- home
- reviews
- news
- downloads
- cnet tv
On TV.com: Who?ll Replace OPRAH as Our Life Coach?
- log in
- join CNET
- welcome,
- my profile
- log out

Comments on: Free and legal file-sharing...psych!

A publisher promising to bring free music downloads from the Big Four record labels made a big splash this weekend...except the promise wasn't exactly true. Or even true at all.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (31 Comments)


by tobarchr January 29, 2008 7:32 PM PST: I totaly agree with you, I have been following Qtrax around the weekend for the launch and first disappointedly it didn't have its launch until monday making it late. Another thing you cannot download anything and come up with a website that says Oracle Application Server 10g.

I think many people do not take this seriously because many people have been downloading from p2p for years now, using Limewire or some other p2p.

What a shame,; Like this Reply to this comment


by angeljeanne January 29, 2008 9:14 PM PST: I too agree however I have a question, is this being put in place as a safegarde or pirating what some are doing now? I am not asking for lake of knowlege I am asking because this has not been mentioned or have I missed something? Yes I have some favorites that I love to listen to but I don't want minds to change and loose all that I have bought and installed for my listening pleasure.; Like this Reply to this comment


by haiderjasin January 29, 2008 10:37 PM PST: Who let this company work? this is unbelievable . good catch me friend; Like this Reply to this comment


by r3loaded January 30, 2008 12:03 AM PST: I would use an ad-supported P2P client (as long as they're just banner ads, not spyware), but a deal-breaker in Qtrax, apart from the lack of downloadable songs, is the Windows Media DRM placed on them. Since my old iriver H120 can't handle DRM of any sort, this has forced me to ignore this.

It's back to BitTorrent for me.; Like this Reply to this comment


by mjhieu January 30, 2008 12:41 AM PST: It's so shame to know that a company's using open source code from Songbird. Qtrax should have their name of the guiness book "The best cheater of 2008". ^^; Like this Reply to this comment


by asus January 30, 2008 1:27 AM PST: i read this story on znet ,and qtrax isn't the first to do the legal and free site, spiralfrog has been around for a wail and it works unlike qtrax . Spiralfrog have a agreement with Universal Music and working on getting others signed .; Like this Reply to this comment

by lethal57 January 30, 2008 1:35 AM PST

The Music companies have had it too good for too long. Just as technology makes other industries and those within them adapt, the music industry has not....Only continues to sook. It also rips off most of the artists invovled.
An advertising-supported P2P would DEFINATELY have my support and interest.

Like this Reply to this comment


by pnoric January 30, 2008 7:14 PM PST: The idea that the music industry and musicians are flush with royalties before computers start "sharing" copywrited works is worth considering. The recording industry wants us computer users to pony up royalties. Fat chance since no one has figured out how to tell the computer not to copy certain information (without hardware keys) Quite the opposite, an unsosfisticated computer user like me puts a CD in called "Big Ones" and wonders why the tracks are still on the HD after the CD is removed. And then the RIAA (recording industry associates of a$$holes) ******* because it ends up on P2P thus "ripping off royalties".
On this though I am a softie because I made a fair amount of money from the music industry, (from the service sector) so I do subscribe to Napster and stay away from P2P for accessing music. But to pay 99 cents for one song is too much. I would gladly pay 99 cents for 4 songs if I got full rights. Since it is so much easier to get music through pay per or subscription than P2P the music industry should wake up and consider this. I really like listening to music through my computer or handheld with full rights. Because of all the album and biographical informantion. For 25Cents they would sell 10 times more and thus not have to worry about the P2P cheap skates. And then a lot of copyright owners might consider reissuing remastered material with modern technology such as psychoacoustics and EQ seperation with choices for car speakers, home speakers, or headphones. But they are not going to do this if they are not going to get paid.; Like this


by poopee123 January 30, 2008 2:34 AM PST: sure a new possibilitie to get good music would be great,and if free and legal...just the better.
but knowing those "free things" theres only and nothing else but the todays "music".that means hip-hop,rap,top-10 and relative music only kids listen too.always they forget the older generation. :(
so that means i stick to torrents and private p2p.; Like this Reply to this comment

by Little Miss Nemesis January 30, 2008 2:39 AM PST

Never mind an ad-sponsored P2P client, if they delivered the goods at a decent bit rate -not 192- I'd happily pay a subscription fee for it. Maybe if someone set up one whereby you paid a set amount per month/year and could then download what you want, or a certain number of files.

This was really what the record companies should have done in the first place. When file sharing started to rear it's head, they had two choices; make the most of the situation, or panic and start suing the various people creating and operating P2P clients. They went with the latter because they had no understanding of the technology involved and thought it would be easier to set their watchdog, the RIAA, on anyone they could.

Additionally, certain P2P clients have made it a lot more possible for many talented artists to get heard, instead of having major record companies keep feeding the masses the same vacuous, homogenised garbage. As lethal57 pointed out, it's just evolution, but they don't like it because they aren't making lots of money from exploiting the bands on their labels. But if you want to support the bands you like, go to their gigs and buy their merchandise from them. That way, the band gets the money, not the record company.

Like this Reply to this comment


by smallseb January 30, 2008 3:31 AM PST: I do agree with your statement. But major couldn't face the rapid evolution that was comming into their back. and they used repression instead of thinking evolution. The economic model they used was foregone and they didn't wanted to admit it.; Like this


by smallseb January 30, 2008 3:22 AM PST: I love music, and I don't want it to be sponsorised by weirdoo app that uses an open source code without even telling it.

If in the first place it's a good idea, sponsorised music for P2P limitation, maybe the used method is not the good one.
I have tons of free webbased radio that plays music, titles that I'm looking for, and legally; moreover without any ad.

This is not a good model to follow, thus saying just before the launching that they were supported by Majors and they denied it the next day ruines everything.; Like this Reply to this comment


by BrightPixel January 30, 2008 3:57 AM PST: The really unbelievable aspect of this story is that proper newspapers swallowed the Qtrax line and reported it without any fact checking. A simple phone call to any of the "Major Music Publishers" that Qtrax claimed to have signed up would have revealed the story was false. There is more to journalism than re-typing a press release.; Like this Reply to this comment


by angeljs January 30, 2008 4:02 AM PST: I personally think it's a good idea, but also agree that the record companies need to accept P2P and embrace it the best they can, as they are never going to stamp it out. This may be the way to go for them in the long run.

I'd use this and wouldn't mind the ads...it would be worth it to download great music for free, but I'm also of an older (but not much!) era and would need a wide variety of music to actively use this program.

I also don't think they have ripped off Open Source as they haven't tried to hide the fact that they use Songbird, and Open Source means that they are allowed to do with it exactly what they have done!; Like this Reply to this comment


by alphasun4 January 30, 2008 4:27 AM PST: Ideal music delivery system?
This whole area is in tremendous flux and essentially I think we may be seeing a new hierarchy of publishers/retailers that will end up as an analogue of the old record shops and music magazines.
For example, personally I am appalled by the sheer quantitiy of music, good and bad, and would be prepared to pay a subscription to a filtering/reviewing site that would furnish music that has been reviewed. plus the option to rate it competitively, as on OurStage, so that the subscribers would collectively keep up quality atandards.
There would also be a newsletter/discussion feature similar to your own.
I would also envisage a virtual-spoace concert feature once a week or so where top acts would feature, possibly live -- this would be the equivalent of the old number 1 chart acts appearing on Top of the Pops or whatever the US equivalents were.
Whatever formulae evolve for delivering music, they will surely have to take account of the limited time available to human beings, even geeks in bedrooms.; Like this Reply to this comment


by vikramjeet singh January 30, 2008 5:48 AM PST: good; Like this Reply to this comment


by iparty2xs January 30, 2008 5:53 AM PST: file sharing?; Like this Reply to this comment


by miguelocta January 30, 2008 6:56 AM PST: I am totally agree with you Peter. Qtrax is a bluff. What a deception. I m sure that have to be a way to make this work. An agreement to share files respecting the author rights. But not for now. Billions are waiting that the music industry become aware of the need of reduce the inmoral earnings they have, so we can afford Cd costs. I personally not have a single song that not be purchasd legally because my principles, but im counscious about the huge panorama. not all think the same. My respect to your column. Blessings; Like this Reply to this comment


by jerardbruce January 30, 2008 6:59 AM PST: Absolutely, I also would love to see a free p2p supported by advertisements.; Like this Reply to this comment


by smoothjazzman50 January 30, 2008 7:21 AM PST: hello was reading about the P2P sharing, I purchased a software 360 sharepro and sometimes it works other times it doesn't. Would this have anything to do with the Music World not wanting to have the music downloaded for free. Even though you purchased the software you would think it would be legal. Please give comments on this subject also. I'm totally confused to this whole P2P file sharing.; Like this Reply to this comment


by zippyties January 30, 2008 9:43 AM PST: It seems funny to me that record companies expect people to stay the same. They have used the same business model since there conception. Only one thing remains the same: everything changes.

The part that really gets me though is how much they want us to pay per hour for there product. How long is the average Album? 30 minutes or so? That's $40 an hour. How many businesses would like to realize a consistent $40 an hour return on investment. In my opinion it's evident where this is headed, and the record companies would like to go down swinging.; Like this Reply to this comment


by Element2727 January 30, 2008 11:09 AM PST: I really cannot believe people would go that far

and ruin work other people have *really* created; Like this Reply to this comment