MP3tunes Offers Music Service Without DRM

ThinSkin writes "Former MP3.com chief and Lindows CEO Michael Robertson will reenter the music world next week with MP3tunes, a service that promises music without DRM restrictions. MP3tunes hopes to attract users who are fed up with restrictions on copying music from sites that use digital-rights-management techniques, such as iTunes."

Comments

Hooray!

[daveschroeder]

I can't wait to download normal music that normal people actually want from the five major US record labels!

*Cough*

Anyone can do music without DRM.

Can they do music people want?

Spare me the arguments about how "it's not really what people want" because it's force-fed by Clear Channel, the labels, and a corrupt industry, and people just *think* they want it. Believe it or not, some artists on major labels have talent. Some don't. *Gasp!* Some completely unknown, independent artists may have talent, but might never have that talent shaped as well as it could be in the hands of professionals - and by "professionals", I don't mean music industry shills, I mean people who have done this for ages. Perhaps there are some bands out there who have the musical talent, business prowess, and personal presence to pull it off themselves. And maybe you think Open Source and "music/information wants to be free" socialistic type ideas - not using that in the pejorative sense - is the way to go. Fine. But the fact of the matter is that the MAJOR labels will demand DRM, unless one of them rolls (very unlikely), or a new paradigm takes over. Sure, maybe a DRMless music store will be part of that new paradigm. But at least realize that the vast majority of people won't give a shit about the vast majority of music on a DRMless service.

Do any of us like or want DRM? Hell no. But some of us realize that it's an extremely imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem. And, right or wrong, it's frankly their content to protect and do with as they see fit, as recognized under our system of laws as set forth by our elected officials, regardless of whose pockets you think they're in. If you are the ultimate cynic, and think everything is shot as it is, then you'll likely not understand any of this at all, or the fundamental desire of people to protect and secure their property or things they have invested in, no matter how unbalanced YOU might think it seems. But no one is forcing you to buy or listen to major label music. No one is forcing to you buy an iPod or use iTunes. Perhaps some of you put your money where your mouth is, but most of you are hypocrites. And the worst among you are those who think you can steal things who don't belong to you. And yes, it is stealing. An apt excerpt:

[...] different types of stealing are covered by different laws because they differ in the details. Theft through breaking and entering: burglary. Theft from one's employer: embezzlement. Theft by committing fraud through the mail: the aptly named mail fraud. Theft by the unlawful copying of somebody else's property: copyright infringement.

And the "deprivation" argument is pure shit, so don't even go there.

I wish them luck. I really do. I'd love to have no DRM on all of my video, television, movies, music, and be able to use things I *bought* any way I see fit on any device at any time. No broadcast flag, no forced no-commercial-skip, no DRM.

But I'm also practical.

That, and not a, you know, moron.

Re:Hooray!

[soupdevil]

Most of what you said is quite true. And some of us would exclusively support artists who shunned the DRM system, if it was easy enough to legally find digital music from artists who didn't want to handcuff their customers. Hopefully, mp3tunes.com will be that easy new way.

Re:Hooray!

[mboverload]

You should probably read this then:

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

Re:Hooray!

[sonic_ak]

Can refusing to buy the label's music really change things? I doubt it. I agree with the first poster saying that the format under which music is released is not a very good indicator of quality. Although I don't like how the major labels do business, me not buying a CD, or even thousands of people like me not buying their CDs will not change things. They have a financial incentive to screw over the artists and the consumers, thus, I believe, degrading the music that they are related with. Until that financial incentive is removed, things can't get too much better. The consumer politics approach only addresses specific symptoms of a problem, it doesn't deal with the root causes.

Re:Hooray!

[mboverload]

"With iTunes I don't feel guilty when I download music - Apple and the record labels do the screwjob for me."

iTune Music Store: Facelift for a corrupt industry.

Re:Hooray!

[Captain Splendid]

Which is why I haven't bought major label music since college

Okay, after reading this sentence for years, in one form or another, I call bullshit.

I mean, how do you constitute major label? Granted, we all know the big ones. But do you actually keep track of the gazillions of record labels, big and small, who gets bought out by who etc.?

Seriously. Let's say there's a small indie label who put out a couple of artists you like. How do you know if they get bought out? And if they do, do you immediately stop buying their product even if one of the bands on their roster plays some of the best music you've ever heard?

While I understand and appreciate your sentiment, I also can't understand why you'd do this. Not to mention spending precious time figuring who's a big bad media company and who isn't. I guess what I'm saying is good music comes before priciples. Life is too short.

Re:Hooray!

[farmer11]

And the worst among you are those who think you can steal things who don't belong to you. And yes, it is stealing. An apt excerpt:

And yes, it is stealing. An apt excerpt [slashdot.org]:

[...] different types of stealing are covered by different laws because they differ in the details. Theft through breaking and entering: burglary. Theft from one's employer: embezzlement. Theft by committing fraud through the mail: the aptly named mail fraud. Theft by the unlawful copying of somebody else's property: copyright infringement.

Nice quote. So is it stealing because you say so or because that guy you quoted says so?

And what if I live in a country not covered by US law? Is it stealing then?

Just because something's law doesn't mean it right or that it's immoral to do what you think is the right thing. Would you have said the same thing about womens rights to vote in the past? Or the rights of minorities?

And on the whole stealing thing... it's a freaking digital copy, no on has been deprived of anything! I spend the same amount of money every year on 'stuff' regarless of how many divx movies I watched. To use a tired phrase, I vote with my dollars by not giving them to the damn RIAA/MPAA!

Re:Hooray!

[dont_think_twice]

But the fact of the matter is that the MAJOR labels will demand DRM, unless one of them rolls (very unlikely), or a new paradigm takes over. Sure, maybe a DRMless music store will be part of that new paradigm. But at least realize that the vast majority of people won't give a shit about the vast majority of music on a DRMless service.

Every revolution has to contend with two powerful forces: those currently in power who resist it the revolution for their own gain, and, more importantly, the lazy masses who don't care about freedom or fairness, as long as they are comfortable. Usually people end up in the ignorant masses because they don't understand or care. You, on the other hand, seem to be proud to be on the side of blissful ignorance.

Do any of us like or want DRM? Hell no. But some of us realize that it's an extremely imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem.

Does anyone like being ruled by the King of England? No, but it is an imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem.

Does anyone like that we are fighting in Vietnam? No, but it is an imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem.

Either it is a good solution or a bad one. Pick a side. I have nothing but contempt for those who piously carry the banner of compromise in the name of convenience, and then declare that anyone who takes a true stand is a moron.

Perhaps some of you put your money where your mouth is, but most of you are hypocrites. And the worst among you are those who think you can steal things who don't belong to you. And yes, it is stealing.

Whether it is stealing or not (and your excerpt does nothing to prove your assertion), downloading all of your music is wrong. Downloading an occasional song, on the other hand, is not so clearly wrong. Nobody accuses people of stealing for taping songs on the radio.

I wish them luck. I really do. I'd love to have no DRM on all of my video, television, movies, music, and be able to use things I *bought* any way I see fit on any device at any time. No broadcast flag, no forced no-commercial-skip, no DRM.

But I'm also practical.

That, and not a, you know, moron.

So anybody who doesn't accept the current state as it is fed to them by those in control is a moron? Such as George Washington? Ghandi? Martin Luther King Jr? Should I go on?

I am NOT suggesting that the struggle over DRM is in any way equivalent to the true struggles that those brave men led. But I am suggesting that you have to be a moron to simply sit on your ass and make fun of anyone who tries to fight for what he believes in. And you have to be a really big fucking moron to proudly proclaim that you have no intention of fighting for what you believe in, because you "are practical".

Re:Hooray!

[morbiuswilters]

Compromise in the name of convenience is what makes the world go round. If every person insisted on getting their way all the time and refused to give up because the were absolutely right, then we'd all be up to our necks in quarrelous, obnoxious loons who are more interested in stroking their own egos than in being productive and going about the business of their own happiness...

Oh sod it all...

Re:Hooray!

[caswelmo]

Are you seriously equating the King of England, Vietnam, & political revolutions to our so-called battle with the music industry? You need some perspective.

Re:Hooray!

[neuroklinik]

Apple makes less than $0.10 per song sold on the iTunes music store, quite a bit less than the $0.35 estimated by http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/. Check out this article instead: http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5088849.html. The key quote being:

Still, even those optimistic about the market don't see Apple getting a major boost to the bottom line.

"At a profit of less than 10 cents per song, the music store does not represent a major income opportunity for Apple," [analyst Charles] Wolf wrote in the July report. Still, the company could benefit from increased iPod sales, he said.

Re:Hooray!

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I mean, how do you constitute major label? Granted, we all know the big ones. But do you actually keep track of the gazillions of record labels, big and small, who gets bought out by who etc.?

Simple- I never buy CD's at all. I long ago finished collecting all the old music I'll ever need for my life. Small artists who I support, also support their fans- by making money off of their CONCERTS instead of their RECORDINGS, and by releasing lower quality, but still good, recordings for free on the web themselves under the Creative Commons License. To me- it's the only way to insure that I'm listening to what I consider to be good music. YMMV- if you listen to music for reasons other than why I do for instance (the only new music I've supported recently has been people like Baby Gramps and Complex Numbers- people who actually have something to say with their music other than "Look at me I'm a big rock star out to make millions")

OGG/Vorbis support

[drivinghighway61]

But will they offer OGG/Vorbis downloads? Seriously, I bought the most expensive mp3 player around so I could listen to my extensive, legal music collection in Vorbis. I don't want to spend my time writing a shell script to convert my mp3s to Vorbis, so is there any chance of MP3Tunes offerning OGG downloads? BTW, I had a Vorbis listening party the other night, and I invited all my female friends [robots] to listen. They all noticed the difference between my 128kB/s OGG files and my 64kB/s MP3 files. Up with OGG/Vorbis!

Re:OGG/Vorbis support

[enosys]

I think he was just trying to be funny.

Re:OGG/Vorbis support

[Z0mb1eman]

I'm not sure what's more sad... the fact that I didn't realize you were joking until the robot part, or the fact that the other replies didn't seem to notice at all.

Good post, regardless :)

Re:OGG/Vorbis support

[Eptisam]

Why would you want to convert an mp3 file into another format? It's typically a lossy proposition... Eptisam

Hope he's proved right

[jolyonr]

I, for one, would use this. I hope we can prove that it's a successful idea to have a service which actually puts the trust back in the customer rather than treating them as potential criminals.

I like many others are happy to pay for music, its just there's no way I can BUY music online that isn't crippled. I'd rather buy a CD and rip it.

Jolyon

Re:Hope he's proved right

[thryllkill]

Because we all know there are no drm free music services around that offer legitimate and legal in America music downloads.

What's with the names??

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't this guy name a product without ripping off some other product?

sounds good, but....

[LiquidMind]

this plan may attract a lot of people but can it obtain (and most imporantly: hold on to) enough $$$ to keep it running?
remember those car insurance companies that used the sales pitch "we will give you our quote and of 3 other competitors" ? yea, it may get you attention, but ultimately, how likely are you to break even?

not that i'm complaining, i'd love to be able to (somewhat cheaply) buy music and *keep* it.

Here's what I don't get

[Stevyn]

Since just about every song anybody would want that is available on most pay services is also on P2P networks, what's the harm of removing DRM? People pay these sites for convenience. All these songs are available elsewhere, but it's more difficult to find and download all the songs on an album on edonkey or kazaa. So all they are doing is annoying their customers, since even if these songs did make it on a P2P network, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

So services like this that sell songs without DRM shouldn't be a threat to the industry.

Re:Here's what I don't get

[shark72]

"Since just about every song anybody would want that is available on most pay services is also on P2P networks, what's the harm of removing DRM? People pay these sites for convenience. All these songs are available elsewhere, but it's more difficult to find and download all the songs on an album on edonkey or kazaa. So all they are doing is annoying their customers, since even if these songs did make it on a P2P network, it wouldn't make much of a difference."

A common question, particularly among P2P fans who figure that if they and their friends use P2P, then everybody must use it.

A similar question is "why inconvenience car buyers with locks that they have to keep locking and unlocking, when breaking into a car is so trivially easy for the pros that if they want your car, they'll take it anyway?"

Another one is "why do retail stores use obnoxious anti-shoplifting measures, like stopping me at the door to check my receipt, or those annoying electronic tags I have to take off, when the good shoplifters will find a way to take what they want?"

The point that is vital to understand that the DRM on, say, the iTMS stops the casual pirate, just as the car lock stops the casual car thief and anti-theft measures in stores scare away the kids and the first-time shoplifters. And that's good enough.

And, although many people reading this will simply not believe this, there are lots of people who've purchased from the iTMS but who have no interest or need to install a P2P app. Just as there are red states and blue states, our society has room for people with different moral compasses as it relates to copying somebody else's work without their permission.

You're not the first person by far on Slashdot to see this as a binary, either-or solution: "DRM can be cracked and it can annoy paying users, so don't even try." Unfortunately, in the world of DRM, as in the world of auto security or retail, things aren't that simple. When it comes to security and protecting one's bottom line, a little goes a long way. If you're still not sure what I'm talking about, just ask anybody who's worked in retail.

"So services like this that sell songs without DRM shouldn't be a threat to the industry."

I agree with you here, but probably not for the same reasons. I think DRM-free sites are a great idea, but notice that they largely cater to the unsigned and fringe acts, the ones who vitally need the exposure (an exception is allofmp3.com, of course, where the DRM-less files are put up without the artists' permission). There's definitely a place in the market for them. But when artists and bands get past that point where they're starving for exposure and it's time to finally make some money to make up for all those years of toiling, they'll head to the big boys. Remember, much if not most of the content on iTMS is non-RIAA -- indie labels are flocking to it, too.

OK but...

[xCepheus]

Which recording labels are going to sign on with this service? What good is an online music store going to be if a large percentage of the major record labels decline to participate because of the lack of DRM?

This just in...

[mg2]

If DRM upsets you that much, you can get a wav/mp3 writer plugin for your audio player and roll your own DRMless copy. If this isn't possible with your media player, I'm sure there are special drivers and tools out there (you know, like Windows Sound Recorder).

I swear, people are never satisfied. Apple is doing a great thing, but people will always find something to complain about.

Re:This just in...

[enosys]

That method sucks. It is slow and labour-intensive and you end up compressing the music for a 2nd time and making the quality worse.

Re:This just in...

[tepples]

If DRM upsets you that much, you can get a wav/mp3 writer plugin for your audio player and roll your own DRMless copy. If this isn't possible with your media player

And it isn't. The Secure Audio Path in Windows ME and Windows XP provides a way for a restrictions-managed WMA stream to play only on drivers signed by Microsoft WHQL, and Microsoft WHQL will sign a driver only if it doesn't mix the Secure Audio Path into cleartext digital outputs. For recordings that require Secure Audio Path, you'll need to run line-out to line-in, but with external USB 2.0 sound cards, there shouldn't be too much degradation compared to what lossy codecs do to your file. Thankfully, there aren't many recordings that require Secure Audio Path because there is still a significant install base of Windows 2000 machines, which do not support Secure Audio Path.

I'm sure there are special drivers and tools out there (you know, like Windows Sound Recorder).

Sndrec32 keeps only the first minute of what you record, as it was made before the era of affordable hard drives large enough to support a bedroom recording studio. Switch to Audacity to make extended recordings.

Apple is doing a great thing, but people will always find something to complain about.

Monopoly is dangerous even if the monopolist is not Microsoft.

Re:This just in...

[kemapa]

Apple is doing a great thing

Actually, Apple is doing a horrible thing, in my opinion. Follow along:

You see, the record companies / tv stations / movie producers want full DRM to where they can control EXACTLY what you watch, how you watch it, where you watch it, how many times you watch it, etc.

Many people, myself included, want to be able to do what we want with the movies and music we purchase. This is where Apple comes in.

You feel that Apple is doing a wonderful thing by coming to a compromise with the music industry to give us mild DRM. It seems fair to everyone, right? For the moment......

You see, the music industry has been battling piracy for years. They finally found an opportunity to win a small battle, courtesy of Apple. They now have DRM's foot in the door of many homes, with people like you defending it the whole way! What would stop the record companies from later on demanding more restrictive DRM? Apple would have to play along to keep them on board so that they could keep iTunes up and sell more iPods. You are probably saying to yourself that I need my tinfoil hat right about now, but think about how guns have been eliminated in many societies. They start out by 'regulating' who can buy them. Then they move on to 'regulating' who can carry them and when (this would be the equivalent to Apple's DRM). And finally they just outright ban them. Why do they take such baby steps? Think about what would happen if you banned guns outright in America. People would go nuts. But if you do it slowly, people get used to the idea slowly, and you can eventually make your final move. The Apple DRM situation is the same thing. The final move will be made some day. And people like you will have defended and praised Apple for doing such a wonderful thing the whole way through.

Re:fp

[808paulson]

I am not worried about how much the company will charge for the songs. I am worried about how much the RIAA could sue me for

No DRM...

[vought]

Honestly, I can't see most people caring enough about DRM to leave one service that uses one application to encompass the buying, listening, streaming and loading experience.

Sorry. I just don't see it. iTunes is doing better than ever, and may well have reached critical mass by this point. I've never hearde one person complain about the DRM - except here on Slashdot.

Re:No DRM...

[iamacat]

That's just because Apple's DRM can be "officially" bypassed in a way that works for everyone except audiophiles on slashdot. Just burn to CD-RW and rerip to MP3. Nobody would shop on iTMS if it didn't support unrestricted CD burning. Other people like Rhapsody tried before.

But if there is a service that sells MP3 in the first place, people with non-iPod music players will weigh the inconvinience of re-ripping against any usability or selection problems of the new website or client application. MP3Tunes definitely has a chance, it's the WMA services that are doomed.

Re:No DRM...

[cabraverde]

I've never hearde one person complain about the DRM - except here on Slashdot

I just spent a couple of hours trying to recover DRM keys for a friend of mine who didn't know enough about digital audio to uncheck the "protect my content" box in the 'rip' dialog of Windows Media Player.

Over the previous year he'd built up about 20 Gb of ripped WMAs until one day Windows decides that it can't find the licence key for any of his tunes. This wasn't due to a hardware change or even a Windows Update (ironically it happened right after listening to an autoplay-DRM audio CD, but I can't pin the blame for sure)

Anyway, his files are now 100% useless. Sure, he still has the CDs and can rip them again - but my god that's a lot of wasted effort for a couple of hundred CDs.

Last week he didn't even know what DRM was. He does now, and I don't think he likes it much.

Cool... but success depends on the labels

[Gob Blesh It]

Robertson said he's not worried about the record labels and their requirements for rights-management technology. ... "I think the labels are interested in one thing: selling," he said. "If you build the audience they will come.

I think he's probably right, but I wonder if the bigwigs at the record labels are willing (or even care) to listen to his argument. It's not as if Apple didn't try:

When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content. ...

And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it.

At first, they kicked us out. But we kept going back again and again. The first record company to really understand this stuff was Warner. They have some smart people there, and they said: We agree with you. And next was Universal. Then we started making headway. And the reason we did, I think, is because we made predictions.

I think the general consensus is that even though Jobs and his "Ph.D.s" knew DRM is always crackable, Apple still needed to implement some form of DRM in order to convince the record labels to open their catalogs. For the record companies in April of 2003, ever chary of the Internet, DRM was non-negotiable.

My question is: what's changed since then that would cause them to reconsider? After all, iTunes has shown that a service offering DRM tracks can be wildly successful. So why would the record labels want to open their catalogs to a DRM-free solution from some dude who made his name pawning a Linux desktop?

Anyway, this is definitely something to watch. I sincerely wish him luck. I just hope he can get the labels to open their catalogs.

Re:Cool... but success depends on the labels

[mboverload]

Because we are a different audience. Many people will go for iTunes music but the smart people refuse to use the DRM. This is a different market segmeent.

Re:Cool... but success depends on the labels

[mboverload]

However, I am audiophile and require high kbps music, which Apple for some reason doesn't do.

Re:Cool... but success depends on the labels

[Mononoke]

However, I am audiophile and require high kbps music, which Apple for some reason doesn't do.

If you're really an "audiophile", then you don't get your music in digital form.

What you probably are is someone who doesn't know the difference between data rates and sampling rates.

Is it or isn't it?

[laughingcoyote]

MP3tunes will use a service or tool called "MP3beamer", which Robertson said would reconcile the need to store music in a centralized file store with the ability to play back the music anywhere, on any device. He declined to comment further.

(From TFA, for those who didn't R it)

If this service stores music somewhere you must somehow log into, and does not -upload to you- a DRM-free MP3, this service is NOT free of DRM, just using a different version of it.

Already Available

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a new concept. It's already alive and well over at emusic.com. The selection is not great, but you get 50 to 80 high-quality MP3's with NO DRM for a flat monthly fee.

MP3Beamer?

[mopslik]

MP3tunes will use a service or tool called "MP3beamer", which Robertson said would reconcile the need to store music in a centralized file store with the ability to play back the music anywhere, on any device.

Any ideas what this might be? Google isn't very forthcoming, as I suspect there's little info available as yet. If it's a "required" (aka installed) program, will it:

• run on a Linux box?
• monitor your music habits?
• really run on any device?

Just curious.

Re:MP3Beamer?

[mboverload]

Oh crap. Forget about me buying anything from them. I'm not getting scammed into paying for this.

DAMN, I JUST want a freaking MP3 file! Is that so hard? Back to getting 320kbps quality music for FREE in MP3 format I guess. What a clueless industry.

Re:MP3Beamer?

[timmyf2371]

It's not difficult at all.

1. Go to local music store or online equivalent
2. Purchase CD
3. Convert CD tracks to 320kbps MP3s using your favourite encoder
4. Listen to said MP3s

What a clueless industry.

I would actually say "what a clueless poster" for not realising that you can still get your MP3 file rather easily.

Re:MP3Beamer?

[mboverload]

How about this:

I don't want to drive to the music store. The whole point of an online marketplace is to give an EQUIVILENT product at a faster and easier speed.

iTunes missed the clue train.

Actually, in Soviet Russia, the music frees you!

[MarkWPiper]

AllOfMP3 uses DRM-free files for all of their content. Moreover, many files support online encoding, in nearly every useful format that exists, at your choice of bitrate.

I wish more music services would follow this example.

Of course, I also wish every music site out there used their pay by the megabyte approach, at ridiculously low rates. I actually end up spending much more on music, because I'm not afraid to waste a dollar getting a few new albums. It's proof that cheap, DRM-free online distribution can work.

Nothing New

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as though emusic.com didn't already do this...

Good!

[daveschroeder]

And that is a perfectly acceptable position.

And one that is at least logically consistent with your beliefs and ideals.

Seen it, Done it

[poptones]

It's called magnatune and I've been shopping there for months.

How long until Michael offers us "mp3 lockers" so he doesn't even have to pay his own artists for downloads anymore?

Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

"I swear, people are never satisfied. Apple is doing a great thing, but people will always find something to complain about."

Congrats. You've managed to state stupid apple fanboi reason #1 without a hint of irony or sarcasm.

You're serious.

Therefore, you win this week's Apple Fanboi of the Week award.

This entitles you to pick the Powerbook of your choice, pay full price, and then you get to come on /. and tell us that a G4 is fast enough for you.

Re:Great...but it wont work

[MikeXpop]

So (one of) your problems with the iTunes Music Store is that it doesn't give very much money to the artists. Your solution to this is to get it illegally without paying them anything? That's your compassion? If you want to screw artists and labels over, then by all means screw them over. Just don't lie about it to yourself.

Why not go out and support indie labels and the bands they have? Bands like The Shins, The Postal Service, Joe Strummer and the Mescaleros, Porcupine Tree, and Iron & Wine are all more than deserving of your dollar.

P.S. Downhill Battle encourages piracy. They care nothing about the artists, and seemingly, neither do you.

Incoming!

[mo]

Here I am reading an article about my former CEO when I stumble upon this line:

At the show, two of Robertson's engineers at MP3.com will introduce SwitchVox, which will
combine PBX features with VOIP...

Oh crap that's me! Yeah, we have a fancy-pants gui front-end to asterisk. At the risk of further slashdotting ourselves, here's the site: http://www.switchvox.com.

Now to go find some bandwidth.

Re:Actually, in Soviet Russia, the music frees you

[twigles]

Ya know what? Everyone loves to bash allofmp3.com bc it's Russian and shady. Well ... so what. You want shady? The US firms are a legal mafia outfit. Think about it. They control all avenues worth controlling (radio, advertising, production, etc.) and if you start to encroach on them they make you an offer you can't refuse. Either they buy you out, sue you into oblivion, or both (think mp3.com).

Aside from that I read on their site that some money actually does go to the artist. Not much, and I have no way of verifying that, but take a wild guess how much of that is *my* problem. There are middlemen taking a cut here and in Russia, the difference is here they take a bigger cut and the listener gets screwed worse, whereas the Russians take a smaller cut and the artist gets screwed worse. Take another wild guess why ppl love the Russian site so much.

So yeah, if I ever meet the guys from Social Distortion (which is very possible since I cruise bars in LA a lot) I'll buy them a beer or 5. But don't you dare expect me to cry for them Argentina. I sitting here with a crappy new haircut in "business casual" looking at an hour+ commute home to an apartment. Let them bear the brunt of the industry's greed.

In the beginning there was no DRM, and it was good

[Sleetan]

I agree with pretty much everything you've just said.

The only credit I give to this project is the credit that Michael Robertson can cause a big enough stir to give it a chance of being noticed.

You're right about the labels demanding DRM. I think the only true way to escape it is to get the artists to migrate away from the labels.

They can obviously have more freedom without them. The only obstacles are exposure and money. Those are pretty much intertwined. Get those up to par and it will work.

It's gotta start somewhere.

That bad ole Clear Channel

[kitzilla]

Spare me the arguments about how "it's not really what people want" because it's force-fed by Clear Channel ...

For what's it's worth, most of us Clear Channel programmers would love to have deep, eclectic playlists loaded with interesting songs and artists.

The problem is that not enough people would listen to our stations for us to keep the lights on.

We're not force-feeding anything. Our short playlists are dictated by the market, and we spend million each year researching the musical tastes of our various target audiences.

While people bitch and wail about short playlists, the fact is that when we exercise poor music discipline, our ratings generally decline. Since commercial broadcasting is still predicated on a free radio, advertiser-subsidized model, low rated stations go away pretty quickly. We're a publicly held company, and have to return value to the stockholders (this could mean you).

We know tight playlists aren't for everyone, but they're for *most* people. Amazing as it may seem, radio listeners actually like hearing their favorites on a regular basis. Adults, in particular, punch out more often than not when something new comes on -- no matter how good it is.

Real music enthusiasts with well-developed tastes have a lot of options open to them these days, if they don't mind paying for them. Hell, I own an iPod, too. But free radio is still out there, playing the hits, ready whenever you need a pop fix or breaking news.

Okay, flame away. But that's the deal.

Re:That bad ole Clear Channel

[Majik]

nope, you nailed it :) Full Agreement...
It's just when your parent company tries to suppress alternative markets that I get all uppity...

Viva XM Radio!

Insightful?

[xstonedogx]

At least my complaints are designed to be productive and effect change. Your complaint seems designed to tell people to shut up and maintain a forcefed status quo.

DRM does upset me "that much", and my solution is simply to not provide any funding to companies who have anything to do with it. I also talk about it with people who will listen. ("Complain", if you will.)

Your "solution" won't work. First, the potential legal ramifications are no better than for downloading the file illegally in the first place. Second, the file quality won't be as good. Third, and most important, you're trying to correct a symptom, rather than the problem.

To specify the problem: We have a right to use and copy this information for our own use as we see fit and this right has been taken away from us by dubious means. An end run has been made around my rights for no reason and I have a problem with it.

If you don't want to hear that, okay, but do me a favor and stop trying to invalidate my point of view by implying that I only complain because I "always find something to complain about".

Re:In the beginning there was no DRM, and it was g

[daveschroeder]

I gotta say I agree with you, too.

But even in a DRMless world, there are going to be some "fat cats", as it were. Even if the labels are toppled, in a manner of speaking, there will still be some groups that are the "best" to be associated with - for exposure and money. The people who have the best connections, the biggest website, the hottest PR folks (anything that penetrates the mainstream will have amazing PR). And all over again, it repeats: it won't be an even playing field, and never will be. And once the groups that give the best centralized exposure (which translates into money) - the ones who rise to the top, competitively, which means they'll have some folks with good business sense - get big enough, they might be looking for ways to stop people from stealing their shit too.

I'm not sure property without locks and keys - and penalties for breaking them - can even survive (at above some very basic level, and certainly not as a market leader) in a free market system, and it may in fact be fundamentally incompatible.

At a very basic level, I guess you could say this is "capitalism" vs "socialism" - again, not using either of those terms pejoratively - and the the disparity between those positions is dramatic. Perhaps grassroots efforts can at least shed light on the truth of content protection and DRM: it can ALWAYS be broken by pirates, and it ALWAYS hurts honest customers.

Re:Saying so doesn't make it so.

[daveschroeder]

steal:

1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. More broadly, and correctly, in my personal opinion, it is also stealing. Just like embezzlement is embezzlement. But in a more generic sense, it's also "stealing". I'm not talking statutes here. I'm talking ethics and morals. And by my understanding of the English language and the meanings of words, copyright infringement is a form of "stealing".

It amazes me how people always want pre-existing laws and legal principles to apply to the internet, or technology, or information if it is in their own favor or somehow benefits them, and then go out of their way to make crazy rationalizations about how downloading things that don't belong to you and that you didn't pay for isn't "stealing", it's "copyright infringement" simply because it's been duplicated, with complete ignorance of the ease that one work can be distributed globally in literally hours with virtually no work by any interim party, and no considerations for the owner's rights, not to mention what a horribly pathetic and downright destructive ethic that is encouraged by taking things without permission simply because YOU think they're too expensive or YOU don't agree with how business X has done Y or Z; and since copyright = bad or favors the corrupt and powerful, you personally find it invalid, and therefore, it's "okay" to infringe against copyrights owned by big, evil, blood-sucking, money-grubbing corporations.

Do I have that about right?

Fed up?

[rhesuspieces00]

Im not really fed up with iTunes. Ive got a lot of high quality music videos i pulled off for free. Some songs that came with a pay pal account. Some that were handed out free each week. Some more I traded for my friends pepsi caps. Ben&Jerry's gave me a few more. I think i also might have bought a song or two at some point. And none of them are DRM'd. Hymn is pretty damn easy to use. Its a lot less trouble than driving to a record store and then having to rip the cd once ive paid for it.

Honestly, it doesnt really bother me to pay $1/track for songs every once in a while, but I haven't got any space on my 40GB iPod (none of which, might I add, came from kazaa, napster, or any other 'illicit' download service), so I'm not in dire need of more music at the moment.

iTunes Music Store is MUCH better

[pario]

Since the iTunes music store has a larger collection of songs and I can strip the DRM crap off my purchased songs with JHymn, what the point of starting a new service like this? Apple already knows about JHymn and has not done anything about it so far, so it is most likely Apple does not do anything about it in the future either.

Disclaimer: I don't mind paying money for good songs at all. I use JHymn to play songs on other platforms for which iTunes is not available. JHymn works beautifully for this purpose.

I want my lunch...

[smartsaga]

Audio Lunch Box Here

MP3 and OGG, NO DRM!!!!!

It has been out for a while you know.

Have a good one.

Slightly OT: Robertson is an ass

[Ghostgate]

I wish it wasn't Robertson that was at the head of all of this, because I would always like a non-DRM music service to succeed. But Robertson got to where he is (insanely rich) by stepping on everyone else back in the late 90s. For example, he did things like stealing tons of bandwidth from a university FTP search project (which, at the time, was at ftpsearch.ntnu.no) and putting it on his "filez.com" site to sell advertising there, never giving any credit to the people who created the search. He also squatted audiograbber.com (Audiograbber being the name of a now well-known CD ripping program... at the time it was still up and coming) and for a long time refused to sell it to the creator of the software, instead directing it to MP3.com where he was advertising for competing programs. I could go on and on. He's just an ass who exploits people. I ran one of the larger MP3 sites around the time when MP3.com was still new (when it was just a garbage list of software, without any real content of its own), and so I managed to talk to him a few times back then. When I took my site down he was waiting like a vulture to buy it up and forward it to MP3.com, but I wouldn't sell...

Re:Saying so doesn't make it so.

[NoData]

Do I have that about right?

Not in my estimation, no. Let me dispense with something immediately: I don't think copying is OK because *I* think something is too expensive, or *I* am morally offended by corporate practices, or any other rationale that justifies copying as a form of civil disobedience or protest. These reasons only underscore my thinking, but are not the basis for it.

crazy rationalizations about how downloading things that don't belong to you and that you didn't pay for isn't "stealing"

These things don't belong to me, true, but they do belong (in my book of ethics) to the person providing them (the file sharer). And the file sharer is providing them freely, and, I would argue, ought to be able to. I am receiving what they are offering.

I am not sneaking into their computer, or making an image surrepitiously--I am making an image of an image they are freely providing. And they, in turn, HAVE paid a consideration to the original creators by buying the thing from a retailer. Or if not them, then the person who freely provided THEM with the image may have, or the one before them, or whoever. The point is that the work was not swiped from the artist (in this example), but purchased, or bartered, or obtained by whatever agreement the two parties entered into. If the store says to have this CD you need to fork over $15, then fine, those are the terms, and to take it otherwise IS stealing. But notice that, likewise, at every point down the file sharing chain, the file sharer and file seeker are similarly freely entering into an agreement of transaction regarding something the sharer now controls.

I have no moral qualms with this arrangement whatsover. I know it's illegal, but not, in my book, immoral.

The key here is control. The artist surrenders control to the publisher. The publisher surrenders control, partially, to the consumer. The part they do not surrender is, at least according to the law, the right to distribute. But ought they be able to withhold that right? What does the consumer's consideration actually buy them? A license? (..and all attendant complications with that?) And why does the publisher's right of control trump the consumer's rights of control? And what happens when the publishers, in their efforts to retain control inadvertantly, impact other consumer rights, weakly called "fair use," but more broadly, what ought to be my right as a consumer to manipulate, transform, transfer or otherwise with something I bought?

None of this even touches the problems a sibling poster notes about the artificial creation of scarcity copyright protection produces, given that, yes, reproduction of information has vanishing marginal cost, and, shitty as it may be to you, there is not material deprivation of the producer (sorry, but it's true).

This is simply about control. Control of the product by the seller or buyer after a sale.

Re:Saying so doesn't make it so.

[daveschroeder]

I have no moral qualms with this arrangement whatsover. I know it's illegal, but not, in my book, immoral.

I can't really get past this...so you're saying that because it has been obtained once somewhere along the line legally, that any "sharing" from then on is absolutely justified, no matter how many times removed, and no matter how widely it is "shared"? How can you make that logical jump? That if any sharing is ok, it ALL is ok? That if "fair use" allows for sharing a couple copies of something with family and friends, suddenly the entire world is your family and friends, and "copies" could equal two or two million? Sorry, I don't buy it. And furthermore, this is precisely why the legal system is so fucked up and law so complex: because people can't fucking apply common sense to something, and will take a mile if given an inch. That's NOT was fair use means, and it's no wonder content owners are all but trying to do away with fair use for good.

This is simply about control. Control of the product by the seller or buyer after a sale.

Here's something we agree on. Yes, this is what it's about.

But wait a minute. That's what DRM is about. We're not talking about DRM. We're talking about people downloading music that doesn't belong to them. Nothing about DRM.

We're only here because people found out they could get something for nothing - and a lot of somethings at that - very easily, with no repercussions and none of the guilt or danger of actually stealing a physical object from someone. And with all the delicious rationalizations (the owner still "has" it, therefore it's ok) to boot.

Now let's completely forget about DRM. Because DRM and you downloading music are two utterly and completely different issues. In fact, since this part of the argument has nothing to do with DRM, lets imagine that there is no such thing and all music is DRM-free. Now, you're telling me that unlimited global sharing without payment of any and all music is perfectly moral and ethical? If so, then we are simply in fundamental philosophical disagreement.

Re:Refutations

[miskatonic alumnus]

If everything could be gotten for free, then where's your incentive to do anything?

Do you charge someone when they ask you what time it is? If you open a door for a little old lady, do you demand payment? When you make love to your girlfriend or wife, do you charge for that too? Your perception of the world is clearly filtered through the corporate green lens of "what's in it for me?"

Did Isaac Newton get paid for inventing the Calculus? If not, why the hell did he invent it?

Here are some possible answers to the question of incentive: someone wants to be kind, or better their situation, or better the situation of all, or is simply driven to create, dissect, analyze.

What a sad, sad creature that perceives every human activity and transaction in terms of dollars and cents.

Re:Saying so doesn't make it so.

[porcupine8]

More intelligent debate is to be had ... NOT whether infringing on it is stealing.

So why are you bothering to debate that point then? I swear, I'm going to barf if I see one more post that has no other point than to clear it up, once and for all, to God and everybody, that copyright infringement is not stealing. Seriously, you've got me nauseous here.

I don't give a fuck if it's technically stealing or not. People can debate all night on the semantics - and boy, around here they sure seem to! Whatever it is, it's not very nice, and it's not very legal. Similar to stealing, or running a red light. There, maybe copryight infringement is running a red light. I'd like to see you argue against that! It would at least give us all a break from the arguments against copyright infringement = stealing.

Re:Refutations

[miskatonic alumnus]

I wasn't "framing your argument". I was pointing out the absurdity of one of your statements --- the quoted statement --- the one that implied that without (financial) compensation, there is no incentive to do anything.

Re:Refutations

[miskatonic alumnus]

It seems to me that you have unwittingly fallen into the trap that many socialists accuse capitalists of believing in: the theory that one person is so much more important than everyone else.

No. Where did I state, explicitly or implicitly, that I worship Newton, or think he was the greatest human to draw a breath of air? I used the fact that Newton wasn't paid for his creation to give lie to the quoted assertion made by the GP.

Like it or not, but capitalism has had more success at creating the goods that people want than any of the miserable failures of so-called "socialist paradises".

Another proponent of the theory that money, or what can be purchased with it (goods and services) is the end-all, be-all of human existence. Hedonism is not attractive.

Re:Saying so doesn't make it so.

[_Sprocket_]

There is deprivation here. It is the deprivation of a potential sale.

If I don't look at a billboard - it's theft. If I don't watch a commercial - it's theft. If I don't visit my local music store - it's theft. If I post a negative review of an album - it's theft. If I simply state a negative opinion of an artist themselves - it's theft. If I don't provide my kids with enough allowance - it's theft.

Potential sales do not equate to theft.

But, simply, you can't reasonably assume that NO downloaded copy wouldn't have otherwise been purchased...

Nor can you reasonably assume each downloaded copy would have otherwise been a purchase. Nor can you reasonably assume that no downloaded copies lead to later purchases.... or lead to additional purchases beyond the material downloaded.

But again - potential purchases do not equate to theft.

Big Money?

[Barlo_Mung_42]

At the standard rate it works out to $0.25 per song. Much better than anywhere else that's legal.
I've been a member for over two years. It's great. Once you realize that just because the major studios christen a song #1 doesn't make it good and start looking at some of the GREAT music that independent labels put out you see what a rip off the other places are.

Where do they get their favourites from?

[TheLittleJetson]

I understand the need for ratings, as well as the mentality of radio listeners (precisely why I don't listen to radio). The problem is, they must have heard their favorite songs for the first time somewhere, and generally it's the radio. So, answer me this: When an artist that obviously lacks any talent or musical inspiration, and is quite clearly a manufactured pop star (Ashlee Simpson, Britney Spears, etc.) starts making records, WHY DO YOU PLAY THEM? Once people hear them, they'll want to hear it again, because it was played on the radio...

Major radio (and media at large, MTV is just as responsible) outlets are just as responsible for their artists tastes, as their artists tastes are for their playlists. It's a sickening cycle, but this crap is introduced to the public by the media outlets, not by people buying CD's on a whim and then requesting it on the radio.

Re:Saying so doesn't make it so.

[rpdillon]

What NoData is alluding to, but not outright saying, is that he believes fundementally in the pubic good as a goal above and beyond pure profit.

You have bought into the idea that copyright is for-profit, inherently, and primarily. This is a relatively new notion, really. In fact, if you go back and read the prime mover behind copyright in the first place, it was all about something I mentioned above: the public good. Profit was strictly a secondary concern. Specifically, the primary concern was to incentivize artists to release their work so the public could enjoy it.

Many people know this in their heart, but haven't heard it expressed or read the relevant laws. But in essence what everyone wants is for the artists to make a living, and for tons of people to enjoy their music however they like. But somehow, we've moved past that into this realm where we want to defend an artist making a living, a middleman making millions of dollars, and limiting our audience to the music as much as possible (yes, I consider selling a $0.10 CD in a store for $18 a crime).

Essentially, my position (I won't speak for NoData anymore) boils down to the argument that the artists has every right to make a living. But if the artist makes a living (even a modest one), the public should be able to enjoy the artist's work. For those that cannot afford the $18, there is no case of a lost sale, there is no money lost, there is only gain.

This is the system that should exist. The real querstion is: how do we get there from here? There may be no way, but one thing is certain in my mind: things are not OK the way they are. We live in a time where there are plenty of us to pay for CDs, and those that cannot can still enjoy the music.

Rush might have put it best:

Begin the day
With a friendly voice
A companion, unobtrusive
Plays that song that's so elusive
And the magic music makes your morning mood

Off on your way
Hit the open road
There is magic at your fingers
For the spirit ever lingers
Undemanding contact
In your happy solitude

Invisible airwaves
Crackle with life
Bright antennae bristle
With the energy
Emotional feedback
On a timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price ---
Almost free...

All this machinery
Making modern music
Can still be open-hearted
Not so coldly charted
It's really just a question
Of your honesty

One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity

For the words of the profits
Are written on the studio wall,
Concert hall ---
Echoes with the sounds...
Of salesmen.

This was written in 1980, long before MP3's, the internet, or P2P. But all the ideas are there, and more. In fact, Neil even alludes to the two freedoms that we commonly mention in regards to free software; he talks of both free in price, but also freedom to be artistic in your music without "selling out". But his final stab, after verses about comprimising to make a buck, is that the whole industry, from the studios to the concert halls, is not about the artist, and it's not about the audience. It's all about the salesman.

Defend the system all you want, but it's broken, and it's been broken for 25 years, at least. It's time to move on and get something better, not take the latest crop of problems and blame them on peer to peer file sharing.

Re:Saying so doesn't make it so.

[David Rolfe]

gp: To tread up the slippery slope aways, how would you feel about the guy who throws a large house party and plays CDs he owns for everyone to hear? He's probably breaking the letter of the law. Is he immoral too?

you: No, he's not, because he's not breaking the law. 1.) This actually IS what we call "fair use", which the downloading crowd is trying to bastardize to consider every person on earth a "friend" that they're "sharing" with...

Sorry I have to jump into this heated debate... but NO, that is not Fair Use. You cannot 'share' anything with friends and family and call it Fair Use. I can't believe I'm going to look up the code instead of telling you to Google it, but here goes:

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

So there you have it. Parties for your friends (I guess unless it's a musicology party, and you aren't playing the works in whole) and sharing with your family ARE NOT FAIR USE. Please to enjoy reading the whole code one time: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Re:CORRECTION TO MY POST!

[kitzilla]

I followed your original, and it's an entirely fair question.

Radio *does* feed listener tastes. But so do sales and live performance, TV, MTV, club play, and word of mouth.

Which is why we play currents. Carefully, in adult formats. You'd be surprised how interested we are in local CD sales. Our current-based station -- a lot of them, at least -- pay a lot of attention to things like Soundscan. It's a service that tracks how many units of what are moving in the stores.

We can't see who (age, etc.) is buying what, so sales info is a bit limited in its usefulness. But sales often lead airplay, and we can sometimes see hits coming before they really break big on the radio.

This is really a GREAT observation you've made, and a legitimate challenge to how we radio people look at our industry. I think you'll see our company and others address the issue over the next few years with a new crop of formats and variations old ones. This is already happening: Clear Channel developed a new gold-based Hispanic format last year that's doing very well, and my station is a new Adult Contemporary hybrid.

Rock is at an interesting crossroads right now. CHR has already shattered into several families of current-based formats. Soft AC has hit a brick wall (the core audience is rejecting the new music now). Country is long overdue for a format fork.

The advent of PeopleMeter audience measurement will also pressure us to innovate.

It could end up being a very cool time to program radio stations.

I'm with you on wanting to edit Slashdot posts after they're posted.

Re:Actually, in Soviet Russia, the music frees you

[Agrippa]

"Either they buy you out, sue you into oblivion, or both (think mp3.com)."

Being as someone that worked for MP3.com since almost its beginning, I think I'm ok in saying the following:

1. Beam-it was a legal crapshoot, we knew this, and we lost. The day it was announced at a company meeting almost everyone knew we were going to get the shit sued out of us for doing it. There was a small legal gray area in copyright law Michael Robertson tried to exploit.

2. If not for losing hundreds of millions of dollars on lawyers/fines for doing Beam-it, MP3.com would probably still be in business today.

MP3.com's own stupidity lead to its downfall, not the RIAA. In fact, in an alternate universe, its probably still serving up Big Poo Generator while slowly burning through $400 million in IPO money.

.agrippa.

Well, he may not be worried about the labels...

[Stick_Fig]

...but that's fine, because the labels aren't going to be worried about him.

The reason why Apple's setup worked so gosh-dern well is that they had all of their ducks in a row, as has every other label-sanctioned music service. The fact that he's going to launch this thing without even talking to them makes the promise of his service sound a little foolhardy. He had this same problem with MP3.com, remember; he had no way to control the quality of the artists.

Labels, love them or no (I certainly don't), tend to at the very least fliter out the amateurs and guys covering Chic songs with a mandolin and an egg shaker, so that you can actually hear someone with actual (or inflated) talent. The filter usually works as a loss to the customer, because the close-but-no-cigar artists are the ones that get filtered most unfairly. But in this case, the filter's a benefit -- it cuts out the armchair Garageband players.

I could launch a service like this tomorrow. Just give me MS Frontpage, a couple MP3s from that album Bronson Pinchot did back in 1988 at the height of his "Perfect Strangers" fame years, a streaming shoutcast link and a link to Paypal, and I can also I manage to successfully do everything that Michael Richardson is promising in this article. But do i have any connections? Nope.

In my scenario, the business plan fails, and pinchotTunes goes kaput in three weeks, but Bronson Pinchot has a second wind of fame as a result.

You know, if you were coming with your A game, Michael, I'd applaud you, but I keep seeing B- and C+ games out of your various companies.

Re:Get a job!

[ironfroggy]

I really hate to admit it, but you've got a point.

Still, I stand firm with my belief that the best path is to make it as easy and uninhibiting for the consumer to get music through any means that works best for them, and that more money should go to the artist.

Publishers aren't really needed for the publishing part these days. Many artists are selling MP3s on their own websites. The publishers main purpose is advertising the artist and backing up the production of the product. With falling costs of production, publishers are becoming little more than over-egotistical advertising firms.

Should some Madison Ave firm get 70% of McDonald's profits because they draw in the customers for them?

The main issue here is less "How much should they get", and more "Who is working for who". The artists traditionally work for the publishers, but it is the publisher who should work for the artist.

Re:Saying so doesn't make it so.

[cpt kangarooski]

That's incorrect:

Per 17 USC 501, copyright infringement is an infringement of an exclusive right of the copyright holder under section 106, taking into account sections 602 and 107 through 122.

While you may be thinking of 18 USC 2319, it does not define infringement as theft, and in fact since only some infringements actually qualify under 17 USC 506, and therefore under section 2319, this leaves a large number of actionable infringements from 501 outside of the realm of any crime.

You shouldn't treat the title of an act as meaning anything. The reason they used the word 'theft' was in order to have the acronym 'NET.' That's it.

Brilliant site

[Zhe Mappel]

Downhillbattle.org makes the case quite well: iTunes is a GUI for the music industry, which didn't become any less corrupt simply because Apple digitally harnessed it.

Now, we all love our iPods, etc. etc. But keep this in mind:

Apple says iTunes is "better than free" because it's "fair to the artists and record labels." That's simply not true. First of all, Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale. Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract. Many of them will never even see this paltry share because they have to pay for producers and recording costs, both of which can be enormous. Until the musician "recoups" these costs, when you buy an iTunes song, the label gives them nothing.

The artists are still being screwed, even if it's behind a lickable interface.

Re:Actually, in Soviet Russia, the music frees you

[ning]

I signed up to AllofMP3 last week and immediately spent $20 downloading 22 albums (after checking the quality was acceptable :). I had to stop myself getting more. As the parent poster points out, it's so cheap you might as well download stuff that might turn out to be rubbish (because occasionally you discover something new and great). I'm perfectly aware that the artist perhaps isn't getting well-paid for this; however, if I like an artist enough I'll buy a CD. And go to gigs. And buy merchandise. And play all their music incessantly at my friends until they all love this artist too.

Downloads should be as cheap as possible, simply because distribution is so easy, in order to get any given artist's work exposed to as great an audience as possible. I'm prepared to pay for good-quality, well-tagged downloads, organised the way I want them (which is exactly what AllofMP3 does, bar creating playlists), but I'm not going to pay as much as I would for a CD. If I get a CD, I can rip it to any format I like, play it on any device I like, and I get something _physical_ (a box, a shiny bit of plastic, and some cover art) which I still think is important. (But maybe I'm getting old.)

Re:Features?

[fireshipjohn]

magnatune! http://www.magnatune.com/

"Fed up"?

[renderhead]

MP3tunes hopes to attract users who are fed up with restrictions on copying music from sites that use digital-rights-management techniques, such as iTunes.

Maybe I don't get out enough, but I don't know anyone who is "fed up" with the DRM on iTunes. To be "fed up" implies that you've used it and dealt with it for long enough that you just can't take it any more. The only people I hear with big gripes about iTunes' DRM are people who never used it in the first place for that reason. They don't count. The people who actually buy music from iTunes are generally satisfied customers, as far as I can tell.

Maybe they meant "fed up with the fact that they can't find legal music to download without DRM".