Feel Free to Download 25 Million Songs - Legally
Posted by RangerLG on 28 January 2008 - 16:12 · 49 comments & 29164 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: RangerLG
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: RangerLG
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(6 replies)
#1 Posted by 
neufuse on 28 Jan 2008 - 16:16
- Still has DRM, Still will Fail... basically how it works
-
#1.1 Posted by Zoue on 28 Jan 2008 - 17:03
- Why will it fail? The DRM is there to insure the artists get adequately compensated.
-
#1.2 Posted by Chugworth on 28 Jan 2008 - 17:23
- You people have it backwards. DRM is not destined to die, it's destined to succeed. Companies may seem to be moving away from it for purchases, but not for rentals. DRM Is required for rentals.
A service that lets you pay a monthly subscription for unlimited access to a huge database of music or movies is nice. But without DRM, it would be total copying chaos. You don't own the content, so if you quit paying the monthly subscription then it's not yours to access. -
#1.3 Posted by neufuse on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:07
- (Chugworth said @ #1.2)You people have it backwards. DRM is not destined to die, it's destined to succeed. Companies may seem to be moving away from it for purchases, but not for rentals. DRM Is required for rentals.
A service that lets you pay a monthly subscription for unlimited access to a huge database of music or movies is nice. But without DRM, it would be total copying chaos. You don't own the content, so if you quit paying the monthly subscription then it's not yours to access.
The situation where DRM causes a failure... I buy a device... oh wait it doesnt work with that device... buy another device it works with... something else comes out... sign up for that service... oh wait these devices dont work... need yet another one... for DRM to work... we need... standardization! something apple and MS do not seem willing to do with each other... -
#1.4 Posted by +CelticWhisper on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:31
- (Chugworth said @ #1.2)You people have it backwards. DRM is not destined to die, it's destined to succeed. Companies may seem to be moving away from it for purchases, but not for rentals. DRM Is required for rentals.
A service that lets you pay a monthly subscription for unlimited access to a huge database of music or movies is nice. But without DRM, it would be total copying chaos. You don't own the content, so if you quit paying the monthly subscription then it's not yours to access.
Incorrect. DRM is a flawed implementation of a cryptosystem. DRM, by its very design, cannot succeed.
Now, if you mean to say that DRM can be "good enough" to prevent casual piracy by people without the knowledge or time to break it, then that is a plausible outcome. However, DRM cannot make something uncopyable. Schneier said it best: "Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet."
DRM for rentals? Assuming video rentals, all one needs to do is either get a binary dump from the video driver or write a virtual video driver that writes to disk. VMWare or another virtual-machine application may be very good for this. Failing that, use a video capture device with VGA-in from the PC's VGA port. Granted, DVI or HDMI with HDCP might be trickier, but HDCP has already been broken, so even a captured encrypted video stream can be decrypted.
Assuming audio rentals, there are a million ways to do it that are only a google away.
DRM is a misguided attempt to control what people can do with their own computers and the sooner cryptanalysts and crackers can destroy widely-used DRM systems, the better. -
#1.5 Posted by Chugworth on 28 Jan 2008 - 19:19
- CelticWhisper: People WITH the knowledge to bypass DRM make up the extreme minority. That's why online rental services are able to exist. Only a few people go through the trouble to break the encryption and share it with their friends. Like it or not, DRM is needed to help protect against mass property theft. It's not a perfect solution, but if it can prevent against 80% of content theft then it is worth it.
-
#1.6 Posted by +CelticWhisper on 28 Jan 2008 - 20:46
- (Chugworth said @ #1.5)CelticWhisper: People WITH the knowledge to bypass DRM make up the extreme minority. That's why online rental services are able to exist. Only a few people go through the trouble to break the encryption and share it with their friends. Like it or not, DRM is needed to help protect against mass property theft. It's not a perfect solution, but if it can prevent against 80% of content theft then it is worth it.
Granted, but remember that for any given copyrighted work, the crippling/value-reduction/Fair-Use Denial mechanism only needs to be broken once. As soon as a digital copy of a copyrighted work is repaired to its proper working order after having previously been infected with DRM, the resulting clean file can be spread far and wide.
While people capable of liberating media from the infectious, vile clutches of DRM are few and far between, it only takes few and far between to keep the media liberated.
What remains to be seen is how the trend away from crippling and toward watermark-branding will be answered by the market. I can see people being much warmer to watermarked (branded, tagged, Big-Brothered, Auschwitz-tattooed (oh, ****, did I just Godwin this thread?)) MP3s than they were to DRMed WMA/AAC/RA files, but there was that fiasco with Apple accidentally embedding people's credit card numbers, in plaintext, in the hex info of the file.
Mind you, none of this is of direct personal issue to me as my only digital purchases are of files that already have no watermark or other encumberments. I otherwise just rip everything from physical media.
-
#2 Posted by AltoidBox on 28 Jan 2008 - 16:17
- Read:
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,...ed=networkfront
The deal may not be as close as stated in the Times... Its hard to tell which news is correct.
-
(4 replies)
#3 Posted by lunamonkey on 28 Jan 2008 - 16:21
- Can they see what else in on my system if I use their player?
Not necessarily music files, but any files.
On their homepage it says "No adware".... that contradicts the news article. -
#3.1 Posted by aStRaLgOd on 28 Jan 2008 - 16:35
- (lunamonkey said @ #3)Can they see what else in on my system if I use their player? Not necessarily music files, but any files.
On their homepage it says "No adware".... that contradicts the news article.
Gotta differenciate Adware and just simple ads in the delivery program
-
#3.2 Posted by lunamonkey on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:16
- (aStRaLgOd said @ #3.1)(lunamonkey said @ #3)Can they see what else in on my system if I use their player? Not necessarily music files, but any files.
On their homepage it says "No adware".... that contradicts the news article.
Gotta differenciate Adware and just simple ads in the delivery program
If a program is supported by ads, then it's adware. Regardless of complexity or if the ads are tailored(or not) in any way. -
#3.3 Posted by Shadrack on 28 Jan 2008 - 22:13
- I guess the term "adware" isn't well defined yet. But by your definition a web page containing ads is adware. When I think of adware, I think of a program that is installed in addition to the program that the user wants and monitors the users activities for market research and shows the user selective advertising in programs outside of the one that they knowingly installed.
-
#3.4 Posted by lunamonkey on 28 Jan 2008 - 23:21
- (Shadrack said @ #3.3)I guess the term "adware" isn't well defined yet. But by your definition a web page containing ads is adware. When I think of adware, I think of a program that is installed in addition to the program that the user wants and monitors the users activities for market research and shows the user selective advertising in programs outside of the one that they knowingly installed.
It is well defined. The one that you described would be malware or a trojan, if it does indeed install programs later _without_ user authority.
Well, webpages are not software. So they cannot be called "adware". They are however, ad-supported. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Adware programs will definitely use data for marketing research, whether in-house or not. They may or may not tailor the adverts according to the user's use of said adverts and the software.
If any of these gather _personal_ data (or data that can be attributed to a single user), then it becomes spyware, whether the user knows of its presence or not.
Both adware and spyware _can_ be perfectly legitimate, if the user is informed on installation. And all software can be removed through conventional add/remove methods.
However, spyware is usually delivered by exploits. Or by click-happy users (still a legitimate contract however).
People should not worry about true adware, the name has become twisted through misuse.
-
#4 Posted by X'tyfe on 28 Jan 2008 - 16:29
- this is a step in the right direction, despite the DRM
it looks like the RIAA will now have an enemy of epic proportions
-
#7 Posted by recon13 on 28 Jan 2008 - 16:34
- Looks like there is already some discrepancies:
Qtrax backtracks on claims of music label deals
Labels back away from Qtrax
-
#8 Posted by Galley on 28 Jan 2008 - 16:34
- Wow, 25 million free songs that I'm not able to play on any of my equipment? Where do I sign up?
-
#9 Posted by bl4ck5un on 28 Jan 2008 - 16:38
- This has already been posted in the forum..and yeh epic fail @ QTrax.
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by gate1975mlm on 28 Jan 2008 - 16:46
- Qtrax backtracks on claims of music label deals
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080128/music_nm/qtrax_music_dc
Qtrax said late on Sunday, "We are in discussion with Warner Music Group to ensure that the service is licensed and we hope to reach an agreement shortly."
A source close to Universal Music Group, the world's largest music company, told Reuters it also did not have a deal with Qtrax but discussions were continuing.
The Los Angeles Times also reported on Sunday that EMI Group executives said it had not agreed terms with Qtrax.
Sony BMG Music Entertainment, the second largest music company, was not immediately available. -
#10.1 Posted by bl4ck5un on 28 Jan 2008 - 16:50
- (gate1975mlm said @ #10)Qtrax backtracks on claims of music label deals
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080128/music_nm/qtrax_music_dc
QTrax seems to be all over the place i think i'll steer clear -
#10.2 Posted by vipwoody on 29 Jan 2008 - 13:11
- I found it here and available for download:
http://www.zakeh.com/2008/01/29/qtrax/
-
#11 Posted by stifler6478 on 28 Jan 2008 - 16:48
- I'll give it a try...when I can put my downloaded songs on my iPod.
I don't know why people think it's going to be a failure. If they can close deals with the labels, I think it'll be a huge success. The only DRM is having to actually use the QTrax program if you want to listen to said music on your computer - a small price to pay to stop the RIAA from coming after you, I'd say, and a huge step in the right direction.
-Spenser
-
(1 reply)
#12 Posted by +chconline on 28 Jan 2008 - 16:51
- What bit rate?
-
#12.1 Posted by mattm591 on 28 Jan 2008 - 17:04
- (chconline said @ #12)What bit rate?Good question! Just making the music cheap (or free in this case) and without DRM is useless if they can't offer a decent bit rate. That was one of the many reasons for OiNKs popularity. You could get the music in a range of qualitys and the disgusting 128kb/s that services like Napster offer was banned simply because of it sounds ****!
Edit: my bad, it seems Napster has now upped the bit rate to 192kb/s.. still not as high as I'd like and if I was planning on burning it to CD then I'd be wanting some FLAC in case I ever wanted to rip it again in the future.
Last edited by mattm591 on 28 Jan 2008 - 17:16
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by ThomMcK on 28 Jan 2008 - 17:04
- According to the site www.qtrax.com the player will be available at midnight.
How about you slag it off after you have tried it out?
-
(1 reply)
#14 Posted by thenewbf on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:09
- Holy facts-wrong Batman!
"Sales of the iPod account for 50 million out of 130 million total digital player sales"
Are they serious? Apple's sold over 130 million iPods. If anything, iPods account for 130 million out of 150 million digital player sales.
-
#15 Posted by gate1975mlm on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:35
- Its been saying available at midnight since Saturday!
-
#16 Posted by John S. on 28 Jan 2008 - 18:47
- FREE MUSIC DOWNLOADS SITE IN CHAOS AS RECORD GIANTS PULL OUT
Music fans around the world faced confusion today as it was announced they would be able to download unlimited, free songs without breaking the law.
A revamped online file-sharing service had vowed to offer a catalogue of 30million free songs that are compatible with iPods, but record labels have denied they had granted permission to share the songs.
Qtrax, which makes its debut today, is the latest online music venture counting on the lure of free songs to draw in music fans.
The key to their revolutionary venture was thought to be advertising, which they hope will pay the bills, namely record company licensing fees.
The New York-based service was among several peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that emerged following the shutdown of Napster, the pioneer service that enabled millions to illegally copy songs stored in other computers.
But Warner Music said it had not authorised the use of its tracks by Qtrax - and later Universal Music Group and EMI followed suit, saying they did not have licensing deals with Qtrax and discussions were continuing.
Justin Kazmark, a spokesman for New York-based Qtrax, has declined to comment.
-
#18 Posted by artnada on 28 Jan 2008 - 19:46
- Labels deny deals on file sharing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7213112.stm
-
#19 Posted by instant.human on 28 Jan 2008 - 20:10
- too good to be true... i mean despite all the drm-stuff and the unknown bitrate, it was supposed to be 25 MILLION FREE SONGS, amazing, just download one or two songs off an album, you like it, you buy it, you dont like it, you go on downloading the free stuff just to have it, dont know...
a pity its not true, apparently. wouldve been a really nice source to find some new music or something...
-
(1 reply)
#20 Posted by Troll on 28 Jan 2008 - 21:16
- Submitted news story debunking this before story was posting...
Just an FYI...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...+out/article.do -
#20.1 Posted by Skyfrog on 29 Jan 2008 - 03:18
- I tried my best to read that article but I found it impossible to concentrate on the text for some reason.
-
#21 Posted by Glassed Silver on 28 Jan 2008 - 21:55
- shot in their own knees...
it died before it had died anyways...
this just speeded it up
Glassed Silver:mac
-
#22 Posted by Shane2 on 28 Jan 2008 - 23:53
- Shame, this could have ridded us of the awfulness of iTunes once and for all
-
(2 replies)
#23 Posted by +Digix on 29 Jan 2008 - 00:20
- The problem with DRM is it locks a format to one system and kills the openess of a format for people to use.
PlaysForSure. Windows wma format.
iTunes AAC only plays on ipod and itunes.
DRM is anti-consumer cause the point of buying things is you can do what you want with it cause it's your hard earned money but DRM is basically the recording/phonographic industry saying "yea, you can give us tons of money but you can only loan our material and use it a specific way or just tough luck"
There's no way DRM good or can be lived with, it's in no way feesible in this modern world it's not the future of music it's not the future of anything it's the stranglehold on peoples freedom to do what they wish and how they wish to go about doing it. DRM is the spawn of a capitalistic burden money hungry corporate jacket wearing tosser, end of story.
If you bought a car and could only drive down streets and roads, not avenues, crests, drives, etc you'd not be happy would you and it would cause massive protest. music is no different.
Last edited by Digix on 29 Jan 2008 - 02:04 -
#23.1 Posted by Skyfrog on 29 Jan 2008 - 03:15
- iTunes AAC only plays on ipod and itunes.
Just a minor nitpick but AAC is an open standard and has nothing to do with Apple. The versions locked to iTunes have Apple's proprietary DRM added on top of the AAC. These files have the extension of m4p instead of m4a, but if I remember correctly Apple has dropped DRM from their iTunes store. -
#23.2 Posted by Smigit on 29 Jan 2008 - 10:01
- (Skyfrog said @ #23.1)Apple has dropped DRM from their iTunes store.Not quite. They are offering DRM free tracks where they can and are allowed to, but a large majority of the content still appears to be DRM'd. Over time it may become more DRM heavy but of the 10 or so tracks I download with my 1st $20 voucher just last week only one or two were DRM free (and I was trying to get DRM free versions where I could)
-
#24 Posted by +littleneutrino on 29 Jan 2008 - 04:51
- if anyone care QTRAX is actually Songbird which is already free. and easy to download. when you install qtrax the EULA states that its songbird.
-
(4 replies)
#25 Posted by ajua on 29 Jan 2008 - 05:05
- according to the site, it contains no adware, spyware or anything, but when i first launched the client (songbird customized version for qtra it displayed a big banner in the upper center of the windows... wtf?
anyway, it can't access anything right now, maybe because of massive queries to their servers. will try it gain tomorrow and see what is like... -
#25.1 Posted by rpgfan on 29 Jan 2008 - 06:58
- When are advertisements,which probably help to pay for this, considered adware? It doesn't actually make ads pop up randomly like adware does.
-
#25.2 Posted by Skyfrog on 29 Jan 2008 - 09:07
- When are advertisements,which probably help to pay for this, considered adware?
Isn't that the very definition of adware? Any program that is ad supported. -
#25.3 Posted by +Skwerl on 29 Jan 2008 - 16:42
- (Skyfrog said @ #25.2)When are advertisements,which probably help to pay for this, considered adware?
Isn't that the very definition of adware? Any program that is ad supported.
Nope.
-
#26 Posted by blahster on 29 Jan 2008 - 17:22
- uh yeah. sounds like a ploy to catch every single person who utilizes "peer-to-peer" downloading....
i'm staying away...
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, 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. Qtrax has also spoken of an “iPod solution”, to be announced in April. 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. The Qtrax team, which spent five years working on the system, promised a “game-changing” intervention in the declining recorded music market when the service was presented at the Midem music industry convention in Cannes.