording industry bureaucracy!

Score: 0

By KSzostek

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 11:40 AM

Raise the prices and see how much MORE file sharing goes on.
The record industry is greedy period.

Score: 0

By googun

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 2:21 PM

It is interesting that Steve Jobs accuses the record industry of greed. Their greed is damaging his business, and if the sales channel is being put under threat then there is something very wrong with the whole trade.

Jobs is also quite correct in pointing out that he is competing against pirates, and recognises the fact that keeping the price down keeps customers away from the pirates. The music industry doesn't seem to get this simple matter of economics. Sony and EMI are not poor, and many of their artists live in obscene and banal luxury on the back of this trade. They go on as if they are the OPEC of music, pushing prices up because it suits them. How wrong they are. They also forget that just about everything they produce ends up broadcast for free on radio at some time anyway, and they don't complain about that!

Collusion would mean that the record industry itself does not respect the law - and yet it enjoys battering people in the courts for illegal activities. To use an English saying, 'It is a bit pot and kettle'.

Score: 0

By excelon2005

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 9:29 PM

It just goes out to show that these folks did not pay attention in economics class. I'm pretty sure that you all know about Sam Walton. He sold things at a low profit margin, but he managed to make real nice profit through high volume. Where's Captain Obvious when you need him most?

Score: 0

By kompression

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 7:29 PM

I skipped that lesson on elasticity.

Score: 0

By twosheds

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 4:18 PM

Legal radio transmission of songs is not free, though it is usually very cheap for the station.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 4:47 PM

If by cheap you mean payola in the form of gifts of laptops, dinners, etc, then yes, it's cheap. Direct payment from music companies to radio stations (payloa) was banned many years ago and would be easily traceable in financial statements, especially now with sarbanes/oxley.

Score: 0

By twosheds

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 11:14 PM

I was talking about Royalties payable, not corporate back-handers. That is the situation in the UK, anyway.

Score: 0

By Budgie29

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 9:28 AM

I wounder if this would work
say if their were a data base of all the music you own . say you bought an ablum of 40 tracks which contained say 5 which were allready on other albums that u had all ready owned then u would only pay for 37 of them

Score: 0

By BIL

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 2:40 PM

The consumer does have the power. They just need to stop acting like brats and wield that power. Having the newest track is a luxury not a necessity. You won't die from waiting 15 days to own it. It's still on the air and on the internet. We have become so used to demanding things fast, fast food, drive through gourmet coffee, Instant Messaging, and etc. Gandhi and Dr. King won by patience and persistence. The recording industry is no different. Just refuse to pay high prices and voice your opinion loud and often. Write your local newspaper's "Letter to the Editor" column. Write you local Congressmen. Post messages on internet sites like this. It can have an effect. The more popular artist will make more money with higher sales. They don't need higher pricing. Be honest now, when some of them get over a quarter of a million dollars just for making a 15 minute visit to a social event and make over 50 million a year, do they really need to make more per song?

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 4:48 PM

How about I just do nothing? I haven't bought a CD in 5 years, and I never will again. I could care less what the consumer pays or how much they are getting ripped off. Far more important things to worry about.

Score: 0

By soots

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 6:54 AM

at the end of the day, its the consumer that has the power, none of these artist or record companys would not exsist if we did not buy ,so lets see who would last if we do not buy ,so treat us better or it will happen you will all loses

Score: 0

By jab1981

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 7:31 AM

"at the end of the day, its the consumer that has the power, none of these artist or record companys would not exsist if we did not buy ,so lets see who would last if we do not buy ,so treat us better or it will happen you will all loses"

What a nice little thought. It would be so nice if that were true. Sadly, the consumer has little control over these areas in that there are no legal alternatives. The music labels have all the cards in these issues. It has been and will continue to be that we, the consumers, have to play by the record companies rules if we want to listen to music legally. Just look at what they've done to us and continue to try to do to us. Between price fixing and copy protections that make iPods worthless they don't care what the consumer wants... they know in the end we'll keep paying to get the music because we have no where else to go.

Score: 0

By cristobalmiguelo

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 5:40 AM

Music is a luxury. Not a necessity.

Music ranks highly in my book and I love listening to it. But you do have control. You may like to think that, "I have no control. I must have music. They are forcing me to steal because I can't get through the day without music." Sounds a bit like the drug addicts I've seen. Steal that stereo to pay for the habit. How pathetic is that?

If you don't like the deal, find another. If you see a void, create a company and serve those potential customers.

Score: 0

By twosheds

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 4:29 PM

Shouldn't be so apathetic. Picket Record Shops, picket the HQ/s of the RIAA etc, make a noise, make your case, make the news, get the facts and make them known, EMBARRASS them and challenge them. This has been done for far harder causes.

Start a site where people can find out who an offending company's affiliates are so you can EFFECTIVELY boycott them right down the line. Put in a standard e-mail form where you can let the company know each and every time you chose a rival company and/or process because of the offending company's sharp practises. Link the form to an online tally, let the companies know what they're REALLY losing, instead of their absurd estimates. Update journalists with your own consequent figures (journalists love that stuff and will publicise it).

Wake up and smell the entropy, and then do something about it.

Too much trouble? Then get back in line to be shorn and stop bleating.

Score: 0

By plumlipstick

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 3:25 PM

You are right that the record companies currently hold the cards. We do have one option you missed though. We could simply choose not to buy music at all for a week or two. I think Sony and Warner might sit up and take notice if sales went down by 50% for a couple of weeks and more so if we could get enough mass to hold back for just 21 days... 3 weeks. An organized boycott of Sony over a 3-week period could hurt them where it counts. It would remind them that they are not gods ruling over a mass of mindless munchkins. We tend to say that our buying habits can't change things because we're just one person. That's wrong though because each person who takes action can influence others. Pirating won't help because it strengthens their position. Abstinance is something that would throw them a curve from left field, and we can easily do that. Having said that, I'm going to put my money where my mouth is. Since Sony and Warner want to raise their prices per track, maybe it's time for me to pull the plug on buying their music.

Score: 0

By 2brothers_amps

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 1:25 PM

I'm EXACTLY in your corner plumlipstick! I refused to be held hostage by big labels that manipulate costs of music according to their stock price performance. I don't mind paying a fee for production, what little distribution is necessary and to the artist, however, the breakdown in costs should be made public so we see exactly who is getting what. Much like the non-profits are required to expose regarding donation. Then, the consumer would have long overdue discretion with the behavior of recording industry bureaucracy!

Score: 0

By improvelence

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 3:50 AM

I support all of the Artists I like, the problem lies in the fact that the record company DOESNT, instead they take the money that the BAND earned and then give back a very, very, very small share of it. It's disgusting. People shouldnt stop buying music, but we need to stand up and peition or boycott for a while to show the companies that we mean business. Stop listening to the radio, all the radio is is one big damn payoff...they play the same junk for months at a time, only playing what the record companies pay them to. Problem is a strong enough boycott and complaint strategy will never happen because we as Americans are too lazy to stand up for what we believe in anymore. Support the indie guys too. Satelite radio and the ipod...two wonderful things.

Score: 0

By yanike

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 3:35 AM

I'm gonna tell it like it is. People are not going to stop downloading for free, PERIOD. Plus! I know some people who pirate and buy CDs. If someone likes the artist they'll support em'. Making the cost go up will only make people want to get it for free. The only move is to lower the price. Why spend 15 to 20 dollars at The Music Store while the "Mobile" store sells it for 5, LOL! Dumb I idea, someone needs to be fired. Hall9000, the ISO idea I would go for too!

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 1:12 AM

Many thanks to Mr Spitzer.

Score: 0

By Hall9000

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 1:07 AM

At the moment I'm almost rolling on the floor laughing my you know what off. The cost of making a song available for download is almost zero. It's not like you have to print a cd each time. After all, it all becomes almost pure profit. Charging .82 cents to make it a song downloadable is the same as... take your pick of how to get conned. After all, we all know that only a few pennies end up in the pockets of the artists that made that song.

Look, tell me I could download an ISO of any music CD for less than ten bucks and you can be damn sure I would buy it and burn myself a copy. It could probably be made as a two time burn max, or even a one time burn with appropriate software that would make sure the burning process went well? And you wouldn't even need any damn rootkits. That way, I get a FULL AUDIO QUALITY CD, not just a MP3 audio file. I can imagine a lot of people saying I don't have any business sense but companies couldn't even say they have to pay supposedly high costs of production for the CDs they sell us. In the end, WE print for THEM the CD they sold us.

They want to stop piracy? How about they stop ripping us off both in the downloads of music and the CDs they sell us?

Score: 0

By StarryGordon

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 3:49 PM

What people are paying the Music Industry for is not music quality but hype and b.s. If it's just music you want, you can get good music free or at low cost. If you want hype and b.s., then you have to pay, because an important part of hype and b.s. is paying through the nose for something that's worthless. It seems fair enough to me.

Score: 0

By Gene Vincent

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 7:54 AM

Has anyone tried to put this idea into action? Someones makes a website where anyone can play any song(s) they want to hear at anytime, as many as they want (within reason). The songs are not downloadable, only playable through the website. They have a small subscription fee per month. No limit on how many songs you play each month (within reason). The fee will pay the artists and RIAA and whoever else. I can't see how this would be against the law. It, in essence, would be a radio station except you get to hear what you want when you want. Is something like this available anywhere?

Score: 0

By Polychronopolis

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 10:15 AM

Rhapsody is the first service that comes to mine. However, the design of the web is flawed for these services.

Anything you can view/hear on the web can be saved or recorded to files. That's just the way things were designed.

Score: 0