MP3 format downloads

[bornl33t]

Is there a service out there where I can pay for music in the mp3 format or is all DRM encrusted crap now?

[thecavemankevin]

allofmp3.com ftw!!!

or of course there is always bit torrent ftwX2

[jenarelJAM]

allofmp3.com doesn't work. Visa has boycotted them, and you can't give them your money.

[iambored]

iTunes is in Mp3 Format.

[jenarelJAM]

Itunes is in AAC+ format with DRM protection. Not only is it DRM protected, but it's not even in .mp3 format, even though it plays just the same on itunes...

/at least last I checked it was...

[Hexis]

iTunes Music store is all AAC. It's also got DRM on most/all songs.

You can import songs from CDs into iTunes and have it compress to mp3. It defaults to AAC (with no DRM), but you can change the preferances. You can pick encoding type (AAC, MP3 and others) and the bit rate.

[bornl33t]

allofmp3.com doesn't work. Visa has boycotted them, and you can't give them your money.

WOW

btw, I'm just now starting to look into torrents, for legal purposes only I'm being totally honest about that, but it sounds like almost anything can be had via torrents. I know for a fact that ISU can tell what is being downloaded via torrents so how is this any different then say limewire? I know the riaa is just now suing people they watched 3-4 years ago. I'm sure there is a process by which they have to suppena the ISP for the user information? So what do torrents have to keep them, well.... hidden?

Oh and if everyone is using wireless access points, isn't it feasable that the RIAA is taking the wrong person to court? I know I've used other peoples unsecured access points for quick internet access. And I'm sure mine has been used as such in the past......

I'm sorry, I'm just uber curious these days without enough time to do all the research....

[iambored]

WOW

btw, I'm just now starting to look into torrents, for legal purposes only I'm being totally honest about that, but it sounds like almost anything can be had via torrents. I know for a fact that ISU can tell what is being downloaded via torrents so how is this any different then say limewire? I know the riaa is just now suing people they watched 3-4 years ago. I'm sure there is a process by which they have to suppena the ISP for the user information? So what do torrents have to keep them, well.... hidden?

Oh and if everyone is using wireless access points, isn't it feasable that the RIAA is taking the wrong person to court? I know I've used other peoples unsecured access points for quick internet access. And I'm sure mine has been used as such in the past......

I'm sorry, I'm just uber curious these days without enough time to do all the research....

Dynamic IP Power!
//No, I do not know how to get one

[d4m4don3]

Aren't the alt.binaries.* newsgroups still around?

[kosmo]

By the way, NIN is intentionally distributing their new CD on bittorrent/piratebay, which means its kosher, which means we can talk about it here all we want now. For reals.

[bornl33t]

By the way, NIN is intentionally distributing their new CD on bittorrent/piratebay, which means its kosher, which means we can talk about it here all we want now. For reals.

I used to watch red vs blue downloaded from torrent. About every file sharing program to date has been completely legal, it's what users choose to share and download that gets them in trouble. It's the same reason MS had to put DRM's on the zune because otherwise they'd be getting sued too. The next logical step will be that WMP will not be able to play anything without a DRM. So basically the mp3 format as we know it will be useless seeing as how no player will want a compressed audio format that can't be DRM'ed.

IMHO the riaa has grossly overstepped consumer rights in the fight against illegal file sharing with help of US courts. And on top of that they are impeding progress in that technology becomes more limited.

back to my last question, Iowas premiere ISP has been using semi-dynamic ip addresses. For the last 5 years or more. By semi dynamic I mean you can have the same IP address all year long if you never shut a router off. You are only assigned a new IP address if yours was dropped and some one else picks it up before you renew your DHCP. And I'm sure the ISP can easily track what traffic is going to a certain mac address. So all it would take is a subpoena from a court and a IP address from a perp and the ISP can figure out what mac had that IP at what time. Then just figure out what user **still** uses that same mac address.

I'm just saying, torrents do not protect anyone against a suit, but they do make legal downloading easier in that you don't have to install a potentially spy-ware/mal-ware laced client program.

[Hexis]

I used to watch red vs blue downloaded from torrent. About every file sharing program to date has been completely legal, it's what users choose to share and download that gets them in trouble. It's the same reason MS had to put DRM's on the zune because otherwise they'd be getting sued too. The next logical step will be that WMP will not be able to play anything without a DRM. So basically the mp3 format as we know it will be useless seeing as how no player will want a compressed audio format that can't be DRM'ed.

IMHO the riaa has grossly overstepped consumer rights in the fight against illegal file sharing with help of US courts. And on top of that they are impeding progress in that technology becomes more limited.

There are many legit purposes for p2p applications and bit torrent distribution. That does not make all such traffic legitimate. Similarly the illegitimate traffic does not make all traffic illegitimate (something the RIAA ignores I think). There is a mix of legal and not so legal traffic on pretty much every IP based protocol. I'm sure somewhere someone is using gopher to distribute warez.

back to my last question, Iowas premiere ISP has been using semi-dynamic ip addresses. For the last 5 years or more. By semi dynamic I mean you can have the same IP address all year long if you never shut a router off. You are only assigned a new IP address if yours was dropped and some one else picks it up before you renew your DHCP. And I'm sure the ISP can easily track what traffic is going to a certain mac address. So all it would take is a subpoena from a court and a IP address from a perp and the ISP can figure out what mac had that IP at what time. Then just figure out what user **still** uses that same mac address.

That's called: DHCP. Nothing unique about it at all.

If you are connected to the net, your ISP can track you. If you go through some sort of anonomizing proxy, they can track you. With enough legal pressure, you will be tracked back to an account holder. That's just plain fact.

[thecavemankevin]

WOw
Oh and if everyone is using wireless access points, isn't it feasable that the RIAA is taking the wrong person to court? I know I've used other peoples unsecured access points for quick internet access. And I'm sure mine has been used as such in the past......

you are responsible for what happens on your wireless account. if you dont secure it, you could get sued (has happened many times before).

[Smoothice]

you are responsible for what happens on your wireless account. if you dont secure it, you could get sued (has happened many times before).

how do you secure your wireless account? I've been looking in the help files on my computer and it is getting me nowhere.

[tribalman]

you are responsible for what happens on your wireless account. if you dont secure it, you could get sued (has happened many times before).

well, the opposite has happened also. a person was sued and because their wireless router was unsecured they didn't have proof that it was actually them. so it was thrown out. as i was searching for the direct link and not finding it, i did a google search of "riaa case thrown out" and it comes up with quite a lot of cases being dismissed. apparently the riaa's cases aren't very good.

and a quote "...the RIAA filed lawsuits against people who obviously did not do the file sharing, even while the RIAA insists that whoever's name is on the account is automatically responsible (something the law would appear to disagree with)" http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...168259_F.shtml
hrm.. from the same article "..RIAA's case was that, after being told that the defendants don't use a computer and don't use file sharing, they were told that it didn't matter: "someone is going to be responsible and someone is going to have to pay." " nice of know, they don't truly care, but someone is going to jail.

*edit*
after posting this, i was thinking......the girl gave one testomony, then changes it. but this is during a court case, isn't it purgery? what evers..... i'm already annoyed with the court system in america. at least the riaa isnt going for absurd punitave/compesatory ammounts of over a million dollars. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/04/26/...or-65-million/