Is this a good thing? Monthly Music Subscription

  Bingalau 18:36 15 Jun 2009

Looks like it might be providing the cost is not too much...
click here

  GANDALF <|:-)> 18:49 15 Jun 2009

People still moan, roll their eyes and whinge, even when CDs are under £9, so I guess that whatever the price and even if they PAID you to download, the regular 'music should be free' moaners will still be chorusing in unison at how unfair life is.


  Forum Editor 18:57 15 Jun 2009

of GANDALF <|:-)>'s post.

  canarieslover 19:09 15 Jun 2009

It will really depend on the catalogue of music that is on offer. The article seems to indicate that the service will equate to the cost of a couple of albums a month so its reasonable to assume that anybody who buys that quantity of albums would be prepared to pay that amount for the service, provided that the music they wanted was going to be available. The main reason that I would not subscribe, despite spending at least that amount on music every month, is that it will not be at the quality I would like. MP3's are O.K. for when you are out walking or exercising but I would prefer the albums for serious listening. Obviously this is just my preference and applies equally to all download sites but I can see the attraction of this idea to people who are happy with MP3 as their listening source.

  Si_L 20:00 15 Jun 2009

A couple of albums a month? With an album at £10 the yearly cost of this music is just shy of £250! If they think that price will stop people sharing files they are very much mistaken.

canarieslover - I very much doubt that you would be able to tell the difference between music on a CD compared to a high-bitrate MP3.

  laurie53 20:01 15 Jun 2009

Used to be called record clubs.

  canarieslover 20:11 15 Jun 2009

If they were available at high bit rates it would certainly be less of a problem. It depends a lot on the type of music listened to and the equipment used. The biggest problem with download music is that the bit rates are usually less than desirable so that download times are acceptable. As such they are not comparable with CD so I choose not to use them. They are a bit like your salary, its O.K. until the chancellor takes his bit, and then its not so good.

  Kaacee 20:23 15 Jun 2009

Old Readers Digest idea many moons ago

  anthonystorey 20:59 15 Jun 2009

it all depends on whats on offer -- if you could id have it for a month download as much as i could(what is my cup of char) then simply cancel
universal has 300000 tracks in its back catalogue including the rolling stones(71 onwards)

  Si_L 21:20 15 Jun 2009

"If you have unlimited MP3s, as much as you could possibly want to get, why would anyone go anywhere else?" he (Mark Mulligan) asked.

Offering unlimited music isn't the solution to the problem of file sharing for three reasons: first - they are only offering Universals music (Black Eyed Peas anyone!?), second - P2P sharing offers so much more than just music, you can download programs, movies, ebooks, pretty much anything, and third - its not free.

  OTT_Buzzard 21:30 15 Jun 2009

but as the BBC article also points out, the system is targetted towards kids, for payment by the parents - i.e. the people who would otherwise be paying the fine for their kids illegally downloading!

This all seems like a good idea to me, but without costs confirmed (you can price 'a couple of albums' in more than one way) and how it will impact download limits for your broadband account it's hard to tell how well it will work.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 review

Halloween Photoshop & Illustrator tutorials: 20 step-by-step guides to creating spook-tacular…

iPhone X news: Release date, price, new features & specs

Comment créer, modifier et réinitialiser un compte Apple ?