Zune Marketplace Vs Bittorrent

zune bittorrent Zune Marketplace Vs Bittorrent

Zune made an awesome addition to the Marketplace subscription today. In addition to the all you can download subscription, you are now able to download and keep 10 tracks per month even if you cancel your subscription. The way I see it is kind of like buying a album every month and getting a free subscription.

As Ina Fried at CNet points out, this is a move by the Microsoft and the labels to drum up subscription rates since they are lower than what they hoped. But subscription is not the only thing hurting in terms of music sales, physical sales are declining faster than digital downloads can keep up.

With the economy tanking (believe the hype, we are up for some tough times) and unemployment increasing at a rapid rate, music listeners have less discretionary funds to spend. For many people music is a relatively inflexible good, it’s nearly a necessity- call it food for the soul. But with personal finance tightening these listeners won’t listen to less music they will seek cheaper and cheaper ways to get music. Free is difficult to compete with, whether that means birttorrent, ripping friends CDs, or even listening to the radio.

Fighting P2P is proving to be more and more futile. I believe record labels are realizing this by loosening up their content as seen with this Zune Marketplace move as well as allowing more DRM free content. When labels are faced to compete with free, this is nothing but great news for consumers- further driving down the cost of music. This Zune news is just the beginning, I’m sure DRM free subscriptions are right around the corner.


James Forelo on November 20, 2008 6:54 PM

Ah yes, cheating through torrents. High reward, and if you’re actually fit and capable, no risk.The big companies are finally realizing the truth in nature. Consumers win.

lt.milo on November 20, 2008 10:22 PM

“When labels are faces to compete with free, this is nothing but great news for consumers”Oh really? So that whole thing about creating a disincentive for artists to create music (record labels can’t sign them, therefor they can’t afford to be musicians) is a good thing?Look at the bigger picture, this is not “free” music, this is stolen music and it is nothing but bad news for artists who will make less money and less music, and consumers who want to listen to good music. Competition is a good thing, but creating competition with theft sucks for everyone.

digitalq on November 20, 2008 10:50 PM

I think it’s a great direction and although I wasn’t too excited about the closed ecosystem of the zune, the slick hardware and software combination of zune and marketplace along with the subscription model that I like (former Rhapsody subscriber) convinced me. This is very close to a completely acceptable and fair setup that makes me happy and supports the artists. I still have no idea how a DRM free subscription service could possibly work but zune’s works very transparently and stays separate from my purchased MP3′s but puts everything together on the player. Word to the wise labels: If your artist’s music isn’t available on my Zune pass or Amazon/Rhapsody MP3, I do still remember how to use a BT Client and search engine.

Martin Sägmüller on November 21, 2008 6:20 AM

lt.milo, this might be an interesting read for you: http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

David on November 21, 2008 12:10 PM

seeing how 10 songs is the same price as an album, does anyone know if you can just keep an entire album instead??that would make it worth-while.

Xenodius on November 29, 2008 8:37 PM

If you download an album illegally, nobody loses anything– a copy is generated on your computer.If you steal a car, someone is out that car– they need to buy another one, and even if insurance covers it, somebody is paying for it.I am not saying that piracy cannot be stealing, I am just saying it is not always theft. In the case of music, this is especially true… seems like demonbaby agrees.Excellent article Martie!

Don in LA on December 2, 2008 2:07 PM

Steeling music is steeling.You take something that others are selling illegally.The money you don’t pay (Steal) is money used to pay salaries, to develope new artists and to bring new bands and music to light.Everytime you steel the royalty fees from an artist or a distribution company share you cost jobs, and prevent the development of new bands.So yes some one gets hurt, and my your hand. Lying to yourself that is it ok to steal is one thing dude, trying to say it is Ok in public is another.

Jeremy on December 3, 2008 4:01 AM

Let’s get something straight:Piracy is NOT stealing.If I make a photocopy of a book or a magazine, I have not stolen the item itself. I have made a copy. Yes, it is illegal, and some may consider it dishonest, but the fact remains that we need to distinguish piracy from theft.And second, the argument is made again and again that every album downloaded is money taken away from artist and record companies. It is logically flawed to assume the individual would purchase every album he listened to, had he not downloaded it. In fact, I would argue the majority of downloaded music would not result in a sale had it not been pirated.My personal opinion? Downloading and the internet have helped many independent artists quickly develop a fan-base, at the small cost of some record sales. (Fans who will support the band with future concert ticket and CD purchases) Piracy hurts artists who already have a fan-base. Artists who are already wealthy and famous (i.e. Metallica’s Lars Ulrich)

Jim on December 3, 2008 4:16 PM

I sort of agree with both viewpoints expressed here: I do think pirating hurts sales—just not for the music business. Artists can and do make a lot more money from touring, merchandising and exclusive agreements with retailers and sponsors.Where p2p torrents hurt sales is in other media where alternate or live performance isn’t an option: movies and books. Movies cannot go out and tour and neither can, say, a genre paperback science fiction writer. They have their one way of making money by selling tickets to movies and copies of DVDs, and copies of their books. That’s it.

MrWaffles on December 7, 2008 6:12 PM

Music coporations make most of the money when you buy music. Radiohead let you download their latest album off their website and leave a donation of any ammount because even though people could download it for free what money they did make would probably be more than if they sold it through a music corporation.More money to the artist less to coporations.

EP1C on January 9, 2009 7:44 PM

I like their style. Hopefully it works out for them.

greeny on January 18, 2009 3:34 PM

I agree with Jeremy. If illegeal downloads weren’t available, most downloaders wouldn’t bother buying the tracks anyway.

Meowington T Cat on January 21, 2009 4:10 AM

What you’re stealing is the sell that belongs to the company for its goods that you don’t own the rights to. It’s silly to try and weasel out of being called a thief because your methods are different than the traditional removing of an item from its owner.People seem to try and justify their thievery by citing the evil fatcat bigwigs and how their stealing is countering their evil ways and helping the industry, but this isn’t fucking Robin Hood. Regardless of how much you dislike any certain group or individual’s methods, and how much good you think you may be doing or are doing, it STILL doesn’t justify stealing from anyone. There are always honest and decent ways to go about being a productive individual. Unless you’re a slob without the self-conscious and integrity, the fact that you’re stealing should be apparent.But this is something I don’t even need to say, as most pirates already know what they’re doing, and really don’t care. I’m sure that a fair majority of internet thieves would start replicating copies of consumer foods freely if they could easily replicate it from the confines of their homes. It’s obvious that the same people would jump on the opportunity for ANY act of gluttony and greed to be so easily bestowed upon them freely without having to see the direct consequences of their actions. If they could materialize women that they could bang behind their wives backs, only to have them vanish into thin air and leave no trace of their adultery, they’d do so willingly. There’s no heroic or defiant acts being wielded by internet users, it’s just a simple lack of common decency on the part of humans in general. The act is a glimpse at the bigger picture of what is still so wrong with society today, however so hidden in our brains.

bchspydczy on January 24, 2009 6:34 AM

[url=http://www.geocities.com/coupleqayksprett/lnwpy/tits-lesbian-orgy.htm]tits lesbian orgy[/url]

thizza on January 30, 2009 12:30 AM

These people getting busted with 5000 albums they downloaded did not cause a loss of revenue of 5000 albums. You’re just stupid if you believe that. I haven’t heard much in the past few years that was worth paying for. I know nothing has stayed in my playlist more than a couple months. All the music that I listen to repeatedly, I own on CD.If anything, I’ve received more enjoyment from things that were recorded from streams. Half the time I don’t even know who the artist is. But most of this today music is disposable crap and, in my opinion, deserves to be treated as such. This will be the first generation of “lost music”. We are the ones who will have the soundtrack of our youth and young adulthood lost in the ether, through HD crashes and abandoned computers. CDs are on the way out, and obscure artists will be forgotten in a couple decades. No crates to dig through, no bins of cassettes.

Drew on February 2, 2009 2:47 AM

A semantical war on terminology doesn’t even attempt to address the problem. We are talking about a product being sold for currency in music. If you “steal/photocopy” that song, the company has lost rightful currency. If you steal a car from the Honda show floor, the car dealer has lost rightful currency. Their concern for the car only extends so far as it can be sold for currency. The only real problem is that the car is more expensive to replace whereas a digital file is not. So it’s “not as bad” as stealing a car but you’d be pretty angry if I slashed two of your tires because it wasn’t “as bad” as slashing all four. Playing with words to disguise the issue doesn’t help anyone. The Merriam-Webster dictionary added over 100 words in 2008, and it hasn’t significantly helped my conversations.

Ninja on February 20, 2009 3:48 PM

I DL mucis cause its free. Supply and demand dictates I get the music at the cheapest price I can. I am not pirating because I am a ninja, and chewbacca is a wookie. That does not make sense. If chewbacca is a wookie DL’g music is not a crime.LOL keep arguing, tell me it’s wrong, see if I care. Go spend the money I’m not. The problem is you think if I don’t DL the music im gonna go buy it. Wrong! I’ll not do anything and continue on w/ my life, burning music from freinds and recording it off the internet, until a band that deserves my money releases something.

Mystic Kitsune on February 25, 2009 7:35 AM

First off, whats in place to stop us from popping a tape into a radio/stereo/VCR and copying the stream of data fed over the internet? or as rockbox allows you too do, record radio too a file directly! same concept~! there are 100′s of 1000′s of ways to copy a stream of data! bit/time-shift an internet radio, that 89% of the time PAY roalties each time they play a file (www.pandora.com is one exception, they have ads that pay!) the royalties from the solid media is still granted, all that was copied was the content. We as a Whole need to get a Grip on the fact that copying a file does NOT harm the original in any way.. if you strip DRM EnCrypling “Features” off of a file, that only opens it up to be played more freely and the *possibility* of copying it, but is easier too point a finger at and *say* someone broke a law. What’s really happening here is the Big Corporations are acting like whiny schoolyard kids after they just heard the bell too go back in, the analogy here is that to a lobbyist too a lawmaker, paying his way (with money that otherwise could have been in the Artists pocket!) into seeing his complaint translated into a law! also, on the subject of DRM… the whole Digital Rights Management system was meant for use in military and scientific fields.This entire situation-put ***VERY***-bluntly, has escalated into nothing more that a giant Bitch-Fest!~~~Mystic Kitsune

Mystic Kitsune on February 26, 2009 11:22 PM

huh, slight typo there Airwaves became Internet, sorry

asdf on April 9, 2009 8:14 PM


Don in LA on April 12, 2009 4:31 PM

Music is a copyrighted think, an intelectual property. You keep saying your not stealing, Bull-Crap. Look there are more pieces of music in private hands, via download and CD.. etc then ever before, but the Music companies are making less and less money. Most of them are losing money. SO you take their product, make copies give them to your friends. No one buys a new CD, and the band and the distributors lose money. Simply put you pirate music you are a thief. It is no different then if you hacked an iPOD account and uploaded the music with out paying for it. I know you want it, and you feel that you have an intrisic right to just steal or take anything you want. I get it ok. Still makes you a thief. Buy the CD, Buy the Music – Support the artist. You complain that the music companies are not promoting new bands? You stole music you made them lose money and cut back. You – no one else.

Moki on April 15, 2009 4:48 AM

It’s all about respect. Artists deserve to be appreciated for their contributions–and their contributions are enormous. One of the most tangible and convenient gestures of showing respect it to exchange money for what one has appreciated–in this case, music. It’s not complicated.A group of musicians on a street corner with a collection plate get more respect per song that what’s being demonstrated with all the ongoing piracy of music. It’s sad and doesn’t feel good. I’m sure it doesn’t feel good for the artists.I would like to see the idea of tangible appreciation as a sign of respect culivated in our culture particularly in regards to intellectual property.

Electrikeye on April 21, 2009 11:19 AM

I’m not sure how it feels for bigger artists, but for small ones it would feel good to know that people are listening to their music no matter how they got it. That, and artists don’t make hardly any money at all through CD sales. People that download music are able to discover bands they truly like, and then truly support them by seeing their concerts and buying merch from them. If an artist gets shorted the 20 cents theyd make from the copy i download, but makes 25 from the concert i go to and the shirt i buy there, then theyre up. and otherwise I’d never have discovered that artist. Now that’s devil’s advocate, I’m not saying DL’ing isn’t stealing, but I don’t believe it hurts the artists much. however, just to play more devil’s advocate, how do we define “downloading” music? Hasn’t the human brain been compared to a computer in the way it can store and recall information? Is it illegal to remember a song and play it back in your head or sing it? You technically have the metaphysical data stored inside your head and you didn’t pay for it if you heard it on the radio… just a though :P

Manly on May 2, 2009 8:38 PM

I’m sure many people really are stealing; they’re downloading stuff they would have otherwise bought.But for quite a few people I know and for myself, downloading music is checking out music. It’s not a substitute for buying. If I like something I’ve downloaded enough to listen to it, I buy the CD. And here’s the thing: I wouldn’t have bought that CD if I hadn’t downloaded it. CDs are expensive, I don’t buy stuff I don’t know what is.

AKA H.R. Paperstax on May 11, 2009 2:33 PM

I’m with dude above, and I’ll point out that thanks to p2p, I’ve spent more on music than I ever would have without it, and on artists that deserve it.Whoever argues that piracy is objectively wrong is naive. Sure, some people will do it regardless, but most of us reacting to a lack of compelling content. Finding good music is hard, and building a collection prohibitively expensive thanks to corporate greed.The sad fact of today’s world is that if you really love music and don’t have much disposable income, you would be -stupid- not to pirate it.

Aaron aka bobby fisher on May 30, 2009 4:53 PM

I believe that this is actually benaficial to music as a whole. I am in the buisness and feel more then ever we are not just selling music but becoming icons in our society. Artists are selling clothing, food, etc. They are also selling ringtones. In actualaity these artists are making more money then ever. It is all because more people are listening to there music. Not to mention they are selling out shows that would not even exist have that many people been listening to there music. Thanks for reading my opinion. peace

Comments Closed. Please continue the discussion in the forums