# Need songs not available on Apple Music Store



## MDLarson (May 18, 2004)

I have a friend who asked me to put together an oldies CD for him, and I found most of the songs on the Apple Music Store, but I can't find these songs:

Hey Jude (The Beatles)
Imagine (The Beatles)
Jack and Diane (John Mellencamp)
Do Wah Diddy Diddy (Manfred Mann)

I know The Beatles aren't having anything to do with the AMS, but do any other online music sites carry their songs?  I was surprised to NOT find the last two songs.

One thing that pissed me off:  I had to buy a whole Don McClean album to get American Pie... \/  Kinda takes a step back to buying a CD album to get the hit single I think...


----------



## Randman (May 19, 2004)

You can get the Beatles songs and Diddy via iTMS, albeit from different artists. Some of the Beatles ones sound quite good and close to the original.


----------



## Mills (May 19, 2004)

Depends on how legal you consider ********.com I guess.


----------



## Randman (May 19, 2004)

Does anyone consider that site legal? Seriously?


----------



## Mills (May 19, 2004)

Well, no-one really knows. It's based in Russia and therefore out of the jurisdiction of the RIAA. The Russian equivalent they claim to pay money to, making the site legal in Russia, and a Russian law loophole means they can distribute over the net. I've used it a couple of times to try it out (paying through paypal for security) and the service is actually top notch and very good quality.


----------



## MDLarson (May 19, 2004)

Hmm.. ok thanks guys.  I don't feel comfortable (never have) getting music for free, so I think I'll pass on that website.


----------



## cleggerama (May 20, 2004)

Randman said:
			
		

> Does anyone consider that site legal? Seriously?



No one who knows anything about copyright law considers it legal.  Theft is still theft, even when it's done long-distance from a jurisdiction that isn't willing or able to enforce the most basic of laws.

Something to remember...just because the owners of the site have escaped prosecution doesn't mean you won't be caught.  My advice is to play it safe.


----------



## Randman (May 20, 2004)

Not sure why my quote was pulled out since my comment was sarcastic.


----------



## sjb2016 (May 20, 2004)

cleggerama said:
			
		

> No one who knows anything about copyright law considers it legal.  Theft is still theft, even when it's done long-distance from a jurisdiction that isn't willing or able to enforce the most basic of laws.
> 
> Something to remember...just because the owners of the site have escaped prosecution doesn't mean you won't be caught.  My advice is to play it safe.



I think that it is important to remember that the laws of the U.S. are not the laws of the world.  Nor are the laws of France, Haiti, South Africa, etc. the laws of the world.  I'm not  denying that ********.com is (in all likelyhood) illegal to use in the U.S., but that does not mean that it is not  legal in Russia.


----------



## doppelbock (May 20, 2004)

that site is in no way authorised by the artists and they see not a penny of anything that the site sells....that should tell you something about the "legality" of the site.


----------



## ksv (May 21, 2004)

doppelbock said:
			
		

> that site is in no way authorised by the artists and they see not a penny of anything that the site sells....that should tell you something about the "legality" of the site.



It's a grey area. It's legal in Russia, and as far as I know, it's not illegal to import or export music. I suppose this is something the WTO will pick up and deal with pretty soon.


----------



## Mills (May 21, 2004)

The site is legal, maybe not moral, but it is legal, at least in Russia. I'd love to use the iTMS when it comes outside the US, but until then the service provided by this site is second to none when it comes to quality of the encoded files. 

ksv- aside from the fact the WTO never deals with anything quickly, Russia isn't even a member yet.


----------



## cleggerama (May 21, 2004)

Randman said:
			
		

> Not sure why my quote was pulled out since my comment was sarcastic.



Sorry, Randman.  I just hit the reply button and I guess it pasted in your quote.  I wasn't intending to single you out.

As for sjb's point about remembering other countries have different laws: It's true and it is important to remember, but sometimes those differences just aren't salient when speaking in terms of the legality of activity here at home.  

Not sure if this is a proper metaphor, but...  I know that pot and certain other drugs are legal in some countries, but I wouldn't advise that you try to bring those illicit substances home with you.

As ksv and mills point out, Russian law or authorities seem not to mind and that may be because their laws are different or because they are simply unwilling to enforce any laws that might apply (I don't actually know about Russian law).  But dopplebok makes the definitive point, which is that the owners of this property are not being paid for its acquisition.  

Like I said, theft is theft.  Sometimes it can be considered technically legal (say, for example, if its nationalization, where the assets of private companies are stolen by a government) and other times it's only parochially legal (as when citizens in Nazi Germany stole the belongings of Jews bannished to the gehttos and, later, the camps).  But it's still theft (and no, I am not in any way making an equivalence argument between stealing music and being a Nazi).

The question for the average U.S. online music listener, I think, is to ask whether the copy of a particular song will be considered a lawfully owned copy by the U.S. authorities.  And I'm guessing the answer is no when it comes to much of the music acquired from that Russian site.  I will say one thing...if you're going to steal music, that's definitely the way to do it.  So long as you can convince a judge and/or jury that you thought it was legal, you can avoid being found to be a willful infringer.  It would still suck to be sued and/or prosecuted.


----------



## doppelbock (May 21, 2004)

Mills said:
			
		

> The site is legal, maybe not moral, but it is legal, at least in Russia. I'd love to use the iTMS when it comes outside the US, but until then the service provided by this site is second to none when it comes to quality of the encoded files.
> 
> ksv- aside from the fact the WTO never deals with anything quickly, Russia isn't even a member yet.


i cannot comprehend why anyone would give their money to this site when the none of it goes to the owner of the work...your are paying for pirated music.


----------



## jobsen_ski (May 21, 2004)

doppelbock said:
			
		

> i cannot comprehend why anyone would give their money to this site when the none of it goes to the owner of the work...your are paying for pirated music.



and? milions of people us p2p and there (if possible) *even more* illegal! at least this is *legal* in russia. but were all way off the original topic now.

Have you checked other music download sites if you realy want it  on itunes you can then burn it onto a cd and import it into itunes!


----------



## ksv (May 21, 2004)

Mills said:
			
		

> ksv- aside from the fact the WTO never deals with anything quickly, Russia isn't even a member yet.



They deal very quickly with demonstrations and protests, though 
Sure, Russia isn't a member, but they're just about to become one.

But actually, I was wrong in bringing thw WTO into this, because nobody ever licensed the music to neither the russian authorities nor allofmp3 or any other of the russian "media distribution" sites.



> i cannot comprehend why anyone would give their money to this site when the none of it goes to the owner of the work...your are paying for pirated music.



I just found a very interesting interview on this at http://www.museekster.com/copyrightinterview.htm .

What they seem to forget, is that Russia is also a UN member and must abide by copyright conventions. Russian law opens for redistribution of copyrighted material, which is forbidden by international law and can be considered theft both from ********'s and the users' side.

Although it may be legal in Russia (I even doubt that), it's obviously illegal in other countries where local copyright laws are clearer.


----------



## cleggerama (May 22, 2004)

jobsen_ski said:
			
		

> and? milions of people us p2p and there (if possible) *even more* illegal! at least this is *legal* in russia.



Sure, lots of people steal music using all sorts of methods, including p2p.  It's still theft, whether millions do it or just one person.

It all boils down to this: only the copyright owner gets to decide whether and how others get a copy of his music.  If you're getting it for free in a manner the copyright owner did not authorize, then either you are stealing it or you are receiving stolen goods.  Period.  End of story.


----------



## Randman (May 22, 2004)

Personally, I use iTMS for my online purchases. Every once in a while I'll buy a CD (if it's an artist not on the iTMS) and rip it myself.


----------



## ksv (May 22, 2004)

cleggerama said:
			
		

> Sure, lots of people steal music using all sorts of methods, including p2p.  It's still theft, whether millions do it or just one person.
> 
> It all boils down to this: only the copyright owner gets to decide whether and how others get a copy of his music.  If you're getting it for free in a manner the copyright owner did not authorize, then either you are stealing it or you are receiving stolen goods.  Period.  End of story.



Well, that's not exactly how it works with record labels.


----------



## cleggerama (May 22, 2004)

ksv said:
			
		

> Well, that's not exactly how it works with record labels.



Sure it is.  At some point, the artist decides he needs the help of a record label to make money, achieve fame or accomplish whatever else it is that he wants with his music.  It's his decision to sign a contract with a label and to abide by the policies and decisions handed down by that studio.  But it's still the artist's decision to go that route.  As a musician, he could instead raise his own capital and pursue distribution of his music under a different economic model.

I will agree that the recording industry harms music consumers by limiting the supply of music such that it overstimulates demand.  In effect, music consumers are being charged a monopoly (or, more precisely, an oligopoly) tax on every song we buy.  

But that's why it is so important to support *legitimate* means of distributing music online.  The more competition there is to the old school method of distributing music, the fewer the constraints on supply, and, consequently, the lower the price of good music.


----------



## iZero (Oct 12, 2004)

am i only one who thinks that itms is expensive for what they offer..


----------



## applewhore (Oct 12, 2004)

iZero said:
			
		

> am i only one who thinks that itms is expensive for what they offer..


no...


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 12, 2004)

I wouldn't count on seeing (original) Beatles cuts on iTMS any time soon, what with the pending lawsuit and all...


----------



## pds (Oct 12, 2004)

iZero said:
			
		

> am i only one who thinks that itms is expensive for what they offer..


no....

packaged, printed, shipped, warehoused and hawked original music costs around $1.40 a track.

so unpackaged, unprinted, unshipped, unwarehoused unhawked (salespeople) music at half its original size and 80% of its original quality costs how much?


----------



## mdnky (Oct 12, 2004)

PLEASE...*NO LINKS* to the site in question here.  The site name should also be avoided, since it's the same as the address and thus considered a link.  BTW, that has nothing to do with US or any other countries' rules...it's the board rules.


----------

