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%..."

Comments

This is what id like..

[PepsiProgrammer]

Personally I think it would be great if a music store kept the files in wav format and encoded them on the fly so you could choose any format you like (caching the popular options). Sure they would probably have to charge more, but I think it would be worth it.

Oh and no DRM please, I like my music without bullshit.

Re:This is what id like..

[PepsiProgrammer]

Thats why you would have the additional charge for more exotic codecs. 99.999% of people will be going after the mp3's if given the option. But a few people would rather grab oggs or flacs.

And, the topic did not say your ideal music store had to be feasable with current technology.

This is just what I think would be best format wise, but until the entire recording industry gets its head out of its ass and starts: distributing good music, at a decent price, with a decent chunk going to the artist. I won't be buying shit from them.

Re:This is what id like..

[I Love this Company!]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what about the legality of that site? I've seen it advertised often here as a good service (it looks quite professional) but I'm hazy as to its legitimacy.

Re:This is what id like..

[Fancia]

They pay royalties to ROMS, the Russian organization that handles licensing for radio, television, internet audio and so forth, and ROMS pays royalties in turn to the artists. In Russia, it's perfectly legal, and seems to be in other countries; it is a bit grey whether this is covered under export laws proper or not, but generally it's legal to import something if it has a legal license in the country of origin, to my knowledge.

Re:This is what id like..

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:This is what id like..

[Mr. Slippery]

Decently encoded music, takes quite a bit of CPU power and quite a bit of time.

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.

Re:This is what id like..

[Mr. Slippery]

The pertinent statute is 17 USC 602

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.

Re:This is what id like..

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:This is what id like..

[orthogonal]

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 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?

But it's right for American businesses to outsourced my job to India where they can get labor more cheaply, because that's streamlining business and creating efficiency?

Man!

One day I want to live somewhere where real, living, breathing -- and maybe starving -- people have as many rights as faceless, soulless, corporations.

But I guess it's fair, those corporations paid good money -- money they made by charging customers like me more -- to buy the politicians who wrote them the favorable laws.

Re:This is what id like..

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:This is what id like..

[eric76]

I don't think that 602(b) bans them either.

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. In either case, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe, by regulation, a procedure under which any person claiming an interest in the copyright in a particular work may, upon payment of a specified fee, be entitled to notification by the Customs Service of the importation of articles that appear to be copies or phonorecords of the work

So if the copies were legally made, the Customs service has no authority to prevent them from being imported unless section 601 applies. Section 601 deals with copies made prior to July 1, 1986.

Re:This is what id like..

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:This is what id like..

[fermion]

And this is the fucked up synthetic asymetry of capitalist America. The companies producing goods can go anywhere to get or produce the goods that they sell Americans, but if normal consuming Americans try to make the same economies, as they are often forced to do due the ineffeciencies of a few ultimately unnecesary middle men raking in millions of dollars of compensation, these Americans get called unpatriotic and the American Government tries to pass laws to stop the free trade.

This is the kind of crap that caused the American Revlutionary War. This is the kind of crap that caused the economic boycott by opporessed population in the Southern US. This is no different than the British Government saying the Indian people can't make salt from thier own sea water, Yes, the government and corporations must be recompensed for thier useful work. However, neither has an inherent right to exist. The US corporations have all but stated they agree with this statement by artificially moving much profit out of the US, which is where most executives live, into lower tax havens. I wonder if they even check to see if some of these havens perhaps provide financial services for unfriendly military organazations.

Re:This is what id like..

[hagios17]

There is a good startup at http://www.studiodownloads.com/ which offers MP3 and FLAC downloads for small and independent artists. They are pretty cool. The prices are set by the artists.

allofmp3.com

[n0iz77]

allofmp3.com is already amazing. super low prices and i can get most of the music in ogg q5. :)

Re:Allofmp3.com

[MrRage]

It's a lot easier to download a song vs. downloading a whole movie. That's probably why the movie industry hasn't been hit as hard.

Re:allofmp3.com

[bullitB]

Unless you're a Russian citizen, living in Russia, listening to the music in Russia, allofmp3.com is also not legal. If you're going to violate local copyright laws, at least use a P2P service where they don't take down your name and credit card number.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[OS24Ever]

But the RIAA should learn the lesson that the MPAA has learned:


That, and produce a quality product. I'm hard up to find any new music that isn't over sampled over produced stripping teeny bopper. I mean with the iPod and you listen to the music without her shaking her ass your face on the screen you see the crap for what it is.

Re:allofmp3.com

[blackmonday]

Those of us in the USA who buy music from allofmp3 need to remind ourselves thats it's not legal here. But dammit its the closest thing to perfect. There media app downloads the songs for you in the background, the tunes are dirt cheap and they have a good (but not excellent, at least in punk) selection. Their search engine sucks though. Search for "corazon oro" without the quotes, then search for "corazon de oro". that song should be there in the first search! I would also like it if it embedded the album cover into the tune, so iTunes could display it.

Re:allofmp3.com

[geniusj]

Well i've never heard of anyone getting busted for it yet. Nor have I heard a statement from the RIAA saying that the site was illegal.

Re:allofmp3.com

[jonathan_95060]

Unless you're a Russian citizen, living in Russia, listening to the music in Russia, allofmp3.com is also not legal. If you're going to violate local copyright laws, at least use a P2P service where they don't take down your name and credit card number.

And what do you base this statement on? Forget proof, has RIAA even ever commented on allofMP3? Last time I searched RIAA was mute on the subject of AllofMP3.com which is strange when you consider how much music US customers download from there. It is inconceivable that RIAA is unaware that US citizens are using AllofMP3 in droves.

Granted, ripping CDs in the US and uploading them to allofMP3 is likely to be illegal but I have seen nothing to suggest that downloading music from allofMP3.com is illegal.

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've used AllofMP3.com for nearly a year and I'm thrilled with them. They give me MP3s in the format I want (192kbps VBR MP3s) and they have old hard to find music (e.g. King Crimson - Discipline) that I can't get from other online services.

SIDEBAR: it was actually the fact that I couldn't fine old AC/DC and King Crimson albums that I wanted on iTunes that drove me to AllofMP3, not the fact that AllofMP3 is cheaper!

Re:allofmp3.com

[cpt kangarooski]

Yeah, but it's illegal* to use (at least for Americans). So it's not noticably better than free, illegal alternatives.

*Yes, it's illegal to download from them. This is because downloading is reproduction, not importation (which is also generally illegal anyway)

Before disputing this, please read 17 USC 106; pertinent definitions in 17 USC 101 (in particular 'phonorecord'); Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp 2d 1290, 1294 (D. Utah 1999); A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004, 1014 (9th Cir. 2001); and 17 USC 602(b) (which is totally independent from 602(a) and any exceptions in that subsection).

Re:allofmp3.com

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:allofmp3.com

[damiam]

Whether or not it's legal, allofmp3.com is ethically no better than p2p because the artist doesn't get payed a single penny.

Re:allofmp3.com

[GreyWolf3000]

Copyright infringement isn't stealing, because the reason we can't go around stealing eachother's cars is that in doing so we deprive others of their possession.

What we're dealing with is unauthorized distribution of duplications. Yes, this is wrong and illegal, but it doesn't have the same consequences as stealing.

I'm not doing this just to be a pedantic prick, but when you talk about economics, you have to look at risks and concerns. A big risk in the existing record business is mass unchecked redistribution. When you call it 'stealing,' you put the focus on catching the crooks that are downloading songs (they're the 'thieves'). Instead, the focus should be on the people distributing the songs themselves.

Re:allofmp3.com

[Senjutsu]

Question: Why can't I use the iTunes Music Store outside of the US, UK, France, or Germany?

Answer: Because Apple has not secured the copyrights for the songs they sell outside of those 4 countries.

If having the distribution rights in one country were enough to allow you to distribute worldwide, you can damn sure bet Apple would do so. They wouldn't deny themselves a revenue stream like that.

Just because the RIAA hasn't commented on it, it doesn't mean it's it legal.

Re:allofmp3.com

[NSash]

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.

Re:allofmp3.com

[Senjutsu]

Indeed, under Canadian law, using AllofMP3 is probably legal insofar as one has the right to download (but not share) a copy of the music. But there's no point in doing so, because it's every bit as legal to use $P2P_APP_OF_CHOICE in Canada to download for free.

In the US, on the other hand, it's just as illegal to download from allofmp3 as it is to download from the p2p service, so there's still no point in using allofmp3, unless you really enjoy giving your credit card number to Russians running a service of highly dubious legality.

Re:allofmp3.com

[kayen_telva]

I fail to see how that case you cite relates.
so I guess I guess I can post links to bugs bunny to support mine.
is buying russian liquor illegal ? is buying a russian fur hat illegal ? no.

http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm#Is%20All ofmp3%20legal?
http://www.technewsworld.com/story /34512.html
http://news.com.com/5208-1027-0.html?forumID=1&thr eadID=1110&messageID=4945&start=-181

2 friggin seconds on google and your little soapbox is destroyed

Re:allofmp3.com

[cpt kangarooski]

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).

Re:Allofmp3.com

[valmont]

well the RIAA may own and produce a lot of crappy music of "today". The only problem is that they own really, REALLY *REALLY* good music from "back in the day". I'm sorry but show me one independent artist who's nearly as good as Ella Fitzgerald.

Hey that's how it's been for decades. If you're really good, people like your shit, the big guys go after you, and you succumb to the big buck, or at least prospects of it.

The thing is, if you want to become really famous, and make the big bucks, you have to be part of the whole media food chain. Start with ClearChannel worldwide, to all the Broadcast and Cable moguls. They're all in bed with the RIAA, this is all one big family that dictates what we, consumers, get to listen to.

Because in the end we're all veggies. Actually, I'm not. I rarely watch TV and only listen to very odd radio stations.

But we go back to the basic challenge: You're an artist with talent, everyone in your town loves your shit, how do you make it to the big times?

Answer: you plug into the iTunes Music Store, and distribute your music online.

Re:allofmp3.com

[NSash]

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 copyright law grants the holder the exclusive right to distribute and reproduce the work. Russia is a signatory of the Berne Convention, so if allofmp3.com is operating legally within Russia, they already have the copyright holders' consents.

Re:allofmp3.com

[cpt kangarooski]

Russian copyright law is as worthless as Moon-Man law within the borders of the US. Copyright law is national. Which is why they can have whatever they have within their borders.

Since I'm talking about US-located downloaders breaking the law, Russian copyright law is not a part of this discussion.

so if allofmp3.com is operating legally within Russia, they already have the copyright holders' consents.

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. Even they seem to admit it.

I dunno why you point out the Berne Convention. It doesn't play into this.

Re:allofmp3.com

[NSash]

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.

Re:allofmp3.com

[NSash]

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.)

Re:Allofmp3.com

[mqduck]

Not knowing where the good new music is is one of the best signs that you're growing old. I'm so sorry.

Re:allofmp3.com

[jonathan_95060]

you wouldn't, by any chance, be a RIAA astroturf artist would you?

I'll I keep hearing from your side is lots of FUD (russians are scary, woooooo) and little compelling reason to avoid their service.

Again I ask, why doesn't RIAA close the loop? That is to say apply pressure where they have some power -- hear in the US! Why don't they get an injunction against credit card companies to disallow US customers from paying via credit card to AllofMP3? I'm very confident that AllofMP3 would stop illegally distributing music to me if I didn't pay them. The credit card companies have active business presences here in the US so RIAA should have no problem getting to them.

Instead of RIAA simply cutting off AllofMP3 (which I confidently assert is the single largest distributor of online music to US citizens) from US credit card payments they choose piddly ass cases against grandmothers and teenie boppers as a scare tactic.

Ignoring the easy shot against the big fish in favor of making examples of people who'd rather lose and settle out of court than win in court and see their life savings consumed in legal costs suggests to me that the big fish isn't the easy target you make them out to be ...

P.S. I'll be sure to post here on slashdot as soon as RIAA whoops my ass for being an allofMP3 customer.

Cheers,
--Jonathan

Re:allofmp3.com

[clifyt]

"There media app downloads the songs for you in the background, the tunes are dirt cheap and they have a good (but not excellent, at least in punk) selection."

Its easy to be dirt cheap when the price of adding a new song to the server is around $16.95 + worldwide shipping from Amazon.

Its dirt cheap because they don't pay the artists. More than that, folks like me that get paid on points (regardless of the fact its a quarter of someone elses half or a percentage of a point) don't get paid -- especially when some of us take chances on more unknown artists knowing that if we do great work, we might get paid later -- while if we do shitty work, we probably won't get anything.

The fact is, folks like Downfuckinghill Battle scream about artists get only $0.10 a song (which is actually a higher percentage than most get from anything sold at BestBuy or WalMart), while the same folks bragging about this are willing to fuck over everyone in the music industry because they are trying to fucking save us from ourselves.

Personally, I have a job doing research that keeps me afloat. Music buys me gear, gets me into parties that geeks like me should never be allowed close to, and puts some pocket change in my wallet. And yet, I've worked on shit that was high profile enough that I know friends of mine have ripped the shit off a P2P site -- and honestly, thats what I consider allofmp3 -- just an illegal operation running under laws that are not quite clear in Russia and not up to the technical reality of today nor intended to be used in the way they are, and actually even illegal for them to sell outside of their borders -- let alone illegal for you to download outside of their borders as well.

I've taken a look at the site and it pisses me off. Music as a commodity and not an art. Buy it in bulk. You aren't paying per song, you are paying per the bandwidth. Want higher quality -- its more money to download. The artist gets exactly the same percentage of the sale -- NOTHING.

Honestly, as a musician and technician , I can hear the difference between MP3s, AAC or WAV but I don't care. I buy the music not for the quality, but for the content. Audiophiles have always gotten on my fucking nerves. If you weren't around when it was originally recorded, you are getting no where near the original quality, so it doesn't matter. This is why we go to see concerts and why I don't get tired of seeing the same band a few dozen times a year (well the fact that they pay me to be there is beside the point -- I'd have been there with simply the invite and the travel reimbursement).

What would be more important that quality to me would be all the lyrics and artist notes to the song. Cover art? its nice, but not integral to the music. Lyrics, notes -- definitely important and can make the difference between a good song and a great one because it sets the mood and context.

Past that, iTMS is perfect for me. And I just checked -- it looks like its got my friends band's bio pages up -- maybe one of these days they will have their own customized mini portals as well one of these days.

Re:allofmp3.com

[Senjutsu]

you wouldn't, by any chance, be a RIAA astroturf artist would you?

Nope. My dislike for them and for uninformed statements are about level, so it's an interesting tightrope. Read my history, if you want. The RIAA sure as fuck ain't going to pay a Canadian to post on non-RIAA related topics on slashdot. But while we're dodging the discussion in favor of silly acusations, how do I know you aren't a front account posting on slashdot to drum up card numbers for some crooked russian outfit?

I'll I keep hearing from your side is lots of FUD (russians are scary, woooooo) and little compelling reason to avoid their service.

I'm not employing scare tactics, just common sense. If one is going to break the law, why not do it on p2p for free? Why pay someone halfway around the world to accomplish the same goal? It's just as illegal, and you're opening yourself to the possibility of credit card fraud. The mere fact that they'll sell music to you demonstates that legality of action is not their primary concern.

Instead of RIAA simply cutting off AllofMP3 (which I confidently assert is the single largest distributor of online music to US citizens) from US credit card payments they choose piddly ass cases against grandmothers and teenie boppers as a scare tactic.

You could assert that, but please provide proof if you want to discuss it as a serious fact. It seems to me that allofmp3 is nowhere near the buzzword that napster/kazaa was; it's utterly obscure to the general public. It's your assertion, back it up.

Why don't the RIAA shut it down? How can they? It operates in fucking Russia, and they probably have the Russian distribution rights payed up; only their foreign distribution is likely illegal. Unless the operators pull a Skylarov and show up on US shore, the RIAA probably can't do shit. They can't subpoena the server logs, they don't have legal standing there, the State Department probably has a million things better to do than pester the Russian authorities about it, and the Russians probably don't give a shit anyways. But that cuts both ways. They decide to fuck with your credit card, good fucking luck getting the Russian police to give a shit about it.

They went after the teeniebopper and Grandmda distributors. The RIAA never filed a case against a downloader, ever; all the kazaa suits were against people dumb enough to check the "I want to be a supernode" box. So if all you're doing is downloading and not uploading (which is, after all, all you can do at allofmp3) again, I ask, why give your credit card to a foreign corporation of dubious legality? You're just as unlikely to face prosecution downloading for free off a p2p network. You're still breaking the law, either way, but you're absolutely right in that you'll probably never get "your ass whooped" over it. Why pay, unless you're buying into the scam that allofmp3 is running, the delusion that it's a legal service.

Ignoring the easy shot against the big fish in favor of making examples of people who'd rather lose and settle out of court than win in court and see their life savings consumed in legal costs suggests to me that the big fish isn't the easy target you make them out to be ...

In fact, I have never suggested they were an easy target, merely that them distributing to the US (and US customers downloading from them) is illegal, and therefore redundant given the availability of the material for free through other avenues here. None of that in the least suggests that they are an easy target.

Re:allofmp3.com

[Jugalator]

In the US, on the other hand, it's just as illegal to download from allofmp3 as it is to download from the p2p service, so there's still no point in using allofmp3, unless you really enjoy giving your credit card number to Russians running a service of highly dubious legality.

I personally generate a temporary VISA number so they aren't getting my real one in case "something" would happen. But why are you saying it's not legal? Can someone here saying this point me to a place where it says they're illegal outside of Russia?

Re:allofmp3.com

[caudron]

That means that unless the copies made would have been legal had US law applied at the place where they were made

(standard IANAL stuff applies)

Even under US Copyright law, these copies are legal. They are licensed under contract in a legitimately recognized sovreign nation that is an active and signifigant participant in the world community. Russian-born contracts are perfectly valid and enforecable across borders.

Facts:

1) The music was legally licensed in the nation where the sale is taking place.

2) There exosts no prohibition against sale in the legal license.

3) There exists no prohibition against sale accross borders once the music is legally licensed.

4) When the RIAA had legal grounds to injunct a music distribution method, they do so.

5) The RIAA has never made a single public mention of AllOfMP3, and there exists no evidence to suggest that AllOfMP3 is on their hitlist.

6) Copyright law allows me to purchase music in another country and bring it here, so long as the purchase was legal.

7) The sale of music by AllOfMP3 is legal.

Downloading is reproduction, not importation. Check it out: Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry,

I trust that you, also, are not a lawyer since you have taken IR v ULM way out of context.

1) In IRvULM, the hosting site did not have license to distribute. AllOfMP3 does.

2) In IRvULM, there is no mention whatsoever of the distinction between reproduction versus importation as an issue. Judge Campbell was ruling on the distinction between viewing and copying. The judge ruled that viewing a page constituted the illegal making of a copy, rather than a legal viewing (i.e., same as photocopying a book rather than same are reading it in the library) which has zero bearing on a case where the licensee has every legal right to sell copies of the material and is doing so under the auspices of a legally recognized government that engages and accepts the rules of the WTC, of which Russia is a member in good standing.

What, can't you read?

Though it's clear by this statement that you were being offensive in your reply, you'll note that I stuck to the facts and didn't engage in meaningless insult. Try doing that from now on and people will respond better to your arguments. and especially avoid being so cocky when you are wrong. It doesn't make you look so good.

iTunes rock

[Anonymous Coward]

After 3 years of boycotting music and not buying any, I finally started using iTunes 4 months back. Since then I've purchased 10 albums. I tried MusicMatch and looked at Real, but honestly iTunes is the most user friendly.

Re:iTunes rock

[dbn3]

[Listening to the new U2 single just bought on iTunes :) ]

Now that I am more than 10 years out of college, it is definately worth $0.99 to just get the song I want without trolling the p2p networks looking for music.

Besides, in recent years, if it ain't hip with the teen/college crowd, it ain't on the p2p networks. Those tracks that are there are of very variable quality -- you have to get several copies because some moron can't rip or encode correctly. It's just not worth the hassle.

Things I really like about iTunes:
- cost;
- quality;
- ease of purchase;
- the "others also bought" links let me explore things I haven't heard before; and, of course
- buying the single for a buck instead of a 10 track crappy cd for $14 for that one single.

Things I still am waiting for:
- broader catalogue (Madonna and The Beatles for two are still not available)

MP3?

[Treacle Treatment]

I wouldn't pay for any downloadable music that wasn't CD quality and storable to as many CDs or MP3 players as I wanted.

iTunes

[loid_void]

No one has done /. better, and no one has done iTunes better, and didn't someone say, "Bring 'em on." Nah...

FREE MUSIC

[michalas]

>'What would the perfect online music store offer you?'

FREE MUSIC!

Re:How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you aren't pointing at your crotch.

Allofmp3.com

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Allofmp3.com already has FLAC, Vorbis, and VBR MP3 files for the taking. They're DRM-free and play on anything.

I would happily pay $.99 a track for what Allofmp3.com offers. Of course, they only charge $0.01 per megabyte.

Of course, Allofmp3.com is probably illegal, at least in the US. But the RIAA should learn the lesson that the MPAA has learned:

Give people the content they want (movies, some of them costing $100s of millions to produce), at a fair price ($15 DVDs), in a format that's convenient (DVDs have good quality and nonrestrictive DRM) and there will be no incentive to pirate your content.

Perfect music store

[vivek7006]

Everytime you buy a song, your size will increase by 20%

For me

[Judg3]

The author's idea of a music store is pretty much aligned with my own, except for one thing - I'd like to have the ability to (for an additional fee even) download the .wav file.

Then I can do whatever the hell I want to with it. Yes MP3 and OGG are nice, and yes FLAC is lossless, but the ability to download a .wav just gives me that warm fuzzy "I can do whatever I please with it" feeling.

Ah, yes, and I'd like the ability to download the track I purchased 3 times, just in case. Making sure I could grab my music again if my hdd fails would be an extra warm selling point too.

AudioGalaxy

[frankmu]

that was a great site, with informative reviews, and vast selection of music. still miss it.

So, the obvious comments:

[The Only Druid]

Look at it this way, there are two groups of replies to this:

The Slashdot Crowd...

They're going to demand support for all of the Ogg contained codecs.
They're going to demand no drm, even optionally, so while you'll probably see AAC as a general format, you wont see fair-play.
You'll see the classic mp3, of course.
The price is going to have to be far less than 99c, since so many people here resent all things associated with the Apple store. I'm thinking what, 30 pence will please you guys?

The Normal Crowd...
For everyone else, you know what the perfect music store would be? The iTunes music store with basically a few additions:
There should be some ability to purchase at least some songs (i.e. certain classical pieces) at a higher bitrate.
There should be the ability to purchase files for more than one player, so that may mean something like WMA.

There's probably more, but I think these are the key points...

Re:So, the obvious comments:

[PhiberOptix]

And thats why hes asking it here, on /.
The general /. public is definitely different than "normal" public, but seeing how much time we spend online and how many of us there are (slashdotted sites everywhere?), it makes sense to open a music store aimed at "geeks", doesnt?

The best online music store?

[Anita Coney]

Personally, I like buying CDs from Amazon. The prices are good, I have yet to find any DRM, I pay no shipping, no taxes, and usually get my CDs in about a week. I can then rip them to any format I choose.

Re:The best online music store?

[Yolegoman]

I recently bought two cds, Spider-Man 1 Movie Score and Spider-Man 2 Movie Score (One for me, one a birthday present: We are going to swap-out, if only for the sake of having the cool album art in our possession once in a while... anyway), and simply chose "Free Super Saving on Orders Over $25". Said 4-6 business days, but the order was packed within 24 hours, and got here 48ish hours later. Not bad. Not bad at all. And, if you consider that I make $14 an hour programming, and you consider that I suck at finding stuff on p2p, it was probably cheaper to just buy the CDs, have them come with cool album art, and get here with no fuss, than to try to find them on some p2p prog where all the audio files are actually disguised Britney Spears wannabes. I simply don't have time to fuck about looking for files that aren't there. I'd rather buy, but I only buy when I want. Maybe that explains why I only purchase movie soundtracks anymore... already heard all of the music anyway.

Re:The best online music store?

[kylemonger]

I like buying CD's from Amazon too, but not when the CD contains one song out of thirteen that I want to hear and I'm expected to pay for all of them. This is where Apple's store excels; you buy exactly what you want. Sound quality is good enough; if you're listening through those lousy iPod earbuds or average desktop speakers, 128 bit AAC files are fine. If you're an audiophile, only 30ips reel-to-reel analog tapes are good enough for you, so what are you doing here anyway? :)

The perfect music store.

[luugi]

How Napster used to be.

already exists...

[MrBlic]

Magnatune fits your description and it already exists. All we need is to have Magnatune license it's storefront for many other publishers to open and make some money in a similar grass-roots way.

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

Easy...

[kelnos]

Give me a choice of Ogg Vorbis or FLAC, give me the choice to pay an "all you can eat"-type periodic subscription, or a per-song price (with a discount for an "album's" worth of songs). I'd like to see this store backed by artists who actually get a large chunk of my change, not by huge music conglomerates. The obvious one: I don't want any DRM on the files themselves. A supported Linux client is a must, of course (or a web interface). 30 second preview clips are good enough for me to decide if I like a song enough to buy it.

So, as you might guess, I'm not buying any online music anytime soon...

sound quality

[evil crash]

Guaranteed sound quality, and the ability to re-download any track I've ever purchased. (Ya just never know when ya might lose it.)

What I would like to see...

[mcwop]

To be up front I like Apple's music store, but it needs vast improvement:

• Create magazines by genre. Example, a punk page with weekly news album reviews highlights etc. Tour dates. Could have one for Classical etc...
• More indy music, most stores do not have the more esoteric independant stuff that I want.
• Allow bands to set up their own bootleg store page, where they can upload and sell live albums or singles - all to be billed thorugh the main store
• Set up store preferences, like the landing page by music genre etc...

That is it off the top of my head.

Last time I used it

[bigberk]

bleep was just about perfect. Because it's direct to the record label, about 50% of the sale goes to the artists (which is fantastic in my books). You simply pay for the sale, maybe an entire album, and get a ZIP file containing the high quality MP3s that have been lame encoded with VBR. Very proper. Looks proper, sounds proper. So yeah, that's about as perfect as I have seen!

The Perfect Music Store

[darthtrevino]

* Per Song Pricing

* Lossless compression scheme and a cheap program to encode it to any other format.

* 50 cents or less pricing per song

* GOOD MUSIC SELECTION (ie Beatles, Beach Boys, U2, Led Zeppelin)

* EVEN MORE GOOD MUSIC SELECTION (Rarities, B-Sides, Live Shows, exclusives)

* Indy artists

* Less 50 cent, nelly and timberlake on the front page

* Reasonable DRM (none)

* Audiobooks

Don't buy music online.

[EvilCabbage]

When I find music worth buying, I seek it out in my local, privately owned music store. These little stores are often owned by people that love music and they really need help to keep the money in the local economy.

After I purchase my real, shiny CD I rip it to MP3 and stick the CD on my shelf. If my hard drive crashes and burns, I've got my hard copy right there, waiting to be re-ripped.

I just don't see the appeal in buying music online in the way proposed. My idea of buying something involves actually having a physical end product, otherwise it's just called 'renting'.

Re:Don't buy music online.

[clarkie.mg]

I don't think your local store has hundreds of thousands CDs. Usually, they stock only novelties and popular artists.

Of course, you can back order through them but then you will have to go twice to the store. Why not buy online then.

Re:Don't buy music online.

[EvilCabbage]

What makes the ones and zeroes on your bookshelf more real than the ones and zeroes on your hard drive?

If I was a Britney fan, I'd probably agree with you, I like to think that real music has some soul to it, and having a CD with interesting cover notes or band information I can roll over in my hands and read while listening to the music means something to me.

It's not something I can quantify, it's an emotion about the music. I love music, I just hate what MTV, the Pepsi generation and (gasp) The Internet has done to it.

Re:Don't buy music online.

[EvilCabbage]

Of course, you can back order through them but then you will have to go twice to the store. Why not buy online then.

My local outlet is quite comprehensive (even more impressive considering this is a town of less than 30,000 people), but is it such a bad thing having to go and browse twice?

Music should be something social. It's great being in a store and bumping into someone with similar tastes and interests. This may come as a shock but it's a great way to work on those people interaction skills, just getting away from the computer for things like this.

It worries me that we've become so complacent with human interaction in the quest for convenience and quick delivery.

Not worse than a CD

[Jason1729]

It has to have CD quality or better, no DRM, and substantially cheaper than buying on CD.

Backups

[DAldredge]

It should have the ability to give you back what you bought in the event of a computer crash.

perfect? that's easy!

[ColMustard]

1. Everything is free.
2. Everything encoded in a new revolutionary format which features greater than CD quality, and all files magically don't take any space to store or time to download.
3. Everything is without DRM.
4. Despite it being a new format, it automatically plays on every device in existance anyway.
5. Every piece of music ever composed is available and audiobooks of every book written.
6. Revolutionary new searching technology brings you right to what you're looking for the first time every time whether you knew you were looking for it or not.
7. The store brings about world peace.

Duh!

you just described allofmp3

[poptones]

and the prices are good, too. Problem is those "wav" files seem to be ripped in analog format or something, cuz their quality is very erratic.

No fucking way am I gonna pay a buck a song and ten bucks an album for downloads unless I really like the work and can get pristine quality. Thus far I would say Magnatune does it best: you can listen to anything they have (and you can actually hear it because the quality doesn't suck) and, if you want to buy it, you can set the price and download it in high quality formats. I've bought a few albums there and have actually found myself going back to buy a work again because I decided I liked the work more than I thought and I felt bad about being such a cheap bastard.

if the record companies would trust people to do the right thing and stop calling us all thieves they could make a LOT more money. If I can buy a used CD for five bucks, rip it and get the quality I want, why the fuck would I pay twice that for the download? Magnatune gets it... the others don't.

Re:you just described allofmp3

[shark72]

"if the record companies would trust people to do the right thing and stop calling us all thieves they could make a LOT more money. If I can buy a used CD for five bucks, rip it and get the quality I want, why the fuck would I pay twice that for the download? Magnatune gets it... the others don't."

The empirical evidence runs counter to your opinion. The iTunes Music Store does absolutely gangbuster business, and they have very little trouble signing up artists, compared to Magnatune. They charge a buck a song, and they don't use the "payment optional" system that Magnatune does because they don't need to.

In this context "getting it" means being successful, and it looks like Apple gets it just fine. While Magnatune is a terrific proof of concept and I wish them a long life, their relative unpopularity serves as an interesting counterpoint to the chorus of Slashdotters who point out that the traditional retail music business model is broken.

Re:you just described allofmp3

[Fnkmaster]

A) iTMS doesn't sign up artists directly, they sign up the labels and resell their music, paying them 77 cents out of the dollar. B) Magnatune doesn't really try to sign established artists, they appeal to independent artists, or artists in non-mainstream genres, and they apparently have substantially more artists interested in being listed than they want to list - they are being selective, trying to pick good music, focusing on niches where they think they have a chance of getting traction.

Magnatune is trying to be a niche online record label, not a catch-all retailer selling music as a loss leader for their music player devices, so comparing them directly is pretty meaningless. Does Magnatune have issues with their marketing and PR? Absolutely, but I'm not sure that the fact that they let you listen to high quality streams before you buy has anything to do with their issues (it's not really payment optional, they just let you choose your payment amount between 5 and 20 dollars for an album, I believe, with 8 being the recommended amount).

If the problem is just exposure of the artists and the Magnatune site, that's a fixable problem and doesn't fundmentally disprove their model (which I see as high quality, DRM-free tracks for a reasonable price per album, with free full song previews). In any case, I think the jury's still out on this one, but there's plenty of room for an iTunes and a Magnatune to coexist out there (in fact, iTunes is going to be doing a deal with Magnatune in the near future to promote some of their artists in exchange for time-limited exclusives to sell their new albums).

Re:Than go to iTunes.

[PepsiProgrammer]

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.

Profit!

[Vaystrem]

1) Submit story to /.
2) Have /. community critque existing Music stores
3) Implement Recommendations
4) Submit story to /. about new music store
5) Profit!

My 2 bottom lines

[saur2004]

1) No DRM
2) Cash anonymity. [1]

I could not care less about any other details, ogg, mp3, ect, ect.

[1] If I walk into a music store, get a CD off a shelf and pay with cash (tinfoil hat arguments about face recognition systems or ATM bill number records aside) I can expect a certain level of anonymity. Ill buy online when I can expect that level of anonymity. (aka never) No one has my permission to record what music I listen too, what books I read, or what video I watch piriod, and that includes credit card records.

I'll agree to that!

[ValourX]

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

The best online music store isnt one

[sPaKr]

When you look at pricing selling bits is a losing game. First lets just get past the whole DRM, no I repeat NO DRM has ever worked. Just look at the warez groups and software, every game comes out with DRM and within hours its down like panties. The next fact we need to look at is just the econmics of the music buisness. Albums will never avarge over $20, the current sweet spot is $9 - $15. The per track sweet spot is $.99 (pick your currancy its all .99). Now lets look at concert tickets and expendatures. A decent show will start at about $30 per person, (figure you need to shelp a girl that makes less then you along so your paying her way). Add in tshirt (gotta get the sweet brittny t) and maybe a few beers, and you can esisly kick that outing up to $100s. So we have a situation where the concerts are brining 10x what the album sells for, and we are talking about albums? Jebus, why not just take 10% of the gate and give the bits away for free? So this is how it should work. First encode all the albums in just about every decent format that someone might want, and give them away for free. Allow people to download them directly from your website, share them p2p, it doesnt matter its just bits. Now Sell albums with something that they dont get by downloading. Keep the CD at about $15, but include a head of line copuon for the next concert. Most people if they like the ablum and buy it, and get it gets them into the concert. Now whamo this is where you start to cash in as we have seen the concerts is where people spend real money. The mp3s, flacs, aac's are just marketing to sell more concert tickets, shirts, and beers. Hard Copy CD's stay at $15 so they break even, but again just push people into the concert. The scary thing is the same model works for movies. How many Starwars fanboys would preorder the DVD's if they got into the premier of the next episode a day early with the movie critics? This also fixes the DRM arms race as by not playing that game. I mean how can kazaa compete when I can get the album, for $15 but a $20 rebate for the concert? If I show up for the concert the 'album pays for its self' in my eyes, but since they jack up the price of the concert, add in the price of the tshirt and the 'CD of the concert' vendor the music industry, artist, and promoter makes back the cash hand over fist.

Free

[Apreche]

Recorded music isn't worth anything to me anymore. I'll pay to see a concert or buy merchandise if I am compelled to do so. But unless it is for a ridiculously low price, say a dollar a month for infinite music, then its just not worth it.

Even if I did join some service, almost none of the music I listen to would be available. I listen mostly to groups like machinae supremacy, who give their music away for free anyway, classic rock which I already have on vinyl and thus am legally allowed to have mp3s of, ocremixes, and foreign music. It might be possible to pay for some of the foreign music on some of the services, but either I wont be able to read it or it wont work with Linux or it will costly ungodly amounts of money.

In conclusion I would actually pay for music if.
1) Every song ever recorded was available.
2) I could choose my format and bitrate freely.
3) Absolutely no DRM encumberance.
4) Works with Linux.
5) Super cheap, we're talking pennies or half pennies per song.

It's a good thing not too many people feel like me. The record companies would be screwed.

Magnatune. Next question?

[Hortensia Patel]

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.

What I want is lossless sans DRM

[Malor]

What I want is what I get on a CD: lossless music without DRM. (stupid attempts at copy protection notwithstanding.) At that point, your pricing is going to determine how much I'll buy. If you're at 99c per song/$10 per album, I'll buy some... if you're at $5/album, I'll buy a heck of a lot more.

For me, at least, $5 is about the sweet spot.... it's low enough that I'd buy four or five albums at a time, and I don't think I'd buy any more if they were cheaper, since you can only listen to so much stuff. At $10, I'd guess that my total dollar value of purchases would be much lower, because I'd have to think about each one a little. At $5, it's an impulse purchase... at $10, it's less so.

Even www.allofmp3.com isn't THAT cheap; lossless files from them usually run about a buck apiece. If they were cheaper, and their selection was broader, I'd buy a lot more, but I'm still pretty happy with them as it is.

www.allofmp3.com shows that the infrastructure can work. But it would be hard to duplicate here, because the record labels here want to charge a lot more for stuff. Somehow, I suspect they'd want to price it so that original CDs were actually cheaper; their perspective will probably be that lossless DRM-free files are 'more' than what they give you on the CD (since it's easy to copy). Unfortunately, almost any customer would think of electronic-only delivery as 'less', and wouldn't be willing to pay as much. I certainly wouldn't.

Overall, allofmp3.com is running about $10-11 for a lossless album, and I've bought a few of them. So I am a real potential customer. Get that price down to $5 or so, and I'd buy a boatload of music that I wouldn't otherwise.

The mind reels

[dynayellow]

Asking Slashdot what the perfect store to buy music should be like. It's like asking the American Cancer Institute which cigarette has the best flavor.

10 years out

[simpl3x]

Since some of my CDs are nearing twenty years, and I am encoding all of them into Apple lossless, I'd like to think a decade out. Much of my music has never been really used until I have been burning them into iTunes, and while lossless is great, the availability is probably more important. Digging through a couple of thousand CDs prevents one from using the music. I will likely re-encode all of the CDs (3 of 12 boxes to go) into 256 AAC when the variable bitrate version is out with quicktime 7.0. This will give me about 120 gigs of compressed music, which will be usable on whatever Pod is around in 3 or 4 years. 128 AAC or 128 LAME is just not good enough.

So, before I begin purchasing music online, it has to be at least 256 AAC quality, reasonable (meaning easy to disable) licensing or non-restrictive DRM, and a better selection of music. Until then, I'll buy CDs, burn them and give away or sell the worthless shell to somebody else.

I do have to say that most people do not purchase as much music as I do, and that a certain amount of it needs to be freely available at lower bitrates. Streams are great, but smart playlists loaded on demand (RSS-ish) would be great. They could simply be automatically disposed of afterwards.

Re:10 years out

[Flamesplash]

256 just seems a bit much. Do you really hear the difference, or do you just think you do?

Sometimes I'm glad I have not perfect hearing, I don't have to worry about these issues.

Re:10 years out

[nathanh]

Until then, I'll buy CDs, burn them and give away or sell the worthless shell to somebody else.

You are not allowed to keep the ripped versions once you've sold or given away the "worthless shell". You might as well be downloading the music off eDonkey because what you propose is just as illegal.

Re:10 years out

[citiZen2010]

I will likely re-encode all of the CDs (3 of 12 boxes to go) into...

Ughh... I consider myself a big music fan, and after I discovered music subscription, I knew I had seen the future. In 10 years, there's no way people are going to be encoding boxes of CDs, nor are they going to be buying hundreds or thousands of tracks via music stores like iTunes. If someone isn't really a music fan and only wants to listen to the same few songs over and over again, then the Walmart or iTunes store will be fine for them.

Not for me... I currently subscribe to Rhapsody, and I'm looking at Napster and the new Virgin Digital Music Club service. I strongly dislike the concept of DRM, but with subscription music, I find it a non-issue. I don't actually buy the music, and so as long as the service provides the functionality I want, DRM is not an obstacle. Believe it or not, after a month or two of "renting" the music, I was glad I didn't own it. Here's why:

Economics. As a music lover, I take advantage of the subscription service to listen to hundreds of new tracks every week. If I had to buy each one individually via Walmart or iTunes, I would go broke quickly.

Music Discovery. The Rhapsody service I subscribe to is really well put together. I've discovered lots of new favorite artists by browsing from artists I already like and from editorial recommendations. Music stores might offer similar advantages, but they generally cut you off after 30 seconds.

Music Library Management. This is what I was getting at in my response to the parent message. I've got boxes of CDs too, and they've been collecting dust ever since I started renting music. I would say roughly 80% of my CDs are available for stream and download via Rhapsody. That saves me days of in and out with my CD drive. When a new album comes out, all I have to do is go to the artist's page and start playing it. No need to whip out my wallet and buy a bunch of new tracks, or worse yet, buy the CD and rip them to the format du jour.

Having said all of that, there are still some issues that need to be fixed to make music renting even better:

Portability. Rented music is tied to the PC. This is the biggest problem, but all the services are working on device solutions, so hopefully this won't be an issue for much longer.

Incomplete Licensing. You won't find the Beatles on any subscription service yet (or download store, for that matter.) Lots of artists and labels are still holding back from allowing their stuff to be distributed online. I'm hopeful that this will also be resolved soon as well. In the meantime, all the labels and artists that do participate are making extra dough.

Sound Quality. In general, the sound quality is good. But as an audiophile, I won't be happy until it's lossless. This will take longer, both because the average consumer won't demand it, and because the the bandwidth is expensive. But hopefully this too will come to pass.

OS Support. None of these services work with Linux (or Mac, if you care about that.) That would be nice... but ultimately, I expect the service to operate directly with my stereo and my car stereo and my cell-phone/music device. So the OS will be embedded, and I won't really care what it is.

magntune.com

[phr1]

The perfect online music store is already up and running. It has mp3 downloads and streams of entire albums under Creative Commons licenses. If you want WAV, Ogg, FLAC, or other formats, you can pay for those. They are still under the CC license permitting non-commercial redistribution so you don't have to click on agreements allowing RIAA thugs to inspect your underwear drawer. If you want to use the music commercially (say as a movie score), the licenses for that are right there on the site: select the one you want, print it, sign it, and send it in with a check for the specified amount.

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).

Like this will happen...

[curtlewis]

My dream list:

$0.49 song pricing
$5.99 album pricing

(there's absolutely NO mfg cost and distribution costs are pretty low, this is completely affordable for the fat gluttonous record execs)

60 second stream ... fairly low quality is ok, as long as it isn't HORRIBLE quality.

I couldn't care less about a radio station.

Pay per song/album. No subscription BS for me. Individual pricing makes atrist payment much simpler.

File formats: DRM is going to have to be there to make it have a chance of happening, so that limits the file format options...

AAC

If universal DRM were applied to other formats, I'd be interested in:

MP3, FLAC, perhaps OGG if I felt really stupid

Selectable bit rates of 128/192/256/384

Accurate and complete info tags for everything as well as album art for the formats that support that (AAC).

Discount for hard copy purchase. Half the cost of your downloaded files applied to purchase of physical CD. Don't make me pay twice for the same songs, just charge me for mfg/distro costs. Half credit doesn't come close since the industry rapes us on CDs, but it's a compromise I think people can live with.

and finally...

The largest selection known to mankind!

I want to be scoring a Hat Trick in Hell while body slamming Lucifer on a goal run before I can't find a song or album I want.

I'm sure many people will say it but....

[the-build-chicken]

...allofmp3.com

it's got it nailed. Great service, great price.

$0.99 may be ok if...

[Mixel]

Personally, I'd like to see a store that has a 24/7 internet radio station, on-demand streaming, $0.99 downloads

If $0.75+ out of those $0.99 didn't go to record companies, who then use the money to buy lawyers to make sure that things end in tears, I would be a happier bunny. I'd like to see more independent artists and online stores bypass the middle-men for mutual benefit. But that may be wishful thinking...

Or is it? Here's a cool indie music site to cheer you up (including political tracks of the season). Their artists "are given 65% of the end-user sales price". Hope they fix their site images up real soon.

My perfect music store

[MykePagan]

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?

Re:AllOfMP3

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually talk about my thoughts on the legality of all of this on my blog. Do a Yahoo search, I'm near the top

Or I could just click the link that's under your username...

you are a thief

[Anonymous Coward]

If you rip the data from the CD, it's theft to then resell the CD to somebody without destroying your copy.

For example, if you have Microsoft Word, you can't just install it and then give away the installation media.

doesn't matter if it seems really cost effective, it's theft.

hell, why not just cut of the middleman and shoplift your music from Borders Books, rip them, and then drop off the "worthless shells" in the middle of the night in their video returns box?

talk about 128 LAME. that's just really really lame dude. wait till people are ripping off your hard work.

probably not something you have to worry about ;)

Re:you are a thief

[drmabuseuk]

to play devil's advocate, if you sell a CD to a used shop or give it away, how exactly is the label or the artist gaining, financially? Now that situation is 128 LAME!

paypal

[poptones]

I just used paypal to pay for them. Apparently they can't take it anymore, so next time I'll spend an extra couple of bucks and use a stored value card from one of the credit card companies.

And it doesn't really have anything to do with getting caught; it would be trivially easy for the US to track down every single person that gave these people money - all they need to do is compel the cc companies to report such use (just as they do already with many illicit businesses). It's more a matter of commerce in the new world of capitalism, and PR regarding enforcement. It's alright for Dow to pay a buck a day to exploit workers in a nation with no enforcement of environmental laws, spew toxic crap into the world with no regard for safety (remember the chlorine leak in India?), but it's not ok for us to order music from a nation with the "intellectual property" equivalent to this sort of non-protection?

I don't think so.

Liner Notes

[corian]

If I purchase an album digitally, I'd still like to download a PDF/Flash/something of the album art and liner notes. It's important content that the artist (or perhaps the label) feels complements the music, and that's why they are sold together. Although I'm puchasing music in a different format than a jewel case, I still want the same experience.

Re:Another big problem with allofmp3 ...

[akadruid]

Why do the artists get nothing? allofmp3 do pay their licensing fees. There may be a question what the Russian government does about passing those fees on to the artists but realistically, the copyright model is such a tortured, twisted shadow of the original intentions, that I feel no guilt about buying music there. I am breaking no law but yet I am not supporting Big 4 concept that would spend my money on 'pop idol' and the top 40. When they realise I am a discerning consumor and not a 13 year old girl perhaps they will market products that interest me. Until then, I will buy my music where I please and support my artists at gigs and festivals.

ethical?

[poptones]

That's really funny. Record companies routinely "cutout" releases within weeks of their release, which means any release that is not wildly successful goes into the loss leaders bin. That means the record company gets all the money and the artist gets to try again to get out of the immense creative debt she put herself in.

Citing "ethics" in defense of hollywood record companies is like citing Joan Crawford as a model for child rearing methodology.

That said, no one forced those artists to sign to those labels. It's simply not my problem that they are unable to obtain my money. If they were not slaves to the landsharks they would be able to (for example) release their work through magnatune, or even sell via their own website (as many - successful - artists already do).

Please God No!

[SpooForBrains]

Napster was notable only for being the first. Other than that it was a crappy underdeveloped implementation of the technology.

1. It didn't support resumable downloads. You know all those half finished tracks you keep pulling off [insert p2p network of choice]? They probably came from Napster and
2. It didn't group songs and download from multiple sources.

Audigalaxy was close to my idea of perfect. The interface was minimal and the seperate satellite was a genius idea.

Re:Another big problem with allofmp3 ...

[rduke15]

Why do the artists get nothing? allofmp3 do pay their licensing fees.

Look at how much you pay for allofmp3.com, and you will understand that artists cannot get anything from it.

Re:Another big problem with allofmp3 ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't think most of the people who post care if artists get paid. I mean, look at the comments on this board. They want what they want when they want it at the price they want it--which is--essentially, free. And they create all manner of tortured justifications for why they shouldn't pay for music. The RIAA is evil. New artists don't produce any good music (but it is evidently good enough to download and listen to). A dollar is too much for a track. I don't like DRM. And on, and on, and on. But essentially, these folks have discovered that they can "share" music with relatively no consequences, and they don't care if the people who make it get paid. Drumroll please, and cue the "The RIAA doesn't pay artists either" justifications. And don't forget to mention that anyone who has this opinion is a shill for the RIAA. All I'm saying is that I, for one, like music. And much of the music I like is/was released on RIAA labels (much wasn't). And the music and artists I like are capable of releasing albums with 10 or more good songs (I always wonder about the people who find only 1-2 good tracks on an album--what kind of crap are you listening to, anyway?). And finally, for me, a dollar a song is not a lot to pay for something I may listen to and enjoy hundreds of times. But I accept that my views are not shared by everyone.

For the last few months ...

[simbiotic]

... 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.

The perfect lossless medium

[johnnye]

Go to the store and buy the damn CD. You have your WAV files in uncompressed format. The price is right. You have the artists artwork for ideal physical storage. The record label is happy. And when the next best audio compression format comes along, RIP again.