It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

From today, feel free to download another 25 million songs - legally

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

From today, feel free to download another 25 million songs - legally


entertainment.timesonline.co.uk

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.
With CD sales in free fall and legal downloads yet to fill the gap, the music industry has reluctantly embraced the file-sharing technology that threatened to destroy it. Qtrax promises a catalogue of more than 25 million songs that users can download to keep, free and with no limit on the number of tracks.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.qtrax.com




posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Looks like RIAA gave up on their lawsuits.

A few years ago they wanted everyone with 'illegal' music to pay a fine and do some time. Now they're giving it away for free.

I am going to further investigate this subject, but I would not be surprised if its some sort of government spyware/malware tracking system that allows you to download below grade music...


The service has been endorsed by the very same record companies - including EMI, Universal Music and Warner Music – that have chased file-sharers through the courts in a doomed attempt to prevent piracy.



So how do they plan on paying for it?



The gamble is that fans will put up with a limited amount of advertising around the Qtrax website’s jukebox in return for authorised use of almost every song available.


"Limited" amount of advertising...Aka you are going to be barraged with popups every three seconds.

According to the article, Apple has not allowed compatibility between ipods and qtrax.

I think the mainstream record labels are getting worried about apple stealing pretty much all of their business (among other things) and have to act as drastically as possible.

Some artists aren't so happy with the release:


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. But I want to learn how this service works, given the condition the music industry is in.”


Only time will tell how downloading 'legal' music is an easier avenue to walk than the current peer-to-peer 'illegal' services.

entertainment.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


Unfortunately for mac users, you'll have to wait till March to get a copy. However, if you have Windows Vista you can download it from their website.

I personally am going to stay away from this music program. Something smells like fish. And its not my arm pits.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


It is not compatible with iTunes. Way to exclude a huge market share.

What will it take for them to make it so?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
finally they relized they cant stop the world. RIAA MPAA finally admit defeat perhaps now this will stop the internet watch dog



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Music labels say no deal with Qtrax

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The world's biggest music companies, including Warner Music Group Corp and Sony BMG, denied that they have agreed to license songs for a free download service that was launched by Qtrax on Monday.

Qtrax told Reuters and other media outlets last week that it had deals with the major labels representing about 75 percent of all music sales, to let users download songs for free in a new service to be supported by advertising revenue.

But by Monday, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Warner had publicly denied that they had agreed to back the new Qtrax service.
Read full article here . www.reuters.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Well, then the movie industries, and publishing companies (books), and all other kinds of entertainment or otherwise, delivered on media, should be free too. :shk:

Forced into submission by people that steal. Just great. No different than the Fed.

The only solution left for artists will be to NEVER EVER record anything, ban all media recording devices at their concerts and enforce the hell out of it (no bootlegs).

Is that what all you free download- loving jerks want? Where do you get off thinking that someone should invest a lifetime of work to please your little ears? huh? This subject really really pisses me off. And anyone that's been around ATS a while knows why.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Qtrax is not going to be compatible with itunes, only macintosh computers (as of March).

Apple is the one who didn't want to give free music away, they're making millions. Who do you think turned down the offer? Someone who is making next to nothing (record labels selling CDs) or the one making bank (Apple's iTunes)?

There is no reason for Apple to have anything to do with Qtrax. Its a smart business maneuver on their part to stay away from free music.

I am still wondering if the Supreme Court is going to jail people who use this program; there is nothing in the way of 'privacy' protection and in fact the program wants to dock with each user to check up on their downloads...Aka they're still going to track what you listen to which is a form of privacy infringement.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
just because you can listen for free doesn't mean you can download files. that's like saying my all-electric car doesn't support diesel. (yeah, i used a car analogy)

sure they're both music services, but not being "supported by itunes" probably just means it's a different technology. even if they technically were compatible, it's not an apple service, so i fail to see why it would need to be compatible. the whole idea of itunes is that you have an easy to use music library manager at the cost of it being proprietary.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Art was never meant to be sold . Any true artist would give it away for free. Lots of bands support file sharing .
Trent reznor was a member of Oink . A bunch of bands did free shows to support napster. Theres a thing called "Download festival" that encourages downloading of the artists stuff.
There were a few other artists on sites i have been on
That kinda blows your "theory" out of the water now don't it?

If you want to support your favorite band go to there shows . Buy merch AT the show. Try to meet them after the show and give them a tip . Buying records supports the RECORD company's . Not the artists.




[edit on 28-1-2008 by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR]

[edit on 28-1-2008 by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Is that what all you free download- loving jerks want? Where do you get off thinking that someone should invest a lifetime of work to please your little ears? huh? This subject really really pisses me off. And anyone that's been around ATS a while knows why.


Just take it easy, will ya. I would say that people who do illegal downloads are still a small minority.

I have a collection of legal free downloads myself. I also purchased a few CDs from artists who made these downloads available for all to enjoy. I wanted to have a real hard copy and to recognize the talent. Many people do same.

As to the music industry, it's morally bankrupt anyway. If you follow it a little bit, you'll find out that the system is fubar. There is no talent development, because their business strategy prefers finding one big hit and disposing of the artist when it sells (or doesn't). A lot of stuff never leaves shelves (and the artists can't release that themselves) due to change in direction or shortage of promotion money. In the end, the artists, on average, make very modest sums if any, from record deals -- I'm not talking about superstars -- and supplement their income by live performance, merchandizing and direct CD sales.

I figure that the record companies present such a huge overhead that it is they who you are paying to, not really the artist. When the CDs first came out, their relatively high price was explained by the novel and expensive technology. 20 years later, CDs cost less than toilet paper to print but the prices didn't move. Who pockets the difference? Answer: the monopolistic owners of the market. There are only 4 (four!) players in the media market these days, globally -- the rest are subsidiaries, really.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


It is not compatible with iTunes. Way to exclude a huge market share.

What will it take for them to make it so?


Whats to say you cant just download the songs then convert them to mpeg4 format to put on your ipod?
There are many conversion utilities out there for doing this.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
All I can say is that I have many friends who make music, and they all have one trait: They want people to hear their music, they don't always want cash for it.

Some use paypal on their sites or myspace, but I have witnessed all of them give it away for free.

3 of them had record deals, but pulled out when they saw the level of debt and corporate greed involved in a recording contract.

I've not long started doing my own stuff again, after many years, and I'd be happyjust for someone to listen to it - but then it is pretty bad



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


And that my friend is the mark of a true artist . kudos's to you and your friends . Hopefully i run across there stuff on my journeys



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Check out this myspace profile

A good friend and great musician - although I prefer his other album, "West Country Blues"
He produces and sells his songs, himself with the aid of his wife.
He also used to have a recording deal and made 2 albums with his band "Sugarland Slim" - now sadly defunct.

You can also watch him live - if you check the gig dates, the studio bar has a live webcam.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I'd rather hear your stuff, budski. You got any music podcasts up on ATS?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Not yet - I'm still getting back into the swing of it, and some of my songs were written over 20 years ago.

Until quite recently, I hadn't picked up a guitar in years - so I need practice.

That said, a couple of songs (new ones) have a little promise.

I've also moved away from blues a little bit - I am aiming more for jack johnson than robert johnson


Plus I don't know how to do a podcast, or even if I have the right equipment.

I'll have something out by the summer hopefully, even if it's just a 4 track EP.
I'm using Kristal multi track sequencer (freeware, but OK) and soundforge 8.0

[edit on 28/1/2008 by budski]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


Believe it or not, I am so disgusted with the Record industry, that I refuse to even visit the site.

And no, I do not steal music.

I actually pay for Rhapsody service.. and I will choose to pay Rhapsody then take anything from the Music industry.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
A lot of newer acts have no problem giving out low quality mp3's for free or streaming them to try and get a bigger fan base.I think the best thing you can do if you download a groups album for free or peanuts is to at least pay to see them live when they are near you.
I saw Alterbridge a few nights ago and not only was it a great show,I felt satisfied that my money was heading there direction.

Mp3's are rubbish anyway,no matter how high quality.Cd's are a lot better sounding(still not perfect)



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Maybe something is not just right with this idea cause Torrent sites esp. "Pirate Bay" is being attacked ... Article Here as stated the people running The Pirate Bayare going to be charged with being accessories in breaking copyright law (charges will be filed in a district court on January 31). The Motion Picture Association of America and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) are trying to shut down the site. No copyright material is stored on the The Pirate Bay servers, Torrent file storage of users accessing the sites of Torrent Content via a peer-to-peer (P2P) protocol called BitTorrent is all that Pirate Bay is doing. primarilly the Stockholm Swedish site (in operation since 2003) is under fire by public prosecutor Hakan Roswall, "It's a classic example of accessory – to act as intermediary between people who commit crimes, whether it's in the physical or the virtual world,". Being a accessory and conspiracy to break copyright law, which could lead to fines or up to two years in prison according to him. The case is partly based on evidence collected in a 2006 raid against The Pirate Bay's servers. The Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde said, "It's idi0tic. There is no legal ground (for the charges),". The site was run by Mr Sunde and two others, Gottfrid Svartholm & Fredrik Neij. Mr Neij owns the domain the infrastructure is scattered among several places around the world. There are no plans to shut down the site in the event of a conviction. He said he, Mr Svartholm and Mr Neij were unaware of the location of The Pirate Bay's current servers. Membership is free and so are their Torrent downloads, many other sites are charging for membership and some heafty users are also charging for downloads.

Some of the Torrents have embedded Google Advertising on a HTML page in a zipped file which the maker claims has a necessary Password Link you must follow and do what the link suggests requiring joining of porno sites or visiting unsuspecting sites as these links are coded into a Google user account and yield earnings from wild clicks for the Google user account and Google pays out this when a total is reached which is a required membership. Telling Google of this does not always provide adequate support, more simply Google feels their service in making users money is beneficial to Google regardless how a user setsup the wild click that leads to the same site each time. You cannot access the other files in the ZIP based archive unless you enter the password and there are no clues other than dragging that HTML out and clicking it to go online or open it in Notepad to read its contents. This has also become a favorite way that hackers get back at sites they are unfavorable of, the clicks on the HTML earns them money while the party that its leading to pays nothing and experiences nothin unless the clicker sends them a trashy email condemning their password idea which is really a scam & fraudulant act and this can become from a few hundred to a few million clicks with a few hundred thousand emails flooding a unsuspecting site. Unless some honest person alerts the unsuspecting site of what is going on they would not know of any particular Google articulated click for money racket which is causing the flood of emails, spamming has become more popular than downloading music, many hackers use others to do the spamming this Google Adsense method is a mere tip of the iceburg & no law enforcement body has ever been so knowledgeable to stop Google or require Google to check out every users entered data to determine if such practicing is being done and force the user to remove themselves, its just not a policy Google wishes to engage in as it would require 100% time share monitoring of the entire Internet and not prevent fake user accounts which run from a hidden Google setup on a hacked server.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join