The Big Five record labels have finessed their entry into the online music market in Canada with the announcement that the CMRRA (Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency) and CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) will license Puretracks, due go up on 14 October.

Puretracks is, "essentially a Windows version of iTunes," says The Mac Observer here, going on:

"Initially, Puretracks will list roughly 250,000 songs, including artists on all five of the major labels: BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner. But it's also stocking songs from a half-dozen independent Canadian labels, such as True North Records (whose artists include Bruce Cockburn and Randy Bachman) and Nettwerk (mostly younger acts like Avril Lavigne).

"Unlike iTunes, Puretracks sells Windows Media Audio files — a much smaller, data-filtered version of the original CD audio — that average about 4 MB and take roughly 20 seconds to download."

In an announcement, the CRIA and CMRRA say they'll issue similar licenses to Napster and MusicNet, "shortly thereafter" with "others expected to follow".

"Each of the services will offer upwards of 250,000 CD-quality songs on both a streaming and a la carte basis with prices starting at 99 cents [Canadian]," they say.

"We've all suffered the plague of unauthorized file 'sharing'," says CMRRA president David Basskin. "The best response is a legal, attractive alternative that will give the customers all of what they want - the world's best music - and none of what they don't want - spyware, porn and viruses."

With a 'cheap' Canadian dollar, the service competes more than favourably with the labels' similar US and European efforts.

now all they have to do is adopt this idea in the U.S. and stop this crazy sue the all tactics they are doing to their own consumer. but the damage has already been done and the boycott is still on.

Unlike iTunes, Puretracks sells Windows Media Audio files — a much smaller, data-filtered version of the original CD audio — that average about 4 MB and take roughly 20 seconds to download."


Oh? 20 seconds for 4,194,304 bytes of data? That's 1.678 megabits a second = a T1 line or cable on a really really good day... I won't even start on involving WM technology (read DRM).


With a 'cheap' Canadian dollar, the service competes more than favourably with the labels' similar US and European efforts.


Of course you'll have to pay by credit card and the currency conversion process isn't free. I wonder if they'll pay the artists in Canadian money too... that means even less royalties than before (6 cents instead of their 'generous' 10)...

~MaW~

The record labels are involved? FORGET IT! They will NEVER again get a penny of my money after what they have proven themselves to be! Just another way for them to rip off consumers AND artists!

The are trying to appear like they've finally got the message but are trying to do it in a way that'll keep a stranglehold on artists and the industry. A rose by any other name stinks just as bad. they have to do more than that to sooth my ruffled feathers. a start would be a public aplogy to all those they tried to bully and terrorize and admit they took the wrong approach. that won't happen though.

To Little To Late!!!
BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT!!!

Well, that is nice for them isn't it? The American equivalent of the RIAA can sue customers in the USA and test the water in Canada at the same time. Let's not forget that the RIAA labels have shown zero sympathy for their customers and do not deserve a dime or a second chance. Even if Puretracks is a success, it still will not help the artist to get a fair deal and it will give the RIAA labels total control what format (wma or what ever new format they come up with) the songs are delivered in.

If the boycott is a success, we will finally have a say in how the product is delivered. I may be a silly old sentimental, but I thought that was the premise of a business; to supply the customers with what they want.

None of what I don't want, eh? Well, I don't want Windows Media or legal restrictions on what I can do with my purchase.

So, so much for that.

Well, they're on the right track at least. Got to give them credit there. I'll check it out when it gets available, but I won't make any promises.

I don't think they are on the right track at all...they still want complete control. Windows Media ???? They couldn't pay me enough to use that. Screw the RIAA...I won't buy a damned thing from them....ever

"The best response is a legal, attractive alternative that will give the customers all of what they want."

Isn't file-sharing completely legal in Canada? And I wouldn't call 250,000 files "attractive", more like "very limited".

I don't have to give them anything. I will give them a swift kick in the a$$ if they give me the chance. I certainly dont want to give them the same amount of money for 10% of the product. Not to mention the packaging and art work that they used to sell me for 18 bucks. That was a rip off then and this is a rip off now.

Unless the 'Big Five' open their vaults and upload everything currently unavailable for download they will NEVER be able to compete.

Customers don't want WMA garbage. If they did all the networks and hardware would support it. MP3 is the standard. To offer your files in any other format is beyond stupid if you want to succeed.

I love how the only people calling these new services 'attractive' are the big-money screwheads offering them.

The RIAA (and all its clones) are so pathologically stupid they will NEVER get it. If they wanted to succeed they would change as little as possible from the current standard (kazaa ) to make it work. Every abortion they've shoved out so far has been so half-assed it's sad.

-DRM in any way is a joke.

-Anything above .20 cents per file is a joke.

-250,000 songs is an absolute joke.

They keep building fancy planes with no goddam wings!

Heh, if they gave MP3's i might just actually like the idea, but still RIAA fed, so no, but as you just said... nobody wants WMA garbage, if they did, WMA would be all you see shared on P2P, again, not following what the customers want, then they blame P2P for why sales drop and why legit downloading services fail. Wheres the MP3's??????????

I would think that the so-called 'legal' internet music download sites could get a lot more business if they simply offered their music in mp3 format, which is what customers want.

Sure, you could take one of these songs and immediately post them on a P2P app.
But songs will always be on P2P in mp3 form no matter what format the 'legal' sites use. So the 'legal' sites may as well use the mp3 format. If people chose not to share songs on P2P, they do so either because (a) they believe it is wrong (b) they are afraid of being sued, or (c) they don't want to mess with low quality or incomplete mp3 files which one sometimes downloads.

Lack of mp3 format from the 'legal' sites will not keep mp3s off the P2Ps.

have you all seen this ? http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/10/10.6.shtml

never mind....did not see the article that was posted here.

This won't work in canada. They dont have to worry about what is happening here in the States. They are taxed heavily for blank media and therefore are allowed by law to down load using p2p, this is propaganda.

Not one red cent. Not until the RIAA is dead, cold, and buried.

jnsnlace: "I don't think they are on the right track at all"

Gotta agree with ya there..they might be able to spot the right station from where they are with a powerful telescope, but the right track they are not on. There's a whole laundry list of things wrong with these copyright cartel thugs and making a half-assed attempt at fixing one problem (lack of viable online purchasing) isn't going to win them any money from me. WMA? Don't make me puke my guts out. You couldn't pay me to use that POS format. Boycott them into the ground I say!

>Puretracks is, "essentially a Windows version of iTunes"

Then what the hell does that make the REAL Windows version of iTunes (just announced this week)?!

Message to the CRIA: Nice try, too bad I'm BOYCOTTING! Screw you, you stupid hosers!

Wma? Who in the world got the message that we want compression files? Who in the world thinks if we did we would want Micro$uck$ phone home player? Got news for you, I don't have media player by Micro$uck$. It was one of the first things taken off this new computer and don't hold your breath waiting for it to reappear on this machine. Ain't gonna happen, not while it is my machine.

A dollar a song? Isn't that what they have wanted all along? That is too expensive of a good quality song of legal type. Not to mention, I am sure that DMCA is loaded to the gills in the EUCL.

Canada enjoys the legal right to download, so does that tell you what is going on behind the scenes right now with Canadian politicans and CRIA and CMRRA? Canadains, hold on to your wallet, your laws are fixing to change and not for the better...

Canadians are too busy sucking back the Molson and watching the hockey game to notice that their fair-use rights are being taken away by the mafia-like organization known as the CRIA. Congrats, Canada, you're now almost as fat, lazy, and stupid as the average American!

99 cents 10 dollars for a album fuck them thats no deal going to the bootleggers

I'm with 1953GM although they are alot to late! WMA files suck like stinky eggs!
If they are gonna do it do it right with original wave file formats! Then if someone wants to make an mp3 file from that they can. Now that the head of Maverick has said 20 cents per song would be better I agree with that .. but where they screwed up was not trying to work things out when the original Napster tried to negotiate with them! I'm still not buying until they stop their bull crap!

Wood, taxes on blank media exsist in the states as well, it provides no protection.
As to file sharing, there is no question that it is legal in both countries, what is being debated is WHICH files are legal to share. The CRIA is on record as 'observing' how this all pans out in the states.
This is not a bash, whatsoever, but dont fool yourself in a sense of false security.
We fail, and you are next...

So, lets nip it in the bud, and kill the RIAA!

~time flies~

WMA - takes up the most space other than WAV

MP3 - smaller, takes up about 1/2 the space of WAV

MP3 Pro - newest file type that can stream to five speakers. Unlike mp3, which goes at most to two...

Time to upgrade...

JC123 - I think you have been mislead, as your statements regarding audio codecs don't quite add up.

A WAV file is 1411kbps, or aproximately 10MB/min. A four minute song being 40MB, and so on. Now WMA and MP3 and MP3Pro are GENERALLY encoded at 128kbps. This means that they are all going to be about 4MB for a 4 minute song. Now obviously you can encode at higher bitrates, but the average bitrate found on P2P networks is 128kbps because it is a general consensus that it is a "fair middle ground between file size and quality". I personally encode VBR (Variable BitRate) and they average a bit over 224kbps, so it is of higher quality, but I rarely download music and am generally just backing up CDs and I'm aiming for quality.

Now, here is where it gets different. According to many people (not all, I don't even know about majority), MP3 Pro can have half the bitrate of an MP3 and maintain the same quality. So a 64kbps MP3 Pro file is equivalent to a 128kbps MP3 file. WMA claims the same ability as MP3 pro to have twice the quality as MP3, however this is a matter of opinion and is widely argued.

NOW, here is something VERY important. MP3 is a specific standard, a part of the MPEG video/audio standard. It is the third layer of the MPEG standard, thus titled MPeg layer 3. WMA stands for Windows Media Audio, which like WMV - Windows Media Video, exists in a bunch of versions, WMA 7,8,9 etc. so with each revision of the WMA codec (coder/decoder), there are changes.

I am not entirely sure how MP3 Pro is designed, but for all intents and purposes its about the same as WMA (upon reading up on mp3pro standard a bit, I found the following out: while MP3 cuts sound frequency off, at a lower and lower frequncy as the bitrate drops, MP3Pro uses an algorith to GENERATE the dropped portion of the file, thus creating a synthesized reproduction, which MAY sound good, but it is NOT the same as the original file by any means. Its a matter of debate whether it is better to have a simulated high frequency or none at all, but after 128kbps the frequencies reproduced are included in the encode on both MP3 and MP3 pro so unless you are encoding at 64kbps, its irrelevant)

WMA is fully capable of running 5.1,6.1,7.1, etc. sound schemes, its a matter of how the file is encoded. With the proper player, MP3 COULD do the same thing, however since MP3 is a STANDARD it will NOT change, and is thus the only stable of the three. Which makes it the best for archival purposes, nobody wants to have 400,000 files, ten of which are in a version of a codec, so you end up with 40,000 different codec revisions in your archive.

Additionally, the need to have 5 speakers is very limited as CDs which most people rip from are in stereo (2 channels, Left and Right). The change here would be with the advent of DVD audio which is (I believe) supposed to have 5.1.

Another thing you fail to mention is the following:

WMA - Microsoft Corporation
MP3 - Open standard
MP3 Pro - Coding Technologies ( http://www.codingtechnologies.com )

This makes MP3 the obvious choice since nobody stands to make MONEY from the codec, however another open standard OPEN SOURCE codec that is showing a LOT of promise is Ogg Vorbis. ( http://www.vorbis.com/ )

Hope this helps understand the formats slightly better JC123!

now to clarify, I don't take issue with people making money off of codecs they make, I was simply stating that generally open codecs are better because the codec is being developed because its NEEDED, not because there is money to be made off of the gullible. There are some ways in which the MP3 file has given some people profit (Frounhoffer for example), but the people who made MP3 are not in it to directly complete with Microsoft Windows Media Player, RealOne, and Quicktime's competidive codecs, the MPEG codec was developed for the VideoCD, and MPEG2 was developed for the Super VideoCD and DVD.

Canada's file sharing laws are murky at best, this from a month ago

"The Canadian Recording Industry Association wants the legislation clarified to make it clear that copying files is a violation of copyright law, unless the music has been legitimately paid for or acquired.

If you log on to a free file-sharing service and make your music files available for others to upload, that appears to be a clear violation of existing Canadian law. The law says the "personal-use exception" to copyright doesn't apply if you are "distributing" the music, or "communicating to the public by telecommunication."

You can read the entire article here if you are interested
http://cata.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20030910/MECDCD10?section=Dot-com

Poor, unfortunate suckers. Shoulda tried this earlier when we were all more gullible. No money for you, no money for you!

Zeon
"Live Free or Die!!"