PDA

View Full Version : MP3 P2P sites like LImewire



Newfiestang50
2009-11-05, 20:02
Guys,

I am new to all this software and Mp3 downloading so let me know if I am stepping out of line by asking this. I want to down some more Mp3's to add to my collection that I got from friends and I was suggested the site Limewire. I am sure some of you are aware of it.

Is it legal to download Mp3's from this site and others like it? If not I will not use it, what is a legal site and how much are the usual annual fees?

Thanks

pfarrell
2009-11-05, 20:18
Newfiestang50 wrote:
> Is it legal to download Mp3's from this site and others like it? If not
> I will not use it, what is a legal site and how much are the usual
> annual fees?

It is not a good idea to get legal advice from an Internet forum. But
this one is easy. Nearly all "music sharing" sites are encouraging
illegal activity.

There is some free music on the 'net.

But if the site has mainstream groups of pop music, then they have to
charge money. No money, then its not likely to be legal.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

tedfroop
2009-11-05, 20:23
I always look at it like this. Someone did work and spent some money to create that music.
Just like I expect to get paid fairly when I work - I expect to pay a fair price when I use the results of their work.

Newfiestang50
2009-11-05, 20:30
I just noticed that Limewire Pro has a fee to join but the basic version is free, not sure what the difference is?

So what are some good sites that are charging to download Mp3's?

Newfiestang50
2009-11-05, 20:35
I always look at it like this. Someone did work and spent some money to create that music.
Just like I expect to get paid fairly when I work - I expect to pay a fair price when I use the results of their work.

I agree, and I have made good contribution over the years with over 1500 Cd's in my collection. I'm not looking for a free Mp3 site, I just want a reliable good quality site to download some Mps's and I am willing to pay.

andyg
2009-11-05, 20:49
Some good places to buy legal music:

http://www.amazon.com/mp3
http://www.napster.com
http://www.rhapsody.com
http://www.apple.com/itunes

brucegrr
2009-11-05, 20:53
http://www.amazon.com
http://emusic.com

downloads from .25 to .99 each. Emusic has a free trial, 25 songs. Check it out.

JeffHart
2009-11-05, 21:12
You might also want to check out www.lala.com, I've looked at a couple tracks and they were VBRs for $0.89@

Newfiestang50
2009-11-05, 21:31
I checked out some of these sites and it seems like they want to charge monthly rates, in the range of $10 to $15 per month plus anywhere from $.89 to $1.25 to download the songs. I'm confused, what will the monthly fee alow me to do, listin to the song once, twice.... I dont get it, someone please explain.

radish
2009-11-05, 21:34
Amazon and iTunes are both per-track pricing with no monthly subscription.

MrSinatra
2009-11-06, 02:27
i love limewire and shareaza.

its only illegal IF its copyrighted, afaik. so how do you know? thats the risk i suppose. but then again, the RIAA isn't instigating any new cases anymore, so i wouldn't worry.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_downloading_songs_from_LimeWire_illegal_or_lega l

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html?mod=rss_whats_news_techn ology

Newfiestang50
2009-11-06, 09:40
i love limewire and shareaza.

its only illegal IF its copyrighted, afaik. so how do you know? thats the risk i suppose. but then again, the RIAA isn't instigating any new cases anymore, so i wouldn't worry.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_downloading_songs_from_LimeWire_illegal_or_lega l

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html?mod=rss_whats_news_techn ology

So are MP3's coded or marked differently on sites like Limewire so the user can know and then make the decision to download or not?

snarlydwarf
2009-11-06, 10:01
So are MP3's coded or marked differently on sites like Limewire so the user can know and then make the decision to download or not?

Anything copyrightable is, unless specifically denoted otherwise by the IP owner, copyrighted. This is the nature of the Berne convention. See http://www.copyright.gov

RIAA claimed to stop doing mass lawsuits last December. That is untrue.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/hypocrisy-or-necessity-riaa-continues-filing-lawsuits.ars

March 2009 is well after December 2008, and they were still filing lawsuits then. They are still filing them now.

Add in that it should be obvious that when the artist receives nothing at all for their music without handing it over to the public domain, someone got ripped off.

Newfiestang50
2009-11-06, 10:11
Anything copyrightable is, unless specifically denoted otherwise by the IP owner, copyrighted. This is the nature of the Berne convention. See http://www.copyright.gov

RIAA claimed to stop doing mass lawsuits last December. That is untrue.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/hypocrisy-or-necessity-riaa-continues-filing-lawsuits.ars

March 2009 is well after December 2008, and they were still filing lawsuits then. They are still filing them now.

Add in that it should be obvious that when the artist receives nothing at all for their music without handing it over to the public domain, someone got ripped off.

Couldn't agree more, we all like to get paid for our services!!

MrSinatra
2009-11-06, 16:35
So are MP3's coded or marked differently on sites like Limewire so the user can know and then make the decision to download or not?

limewire is an app, altho it has a website. i think it has some kind of optional copyright warning thing, (or maybe drm/license, or both) but i'm not sure. i wouldn't trust it to know whats copyrighted and what isn't tho to be honest.

a lot of bands encourage p2p sharing of audience recordings, like phish or grateful dead. google for more info. a lo of other "undiscovered" or smaller bands put their cds on the net purposely just to get exposure, b/c bands these days know that touring is how they will get paid.

MrSinatra
2009-11-06, 16:47
RIAA claimed to stop doing mass lawsuits last December. That is untrue.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/hypocrisy-or-necessity-riaa-continues-filing-lawsuits.ars

March 2009 is well after December 2008, and they were still filing lawsuits then. They are still filing them now.

read your article:


Given that the music industry has collectively decided that the sue-'em-all approach wasn't working, and given that it costs money at a time when the RIAA is suffering layoffs and budget cuts, why bother with cases against individuals in Omaha? Surely the group could simply not file the newly-named case; and while it's at it, why don't the labels just drop the drawn-out cases against Jammie Thomas in Minnesota and Joel Tenenbaum in Massachusetts?

The RIAA speaks
We put that question to the music trade group. Spokesperson Jonathan Lamy says that new cases were in fact no longer initiated after the summer of 2008, but cases like the Adams one—which have been in process since early 2007, remember—need to continue.

He casts the issue as one of fairness. "We're obviously pleased to transition to a new program going forward but that doesn't mean we can give a free pass to those who downloaded music illegally in the past," he told Ars. "How fair would it be to the thousands of individuals who took responsibility for their actions and settled their case while others are let off the hook? We're still in the business of deterrence and it must be credible."

Well... okay. Maybe. But how fair is it to the thousands of individuals who took responsibility for their actions and settled their cases while everyone else in the country was let off the hook after the summer of 2008?

so unless the RIAA initiated a case against you, either specifically or as an yet unknown "john doe" back in summer 2008 or before, you're in the clear, so the OP has no worries since he has never used p2p.


Add in that it should be obvious that when the artist receives nothing at all for their music without handing it over to the public domain, someone got ripped off.

but that doesn't say anything about p2p tools. p2p has totally legit uses, the apps aren't responsible for the usage. as to worrying about if someone got ripped off or not, its a matter of personal conscience. i have to say tho, i don't think the artists/labels worry too much about charging $20/cd, or strangling radio/net-radio.

Newfiestang50
2009-11-06, 20:49
Amazon and iTunes are both per-track pricing with no monthly subscription.

I just registered with Itunes, Amazon won't sell to Canadians.

snarlydwarf
2009-11-06, 21:07
I just registered with Itunes, Amazon won't sell to Canadians.

Be careful: itunes 'regular' tracks have DRM, and will only play on iTunes or iPods. You have to pay extra for non-drm tracks.

Have a look around emusic.com as well: Sony now has a deal with them, so there are tons of 'new' artists on there like some guy named Robert Zimmerman who apparently is very successful under his stage name of 'Dylan'... I think his whole catalog is online at emusic now.

Emusic you pay $X for up to Y downloads/month (various plans are available), so you pay whether you download or not, but if you use all or even most of your downloads each month, it's very cheap per-track.

Newfiestang50
2009-11-06, 21:21
Be careful: itunes 'regular' tracks have DRM, and will only play on iTunes or iPods. You have to pay extra for non-drm tracks.

Have a look around emusic.com as well: Sony now has a deal with them, so there are tons of 'new' artists on there like some guy named Robert Zimmerman who apparently is very successful under his stage name of 'Dylan'... I think his whole catalog is online at emusic now.

Emusic you pay $X for up to Y downloads/month (various plans are available), so you pay whether you download or not, but if you use all or even most of your downloads each month, it's very cheap per-track.

So what you are saying is that some songs that I download from iTunes will not function on the SB players.

How about the album art, I just updated my whole library using iTunes. Will the SB units be able to use that. This leads me to another question, the album art does not show up out in my music folders on my PC, just in the iTunes software, why is that.

funkstar
2009-11-07, 03:08
So what you are saying is that some songs that I download from iTunes will not function on the SB players.
If the track you buy and download has DRM you will only be able to play that track on Apple hardware. They will not play on your Squeezebox.

From Wikipedia though:

On January 6, 2009 at the Macworld Expo, Apple announced a significant overhaul of the iTunes Plus catalog with Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, Warner Music Group and EMI offering all their music in iTunes Plus immediately. As of the announcement, 8 million songs were available in Apple's DRM-free format. As of April 2009, all songs are now available in the iTunes Plus format, with the exception of the Japanese iTunes store.

So I wouldn't worry about that too much.


How about the album art, I just updated my whole library using iTunes. Will the SB units be able to use that. This leads me to another question, the album art does not show up out in my music folders on my PC, just in the iTunes software, why is that.
Album art is embeded in the actual files, not at a seperate image fine in the music folder. The album art will show on SB units with colour screens and the web interface.

Newfiestang50
2009-11-07, 10:10
[QUOTE]Album art is embeded in the actual files, not at a seperate image fine in the music folder. The album art will show on SB units with colour screens and the web interface.[QUOTE]

But what I meant to say is that a particular song when viewed using iTunes displays the album art fine but when I go out to the same MP3 in my music folder on my C: drive the album art in not there. How do I get it to display in both places.

I am concerned about this because it is taking me alot of time to get this sorted out and if I abandon iTunes for a better music store later I dont want to have to do this all over again.

Steve Bernard, Jr
2009-11-07, 11:15
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:07 PM, snarlydwarf
<snarlydwarf.419j7b1257566881 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
> Newfiestang50;482593 Wrote:
>> I just registered with Itunes, Amazon won't sell to Canadians.
>
> Be careful: itunes 'regular' tracks have DRM, and will only play on
> iTunes or iPods. You have to pay extra for non-drm tracks.
>

This is incorrect, at least for iTunes in the United States. The
'iTunes Plus" format, which indicates a 256 kbps AAC file, has the
same pricing levels as the old-fashioned iTunes music format (a 128
kbps AAC file with a proprietary DRM layer). This is nominally 99
cents US, but can very by 30 cents either way since tiered pricing was
introduced earlier this year which allows labels to charge more for
new releases and offer discounts for others. iTunes does not sell DRM
and non-DRM versions of the same files; once the release is available
as iTunes Plus, it is no longer offered in a DRM format.

What you may be thinking of is the 'upgrade' offer that Apple made
available for people who previously purchased a DRM file before the
iTunes Plus format became available. Apple charges 30 cents US to
'upgrade' (replace) old tracks with new versions. This is a concern
for people who bought music in the past, but is a negligible concern
these days at the point of sale for those just starting a collection.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, iTunes Plus is now the default
format even for most major labels. There is still a chance that
you'll come across music you wish to buy that is in a DRM format,
which would of course mean device lock-in and a potential future 30
cents per track payment to get iTunes Plus versions if they become
available.

Again, I can speak only from experience has a US consumer, so someone
with first-hand experience purchasing from Canadian iTunes may have a
different tale to tell.

-Steve

mfie
2009-11-07, 11:41
If you want free and legal music you should take a look at www.jamendo.com.

funkstar
2009-11-07, 12:35
But what I meant to say is that a particular song when viewed using iTunes displays the album art fine but when I go out to the same MP3 in my music folder on my C: drive the album art in not there. How do I get it to display in both places.

I am concerned about this because it is taking me alot of time to get this sorted out and if I abandon iTunes for a better music store later I dont want to have to do this all over again.
Hmmm, perhaps iTunes keeps the artwork in its own database. I don't use iTunes, I just assumed it would embed the artwork. I know Squeezebox server can display iTunes artwork. Someone else is going to have to clarify this point.

That is reason enough for me to stay away from iTunes (yet alone the dozens of other reasons I will never touch it).

Steve Bernard, Jr
2009-11-07, 14:32
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:35 PM, funkstar
<funkstar.41aq5z1257622561 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
> Newfiestang50;482785 Wrote:
>> But what I meant to say is that a particular song when viewed using
>> iTunes displays the album art fine but when I go out to the same MP3 in
>> my music folder on my C: drive the album art in not there. How do I get
>> it to display in both places.
>>
>> I am concerned about this because it is taking me alot of time to get
>> this sorted out and if I abandon iTunes for a better music store later I
>> dont want to have to do this all over again.
> Hmmm, perhaps iTunes keeps the artwork in its own database. I don't use
> iTunes, I just assumed it would embed the artwork. I know Squeezebox
> server can display iTunes artwork. Someone else is going to have to
> clarify this point.

Yeah, iTunes keeps its artwork in a separate database on your machine,
in a folder called "Album Artwork", which is a subfolder of the main
iTunes folder that holds your main iTunes db. I think Squeezebox
Server simply parses this db along with the regular db. The artwork
can be extracted manually by right clicking the artwork, selecting
"copy" and pasting it into an image editor or something. That's a lot
of annoying work if you have a lot of artwork, but you can also
extract the artwork with a script using the iTunes COM interface.

Sonos, of all places, has a guide for embedding the art directly into
your music that they at least claim is compatible with iTunes 9, but I
haven't tried it. It's at
https://sonos.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/sonos.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=688

In any event, the artwork is not locked away in iTunes forever, but
it's definitely not as simple as just jpegs downloaded to a folder,
which would be ideal.

-Steve

Panotaker
2009-11-07, 16:32
If you have any Itune songs with DRM on them, you can use Itunes to burn a CD of those songs, then you can use Itunes to rip the new CD you just made and put them back in Itunes without the DRM. I usually rip them in a lossless format instead of an mp3, that way you don't lose any quality. They will then play in your SB.

aubuti
2009-11-08, 09:10
i love limewire and shareaza.

its only illegal IF its copyrighted, afaik. so how do you know? thats the risk i suppose. but then again, the RIAA isn't instigating any new cases anymore, so i wouldn't worry.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_downloading_songs_from_LimeWire_illegal_or_lega l

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html?mod=rss_whats_news_techn ology
This isn't quite correct. I am not a lawyer, but I know a few things about copyright protection. Most music is copyrighted. Most copyright holders do not allow free distribution of their music via the internet. Some copyright holders do allow specific pieces to be distributed free of charge. Like the subsequent example MrSinatra gives of live Dead or Phish shows, or new bands offering free downloads to get some exposure -- the bands (or their labels) hold the copyright to those tunes, and have decided to make it freely available. In short, most music is copyrighted, but that says nothing about whether or not it is legally to download it over services like Limewire.

gcurrie
2009-11-09, 10:49
Fun facts about copyright and music:

There are actually two copyrightable aspects to a recording - the COMPOSITION, and the PERFORMANCE. They are not always owned by the same entities. Each one has a potential for income - although in the current system, it is heavily weighted towards the top moneymakers.

(Thus, one can record a cover version of a song - and owe royalties for the use of the song - and yet own a copyright on the recording, and receive royalties for that.)

Copyright is *assumed* when one composes (composition copyright) OR records (performance copyright) a piece - without any need to legally announce or record it (registration). However, it can be hard (and expensive) to prove your copyright if it is not registered. Nevertheless, registration is NOT a legal requirement to establish copyright.

One can assign something to the public domain, or use something like Creative Commons, but in general it's best to assume the piece is copyrighted by default if there is no indication to the contrary.

aubuti
2009-11-09, 12:34
Good points -- I had overlooked the Composition and Performance distinction. The other thing about registering a copyright is that it enables the copyright holder to sue for treble(*) damages in case of copyright infringement.

(*)treble is lawyerspeak for triple, and has nothing whatsoever to do with blowing your tweeters