Legal music-downloading services are failing, far too complex

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Legal music-downloading services are failing, far too complex.

On The New York Times website we can read an interesting article in which legal music-downloading services such as MusicNet, Pressplay and Rhapsody are discussed.

Although the idea of paying…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/5540-Legal-music-downloading-services-are-failing-far-too-complex.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/5540-Legal-music-downloading-services-are-failing-far-too-complex.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

This formula has already been found by http://www.weblisten.com. Way cheaper than buying albums and fully legit! The only legal service I know that is worth paying for. It puzzles me why these guys across tthe Atlantic haven’t discovered this service yet. Maybe Weblisten’s catalogue is to European?


#3

Exactly Nohair Weblisten catalog is toooo European judging by their top forty the only name i could understans was “Stevie Wonder” and what is from like the "1800’s


#4

Let me do this again, Sorry:Exactly Nohair Weblisten catalog is toooo European judging by their top forty the only name i could understand was “Stevie Wonder” and what he is from like the "1800’s


#5

If they want this sort of thing to succeed, they have to beat Kazaa and other P2P networks in all departments. They need FAST downloads, available in A RANGE of bitrates and an ENTIRE SPECTRUM of music, not just today’s pop crap.


#6

Weblisten is a great site. Once you get to the english section you can see that they have almost everything you could want. I joined for a while last summer and downloaded over 300 whole albums. The only drawback I found was the 128 only bitrate.


#7

nobody here would pay for their music anyway. All i see is bitching that there should be a pay for what you want sceme and when it happens theres more bitching about it then.


#8

i would pay. only for a service that has at least 192k though. 128 sucks, as we all know, so i my humble opinion, it’s like this: you can either (1) pay for a very limited amount of songs in crappy quality, or (2) get the most exclusive stuff at top quality. choice not that hard, i guess. :stuck_out_tongue:


#9

Maybe we should ask Weblisten to add higher bitrates or even VBR? I wouldn’t mind paying a bit more for better quality. Downloadspeeds are great so size shouldn’t matter. As far as their choice of music is concerned. They should hire someone that knows the US market better. Maybe a nice task for their affiliates in the US?


#10

I aggree. Need higher bit rates then 128.


#11

Anyone knows which MP3 encoder this service uses?


#12

According to Encspot Weblisten encodes with Fraunhofer. I’ve tested all files and they are absolute top quality, error free. And you can’t say that for most files you get for free.:wink: