Making Money Selling Music Without DRM 383
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica's Nate Anderson has an excellent writeup on the rise of eMusic and how they're suceeding despite their unwillingness to hop on the DRM bandwagon. From the article: 'The Holy Grail of online music sales is the ability to offer iPod-compatible tracks. Like the quest for the mythical cup itself, the search for iPod compatibility has been largely fruitless for Apple's competitors, whose DRM schemes are incompatible with the iconic music player. For a music store that wants to succeed, reaching the iPod audience is all but a necessity in the the US market, where Apple products account for 78 percent of the total players sold. Perhaps that's why eMusic CEO David Pakman sounds downright gleeful when he points out that there's only two companies in the world that can sell to them--Apple and eMusic.'"
Allofmp3.com (Score:1, Informative)
Far more than two companies that sell to ipods (Score:5, Informative)
Emusic is cool but there are many great others too (Score:5, Informative)
I'm an Emusic subscriber and love them, but there are LOTS of legal services out there, these days, selling good ol' MP3s (or even FLAC/OGG) with no DRM
We keep a full list of them at cdbaby.net/dd-partners [cdbaby.net] (in 10 languages!). Though that list is meant mainly for our musician clients, it's a good permalink for a constantly-updating list of digital music sellers, with a short description of each.
Don't forget Magnatune (Score:5, Informative)
But we should also give credit where credit is due and mention that Magnatune (http://magnatune.com/ [magnatune.com]) has been doing this for years. The buyer chooses what he wants to pay per album - in fact, if you're a cheap bastard, you may download a full album for as little 5$ in the format of your choice: MP3, WAV, OGG, FLAC or AAC.
And I love their motto: "We are not evil." Now, where else did we hear that phrase?
Detroit Digital Vinyl (Score:3, Informative)
Emusic Linux (Score:3, Informative)
I ended up ditching it because it was so hard to download albums. Their binary file was linked to some
Their support was also less than helpful.
for techno fans (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:2, Informative)
Guess they did whatever they had to do.
Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others (Score:2, Informative)
The rule is that it is legal to import stuff that you acquired abroad, if the production of that item would have been legal had it been done in the country into which you are importing it. allofmp3.com clearly fails this test.
Re:ipod compatibility? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you can. In fact, I've never bought a single tune from ITMS but my iPod Nano is packed solid with music (haven't had to go to ITMS - I ripped my entire CD collection to mp3 a long time ago, and continue to do so - much cheaper to buy a used CD in many cases and use it as a 'master copy' of sorts).
You simply import the music into the iTunes library, make a playlist from it, and transfer it to the iPod.
Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others (Score:3, Informative)
But I should still say thank you for pointing to that resource link, that is very cool.
eMusic/J - Opensource Download Manager (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.kallisti.net.nz/EMusicJ/HomePage/ [kallisti.net.nz]
OT: Bottled Water (Score:2, Informative)
Actually bottled water sells because a lot of municipalities chlorinate their water, making it taste like shit.
Although it's true that marketing and convenience play a large part too (people buying bottled water even though they have good-tasting tap water, or well water), but it's not always purely marketing.
I drink bottled water only because the tap water in my office tastes like it came from the shallow end of the local Y's swimming pool, and de-chlorinating it (by leaving it in an open-topped container) isn't really practical.
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others (Score:4, Informative)
And now the shameless plug
well, it is legal (Score:4, Informative)
allofmp3.com violates the spirit of the law, if not the exact wording. It is like saying that identity theft was legal because when it first started happening, there was no specific law against it.
no be sure to tell me how legal it is and how paying money to the russian mob is better then downloading via P2P.
If you are going to steal music, just fucking steal it and get off your high horse. I personally hove no problem gettign ALL of my music from P2P, and honestly, having spent time in Moscow, see no need to further fund the terrorist organization that is the russian mafia.
Re:Don't forget Magnatune (Score:3, Informative)
if anyone knows if there is a way to get them with album art please tell me i havn't found it yet.
E-music URL (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.emusic.com/ [emusic.com]
Re:for techno fans (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:3, Informative)
Oh... and I check today and they just added 30 albums... so I jumped to the wrong conclusions. Long live AllOfMp3.com!!
'indie' versus pop versus ? (Score:5, Informative)
They also have live stuff. Interested in Colin Hay's solo takes on 'Men at Work', or (back to Deep Purple) live Deep Purple? And what they call indie, I'm not so sure-- Tom Waits gets a lot of media coverage and movie deals for an 'indie'. He's there.
They also have a phenomenal jazz and blues section, which is yet another niche not served. Miles Davis or Charlie Parker aren't "indy", after all. And there's folk, and celtic, and world. It's that 'long tail' model. Basically, emusic has a mix of radio stuff, and all the stuff you can't buy on CD at your local Walmart anyway.
I guess I'm tired of anyone not carrying the latest pop being labeled 'indie', particularly given pop's tendency to forget the past. I don't want this to be a commercial for eMusic, just a note that they are offering the kind of stuff that you can hear by dial-hopping on radio, but can't find in most big box stores. That's more than just 'indie'.
Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others (Score:4, Informative)
Well, it depends.
Pot is effectively legal in the Netherlands. But that doesn't mean that Americans can import it from there. That something is legal in one country doesn't mean it will be elsewhere.
Similarly, for people here in the US, American copyright law is in effect, and Russian copyright law is irrelevant. And the laws here prohibit downloading from allofmp3, regardless of whether they're legal in Russia or not. As I see it, if you're going to pirate music, you might as well not pay shady Russians when it's entirely possible to do it for free.
And in an effort to prevent people from replying with misinformation, if you disagree and wish to reply, please first consider and address the following issues:
Re:ipod compatibility? (Score:3, Informative)
The iPod was announced in October 2001.
The iTunes Music Store opened in April 2003. The 3rd generation iPods were also announced at that time.
If it were really true that you couldn't but non-ITMS music on an iPod, the first and second generation iPods would have been, shall we say, much worse sellers than they were.
Re:Detroit Digital Vinyl (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Emusic Linux (Score:3, Informative)
I ended up ditching it because it was so hard to download albums. Their binary file was linked to some
Yes the download manager sucks, but it is easy to fix this.
Click on "Your account"
Click on "Change Download Manager"
Click on the button that Disables the eMusic download manager
Now you can download any song by right-clicking on the download button and select "Save as..."
Re:eMusic is a joy to use.. (Score:2, Informative)
1) At CompUSA, I was given a card that offered me 100 free downloads, over the course of 30 days. When I tried to sign up, that turned into 50 downloads/14 days. To their credit, after questioning them, they did offer me the additional 50 songs if I signed up, which I did. (But the trial was still for only 14 days).
2) My renewal date was listed on my account as April 14th. Being a good procrastinator, I still had a large chunk of that 100 songs on my account on the 14th. I scanned through the listings that day while working, but because of the corporate net-nanny, I couldn't download till I got home. Which I started to do, and then POOF, my "available balance" changed. The renewal (and conversion of my account to paid status, and $9.99 charge to my card) had gone through at 6:04 PM. WTF? I guess it was midnight somewhere, or something.
3) They have two albums by Glen Tilbrook (previously of Squeeze). But they weren't listed together. The name was spelled the same, there was no discernible difference. If you searched on his name, you'd find one of them, but if you found him listed as an influence or a "worked with" for somebody else, you'd find the other one. Made me wonder what else I might not have been finding.
I still believe they have a great idea (although I liked it better a long time ago when you could buy individual tracks without the subscription). Right now I'd say they're a little shaky on the customer service side, and there might be a few bugs in their database. So it was not quite a joyful experience for me.
Re:ipod compatibility? (Score:2, Informative)
Let's get the "iPod Format" or "works with the iPod" or "the format the iPod needs" out of the way. Journalists say this when they mean the M4P AAC format; the one the iTunes Music Store will sell you music in. There is also the M4B AAC format, for protected spoken word files. Naturally, they both work with iTunes or an iPod.
However, the News Stories often implies you need to have that format to work with the iPod or iTunes at all. Since they are DRM'ed versions that only Apple uses, if your original is not AAC with DRM (sometimes also called "FairPlay encoded AAC"), it's implied that the song won't play on the iPod at all. Nothing could be further from the truth, but it's a source of consumer confusion when journalists get it wrong, which is unfortunately common and seemingly getting worse.
In fact, this Slashdot story is an example, where it implies something to the effect that Apple and eMusic are the only two sources of iPod compatible downloadable music. No wonder everyone's confused.
Similarly, AAC with Fairplay is not AAC, exactly. The two are separate things. AAC is not an Apple Format at all, it's an official MPEG format, just like MP3 is.
Now for the rest:
iTunes can open or create and the iPod can play all the following:
MP3 (Fixed Bitrate; from 32 to 320 Kbps)
MP3 VBR (Variable Bit Rate)
AIFF (again not an Apple Format either; an open standard notable only because Microsoft only supports it reluctantly, preferring to convert to the almost identical (the audio information is the same; the file format is different; they are roughly the same file size, etc). Since it's the format your store-bought CDs come in, it's obvious MS players support it, but they convert to WAV if you try to do anything with the file on your computer. AIFF and WAV are identical in sound quality; both are lossless, etc.
WAV (uncompressed WAV only)
M4A AAC This is the MPEG-4 or "regular" AAC; any player made by anyone can support it if they want to
Apple Lossless Encoder: This is an Apple Format. It's essentially the same as FLAC, etc. A lossless format that compresses AIFF or WAV files more or less the same way a zip does. Notable because iTunes and the iPod play them in real time; in other words they uncompress on the fly so you can cram more lossless files in the same hard drive space and still play them as if they were uncompressed.
Audible 2, Audible 3, Audible 4 (
Sample Rates (all formats):
8 Khz, 11.025 Khz, 16 Khz, 22.050 Khz, 32 Khz, 44.1 Khz [CD's are 44.1 Khz sample rate]: Not likely to be a problem here. Nobody uses different sample rates than these, although there are higher rates that could be supported (eg 48 Khz, 88.2 Khz, etc)
iPod formats are encoded in firmware: Apple can add support for other codecs by a firmware upgrade (and they have done so from time to time).
Notable formats that won't play:
WAV with compression (similar to Apple Lossless or FLAC)
WMA and WMA Protected
ATRAC
RealAudio
Ogg Vorbis
Note: Microsoft waives all WMA royalties for Windows Software Applications but charges them to makers of Mac OS programs or Linux programs; so Apple would have to pay royalties to support it in iTunes for Macintosh but not iTunes for Windows. Adding WMA support to iTunes and the iPod would mean Apple paying millions to Microsoft while Windows-only application developers pay nothing. There are also differences in the licensing payments for hardware, although it's a bit more complicated; to much so to summarize here.
ATRAC is a Sony format that they keep for themselves, mostly. Used on MiniDisk.
RealAudio is a Real, Inc format that they keep for themselves, mostly.
Ogg Vorbis is a format popular with open source users and developers; its broadly similar to AAC and MP3. There is no real reason why Apple can't support this format, and they could with a firmware upgrade on existing iPods and an update of iTunes software. Unlike supporting WMA, it doesn't cost anything to support. This annoys some people; Apple should support it.
Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see any mention of Canada there, just a vague statement that it's up to you to figure out whether it is legal in your country. In fact, Canadians have a right to make copies for private use. [cb-cda.gc.ca] This is what the levy on blank media [cb-cda.gc.ca] pays for.
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:4, Informative)
Nah - that $257 was 257 roubles. I just attempted a refill for $10, and it said 297 RUB = $10. I don't think anyone was trying to cheat you.
Put another way: They're making boatloads of cash as is - why put all that at risk for the sake of a few hundred bucks, which they'll earn normally in the space of a couple of hours?
--NgRe:Far more than two companies that sell to ipods (Score:3, Informative)
Their flash interface is ungodly annoying though.
Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, there are significant limits on that. What 17 USC 602 does, as you'd know if you read it, is it prohibits importing phonorecords unless two conditions are both met: 1) that, had US law applied in the place where the phonorecord was made, the making of it would have been legal, and 2) that one of the three exceptions in subsection 602(a) is applicable. Just satisfying one or the other isn't good enough; it has to be both.
So when you say, These songs were legally produced in Russia, that's not good enough. In order for 602(b) to not prohibit importation, it doesn't matter if it was legal under Russian law. It has to have been legal if US law had applied. And since US law doesn't have the same compulsory licensing scheme that allofmp3 purports to rely upon, it just doesn't work out.
But again, all of this importation discussion is a red herring. When you download, you are not importing. You are reproducing.
So to sum up, you said: NOTHING in the links you posted implies that legally produced mp3s that are legally purchased and imported for personal use have been found illegal.
And you are utterly wrong. It is impossible to import an mp3 by means of downloading it. This is because the statute deals with importing phonorecords. A phonorecord is defined in the law as a material object, such as a CD, or a vinyl record. If you can download one of those, as opposed to the information on it, I'll be impressed. For your next trick, you can download a sandwich. Furthermore, even if you were importing them -- which would basically have to be through the mail or via a courier or something -- that would be illegal because there's really just no way to get around section 602(b).
If you had bothered to read the relatively small amount of entirely on-point legal documents, you wouldn't have made a fool out of yourself. Let's hope you don't do so again.
you resent having to pay
Actually, I've never used iTMS. I think it's a rip-off. And I don't resent people who pirate music, whether it's on Allofmp3 or wherever. I think that it ought to be legal for people to download music for free.
What I don't like is people spreading misinformation about the law. If someone is making a decision whether or not to break the law, I think they should be fully informed. And I think that in order to rally support for changing the law to reduce the scope of copyright, people are going to need to have accurate information as to just how bad copyright is now.
Re:Selling music online the correct way (Score:4, Informative)
Ampcast.com (Score:2, Informative)
There's also a lot of mediocre stuff. YMMV :)
Re:LIES - This guy is throwing FUD (Score:3, Informative)
In principle, I think what allofmp3.com is doing when they sell to Americans is no different than what WalMart does - move production overseas to evade US law (such as minimum wage) thus reducing production costs. But I'd be surprised to learn that that's widely accepted. For some reason it has become generally accepted that IP law is global (i.e. you can't import physical copies that would violate copyright if manufactured here), while labor law is local (you can import things manufactured not in accordance with OSHA regulations, etc).
Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others (Score:5, Informative)
A copy of a phonorecord is also a phonorecord. Take a look at the definition at 17 USC 101.
And you are off again - sending something over the wire is also considered importing. Or have you forgotten the old export controls on cryptographic software transmitted oversears already?
I know them, and there are still controls of this nature. However, those regulations, which were enacted by an administrative agency, rather than Congress, specifically define exportation as encompassing Internet transmissions. Congress, on the other hand, has not so defined importation for purposes of copyright law. The agency definition isn't particularly relevant, as it's not of Congressional origin, and deals with an entirely different subject matter. If you want to argue about what copyright law says, you're going to have to do so based on copyright law, not something entirely unrelated. This might seem odd to you, but it's a fairly ordinary situation.
If you the copy is just for yourself or part of your baggage if you physically came through the borders there is no issue.
Except of course, that 602(a)(2) only applies to the ban on importation in subsection (a). It does not apply to the independent ban on importation in subsection (b), which you are still failing to address.
And of course, Allofmp3 has nothing to do with importation anyhow, as I've shown. That's why you had to resort to an example involving baggage, which certainly isn't involved in most people's transactions with Allofmp3.
"indie" and eMusic (Score:3, Informative)
Not everything off of these labels are on Emusic, but quite a bit of it is (Fugazi for example).
Re:LIES - This guy is throwing FUD (Score:3, Informative)
Oh?
"This title" can only mean Title 17 of the United States Code. That is, the title those words are within. It does not, however, say "copyright law."
While it bothers me a bit to see you trolling or lying or whatever. But do you have to be so damn incompetent at it?
Anyway, the rest of your post is similarly insipid and wrong. It's obvious enough that I don't think I have to bother to knock it down. It collapses on its own.
Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, I don't have any idea what you're even trying to say here.
The question we've been discussing has been whether a person in the US who downloads mp3s from Allofmp3 has engaged in copyright infringement punishable under US law. Some uninformed people suggest that the various laws regarding importation yield the answer that such activity is not infringing. They are wrong, and I have shown this. On the other hand, I have pointed out that the laws regarding reproduction are directly on point and do in fact prohibit this downloading.
In order to contribute to the discussion, which you haven't done yet, you are going to need to either show, in light of the applicable statutes and caselaw, that it is infringing, or that it isn't. This means not dodging the reproduction issue, and not dodging the vast majority of the importation red herring (if you are going to waste our time with it). So far you've cherry-picked and misinterpreted. It all sounds great, if you don't know anything. But to those of us who are honest, and who really want to know what the law says, your brand of nonsense is pretty sad.
Now, if you are trying to talk about 602(a) and (b), you cannot neglect the fact that there are independent prohibitions on importing in both (a) and (b). The exception in (a)(2) only applies to the prohibition in (a). That is why it says 'subsection,' not 'section,' or 'title.' Thus, even when (a)(2) applies, you must still deal with (b). You haven't. You also haven't dealt with the overall inapplicability of importation anyway. You haven't shown that information being transmitted over a wire or through the air is fixed within a material object, as it must be in order to qualify as a phonorecord.
And it's a waste of time in any case, because talking about physical movement with baggage over borders is a non sequitur. We're talking about downloading, not traveling to and fro.
Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others (Score:4, Informative)
Like I said, to import a phonorecord, the phonorecord itself must cross the border. But a phonorecord is defined as a material object. A vinyl record, a CD, an eight-track tape -- those can all be phonorecords. An Internet download cannot be.
But the material objects at either end of the download -- the computers, their RAM, their hard drives, etc. -- those can be. So, when you download, you create a new phonorecord at the receiving end. This is the act of reproduction, and it is infringing per 17 USC 501 and 106(1).
While I don't care for this result, the Intellectual Reserve case I linked to before does an excellent job of explaining this. This case dealt with people downloading (in order to view) a web page that had been put up unlawfully, but whether we're talking about a web page or an mp3, this analysis will come out the same:
Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others (Score:3, Informative)
All of MP3 may be "somewhat" legal in Russia but it is fully-non legal for Americans (or Canadians, Australians, and anybody else who is lives in a country that's signed on with international copyright laws) to buy music from them, as it says outright in their terms of service.
Actually, it doesn't say that at all in their terms of service. What it says is that:
"you should not download audio files from AllOFMP3.com if the Terms are in conflict with the laws of your country of residence."
Their FAQ also states that the use of music you download from them is dependent on the law of your own country, vis:
"The user bears sole responsibility for any use and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility is dependent on the national legislation in each user's country of residence. The Administration of AllOFMP3.com does not possess information on the laws of each particular country and is not responsible for the actions of foreign users."
In Australia, at the moment, that presumably means I couldn't copy it to an iPod because we're not allowed under our Copyright Act to copy copyrighted songs at all without explicit permission - but that also means that we're not yet allowed to copy CDs to our computer and then to the iPod. It's a law that is more honoured in the breach than the observance.
Perhaps you could quote the section of the Terms of Service that you thought outright stated that it was illegal for people in the countries you mentioned?