Slashdot Mirror
Puretracks.com Enters The Online Music Fray
Greedo writes "Two articles, one from the CBC and one from The Globe and mail report that puretracks.com has launched, offering 99-cent (Canadian dollars) downloads for music tracks. As a Canadian who wishes Apple would get their iTunes Music Store available to non-US customers, this may be the alternative I've been waiting for. Although I think they only offer .WMV files (boo)."
Check out
mgoyer's " rough review" of the service.
if you're canadian, let them know you would not consider buying anything from them in their current format.
i know i did. as someone else posted, if you can't trust me as a customer, you can't have me as one
Is only part of the DRM restrictions they have.
However, it might be illegal: in Canada we pay a levy on all recordable media which goes towards paying artists for copies of music made (even if you use the disc for data!).
Additionally it is perfectly legal for someone to borrow your CD and burn a copy of it. You cannot burn a copy and give it to them, though, as that would be considered distribution.
Thus, between paying a levy on all recordable media and having the right to make as many copies from others as you want, DRM Restrictions which seek to limit this ability could be considered in violation of Canadian law. The law says I am entitled to make my copies, but now you won't let me.
Of course IANAL, and they could cover themselves by making it the DRM an EULA item - ie, "By purchasing this music you agree to be bound by our terms of service..." blah blah.
I, for one, won't use this. Screw that. Pay almost the same price for DRM locked, poorly formatted music that I have to pay twice for if I backup to CD? Bugger that. I'll just buy the CD that I can then do what I want with (within limits of course).
Blockwars: realtime, multiplayer, free!
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
The money being collected through this levy here in Canada is NOT being distributed according to this article
here dated January 2003. Not sure if this has changed since then, but I doubt it.
"At the meeting, tech industry groups are likely to point out that the CPCC has not yet distributed a cent of the millions it has collected in fees over the years to musicians.
Since 1999, the CPCC has collected more than CN$28 million in copyright compensation fees. It expects to collect more than CN$100 million in levies next year. "
So somebody somewhere is racking up a lot of interest payments on the musicians money, I wonder if they'll see that too?.
"The CPCC is poised to begin making payments in 2003," a statement from the organization reads.
I bet it will be delivered by the flying pig too.
Are there any of these services that are MP3? I'd really like to use one of these services but I tried pressplay and I *couldn't* listen to my downloaded music after I finished my subscription! That and having restrictions on moving my music around is a pain in the ass.
The levies are set by this board of people and ar enot per MB. And if you would just compare Canadian HD prices to US ones you would see that they are not only comparable when you take into account the exchange, but because of the US dollar you can often geta better deal buying from a Canadian suppler.
So stop spouting bullshit when you have no clue what you are talking about.
It seems like 99 cents per song, which has become the de facto standard price for online music sales, is much too expensive. That comes out to almost $14/full CD - approximately the same as buying a CD at retail. BUT ... there's no manufacturing/printing cost, no inventory cost, low distribution cost, etc.
A much more reasonable (and acceptable, to me) price would be in the 50 cent range per track. At 99 cents, I'm staying away. At 50 cents, I'm not just testing the water, I'm diving right in.
Mudge
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they're not.
Are you offended by stores that employ anti-shoplifting measures (tattle tape in books, nogo wafers on clothing, surveillance cameras, etc)? After all, by doing so, they are stating loud and clear that they think that their customers are going to walk away with merchandise if they aren't watched.
Anti-shoplifting devices do not bother me because they remove or disable them once I purchase the item. After I leave the store, I am free to do with the item as I wish. Walmart/Target/J.C. Penney, etc. does not tell me when I can wear my purchase, where I can store it at home (no closet for you!), and I can sell it when I want, to whomever I want.
I understand that they don't want the music shared on P2P networks, but this DRM goes way beyond that. The Labels want the music to be restricted because of the fallout from the stupid decisions that they made from Napster on, but I do not intend to play their game. They can protect the music all they want until I buy it, but once it goes home with me, the Retailer and/or Label has no business telling me how I can listen to my purchase. The same goes for CDs.
Beware of Sleestak