digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

From today, feel free to download all the music in the world

entertainment.timesonline.co.u… — After a decade fighting to stop illegal file-sharing, the music industry will give fans today what they have always wanted: an unlimited supply of free and legal songs.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ggnictee, on 01/28/2008, -23/+944Dear Music and Movie Guys,
    I don't want free music/movies (well ok I do but I'm very willing to pay for music). What I want is to buy a song and be able to have it on my computer, ipod, iphone and the computer in the living room. I don't want to buy a song 4 times. That's dumb.
    I don't want to buy a DRM. I don't believe I'm buying anything if you still control how it's used. That's a rental. If I wanted to rent it I would have. I wanted to own it, all by myself.
    I think $.99 is too much for music that's over 20 years old. I can at least understand the justification for charging more for new releases, but there should be a $.50 price point.
    While we're on the subject: digital versions of a movie shouldn't cost as much as the hard copy version. Especialy if they don't have all the 'bonus' features.
    If a product is ready to be released: release it. Let me watch movies when and where I would like to watch them. If I go to the theater and see a movie I want to share with my family/friends I would rather stay home and watch it with them. If the movie isn't available to purchase people are going to A) skip it. or B) download it. But if I could buy it on my way out of the theater; I probably would. (Don't worry, we both know I'll buy the directer cut later.)
    So here is my plea to you: I have money. I am more then willing to give it to you. But I need you to meet me in the middle. I watch commercials for free TV (or hulu (I actually really like hulu, if they'd update it every once in awhile and put the back catalog on there)) and I'm willing to put up with commercials for music: but I'm not putting any tracking system on my computer.
    And before you say "but you can't make money selling something people can get for free" you'll have to tell me companies make billions every year selling bottled tap water.
    I promise we'll buy your music and movies. You just have to give us a chance. I can't buy what's not there.
    • AndyStitzer, on 01/28/2008, -5/+69Well said
    • skippyisforyou, on 01/28/2008, -14/+6=]
      • ORMEs, on 01/28/2008, -5/+9=]
      • Smaulz, on 01/28/2008, -1/+52Having his smiled returned from across the room, skippyisforyou's heart fluttered. Was ORMEs just being polite? Did ORMEs really like him back? Where would it all lead?
      • schlottj, on 01/28/2008, -5/+1lol
    • mindsnare, on 01/28/2008, -15/+6If only everyone thought like that. The fact is, they don't. I feel the same as you, but most of my friends simply want it for free, because they simply don't care, and they won't start using this service either if they can't put it on their iPod. Just look at the results of the Saul Williams release, $5 for a full album 320kbps MP3 or lossless flac, and still a majority of people just took it for free.
      • jascination, on 01/28/2008, -2/+27I'm sure a majority of people downloaded it for free to hear the songs first, and would have gladly paid afterwards if the album was worth it.

        Sadly, it wasn't.
      • hellotyler, on 01/28/2008, -0/+13The album was TERRIBLE.
      • mindsnare, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Well I guess you guys have more faith in humanity than I do.
    • DarkDx, on 01/28/2008, -6/+91IT'S A TRAP
      • xptoast, on 01/28/2008, -0/+8It really is actually since its not completely true. From the bottom of this thread reads...

        DO NOT download this. 3 of the 4 big companies have not signed deals, while the 4th could not be reached for comment. This is definitely a scam, though its not clear who they are trying to ***** with. Give it time, if it isn't a scam you can download the supposed 30 million songs another day. Just wait it out, this will either catch the mainstream for being revolutionary or a fraud.

        another after that reads...

        http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23121891-1702 ...


      • digitalarcanum, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1THE MP/RIAA CANT REPEL FAGGOTRY OF THAT MAGNITUDE!
      • STARTSOMETHING, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1What was the name of the false RIAA tracker website?
    • peaceninja, on 01/28/2008, -4/+57anybody who uses nested parentheses when writing a paragraph is undoubtedly an ex-LISP programmer
      • michrech, on 01/28/2008, -2/+27I do that (on occasion (no, really!!)), but am not any sort of programmer (though, I recently (with Visual Basic 2008 Express Edition) taught myself (just) enough to create a simple program that sends commands to serial ports to control some hardware).
      • Mike89, on 01/28/2008, -0/+21Sometimes I go to do it, then figure it's not proper English so sort of fudge it like:
        "This is my sentence (and my sub thought here [based on the fact that blah])"
        So that, you know, people will be able to parse my brackets easily.. then I realise thinking 'people' and 'parse' in the same thought means I should spend less time geeking out and more time GOING out.
      • kubedawg, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Lol and if he had missed the latter part of the nested parenthesis, you would have torn him apart for it! Gotta love it lol.
    • petrusp, on 01/28/2008, -0/+11All I want is to be able to buy the music. iTunes is not supported in my country, so I do the next best thing (getting it for free is just a bonus).
      • thailand1972, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Me too. In Thailand I can't download from any of the legal sites. I can walk outside and get mainstream CDs from market sellers (i.e. James Blunt et al) or wait 3 months to download a 100Mb album torrent. I'm stuck in the middle!
    • hyperluz, on 01/28/2008, -14/+6Disagree on the bottled tap water part.

      If you are talking about "tap water" as "tap water", then i have no problems with your comment. But, if you are extending your comment to all bottled mineral water, then i disagree with you.

      Where I live, the water pipe system is old, with old copper pipes and even iron pipes. And the water tastes bad. If you do a little research about prejudicial effects of copper(competes with zinc) on your organism then you will be concerned too. Aside from this... there are lots of people with a well enough tongue to perceive taste differences from water to water because of different quantities of minerals.

      And if you pay for mineral water, you don't pay only for the water. You pay for aggregated value. Example: packing, transport of water to a shop next to you and other involved services.

      Also, there is difference between mineral water (from natural resources) and filtered water with added minerals. The last have more aggregated value.

      If you cannot see this type of "invisible" values on products, maybe you lack some basic knowledge on economics. And your comment looses some reliability.
      • donte, on 01/28/2008, -3/+7First off "loses" some reliability. Sorry, if you're going to spend 6 paragraphs nitpicking one line of a long post you should at least get that part right.

        Most of the bottled water industry is not supported by people with bad pipes or whatever. At least around here it's suburban and upper class families who just like the status symbol of drinking Evian (only poor people drink Ice Mountain). Either that or they incorrectly believe it's better for them than they're fantastic water at home. They're not doing it out of some necessity. It's simply a choice to pay for all of those "hidden" services which ultimately translates to trying to get water to your house -- a service you're already paying for. Also if you have bad pipes, buy a Brita filter. It's a one time cost for the apparatus (be it the pitcher or the faucet attachment) and then the periodic cost of replacing the filter. Recurring costs which are far less than buying the bottled water because of all of those invisible values. Be sure to think about these things before you decide to lecture someone on economics.
        • mpineiro, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3While I agree his delivery may have been a little aggressive, it doesn't take away from his points about taste differences. I'm sure the water at my college and at home won't kill me, but it tastes like chlorine and metal. I've tried various filters by Brita and other companies and they simply don't make a difference.

          However, I still avoid buying bottled water. I fill jugs at the local supermarket (Weis). They have this machine outside that extensively filters the water (reverse osmosis, UV, all that jazz) for 30 cents a gallon. I then lug my reusable bottle around everywhere I go. Works for me and tastes better than any bottled water out there.
          • CopyNinja, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Solid idea.
          • hyperluz, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4I re-read what I wrote on th first comment.
            And that line:

            "If you cannot see this type of "invisible" values on products, maybe you lack some basic knowledge on economics. And your comment looses some reliability."

            And now i think that line was realy aggressive and needless. Sorry for that. :(
        • hyperluz, on 01/28/2008, -1/+4Well. You are on Digg. And you are on the Internet. A global environment. So, don't expect to hear comments only from north American people taking into account only the USA market.
          I'm from South America and my native language is not English. How you didn't know this fact before, I will ignore your grammar nazzi attitude (which tends to ignore an idea or argument because of bad grammar).

          So, if you think my explanation about aggregated values was wrong, point where it is incorrect. You only give an restrict example (USA only).
          Pointing grammar errors is not a bad thing. But use it like an contra-argument is simple wrong.
          And I'm sure your argument and ggnictee's ones in this case are so reliable as mine because both lack support of a research or numbers. :) Aside from that, ggnictee's comment about "bottled water tap" feels like an over-generalization.

          "Recurring costs which are far less than buying the bottled water "

          The Brita filter is not for sale in Brazil. Independent of this fact, costs involved in getting high quality water change from country to country. And in South America, they tend to be 3x or more than in USA.

          There is not anything like an status symbol of drinking some type of bottled water in Brazil. Here, I never heard of this.
          Here, the main sources of potable water are: (from more to less common)

          1- tap (acceptable but not very good...varies according to the region where you live)
          2- filtered tap water. But people tend to be undisciplined about maintenance of filters, mainly because of prices. And last time I did an research (on Google, Wikipedia, etc) about filter technologies and involved costs, the results lead me to outsource the filtering process.
          3- supposed mineral water on returnable and reusable plastics bottles of 10L and mainly 20L. Quality varies immensely from source to source.
          4- supposed mineral or filtered bottled water by Coke, Pepsi Co and from brazilian companies.

          "Be sure to think about these things before you decide to lecture someone on economics."

          Be sure to think global and educated enough before you decide to lecture someone about something and before do any mildly aggressive comment like that.

        • gctoinfinity, on 01/28/2008, -5/+1douche
        • teh_techie, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3They're != Their. You need to be careful when you call someone out on poor spelling, etc, when you, yourself, are about to ***** up!
        • emjaymj, on 01/28/2008, -2/+3First off, "their" fantastic water at home. Sorry, if you're going to nitpick one word of a long post you should at least get that part right.
      • wonginator1221, on 01/28/2008, -2/+3"Either that or they incorrectly believe it's better for them than they're fantastic water at home."

        Either that or they incorrectly believe it's better for them than _they are_ fantastic water at home?
      • andys189, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0It is sad to see such a well said, eloquent comment concerning the rights of those who both download and pay for their music be brought down by someone else concerned with bottled water..
    • zongamin, on 01/28/2008, -5/+4emusic already does exactly what you want.
      Legal, no DRM, low price. no major label *****.
      • michrech, on 01/28/2008, -2/+14"no major label *****."

        Then it *doesn't* do exactly what I, and millions of other, want. Yes, there are some of us out here that actually like some of the major label music.

        So, how *do* those farts smell, anyway?
    • haterofps3, on 01/28/2008, -2/+11At no point will it make sense to buy water in a bottled format! Considering the toxins we breath in and apply to our skin or digest I see no problem to a little copper in my water. The fact remains that people who buy bottle water have been sold on the idea that it is inherently better for you, regardless of the fact that it is not regulated like tap water and sold at a price point that I find offensive. Do we not have home water purifiers that clean out most of the harmful minerals?
      While I am young and the economy is something quite complex I do understand this. People in this day and age will buy all sorts of snake oils as long as it prolongs their life. Fear of sickness and death is rather silly as we all die eventually.
      • swizzcheez, on 01/28/2008, -1/+9Bzzt... I buy bottled water cause the water at work tastes terrible and the price of the bottled water I buy is pretty darned cheap at CostCo, far less than soda.
      • weephar, on 01/28/2008, -0/+9Yeah, I drink bottled water because it is already in a bottle in the cold fridge that i can grab when i am in a hurry...i don't think it is much better for me(some say it definitely isn't, because of lack of flouride...but I haven't done much research on this) and if it wasn't extremely cheap at costco, then i would probably just bottle the water myself and put it in the fridge...and i have done that in the past...
      • Trav1289, on 01/28/2008, -0/+5We all die?!?! Crap....
      • hoowahman, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1I buy bottle water of pack of 25 and then use my filter on tap to refill many times til the bottles seem to be unclean. That way I can have bottles in the fridge and they are portable, but also have easy access to filtered tap water. I just can't stand the chlorine they add to it seems to make feel like I'm more thirsty.
        • cawpin, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Refilling water bottles is bad, mmmkay? You wear off the coating on the plastic and release potential carcinogens. Don't do that. They're made to be used once, and that's it.
    • supermik3, on 01/28/2008, -9/+3i agree with everything except the tap water. you can't get water for free, unless you want to drink chlorinated probably with little occasional pieces of pipe gunk water.
    • atheinostic, on 01/28/2008, -0/+27I don't mind paying the artists for music.

      I do mind when most of the money I spend on music goes not to the artist but to an oligopoly of parasites.

      I do mind subsidizing their manipulation of our legal system, their attempts to sue file sharers en masse, their attempts to control music they've already sold to the customer by claiming it is still their property, ....

      They are merely parasites, contributing nothing and feeding off the work of others. In an actual free market economy, they would already be a non-factor because the ability to distribute music on the internet is rendering inferior, physical distribution mechanisms increasingly obsolete. They exist now as they are because they have used their money and power to entrench themselves legally in our system.

      I have a problem paying for that.
    • opnickc, on 01/28/2008, -0/+7Absolutely agree. I wish digg had a way to favorite comments.
      • KlogereEndGrim, on 01/28/2008, -6/+1You see that little green hand-thingy next to the comments? click it!
    • GhostyBoy, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3The article is down, but I dugg it just so that more people will read this comment.
    • RobotLeAwesome, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Yeah - Hulu rocks pretty hard - All TV should be like Hulu.
      • stalefries, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3Low-resolution, in a crappy, ad-supported interface?
        • TomFrost, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2That's hardly fair. All TV is already ad-supported, and the ads take between 5 and 10 minutes per break. It sucks for the viewers who have to find something to do in that time, and it sucks for the advertisers because no one in their right mind just sits and watches the ads. Hulu's commercial breaks are 15-30 seconds long, which is great because you don't feel the need to go do something else and the advertisers like it because you actually see the ad.

          And for those of us who haven't upgraded to HD yet (I don't even have cable-- waste of money to a guy who watches maybe 3 shows and can get them on the web), Hulu is higher resolution than what they're used to.

          Yes, it's flash and that sucks, but give credit where it's due, man.
    • nappymonster, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Sure, i wanna listen to music on all platforms. That's where thepiratebay comes in!
    • crowsmurder, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2truer words have never been spoken
    • cdemi, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2a man after my own heart
    • twertyto, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3Epic post.
    • bingobongony, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1I LOVE how you stupidly think that most people pirate because of anything other than the price.
    • Bobbler, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0I could not have said it better myself. Exactly what I would like, and judging by the number of positive votes you appear to be on to a winner too.
      Wonder why the movie/music companies cannot get their research right as they are ploughing millions into trying to sell to us and dont appear to have caught a clue yet LOL
    • ttait, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0very well said. couldn't agree more
    • HeyArnold, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Gratz for getting the most dugg up comment of the year so far.
      You've probably hit the nail on the head for about 90% of consumers.
    • dawnraid101, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Yes.
    • serif69, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0If only comments could make the front page... You, sir, are my hero for today.
    • arbulus, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1I agree with you 100%. The removal of DRM and allowing me to use what I buy where ever and how ever I want it is a MAJOR first step and one that MUST take place. Yet it is only one of two steps that have to take place. Next needs to end this barrage of lawsuits and outright militant action by the RIAA and MPAA against customers. Stop treating your customers like criminals.

      If I take your song, perform it and call it my own, that IS copyright infringement. If I BUY a CD that you sell, rip it to my computer, put it on my music player and maybe burn a copy of it for a friend, that is NOT copyright infringement, nor is it any kind of theft in ANY sense of the word. Sue the REAL copyright infringers, people who take others' work and claim it as their own original creation. Don't sue the kid who makes a mix tape for his girlfriend. Once the RIAA and MPAA can get to this mindset, I'll buy their stuff all day long. But not until then.
    • Zzone, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Bravo! You have hit this problem right on the nail. Now if we can get the people who matter to listen. The bottled water analogy is a great one.
  • frogstomp19, on 01/28/2008, -23/+12Damn you for submitting this already!
    But in all seriousness, I couldn't believe it when I read it... so I went on the website (www.qtrax.com) to check it out. First of all, for all we knock on the RIAA, this is certainly a step in the right direction. It seems like they are beginning the long process of pulling their heads out of their asses and are noticing that filesharing is proving to be extremely good advertisement for them. Still waiting to see how this turns out, but I have high hopes for this Qtrax.
    • resplence, on 01/28/2008, -7/+2Spammer.
    • CoolWind, on 01/28/2008, -0/+6ha ha qtrax is already overloaded - suffering from the digg effect.
  • cambrown99, on 01/28/2008, -5/+165I've said for a long time that the issue for the record companies (aka the RIAA) is not primarily about money. They certainly want your money, but the bigger issue is about control. They want to control what you hear, when you hear it, and where you get it. For pretty much all of the 20th century they succeeded in doing that. The internet has screwed that up for them, because now a band like Radiohead, or even an unknown garage band, can completely bypass them and sell their music on the internet. Now Radiohead still can't get into the brick-and-mortar stores without being distributed by the Industry or get their songs played on the radio (a completely different corruption), but give it another year or two--when more artists start becoming hugely profitable outside 'the system', you'll start to see a willingness from retail and radio to bypass the withering RIAA as well.

    And THAT'S the day we can hold the official funeral for the RIAA. I'm crossing my fingers for sooner rather than later.
    • Wade, on 01/28/2008, -1/+7Rest In Pieces?
    • geoken, on 01/28/2008, -0/+11You pretty much summed up the RIAA's entire business model, which essentially amounts to excersising extreme control over all ditribution and promotion avenues thereby making the quality of the music itself irrelevant. After all, who cares how good your songs are if you control every method of finding out about new music (radio, tv) as well as the methods of purchasing music.
    • Cerebral, on 01/28/2008, -1/+6Exactly... I cannot tell you more how much I agree with your statement. Just as the same with movies and the DVD release of them the **AA wants to CONTROL everything. So many times I wanted to repurchase an album like Ride the Lightning only to find out it is STILL $15 - $20! Or how about the fact that only recently am I able to get Harry and the Hendersons on DVD. And don't get me started on the damn Director's cuts and the 4th version of MOVIE-X that just came out "Now with 25 seconds more video that we could have put in originally but didn't" It's *****.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 01/28/2008, -10/+1Those bastards, wanting to control their private property. Are you at least aware that you just made a bolshevik speech about music?
      • 80hd, on 01/28/2008, -1/+7Wanting to corral people into a half dozen pipelines of tightly controlled musical taste is pretty ***** dumb the way i see it.
        • secrity, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3It is not at all dumb if you are part of a music manufacturing and distribution cartel. It is actually quite practical from their standpoint. They have been able to get away with it for over 50 years.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 01/28/2008, -4/+1Oh I agree, except that is not the point made here.

          cambrown99 was defending his right to access, manipulate, reproduce and distribute OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

          Read his comment again but replace the concept of privately owned music by privately owned money. That's bolshevism.

          He is claiming an non existent right to someone else's work and property. He is also wishing for the extermination of an entity that protects the concept of private property.

          On top of undermining the most fundamental concept of society, property, he defends the extermination of the entity that protects this right for private entities that are owned by private persons.

          He just made an argument against your second most basic human right and got dugg up over 70 times.
          • 80hd, on 01/28/2008, -1/+6I agree, it's messed up to say "Hey I'm taking this. don't bother trying to stop me"
            otoh... screaming "You have to listen to our music our way" is wrong as well. Honestly if the music industry weren't making a control grab to prop up a cartel, how could we ever know the difference?
            No wonder why people resort to what is at times analogous to stealing.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1People resort to stealing because they lack integrity and have the mentality of a common parasite.

            The music industry doesn't tell you how to listen to music. It offers a product that you either choose to buy or not, what you want has no place in this equation.

            If I want to sell apples 50$ each, that's my problem. Your wanting me to price what I sell at 50 cents changes absolutely nothing, it's entirely mine and you have no rights concerning my property. And if you steal from me, I have the God given right to shoot you in the face. If you do it behind my back, you go to prison.
          • amadeusdemarzi, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2waah waah, get over yourself wipo.

            I don't know how you get off on this idea of being able to shoot someone who steals your music. Your swearing by the law when it comes to intellectual property, yet when it comes to justice you throw the law out? Try not being such a hypocrite, or douche.

            Also, you completely blew your wad about the Bolshevism point when it wasn't the subject at hand (nice try, trying to manipulate the discussion into a retarded set of 'rules').

            I recommend you desist with your hair brained arguments and general douchebaggery and actually contribute to society.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1I'm not going to get over myself unless someone actually beats with logical arguments.

            I never said I could shoot someone if they stole my music. That's a strawman.

            I said I had the God given right to kill you if you stole from me. I never said it was legal. The fact that you adhere to the laws of society doesn't mean I have to. And in any case, it is in fact legal for people to shoot someone who steals from them in many places in the world, America is one of those places. I have the right to defend my property.

            Meet the Bolsheviks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik

            The argument is correct, demonstrate the opposite.
    • TTURabble, on 01/28/2008, -2/+3Actually, once you buy a product, it becomes your private property, through the magic of economics.
    • bingobongony, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1You've said that for a long time and for a long time you have made yourself look like a fool.
    • jdenial, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1I'm a film student, and being in this business its obvious I'm on the artists' side... but the problem is... the money we are paying doesn't go to the artist, it goes to a mother ***** who doesn't give a ***** about music or film. If at least 80% of the money we are paying would go directly to the artists' bank account things would be different.
  • bpeterson82, on 01/28/2008, -15/+6What the title should read:
    "It's the end of the world!" (well it must be if this miracle has occurred!)
    VICTORY IS OURS!
    • dafragsta, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1When I see this on Wired, I'll believe it.
  • amermoose, on 01/28/2008, -15/+51but the ipod doesn't support it...
    • ravage86, on 01/28/2008, -0/+60The iPod supports MP3s, the music industry just can't stop being a pain in the ass. This is proof that they just don't get it.
      • coheedcollapse, on 01/28/2008, -3/+17"Qtrax has also spoken of an “iPod solution”, to be announced in April. "

        Maybe you should read the article.
        • gummih, on 01/28/2008, -0/+22I have an iPod, an mp3 enabled phone, I like to have all my music on a single computer and stream it to other computers (Linux and Windows) I like to send my wife some songs with a specific meaning and I also like to burn mp3 CDs for my car! I don't want DRM, I don't want an "iPod solution", just sell me the damn mp3s!
          • secrity, on 01/28/2008, -3/+3Just buy the non-DRM'ed MP3s sold by Amazon.com
          • llurker, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3mp3sparks, or alltunes is your friend. (was allofmp3.com)
            The price is right, and you get to choose your own quality. And best of all, NO DRM!
            Only the record companies will say it is an illegal site. But it is perfectly legal in Russia and thus far the RIAA has refused to collect the royalties collected by Russias Media Bureau.
            This is the RIAA's problem, and theirs alone. I don't care about the corrupt cartel that is the MAFIAA.
        • secrity, on 01/28/2008, -2/+3For some reason there is no reply button for gummih's reply.

          Just buy the non-DRM'ed MP3s sold by Amazon.com
        • awhiteflame, on 01/28/2008, -4/+2"Just buy the non-DRM'ed MP3s sold by Amazon.com"

          Or iTunes...
        • teh_techie, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3I don't think iTunes sells mp3's... they sell it in another format I thought...
        • jj101, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Your comment is proof that you just dont get it either. Ravage86 said the ipod supports mp3s, meaning that it supports all mp3s without any DRM. The article, in case you didn't read it, specifically stated that DRM was integral to the plan and the payment architecture.

          So when Ravage86 says "why cant they stop being a pain in the ass" he means why not just give us DRM free mp3s, that already work fine on an ipod. When they speak of an "ipod solution" they mean some way to make their DRM work on the ipod.

    • Hoogs, on 01/28/2008, -23/+10People still buy iPods?
    • jm4847, on 01/28/2008, -6/+3Dude just convert it to something else
      • 80hd, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3Why not just use bittorrent if you have to break the rules to get the music you want. They want us to use DRM'd windows media *****. No matter what, this comes down to what they want vs. what we want. There is no way in hell I'm buying a music player I'd rather not own, just so they can control my music. (btw replacing my $400 touch means my Alpine car stereo can no longer control playback from the steering wheel, my home stereo won't be remote controlled anymore and i have the awesome luxury of buying a new music player if want to hear music anywhere but my desk, where I spend 5-10% of my day.)
        Music industry, thanks for fully understanding my music habits and ***** you too.
        • jm4847, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1You download it for free, you convert it to mp3 and you can use it wherever you want and they will never know.
          • 80hd, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2So we should use their platform, just to circumvent it? What's the point of the extra effort? The inevitable outcome is that Microsoft will get bitched at when the Qtrax team catches on to people transcoding and things will lock down further.
            Right now, I download an album, and then iTunes checks my bittorrent folder every few minutes for new stuff. I drop my iPod in the cradle, and new music automatically makes its way into my mixes based on rating, genre etc.
            The last thing I want to do is transcode massive piles of music, checking the whole thing for duplicates, constantly wading through warez sites to update my wma ripper etc.
            No this is complete crap and does nothing to show that the RIAA understands what it takes to get respect and cooperation from their 'customers'.
          • 80hd, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1The problem is that the recording industry is not trying to force you to pay for music. Commercial radio takes subsidies from studios to promote music. THAT is the problem. The recording industry is freaking out because the internet gives studios no clear measure of exactly what people are listening to, and more importantly, no way to give listeners a hard push to the top ten list like it's been in the past.

            No it's not that we're pissed about the creative side of things. It's the social manipulation that is so ***** wrong. I don't want to be monitored like a guinea pig so that marketing can try and guess what to mimic and then shove down my throat next season. I want to listen to, and discover, real, well written, genuinely good music.
            Worste yet - the recording industry wants to charge me fillet mignon prices for a slight change up on the plain hamburger.
            ***** that noise.
      • jetsetter883, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3it seems so obvious, jm4847, but people like 80hd will continue to complain.
    • rpatel11, on 01/28/2008, -1/+8tunebite
      • reaper527, on 01/28/2008, -1/+8at that point, you are probably violating the TOS on the music service by removing the DRM. at this point it is no more legal then a torrent download.
        • Butros, on 01/28/2008, -1/+8Yeah but you can't get caught
        • doshindude, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1it's impossible to trace, however. Just like using Audacity to record your PC speakers and capture the audio; no downloading required.
        • reaper527, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1my point wasn't about if you could get caught, my point is why bother? if its still illegal, and torrents are simpler, i see no point in adding the extra step of removing DRM
      • peestandingup, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1myFair Tunes for Windows & iTunes 7.5. I just un-DRM'ed my entire iTunes library in a matter of minutes & deleted what little DRM shows I still had lying around.

        ***** that *****. I'm done with DRM. Feels good to be free.
    • secrity, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4More like it doesn't support the iPod; it also doesn't support Linux / Unix
    • TeacherOfHeroes, on 01/28/2008, -3/+3More like the *iPod* doesn't support *it*. As far as I know, apple doesn't license fairplay to anyone else.

      If your digital audio player is missing some features, blame the manufacturer, not people who make use of those features.
      • lazyslacker, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1With the iPod as ubiquitous as it is, I think we've reached a point where software developers are going to have to cater to Apple, not the other way around. With the majority of portable music players now being iPods, Apple has the option to dictate what they'll support. As a software developer you can take it or leave it, but if you want your product to appeal to all those iPod owners, you'll make it iPod compatible. It just makes good business sense.
  • prosciutto, on 01/28/2008, -11/+9i dont know if they will make as much just on advertising, but hope this thing works out.
    • bagelmaster, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4they'll make more than $0
    • blackmage439, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1Some stupid teeny-bobber bitch (no offense, I'm just jealous and flabbergasted) is currently making millions off advertising by running a site dedicated to creating Myspace profiles...
    • lazyslacker, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1most websites' sole source of income is ads. It's expensive to run a website, and most of them still make a profit. Ads are money makers.
  • kneeofwisdom, on 01/28/2008, -22/+1Now my good man, what do you like to play? Pokeyman? Pokeyman, with the pokey and the man?
    • darny, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1He has telled many great figures, gentleperson ladies and youngties!
  • mbawg, on 01/28/2008, -5/+31Probably too good to be true. The recording industry has yet to "get it right."
    • steveboutin, on 01/28/2008, -1/+7yeah, this seems like some kind of trick - there's no way they'd just up and decide they were wrong the whole time.
    • WaterDragon, on 01/28/2008, -0/+9According to this article, it is NOT TRUE at all!
      http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23121891-1702 ...
    • GhostyBoy, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Sorry I'm a musician and I have to be particular here: The MUSIC industry will probably never get it right, but the RECORDING industry, populated by producers, engineers, hardware and software designers etc...every single time you hear a song you like, that's the recording industry getting it right. Then somw dicks in marketing or whatever screw it all up for the consumer.
  • Malevolant, on 01/28/2008, -2/+41I can't DL it yet but is it only streaming to your pc or can you actually DL the song?
    Any DRM?
    Mozilla browser only is surprising but cool.
    Call me paranoid, but until someone reverse engineers the binairies, I am a bit paranoid to install it. I simply do not trust anyone, or anything, affiliated with records labels.
    I will take a wait and see approach, until this application proves itself to be on the up and up, and not a wolf in sheep's clothing.
    • t3soro, on 01/28/2008, -3/+28RTFA there is drm.
      the record companies still dont get it.
    • ronaldinho, on 01/28/2008, -2/+3Yes, there are DRMs. Well, the record companies are reluctantly embracing this, so like Malevolant said, it's best to take a wait-and-see approach. As for myself, I'm not even going to trust them and will just keep finding torrents when I needed certain media. The big labels can't do ***** about it, that's for sure
      • sassafras1232, on 01/28/2008, -4/+5Comment buried for pluralizing DRM. "Digital Rights Managements"?
    • knight666, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty paranoid about you using paranoid in the same sentence twice.
      I think you're trying to reverse psychologise me into thinking you're NOT paranoid and are really all okay with it.
      In fact... I think you're one of THEM!
  • MarkCiccone, on 01/28/2008, -8/+13Wow this is pretty unbelievable... I still think too good to be true!
    • gwhardyiv, on 01/28/2008, -0/+6It isn't that good, and it isn't that true.
  • mbawg, on 01/28/2008, -5/+80
    Read the fine print... Can anyone say entrapment?


    As a condition of your license to use QTRAX/QTRAXMAX, you warrant to us that you will not use QTRAX/QTRAXMAX for any purpose that is unlawful or prohibited by these terms and conditions or under the applicable law of the land in which you reside.
    We have no control over the information and data being disseminated or contained on any Gnutella network. You are ultimately responsible for the material you choose to upload, download and share with others. You will be personally liable for downloading and/or sharing infringing materials or copyrighted works.
    We are, however, conscious of the legal issues involving sharing of certain types of files and ultimately these issues will be decided by the Courts or an Act of Parliament/Congress.

    In the mean time, however, we expect all users of QTRAX/QTRAXMAX to comply with applicable laws, to respect the moral and legal rights of copyright authors and owners, and to use the Gnutella network in a responsible and law abiding way. While ideas are not fully protectable (only the expression of ideas), users who do share their own ideas with others expect others not to steal their protected works. THEREFORE, DO NOT STEAL FILE TYPES WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWFUL RIGHT TO OWN OR USE.
    • steveboutin, on 01/28/2008, -1/+8probably they give you access to the music, but it's so embedded with DRM and other malware that they'll know (and prosecute) the second you try to A) upload it to a P2P. B) burn it to a cd. C) put it on your ipod, etc...
      i still don't trust these corporations - they care about nothing but money.
      • smoger, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1i think the point of this being a P2P in the first place is so you can help distribute these files(i would assume, ONLY on THIS netwotk)
      • PrettyMuchBryce, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2as opposed to other corporations who only care about your happiness and well-being
        • steveboutin, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1point. this is why i'm not a businessman. i'm a pothead.
    • Baltiman, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Its not entrapment, although the DRM is sneaky. That's because when you use it in accordance with the long-winded and difficult to understand legal jargon that constitute the terms and conditions, you are using it legally.
    • codgod04, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4"In the mean time, however, we expect all users of QTRAX/QTRAXMAX to comply with applicable laws, to respect the moral and legal rights of copyright authors and owners, and to use the Gnutella network in a responsible and law abiding way".

      Umm... correct me if i'm wrong, but last time I checked, Gnutella is the same network used as P2P clients such as (formerly) Limewire, shareaza, frostwire, ect... that being said, I think that the **AAs would prefer engineering their software to ONLY look for qtrax files, and not the loose MP3s cluttered all over the place.

      so THIS being said, what is stopping people from using other p2p software, and getting everything, including the DRM-less mp3s as WELL as Qtrax files, and bypassing that silly '' We Want Your Info!" bit from the qtrax software?
  • ravage86, on 01/28/2008, -2/+93"Nor is a lack of compatibility with the iPod player expected to put fans off. Apple is unlikely to allow tracks downloaded from its rival to be compatible with iPods..."

    It would work fine if you released MP3s.

    Seriously, why have drm if its free anyways? Why does the music industry always insist on being such a pain in the ass.
    • yunus, on 01/28/2008, -1/+5Exactly, if you want stats about what I listen to then release an mp3 player that connects to the internet and reports my listening habits. Sell it to me at half the price it should be and I will buy it and you can have all the listening habit info you want.
    • Endemoniada, on 01/28/2008, -1/+9Well, the reason is pretty legit. They want to be able to count the times you've played the songs on your computer, so that they can award more money to the more popular artists. Sounds fair and all, but there are better ways to do it than through DRM. Just look at Last.fm. They're already doing exactly this, without DRM.
      • ronaldinho, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1The only thing about last.fm is that now they give you full-length tracks, but they only allow you to listen to it three times before you subscribe to it, which is not bad anyway and has been what some of us are vouching for all along. Last.fm is a godsend
    • Baltiman, on 01/28/2008, -2/+2Because they want as much money as they can possibly get their hands on. They dont care about you, they dont care about being fair, they dont care about the bands or the noise they make. They just want people to show them the money.
      DRM is way of ensuring that they get it.
    • bdbr, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Sure, you don't need DRM to track plays, but without it you'd get a completely bogus play count. Most people would just play MP3s with Winamp or iTunes (or whatever player they like), and it'd never get counted. They'd play it on their MP3 player or car stereo, and it'd never get counted. All you could track is downloads, and it'd be the same number whether it was listened to thousands of times or not at all.
  • Hobolord, on 01/28/2008, -12/+11Meanwhile, in the HALL OF JUSTICE...
  • drizzlelicious, on 01/28/2008, -7/+1Sounds a lot like Ruckus, with more songs. Awesome
  • dlichteman, on 01/28/2008, -19/+53Windows only, Mac OSX beta comes later(march 18). Once again those of us not running windows get ***** by the long dick of DRM.
    • bjornski, on 01/28/2008, -10/+43Or maybe they're focusing on the 90% of the market first, while working on the other 10% soon after.

      They're not leaving you out, they're working on it, and you yourself showed that. But I guess since you didn't get it FIRST, it's a big conspiracy.

      Seriously, Mac users just have to bitch about everything, don't they?
      • RustyJ, on 01/28/2008, -2/+22It's actually instrumental to our sustinence.

        We don't survive without 2 hours of whining about poorly ported software every day. Then we all like to beat off onto iPhones.

        every one of us.
      • Endemoniada, on 01/28/2008, -1/+16They seem to be ignoring Linux users, or any user that doesn't run Windows or Mac... If they'd just cut the damn mandatory bloatware and DRM, ANYONE could buy and listen to ANY SONG on ANY SYSTEM they wanted. It's so ridiculously easy, yet so enormously hard for them to grasp.
        • Soosed, on 01/28/2008, -1/+0Because Linux users until now had no idea how to download music on the internet.
      • manitoba98xp, on 01/28/2008, -2/+6And yet their iPod solution is delayed. That's what, 60, 70% of the MP3 player market?
        • bjornski, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2If you read the numbers posted in the article, it's 50 million out of 130 million units.

          So closer to 40% Not going to d the math to get exact.

          And if you read about the service, it's not being aimed at them right now anyway. You'll have to listen to them ON your computer.
      • jetsetter883, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2agreed x10
    • zongamin, on 01/28/2008, -11/+4Shut up. You can wait 6 weeks can't you? You idiot.
    • iancorey, on 01/28/2008, -7/+1Who said he was a Mac? This dweeb's got Ubuntu written all over him.
      Besides, this is a bunch of *****.
    • skyshock1, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2VMWare fusion. Google it.
    • berlinbullet, on 01/28/2008, -1/+0The long dick of DRM.. protruding from the saggy balls of Steve Jobs...
  • bpacana, on 01/28/2008, -1/+21The splash page of QTRAX.COM has a picture of a hand flipping the bird! Wonder what that means.
  • daxsymbiont, on 01/28/2008, -2/+20what's the catch.

    these are companies, the fundamental reason of their existence is the generation of profit. economics 101.
    • markdr123, on 01/28/2008, -1/+9Ad revenue.
      • daxsymbiont, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2like tv. (unless you pay licence in countries like uk).
        • Jektal, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2TV is subscription (unless over-the-air, which is rare in most of the US) + Ad revenue
    • inkpooldesign, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3they want to hurt competition - apple. (don't know that it will work)
    • bdbr, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1From what I can see (haven't had a chance to try it yet), the catch is they will be getting music off other users' computers. So if you're looking for a rare track, it may not be out there. If a lot of people don't use Qtrax, there may not be much music out there either.

      Another possible catch is where the DRM'd copy originates from. When you import your music into Qtrax, is it going to hog disk space with DRM'd WMA copies?
    • amishjim, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1if you read the article you'd know what the catch is. . . .. .. .
  • Jenadae, on 01/28/2008, -0/+177Ad-supported? Last time i installed something like that i had a purple ape telling me where to shop.
    • bjornski, on 01/28/2008, -6/+1Install Ad-Muncher.

      It blocks ads from more than just your browser.

      Best software I've ever paid for.
    • skippy562, on 01/28/2008, -4/+2bonzo?? was that his name? bozo or something...that purple ape that sang daisy ...daisy something something something.....damn i have a bad memory.
    • blackmage439, on 01/28/2008, -0/+32BONZAI BUDDY!!!

      I hated that little *****...
    • magicaltrevor, on 01/28/2008, -0/+10Ah, 90's Internet...
    • novemberdream07, on 01/28/2008, -1/+7bonzi buddy! i thought he was so cute! i was also like 11...
  • BillDoE, on 01/28/2008, -1/+46Qtrax says "No Adware".
    LA Times says "The service scours pirate networks for songs, then delivers them as downloads to the computers of fans willing to have ads play while they listen"
    "Although the downloads will reside on the users' computers, they will have some rights restrictions. At least initially, users wont' be able to listen to songs without the player filling the screen and showing ads. They will be able to use the Internet simultaneously only in a window within the player."
    • BillDoE, on 01/28/2008, -0/+19Shoot, I forgot to mention that they lied and these record companies haven't even signed the agreement yet.
    • DarkDx, on 01/28/2008, -6/+10I DO NOT want to download the crappy rips that are available in the gnutella network, and I'm not talking about kbps, they sound crappy even at 256kbps
      • blackmage439, on 01/28/2008, -4/+3Jeez, look at Mr. audiophile here. 256Kbps? That sounds more than enough for 99% of the market...
        • jpmoney03, on 01/28/2008, -0/+7He meant they are poorly encoded and that even at a good bit rate sound bad.
    • angelces, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2oh ***** that!
    • CountBlah, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4I'd rather rob an actual music store than put up with that.
    • TeacherOfHeroes, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1I wonder how mac or linux ports would handle that, since they have virtual desktops
  • lithos76, on 01/28/2008, -0/+22Found this in another article about Qtrax:
    "Downloads however come with copy-protection technology known as digital-rights management, or DRM, to prevent users from burning copies to a CD and calculate how to divvy up advertising sales with labels.
    Qtrax downloads can be stored indefinitely on PCs and transferred onto portable music players, however."

    The man is watching you baby
    • Baltiman, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1What is the point of allowing people to listen to music on their mp3 players but not burn them to CD to, say, listen-to in the car or back-up from HDD?
      truly bizarre...
      • smoger, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3..because once a track is put onto a cd, it has no drm and can be ripped as a normal mp3 file, which can then, in turn, be distributed illegally.
      • bdbr, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1I think the point is, you haven't bought it yet.
  • ThankTheCheese, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3This sort of thing sounds great, but I have to wonder -- how is the artist being paid in all this? Will the record companies share the advertising revenue with the artists? and if so, how do they decide how much to give each artist?
    • DBNKR, on 01/28/2008, -1/+4Just proves it was never about the artist. The company is just like any other company. They are in it for the company owners profit, not the artist. The artist is just the tool to get money.
    • KaneElson, on 01/28/2008, -1/+5Read the article? How can you even comment on how this is such a great idea when you obviously didn't even read the page?
      It clearly says that the artist gets a proportion of advertising revenue based on their popularity.
    • tmslak, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1....Did you even read the article???
  • chaon93, on 01/28/2008, -6/+1OMG the world is ending. This one of the signs of the apocalypse i tell you! Run while you still can.
    • optimuscrime, on 01/28/2008, -0/+5Where do you run to when the world is ending?
      • chaon93, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1In circles of course! how else are you supposed to get to safty.
  • complexigon, on 01/28/2008, -8/+71The site says "No Adware" as a selling point, but it's ad-supported which makes is adware by definition. Isn't this false advertising?
    • treeflappa, on 01/28/2008, -2/+24Adware are different to ad's. Adware resides in your pc, ad's are merely visual.
      • complexigon, on 01/28/2008, -1/+4Qtrax is a program with embedded ads. That is adware. It also records statistics, i.e. spyware.
      • tmslak, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Bingo. It's pretty much malware with a pretty face.
  • Charlatan22, on 01/28/2008, -0/+131I bet this is gonna suck. I'll stick to my good old fashioned pirating.
    • zongamin, on 01/28/2008, -28/+3What kind of idiot are you? Even given the chance to get music for free, legally, you choose to pirate it? Please die.
      • renegadeafk, on 01/28/2008, -0/+16"Although the downloads will reside on the users' computers, they will have some rights restrictions. At least initially, users wont' be able to listen to songs without the player filling the screen and showing ads. They will be able to use the Internet simultaneously only in a window within the player."
        Nuff said.
        Umm, I think I'd rather pirate.
        • Barbosa, on 01/28/2008, -0/+5Agreed. As much as I'd like to get on board and use Qtrax, the restrictions on burning along with the DRM makes the service unusable to me.
        • snyperr2s, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2You do realize your on digg right? I think almost everyone here would rather pirate than have DRM ***** on their computer.
  • luma, on 01/28/2008, -0/+12Looking at their Feature Page: http://www.qtrax.com/features.php I notice that the software itself appears to be running Songbird (http://www.songbirdnest.com/ - mozilla's FOSS answer to iTunes). Interesting stuff...
    • secrity, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3If it is Songbird, I wonder if they are making their source code available.
      • Bossman1086, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah, Songbird is released under the GPL license. If Qtrax is using Songbird as the base, they must be required to give their source code, right?
        • secrity, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Ayup, although there are ways around releasing all of the useful bits; TiVo is a good example of this.
      • jon30041, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1In the FAQ, it says it's open source.

        Granted, I'm no code junkie... so... the technical stuff isn't really my turf, as such.
  • Xocide, on 01/28/2008, -5/+25Live Free (of DRM) or Die Hard.
  • supermajic, on 01/28/2008, -0/+49I think I'll wait and see. Something about this seems extremely fishy.
  • mightyjlr, on 01/28/2008, -8/+53"...but, while the iPod is the most popular music player, it has not succeeded in dominating the market..."

    umm, I'm pretty sure the iPod is dominating the market...
    • fmoliveira, on 01/28/2008, -0/+12They're rare here in Brazil. Here cheaper players took over.
    • LadyA, on 01/28/2008, -4/+13Well, I'm pretty sure it isn't.

      There are much better alternatives to the iPod, and whilst I don't want to get into a debate about it, I feel that it is surpassed by a great deal of mp3 players out there. Ones that you can replace the battery on without taking the damn thing back for example.
      • misterFR33ZE, on 01/28/2008, -3/+13The only thing the Ipod is dominating is the advertising market which gives us that false impression...
      • darny, on 01/28/2008, -5/+3we're not talking about batteries, or which player is better, we're talking about which player has sold millions of units and which players haven't even come close.
        • bjornski, on 01/28/2008, -2/+3Having over 50% of the market would be dominating the market. You know, like Microsoft does on computers.

          Having a bit over a third of the market isn't dominating. Doing well? Yes, very. Dominating? Hardly.
      • gwhardyiv, on 01/28/2008, -7/+6Good logic.

        P1) I hate iPods.
        P2) I don't have one.
        P3) I'm smarter than you.
        Therefore, iPod is not the dominant player on the market.
    • bjornski, on 01/28/2008, -2/+8C'mon, post the rest of that sentence. You know, the part that has NUMBERS in it.

      "but, while the iPod is the most popular music player, it has not succeeded in dominating the market: sales of the iPod account for 50 million out of 130 million total digital player sales."

      It's sold 50 million out of 130 million.

      That's hardly dominating the market.
      • leif77, on 01/28/2008, -2/+2how is that NOT dominating the market. The ipod is distributed by one company. Lets say at the very least that 80 million is represented by 3 companies evenly. This would mean that each company has a little less than 27 million in sales... vs. 50 million... now factor in the fact that the rest of the market outside of the ipod is populated by far more than just 3 companies, each holding a different share of those sales. Any auto company would claim dominance if they had those kind of numbers.
        • brettmurf, on 01/28/2008, -1/+0I have been kind of wondering the same thing leif77. I would venture to say that there isn't a single other type of mp3 player that has even a quarter of the sales the ipod does. Seems rather dominant to me.
      • Chirp08, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1im hoping bjornski was being sarcastic, i'm just hoping.
      • joegibes, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1...in the US, Apple has seventy-plus percent of the MP3 player market.
    • ...---..., on 01/28/2008, -2/+3They must have been including all of the bubble gum machine and Cap'n Crunch mp3 player key chains as units "dominating" ipods.

      Hahahahahahaha!!!!!
      • bjornski, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1So a player has to cost a certain amount or be purchased in a certain way to count?

        If someone wants to get an MP3 player from Captain Crunch instead of the Apple store, it still counts as a lost sale for Apple. It doesn't matter if that player holds 50 songs vs the 10000 an iPod can hold. That's like trying to count cars and saying "HAHAHA! Those cars don't count, they were bought used and only have FOUR cylinders!"

        It's still a lost sale for Apple. Someone decided to use something else.
    • nblsavage, on 01/28/2008, -2/+4but, but I thought iTunes/Ipod were an evil monopoly....at last that's what the anti-Apple jackasses on Digg say.
    • bdbr, on 01/28/2008, -3/+5I don't know where they're getting their numbers, and they don't bother to say. NPD estimates the market every March. March 2007 was like this:

      Rank Brand Unit Share
      1 Apple 72.7%
      2 Sandisk 8.9%
      3 Microsoft 3.2%
      4 Creative Labs 2.9%
      5 Samsung 2.0%

      Sounds pretty dominant to me. Every freakin' teenager in America wants an iPod. Not an MP3 player...an iPod.

      From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory ...
    • Inquisition, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3That's because Apple succeeded in making the ubiquitous term "i-Pod" synonymous with "mp3 player." Much in the same way that "Coke" or "Pepsi" has repplaced the term "cola" "soda" or "pop" (depending on what part of the country you live in.)
      The link was bad, so I couldn't read the article you are refering to.
      Teenagers usually don't do a lot of research before they buy things anyway. So I would'nt doubt that a teenager might refer to any mp3 player as an "iPod" for the reason stated above.
  • underthesun, on 01/28/2008, -1/+26"Warner, UMG, EMI: No Deals With Free Music Service QTrax (WMG)"
    http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/01/warner-were-no ...

    Also, it was supposed to be launched by now and still isn't available... suspicious?
    • bdbr, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1What I want to know is how they got agreement from all the independent labels. I couldn't give a ***** less about the vast majority of music put out by the RIAA labels (Warner, UMG, EMI, Sony), and I really want nothing to do with them until they start behaving better.
  • pope7, on 01/28/2008, -6/+8Wow, this is a *****. If this is easy, doesn't bother me with sound ads or out-of-program ads, and is fast, I absolutely cannot justify music piracy anymore.
    A couple things. The article makes it sounds like the DRM is non-obtrusive. Come on, can we really expect completely DRM-less files? SOMETHING has to be in the file to tell the system which files are being played how often so that the popular artists are getting their due.
    If the DRM limits playback or anything, then we can complain, but if the DRM just updates on how often it's used, jesus, they may have found the perfect middle ground. If this becomes popular, the first major MP3 player to support the files will have a huge boost in sales.
    I'm wary, but i'm going to try this the instant it's available. huge props, music industry. the site's even attractive. let's hope you didn't miss the point, and that this'll work in iPods and Zunes in the near future.
    • pbaehr, on 01/28/2008, -0/+11Why not just track the number of times a song was downloaded instead? You know...like CD sales? When someone buys a CD they don't have to make a phone call once a month to report how often they listened to it.

      I'm not saying this idea isn't at least a step in the right direction but you'll have to excuse me for meeting it with extreme skepticism based on who is delivering it.
      • Netrilix, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Well, the problem there is that if people can share files between eachother, there is no overall download count. If everyone got their files from the original source it would work great, but the only way to ensure that is... DRM.
    • ours, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Ever heard of Musicbrainz? It tracks the songs I listen to, no DRM needed. DRM will always be an obstacle no matter how you turn it.
    • Endemoniada, on 01/28/2008, -0/+7For me, the problem is this: I don't mind paying for music. The RIAA tell me every day that I'm a cheapskate pirate who doesn't want to pay, but it's simply not true. What I don't want to do is pay too much, or pay for something that is worthless due to DRM and restrictions.
      I WANT to buy things legally, I just don't want to get robbed while I do it.
      • smoger, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3..so if DRM makes music worthless, then this service has the perfect price.. does it not?
  • porygon111, on 01/28/2008, -1/+36I'm going to stick with torrents. They are already perfect.
  • laaabaseball, on 01/28/2008, -1/+34DRM MUSIC IS CRAP! I'D RATHER PAY A NOMINAL FEE THAN HAVE TO DEAL WITH DRM *****!

    [and now i go back to TPB]
    • zongamin, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1So why not just use emusic then?
      You're a liar.
      • Mike89, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3Probably doesn't have the music he wants.
    • twiztidsinz, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3You and all others like you are missing the point.
      If you -LEGALLY- want DRM Free music, go buy it,
      If you -LEGALLY- want FREE music, get it DRM'd from a place like SpiralFrog or QTrax.
      But you can't get FREE music with NO DRM legally (If I'm wrong, please by all means tell me).
      • tr0gd0rr, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2"Go buy it" sounds easy, but that is the root of the problem. I live in the US but have wanted music that I couldn't find in stores. For example, one album that was not in stores was online in one UK store for $42. I decided to download it instead.
        And what about folks who live in rural areas or other countries where very little music is for sale? They can't just "go buy it" as you say.
        And what about the fact that I've bought the Metallica Black CD album 5 times in High School? Yes, the cd got scratched once, stolen twice, and lost once! If I had a computer to make a legal backup, that would have saved me $50+. And the irony is that now the 5th disc sits in a dusty box because I don't even like that type of music anymore.
        But the worst part looking back is the feeling of helplessness when you scratch a cd or get it stolen and realize that all you bought was a piece of plastic. The allure of digital music is that you own the right to listen to the music.
        Analogy: Imagine if you went to a movie theater and the film reel broke so the movie couldn't be shown. You'd get your money back, right? But what if the theater manager wouldn't refund your money, arguing that the ticket doesn't give the right to see the movie, only a right to a seat in the theater for 2 hours. Selling plastic CDs gives customers the same feeling of helplessness when something goes wrong.
        It is a natural part of the digital age to expect a bunch of ones and zeros to be delivered through the Internet instead of on some brittle piece of plastic. Our kids will laugh at us in disbelief when we tell them we had to drive to a store to buy a CD.
        The root problem of DRM is the same. There is a feeling of helplessness when DRM prevents you from listening at the time or on the media you desire for an album that you've already paid for.
        • twiztidsinz, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2I hear that....
          I'm a fan of Japanese Rock bands like BUCK-TICK, X-Japan and HIDE. I own more than a few CDs from Japan that I had to spend about $30~$50 each on PLUS shipping. if I ever lost one I honestly dont feel like spending MORE money to replace them and would most likely download it and since I cant find any music service that has those artists, I'd "have to" resort to Torrents.
          I cant tell you how many duplicate CDs (and DVDs) Ive bought because they got scratched or "borrowed" and never returned I know theres one DVD I've bought about 6 times now because so many have borrowed it
      • Bahranzuru, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1I, personally, am willing to watch/listen to advertisements to obtain FREE and LEGAL music with NO DRM. You know, like a radio, but with songs I specifically choose. As long as the ads are non-obtrusive, of course.
  • rockrodger, on 01/28/2008, -2/+6Isn't sharing caring?
  • gummih, on 01/28/2008, -2/+104I’m amazed that people would steal James Blunt's music
    • markdr123, on 01/28/2008, -3/+14True, but I love what he said at the press conference:
      “I’m amazed that we now accept that people steal music. I was taught not to steal sweets from a sweet shop."

      Insulting the project he's helping to promote - classic.
      • bagelmaster, on 01/28/2008, -1/+7Yet another d-bag in the music industry who doesn't DESERVE the money he has...
    • bubba9999, on 01/28/2008, -1/+5He isn't affected by this, since they're only providing music.
    • Mike89, on 01/28/2008, -0/+13I'm amazed that people would pay for it.
  • Tiak, on 01/28/2008, -2/+49Am I the only one that was expecting this story to be from the onion?...
    • mrdiggdude, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1i thought so too until i saw the url
  • mCanada, on 01/28/2008, -0/+10I don't like the DRM one bit, but I hate to say it.. The evil from the deep is learning to adapt. morphing, changing. As much as I'd love to slam any record company (RiAA) backed product, this one may be half decent. I will however withhold judgment until I see it. I've always said OiNK could have been the greatest commercial music venture ever, it would have dwarfed and destroyed iTunes. All the labels had to have said to OiNK was "please put some adsense on the site / share it with us". Poof OiNK is an incredible revenue stream. Perhaps this venture is why they never did?
  • thegarner, on 01/28/2008, -3/+41"The singer James Blunt gave Qtrax a cautious welcome. “I’m amazed that we now accept that people steal music,” he said. “I was taught not to steal sweets from a sweet shop.”

    No-one cares what James Blunt thinks
    • misterFR33ZE, on 01/28/2008, -6/+3He's right to be skeptical. Maybe you should pay attention.
      • bullcutter, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1??? you also make countless millions of dollars a year?? that's the only way to rationally justify why you would leave that comment. personally i can't believe he's made 10 cents.
    • bubba9999, on 01/28/2008, -1/+4I thought that he liked kittens, but I have to kill one whenever one of his songs come on.
    • Baltiman, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3I'd rather have the sweets.
    • DonkeyTonk, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4James Blunt is such a James Blunt
      • joshuasawyer, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1It's too bad he feels that way. I downloaded his latest CD on evilshare before it was out because I like his music. Musicians make plenty of money appearing on TV and having multi-million dollar concert tours. Music should be free.
    • bdbr, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1It just goes to show how little artists understand the market. Its not that they're stupid; they're probably just more interested in making music.
    • ssj2119, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1Yeah seriously, every time I hear about one of the labels doing something digital, James blunt comes up - he's obviously the digital Guinea pig
  • pabloD, on 01/28/2008, -2/+27Here's a catch, FTA:
    "As with iTunes, customers will have to download Qtrax software. They will own the songs permanently but will be encouraged to “dock” their player with the store every 30 days so it can gather information on which songs have been played."
    What's wrong with regular ol' mp3's? Oh, that's right, you relinquish all control over your sheep—er, customers.
    No thanks, you fail.
    • IndigoMoss, on 01/28/2008, -2/+11It's still not a bad deal. A legal and free way to download a ton of music. It's a lot better than suing their customers and if you don't like it, then just don't use it. I definitely can't wait to try it out, I have crap for money (student), so this should be awesome.
      • misterFR33ZE, on 01/28/2008, -2/+3WAIT. Doesn't matter what they say. At this point they could be lying about everything. It hasn't been confirmed that they inked deals with any of the major labels.
    • Jaded2250, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2Because this way at least the artist should get a fair chance at getting their fair share of the profit?
    • twiztidsinz, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2So basically.... it checks your Last.FM Profile page every 30 days?
  • Brok3nflag, on 01/28/2008, -1/+16I'm not getting on this band wagon till this pans out, seems odd
  • RP53, on 01/28/2008, -1/+27Remember kids, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.
  • IndigoMoss, on 01/28/2008, -1/+6I have a question, will you be able to put this on a Zune? It doesn't really say what type of DRM it is, so I'm guessing it could be WMA? This would be a huge incentive on purchasing a Zune for me.
    • cs188, on 01/28/2008, -2/+5Indeed, I'm wondering this too. By the way, I'm the proud owner of a new Zune 80gb, and I must say it's spectacular compared to any ipod!
    • smoger, on 01/28/2008, -2/+4the very premise of a zune makes it better than an ipod.. it doesn't convert your files to a format that no other player can play, and it's marketplace(while costing the same as itunes), is entirely(?) drm free mp3's. throw in wireless, a much nicer screen, radio tuner, and a competitive price, and what's not to like?
      • verevi, on 01/28/2008, -0/+5Microsoft?
      • Balanced, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Some issues with your post:

        > it doesn't convert your files to a format that no other player can play,

        The iPod doesn't. It plays AAC, MP3, and a few other formats. I thought the Zune did (for the 'Social' features, at least) but this may be a 1.0 feature they later changed.

        >and it's marketplace(while costing the same as itunes), is entirely(?) drm free mp3's.

        Again, I am pretty sure the Zune songs have DRM. They did last article I read.

        >throw in wireless, a much nicer screen, radio tuner, and a competitive price, and what's not to like?

        The iPod Touch has wireless and a much nicer screen. Radio Tuner is a fair point if that's a big deal for you. It's true that the Touch has a whole bunch of other concerns: I bought a iPod Classic as a gift because the person i gave it too doesn't have her own computer, and I wanter her to be able to keep enough music on it between getting access to mine to load new songs. The screens on the Zune and then-current iPod were actually said to be the same resolution with a slight difference in actual viewable size.

        Cost is interesting, At the time I checked this, Amazon.com had 80gig iPod Classics for sale for about $10 less than 80gig Zunes.

        So, in summary, you're almost but not entirely wrong.
    • bdbr, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3More likely its PlaysForSure, which is WMA but doesn't work on the Zune. The Zune has its own DRM, so DRM that works on anything else won't likely work on the Zune.
    • Inquisition, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1If it IS Play for Sure, I'll check it out....If I don't like the format, or is unplayable on My Archos 605 (Tons better than iPod Touch) I won't use it.
      What about some program like FairUse4DRM? If itt was DOWNLOADED legally, but DRM is removed, it would be impossible to catch. Unless they could use some argument like "They downloaded 100 songs, but haven't listened to a single one according to our spyware." as grounds for a lawsuit.
  • jazzfudge, on 01/28/2008, -3/+27Labels back away from Qtrax.

    THREE of the "big four" record labels have reportedly denied signing any deals with free music download service Qtrax....

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23121891-1702 ...

    It was 2 good to be true... Just have to wait and see now what happens.
  • pigfister, on 01/28/2008, -7/+23Advertising is fine but drm isn't

    why bother to jump through hoops ppl

    http://thepiratebay.org/
    http://www.mininova.org/
    http://www.youtorrent.com/
    http://suprnova.org/

    Slyck's guide on torrents: http://www.slyck.com/bt.php
    • gummih, on 01/28/2008, -6/+3Just get DRM free mp3s and pay for them
    • pigfister, on 01/28/2008, -0/+6@ gummih

      once the RIAA/IFPI quit forcing companies to global price fix (as they did with iTunes in europe) charging extortionate rates for content that is cheaper to distribute and crippling music with either DRM or crappy codecs then maybe ppl will be encouraged to do so. The gatekeepers are losing control and this is actually a good thing for our culture.
  • dtele, on 01/28/2008, -0/+22According to this article, the big three music companies HAVE NOT signed deals & Sony has not replied. http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,2564 ...
  • thegiraffe, on 01/28/2008, -2/+33I'm reposting research from somethingawful.com user Meggido here:
    "I almost cannot believe the ***** that some media outlets have swallowed from this company. Here's what I've gathered, and I should point out that I know virtually nothing about financial markets, filings, etc. For starters, Brilliant Technologies tried to use a struggling Georgia-based flooring company called The Flooring Zone (a failed laminate flooring chain of all things) as a shell to get an OTCBB securities listing. That deal fell through and Brilliant Technologies is still listed on the Pink Sheets, a high-risk securities listing for developmental and small ventures that aren't required to submit filings to the SEC or be audited. They can't get on the OTCBB themselves because they have been late submitting three filings with the SEC, hence they tried (unsuccessfully) to hoodwink the poor folks at The Flooring Zone, who need cash desperately, but not desperately enough to deal with these guys.

    The filings they have made consistently state that they have "entered into" deals with EMI, WMG, and SonyBMG (the implication being copyright holders, not publishers), though they also claim to have made deals with majors' publishing rights arms. But the next paragraph says that all that is necessary to launch is "...finalizing Agreements with the Major Labels which is expected in the near term." And they don't even claim to have a deal with ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. Then much later in the filing they list the actual agreements, all of which deal solely with music publishing rights, not with rights to distribute copyrighted content - and they are in default on some of the agreed payments.

    But by far the best part is that their Director (accountant?) Chai Ong has an MBA from "Canada."

    Apparently the only 30 million this company will ever be associated with is the $30 million they've lost since 1999."

    Looks like an investor scam.
    • funk49, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Nice point...If they don't have ASCAP & BMI, how in the hell will there be accurate distribution of royalties to the artists? I'm with you, this smells like a scam and announcing they have deals in place when they don't makes them look shady.
    • PxCxG, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2I agree that there is some fishiness with this company, but to be fair, just because they are listed in the pink sheets doesn't mean they are high risk. It just means they are illiquid...and many such companies are not high risk.
  • DarkDx, on 01/28/2008, -2/+81IT'S A TRAP
    • DestroyFascism, on 01/28/2008, -0/+6DRM spywarez.....
      • Hobolord, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Our adblockers cannot repel firepower of this magnitude!
        • CountBlah, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design. Your friends, up there on the pirate bay, are walking into a trap, as are your torrent seeders. It was I who allowed the alliance to know the location of the website. It is quite safe from your pitiful little band. An entire legion of my best lawyers await them. Oh, I'm afraid the DRM will be quite operational when your friends arrive.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah I could see how that might happen. I still hate the idea of DRM music files.
    • mergedwarrior, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Our PC's can't repel scam of the magnitude!
  • richardPM, on 01/28/2008, -2/+5haven't used it yet, but already giving mad props for choosing to put a daft punk concert pic on the main page!
  • sonicvince, on 01/28/2008, -6/+3I'll agree to use this kind of thing when they'll have decent quality (no stinking MP3).

    Please people, this should be a main issue. MP3's don't sound good. They sound so bad that nowadays music is recorded with mp3 compression in mind which makes it sound like ***** even on the goddamn CD.

    Give me the same with flac I'm in.

    As for the DRM nay-sayers, in this case, the article says it's to be able to track how many times a song is dl/played in order to actually you know, like, pay the artist. Because after all they get more screwed than us listeners. Really.
    So in this case maybe DRM is the only choice. I guess it would be easy to see how many times a song is downloaded but not played. Still that's stinky drm and they'll probably use it for other things.
    Does it prevent copying in this case?
    • shredswithpiks, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1artists are getting screwed but it's not by listeners...
    • jetsetter883, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2you're an idiot. a V0 mp3 sounds the exact same as FLAC. have fun filling up 2GB of your hard drive with four albums.
  • misterFR33ZE, on 01/28/2008, -5/+42DO NOT download this. 3 of the 4 big companies have not signed deals, while the 4th could not be reached for comment. This is definitely a scam, though its not clear who they are trying to ***** with. Give it time, if it isn't a scam you can download the supposed 30 million songs another day. Just wait it out, this will either catch the mainstream for being revolutionary or a fraud.
  • Lingur, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4Wow! This sounded too good to be true... until I read this part: "Qtrax files contain Digital Rights Management software, allowing the company to see how many times a song has been downloaded and played.".

    Then I thought to myself "Well, if the DRM doesn't get in the way and ONLY keeps a playcount then MAYBE it would work OK just for previewing songs"... and then I read this part: "At least initially, users wont' be able to listen to songs without the player filling the screen and showing ads. They will be able to use the Internet simultaneously only in a window within the player." - LA Times

    Are you ***** kidding me?! These companies just don't seem to get it!! It's MY computer and I will use it as I see fit! You do NOT control my computer and if you impose these controls on me I simply will ignore your service and continue to pirate!

    I really don't mind buying music, it's not about the money. It's about the damn DRM. Get rid of it! I will not use your service or buy your music until you do!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.