Comments on: DRM-free music subscription services?

Question: DRM-free music subscription services?

nthdegx — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 04:33:47 -0800

I'd pay through the nose for a music subscription service that offered unlimited DRM-free mp3-format downloads. How close can I get?

By: singingfish

singingfish — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 05:29:03 -0800

www.emusic.com (downloader software didn't do it for me though)

allofmp3.com (of dubious legality, not subscription).
www.magnatune.com (not subscription, wonderful business).

By: cmonkey

cmonkey — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 06:31:25 -0800

Emusic is great.

By: dobbs

dobbs — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:57:19 -0800

I'll third emusic.com. $20 a month for 90 tracks, 50 free just for signing up. The downloader works perfectly for me (OS X).

By: mumble

mumble — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:58:07 -0800

The 2-out-of-3 rule comes to mind: you can have an unlimited subscription plan, but not DRM-free; or subscribe to uncrippled downloads, but not unlimited etc. etc. (Or all of the above, but not legally.) That's just what it looks like to me, I could be wrong.

I couldn't give emusic a try (no credit card) so I'll throw in a vote for Audio Lunchbox. iTunes-like prices (no subscription), but no DRM, and downloads are offered as .mp3 and .ogg files. Independent labels only.

By: dobbs

dobbs — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:08:49 -0800

I just seached about 50 artists at emusic and Audio Lunchbox. Only one album came up at AL that emusic didn't have, yet for every other hit (meaning both places carried the artist), emusic had more by that artist.

Sucks you need a credit card. I wish they took paypal.

Also, FYI, emusic *used* to be unlimited downloads for $10 a month (I think it was, though it mighta been $15). I used them for about 3 years or so and downloaded about 3000 albums. Unfortunately, when iTMS showed artists they could get a buck a track for mp3s, emusic had to kill that subscription model. I still think they can't be beat, however--though I do wish they offered ogg vorbis files as well.

By: mumble

mumble — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:22:27 -0800

Yes, ALB's catalog is relatively limited when compared to the likes of emusic and iTunes. If I *really* want to buy an album that ALB doesn't have, I go with the iTMS, then use JHymn to get rid of the DRM nasties. I try to keep those occasions to a minimum, though.

By: winston

winston — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:29:41 -0800

What type of music are you looking for, nthdegx? I can guarantee you that the major labels would not participate in the type of service you describe.

By: advil

advil — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:32:47 -0800

when iTMS showed artists they could get a buck a track for mp3s, emusic had to kill that subscription model.

IIRC emusic changed its pricing model a while before itunes went live. The writing had been on the wall for a while - I think they simply weren't making money with unlimited downloads. They had problems like people who would download massive amounts of music that they couldn't possibly be listening to in any meaningful sense. (For instance, the above poster who claims to have downloaded 3000 albums - assuming an average of 60 min/album, that's 17.9 straight weeks of continuous non-repeating music.) I think they also had people who would join for the minimum commitment (6 months?), download everything they wanted, and then quit. The current model presumably allows for greater customer retention, as people have to download what they want in a steady trickle that one would imagine is lower than the speed at which emusic acquires new and desirable music. I think these two problems (abuse of unlimited downloads, and undesirably catering to short-term customers) show why you will never find a viable profit-oriented music distribution model involving unlimited downloads. No matter how much the monthly fee was (assuming it's low enough for there to be a reasonable customer base at all), I don't imagine that these problems would go away.

I also find that emusic is still worth it - it's not as good a deal as unlimited downloads was, but it's still an incredibly good deal in songs/money, much better than itunes.

By: mecran01

mecran01 — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:45:41 -0800

So, does emusic carry old Mountain Goats albums? No way to preview browse that I can see.

By: mecran01

mecran01 — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:51:06 -0800

whoops--they're entirely google indexed

By: trevyn

trevyn — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:52:50 -0800

music.yahoo.com + tunebite. As long as you maintain your subscription, it's probably even within the spirit of copyright law, minus the DMCA.

By: ajp

ajp — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:40:25 -0800

winston wrote:

"What type of music are you looking for, nthdegx? I can guarantee you that the major labels would not participate in the type of service you describe."

The electronic music label Warp (Aphex Twin, Squarepusher, Autechre, Chris Morris, etc etc) has published most of its back-catalogue on their fantastic bleep website. Hi-res MP3 downloads, DRM free. Not a subscription service though, sorry for getting off-track.

By: Ikazuchi

Ikazuchi — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:51:40 -0800

MP3Tunes is also a really solid, no DRM option. It's like iTMS (pay per song or CD) and its only independatly realeased stuff (they pull their tunes from CDBaby).

By: dobbs

dobbs — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:47:08 -0800

couldn't possibly be listening to in any meaningful sense. (For instance, the above poster who claims to have downloaded 3000 albums

Hate to break it to you but 3000 albums in 3+ years is not "unlistenable". I work from home, I have a portable music player that I use when I walk my dog... I pretty much have music on all the time.

I never was one of those people that emusic capped the DLs of. Hell, pre-mp3s I was purchasing 700+ cds per year (I sold a great many of them as well).

emusic changed their model about the time iTMS launched in the USA--earlier, yes, but not by much. Apple had absolutely announced its launch and pricing scheme as I remember discussing it on the emusic forums. People were saying that no one would pay a buck a track and I said the opposite, that no artist would be with emusic when they would get more from Apple. emusic, I insisted, would definitely change their pricing scheme.

Anyway, sorry I'm so late coming back here but, frankly, I found the implications of your post--saying that I was "abusing an unlimited download model" insulting, ridiculous, and flat out wrong.

I still use emusic at their $20/month price point and it's still a great deal.