Slashdot Mirror

If you want to support downloadable tunes, then go join eMusic. For 5 - 10 bucks / month depending on the plan you choose, you can download unlimited tracks from their website. These aren't crappy proprietary tracks either, they are high bitrate MP3's, no restirctions. And I have checked out their content, they have some really good stuff available. Not just a bunch of unknoqns like MP3.com has, they have stuff from all kinds of people including GooGoo Dolls, Rancid, Bush, Green Day, and many more. These artists all have multiple full albums available for download.

So if you really want to show your support go sign up. Or, if you want to keep whining and leeching free stuff from Gnutella, go ahead. But don't complain when the whole MP3 format becomes outlawed when no one uses it but pirates.

The only correlary is that some people will pay more for convenience.

Legitimate music download services such as eMusic and the one that this article mentions provide more convenience than Gnutella, KaZaA, and WinMX in two big ways:

• The downloads work over HTTP and thus work better over connections that severely throttle non-RFC-defined services, such as the router on Rose-Hulman's T1s.
• Three nines availability. There is negligible risk of "Connection reset by peer" ... Resume ... "User offline".

Emusic.com does something similar, except instead of paying a quarter a track, you pay a monthly fee for unlimited downloads. Before we lost our high-speed bandwidth, we were using this service on a regular basis, even if we found we could get music for free. Not EVERYONE is out to pirate music, I'm just not willing to pay $15-20 for a CD I can't listen to tracks to before buying and may (probably does) suck.

If there was an official site where I could legally download professionally made MP3 or OGGs of all of my favorite tracks for two bucks a pop, I would be all over it in a second.

... that I just signed up for emusic.com. You won't find Britney Spears or the like there, but then again, that may be a good thing depending on your point of view. I've found all sorts of good stuff on there from independent artists, things the RIAA doesn't seem inclined to try and sell. $15 a month is a little steep, but then again, that's cheaper than a single CD with the latest shovel-songs courtesy of the RIAA... And there's a free trial, too. :)

</plug>

Thing is, Gateway's Web site has links to a site that promotes legal downloading and burning, without a trace of DRM. The Elwood track is also properly licensed for burning. Gateway's not offering Gnutella and saying "Go nuts!"

Seems to me that there are perfectly good solutions to illegal downloading that the RIAA is completely oblivious to.

anyone catch the link in one of the info windows to emusic?
apparently this is one of gateways 'partners' and a 'good place to download music legally' or something like that.
anyone know anything about them?

I listen occasionally listen to real audio CDs on the following devices:

• One of our PCs (all running Linux..)
• My Rio Volt
• Our Apex DVD player

I have never used Napster (or similar services) as I think it's morally wrong and illegal. However, if I can't go out, buy an audio CD, rip it and listen to it then I consider myself forced into using one of these means to acquire the music I want.

I have absolutely no qualms with paying $20 for a CD. I always get my money out of it, provided the disc doesn't suck. Frankly, at the rate we buy CDs I don't even mind occasionally paying for a dud. I will, however, refuse to buy something I can't use.

End of story.

As has been reported ad nauseum, this does absolutely nothing to curb illegal copying of these songs. All it does is anger good customers. If I, a paying, legal customer, am going to be treated like a criminal, I may as well act the part.

So, here's my ultimatum to the recording industry: Stop this ridiculous behaviour or I will cease to be a customer. As soon as I buy a CD that I actually want (sorry Celine) and can no longer rip and listen to in MP3 form I will cease buying CDs at all and will start making use of one of these napster/kazaa/limewire type services. I don't want to do this. I still think it's illegal, I still think it's wrong, but I think that punishing all customers for the sake of a few, who will pirate anyway, is worse, not to mention a dangerous precedent. I won't stand for it.

If the record industry won't play fair neither will I. I know I'm only one person, I realize that the recording industry probably doesn't care about me, but I buy about 30 CDs a year. That's $600 they lose from me. Pretty insignificant in the big scheme, but it's all I can do. I will continue to listen to the music I want in the form I want.

The idea is that record labels (Indies) sign up and share 50% of the company's income based on fair download statistics.

The cost is $10 a month given a year's commitment and the selection is staggering (if you're into non-mainstream music).

Anyone know of any downsides?

dan

sorry, emusic is owned by ..... Vivendi Universal. Oh well!

You might call me silly for doing all this, but I feel the software writers deserve it.

Programmers/musicians may deserve it, but if you're buying a "used" anything, they won't get a dime. I think that makes a good argument for the business model behind EMusic. If I buy a used CD, the artist never sees a dime. If I grab it from a place like EMusic, they at least get *some* compensation. Plus I get the ability to download it from anywhere that has an internet connection. And no stupid music copy protection!

Off the soap box now...

[Broadband commercial:] "I want to download the top 40... while it's still the top 40!"

Napkin calculation: On average, it takes well under five hours to download ten songs at high quality (192 kbps MP3) over a dial-up connection, assuming two concurrent downloads plus light web browsing. Thus, four 5-hour sessions should fetch the first week's Top 40, and assuming 10 songs are replaced each week, a pirate needs only one session of Slashdot-reloading to incrementally update the playlist. Who needs cable?

I've always taken that to be telling me that I should buy a cable modem to pirate music faster.

Or to download Universal's MP3.com top 40. Or to download from eMusic, which has licensed MP3 distribution rights from some of the major labels.

Bullshit. Don't substitute one distortion for another. I acquire some of my music from eMusic, which I have to download to get. I'll be damned if you, Eisner or anyone else implies that I'm a thief for doing "download mix burn". My credit card statement for the last eight months says otherwise.

But what happens after we've all got government subsidized broad-band up the wazzoo? What happens after the next generation of rio/burner/whatever technology makes MP3s easier to deal with than CDs? And the encoding tech gets better so they really do have "CD-quality" sound? What do you say to the labels that suddenly aren't selling any CDs any more, and the artists that aren't getting any royalties? "Better get out there and sell some T-shirts guys! Oops, everyone's downloading pirated iron-ons off of the web now... Well, there's always busking."

It's entirely understandable why some folks regarded Napster as a problem... I would not claim that these guys have really got a good solution, but you know, when you don't have a good one you try a bad one.

[1] The author of this post does not speak for Emusic, which is still a pretty cool company even if they have been bought by some idiots at Universal-Vivendi. Unlimited download access to a large collection of independant music, where the artist gets paid royalties. Real MP3s, no idiotic copy protection.

But what happens after we've all got government subsidized broad-band up the wazzoo? What happens after the next generation of rio/burner/whatever technology makes MP3s easier to deal with than CDs? And the encoding tech gets better so they really do have "CD-quality" sound? What do you say to the labels that suddenly aren't selling any CDs any more, and the artists that aren't getting any royalties? "Better get out there and sell some T-shirts guys! Oops, everyone's downloading pirated iron-ons off of the web now... Well, there's always busking."

It's entirely understandable why some folks regarded Napster as a problem... I would not claim that these guys have really got a good solution, but you know, when you don't have a good one you try a bad one.

[1] The author of this post does not speak for Emusic, which is still a pretty cool company even if they have been bought by some idiots at Universal-Vivendi. Unlimited download access to a large collection of independant music, where the artist gets paid royalties. Real MP3s, no idiotic copy protection.

A couple years ago, I had some long discussions with the head of Jeepster records, home of the band Belle and Sebastian. He was willing to permit cassette copies to circulate of unreleased tracks, the then-unavailable Tigermilk LP, radio sessions, etc., among fans. But if anyone so much as mentioned a digital medium and one of those recordings in the same sentence, they received a legal nasty-gram by email.

He explained that cassette copies provided for limited distribution, such that only the hard-core fans could obtain the material -- an MP3 or CD-R can be duplicated any number of generations. I countered that only the hard-core fans had any interest, and that was the overriding factor in limiting distribution.

It is amusing, then, to find most of Belle and Sebatian's work on EMusic as unencumbered MP3s. Perhaps they finally saw that if people know about you, they might buy your records.

Still, films are different. It costs a large amount of money to produce a film as compared to a sound recording. It costs a large amount of money to produce prints of a film for screening, as compared to the cost of producing CDs for mass-distribution. It costs so much that often it is necessary to use the same prints for theatrical release in Australia as for the initial release in the USA. That is why they get so freaked out, even more than the recording companies.

Regardless, it is completely unjustifiable even to imagine that general-purpose technologies need to be squashed to protect these people's interests.

A couple years ago, I had some long discussions with the head of Jeepster records, home of the band Belle and Sebastian. He was willing to permit cassette copies to circulate of unreleased tracks, the then-unavailable Tigermilk LP, radio sessions, etc., among fans. But if anyone so much as mentioned a digital medium and one of those recordings in the same sentence, they received a legal nasty-gram by email.

He explained that cassette copies provided for limited distribution, such that only the hard-core fans could obtain the material -- an MP3 or CD-R can be duplicated any number of generations. I countered that only the hard-core fans had any interest, and that was the overriding factor in limiting distribution.

It is amusing, then, to find most of Belle and Sebatian's work on EMusic as unencumbered MP3s. Perhaps they finally saw that if people know about you, they might buy your records.

Still, films are different. It costs a large amount of money to produce a film as compared to a sound recording. It costs a large amount of money to produce prints of a film for screening, as compared to the cost of producing CDs for mass-distribution. It costs so much that often it is necessary to use the same prints for theatrical release in Australia as for the initial release in the USA. That is why they get so freaked out, even more than the recording companies.

Regardless, it is completely unjustifiable even to imagine that general-purpose technologies need to be squashed to protect these people's interests.

And the funny thing about the "evil MPAA corporations" is that they're probably spinning the MP3 thing in their favor when they pitch to unsigned artists.

I imagine it goes something like this: "We're the only ones with enough resources ($$$) to develop digital anti-theft technology to protect your recordings from unauthorized distribution. If you went out on your own you'd never make a dime because of all the file sharing."

I keep clinging to the dream of a site like mp3.com or Emusic that will eventually allow artists to publish themselves. Forget $15 CD's, think of PayPal minipayments. Even with minipayments I'll bet the artists could make more money in the long run. Yeah, they lose the promotion and up-front production money, but they retain some control and put their music at a price point where even Pentagram might pay for it.

Now if only they could filter out the total home-brew crap... sigh, now I'm getting into double-standards. Okay, at least set up the "Aspiring Amateur Musician" section. :)

Emusic lets you pay around $9.99 a month (if you sign up for 12 months) to download unlimited mp3s. Granted, I don't know what kind of speed you get from EMusic, but this is a very worthwhile purchase in my opinion. They also have the bands that I was looking for, even the slightly rare ones like Opeth, and Therion.

EMusic is part of Vivendi Universal's (NYSE: V; Paris Bourse: EX FP) US-based Internet and technology company, Vivendi Universal Net USA.

In no way affiliated with them, but for the guilty consciences out there, you can just pay EMusic for unlimited access to MP3s by recognized artists. I'm a fan of the fact that I can trust the MP3 Info tags on their files a whole lot more than I can those of the average Napster joker.

I know other people have mentioned it in this discussion - but it bears repeating. This is a fantastic service - you get unlimited downloads of the mp3's stored on Emusic servers (and ripped by Emusic, so you know it will be good quality) for ~$10/month, and the artists get paid.

there are people out there who want to "do the right thing" and pay for their music

Okay, so let's see. I can use Napster for an undisclosed fee (I'm betting on the neighborhood of $10/month) and get 50 tracks, which I have to get by trusting that the person on the other end ripped correctly. Plus I have to donate my own bandwith to do it. (Excuse me? I'm paying them to use my bandwidth? Did I miss where this is a good deal?)

Or I can go to emusic.com and pay $9.99 per month and legally download as many MP3s as my greedy heart desires. Plus they're categorized and ripped by people whose job it is to do this all day, so they're presumably of good quality. Plus I can download entire albums at once. Plus I don't have to share my collection with anyone, or let anyone scan my hard drive.

Hmm, tough choice. Napster is doomed. (Disclaimer: I don't own any emusic stock. I don't even know if they're publicly traded. I don't even have an account there. So there.)

So long as the pricing is below some threshold of pain (I'm guessing $15/month but I'm no expert)

You mean like this service (which I don't work for)? eMusic.com is $45 for three months or $120 for one year to anybody in the USA.

there IS one! (yay!) samael notes in comment (#2653326) a lovely online service i hadn't heard of - Emusic.com. (although redundant, i mention it as you managed to miss the original post, and it's exactly what you want.) being a finicky industrial/experimental music fan, i checked it out to verify that they wouldn't have anything i was interested in.

i was wrong. it is inexpensive ($15/mo for 3 months), a broad catalog with lots of weird/rare stuff, you get to keep the MP3s and do whatever you like with them, the artists get paid - everybody wins.

should this service actually make a profit, your understandably cynical predictions of record label bait-and-switch may be averted. this assumes that a whole bunch of us like it and use it.

There are already some working sites for downloading music with a monthly fee. I will here analyze two of them :

1 e-compil (universal)

- prices : 8 for 10 downloads or 15.5 for 20 downloads (per month, min. 6 month)

- audio format : windows media ! quality unknown

- choice : ridiculously small, few artists, only one or two song per artist. (Example : only 45 titles in the techno/dance category !)

- ability to transfer songs to a portable device : limited, you have to use microsoft active sync.

- interface : minimum

- artists retribution : unknown

- no search engine

- url : http://www.e-compil.fr/

2 emusic

- prices : 14.99$ a month (3month) or 9.99$ (12 month min.), unlimited download

- audio format : mp3

- choice : large number of artists but many of them obscure; many full albums.

- ability to transfer files : maximum, they trust the customer.

- interface : good

- Artists are paid per download.

- url : http://www.emusic.com/

Conclusion

Unfortunately, those two services are not what a music enthusiast expects : e-compil is pure crap (at this time), windows only, very limited choice. emusic is better. The only problem is that they only have the music that the big bussiness has left them and that is sure not enough for a music fan : we choose music we like, not music produced by X or Y.

We'll see what pressplay and musicnet will offer but I praise you to never, never commit to a service that use windows media. Microsoft has already a insane grip on the computing world, don't let it come to the music world.

Try this one.

Unfortunately for your prediction, they sell very few mp3s - the free sample mp3s are the only popular section of their site, and people download the rest from filesharing services.

absolutely! you have no idea how those mpeg files build up. err...

actually, I just download a lot of legally purchased MP3s from www.emusic.com , which has some of the best selection of punk, ska, and hardcore out there, as well as tons of other types of music. It's all legally licensed from smaller labels and indies, like epitaph and asian man records, etc. very cool, and you help support your favorite bands financially.

I'm sure that's not what you were looking for, but that's your fault not mine :)

Between those two sites you can easily accumulate 6500 legitimate MP3s without ever touching a CD. Well, "easily" if you have a broadband connection, anyway. And that's not counting all the garage band home pages across the net with MP3s they want you to distribute widely so they get name recognition.

As for buying CDs, I've been doing that on eBay a lot recently. If you don't require the latest releases you can easily stock up on CDs for less than half what you'd pay at a retail store. Again, all perfectly legal, though if your goal is to make sure the artists get their $.002 from the record label for each album sold, it's not so hot.

Thats not entirely true. We'll always be able to download music off the internet. The only real question is when will we be able to legitimately download music off the internet?

Is now OK?

(BTW I do not work for emusic, I am just a customer.)

It's definitely worth checking out.

It certainly is. Seems like an interesting collection of artists and tracks. Some things to note (the devil's in the details):

• $10/month requires a twlevee-month commitment
• "EMusic currently encodes its MP3s at 128 Kbps." (read the FAQ)

On the other hand, they *are* offering a 30-day Free Trial -- with a 100-song cap on downloads...

I assume eMusic's successor will only offer crippled mp3s...

Some would argue that 128kbps encoding does cripple the format. :)

It's definitely worth checking out.

It certainly is. Seems like an interesting collection of artists and tracks. Some things to note (the devil's in the details):

• $10/month requires a twlevee-month commitment
• "EMusic currently encodes its MP3s at 128 Kbps." (read the FAQ)

On the other hand, they *are* offering a 30-day Free Trial -- with a 100-song cap on downloads...

I assume eMusic's successor will only offer crippled mp3s...

Some would argue that 128kbps encoding does cripple the format. :)

What is bitrate? What bitrate are EMusic's MP3s encoded at?
Bitrate is the number of bits per second used in the encoding process. A higher encoding rate usually means a larger size file, but higher quality sound. EMusic currently encodes its MP3s at 128 Kbps.

Sounds like a good service, but I was hoping for something a bit better than that. I don't mind paying for music, but the quality has to be there.

How does EMusic protect against piracy? Very simple -- we trust our customers. We believe that if downloadable music is presented in an inexpensive and flexible way, most consumers will do the right thing.

It's a lot easier to trust your customers when you're offering 128K MP3s. Question is, space limitations or piracy worries anyway? I realize 180,000 songs takes up some room, but that's their problem, not mine. It would be nice to have different ranges too- maybe 64K to demo the song, and 320K if you actually want it. But I can't help but think that offering the songs in low quality is some kind of indication of fear of mass trading once the songs are released to the world.

You'd never know they existed, but eMusic is already offering unlimited mp3 downloads of major-label albums for $10/month.

I think the reason you don't hear anything about them is that they were acquired by Vivendi-Universal, who is quietly sitting on them until they roll out whatever big new service they're developing.

I assume eMusic's successor will only offer crippled mp3s that can't be copied or that expire after some period of time, but for now, they've got plain ol' mp3s -- and they even make it easy to download a whole album with one click.

The downside, of course, is that they have a limited selection of music. You can't download any CD ever recorded. But there is a lot of good music on there. For example, they seem to have the entire Fantasy Records catalogue online, which, if you're a jazz or blues fan, means a whole lot of really good albums. In the first week, I downloaded 62 albums.

I assume that one day eMusic will morph into something I no longer want to subscribe to, but until then I'm sucking down everything I can grab.

It's definitely worth checking out.

This sounds very possible.

Wasn't it just last week that we found out that the BSA is doing a rather similar campaign?

I wonder if more artists will start boycotting their record company when pratices like this become more mainstream (ie: in the US). Hummm, now if we could get all artists to start using the web as a medium (example: emusic).

Also, superior formats don't matter. MP3Pro, WMA, Liquid Audio, etc. - don't even bother. MP3 is free, clear and good enough. People creating new formats are wasting their time - only those who follow the law anyway will use restricted formats.

Finally, a fee based subscription will never work for the same reason that pcxl.com died quickly and Colin Powell will never become President. As much as people (and white people in that last instance) say things like "Sure, I'd pay for PCXL in any format" or "Sure, I'd pay X for a monthly download service" or "Sure, I'd vote for Colin Powell", when it comes right down to it, they won't. Why pay $.99 for an MP3 at emusic.com when I can find it for free elsewhere?

Schnapple

Absolutely NOTHING is preventing a .com (lord knows they
had the $) from signing up independent artists and
promoting and distributing their music.

I submit that this is actually a fairly sensible business
model, as online businesses go. But
something-for-next-to-nothing just doesn't sound that
exciting compared to something-for-nothing, does it? Real
internet businesses didn't have a chance to get going when
the VC/stock speculation/tulip mania was going on... I'm
really glad to see all that bullshit go.

As for the idea that small guys can't do anything
interesting in the music world any more: Phfftpt.

Here's just one example: Limited Sedition.
This is a CD-R record label that covers improvised music
in the bay area scene. Typical releases are limited to
something like 100 CDs, and it's all great, really strange,
creative music (albiet a little low on teen angst for some
tastes).

For any one who cares about music, there's a million
different directions to go now, for anyone who chooses
stick their head just a little bit above the LCD.

When the starts throw down there Britany's,
we will water capitol with our kidneys

Pay ten bucks a month, and download all their MP3s, and other content.

Oddly, even though it sounds great, I still haven't got around to signing up :-)

1. Learn to manipulate the slashdot editors.
   
2. Jakob Nielsen just wrote a column about
   making sure that journalists know how to
   use your web site: www.useit.com.
   
3. Do your best to annoy the hell out of the
   RIAA and MPAA. You can't buy the kind of publicity
   that Napster got.
   

There's nothing wrong with the artist making money off the deal. But, what you are proposing is that instead of the RIAA being the middleman, eMusic should become the middleman.

What we are suggesting is that there be NO middleman! The artist writes music and releases it in MP3 format for free. Then, the artist makes money by selling CDs, merchandise and touring.

Sure eMusic is offering a good deal now. But, there is plenty of competition. What would happen if eMusic got to be in the position of the RIAA? What if the sole distribution channel between the artist and fan was eMusic. Do you think that the price would still be $15 per month?

I doubt it. eMusic does have a couple decent artists that I like. But, to be honest - I'm not impressed with the overall selection.

I want any artist, any song, any album, any genre -- anytime! Basically we all want the "big jukebox in the sky" that has every song ever recorded.

I have never used eMusic and I never intend to. I am opposed to you "acoustic fingerprinting" technique. Same goes for Windows Media and Liquid Audio. Once you try to watermark my music - I'm not interested. I like being in control.

For example, I might suggest (warning, blatant
plug) you take a look at emusic.com,
which has a pretty big collection of different
kinds of music available fairly cheaply (e.g.
a three month sub at 15 bucks a month gets you
unlimited access to the collection). Amazingly
enough, the artists actually get some money out
of this. A strange thought, eh?

A lot of the chatter about Napster seems to
center around the idea that it might or might
not be hurting CD sales, but what about MP3 sales?
Is it possible to make money selling music on
the web? How would you do it in a world where it's
eaisier to find non-legit copies for free?

(And to me, there's an even scarier thought:
It's actually relatively easy for Napster to
police their users *if* they were inclined to
do it -- e.g. there's that MD5 signature that
Napster built into the system, originally to
deal with interrupted downloads. But they
refused, and now they may be legally shut down
and various less centralized systems may be
put in use. What's the next move of the RIAA?
Will they start going after people running
servers? Will they start pushing for a
re-engineered internet without that pesky
anonymity feature?)

Anyway, Full (ha) disclosure: Yeah, I work at
emusic these days. Simultaneous disclaimer:
I don't speak for emusic, and vice versa.

Just wanted to point out that legal downloads from musicians who WANT you to download can be found at:

IUMA
UBL (Artist Direct)
mp3.com
vitaminic
mp3.fr
rollingstone.com
Amazon.com has a free downloads section in the music department

And for money:

emusic.com

Just wanted to point out that legal downloads from musicians who WANT you to download can be found at:

IUMA
UBL (Artist Direct)
mp3.com
vitaminic
mp3.fr
rollingstone.com
Amazon.com has a free downloads section in the music department

And for money:

emusic.com

EMusic already does exactly that.

A one-year sub gets you unlimited access to their collection for something like 10 bucks a month. A 3-month sub is more like $15, and you can also just browse around and buy tracks one at a time for a $1, without subscribing.

I guess the quality of the tracks might not be quite what you're looking for (quality -> big files -> long download times, so there's tradeoffs here). I understand they're working on adding some fatter files for people with wider pipes.

Full (?) disclosure: I work there these days.

Flamebait? I'll bite.

Everyone. If I want to make a mix CD of music I own, then I have that right.

In fact, see MP3' Users' Rights at emusic.com. They give you permission to play CD-R's burned with their music (as long as you own a licence for their music).

They haven't quite made their official release, but hop on over and show some support. The original data comes from FreeDB.

http://www.musicbrainz.org
------
Jacob Everist
wildmage@mad.scientist.com

What does all of this have to do with napster and you? Well, freeamp allows you to download/stream music from emusic fairly easily (for a fee--something like $10 a month). So, if the napster distribution channel dries up, they become a quite attractive alternative. No more crappy searches, no more little red dots beside the songs, linux integration, artist-tipping support. Now, I'm not saying that emusic's actions here are good or bad, but do have a legal approach to digital music, while napster/gnutella/etc are questionable at the very least. They do support an open source project as well.

Just thought I'd pass the word along on this really good deal they have.

Mmm, TMBG fleece jacket.

The key point is that there is no easy way for the record company to verify that you own the Vinyl before they sell you the CD at a discount. It's also worth noting that, because record companies in particular are so inefficient, a big chunk of the cost of the CD is in manufacturing and distribution, so I don't know how much they really could cut the cost, anyhow.

In the specific case of Vinyl->CD (or VHS->DVD), there is a valid argument that you're buying something new; that the digital copy is significantly better than the analog. It is perfectly legal for you to make a CD from your Vinyl; you just don't want to because the quality would suck. Therefore, it is arguable that you don't own the CD version of The White Album

A better example is CD -> MP3. This is simply a media transfer. While the RIAA likes to imply that you do not have the right to do this, clearly, under copyright law, you do. The record companies would love to sell you all your music again, of course, and certainly, as a service, that might be something people would be interested in (although clearly not for the $3.50/song encrypted BS they're pusing, now).

I work for EMusic.com, and we've thought about this a lot, as you might imagine. Our opinion is that you have the right to transfer formats and make copies all day long, as long as you don't share them with someone else. When you purchase a song from us, you've got the right to put a copy on your computer, a copy on your Nomad, a copy on your computer at work, and a copy on your car. There's no way you can listen to all those at once, so it's no big deal. What you're not allowed to do is share it.

Similarly, if you own a CD with a song we offer on it, it's perfectly OK for you to rip the MP3 from the CD and not buy it from us. Or, if you'd like, we'll sell you the MP3. For some people (especially our subscribers), that may be easier than ripping their collections.

Anyway, don't let the [MP|RI]AA snow you about your rights. You do have substantial purchase rights over the music you buy. The music industry (unlike the software industry, which you hold up as a paragon of virtue) does not have EULAs, or license agreements. When you buy an album, you still are getting something you retain rights to. Ditto with a movie. I agree that it'd be cool if they'd offer, for example, a suplemental DVD to go with your VHS old copy, for less than the whole DVD copy of a movie. But clearly the market for that would be small.