We have just released my debut album as a FREE HQ Mp3 download.

It was a tough decision for us to make because of the vast amounts spent on the album. We had two of the biggest record producers in the world work on it…. at Peter Gabriel’s Realworld studio and at Abbey Road studio in london.

Despite all that, we recognise the massive potential the internet and free albums in particular offers. We launched last friday and have already had 1000′s of DL’s all over the world.

Come over and download for FREE.. it takes 2 minutes to DL because we have a dedicated server.

http://www.jackrubinacci.com
Thanks
Jack

US can kiss my ass.

Limewire is just saying “Hey, we support freedom of information, but we also support credit and reward going to content creators, so here, we’ll let you sell your stuff here, and we’ll do our (fair!) best to make legal music a pleasant and convenient experience, to compete with the free music people can acccess THROUGH US ALREADY!”;

and the fucking dinosaurs said “Hell no! We don’t want to be “pleasant and convenient”; we want to be unchallenged, unrestricted, all powerful god-emperors and go back to charging 20x too much for our products, and shitting all over them just before handing them over to the people who want to give us money!”

Go Limewire Go!
Die Dinosaurs Die!

and for god’s sake, finish killing yourselves already, you god-damned mafIAA bloodsuckers!!!!!

Err. Where are you from? My country is 3-rd world by any standard, yet I have 2Mbps Down/512Kbps Up for $10/month. That’s enough to d/l FLAC which takes only ~30MB per track.

As far as DRM MP3s, that doesn’t bother me, because I can just play ‘em in iTunes on my Mac, with Audio Hijack recording ‘em in the background, stripping out DRM, then I just add metadata/cut down sample rate and copy ‘em back to my server. :)[/quote]

what the fuck? you think vinyl only has frequencies that go up to 14khz?? you think “recording” a shitty itunes song and then re-encoding it to mp3 is at all decent? were you born deaf or is that a recent development?

Newsflash: 1TB of external storage is about $200 by now. And any man in his right mind will better pay for it than for *** mp3s.[/quote]

Yes this is great news, but I still don’t see why anyone would want Flac anyway. People either don’t want it or it is uneconomical to download, as most people don’t have super speed unlimited bandwidth, nor could they afford it.

On the other hand who needs better than good quality mp3 (vbr) which ensures the best value from our Internet connection.

It may be time to get out before it becomes just another pay service. With bittorrent you can get whole albums and even some discographies, as well as movies, games, and software. I know many of you only want the latest tunes, but there will come a time when you want more, and also diversify.

Come on guys, you programmers, it may be time to start developing a few new p2ps also.

You can also find a lot of rarer stuff on file storage sites which you can search with a search ap or thru blogs, which are searchable thru Google.

Little, eh? Is it sarcasm or are you really *that* dumb? :-)

Anyway, it’s lossy format (does anyone even use such crap now?) for insanely high price. But that’s a good start, so I have a nice proposal: make it FLAC and $0.01/album and maybe we’ll think about it. Maybe…

[quote comment="313607"]storing flac on the other hand is absolutely insane for the most common users without terabytes at their disposal[/quote]

Newsflash: 1TB of external storage is about $200 by now. And any man in his right mind will better pay for it than for shitty mp3s.

yeah but storing flac on the other hand is absolutely insane for the most common users without terabytes at their disposal.

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

I’m on Waffles & Whatcd and i live in Canada :D

that’s real bs.ummm-kay u![/quote]

lol. XP might as well be worth nothing. It’s been hacked and cracked so much that there’s more illegal copies in China than legal. How do you think I’ve gotten Windows for the past 10 years. ;)

Brilliant! F’king brilliant! And I’m not being sarcastic this time, I think that is a really good idea; charities have to account for what percentage goes to the worthy and what percentage is eaten up by the charity;
likewise, music companies should have to explicitly state how much of the profit is going to the artist, and how much is going …, well, everywhere else / the record company.

I like that idea!

it may be as likely as consumer-goods stores and car dealerships telling us what percent gross profit they are making from the sale, but I still really like that idea![/quote]

To continue with another twist, I think there should be a pool to pay those artists that do not mainstream stuff and don’t earn like the stars. But a pool has to be managed somehow. And then there will be another RIAA or MCAA.

Brilliant! F’king brilliant! And I’m not being sarcastic this time, I think that is a really good idea; charities have to account for what percentage goes to the worthy and what percentage is eaten up by the charity;
likewise, music companies should have to explicitly state how much of the profit is going to the artist, and how much is going …, well, everywhere else / the record company.

I like that idea!

it may be as likely as consumer-goods stores and car dealerships telling us what percent gross profit they are making from the sale, but I still really like that idea!

napster turns a profit, even though you can’t get things form free through napster anymore, it’s just as easy to torrent things.

that’s real bs.ummm-kay u!

At least they should provide an accounting for every track, signed by the artist, stating who gets how much from the $0.27 per track.

Otherwise it is pointless.

I’m with you there, ‘um, yar’; the prices look reasonable at raw exchange rates ($10 album being £5) but we all know full fucking well that if the same product gets sold in the UK they’ll ramp the price up closer to £10.

Ah well, it’ll be their loss.

Supposing the artists are getting screwed over (which of course they are); they will be screwed over at $0.25 a track, they will be screwed over at $1.00 at track, they will be screwed over at $1.50 at track; we’re talking mafIAA dinosaurs here: they really don’t want to give any money to anyone but them selves, least of all to the people who created the music in the first place.

But suppose the artist deserves and gets 25% a track, or $0.25 a track, whichever is greater. Then Limewire sells the song for $0.30 and makes 17% profit; iTunes sells the song for $1.00 and makes 75% profit. Artist gets paid either way, but because Limewire is willing to take a hit, and make a profit instead of an insane profit [although even in this example I think the artist is not making enough profit:)], Limewire music is MUCH more lucrative to me, and I will buy a lot more of Limewire’s music. I would avoid iTunes based on both principle and economics.

So in my opinion, the workers – err, artists:) – have nothing to lose but what has already been taken from them, and nothing to gain but way more money.

[sorry, can't help smiling; I don't even really agree with communism, I'm more libertarian - check out Ron Paul on YouTube!]

but… if I get this story right, they are offering user uploaded tracks (ie pirated tracks) for free and also offering the same tracks for pay-and-download?

And my 2 cents, I do agree with the user above who says the artists are not going to see sh1t at 27c a track… itunes is already screwing them and they are charging nearly 4 times as much…

In any event, this isn’t about selling mp3′s and being an iTunes competitor as much as it is about legalizing the software, just as Azureus did with Vuze.

Yet again, you completely miss the point.

They should be distributing lossless quality singles. If someone wants to then convert that to mp3, fine, at least then there is choice. Screw lossy formats. Better yet, there is absolutely no reason what so ever not to offer studio quality (24/96) for download for a slightly higher charge. I paid for an uber quality 192khz soudcard, I want something that will put it to good use, not some shite quality lossy format with 75% of the bits missing. They should take a page out of Linn Records book, and offer REAL quality at a very reasonable price.

This is the wrong way to go. It’s just like itunes. It doesn’t have the selection that p2p has, and you still pay too much. The only business models that are able to compete with piracy are voluntary collective licensing and/or pay-what-you-want downloads.

At least they have higher quality drm free mp3s. That’s a start.[/quote]

well, look at it this way. now that theres more competition for buisness models such as these (for itunes, etc), maybe prices will drop? :)

I appreciate what Limewire is doing, but nah, I’m not going to use it. I don’t have a credit card, for one; and like someone said, it’s hard to imagine artists really benefiting at all from us buying off Limewire.

From this article, I think I’d mention this to anyone that wanted to download individual songs (but too impatient to figure out bittorrent) because at least they’re promoting quality, rite.

As far as DRM MP3s, that doesn’t bother me, because I can just play ‘em in iTunes on my Mac, with Audio Hijack recording ‘em in the background, stripping out DRM, then I just add metadata/cut down sample rate and copy ‘em back to my server. :)

Then again, I haven’t used LW in years, so I’m not up on what they’re playing at[/quote]

Because of the legality of it. If the download is straight from their servers it won’t even look like P2P activity to your ISP, it’s supporting the band, it’s not stealing… Just because your moral values are low enough for you to steal without consideration doesn’t mean everyone is like that.

Or in other words: Who cares?

I, for one, would willingly fork out a few bucks/euros/pounds (depending on where I’m living at the time) to legally download my favorite movies, TV shows and music. But there’s no avenue for me to do so! So I’m forced into piracy. Its that or nothing, and frankly, I’ll choose the illegal media over no media.

the fact that a lot of artists don’t see a penny from iTunes sales, which are way more expensive. $0.27 is just not enough money for any substantial amount to filter down to the artist.

who uses limewire any more nowadays anyway?

i can guarantee the artists won’t see a cent of their $0.27 per track so you might as well get the torrent. or buy the CD.

LimeWire has just launched a beta version of its online store, requiring no additional software and offering DRM-free MP3 music downloads for as little as $0.27 per track….

This IS the way it has to go!