Amazon AutoRip — 14 Years Late

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon AutoRip — 14 Years Late

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday January 12, 2013 @09:54AM from the and-5113-dollars-short dept.

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.'"

51 of 215 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The biggest flaw by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-12 09:58 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
1. Re:The biggest flaw by SQLGuru · 2013-01-12 11:17 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
2. Re:The biggest flaw by jaymz666 · 2013-01-12 12:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  if you mark the order as a gift, i.e. buy off a wishlist, it won't be added to your library
3. Re:The biggest flaw by SQLGuru · 2013-01-12 13:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Who said you had to check the box to give it as a gift. ;)
4. Re:The biggest flaw by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-12 21:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Because otherwise you would be depriving millions of starving record label execs of their hard-earned cash.
Nice, but that raises a new question. by geminidomino · 2013-01-12 09:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why can't we get copies of our ebooks when we buy the dead-tree version?
1. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by Marcion · 2013-01-12 10:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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).
  
  --
  My little Linux and tech blog
2. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by Mashiki · 2013-01-12 10:12 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
3. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by DavidClarkeHR · 2013-01-12 10:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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 ...
  
  --
  - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
4. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by CNeb96 · 2013-01-12 10:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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."
5. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by mrstrano · 2013-01-12 10:27 · Score: 2
  
  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.
6. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by Mitreya · 2013-01-12 10:40 · Score: 2
  
  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.
7. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by Lumpy · 2013-01-12 10:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
8. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by Threni · 2013-01-12 11:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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).
9. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by MaskedSlacker · 2013-01-12 11:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
10. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by Dr_Barnowl · 2013-01-12 12:06 · Score: 2
  
  ebooks are also subject to tax in some jurisdictions, where paper books are not, the UK being one.
11. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by Runaway1956 · 2013-01-12 12:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "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.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
12. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by MaskedSlacker · 2013-01-12 13:08 · Score: 2
  
  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?
13. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by Jafafa+Hots · 2013-01-12 13:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "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.
  
  --
  This space available.
14. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by Jafafa+Hots · 2013-01-12 14:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  This space available.
15. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-01-12 16:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
16. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-12 16:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
17. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by lightknight · 2013-01-12 19:22 · Score: 2
  
  I took a screenshot for the rest of you to enjoy: http://imgur.com/nriJ3
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
18. Re:Nice, but that raises a new question. by fatphil · 2013-01-12 21:54 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
I used to use that. by forgottenusername · 2013-01-12 10:04 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:I used to use that. by DavidClarkeHR · 2013-01-12 10:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
2. Re:I used to use that. by MaskedSlacker · 2013-01-12 11:47 · Score: 2
  
  I sense a new business opportunity: Raptor Rap.
Was there ever a successful arrest/prosecution by retroworks · 2013-01-12 10:09 · Score: 2

... 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.

--
Gently reply
1. Re:Was there ever a successful arrest/prosecution by russotto · 2013-01-12 11:31 · Score: 2
  
  ... 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.
2. Re:Was there ever a successful arrest/prosecution by gnasher719 · 2013-01-12 12:32 · Score: 2
  
  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?
what about resales? by loshwomp · 2013-01-12 10:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:what about resales? by SeaFox · 2013-01-12 13:28 · Score: 2
  
  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.
2. Re:what about resales? by stymy · 2013-01-12 14:42 · Score: 2
  
  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.
Finally! by s1d3track3D · 2013-01-12 10:13 · Score: 2

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! by Sponge+Bath · 2013-01-12 10:25 · Score: 2

Hmmm... the horse has left the barn. I know: enjoy our new "free range horse" offering... because Amazon cares about what you want.
Wishful thinking by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-12 10:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:ugh, mp3-only by jsdcnet · 2013-01-12 10:35 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
no longer working for cnet
Why would I want a CD if I have a MP3? by onebeaumond · 2013-01-12 10:38 · Score: 3, Funny

I don't see the value of a free CD with a MP3 purchase, oh wait...
Re:I didn't want the CD anyway by Lumpy · 2013-01-12 10:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Helpful. by Altanar · 2013-01-12 10:56 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Helpful. by reub2000 · 2013-01-12 20:31 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That extra $6 is so that you don't have to be embarrassed by a Taylor Swift CD lying around your house.
Re:I didn't want the CD anyway by GrahamCox · 2013-01-12 10:57 · Score: 2

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....
That's not how MP3 used to work. by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2013-01-12 11:03 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Re:Amazon: welcome to the 1990's; 128 sucks by seligman · 2013-01-12 11:18 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
-- It is too late for the pebbles to vote, the avalanche has already started.
Re:Amazon: welcome to the 1990's; 128 sucks by jaymz666 · 2013-01-12 11:19 · Score: 2

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:I didn't want the CD anyway by MaskedSlacker · 2013-01-12 11:46 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by Scarletdown · 2013-01-12 11:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
CDs? by Charliemopps · 2013-01-12 12:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:Amazon: welcome to the 1990's; 128 sucks by ThatsMyNick · 2013-01-12 12:52 · Score: 2

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.
It hasn't been said for a while... by MrKaos · 2013-01-12 13:54 · Score: 2

Fuck you music industry.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
For clarification by Agrippa · 2013-01-12 15:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

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