blueTunes, a streaming music site that lets you stream your music library from the cloud to any computer, is launching a new desktop app tonight that looks to make the service an even more compelling alternative to other online music sites and possibly even iTunes.
For those who aren’t familiar with the service, blueTunes lets you scan your hard drive for music files and upload them to the site’s servers, which you can then stream from wherever you are. This process would take a very long time (and quite a bit of bandwidth) were it not for a shortcut the site is employing: while you still have to prove that you own your music (the site uses a Java app to check through you music folders), the site only makes you upload songs that aren’t already in its database. In other words, unless you’ve got a really eclectic collection, you’ll be able to transfer your library to the cloud without having to move many files.
The benefits of a desktop client for this kind of music service are fairly obvious. When you’re using a site like MySpace Music, you generally have to keep a browser tab open at all times, and when tabs are grouped together in the browser it can be tricky to figure out which one is actually controlling the music coming out of your speakers. And there’s always the possibility that your browser will freeze as you peruse another site, taking down your tunes with it. Using blueTunes through a desktop app, you don’t have to deal with these problems.
It’s a welcome addition to the service, and it’s nice to see that the startup is still chugging along without having to come up against any legal hurdles. As we noted when we last covered the site, blueTunes’ easy-upload model sounds a lot like the one that was used by MP3.com in 2000, which was later sued into oblivion. That said, founder Nick Alexander says that blueTunes hasn’t had any issues with the labels, and that the company is taking as many precautions as possible.
Another music site that also lets you stream your music library from the cloud is Lala, which we’ve been following pretty closely since the service’s relaunch last year. As with blueTunes, Lala only makes you upload songs that aren’t already in its library, and Lala also has the benefit of deals with all the major record labels, so it doesn’t have to worry about any potential legal troubles.
Surely if they’re hosting pirated music on their servers they are going to struggle with legal problems? If I download a track from thepiratebay then upload to this service, then they stream it to me; aren’t they providing illegally obtained music?
other than that it just sounds like a crowd sourced spotify.
Interesting… I do hold a few reservations along the lines of those mentioned by @citricsquid above) but I think the real application will be a mobile app for iPhone and Android. Once this occurs, that will reduce the thirst for music storage on the devices–which opens that storage up for more apps. Indeed, a streaming Bluetunes app for mobile (like Spotify) could all but eliminate the need for iTunes on a mobile scale. Spotify faces the challenge of entering the US market (which it has yet to accomplish) and if Bluetunes beats them to the punch, well–that’ll be all she wrote. Good luck and best wishes to the venture!
p.s. I’ll give $10 bucks to the first guy who develops a hybrid bluetunes/pandora streaming app for the Android… he he he!
You should check out the ooTunes Media Server. It let’s you stream your entire home music/video library to any web browser anywhere (and also to your iPhone).
http://ootunes.com/
Here’s how blueTunes is different from Lala:
Lala first tries to match your songs with their library. If they find a match, you get the song on their side and you can stream it unlimitedly, since you “own” the song. This step of the process is very fast, since they only have to match the songs on both sides. Any song that isn’t matched is uploaded so you can access those as well. This step takes a long time depending on the number of songs that aren’t matched, since every track is uploaded to Lala. If you own a song, either matched or uploaded, you own it. You don’t have to pay for storage or streaming. So it is truely free.
blueTunes, as I understand, allows you to upload/match the first 100 songs for free. For any additional songs you pay 1 penny per track for them to upload/match the tracks.
To me Lala is the better service since firstly the service is essentially free if you own a track, and they upload everything they didn’t find in their library for no cost. Also Lala has deals with the record companies so they won’t be sued by them, which gives their users the assurance that the service isn’t going away because of a lawsuit by the record labels.
Isn’t this pretty much what mp3.com tried back in the day? See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Isn’t this exactly what MP3.com did almost a decade ago? And now blueTunes filed a patent on it?
Maybe ..!! not very sure ..!! it MP3.COM
@sjoholm: hah, I started typing and then went to try and (unsuccessfully) find the blueTunes patent info before finishing
I think this site has a work around. Make a blank mp3 file of the same size as a genuine file and the site won’t upload it if the song with the same name exists on the site. Because according to meta data the files would be the same. So you can listen to a song you want without owning it! Just a theory
What type of deal does Lala have worked out with the major labels? Do they get to take a peek into your music collection at will?
Weird people don’t know this has been implemented years ago. Maybe not uploading your music and possibly with the problem of letting your computer on at home, but it’s possible. It’s called Winamp. It has an extension that lets you log into your account from any browser from any computer, log into your comp at home, and listen to all your music streaming live, with no hassles or problems.
That’s well and good, but I don’t leave a computer online at home all day. It’s a waste of power. I don’t use one of these services, but I can see the value for people that do.
Why would I want to upload my collection of music, only to have someone extract it and have copies of my music that I purchased? When I listen to my music, I use my home system or my portable device, why would I want to put more strain on my computer and drain my battery more by doing this.
The reason I use lala.com is the simplicity it provides for listening to all my music. At 10 cents a pop per song, it’s the cheapest, also they do allow you to listen to every song in their database for free one time through, so you can get the feel of an album before you buy.
Must be problematic regarding licensing / piracy, no?
Why not try mixcloud.com its music streamed from the cloud, curated by enthusiastic DJs / music lovers. That way you get to discover what other people really like listening to too…
Its free, simple & seems to be legit.
I prefer Simplify Media’s solution (you have to leave your home computer on — so no uploading required) but it allows me to stream my music through iTunes (keeps all my playlists) and they have an iPhone app as well so I have my entire music library with me all the time.
http://www.simplifymedia.com/
And it’s free well…. except for the iPhone app.
The blueTunes technology is old news. http://www.lala.com is already doing this, as are a number of other companies including MP3Tunes.
ooTunes is a ripoff — why pay when you can get it for free? Use Orb, from http://www.orb.com (which also does documents, videos, and anything else you want to share with yourself).
‘Cause Orb is Windows only, in spite of promising “mac and linux support coming very soon” for years now. Can’t beat the price of orb though
Do they get to take a peek into music collection at will?
Why in the hell would anyone want this serves, let alone pay for it. We don’t live in a world with unlimited wireless access. I own an iPod, and carry my music with me everywhere, even to work. Although my collection is larger than my iPod, putting the music I want on the iPod is easy, free, and I can access anywhere that there is no internet.
Ever wondered why Lala and other services are not knocking the ball out of the park? It is because no one is willing to pay for this, when they can get an iPod that gives them more portability.
Lala says: “This service is not available for international users”. I live in Peru. What a pitty!
Pretty ..you’ll be able to transfer your library to the cloud without having to move many files.
Never mind lala, mp3tunes or mp3.com – myplay.com did the ‘personal digital locker’ before any of them. They offered 3 gigs of storage back in 1999 and that was when 3 gigs was a lot.
They also beat all those playlist sites and offered a ’share this playlist’ option based on DMCA copmpliant radio rules. Back then there was no built in player, you had to use winamp to play your music collection.
Hi well I use bluetunes and its excellent. I chose it for one reason, the ability to receive a streaming URL of your playlist. That means i can stream my playlist by url on pretty much any internet radio or windows media player etc.
Re licencing, as far as i understand it the tag information and licencing is checked as it uploads. I have a couple of mp3 files which were unknown and that were given to me. These did not appear in the list after uploading. The reason for the cost is clear Bandwidth. I used to use mediamaster and enjoyed it a lot they went out of business not because of legal action but because of bandwidth costs.
Anyway anyone who hears a song will eventually buy the original anyway so i dont know what all the fuss is about.