Which legal mp3 sites do you use?

GO TO ADMIN PANEL > ADD-ONS AND INSTALL VERTIFORO SIDEBAR TO SEE FORUMS AND SIDEBAR

urbanlegend

Toronto Tonto
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
804
Points
0
Location
Toronto
owenstar said:
are these russian sites even safe? I checked the one someone mentioned here and the songs are like .25 each....
my opinion is: if you're going to steal the songs (the russians aren't paying the artists, so you're effectively denying them revenue), then steal the songs from bittorrent/p2p/whatever. don't think that because your parting with some money that you're paying the creatives that created the music.

if you want to support the artist, buy from a legitimate source like itunes, puretracks, emusic, amazon, the label itself or physical cd.

john
 

owenstar

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
54
Points
0
Age
40
I appreciate the help guys...I support music in all forms....

I was an old napster guy....I liked trying new artists and finding live tunes or b-side covers on imports....

I prefer to buy albums....but if I can pay 2 bucks to get my license to ill back that my ex stole rather than 15, ya know?
 

SkiBumMSP

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
13
Points
0
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Me?

eMusic all the way. Of the over 7800+ tracks, not a single one came from iTunes. I very much primarily listen to underground power/progressive metal, which is almost always produced by indies and never played on the radio, thus I find quite a bit of it on eMusic. Heck it has been over 5 years since I've last listened to the radio, so I don't even know what is "popular" anymore as far as that is concerned, and frankly, I really don't care as I found most of it at the time I quit listening to be so stupid, banal, and vapid anyway (edit - a quick cruise through the top-40 charts just now seems to show it has only gotten worse. Britney Spears "Womanizer" at number one? Puuleeez! Glad I jumped off that ship before it sank to these new lows. Seems the only thing that I would even be remotely interested in now-a-days would be Metallica's new one, but where I've seen that band go in the past few years, I am not holding any hope on it).

Of course, whenever possible, I do prefer to get the actual CD. Also found many an artist that gave away free albums on their website. There was one Australian progressive metal band (Voyager) that sold their album as a digital download on their website for something like 8 bucks. I paid them (and they probably got the entire $8, minus whatever cost they had to put up for operating the site), plus the album friggan kicked butt.

However, I do miss the heydey of the old MP3 com (some stupid limit would not let me put in the "correct" name of the website). I found all kinds of really good stuff on there, but sucked trying to download any of it since at the time I only had a crappy, slow 56k dial-up service.

And yes, I'll admit that I have used napster as well as allofmp3 a few times. One thing about allofmp3 (what fascist setup is this kevtching about putting "(dot)com" on a name?), they did have some albums that were otherwise next to near impossible to find by most "traditional" methods, especially some of the older stuff from some of these European power/prog bands that I love listening to that was never released in the US.
 

Code Monkey

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
5,213
Points
0
Location
Midstate New York
owenstar said:
I prefer to buy albums....but if I can pay 2 bucks to get my license to ill back that my ex stole rather than 15, ya know?
I think you're missing a bit of the key points made. If you're going to "save money", it's actually more ethical to simply download or otherwise acquire the album for free than to pay $2 to one of these services. While it's in dispute exactly why artists aren't being compensated from these services, the bottom line is that they are not. Whatever money you are paying is going to the unauthorized sellers and the "licensing" organization, ROMs. No money is going to anyone in the chain of content creators or distributors, just these unauthorized sellers.

Now, there is the issue that, in spite of claims that get thrown around like feces by monkeys, by buying from these organizations you are arguably protecting yourself from the sort of copyright infringement lawsuits that are a small but real possibility when filesharing. That much is true, but it still seems to turn everything on its head, even the arguments for filesharing. You protect yourself from the risk of filesharing but, instead, turn unauthorized distribution of music into a for-profit business while denying profit to everyone who took part in creating or legally distributing that music. This is antithetical to both the music industry AND the mores of filesharing.

Myself, I used these services early on in beefing up my library but, in all honesty, wish I hadn't. I'm out hundreds of dollars I could have used to buy actual CDs and got a lossless source, not to mention that I only have about 30 of the albums I bought, having replaced all the others with better sources from various means. So, had I never bothered to support these groups, I'd be just about in the same place I am today, but have wound up supporting considerably more music through channels that reward content creators in the process.

These services have done their "legitimate" work in helping to force the removal of DRM from most music, but at this point they're just parasites. It's far too easy to get most of the music out there in good quality & DRM free from both legitimate and illegitimate sources without paying someone else "protection money".
 

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,203
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
Code Monkey said:
I think you're missing a bit of the key points made. If you're going to "save money", it's actually more ethical to simply download or otherwise acquire the album for free than to pay $2 to one of these services. While it's in dispute exactly why artists aren't being compensated from these services, the bottom line is that they are not.
Precisely. Not to condone illegal downloading but if you are going to do something illegal, you might as well not pay for it. Most of the times the albums on these services were just taken from torrent sources anyway so you are paying them to download it for you. I would rather just save the $2 and download the album myself. That way I am not giving money to some people in some basement in some house in Russia, I can keep it and possibly support the artists in the future.

Code Monkey said:
Now, there is the issue that, in spite of claims that get thrown around like feces by monkeys, by buying from these organizations you are arguably protecting yourself from the sort of copyright infringement lawsuits that are a small but real possibility when filesharing.
It is true that one avoids the RIAA knocking down on their door when using these services. Additionally, if the U.S. court system ever outlaws downloading from these sites, one can be protected by simply saying "I was paying for music, I thought it was legal." The RIAA went after people who used Kazaa, there was a handful of them who actually paid for Kazaa Gold. The courts didn't do anything to them (not really, not when compared to the other people who used Kazaa for free) as the people thought that Kazaa Gold was legal as they paid for it. So people are kind of protecting themselves on two levels when using these sites. Still, why give your money to someone in Russia (with the artist never getting it) when you can just skip the middleman and get the content for free (with the artist never getting the money)?


Code Monkey said:
These services have done their "legitimate" work in helping to force the removal of DRM from most music, but at this point they're just parasites. It's far too easy to get most of the music out there in good quality & DRM free from both legitimate and illegitimate sources without paying someone else "protection money".
That is a positive aspect that has helped push iTunes Plus and the Amazon mp3 store. The record companies (along with distribution stores like iTunes and Amazon) saw that people were more willing to pay for non-DRM mp3 files than DRM ridden WMA files. This has caused stores like Napster and Wal-Mart to switch to DRM-free mp3 models.

Still, these Russian services really shouldn't be used if people care about giving the artists money or about reserving quality. Like you said (Code Monkey), you spent all sorts of money in the beginning to increase your library size and now regret it as you could have spent your money on the CDs. Taking things further; people could just spend their money at the Amazon mp3 store and get higher quality files than those being offered on these Russian sites. I know that many of them offer lossless content but these lossless files often come from -V 2 encoded mp3 files, that is not true lossless (ie CD quality).
 

Sparky_92

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
221
Points
0
urbanlegend said:
(the russians aren't paying the artists, so you're effectively denying them revenue),
Proof? All I see is racism here. Russians == evil. Honestly, I've search all over the RIAA's site and have not seen any statements that allofmp3 is bad.

I know alot of people buy direct from China (DealExtreme is one) because it's cheaper. Are you sure they aren't illegal or making copies/violating patent law?:shake:
 

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,203
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
No one is saying that Russians are evil, don't put words into our mouths. We are simply stating that these Russian services don't pay the artists any royalties. Simply do a Google search for allofmp3 and you will see the countless number of times that the U.S., UK, and many other countries have taken them to court. Why do you think the site had to be shutdown? It definitely wasn't because everything was rosy.

You also can't compare electronics/accessories to music, sorry. A website can sell whatever electronics they want. A person can do whatever they want with equipment once they purchase it. This includes reselling it at cheaper prices. People are also free to purchase knockoff products. It is the responsibility of the primary companies to go after anyone who illegally knocks off their product, not the person/group selling it. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Music != electronics
 

bdb

On the B side of life
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
4,223
Points
0
Age
60
Location
Portland, OR
Actually if you research it a bit, you'll see that the American companies were refusing the payments. There's a reason for this:

1. Allofmp3 sold songs for about 7 cents each. That's gone up, but its still very small.
2. Under licence № ЛС-ЗМ-02-36, allofmp3 is required to give 15% to the ROMS collection agency. That was about a penny, now its about double that.
3. ROMS stated that they offered the money to the copyright holder, after taking out their own fees.

So the copyright holders were faced with the choice of getting about a penny per song (and relinquishing their right to take action on the fact that songs are being sold without their permission), or to refuse that pittance and seek a more equitable arrangement. It was an easy choice.
 

Sparky_92

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
221
Points
0
bdb said:
Actually if you research it a bit, you'll see that the American companies were refusing the payments. There's a reason for this:

1. Allofmp3 sold songs for about 7 cents each. That's gone up, but its still very small.
2. Under licence № ЛС-ЗМ-02-36, allofmp3 is required to give 15% to the ROMS collection agency. That was about a penny, now its about double that.
3. ROMS stated that they offered the money to the copyright holder, after taking out their own fees.

So the copyright holders were faced with the choice of getting about a penny per song (and relinquishing their right to take action on the fact that songs are being sold without their permission), or to refuse that pittance and seek a more equitable arrangement. It was an easy choice.
Ok, so the music companies are refusing to accept payment. I still don't see ANY law that says it's illegal to purchase music from allofmp3. I just see a bunch of posts that says "Russians are evil". Heck, the RIAA says that single mom's who daughters download a few Britney Spears songs are EVIL (thus suing them for $22,000) :shake: , but NOT ONE post about buying songs internationally?
 

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,203
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
Well there aren't any laws that explicitly say it is illegal to download songs from The Pirate Bay but that still doesn't make it fine. Why do you think the RIAA and U.S. government went after allofmp3? The website had to eventually close down due to all the pressure from the many outside influences. Buying songs internationally? I don't see what that has to do with allofmp3. Sure, these websites are legal in Russia but they fail to follow proper payment towards copyright holders. That is technically stealing whether the law explicitly states that websites like allofmp3 are bad or not. I can read all sorts of modern laws and never see the words torrent, Kazaa, Napster, and so on. The cases will use this words quite a bit but the laws never do.

The laws don't say a lot of things but the rulings of court systems and vague language can make or break many actions. I do agree that the RIAA often takes things too far by going after kids, moms, and other sorts of people. The only problem is that you tend not to hear about the cases of people (adults as they are over the age of 18) with 100,000 illegally downloaded onto their computer.

My main argument against websites like allofmp3 is that you are paying someone to just download the content for you. As I have said, many of their "lossless" files actually come from lossy sources and there are many times (mainly when an album is first leaked) when they just download a leaked -V 2 album and charge people for it. People might as well just learn how to download torrents if they are going to step around proper copyright payments. Why pay someone money to sit in a basement to download content for you when you can just do it for free? The artists aren't getting any money for their content anyway so why bother paying?

I don't condone illegal downloading but I would do that any day over paying mp3sparkz (or whatever) $2.00 to get a -V 2 encoded album. I think that is one of the dumbest things that anyone can do. People should just wait as stores like Hastings (they sell books, music, used music, movies, and games) often have albums for $5. The Amazon mp3 store will often offer $5 (or less) album downloads that are encoded at a minimum of 256kbps CBR (much better than most of the content offered on those Russian websites).

I am not saying that the RIAA is my new Daddy and Russians are evil (anyone who actually interpreted peoples' comments as saying this are ######ed) but I do think that artists deserve some type of money for their work. There are many artists that spread their work without wanting payment and that is their decision. However, if a band wants to get paid, they should be paid. The music industry is hard enough as it is (unless you have a legion of tween fans) and I would not want to take money away from them.
 

bdb

On the B side of life
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
4,223
Points
0
Age
60
Location
Portland, OR
Russia committed to get their law in line with international standards (i.e. they don't get to distribute music without the copyright owners' permission) by September of last year, so it should be illegal by now. They don't seem to be actively enforcing it, of course.

Sparky_92 said:
I still don't see ANY law that says it's illegal to purchase music from allofmp3. I just see a bunch of posts that says "Russians are evil".
Actually the only posts that say that are yours. None of this was ever a statement about Russians as a people - it only had to do with Russia because they were the country with the odd laws that let agencies take a product without the owners' permission. Whether its "evil" to cheat copyright owners and artists (by paying them a tiny fraction of the set value of their product) is a personal call.
 
Last edited:

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,203
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
Legal threats are not the same as actual laws. Let me repeat: there is no law saying that it is illegal to download from The Pirate Bay but it is still illegal to download the torrent (the file/s linked to the torrent) and to share the torrent. There is no law saying that it is illegal to download from allofmp3 yet the action is still technically illegal. You can "beg to differ" all you want but there are no laws that explicitly point out The Pirate Bay. They may receive legal threat after legal threat but that is not the same as an actual law.
 

speedythecat

New member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
206
Points
0
Location
Maryland's Eastern Shore, USA
In this order:

Amazon Mktplace (KILLER!!!)
Half.com
Amazon.com
eBay (cd lots)
yard sales

B&M Stores:

Bestbuy (via price matching)
Wal-Mart ($7 deals here and there)
Target (but very seldom)

I buy CDs only. No downloads for me. I have bought over 200 in the last 4-6 weeks with the majority costing less than $4 shipped, including the brand new jewel case each one goes into upon receiving.

I only buy new on the rare occasions they are priced very low and the used are close to that price, shipped. Or when it's a commonly known example of where the latest remasterblows away the previous release (which is not always the case).

For example, I purchased all the RUSH remasters (mind blowing sq) mostly for $6.99 and free shipfrom amazon.com.

I owe everything I know about CD shopping to Galley, seriously!
 
Last edited:

jack21stsmith

New member
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1
Points
0
Currently ripping the the households CD collection. Still got 500 odd to go!

And I download from iTunes and what have you.
 
Top