Slashdot Mirror
The Perfect Online Music Store?
brace asks: "With the proliferation of online music sales, more and more companies are jumping onto the bandwagon and trying to sell you downloadable music. Some of them do a good job, some of them are just bad at it. The question I have for Slashdot readers is essentially 'What would the perfect online music store offer you?' Should it have OGG and FLAC tracks, as well as MP3? Would you rather pay per-song or per-month? Would you want the option to purchase hard-copy as well (like the actual album, or even band merchandise)? Should the song samples be 30 second downloads or full-song streams fed on-demand? Is a radio station important for an online music store?"
"Personally, I'd like to see a store that has a 24/7 internet radio station, on-demand streaming, $0.99 downloads (and $9.99 album downloads), links to purchase actual albums or merchandise, and with MP3, OGG, and FLAC support. I'd also like to see the artists being paid more than 10%..."
http://www.magnatune.com
I'm not affiliated in any way other than to love what they do. I've listened to lots of stuff, including their streaming mp3s of entire genres. I have bought a couple of albums from magnatune, and still listen to it today. It's been a long time since I've been into music this much.
-Jim
Celebrate Excellence!
Correct, someone will They are not free, they are infested with DRM, and therefore worthless to me. I do not own an ipod, nor do I run windows, a 'free song' that does not play on anything I own is not free.
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
Magnatune is incredible -- if only they also had Opera, I'd never have cause to listen to anything else.
I listen to the New Age and Electronica shoutcast stations from Magnatune on Rhythmbox petty much all day and night.
For people who like new music -- and it's *good* music, too -- Magnatune is probably the best Internet resource.
You choose what you want to pay for an album ($4 minimum, $8 suggested, the sky is the limit) and 50% goes to the artist. You can download full-quality WAVs, MP3, OGG, FLAC, AAC, and I think there's one more. You can also download all of the album art in PDF format, so you can write your own CDs as they would be from the store, minus the DRM.
I usually get the WAV zip file, then compress it to OGG/Vorbis for my computer and write the WAVs to CD for my car.
-Jem
Magnatune.
MP3, Ogg, FLAC, you name it. Listen to entire albums before buying, if you like. Most artists allow some discretion in how much you pay, depending on how much you like it and/or how much you can afford. Artist gets 50% and, IIRC, they retain full copyright.
I'm not affiliated with them in any way, but these guys really do Get It. Give 'em a whirl, they deserve it.
And what do you base this statement on?
17 USC 106(1), given the definitions of a phonorecord in 17 USC 101, and numerous cases such as Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp 2d 1290, 1294 (D. Utah 1999).
I have seen nothing to suggest that downloading music from allofMP3.com is illegal.
Well, now you have!
Presumably if it was illegal to download from allofMP3 then RIAA would get an injunction (or some such legal device) against the credit card companies so that VISA and Mastercard would not let US customers do business with AllofMP3.
I admit, I'm surprised that RIAA hasn't done anything. I suspect that it's due to concern that it would only serve to publicize them. But there really is no doubt that it's illegal for a person in the US to download from them.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
That's actually not true. I am not a lawyer, but until I hear from one, I think I'll go by this.
602 - Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords
(a) Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. This subsection does not apply to--
(1) importation of copies or phonorecords under the authority or for the use of the Government of the United States or of any State or political subdivision of a State, but not including copies or phonorecords for use in schools, or copies of any audiovisual work imported for purposes other than archival use;
(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage
[...]
(b) In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited. In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable.
Admittedly, there's nowhere near as wide a choice of CC-licensed music right now as there is of RIAA-style proprietary music, but that doesn't bother me. There's been so much music recorded through history that there's no way to ever listen to it all, and everything I've downloaded from Magnatune has been excellent. There's enough selection there to keep me happy for quite a while. I've completely lost interest in RIAA music and haven't bought a CD from a record store in years. (I've bought a few directly from performers at live shows, but that's about it).
but generally it's legal to import something if it has a legal license in the country of origin, to my knowledge.
That's generally untrue. And it makes sense:
Imagine if there was a country, Strongbadia, which had very liberal copyright laws, and permitted anyone to make copies of recorded music for a nominal fee. Imagine further that they tended to obtain copies of music from the US, reproduce them en masse for a miniscule sum, and then send the copies they made back to the US, flooding the US market.
The US copyright holder would be totally undercut, since he gets no meaningful profits from the Strongbadian copies, which are made against his will by third parties, and are cheaper than US-made and authorized copies.
So imports are generally prohibited so as to make a US copyright worth something. The pertinent statute is 17 USC 602. It has two independent subsections, (a), and (b). There are some exceptions to the ban in (a) that do NOT apply to the ban in (b). This is important.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
What, can't you read?
(b) In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited.
That means that unless the copies made would have been legal had US law applied at the place where they were made -- and therefore, since only the US copyright holder has power under US law, he would have had to consent; Russian organizations have no blanket power under US law -- they are NOT importable.
And since the exception in (a)(2) only applies to (a), and not (b), you're fucked.
Also 602 doesn't apply. Downloading is reproduction, not importation. Check it out: Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp 2d 1290, 1294 (D. Utah 1999).
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
...allofmp3.com
it's got it nailed. Great service, great price.
It's a solved problem. Allofmp3.com offers you the option to select either MP3. MP4, or Ogg Vorbis at a variety of bitrates. The songs are encoded to order and you are sent an e-mail message when they are ready for download.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
First off, it would have ALL the music. iTunes was missing three artist I was hunting for last night, and I am frustrated. Heck, iTunes doesn't even have the *good* Elvis Costello!
Encoders: mp3 is fine for me. I think it would be nice if you could choose the bitrate though. Maybe you could get 128 kbps for one price, 64 kbps for something a bit cheaper, VBR for a bit more money.
DRM: I'd be OK with "storm door" DRM. The kind that keeps honest people honest but doesn't get in the way when I switch to a new computer. Tight DRM always seems to make it too hard to actually enjoy the music the way I want to.
Pricing: iTunes is blowing it with the flat-rate $0.99 per song. Some songs should be cheaper, some should be more expensive. The hot single that's getting airplay every 10 minutes on ClearChannel could go for $2, while old Dixie Dregs that nobody but me wants to hear could go for $0.20 per song. Wasn't a Nobel prize given out recently for some economists who showed that it was best to price things this way (Black-Shoales, no?).
There should also be a discount for buying the whole album. This would incent people to listen to some of those tracks that aren't geting heavy rotation. Some of my favorite songs were the ones that grew on me over time as I played a CD through. Now with iTunes I tend to cherry pick only the new songs that I've heard or been recommended.
There are a million other pricing schemes that could be done that might make both the artist and the buyer happy. How about an artist offering a single flat-fee for access to their entire catalog? Maybe a subscription to an artist who promises to release songs on a regular basis?
Not really revelavent to people's use of allofmp3.com, since it exempts importation for personal use.
Some consideration of allofmp3.com legal issues can be found here.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
NO. 602(a)(2) says that the ban in 602(a) has an exemption. But the ban in 602(b) still applies.
Try again. And this time, refer to a site that actually knows what laws apply.
No importation is occuring at all. It is a red herring. This is a matter of reproduction.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I dunno why you point out the Berne Convention. It doesn't play into this.
The Berne Convention is the reason that Russians couldn't ignore their own copyright laws with regard to works created by non-Russians.
No, they have either a) compulsory licenses so that they can reproduce legally without consent, or b) consent of the RUSSIAN copyright holder. Who very well might not be the same person as the US copyright holder.
And from what I hear, it's the former.
If you have any specific sources on the exact licenses held by allofmp3.com, it would be nice if you could share them.
Russian copyright law is as worthless as Moon-Man law within the borders of the US. Copyright law is national... Since I'm talking about US-located downloaders breaking the law, Russian copyright law is not a part of this discussion.
If they are in compliance with Russian copyright law, they have the copyright holders' permissions, which means they are in compliance with U.S. copyright law.
(Edit - If they really are distributing under a compulsory license, that's something else.)
So let me get this straight: it's wrong for me to buy music from Russia where I can get it more cheaply, because I'd be undercutting the honest American business man?
Yeah.
I mean, what would the point of having a US copyright be, what value would it have, what incentive would it bear, if we let copies into the country that couldn't have been made here legally to begin with?
It does make sense if you want US copyrights to be meaningful. Otherwise it only takes one country to abolish copyright law and be a pirate, or to have super-weak copyright law (e.g. 1 day terms or something), and the actual authors and US publishers get screwed.
This is actually why the US has been very aggressive in trade discussions with countries that do this: Taiwan, China, Ukraine, etc. In fact, we are insanely pissed off at Ukraine for allowing piracy of American-authored works, since those copies get into markets around the world. We're cutting them off from other US trade, and imposing high tariffs so that they're uncomfortable enough to stop. This often works: Imagine how fucked Taiwan would be if we didn't let their goods into the US. Of course they caved in. The US is kind of a trade bully. Because that's where the money is.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Not knowing where the good new music is is one of the best signs that you're growing old. I'm so sorry.
Property is theft.
Read the first sentence again. Lawfully made means 'if it was made in such a fashion that it would have been lawful if US law applied.' And remember that under US law, only the US copyright holder may authorize the making of otherwise infringing copies.
But of course, again, downloading is not importation, so this is a more academic discussion than the other one which is more direct as to why it's illegal to be in the US and download from allofmp3.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
... i've been programming up a music store that sells non-DRM FLAC, Ogg Vorbis and MP3 alongside the CDs. The independent record labels have been very receptive the the idea of no DRM - helped a lot by Apple ignoring them in the UK. We've only got a few labels online so far but will be adding many more in the next few weeks.