Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Making Money Selling Music Without DRM

Posted by Zonk on Tue May 23, 2006 10:14 AM
from the actually-owning-your-stuff dept.
Media Music Businesses Technology
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.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Making Money Selling Music Without DRM 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • It's nice to see a company that selling music in a drm-unencumbered format. It's basically doing things right - instead of locking your customers in (after they've bought a track, they find out lots of players can't play it).

    Also, eMusic supports indie artists. Really good to see, because some artists get less then half a cent [boingboing.net] per purchase from other online music stores.
  • Mindawn.com, magnatune.com, studiodownloads.net, disclogic.com, digitalsoundboard.net. There are many more. All work on the ipod. All lossess or (compressed if you want that) no drm. Admittedly the selections is small, but I'd rather have a thousand stores with lossess music and no drm than one store with a large selection.

  • Emusic is cool but there are many great others too (Score:5, Informative)

    by linuxbaby (124641) * on Tuesday May 23 2006, @10:21AM (#15387255)
    Credit where it's due, Emusic has been selling 99-cent downloads since 1998. When Steve Jobs announced it in 2003, everyone acted like it was a shocking new revolutionary idea. But some of us couldn't help but think, "Oh, you mean like Emusic?"

    I'm an Emusic subscriber and love them, but there are LOTS of legal services out there, these days, selling good ol' MP3s (or even FLAC/OGG) with no DRM

    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.

    • But some of us couldn't help but think, "Oh, you mean like Emusic?"

      Correction, some of us couldn't help but think, "Oh, you mean like Emusic, only crippled?"
    • All of MP3 may be "somewhat" legal in Russia but it is fully-non legal for Americans (or Canadians, Australians, and anybody else who is lives in a country that's signed on with international copyright laws) to buy music from them, as it says outright in their terms of service. You cannot legally make a digital copy of copyrighted material you don't already own without the permission of the copyright holder. I don't really care, honestly - I think it's a little foolish doing something that leads such an
    • Not to be a CDBaby fanboy (okay, EXACTLY to be a CDBaby fanboy) but if you're an artist that has listed your CD via CDBaby's digital distribution service, you are listed at eMusic :-)

      And now the shameless plug ... I know this because my band Goodwin [cdbaby.com] is also at eMusic [emusic.com], and according to our accounting reports we're getting some sales.
    • and the somewhat-legal allofmp3.com for the major-label stuff.

      Well, it depends.

      Pot is effectively legal in the Netherlands. But that doesn't mean that Americans can import it from there. That something is legal in one country doesn't mean it will be elsewhere.

      Similarly, for people here in the US, American copyright law is in effect, and Russian copyright law is irrelevant. And the laws here prohibit downloading from allofmp3, regardless of whether they're legal in Russia or not. As I see it, if you're going to pirate music, you might as well not pay shady Russians when it's entirely possible to do it for free.

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

      • Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2006, @12:25PM (#15388197)
        It's a little sickening how you got modded up to 5 just buy throwing a lot of legal verbage (in links no less), none of which actually makes your point.

        Your own first links that you cite point out that phonographs, legally copied, are allowed to be imported. Then you point out that downloads are not physical items, and declare phonographs a "red herring".

        This is the real point, that NONE of your legalese refutes:

        These songs were legally produced in Russia; in Russia, downloading an mp3 and listening to a song are considered about the same thing; the reason the allofmp3 songs are so cheap is because you're basically paying to hear it on the radio (when you consider how many of us used to tape our favorite songs off the radio as kids when we couldn't afford to buy the cassette, this practice isn't that revolutionary).

        If the RIAA doesn't like having its music sold at the rate of radio tunes in Russia, it's free to stop doing business with companies in Russia, free to stop accepting royalties, etc.

        NOTHING in the links you posted implies that legally produced mp3s that are legally purchased and imported for personal use have been found illegal. Certainly, if you did something like share the files around with your friends on bittorrent, that would be a different story.

        But thank you for throwing up that MOUNTAIN of irrelevant legal verbage to disguise the fact that you resent having to pay .99/song off iTunes, when your "in the know" friends have been paying .9-.25/song.
        • Your own first links that you cite point out that phonographs, legally copied, are allowed to be imported.

          Actually, there are significant limits on that. What 17 USC 602 does, as you'd know if you read it, is it prohibits importing phonorecords unless two conditions are both met: 1) that, had US law applied in the place where the phonorecord was made, the making of it would have been legal, and 2) that one of the three exceptions in subsection 602(a) is applicable. Just satisfying one or the other isn't good enough; it has to be both.

          So when you say, These songs were legally produced in Russia, that's not good enough. In order for 602(b) to not prohibit importation, it doesn't matter if it was legal under Russian law. It has to have been legal if US law had applied. And since US law doesn't have the same compulsory licensing scheme that allofmp3 purports to rely upon, it just doesn't work out.

          But again, all of this importation discussion is a red herring. When you download, you are not importing. You are reproducing.

          So to sum up, you said: NOTHING in the links you posted implies that legally produced mp3s that are legally purchased and imported for personal use have been found illegal.

          And you are utterly wrong. It is impossible to import an mp3 by means of downloading it. This is because the statute deals with importing phonorecords. A phonorecord is defined in the law as a material object, such as a CD, or a vinyl record. If you can download one of those, as opposed to the information on it, I'll be impressed. For your next trick, you can download a sandwich. Furthermore, even if you were importing them -- which would basically have to be through the mail or via a courier or something -- that would be illegal because there's really just no way to get around section 602(b).

          If you had bothered to read the relatively small amount of entirely on-point legal documents, you wouldn't have made a fool out of yourself. Let's hope you don't do so again.

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

          Actually, I've never used iTMS. I think it's a rip-off. And I don't resent people who pirate music, whether it's on Allofmp3 or wherever. I think that it ought to be legal for people to download music for free.

          What I don't like is people spreading misinformation about the law. If someone is making a decision whether or not to break the law, I think they should be fully informed. And I think that in order to rally support for changing the law to reduce the scope of copyright, people are going to need to have accurate information as to just how bad copyright is now.

          • Re:Emusic is cool but there are many great others (Score:4, Interesting)

            by 955301 (209856) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @01:40PM (#15388657) Journal
            bzzzzt, wrong again.

            17 USC 602 deals with "copies or phonorecords". Not copies *of* phonorecords.

            And as you yourself just said, "When you download, you are not importing. You are reproducing." Reproducing is copying my verbose friend. And you are off again - sending something over the wire is also considered importing.

            Or have you forgotten the old export controls on cryptographic software transmitted oversears already? You can't have it both ways you know, unless you are saying uploaded is exporting and downloading isn't importing?

            Finally, quoting the statute,

            "This subsection does not apply to-- ...
            (2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage; "

            again, copies or phonorecords. If you the copy is just for yourself or part of your baggage if you physically came through the borders there is no issue.

            • 17 USC 602 deals with "copies or phonorecords". Not copies *of* phonorecords.

              A copy of a phonorecord is also a phonorecord. Take a look at the definition at 17 USC 101.

              And you are off again - sending something over the wire is also considered importing. Or have you forgotten the old export controls on cryptographic software transmitted oversears already?

              I know them, and there are still controls of this nature. However, those regulations, which were enacted by an administrative agency, rather than Congress, specifically define exportation as encompassing Internet transmissions. Congress, on the other hand, has not so defined importation for purposes of copyright law. The agency definition isn't particularly relevant, as it's not of Congressional origin, and deals with an entirely different subject matter. If you want to argue about what copyright law says, you're going to have to do so based on copyright law, not something entirely unrelated. This might seem odd to you, but it's a fairly ordinary situation.

              If you the copy is just for yourself or part of your baggage if you physically came through the borders there is no issue.

              Except of course, that 602(a)(2) only applies to the ban on importation in subsection (a). It does not apply to the independent ban on importation in subsection (b), which you are still failing to address.

              And of course, Allofmp3 has nothing to do with importation anyhow, as I've shown. That's why you had to resort to an example involving baggage, which certainly isn't involved in most people's transactions with Allofmp3.
                • [T]he code indicates the two cases, you insist I be thorough in my responses, I indicate both cases and you suggest I'm resorting to the second?

                  Actually, I don't have any idea what you're even trying to say here.

                  The question we've been discussing has been whether a person in the US who downloads mp3s from Allofmp3 has engaged in copyright infringement punishable under US law. Some uninformed people suggest that the various laws regarding importation yield the answer that such activity is not infringing. They are wrong, and I have shown this. On the other hand, I have pointed out that the laws regarding reproduction are directly on point and do in fact prohibit this downloading.

                  In order to contribute to the discussion, which you haven't done yet, you are going to need to either show, in light of the applicable statutes and caselaw, that it is infringing, or that it isn't. This means not dodging the reproduction issue, and not dodging the vast majority of the importation red herring (if you are going to waste our time with it). So far you've cherry-picked and misinterpreted. It all sounds great, if you don't know anything. But to those of us who are honest, and who really want to know what the law says, your brand of nonsense is pretty sad.

                  Now, if you are trying to talk about 602(a) and (b), you cannot neglect the fact that there are independent prohibitions on importing in both (a) and (b). The exception in (a)(2) only applies to the prohibition in (a). That is why it says 'subsection,' not 'section,' or 'title.' Thus, even when (a)(2) applies, you must still deal with (b). You haven't. You also haven't dealt with the overall inapplicability of importation anyway. You haven't shown that information being transmitted over a wire or through the air is fixed within a material object, as it must be in order to qualify as a phonorecord.

                  And it's a waste of time in any case, because talking about physical movement with baggage over borders is a non sequitur. We're talking about downloading, not traveling to and fro.
                    • It's not importing.

                      Like I said, to import a phonorecord, the phonorecord itself must cross the border. But a phonorecord is defined as a material object. A vinyl record, a CD, an eight-track tape -- those can all be phonorecords. An Internet download cannot be.

                      But the material objects at either end of the download -- the computers, their RAM, their hard drives, etc. -- those can be. So, when you download, you create a new phonorecord at the receiving end. This is the act of reproduction, and it is infringing per 17 USC 501 and 106(1).

                      While I don't care for this result, the Intellectual Reserve case I linked to before does an excellent job of explaining this. This case dealt with people downloading (in order to view) a web page that had been put up unlawfully, but whether we're talking about a web page or an mp3, this analysis will come out the same:

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

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

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

  • Forums (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Freexe (717562) * <serrkr@tznvy.pbz> on Tuesday May 23 2006, @10:21AM (#15387257) Homepage
    eMusic is a really great site and I use up my 90 track limit in the first few days of every month.

    My only problem with it is there is no easy way to request certain artists and albums and get feedback when the albums finally do get added (this is even more true in the UK, not all the tracks are available to download just yet).

  • Don't forget Magnatune (Score:5, Informative)

    by Laurentiu (830504) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @10:22AM (#15387263)
    You bet eMusic is looking forward to the Slashdot effect ;)

    But we should also give credit where credit is due and mention that Magnatune (http://magnatune.com/ [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?
    • I love magnatune - they have a great setup and they "are not evil" - the only thing i wish they would change is that if you buy the CD that the cd be one with album art if there is any, All the albums that i have gotten have been the generic case and label..

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

  • Detroit Digital Vinyl (Score:3, Informative)

    by RexRhino (769423) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @10:25AM (#15387288)
    If anyone is looking for digital downloads of techno and electro music, check out http://www.detroitdigitalvinyl.com/ [detroitdigitalvinyl.com] ... No DRM, 320kbs downloads (with uncompressed .wav files comming in the future), and it was started by Mad Mike of Underground Resistance and Submerge Records so it's got street cred. :)

  • For more examples.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sloppy (14984) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @10:28AM (#15387305) Homepage Journal
    ..of companies that make money selling digital music without DRM, look at just about every company that has sold CDs for the last 20 years. It's not like the model hasn't already proven itself. Even the big media companies know they can profitably sell unDRMed stuff, because that's how they became big media companies. DRM is a "solution" looking for a problem.

      • Re:For more examples.. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by GeckoX (259575) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @11:30AM (#15387825)
        Am I the only one that remembers Taping?
        God, it's just so much WORK to copy a CD, who in their right mind would do that?

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

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

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

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

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

        Quit it already.

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

  • Not exactly accurate (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nanojath (265940) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @10:29AM (#15387307) Homepage Journal
    It's simply false to say there are only two companies selling digital music online that is compatible with iTunes. Two major companies, perhaps, but there are lots of people legally selling MP3s - from artists who are selling their own product independently to Bitpass' music experiment Mperia. It's unfortunate that as yet these sorts of outlets haven't managed to leverage some combination of blogging, feeds, aggregation and online community to simulate something like a unified entity, so that people would notice they were there. I really wonder what the real impact of these sorts of things are - I'm sure I'm not typical but for several years now I've been getting more music from these truly alternative sources (what's eMusic I'd count as alternative mainstream, still pretty solidly within the label system though clearly a different league - though not always a more enlightened one - than Sony, Universal et al). And I know nobody is counting that shit, speaking of lost sales and suchlike.

  • Emusic Linux (Score:3, Informative)

    by mpcooke3 (306161) * on Tuesday May 23 2006, @10:31AM (#15387326) Homepage
    The emusic linux download really sucked when I last used it.

    I ended up ditching it because it was so hard to download albums. Their binary file was linked to some .so file that didn't exist on fedora - and that wasn't the only problem. Even downloading the albums in a zip file would have been better than nothing.

    Their support was also less than helpful.

  • Unexpected Success? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Digital Vomit (891734) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @10:31AM (#15387329) Homepage Journal
    I'm getting the impression that a lot of people/business seem to think that selling music without Digital Restrictions Management and other anti-consumer technology is somehow difficult or not expected to be successful. Um, hello? Does nobody remember the Cassette era, when purchased music was freely recordable and many players had two decks in order to facilitate copying? I don't recall any sort of music industry collapse back then. Sure we didn't have the internet back then, but people still traded music. A lot.

    *SHOCK* *AWE* You can make money selling music that people can freely copy? ZOMG!!1!

    Businesses who think that selling unrestricted music that people can freely copy need only look to the bottled water industry to see that it's possible. In the west we have (effectively) free, clean drinking water, yet people spend billions each year buying it from stores. Sure, anyone can "turn on the tap" of the internet and get their fill of mp3s, but that doesn't mean stores can't make a huge profit selling those exact same mp3s.

    Bottled water sells because of psychological tricks and convenience. MP3s can sell the same way.


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

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

      - There was

      • Re:Unexpected Success? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @11:24AM (#15387786)
        Yes and no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The tone of the article is a bit biased (Score:5, Insightful)

    by UnknowingFool (672806) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @10:46AM (#15387468)
    "The Holy Grail of online music sales is the ability to offer iPod-compatible tracks. Like the quest for the mythical cup itself, the search for iPod compatibility has been largely fruitless for Apple's competitors, whose DRM schemes are incompatible with the iconic music player."

    This article makes it seems that Apple compatibility is holding back companies from selling music online. An iPod will play MP3s. The problem is that the studios will not allow anyone to sell music online without DRM. FairPlay was Apple's solution to this problem. Apple doesn't want to license it, and that's their choice and right. So these companies don't have many choices, but Apple wasn't the one that created the problem. They found a solution that works for them.

  • E-music URL (Score:5, Informative)

    by rueger (210566) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @11:04AM (#15387628) Homepage
    Which bizarrely has not yet been posted here.

    http://www.emusic.com/ [emusic.com]

  • 'indie' versus pop versus ? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ghostlibrary (450718) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @11:06AM (#15387648) Homepage Journal
    The article kept talking about 'indie', but missed the fact that emusic has a huge back catalog of classic rock and earlier. You want Deep Purple or Eric Burdon, they've got it. It's easy to get much of what you hear on classic rock radio. And since so many (too many) stations are switching to 'classic rock', this must mean people want it.

    They also have live stuff. Interested in Colin Hay's solo takes on 'Men at Work', or (back to Deep Purple) live Deep Purple? And what they call indie, I'm not so sure-- Tom Waits gets a lot of media coverage and movie deals for an 'indie'. He's there.

    They also have a phenomenal jazz and blues section, which is yet another niche not served. Miles Davis or Charlie Parker aren't "indy", after all. And there's folk, and celtic, and world. It's that 'long tail' model. Basically, emusic has a mix of radio stuff, and all the stuff you can't buy on CD at your local Walmart anyway.

    I guess I'm tired of anyone not carrying the latest pop being labeled 'indie', particularly given pop's tendency to forget the past. I don't want this to be a commercial for eMusic, just a note that they are offering the kind of stuff that you can hear by dial-hopping on radio, but can't find in most big box stores. That's more than just 'indie'.

  • eMusic is a joy to use.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stick_Fig (740331) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @11:11AM (#15387686) Homepage
    I've been gushing over eMusic for a while, simply because they've just gotten it so right. With their model, they understand, beyond the whole record store mentality, what it means to be a music fan. And you just don't get that with iTunes or (especially) Napster.

    There's just something graceful about a service that surprises you with new bands all the time. I've been able to wade my toes into genres that I wouldn't have touched otherwise, like twee-pop. (Heavenly is a great band.)

    It's nice to know that these guys are not only successful, but they're successful in all the right ways. I have a feeling that there'll be a point where eMusic gets so successful that the major labels have to start taking notice and talking to them more seriously. Beyond the lack of DRM, they just do so many things right.

  • I've never paid for a tune from iTunes -- and since discovering emusic.com, I probably never will.

    Everyone else in the thread has already said it, but I just wanted to add to the chorus of people urging emusic virgins to check the service out.

    In addition to picking up new music from old favorites like Sufjan Stevens, The Decemberists, and The New Pornographers, their insightful reviews and helpful, music-lover-friendly emails have led me to find a bunch of new music I love. Calexico, Tarkio, Gomez.. A bunch of random electronic tracks... Oh, and a bunch of B-3 jazz / blues, like Tony Monaco, Jimmy Smith, Joey DeFrancesco, et al.

    Seriously, it's great. It's like Christmas every month when the downloads renew and I can go grab a couple more albums. I dig it :)

  • Barenaked Ladies (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crossmr (957846) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @11:52AM (#15387974) Journal
    I think even more influential is the Barenaked Ladies initiative they've had on this entire issue.
    I attended a concert in December and purchased a coupon I could redeem at the website for a live recording of that concert. I finally got around to downloading it last week. No DRM, various formats I could download in (either tracked or two huge mp3s perfect for burning)
    as well as PDFs of CD covers and inserts that could be printed.

    I could also purchase any of the other shows they've done, as well as some other things.

    Couple that with the fact that they seem to be a major force behind: http://www.musiccreators.ca/ [musiccreators.ca]

    and you've got one great band that hasn't let me down in 15 years.

    Its nice that a retailer is pushing no DRM, but I think its more important for the artists to get together like they have here. This should be a more important message because its what the artists really want, the retailers are just middle men and their opinion shouldn't hold that much weight with the lawmakers and standards.

  • The Holy Grail of online music sales? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by J. Random Luser (824671) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @02:29PM (#15388987)
    The ability to offer iPod-compatible tracks? Sheesh the iPod can play
    MP3 (8 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, AAC (8 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Music Store, M4A, M4B, M4P), Audible (formats 2, 3, and 4) and WAV. Specs [apple.com]
    and that's the cheap Shuffle. Unprotected AAC is often described as mp4. If eMusic is the only outfit that can make a business model of this, then the others deserve to die...

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

    • Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ingolfke (515826) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @10:22AM (#15387262) Journal
      Not cheaper... but they have a good selection of indie artists you will not find on AllofMp3.com. As the other poster noted, they are legal... not quasi-legal like AllOfMp3.com. Also, it appears that AllofMp3 may be on its way out of business... or at least on hiatus while they work things out with the Russian Mob... I mean government.

          • Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Tweekster (949766) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @11:48AM (#15387955)
            The problems Russia is facing with piracy are mass production piracy outfits that bootleg dvds by the hundred thousand, not a website that actually is legal under Russian law and can no long be considered a loophole (it would have been "fixed" by now otherwise)

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

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

          • Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:4, Informative)

            by Ngwenya (147097) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @12:11PM (#15388123)
            It's back up, but my $10.00 re-charge attempted to charge $257.10 on my card as opposed to $10.00. Thankfully I noticed at the Verified by Visa page, but, it makes me wonder if this is their 'exit strategy' of taking 25x more money than they were authorized to, then running away from the mob to a different country.

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

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

            --Ng

    • well, it is legal (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2006, @10:55AM (#15387542)
      It is not cheaper but it is legal. allofmp3.com is NOT legal, despite what many people say.

      allofmp3.com violates the spirit of the law, if not the exact wording. It is like saying that identity theft was legal because when it first started happening, there was no specific law against it.

      no be sure to tell me how legal it is and how paying money to the russian mob is better then downloading via P2P.

      If you are going to steal music, just fucking steal it and get off your high horse. I personally hove no problem gettign ALL of my music from P2P, and honestly, having spent time in Moscow, see no need to further fund the terrorist organization that is the russian mafia.

      • Re:well, it is legal (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 1u3hr (530656) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @11:34AM (#15387864)
        allofmp3.com is NOT legal, despite what many people say.

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

        Allofmp3.com let off the hook [arstechnica.com]
        3/7/2005

        Moscow Southwest regional prosecutor's office has apparently decided that a loophole in Russian copyright law (it only covers infringement via physical media, e.g., CDs and DVDs) allows Allofmp3.com to continue operations. In addition, Russia employs the concept of compulsory copyrights, where the copyrights belong to the artist or music label, but copyright owners are required to license it to anyone who making a request.
        allofmp3.com violates the spirit of the law, if not the exact wording. It is like saying that identity theft was legal because when it first started happening, there was no specific law against it

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

        • Re:well, it is legal (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Software (179033) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @02:42PM (#15389081) Homepage Journal
          >Moscow Southwest regional prosecutor's office has apparently decided that a loophole in Russian copyright law ... allows Allofmp3.com to continue operations
          ...
          >they just pay a lump sum to a collection agency

          I think you misspelled "regional prosecutor".

      • Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:4, Interesting)

        by FreezerJam (138643) <smith&vex,net> on Tuesday May 23 2006, @12:48PM (#15388322)
        In Canada, I can ...

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

        This is legal.

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

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

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

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

    • Re:ipod compatibility? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Penguinisto (415985) on Tuesday May 23 2006, @10:39AM (#15387390) Journal
      "so if i have mp3s of my own, i cannot put them on an ipod?"

      Yes, you can. In fact, I've never bought a single tune from ITMS but my iPod Nano is packed solid with music (haven't had to go to ITMS - I ripped my entire CD collection to mp3 a long time ago, and continue to do so - much cheaper to buy a used CD in many cases and use it as a 'master copy' of sorts).

      You simply import the music into the iTunes library, make a playlist from it, and transfer it to the iPod.

      /P

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

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.