Last.fm Radio to require subscription (outside of UK/US/DE)

elmerfadd said:
There are other services out there that are free and people will prefer them over Last Fm (like Spotify for example).

seems that Spotify solved the problem in another way: "This product is not available in your country yet." ..so that was a real bad example

musicgodlything said:
CrippleHorse said:
It has to be exactly what musicgodlything says, in the three countries ad revenue is large enough that having free users that see adds pays them more than 3 euros/month, which is what they would get if they were subscribers, whereas in the rest of the world the opposite is true, that ad revenue is not large enough to equal the profit they would make if we all paid subscriptions. Also, I was trying to say that if they went to subscription only in those 3 countries, they might lose a lot of listeners (ad revenue) that would quit rather than pay. In the other markets, if the same thing happened, it would be an acceptable loss because those listeners don't generate revenue the same way.

Eww. Sounds like the Matrix when you look at it like that.

Yeah it could be the case that they stand to lose more in ad revenue then they could gain back from subscriptions for the big 3, a situation that's not the same elsewhere.

Of course non of us know for sure the financial situation, but that makes logical sense as to why they did this.

I mostly agree with what you said, but:
Babs_05 said:
You don't see the merit in thinking ahead because in your view that might make it happen.
Quite a contrary. I see merit in thinking ahead, that is to have a self preservation skill. I think it is a very positive merit, if used right. There is a possibility of change for even good and bad, it is about choice, which change we accept. And if you accept all the changes without "thinking ahead" and actually choosing right, it's as good as if you weren't thinking ahead at all. It's alright if you want to prepare for the worst, but it doesn't mean we'd have to invite the worst by not doing anything. I feel like I'm repeating myself.

In my view, I see every merit in thinking ahead because then I'm prepared. And if it doesn't happen, it doesn't matter, it's been an interesting exercise. I don't feel obliged to fight for anything but I do speak my mind, so maybe I do fight but in a different way to you.
That kind of an attitude towards life is called "apathy". Of course, you might think it is your way of enlightening people, it even might be an art or philosophy to you. Then I suppose it's ok. But I'm not an artist, or a philospher, atleast not in that kind of way. I might be able to put a coherent idea on paper, but I am still kind of a perfectionist, to a point it gets pretty hard to not to sound like an asshole at times. But that's another story, really.

But like the counter-comment to the one mentioning Fight Club said, the idea in the car sales analogy was to wake up people to the idiocies of life, not to lullaby people into the comfortable thinking they are ok and not worth fighting against.

Ambybunny said:
I mostly agree with what you said, but:
Babs_05 said:
You don't see the merit in thinking ahead because in your view that might make it happen.
Quite a contrary. I see merit in thinking ahead, that is to have a self preservation skill. I think it is a very positive merit, if used right. There is a possibility of change for even good and bad, it is about choice, which change we accept. And if you accept all the changes without "thinking ahead" and actually doing the right choice, it's as good as if you weren't thinking ahead at all. It's alright if you want to prepare for the worst, but it doesn't mean we'd have to invite the worst by not doing anything. I feel like I'm repeating myself.
I see. I saw this and thought you meant something different:
Ambybunny said:"Yes, we can't know beforehand, but if we just wonder about these things, they will happen. We must really actively fight against these little turns for worse, and endure in our fight. Endurance is needed most to prevent such stuff from happening. Somehow you sound apathetic about the future, like everything is supposed to go bad anyway."

Babs_05 said:In my view, I see every merit in thinking ahead because then I'm prepared. And if it doesn't happen, it doesn't matter, it's been an interesting exercise. I don't feel obliged to fight for anything but I do speak my mind, so maybe I do fight but in a different way to you.
Ambybunny said:That kind of an attitude towards life is called "apathy". Of course, you might think it is your way of enlightening people, it even might be an art or philosophy to you. Then I suppose it's ok. But I'm not an artist, or a philospher, atleast not in that kind of way. I might be able to put a coherent idea on paper, but I am still kind of a perfectionist, to a point it gets pretty hard to not to sound like an asshole at times. But that's another story, really.
I think I use a different definition for 'apathy'. In the bluntest of terms, to me, 'apathy' means not giving a shit. Maybe in your view, I'm not giving enough of a shit, which means that what we have here is degrees of apathy and some sort of arbitrary line drawn somewhere. From my point of view, all the people who have not commented once in either the official blog or in forums, who don't care either way what happens to the site are the ones who are apathetic. People who have no feeling either way nor care how any changes here impact on everyone else or perhaps the future of the internet. That's apathy.

I don't think anything I say in my defense will be good enough in your eyes because I don't exactly share your way of doing things. You already said you agree with most of my points. We don't really have an argument here, do we? So what do we have? We have you criticising me for not very much.

I don't have a problem with activism - which I think is your approach to this debacle. There are all sorts of ways of protesting. As long as those involved understand all the reasons why and they're not just blindly joining in because it's a fun thing to do, it can be a positive thing. What I've been worried about is things getting out of hand because people were not in possession of all the facts. So, seeing as I have a whole bunch of them to hand, I've been doing my bit to help people understand, or at least be better informed before they decide which way they want to go. That's not passive, that's me spending a lot of time, finding the right information and presenting it properly with due care and attention. I haven't wound anyone up or caused a ruckus, I haven't judged anyone for feeling the way they do, hopefully I've helped people who were feeling hurt or angry. Well, obviously apart from you.

maz35 said:
musicgodlything said:
CrippleHorse said:
It has to be exactly what musicgodlything says, in the three countries ad revenue is large enough that having free users that see adds pays them more than 3 euros/month, which is what they would get if they were subscribers, whereas in the rest of the world the opposite is true, that ad revenue is not large enough to equal the profit they would make if we all paid subscriptions. Also, I was trying to say that if they went to subscription only in those 3 countries, they might lose a lot of listeners (ad revenue) that would quit rather than pay. In the other markets, if the same thing happened, it would be an acceptable loss because those listeners don't generate revenue the same way.

Eww. Sounds like the Matrix when you look at it like that.

Yeah it could be the case that they stand to lose more in ad revenue then they could gain back from subscriptions for the big 3, a situation that's not the same elsewhere.

Of course non of us know for sure the financial situation, but that makes logical sense as to why they did this.

I think you have both nailed it. It's impossible to know, of course, but clearly they aren't doing it in order to deliberately alienate users from other countries.

Okay, I've been wracking my brain to come up with a good analogy to explain why I don't think anyone is being discriminated against and this is the best I can come up with:

In Canada where I live (and I suspect this is true in other countries as well), we subsidize university education with our taxes. So, Canadian university students pay about $3-$4K/yr (I think) for tuition. Foreign visa students, however, pay full freight (as much as $10-$15K per year I think) because they don't pay Canadian taxes. No one calls this discrimination and yet it, too, is based on nationality. The simple fact is that Canadian citizens have their fees offset by taxation and foreign students don't. It's a business (or more properly, a fiscal) model that is seen as perfectly fair, though undoubtedly hard on foreign students who wish to study here. I think the last.fm case is very similar: UK/US/DE users have their last.fm service offset by ad revenues while users from the rest of the world don't. If for instance a Japanese student doesn't want to pay extra to go to a Canadian university, he or she doesn't have to. Likewise, if a Canadian music listener doesn't want to pay extra to use last.fm, he or she doesn't have to. But neither can rightly claim discrimination -- it's just how the funding model works. Does this make sense?

It sorta makes sense. But suppose everybody got free education, then later on some were told they had to pay, after already enrolling in the system, with hardly any warning at all.

Or, Canada currently subsidizes education at a federal level. Suppose they suddenly switched to provincial, and that left Ontario with free education, but the price increased for the other provinces...

Anyway...

Business isn't fair. Business is business. It's self-justifying, which means it isn't necessarily right (economically or ethically).

Anyway, there are alternatives out there for those who are interested & know where to look. (personally I don't use streaming radio) Try googling things like foo_scrobblecharts, Tor, US exit nodes, and things of that nature. I've already seen working solutions/alternatives to this. If it's really that big of a deal to you.

I look forward to reading more posts here. It's an interesting thing to watch unfold. Another little brick in the wall.

SkylineAtNight said:
Does this make sense?

It does but people still will scream: unfairlol... discriminating against people based on what country they are from isn't unfair?

Babs_05 said:
I hope Last.fm understand the difference between a vocal minority and proper feedback. Things got a little confused last summer after the great beta rage. There's so much heat coming from some people, I see it forcing Last.fm's hand which isn't fair. They're running a business, not a f'ing creche.
Wow, you almost had me in the previous post, but here we go again. Downplaying the whole matter. You still don't understand why we are vocal?

This one went a bit further than just philosophizing.

I damn well understand when people say it is just business, like the rest of you guys here badmouthing those who are upset are saying. Yes I do understand, but doing business needs some business ethics, otherwise your business while perhaps legal, is no better than a criminal organisation when it comes to treating people.

Money isn't the ultimate answer to everything, you guys are just too thick. I'm partly thinking if it's worth staying in a kind of web community that doesn't even value what it is. You guys truely deserve what's coming.

There's so much heat coming from some people, I see it forcing Last.fm's hand which isn't fair. They're running a business, not a f'ing creche.

Of course we're trying to force Last fm's hand. Unless you suggest that we have no right to protest whenever there's a change the users, even if it's a minority, don't approve of. I don't know which is the majority, the pro-subscription guys or those who protest, but I know this: Everyone has the right to voice their opinion and suggest alternative solutions. That's what a forum is for.

Ambybunny said:
Babs_05 said:
I hope Last.fm understand the difference between a vocal minority and proper feedback. Things got a little confused last summer after the great beta rage. There's so much heat coming from some people, I see it forcing Last.fm's hand which isn't fair. They're running a business, not a f'ing creche.
Wow, you almost had me in the previous post, but here we go again. Downplaying the whole matter. You still don't understand why we are vocal?

This one went a bit further than just philosophizing.

I damn well understand when people say it is just business, like the rest of you guys here badmouthing those who are upset are saying. Yes I do understand, but doing business needs some business ethics, otherwise your business while perhaps legal, is no better than a criminal organisation when it comes to treating people.

Money isn't the ultimate answer to everything, you guys are just too thick. I'm partly thinking if it's worth staying in a kind of web community that doesn't even value what it is. You guys truely deserve what's coming. Yes, I can do more than just philosophise. Something else I can do is get a perspective. Which is why I subscribed for 12 months x 2 in advance, but I'd have set up a recurring sub if they'd let me (please fix it for us, Last.fm!). I may not know exactly where the site is headed but I love it and I support it.

I cannot for the life of me fathom why people see their decision as racist or discriminatory. YouTube have pulled official content from the UK and now Germany but I haven't heard a single person say that's racist or discrimination. Pandora shut their doors on a whole number of countries ages ago. Who jumped up and down about that? And as for 'there are no boundaries on the internet', that one's the funniest of all - we don't all have access to the same information, people.

And this point about corporate internet, tiered access, forcing people underground yada yada. So what? It's already like this anyway. What will happen next is the illegal, naughty, (cool) side of the internet will just pick up. Things change. They evolve. Nothing is written in stone.


The point I was making, which I hope reaches the right people back at Last.fm, is that just because some people kick up a fuss in forums doesn't mean they speak for everybody. Therefore, please have a care while you revise your decisions and be sure your priorities are in the right order. Last year was a f' up that was extremely annoying.

Kerensky97 said:
Rather than lose the whole site, places where the ad revenue doesn't exist need to pay for themselves. I'm aware of the reasoning behind that. It still doesn't mean anybody has to like or agree with it. & it still fits well within any dictionary's definition for the word "discrimination". That's not even disputable, if you have a rational mind & don't cave to emotional knee-jerk reactions. It's hardly racism, though (as I've seen a few posts state) and there are definitely shades of gray here. It's not black & white.

I guess I should clearly state that I don't blame Last.fm for this. I partially blame CBS, but mostly I place the blame squarely on the record industry's shoulders. More specifically the RIAA. I've said it before & I'll say it again, they are in their death throes & are right now trying to get all the $ out of us that they possibly can. Things will change in the not-too-distant future, and they know it. They are an animal backed into a corner. (see my 1 and only journal entry)

If you want to protest, stop scrobbling & helping with any data entry/editing.

There *are* alternatives.

Cheers. And thanks to the last.fm staff for their hard work. I really don't wish to dismiss you guys. <3

ICREVANI said:
Now, name a single business that isn't corrupt.
Yeah. We should all just "put up and shut up", our opinions and rights don't matter anymore. Thank you for elaborating that so vividly to us.

Kerensky97 said:
I want to repost the official message from last.fm for those who don't understand how business works on the internet.
There isn't a one truth or a one way everything works when it comes to "business on the internet".

RJ describes the reality that last.fm radio has NEVER BEEN FREE.
That much is true.

Even royalty free music costs bandwidth to be streamed to you.
But then you shouldn't justify actions on advertising not covering license fees. There's been two kinds of messages from last.fm (?) I've been hearing, ones that claim last.fm doesn't have enought revenues to pay for the music they play, others like you say streaming is too expensive. Yeah I know its both, but you have also look at the scale. Most of the music last.fm streams most of the time is all commercially licensed copyright industry fluff, while the royalty-free music rarely even makes a faint blip on the radar when it comes to most played charts. I would argue it is dominantly cheaper to stream royalty free than it is to both pay licenses AND the streaming of the so called mainstream music. Now, the thing I don't understand is why doesn't last.fm make the licensed music subscriber only and let the free music be streamable for everyone else, Globally of course, to end the discrimination!

Up until now the ad revenue generated in the US, UK, and Germany has been paying the shortfalls for the radio everywhere else, unfortunately recent growth + a struggling economy means that the "Big 3" can't support the whole system anymore. Rather than lose the whole site, places where the ad revenue doesn't exist need to pay for themselves.
From what I've heard and seen, it seems the advertising itself has been done so badly it is no wonder if you are getting less revenue from it. It might even have something to do with the new layout for all I know. All the ads are at the bottom of the pages that rarely get visited, stuff like that.

If last.fm can't make ends meet, maybe it's better it will just wither and die then. It's better than give in and suck up to the copyright industry forgetting their original tenets, like the one in the about page...

Last.fm "about us" page says:
Last.fm has always been about making music culture more democratic: everyone listening to music how they want to, when they want to[/]. Without a middle man making your decisions for you.
But then again, making a quick buck is much easier. Let's just throw our ideals to trash and betray our promises. Let's pretend we "didn't make the decision lightly" and ignore any ideas from the community that created us. That makes business sense. Lest us not forget there is no business that isn't corrupt. We can always defend ourselves with that!

I really don't know what the copyright industry has managed to pull this time. What kind of blackmail or ransom is at play here. Somehow it seems Last.fm is being strangled to death, forced to make these stupid decisions without even hearing all the supplied feedback from the disgruntled users of the service. How did they do it? Are the people in charge being held hostage somewhere or what? Why can't last.fm really respond to our suggestions themselves? Why are they so quiet? Why is the only representation for last.fm addressing our questions a mere moderator who's clearly not "an insider" in/of the company?

Originally posted in the last.fm blog by Richard Jones:

Last.fm Radio has always been ad supported, which means we sell ads on the site to cover the cost of running the service and paying the music licensing fees. If you’ve spent more than 5 minutes on the site you’ll know that the Last.fm community is international to the extreme – we are made up of people from practically every country in the world. Last.fm is a better place for it.

However, we simply can’t be in every country where our radio service is available selling the ads we need to support the service. The Internet is global, and geographic restrictions seem unfair, but it’s a reality we are faced with every day when managing our music licensing partnerships.Please re-read that first paragraph.
US/UK/Germany sponsors can't afford to pay royalties for everybodies music anymore.
Lather, rinse, repeat.