It's been often discussed on mainstream broadcasters news programs like CBC and CTV. It's even taken centre stage in a Conservative attack ad against all of his opponents. The question is, has it really taken hold in the online world or has it become a dud?

Tweets about the iPod tax make up just slightly more than 3/10ths of 1% of all election related tweets for the period of March 26 through April 15 (1,178 of 369,844 Tweets). Even if we remove the April 12th spike of 70,315 tweets (more than 50% of which was debate related) as a statistical anomaly (most days hover between 10,000 and 15,000 tweets), iPod tax related tweets only gain 1/10th of 1%. In fact, the most tweets in one day on the iPod tax (338) barely edged out the Twitter “spanking” directed at @senatorjake (324) for his “attack dogs” tweet.

But just as Napster and its successors depended on the MP3 format in order to make music files small enough to be traded over even slow Internet connections, the video file sharing boom kicked off by DeCSS also depended on a compression format, in this case MPEG-4 ASP, or as it was more commonly called at the time, DivX.  DivX, and its open source variant Xvid, are actually not specific formats, but were video codecs designed to create MPEG-4 ASP video streams that were usually contained in an .avi file container along with MP3 encoded audio.  Nonetheless, capitalizing on the timeliness of the DeCSS + DivX solution, and the recent release of The Matrix on DVD for the first time in 1999, video file sharing took off in 1999, becoming a mass phenomenon for the first time, even if it paled in size compared to the MP3 craze started by Napster.  And of course, the release of Bittorrent in 2001 further sped up things up considerably.

I was inspired to write this bit about the history of video file-trading when I recently saw that Handbrake, the popular software video encoding application finally released a new version.  The lastest version, 0.9.4 took a year in development, and includes a number of new features and improvements, but one change in particular took me by surprise.  The latest version of Handbrake drops support for Xvid, and justifies the exclusion on the grounds that Xvid, and MPEG-4 ASP more generally, are dead and hence no longer worth investing development time into.  Over the last couple of years the “successor” to MPEG-4 ASP, officially called MPEG-4 AVC but more commonly known as h.264, has become the de facto standard for quality video online.  For years, pretty much every video file downloaded from Bittorrent, Usenet, etc. was encoded in Xvid, usually in a size that corresponded to the capacity of a CD.  For sure, many people did download the larger MPEG-2 based DVD file image, but Xvid was the king of illegally traded video.

Now, at least according to the developers of Handbrake, the usefulness of MPEG-4 ASP is over, at least on the individual user level.  And of course, any cursory examination of what’s getting traded online these days would show a massive number of files encoded by x264, the popular open source version of h.264, especially high definition video files.  Yet, there remains a very large number of Xvid encodes out there, and those files can make use of the well developed MPEG-4 ASP infrastructure of compatible devices, especially DivX Certified DVD players.  Devices that can play h.264 files downloaded from online (which usually means in a Matroska or MKV file container) are still relatively unusual, although that is likely to change in the near future.

What are your formats of choice?  Do you still download Xvid files?  Or have you switched entirely over to x264?  Or did you always stay with MPEG-2 DVD files?

For some time now, YouTube has had a feature on many videos that let you see videos “in HD”. Of course, this insinuates that the video will feature the highest quality sound you can hope for. The reality is that the quality of the video does depend on the original quality format the uploader has. If the uploader has a low quality video, YouTube isn’t necessarily going to magically turn it into “HD”.

While discussing an EU commissioner wanting to overhaul regulations related to downloading, we noted a British study that suggested that file-sharing is actually going down in popularity. The source that is gaining on the back of file-sharing’s decrease in popularity? Online streaming. Many are, in fact, getting their music from sites like MySpace and YouTube. Long before the release of the study that pointed to an increase in popularity of streaming, we wrote a guide on how to rip music from MySpace. There’s plenty of ways to get music from YouTube as a simple Google search reveals countless online YouTube stream rippers.

This phenomenon of users getting their music from streamed sources has caught the attention of a number of artists. Recently, this included an artist by the name “Deadmau5″ (pronounced ‘Dead mouse’). For the uninitiated, Deadmau5 is a famous House music producer from Canada. If you’re even somewhat into House music (or many forms of electronica for that matter), there’s a very good chance you’ve heard of this artist. In terms of popularity in a given genre, you could consider him the Linkin Park of House music only with significantly less lyrics.

“Quite frankly,” Deadmau5 wrote, “I kinda feel a bit bummed out that i would create something exclusive for my audiences to be “ripped” from some streaming media [site] as is… moreso when the poster of the media would advertise or title it as “HD” or “High Quality” before it’s release date.”

A little bit of background. Many artists such as Deadmau5, during a live show, beatmatches music together so there’s essentially a constant amount of music being played even though several different songs are played during a live show. Often, larger artists play their music long before their release dates to help promote the new song and increase popularity. Of course, similar styles of performing live transcends to radio as well. This is why some electronica music you hear seems to cut in and out at the end or get cut off completely. It’s called a set rip. There’s still that beatmatching and, consequently, that songs beginning (mostly drum kicks) and ending (also mostly drum kicks) are more or less cut off.

“In fact, Nothing makes me vomit in my mouth more than listening to anything short of a 16bit 44.1kHz Wav / Aiff file… perhaps it’s just the audiophile in me… but i am actually witnessing and realizing for the first time in my life something that i have created that has been reduced to some regurgetated re-re-re-re-recording of a set and dubbed “high quality”… quite frankly im a little embarassed.” Deadmau5 continues.

A WAV file is essentially an uncompressed sound file. When someone encodes it to MP3, the “highs” and “lows” start being lost in an effort to make the file smaller. A good way to demonstrate to yourself what the sound differences are between a high quality and a low quality version of an MP3 is, listened to a song that’s at 320KBps, then compare that to the same song that’s in an MP3 format of 128KBPs. If the differences are seemingly minimal, pay attention to the high hats or cymbals. You may notice that the hats get a little scratchy or distorted as quality is reduced. If you’re listening on, say, a subwoofer system, listen to how heavy the bass is as well.

Admittedly, when it comes to the really high quality stuff, I don’t personally notice the differences. The differences between a 32bit WAV file and a 16bit WAV file is completely inaudible to me. Unfortunately, I don’t own a $50,000 sound system to put my ears to the ultimate test. But if you are wondering, a 16bit WAV file is the quality of a standard CD without any compression (not even to save space as FLAC does without losing any quality). Of course, the difference between 16bit and 32bit isn’t even close to what Deadmau5 is getting at.

“So,” Deadmau5 explains, “situation happens… some guy records the set @ 16 bit 44.1kHz (usually the case) you’ve got my 24 bit version coming out of my DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) then in to someone elses ADC (Analog to Digital Converter) which is only as good as the quality of the ADC.. so already the quality of the music has been compromised, and you havent even gotten it yet.”

“Then, whoever records a direct line from the set then encodes that to 320kpbs MAX or 128 kbps mp3 for media streaming ease. this part is a MAAASSSIIIVEEE degradation of the original signal… and has been mulched to all bloody hell. So…. then what typically happens is yet ANOTHER DAC / ADC conversion…. wheres someone rips the audio from said streaming media outlet only to puke it back onto youtube… which is 128Kbps max in “HD” mode (which is a VERY far cry from HD if you ask me… total abuse of terminology there) shoulda [just] called it ABBDBNR….”A Bit Better Definition But Not Really”. fun times! so… to break it down… lets take a quick look again…”

“Production / Final Master
↓
degraded to 24 bits for live use
↓
degraded to 16 bits for commerical release / distribution
↓
degraded to 16 bits (less accurately) when recorded off a live feed from mixer via DAC / ADC
↓
degraded to 128kbps / 320kbps when published for streaming media outlets
↓
degraded to 128kbps / 320kbps when ripped from streaming media outlet
↓
degraded to 64kbps / 128kbps
=
a very crappy 6th generation copy that magically gets called “HIGH QUALITY VERSION!!!111ONE!!” on youtube…. you figure it out.”

Transcoding has been a problem in the file-sharing community for years, long before the streaming revolution. The situation then was typically someone finding a 128kbps MP3, then re-encoding it into a 320kbps mp3, either thinking that they have a higher quality version of the song or trying to dupe others into believing it’s higher quality. That was typically going along the lines of, “producer quality, degraded to 16bit-like quality for CD, ripped and encoded into a low quality MP3, uncompressed and encoded again to 320kbps”. That’s a 4th generation version, not even a 6th generation version as described by Deadmau5.

Additionally, thanks to standards in streaming and YouTube, the quality is forced to be of a certain level of (lower) quality, so the amount of quality lost is even greater because you lose more quality in each step and that quality doesn’t come back once it’s lost once.

Deadmau5 concludes, “I just think it’s time for us listeners to listen smarter, to educate eachother a little more, give the audiable world out there a bit of a quality control attitude, LISTEN UP folks… our hearing is really a fucking complicated and beautiful thing!!! Why not use it well? It’s like owning the most amazing sportscar and not a drop of gasoline on the planet…. Sometimes when i stick my ears out there, im really starting to fear that even the terminologic use of the words “high quality” is slowing substandardizing itself into an inaudiable heap of nonsense. If my message reaches at least one person, and benefits them in any way, i will die a happy mouse.”

There’s many ways to look at this from an artist standpoint. A positive way to spin the stream ripping activities is to say that if you buy the music, the quality is much greater. Consider it an extra incentive for music fans to legally pay for music for example. We’re not necessarily talking about users who are higher up on the file-sharing food chain here most of the time. Chances are, the users who are listening to ripped streaming music aren’t members of 6 different private sites as the quality difference is monumental between streamed music and, say, FLAC – though people higher up in the file-sharing food-chain are much more encouraged to buy what they like anyway.

Another way one can look at this is the tried, tested and true ‘free advertising’ culture. More people are listening to your music – even if it’s low quality. That means the number of potential customers goes up – or a larger fan base more likely to go to the shows where there’s high quality music being played anyway – countless people see that touring is a huge income earner for artists to begin with.

So has the transcoding problem worsened thanks to streaming? No doubt. The bigger question is, is it at the detriment of artists and listeners?

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Here’s the scenario: you have a hard drive full of MP3s you don’t really listen to anymore. The standard response would be to just delete the files. What about the value locked up in those particular digital bits? What about the idea of just selling those old dusty MP3s? If that sounds like an wacky idea, then you might consider the person behind Bopaboo crazy.

Bopaboo is a website designed for people to sell their MP3 files online. A sale is made, the website takes a percentage. Not only is this person not running with the idea with the website, but is also proposing the idea to members of the Recording Industry Association of America.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation pointed to the recent report on CNET which confirms that this story isn’t straight from the pages of The Onion.

The legality of the website, according to the report, hinges on the first-sale doctrine which permits people to re-sell their old used albums when they don’t want it anymore. The problem is that an MP3 is digital and if one wants to sell it, the seller isn’t losing anything.

While Fred von Lohmann of the EFF seems to be intrigued over the idea of an online used music store, it seems that the business model is also raising some sceptical opinions from others.

The article suggests that the owner of the website has a tough sell. Another interesting way to look at it might be that if the owner decides to run with the website, it’s practically begging to be sued by the RIAA. Still, the concept of re-selling MP3′s might be better left in the walled gardens of iTunes where DRM is used if it were to fly at all.

One of the ideas behind ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) is the idea that you can have your iPod, laptop, or any other digital device searched, confiscated and destroyed based on suspicion alone. It might not come as a surprise that the country that proposed this kind of activity is also practicing it on their own citizens – but it has digital rights activists deeply concerned regardless.

EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien testified at a senate hearing on such search and seizures. There is one instance where a search without a warrant is permitted under US law. This type of searching without a warrant is permitted at airports for any possible dangerous items that could threaten the safety of passengers. The kind of things being searched have nothing to do with physical objects – but rather the ones and zeros on a digital device. The kind of content that can be retrieved on a laptop can range from something as simple as a spider solitaire high score or banking information left in a browsers web history.

Those who support such search and seizure might suggest that such private information would be carefully protected under suspicionless searches. Perhaps the JetBlue privacy breach of 2002-2005 where 5 million peoples personal information was probably illegally handed over to a contractor of the Department of Defense might have a few proponents to such search and seizures thinking twice for a moment. It was a case the ACLU watched but it was thrown out because the passengers couldn’t prove actual damage occurred according to a judge. One hopes that next time, such information won’t be damaging – much like what could happen if British managers start handing out personal information in a bid to increase profits.

Clearly, private information isn’t what all is targeted today even though identity theft has become a major problem. ACTA would allow countries to conduct suspicionless searches for the purpose of preventing the movement of pirated content which includes seizure and destruction of affected property. Of course, in one case in Germany, the police simply used such seizures to better the IT department situation.

So what is at stake in this particular case? Plenty just from reading the first few paragraphs in Lee’s testimony. A few highlights:

What is your deepest secret? Do you have any embarrassing health conditions? Have you ever had a family crisis? What are the details of your finances? Do you have trade secrets or confidential information related to your work? The answers to questions like these are often contained on laptops and similar devices. Any reasonable person would say that Americans have a legitimate expectation of privacy in such information. Indeed, in this April appearance before the full Committee, Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Secretary Chrtoff agreed that “there are absolutely privacy concerns” in searching laptop computers at the border.

This protection is not limited to the contents of a person’s writings or communications; it extends to his or her identity and the identity of his or her correspondents. In the modern context, it includes knowledge about a person’s interests, the websites he or she reads, and the electronic files that he or she downloads. “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm ‘n, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995) (citation omitted). Thus, both freedom of expression and freedom of assocation are at stake as well, because arbitrary government access to these devices will chill speech as people question whether what they say and think (and to whom) is proper.

The EFF then cites their case against the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The EFF sued the Department of Homeland Security back in February of this year over laptop searches were conducted by U.S. Customs where the reason all the websites visited were copied was because the person in question was a “security concern”.

The EFF also mentions another case known as United States v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008). From the EFF information page on the case:

On April 21st, the Ninth Circuit held in United States v. Arnold that the Fourth Amendment does not require government agents to have reasonable suspicion before searching laptops or other digital devices at the border, including international airports. Customs and Border Patrol are likely to use the opinion to argue that almost every property search at the border is constitutionally acceptable.

EFF filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that laptop searches are so revealing and invasive that the Fourth Amendment requires agents to have some reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion. Not only are laptops capable of storing vast amounts of information, the information tends to be of the most personal sort, including letters, finances, diaries, photos, and web surfing histories. Prior border search cases distinguished between “routine” suspicionless searches and invasive “non-routine” searches that require reasonable suspicion. Our amicus brief and the lower court opinion relied on these cases to say that the government must also have some cause to search laptops. The Ninth Circuit panel rejected our argument that the privacy invasion resulting from searching computers is qualitatively different from, and requires higher suspicion than, searching luggage or other physical items.

The opinion is almost certainly wrong to classify laptop searches as no different from other property searches. Fourth Amendment law constrains police from conducting arbitrary searches, implements respect for social privacy norms, and seeks to maintain traditional privacy rights in the face of technological changes. This Arnold opinion fails to protect travelers in these traditional Fourth Amendment ways.

The EFF also cites a judges opinion (page 4) from a case known as United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985) where Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, “Balanced against the sovereign’s interests at the border are the Fourth Amendment rights of respondent… [who] was entitled to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.” Using this citation, the EFF argues that border searches should be reasonable. Among other things, the EFF argues that a search of a laptop without suspicion is unreasonable because personal information on such a device can be extremely revealing about an individual.

Obviously, at a time when trade agreements between countries involve the idea that someone can suspect someone of copyright infringement as a basis to seize content, the border digital searches couldn’t become more of an important debate – and the United States isn’t alone. Currently in Canada, such questions are being raised during a time when copyright legislation has been tabled. It’s a legislation that has become a hot button debate. Conveniently enough, just yesterday, we reported just three days ago about how the, what is known as, Canadian DMCA seems to have implemented an ACTA backdoor which would allow something like ACTA to take place in Canada.

In other words, such searches have become an international question and not just for people living within the United States. One must wonder, if the idea of searching someone’s laptop doesn’t fly in the United States, could Canada be pressured even more to conduct such searches as a way to circumvent any, to proponents of such searches, unfavorable decisions?

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/EFF_Wants_Investigation_Over_Border_Laptop_Searches’;

Once again EMI leads the way in making its music library available to companies that actually have a decent plan to help it compete against piracy.

No doubt realizing that it must figure out a way to effectively compete with Apple’s iTunes, Amazon.com fired an important salvo in its battle for the hearts and minds of consumers by announcing that it will only offer music content that is free of DRM.

Again EMI has made its music library available to a company that realizes that it must offer a credible alternative to piracy if it is to be successful in the long run. DRM has made many music customers weary of purchasing content from certain stores and venues because they become locked in to a particular platform or media player.

Amazon’s DRM-free MP3s will allow customers to play their music on virtually any media playback device, , including PCs, Macs, iPods, Zunes, Zens, and will enable them to burn songs to CDs for personal use.

“Our MP3-only strategy means all the music that customers buy on Amazon is always DRM-free and plays on any device,” said Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com founder and CEO. “We’re excited to have EMI joining us in this effort and look forward to offering our customers MP3s from amazing artists like Coldplay, Norah Jones and Joss Stone.”

“Amazon.com is known around the world for the unique experience it offers music customers through features such as customer reviews and personalized recommendations,” said Eric Nicoli, EMI CEO. “They have been an important retail partner of ours, and we are delighted they will be offering consumers EMI’s new premium DRM-free downloads in their new digital music store. We think having a trusted destination like Amazon.com offer a high-quality digital music product that will play across a number of devices gives consumers more options and will be a significant boost for the overall digital music market.”

This is good news for consumers and EMI alike because it means that a music label is actually hearing the concerns people have about purchasing content which limits them in their options of usage and reduces its value and operability. If music labels expect to compete with piracy it must be able to prove to consumers that there are benefits to purchasing content, and allowing consumers the freedom to use their music as they see fit is a step in the right direction.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Amazon_new_music_download_store_will_only_offer_DRM-free_music_’;

Looking for more stuff to watch or download?
Apple tells content partners it can soon offer DRM-free music
Revelation Records A&R guy: must adapt to a ‘non CD-centric world’
Watch movies and TV shows for free with VideoHybrid
3 quick ways to watch TV shows for FREE
3 Quick Ways to Watch Movies for FREE!
BitTorrent torrent sites & search engines
Azureus – A Beginner’s Guide to BitTorrent Downloading
uTorrent – A Beginner’s guide to BitTorrent downloading
Watch The Simpsons, The Office, Jackass, South Park, Lost, X-Men, and More, On-Demand For Free

DJs need a combination of new and old media when it comes to churning out new beats and tunes to thump dancehall floors with, and some have taken up this challenge by offering them what they desire.

Rather than making them purchase both a digital and physical copy, as is the case when it comes to purchasing CDs or vinyl, a couple of labels have taken a double-headed approach by inserting a unique download code in vinyl albums that allow buyers to download a 320Kbps DRM-free MP3 version to use however they see fit.

The double-headed approach makes sense for several reasons. DJs and audiophiles will always want the best quality of music available, so they will buy physical media, but for convenience they will often need a digital version as well.

Unlike CDs, vinyl holds a special place in the hearts of DJs as a vital “scratching” tool to produce music sets, so it isn’t necessarily fair to compare the two but, imagine if labels did the same with CDs as well. If you’re already shelling out $20 bucks for a CD isn’t it only proper that that they offer you a digital version as well? Or do they secretly hope you’ll be “PC-illiterate” and unable to rip a digital copy and thereby be forced to patronize iTunes?

Either way it’s cool to hear about labels actually trying to meet the demands of the customer and trying to get his business instead of merely curling up in a ball and cursing illegal file-sharing.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/A_few_labels_now_offering_a_Vinyl_and_MP3_hybrid’;

Looking for more stuff to watch or download?
Amazon’s new music download store will only offer DRM-free music
Trent Reznor: ‘No wonder people steal music’
3 quick ways to watch TV shows for FREE
3 Quick Ways to Watch Movies for FREE!
BitTorrent torrent sites & search engines
Azureus – A Beginner’s Guide to BitTorrent Downloading
Watch movies and TV shows for free with VideoHybrid
Watch The Simpsons, The Office, Jackass, South Park, Lost, X-Men, and More, On-Demand For Free

I’ve frequently discussed the new Grooveshark P2P music sharing network where users and copyright holders alike will be compensated for offering content for download. Grooveshark will pay the appropriate royalties to music copyright holders by taking commissions from users’ transactions and then also compensate users with free music for community participation such as uploading songs, fixing song tags, flagging unwanted files or reviewing music.

The content section that will be offered however, has been the subject of questions and doubts by users, for as we all know, content is king when it comes to a music download site. Many have wanted to know, including myself, exactly what music selections will be available due to the often heavy handed tactics of record labels and copyright holders when it comes to their content being offered for download.

Well, in a new press release, it has been announced that Grooveshark has signed a licensing agreement with the the UK-based V2 Music Group. It boasts an extensive music library, including Dave Matthews Band, Cold War Kids, Bloc Party, Aimee Mann, Grandaddy, Chromeo, The Rakes, and Stereophonics.

“The Grooveshark business model is a very exciting and V2 are very pleased to be delivering our content on this platform as early as the beta stages,” said Beth Appleton, head of Business Development at V2. “Peer to peer networks have phenomenal distribution and with that the commercial possibilities for distributing content could be revolutionary, with the right model. We hope that together with licensed content and an accurate pricing model, the super-distribution possibilities of peer to peer via this partnership could be a significant future revenue stream for V2 and our artists.”

Grooveshark also recently enlisted the cooperation and support of other recording industry insiders including Grammy winning jazz producer Jason Miles and former Harry Fox Agency executive and record label owner Vincent Castellucci, both of whom sit on the Grooveshark board of advisors.

I can’t say that I’m a big Dave Matthews Band fan but, many out there are, and more importantly, it signals that quality content will be offered after all. I must admit that there were fears that it would be a just another Indie-offering site, limited to unsigned bands or those from labels looking to gain exposure or cheaper and more widespread distribution of their content.

Luckily, those fears have been reconciled as Grooveshark takes this important step towards offering the sort of content that users will actually want and actively seek out. Myself personally, I really dig Bebel Gilberto, Bloc Party, the Cold War Kids, and Grandaddy(they’re from my hometown), and I’m sure I’m not alone.

With this new licensing agreement I think the exciting new Grooveshark P2P music service just may succeed after all.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Grooveshark_P2P_music_sharing_site_inks_deal_with_UK_based_V2_Music_Group/who’;

Looking for more stuff to watch or download?
Grooveshark – screenshots and Q&A
Grooveshark startup Plans to Pay Music Pirates
Is 2007 the year the CD died?
3 Quick Ways to Watch Movies for FREE!
3 quick ways to watch TV shows for FREE
BitTorrent torrent sites & search engines
Azureus – A Beginner’s Guide to BitTorrent Downloading
Watch The Simpsons, The Office, Jackass, South Park, Lost, X-Men, and More, On-Demand For Free

As large as the problem of peer-to-peer stealing of songs is, it’s not the easiest, nor the most common way to pirate music. That would be ripping streams of music off the Internet, which accounts for 98 percent of all music listened to on the Web. All it takes is a simple Google search to find literally millions of free programs that enable users to steal music straight from a stream without the risk of being caught. These same programs also allow users to steal from supposedly secure music services like iTunes and Napster.

Recently the Copyright Royalty Board of the United States announced that it is raising royalty rates on Internet broadcasters by 30 percent, retroactive to 2006, to combat the huge problem of stream ripping. There is also a $500 fee per station/channel/playlist.

While some Web broadcasters are upset about the decision, one Santa Cruz-based company welcomes it, and has devised a viable solution to the illegal ripping of music streams.

Peter Gabriel, tech entrepreneur Steve Purdham and finance guru John Taysom have teamed up to create a new technology and music venture site called We7 that will offer ad-supported, DRM-free, MP3 downloads.

Each track will container a 10 second or less advertisement, the proceeds from which will go towards paying “the artists, musicians, actors, filmmakers, comedians and bands.”

“Advertising attached to the music will ensure that artists receive royalties for making their songs available, whilst consumers will receive and share DRM-free music legitimately,” notes a press release on the site.

The ads will apparently be placed on the front of music tracks and albums based on a consumer’s personal demographics such as age, location and gender and can be extended into personal preferences. Luckily though, the ads don’t remain attached to downloaded MP3s forever, for after a period of time users will be able to have an ad-free version of the track.

For those that don’t want to hassle with ads, users will have the option of purchasing ad-free tracks as well.

We7 will most likely be geared towards independent and upcoming artists as I doubt any of the record labels are likely to embrace this new format. They like guaranteed revenue, and aren’t likely to offer content to an unproven venture.

The site sort of hints at this, noting that “Only if enough members of We7′s TasteMaker community feel that a new band or artist deserves to be published will that artist ‘win’ the right to be downloaded thus ensuring the quality of music published.”

Users will be able to become “TasteMakers” and vote on whether or not an artists should be offered for download. But, what’s cool about if they make the proverbial “cut” is that any revenues earned on the sales of ads embedded in their music downloads goes directly to them and not a music label. It’s another chance to support artists and bands whose music you appreciate without lining the pockets of studio execs.

“We7 provides artists – even across the more experimental or minority genres – with the opportunity to build a new source of income from their music. Ad funded downloads are the way to provide free music to the consumer without depriving musicians of their livelihood,” comments Peter Gabriel, musician and co-founder.

But, can it succeed against the 800-pound gorilla in the room that is illegal file-sharing? Will people really hassle with ad-filled content when it could just as easily be acquired without it? Maybe, just maybe, I think it can.

I’m starting to think that the future of digital music downloads really will be this sort of ad-supported business model. Now pirates will always be pirates, and so anything short of free, with no ads or DRM, will ever lure them back to civilization. But, for the vast majority of people out there, the ones who actually fear getting caught using P2P or file-sharing programs and so use iTunes or other music download sites, the potential is enormous.

“In the can’t pay won’t pay digital world where consumers expect ‘free’ content, the idea of WE7 is simple: artists get paid, music fans get free downloads and advertisers get heard. Also under the battle cry of ‘Don’t Steal it – We7 It’, the We7 model removes a key driver of music piracy: cost, ” adds Steve Purdham.

Teenagers and college student kids, the record industry’s “best customers” are the ones who would probably embrace it the most. They have limited financial resources and use computer networks that are usually closely monitored for illegal file-sharing activity. Free tracks for having to listen to a quick “radio-esque” ad wouldn’t be a bad trade off.

For those that are older, and have more financial resources at their disposal, buying tracks will probably be a better option than wasting precious free time listening to ads.

All in all though, at least they’re not afraid to try out new music download models, something the RIAA will never be falsely accused of.

Looking for more stuff to watch or download?
Steve Jobs: ‘No subscription-based iTunes’
Grooveshark startup Plans to Pay Music Pirates
Grooveshark – screenshots and Q&A
Is 2007 the year the CD died?
3 Quick Ways to Watch Movies for FREE!
3 quick ways to watch TV shows for FREE
BitTorrent torrent sites & search engines
Azureus – A Beginner’s Guide to BitTorrent Downloading
Watch The Simpsons, The Office, Jackass, South Park, Lost, X-Men, and More, On-Demand For Free