Post by: sluggo on October 30, 2006, 06:16:09 AM
I might be interested in joining one of the services with a flat, lifetime fee if I could find one that appears to have a large database where I could find most of the music that I would want to download.
I have found a couple of sites that review these services, but most of them are P2P and in their fine print they claim that downloaders don't usually get into trouble, only uploaders. I don't buy that. Besides, why take the chance on the RIAA knocking on your door?
Anyone have personal experience with this issue? I don't like the feel of the review sites. It almost seems that they are backed by the various services that are reviewed. Nowhere does it say that, but it's just a gut feeling.
Post by: Buck on October 30, 2006, 08:16:19 AM
QUOTE(sluggo @ Oct 30 2006, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Does anyone here belong to any of the legal download services that access a database and are not peer to peer?
I might be interested in joining one of the services with a flat, lifetime fee if I could find one that appears to have a large database where I could find most of the music that I would want to download.
I have found a couple of sites that review these services, but most of them are P2P and in their fine print they claim that downloaders don't usually get into trouble, only uploaders. I don't buy that. Besides, why take the chance on the RIAA knocking on your door?
Anyone have personal experience with this issue? I don't like the feel of the review sites. It almost seems that they are backed by the various services that are reviewed. Nowhere does it say that, but it's just a gut feeling.
I might be interested in joining one of the services with a flat, lifetime fee if I could find one that appears to have a large database where I could find most of the music that I would want to download.
I have found a couple of sites that review these services, but most of them are P2P and in their fine print they claim that downloaders don't usually get into trouble, only uploaders. I don't buy that. Besides, why take the chance on the RIAA knocking on your door?
Anyone have personal experience with this issue? I don't like the feel of the review sites. It almost seems that they are backed by the various services that are reviewed. Nowhere does it say that, but it's just a gut feeling.
Take a look at www.Limewire.com and see if this may be what you're looking for.
Post by: Parker on October 30, 2006, 10:51:59 AM
it is legal to download
however it is illegal to upload or share files
Post by: sluggo on October 30, 2006, 11:14:42 AM
QUOTE(Buck @ Oct 30 2006, 10:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Take a look at www.Limewire.com and see if this may be what you're looking for.
Has Limewire improved any? I used it for quite some time and then it began to not be so great. That and all the scare of illegal downloads just drove me away from online music altogether. iTunes is OK, but a buck per song is pretty steep compared to some other options out there.
Post by: sluggo on October 30, 2006, 11:19:53 AM
QUOTE(gailwin @ Oct 30 2006, 12:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
limewire...
it is legal to download
however it is illegal to upload or share files
it is legal to download
however it is illegal to upload or share files
You may download material that is protected by the copyright laws and find yourself mired in legal issues.
That quote is right off of one of Limewire's pages about the legality of it all.
Post by: D76 on October 30, 2006, 11:38:51 AM
QUOTE
If I just download sound recordings, it's not a violation.[/b]
FALSE. It's a violation if you upload or download full-length sound recordings without permission of the copyright owners. You should assume other people's works are copyrighted and can't be copied unless you know otherwise.
The "fair use" exemption protects me.
THAT DEPENDS. Some uses may be "fair," but uploading and downloading full-length recordings without permission almost certainly is not "fair use."
FALSE. It's a violation if you upload or download full-length sound recordings without permission of the copyright owners. You should assume other people's works are copyrighted and can't be copied unless you know otherwise.
The "fair use" exemption protects me.
THAT DEPENDS. Some uses may be "fair," but uploading and downloading full-length recordings without permission almost certainly is not "fair use."
This is repeated, word for word, at this University of Florida site, so probably the RIAA spammed it everywhere there's a student dorm.
Just one more:
QUOTE
[7] You go to an MP3 website and download a song from your favorite artist. You don't own a CD of this artist, so this MP3 download is your only copy of that song.
- Sorry that's illegal, unless the website, or the artist says otherwise.
- Sorry that's illegal, unless the website, or the artist says otherwise.
Post by: sokukodo on October 30, 2006, 11:50:38 AM
QUOTE(sokukodo @ Oct 30 2006, 12:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I used to use Limewire, but have been using the iTunes Music Store exclusively now. Basically, the reason is quality: with iTunes, I know the quality will be good ... with Limewire, you never know ... I've had good quality as well as pure crap.
I'm speaking of the quality of the file. Who or what one downloads is another story.
Richard
Post by: beacher on October 30, 2006, 12:55:23 PM
Post by: kimmer on October 30, 2006, 01:37:02 PM
Post by: Buck on November 05, 2006, 12:09:29 AM
QUOTE(sluggo @ Oct 30 2006, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Does anyone here belong to any of the legal download services that access a database and are not peer to peer?
I might be interested in joining one of the services with a flat, lifetime fee if I could find one that appears to have a large database where I could find most of the music that I would want to download.
I have found a couple of sites that review these services, but most of them are P2P and in their fine print they claim that downloaders don't usually get into trouble, only uploaders. I don't buy that. Besides, why take the chance on the RIAA knocking on your door?
Anyone have personal experience with this issue? I don't like the feel of the review sites. It almost seems that they are backed by the various services that are reviewed. Nowhere does it say that, but it's just a gut feeling.
I might be interested in joining one of the services with a flat, lifetime fee if I could find one that appears to have a large database where I could find most of the music that I would want to download.
I have found a couple of sites that review these services, but most of them are P2P and in their fine print they claim that downloaders don't usually get into trouble, only uploaders. I don't buy that. Besides, why take the chance on the RIAA knocking on your door?
Anyone have personal experience with this issue? I don't like the feel of the review sites. It almost seems that they are backed by the various services that are reviewed. Nowhere does it say that, but it's just a gut feeling.
Give http://www.drumbeat.info/download.shtml a look see.
Post by: mastercheif on November 05, 2006, 01:46:16 AM
http://www.allofmp3.com
I have used the site before, and I will continue too. It is not illegal to download songs from their because they are protected by the copyright laws in Russia. They are a exelent service. They charge istead of by the song, but by the MB.
Post by: D76 on November 05, 2006, 05:47:02 AM
Post by: gunug on November 05, 2006, 06:09:37 AM
Post by: Frances144 on November 05, 2006, 10:35:59 AM
But now I subsribe to Emusic and it is about £9.00 per month with 40 downloads. I think it is cheaper in the US. Anyway, they seem genuine, have nice classical music and are very helpful.
A tip, though, do not try and download lots and lots of things at the same time, as it tends to get confused).
Good luck
Frances
PS For definition of "curate's egg" see
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/5/messages/299.html
Post by: mastercheif on November 05, 2006, 11:32:21 AM
Just because the RIAA want's to tell you it's illegal, doesn't mean it is. Yes, Mastercard and Visa pulled out, but thats because the RIAA was threatining a Legal suite that the RIAA would have lost. But legal costs are so high up these days that they money the companies make off of Allofmp3 would not have coverd the legal costs they would go trough to fight it.
And remeber, lets say you bought a CD of Pink Floyd 5 years ago and you lost it. It is your legal right to download it again because when you buy the CD, you are actulaly buying a Liscence to Play the product, the CD is a added in bonus.
Post by: D76 on November 05, 2006, 11:44:41 AM
QUOTE(mastercheif @ Nov 5 2006, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Just because the RIAA want's to tell you it's illegal, doesn't mean it is. . . .And remeber, lets say you bought a CD of Pink Floyd 5 years ago and you lost it. It is your legal right to download it again because when you buy the CD, you are actulaly buying a Liscence to Play the product, the CD is a added in bonus.
Actually, I'm sorta in the position of a Mac user when it comes to Windows viruses, so far, anyway. It's legal in Canada to download music from anywhere, and Acqlite is in my apps folder. Royalties are covered, however, because blank media are taxed and the money allegedly distributed.But since my musical tastes are a generation to three generations out of date, contemporary artists have little to fear from me, anyway. Most of the licences for my downloaded music are printed on the labels of my 78s.
Post by: Parker on November 05, 2006, 12:45:55 PM
and found it rather slow and always freezing up
so i switched to LimeWire now
QUOTE
Royalties are covered, however, because blank media are taxed and the money allegedly distributed.
By this you mean the money from the taxes on blank media is given to the music industry?
Post by: D76 on November 05, 2006, 01:18:09 PM
QUOTE(Parker @ Nov 5 2006, 01:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
By this you mean the money from the taxes on blank media is given to the music industry?
This Register story is from Dec. 2003.QUOTE
Three years ago Canada's copyright board imposed a levies on blank media. The cost is 21 cents per blank CD-R data or CD-RW disk, or 77 cents per blank CD-R Audio disc. The new fees for fixed media players are $2 for each device under 1 GB, $15 for devices 1-10 Gbs, and $25 for devices over 10 Gbs.
This is a June 2004 Ars Technica story.QUOTE
The Canadian recording industry has had to take a different tack than its US counterpart when it comes to music downloads. Late in 2003, the Copyright Board of Canada ruled that downloading music via P2P applications was legal, and other attempts to follow the route the US has taken with the DMCA have not panned out. While Canadian consumers do pay a tariff on all recordable media as a way of compensating the recording industry for lost revenue from personal copying, on the whole, they enjoy greater fair use rights than their neighbors to the south. Today's Supreme Court ruling closes off one possible avenue for erosion of those rights, ruling out the possibility that SOCAN could make an end-run around the the decision legitimizing downloads and double-dip in the royalty pot.
There is lots of stuff that's illegal to download, such as Talking Books, and it's illegal to upload music.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on November 05, 2006, 03:00:35 PM
Legality is based on current laws in various pricipalities. Fair pay for work is much older than most of these copyright laws. Whether it is legal to up/download may vary with each country, ethical actions require appropriate transfer of equally valuable commodities ( gold/silver/cash for works/art/effort ).
The only reason, IMHO, that people still 'debate' this issue, is because they fear the consequences of their own actions. That is not a fear in normal, legal, ethical commerce. And blaming it on lawyers is no excuse.
Post by: mastercheif on November 05, 2006, 03:23:21 PM
That's pretty subjective. Most artists these days could actaully care less about how many albums they sell. The RIAA's Big Three have a absosulte monopoly on the music market. They give all artist's these days really bad contracts because where else are they going to go? If you wanted to have a popular band, where would you go? Sony BMG or a Indi lable? The big three swollow up most of the Artist's CD sales because you can attribute most CD sales to radio playback time, wich the Lables pay for. Most artist's actually make their money from other things such as merchindice and tours.
Post by: D76 on November 05, 2006, 04:52:55 PM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Nov 5 2006, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Fair pay for work is much older than most of these copyright laws. Whether it is legal to up/download may vary with each country, ethical actions require appropriate transfer of equally valuable commodities ( gold/silver/cash for works/art/effort ).
The U.S. has the tax . . . er . . . levy, too.QUOTE
At least 25 countries, including most G-7 and European Union members, have introduced comparable regimes with respect to the private copying of sound recordings. Canada is one of the last to do so.
The USA is often held out as an example of a place where "this could never happen", but as far as I can tell, it has been law there since December 8, 1994. It is part of Title 17, section 1004, and if you go to:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1004.html
you will find this paragraph:
(b) Digital Audio Recording Media. - The royalty payment due under section1003 for each digital audio recording medium imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 3 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such medium shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such medium.
Note, however, that in the US there is NO levy collected on "ordinary" CD-Rs When the legislation was last changed (in 1994/1995) CD-Rs were not seen as a media intended for copying music. There IS a levy applied to other digital media, such as DAT and CD-R Audio.
There is no tax on iPods in Canada, though.The USA is often held out as an example of a place where "this could never happen", but as far as I can tell, it has been law there since December 8, 1994. It is part of Title 17, section 1004, and if you go to:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1004.html
you will find this paragraph:
(b) Digital Audio Recording Media. - The royalty payment due under section1003 for each digital audio recording medium imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 3 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such medium shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such medium.
Note, however, that in the US there is NO levy collected on "ordinary" CD-Rs When the legislation was last changed (in 1994/1995) CD-Rs were not seen as a media intended for copying music. There IS a levy applied to other digital media, such as DAT and CD-R Audio.
QUOTE
Canadian iPod price drop after tax ruling
Posted Dec 22nd 2004 11:02PM by Barb Dybwad
iPods
A recent federal court ruling means lower prices on iPods in Canada. Expect to pay $25CDN less for a 20 or 40GB model, and $15CDN less for the 4GB iPod mini at Canadian retailers Future Shop and Best Buy, or through the Apple store.
The ruling handed down by the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada says that the Copyright Board of Canada improperly imposed a levy on digital media devices, beginning in December 2003. The price reduction is being immediately passed on to consumers directly from Apple, who until now has been picking up the tab for the tax.
There is no end to the labels' greed.Posted Dec 22nd 2004 11:02PM by Barb Dybwad
iPods
A recent federal court ruling means lower prices on iPods in Canada. Expect to pay $25CDN less for a 20 or 40GB model, and $15CDN less for the 4GB iPod mini at Canadian retailers Future Shop and Best Buy, or through the Apple store.
The ruling handed down by the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada says that the Copyright Board of Canada improperly imposed a levy on digital media devices, beginning in December 2003. The price reduction is being immediately passed on to consumers directly from Apple, who until now has been picking up the tab for the tax.
Here's another story about all the deductions (including "breakage," mentioned in the previous link, that dates back to 78s). It sounds like the 18th-century Royal Navy's practice of deducting pay until the sailor owed the navy.
QUOTE
If the same contract terms apply to digital sales as terrestrial sales, at the $9.99 retail price for albums on iTunes, an artist would get somewhere between $1.00 and $1.40 per sale. For a 99 cent single download, an artist would get 10 to 14 cents.
This story that appears to have been written in 2004 discusses the Canadian levy.QUOTE
Given the tens of millions of dollars that the Canadian government spends annually to support the creation of Canadian music, it is apparent that the relative impact of lost royalties due to file sharing pales by comparison.
<snip>
While artists may only receive a few pennies per blank CD, those pennies add up to millions. By the end of this year, the CPCC will have collected nearly $120 million since 1999 (the levy is expected to generate $30 million in 2004), though the collective has been agonizingly slow in distributing the proceeds.
<snip>
Despite the apparent success of the private copying levy, the record labels, who lobbied to create the system in the 1990s, now criticize it for failing to provide adequate compensation.
The labels argued for it, and one of the reasons their lawsuits against downloaders failed is because it was implemented. Such is greed.
<snip>
While artists may only receive a few pennies per blank CD, those pennies add up to millions. By the end of this year, the CPCC will have collected nearly $120 million since 1999 (the levy is expected to generate $30 million in 2004), though the collective has been agonizingly slow in distributing the proceeds.
<snip>
Despite the apparent success of the private copying levy, the record labels, who lobbied to create the system in the 1990s, now criticize it for failing to provide adequate compensation.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on November 06, 2006, 09:07:40 AM
Assuming what artist's assume gets one onto very slippery slopes, very quickly.
My contention is that the biggest source of the problem on this issue is, indeed, greed. But it's the individual consumer's greed. When most of us 'purchase' an object, we tend to think of it as ours. Unfortunately, 'art' can be so subjectively defined that copyright laws were conceived to protect the work of a wide range of 'art', some of which we now access in digital form. Blaming industry for the form in which artists have had their work replicated is simply an attempt to divert the spotlight of truth from our own dark actions. The fact is, the laws were written to protect the individual artist, whether the art was written, played or spoken/song. The laws give the individual power that they simply would not have had because of being an individual. Some sign contracts and have the resources of a company to help them, but any individual can also secure their rights due to these laws. That some don't, is no excuse for assuming that none care.
Because of copyright laws, we do not own the performances that we enjoy listening to or viewing. If you have trouble understanding what 'intellectual property' is, make an effort to learn, that is what our intellect is for.
And pray that when you do a days work, your employer doesn't decide that he 'owns' that work, so there's no need to pay you for it. 
Greed, like most immorality, is extremely good at deceiving the one who practices it.
Some day maybe more will be as pure and perfect as I am.
Signed: The Black Pot
Post by: Paddy on November 06, 2006, 09:47:59 AM
Limewire exists primarily to traffic in ILLEGAL downloads of copyrighted material - music, software, movies etc. What is so damn difficult to understand about this? Very little of what is on offer is actually legal.
This whole discussion has me immensely peeved. Artists own the copyright to their material - any attempt that you make to obtain that material without the express permission of the artist (either through purchase or the fact that that artist is explicitly allowing free distribution) is ILLEGAL. What part of that don't you all understand? There is no wiggle room there. "Fair use" does not apply in this situation.
As for the Russian site - you're a fool if you download music from there. As someone who has had a credit card number stolen by the Russian mafia (here in the US) I can assure you that they're a busy bunch. Wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole!!
Post by: RobW on November 06, 2006, 10:57:51 AM
Post by: sandbox on November 06, 2006, 12:09:37 PM
All your online activities are monitored and as technology improves the future will reach back into the past to produce documents of your illegal activity. 10 years from now when you’re applying for a position I will be able to access a databank, which will expose where you got that CD-MP3
It is happening today right here in our courtrooms, I deal with lawyers constantly and these cases are increasing their workload and income bracket. Youth is no excuse, your parents will be held liable for your illegal activity today, as you will be in the future. The cost is high when factoring in the court’s expenses, not to mention, a criminal record that will not be hidden by juvenile indiscretions.
Post by: Paddy on November 06, 2006, 02:48:48 PM
So far the courts in the US have held that it is not legal to download copyrighted music without paying for it. You may not agree with the law or the "system" but that does not give you the right to rip others off, whoever those others may be. This may not be the right forum for this debate, but as soon as it strayed into recommendations of using Limewire to download music, it entered the arena of illegal downloading. Limewire itself is not illegal (despite what the RIAA may have to say about it - Limewire is not responsible for what its users do) - but the vast majority of users downloading music are doing so illegally.
Not getting caught doesn't make it right. Ripping off big companies doesn't make it right.
Proof of purchase is just fine - but how many of us have kept the receipts for every CD we've bought? And what about those given as gifts? And if the CD is "lost" - what are the chances someone else has it in their possession? I know I'm splitting hairs here - but if you don't have the CD in your possession and don't know where it is and are not sure that it is in fact physically destroyed, then you haven't much of a case.
Post by: sandbox on November 06, 2006, 04:02:55 PM
QUOTE
Proof of purchase is just fine - but how many of us have kept the receipts for every CD we've bought? And what about those given as gifts? And if the CD is "lost" - what are the chances someone else has it in their possession? I know I'm splitting hairs here - but if you don't have the CD in your possession and don't know where it is and are not sure that it is in fact physically destroyed, then you haven't much of a case.
According to Tort law standards the burden is yours to bear. Of course if you have nothing to hide it’s unlikely someone will ask for proof, but if they were already looking your gift would need to be accounted for within reason. You can’t ask a dead guy for example, but you can research a dead guys financials at Christmas 2002 to see if by chance he bought a Dark Side of the Moon CD.
Sounds silly today….. but the future is right around the corner.
For example, in 1969 I got a parking ticket in Vermont at the State Park. Two years ago when I went to renew my Fl. License, my License was revoked because of this parking ticket. I paid the ticket back then but had not way to prove it, so 35 years later I’m forced to pay it again or go to Vermont to contest it.
How did this happen? A new databank was installed and the payment was not properly recorded, in somebody’s pocket maybe, I don’t know, but for sure I would have been notified long before this time, given all the licenses I hold, that I had an outstanding warrant for parking tickets.
Sure I could fly to Vermont and demonstrate that they were wrong. I may even be able to access bank records if the bank had not been merged, which it was, three times.
The point is once called upon to prove ownership you would need to do so, within reason, that’s the law.
Post by: Mayo on November 06, 2006, 04:56:44 PM
Post by: RobW on November 06, 2006, 05:24:52 PM
QUOTE
...Limewire is not responsible for what its users do) - but the vast majority of users downloading music are doing so illegally. ...
Paddy, just to clarify--and again--it's already way off-topic here--In a US Supreme Court decision from June 2005 it was ruled (unanimously) that makers of software applications can be held liable for how their users use the product. So, while p2p applications like Limewire can be used to download a variety of files that are NOT copyright protected, they can be held liable if they "induce" or otherwise encourage their users to download or share copyright protected files.
There are artists (and I've alluded to this in the past) who do allow (and even want) their work to be shared on p2p networks as a way of promoting themselves. Some are small indie artists, others are more well known. Janis Ian is one such example. BTW, when the RIAA uses people for copyright infringement, don't think for a second that the artists are the ones who receive those funds. My only point here is that it can be a somewhat complicated issue, and not as black and white/good vs evil as it may seem. It's also an issue that could have been addressed many years ago (in the early Napster days) had the industry not been so shortsighted and possibly greedy.
Sluggo, what was the question again?
Post by: tacit on November 06, 2006, 06:41:32 PM
The site is not illegal in Russia, because Russian law does not recognize non-Russian copyrights. (This may change; Russia is seeking entry into a Western trade group, and so far they have been denied because they do not recognize copyrights or patents from other countries. They are currently considering legislation to change that.)
However, if you are not in Russia, you are breaking the law by using it. If you are an American, you are bound by American copyright law. As an American, in the United States, under American law, it is illegal for you to make a copy of a copyrighted work without the copyright holder's permission no matter how you do it, what country the copy is made in, or under what circumstances the copy is made.
If you are an American and you are using AllOfMP3.com, you are breaking the law. Period. End of statement.
Many people attempt to morally justify violating copyright law on the grounds that the record labels are greedy (which is true), that the record labels behave in ways that are immoral (which is also true), that the record labels treat their artists poorly (which is undeniably true), and that the record labels lie about the cost of music downloads (which is true). None of these justifications changes one important fact: it is still illegal.
It is illegal to steal from someone you don't like. It is illegal to steal from someone who behaves immorally. It is illegal to steal from a business or corporation, just as it is illegal to steal from an individual. No bad behavior on the part of the recording industry makes copyright theft OK.
The people who try to justify and excuse copyright theft are almost always people who never create anything of their own, so they do not recognize the work that goes into making something original, nor appreciate the position of the person who created it. No matter how you slice it, stealing someone else's copyrighted work is not okay.
I do appreciate this, because I do create things that are novel, and I have had my intellectual property stolen by people who do not respect copyright. If I make a bad deal with some distributor and as a result that distributor doesn't pay me what I am worth, well, that's a poor choice on my part--but it still does not make it OK for you to steal what I have created.
If you like the music, pay for it. If you do not want to pay for it, don't have it.
Post by: sluggo on November 07, 2006, 06:43:04 AM
I was simply in search of a legal place to pay for and download music that would be a cheaper alternative than iTunes. I intended this thread as no more and no less than that. I did not mean for it to become a slugfest over what is and is not legal, moral or otherwise.
So please, if you can give me an answer, by all means do so. Start another thread if you want to get into the legal or moral issues of downloading and quit hijacking this one.
Post by: jepinto on November 07, 2006, 07:22:58 AM
Now, if I could figure out how to use it and burn it...... Donna the Buffalo is one of Sweet'ums all time faves, but I can only get MP3s, which don't play on his player, but will play on my Mac.
Post by: Paddy on November 07, 2006, 08:46:39 AM
http://independentartistscompany.com/
I have found some free stuff there too, from time to time.
I think someone mentioned emusic back at the beginning of this thread - I just had another look and there is a LOT there - mostly a bit off the beaten track, and cheaper than iTunes - about 25¢ per song. You pay by the month for a set number of downloads - the basic plan is 40 songs for $9.99. They also offer a free trial period with 25 free songs.
If you start at the home page it's a little difficult to figure out what you're getting - I went through the "About" link at the bottom and eventually arrived at the page linked below - you can change the genre via the drop down menus (emusic shortcuts) and explore their offerings.
http://www.emusic.com/genre/277.html
Post by: Mayo on November 07, 2006, 12:05:32 PM
Post by: kbeartx on November 07, 2006, 12:55:57 PM
QUOTE(Mayo @ Nov 7 2006, 12:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
AudioHijackPro can be used to convert file formats.
So can iTunes, as long as you're not trying to convert any DRM'd files
iTunes will burn a standard audio CD from MP3s
Post by: kimmer on November 07, 2006, 01:51:01 PM
Here are 3 places I have picked up music in the past. Haven't been at any of them since I got my *mac* back ...
Piano Society - it's what it says. I've picked up some amazing pieces - free even.
Playlist - haven't been here in a while, but I remember they had music and often free stuff
free music from Amazon
Post by: Buck on November 08, 2006, 02:06:56 PM
QUOTE(sluggo @ Nov 7 2006, 08:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As Rob has pointed out more than once, this has gone way off topic.
I was simply in search of a legal place to pay for and download music that would be a cheaper alternative than iTunes. I intended this thread as no more and no less than that. I did not mean for it to become a slugfest over what is and is not legal, moral or otherwise.
So please, if you can give me an answer, by all means do so. Start another thread if you want to get into the legal or moral issues of downloading and quit hijacking this one.
I was simply in search of a legal place to pay for and download music that would be a cheaper alternative than iTunes. I intended this thread as no more and no less than that. I did not mean for it to become a slugfest over what is and is not legal, moral or otherwise.
So please, if you can give me an answer, by all means do so. Start another thread if you want to get into the legal or moral issues of downloading and quit hijacking this one.
http://www.musicunited.org/6_legalsites.html
A site w/ all legal music.
Gotten from ABC news last night.