PDA

View Full Version : OMG this is fantastic news - 25 million songs free, legaly!



hhhhhx
January 28th, 2008, 11:25 AM
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article3261591.ece

:):):):):):):)

LightB
January 28th, 2008, 11:37 AM
Great, so now the thrill of stealing has worn off!

No but seriously, that story claims that cd sales are dying. Steerpoop. Where is the proof of the numbers to these claims? If anything I've seen findings where music sharing actually boosted music sales. Just a few weeks ago I downloaded some songs, a few days ago I bought the cd. Buying the cd is especially important for instrumental music because no matter what, online files are encoded and have artifacts of varying degrees, esp. with high sounds like cymbals. Now, if flac files were available, that'd be another story.

This **AA stuff is asinine, closing those down is what really needs to be done, and artists should sell directly to the fans instead of through these middle man knobs called record companies. Totally doable now with the internet and such.

bufsabre666
January 28th, 2008, 11:40 AM
cd sales are by far not in a decline, and music sales are up across the board

they cant claim that the people who work on these things are losing money, artists make almost nothing on cd sales, the production crew get paid a salary from the company, the only people that are losing money are the rich boards members and in all honesty f-them, its better they dont get it

Ebuntor
January 28th, 2008, 11:48 AM
Yeah it's to good to be true indeed, there might be one problem though: DRM


Qtrax files contain Digital Rights Management software, allowing the company to see how many times a song has been downloaded and played. Artists, record companies and publishers will be paid in proportion to the popularity of their music, while also taking a cut of advertising revenues.

hhhhhx
January 28th, 2008, 12:02 PM
Yeah it's to good to be true indeed, there might be one problem though: DRM
ya, but how long will it take to break that?

Joeb454
January 28th, 2008, 12:22 PM
If you read the article it says that you have to download qtrax software.

How much are you willing to bet that it won't be compatible with Linux?

hhhhhx
January 28th, 2008, 12:28 PM
ok, i've found something else you might like,

http://www.songza.com/

you can 'listen' just about any song, all through the internet. it even supports playlists :)

AsoSako
January 28th, 2008, 12:49 PM
.

alx010
January 28th, 2008, 12:51 PM
Qtrax will be Adware, don't know about Linux compatiblity. The original Qtraxmax was my p2p software of choice 4-6 years ago. I always got great search results from it. It was withdrawn though once the RIAA began it's round of suits.

LightB, there are FLAC files to be found on torrent sites, just not as great a selection as MP3s.

Another place to listen to music online is lastfm. (in the US, UK, and Germany).

tbroderick
January 28th, 2008, 01:00 PM
cd sales are by far not in a decline, and music sales are up across the board


CD sales have been declining for the past 7 years. Music sales have been down overall too.

bufsabre666
January 28th, 2008, 01:05 PM
CD sales have been declining for the past 7 years. Music sales have been down overall too.

definitly not, especially since itunes and the like started selling them a song at a time

they are down in terms projected numbers, but theyre up from past sales. the reason this is, is because they dont count future

handy
January 28th, 2008, 01:07 PM
http://www.qtrax.com/download.php

Great! Who could have guessed? There is no version for Linux... Bet they won't make one either...
Hopefully we would be able to run it on Wine, although I don't like doing that...
By the way is there something like Wine that runs software for Macs? I would imagine that a thing such as this would do the job with less flaws...

Codeweavers CrossOver Mac (http://www.codeweavers.com/), is great software, built on Wine, & they support Wine more than anyone else does. They are moving ahead quite a bit lately, have a look at their site, they have a new version due anytime & they have a demo too... :-)

tbroderick
January 28th, 2008, 01:12 PM
definitly not, especially since itunes and the like started selling them a song at a time

they are down in terms projected numbers, but theyre up from past sales. the reason this is, is because they dont count future

Nope. Point-of-Sale. Not projected.

Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/15137581/the_record_industrys_decline)



In 2000, U.S. consumers bought 785.1 million albums; last year, they bought 588.2 million (a figure that includes both CDs and downloaded albums), according to Nielsen SoundScan. In 2000, the ten top-selling albums in the U.S. sold a combined 60 million copies; in 2006, the top ten sold just 25 million. Digital sales are growing -- fans bought 582 million digital singles last year, up sixty-five percent from 2005, and purchased $600 million worth of ringtones -- but the new revenue sources aren't making up for the shortfall.

Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117444575607043728-oEugjUqEtTo1hWJawejgR3LjRAw_20080320.html?mod=rss_ free)


The sharp slide in sales of CDs, which still account for more than 85% of music sold, has far eclipsed the growth in sales of digital downloads, which were supposed to have been the industry's salvation.


AP (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGK2CZZu1nEJtZekM7K39jfiLhWAD8TUP10O0)


U.S. album sales plunged 9.5 percent last year from 2006, continuing a downward trend for the recording industry, despite a 45 percent surge in the sale of digital tracks, according to figures released Thursday.

A total of 500.5 million albums sold as CDs, cassettes, LPs and other formats were purchased last year, down 15 percent from 2006's unit total, said Nielsen SoundScan, which tracks point-of-purchase sales.

koleoptero
January 28th, 2008, 01:34 PM
OMG I don't believe this. If its songs are incopatible with itunes, the whole itunes industry will go down in flames.

I hope that their program will work in linux, even with wine. And why would anybody care if the songs are DRMed if they are free?

Ub1476
January 28th, 2008, 01:49 PM
Jeez, that app has requirements for an operativsystem!

Ebuntor
January 28th, 2008, 02:13 PM
I hope that their program will work in linux, even with wine. And why would anybody care if the songs are DRMed if they are free?

Do you actually understand what DRM is? :) Assuming we'll we able to run that program in Wine that means we'll only be able to listen to the media via that app. Putting it on a mp3 player certainly won't be an option and considering the many types of DRM there might be many more restrictions they don't mention in that article.

Incense
January 28th, 2008, 02:14 PM
. And why would anybody care if the songs are DRMed if they are free?

Because if something is locked up, it's not really free is it. This is nice and all and a bit of a step in the right direction, but DRM, and a proprietary player? I think I'll keep paying for my music for now.

Ebuntor
January 28th, 2008, 02:16 PM
Because if something is locked up, it's not really free is it. This is nice and all, but DRM, a proprietary player, I think I'll keep paying for my music for now.

Exactly.

I'm sure this won't change much/anything for people who are illegally downloading because apart from getting the music for free one of the main reasons is also to get DRM free music.

K.Mandla
January 28th, 2008, 03:31 PM
I think I'll stick with Jamendo (http://www.jamendo.com), thanks. I like my free music to be actually free.

Dixon Bainbridge
January 28th, 2008, 03:40 PM
The sooner artists learn to sell direct the better. Things are changing fast yet the record industry is still trying to bang its square out of date marketing peg into a very round digital hole.

This "solution" is already out of date and irrelevant. The DRM will be hacked in no time, and other players produced to run on other OS's. When are people in the record industry going to acknowledge that they cannot hang onto their outdated business practices? Technology as overtaken them and left them for dead. They failed to change 10 years ago when this stuff was kicking off.

The industry will evolve eventually. It has to.

K.Mandla
January 28th, 2008, 04:03 PM
More confusion for me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7213112.stm

Steveway
January 28th, 2008, 04:12 PM
To all those guys saying: I don't care for the DRM.
I again quote Benjamin Franklin here (as in the other qtrax thread.)
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
You guy should feel bad for thinking this.

the_darkside_986
January 28th, 2008, 05:03 PM
Yeah really, why would anyone want to purposely infect a good system by running "free" adware? Programs like that try to acheive the mythical "security by obscurity" and this could lead to hidden directories or files that other rootkits or malware could hide in. Besides, I am actually glad they don't port this type of garbage to GNU/Linux, because GNU/Linux is my escape from the Windows world of malicious "freeware." But I still haven't escaped when everybody keeps using this annoying "patented" rar format (7-zip is better and open source) and platform specific files such as *.mdb which I still do not know how to use in the GNU/Linux version of OpenOffice. (The OO in Windows only works.)

Anyway, why do people want to bother running a GNU/Linux distro if they have no concern about personal freedom? I mean, I understand having to use restricted drivers for hardware until open drivers are made, but if people love DRM infested userland software such as iTunes or Windows Media Player and other various malware, why don't they just run Mac or Windows? Windows can be customized to look like whatever. And most open source software is ported or can be ported to those platforms.

miggols99
January 28th, 2008, 05:15 PM
More confusion for me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7213112.stm

This says that music from Amazon will be internationalized! :) And no DRM :D Hopefully we will see it very soon here in the UK.

sailor2001
January 28th, 2008, 05:45 PM
LOS ANGELES — A revamped online file-sharing service that promised to offer unlimited, free music downloads from all the major record labels hit an apparent snag Sunday after three of the Big Four companies denied they had given the service permission.

Qtrax touted in a press release Sunday morning that it was the first Internet file-swapping service to be "fully embraced by the music industry," and boasted it would carry up to 30 million tracks from "all the major labels."

New York-based Warner Music undermined that claim, declaring in a statement that it "has not authorized the use of our content on Qtrax's recently announced service."

Universal Music Group and EMI Group PLC later confirmed they did not have licensing deals in place with Qtrax, noting discussions were still ongoing. A call to Sony BMG Music Entertainment was not immediately returned.

Mazza558
January 28th, 2008, 06:32 PM
They still don't get it. I want to pay for music. With that payment, I expect to be able to use it on as many platforms as I want personally - my PC, CD player, mp3 player, phone. This is just as bad as it was, what with the hidden DRM.- what's so utterly difficult about selling high quality non-DRM mp3s for 50p (99 cents)?

Incense
January 28th, 2008, 06:47 PM
They still don't get it. I want to pay for music. With that payment, I expect to be able to use it on as many platforms as I want personally - my PC, CD player, mp3 player, phone. This is just as bad as it was, what with the hidden DRM.- what's so utterly difficult about selling high quality non-DRM mp3s for 50p (99 cents)?

That's why we really need to stand behind companies like Amazon for working with the record companies to release DRM free tracks. They just need a put out a Linux client so we can download full albums. This Qtrax just sounds like another spyware ploy for unsuspecting windows users.

SonicSteve
January 28th, 2008, 08:58 PM
I refuse to buy DRM music, videos etc.
A few years back I bought an album from http://www.puretracks.com
1. I never did successfully obtain the license for the last song on the album.
2. I had to reinstall windows and even though I "backed up" my licenses I couldn't figure out how to use the backup.
3. I was able to download the licenses again (pain in the butt though) still couldn't get the license for the last song.
4. What if I had numerous albums? I would have had to get all those licenses again? NOT A CHANCE,

I buy my music and rip it myself at a the bitrate I choose. I like the album art, I like having the physical media. Downloads will never replace a physical album for me. One day I might not have a choice but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

LightB
January 29th, 2008, 12:34 AM
To the people who tried to post some quotes as implied proof that cd sales are down:

1. No, that is not proof.

2. The sources who made them are the complete opposite of unbiased

3. Assuming that under some metrics they are indeed down, blaming music downloading is a scapegoat.

el_ricardo
January 29th, 2008, 03:17 AM
i was flicking through the license aggreement for qtrax, which is based on songbird and i saw this:



1.2 Restrictions. Except as expressly specified in this Agreement, you may not: (a) copy or modify the Songbird Media Player; (b) transfer, sublicense, lease, lend, rent or otherwise distribute the Songbird Media Player to any third party; (c) make the functionality of the Songbird Media Player available to multiple users through any means, including, without limitation, by uploading the Songbird Media Player to a network or file-sharing service or through any hosting, application services provider, service bureau or any other type of services; or (d) use the Songbird Media Player in any unlawful manner, for any unlawful purpose, or in any manner inconsistent with this Agreement. You acknowledge and agree that portions of the Songbird Media Player, including, without limitation, the source code and the specific design and structure of individual modules or programs, constitute or contain trade secrets of POTI and its licensors. Accordingly, you agree not to disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer any components of the Songbird Media Player provided in object code or any other POTI products or services, in whole or in part, or permit or authorize a third party to do so, except to the extent such activities are expressly permitted by law notwithstanding this prohibition.


i thought songbird was under GPL???!

Incense
January 29th, 2008, 05:36 AM
i was flicking through the license aggreement for qtrax, which is based on songbird and i saw this:



i thought songbird was under GPL???!

From what I can tell, the songbird binary is GPL, but everything placed on top of it is not. You can try and sort it all out if you wish.

http://www.songbirdnest.com/development/licensing-faq

http://www.songbirdnest.com/roblord/blog/songbird_license

Amstell
January 29th, 2008, 06:49 AM
i've heard of this and read today that the music industry has since said NO! on this. why should they make money and not qtrax. ********!

nowshining
January 29th, 2008, 08:34 AM
it's a trick to get ips of those who download via p2p - BEWARE, it was/is a trick. U've be warned.

swoll1980
January 29th, 2008, 09:00 AM
Anyway, why do people want to bother running a GNU/Linux distro if they have no concern about personal freedom? I mean, I understand having to use restricted drivers for hardware until open drivers are made, but if people love DRM infested userland software such as iTunes or Windows Media Player and other various malware, why don't they just run Mac or Windows? Windows can be customized to look like whatever. And most open source software is ported or can be ported to those platforms.

Because it's better. I could give a crap about freedom. I use Linux because I like it, not because it's liberated and windows isn't.

swoll1980
January 29th, 2008, 09:02 AM
it's a trick to get ips of those who download via p2p - BEWARE, it was/is a trick. U've be warned.

If they wanted to they could get warrants to track ip's from isohunt and torrent man they wouldn't need to do this or they could go on limewire download a file and track ip's that way without a warrant. besides that there not after down loaders there after up loaders it's not nearly as illegal to download as it is to upload

PartisanEntity
January 29th, 2008, 11:10 AM
If they wanted to they could get warrants to track ip's from isohunt and torrent man they wouldn't need to do this or they could go on limewire download a file and track ip's that way without a warrant. besides that there not after down loaders there after up loaders it's not nearly as illegal to download as it is to upload

Your assumption is wrong. The RIAA was caught red handed trying to set up a 'file sharing site' which was nothing more than an IP collecting scam.

Have a look at the site torrentfreak, they routinely report about such things.

Edit: although I am a big fan of Jamendo, for now I have stopped listening to music published there because I am very very very unhappy with the sound distribution and engineering. The music from the groups and artists that I like, sounds very flat, and this is painful, for me at least.

el_ricardo
January 29th, 2008, 02:21 PM
this isn't a scam, from what i gather, the ads displayed pay for the tracks, this is perfectly legitimate, the only catch is that they're DRM'd, but in this instance I can understand why.

Het Irv
January 30th, 2008, 01:10 AM
I just popped off an e-mail to Amazon (knowing fully that it will be ignored).

I want to buy legal music. Buying music supports the artist and all that jazz, but I also believe that if I buy some thing I should be able to use it as I see fit. I have always had a good experience when using Amazon.com and will continue to use it in the future. I was wondering if it would be possible for Amazon to release a version of its music downloader for Linux. While this market is small I feel that it would get much use. In my experience, Linux users are just as likely to buy music as a Windows or Mac user. Also if you decide to release a Linux version, you would be the first to my knowledge and therefore would have 100% of the market. Whoever gets this e-mail please forward it to where it needs to go, it would be much appreciated.

It was sent to Customer Service under the category Downloader Installation Issue (that seems to be the best fit). I encourage every one to send off one of their own. You can use mine or make up your own just KEEP IT POLITE. I also know that this post will be lucky to get one more e-mail to Amazon but heres to hoping. If you want to be really pro-active Digg this thread and get it out there. If Amazon sees a way to make enough money to turn a profit I bet they will, but one person is not going to make a difference.

Het Irv
January 30th, 2008, 01:19 AM
Stop the Presses
I think this is worth another post!

Which computer operating systems are compatible with Amazon MP3?


You can buy songs from any computer with a web browser capable of downloading files from the Internet. The MP3 files you purchase will download directly to your computer and are compatible with any system that can read the MP3 music format. The Amazon MP3 Downloader is a tiny application that is required for purchasing and downloading an entire album and is currently available for Mac and Windows operating systems. If you use Linux, you can currently buy individual songs. A Linux version of the Amazon MP3 Downloader is under development, and when released will allow entire album purchases. For more information, please visit the Amazon MP3 Downloader Help page.

I does support Linux
W00t