Spotify is pretty great.

[jay4321]

***



I'm sure most people who aren't familiar with this service have heard at least mention of it.

It's a music-streaming service that looks and feels a lot like ITunes and is functionally similar to Rhapsody with better quality. It just came to the US and there is a free (ad-supported) version with very good quality streaming, a $9.99/month no-ad version with even better quality, and some middle $5/month tier. Since it just launched in the U.S. the free version is unlimited listening for 6 months while they try to beef up a customer base. I tried the free version for about two hours and went premium almost right away. I'll give my impressions:

1) The streaming is instantaneous. You can't even tell that the files aren't located on your hard drive it's so fast.

2) The quality is perfect. I have my CD collection ripped at 320 kb/s as MP3s. The AAC format they use is even better and indistinguishable even on a very high-end sound card with a high end headphones set.

3) You can select and add songs to your library same as ITunes as if you owned them. You can use them on devices like iPods, though this may only be for the $10/month service.

4) The interface is simple and easy.

5) Selection - very good, but not perfect. It has 95% of what's out there including some very obscure stuff. There are some bands that opted out, the ones I've noticed are The Beatles (they have a deal with iTunes), Garth Brooks (deal with Walmart), Metallica (they're just annoying), AC/DC (they don't sell individual tracks anywhere), Led Zeppelin, Tool, and Rammstein. Also the occasional artist may have a song or two not available, but have the rest of their material.

For me this last one isn't a big deal, since I more or less have what I want from the above in my mp3 collection.

6) What it does have more than makes up for what's missing. For example, a search for "Jimi Hendrix Experience" (not Jimi Hendrix - the search is pretty exacting) will turn up his studio records, plus a live double CD with 38 tracks, plus a live box set with dozens of tracks. With other artists like Stevie Ray, Pearl Jam and Nirvana you'll see a lot of the same, or remastered versions of the CD with bonus tracks (that you might not buy). My girlfriend pointed out that Tori Amos has an entire tour's worth of recordings available, 38 double-CDs in length (!) that were a limited edition and expensive release all together.

 

[jay4321]

It's invite-only for now in the US, but there are links around the web that can get one easy enough or just sign up at Spotify and they'll hook you up. I have a few invites to give out as a paid member. First come, first serve (one reserved for Tonar if he wants).

I would highly recommend people just try out the free version and play with it a bit. I've spent so much time ripping my CDs, and more than enough buying tracks for $.99 this seems so much more convenient.

 

[Cagey]

That Didn't Take Long: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

- from the welcome-to-america! dept.

Hello Spotify. Welcome to America, where if you do anything even remotely innovative, you get sued for patent infringement. Indeed, just a couple weeks after entering the US market (finally), Spotify is being sued by PacketVideo for patent infringement. I knew the name PacketVideo sounded familiar... and then I remembered. A decade ago it was considered one of the hottest startups on the planet for trying to figure out ways to do streaming video on mobile phones (something I noted at the time I thought was not at all compelling -- which I'll admit I was totally wrong on, but that was before the invention of large screened smartphones that we have today). Of course, PacketVideo failed to live up to the early lofty expectations, and last we heard of it, the company was being acquired by DoCoMo for what appears to be a lot less money than it raised over the years.

Now, you might claim that perhaps PacketVideo has a legitimate patent claim here. After all, the company has been around for well over a decade and was an early pioneer in streaming efforts. But... the details suggest not so much. The actual patent in question, 5,636,276, is for a "Device for the distribution of music information in digital form." Sound broad? Of course, as the patent attorneys in the audience will tell you, it's not the title of the patent that matters, but the claims. So go read through the claims and try not to gag. What's described is the very generic idea of streaming music. Here's the key claim:

Continue reading...

 

[partialdoctor]

That Didn't Take Long: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

- from the welcome-to-america! dept.

Hello Spotify. Welcome to America, where if you do anything even remotely innovative, you get sued for patent infringement. Indeed, just a couple weeks after entering the US market (finally), Spotify is being sued by PacketVideo for patent infringement. I knew the name PacketVideo sounded familiar... and then I remembered. A decade ago it was considered one of the hottest startups on the planet for trying to figure out ways to do streaming video on mobile phones (something I noted at the time I thought was not at all compelling -- which I'll admit I was totally wrong on, but that was before the invention of large screened smartphones that we have today). Of course, PacketVideo failed to live up to the early lofty expectations, and last we heard of it, the company was being acquired by DoCoMo for what appears to be a lot less money than it raised over the years.

Now, you might claim that perhaps PacketVideo has a legitimate patent claim here. After all, the company has been around for well over a decade and was an early pioneer in streaming efforts. But... the details suggest not so much. The actual patent in question, 5,636,276, is for a "Device for the distribution of music information in digital form." Sound broad? Of course, as the patent attorneys in the audience will tell you, it's not the title of the patent that matters, but the claims. So go read through the claims and try not to gag. What's described is the very generic idea of streaming music. Here's the key claim:

Continue reading...

!@#$#@ lawyers

 

[jay4321]

I've seen it. Like the article points out, the patent claim is silly.

I'm not any kind of expert on patent law, and after OJ and Casey Anthony I don't seem to be that great at predicting legal outcomes in general either. But I do make my living maintaining wide-area networks and can follow along at least a small bit with what it's in the patent. It's not code or a device or type of protocol someone could steal. I know patents related to software and tech are a big debate today, but this seems like a pure cash grab.

EDIT: But either way, that's beyond the scope of the service itself, which I think is a steal for what it costs. I'm like a kid in a candy store with it.

 

[Cagey]

!@#$#@ lawyers

Now, now. It's not the lawyer's fault. The law is what it is. If it's written poorly, plaintiffs can do outrageous things.

In the case of patent law, it's usually fairly straightforward, albeit fundamentally flawed. The real problem is the USPTO. These days, it's not out of the question or even difficult to get a patent for picking your nose or wiping your ass, and the verbiage that describes the activity can be so broad that any personal hygiene product or activity can be interpreted as infringement. Next thing you know, some dingbat is suing Proctor & Gamble for making soap, or Martex for making towels, claiming billions of dollars in damages. Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, it's easy to get patents on things that shouldn't even be patented, like business methods or software or biological parts like DNA or genes. It's insane.

 

[m4rk0]

5) Selection - very good, but not perfect. It has 95% of what's out there including some very obscure stuff. There are some bands that opted out, the ones I've noticed are The Beatles (they have a deal with iTunes), Garth Brooks (deal with Walmart), Metallica (they're just annoying), AC/DC (they don't sell individual tracks anywhere), Led Zeppelin, Tool, and Rammstein. Also the occasional artist may have a song or two not available, but have the rest of their material.

I liked the interface and it was user friendly, but the Selection was just really really bad, and I am not really just into obscure stuff. even playlist.com has a better selection!
so because of that it didn't work for me, so I am sticking with Grooveshark, which I really like!

 

[Alfang]

Maybe its not the lawyers fault, but still, most of them should, well....be shot, and I mean that in a good way.

 

[anorakDan]

We need patent laws. By-and-large they are successful at fulfilling their intended purpose; to protect the rights of the small inventor/innovator from larger, less scrupulous business entities. Not that there haven't been victims, nor are the decisions always right, but patent law works.

That's the trouble with living in a society that is based upon rule-of-law. We have to use imperfect humans to craft the least imperfect laws they can at the time. And while we do, in fact, live in a society based upon rule-of-law, we need people who understand those laws. i.e. Lawyers.

Lawyers can be irritating, persnickety, seemingly self-righteous and perhaps even sometimes downright under-handed. But it's sure great when you have one on your side. Then they become Attorneys. I'm pretty smart, but I would never represent myself in any legal matter. Never in a million years. I'm glad that lawyers are available and for hire. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[jay4321]

I liked the interface and it was user friendly, but the Selection was just really really bad, and I am not really just into obscure stuff. even playlist.com has a better selection!
so because of that it didn't work for me, so I am sticking with Grooveshark, which I really like!

My experience with Grooveshark was just the opposite. Songs were sometimes slow to start up, they're 192 kb/s MP3s, and it's basically a glorified peer-to-peer sharing site. Not knocking anyone else for using it but that's not what I was looking for. 

 

[partialdoctor]

!@#$#@ lawyers

Now, now. It's not the lawyer's fault. The law is what it is. If it's written poorly, plaintiffs can do outrageous things.

In the case of patent law, it's usually fairly straightforward, albeit fundamentally flawed. The real problem is the USPTO. These days, it's not out of the question or even difficult to get a patent for picking your nose or wiping your ass, and the verbiage that describes the activity can be so broad that any personal hygiene product or activity can be interpreted as infringement. Next thing you know, some dingbat is suing Proctor & Gamble for making soap, or Martex for making towels, claiming billions of dollars in damages. Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, it's easy to get patents on things that shouldn't even be patented, like business methods or software or biological parts like DNA or genes. It's insane.


I was speaking in general. But I stand by my statement.
The lawyers, their plaintiffs,  and horrible patent laws are the issue, as you say.
Here's a good listen:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack

 

[partialdoctor]

We need patent laws. By-and-large they are successful at fulfilling their intended purpose; to protect the rights of the small inventor/innovator from larger, less scrupulous business entities. Not that there haven't been victims, nor are the decisions always right, but patent law works.

That's the trouble with living in a society that is based upon rule-of-law. We have to use imperfect humans to craft the least imperfect laws they can at the time. And while we do, in fact, live in a society based upon rule-of-law, we need people who understand those laws. i.e. Lawyers.

Lawyers can be irritating, persnickety, seemingly self-righteous and perhaps even sometimes downright under-handed. But it's sure great when you have one on your side. Then they become Attorneys. I'm pretty smart, but I would never represent myself in any legal matter. Never in a million years. I'm glad that lawyers are available and for hire. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand patent law is unbelievable broken. Listen to this:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack

 

[llmtelecaster]

All these music players, streaming services, and "cloud" nonsense is just getting down-right confusing. It's actually made me appreciate going to the store and buying an actual disc.

 

[hannaugh]

How is it different than Rhapsody other than being temporarily free right now?

 

[Alfang]

Here's the way things should be, we need lawyers because the law is written in a manner that the normal citizen cannot comprehend or interpret, laws need to be writtin at the same level that the govt pays for education, right now that's the 12th grade, you wanna make laws written in a fancy lingo, you need to educate the common man to that level.

That's my 3 cents

 

[elfro89]

This was in Europe for ages, it used to be completely free, any music you wanted for as long as you wanted, you just had to put up with adverts. I left the service after using it for 2 years, when they decided to stop the free and limit you to 10 hours a month and you only get to listen to a song 5 times before it becomes unavailable. It was done because the labels in America were not going to allow it in America unless it was made less available to free users. Pretty much everyone stopped using and talking about it over here. Millions of users left and it is nothing more then a shadow of its former self. They started out with a message, Free music for all. They decided to turn into a corporate ass. We left. People still use it of course, but I don't see the point in only paying for access to music that I don't own directly. Would rather buy CD's or use other free sources such as groove-shark or anything like this, but I only use it to look up albums that I'm interested in buying. I don't use any type of program much these days.

 

[jay4321]

How is it different than Rhapsody other than being temporarily free right now?

Very comparable to Rhapsody. Rhapsody costs more and the streaming is of lower quality, and Spotify has no lag. Obviously the free version is a draw for Spotify for some. But I expect Rhapsody will make some changes, it's not getting nearly the press Spotify is.

This was in Europe for ages, it used to be completely free, any music you wanted for as long as you wanted, you just had to put up with adverts. I left the service after using it for 2 years, when they decided to stop the free and limit you to 10 hours a month and you only get to listen to a song 5 times before it becomes unavailable. It was done because the labels in America were not going to allow it in America unless it was made less available to free users. Pretty much everyone stopped using and talking about it over here. Millions of users left and it is nothing more then a shadow of its former self. They started out with a message, Free music for all. They decided to turn into a corporate ass. We left. People still use it of course, but I don't see the point in only paying for access to music that I don't own directly. Would rather buy CD's or use other free sources such as groove-shark or anything like this, but I only use it to look up albums that I'm interested in buying. I don't use any type of program much these days.

The first CD I ever bought was in 1988 or 89 and I've essentially been buying them ever since. The last few years I've found a fair number of good ones used on Amazon for $4 or so, some for essentially the cost of shipping. My girl and I have just hundreds of them. A couple of years back I started ripping them to mp3s, which even on a decent PC is no small chore to do enough of them. Then I got to the point where I basically had all the stuff I really wanted covered and began buying fewer and fewer CDs, but I'd still hear an occasional song. Not worth buying a CD for that, so I'd go one Amazon and buy a single song if that's all I was interested in. Finally I wound up trying out a couple services like Pandora which were okay for what they were but I really wanted a normal library.

Putting it in perspective, I pay around $60 a month for TV service. I'm only renting that content and most of it isn't on demand instantly. So I thought about that and figured I listen to music a lot more than I watch TV, so spending the $10 just made sense. These days I don't want to sit around waiting for used CDs to show up in the mail, then rip them on the desktop, then throw the mp3s on my USB drive so I can put on my laptop or plug into my work computer or car (etc). It's just quicker, easier, and considering what I spend overall, somewhat cheaper. Plus I don't need to back up that data.

I suspect these subscription and cloud distribution services are where it's all headed anyway. I used to dislike it for quality reasons, but even with good gear I really can't hear a difference between audio streaming at 320 kbps AAC files and the source CD (maybe it's my aging ears). I notice also I'm listening to things I kind of like but don't typically buy, like surf-guitar music or some crossover country artist. Someday they'll get this right with book libraries.

 

[jay4321]

What's funny is that 20 years ago, the Sam Goody I worked at had no problem selling new CDs for $16.99, sometimes more. I used to get a 35% discount and couldn't believe my good fortune.

 

[kboman]

Spotify is a monumental rip-off, and there is absolutely nothing "new" about it. I haven't used it for a couple of years now: the adverts drove me crazy, the selection was so-so for my interests and then I started to read up on the finincial distribution... Interesting things to look at is royalties for artists, distribution of advertising income, who the shareholders are etc. Basically it's yet another way to f%ck the artist over while looking like you're "innovating". Pisses me off.

 

[partialdoctor]

What's funny is that 20 years ago, the Sam Goody I worked at had no problem selling new CDs for $16.99, sometimes more. I used to get a 35% discount and couldn't believe my good fortune.

Ha ha I know! Music seems to be the one thing that has become LESS expensive to purchase. I remember when they were pushing $20 per CD!