Ryan, Exactly the same here. Out of curiosity I hit the 'check for updates' option and it informed me I was not connected to the internet 'please check later'. I was connected and Tidal was loading-up perfectly. It did work initially but now it's dead. Just buggy software. Uninstalled!

Ryan, same thing for me. i installed a free trial on another PC and tried it and still just says 'loading files" and then nothing. I updated the trial version but still doesn't load the songs.

Ryan, I emailed Audfree support and they said they are aware of the issue and are working on it. So we shall see.

KSB, you need to install Tidal app on your computer also. And then open Tidal, find the album, and click the 'three-dot' icon > 'Share' > 'Copy Album Link' and then paste the link to the search box of this software.

MackIII, it seems that you are using Tidal app from Windows Store. Just uninstall it and install the official Tidal desktop app. Then everything will be normal.

Don, Could I confirm how do you set the bitrate?

Annie Yazbeck, on the upper right you can click and the menu will have preferences. Click convert and those are the settings that are supposed to be able to be changed. But changing them doesn't work for me, only outputs as a 64kbps MP3.

https://imgur.com/8JuVTGy
https://imgur.com/XNmeR33
https://imgur.com/mJ2NLHh

Don, Have you tried to adjust the bitrate? I can do that well.

In response to [ Barry Johnson ],

Since 1984, the US Supreme Court recognized "personal use" as legitimate reason for copying any copyright information, a case won by Sony and their Betamax video recorder.

In other words, anything that arrives in your home, you can copy and use personally with no restrictions.

All countries around the world signing on the The Berne Convention copyright treaties are equal regarding this.

Of course you do not have permission to rebroadcast or sell your copies.

No one ever got dinged for downloading or recording.

It's re-sharing that's prohibited.

That was settled law in 1984 ... 35 years ago.

C'mon, people, wake up!
.

PS - No one surfs the web.

We surf our computer's storage.

After our computer surfs the web ... and copies stuff from the web to our storage ( to our hard drive, solid state drive, ram drive ).

Our computer ( phone, et cetera ) then copies from our storage to our display screen ( and printer, and so on ).

In other words, we cannot experience anything on the web that is NOT already COPIED to our computer storage.

So this fear of "illegal" downloading and "illegal" copying is technically naive.

We've already downloaded and copied anything we see on screen.

Enjoy it.
.

Peter Blaise, what has the US SUpreme court got to do with copyright treaties around the world... and what has copyright treaties got to do with the contracts you and every user agrees to when using ANY privately owned and run service that prohibits downloading of their streamed content for offline use. That is a civil contract with the end user and is entirely independent from ANY courts opinion on copyright treaties! You are icorrectly focusing on criminal law when it is illegal by civil contract law.

Peter Blaise, NOT all content downloaded from web servers are stored in the cache of the browser software many types of media are never saved locally and are truely streamed with a small buffer in memory ONLY. never heard of the pragma cache-control no-cache and no-store ?
See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Cache-Control

Instruct browsers to not refer to cache and always get a fresh copy from the server and to not even save a local copy of content in the local cache. Also some browsers have as a secuirty setting to NEVER cache content delivered using https connections to prevent offline spying on content that was transfered using https:// but is then decrypted locally and must not be cached locally so it cannot be extracted by malicious actors.

Peter Blaise,

Not exactly...Have you ever heard of the DMCA? It was signed into law 21 years ago and supercedes the above ruling.

Specifically, Access Control Circumvention under DMCA:

"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work...to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner"

Under the Tidal Terms & Conditions, this authority is not granted by the service:
"Except as permitted under the Terms, all copying, distribution or other use of the Service Content is prohibited without the prior written consent of the Service Content rights holders."

So yes, any user of this software that fails to get permission from Tidal and the content owners IN WRITING is breaking current law.

.
In response to [ TK ],

Regardless, copying for personal use is legit.

( Does anyone know if any browser obeys such instructions to RAM-not-RAS-throughput-to ...display? ... and how does supposedly non-cached web-delivered content get printed? )

.

.
In response to [ mykie G ],

Arbitrarily unilateral extra-legal "terms of use" do not supersede adjudicated law.

Anything that arrives in our home is ours to use as we wish for our own purposes.

Copy it, shred it, paint the walls with it, ignore it, play it backward, it's ours to play with as we please in our own home.

Of course they explicitly deny redistribution, but they don't need to, it's prohibited to redistribute someone else's copyright works without express permission anyway.

So, no, any user of this software does not need permission from Tidal or the content owners in any form in order to copy and use whatever arrives into our own home for whatever purpose we want to in our own home, including making copies and listening again and again as we see fit in our own home.

No need to pile on the fear-mongering - Audials software does not put the user at risk for unintended redistribution of anything to anyone outside our own home.

DMCA, by the way, also limits the liability of online services for copyright infringement by their users, and indemnifies them for making "ephemeral" copies ( like cache copies all over the world in local web servers ) while providing their own services, it goes both ways in trying to address copyright owner's and content provider's economic needs for legal class protection without them having to resort to individual court suits to protect their own rights to copy the copyright works entrusted to them,

... but DMCA does not address any compromises on personal use and copying in our own home for whatever reason we please,

... except redistribution, of course.

C'mon people, let's enjoy our hard wrought rights to do what we want with anything that arrives in our own home.

DMCA never intended to compromise our ability to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted works.

Think: this is my castle.

And hey, PC servicers, let's go ahead and backup our customer's data for them, we're indemnified against such activities being considered copyright infringement by DMCA - cool or what?

And of course we users can backup our own copies of anything that arrives in our house, solicited or unsolicited, free or paid, too, no permission required.
.

.
In response to [ TK ],

What the US Supreme court adjudicated is that arbitrary extra-legal unilateral non-negotiated "terms of use" have no superior rights over fair use of copyright works within someone's home for us to do whatever we please with whatever arrives in our home by any method, solicited or unsolicited, free or paid,

... and, in our own home, it's ours to do with as we please, and our rights cannot be preempted by the whims and wishes of anyone outside our home no matter how they huff and puff.

If you want to shred the New York Times and use it for toilet paper, even though the New York Times owns the copyright, go right ahead, the New York Times has no jurisdiction inside your own home.

And neither does Tidal or Warners or Paul McCartney.

But hey, if you want to cite a successful case of any copyright owner even filing, let alone winning a suit against someone in their own home making time-shift recording of copyright works, please do.

.

Peter Blaise, regardless NO ONE ELSE is limiting legality to copyright it includes contract law too and EVERY service you create an account for has terms and conditions of law, that forms part of a legally binding contract. This software breaks that contractual agreement. In much the same way that mart of the CONTRACT we agree to here in participating in a giveaway where a giveaway is under standard boilerplate terms and we download and install and retrieve the license by whatever means required it is NOT a copyright restriction that we are not entitled to free tech support or not entitled to free future updates or upgrades and we agree to using the licensed product for strictly personal usage. If I as a business choose to ignore the contractual restrictions on the giveaway products licence for use... NOT Copyright license! Then I breach the contract agreed and the vendor or even GAOTD have the legal right to seek compensation for that breach of contract they could invoice my company for the proper usage license for the environment, they could also invalidate the license I have electronically if they have that facility, or they could send me a cease and decist order. None of which depend upon any copyright treaty or any US supreme cort ruling on Copyright law... which does not apply to contract law! How does non-cached web-delivered get printed... the rendering engine interfaces with the print methods and produces the digital stream that is sent to the printer IF printing is allowed on the page... everything *CAN* occour within RAM buffers and not written to hard disk storage as discrete files. Of course if you have your printer drivers set to spool the printing job for faster Print operation at the browser then the encoded print job will *usually* be written to the block storage medium on the system so the browser can get back to normal surfing but the spool file only exists until printing is completed. Also please do explain how one prints a tidal music stream? You seem to be grasping at straws for ways a "copy" of SSL or no-cache and no-store content might be able to be circumvented... rather than STICKING to the original posters question that was about the overall legality of ripping a stream that is only accessible IF a contract is agreed to, which prohibits ripping the stream for offline listening. Also please do cite any case where the 1984 US supreme court ruling superceded the later FAR MORE COMPREHENSIVE and recent DMCA? Also UK copyright law was also tightend up significantly where at one time one could legally sell a product that circumvents copyright protections IF it also had a legitimate other use. Now we do not have that loophole.
FYI use of a streaming media protocol as opposed to a geniric http or https or even ftp protocols is a a *form of DRM* because making a local offline copy of the data stream REQUIRES non-specification compliant handling of the digital data stream. That in itself makes products that rip streamed content non-compilant with DMCA restrictions and do supercede the 1984 supreme court rulings based upon a completly different inadequate LOCAL law.

[ TK ] wrote: "... EVERY service you create an account for has terms and conditions of law, that forms part of a legally binding contract ..."

No, not "law", but "contract", terms often found unenforceable when challenged in court, especially found unenforceable by the US Supreme Court.

If such were "law", why put it in a "contract"?

Because it's not law.

Hence my assessment of "... arbitrary extra-legal unilateral non-negotiated "terms of use" which have no superior rights over fair use of copyright works ..."

No contract can compromise fair use.

- - - - - - - - - -

I have no idea why you explore commercial out-of-home use of other people's copyright works ( or license terms ! ), as that is not the discussion.

- - - - - - - - - -

Regarding printing ... aside from photographing a screen ( or audio recording through the air from computer speakers, or speaker-line to a recorder's line-in ), a printer also buffers internally to prepare a full page for printing, or for repeat page requests such as jam recovery, and we can also copy the printed page itself over and over on any other copying device including our cameras ( or recopy an audio performance over and over on audio recorders ) ...

... all in house,

... all fair use,

... not legally restricted by ... "... arbitrary extra-legal unilateral non-negotiated "terms of use" that have no superior rights over fair use of copyright works ..."

- - - - - - - - - -

RAS or RAM are still mine, in house, where I can legally copy anything around at will, anytime, again and again, because "... arbitrary extra-legal unilateral non-negotiated "terms of use" that have no superior rights over fair use of copyright works ...".

I've got batteries and flywheels and generators and light-voltaics ... maybe I'll keep that "stream" internally live for years and years, rewind, play again, rewind, play again.

- - - - - - - - - -

You know, I just remembered something I heard 5 years ago during a private for-fee contracted-transaction copyright performance ... am I "allowed" to do that?

Am I doing anything inside my head that is not "permitted" by the copyright owner for me to do with their copyright work?

I understand copyright owner's trying to prohibit consumers from doing things with their copyright works,

... but fair use,

... especially time shifting,

... in our homes or in our heads, by any means ( "... non-specification compliant handling of the digital data stream ..." NSCHDDS - ROTFLMAO ), cannot be made illegal.

Fair use.

In-home time-shift.

But you keep on keepin' on trying to scare people that their home is not their castle.

- - - - - - - - - -

So, you' haven't come up with an example yet, have you?

"... But hey, if you want to cite a successful case of any copyright owner even filing, let alone winning a suit against someone in their own home making time-shift recording of copyright works, please do ..."

.

In response to [ TK ] "... the contracts you and every user agrees to when using ANY privately owned and run service that prohibits downloading of their streamed content for offline use. That is a civil contract with the end user and is entirely independent from ANY court's opinion on copyright treaties! You are incorrectly focusing on criminal law when it is illegal by civil contract law ...",

So ... we should disregard your comment here at

https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/audfree-tidal-music-converter-for-windows-1-1-0/#comment-633098 ?

=8^o
.

Taylor, Tidal is one of the best streaming music services. The competitors are Spotify, Deezer, Apple Music, Qobuz, etc.
The highlight of Tidal is its music quality, respectively high quality, HiFi quality (CD quality）and MQA (High-Res) quality.
It offers a nice listening feast.

Junne Mendes, yup and IF tidal can detect its use you'll either lose your account or be deliverd a cease and decist order or be billed for the price of the full CD quality tracks you tried to steal for offline use against the contract you agreed to when you signed up.

In response to [ TK ] comment: "... IF tidal can detect its use you'll either lose your account or be delivered a cease and desist order or be billed for the price of the full CD quality tracks you tried to steal for offline use against the contract you agreed to when you signed up ...".

And yet, you haven't come up with an example yet, have you?

"... But hey, if you want to cite a successful case of any copyright owner even filing, let alone winning a suit against someone in their own home making time-shift recording of copyright works, please do ..."

- - - - - - - - - -

"... steal ..."?

So Tidal no longer has the stolen property?

.