Music Download Services Compared

[Jeremy Charette]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://reviews.designtechnica.com/guide33.html' target='_blank'>http://reviews.designtechnica.com/guide33.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Online music has come a long way since the days when Napster and Kazaa and other file-sharing networks were the Robin Hoods of cyberspace. There are still plenty of peer-to-peer sites out there to swap the tracks you have (just witness the actions of the RIAA taking people to court), but since Apple turned the iPod into a necessary fashion accessory, online music has taken a right turn into respectability and become a multi-billion dollar industry. For several years record labels had been trying to combat the online pirates – as they saw them – who exchanged music without buying it or paying royalties, but in 2001 a single device, and the software to go with it, suddenly made legal digital music a desirable commodity, just as broadband began to take off."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/one_click.jpg" /> <br /><br />What's it boil down to? If you're cheap, go with Yahoo or Wal-Mart. If you have an iPod, you're stuck with iTunes. Me? I'll stick with good old-fashioned non-DRM'd compact discs, thankyouverymuch.

[pacemkr]

I went with Yahoo, but not because I'm cheap, because I'm broke. :lol:

[cmchavez]

I went with Yahoo, but not because I'm cheap, because I'm broke. :lol:

I'm more broke-er and use allofmp3.com. :oops:

[pacemkr]

I went with Yahoo, but not because I'm cheap, because I'm broke. :lol:

I'm more broke-er and use allofmp3.com. :oops:

Yeah, I'm not that broke. I hate that place...
And its not that much cheaper anyway...

[OSUKid7]

I'm one of the few people who subscribes to Napster. I don't entirely like the idea of renting music, but it's really a bargain. As long as I download an album or two per month, and keep listening to my old downloads, it's a great price. Now unfortunately (or fortunately), Napster is also the reason I don't own (or particularly want) an iPod. They do look nice, but they don't support wma/DRM'd wma music. In order to put them on an iPod, I'd have to buy the songs (another $0.99 each), burn CDs, and rip them DRM-free. No thanks. I'll just listen on my computer and buy a few for my Pocket PC.

I for one am hoping for more DRM convergance. I thought wma/mp3/aac was bad, but each with its own DRM is crazy. :?

[ChunkyMonkey]

I went with Yahoo, but not because I'm cheap, because I'm broke. :lol:

I'm more broke-er and use allofmp3.com. :oops:

At the risk of being flammed....Is allofmp3.com legal? If they are not, or they are "legally stealing", I'm not sure that I am confortable giving them my credit card number.

[pacemkr]

I went with Yahoo, but not because I'm cheap, because I'm broke. :lol:

I'm more broke-er and use allofmp3.com. :oops:

At the risk of being flammed....Is allofmp3.com legal? If they are not, or they are "legally stealing", I'm not sure that I am confortable giving them my credit card number.

The term "legally stealing" is probably the best way to describe their bussiness.

Yes, the music is stolen, and no they dont have the permission to distribute it, I'm not even talking about collecting money for it.

Now why legally? Because the Russian court (the bussiness is located in Russia) rulled that this practice is legal. I'm Russian and I can guess why the court ruled that way, nothing to do with the law in Russia, the judge was simply bought, as in many other situations. I thought it was a shameful day for the Russian judiciary system when the court ruled in favor of allofmp3.com.

P2P is one thing, people trade music they bought/stole, and its agains the law. However, thats their choice, at least it works out morally.

However, when somebody comes along and starts charging money for music they escentially stole, and this whole process being within limits of the law, now thats just wrong and immoral in my opinion. They disgust me and they will never get a cent of my money. Spend the extra dollar (literally) and use Yahoo or w.e.

[pacemkr]

I'm one of the few people who subscribes to Napster. I don't entirely like the idea of renting music, but it's really a bargain. As long as I download an album or two per month, and keep listening to my old downloads, it's a great price. Now unfortunately (or fortunately), Napster is also the reason I don't own (or particularly want) an iPod. They do look nice, but they don't support wma/DRM'd wma music. In order to put them on an iPod, I'd have to buy the songs (another $0.99 each), burn CDs, and rip them DRM-free. No thanks. I'll just listen on my computer and buy a few for my Pocket PC.

I for one am hoping for more DRM convergance. I thought wma/mp3/aac was bad, but each with its own DRM is crazy. :?

I know what you mean. I would get the nano in a blink of an eye if it supported DRM.

I dont think ipods will ever support DRM though.

In any case, for me all you can eat music through Yahoo + iRiver H10 still outweighs an iPod with a dollar per song on iTunes. I have maybe 600-800 in my library on Yahoo, getting the same on iTunes is just waaaaaaaaaay too much money.

[sub_tex]

I know what you mean. I would get the nano in a blink of an eye if it supported DRM.

Umm, it does support DRM. Just not Microsoft's Plays for Sure variety.

This is the problem with DRM in the first place. Giving you less and less for what you pay for.