todd2000 said:Has anyone tried emusic.com, they sell mp3s, and appear to be cheaper then iTunes. Just wondering B4 I go through the signup process for nothing.
Hmmm.... I'll definitely consider.Foucault said:If you're into independent and electronica music there are a lot of options. There's not a lot of Top 40 stuff or hip/hop stuff, but there are some hidden gems. If you're into Belle and Sebastian, Sufjan Stevens, Tiesto, Sasha, Neko Case, Josh Rouse, Arcade Fire, Spoon, The Streets, Johnny Cash, The Stills, New Pornographers, The Decemberists, Cat Power, Jolie Holland, Pretty Girls Make Graves, Bloc Party, Matisyahu, Interpol, Stereolab, The Walkmen, Pavement, Elliott Smith, Dashboard Confessional, The Black Keys, Seu Jorge, Of Montreal, Ladytron, Thievery Corporation, The Mountain Goats, Explosions In The Sky, Underworld, Eels, Badly Drawn Boy, Tom Waits, Animal Collective, Lemon Jelly, Pedro The Lion, Minus The Bear, John Coltrane, Bebel Gilberto, Matthew Dear, Basement Jaxx, Beulah, and Dizzee Rascal.
That is a pretty good list. Not bad for $10 a month for 40 downloads (that's like 25 cents a song), all in MP3 format which will play in your iPod. The quality isn't too bad.
janey said:not legal. or rather, the legality of allofmp3 is questionable.
It is questionable of course. There have been no definitive answers from US legal sources in buying music off of websites with little laws or oversight on copyrights of materials produced in other countries.amateurmacfreak said:Yeah.
Sounds really shady.
Did a quick Google and came up with this: http://www.betanews.com/article/AllofMP3_Goes_Offline_Future_Uncertain/1147717756AJ Muni said:Another vote for allofmp3 ... you can't beat their prices. What is it, like $10 for 10 cd's? Even though they're going thru legal woes....
according to Wiki.Legality in the US
In the United States, at least some supporters of AllOfMP3 have pointed to exceptions in US copyright law, most notably 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2), which provides a personal use exception to the rule that importation of copyrighted items constitutes infringement. This exception only allows only one copy at any one time. Id. A corresponding exception does not exist in § 602(b), however, which governs whether "importation" is prohibited. Under § 603, where importation is prohibited, the federal government may seize or forfeit prohibited items "in the same manner as property imported in violation of the customs revenue laws."
Whether downloading can be construed as importation may be an issue. Importation is defined as a form of distribution of copies and phonorecords (17 U.S.C. § 602(a)). It is questionable whether AllOfMP3.com falls into any of the 602(a) exceptions. See 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1)-(3). However, § 602(b), first sentence, makes clear that importation is prohibited where a copy or phonorecord was unlawfully made. In this case, unlawfully made may be seen as violating the right of reproduction (17 U.S.C. § 106(1)) or the right of distribution (17 U.S.C. § 106(3)) by creating a copy in a machine on an AllOfMP3.com network or in the downloader's computer. Whether it was unlawfully made under 602(b) may depend on the enforcability of the AllOfMP3.com contract which serves as a basis for alleging that rights are obtained from artists for uploaded works at the time of upload. Such contract could fail in light of strong U.S. policy to protect artists from contributory infringers. See MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (04-0480), 545 U.S., 125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005) (noting the significance of underlying unpaid downloads which were infringing). Proponents argue that a statutory construction approach reveals that copies and phonorecords are merely tangible objects, and since downloads are not tangible they are not within 602. However, opponents may counter that this ignores the central rights of the copyright holder under 17 U.S.C. § 106, providing statutory rights to the copyright holder to reproduce and distribute the work.
Thus, even if not "importation" under 602, it will likely still infringe a right set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 106.
Note that the composition itself, which is embodied in the copy or phonorecord, is distinguishable from the copy or phonorecord, defined in part as "material objects." See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (defining phonorecords and copies). This "duality" between composition and sound recording of the composition is recognized in typical music business practice, where a licensee often needs to "clear" a popular song by not only clearing the composition, but the sound recording as well. Often, a compulsory mechanical license is drawn for the sound recording which embodies the composition. See 17 U.S.C. § 115. If this basis is recognized, a court may reject proponents' argument that 602(a) shields downloaders from infringement because importation is defined on the basis of copies or phonorecords, but not their respective underlying works, such as compositions.
Accordingly, viewing 17 U.S.C. § 602 in light of 17 U.S.C. § 106, if a digital file embodying copyrighted work is downloaded from AllOfM3.com without authorization from the copyright holder, it would constitute infringement by the downloader of the exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Proponents of AllofMP3.com point out that there have been no rulings in U.S. courts to date regarding the specific legality of "purchasing" music from AllofMP3.com. However, in light of the above, opponents will likely point out that the lack of specific ruling as to whether AllOfMP3.com is safe, is unavailing as a basis to claim non-infringement.
Further, if infringement is found, certain statutory remedies may be appropriate. 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) provides, "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be." The DMCA also provides notice and takedown provisions, which may be applicable to service providers. 17 U.S.C. § 512. Possible monetary damages may invoked: anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). If willful infringement is found, up to $150,000. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). An injunction may be another appropriate remedy. See 17 U.S.C. § 502.