Slashdot Mirror
Obtaining Legal MP3s Outside of the U.S.?
frankkubiak asks: "I recently bought the new iPod with 40GB. I understand the arguments of the record industry, that I should buy the music I want to hear. Alright. So I don't want to get MP3 files by file-sharing. But here is my problem: I live outside the U.S., in Germany to be exact. iTunes only offers service to those inside the U.S. (see this related Slashdot article). I don't want a CD, vinyl record, tape or minidisc. I simply want to listen to the music. Even if I decide to buy a legacy audio CD, it is often copy-protected and won't load in my PC. So, strictly speaking, it is not even an audio-CD. Heise keeps a database of those un-CDs (German language. English speakers can use this fish-translated page). It sounds incredible, but even after hours of research on the web, I don't see a legal way to use this device with new songs. The only way I see to use this device is to buy a CD, and if I can't rip it, I'll have to [break the law and] download the MP3-file via file-sharing. I believe there are more people like me out there who want to listen to their music, without feeling guilty. Why is there no one meeting this demand? How does Slashdot feel about this?" Before you mention Napster, let's note that it has similar restrictions (see the "International Considerations" section). So where can non-U.S. internet users go to download the legal MP3s that they want?
That is theoretically true in America, but IP and fair-use laws are different in Europe. It's a pretty bad situation to be in, but hopefully somebody here will know how to handle it.
In a place like Australia, is considered stealing even if you own a copy.
The fine folks over at Allofmp3.com will sell you MP3s for a wide variety of artists. They don't seem to care what country your're in. As far as being legit, they say that they're registered with the Russian copyright authority and that they're authorized to sell what they're offering. I haven't heard about any independant verification of that, though.
I use mp3search.ru. They have a deal with the Russian equivalent of the RIAA, so these downloads SHOULD be legal where ever you are. They tend to have the CDs we in the US pay more for because there "imports". Lots of B side selections and remixes. Downloads are around 10 cents a song.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Any answer there is to this question will be at the best unobvious and at the worst massively convoluted. If the average consumer wants to use their digital technology effectively, they have no choice but to break the law. The lack of insight that has brought about this situation is the primary reason that the music industry is seeing such a massive downturn: it's the financial results of a cultural backlash against narrow-minded profiteering.
Some record companies have no problem with it.
Audio Luncbox also allows you to have unrestricted mp3 or aac. Enjoy!
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
No. Don't. I don't care if it is legal in your area, but don't do this. This has two effects: You give money to the record label, and you bump up their 'piracy' rate. Given their unlogic on the issue, that will just make them put DRM on more of their CDs.
It sounds like your best bet is to check with that list before you buy the CD. (And sorry, you'll have to buy the CDs.) If there is a CD on the list that you want, sorry. Send the record label a copy of your question, and tell them it is why you didn't buy the CD.
If this is too much work, or you just can't get enough music to be worth it, sell the iPod (or return it if you can...), and tell Apple why. At that point you are an unsatisfied customer, who will tell others, for something that is not their fault. They may have the influence to fix it, even if you don't.
Just don't hurt yourself. Support those who support you; the labels and artists who let you do what you want. Tell the rest why you don't support them. Maybe they'll listen. After all, it is their profit you're talking about.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Actually, in the US it does make a difference what the source of the copy is, as mp3.com found out the hard way.
Here in The Netherlands, anything you download as a private person is legal; how about that for fair use? (Putting stuff up to be downloaded is a different game; that's where the dues should be paid (and they make it hard enough))
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
In these situations I always ask myself What Would Jesus Do?
I think he would buy the the cd, rip it with audio hijack, and then load them up onto his iPod.
Because it's two separate things. Fair use allows you to make personel copies. There's no requirement that the companies make it easy for you.
In fact, thanks to the DMCA (thanks Bill Clinton, Fritz Hollings (D-Disney), and others), it became illegal to try and circumvent copy protection.
Yes, some claimed that DMCA infringes on fair use, but the fair use says you are allowed to do something... it doesn't require companies to willingly allow you to do it.
What's worse, of course, is that part of the price of CDs and DVDs is the copy protection. In other words, the people paying the penalty are the ones who buy their content legally, and they are more restricted in it's use. It's really backwards.
I'll go off on a tangent here and compare current copy prevention mechanisms to the software copy prevention mechanisms from the eighties. Who remembers things like "off disk copy protection", or disks that were purposely damaged to as to be uncopyable? Every game like that I bought I immediately went online, found the hex codes to change, and "fixed" the software. I was saavy about it, but most people weren't, and had to put up with looking up codes in manuals or long load times (because of drives choking on bad sectors). There was a backlash, and now you don't see that anymore - what you see are games where companies go way beyond simply providing you with a game to make it valuable to purchase the product legally. They might include a huge manual, maps, minatures, etc.
The music and movie industry amazingly manage to make money despite themselves. Everytime a more versatile format comes out (cassettes, VHS/Beta, CDs, DVDs, mp3s and other various file formats that can be delivered over the internet) the industry whines and complains and goes running to the governemt for protection.
They claimed, for example, VHS would destroy the industry, and then it actually revived it and opened new revenue streams.
Cassette tapes made listening to music more convenient, so people bought MORE MUSIC. Go figure.
CDs brought us amazing quality for very cheap prices, and the industry was worried that cassette copies would be of very high quality. When the discman came out, that became a moot point. Again, people bought MORE music because they were getting better quality with more convenience (skipping tracks, for example, or creating a program as compared to listening to a tape or record) with great quality. People bought MORE music!
DVDs accomplished the same thing for the movie industry. Given a format that doesn't wear out and degrade after many viewings, great quality output, less space than VHS tapes, no rewinding - and now we have things like multi disc players, not to mention the sound options with DVDs (hey, I don't care about Spanish or French, but sometimes I do get portuguese, which is great for me).
Now we have MP3s. Good quality can be had (excellent quality can be had, really), in a solid state form that's easy to store and recall, gives us many hours of music in relatively little space, easy to manage a whole collection of music - it literally takes no extra space in your house. Again we have ability to program from lists of possibly hundreds or thousands of songs. And the industry wants to make it difficult to listen to music the way you want to listen to it. They are not making friends.
I'm not going to be ignorant about the problem of piracy by claiming it's not a problem at all, it's the methods of preventing it I question... the current methods only hurt the honest consumers, not the pirates, and it's the honest consumers that ultimately have to pay for the copy prevention that is keeping them from listening to music or watching movies the way they want to. It's just so stupid. And it IS counter to fair use, but there's no laws requiring content providers to make fair use easy. And now the DMCA makes attempts at fair use illegal.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Your use of "untrained ear" is amusing.
The bogeyman of "infinite resolution" with regard to vinyl is just that; it isn't true, and it really oversimplifies what's going on. "Sampling of discrete values" makes it sound as if you're only getting a summary of the information contained in an original waveform, which isn't true.
Yes, the data on a CD is made up of samples. These *represent* the waveform, but are not *the* waveform. The DA step converts these samples back into the original waveform. There is no continuity "lost" in this process, depending on the frequency response and SNR of the original signal.
For example, say you have an analogue tape that has data of up to 16kHz. By Nyquist, 44.1kHz is more than enough room to encompass *all* of that data, and the 16bits gives (going by memory, so I'm likely wrong on this figure) 96dB of dynamic range; far more, in other words, than vinyl ever had.
I'd really like to find an audiophile someday who'll admit to liking the inherent analogue distortion in records. It's pleasing! Great. It isn't enough to elevate audio *above* science, somehow.
Check out sites like Maple Shade Records for prime voodoo. As the same people who believe that analogue is always inherently superior to digital believe that a glorified hatrack "improves soundstage, makes highs livelier, and sounds like a blanket has been removed from your speakers"...I can't say I have much to do with them.