Amazon AutoRip — 14 Years Late

An anonymous reader writes "Amazon just debuted a new service called Autorip, which grants you MP3 copies of music when you purchase the CD version. This is a technology people have been trying to introduce since 1999, but only recently have the record labels — and the courts — seen fit to allow it. 'Robertson's first company, MP3.com was one of the hottest startups in Silicon Valley when it launched what we would now call a cloud music service, My.MP3.com, in 1999. The service included a feature called "Beam-It" that allowed users to instantly stock their online lockers with music from their personal CD collections. ... Licensed services like iTunes were still years in the future, largely because labels were skittish about selling music online. But Robertson believed he didn't need a license because the service was permitted by copyright's fair use doctrine. If a user can rip his legally purchased CD to his computer, why can't he also store a copy of it online? ... the labels simply weren't interested in Robertson's vision of convenient and flexible music lockers. So MP3.com was driven into bankruptcy, and the "buy a CD, get an MP3" concept fell by the wayside.'"

Comments

The biggest flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that I now have mp3s for CDs I gave as gifts. Unfortunately, my friends and relatives seem to have different music taste than I do, so now I have the Chicago soundtrack and Hannah Montana mp3s.

Re:The biggest flaw

[Jethro]

I came here to make this exact comment. Well, not so much Hannah Montana, but there's a bunch of embarrassing stuff up there...

Re:The biggest flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

I now have MP3s of the Wiggles collections.

Re:The biggest flaw

[SQLGuru]

On the plus side, you can buy CDs as presents and get the MP3 to keep for yourself.......so Amazon might still have a slight problem to fix.

Re:The biggest flaw

[jaymz666]

if you mark the order as a gift, i.e. buy off a wishlist, it won't be added to your library

Re:The biggest flaw

[SQLGuru]

Who said you had to check the box to give it as a gift. ;)

Re:The biggest flaw

[jones_supa]

On the plus side, you can buy CDs as presents and get the MP3 to keep for yourself.......so Amazon might still have a slight problem to fix.

At least one of the copies is legitimate, and the entertainment industry gets money to make more entertainment.

Re:The biggest flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Because otherwise you would be depriving millions of starving record label execs of their hard-earned cash.

Re:The biggest flaw

[PolaRis75]

My car plays FLAC, my tablet and phone play FLAC, my receiver and Blu-ray player play FLAC.

For me the biggest flaw here is actually that it's a lossy format.

Re:The biggest flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Because otherwise you would be depriving millions of starving record label execs of their hard-earned cash.

Don't you mean "Because otherwise you would be depriving starving record label execs of your hard-earned cash."

Nice, but that raises a new question.

[geminidomino]

Why can't we get copies of our ebooks when we buy the dead-tree version?

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Marcion]

Why can't we get copies of our ebooks when we buy the dead-tree version?

Because you they want you to buy it twice. (Unless your smart like Cory Doctorow who lets you have the ebook free to try before you buy the paper one).

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Marcion]

Because they want you to buy it twice. [I should try the preview button :)

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Mashiki]

They're out to pillage your pocketbook that's why. How else can they justify selling an ebook at the same price as a paperback.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[DavidClarkeHR]

Why can't we get copies of our ebooks when we buy the dead-tree version?

Well, you [technically] can.... the question should be why can't we legally get a copy of the e-book, when we pay full price for a dead tree book.

Also, why are e-books still so expensive? The amount saved by avoiding regular distribution channels should knock more than 10% off the actual book cost ...

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[CNeb96]

Why can't we get copies of our ebooks when we buy the dead-tree version?

I bought a book on machine learning from Manning - they do the popular "In Action" computer series http://www.manning.com/catalog/by/subject/ and they do give you a free non-drmed ebook (includes PDF, ePub, and Kindle) with every physical copy of the book you buy. http://www.manning.com/about/ebooks.html "If you did not buy the pBook from manning.com, you can still get the free eBook in all available formats by setting up a Manning account, and registering your copy."

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[mrstrano]

I don't think it's a fair apples to apples comparison. Making an ebook requires additional effort. There no automatic "ripping" for books, and they require specific formatting and typesetting. Similarly, a remastered version of a movie at a different resolution is technically the "same movie", but you wouldn't claim a right to the higher definition work because you probably realize that additional work went into the creation of that content.

On the other hand, if you could scan and convert your books automatically, you would probably have a right to keep that copy. This is my opinion as an armchair lawyer.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Why can't we get copies of our ebooks when we buy the dead-tree version?"

You can, if you buy from Pragmatic Programmers. It costs a little extra for both versions... but it also takes more work to produce both versions, so it's hard to bitch.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[xigxag]

Google is attempting to do something like that now with magazines. If successful (in the sense that it encourages more people to subscribe), I'd imagine books would be next.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[QuasiSteve]

Why can't we get copies of our ebooks when we buy the dead-tree version?

Because they want you to buy it twice.

How do you buy 'it' twice when the 'it' is two different things, unless you're talking about the text itself and not the form, formatting, etc.?

If you buy the dead-tree version, you're buying the physical copy that you can feel the weight of, page through, put a physical bookmark into, read anywhere - not just in strong sunlight but even where you have no facility to charge your e-reader at all resell just fine if you treat it nice and - if you're one of the people with a book-peen - put it in your conspicuously displayed library for your guests to admire and use for brief talking points and the odd 'take it, I loved it!' suggestion.

If you buy the ebook version you're buying the one that doesn't take up that physical space, that you won't damage and put folds in, that you can take with you - along with hundreds of other books - on an e-reader, a tablet or even your smartphone - and thus read pretty much everywhere you want and transfer between devices (provided not locked to a device or platform) as you please.

Both have their pros and cons, and that is what you pay for - just as you pay for the 1080p picture with surround sound on a disc that seeks in no time or a stream you can access from practically anywhere despite the fact that once upon a time, a long, long time ago, you bought the same content on VHS.

Is it rather nice to get both at the same time? Yes. Do I think that it would be reasonable - to say the least - that you could get the alternative content for a small extra if you already own one version rather than full price? Heck yeah. But that doesn't mean that I think it's unreasonable for them to want to charge you twice for the same content delivered in two distinctly different ways. You can always DIY; just as Amazon's option is a case of convenience - considering you can always just rip the CD yourself, you're welcome to OCR the book yourself and put it on your digital reader of choice. Or you can pay for the convenience / alternative presentation. ... or go the route of 'piracy', then you can have all that without the hassle of paying for it. Piracy is driving the industry's changes of mind very well.. at this pace, we should get the pipedream realized come 2020.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[mwvdlee]

You're free to scan your own dead-tree books for your own personal use.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Lumpy]

Because book publishers are far more interested in raping your wallet right now.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[nabsltd]

I don't think it's a fair apples to apples comparison. Making an ebook requires additional effort.

Only for books that don't already have an electronic version available.

Simlarly, some CD purchases from Amazon don't give you the free MP3s in your cloud drive. Sometimes it's a licensing issue, but sometimes the MP3 doesn't exist for sale at all (even though the CD does), and Amazon isn't allowed to just grab a CD and rip it for you.

Or, for some of my CD purchases, not every track from the CD was available as an MP3, even though most were.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Mitreya]

Why can't we get copies of our ebooks when we buy the dead-tree version?

You would be lucky if you can buy an eBook for less than a dead-tree version.
If a higher (or even comparable) eBook price does not demonstrate boundless greed, then I don't know what does.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Lumpy]

I would subscribe to magazine more if the E version was not attached to a crashy nasty app AND were less than or even the SAME AS a print subscription.

Cycle World, is about $9.00 a year for a mailed to me subscription, It's $11.99 on the ipad. yeah. BITE ME Cycle World, I'll just torrent the issues from Pirate bay.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say they should be free, just that they shouldn't cost as much. You argue why they should cost something but still don't explain why an ebook costs as much. And any modern book is likely to be electronic in its native format.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

When a new book is made it is first typed. Text version of it already exists before it goes to print in some digital format. Converting that text format to e-book is pretty trivial, software for many formats already exists. So the additional effort involved is tiny in comparison to having a factory spit out thousands/millions of paper copies. This of course may not always apply in cases where book was made before computers were available to writers, but then you would think copyright costs would be much lower if not already free.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[jaymz666]

+1

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Threni]

Er..no, it's the same thing. It was written once, and typeset, edited etc. The it was a) printed in book form, and b) rendered into a pdf (or whatever). Exactly the same content. And my kindle can be read in exactly the same places a book can be, sunlight or otherwise. And when I read the same thing on my Android phone, I don't need any form of light as it's backlit. And if it were convenient/practical to print a pdf, or scan a book into a pdf I'd do that and not give a fuck about the law of it (I'm in the UK, where ripping CDs to MP3s is illegal, and I've done that for every single CD I've ever bought, and I don't give a fuck about the law there either).

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

i'd say closer to 90%, what with the inability to resell, giveaway, trade with others [for whatever timeframe/conditions you decide], etc.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, no shit. What would these people think when they hear my idea of having all my books printed on animal skins.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[MaskedSlacker]

Actually it demonstrates the flaws (from the publisher's perspective) of the traditional bookselling business model. Books (dead-tree format) are sold on consignment. They are shipped to retailers, without payment, and money comes in as retailers sell them. Unsold copies get shipped back and destroyed (which costs money). Because returns are a cost it is sometimes cheaper to discount the book just to get rid of it (even at a slight loss) without having to return it. Ebooks don't have this flaw, so there is no reason to discount them.

Not that you should be sympathetic (I'm not), but it's a little more complicated than boundless greed.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Dr_Barnowl]

You'd think so, but some of the e-books I've bought were *terrible* in terms of typesetting, almost like they OCRed the print copy to make the ebook. Anathem being one of them.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Dr_Barnowl]

ebooks are also subject to tax in some jurisdictions, where paper books are not, the UK being one.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Runaway1956]

"How do you buy 'it' twice when the 'it' is two different things,"

That is so, so wrong.

My wife never bought a video cassette because she wanted a video cassette. I never bought a music casette because I wanted a cassette. Never bought a floppy drive just because I wanted a floppy drive laying around. Ditto with CD's, DVD's, ebooks, real tree books, or whatever.

It's the CONTENT you're paying for.

I want to watch the movie, or read the book. That's why I pay real money for it. The book is the same whether it appears on screen, or I have to hold the book open. The movie is the same whether it's on DVD, or video cassette. And, I only expect to pay for it ONCE to be entitled to use it as I see fit.

Even if the content is edited so that it is more usable and/or appealing in a new format, it's still the same stuff.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[torkus]

Some publishers and authors do allow it (see David Weber and Baen)

However for the most part it's because the publishing industry is several years behind even the travesty of the Music and Movie industries. Despite the extremely public, heated battles fought and effectively lost by both the publishing industry seems bent on repeating the same mistakes step by step. The only thing working in their favor is people 'consume' far fewer books than songs. Most people won't download a few dozen books a month like they would songs (or albums) so there is less demand for napster and kazaa for ebooks.

What I find ironic is the number of people who now consider reading socially acceptable on a kindle but would never *ever* pick up a book.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[lahvak]

Ebooks don't have this flaw, so there is no reason to discount them

There is a very good reason to discount ebooks: there is very little cost involved in selling additional copies. Lets say I print 1000 copies of a book and sell them $20 a piece, I have $20,000 revenue. To sell more than that, I have to print and ship more, which will significantly increase my cost, so I only do it if I have a good reason to believe they will still sell for a good price.

With ebooks, let's say I publish an ebook, sell it for $20 a piece, and sell 1000 of them during the first two weeks. Then, during the next two months, I sell 5. That means nobody is willing to pay $20 for my book anymore. But there could be another 1000 people willing to pay $10, giving me additional $10000 revenue, with only a little increase in cost. Then I can sell another 2000 of them for $5 a piece, and finally I let people name their own price and sell 1,000,000 for $1 each on average.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Amazon doesn't give you an e-book copy when you buy a physical copy of the book, but some other marketplaces do. It's nice as it allows me to start reading the book before my physical copy arrives in the mail.

Re: Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

And look at that
40,000 in revenue while it was high
A MILLION in revenue when it was a dollar

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[MaskedSlacker]

With ebooks, let's say I publish an ebook, sell it for $20 a piece, and sell 1000 of them during the first two weeks. Then, during the next two months, I sell 5. That means nobody is willing to pay $20 for my book anymore. But there could be another 1000 people willing to pay $10, giving me additional $10000 revenue, with only a little increase in cost. Then I can sell another 2000 of them for $5 a piece, and finally I let people name their own price and sell 1,000,000 for $1 each on average.

The problem with your scenario is a marketing/awareness one. Do sales drop off after two weeks because no one wants to pay $20, or because none of the people who want to know about it? If none of the people who want to know about it, are you really going to get those bumps in sales figures for each price drop?

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

A few authors do this, and I think they are going to push the publishers to start on it, at least with hardcovers.

Brandon Sanderson has done this with his two latest works, all you had to do was email him a copy of the receipt or a picture of you with the book, and he'd email you the e-book.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[kestasjk]

I find that you usually do get the ebook, at least with the majority of technical books I buy.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily, but when you drop prices to $1, a lot more people might be willing to give it a try. This is particularly effective for an author with a back catalog - make the first book in a series free or nearly free after the third book comes out and you'll make up any lost revenue via future books.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we get copies of our ebooks when we buy the dead-tree version?

Because you they want you to buy it twice. (Unless your smart like Cory Doctorow who lets you have the ebook free to try before you buy the paper one).

His books would be cheap for twice that price.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Jafafa Hots]

"How do you buy 'it' twice when the 'it' is two different things, unless you're talking about the text itself and not the form, formatting, etc.?"

You might better address that question to the Supreme Court, since they are the ones that ruled that it is NOT two different things, and that there is such a thing as fair use.

Maybe you can convince them to change their minds, um... because.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Jafafa Hots]

Exactly.

In an interview in the mid 1980s, an RIAA exec admitted that they were trying to get away from "selling" music and wanted to go to a "pay-per-listen" model. Mot even pay per format - they want pay per listen.

This was in the same article that he justified continued high prices for CDs, which were twice that of LPs (they were later found guilty of price-fixing) DESPITE the fact that CDs cost far LESS than LPs to produce.

His justification for colluding to fix prices to make a CHEAPER product to produce more EXPENSIVE to purchase was that it was a better value due to sound quality.

So apparently a massive increase in profit margin due to illegal activities = "a better value."

In short, the content cartels are scum.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[kamapuaa]

Usually I'd let this sort of thing go, but that should be "unless you're smart."

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[infinitelink]

Why can't we get copies of our ebooks when we buy the dead-tree version?

Because you they want you to buy it twice. (Unless your smart like Cory Doctorow who lets you have the ebook free to try before you buy the paper one).

Also, they're just another beast altogether (if designed with any care for the user at all): many books are published with MS Office: even complex ones. It's the de facto standard for a dead-tree industry (book publishing), and writers know its features: I remember huge reviews on how crappy MS Office is for this...but still remains unmatched in features, layout, etc. by competing products: Open/Libre Office, as usual, may be able to open files, but not ease certain things that, despite craptacularness in MS Office, MS Office nevertheless can do. (I can't, and I apologize, list off the majority of those details anymore--even having encountered many of them myself: some do follow below).

Yes they want that second purchase, but if they could spur more dead-tree by offering the latter, they might change mind except for the problem of a decent publishing software. There is no reliable conversion from MS Office (or anything else that can something half as complex as easy for someone not a comp sci, physics, or math guy who doesn't mind LaTex) to an eBook format: many many problems; layout is also not reliable in conversions that, purely as file conversions (where one file becomes displayable on the other), are successes. Screen sizes also differ, and people WANT the damn pages, not the river-of-endlessness ****: part of the reason for books is having something a structure to wrap one's mind around.

Until you can reliable and easily manipulating footnoting/endnoting (and mix them) in a competing product, reliable build and maintain highly complex indices, tables of contents, and book sections, styles throughout a document, or section of document--and do so without undesirably mixing them, and a whole raff of other functions that writers (who don't want some extremely simple layout meant for the web) writers depend on, not to mention re-building the many other tools that all center on MS Office, plus know that layouts will be pretty reliable across devices, e.g. re-flowing without jacking-up tables and readability, I doubt eBooks will typically be available, or reliable, or less expensive...unless produced as PDFs.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[davester666]

Actually, a third time to get the audiobook version as well...

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

..and I never picked up a free aol floppy just to have the floppy. Oh, wait I did that very thing, because the storage medium is what I cared about not the lame crap other people put on it.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an app developer in the ios ecosystem, I can affirmatively say that each price drop causes a significant bump in sales. In would imagine that would translate just fine to books (especially books in the ios ecosystem).

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[slippyblade]

That's because, amazingly enough, that's exactly what they did. Many, many E-books are simply OCR'd versions of the print book, which makes almost zero sense.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should use the preview button twice, and on the second try, fix your "your".

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Unsold copies get shipped back and destroyed (which costs money).

That may be true for hardcovers, I don't really know. But for softcovers the practice has been to rip the front cover off and send it back, while letting the retailer dump them in the trash. Same thing with magazines. I learned how it all worked as a young teenager when I discovered that once a month, the convenience store near my school bus-stop would load up the trash-bin out back with an entire month's worth of porn magazines, all missing the front covers. What they couldn't legally sell to me, I could now dumpster-dive for free.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[thunderclap]

E-books are not physical copies of books. They won't last. Your device will eventually die. All of them. If terrorists decide to us an emp, Those digital copies will vanish like puffs of smoke. Thats why buying a physical copy is important as well. Oh and digital copies do not imply ownership regardless how the copy was acquired. Remember that because no system is truly secure and anything can be erased without notice, silently, Burning a book requires a flame. Deleting an ebook can be done while you are using the device its on.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[thunderclap]

Spoken by a person who has never sold any of his created content online. You think I want to? I don't get that choice because I don't have the infrastructure. I have to go through others. For my novel to self publish alone it would cost 10,000. Thats the ISBN number, inclusion into Ingram, setting up the press at lightning source and making copies. Thats nothing to do with editing, marketing or other fun things. So Amazon, and various others do so for less fees. Sure pople can give away free books. However, you are suggesting to me the same thing as if you boss suggested that you come in one day for work and they not pay you, Their excuse they need you labor.
Everything has value. I have as an author no objection to you reading my works. I want that, I also want to sleep in my own place, have food and decent clothes. Unlike Music, books doesn't make people money unless it explodes. Rowlings was a fluke, a lottery winner. Even Stephen king and Stephanie Meyer aren't rich. So please go on and think I am pillaging your pocketbook when Amazon wants to charge you $10 for the ebook content and $10 for the physical copy (which will last at least 50 yrs)
Music is corrupt. RIAA is evil. Movie industry is evil Books aren;t persay. There is jsut so much crap that no one wants to read that to get to the good. No do the good want to spend all the time on the infrastructure to get that out. Its vicious. I get 25 cents off a 30 dollar books because thats the lowest I could go. So lets see no sales at all and no visibility or visibility and ocassional sales at 25 cents because I have no money for marketing. I will take option two anyday.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally understand that wanting a free ebook version when you buy the paper version as the digital version ads little expense once you factor in having purchased the book from an online merchant with digital distribution capability in place (assuming it was digitally stored before printing). But seriously, an audiobook version requires them to hire (hopefully good) voice talent and a studio to record the reading.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough, this was why there was a BIG push for DRM after the Pyrrhic victory that Diamond won versus the RIAA. First there was SDMI which demanded all MP3 makers have some method of preventing copying back from the MP3 player to the device.

Of course, Sony was the most notable... their MP3 players either transcoded to ATRAC3, or wrapped all songs in an encrypted layer... and there was no copying with the MagicGate stuff... it was checking in and out, and only allowed three checkouts per song.

Second most notable was a feature that MS spent a lot of time and effort coding into Windows ME and XP... the secure audio path... which never was used for much, if anything.

Other MP3 players ran the gamut until around about 2006, when parties conceded, and most generic MP3 makers moved to raw disk device copying or using MTP. Before that, some music players would encrypt everything copied to the device by themselves, others would require special software that would encrypt the files before sending, and some even had the whole storage media encrypted. The only real exception during that time were Archos (where their players acted like drives), and Creative (whose software was required, but allowed bi-directional copying after the second version.)

If I were to say what finally won the battle to have MP3 files on a device and be able to use them as one sees fit, it would be Apple. iTunes might not allow copying from a device to a computer, but the old iPods could have their disks mounted, data dumped and a MP3 tagger rename the files to something usable. Newer iOS items can be used with a utility like iFunBox for the same result. I would have to give props to Apple for both keeping the ability to do what one wanted with their music, as well as keeping the RIAA at bay, first with DRM, then with DRM-free files.

Apple did a lot to break the grip of DRM and the RIAA's lust for power over digital music.

Of course, the RIAA has won another victory... they killed mainstream music in general... because of piracy, record labels had far less money to spend on pushing acts, so they just focused on a narrow market which will spend a lot of money (or technically, their parents to) -- teens/tweens. This is why Justin Beiber and other kid bands are always the items promoed to death while virtually any other genre is ignored.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[thunderclap]

And because writing a novel is time consuming, you are paying for the perceived value of the time consumed. The greed bit amuses me. Is it greedy to pay people to go to work, give their sweat into a task? No. People always want to be paid more for their labor. yet when it comes to Content, they always seem to expect it to magically appear and be nearly free. Its a hell of a lot harder to entertain than to do most anything else short of surgery or military work. Should eBooks be cheaper? Yes a little bit. Will they? no. It has nothing to do with copyright violations and distribution violations (what RIAA calls piracy). It has everything to do with mindset. why is my time less valuable than yours? Why is yours less valuable that another? As long as you think, I have no value there is a problem. Thats a core reason why people hate unions. (ie michigan and philly.com)
If I could, I would. Just you balking when they tell you they are paying you less, I am doing the same.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[thunderclap]

Actually I don't it will ever happen in the publishing industry the way it happens in Music and movies do to the fact that there are far far fewer writers then the others. We can already get our info out if we want to avoid the process. Example: Fifty shades of Gray was self published. Authors aleays have controlled the bulk of their own rights. Also where it s hard to to sample music and movies until recently, its always been easy to sample a book. Go to Branes and Noble and read the mag on the rack. Download same mag off piratebay read and discover its crap or good. Buy good either in physical or digital
The war has touched publishing as it has forced them to realize that the 1% will go their own way and make 100% of the money and produce less without them. So they have to allow self publishing to run without question. Charging big prices for ebooks is never good but its filtering for them. Is it smart? no. Its better than 25 cents off every album when they are selling if for $13 dollars.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[takshaka]

Mass-market paperbacks are stripped and the covers returned. Hardcovers and trade paperbacks are either returned whole or they are marked as remainders and sold at a discount when publisher needs to liquidate stock.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[tlhIngan]

Actually, a third time to get the audiobook version as well...

At least the audiobook is a substantive transformation that's worth paying for.

What I do is buy the deadtree version of the book and pirate the ebook - the ebook isn't a substantive transformation of the book work, just another medium of the same. At least an audiobook had effort put into it - a voice actor having to spend hours reading it aloud and some guy to add sound effects and edit the final recording.

As for the music industry - Steve Jobs mentioned that the final thing that sold the labels to let iTunes sell music? That the marketshare of the Mac was a GOOD thing. Yes, the then sub-5% marketshare of Mac users was hailed as an advantage. Now tell me in what business does one entering a market where 5% marketshare is seen as a good thing, especially when Windows had over 90%? The only sane one is if the 5% are the ones who would buy your product, while the 90% normally wouldn't. Except well, music is universal, so going after Windows would've resulted in more sales.

So there you go - the limited marketshare of the Mac was the thing that sealed the deal - go after the 5% when that 90% would've bought it as well.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[lightknight]

Agreed. I have a copy of Keynes's treatise on probability, that has been so badly OCR'ed, that I can't make heads or tails of it.

Then there are a few Pratchett eBooks where the type-setting is on par with something from a second grader's attempt at using Word, the least of which is that Death, in a few sections, does not speak in small caps. If you are a fan, then you know what an atrocity that is. Actually, I think they italicized him once or twice.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[davester666]

Oh, it's not just that they want you to buy a 'professionally made' audiobook. You need to pay extra [or rather, must be denied the ability] for the text to be mechanically read to you [see the crap that happened on the Kindle when they added the ability to read books to you, the publishers went out of their minds because they couldn't turn it off].

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[lightknight]

I took a screenshot for the rest of you to enjoy: http://imgur.com/nriJ3

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Chances are good if you bought the VHS version of the movie it is 4:3 pan and scan full screen. If you bought the DVD version you could have the letterbox black bars widescreen version or the full screen version. Blu-ray seems to be widescreen only.

Not only that, but the formats are different. VHS has the movie in lossless analog tape. DVD is lossy Dolby Digital or lossy DTS. Blu-ray has both lossy and lossless.

Fact is, each time the movie is released on a new format it is not technically the same movie.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Even if the content is edited so that it is more usable and/or appealing in a new format, it's still the same stuff.

Unless George Lucas releases it.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[fatphil]

I hope you got a refund. Don't you have something like the UK's Sale of Goods Act with a "not fit for the intended purpose" clause?

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

ask valve (steam)

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Er..no, it's the same thing. It was written once, and typeset, edited etc.

I wish.
I think it's better to compare it to the difference between the first print hardback edition and the large-print version. You don't get the second one completely for free from the first one -- but you can piggy-back on the work done and don't need a lot more effort.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Threni]

Deleting the last copy of a file is much harder than destroying the last copy of a book. Distributed backups (such as what Amazon, Google etc have for their cloud services) are not vulnerable to a single emp. Attempting to ban/destroy books has always been a symbolic act performed by dictators or faith-heads; all but the dimmest of them would have known that it's impossible to get every last copy, and with todays technology (ie you could stick millions of books on a few little-finernail sizes 64gig micro-usb cards) they're not going anyway, law or no law, emp or no emp.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, as he said, and I quote:

It's the CONTENT you're paying for.

You seem to not even notice that you're making the very same point as he is.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[demonlapin]

I don't think he paid for that one.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[demonlapin]

Stephen King is estimated by Forbes to make $45 million/year. Now, I understand that in certain circles that isn't really considered "rich", but if that's your peer group then I think we can safely conclude that you're not going to be on welfare any time soon.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[allo]

its the same argument as saying "hey, books cost money, because someone had to type them".
no, thats a fraction of the price. most money is for the content. So, go and add 5 cent per book and then add the ebook to the purchase. Its okay. Or stay with the current price and see the ebook as additional very cheap marketing.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[allo]

No, its not. You drop the price not after a week, but after you sold 1000 copies OR after half a year. So either the people who can pay much want the book now and pay 20 eur, or they just are not there, then you sell it for cheap after half a year (which should be enough time, that no one has the patience to wait just for a few bucks, if they can affort it to the bigger price). Of course this is a tradeoff and you can try to play with the threshold of price/copys to sell before dropping the price/wait time in which noone buys the book.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[schn]

yeah dude then they are arguing that the SPUREME COURT is wrong

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Russ1642]

I think you mean "bite me Apple". It's Apple's insane markups (around 30% right?) that cause the price discrepancy.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[jaymz666]

VHS isn't lossless... Every play reduces the quality

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Lumpy]

Same on ALL platforms. /nice try turning it into an apple rant, but the Play magazine store is the same.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[technomom]

For what it's worth, I haven't had any buggy / crashy problems with the magazine copies I've gotten from Google.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be happy if they just made up their mind on if i'm actually buying a copy or a license to use said content. If it's a license, i expect i'm allowed to download the mp3 from any goddamn place i wish. I actually assume i'd get it from the vendor i got the license from, just buy telling them i lost it and need a new copy.

If it's a copy, i should be able to resell it. And pretty much do as i wish with my cd/cassette/usbmemory/whatever, as long as i don't redistribute it.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[tlhIngan]

Oh, it's not just that they want you to buy a 'professionally made' audiobook. You need to pay extra [or rather, must be denied the ability] for the text to be mechanically read to you [see the crap that happened on the Kindle when they added the ability to read books to you, the publishers went out of their minds because they couldn't turn it off].

That's a different issue, related to dilution of value. Basically if a cheap alternative is offered that's crappy, people may opt to go for that and live with "good enough'. Or even worse, believe that it's the only thing around. It also devalues the work as people wonder why they should pay for what they could "get for free".

We see this with ebooks - people are wanting them to be substantially cheaper as there's no warehousing, printing or distribution costs. Truth is, that's really a minor part of the cost - only about 10-15% tops (most books are printed once, shipped and sold, and the unsold copies are remaindered and recycled).

But it really discounts the other work that goes into making a book - the author's job is to deliver a manuscript - someone else has to typeset/edit/generate the ToC/Index (if necessary)/check/verify and do the covers and marketing, handling the money, etc.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should invest in spelling and grammar classes. That would save you a few bucks at the editor.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[cornjones]

I thiink this is a good point that isn't put forward enough. sad, that i have no mod points

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we get copies of our ebooks when we buy the dead-tree version?

Well, you [technically] can.... the question should be why can't we legally get a copy of the e-book, when we pay full price for a dead tree book.

Also, why are e-books still so expensive? The amount saved by avoiding regular distribution channels should knock more than 10% off the actual book cost ...

Shut up! Really? I've been saying what a rip off the iTunes store is for years.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it demonstrates the flaws (from the publisher's perspective) of the traditional bookselling business model. Books (dead-tree format) are sold on consignment. They are shipped to retailers, without payment, and money comes in as retailers sell them. Unsold copies get shipped back and destroyed (which costs money). Because returns are a cost it is sometimes cheaper to discount the book just to get rid of it (even at a slight loss) without having to return it. Ebooks don't have this flaw, so there is no reason to discount them.

Not that you should be sympathetic (I'm not), but it's a little more complicated than boundless greed.

"...SO THERE IS NO REASON TO DISCOUNT THEM."

Yes there is. Not being greedy fuck heads. It truly is as simple as that.

Re:Nice, but that raises a new question.

[QuasiSteve]

That is so, so wrong.

I'm glad it's only 'so, so wrong' and not 'entirely wrong'.

I understand the point you're making - you paid to watch the movie and in your view it doesn't matter if that's a crappy SD 4:3 pan-and-scan with poor audio quality with barely even stereo separation that you can't hear in the family room anyway making it near impossible to follow, or the HD 16:9 with minor black bars because the movie was actually 2.3x:1 with surround sound and captions.

In your view, those additional pixels, the additional audio channels and captions simply don't exist in the equation.

Would you then also argue that blu-ray movies should cost the exact same as their DVD counterparts? Would you argue that if you go to the counter at a store and pay for the DVD they just scanned, that you should be entitled to walk back to the racks, put the DVD back where it was, grab the blu-ray, and walk out with that?

If you did buy the VHS and you believe you paid for the movie (regardless of format, pixels, audio, captions, etc.), then how does bonus content and the actual physical media factor into what you're saying?

Personally, I don't see them as 'the same stuff'. Yeah, if the blu-ray was basically a transfer of the original VHS just as it would be if I'd digitize the thing myself, I'd certainly not want to pay much more for it than just the physical media. But they tend not to be.

Flip the argument around. Let's say in a few years you get the 4k version of a movie in the h.264 follow-up with 21 channels of audio etc. etc. etc. on whatever new media follows. You manage to screw up that physical media, and decide to write to the company behind it. They reply that they're sorry to hear you damaged the copy and send you a nice 320x240 mono audio version.
Supposedly, this is 'the same stuff', so you should be perfectly happy with that solution, right? Or is it only 'the same stuff' if it is of at least equal or better usability/appeal?

That is soooo sweet of them.

[sgt scrub]

They actually deem us significant enough to allow us the privilege of having a copy of something we purchased. I feel so... so... special.

For the morons that don't know snark when they see it. /SNARK!!!!

Re:That is soooo sweet of them.

[cffrost]

They actually deem us significant enough to allow us the privilege of having a copy of something we purchased. I feel so... so... special.

For the morons that don't know snark when they see it. /SNARK!!!!

Apparently, the mods have spoken: "You shall be grateful, serf! Now... bow, and kiss the feet of thine corporate master. Chew the glorious Bezos mana!"

I didn't want the CD anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

People could always make their own high quality MP3s. Plus, I never wanted the CD to begin with. I had one of the very first car radios with a USB port. CDs are big, bulky, and easily damaged. Why are we still using them?

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we still listening to music? You can just read a review to know if the song is any good or not.

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[Lumpy]

"CDs are big, bulky, and easily damaged. Why are we still using them?"

Because its the only way to get full quality DRM free music.

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[GrahamCox]

full quality

For some definition of "quality" that by and large does not correlate with mine. Loudness wars and all that.

I won't be happy until I can get the full 24 track raw unmixed tracks at 96kHz and mix it myself....

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[NoSleepDemon]

Because they're cheap and cheerful, and the record companies need something to stock HMV with.

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[MaskedSlacker]

Alright, but every other format has the same problem. CDs are still higher quality than compressed files of the same track.

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[jc42]

I won't be happy until I can get the full 24 track raw unmixed tracks at 96kHz and mix it myself....

You can buy that after you've already paid for all the lower-quality versions that they sell.

It's clear from the current discussion and the recording industry's history that this isn't actually a joke ...

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[Scarletdown]

"CDs are big, bulky, and easily damaged. Why are we still using them?"

Because its the only way to get full quality DRM free music.

And if you get tired of a CD, you are free to resell it, give it to a friend, trade it to someone for something else, donate it to a thrift store, etc.

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[gman003]

DRM free

Not so fast.

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the "rootkit" and other "auto-install malware" "CDs" are real CD-Audio discs. By definition, anything that has that sort of crud is NOT a CD-Audio disc. (Didn't Phillips, co-inventor of the CD, come out with some statement to that effect?)

Real CDs only have one type of commonly-used DRM: SCMS flags. These flags determine whether a standalone consumer digital audio recorder (such as a home stereo DAT deck, or a MiniDisc Walkman recording from an optical cable) will allow you to make a digital copy or not; the idea being to limit digital cloning to a single generation. The flags have no effect on computers or on professional recorders, which, by design, are not legally required to honor them.

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

A ton of people don't quite record like that, as all of it happens inside a DAW.

I can post a 96k flac of my stereo master to TPB just like anyone else, but for my workflow it would be silly and time consuming to break it into tracks.

Now, say, the project files from the DAW to play with yourself? Sure, I could make those available, but then people would get into arguments derpyer than Mac vs. PC over which DAW is better.

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[lightknight]

But the compressed files have been specially mastered so that doesn't matter! What are you saying, that you're playing them on something that isn't an iPod? Tssh, you would, as a member of the 1%!

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[SuricouRaven]

Not for much longer. HMV is in serious financial trouble.

For years the labels have been predicting piracy will force music stores to close. Pirates predicted and even hoped for the same. But in the end, according to HMVs report, it wasn't piracy that drove their chain into crisis: It was competition from legal online media services. Mostly iTunes, I imagine.

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[allo]

at least in europe, you are allowed to do that with a mp3 download as well. Of course, if there is DRM, it may prevent it technically.

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[Lumpy]

For now. the RIAA is desperately trying to fix that pesky first sale doctrine...

In their eyes, anyone that buys or sells used CD's is a terrorist.

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[Lumpy]

My old studio DAT recorder did not honor them either. Only consumer gear did.

Re:I didn't want the CD anyway

[CamoCoatJoe]

Most CDs don't have that problem, and since Sony had to make the discs work in existing players, the DRM was easy to disable. I think just not having your computer auto-run CD software was enough. (Or sticking some masking tape on the outer edge of the disc, or not using Windows...) The second link you provide says that none of the four labels even try to DRM CDs anymore. (That rootkit fiasco was a hoot. I'm so glad I don't use Windows at home. Sony really is an entertainment company.)

Even if CDs did have that kind of DRM on them, I'd still buy them. If it works on old CD players and on my computer without running their software, the DRM can't restrict me. If they don't make it red-book-compatible, I'll know the first time I try to use it, and I'll return it. This is a non-issue.

I used to use that.

[forgottenusername]

I still tell people it was the only "digital music service" that I really ever liked. I like to buy CDs so I can transcode them into sensible bitrates for portable devices, but have a full on flac when listening at home. It was really convenient to grab a CD, toss it in the player, then have all my mp3s available instantly without waiting to transcode.

Really a shame that service got buried by the dinosaur music industry. They're slowly learning the lesson; you either adapt to the times and technologies, or you become obsolete and the only role you have is in preventing progress trying to hold on to your fiefdom. Which can't last forever.

Re:I used to use that.

[DavidClarkeHR]

Really a shame that service got buried by the dinosaur music industry....

Now I'm going to start worrying about the raptors of the music industry ... thanks a lot.

Re:I used to use that.

[MaskedSlacker]

I sense a new business opportunity: Raptor Rap.

Re:I used to use that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Raptor Rap. It bites your ass!

ugh, mp3-only

[loshwomp]

Can anyone who has used it confirm if amazon's service really mp3-only? (Sources seems to imply that it is.)

I don't want shitty mp3s--just give me lossless files (you know, like what I could get from the CD and let me shift them to the format of my choosing.

Re:ugh, mp3-only

[Anonymous Coward]

you know, like what I could get from the CD

You mean FLAC.

Re:ugh, mp3-only

[jsdcnet]

it's 256k mp3 (like all amazon purchased mp3 music). since you have the actual cd you can make a lossless copy. most people will be fine with 256k.

Re:ugh, mp3-only

[Anonymous Coward]

This is for the Amazon Music Cloud service, which is basically designed as a streaming service for mobile devices. I don't mind their auto-rip being MP3 (though would prefer vorbis of course), but instead wish I could download flac versions. I stopped buying digital music for this reason, and am now one of the few still buying CD's just so I can make a decent backup.

Re:ugh, mp3-only

[Anonymous Coward]

murfie.com

Re:ugh, mp3-only

[Anonymous Coward]

it's 256k mp3 (like all amazon purchased mp3 music). since you have the actual cd you can make a lossless copy.

most people will be fine with 256k.

I wish scale-to-lossless was more supported / popular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_SLS

You can ship a "base" AAC file of a certain quality, and those that want more can request / buy more.

It would also allow stripping"the 'excess' information for portable music players without a full re-encoding: so you can have a lossless file at home for future proofing and your good speakers, but "only" (say) 128 kbps on your mobile device so that it's not using as much space (and since you probably won't notice higher fidelity on shitty earbuds walking in a noisy environment).

Re:ugh, mp3-only

[ThatsMyNick]

Er, most Amazon music is MP3 V0 (90%+). But agree with your point, pretty much everyone is fine with a V0. There are only a handful of people that can differentiate V0 from a lossless.

Re:ugh, mp3-only

[loshwomp]

most people will be fine with 256k

I'm not impressed with "most people". 256k is a waste of bandwidth while still being a far cry from lossless. I can pack 60-70% more Vorbis tracks on my player, and the codec is entirely transparent on the portable player at those rates.

Re:ugh, mp3-only

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not impressed with "most people".

Then welcome to the wonderful world of being a fringe interest. I'm certain you won't enjoy it, but I'm also certain the rest of the world cares little about you and your apparent fetish for analyzing music on a 48kHz sample by 48kHz sample basis for exact frequency deviations.

Re:ugh, mp3-only

[Radak]

Since AutoRip applies to physical CDs you've purchased, you've already got the lossless copy at home and you are free to reproduce it in whatever format tickles your fancy. You can even store it on your Amazon Cloud Drive if you like (albeit not completely free).

Amazon AutoRip is all about having music available on the go, and is intended for normal people, not smug people, so "shitty" mp3s are just the ticket.

Re:ugh, mp3-only

[fa2k]

Yeah, that's the reason I buy the damn CD in the first place, to get the best quality they will sell me. If I wanted MP3s, I could just go to their MP3 store and save myself the agony of getting things delivered to my flat. I certainly can't hear the difference between a >200 kbit MP3 and a CD, but there is about a 3x difference in file size, so something is missing. Will the MP3 sound as good if I use Dolby Headphone, for example? (I can't test, because I'm on Linux, heh)

Actually, this was the reason I bought CDs before. Now that they have less legal rights as well, ( http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/09/03/153220/bruce-willis-considering-legal-action-against-apple-over-itunes-collection ), it's going to be a while befroe I start doing downloads again. Might as well (almost) move to streaming then...

Re:ugh, mp3-only

[Sigg3.net]

164K should be enough for anyone.

Remind me again, what's a CD?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I remember those. Okay, now why would I want one in 2013?

Re:Remind me again, what's a CD?

[jones_supa]

It's fun to put the actual disc in the player, sit back on a couch, and browse the inlay while listening to the music.

Jeff Bezo's ideas about IP and copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently Amazon will zealously enforce its own IP; other copyright holders' IP, not so much.

COPYRIGHT

All content included in or made available through any Amazon Service, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, and data compilations is the property of Amazon or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws. The compilation of all content included in or made available through any Amazon Service is the exclusive property of Amazon and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws.

TRADEMARKS

Click here to see a non-exhaustive list of Amazon trademarks. In addition, graphics, logos, page headers, button icons, scripts, and service names included in or made available through any Amazon Service are trademarks or trade dress of Amazon in the U.S. and other countries. Amazon's trademarks and trade dress may not be used in connection with any product or service that is not Amazon's, in any manner that is likely to cause confusion among customers, or in any manner that disparages or discredits Amazon. All other trademarks not owned by Amazon that appear in any Amazon Service are the property of their respective owners, who may or may not be affiliated with, connected to, or sponsored by Amazon.

PATENTS

One or more patents owned by Amazon apply to the Amazon Services and to the features and services accessible via the Amazon Services. Portions of the Amazon Services operate under license of one or more patents. Click here to see a non-exhaustive list of applicable Amazon patents and applicable licensed patents.

LICENSE AND ACCESS

Subject to your compliance with these Conditions of Use and your payment of any applicable fees, Amazon or its content providers grant you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable license to access and make personal and non-commercial use of the Amazon Services. This license does not include any resale or commercial use of any Amazon Service, or its contents; any collection and use of any product listings, descriptions, or prices; any derivative use of any Amazon Service or its contents; any downloading or copying of account information for the benefit of another merchant; or any use of data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools. All rights not expressly granted to you in these Conditions of Use or any Service Terms are reserved and retained by Amazon or its licensors, suppliers, publishers, rightsholders, or other content providers. No Amazon Service, nor any part of any Amazon Service, may be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of Amazon. You may not frame or utilize framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo, or other proprietary information (including images, text, page layout, or form) of Amazon without express written consent. You may not use any meta tags or any other "hidden text" utilizing Amazon's name or trademarks without the express written consent of Amazon. You may not misuse the Amazon Services. You may use the Amazon Services only as permitted by law. The licenses granted by Amazon terminate if you do not comply with these Conditions of Use or any Service Terms.

source: amazon.com

Was there ever a successful arrest/prosecution

[retroworks]

... of anyone who "ripped" an MP3 of a CD they already owned? When Napster first came out, I downloaded songs I had physical possession of media of, and kind of wondered if they could. The problem of course was the sheer temptation (all those other titles you DON'T own coming up in search)... but if someone only possessed MP3s they had physical media of, I wonder how they could be found guilty of stealing them.

Re:Was there ever a successful arrest/prosecution

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it probably depends. If you had the mp3 and let it be re-shared, then you probably could get into trouble regardless of the fact that you own the CD.

Based on the lawsuits which the RIAA seems to have brought, it seems like they typically went after those who shared mp3s with others. In all of the injustices they've wrought, I can't remember them even trying to prosecute someone for possession of an mp3.

Re:Was there ever a successful arrest/prosecution

[93 Escort Wagon]

For as long as i can remember iTunes has, by default, offered to rip any CD you insert into your computer. I'm sure the industry rattled their sabers and I'm just not remembering it; but I'm pretty sure that feature was never removed even briefly.

I realize other software also did CD ripping, but if the MPAA had truly believed they had the law on their side... Apple would've been an obvious target. It makes me wonder how Real might've fared had they'd held their ground on their personal DVD ripping software.

Re:Was there ever a successful arrest/prosecution

[russotto]

... of anyone who "ripped" an MP3 of a CD they already owned?

In the US? Seems unlikely, since the Diamond Rio case explicitly found that to be fair use.

Re:Was there ever a successful arrest/prosecution

[gnasher719]

For as long as i can remember iTunes has, by default, offered to rip any CD you insert into your computer. I'm sure the industry rattled their sabers and I'm just not remembering it; but I'm pretty sure that feature was never removed even briefly.

For all I know, in the UK ripping a CD to your computer is not legal. But there will be no prosecution, ever, for various reason. One, no evidence. Two, the police officer arresting you, the prosecutor, the judge, your lawyer, they all do exactly the same thing. Third, the record industry knows that iTunes allows this (and I assume Windows and Linux software as well), so if they didn't want it to happen, did they ever tell Apple or Microsoft or Redhat to prevent it?

Re:Was there ever a successful arrest/prosecution

[Anonymous Coward]

There's the question of whether YOU created/possess the MP3s, or whether someone ELSE (a service provider) is doing the creating/possession on your behalf.

When MP3.com came out with Beam-It ("show us you possess the CD, and we'll stream the songs to you") and Instant Listening ("buy a CD from one of our online partners, and we'll stream the songs to you before the physical CD even arrives"), they claimed this was about defending individuals' Fair Use rights. The record industry tore them a new ***hole in court on the theory that merely compiling a database of MP3s to support the streaming was large-scale commercial infringement. If I remember correctly, MP3.com then went for a settlement with the record industry (rather than appealing the decision to higher courts, the way you might have expected them to do if this was really about them 'fighting' for the public's rights).

On the other hand, when the RIAA went after the manufacturer of a MP3 player (the Diamond Rio), claiming that the device violated the AHRA, the judge ripped the RIAA a new one. The judge noted that the AHRA was expressly designed to exempt devices like the Diamond Rio from its copy protection and media and recorder tax provisions. The judge also wrote that format-shifting was paradigmic, legal, Fair Use (citing the Supreme Court Betamax decision and its similar conclusion with regards to time-shifting).

So you are correct that you have a right to "rip" a MP3 from a CD that you already own, and that anyone suing you for doing so would essentially be wasting the court's time with a frivolous lawsuit. But once you start talking about some other business doing the ripping and copying for you – even if the result, from your point of view, is exactly the same – then their "commercial" copying of the material may become open to a "tollbooth" or a legal attack – one that is independent from your Fair Use rights. Presumably the difference between MP3.com's "Instant Listening" and Amazon's "AutoRip" (aside from streaming being a bit more practical these days) is that Amazon has made deals with record companies to be allowed to do this.

Likewise, there might be a legal difference between "ripping" a MP3 from a CD that you own (legal Fair Use, according to the court in the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia case) and downloading an infringing MP3 of a song from a CD that you already own. The end result might be the same in terms of the bits on your disk, and in terms of you only possessing copies of music that you had paid for, but I don't know whether technically, the law would see if that way.

Re:Was there ever a successful arrest/prosecution

[demonlapin]

personal DVD ripping

That was the whole point of the DMCA: to make key steps in the decoding of DVD information illegal if you didn't have a license. They were doomed.

Re:Was there ever a successful arrest/prosecution

[Sigg3.net]

I wonder how they could be found guilty of stealing them.

That's because you follow logic. Big corporations follow the law.

Incidentally, they own it as well.

  I'd like them to start widespread persecution so we the people could get rid of them once and for all.

Re:Was there ever a successful arrest/prosecution

[gnasher719]

... of anyone who "ripped" an MP3 of a CD they already owned? When Napster first came out, I downloaded songs I had physical possession of media of, and kind of wondered if they could. The problem of course was the sheer temptation (all those other titles you DON'T own coming up in search)... but if someone only possessed MP3s they had physical media of, I wonder how they could be found guilty of stealing them.

Technically, it is copyright infringement. The mp3 that you copied was something that you shouldn't have copied, and the fact that you own a CD (that you could have ripped yourself) doesn't make a difference.

what about resales?

[loshwomp]

Auto-rip raises an interesting question about resales. It appears that Amazon is granting downloads for CD purchases (even retroactively, for CDs purchased years ago). If I've since sold the physical CD, Amazon would not know that. Furthermore, I could deliberately game the system by buying CDs and immediately reselling them.

I know, it's a stupid edge case, and I could already do this by ripping my own CDs today and subsequently selling them, but it's exactly the type of "problem" that keeps the recording industry up at night.

Re:what about resales?

[jaymz666]

Good question, considering most of the music they added to my cloud account because of this was stuff I had bought as gifts but not marked as gifts when ordering.

I imagine it's a similar licensing scheme to that of their $25/year match service.

Re:what about resales?

[fermion]

I think it is a this is a stement that a track of music is worth almost nothing, and so value must be added to encourage people to actually buy music. This value is that you will always have your music.

People always put for the fiction that we used to own the music. I did not own the music? if the album wore out, if the tape broke, if the CD was stolen, I was not able to get that music back for free. At best I could buy a used copy of listen to copy with generational defects. This allowed the music people to resell tracks. Not any more.

Now there is no reason to buy music at all given that services like pandora will just stream it. So for the first time you actually can own music, meaning that the track is your. Does selling your CD mean you don't have possession of the track? Of course not. As soon as Apple put auto rip in iTunes, and sold a iPod that could hold all the music, can you imagine that many did not buy a CD, rip it, and resell it. This service, with apple essentially started an equivalent of a year ago, is simply acknowledging that status quo. If you want anything other than low royalty payments for Pandora, you have to give something extra to consumers.

Re:what about resales?

[SeaFox]

Ah, but with Amazon's service you can get the mp3's legally without having to use the disc. So you can sell the CD as "new/sealed" for a higher price.

Re:what about resales?

[loshwomp]

Ah, but with Amazon's service you can get the mp3's legally without having to use the disc. So you can sell the CD as "new/sealed" for a higher price.

Good one; hadn't thought of that. All the more emphasis, then, on whether those mp3s are actually legal or not.

Re:what about resales?

[stymy]

If you are willing to game the system like that, why not just download the tracks illegally? Besides, resale price of used CDs is usually far below of what you paid for them, as with most things.

Re:what about resales?

[c0d3g33k]

If you are willing to game the system like that, why not just download the tracks illegally? Besides, resale price of used CDs is usually far below of what you paid for them, as with most things.

You just answered your own question - because it is *legal*, and that in itself has some value. No need to hide where you got a track from, worry about prosecution for illegal downloading or keep your collection secret - Amazon offers proof you paid for it legitimately. And it's not gaming the system because of the first sale doctrine - you have a right to sell the physical CD, but since you paid for the music, the fact that you don't own the delivery medium any longer isn't really relevant.

Re:what about resales?

[allo]

why do you need to discuss this? Its just the same as if you would have ripped the CD yourself.

And what's then the case, is not sooo easy to say. The first approach would be, that you need to delete the copy, as you're selling your license. But then you have the right to make seven private copies, and even give them to friends. So you may be able to declare your copy as one of the private copys (just think of giving it to someone (private copy law), who gives it back to you (without leaving a copy at his pc)).

Re:what about resales?

[allo]

ah, sorry ... i did not consider the whole thing. The amazon case IS special:

you buy a combo pack: CD+MP3s. So you can sell one of them keeping the other part, as you may sell one CD of a collection of 6 CDs. Noone can forbid you to split your possession and selling only a part of it.

Finally!

[s1d3track3D]

This is great and long overdue!
Please, can't some tech giant just buy the RIAA and come up with a better model?

Marketing genius!

[Sponge Bath]

Hmmm... the horse has left the barn. I know: enjoy our new "free range horse" offering... because Amazon cares about what you want.

RIAA not MPAA

[93 Escort Wagon]

Sorry, acronym confusion.

Wishful thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the fact, the lesson learnt is the opposite : they were actually very able to bury a service they didn't see fit, at will, for 14 years, and they can still do so for the foreseeable future.
You may wish that their fiefdom doesn't last forever, but for now, the hard fact is : it holds.

Why would I want a CD if I have a MP3?

[onebeaumond]

I don't see the value of a free CD with a MP3 purchase, oh wait...

Watermarked mp3s

[Anonymous Coward]

Be advised, these are watermarked mp3s with terms explicitly disallowing tampering.

Re:Watermarked mp3s

[jones_supa]

Why would I tamper them?

Re:Watermarked mp3s

[allo]

is there ANY case, where watermarks on digital music were accepted as an proof?
Just imagine ... i cannot tell what amazon writes into my mp3s. Maybe its an id, which points to me as a person. maybe their software is faulty and it describes YOUR account. So when someone tells me "a mp3 with your amazon id was found", they still need to prove, that the only possiblity of this is, that i released it somewhere. And thats not the case, anyone can write anything in files.

Helpful.

[Altanar]

I don't know if many people on Slashdot have noticed, but this is *not* an untimely change. Why? The price of many new CD releases is now lower than the price of an MP3 album. When Taylor Swift's "Red" album came out, the CD cost $9. The MP3 album cost $15. This is not an isolated incident.

Re:Helpful.

[jaymz666]

IME, you can buy used CDs from Amazon for about $4. Rip it and it sounds the same as a bought mp3 album.

Re:Helpful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not on my Amazon. I bought the Red mp3 album with digital booklet for $7.98 when it came out.

Re:Helpful.

[reub2000]

That extra $6 is so that you don't have to be embarrassed by a Taylor Swift CD lying around your house.

Amazon: welcome to the 1990's; 128 sucks

[markdavis]

I tried to use Amazon recently to obtain an mp3, they only offered it in 128kb/s. It used to be that one could purchase mp3 files from Amazon and download the songs or album through the browser in high-quality. However, this appears to have changed. Now it will shove the music into what Amazon calls their "Amazon Cloud Player" and the user has two options for downloading. One option requires a proprietary MS-Windows/MacOS-only program, which of course is not an option for Linux/Unix users. The other is to use a browser-based player-downloader for any OS...

When downloaded through the browser, it gives no options at all about quality and will offer only a lower 128kbps version. I chatted with their support for 20 minutes and they seem to indicate that is how it works. This limitation is not even documented anywhere in their help system.

So you think it is better with the "downloader"? Nope. Same thing- there, no quality choices at all. So all you are allowed to download is 128kb/s from ANYWHERE on Amazon that I can find, regardless of method. I can't believe they are getting away with this. I know most consumers are clueless, but this is just wild.

I sent them feedback that some people will *NEVER* purchase music from Amazon with this glaring limitation in place. I am one of them. I generally like Amazon so I hope they will change.

Re:Amazon: welcome to the 1990's; 128 sucks

[seligman]

It varies depending on the album. Recent purchases I've made have been encoded using LAME 3.97 with its V0 setting (~245 kbps VBR), this seems to be the default for MP3s encoded by Amazon. One self-published album I grabbed that was MP3 only was 320 kbps CBR. The MP3's I've downloaded via the site and via the downloader are bit-for-bit identical.

It's a pitty Amazon isn't more forthcoming on what the encoding is before you buy it, but I'd imagine whatever album you grabbed was simply provided to them as a 128 kbps file from the source.

Re:Amazon: welcome to the 1990's; 128 sucks

[jaymz666]

I just downloaded a track off a CD I recently bought and was added to my cloud library because of this. It was 256kbps constant bit rate
Another was 281kbpsVBR

Re:Amazon: welcome to the 1990's; 128 sucks

[ThatsMyNick]

Get a refund. I purchase a lot of music from Amazon. If I dont find the quality acceptable, they always give a refund. Over 90% of their stuff is V0, about 5% 256 CBR, about 2-3% V2(or old APS), and rest are rare FGH encoded, transcoded ones and lower bitrate ones. I have send them all sort of screen shots, some proving it was transcoded from a lower bitrate to higher bitrate. They are always happy to know that they have a bad rip and take it down pretty quickly.

Re:Amazon: welcome to the 1990's; 128 sucks

[markdavis]

Thank you for the info. I have no idea why my posting would have been modded "Troll" by anyone, it certainly was not a troll, it was all the information I had based on experience, their help files, AND their apparently clueless support. Overrated, sure, but not Troll.

Anyway, had support just told me that quality varies depending on the album/publisher, then I wouldn't have made such a stink. You are absolutely right that they should have a way of telling you what you are getting before you download it...

Years ago, this might have helped

[Anonymous Coward]

If they hadn't fought it so hard, years ago this might have helped keep CD sales alive longer.

Re:Years ago, this might have helped

[jaymz666]

Or album sales, at least. Instead of people buying one song off a shitty album here and two songs off a shitty album there. Maybe it would have made albums king again

Re:Years ago, this might have helped

[reub2000]

Album filler is what ultimately killed the album.

That's not how MP3 used to work.

[NotSoHeavyD3]

You didn't rip anything. MP3 actually had loads of CD's already ripped and on their servers. You put in a CD in your PC, it would get some data off of it(effectively a hash) and then used that info to figure out which CD it was and allow you to stream the rip from MP3.com. So for they'd have a rip of say Led Zeppelin IV on their servers. Everybody that put that CD in their PC could access MP3.com's rip of Led Zeppelin IV and stream it but nobody who used the service was actually ripping their own copy of Led Zeppelin IV and putting it up on the MP3.com's servers.

Re:That's not how MP3 used to work.

[Omestes]

Isn't that exactly what Google Music is doing now?

Not with CDs though, it supposedly will scan your music library, and add it to your "cloud" for free, without actually uploading anything.

I haven't tried it yet, since I'm a bit paranoid that something that I didn't obtain legally back in college might still be hiding in my library, which will magically flag me as a bad person, so the RIAA can take all my money and leave me in a cardboard box... out of the spirit of fairness, of course.

Re:That's not how MP3 used to work.

[jaymz666]

It's also what Amazon is doing now with their match/cloud player service.

What they don't have licenses for they upload from your collection.

Re:That's not how MP3 used to work.

[Legion303]

"Isn't that exactly what Google Music is doing now?"

No.

Re:That's not how MP3 used to work.

[russotto]

Isn't that exactly what Google Music is doing now? Not with CDs though, it supposedly will scan your music library, and add it to your "cloud" for free, without actually uploading anything.

Right, that's Music Match. The difference with Amazon is that they're not scanning anything; they're adding to your cloud library based on what you buy.

I haven't tried it yet, since I'm a bit paranoid that something that I didn't obtain legally back in college might still be hiding in my library, which will magically flag me as a bad person, so the RIAA can take all my money and leave me in a cardboard box... out of the spirit of fairness, of course.

"Magically" is right; unless you've got a never-released track, how could the RIAA possibly know it was illegal? (Disclosure: I work for Google, but not on Music Match)

Re:That's not how MP3 used to work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I always feel a little uneasy when software (or a website) scans my HD and adds anything it finds to my "music" library.

Imagine a warm Christmas afternoon (southern hemisphere here), eveyone is enjoying a wine/beer, waiting for the Christmas lunch to be served. I decide to boot up my PC and find some Christmassy music. Open up said software to browse, miss click and what comes blasting throughout the lounge, displayed for all to see in 35 glorious inches of LED? A "school girl" been brutally penetrated by a man with an above average sized penis.

THAT keeps me up at night.

Re:That's not how MP3 used to work.

[petermgreen]

"Magically" is right; unless you've got a never-released track, how could the RIAA possibly know it was illegal?

One way would be the mp3 being explicitly tagged with details of a pirate group. Another would be an imperfection (skip or similar) that is highly unlikely to happen in a random re-ripping but is very commonly seen in pirate copies. A civil court doesn't need absoloute proof, only the "balance of probabilities".

Having said that I think actual legal action is unlikely on this, too much work for too little reward, I could possiblly see the music industry trying to pressurise theese services into banning people who upload known-pirate files though.

Re:That's not how MP3 used to work.

[Omestes]

"Magically" is right; unless you've got a never-released track, how could the RIAA possibly know it was illegal? (Disclosure: I work for Google, but not on Music Match)

Its amazing what those RIAA elves can do...

Seriously though, I wouldn't doubt it if the RIAA, or one of their contractors, have a database of hashes from popular, or highly distributed rips. They probably never could 100% know, but that doesn't really matter to them. I'm probably being paranoid, since there are a number of factors that would have to happen for labels to be able to prosecute based on Google's data. The first being the flavor of deal Google has with the labels, the second being how willing Google would be willing to share data (such as hashes) with them. The third would be the very strange legality of this whole thing. Would sharing track information (but not data) with Google be considered illegal distribution? AFAIK no one has ever been prosecuted for merely having pirated tracks, so as for how useful this information would be, is a bit questionable.

Re:That's not how MP3 used to work.

[jaymz666]

Why would an imperfection like a skip be unlikely when I rip a CD but common when a I download a pirated rip of that CD?
Do the pirates rip it differently?

Re:That's not how MP3 used to work.

[petermgreen]

Some imperfections are likely in ripping of an imperfect CD with non-paraniod ripping software. Different people ripping different copies of the CD and getting the exact same imperfections is far less likely.

So If someone turns up with a file that is identical to an imperfect copy that is widely distributed on the pirate networks then they most likely have a pirate copy.

never been done before!

[bendy]

Yeah, cause no site has ever let you download a mp3/flac version of a CD when you buy the physical disc before. http://www.bandcamp.com

Poorly thought out service.

[ItsIllak]

I read about this on the BBC news website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20972027), missing the first line of the article that said it was US only, I logged into the service to see what I'd bought that was going to show up. Immediately, Beautiful South, Gaze popped up. Strange, I didn't actually remember buying it but it's possible. Then that was it. So I go through my purchases and, like others, there were heaps of popular CDs that I'd bought as gifts.

Apart from the obvious problem, I put a message in to Amazon wondering why Gaze was the only track I got. About an hour later I got a call (during the work day, to my mobile from a hidden number!) from a confused CS rep. Eventually established that it was US only and that Gaze was some weird quirk and I shouldn't have received it.

Somehow, this seems a bit of an ill conceived dodgily implemented service. I bet it sinks without a trace. I assume Amazon are having to pay for all these tracks (at some massively discounted rate) and are doing it to try to convince people to use their service. That's some financial commitment - wonder if the physical CD prices are about to be hiked...?

I have vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

I have vinyl copies. Ie, licences and physical tokens.

Problem with me selling them? Lending my records to friends?

Sorry to be confused, but am late 40s.

CDs?

[Charliemopps]

People still buy CDs? It seems that the MP3.com idea may have saved CDs... tied the license to the CD itself, so you got to buy that to get a legit MP3 license. Instead they kept their heads up their asses for 15 years and the world moved on. Artists: I can get your music for free, at any time of the day or night, from nearly anywhere in the world. I can have your entire album in under 5min. It's easier, the quality is often better, it wont get scratched, it's free, there's no taxes, it's environmentally friendly... Think of a new business model. The universe is against you on this one. Trust me.

Re:CDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

People are still using this old, tired argument? Trust you? Never!

Re:CDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

"People still buy CDs?" Yes. You get uncompressed files (compared to 256 Kbps MP3 or AAC files from Amazon and iTunes), album art, hardcopy backup, and sometimes even liner notes. It's easy to extract audio for use on your computer, portable music player, or tablet. On top of that, Amazon and the iTunes Store often want MORE for compressed electronic files than what Amazon wants for CDs.

I've bought a few albums from the iTunes Store; sometimes when the CD is out-of-print and being scalped on Amazon; other times just to throw some business their way (because I find them a useful browsing tool). But because I want CDs and they don't offer them, my music shopping there tends to be focused mostly on individual songs, and on music video tracks.

Now if the iTunes Store had an option to buy an album, and get the physical CD (shipped from Amazon), and also get the electronic download (right then and there), for a competitive price, THAT would be the cat's meow.

say what?

[PopeRatzo]

"Amazon just debuted a new service called Autorip, which grants you MP3 copies of music when you purchase the CD version."

Grants you? I have a program called "foobar 2000" that has been giving me that power for years.

Amazon can kiss my ass. Just send me the CD I bought and step aside. Nobody invited them.

Re:say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

what's your problem? they still send you the cd, just like always.

now, they ALSO give you the *option* to download an mp3 version from their server. perhaps that will save people some time ripping the cd themselves, or help someone whose computer doesn't have a dvd drive.

if you don't want the mp3 don't download it. it's not costing you extra. you have nothing to complain about.

fucking slashdot nerds.

Re:say what?

[PopeRatzo]

now, they ALSO give you the *option* to download an mp3 version

So, they're giving me the option of getting a low bit-rate copy of something I've always had the ability to make for myself.

And I'm supposed to be grateful.

Re:say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're supposed to not be a hostile douche.

Re:say what?

[fatphil]

Agreed.

They're always CBR, rather than VBR/ABR.
They're chock full of useless tags that I don't want in my files.
They're named in a clumsy way that I dislike (I don't want the artist and the album title in the file name - I have a directory structure that performs that namespacing for me much more conveniently).

=> I always create my own mp3s.

Re:say what?

[jones_supa]

So, they're giving me the option of getting a low bit-rate copy of something I've always had the ability to make for myself.

And I'm supposed to be grateful.

Well, they save your work of doing it yourself.

Re:say what?

[jaymz666]

They allow you to download their MP3s upon order, while you wait for that CD to be delivered.

Re:say what?

[TrekkieGod]

"Amazon just debuted a new service called Autorip, which grants you MP3 copies of music when you purchase the CD version."

Grants you? I have a program called "foobar 2000" that has been giving me that power for years.

Amazon can kiss my ass. Just send me the CD I bought and step aside. Nobody invited them.

Personally, I'm a fan of the feature. I prefer buying CDs than mp3s, but often the reason I buy an album is because I want to listen to it right now. This way I get the physical disc I want, and I get to listen to it before it arrives.

mp3.com's real revenue stream

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad he didn't patent it! He could've sold it to Intellectual Ventures and been making bank from Apple, Amazon, etc....

It hasn't been said for a while...

[MrKaos]

Fuck you music industry.

Re:It hasn't been said for a while...

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be a law that says the movie and recording industry can no longer sell its content to users. This would solve a lot of the issues. Instead all of the content would have to go through a rental service, like Netflix, Hulu, or Pandora. The technology is here to do it.

11 years late for me

[imcdona]

I was surprised to find that a CD I purchased back in 2001 had been added to my Amazon Cloud MP3 library a couple of days ago. I've long since lost the CD so this is great news as far as I'm concerned.

It might be from the way back machine but...

[Anonymous Coward]

10 CD's for 1c... Bring back Columbia House! iTunes is way too expensive in comparison

Re:It might be from the way back machine but...

[jaymz666]

BMG had a better deal

For clarification

[Agrippa]

2 clarifications for the summary, since I was the 10th engineer at MP3.com and worked there from 1999-2003:

- We lost to the record labels/publishers not because we gave people access to their music, but because we compiled the music library and streamed it without paying the labels/publishers any royalties. Our strategy was to buy a copy of the CD ourselves, rip it, then claim fair use doctrine when we streamed it to someone else who also owned it. This was a supposed grey area in the law that got cleared up REAL FAST in a media-friendly district court. Services that you see now are paying royalties on what they stream. MP3.com later sued its lawyers that gave the advice on the so-called "grey area" it tried to go through.

- We where not a Silicon Valley company, we where in San Diego. Perhaps if we where SV we would of gotten better legal advice :p

Re:For clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

MP3.com's own a D.A.M. CDs also amounted to Redbook CD audio plus an autorun Flash player and 128 kbps MP3 versions of the songs on what turned out to be a Mitsui CD-R. No legal issue with those that can tell, but it lacked the longevity vs a genuine RIAA artist and publisher pressed CD.

Re:For clarification

[CamoCoatJoe]

Are you saying that they argued that streaming is a "performance"?

I've heard that the labels bought MP3.com after shutting them down, and then (as MP3.com) sued the lawyers to strike fear into the lawyers of any other potential competitors. Do you know if MP3.com was bought before it sued the lawyers?

Old law

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we please stop appealing to the wisdom of old laws. The people that wrote this law could only guess how things would shape up in the future and it could well be that what seemed like a reasonable compromise back then has become an almost redundant loophole for copyright infringers.

I hate to say it but the media interests have the right idea of holding onto the spirit of copyright law by changing the technical details to accommodate advancements in technology (ignoring the one or two cases where they actively warp the spirit such as perpetually increasing the copyright term). The fact is that as more and more people gain internet access, more bandwidth, and more tools, that more extreme measures will need to be taken to secure the idea of copyright law.

Now, it's of my personal opinion that the spirit of copyright law is fundamentally unsound; a concept that can only be effective in an inefficient and technologically restricted environment. I see the weak compromises "7 year term" as, at best, a temporary fix, and submit that a much cheaper and more efficient temporary fix is to promote and support tools that allow people to infringe easily, freely, and safely, and tools that help good, honest artists earn decent money for their work in such a competitive and relatively hostile environment.

CDs

[drolli]

Are these the physical data carriers i used to buy and rip before DRM-free music stores were available?

At least for me it wont boost the cd sales.....

Horse is Completely Out of the Barn

[Anonymous Coward]

If you aren't going to police yourself by following the law, there's nothing stopping you already as you mentioned. Might as well give you a digital download.

Not a very high "hit" rate

[Anonymous Coward]

Of the ~600 CDs I ever purchased from Amazon, only 19 were in the "Autorip" program!

Forest for trees

[Coward Anonymous]

The problem is not that the music industry is late or that it is flip flopping on what it decides is allowable. It's their stuff and their right do whatever they want with it - copyright.

The real problem that makes this an issue is the bought legislation that grants the music (and movie and publishing) industries perpetual copyrights. This is the core issue and it must not be forgotten.

What About Vinyl?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I buy some vinyl and get mp3 copies? I'd buy my records exclusively from Amazon if that were the case.

The ebook therefore is cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

If the sale efficiency of dead tree books is 65% and the burning book will sell at neutral revenue over keeping it at %35, then the actual sale efficiency of the dead-tree book is 75%. A 25% plus portion of the cost of the book is lost on average.

Deduction for the ebook should therefore be 75% RRP. You can find "clearance discounts" of 1/3 RRP, but the basic book to begin with should be, say, $20, the ebooks should therefore be $15.

BUT from that you take off the cost of transport and production and the warehouse storage space (opportunity cost to hold something else that can't be sold digitally).

Half price would be a bit of a rip-off.

everything is still clumsy

[Anonymous Coward]

problem... yes, but its a pain in the ass... if you are willing to go the extra mile to buy CD for $10 and sell it back to a local record store for $6, enjoy your $4 album. If you want to try to get full price for it after finding someone to buy it off you online for $10, this may take weeks or months (if ever) so you would definitely have earned your mp3s by then. Just remember that you would never compete with Amazon because you have to account for shipping costs that most customers on Amazon don't have to pay.

Autorip is a nice add-on and a move in the right direction... but 256kbps kind of sucks. I'd put more stock into this feature if the auto-rip was FLAC or at least 320kbps. I'll be happier in the future when cloud services are less clumsy and there is a better synchronization between home and cloud (or even between clouds). I should be able to 'own a song' rather than a file and I should be able to download it in WAV if I really wanted too for personal use. Once I own a album online... I should have the option of gaining a physical copy on CD for an extra couple dollars.

News Flash:

[mumblestheclown]

content owners can and should decide in which formats they decide to license their content. if mpaa decided to not allow for simultaneous mp3 downloads for cd purchases then but do want to do so now based on their perception of changing social dynamics and technological trends, more power to them. they should be under no obligation to license things in formats they dont want to just because it's possible or because some of you have a perception of what constitutes "fair" profit.

the consumer is under no compunction to purchase their entertainment products. the internet allows for any competing startup or self-publisher to do as he will. market forces really do affect the mpaa/riaa no matter how much too many people here try to insist that such companies are under some obligation to personally provide their over-entitled middle class selves with cheaper and/or more entertainment choices simply because technology makes it possible.

Amazon AutoRip

[Anonymous Coward]

Now Amazon should consider doing the same with Kindle. There are many books I want to have in my library, but I would prefer to read in Kindle for sheer practicality.

mp3s from a record company are better than rips

[jamiefaye]

... because the record company can pay a mastering engineer to do the job right, adjusting the encoding parameters in wide variety of ways on a note-by-note basis.

For an example, compare a rip of a Beatles CD to what you can buy in the iTunes store. The iTunes version sounds much, much better, exactly what Apple Records (and Apple Computer) want for you.

While record companies want your money, they also want you to get the best possible product for your money. The Moral Right of the Artist.

Re:mp3s from a record company are better than rips

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't "adjust encoding parameters on a note-by-note basis". You're an gullible idiot and/or an iTunes shill. MP3s are crap, anyway. I'll stick with indie artists who sell on Bandcamp and similar sites, who not only give me both a CD and digital copy, but also give me FLAC straight from the studio for that digital copy.

Re:mp3s from a record company are better than rips

[jamiefaye]

Actually you can -- even if your authoring software doesn't give you fine-grained control, you can change the mix going in to optimize what come out. That doesn't mean every label does that, just that it is possible.

people pay $

[Anonymous Coward]

for music?

CDs

[Highland Deck Box]

People still buy CDs? What is this, the middle ages? Good lord.

Or the person receiving the gift.

[Anonymous Coward]

After giving it, do you really want to tell your friends or children that they'll have to manually rip their new CD because you've opted to steal the music?