Originally Posted by sammi jo
So... if everything is free
, how do the artists who worked long hours to make this music, get duly paid for their labors? Or.. is this yet another variety of peer-to-peer theft
Originally Posted by Mawifo
Ditto. I'd like to know that as well.
Its a new venture, and as such I cant believe it is making money at the moment. I have had a look at its business model, and it claims it will make money through advertising and subscription.
The free client has ads, and to be fair, theyre about as subtle and non-intrusive as you can reasonably expect to get - a 30 second pitch for something once or twice through an album or a couple of inline banners. They have the sense to wait until a track has finished before they play an ad.
If you don't like that, you can pay a fairly small monthly sub to remove all the ads.
The service is legal and supported by the four big majors, and some indie labels - so they must have potential at least in the eyes of the majors.
It works on P2P, so the client caches music on your computer for the others in the network - I guess this is what makes it teh-snappy - and the interface is coming along nicely - already as good as itunes for ease of use - but 10 times snappier.
As for whether the artist gets paid reasonably. Artists NEVER got paid reasonably and have been being shafted by the industry since its inception. I doubt this will change anything, but for the end user, if you are prepared to listen to minor adverts (or pay) and accept that its just a stream you cant download - it is by far, the most convienient and user friendly music service that exists in the world today even in this current early beta state.
Of course, the alternative that is killing the industry is illegal torrents and the RI Ass A suing your granny for a million because theres some 50 cent tracks on her second hand HD
So for an industry that has to compete with illegal - this is a win for them and for consumers.