Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Anybody tried this?

Has anybody tried Yahoo Music Unlimited?

I'm not sure I get this. You pay $7.00 per month subscription fee and have access to a million songs.

But can you download straight to a computer to burn a cd of the mp3s you like, or do you have to download to one of the portable music devices first?

Do you get to download all you want for the subscription fee alone, or are the songs $0.79 each? I'm guessing there has to be a per song fee.


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Anybody tried this?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Anybody tried this?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
From what I understand

In reply to: Anybody tried this?

the pay sites for music let you download anything you want to the pc, but they are 'timed' releases that don't burn to cd's properly so you can't use the disks in a cdplayer anywhere. I don't know about Ipods, but assume it's the same way. They can play on your pc just fine, but that's about it.


Collapse -
anybody else feel like we're moving backwards?

In reply to: From what I understand

so we're going from buying music and being able to record as many copies as we want to renting music and not being able to do what we want with it. So much for the myth of technology making things better...

Collapse -
As far as I'm concerned

In reply to: anybody else feel like we're moving backwards?

We already have had a Federal law in place allowing us to make a backup copy of all music and movie media that we PURCHASED legally.......and now with the extra encryption being put on the cd's and vcr tapes, you no longer have that option, so effectively the RAII and Movie Associations have thumbed their noses at a law written for consumers because they have bigger clout in Washington. We still have the law on our side because it's on the books, but those organizations are being allowed to do as they please at the consumer level to block it. And the reason they are getting away with it is because they are using the argument that those media are being copied and shared freely in the P2P networks....and getting their own laws written to let them prosecute the ones on the net that they catch. That's well and fine to go after the pirates....but the first law to protect the legal consumers is being stepped on all over the place.


Collapse -
I don't think ...

In reply to: As far as I'm concerned

... there is any such law Toni. The concept of ''fair use'' is somewhat ambiguous, though it seems most specifically outlined in court rulings. However there is no ''right'' to fair use that has been established either by the courts or the legislatures that I am aware of. Only the ''right'' not to be prosecuted for activities that might otherwise entail copyright infringement if not included under the limited reasons considered ''fair use''.

New Shackles on Your CD, Video Copying

In an effort to stem piracy, entertainment companies are placing new copy restrictions into their products.

This is a 2002 article.

Making personal copies of things you've paid for--as backup, for example, or to use in multiple devices like your computer, MP3 player, and stereo--may soon be a thing of the past, or at least severely curtailed.

Supported by laws such as 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or DMCA), companies are preparing to incorporate copy-prevention technology into everything from audio CDs and online music to premium cable television and streamed video. Some of these plans are already in effect, with different levels of restrictions on the media playback.

The DCMA makes circumventing copyprotection measures illegal.

While making backup copies is nice, I can't think of anything else one buys one of and has a *right* to a second one for backup. I, personally, am thankful that today's media last longer and can withstand being trekked around without being damaged. People can argue all they want how the entertainment industry is shooting themselves in the foot and allowing copying is actually in their interest, etc. But the bottom line is that it is still up to the artist/distributor to decide what level of protection they want to afford for their intellectual property. The consumer can show their support or displeasure by buying more or fewer CD's and DVD's.

I can see why non-profit organizations (such as libraries) should have rights to make backup copies -- especially of materials it would be difficult to replace if damaged later on. But I don't see that individuals have a right to make backups of their music or video collections. So long as I know I'm paying $X for a CD and know what use/value I get from this purchase, there is nothing nefarious the consumer needs protecting from. After all, how many things do we pay far more for and EXPECT to need to replace? JMO.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Just a few articles and links I've located

In reply to: I don't think ...

Collapse -
Your links ...

In reply to: Just a few articles and links I've located

... are in agreement with my understanding of the laws.

From the most pertinent of the citations:

Chapter 10 of the Copyright Law contains provisions that were designed to insulate consumers from liability for infringement for making digital or analog recordings for personal use from commercially available audio tapes.

The phrase ''insulate consumers from liability for infringement'' does not translate to any implicit *RIGHT* of the consumer TO make copies for personal use. There seems to be nothing to prevent copy-protections that do not unreasonably infringe on your individual rights (e.g. if they were to imbed something that transmitted usage patterns to some ''mother ship''). The law says it may be ''fair use'' for you to make a personal copy for backup, and you can't be prosecuted for copyright infringment for doing so. But it also says you ARE breaking the law if you circumvent protections put in place by the ''manufacturer'' to prevent you from doing this. On a more generic level, just because you can't be prosecuted criminally for some action, doesn't mean you have some Constitutionally protected right to perform that action.

I'm not really taking a side here. I just add this sort of thing to my ''don't really understand the fury over it'' pile. I bought a CD for $14 yesterday. It seems like a reasonable enough price to pay for years of enjoyment of that disc in any one of the number of CD players I have (home, laptop, vehicles). That I can't make a backup isn't a biggie for me.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
The reason we don't do this with other things is that we

In reply to: I don't think ...

either don't have the need, or we don't have the ability.

We can copy books in their entirety if we own them, but there is no need to do so.

We can't copy the car.

We do have the technical ability to copy sound and video, and, because the media is easily damaged or soon becomes obsolete, we have a need to copy these things. Think of the VHS tape of West Side Story that I have. I bought it because I wanted a permanent copy of the movie that I could watch as much and for as long as I choose. That was the implicit promise in the product. Now, I find out it is deteriorating. Should I be barred from copying this movie to a newer form of storage and thereby restore my ability to watch it? I don't think so.

Collapse -
I would only suggest ...

In reply to: The reason we don't do this with other things is that we

... that by the time you're done making the back up copy, you are probably better off purchasing a new DVD.

I see your point regarding more obscure videos, etc., however your other rationale falls apart when considering the full scope of media. Albums used to deteriorate with use, so some I know would make a tape and listen to that, but they couldn't make a duplicate album, let alone one of similar quality. My guess is that most if not all of your older VHS tapes lack any copy protection and can be transferred to DVD (as Toni did with a collection she won at auction).

We own well over 500 movies on VHS. Most of our collection was bought in the Pre-Viewed section of Blockbuster and the like. As blank DVD's have come down in price, I have considered transferring them to DVD (it has become rather more cost effective even within the past year or so). But just this past Saturday we were in Blockbuster and came across a DVD of Trading Places for $10. Scene selections, great quality, and all that ... So we bought a copy, and will donate the old VHS to charity. We've probably done similar for about 30 ''most popular'' titles in our collection this past year as we come across them.

When we purchased these VHS tapes, they had ''lifetime guarantees'' from Blockbuster (or similar from the other places). But when we buy a new VHS movie there is no such guarantee. We bought them with full knowledge of the fragile nature of the media and with full expectation that, even if cared for greatly, it could break and would deteriorate. Just because we have the ability to copy something doesn't mean we have a right or need to. Come to think of it, all copy protections do is to bring these items into line with your rational as to why we don't copy other things -- IOW we no longer have the ability.

If DVD's become extinct, I'll cross that bridge when we get to it. My guess is that just as VCR's are no longer as popular, they will continue to be available for years to come (and cheaply at that), so I'm not worried that there will no longer be DVD players to play my DVD's.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
It's the RIAA and MPA, not technology. They are doing their

In reply to: anybody else feel like we're moving backwards?

best to ban or cripple the technology at every turn. They would like to have you pay every time you listen to music rather than just once.

Collapse -
They have a reasonable point ...

In reply to: It's the RIAA and MPA, not technology. They are doing their

... about copying.

Not all that long ago, if you bought the LP, you could make a pretty decent tape of it, but any reasonable quality required more expensive equipment and media that wasn't all that cheap. I used to copy my brother's LP's to play on my boombox. A reasonable higher end (but not premium) Memorex tape cost almost as much as buying a ready-made tape of the album. Dubbing tape-to-tape was equally costly with mixed result.

Nowadays, I could copy a CD to a $0.01 worth of media with little or no quality loss, in a matter of several minutes, with technology that "comes with" most computers these days (that are cheaper than some tape decks used to be!). Some acknowledgement of this drastic change in the laws HAS to be considered.

For my part, as I commented to Toni, this is a "no biggie" for me. I buy a CD with the knowledge that I can listen to it any time I want, as often as I want, on any machine that plays my CD. That's enough worth for what I pay for the product I purchased.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
See my other post. You have the same expectations as I do.

In reply to: They have a reasonable point ...

That's why you should be able to copy. Happy

Collapse -
Sorry, but no I don't ...

In reply to: See my other post. You have the same expectations as I do.

... I don't expect, and never expected our vast collection of VHS tapes to last forever. I am thankful that CD's and DVD's are more sturdy media. If you need a backup copy, buy a second one for good measure.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Another view is that you are buying the music

In reply to: Sorry, but no I don't ...

The CD is just the vessel for it. In that sense, why buy the music twice?

Collapse -
What do you buy when you go to a concert?

In reply to: Another view is that you are buying the music

The music right? In a certain media -- in this case ''live'' through the air from a speaker. I'm usually not allowed to tape that performance (except for the Grateful Dead).

When I buy a CD I buy the music stored on a particular media I can listen to with a particular device from that particular media.

I still don't get where I purchase the unlimited right to listen to the ''music'' in any form for all eternity.

I'm all for the arguments to pressure or incentivise the industry to allow for as much freedom as possible. I find such arguments far more constructive than trying to manufacture some sort of special consumer rights. But at this point the ''backup copy'' argument rings akin to those that promote medical MJ as a means to obtain legality for the recreational drug. IOW, I think more people are peeved that they can't make a copy of their friend's CD anymore than there are those truly inconvenienced by the inability to make backup copies of their collections.

Incidentally, the ''fair use'' rulings for taping off broadcast TV (with commercials, etc.) are a bit outdated and unfortunately many seem to make (hopeful) extrapolations to current scenarios (taping entire moview off HBO for example). Key to that ruling was the court weighing potential damage to commercial value at a time where the companies didn't have such substantial profits from other venues (most specifically ''Season 1'' DVD's etc.) I believe IF this issue went back to the courts for the cable/satellite/etc. industry the ''fair use'' ruling would differ.

I think the same considerations will be balanced out for ''fair use'' of a DVD or music CD. When blank CD's can be purchased for next to nothing, and CDW drives are almost standard equipment these days, the potential loss of profits from CD copying is considerable. In the LP/audiotape days, the cost for a lower quality copy was prohibitive so somewhat limited the abuses and loss of profits. That's just not the case for copying CD's.

I believe a reasonable solution might to be having some sort of serial number imprinting on copies and if you register your CD/DVD you get a ''key'' that allows a limited number of copies. I think something like this would be a good solution -- it would also expose those that use the ''but I just want to back up my collection against damage'' argument where the real motivation is to be able to trade bootleg copies ad infinitum with friends and family.

Evie Wink

Collapse -
At a concert, you are paying for a performance

In reply to: What do you buy when you go to a concert?

which is far different from the CD. Also, one of the things I liked when I used to go to concerts was what was going on -between- the songs they played.

I liked your suggestion about a key. I take your point about those who want to make bootleg copies. Billions of dollars are lost to pirates. But maybe they could sell keyed versions made especially for the PC that could only be played on a PC registered to a certain person. Once the key is 'keyed in', it has to match the puter key. The problem with that is that people buy new puters, or make hardware changes. Seems there should be a solution somewhere... Maybe the key it matches could be online or something. I dont know; Im stumped.

Collapse -
What is a CD ...

In reply to: At a concert, you are paying for a performance

... if not a tangible copy of a ''performance''?? I do see the obvious difference between a live performance and a CD, but then again, how come the sheet music doesn't come along with the purchase? I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but I hope you get my point. I'm not a huge music buff, my hubby is perhaps more of one than I, but between us we do have a rather extensive CD collection -- many have become terminally separated from their cases as they are dragged from vehicle to vehicle, etc. We have two copies of a couple of favorites -- bought the old fashioned way. It's not such a big deal for the convenience of having one copy
at home at all times and one in my CD changer in the car. Presumably there are times when I am playing it in the car as my husband simultaneously is playing it at home. It's reasonable to me that we purchased two copies for this ability.

As to the key, I'm also thinking it could be something encrypted in a copy. This way, if someone is found with a stash of copied CD's one could trace the copy back to the original licensed copy. Would be self-policing for those that might otherwise be inclined to burn a copy for a friend with no real intent to do so on a mass basis.

If one was allowed to make one copy in MP3 format and it showed up on some online filesharing site or something, it could similarly be traced back.

I don't know if it is feasible. Infinite copies to whatever format could be allowed because the original would be registered to you, the owner. So long as only you (and realistically family that share vehicles, residences, etc.) were found in possession of such copies. No need to keep receipts if you register the original product to get the key. I would think that technology could prevent copying copies.

Evie Happy

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.