Slashdot Mirror
Making Money Selling Music Without DRM
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica's Nate Anderson has an excellent writeup on the rise of eMusic and how they're suceeding despite their unwillingness to hop on the DRM bandwagon. From the article: 'The Holy Grail of online music sales is the ability to offer iPod-compatible tracks. Like the quest for the mythical cup itself, the search for iPod compatibility has been largely fruitless for Apple's competitors, whose DRM schemes are incompatible with the iconic music player. For a music store that wants to succeed, reaching the iPod audience is all but a necessity in the the US market, where Apple products account for 78 percent of the total players sold. Perhaps that's why eMusic CEO David Pakman sounds downright gleeful when he points out that there's only two companies in the world that can sell to them--Apple and eMusic.'"
What, is eMusic cheaper or something?
It's nice to see a company that selling music in a drm-unencumbered format. It's basically doing things right - instead of locking your customers in (after they've bought a track, they find out lots of players can't play it).
Also, eMusic supports indie artists. Really good to see, because some artists get less then half a cent per purchase from other online music stores.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Mindawn.com, magnatune.com, studiodownloads.net, disclogic.com, digitalsoundboard.net. There are many more. All work on the ipod. All lossess or (compressed if you want that) no drm. Admittedly the selections is small, but I'd rather have a thousand stores with lossess music and no drm than one store with a large selection.
I'm an Emusic subscriber and love them, but there are LOTS of legal services out there, these days, selling good ol' MP3s (or even FLAC/OGG) with no DRM
We keep a full list of them at cdbaby.net/dd-partners (in 10 languages!). Though that list is meant mainly for our musician clients, it's a good permalink for a constantly-updating list of digital music sellers, with a short description of each.
eMusic is a really great site and I use up my 90 track limit in the first few days of every month.
My only problem with it is there is no easy way to request certain artists and albums and get feedback when the albums finally do get added (this is even more true in the UK, not all the tracks are available to download just yet).
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
You bet eMusic is looking forward to the Slashdot effect ;)
But we should also give credit where credit is due and mention that Magnatune (http://magnatune.com/) has been doing this for years. The buyer chooses what he wants to pay per album - in fact, if you're a cheap bastard, you may download a full album for as little 5$ in the format of your choice: MP3, WAV, OGG, FLAC or AAC.
And I love their motto: "We are not evil." Now, where else did we hear that phrase?
Just
If anyone is looking for digital downloads of techno and electro music, check out http://www.detroitdigitalvinyl.com/ ... No DRM, 320kbs downloads (with uncompressed .wav files comming in the future), and it was started by Mad Mike of Underground Resistance and Submerge Records so it's got street cred. :)
But some of us couldn't help but think, "Oh, you mean like Emusic?"
Correction, some of us couldn't help but think, "Oh, you mean like Emusic, only crippled?"
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
..of companies that make money selling digital music without DRM, look at just about every company that has sold CDs for the last 20 years. It's not like the model hasn't already proven itself. Even the big media companies know they can profitably sell unDRMed stuff, because that's how they became big media companies. DRM is a "solution" looking for a problem.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It's simply false to say there are only two companies selling digital music online that is compatible with iTunes. Two major companies, perhaps, but there are lots of people legally selling MP3s - from artists who are selling their own product independently to Bitpass' music experiment Mperia. It's unfortunate that as yet these sorts of outlets haven't managed to leverage some combination of blogging, feeds, aggregation and online community to simulate something like a unified entity, so that people would notice they were there. I really wonder what the real impact of these sorts of things are - I'm sure I'm not typical but for several years now I've been getting more music from these truly alternative sources (what's eMusic I'd count as alternative mainstream, still pretty solidly within the label system though clearly a different league - though not always a more enlightened one - than Sony, Universal et al). And I know nobody is counting that shit, speaking of lost sales and suchlike.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
The emusic linux download really sucked when I last used it.
.so file that didn't exist on fedora - and that wasn't the only problem. Even downloading the albums in a zip file would have been better than nothing.
I ended up ditching it because it was so hard to download albums. Their binary file was linked to some
Their support was also less than helpful.
*SHOCK* *AWE* You can make money selling music that people can freely copy? ZOMG!!1!
Businesses who think that selling unrestricted music that people can freely copy need only look to the bottled water industry to see that it's possible. In the west we have (effectively) free, clean drinking water, yet people spend billions each year buying it from stores. Sure, anyone can "turn on the tap" of the internet and get their fill of mp3s, but that doesn't mean stores can't make a huge profit selling those exact same mp3s.
Bottled water sells because of psychological tricks and convenience. MP3s can sell the same way.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
don't forget beatport, bleep, kompakt mp3, detroit digital vinyl, zillions of netlabels, etc. etc.
-mkb
"there's only two companies in the world that can sell to them--Apple and eMusic."
.
.doofey.
It's rather a startling point . .
. . . given how many people are doing it; and have been doing it for so long. Even more startling that Ars Technica seems to be uncritically accepting the marketing claim in the article and run with the ball. It's, well . .
It's even more doofey that Slashdot, which has run any number of stories about outfits selling/distributing unencumbered mp3s, should perpetuate the claim, but, well, it's Slashdot.
KFG
Keep chasing that shining, blinking, fruit-shaped prize, Pakman!
P.S. watch out for ghosts.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
The rule is that it is legal to import stuff that you acquired abroad, if the production of that item would have been legal had it been done in the country into which you are importing it. allofmp3.com clearly fails this test.
I guess I will state the obvious:
This DRM crap seems to be nothing more than a ploy to make people more money or lock consumers into one product and prevent choice and competition. If mp3's can be sold and distributed in a legal way, why would someone (like Apple, et. al.), develop a DRM scheme that only works for them... Answer sounds simple, to lock you in to their product so that you only biy Apple this Apple that.
Lets face it, any DRM encoded file that someone mistakenly downloaded will be stripped and copied to whatever they want. I don't redistribute the files, I just like being able to put the darn music on whatever player I have. I understand the need of protecting the artists, but this DRM crap is fascist bull.
bleep.com is one of the best digital download providers for electronic genres, if not the best. they have a wide selection of tunes & genres, they also provide a back catalog for every label they have avalible (as far as i can tell anyway). they encode their mp3's from masters given to them from the record labels (at least for the newer stuff, the older back cat. is sometimes a vinyl rip). they encode with the lame encoder at a 320kbps bitrate (at least for the newer stuff, some of the older releases are aps vbr) & theres absulutely no drm what so ever. the prices they provide are very impressive, especially seeing as how the actual vinyl will cost you two to three times as much after shipping costs are done & over with.
anyone into electronic genres should definately support them & at the least take a peek at what they have to offer.
Yes, you can. In fact, I've never bought a single tune from ITMS but my iPod Nano is packed solid with music (haven't had to go to ITMS - I ripped my entire CD collection to mp3 a long time ago, and continue to do so - much cheaper to buy a used CD in many cases and use it as a 'master copy' of sorts).
You simply import the music into the iTunes library, make a playlist from it, and transfer it to the iPod.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
All of MP3 may be "somewhat" legal in Russia but it is fully-non legal for Americans (or Canadians, Australians, and anybody else who is lives in a country that's signed on with international copyright laws) to buy music from them, as it says outright in their terms of service. You cannot legally make a digital copy of copyrighted material you don't already own without the permission of the copyright holder. I don't really care, honestly - I think it's a little foolish doing something that leads such an evident information trail at the same time as utilities are going out of their way to point out how contemptuous they are of your data privacy and the music industry has certainly demonstrated how sue-happy they are. Lists of honest business enterprises who are selling copyrighted material with artists' approval should not be thrown in the same list with these quasi-legal (or, to put it another way non legal) technoprofiteers.
But I should still say thank you for pointing to that resource link, that is very cool.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Oops.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
reaching the iPod audience is all but a necessity in the the US market
Funny, I thought it WAS actually a necessity. Silly me.
Don't waste your time with the eMusic provided *nix download manager; there is an excellent opensource alternative written in Java called "eMusic/J" (though it's developed by a third-party):
http://www.kallisti.net.nz/EMusicJ/HomePage/
Bottled water sells because of psychological tricks and convenience. MP3s can sell the same way.
Actually bottled water sells because a lot of municipalities chlorinate their water, making it taste like shit.
Although it's true that marketing and convenience play a large part too (people buying bottled water even though they have good-tasting tap water, or well water), but it's not always purely marketing.
I drink bottled water only because the tap water in my office tastes like it came from the shallow end of the local Y's swimming pool, and de-chlorinating it (by leaving it in an open-topped container) isn't really practical.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Almost all DJ-centric stores sell high-quality (sometimes uncompressed wavs) songs with no DRM, but at a premium price. They do quite well at it: http://www.beatport.com/ http://www.djdownload.com/ http://www.3beatdigital.com/ http://www.chemical-records.co.uk/ There are at least a few more.
allofmp3.com is totally illegal in the US. The US government has said as much and has been pressuring the russian government to shut them down if they cannot restrict their sales structures to Russia only.
You forgot a cool online music shop: www.finetunes.de (German/English) provides Ogg and MP3.
-DBS
Sigs suck!
This reminds me a lot of Google too.
First they release - a search engine!
Then, a toolbar for your browser.
Next up, e-mail.
After that, stocks and news.
Then some other crap that Yahoo had 8 years ago.
Honestly, why is Google & Apple always owning or claiming to own the rights to the word "innovate"? For what reason? Anyone?
This article makes it seems that Apple compatibility is holding back companies from selling music online. An iPod will play MP3s. The problem is that the studios will not allow anyone to sell music online without DRM. FairPlay was Apple's solution to this problem. Apple doesn't want to license it, and that's their choice and right. So these companies don't have many choices, but Apple wasn't the one that created the problem. They found a solution that works for them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Not to be a CDBaby fanboy (okay, EXACTLY to be a CDBaby fanboy) but if you're an artist that has listed your CD via CDBaby's digital distribution service, you are listed at eMusic :-)
... I know this because my band Goodwin is also at eMusic, and according to our accounting reports we're getting some sales.
And now the shameless plug
It is not cheaper but it is legal. allofmp3.com is NOT legal, despite what many people say.
allofmp3.com violates the spirit of the law, if not the exact wording. It is like saying that identity theft was legal because when it first started happening, there was no specific law against it.
no be sure to tell me how legal it is and how paying money to the russian mob is better then downloading via P2P.
If you are going to steal music, just fucking steal it and get off your high horse. I personally hove no problem gettign ALL of my music from P2P, and honestly, having spent time in Moscow, see no need to further fund the terrorist organization that is the russian mafia.
It's good to see Mad Mike keeping true to his vision. Since the time he first released "Message to the Majors" a lot had changed in the industry - much of it for the worse.
For a lot of us in underground music scenes like techno, rap and punk taking control of the means of production and distribution has been a huge goal - and slowly technology has enabled that vision. DRM schemes run contrary to this spirit and stores like iTunes may be hip, but they aren't nearly as benevolent as their fans believe.
Hopefully we'll see more underground music stores like this. While it pains me to see my neighborhood record store go, if that is the cost of eroding and maybe ending the stranglehold of the majors, so be it.
Magnatune has some really excellent classical and folk/ethnic recordings (I've bought maybe 8-9 of them...)
Anyone know of other good sources for classical?
I also really like Magnatune's ability to sample the full album before I buy and the ability to occasionally send more than the minimum payment.
dave
"Honestly, why is Google & Apple always owning or claiming to own the rights to the word "innovate"? For what reason? Anyone?"
Because they are the most brilliant thieves.
"Good artists copy, great artists steal." - Picasso
"But this one goes to 11!"
Mod parent up ;-)
Which bizarrely has not yet been posted here.
http://www.emusic.com/
Three Squirrels
Other posters have pointed out companies other than eMusic who are selling non-DRM MP3 downloads. Another is Bleep. Originally it was far-out electronica from the Warp label, but other labels are on board now, including stuff that's definitely not electronica.
The article kept talking about 'indie', but missed the fact that emusic has a huge back catalog of classic rock and earlier. You want Deep Purple or Eric Burdon, they've got it. It's easy to get much of what you hear on classic rock radio. And since so many (too many) stations are switching to 'classic rock', this must mean people want it.
They also have live stuff. Interested in Colin Hay's solo takes on 'Men at Work', or (back to Deep Purple) live Deep Purple? And what they call indie, I'm not so sure-- Tom Waits gets a lot of media coverage and movie deals for an 'indie'. He's there.
They also have a phenomenal jazz and blues section, which is yet another niche not served. Miles Davis or Charlie Parker aren't "indy", after all. And there's folk, and celtic, and world. It's that 'long tail' model. Basically, emusic has a mix of radio stuff, and all the stuff you can't buy on CD at your local Walmart anyway.
I guess I'm tired of anyone not carrying the latest pop being labeled 'indie', particularly given pop's tendency to forget the past. I don't want this to be a commercial for eMusic, just a note that they are offering the kind of stuff that you can hear by dial-hopping on radio, but can't find in most big box stores. That's more than just 'indie'.
A.
Can you give any sort of a reference as to U.S. Government activity in regards to AllOfMp3? I would like to know who and which branch of government is doing that, because frankly I think there are enough messed-up things in this country deserving of government attention that are a whole hell of a lot higher up on the priority list than whether somebody in Russia is skimming off Vivendi-Universal's revenue stream.
Any politician or government body that thinks that's a national priority has some serious accountability problems.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
There's just something graceful about a service that surprises you with new bands all the time. I've been able to wade my toes into genres that I wouldn't have touched otherwise, like twee-pop. (Heavenly is a great band.)
It's nice to know that these guys are not only successful, but they're successful in all the right ways. I have a feeling that there'll be a point where eMusic gets so successful that the major labels have to start taking notice and talking to them more seriously. Beyond the lack of DRM, they just do so many things right.
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
Well, it depends.
Pot is effectively legal in the Netherlands. But that doesn't mean that Americans can import it from there. That something is legal in one country doesn't mean it will be elsewhere.
Similarly, for people here in the US, American copyright law is in effect, and Russian copyright law is irrelevant. And the laws here prohibit downloading from allofmp3, regardless of whether they're legal in Russia or not. As I see it, if you're going to pirate music, you might as well not pay shady Russians when it's entirely possible to do it for free.
And in an effort to prevent people from replying with misinformation, if you disagree and wish to reply, please first consider and address the following issues:
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
How do they handle the metadata and MP3 file tags for classical music?
I've never really downloaded any classical music because I've been concerned that the tags wouldn't contain anywhere the information that I normally type in myself from the CD case. A lot of online services just try to match the usual pop-music fields of Artist, Album, Track Name, and that's really not enough information for classical recordings.
At the least, I'd want to make sure that I was going to get the composer, conductor, orchestra, date of recording, names of any soloists, and venue (although usually if you know the date of recording and the orchestra, you can back out the venue if you do some research). So far I haven't been very satisfied with downloaded offerings.
Pretty much the only Sony products I buy anymore are their classical CD offerings, because I think they produce a good product and I haven't found an online source that approaches both the audible quality and metadata quality of physical CDs.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The people who think you can play only ITMS music on your iPod (sometimes misled by the Napster "$10,000" FUD ads) confuse me.
The iPod was announced in October 2001.
The iTunes Music Store opened in April 2003. The 3rd generation iPods were also announced at that time.
If it were really true that you couldn't but non-ITMS music on an iPod, the first and second generation iPods would have been, shall we say, much worse sellers than they were.
In spite of the "in bed with Microsoft" complaints back in the early days of BootlegTV (and Fripp's providing "effects" music for the upcoming Vista release), when DGMLive.com finally opened its shop, the music was and is released in non-DRM formats. MP3 albums for $9.95, or FLAC (lossless compression) for $12.95.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
I was a subscriber to the old emusic years ago, and I still listen to many of the songs I downloaded. And I downloaded LOTS.
The new emusic with the download restrictions isn't as attractive to me because I like to download entire albums, but I see they've added a 90 downloads for $19.95 a month option, that's not too bad. I might subscribe again for a few months.
Useful :)
"Anyone know of other good sources for classical?"
Sure, check out these guys.
--
For those of us who would prefer to buy vinyl, but find it a hassle to rip from vinyl to our portable music players, I've loved Merge Records plan of giving the consumer mp3s of the album whenever they buy the vinyl version. I'm no businessman, so I dunno if it works as a business model, but it fits my needs completely.
You must have an 'interesting' definition of classical music.
dave
TFM mentions that EMusic used to have a subscription with unlimited downloads, but that since it cost them around 8 cents/download the revenue model didn't scale up for high-volume downloaders. Thus they adopted tiered rates and limited downloads.
They're oh, so close! They just went the wrong direction:
They need an E-Music file-sharing application! It could be just like (the original) Napster, run off their own servers, checking a custom ID3 tag to verify that shared files on the network are all legit E-Music files (this would also enable them to track download stats for various songs).
This would make it profitable to remove the download limit, and let people share songs directly. Just like the original Napster, but all legitimate, non-RIAA stuff. I'D PAY $10/month for that, no question.
THIS IS HOW THEY GET THEIR MILLION SUBSCRIBERS! (Not that they're listening to /. rants.)
As the service now stands, however, I tried a month of E-Music, but cancelled after that. I hate feeling "on the meter" with song downloads. I want to browse, listen, follow my stream of musical interest whereever it leads, and not have to worry about racking up ten bucks' worth of charges in the process.
It's always puzzled me why the music and movie publishers are so obsessed about the possibility of "exact digital copies." The commercial success of indifferently remastered "AAD" or "ADD" albums, or mediocre DVD transfers of slightly worn or dirty film, shows that the public puts only a small value on technical state-of-the-art perfection.
I've also thought, quite seriously, that a good way out of the DRM impasse would be to retain all the technical garbage and lockdown of current DRM systems, with one important difference. If the DRM system thinks you might not be licensed to use the content, it should not deny you access at all. Instead, it should merely introduce a small amount of degradation, comparable to the amount introduced by an analog copy made on decent consumer equipment. (And twice as much for a second-generation copy, three times as much for the third generation, and so forth).
The prospect of being locked out of content I've purchased if the software is buggy or the vendor goes out of business or there's no practical mechanism for transferring the license of another machine... or not being able to give a copy to a friend or relative... infuriates me. The prospect that I (or my friend or relative) might have to be content with a level of quality corresponding to, say, a CD-to-cassette copy made on a boombox, is something I think I could live with quite happily.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
iTunes and the iPod can encode (create) and decode (play) music in the following formats:
.aa) spoken word format
Let's get the "iPod Format" or "works with the iPod" or "the format the iPod needs" out of the way. Journalists say this when they mean the M4P AAC format; the one the iTunes Music Store will sell you music in. There is also the M4B AAC format, for protected spoken word files. Naturally, they both work with iTunes or an iPod.
However, the News Stories often implies you need to have that format to work with the iPod or iTunes at all. Since they are DRM'ed versions that only Apple uses, if your original is not AAC with DRM (sometimes also called "FairPlay encoded AAC"), it's implied that the song won't play on the iPod at all. Nothing could be further from the truth, but it's a source of consumer confusion when journalists get it wrong, which is unfortunately common and seemingly getting worse.
In fact, this Slashdot story is an example, where it implies something to the effect that Apple and eMusic are the only two sources of iPod compatible downloadable music. No wonder everyone's confused.
Similarly, AAC with Fairplay is not AAC, exactly. The two are separate things. AAC is not an Apple Format at all, it's an official MPEG format, just like MP3 is.
Now for the rest:
iTunes can open or create and the iPod can play all the following:
MP3 (Fixed Bitrate; from 32 to 320 Kbps)
MP3 VBR (Variable Bit Rate)
AIFF (again not an Apple Format either; an open standard notable only because Microsoft only supports it reluctantly, preferring to convert to the almost identical (the audio information is the same; the file format is different; they are roughly the same file size, etc). Since it's the format your store-bought CDs come in, it's obvious MS players support it, but they convert to WAV if you try to do anything with the file on your computer. AIFF and WAV are identical in sound quality; both are lossless, etc.
WAV (uncompressed WAV only)
M4A AAC This is the MPEG-4 or "regular" AAC; any player made by anyone can support it if they want to
Apple Lossless Encoder: This is an Apple Format. It's essentially the same as FLAC, etc. A lossless format that compresses AIFF or WAV files more or less the same way a zip does. Notable because iTunes and the iPod play them in real time; in other words they uncompress on the fly so you can cram more lossless files in the same hard drive space and still play them as if they were uncompressed.
Audible 2, Audible 3, Audible 4 (
Sample Rates (all formats):
8 Khz, 11.025 Khz, 16 Khz, 22.050 Khz, 32 Khz, 44.1 Khz [CD's are 44.1 Khz sample rate]: Not likely to be a problem here. Nobody uses different sample rates than these, although there are higher rates that could be supported (eg 48 Khz, 88.2 Khz, etc)
iPod formats are encoded in firmware: Apple can add support for other codecs by a firmware upgrade (and they have done so from time to time).
Notable formats that won't play:
WAV with compression (similar to Apple Lossless or FLAC)
WMA and WMA Protected
ATRAC
RealAudio
Ogg Vorbis
Note: Microsoft waives all WMA royalties for Windows Software Applications but charges them to makers of Mac OS programs or Linux programs; so Apple would have to pay royalties to support it in iTunes for Macintosh but not iTunes for Windows. Adding WMA support to iTunes and the iPod would mean Apple paying millions to Microsoft while Windows-only application developers pay nothing. There are also differences in the licensing payments for hardware, although it's a bit more complicated; to much so to summarize here.
ATRAC is a Sony format that they keep for themselves, mostly. Used on MiniDisk.
RealAudio is a Real, Inc format that they keep for themselves, mostly.
Ogg Vorbis is a format popular with open source users and developers; its broadly similar to AAC and MP3. There is no real reason why Apple can't support this format, and they could with a firmware upgrade on existing iPods and an update of iTunes software. Unlike supporting WMA, it doesn't cost anything to support. This annoys some people; Apple should support it.
All of MP3 may be "somewhat" legal in Russia but it is fully-non legal for Americans (or Canadians, Australians, and anybody else who is lives in a country that's signed on with international copyright laws) to buy music from them, as it says outright in their terms of service.
I don't see any mention of Canada there, just a vague statement that it's up to you to figure out whether it is legal in your country. In fact, Canadians have a right to make copies for private use. This is what the levy on blank media pays for.
I've never paid for a tune from iTunes -- and since discovering emusic.com, I probably never will.
:)
Everyone else in the thread has already said it, but I just wanted to add to the chorus of people urging emusic virgins to check the service out.
In addition to picking up new music from old favorites like Sufjan Stevens, The Decemberists, and The New Pornographers, their insightful reviews and helpful, music-lover-friendly emails have led me to find a bunch of new music I love. Calexico, Tarkio, Gomez.. A bunch of random electronic tracks... Oh, and a bunch of B-3 jazz / blues, like Tony Monaco, Jimmy Smith, Joey DeFrancesco, et al.
Seriously, it's great. It's like Christmas every month when the downloads renew and I can go grab a couple more albums. I dig it
I think even more influential is the Barenaked Ladies initiative they've had on this entire issue.
I attended a concert in December and purchased a coupon I could redeem at the website for a live recording of that concert. I finally got around to downloading it last week. No DRM, various formats I could download in (either tracked or two huge mp3s perfect for burning)
as well as PDFs of CD covers and inserts that could be printed.
I could also purchase any of the other shows they've done, as well as some other things.
Couple that with the fact that they seem to be a major force behind: http://www.musiccreators.ca/
and you've got one great band that hasn't let me down in 15 years.
Its nice that a retailer is pushing no DRM, but I think its more important for the artists to get together like they have here. This should be a more important message because its what the artists really want, the retailers are just middle men and their opinion shouldn't hold that much weight with the lawmakers and standards.
Since you're a subscriber, I was wondering if you could give some detail on something mentioned in the article.
eMusic also has massive jazz and classical sections (it recently acquired the entire Naxos catalog, for instance), and is also a good place to go for (of all things) comedy albums.
I went to the site just looking to see if they had a list of artists I could download but the only thing I could do, it seems, is sign up. Now this wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that I'm at work.
Any chance you could post a selection of what is offered in the jazz, classical, and comedy genres?
I like their service, but I've been wondering that for a while. Anyone?
While I won't disagree, the whole importation issue is really a red herring. Downloading is not importation, at least under US law, because importation involves the movement across borders of material objects. Downloading wouldn't qualify. You'd need to mail a CD or something.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I agree with a lot of people that eMusic is a great service, and a great deal. I use it, in fact. But I didn't see anywhere in the article where it mentioned that emusic is actually making money. There is a section wth the heading "is it making money" in which they don 't actually answer that question........they just spew some facts about market share.
Last I heard, eMusic was hemorraging money. I guess they're suffering the same fate as many dot-coms - great idea, great service, losing money big time.
If by 99 cent downloads you mean 23 cent downloads then i agree! well, thats the cheapest you can get it... 90 downloads is ~$20 a month. I believe the most expensive is 25 downloads for ~$10 a month which still only works out to 40 cents a piece...
so... its a quarter the price of iTunes... has no drm... has better quality files 160k - 256k vbr mp3s (as opposed to the 128k drmed file you get from itunes) and in my opinion a much better selection of music...
granted the last one is opinion, but the others are not. i am confused why so many people like and use itunes... but i'm also confused why so many people like what they hear on top 40 radio too, so...
....................
I've been an eMusic subscriber since before the sale of the company and the restriction to 40 tracks per month on the basic subscription.
All they have to do to lose me is to go DRM.
It's all C.R.A.P. (http://news.zdnet.com/html/z/wb/6035707.html)
Best to not buy any of it.
Don't support Apple or DRM, stop buying CRAP. I guess it's up to you. You can spend your money on CRAP if you like. I stopped several years ago. I just don't participate in new music, unless I go to see a band live. I do that when someone recommends them, or I hear them on the radio.
CRAP is killing music and your freedom of choice. The link above explains it better than I can. I feel the same way and agree that CRAP is bad. I won't support it. Too bad there are so many lemmings in the world.
-AC
So electrons aren't material objects now?
It's a little sickening how you got modded up to 5 just buy throwing a lot of legal verbage (in links no less), none of which actually makes your point.
.99/song off iTunes, when your "in the know" friends have been paying .9-.25/song.
Your own first links that you cite point out that phonographs, legally copied, are allowed to be imported. Then you point out that downloads are not physical items, and declare phonographs a "red herring".
This is the real point, that NONE of your legalese refutes:
These songs were legally produced in Russia; in Russia, downloading an mp3 and listening to a song are considered about the same thing; the reason the allofmp3 songs are so cheap is because you're basically paying to hear it on the radio (when you consider how many of us used to tape our favorite songs off the radio as kids when we couldn't afford to buy the cassette, this practice isn't that revolutionary).
If the RIAA doesn't like having its music sold at the rate of radio tunes in Russia, it's free to stop doing business with companies in Russia, free to stop accepting royalties, etc.
NOTHING in the links you posted implies that legally produced mp3s that are legally purchased and imported for personal use have been found illegal. Certainly, if you did something like share the files around with your friends on bittorrent, that would be a different story.
But thank you for throwing up that MOUNTAIN of irrelevant legal verbage to disguise the fact that you resent having to pay
All of them do. I have never put a non-MP3 on it and I jave never even installed iTunes (I use mlPod with winamp). I have zero DRM/lock-in issues as a result.
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
Well, Google might take old ideas, but they do it well. When Google Finance was released I was pleasantly surprised by some of the cool stuff you could do and how easily you could do it, and the same applies to most of Google's, er, stuff.
Apple took something that was only adopted by smaller companies and said "hey, with our capital, we could make this really successful" and they did. I guess you could say the same about Google actually, with much of their capital being employees that know how to design search engines / stock reports / etc. really well.
Both companies react by taking old ideas, and innovate by making them better. Or at least by marketing them really well, right, Apple?
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
The splash screen EMusic gives you at their URL makes it look like you have to sign up before you can see what they have. I've seen several complaints about this.
If you scroll to the bottom, then click on "About EMusic", you'll get to a page from which you can navigate anywhere on the site. Look for the "Browse" button near the top to see what they have.
One other thing--once you download a file, you can download it again as many times as you want without it counting against your 40 downloads per month. You can download everything to multiple computers at no extra cost.
Caution: If you're not locked into RIAA pop, EMusic can be VERY addictive.
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
jamendo is cool !
/. crowd is not aware.
it's more than 1100 complete albums : CC licenced, BitTorrent distributed, MP3 and OGG encoded, you pay if you want to thank great artists.
It's growing by 10 new albums per day, mainly european music, sad to see that
Every album I've ever bought has been purchased secondary to being able to freely and repeatedly listen to UNencumbered copies, whenever and wherever the urge strikes.
In the analog era, it was taped LPs off the radio (or for us DJs, with studio equipment). In the digital era, it's MP3s that are both free (no risk) and totally portable.
Listen enough times to something I like, and I get so addicted that I want to own hardcopies of everything the musician ever recorded.
Conversely, restrict my listening, and I'll never get that chance to become addicted -- meaning you lose that hardcopy sale without even getting a chance to market your music to me. Indeed, when I haven't had access per above, my album-buying grinds to a halt.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
good post, mate. I agree, but you will only get a +2 at best. You could have relinked his links, probably worth another point or two. Cheers Allofmp3 rocks. And I don't care whether it's legal or illegal. Makes NO difference to me. Does the pirated OS I am using keep me up at night? Nope. Does the 'illegal' bombs I make every 4th of july keep me up at night? Does the amount of beer I brew over my 100gals/year limit keep me up at night? Does ripping netflix dvds bother me? NOPE, absolutely not. why? It's not like I am going to 'caught' prosecuted, jailed, etc. my trucks catalytic converter, and smog system are cut off, who cares? My state doesn't do emissions testing. How about every time I take my wifes allergy meds? How about the tags I cut off my matress? If the average person actually realized how many laws they break EACH AND EVERY DAY, the whole country would be a sniveling zanex loving basketcases. But the country isn't in a drug induced coma. Many of these laws have nothing to do with reality, and certeinly the sentenancing of these infractions is WAY WAY out of proportion with the crime. Speeding ticket is a few hundred bucks, but sharing music = $3000 settlement? Wow.
Hi, guys! This is an issue to be considered, but... as one who is making a living from digital content for mobile phones ... I think that DRM is just another break in the way of progress. If somebody is that good, he/she should produce more good songs instead of sophisticatelly guarding the existing ones. Personally, I have never specially guarded my work. By the time one item is ready for the public, there is already another one on the working table and this is the real way of the progress.
Come and see for yourself:
http://www.superkaraoke.biz/
Yours Faithfully, Mobile 2005
"With the CD, you have to leave it in the machine for about 15 minutes"
Sonny, if it takes you fifteen minutes to rip a CD, you have either a sucky CD reader, or sucky software. At most, this step is 5-6 minutes.
"then rename all the files to the names of the tracks"
You're joking, right?
Even WinAmp automatically names the tunes. Every modern piece of software automatically names the tunes, creates a directory structure that you wish, and rips it to whatever specs you set as the default. It is one click and five minutes. Easy. In fact, it's far easier than downloading it from P2P, and it's easier than iTunes.
"That means that a CD is at least 2 orders of magnitude more difficult to share than an MP3"
You're saying ripping a CD is 100 times more difficult (I'll bet you don't know what "order of magnitude" means) than using a P2P program, finding links, downloading, checking that it doesn't suck. Right.
Seriously, you're either really really dumb, or trolling. I'll bet you're not smart enough to troll, so that leaves the reader with only one possible conclusion.
Correction, some of us couldn't help but think, "Oh, you mean like Emusic, only crippled?"
Correction, some of us couldn't help but think, "Oh, you mean like emusic, only with the stuff I've actually heard of and want to listen to?"
Don't get me wrong -- I want to try emusic (but I can't figure out how to see what is available prior to signing up) but face it, there are many people out there who will find that emusic doesn't have the kind of music (namely, the artists they like) they want to hear.
Until emusic fixes this, they will not go fully mainstream.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Your own first links that you cite point out that phonographs, legally copied, are allowed to be imported.
.99/song off iTunes, when your "in the know" friends have been paying .9-.25/song.
Actually, there are significant limits on that. What 17 USC 602 does, as you'd know if you read it, is it prohibits importing phonorecords unless two conditions are both met: 1) that, had US law applied in the place where the phonorecord was made, the making of it would have been legal, and 2) that one of the three exceptions in subsection 602(a) is applicable. Just satisfying one or the other isn't good enough; it has to be both.
So when you say, These songs were legally produced in Russia, that's not good enough. In order for 602(b) to not prohibit importation, it doesn't matter if it was legal under Russian law. It has to have been legal if US law had applied. And since US law doesn't have the same compulsory licensing scheme that allofmp3 purports to rely upon, it just doesn't work out.
But again, all of this importation discussion is a red herring. When you download, you are not importing. You are reproducing.
So to sum up, you said: NOTHING in the links you posted implies that legally produced mp3s that are legally purchased and imported for personal use have been found illegal.
And you are utterly wrong. It is impossible to import an mp3 by means of downloading it. This is because the statute deals with importing phonorecords. A phonorecord is defined in the law as a material object, such as a CD, or a vinyl record. If you can download one of those, as opposed to the information on it, I'll be impressed. For your next trick, you can download a sandwich. Furthermore, even if you were importing them -- which would basically have to be through the mail or via a courier or something -- that would be illegal because there's really just no way to get around section 602(b).
If you had bothered to read the relatively small amount of entirely on-point legal documents, you wouldn't have made a fool out of yourself. Let's hope you don't do so again.
you resent having to pay
Actually, I've never used iTMS. I think it's a rip-off. And I don't resent people who pirate music, whether it's on Allofmp3 or wherever. I think that it ought to be legal for people to download music for free.
What I don't like is people spreading misinformation about the law. If someone is making a decision whether or not to break the law, I think they should be fully informed. And I think that in order to rally support for changing the law to reduce the scope of copyright, people are going to need to have accurate information as to just how bad copyright is now.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Don't get me wrong -- I want to try emusic (but I can't figure out how to see what is available prior to signing up) but face it, there are many people out there who will find that emusic doesn't have the kind of music (namely, the artists they like) they want to hear.
Until emusic fixes this, they will not go fully mainstream.
emusic cant 'fix' this unless they get in bed with the corrupt labels & become equally corrupt themseleves.
I think I prefer them as they are....
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Thanks for saving me the trouble and disappointment of signing up. I compared The Billboard 200 with eMusic and found very little, if any correlation. The iTunes Music Store(ITMS), on the other hand, seems to have a much much higher amount of mainstream music. I'm not too keen on freakish garage bands so, I'll pass on eMusic.
Sorry Charlie, if they are following the laws in Russia, US law permits the copying. As for why the RIAA isn't suing - they did and lost - no legal basis.
From 17 USC 602:
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.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
There's also a lot of mediocre stuff. YMMV :)
Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
Didn't the RIAA start suing the free radio broadcasters, and start demanding royalties from all the internet radio broadcasters? So if broadcasting a song on an unlicensed internet radio station is illegal, would listening to pirated music on the radio also be illegal? Personally, I don't see the RIAA as that bad, music pirates are pirates, and the unlicensed music thing could have bankrupted them if they never went on to defend their IP.
Sig: I stole this sig.
In Soviet Russia we...oh, wait...
Is there something wrong with buying CD's??? I'm not trying to be any kind of smart ass or the like, but am I old fashoned for continueing to buy "entire" albums?
I was under the impression that CD's were still lossless, and were still somewhat portable, and perfectly legal. You can even rip them and load them into your Ipod or fav player without worry...
Have they started DRM'ing Cd's so you can't rip them yet? that's what I figured was the next step but haven't run across one yet.
-Duff
+5 Funny
Thanks for making my day.
That's a fantastic idea.
I used Emusic back when it was unlimited downloads, and it was quite simply music heaven. I wasn't one of those guys who downloaded 20G of music that I could never listen to. Instead I would download a dozen albums from bands I'd never heard of, burn a CD to listen to at work, and decide what I liked over the course of a couple weeks, then download more of the bands I liked for several more weeks of new music enjoyment.
It was this ability to experiment and try out new bands that made it great. I hadn't heard of most of the bands they had, so even more than at a typical music store the ability to sample as much as I wanted was liberating. Once they switched (back, they charged per song when they first opened) to a limited model, the feeling of freedom was gone. Now I had to pick and choose what was worth . I cancelled my subscription.
The ideal sharing application would be bittorrent. Single-source peer-to-peer file sharing programs are too slow compared to a high-speed dedicated server, whereas bittorrent can be faster than a single beefy server.
Anyway, this is a fantastic idea. If they switched back to an all-you-can-eat model I'd re-up my subscription in a heartbeat.
The enemies of Democracy are
They only recently (within the last year) added the ability to upload album art. The first few CDs I bought (as downloads) from them had no art because they didn't have the capability or the artist didn't put up any cover art.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
Well, eMusic is also marked by a diversity of stuff in one place. Many of the other MP3 sites out ther specialize in one form of music or another (usually dance/techno/electronica). eMusic has stuff for almost any musical taste.
Now, if only they would switch to a flat $0.25 per song, I would come running back to their service. But as it is, I do not have time to go hunting for 40 songs to download, so I would not get my money's worth.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
bzzzzt, wrong again.
...
17 USC 602 deals with "copies or phonorecords". Not copies *of* phonorecords.
And as you yourself just said, "When you download, you are not importing. You are reproducing." Reproducing is copying my verbose friend. And you are off again - sending something over the wire is also considered importing.
Or have you forgotten the old export controls on cryptographic software transmitted oversears already? You can't have it both ways you know, unless you are saying uploaded is exporting and downloading isn't importing?
Finally, quoting the statute,
"This subsection does not apply to--
(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; "
again, copies or phonorecords. If you the copy is just for yourself or part of your baggage if you physically came through the borders there is no issue.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
As I see it, if you're going to pirate music, you might as well not pay shady Russians when it's entirely possible to do it for free.
An important factor, though, is how the RIAA is going to find out who allofmp3's customers are. They can subpoena US-based pirate/p2p groups, but a Russian site will simply laugh the lawyers away (as does thepiratebay.org in Sweden).
Until it's illegal IN RUSSIA, and there's the prospect of a subpoena for its logs, allofmp3 is a relatively safe bet.
Which is to say yes, you're probably correct that it is not legal for a US user to download music from allofmp3, but it is a safer option than domestic piracy.
Well, eMusic is also marked by a diversity of stuff in one place.
.
.wav, maybe a dime for lossey compression.
That may well be, but that isn't the claim, is it? The claim is that they are the only place to buy unemcumbered music online compatible with the iPod, and that is, quite frankly, what we in the trade call a "lie."
Now, if only they would switch to a flat $0.25 per song. .
Yes. That's the price point I've long claimed would be the correct one for downloaded music. Quite frankly I think that's about right for a
I only buy CDs. New directly from the artist or used for the commerically obtained stuff, but I think I'd be inclined to buy a shitload of mp3s for a dime apiece; and go back for the wav of the shit I actually liked, so they be selling me the good shit for $.35 a track.
A good incentive for promoting better music.
Of course, that isn't what they want, is it? Music is just soap/corn flakes to the commercial industry. They'd be happier selling anything else if they could make a better profit on it, but they've discovered that "crime" pays quite well if you can make it legally supported somehow.
KFG
Great music in MP3 or FLAC. *This* is the way to run a music store, which is why they get ALL my business these days, no more "Apple knows what's best for you" crap. And for me, the lack of Top-40 schlock is also great feature.
PS: Besides being a customer and a fan, I am not affiliated with Zunior.com
but I can't figure out how to see what is available prior to signing up)
Hmmm, seems like they really, really want you to sign up for that free trial now. Try this link to browse emusic collection before you do anything else.
And no, they don't have a lot of popular music. But they do have a massive collection of blues, jazz and alternative labels. It's a very good collection of music for many people. It may not fit everyones needs, but they are really in a niche market anyway, and they work very well within that niche. I am a subscriber and highly recommend emusic.
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
Emusic has the entire Naxos catalogue available, for example.
Selling something that people want to buy doesn't make you corrupt. In fact, I think there would be a lot of relief if emusic started offering more mainstream stuff, using their current format, judging from the amount of grousing I see around here about the iTunes Store, even though I don't see that many complaints about people actually having that many problems.
i am a soviet space shuttle
17 USC 602 deals with "copies or phonorecords". Not copies *of* phonorecords.
A copy of a phonorecord is also a phonorecord. Take a look at the definition at 17 USC 101.
And you are off again - sending something over the wire is also considered importing. Or have you forgotten the old export controls on cryptographic software transmitted oversears already?
I know them, and there are still controls of this nature. However, those regulations, which were enacted by an administrative agency, rather than Congress, specifically define exportation as encompassing Internet transmissions. Congress, on the other hand, has not so defined importation for purposes of copyright law. The agency definition isn't particularly relevant, as it's not of Congressional origin, and deals with an entirely different subject matter. If you want to argue about what copyright law says, you're going to have to do so based on copyright law, not something entirely unrelated. This might seem odd to you, but it's a fairly ordinary situation.
If you the copy is just for yourself or part of your baggage if you physically came through the borders there is no issue.
Except of course, that 602(a)(2) only applies to the ban on importation in subsection (a). It does not apply to the independent ban on importation in subsection (b), which you are still failing to address.
And of course, Allofmp3 has nothing to do with importation anyhow, as I've shown. That's why you had to resort to an example involving baggage, which certainly isn't involved in most people's transactions with Allofmp3.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Don't get me wrong -- I want to try emusic (but I can't figure out how to see what is available prior to signing up) but face it, there are many people out there who will find that emusic doesn't have the kind of music (namely, the artists they like) they want to hear.
Until emusic fixes this, they will not go fully mainstream.
> emusic cant 'fix' this unless they get in bed with the corrupt labels & become equally corrupt themseleves.
You are both wrong; there is nothing to fix. Browse for yourself and see!
Bring back Sirius Punk!
Obviously, we can do the same thing in the U.S., but we seem to have a problem that you don't have - previous borrowers who don't give a damn and have scratched hell out of the CD leaving it virtually useless. Pity.
Heard any good sigs lately?
From the article: "There's a reason this doesn't happen, of course: the music labels won't allow it. Actually, the major music labels won't allow it--but there's a whole ecosystem of independent music labels that want nothing more than wide exposure and fair compensation."
When I read this, it really hit me. The major music record labels don't want wide music access for large numbers of bands. Doing so means thier Justin Timberlakes (and other highly hyped singers) won't be getting as much attention and thier sales will drop. The reason? Lets say eMusic has a rating system for songs and has an idicator telling how many times a given song has been downloaded. Instead of having to listen to the radio for a few hours to figure out who's good enough for them to merit your CD purchase -- all you have to do is make a choice based on widespread community feedback. This cuts out all of the middlemen and allows the consumer to to choose his music from the source (the people who listen to music aka the community).
Not only is this great for the consumer but it's also great for the bands. I could feasibly record a song and put it out today on eMusic and become the next great, rich singer. The bands can avoid the whole run-around issue of recording studios and enjoy greater financial success (proportionately) than those who have slaved themselves to thier labels.
What eMusic is doing is putting the power of choice in the hands of the consumer (something we all like) and at the same time they are +making money off of it+. The labels have yet to embrace this strategy, and still want people buying thier CDs. They're behind the times and out of touch with reality:
The music industry is changing and they have to get on board or go the way of the dinosaurs.
Well, they've been having some legal troubles in Russia lately (Russia wants to improve trade relations with the US), recently shut down for a few days, and now have come back. I'm suspicious enough that I would not put it past Allofmp3 to be logging their users, either as part of a deal with RIAA and Russian authorities, or in anticipation of having to make a deal. As I recall, some torrent tracker sites have been known to do the same thing.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
My big regret is that Fraunhofer gave up the fight and MP3 became the de facto standard, rather than the technically superior MP4.
Are you joking? Did you really think that when you download something from there that Russian electrons are sent to your computer?
Of course! Don't tell me you buy into this whole "router/data packet" nonsense they brainwash our children in schools nowadays. I really expected better from a TimeCube faithful....
You are both wrong; there is nothing to fix. Browse for yourself and see!
;-)
Hmmmn, personally, I don't see how a music store can call itself 'mainstream' until it's selling music from this band.
Sorry emusic - not ready for the prime time
(btw, that winky at the end means its a joke)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Here's just a sampling of the better-known independent labels on eMusic: Dischord, Merge, Touch and Go, Matador, Rykodisc, Concord Jazz, Shanachie, Smithsonian Folkways, Buda, K Records, Kill Rock Stars, Teenbeat, Epitaph, Fat Possum, and the list goes on....
Not everything off of these labels are on Emusic, but quite a bit of it is (Fugazi for example).
Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare; but if you seek safety, it is on the shore.
All my "in the know" friends have been paying .O/song!
That's why you had to resort to an example involving baggage,
This is a laughable statement - the code indicates the two cases, you insist I be thorough in my responses, I indicate both cases and you suggest I'm resorting to the second?
Which do you want? Thoroughness in summary or specificity to the case we are talking about. Because your plan seems to be to broaden the conversation from the tree to the forest, then dodge the issue by stating I'm hiding behind the other trees when I'm not.
If that's what your profession is all about, it's no wonder to me that lawyers are regarded with such disdane.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
I have purchase 99% of my music via iTunes. I can say I haven't hit any limitations as yet nor have I been unable to do what I want. I can burn my music and stream it every computer in my house. I have iPod so I not worried about playing it on a non-apple player. Even then, there is a way around the encryption. If anyone here is truly against DRM in any form, then vote with your wallets and boycott the whole industry from Apple to Warner Music. Not one player, not one song...hell, turn off your radio!
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
"If the RIAA doesn't like having its music sold at the rate of radio tunes in Russia, it's free to stop doing business with companies in Russia, free to stop accepting royalties, etc."
Or free to raise the rates to everybody.
This is the kind of case the RIAA does not want. They have yet to go after someone downloading unless they were also uploading the content (like most P2P networks). Once they've stamped out all other sources they will go after downloaders.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
[T]he code indicates the two cases, you insist I be thorough in my responses, I indicate both cases and you suggest I'm resorting to the second?
Actually, I don't have any idea what you're even trying to say here.
The question we've been discussing has been whether a person in the US who downloads mp3s from Allofmp3 has engaged in copyright infringement punishable under US law. Some uninformed people suggest that the various laws regarding importation yield the answer that such activity is not infringing. They are wrong, and I have shown this. On the other hand, I have pointed out that the laws regarding reproduction are directly on point and do in fact prohibit this downloading.
In order to contribute to the discussion, which you haven't done yet, you are going to need to either show, in light of the applicable statutes and caselaw, that it is infringing, or that it isn't. This means not dodging the reproduction issue, and not dodging the vast majority of the importation red herring (if you are going to waste our time with it). So far you've cherry-picked and misinterpreted. It all sounds great, if you don't know anything. But to those of us who are honest, and who really want to know what the law says, your brand of nonsense is pretty sad.
Now, if you are trying to talk about 602(a) and (b), you cannot neglect the fact that there are independent prohibitions on importing in both (a) and (b). The exception in (a)(2) only applies to the prohibition in (a). That is why it says 'subsection,' not 'section,' or 'title.' Thus, even when (a)(2) applies, you must still deal with (b). You haven't. You also haven't dealt with the overall inapplicability of importation anyway. You haven't shown that information being transmitted over a wire or through the air is fixed within a material object, as it must be in order to qualify as a phonorecord.
And it's a waste of time in any case, because talking about physical movement with baggage over borders is a non sequitur. We're talking about downloading, not traveling to and fro.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Are there any sites out there that keep a comprehensive list of all the non-DRM online music stores? I've been having a hard time finding a good list by searching google.
I was amazed to RTFA and find myself accurately described by their CEO. In college I spent all my money on music, and when I started working full-time, I dumped a lot of cash on CDs. After I had kids, I stopped going to clubs, I didn't spend much time hanging out with friends listening to music, and I lost touch with current trends in music. I rode out the electronic/lounge/trip-hop wave of the 90s, and found myself bored with my discs but unwilling to drop $20 to try anything new. I all but stopped buying CDs about four years ago.
I tried eMusic I think around 2000, when they were an all-you-can-download service, and I didn't find much that appealed to me. I came back about two years ago, and now I'm on eMusic's biggest subscription package with 400 items in my save for later list. At my subscription level, albums cost under $3, so I don't hesitate to download anything, and I find it to be an aging indie rocker's dream come true. Probably half of my iPod is filled with eMusic, and I'm happy that it's not taking up any space in my apartment.
I really only have a few complaints about eMusic:
I can't recommend them enough, and I hope they continue to succeed.
http://www.bitworksmusic.com/
Check out the podcast at:
http://www.krimson-news.com/
Well, I think you missed the point about the baggage not being anything more than a quote from the statute.
But looking again at what you are saying, it appears your right and I'm wrong. Assuming that moving a copy of data from a server in another country to one within the US is importing, section b would require that the data be scrutinized by US copyright law. In allofmp3's case, it would be illegal.
So here's a question (assuming you haven't gotten fed up and walked away). If it isn't importing, what would it be? What statute or precedence applies? Some oblique application of banking laws pertaining to financial trasactions between countries?
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
DRM'd music is useless for anyone who is creative. For example, I like to put music tracks over video's I make and that is clearly impossible with DRM. Until they wise up, I'll stick with CD's.
Like I said, to import a phonorecord, the phonorecord itself must cross the border. But a phonorecord is defined as a material object. A vinyl record, a CD, an eight-track tape -- those can all be phonorecords. An Internet download cannot be.
But the material objects at either end of the download -- the computers, their RAM, their hard drives, etc. -- those can be. So, when you download, you create a new phonorecord at the receiving end. This is the act of reproduction, and it is infringing per 17 USC 501 and 106(1).
While I don't care for this result, the Intellectual Reserve case I linked to before does an excellent job of explaining this. This case dealt with people downloading (in order to view) a web page that had been put up unlawfully, but whether we're talking about a web page or an mp3, this analysis will come out the same:
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
If I were a scribe, the invention of the printing press would have bankrupted me. That's called tough luck. If your business model no longer works after the invention of a certain technology, then by all means move on to something else.
Modern technology has made it impractical to expect people to pay for the reproduction of an artistic work when you can reproduce it yourself for essentially zero cost. It's like selling people genetically altered fruit and forbidding them to plant the seeds (which, ironically, some companies have tried to do). Will this halt the flow of music? Probably not. People made music long before we had copyright, and they will continue to do so. Such will be financed either by love of music itself, or through paying for live performances (which is by far the more traditional and sensible business model). And if it does indeed put an end to recorded music then tough luck. No economically unviable activity should be protected through artificial scarcity laws.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
There's nothing wrong with CD albums, but I prefer digital downloads.
Way back when, I use to buy 45 RPM singles. They were cheaper than albums, though not on a song for song basis, and they had a single song(sometimes two but, usually the flip side sucked). I bought only the songs I liked spending $1-3 per artist, rather than $9-10 for an album with only two or three songs that I liked. Obviously there were times when the album was preferred like Pink Floyd or Saturday Night Fever but, most times singles were better.
Cassette tapes came along and put a cramp in the singles market. Sure, you could get single cassettes but, they were less convenient than 45 RPMs that you could stack on the spindle and they were less and less available.
CDs came out and almost completely killed the singles concept. They were complete albums but, the album art was unappealing because of the small size. Look at a Boston LP (Thats Long Playing record for you younguns.) and the amazing artwork and then look at the same artwork in a jewel case. Eww! That sucks.
Today, with digital music, I can buy singles again for a great price, Instead of paying $17 for a CD with 2-3 good songs on it, I can spend $2-3 dollars on that artist and the remaining $14 on other singles that I like. I never have to pay for crap music and fillers again. I like that! I can easily create my own compilations of hours of my absolute favorite music in the form of playlists and such. I can access and play my music on a wide array of high fidelity devices with just a click regardless of whether I am in my living room, my office or on an airplane.
CDs still have their place as a storage medium of course and albums have their place too. But, for me there are very few album purchases in my future. I like the new Shakira Hips Don't Lie song but, I definitley don't want an entire album and would never send more than $1 her way. I might repurchase an ABBA album though. Maybe a greatest hits compilation.
Actually it will be photons (it's all fibre optics or satellite links) so yes they *did* cross the border :-)
"Perhaps that's why eMusic CEO David Pakman sounds downright gleeful when he points out that there's only two companies in the world that can sell to them--Apple and eMusic.'"
No. There is a third company called The Podsafe Music Network at http://music.podshow.com/ which has started selling tracks. Most of the tracks can not be bought yet, but they are slowly opening their music store to more and more tracks. All drm-free and downloadable in mp3 format at the usual 99 cents.
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
The problem they had, from the article, was not about the downloading costs, but rather the licensing ones -- they have to pay royalties for each download.
:)
Adding a better download infrastructure would not help there, although yes, it would be very cool from a technical point of view
I see the legality as pretty much a moot point. How much of that ".9-.25/song" is the artist seeing? The answer is most likely none. In that case, why is it better than paying nothing? No thanks, I'll stick to seeing bands live and buying CDs at the show. P2P provides the rest.
The 8 cents per download included licensing fees to the labels. Bandwidth wasn't the real problem.
Do you think satellite links use light?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I wanted to give emusic a shot, so I signed up for their free trial. I didn't like that they wanted to have my credit card info right away, but ok, I can understand their reasoning behind it, that this way you are more likely to continue to use their service after the trial expires.
So I signed up, and in the confirmation email I couldn't find anywhere how long the trial was. Ok, I guessed a month, like usual. Then I find out 2 or 3 weeks later, that they their trial is not a month, but only 3 weeks - which really seems like a way to me that they want to suck at least one month of service out of you. This I really disliked, so I don't think I'll use their service again (the selection of music wasn't all that great either, not bad but not good IMO).
your spoiler has failed. i watched it last night.
not ready for the prime time?
ORLY?
eMusic has been doing fine for 8 years I see no reason for them to need RIAA backing they are doing fine without it.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
eMusic has a large section of classical, i haven't spent much time browsing it but it seems to be pretty decent
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Speaking of which, I remember hearing that some Beatles music was going to become public domain soon. If that actually happens, I'll renew (no pun intended) my faith in sensible copyright actually existing.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
If it were electrons, though (which itself is absurd), the concept of AC would pretty much prevent the electrons from ever getting here. Even if it were DC, it would take quite a while for the specific electrons to reach here.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
That is a bit disengenuous. Russia has signed on with international copyright laws too.
(To save you scanning the link:
I loved eMusic when it was in the all-you-can-eat for $9.95 or something ridiculous per month .. most of my mp3 collection is from that year-long downloading orgy. I've been exposed to more eclectic music than I'd ever get looking for torr3ntz and such.
:) Maybe I'll give them a look, if the cap is really 90 songs per month.
Unfortunately, in that time I've downloaded all the Pavement I'd ever want
All but = almost. Almost a necessity.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Hold it, there are Russian electrons? I guess I should have paid more attention in physics.
In Soviet Russia, electrons download you!
Seriously,
I'm sick of every thread about music having a post or three dozen bleeting out
ALLOFMP3.COM *ZOMG* ITUNES SUX0RZ!!1!
Every post that mentions AllofMP3.com should be modded "-5 Idjiot"
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
Silly person. The internet is DC, not AC!
AC makes your cooker heating up by making the electrons move backwards and forwards, causing friction in the electric pipes. Normal powerlines are well-lubricated to avoid getting too hot. Of course, your freezer gets hot at the back where all the electric pipes are, and the heat in the freezer moves to the pipes because it likes company, making it cold inside.
The DC internet doesn't have this problem, because russian electrons are cold anyway. Download times are long though, because they have to dig their way through the snow.
Ten cents a song? The basic mechanical licensing rights cost almost that all by themselves; a download service ultimately pays more than a dime for its downloads. It can't give you songs for a dime apiece, for the same reason a change machine can't give you a dollar bill for a nickel.
I remember the 70s, and you got three songs for a quarter, the jukebox company had to buy the record and the venue had to pay ASCAP fees out of that quarter.
.
And an mp3 is not a high quality product. I posited a quarter for the actual CD quality cut.
The basic mechanical licensing rights cost almost that all by themselves. .
Proving the fair market value in the absence of having to distribute physical media.
KFG
Yes. Or at least a certain spectrum of light. Namely the ones that you can't see.
/me grabbing my tin-foil hat.
Well I don't think the satellites shoot electrons because, you know, I don't think satellites are beta radioactive.
Unless, of course, you have something to hide. Well do you? DO YOU? YOU DO DON'T YOU. OH ME GOD NO DON'T READ MY MIND! AHH
All of MP3 may be "somewhat" legal in Russia but it is fully-non legal for Americans (or Canadians, Australians, and anybody else who is lives in a country that's signed on with international copyright laws) to buy music from them, as it says outright in their terms of service.
Actually, it doesn't say that at all in their terms of service. What it says is that:
"you should not download audio files from AllOFMP3.com if the Terms are in conflict with the laws of your country of residence."
Their FAQ also states that the use of music you download from them is dependent on the law of your own country, vis:
"The user bears sole responsibility for any use and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility is dependent on the national legislation in each user's country of residence. The Administration of AllOFMP3.com does not possess information on the laws of each particular country and is not responsible for the actions of foreign users."
In Australia, at the moment, that presumably means I couldn't copy it to an iPod because we're not allowed under our Copyright Act to copy copyrighted songs at all without explicit permission - but that also means that we're not yet allowed to copy CDs to our computer and then to the iPod. It's a law that is more honoured in the breach than the observance.
Perhaps you could quote the section of the Terms of Service that you thought outright stated that it was illegal for people in the countries you mentioned?
An MP3 probably isn't high-quality compared to a CD, but what about tape, say? The fact a lot of people can't even tell the difference between MP3 and CD when listening ought to indicate an MP3 is sufficient quality-wise for many (most?). Yes, it's great if the quality is better, but I just don't think your expectations of the quality of product you're asking for with the maximum price you're willing to pay are remotely realistic / feasible. I mean, I can say I'd like a Porsche for fifty bucks, but no one's going to give me one of those, either.
I don't know what you're saying about fair market value. If the licensing rights alone make it unfeasible to distribute music for a dime a song, how does that make the fair market value less rather than more?
looks a lot like the female reproductive system! take a good look; that ipod is the holy grail ;)
Satanists get good grades too...suspiciously good grades
emusic cant 'fix' this unless they get in bed with the corrupt labels & become equally corrupt themseleves.
It depends on what the artist is, there have been a surprising number of albums added just recently by some very mainstream artists:
Creedance Clearwater Revival
Moby
Ladytron
the White Stripes
Cat Power
Blackalicious
I've been having enough luck that lots of stuff I'm intreested in I go looking for on EMusic before I look on iTunes. After all, it's better quality and I don't have to pay a 99 with my subscription.
Your library argument is a straw man.
ROMS is irrelevant outside of Russia. Regardless, none of the piddle amount of money they receive ends up in the hands of either the artists or the labels. The latter have been assigned distribution rights of the songs and neither ROMS or allofmp3 entered into any distribution agreements with the artists or their labels.
As for the Canadian Copyright collective, artists are still waiting for their first royalties arrive and chances are that much of the money will be eaten up by administration costs. You are trying to justify legality but you have not spoken on the matter of whether what you are doing is fair, moral or ethical.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I'd like a Porsche for fifty bucks
I can't let you have a whole Porsche for that, but I've got some bits of a 356A available (I'm sitting in its driver's seat right now, both seats (mine and the car's) are almost exactly the same age) that you could have for that.
I took a few photos of the car before it got parted, I could let you have a limited, personal use only, license to a JPEG of one of them for $50, but frankly I don't think that's a terribly good deal for you.
If you want a print though I'm afraid $50 won't cover it. Plus there'll be shipping and handling charges. And that wouldn't include any intellectual property rights (beyond what you have by fair use law). I retain those. If you're interested in purchasing or licensing those our lawyers would have to have a chat.
Don't confuse the issue by mixing up intellectual and physical property. Be sure of what you are "buying."
KFG
Many mainstream artists don't hold the recording copyrights to their own work. The major labels hold the copyrights, a.k.a. the artificial legal monopolies on reproducing the work. This lets the major labels say to electronic retailers, "if you don't add DRM, you don't get permission to distribute the work".
Baen Books sell DRM-free on-line books and other media.
Did something else important, too. Chose authors like David Weber, Eric Flint, Karen Koehler, Tim Zahn, David Drake, Piers Anthony, Jerry Pournelle, Mercedes Lackey, Larry Niven and other top writers (all interesting authors) to sell.
They also have a free library which you can read from in two clicks.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Would this be the same government that tells me backing up my own DVD is also illegal?
I want to browse, listen, follow my stream of musical interest whereever it leads, and not have to worry about racking up ten bucks' worth of charges in the process.
In everyday language, we call that a "freeloader".
I'm not getting into the US law bunfight, but I will comment that UK law (which I understand more, but by no means completely) takes the opposite view, namely that
http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm(Emphasis mine)
So I think that the importing of potentially infringing materials would count as true importing into the UK by virtue of (a) the recording was in Russia, (b) it's now in the UK, so at some point the recording crossed the border.
As for whether importing infringing materials is illegal; it is - with one important exception. If the material is for private and domestic use, and you don't sell it, or copy it further, it is not a case of secondary infringement (Section 22 of the CDPA). Note that this section applies, even if you know that the material is infringing in the country in which it was made. I guess that the logic goes that the UK isn't responsible for enforcing copyright in other countries, and we only care about grey market dealing when someone in the UK is trying to get money from it. Note, however, that it is an offence to bring in counterfeit goods into the UK, but that's about trademark violation, not copyright.
So, my current belief (always subject to review) is that AllOfMP3 purchases in the UK are currently legal, if done for personal use. The ethical/moral argument is another one entirely. I keep hearing the "Russian Mafia" label getting thrown around, but would really appreciate some evidence of this being pushed my way. Unless, the label simply means that all Russian businesses are Mafia controlled.
Just my 2p.
--NgPossible, but I'd say that the "cock-up" theory is more likely than conspiracy. If all they wanted to do was log IPs from their Apache servers, they wouldn't have to take the site down at all. In fact, if I were those guys, I'd probably be logging IPs anyway in case of DoS attacks from external copyright holding organisations. Remember: as far as AllOfMP3 are concerned, they're not doing anything wrong.
If the "Russian Mafia" tag is correct (or "shady Russians" as you put it), wouldn't that make the evidence supplied be of dubious veracity? I don't think American courts are in the business of treating the word of drug-runners and arms dealers as being golden testimony.
--Ng
No, you're missing my point. I'm willing to pay a FLAT fee. I just don't want to be metered as I go.
"Freeloading" would be if I wanted to pay nothing for extra work on E-Music's part or on the label's part or on the artist's part due to my downloading another copy.
Instead, I want a pricing structure that better approximates the true cost structure. This would probably be a flat fee, if copyright licensing wasn't all @#%@#ed up and predicated on a "per copy" license model. That model is just a holdover from the days of physical recordings, for which people already paid on a per unit basis, so adding a little bit on to the cost of each one made sense. But it doesn't make sense with downloads.
Gee, a pricing structure which approximates the cost structure. In everyday language, we call that a "market."
Classical? Come on. Some 40 albums or something. Whereas on Emusic, there would be 42 from Boccherini alone -- if those buggers would sell subscriptions to the world and not only the US of A.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Remember: as far as AllOfMP3 are concerned, they're not doing anything wrong.
Eh, I find that doubtful. They are in fact breaking the law (our courts will treat people who do business in or with the US, therefore taking advantage of our laws, as within our jurisdiction) and I doubt that they're really confused about that. I just think that they don't care, since they're relatively safe from danger.
If the "Russian Mafia" tag is correct (or "shady Russians" as you put it),
What, you really think they're fine, upstanding guys, who help old ladies cross the street, or something? I don't know if they're involved with organized crime, but they're certainly not on the level. Hence 'shady.'
wouldn't that make the evidence supplied be of dubious veracity? I don't think American courts are in the business of treating the word of drug-runners and arms dealers as being golden testimony.
Could be. But what it would be good for is a list of names so that RIAA knows who to go after. It's enough of a basis for a suit, and a suit against a customer offers opportunities to gather more evidence which could corroborate the information they got.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Yes, wouldn't it be a nice world where the Record lables would actually deal with someone selling DRM-free music at $.99. They kick and scream about dealing at that price with the biggest fish in the pond, and ITMS certainly isn't DRM-free.
"There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
Are you joking? Did you really think that when you download something from there that Russian electrons are sent to your computer?
Nobody would believe that - it goes against all logic.
What they do is send these really, really small russians to your computer along with really, really small instruments. They live in you hard-disk and come out at night when nobody is around and feed on any breadcrumbs you might have left in your desk.
When you ask your conmputer to play the music it's actually those little russians that play it.
Doesn't anybody watch Discovery around here anymore???
Seriously - which law? They're based in Russia. They consider themselves bound by Russian law. I know that in certain situations, US law considers itself valid outside of the territory of the USA; but that's a US issue. You really cannot expect nationals outside the USA to consider themselves bound by US law merely because their service is used by Americans.
As Russian nationals, they think (and have good historical reason to think) that they are obeying their law - the only one they could and should respect. If your legal theory is correct (and my knowledge of US law is insufficient to challenge it), then AllOfMP3 aren't breaking US law in allowing Americans to download materials from them - surely its those American nationals copying their MP3 files from them.
Or put another way - at what point should my national (or supra-national, in the case of the EU) judiciary decide that the laws of the land should actually submit to the laws of another land? Ideally, without the use of tanks and nuclear warheads.
No - I stand by my statement. I don't think that they think that they are doing anything wrong. They may know that because of the pecularities of US law they are enabling something illegal within the USA, but that doesn't immediately translate as doing something wrong.
You misunderstand me. I was referring to the fact that various other posters have stuck the Russian Mafia tag on AllOfMP3 elsewhere, but that you refrained from that term, and used the term "shady Russians". I was not suggesting that they are wonderful human beings who help small fluffy animals in their spare time. They are running a business, and have spotted a business opportunity. There are precious few successful business people who enjoy a spotless ethical chart.
My point was that if they were considered shady, then any evidence gained from them wouldn't go down well in a court. However, you were right in saying that it could be the basis of another investigation. A bit like wiretapping not being directly admissible, but acting as the spur to find corroborative evidence of a more solid nature.
--Ng
I've been buying DRM free music from Candyrat.com for a while. High bitrate MP3's and a few "cover" pages to boot. Besides the music is about the most impressive I have ever heard.
Wow! That's really weird. Again, comparing with UK law is interesting, since transient copies are explicitly exempted from copyright infringement considerations (the copying must be essential to the operation of the machinery - but in the case of a web page or mp3 file, it clearly is).
I can see why you don't care for the result. In effect, it gives a green light for litigants to pursue people who have even seen objectionable material on the Internet, without redistribution. That's got to be pure gold for the Scientologists. Hell - where does this place ISPs who operate web proxies?
Does US law allow for a defence that you didn't know the content of a web page before you saw it, so cannot be held liable for the offence of making an automatic copy? It just seems that this ruling could be ridiculously applied to ban the web in total! After all, every copyrighted web page probably doesn't come with a license saying you have rights to copy it - just to read it. But the court fails to see that those are identical operations when it comes to the web.
--Ng
Again, comparing with UK law is interesting, since transient copies are explicitly exempted from copyright infringement considerations (the copying must be essential to the operation of the machinery - but in the case of a web page or mp3 file, it clearly is).
We have something similar to that for computer software in 17 USC 117, but it's sufficiently weak that it hardly ever really comes into play. Instead, web browsing relies upon implied licenses from the conduct of the copyright holders that put the material online to make copies sufficient to view the material. Sometimes there are express licenses, but it's uncommon in my experience.
And in cases like Intellectual Reserve, where the copyright holder didn't put the material online and didn't want it put online, the license isn't there.
In effect, it gives a green light for litigants to pursue people who have even seen objectionable material on the Internet, without redistribution. That's got to be pure gold for the Scientologists. Hell - where does this place ISPs who operate web proxies?
That case was actually about copyrighted religious tracts being put online by someone who opposed the religious organization, so yes, I'm sure the Scientologists like it. While this could support an open season on people who see unlawfully distributed material online, that's not really what it's used for, however. I only put up an excerpt from the case, but basically what it was, was this:
The defendant, who knew that the material was not supposed to be on the Internet, linked to it from his web page. Other people, unrelated to the defendant had put the material online. People browsing the web could follow the defendant's link and see the offending pages. In the US we have not only direct infringement (e.g. the defendant infringes on a copyright personally) but several varieties of indirect infringement (e.g. the defendant is involved with someone else's direct infringement). So, for example, if I materially contribute or encourage you to infringe, and I know that you'd infringe at the time I did that, I am a contributory infringer, and just as liable as you, the direct infringer. But there absolutely must be a direct infringement in order to support a claim of indirect infringement. If you didn't infringe, then my encouragement doesn't mean anything. The browsing-as-reproduction infringement is what the court had to find in order to find the actual defendant liable. (The direct infringer doesn't have to actually be sued)
Roughly the same thing is how they got Napster, Grokster, etc. Not because of what they did, but because of their involvement in what their users did.
ISPs, however, are somewhat protected by the 17 USC 512 safe harbor. Basically this had been a concern back in the 90's, whether they'd be liable for what their users did, and there was mixed caselaw on the subject. If an ISP, which is really very broadly defined, qualifies for the safe harbor (which may involve taking some affirmative steps) then they're protected. Of course, the safe harbor imposes a duty on them to abide by 512 takedown notices and such.
Does US law allow for a defence that you didn't know the content of a web page before you saw it, so cannot be held liable for the offence of making an automatic copy
Again, the Intellectual Reserve case I quoted addresses this. US copyright law is strict liability law. It doesn't matter what you knew or should have known. If you engage in the proscribed activity, you're breaking the law, period. However, if you can show that you were not aware that you were infringing, and had no reason to believe you were infringing, and that there was no copyright notice attached, then you can reduce statutory damages down to $200 per work infringed. That's the best you can get. This stuff is covered in 17 USC 501(a), 504(c), and 401(d).
It just seems that this ruling could be ridiculously applied to ban the web in total! After all, every copyrighted web page probably doesn't come wit
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
ITMS certainly isn't DRM-free
But it doesn't get in your face about it. Or are you one of the Slashdot horde that thinks that it's all bad no matter how unobtrusive it is? Newsflash: the world is not perfect.
And it's certainly a valid complaint to say "well, they're a nice service, but they don't have what I want" if it's true in your case, or mine, or anyone's.
i am a soviet space shuttle
It seems to me that eMusic sells "by the song", which for classical equates with "by the track"? (I tried to ask this via their on-line 'send us comments' facility, but it wouldn't let me do so without having a valid user ID and associated credit card number.)
So Beethoven's 9th, 4 movements, almost 70 minutes, is $1.00 at $.25/"song", and something like "The Three Ravens", 73 minutes but -29- tracks, would sell for $7.25???
eMusic has a lot of stuff I'm interested in, but I'm not persuaded by their pricing model, especially for the Early Music kinds of things that I want.
On the other hand, if you like long 19th Century works, like Bruckner Symphonies, it's a heluva bargain!
dave
How do I "reproduce" something without having a copy of it to begin with? In other words, how can someone be accused of making a copy of a protected work when they never possessed the original work to make a copy from?
Isn't it more logical to say Allofmp3 made a copy of the work and sold it to the downloader? The downloader was not the producer of the copy.
With all of the electrons heading to the US, I like to keep a script running that ping floods random russian and chinese IPs to make sure they don't run out of electrons.
;)
Just doing my part.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
yes, that was a joke
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.