Comments on: Datz $162 all you can eat downloads

By: surfer

surfer — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:34:53 +0000

“Illegal downloaders are numerous but are greatly out-numbered by the total internet using population.”

I would actually disagree with that statement. The people the RIAA are sueing dont even realize that their kazaa folder is actually shared. So take into consideration the accidentaly file-sharers, the incidental file-sharers, and the hardcore file-sharers, and they pretty much outnumber non-file-sharers. Although the numbers cannot be accurately defined, there are ever increasing file-sharers thanks to the MAFIAA pushing people away from legitimate overpriced outlets of corporate ‘product’ towards DRM free, commercial free, do-what-you-want-with-it ‘content’. I personally have an impressive library of digital content and never paid these slime-balls one red cent. And I dont have to worry about my ‘content’ working if/when the DRM server holds no more interest in the selling ‘party’. My content has no DRM.

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:25:48 +0000

Of course this is a totally biased place to discuss this! There are people out there who prefer to stay legal – especially at such a small fee. I know people who smoke and drink this amount every week! To say this is something only rich people are going to be doing is just a deluded attempt to justify yourselves! Illegal downloaders are numerous but are greatly out-numbered by the total internet using population. Provide a service which is legal, free from concern from virus (etc), offers a reasonable selection and does not cost a fortune and the masses will buy it. I do not think datz is going to achieve this but I think someone will (eventually). If it happens…. illegal downloading will be seen a similar light to picking up ciggy butts because you are to cheap to pay for your own!

By: Holly

Holly — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:00:21 +0000

Bit rate for new releases is 320k

For back catalogue re-releases itâs 320k

For general back catalogue tracks itâs 256k

Also note that tracks are free of ad-ware and virusâs

Bit rate for new releases is 320k

For back catalogue re-releases itâs 320k

For general back catalogue tracks itâs 256k

Also note that tracks are free of ad-ware and virusâs

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:40:15 +0000

Can anybody figure out what the quality of the files are? Still not extremely interested in paying for lossy music. Though something more like $10/month for all-you-can-eat, yours forever, no drm v0-quality mp3’s would be the most reasonable deal we’ve seen yet. Personally the prices they are charging now ($.99/track) is more what I’d expect lossless files to cost.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:56:58 +0000

$162 for a bunch of songs that I don’t know which ones are there now, if any of them will be made available in the future, if it will consist mostly of singles, albums or just greatest hits, if any new albums will be appearing in a timely manner concurrent with release dates, if certain genres or obscure groups will be even considered, or even if they take requests for certain groups or songs or albums.

Pass.

By: Joe_6Pack

Joe_6Pack — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 03:48:23 +0000

This is so lame, I guess they’re trying to adopt a new business model base on the fact that they can’t sue these p2p networks out of existance, but it’s a bit too late because why pay money for that when I can get my music via limewire and BitTorrent for free no one time yearly fee involved.

By: chronoss

chronoss — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 02:51:39 +0000

funny
for 60$ a month canadian SAC the song writers and CMCC ( a coalitio nof top canuck artists ) said thats the yearly for all there music.
At least thats the 1st proposal, and think of it as a levy ion all net accounts is what htey wanted that amounted to
18 times the current 70million a year levy. as in 1.1 billion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for 5$
now canada has 33 million people , multiply the above by your country ( rough i know) and see how greedy THESE BASTARDS are.

By: Gr33n3gg

Gr33n3gg — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 01:11:15 +0000

$162 a year or a one time fee? Most of the music I listen too (Psytrance) isn’t on iTunes or any other mainstream music site and I doubt that its on Datz Music Lounge.
http://www.datz.com/musicloungepromo/tech-info.php

By: stw

stw — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 01:09:10 +0000

does anyone know if they got the big 4 stamp of approval? otherwise, they will be sued out of existence.

i have over 112 million songs for download, and i charge nothing, ironic.

there are other p2p’s than KaZaA.

oh, and Coconut works for wal-mart.

stw

By: Coconut

Coconut — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:06:07 +0000

Not a bad deal however selection is limited to a few tracks per band. I have easily spent that amount at other non RIAA sites. The Russian sites are still the best way to go as they have great selection and are cheap. Sometime difficult to apply funds as the credit cards are all American and they are as corrupt as the American government.
For those afraid of the Russian sites I can only say they have never screwed me around and have the best customer service I have seen on the internet.
I primarily deal with 4 different sites and never had a problem that wasn’t fixed within a day. Not to mention 2 of those sites gave me free funds when I couldn’t top up with my credit card.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:41:57 +0000

it’s meant be grungy and attract a certain crowd. All in all, it’s not a bad deal for those paranoid of being sued and have the money to pay such a fee. Though, the selection probably sucks.