Obtaining Legal MP3s Outside of the U.S.? 623
frankkubiak asks: "I recently bought the new iPod with 40GB. I understand the arguments of the record industry, that I should buy the music I want to hear. Alright. So I don't want to get MP3 files by file-sharing. But here is my problem: I live outside the U.S., in Germany to be exact. iTunes only offers service to those inside the U.S. (see this related Slashdot article). I don't want a CD, vinyl record, tape or minidisc. I simply want to listen to the music. Even if I decide to buy a legacy audio CD, it is often copy-protected and won't load in my PC. So, strictly speaking, it is not even an audio-CD. Heise keeps a database of those un-CDs (German language. English speakers can use this fish-translated page). It sounds incredible, but even after hours of research on the web, I don't see a legal way to use this device with new songs. The only way I see to use this device is to buy a CD, and if I can't rip it, I'll have to [break the law and] download the MP3-file via file-sharing. I believe there are more people like me out there who want to listen to their music, without feeling guilty. Why is there no one meeting this demand? How does Slashdot feel about this?" Before you mention Napster, let's note that it has similar restrictions (see the "International Considerations" section). So where can non-U.S. internet users go to download the legal MP3s that they want?
This may sound stupid but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it illegal? (Score:3, Interesting)
I couldn't live without (Score:1, Interesting)
I know we've got a few over-bearing laws here, but I'm sure other copyright protections are more than sufficent to cover this sort of thing.
I gave up and ripped my CDs (Score:5, Interesting)
I gave up and resorted to buying CDs, ripping them, then burning them. Most CD ripping software seems to be capable of working around the 'copy protection' on the CDs I have had experiance with. Its horrible because I live in tiny student housing and generally end up leaving the jewel cases and discs at my parents to save space and clutter.
The music industry's grim determination to stop me from listening to music I have paid for has yet to cease amazing me.
Re:Is it illegal? (Score:1, Interesting)
Record off the radio... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fuck Em (Score:1, Interesting)
hmm... (Score:1, Interesting)
Legal Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Hopefully the precedent setting case would come down on the side of the consumet.
Get a decent ripper (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Get a decent ripper (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I gave up and ripped my CDs (Score:5, Interesting)
From http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml [neil.eton.ca]:
Try Magnatune (Score:2, Interesting)
Granted, it doesn't have Britney Spears or Moby, but you may be surprised at what you can find there.
Re:Don't feel guilty (Score:1, Interesting)
Don't feel guilty they can afford it.
Re:This may sound stupid but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
www.allofmp3.com
which is a russian site. high variable bit rate encoding of songs from quite a large catalog for about
Buy iTunes Gift Certificates! (Score:2, Interesting)
innocent until caught (Score:2, Interesting)
If it wasn't for services like Soulseek [slsknet.org] and Suprnova [suprnova.org] I probably wouldn't know half of the good music I know now. My policy is to download the music, evaluate it, and buy it if it's something I want to keep. Since the music I listen to rarely get any air time on the radio, I don't have much choice.. short of blindly wasting money on random CD's. And no, I don't believe that 30 second 32kbps/22khz mp3 previews does music any justice.
So well, it sucks to break the law, but as long as you can avoid getting prosecuted I believe the moral question is up to yourself: "Is what I'm doing wrong?". I mean, in my case the record industry is actually getting more money from me because I've got access to fileshare networks.
Eventually, the record industry will have to move with the flow.. I believe we'll see many more "iTunes sites" in the future.
downloading no more illegal than ripping (Score:1, Interesting)
In reality though, it doesnt matter anyway. If you own the CD, you are never going to be sued for downloading the same music in MP3 form.
FWIW, people in the UK can use "My Coke Music [mycokemusic.com]". I have no idea if it is available for people in Germany.
Weblisten (Score:3, Interesting)
It's in Spain, it's legal and their site is both in English and in Spanish: Weblisten [weblisten.com].
Re:This may sound stupid but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
So you should rip your own stuff, and see if "they" care.
Re:Record off the radio... (Score:1, Interesting)
Now.... you could put an mp3 on a cassette *as data*. People used to use cassettes as data disks in the olden days of computing (large storage space, low cost). I have no clue how this would be interpreted under the current laws. It would be a pretty hilarious hack, actually.
Simple: Use iRATE (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This may sound stupid but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Would I be breaking any laws for downloading and MP3 of a song I have on vinyl?
If you think about it, vinyl is superior to both the CD and the MP3, so downloading the lossy MP3 should not be a problem.
Comments?
--
Re:Is it illegal? (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, transient or otherwise ephemeral copies which are required to actually use the content you're purchased are allowed, so it's arguable that in order to listen to the music on the device of your choice, in this case an iriver, you need to make a transient copy to mp3 in order to actually use the product, and thus are within your rights.
Making a CD-CD copy to stick in your car, so it doesn't matter if it gets scratched is definitely illegal though. CD-tape you might get away with under the law though...
I suspect though, the music companies are much happier corrupting CD's away from the red book standard, thus removing our ability to listen to said CD in whatever device we like, when we like - this back door method is far simpler for them than trying to prosecute the hardware companies in a court case they'd likely lose (see tape record buttons on radios and VCR's). Oh, and DRM'ing legal downloads to the hilt while they're at it.
Fortunately on the paranoia side, copyright infringement is primarily a civil matter, (you need to be in the big leagues before they hit you with criminal penalties) thus the CPS wouldn't prosecute you, the BPI (UK equivalent of the RIAA) would have to. Avoiding your taxes is a much more serious offence in the eyes of HMGov... until the newest bit of euro legislation gets drafted for the UK, anyway, at which point it doesn't matter if you're al copone or his neighbour's little daughter downloading britney, you can be hit with same criminal penalties, search and seizure, etc etc.
Re:This may sound stupid but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Currently with the Free Trade Agreement negotiated with (or forced on us by) the U.S., australia is set to introduce the "mickey mouse" clause [zdnet.com.au] into copyright and bring the whole place more in line with ill-considered U.S. laws. The Sharman networks raid caught me by surprise, but there has been very little said about it in official political circles. It's an election year here too and Australian political parties aren't really known for their tech-saviness at the best of times. It will be extremely difficult for the current government politically if the FTA isn't accepted.
As far as copyright goes, there's a reason it was sacrificed on the altar of free trade: it's expend- extendable..
Re:This may sound stupid but.... (Score:1, Interesting)
The law is called "copyright." It concerns itself with who has the right to make copies. The law says, in general, that the only person who has the right to make copies is the person who holds the copyright. (Duh.) There are exceptions, situations in which the right to make copies is granted implicitly. For example, if you buy a CD, you have the implicit right to make copies of the music on that CD for your own use.
That does not mean that anybody else gets the right to make copies on your behalf. That would be crazy. "Some guy in Topeka bought the new Britney Spears CD, so now we have the right to make copies of it." That's just not logical.
You might disagree with the law (though, frankly, it's hard to see how you could unless you just adopt the extremist, info-anarchist, "rights are dumb" position), but you have to admit that at least it's grounded in internally consistent principles.
Re:www.allofmp3.com (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I'm concerned, I already downloaded Robbie Williams' "Escapology". Picked "256kbit
Re:I use the following.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Perhaps he should have said "Do you think the artists are being compensated at all at 10 cents a song". I seriously doubt they see a single penny of that dime, but I know the RIAA does give them at least some money from each sale (or perhaps simply a bulk price for the entire album, it depends on their publishing deal).
Personally, I'm a game developer, and games has a piracy problem similar to music, in that people are making illegal copies of my works all the time. I never see any money from those illegal copies (even if you pay someone 10 cents or $1 for a burned CD of the copy), and it hurts the sales numbers from the games I make. If those sales numbers are low, not only do I see lower compensation from the game overall, but I'll also have a harder time convincing a publisher to put out the next game I make - so not only am I not making any money, but I won't be able to make any money in the future, either. All because someone wanted to 'stick it to the man' or thought that 'the industry wasn't giving me what I deserved for my work', so they decided to steal it.
Re:This may sound stupid but.... (Score:2, Interesting)
What irks me is that most blank media is probably being used to record and copy original content and data, yet the vultures and leeches are getting paid via this levy for non-licensed works.
I just wish that someone in a position of power would realise this.
Sadly they don't have the faintest idea. Only recently John Tingle a member of the NSW Parliament wrote a letter to the Editor of a local Electronics Magazine. It was a few months ago and I don't have the article handy. From memory; In the letter he mentioned how distraught he was that a huge classical collection of CD's he owned was deteriorating now that they are some 15 years old. He was complaining that he couldn't buy replacements and had to resort to copying them although some were beyond recovery and the recording label could not sell him replacements.
What he missed was that he has already paid for a perpetual license to listen to this material. Therefore by offering to buy new copies, he would have been paying twice to listen to music he has already licensed. He also failed to realise that he is also paying a media levy for the blanks he is now using to duplicate his collection on, and therefore the recording company are once again, effectively charging him twice for the same license.
With goons like this passing legislation, what hope have we got.
Pre-paid ITMS cards should do the trick (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:www.allofmp3.com (Score:3, Interesting)
When you're downloading, you're creating a new copy on the downloader's end. This is a form of reproduction, not distribution (though the uploader making it available is distribution).
Since the reproduction is likely happening within the US, Russian copyright holders don't have authority to permit it.
RIAA may have a difficult time doing anything about this, but that doesn't make it legal.
Re:I use the following.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting thing: I've just spent the last hour tooling around on mp3search.ru. Spent 20 bucks to download a bunch of old stuff that I hadn't heard for years or never heard before.
Guess what? I just realized I have to go out and buy the original CDs for the stuff I downloaded, because I want higher quality.
Why does it take a 'dubious' Russian website to accomplish this?
I think it's safe to say that I have no respect for the RIAA. Nor do I for lazy artists that bitch about their music being 'stolen' after selling their sole to the devil because they had $$ signs in their eyes.
Legal or not, we are at a state of flux and as far as I am concerned, the RIAA can go fuck themselves. When all this is sorted THEN we'll see what's illegal and what's not.
The Fitehouse General Public Music License (Score:3, Interesting)
Both tracks are available for free download. Furthermore, The Bomb's first track, Running Scared [fitehouse.com] is released under the new Fitehouse General Public Music License [fitehouse.com], which goes further than the Creative Commons or EFF Open Audio Licenses in that it requires the release of the studio master tracks from which a piece of music is composed: also on The Bomb's download piece are uncompressed WAV files with the raw, unmixed audio of each of the instrumental and vocal parts.
So if you like, you could record yourself singing and mix it with the other tracks from Running Scared.
Borrow a CD and copy it, its legal in Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
Other countries have a similar law in place, you should check it out.
I can't speak for Slashdot, (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This may sound stupid but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The bogeyman of "infinite resolution" with regard to vinyl is just that; it isn't true, and it really oversimplifies what's going on. "Sampling of discrete values" makes it sound as if you're only getting a summary of the information contained in an original waveform, which isn't true.
Yes, the data on a CD is made up of samples. These *represent* the waveform, but are not *the* waveform. The DA step converts these samples back into the original waveform. There is no continuity "lost" in this process, depending on the frequency response and SNR of the original signal.
For example, say you have an analogue tape that has data of up to 16kHz. By Nyquist, 44.1kHz is more than enough room to encompass *all* of that data, and the 16bits gives (going by memory, so I'm likely wrong on this figure) 96dB of dynamic range; far more, in other words, than vinyl ever had.
I'd really like to find an audiophile someday who'll admit to liking the inherent analogue distortion in records. It's pleasing! Great. It isn't enough to elevate audio *above* science, somehow.
Check out sites like Maple Shade Records [mapleshaderecords.com] for prime voodoo. As the same people who believe that analogue is always inherently superior to digital believe that a glorified hatrack "improves soundstage, makes highs livelier, and sounds like a blanket has been removed from your speakers"...I can't say I have much to do with them.
Re:This may sound stupid but.... (Score:2, Interesting)
It amazes me how little the laws matter. Anyone can circumvent CD protection with a bit of research. It's illegal, sure, but it's easy.
Re:This may sound stupid but.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, that is exactly the law in Canada right now. The guy in Topeka is not allowed to make a copy and give it to me (distribution), but I can borrow the CD and make a copy, or I can copy a copy of his CD (including MP3s). So it's legal for me download.
In fact, it does make (some) logical sense. This law was made to recognize the common act of making mixed tapes/CDs and sharing among friends. It is a recognition that sharing is not inherently immoral. (In fact, saying that sharing is immoral seems more illogical.) Sharing is something that should be encouraged. On the other hand, music creators need to make a living, so to (supposedly) compensate them, we pay a levy on recordable media.
This isn't a black & white issue. It's definitely a shade of grey.