Lala Slashdot, renting, oh my

[markalot]

Debated about posting this in the main forum, thought better of it.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/27/2111259

An anonymous reader writes "What's worse than a padlocking every song so that they will only play on certain devices? How about selling (renting) you songs that work on no devices? Astonishingly, this is what the music industry thinks we need. Warner Music is spending $20 million to back Lala, a startup devising a service to convince people to 'buy' 'web songs' for 10 cents each; these are then kept for safekeeping only by Lala with no download privileges. Industry insider Michael Robertson leaks the facts on this scheme, along with a seekrit URL so you can try it out."

Robertson (Mr. mp3.com) is an ass. Lala must be threatening his livelihood.

URL is next.lala.com

ooh, big secret!

[markalot]

I posted the following on slashdot.


Most of the information here is just plain wrong, I think Robertson is afraid of something. If you mostly listen online then instead of buying a song for 99 cents you can get it for 10 cents. If you really want to buy it you have to pay 79 cents more for a high quality DRM free MP3 copy.

So please, why is this so bad?

From the how it works page:

What does adding a web song to my collection mean?

When you add a web song to your collection, you're able to listen to it as many times as you'd like, from any computer. You can also create playlists with web songs.

How much does adding cost?

It costs 10 cents to add a web song to your collection. Plus, the first 50 web songs you add to your collection are free, so give it a try!

If you later decide that you also want to get the MP3, the 10 cents you paid for the web song will be applied towards that purchase.

What is the bitrate of a web song that I add to my collection?

We strive to maintain a streaming bitrate standard of 128 kbps for web songs added to your collection. As determined by the labels, some web songs you add to your collection may stream at a bitrate of 64 kbps. Songs that you upload will generally stream at the bitrate at which they were ripped.

How do I listen to the web songs I've added to my collection on a portable device?

To listen to web songs you've added to your collection on an iPod or other portable device, you can download the MP3 file for an additional charge. The 10 cents you've already invested toward this purchase will be deducted from the final MP3 price.

[Sushi]

So for people who primarily listen to music via their computer--say at work or at home doing homework or on their laptop sitting in the middle of the woods--they can access all their dime songs anywhere they have an Internet connection. Is that how this works? Pretty damn cool, actually.

[the happy prole]

I didn't have a problem with Michael Robertson's article. He might be a bit biased because he runs a similar service but on the other hand, he probably runs that service in part because he legitimately believes it's a needed one.

I think it's fair to question whether people will pay $.10 for a song that-- while it is stored on line-- still has restrictions on listening because of DRM.

It's the slashdotter who's an idiot. People see Warner attached to anything and they go off. Most people are that way. If you took lala's name out of the mix, everyone on these boards would be shitting all over this as well.

[matt]

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/5/27/allyourmusica128564121704504286.jpg

[wileE]

One of the comments on Slashdot mentioned that you have to pay $0.10 every time you listen to it.

Slashdotters love to tear things apart.

[WalterSobchak]

I posted the following on slashdot.


I would mod you up if I had any mod points today...

[OldManIndieKid]

Don't know why I bother since I know that the elitist slashdot brats can be just as bad as the elitist indie brats, but I replied on /. anyway. (Disclaimer: I am a software engineer so I consider myself a member of both aforementioned buckets, just not an extremist.) :D


I wouldn't say that LaLa is "never heard of." Just depends on where your interests lie. If your interests are in the indie rock world, then you most definitely have heard of LaLa because a few years ago LaLa stepped in and saved independent music station icon WOXY. You know, "97X Bam! The future of rock and roll" from Rainman fame? WOXY has won various industry awards and accolades over the past decades and their ideals fit in nicely as a complement to LaLa's business. I'm going to go against the grain here and say I quite like the LaLa strategy. I almost never listen to music away from my computer. So whether I'm streaming woxy.com or listening to my collection via LaLa, the site has scratched my itch. I believe that LaLa is banking on the fact that we are moving toward a world where one will always have a connected device (in the car, on the go, etc). So I see them as taking a gamble to be ahead of the industry curve.

Now back to your regular slashdot bashing of anything that requires "money", "rights", or "corporate".

[The Sheck]

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/5/27/allyourmusica128564121704504286.jpg

Quit taking pictures of my computer!!! :mad:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v302/moozeekfan/nate7.jpg

[markalot]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/27/2111259

I've made it to a 5, informative. There is intelligent life out there!

Prole, take a look at the current business Robertson is trying to get into. He's a competitor and he's selling a product in direct competition with lala.

I listen to music almost exclusively on the computer nowadays, mostly at work and when not at work at my computer at home. I sometimes buy songs from Amazon (or iTunes when I have to) for 99 cents, listen to them a few times, then regret the purchase. See I'm not a music lover by any stretch of the imagination. I sometimes have trouble coming up with the name of an artist I really like ... you know, that one group, did that one song about that one thing .... 10 cents a song is minimal commitment and if I really like the thing I'll 'upgrade' my purchase, plop it on a CD and be good to go.

This whole DRM bullshit Robertson is talking about is bullshit. Why should anyone who just dropped 10 cents for the ability to hear a song over and over care about DRM? Why should he care, especially when you can BUY a DRM FREE version of the song for cheaper than most other sites will sell it for?

Robertson knows propaganda, he knows how to work slashdot.

[the happy prole]

But if all you want to do is stream a song from the Warner Music catalog a few times as a "try before you buy," iMeem already lets you do that for free.

Is it wrong for Robertson to point that out?

[Dirk]

But if all you want to do is stream a song from the Warner Music catalog a few times as a "try before you buy," iMeem already lets you do that for free.

Is it wrong for Robertson to point that out?

It's not really wrong for him to point that out, put it is disingenuous to frame what they are trying to do that way, as it's clearly not what the service is. Even a quick glance at the site pretty much shows that the idea isn't to test a song to see if you want to buy it (hell, if you wanted to do that, the first play is free before you even spend the dime), but to have a cheap way to have all your music online and be able to stream it from there.

The guy just happens to run a competing site and and just happens to misrepresent what the site in competition to his is? I think there is something wrong with that.

[the happy prole]

But numerous services including both Robertson's competing OBOE service but more importantly, lala itself, have had that option available for some time. This is not new in that respect. Any song or album I own in mp3 format, I can upload to lala and then listen to it anytime I want, so long as I have an internet connection. And it's free.

The problem with Robertson's review is actually the opposite of what you said. He's treating this as a standalone service and a new thing, when it is better looked at as an add-on to the numerous things lala already offers.

If you want an mp3 music locker, there's imeem and OBOE. If you want to rent music, there's Rhapsody and Zune. If you want to listen a song to a couple times before buying, there's imeem and YouTube and the illegal method where it's free. No matter whether you spin this markalot's way as "try before you buy" or your way as "online music locker" someone is already doing it.

Where this thing really shines is as part of your lala package of benefits. One of your lala buddies can say "Hey, I dig the new Uh Huh Her song." Then you can pay a dime and listen to it yourself. Or you hear something off WOXY and decide to investigate. If you like it, you can download it and it goes in your lala locker as well. It's leveraging other lala services or using synergy or establishing a space within a community, whatever buzzword you choose.

*That* is what Robertson is missing, perhaps intentionally. This new service occupies a sort of middle ground where it's not quite a subscription, it's not really a locker, but it has elements of both. Viewed as a standalone product, it's hard to see the appeal over its competitors in various areas. It's hard to see where the demand is for just the 10 cent rentals.

However, when you see how it fits in with what lala already offers, it's fantastic. It's really a competition to who will be the onestop music shop and internet community. When it's viewed in that context, this service really shines. And that's what all the slash-dotters are missing. They're treating this as an independent product and saying yeah, but I can sample shit from imeem and I can store music on blah and I can get stuff for my iPod via eMusic.

But can you listen to WOXY and talk to other boarders about what's hip and then sample a song and then buy it and then store it online for you to listen to wherever you want all in one website? No. That convenience is what is worth the dime.

But Robertson isn't saying anything that CNET and Wired didn't say. If you are already vested in Rhapsody, imeem, OBOE, last.fm, Pandora etc. this is not the magic bullet that is going to make you switch services. If you are not, this is a powerful incentive.

If you read Robertson's article he kind of misses that point. But he does give credit to both Warner and lala for trying something new. Moreover, he didn't say anything that's not in the review on CNET. He's not nearly as harsh on it as the idiots from slashdot and his opinion is much more reasoned, if still incomplete. And there is room for disagreement certainly, but I don't see how it's a hatchet job.

Judging the various music social networking communities whatever would be a whole separate article. One that I think needs to be written and that would strongly favor lala. Maybe Robertson or CNET should do that at some point. The most interesting and new thing here though, is Warner's participation in a 10 cent rental scheme. That is worth a review in terms of "Here's something the labels are trying. Do you dig it?"