Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Would You Rent a Song For a Dime?

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday May 27, @06:33PM
from the twenty-million-says-you-will dept.
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."

Related Stories

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27, @06:34PM (#23563411)
    I would rent a song for a dime if you would lick my balls for a quarter.
  • Imaginary Property (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NoobixCube (1133473) on Tuesday May 27, @06:36PM (#23563433)
    So now we're meant to pay ten cents for the right to imagine we have imaginary property?
  • by Palmyst (1065142) on Tuesday May 27, @06:36PM (#23563441)
    If you can listen, you can save, and it won't be long before a hack for that is posted on slashdot.
  • Harrumph (Score:5, Funny)

    by RollingThunder (88952) on Tuesday May 27, @06:38PM (#23563463)
    Music Search: nerdcore

    Sorry, no matches for you.


    Sorry, no business for you.
  • So they're letting you listen to a digital copy one time? Time to start firing up the flash ripper and start scraping the site. Chances are they're not sticking stupid DRM or watermarking in their own 'secure' player.

    Granted having your entire music collection in fla is annoying, you can probably can convert it to something a little more usable.

    Sounds like a great source for large volumes of music.
    • http://next.lala.com/api/AutoComplete/songAutoComplete?prefix=bt [lala.com]

      Pass URL encoded downloadToken to:

      http://next.lala.com/api/Player/getTrackUrls?flash=true&webSrc=lala&widgetId=LalaHeadlessPlayer&T= [lala.com]

      url gives you the mp3 url, it's not a full mp3, sounds backwards, but it's a start to downloading from them.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27, @07:16PM (#23563999)
        To expand on that previous finding, here's a script that lets you download any song you want:

        #!/usr/bin/perl

        use strict;
        use LWP::Simple;
        use Data::Dumper;
        use JSON;
        $|=1;

        die "$0 <search param>" unless $ARGV[0];
        my $root_url = "http://next.lala.com/api/AutoComplete/songAutoComplete";
        my $content = get "$root_url?prefix=$ARGV[0]";
        my $ref = from_json($content);
        my $num = 0;
        foreach (@{$ref->{data}->{list}}) {
          print "$num : $_->{artist} - $_->{title}\n";
          $num++;
        }
        print "Download which? > ";
        my $req = <STDIN>;
        die "not valid" if ($req < 0 or $req > $num);
        my $download_url = "http://next.lala.com/api/Player/getTrackUrls?flash=true&webSrc=lala&widgetId=LalaHeadlessPlayer&T=" . $ref->{data}->{list}->[$req]->{playToken};
        my $play_url = get $download_url;
        my $play_ref = from_json($play_url);
        my $download_link = $play_ref->{data}->[0]->{url};
        print "Getting: $download_link\n";
        my $filename = $ref->{data}->{list}->[$req]->{artist} ."-" . $ref->{data}->{list}->[$req]->{title} . ".mp3";
        print "Downloading to $filename\n";
        system("wget -O '$filename' $download_link");

        It's quick, it's dirty, but it works:

        perl download.pl tiesto
        0 : Tiesto - Ten Seconds Before Sunrise
        1 : Ti&#195;&#171;sto - Forever Today
        Download which? > 0
        Getting: http://cfs-listen-52.lala.com/contentfs/content?t=NjU1MzVVNDM2OTE1OQ%3D%3D-vSOzDPPcV8VwbKW6Bwdv%2FQ%3D%3D
        Downloading to Tiesto-Ten Seconds Before Sunrise.mp3
        --2008-05-27 18:16:09--  http://cfs-listen-52.lala.com/contentfs/content?t=NjU1MzVVNDM2OTE1OQ%3D%3D-vSOzDPPcV8VwbKW6Bwdv%2FQ%3D%3D
        Resolving cfs-listen-52.lala.com... 209.237.235.158
        Connecting to cfs-listen-52.lala.com|209.237.235.158|:80... connected.
        HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
        Length: 3609494 (3.4M) [audio/x-mpeg]
        Saving to: `Tiesto-Ten Seconds Before Sunrise.mp3'
  • What? (Score:5, Informative)

    by willyhill (965620) <pr8wak@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday May 27, @06:39PM (#23563483)
    The website clearly says "Get MP3s for your iPod". Is the submission incorrect, or is there a catch to said MP3s? Because the submission clearly states that anything from Lala won't play on any devices. That was the whole point of posting this here for people to be outraged, I imagine.
    • Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27, @06:55PM (#23563717)
      From http://next.lala.com/#howitworks :

      Want MP3 downloads?
      You can buy DRM-free MP3s for your iPod or other portable device for just 79 [cents] more.
      So, it's a lot like Amazon MP3 but with a "trial version" feature, except you have to pay for the trial.

      Also, my CAPTCHA is "patents". How apropos.
    • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IP_Troll (1097511) on Tuesday May 27, @06:59PM (#23563783)
      I believe this "submission" a way to get people on the site so that lala can tell their investors "We had 1 million hits within one day of launch."

      Slashdot fell for it and is now giving a never heard of site massive traffic which will appear positive to investors.
  • by blhack (921171) on Tuesday May 27, @06:43PM (#23563539)
    Click here [imeem.com]

    Unlimited free music with links to purchase it if you want. 100% legal. 100% major labels. Tons of obscure stuff too.
  • by steveha (103154) on Tuesday May 27, @06:52PM (#23563673) Homepage
    My major objection to DRM on music I buy is simple: if there is DRM on it, I don't really own it.

    If I am renting the music in the first place, DRM doesn't bother me so much. Exhibit A is the Rhapsody online music service, which is essentially a flat-rate music rental service. I have discovered that I like Rhapsody very much. I am finding new bands that I like, bands I had never heard of before, much faster than before I had Rhapsody.

    Depending on what you get, Rhapsody is $12 to $15 per month. If this plan really is a dime per track, that's a cheaper rental than Rhapsody. The big question is coverage. If the new plan only lets me rent the latest pop acts, I'm just not interested. (Rhapsody has over 4 million tracks, including all sorts of cool things: Herbie Mann flute albums, Bill Cosby comedy albums, progressive rock, etc.)

    When Rhapsody helps me music I really like, I then go and buy the music on CD, so that I will really own it. I'd be happy to do the same thing with this new service.

    Will the service succeed? I'd say that depends very much on the specifics. How do you pay them that dime per track? If they have a convenient way to add dimes to your account, such as selling gift cards in Best Buy, it might become wildly popular; if you have to jump through a bunch of hoops (agree to a 20-page EULA, pre-register, enter a valid credit card number, pre-pay in $30 chunks, etc.) most people will just say no.

    Assuming it's convenient, would I "rent" a song for ten cents? Sure. Why not?

    steveha

    Disclaimer: I work for the company that owns Rhapsody, but it's not my job to sell it to you or anyone else.
  • by fermion (181285) on Tuesday May 27, @07:18PM (#23564025) Homepage Journal
    If this is a web interface, and a user can log in from any computer, then there is no problem.

    Honestly, any music one buys online is going to have a limited lifetime. The best one can hope for is that you can make a copy to CD and not lose much in the transcoding. But how many people burn to CD? For most people the just put on their computer or another device.

    While I think this service is maybe inferior to something like Amazon, it is superior in many ways to ITMS. If I can pay a dime to put something in a jukebox, then play it from anywhere I can log on, what is the problem? I might make even more sense to use this service that labouriously moving all my music from on device to another.

    That is if I hadn't already bought half of the music I will likely buy in my lifetime. I have many gigabytes of music that I have bought over my life. If I was a kid with a computer, a smart phone, and internet access at school, this would be a wonderful deal. An album for a dollar. I can play on anything I normally play on? Sign me up! You may think of the expense, but how much are kids paying for ringtones, SMS, and the like.

    I know we have a kneejerk reaction around here to paying for things, and we believe that music wants to be free, but perhaps the objection here is more based on what we consider the norm, not rational thought. Perhaps music is not about listening to the same album a hundred times because we can only afford that one album, or listening to whatever is free on yahoo. Perhaps there is some value in having a collection of songs, that one chooses our of personal taste, and then having access to those songs over many devices located in disparate geographical area. As I said, i would not do this. I would just buy the CD or download the album. But I can imagine such a thing maybe finding a small market. It would suck to have all the music go away, though.