# no more "free" music?



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

The end of &lsquo;free&rsquo; is sweet music for artists - The Globe and Mail


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I down with that. People need to make money


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

I'll pay attention when it's not the manager of the "biggest band in the world" who's doing the analysis. The music industry doesn't need to be saved; it needs to be fixed; it needs to adapt to the 21st century, not continue practices that netted it gains in the mid-to-late 20th century. The times, they are a'changin'.

If music in general hadn't become such a popularity contest that was single-driven instead of album or performance-driven, the big wigs wouldn't find themselves in a position where no one wants to pay for something that will, in all likelihood, turn out to be a dud.

I'd be all for a system that lets you download at will, erasing anything you don't pay for by the end of the month. That way, you can cough up the dough for what you dig, and the stuff you downloaded to try out and didn't like will just get wiped away. I know I forget quite often to delete stuff that underwhelmed me, and I'm always irritated when it pops up on shuffle. It's not that I _want _to keep it, I just forgot to erase it. Sadly, to do this, there would have to be some sort of DRM loaded into the tracks, which I also don't agree with.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2011)

nkjanssen said:


> I think Mr. McGuinness has an overly-optimistic view.
> 
> One of the big problems (among many) is that the group fighting hardest to end "free" music is the traditional music industry, and there is less and less need every day for the functions that industry has traditionally performed (distribution, marketing, finance). So we have a nearly-obsolete group leading the charge to protect their own commercial interests rather than re-envisioning a system that fairly compensates the actual artists. That often leads to a bit of a disconnect.


+1. This is not about the musicians. Case in point: RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales | Techdirt


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> i think mr. Mcguinness has an overly-optimistic view.
> 
> One of the big problems (among many) is that the group fighting hardest to end "free" music is the traditional music industry, and there is less and less need every day for the functions that industry has traditionally performed (distribution, marketing, finance). So we have a nearly-obsolete group leading the charge to protect their own commercial interests rather than re-envisioning a system that fairly compensates the actual artists. That often leads to a bit of a disconnect.


thank you!


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Alot of bands sold their songs directly off their webpage as downloads starting in the late 90s. That bypassed these parasites. Of course when you look at the fact that Lady Gaga has sold 55 million cds, maybe he just cant figure out why U2 cant do the same numbers. He is confused, how can that be they think it MUST be those dirty, nasty POS fans that are stealing all their works...............


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Well the way I see it it was free msuic that made a lot of these guys and it helped them promote music good bad or ugly. but there are just to many fingers in the pie to feed a family of promoter, sales reps musician rep lawyers and I can just go on but at the end of the day a whole pie will only feed eight and not the mess that it has become. I don't have any answers but I should have to pay for songs that were aired for free for so many years and now they want more money off of that.........something wrong there.ship


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Some news to ponder


Page last updated at 13:33 EDT, Thursday, 14 July 2011
Spotify finally launches in US

Spotify users are able to sync their tracks with mobile devices.
Streaming music service Spotify is set to launch in the US, after thrashing out deals with the major record companies.

Its American service had previously been put on hold, apparently because the labels were not convinced about its ability to make them money.

About 10 million people use Spotify across parts of Europe, with one million paying for its premium service.

The company has reduced elements of its free product, ahead of the US launch.

In April, limits were introduced on the number of times users of the basic version could play tracks.

Total listening time was also reduced to 10 hours per month for the free service.

The move was widely seen as a pre-emptive concession to the American record companies which are uneasy about moving to ad-funded or subscription-based distribution.

Paying pennies

Research suggests that services such as Spotify, Last.FM and Rhapsody yield relatively low returns for artists.

Music industry analyst Mark Milligan calculated an average pay-per-play figure on Spotify, based on the Ben Rodgers Band, of $0.004 (£0.002).

Cracking the United States might make the numbers more attractive, according to Giles Cottle, senior analyst at Informa Telecoms and Media.

"They will only get their model to work if they successfully launch in the US.

"It works if you get a large number of plays and you can get a lot of people to sign up to the premium service," he said.

Despite industry trepidation, Spotify has attracted high profile fans.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg described it as "pretty amazing", while soundtrack composer and Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor took to Twitter to express his excitement about the US launch.

Spotify is likely to face competition in the US from online jukebox Pandora which claims 100 million registered users.

Premium membership of Spotify in the US costs $9.99 (£6.19) - considerably cheaper than the UK price of £9.99 and 9.99 euro in mainland Europe.

BBC © 2011


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Research suggests that services such as Spotify, Last.FM and Rhapsody yield relatively low returns for artists.
> 
> Music industry analyst Mark Milligan calculated an average pay-per-play figure on Spotify, based on the Ben Rodgers Band, of $0.004 (£0.002).


This depends on how you look at it. With the traditional sales model for the music industry, artists were making roughly $1 per album sold. Assuming 10 tracks (just for ease of math), this is $0.10 per track - flat rate, unlimited plays per person.

If with Spotify and other sources, they're making half a cent per play, I would imagine the ability to open their music up to a wider audience should gain them enough subsequent plays to bring the revenue level, if not surpass.

Also, please don't forget, with the traditional model, that record is sold in one way with one revenue breakdown. Services like Spotify are myriad and they don't all have the same revenue figures. Some are higher and some are lower.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, and keep saying it til I run out of breath. Exposure wins out against income. If you can get your music out there and penetrate a wider market, the income will come and will be bigger than it would if you just printed some records and sold them, hoping for the best.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I'd like to see a count of the number of artists in North America that were trying to earn a living from music sales in the 60's, 70's, 80's and presently. I think there are some striking analogies to be found with the televangelist game, and the manner in which it tanked for a while in the 80's when cable opened up and their numbers increased. The problem is that too many people are attempting to slice a pie that isn't much bigger now than 40 years ago into more pieces, and expecting each piece to be a meal. Yes, the people who buy music have more money to spend on it now than they did in 1964 or 1971, but birth rates are down so there haven't been that many more people in subsequent birth cohorts that can constitute a market. You can't fix that via software or law. You can really only fix it by accepting that there are limits to the number of people who can sustain a respectable revenue stream via music sales. Play music, certainly, but get a damn job, or sell more t-shirts.

This is why my hero is composer Charles Ives. He *knew* he couldn't support a family of 6 being a musician, and was mature enough to realize that. So, he founded Mutual of New York Insurance, and composed on the side as a hobby. That's my kinda musician.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

mhammer said:


> I'd like to see a count of the number of artists in North America that were trying to earn a living from music sales in the 60's, 70's, 80's and presently. I think there are some striking analogies to be found with the televangelist game, and the manner in which it tanked for a while in the 80's when cable opened up and their numbers increased. The problem is that too many people are attempting to slice a pie that isn't much bigger now than 40 years ago into more pieces, and expecting each piece to be a meal. Yes, the people who buy music have more money to spend on it now than they did in 1964 or 1971, but birth rates are down so there haven't been that many more people in subsequent birth cohorts that can constitute a market. You can't fix that via software or law. You can really only fix it by accepting that there are limits to the number of people who can sustain a respectable revenue stream via music sales. Play music, certainly, but get a damn job, or sell more t-shirts.
> 
> This is why my hero is composer Charles Ives. He *knew* he couldn't support a family of 6 being a musician, and was mature enough to realize that. So, he founded Mutual of New York Insurance, and composed on the side as a hobby. That's my kinda musician.


I fully agree. The romantic notion of being a musician and having the luxury to make your living via your vocation is nice, but the majority of artists also need an occupation.

This isn't the 18th century where you can hope to secure a patron who will foot your bill while you let the muses guide you; work needs to be done to earn your keep. The very best (and best is a high debatable term) will make money, the rest will clamour for scraps. That's just the way it is.

Not every kid who put on skates and plays hockey thinks they are a professional-level athlete who can make a living solely on their play, but for some reason, every musician thinks that the world owes them a living simply because they've put 4 chords and a few dozen words together.

Just because you have a computer, software and some spare time doesn't mean people are going to throw money your way. I don't even _try_ to sell my songs because I can't be bothered! I know I'll probably only ever make a few pennies anyway, so I give them away for free in hopes that someone will listen to them and enjoy them.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Also, according to Pollstar, the revenue from concerts played are up 11%. You wanna be a musician, go play your songs! Don't just record them and sit back waiting for cash. Music is a performance art! 

This on the heels of the announcement that industry big-wigs have finally caught on and are pushing digital. The the music biz is up 8.5% and digital sales now account for 33% of all sales.

I don't know how many of you buy vinyl anymore, but new vinyl these days is such a _treat _to purchase. You get a record, you get a free download of a digital uncompressed copy the album, you get bonus inserts like posters, limited edition artwork, free downloads of demos, remixes etc. A lot of people complained that downloading would eliminate the tactile sensation of buying an album, but how many times did you buy a CD and there was just a 1 page liner with the album art on one side and the tracklist on the other?? Gee thanks for that tactile experience! I love how vinyl is being packaged and it's motivation to buy. If they did the same sort of thing with other formats, I'm sure they would experience a similar sales increase.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2011)

I've posted this before, but worth revisiting: The REAL Death Of The Music Industry

The heyday of CD sales are done. And full album sales are the bulk of the record label's revenue. They're not done because of copyright infringement, they're done because the delivery mechanism has changed and consumers don't have to buy 9 tracks of crap to get 1 track they want. That's a good thing IMO. There was a great article that made a good case for the early 90's being the perfect time for the CD (and therefor record label revenue): streaming and online distribution hadn't taken off but commercial radio conglomeration was moving ahead full steam. So if you wanted Alanis' hit single you had no choice but to buy the whole CD, most of which was filler. It made the case that these artists couldn't repeat their successes today because their single sales, which represent less revenue, would swamp CD sales. I'm trying to find the article...

As for revenue from plays, here's another interesting chart: How Much Do Music Artists Earn Online?

Understand that the income reported in that chart above isn't realized by an artist until they're fully recouped on the loan from the label. Streaming definitely pays out less, but the exposure is much bigger than physical goods and if it blows up...well...it's good. Part of the problem too is that record label contracts tend to pay out very, very little on "new distribution approaches", ones that hadn't been invented when when the contract was signed. Justification from the labels is that they had to do R&D on the new approach so you get less because they need to recoup R&D costs. Want to take a guess at what label R&D costs for Spotify amount to? If you guessed $0, you're smarter than your average record-label-contract-singing rock star. 

And I found this bit from the article @GuitarsCanada posted amusing:



> The move was widely seen as a pre-emptive concession to the American record companies which are uneasy about moving to *ad-funded or subscription-based distribution*.




The highlighted bit in particular cracked me up -- WTF is radio then? Ad-funded distribution. Heads out of asses record label boys! Your business model is collapsing and that's not the fault of the any one but you!

And can I just say: I'd love for Spotify to land in Canada. I'm a huge user of streaming radio (Y-Rock out of Philly is an AMAZING station). I'd pay a monthly fee to access all that music. I pay it readily to access Netflix. Music would be a no-brainer.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> Also, according to Pollstar, the revenue from concerts played are up 11%. You wanna be a musician, go play your songs! Don't just record them and sit back waiting for cash. Music is a performance art!
> 
> This on the heels of the announcement that industry big-wigs have finally caught on and are pushing digital. The the music biz is up 8.5% and digital sales now account for 33% of all sales.
> 
> I don't know how many of you buy vinyl anymore, but new vinyl these days is such a _treat _to purchase. You get a record,* you get a free download of a digital uncompressed copy the album*, you get bonus inserts like posters, limited edition artwork, free downloads of demos, remixes etc. A lot of people complained that downloading would eliminate the tactile sensation of buying an album, but how many times did you buy a CD and there was just a 1 page liner with the album art on one side and the tracklist on the other?? Gee thanks for that tactile experience! I love how vinyl is being packaged and it's motivation to buy. If they did the same sort of thing with other formats, I'm sure they would experience a similar sales increase.


I will always contest that this is an issue preventing a segment of consumers from adopting digital services. I have a major issue paying $1 a track for downloads that aren't even CD quality. The tracks should be in FLAC or another lossless format, or even in Wav. There should be a pricing scale where lower quality downloads are available those those who only want that quality of file for a lower price. Working it's way up to a higher price for a lossless version. But even at that, I don't think a digital download is worth $1 a track. $1 a track puts it close to the price of a CD, which isn't just doesn't make sense because there are no packaging costs, and no distribution costs for the download (or at the most, distribution costs that are a fraction of what they would be for a physical CD).

The real key to success is the subscription services I believe though. They just make way more sense for digital downloads. But that would require the labels all working together to come up with one that really works and offers a ton of content, which they have no interest in. There are a few decent ones out there in development, but no great ones.

Back to the vinyl plus digital downloads, a lot of bands I know are going that route now. Best of both worlds. A cool product to buy, with a digital version available. CD's suck.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Great thread!

Who here has heard of bandcamp?


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Budda said:


> Great thread!
> 
> Who here has heard of bandcamp?


Some of my friends use Bandcamp as their online promo site. I haven't made an account yet, but I do use Reverbnation, which is pretty much the same thing and so far I dig it quite a bit.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Budda said:


> Great thread!
> 
> Who here has heard of bandcamp?


My band uses it, and I have bought other bands albums off there.

You can provide tunes in any codec you want. You can upload artwork, video, or whatever else you want to include as part of your downloads. You can get download codes and discount codes you can use for promotion. It's a site that is really using the digital format to it's potential. 

Not a plug, but here is my band's site on there. Torn Down Units .


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I have friends on BandCamp and I plan on utilizing it as well. Myspace went downhill and it's great that there's other places who are doing a better job.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> *Also, according to Pollstar, the revenue from concerts played are up 11%. You wanna be a musician, go play your songs! Don't just record them and sit back waiting for cash. Music is a performance art! *
> 
> This on the heels of the announcement that industry big-wigs have finally caught on and are pushing digital. The the music biz is up 8.5% and digital sales now account for 33% of all sales.
> 
> I don't know how many of you buy vinyl anymore, but new vinyl these days is such a _treat _to purchase. You get a record, you get a free download of a digital uncompressed copy the album, you get bonus inserts like posters, limited edition artwork, free downloads of demos, remixes etc. A lot of people complained that downloading would eliminate the tactile sensation of buying an album, but how many times did you buy a CD and there was just a 1 page liner with the album art on one side and the tracklist on the other?? Gee thanks for that tactile experience! I love how vinyl is being packaged and it's motivation to buy. If they did the same sort of thing with other formats, I'm sure they would experience a similar sales increase.


I missed this post earlier in the thread. Personally, my band doesn't sell a lot of digital downloads. We also don't gig a ton though, and mainly only play local shows when we do at this point. We just don't gig like we used to. Out of my friends bands, the ones selling a lot of digital downloads and physical CD's are the ones who play live constantly. Yes it's easier to make an album than it's ever been, but the basic principal of getting out and working to sell it has not changed. There are the 'Youtube sensations', but the odds of success trough that route are pretty slim.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I prefer shows over anything, personally. I noticed I haven't watched the DVD's that come with my special edition albums, nor do I youtube my favourite bands. I listen to the albums in my car or stream them on the computer, and I see shows.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

nkjanssen said:


> Agreed. It's all about connecting with your fans/customers. It's _possible_ to do that without touring, but even with all the online tools available now, it's still pretty hard. Getting out there and in front of people remains the best single way to connect.


To go along with this, I just saw this article about Twitter and it's influence or lack thereof on artists sales. Though the study seems a little contrived, it does show you that a band doesn't need to be in your face all over social media to be relevant. Mumford and Sons have only taken 3 months off of touring since April 2010. I couldn't find record of their shows before then but I'm sure they've been road-dogs for a while. 

Similarly, when I see bands like Foo Fighters posting on Twitter, it's usually about recording, or about their live shows, not about what they're wearing to an after-party or some such nonsense. Sure, they'll post something light-hearted like Dave's Fresh Pots video, but it's still in the context of recording.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

that dave grohl video is one of my favs for a long time.
as for the twitter thing, they're not telling us anything we didn't already know just from plain old common sense. 
i did enjoy some of the hipster comments though.


----------



## reitze (Feb 13, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> I think Mr. McGuinness has an overly-optimistic view.
> 
> One of the big problems (among many) is that the group fighting hardest to end "free" music is the traditional music industry, and there is less and less need every day for the functions that industry has traditionally performed (distribution, marketing, finance). So we have a nearly-obsolete group leading the charge to protect their own commercial interests rather than re-envisioning a system that fairly compensates the actual artists. That often leads to a bit of a disconnect.


Good post. Not only that. If you've noticed youtube has lots of music-industry published stuff with commercials before/during the playback - making money both the old and the new way. Of course a good musician may still gain an independent following - but I get the impression youtube manipulates the view-counts too - ever notice your "view count" going backwards? I have. And I don't buy into their story of why either. Web-site-counters don't do that - instead they just notice repeat IP addresses and reloads and don't count those to start with.


----------



## JCJ (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree with the consensus here, but with an exception. If you are a writer of music only, and not a performer or touring artist, you can (and will be) screwed with the new music biz model.
I usually give away "complimentary" copies of my last cd (it's now 2 years old), as I consider it more of a business card. I'd rather the disc be in someone's hand than in a box in my garage. As a mostly acoustic guy, I don't get the same volume of crowds as rock band...generally speaking.
My little cheques from itunes and spotify etc are bonuses. My Socan cheques too. Buys me some strings.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2011)

Some follow-up here. I posted this:


iaresee said:


> And can I just say: I'd love for Spotify to land in Canada. I'm a huge user of streaming radio (Y-Rock out of Philly is an AMAZING station). I'd pay a monthly fee to access all that music. I pay it readily to access Netflix. Music would be a no-brainer.


And in the last two weeks I've found Rdio and become a $10/month subscriber to their service. I am, so far, a very happy customer. The catalog is very good. I'm only finding myself running in to "this is not available for streaming your country" messages on some very obscure stuff (for example they don't have the new Morris Cowan disc Circa available for streaming yet). Their tech support has been absolutely top notch (the desktop app on OS X wasn't streaming well for me at first). And the offline mode on my iPhone is sweet. I now carry 16 GB of offline music from the service on my phone and get to rock out to that, just like I would my iTunes collection. I even been curating summer listening playlists with Alan Cross. (Can I brag a bit? He's got Gloss Drop from Battles in heavy rotation since I put him on to them.  )

You can try it for free for a week.

Seriously: it's quite an amazing service. I'm totally hooked. The price is fantastic for what you have access to.

Someone mentions a band to me now and in two clicks I've found them on Rdio and I'm listening to them. Already discovered a bunch of awesome new stuff this way.

I like the future.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

iaresee said:


> Some follow-up here. I posted this:
> 
> 
> And in the last two weeks I've found Rdio and become a $10/month subscriber to their service. I am, so far, a very happy customer. The catalog is very good. I'm only finding myself running in to "this is not available for streaming your country" messages on some very obscure stuff (for example they don't have the new Morris Cowan disc Circa available for streaming yet). Their tech support has been absolutely top notch (the desktop app on OS X wasn't streaming well for me at first). And the offline mode on my iPhone is sweet. I now carry 16 GB of offline music from the service on my phone and get to rock out to that, just like I would my iTunes collection. I even been curating summer listening playlists with Alan Cross. (Can I brag a bit? He's got Gloss Drop from Battles in heavy rotation since I put him on to them.  )
> ...


I'll have to check Rdio out. A friend has a Spotify account that he leaves open at work for me to use and my experience is pretty similar. My GF told me the other day to check out Justin Townes Earle (Steve Earle's kid) and after a couple keystroke and a mouse click, I was off and running. You really can't argue with $10/mth!


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2011)

hollowbody said:


> I'll have to check Rdio out. A friend has a Spotify account that he leaves open at work for me to use and my experience is pretty similar. My GF told me the other day to check out Justin Townes Earle (Steve Earle's kid) and after a couple keystroke and a mouse click, I was off and running. You really can't argue with $10/mth!


How is Spotify working? US-based company's VPN?

I kind of miss working for a US company -- I used to use the corporate VPN for Hulu access from home.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

iaresee said:


> How is Spotify working? US-based company's VPN?
> 
> I kind of miss working for a US company -- I used to use the corporate VPN for Hulu access from home.


As far as a really cheap VPN option, check out Unblock Us. I have it running on my Apple TV2 and my extra laptop in the house. It seems to work really well. I have another VPN I had been using the last year or so, but I think I am going to cancel it and just use Unblock Us.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i would use a subscription service as long as i had access to listen to ANY piece of music at ANYtime, with good sound quality, *perfect reception even in the subway* (that's where i need it the most) with zero commercials of any kind what so ever, and no talking of any kind. just the music i want, when i want it. it should have some sort of menus that are easy to navigate, and an easy way to set up play lists and make groups. if it didn't have at least that, it would be worthless to me.
the trouble with changing the way things are currently done is, you have to be careful about the value. music shouldn't be about status.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2011)

cheezyridr said:


> i would use a subscription service as long as i had access to listen to ANY piece of music at ANYtime, with good sound quality, *perfect reception even in the subway* (that's where i need it the most) with zero commercials of any kind what so ever, and no talking of any kind. just the music i want, when i want it. it should have some sort of menus that are easy to navigate, and an easy way to set up play lists and make groups. if it didn't have at least that, it would be worthless to me.


Rdio lets you sync music to your smart phone so it works without a connection to the internet -- meaning it works from the subway. I currently have about 8 GB of music synced to my iPhone via the app for offline listening.

There are no commercials on Rdio.

Easy navigation is subjective. I'm lukewarm on their interface. Could be better in some places. It's certainly no better or worse than the combinations of the iTunes store and the iTunes interface for iOS.



> the trouble with changing the way things are currently done is, you have to be careful about the value. music shouldn't be about status.


What does that mean? Music shouldn't be about status? I'm not sure I follow you.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2011)

torndownunit said:


> As far as a really cheap VPN option, check out Unblock Us. I have it running on my Apple TV2 and my extra laptop in the house. It seems to work really well. I have another VPN I had been using the last year or so, but I think I am going to cancel it and just use Unblock Us.


Thanks for the tip. I'll check that VPN service out. It'd be nice to have Hulu access back.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Rdio lets you sync music to your smart phone so it works without a connection to the internet -- meaning it works from the subway. I currently have about 8 GB of music synced to my iPhone via the app for offline listening.
> 
> There are no commercials on Rdio.
> 
> ...


Ya it's tough to come up with a really good navigation system on a portable device. You don't have the screen real estate you have with a monitor, so you are always going to have to sort through more windows.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

what i mean is, music is too important to let price cause it to be a status symbol. meaning only those with enough $$ can have music.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> the trouble with changing the way things are currently done is, you have to be careful about the value. music shouldn't be about status.


I think right now the opposite is happening. Before when CDs were $20 a pop, it was difficult to actually purchased all the records you wanted without spending hundreds a month. Now with services like Rdio and other similar services, it makes a huge amount of music available for a ridiculously low fee. I mean, $10 a month, are you kidding me? I would gladly pay that. I'm looking into Rdio as we speak.



iaresee said:


> How is Spotify working? US-based company's VPN?
> 
> I kind of miss working for a US company -- I used to use the corporate VPN for Hulu access from home.


Hmm, I never even thought of that. I think a family member bought the service for him and he just installed the software on our work machine. I don't know if anything beyond that way done. I'll ask him when he comes in today.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2011)

hollowbody said:


> Hmm, I never even thought of that. I think a family member bought the service for him and he just installed the software on our work machine. I don't know if anything beyond that way done. I'll ask him when he comes in today.


AFAIK there's no way around having a US-based PayPal or CC to do the full subscription to the service. If there's a loophole there I'd love to hear about it. I'd really like access to Spotify.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Music has never been "free". It has just been treated that way.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Milkman said:


> Music has never been "free". It has just been treated that way.


Disagree. I think music was always free until someone had the bright idea to put a price on it. Ever since, it's gone from art form to commodity, which I think is unfortunate.

But that's a whole 'nother ball of yarn


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

iaresee said:


> AFAIK there's no way around having a US-based PayPal or CC to do the full subscription to the service. If there's a loophole there I'd love to hear about it. I'd really like access to Spotify.


K, so it's not a full subscription. It's one of the free accounts that he got an invite to and the catch is you have to use a US-based proxy when you click on the link to download the software. That actually explains why there are ads.

Also, I wanted to hear The Doughboys Crush album (on a tip from another thread on there) and they didn't have it 

I'm gonna go surf over to Rdio and sign up though.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2011)

hollowbody said:


> K, so it's not a full subscription. It's one of the free accounts that he got an invite to and the catch is you have to use a US-based proxy when you click on the link to download the software. That actually explains why there are ads.
> 
> Also, I wanted to hear The Doughboys Crush album (on a tip from another thread on there) and they didn't have it
> 
> I'm gonna go surf over to Rdio and sign up though.


I can confirm that album (plus a bunch of others from the Doughboys) is on Rdio.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

iaresee said:


> I can confirm that album (plus a bunch of others from the Doughboys) is on Rdio.


hahah, yes!!!

Ian, any chance you can lend some insight into my iphone issue in another thread?


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2011)

hollowbody said:


> hahah, yes!!!
> 
> Ian, any chance you can lend some insight into my iphone issue in another thread?


Well, un-jailbreak your phone would be my advice.


----------

