• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Last.fm – It’s About Choice, Not Cost

February 24, 2011 by Sarah Falzon

Sarah Falzon is a first year JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and currently enrolled in the course Law & Social Change: Law & Music, in Winter 2011. As part of the course requirements, students are asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.

Last.fm announced that it is ending its free, ad-based service of streaming music to mobile phones through The Official Last.fm Android App.

Last.fm is an online music recommendation service, as well as an internet radio provider that provides free desktop radio streaming and, until February 15, provided free ad-based streaming to mobile devices and Xbox Live. Since February 15, users have been required to pay a $3 monthly subscription fee to access the service. The subscription fee does not allow the opportunity for user choice of music, as compared to other mobile music providers, but provides a service that will be free of advertisements.

According to Last.fm, advertising-based models are not effective when it comes to providing the service to mobile devices. The main reason put forth for the decision to switch to a monthly subscription fee was that generating income through paid advertising was not practical with respect to the phone service. On a desktop, there is opportunity for both audio and visual advertisements to get viewership, while the average person listening to Last.fm on an Android phone with ear buds is unlikely to look at the screen. Mr. Hawn, Last.fm’s VP, Product, explained that they are trying to make rational decisions about their business model while financially supporting the artists who make the music listeners love.

However, it is not completely certain whether this will turn out to be the best decision for all involved. Users seem willing to pay for a mobile music service, but not for the sole benefit of the elimination of advertisements. With the low subscription fee, it seems that the concerns are far from being about cost and actually about the ability for the consumer to have choice of the music itself.

Interestingly, various blogs and comment forums have many users saying that they will switch to different fee-based mobile music-streaming applications. The reasons themselves go to the services offered. With Last.fm, while one can subscribe to radio stations of choice, there is no option available to decide the specific song or artist to listen to. So although other online radio programs also offer a paid subscription service for mobile devices, they provide more choice which seems to generally leave users with the feeling that payment is valid. For example, many users have said they will switch from Last.fm to services like Spotify where they will also be provided with artist- or song-based choices.

The people who used the Last.fm service before the imposed fee were content with the lack of choice of music since the service was free, but in return for paying a subscription fee the consumer is arguing for greater choice in the specific song or artist listened to and not just the elimination of advertisements. While this is sparking consumer debate over the services offered by Last.fm, it is still a positive development with respect to online music services. Consumers are willing to pay to listen to music through a service such as Last.fm even in this age of rampant online piracy.

Posted in Law & Music Course Topic, Music Industry, Technology

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Alternative to the iPod, Cloud Technology and Music Sales | U.S. Foreign Relations in the Digital Domain: Public Diplomacy 2.0 »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • James Wagner on Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Ken Anderson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Courtney Doagoo on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • Denis Borges Barbosa on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • D Vaver on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Dr. Emir Crowne on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Adam Stevenson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Anonymous on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Aidan Hollis on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Kalen Lumsden on IP Osgoode Speaker Series: Robert Levine and Dr. Brett Danaher
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • It’s Official: Functionality is Uncopyrightable, Says the European Court of Justice
  • Village People Crooner’s “Macho Macho” Song Rights Held Up in Court
  • From Russia With Love: Theft Conviction of Former Goldman Sachs Programmer Overturned at Appeal due to Nature of Property
  • lawTechCamp reminds Lawful Access to consider the Charter: The Disclosure of Subscriber Information and Privacy Implications
  • Oracle Fails to Predict Copyright Case Outcome Against Google
  • Stealth Bombers Back on the Radar – The Anton Piller Order
  • Copyright Lightweights: When 50 Pounds in Damages Might be Abuse of Process
  • Servier v Apotex: Illegality Earns $17.5 Million in Damages
  • Who Coined It First? The Advent of Digital Currency
  • One Step Closer: Bill C-11

IP Osgoode would like to send out its IPIGRAM at a time when most convenient for you. Please let us know your views by answering a few questions so that we can better serve you.

Click here to take poll.
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Advisory Board (4)
  • Announcements (2)
  • Blogs (7)
  • Book Review (3)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (5)
  • Cloud Services (3)
  • Commercialization (77)
  • Competition (7)
  • Competition Law (7)
  • Contracts (59)
  • copyright reform (137)
  • defamation (15)
  • Design (6)
  • Development (4)
  • European Union (35)
  • events (75)
  • Fashion Industry (13)
  • Feature Post (126)
  • Freedom of Speech (15)
  • Freedom of the Press (14)
  • Gaming (6)
  • General (145)
  • Human Rights (3)
  • Image (2)
  • Innovation (139)
  • Internet (237)
  • IP (1048)
    • Copyright (528)
      • CD Levy (9)
      • Digital Downloads (64)
      • Digital Libraries (1)
      • Digital Locks (28)
      • Fair Dealing (62)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (126)
      • Internet Sharing (92)
      • Literary Works (53)
      • Moral Rights (10)
      • Movies (47)
      • Music Industry (89)
      • Originality (29)
      • Ownership (84)
        • Licensees (33)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (14)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (19)
    • Patents (332)
      • Access to Medicines (12)
      • Cross Border Issues (49)
      • Electronic Processes (18)
      • Infringement (61)
      • Patent Practice (18)
      • Patent Trolls (20)
      • Patentability (97)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (66)
    • Trademarks (201)
      • Domain Names (38)
      • Famous Marks (15)
      • Official Marks (10)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (11)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • IP Intensive (4)
  • IP Litigation Practice (16)
  • Jurisdiction (71)
    • Canada (27)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (1)
    • UK (29)
    • US (30)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (20)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (6)
  • Music Industry (73)
  • Open-Source (17)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (10)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (167)
    • Electronic Databases (36)
    • Human Rights Issues (27)
    • Identity Theft (11)
  • Regulatory Policy (46)
  • Reputation Management (2)
  • Smartphones (11)
  • Social Justice (2)
    • United Nations Development Programme (1)
  • Social Media (24)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (17)
  • Tech Transfer (29)
  • Technology (210)
  • Telecommunications (74)
  • Trade Secrets (4)
  • UK (10)
  • Uncategorized (84)
  • US-Canada Relations (2)
  • WIPO (10)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736