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.'"

Comments

Selling music online the correct way

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Re:Selling music online the correct way

[Tx]

$0.045 is 4.5 cents, not "less than half a cent", it even uses that figure directly later in the article you linked to. Other than that, I agree with you ;).

Re:Selling music online the correct way

[normal_guy]

I ran into the same issue before I subscribed. Here's the direct link.

Far more than two companies that sell to ipods

[DrRobert]

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.

Re:Far more than two companies that sell to ipods

[pr0nbot]

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.

If only slashdot's submission form also used a lossless encoder...

Re:Far more than two companies that sell to ipods

[BoneFlower]

beatport.com as well. At least, if you are into electronic dance music, it's a great place. 1.49 for older tracks, 1.99 for newer. 320kbps Mp3 or for an extra $1 you can get .wav. No DRM, no restrictions on personal use and they are legally clear for DJing with(provided the venue has their ASCAP license, just as with other formats).

Their flash interface is ungodly annoying though.

Emusic is cool but there are many great others too

[linuxbaby]

Credit where it's due, Emusic has been selling 99-cent downloads since 1998. When Steve Jobs announced it in 2003, everyone acted like it was a shocking new revolutionary idea. But some of us couldn't help but think, "Oh, you mean like Emusic?"

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

• audiolunchbox.com
• mp3tunes.com
• Many record labels like Magnatune and Bleep
• and the somewhat-legal allofmp3.com for the major-label stuff.

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.

Forums

[Freexe]

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).

Re:Forums

[Anonymous Coward]

I was an eMusic customer for over a year, but I left because a subscription-based service doesn't work for me. I ended up with songs I wouldn't have downloaded otherwise (and never listened to afterwards) just to use up my monthly allotment. Since it's track-based, you may end up paying about the same as if you bought an album with many tracks on iTunes for the "whole album" price. Plus, you're stuck with music in a compressed format with no tangible goodies (liner notes, etc.).

That said, for what you get, it's a great deal. They have a lot of out-of-print music and spoken word recordings (Irish folk music, Asian folk music, Jello Biafra's rants, etc.). Now that they carry the Naxos and Harmonia Mundi lines, you can get great classical recordings as well. If you're a Premium subscriber, you get your monthly allotment of tracks for 22 cents each; even if you're on one of the other subscription plans or buying more tracks a la carte, you still pay no more than 50 cents per track. That's a great price point, *if* they have the tracks you want.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Ingolfke]

Not cheaper... but they have a good selection of indie artists you will not find on AllofMp3.com. As the other poster noted, they are legal... not quasi-legal like AllOfMp3.com. Also, it appears that AllofMp3 may be on its way out of business... or at least on hiatus while they work things out with the Russian Mob... I mean government.

Don't forget Magnatune

[Laurentiu]

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?

Re:Don't forget Magnatune

[Amouth]

I love magnatune - they have a great setup and they "are not evil" - the only thing i wish they would change is that if you buy the CD that the cd be one with album art if there is any, All the albums that i have gotten have been the generic case and label..

if anyone knows if there is a way to get them with album art please tell me i havn't found it yet.

Detroit Digital Vinyl

[RexRhino]

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. :)

Re:Detroit Digital Vinyl

[sunburntkamel]

all this mention of dance/electronic labels and nobody mentions WARP? BLEEP is a fantastic store that sells both compressed MP3's and lossless FLAC's. when bleep first came out, their goal was to provide digital versions of previously vinyl-only albums, as well as making WARP's entire backcatalog available. they're still not there yet, but they're doing a whole lot better than most labels, who seem to think that buying records is a privilege to be doled out as they see fit.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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?"

For more examples..

[Sloppy]

..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.

Re:For more examples..

[GeckoX]

Am I the only one that remembers Taping?
God, it's just so much WORK to copy a CD, who in their right mind would do that?

No one remember pressing down that little record button to duplicate a cassette tape? No one remember renting or borrowing CD's and recording them to tape?

We've been screwed over. We've been accused of being criminals with absolutely no evidence presented. We now happily purchase crippled similies of products we once could use freely.

I went through my taping phase. Everyone that grew up listening to music knows that trading and sharing music is what generates interest in music in the first place. If I couldn't have had that access to music growing up, I never would have gone through the phase where I started a CD collection that grew over the years to ~1000 discs. I never would have spent upwards of $10g on music.

Know what I spend on music now? Fuck all unless it's an independant non-crippled product. Period.

Yep, Apple et al are really winning this one. Unfortunately, they are actually, but they wouldn't be if people would wake the fuck up and open their eyes to what they're actually spending their money on. The American carrot is simple: Make it so brutally easy for them to give money that they will gladly do so, without even glancing at what it is they are buying. America is selling itself out in the name of 'convenience'.

Quit it already.

Now to go find some non-converts to preach to ;)

Not exactly accurate

[nanojath]

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.

Emusic Linux

[mpcooke3]

The emusic linux download really sucked when I last used it.

I ended up ditching it because it was so hard to download albums. Their binary file was linked to some .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.

Their support was also less than helpful.

Re:Emusic Linux

[pesc]

The emusic linux download really sucked when I last used it.

I ended up ditching it because it was so hard to download albums. Their binary file was linked to some .so file that didn't exist on fedora

Yes the download manager sucks, but it is easy to fix this.

Click on "Your account"
Click on "Change Download Manager"
Click on the button that Disables the eMusic download manager
Now you can download any song by right-clicking on the download button and select "Save as..."

Unexpected Success?

[Digital Vomit]

I'm getting the impression that a lot of people/business seem to think that selling music without Digital Restrictions Management and other anti-consumer technology is somehow difficult or not expected to be successful. Um, hello? Does nobody remember the Cassette era, when purchased music was freely recordable and many players had two decks in order to facilitate copying? I don't recall any sort of music industry collapse back then. Sure we didn't have the internet back then, but people still traded music. A lot.

*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.

Re:Unexpected Success?

[Frankie70]

  Does nobody remember the Cassette era, when purchased music was freely recordable and many players had two decks in order to facilitate copying? I don't recall any sort of music industry collapse back then. Sure we didn't have the internet back then, but people still traded music. A lot.


Few things
- I assume you had to make 10 copies of the cassette for 10 of your
friends - you would have spend a few hours doing it - with digital files you
could email it to 10 of your friends in 10 seconds.

- There was no cost associated with emailing it to 10 of your friends. Back then,
you would have to buy 10 blank cassetes to tape on.

- Assume you had a copy, anyone could look at it & tell that it was a copy,
not a paid for one. You can't with a digital file.

- The only people you could copy was for your friends, here you could post it
for the whole population of the world to download.

Re:Unexpected Success?

[Red Flayer]

Yes, and cassette copies were lossless, too. /sarcasm. A copy of a copy sounded like crap, and that doesn't hold for digital music. Unlimited generations of copies for digital music is a lot different than max two generations for cassettes.

Not siding with the industry here, just playing a bit of devil's advocate.

Re:Unexpected Success?

[Maxo-Texas]

Yes and no.

The largest content torrent that I've seen had about 750 leechers on it.

The *typical* large torrent has bout 120 seeders to 120 leechers. This is usually anime or a 1st run television show that was just shown.

However 99% of content torrents that I've seen has 1 to 2 seeders and 8 to 20 leechers.

It costs money and time to store downloaded material- and there is *always* a chance you will lose it.

There is a *solid* market for a copy (Vongo perhaps?) that sells me a lifetime license to a song/show/movie/book/etc. and stores a copy on their end.
They then charge a *reasonable* re-download fee (say 10% of the minimum wage), a reasonable annual storage fee (say 2 cents per gigabyte- a typical 400 movie library is about 1600 gigabytes- but they only have to keep 1 copy of each for "N" users) and allow me to re-download the song/show/movie/book/etc. a reasonable number of times per year (say once per year) with a small number of floating downloads which allow me to download twice for when things go wrong (an exceptions for cases where I can show them a police report).

But seriously--- most torrents are very small and it takes days (weeks...) to download things. There were a few things on emule (not a torrent) that took literally almost 3 month to download. I think almost anyone would pay some money to get it *now* vs getting it 3 months from now (or 12 days from now).

If the media cartel had not driven prices up so high (-- $20 mil for an actor? Should be more like $500,000-- with similar reductions all along the food chain with movies costing $5 to see as a result). However, they have raised their prices so high that people are finding many other less expensive forms of entertainment.

for techno fans

[mmkkbb]

don't forget beatport, bleep, kompakt mp3, detroit digital vinyl, zillions of netlabels, etc. etc.

Re:for techno fans

[radish]

Yeah, I was just going to mention those. Plus audiojelly.com & playittonight.com. I'm eternally grateful that the dance labels (even what I would consider "majors") understand that their customers are not criminals and just want to listen to the music.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[kfg]

"there's only two companies in the world that can sell to them--Apple and eMusic."

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 . . .doofey.

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

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Kadin2048]

Actually I think allofmp3.com is back up now. I haven't tried to get anything, but their site isn't down anymore.

Guess they did whatever they had to do.

Re:ipod compatibility?

[Penguinisto]

"so if i have mp3s of my own, i cannot put them on an ipod?"

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.

/P

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[nanojath]

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.

eMusic/J - Opensource Download Manager

[Anonymous Coward]

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/

OT: Bottled Water

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[stupidfoo]

You, my friend, seemed to have confused iTunes, a music service, with the iPod, a hardware device. The iPod works perfectly fine with all the lovely quasi-legal mp3s that you annd I purchase at allofmp3.com.

The tone of the article is a bit biased

[UnknowingFool]

"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."

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.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[mattsucks]

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 :-)

And now the shameless plug ... I know this because my band Goodwin is also at eMusic, and according to our accounting reports we're getting some sales.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[PatboyX]

I guess I must have got on when eMusic was still pretty young...about four years ago I signed up because TMBG offered all sorts of goodies for 10 bucks a month through eMusic with unlimited downloads in the other sections. Well, I know I got my 10 bucks and then some a month out of it. I still listen to a lot of the stuff I found on there. It was a really easy way to get exposure to some more obscure bands (via more mainstream bands. ie: Ass Ponys via Violent Femmes) I wouldn't have heard otherwise as well as a great place for some classic jazz.

well, it is legal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:well, it is legal

[1u3hr]

allofmp3.com is NOT legal, despite what many people say.

"Many people", including the Moscow Southwest regional prosecutor.

Allofmp3.com let off the hook
3/7/2005

Moscow Southwest regional prosecutor's office has apparently decided that a loophole in Russian copyright law (it only covers infringement via physical media, e.g., CDs and DVDs) allows Allofmp3.com to continue operations. In addition, Russia employs the concept of compulsory copyrights, where the copyrights belong to the artist or music label, but copyright owners are required to license it to anyone who making a request.

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

Why don't you just say it's "like pedophilia" or "supports terrorism" if you're going to use absurd analogies. As for the "letter" and "spirit" of the law; the mechanism AllofMP3 is using is basically the same as applies to radio stations; they don't have to negotiate with every label for every song, they just pay a lump sum to a collection agency. If AllofMP3 isn't making these payments, they would presumably have been prosecuted.

Re:well, it is legal

[Reziac]

"In addition, Russia employs the concept of compulsory copyrights, where the copyrights belong to the artist or music label, but copyright owners are required to license it to anyone who making a request."

ISTM if this were the case in America, firstly the RIAA cartel's distribution monopoly would cease to be such a flog on P2P, and second, it would encourage P2P affiliate sales, which would make everyone who cared to host files a little money, and probably make the cartels more money than they ever imagined.

Re:well, it is legal

[Software]

>Moscow Southwest regional prosecutor's office has apparently decided that a loophole in Russian copyright law ... allows Allofmp3.com to continue operations
...
>they just pay a lump sum to a collection agency

I think you misspelled "regional prosecutor".

Re:well, it is legal

[slvi]

Becasue

Bless you.

Re:well, it is legal

[Ingolfke]

For the U.S. the theory goes... that importing a work for personal use if acquired legally in another country is legal (it is in fact legal). The questionable part comes up with the idea that works were actually "aquired" in Russia and not the U.S., since media is stored in Russia and presumeably the buyer is in the U.S. It's one of those grey areas... maybe a loophole, maybe an oversimplification or misunderstanding of the law.

Re:well, it is legal

[jZnat]

You forgot to say "IANAL" because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Allofmp3 is legal due to Russian law, and the only way to make it illegal would be to change the law, and as far as I know, that seems kinda hard to do in Russia, especially something as anti-consumer as copyright.

If identity theft were legal when it was done, it was legal. The US Constitution explicitly states that anything that isn't already illegal due to a law is legal. Trying to punish someone for an act that wasn't illegal at the time of the event is called ex post facto, and that also is explicitly banned by the US Constitution.

Finally, copyright infringement is not, I repeat, not theft. Copyright law is fully described in US Code Title 17, and copyright infringement is defined there as well. The concept of theft, burglary, robbery, larceny, and the rest of the theft family of criminal laws deal with physical items, not abstract concepts like ideas. Criminal law can be found in the next title (oddly enough), USC Title 18.

Now for my disclaimer: I am not a licensed attorney, but I study political science and law in fairly well detail.

Also, you refer to the Russian government as a "terrorist organisation"; with that logic, one can easily apply the same accusations towards the RIAA for their own regime.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[Mister Whirly]

"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

E-music URL

[rueger]

Which bizarrely has not yet been posted here.

http://www.emusic.com/

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Ingolfke]

I remembered reading something a week or two ago about more trouble w/ the RIAA and crackdowns in Russia. Soon after that Allofmp3 had some technical problems and quit adding albums to their collection.

Oh... and I check today and they just added 30 albums... so I jumped to the wrong conclusions. Long live AllOfMp3.com!!

'indie' versus pop versus ?

[ghostlibrary]

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'.

eMusic is a joy to use..

[Stick_Fig]

I've been gushing over eMusic for a while, simply because they've just gotten it so right. With their model, they understand, beyond the whole record store mentality, what it means to be a music fan. And you just don't get that with iTunes or (especially) Napster.

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.

Re:eMusic is a joy to use..

[LMacG]

I'll dissent . . .

1) At CompUSA, I was given a card that offered me 100 free downloads, over the course of 30 days. When I tried to sign up, that turned into 50 downloads/14 days. To their credit, after questioning them, they did offer me the additional 50 songs if I signed up, which I did. (But the trial was still for only 14 days).

2) My renewal date was listed on my account as April 14th. Being a good procrastinator, I still had a large chunk of that 100 songs on my account on the 14th. I scanned through the listings that day while working, but because of the corporate net-nanny, I couldn't download till I got home. Which I started to do, and then POOF, my "available balance" changed. The renewal (and conversion of my account to paid status, and $9.99 charge to my card) had gone through at 6:04 PM. WTF? I guess it was midnight somewhere, or something.

3) They have two albums by Glen Tilbrook (previously of Squeeze). But they weren't listed together. The name was spelled the same, there was no discernible difference. If you searched on his name, you'd find one of them, but if you found him listed as an influence or a "worked with" for somebody else, you'd find the other one. Made me wonder what else I might not have been finding.

I still believe they have a great idea (although I liked it better a long time ago when you could buy individual tracks without the subscription). Right now I'd say they're a little shaky on the customer service side, and there might be a few bugs in their database. So it was not quite a joyful experience for me.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[cpt kangarooski]

and the somewhat-legal allofmp3.com for the major-label stuff.

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:

1. That 17 USC 602(a)(2) by its own language is limited to the import prohibition in subsection (a); the prohibition in subsection (b) remains in force.
2. That copies and phonorecords are defined in 17 USC 101 as being material objects, which means that no physical object in Russia can be moved to the US via the Internet, making section 602 a red herring.
3. That the courts have stated that unauthorized downloading of copyrighted works is an infringement of the reproduction right of the copyright holder. See e.g. Napster and Intellectual Reserve.
4. That the courts will generally assign liability for the reproduction infringement to the downloader, barring unusual circumstances, like downloads that were in fact caused by a hacker, and not the user of the computer. See e.g. Netcom.
5. That the standard of proof used in a civil copyright case (e.g. one brought by the RIAA) is the preponderance of the evidence standard, which results in the defendant being liable if thinks that there was as little as a 51% chance that he actually did it, even if they entertain reasonable doubts (e.g. the presence of an open WAP, that there are other people able to use the computer).
6. That 17 USC 1008 is inapplicable, because it does not cover downloading. See e.g. Napster and Diamond. Also see the important definitions in sections 1001 and 101 and what the law would require if 1008 were applicable to computers, per sections 1002 and 1003.
7. That just because RIAA has not sued someone yet does not mean that they cannot or will not. See e.g. the suits against Napster (which started in 1999) and the suits against users (which started in 2003). Tactical concerns, such as how to use the limited budget for legal action in the most effective way, or which

Re:ipod compatibility?

[ckd]

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.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[aristotle-dude]

As other people have pointed out, allofmp3.com is quasi legal in Russia because of a loophole, run by the Russian Mafia and they provide 0 dollars and 0 cents to the artists and their labels. It would be exactly the same as if you setup a store like theirs by ripping CD's you had in some other country except that your service would be shut down right away.

You may be able to justify it to yourself that allofmp3 is legal but I'd like to see how you could justify it as being morally or ethically correct. You are basically paying a fence for stolen goods or paying a counterfeiter for counterfeit merchandise.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[SyncNine]

It's back up, but my $10.00 re-charge attempted to charge $257.10 on my card as opposed to $10.00. Thankfully I noticed at the Verified by Visa page, but, it makes me wonder if this is their 'exit strategy' of taking 25x more money than they were authorized to, then running away from the mob to a different country.

Either way, if you go to re-charge any time soon, check to make sure you're not being overcharged. I'm not too confident in their business practices after my recent experience.

They're so close! How to get 1 million users...

[chub_mackerel]

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.

Re:ipod compatibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

iTunes and the iPod can encode (create) and decode (play) music in the following formats:

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 ( .aa) spoken word format

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.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[djmurdoch]

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.

Adding to the gushing

[dodongo]

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 :)

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Tweekster]

The problems Russia is facing with piracy are mass production piracy outfits that bootleg dvds by the hundred thousand, not a website that actually is legal under Russian law and can no long be considered a loophole (it would have been "fixed" by now otherwise)

RIAA and MPAA want crackdowns on the real pirates that are selling bootlegs produced in quantity. Legal manuvering can take care of allofmp3.com by making them cough up more and through a bit of treaty work that makes the copyright cartel in Russia pay up.

allofmp3.com is like a fly compared to what is going on in Russia to the RIAA. a non entity when there are bigger problems to deal with. They probably have another 3-5 years before any real changes occur that will matter.

Barenaked Ladies

[crossmr]

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.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[edmicman]

Jeebus H Chris....why in the world does someone post up AllofMP3 when the discussion of DRM and music comes on? I'm not going to get into the pseudo-legality of it in the US....you can argue with it all you want, but everyone knows it's a shady gray area.

Why would you pay for quasi-legal music?? Just fucking download it for free already. Don't try to justify it being "right" because you're paying "less".

money?

[VoxCombo]

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.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Ngwenya]

It's back up, but my $10.00 re-charge attempted to charge $257.10 on my card as opposed to $10.00. Thankfully I noticed at the Verified by Visa page, but, it makes me wonder if this is their 'exit strategy' of taking 25x more money than they were authorized to, then running away from the mob to a different country.

Nah - that $257 was 257 roubles. I just attempted a refill for $10, and it said 297 RUB = $10. I don't think anyone was trying to cheat you.

Put another way: They're making boatloads of cash as is - why put all that at risk for the sake of a few hundred bucks, which they'll earn normally in the space of a couple of hours?

--Ng

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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 .99/song off iTunes, when your "in the know" friends have been paying .9-.25/song.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[dylan_-]

So electrons aren't material objects now?

Are you joking? Did you really think that when you download something from there that Russian electrons are sent to your computer?

Re:Allofmp3.com

[FreezerJam]

In Canada, I can ...

Step 1) borrow from the library a CD - any artist
Step 2) make a copy of that CD onto levied media for personal use
Step 3) return the CD to the library

This is legal.

Note optional step 1: buy a CD from a store, and then return for a refund in step 3. This is still legal - for obvious reasons, many stores will not give refunds on CDs, only replacement on defective CDs.

The $0.21 levy from a blank CD goes to a copyright collective, which distributes the money to Canadian artists. The similarity to allofmp3 is that there they pay a Russian copyright collective (ROMS) not a Canadian one.

In neither case, if I copy or download an American artist, does the artist get any money. The artists/labels know where the money is going - its up to them to make a deal under the national laws that apply.

My understanding is that the U.S. labels asked the Canadian copyright collective for their cut. They were told that a reciprocal arrangement was a great idea, so as soon the labels could arrange for levies on U.S. blank CDs, the Canadians would be happy to do a deal. It wouldn't surprise me to find that ROMS has a similar arrangement - should the labels actually want to bring income for their artists, rather than just grab all the control they can.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[cpt kangarooski]

Your own first links that you cite point out that phonographs, legally copied, are allowed to be imported.

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 .99/song off iTunes, when your "in the know" friends have been paying .9-.25/song.

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.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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....

Ampcast.com

[5pp000]

http://www.ampcast.com/ is another site that has been providing non-DRM downloads of indie music for years. There's some great music on there that you've likely never heard of -- my favorite is the jazz group Viral Variations. Also, the site design is great -- lots of genres, well organized.

There's also a lot of mediocre stuff. YMMV :)

Help me out here.

[duffstone]

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

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[955301]

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.

Re:LIES - This guy is throwing FUD

[timeOday]

As for why the RIAA isn't suing - they did and lost

Link?

In principle, I think what allofmp3.com is doing when they sell to Americans is no different than what WalMart does - move production overseas to evade US law (such as minimum wage) thus reducing production costs. But I'd be surprised to learn that that's widely accepted. For some reason it has become generally accepted that IP law is global (i.e. you can't import physical copies that would violate copyright if manufactured here), while labor law is local (you can import things manufactured not in accordance with OSHA regulations, etc).

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

The Holy Grail of online music sales?

[J. Random Luser]

The ability to offer iPod-compatible tracks? Sheesh the iPod can play

MP3 (8 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, AAC (8 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Music Store, M4A, M4B, M4P), Audible (formats 2, 3, and 4) and WAV. Specs

and that's the cheap Shuffle. Unprotected AAC is often described as mp4. If eMusic is the only outfit that can make a business model of this, then the others deserve to die...

My big regret is that Fraunhofer gave up the fight and MP3 became the de facto standard, rather than the technically superior MP4.

"indie" and eMusic

[sphere]

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).

Re:LIES - This guy is throwing FUD

[cpt kangarooski]

Nowhere in the section does it say US law. It refers copyright law.

Oh?

In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited.

"This title" can only mean Title 17 of the United States Code. That is, the title those words are within. It does not, however, say "copyright law."

While it bothers me a bit to see you trolling or lying or whatever. But do you have to be so damn incompetent at it?

Anyway, the rest of your post is similarly insipid and wrong. It's obvious enough that I don't think I have to bother to knock it down. It collapses on its own.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[cpt kangarooski]

[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.

They have their target market down

[figa]

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:

1. The Linux client doesn't really work. I had to set up tinyproxy to handle its socket connections. You can download without the client, but it's tedious.
2. I wish they'd let me buy a bigger subscription. The bonus packs aren't as cheap per track as the subscription. I'd like to download an album a day.
3. The track tagging isn't all that great. Sometimes they're in title case, sometimes not, the genres aren't always a good fit, and the download manager puts spaces in filenames. They don't include album art, so you have to scrounge that up on your own.
4. The save for later lists are limited to 100 entries and get a little unmanageable if you overdo it.

I can't recommend them enough, and I hope they continue to succeed.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[cpt kangarooski]

It's not importing.

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:

The first question, then, is whether those who browse any of the three infringing websites are infringing plaintiff's copyright. Central to this inquiry is whether the persons browsing are merely viewing the Handbook (which is not a copyright infringement), or whether they are making a copy of the Handbook (which is a copyright infringement). See 17 U.S.C. 106.

"Copy" is defined in the Copyright Act as: "material objects . . . in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." 17 U.S.C. 101. "A work is fixed' . . . when its . . . sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration." Id.

When a person [**10] browses a website, and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright. See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that when material is transferred to a computer's RAM, copying has occurred; in the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by licence, such an act constitutes copyright infringement); Marobie-Fl., Inc. v. National Ass'n of Fire Equip. Distrib., 983 F. Supp. 1167, 1179 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (noting that liability for copyright infringement is with the persons who cause the display or distribution of the infringing material onto their computer); see also Nimmer on Copyright 8.08(A)(1) (stating that the infringing act of copying may occur from "loading the copyrighted material . . . into the computer's random access memory (RAM)"). Additionally, a person making a printout or re-posting a copy of the Handbook on another website would infringe plaintiff's copyright.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[jabuzz]

Actually it will be photons (it's all fibre optics or satellite links) so yes they *did* cross the border :-)

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[Puff Daddy]

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.

Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others

[mister_tim]

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?