Russian Music Site Offering Legal Songs By The MB

An anonymous reader writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting on a Russian Music site that is offering legal digital music by the MB. The site apparently has a license from the Russian Music authorities to legally distribute songs for a fraction of the price of what is being offered by iTunes and others. The report from SMH is here. Amazingly, the site offers files in any format and encoding you choose and rips it on the fly. Notifications by email follow when the songs are ready for download. Sounds a little to good to be true :)"

Comments

Dunno why no link

[lordkuri]

click me

Re:Dunno why no link

[SailFly]

it's working now. In fact I just saw 1270 users on-line, so it seems to handle the bandwidth.

Re:Dunno why no link

[q-the-impaler]

It's /.ed now :(
---------------------

The Server is busy...

We are sorry, but the server is busy now due to numerous calls. Try to refresh the page.

, . .

Re:Dunno why no link

[guiscard]

Maybe the RIAA submitted the story to Slashdot to bring down the server?

Re:Dunno why no link

[TedCheshireAcad]

Their HTTP 200 error message owns, though. Instead of telling you to 'try again later' its like 'please refresh! we love getting out ass pounded into the floor!'

Re:Dunno why no link

[ahaning]

Wayback Machine / Karma-Whoring link.

Re:Dunno why no link

[Ctrl-Z]

Should that be HTTP 503? If the site is giving that error for HTTP 200, there is definitely a problem.

Re:Dunno why no link

[Anonymous Coward]

What is MB?

Re:Dunno why no link

[Anonymous Coward]

No... It was I, Steve Jobs, who submitted this story to bring down their server.

One of these days, Alice

[ObviousGuy]

You knew that one of these days record companies would "get it" and find a way to sell their wares over the internet. Now I await them finding a way to do it without charging money.

Re:One of these days, Alice

[Anonymous Coward]

>You knew that one of these days record companies
>would "get it" and find a way to sell their wares
>over the internet. Now I await them finding a way
>to do it without charging money.

Umm, how do they sell stuff on the internet without charging money?

Re:One of these days, Alice

[tbone1]

Umm, how do they sell stuff on the internet without charging money?

They'll make it up in volume.

Re:One of these days, Alice

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope I'm missing the joke here.

Until you (and everyone else) start working for free, don't expect record companies to do the same. You basically have two choice: pay with money or pay with advertising. Pick one.

Re:One of these days, Alice

[theRiallatar]

I'd say they picked a stupid way to advertise then. Going after music sharers the way they have certainly gives them the jackbooted thug image in my eyes.

Re:One of these days, Alice

[WindBourne]

Send a virus to you at the same time?
Get your info for reselling to others?
Ads?

Re:One of these days, Alice

[squiggleslash]

Now I await them finding a way to do it without charging money.

Hmmm, well the three things that spring to mind are:

• Product placement - a well tested system that has helped reduce theatre and DVD prices for us all, with no apparent compromises made to the movies we watch. Indeed, some of us use this to fund our postings to Slashdot, and when I sit back, drink an ice cool refreshing Vanilla Coca Cola, and scan Slashdot.org on my Apple PowerBook, I can see the advantages straight away.
• Government grants - we the people benefit from music, so surely what we want is we the people to fund it. A minor increase in our taxes will ensure the money is well spent, providing grants for individual artists. A diverse and innovative range of music will be at our disposal, once those in charge of issuing grants determine what music deserves to be made, according, of course, to national community values. Of course, compromises will have to be made - music about sex, politics, religion, or that uses any of the words George Carlin was fined for protesting about his inability to use on television, will obviously not be made. We don't want tax payer's money spent on that kind of filth, and if the government issuing grants means that alternative sources of funding dry up, well, that's just a positive side effect that will keep America clean.
• Music can be funded through concerts - I don't need to tell you that I'd much rather pay $50 to see Orbital or The Chemical Brothers in concert than listen to them on my iPod lying on my bed with my eyes closed. I mean, can you imagine? Those samples, being acted out and mixed live. Definitely a viable way of funding music, because everyone who likes a particular type of music wants to see concerts and sees concerts as an appropriate way of listening to music.
• Isn't it about time artists just created music for the love of it? I mean, they're creating something, surely that's enough. Surely they should fund their day to day living expenses by working a full time job. Sure, if they have a full time job they're unlikely to have the time and energy to produce much, but that's better than being a lazy, scrounging, whiner who insists on making us pay them a few dollars for something that enriches our lives and helps make us happy. Our praise should be enough, surely? Ungrateful whiners!

And those are just the excellent funding ideas from the top of my head (actually El Reg's and the many Slashdotters heads, from memory.) Music can be free, all we have to do is not pay for it!

Re:One of these days, Alice

[10101001 10101001]

>>Umm, how do they sell stuff on the internet without charging money?

>They'll make it up in volume.

I know your comment was meant to be funny, but that's actually true to an extent. Just like how ads pay for free tv broadcasts, I wouldn't doubt the volume of people getting free audio online wouldn't provide a nice revenue stream for doing ads. Of course, there's nothing stopping a stream from being 90% ads and having people pay to get 45% ads instead..or was it that cable got you more channels with ads. Anyways, there's this magically thing called the radio which people have been known for years to tape record off of even though it wasn't always the best quality. Streaming audio would probably fit well into that category. I guess it's funny to me how while MS is trying to shift from per item to per time the RIAA is dead-set on doing everything on per item. I guess that's just their little way of saying MS has too little software and the RIAA has way too much music.

Re:One of these days, Alice

[stripmallkarate]

Isn't it about time artists just created music for the love of it?

Something tells me the average quality of music would drastically change for the better. Not a bad world, really.

Now, I am using the term 'quality' according to my way of thinking, connoting music that has value to me, which is a very broad, yet finicky swath across music in general - as i would never want to assert that there be a standard metric for measuring quality in music, like a product that might be free of defects and therefore scores high in "quality."

Re:One of these days, Alice

[pottymouth]

"Isn't it about time artists just created music for the love of it? I mean, they're creating something, surely that's enough. Surely they should fund their day to day living expenses by working a full time job. Sure, if they have a full time job they're unlikely to have the time and energy to produce much, but that's better than being a lazy, scrounging, whiner who insists on making us pay them a few dollars for something that enriches our lives and helps make us happy. Our praise should be enough, surely? Ungrateful whiners!"

I don't know if you're being sarcastic but what you're saying here is true. Many of the musical "ARTISTS" today are nothing but cynical business drones after a buck. How many rap songs (I use the word song loosly) are nothing but remixes of other peoples music. Oh yeah, that's real art... Com'on. It's all about the bucks. Which is exactly why the bucks need to go away so that the real artists can get back in the music making business.

Re:One of these days, Alice

[cayenne8]

"Music can be funded through concerts"

Hmm...."Back in the Day"....this was the way bands DID make their money. Unfortunately, it seems all you get today is a good looking lip-syncher...produced by the corporation, that cannot perfom live (or at least with out a LOT of electronic help).

Re:One of these days, Alice

[squiggleslash]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic...

Please tell me you're kidding!

Many of the musical "ARTISTS" today are nothing but cynical business drones after a buck. How many rap songs (I use the word song loosly) are nothing but remixes of other peoples music. Oh yeah, that's real art... Com'on. It's all about the bucks. Which is exactly why the bucks need to go away so that the real artists can get back in the music making business.

I'd say that's "your" fault (you being the great unwashed mass out there) for not supporting decent artists and pouring money into crap.

I think the key phrase in my comment above was:

Sure, if they have a full time job they're unlikely to have the time and energy to produce much, but...

I don't think we're going to see much "real" art if the bulk of the art produced is by people who have to work an additional full time job for a living. Yes, I'm aware there's a handful of exceptions to the rule, but there always are. Most of the music I've fallen in love with was written or performed by professionals. I don't think Shostakovich would have churned out fifteen symphonies without being able to devote himself full time to the task. I don't think Talking Heads would have produced 10+ superb albums without having the time to devote to their creation.

Arguing there are too many crap "artists" and suggesting this would in some way be solved by withdrawing the money from all of them is really not going to help. There are too many crap "anythings", I'd have thought that anyone working in the tech industry would know that...

Re:One of these days, Alice

[Anonymous Coward]

Reduce theater prices? In the past decade, movie ticket prices in my area have gone from about $4 to the current $10. And now we get commercials (which are a far cry from movie trailers in my opinion) to go with them.

Odd how this "savings" is doing anything but being passed back to the consumer...

Re:One of these days, Alice

[Anonymous Coward]

America isnt a clean place, so it cant be kept something its not.

and thats why america is wonderful,.

because its NOT clean.

Re:One of these days, Alice

[pottymouth]

"Arguing there are too many crap "artists" and suggesting this would in some way be solved by withdrawing the money from all of them is really not going to help. There are too many crap "anythings", I'd have thought that anyone working in the tech industry would know that..."

That's the whole point! The "REAL" artists wouldn't lose money. Oh sure, maybe they don't make the ludicrous sums common now but they certainly won't need to do anything but their art to make a living. Why the hell does an artist have to make 1000 times the average person to be able to make it worth his while. Shostakovich certainly didn't and he managed.

Your comment about the tech industry also underscores my point. The reason you've got so man y crappy programmers is because many entered the field for nothing more the and promise of big bucks during the software boom of the 90's. Money changes everything and often for the worse...

Re:One of these days, Alice

[celimage]

Musicians love making music. Athletes love sport and competition. Artists love creating imagery. Programmers love creating software. Engineers love designing things. Cooks love cooking. Why should these people be paid? Would you go to a restaurant enjoy the meal and then tell the server what a great meal it was and walk out without paying? Professional musicians invest a great deal of time and money in their education and equipment. If the record companies promote the lazy whiners and the public buys into it, whose fault is it? The state of music education in this country is terrible so the door is open for commercial interests to put any crap in a nice package and sell it. The old definition of music was "stuff I hear on the radio" but the internet opens the media possibilities to redefine the definition of music to "stuff I like". The catch is YOU must support the music YOU like or it will disappear. Dennis Jennings Celestial Image http://celestial-image.com

Re:One of these days, Alice

[squiggleslash]

That's the whole point! The "REAL" artists wouldn't lose money. Oh sure, maybe they don't make the ludicrous sums common now but they certainly won't need to do anything but their art to make a living. Why the hell does an artist have to make 1000 times the average person to be able to make it worth his while. Shostakovich certainly didn't and he managed.

Erm, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Where did "1,000 times the average person" come from? How many artists do you think earn that? How does removing all income for artists mean they're left with an ordinary salary? How does your scheme to abolish all income for all artists some how ensure "REAL" artists continue to make money and produce art?

Look, it's perfectly simple: if you force all artists to have an additional full time job to do in addition to their creative work, the amount of creative work is going to practically disappear. Shostakovich was paid to create, he didn't have to work in a factory 9 hours a day, come home, and then compose symphonies in his spare time. If he hadn't had income from his art, he wouldn't have had the time to create 15 symphonies, a similar number of string quartets, several operas, etc, etc. This is a man who wrote the seventh and eighth in the middle of a way after being ferried from Leningrad to a remote, safe, retreat where he could concentrate full time on his music, and he took months to get the 7th out, and more time to get the eighth out. You think he could have got them out if he'd had to work in a factory too? Are you nuts?

Your comment about the tech industry also underscores my point. The reason you've got so man y crappy programmers is because many entered the field for nothing more the and promise of big bucks during the software boom of the 90's. Money changes everything and often for the worse...

No, it doesn't. If no salaries were paid in the computer industry, much less work would be done, and it would be of no higher quality. I really don't understand why you've decided to hang your hat on such an extreme position - simply because a minority may be paid too much does not imply that all faults to do with that sector are to do with being paid money (too much or otherwise.) You can have reasonable levels of income, you don't have to abolish money and force musicians or programmers to find other sources of income, limiting their creative time to their rapidly disappearing spare time.

By forcing artists to create in their "spare time", you destroy art.

Re:One of these days, Alice

[pottymouth]

You're making an illogical extension of a resonable concept. Nowhere did I say anything about taking away ALL of anyone's income. Britney Spears made approx 20 million dollars last year as a result of her art (yes, lots of endorsements). The average American earns $50,000 year (+- $10,000). Ok, so she only makes 500 times the average person. I'd say she could probably scratch by without working at McDonalds on just a scad less. Wouldn't you?

Where do you get the NO SALERIES stuff! You're making a silly and extreme statement, attributing it to me, and then making an argument. You're the only one to say NO SALERY. No one works for free and no one should. My point is that artists would not have to work at anything but their art if they're good at their art. If they're not they won't and that's the way it should be. Anyone (excepting politians and weathermen) that's lousy at their job will not get paid for it for long. Why should artists be any different.

Pick my argument apart. If you pick your own argument apart we'll find ourselves in agreement and at a logical contradiction ;()

Re:One of these days, Alice

[squiggleslash]

Where do you get the NO SALERIES stuff! You're making a silly and extreme statement, attributing it to me, and then making an argument.

From your earlier comment:

I don't know if you're being sarcastic but what you're saying here is true. Many of the musical "ARTISTS" today are nothing but cynical business drones after a buck. How many rap songs (I use the word song loosly) are nothing but remixes of other peoples music. Oh yeah, that's real art... Com'on. It's all about the bucks. Which is exactly why the bucks need to go away so that the real artists can get back in the music making business.

If you don't mean you want artists to do their stuff for free, don't agree with a statement proposing that, and don't propose it yourself.

Allofmp3.com

[p0ppe]

http://www.allofmp3.com/

Been using their services for half a year now without any problems. They're licenced with the Russian equivalent of the RIAA, so I don't see where the problem is.

This is a great example of the free market combined with the internet. I'm able to buy goods and services from wherever it suits me.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm able to buy goods and services from wherever it suits me.

Plus you aren't breaking the law cause it's legal in the place you ordered from! I'm still waiting for my marijuana from Amsterdam though...

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

haven't all those "strange" items on your credit card bothered you?

ok, call me dubious but i'm not too happy about giving banking details to Russia.

(in soviet union the mp3's encode you etc etc)

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

"They're licenced with the Russian equivalent of the RIAA, so I don't see where the problem is."

giving money to an equivalent of the RIAA?

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

If you import legally purchased marijuana you will be in violation of drug possession laws. But can you name a law you would violate when importing a legally purchased piece of music? Private individuals import lots of music all the time with no legal problems.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Urkki]

*RIA* aren't bad in principle, quite the contrary. If they get too much power and abuse it (and let's face it, too much power always leads to abuse), then that can be bad. But ideally they're representing artists rights, put to that position by artists, just as good or bad as for example EFF can be. It's just that money tends to corrupt everything.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Rico_za]

This is a great example of the free market combined with the internet. I'm able to buy goods and services from wherever it suits me.

That's exactly the same argument that can be used for outsourcing IT jobs. You can't have it both ways people! You can't have your cheap consumer economy in the US, and still want your jobs protected. Why not complain about the poor music industry jobs that are being "outsourced" to Russia?

Re:Allofmp3.com

[bluntos]

"Democracy is 2 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what to have for dinner. But two of the sheep are retarded/unwilling to vote"

Re:Allofmp3.com

[rmezzari]

You hit the nail in the head, I was going to post the same idea. Why can a consumer buy goods and services where he sees fit, but a company cannot do the same? That's hipocrisy for you kids.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Zweistein_42]

But jobs ARE being offshored - by millions:). It's the cheap goods that are sometimes hard to obtain (DVD region coding etc).
There's a ridiculous amount of stuff that's dirt cheap in East Europe or Asia, that is not available here.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[s0meguy]

Not a problem - they take Paypal.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[etymxris]

I don't complain of either personally. Outsourcing is fine for both consumers and businesses in my book.

As has been said many times before, not all of slashdot speaks with one voice. When you see those topics with 800-2000 comments, it's because there is significant disagreement. If everyone agreed, there wouldn't be much to say.

You are right that there can be a certain hypocricy in saying that consumers should be able to get cheap wares from Russian markets, yet that our jobs should not be outsourced there. However, the charitable thing to do is to assume that no one holds both those positions until seeing someone that does. What makes you think otherwise?

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Epistax]

I have no problem with the outsourcing and I completely agree with it. Hell I'm a computer engineer. If my job gets outsourced to India or whatever, I'll just go there and work. This same argument can be made state to state as country to country. Jobs are taken from a state so it becomes less populated (I'm from Maine). Jobs are taken from a country so it becomes less populated.

So... c-ya! (after I graduate :P)

Re:Allofmp3.com

[The Evil Couch]

I think it's because consumers outsourcing forces healthy price competition with local companies, but companies outsourcing forces local consumers out of jobs.

companies can afford to lower their profit margin, but people cannot compete with job markets where the cost of living is lower; they'll starve.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[marc_gerges]

The issue nowadays is just the other way around.

A company can move, source, produce and sell pretty much wherever it wants. However, as a consumer my possibilities to buy goods and services where I see fit is severely hampered.

Ever tried to buy something from an Amazon affiliate not in your part of the world? Heck, I'm in Luxembourg, and there's many articles within amazon.de that they refuse to ship to anywhere but Germany.

A Toyota Prius is 20000 USD in the US, and 25000 EUR over here. Can I import one from the US? Sure. Will Toyota US sell me one? Sure not.

Of course, I could jump through hoops and get my stuff (I sometimes do). But we're far away from having consumers being able to use globalization to his advantage...

Re:Allofmp3.com

[front]

"poor music industry jobs"

Is that not a contradiction in terms?

cheers

front

Re:Allofmp3.com

[jcam2]

I'm sure you can blame EU regulation for most of these price differences and import problems :-)

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

You would be in for a rude awakening if you moved to India. It's one thing to visit, another to live/work there.

First of all, the reason jobs are outsourced is THEY PAY YOU LESS. So unless you are totally dedicated to your work, being in IT is not as lucrative there as it is here.

Why do you think there are still so many work visas from India in the US? My cubicle-mate is Indian, and he totally agrees with me.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

We already do, man. We already do.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Mattsson]

Yes, some jobs are created in russia instead of the US in the music-sales sector and the IT-sector.
But most of the jobs related to the song that's being downloaded have little or nothing to do with where in the world the song is being sold.
This is no different than buying a record while on vacation, buying a record from another country over the net or buying something from iTunes while not being a US citizen.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[gl4ss]

it would seem to me that the ones doing the outsourcing are the biggest complainers about services like allofmp3.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[TedCheshireAcad]

But.....

shouldn't song download you?

Re:Allofmp3.com

[sjb2016]

I was afraid of the same thing, so I used a debit card from a bank I rarely use but had a little money still in the account. I also had the bank contact me whenever the card was used. I've had no unauthorized use. Granted, it's a small three month period. I also suppose they might use that info to obtain other accounts in my name (is that possible), but my credit report is still clean, but I still watch it like a hawk. We are dealing with commies here. ;-)

Re:Allofmp3.com

[adrianbaugh]

It's beautiful. The price pressure on goods leads to outsourcing of jobs, which leads to pressure on wages in order to compete, which leads to... One vicious circle later and the average wage in the US will be no higher than the average wage in urban China. But it won't matter, because everything will be so cheap.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[nelsonal]

I don't think it's all regulations and import duties. In the computing world exchange rates moved very rapidly and prices did not adjust as quickly at rates moved. The move was big enough (almost 50% in two years) that Germans were importing (paying the import and transit costs) and saving 10-20% on new Mercedes-Benzes from the US. Exchange rates are hedged by most companies so they don't regularly adjust prices for exchange rate fluctuations.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[alatesystems]

You're going to go to work in India? Think Again

Chris Benard

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would go to that extent so you can save 20 cents on iTunes, you're an idiot. A cheap idiot.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[demigod]

...the average wage in the US will be no higher than the average wage in urban China. But it won't matter, because everything will be so cheap.

Sorry, it doesn't seem to be working that way with out-sourcing. I've seen lots of companies outsource thier IT workers, but haven't seen any of them lower thier prices. The savings seems to be put in the pockets of the fat cats, who are getting fatter.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If they get too much power and abuse it (and let's face it, too much power always leads to abuse), then that can be bad. But ideally they're representing artists rights, put to that position by artists, just as good or bad as for example EFF can be.

On this planet, the RIAA does have too much power, and they do abuse it, and they don't really represent artists - they represent the labels, which just want to make money. If they could do it without artists, they would.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[TopShelf]

You have an excellent point; what is being potentially "outsourced" (the new name for an old practice) is the distribution of music, not it's creation. Just another example of the music industry not understanding that the genie is already out of the bottle...

Re:Allofmp3.com

[theLOUDroom]

That's exactly the same argument that can be used for outsourcing IT jobs. You can't have it both ways people! You can't have your cheap consumer economy in the US, and still want your jobs protected. Why not complain about the poor music industry jobs that are being "outsourced" to Russia?

NO, this is not like outsourcing.
What this is doing is using the industry's geographical price discrimitation against them.

They might charge $10 for a widget in the US and only $4 in Cambodia, so what's happening here it that the same goods are still being purchased from the same company, it's just the geographic price discrimination is being avoided.

Incidentally price controls like this are illegal in the US, it's just that nobody exists to deal with them on an internaional level. Thus, you can ship a DVD that won't play in Korea, but not one which won't play in Kentucky.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where marijuana is legal.. even in Amsterdam it's not technically legal.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[dasmegabyte]

And who need to do something with all that money. Do you think they're outsourcing money management or lawyers? Are they relying on cheap Asian labor to build their fast cars and gigantic bungalows?

Nearly every successful person I know has gotten there by knowing people with money and selling things to them. One guy I know quit GE and started his own company doing exactly what he did at GE, hired his former co-workers, and outsourced himself to GE for more money (twice as much, but GE loved it since they weren't "in that field," despite dropping several mil a year into it).

While it's true that trickle down economics don't work, pumping water from upstream generally does.

Anyhow, the Grandfather's assertion that the average wage in the US will be no higher than the average wage in urban China is true, for the most part, but only because the average wage in urban China will go up at the same time ours goes down. That's one easy way to acheive global equality.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[pubjames]

I'm sure you can blame EU regulation for most of these price differences and import problems :-)

You could do, but you'd be wrong.

The EU is all about opening up markets, not closing them. However, it is the national governments that hinder this.

For instance, the EU wants to make it so that anyone can purchase alcohol from anywhere else. So, for instance, you would be able to order wine directly from a French vinyard if you live in the UK, without paying any additional duties. This would greatly reduce the costs for the consumer. However, the UK government doesn't want this to happen.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[z_gringo]

We are dealing with commies here.

The Russian Federation is a democrocy. It has been for a long time now.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[bankman]

This is a great example of the free market combined with the internet. I'm able to buy goods and services from wherever it suits me.

That's exactly the same argument that can be used for outsourcing IT jobs. You can't have it both ways people! You can't have your cheap consumer economy in the US, and still want your jobs protected. Why not complain about the poor music industry jobs that are being "outsourced" to Russia?

At some point you might want to read something about the concept of Comparative Advantage, which goes back to Adam Smith I believe. You should be able to find some information about this in the context of the current outsourcing debate at The Economist.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[el.enfoiro]

there is also a huge hypocrisy in the current situation, which is that our jobs ARE outsourced and we CANNOT buy wares from russian markets. free market is ok when it benefits stockholders, and made illegal when it benefits the consumer. go USA!

Re:Allofmp3.com

[akadruid]

In continental Europe and the USA, the idea of importing a car to save money is a seen as an oddity. In the UK, entire industries are built around the simple fact that it is cheaper to re-import vehicles constructed in UK from countries such as the Netherlands. As an illustration, see Jamjar, the UK's largest independent car retailer, selling UK spec models sourced from Europe.

This is nothing to do with minor exchange rate differences either. Standard retail prices of cars are regularly 20-60% higher in the UK.

As geograpical price-fixing goes, 'Ripoff Britain' has USA and continental Europe beaten hands-down.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

The problems Americans have with "outsourcing" isn't about economy or job loss, it's about racism, towards Indians. You never see Americans complain when their jobs are outsourced to Canada do you? And believe me, a lot of jobs are outsourced to Canada, and many other countries outside USA.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[mean pun]

History suggests that the reverse also happens. Outsourcing in the past also led to wage hikes in the low-wage countries. Witness Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and even Germany shortly after WWII.

Of course, this is not an unbreakable law, but I've already seen the first complaints by outsourcers about large wage hikes in India.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[defile]

I think the person who says "Russian mp3 downloading is free market at its best" is the same kind of person who says "Been outsourced? Stop whining and adapt!"

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Deflagro]

Also, given that communism isn't a form of goverment but a form of economy, what does it matter? India is a democratic communism. All this US dogma has seeped into everyone.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[nomadic]

The EU is all about opening up markets, not closing them.

The EU is all about opening up markets within Europe. As far as they're concerned the rest of the world can go hang itself. In fact, the whole point of the EU is to eliminate barriers to trade between EU countries while keeping barriers to non-EU countries.

However, it is the national governments that hinder this.
Yes, but the EU court manages to keep a leash on this behavior through zealous enforcement of articles 25-28 of the EU treaty.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[jez9999]

With Paypal's fees, that's a real annoyance.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[daviddennis]

Except the real reason people are cheaper in India is that it's a lot cheaper to live in India.

From what I understand, the Indian programmers are making $5-10k a year, and that's sufficient to give them a middle-class lifestyle.

$10k a year might just barely rent you a studio apartment in most of LA, not including any taxes, food or utilities.

Your Indian friend prefers to be in the US because he doesn't have to look at the dreadful poverty or suffer through the horrid infrastructure. But my understanding is that he could own a nice house in India on the salaries paid by outsourcers.

D

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Fancia]

In this case, it's not from the same company. ROMS, the Russian Organization for Multimedia and digital Systems, deals directly with artists. The royalties don't go to the record labels. It's due to a quirk in Russian copyright law; ROMS automatically has all intellectual property rights and can license them, and is required to pay most of that money to the *artists,* not to the record labels the artists may have licensed to elsewhere in the world.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[prefect42]

In an environment when we do not have a unified tax system across Europe, I hope you understand why the UK government doesn't want this.

Once you break those barriers, lots of indirect taxes become useless, since you can trade around them. But if you are after a federal europe, then I guess I can't quibble.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[hackstraw]

I have written a couple of posts about allofmp3.com post 1 post2.

In a nutshell, if you don't care too much about what you download (quality, selection, completeness, ease of download, etc) and you feel better about paying some Russian for (mostly) American music than go through this service. Otherwise, you can get the same low quality, incomplete, mislabled stuff for free on p2p with a greater selection.

Note, I have _never_ used a p2p service, nor do I plan to. I bought about $20 of music from this service and I still think its easier/cheaper/higher quality to go to the used record store for studio albums and go to places like this for free live stuff to download. Unfortunately, most of the really free music is limited to non pop bands that tour and play music for a living instead of those that look good and rely on their producers and recording engineers to make the music for them, so that leaves out many consumers.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[isorox]

That's exactly the same argument that can be used for outsourcing IT jobs. You can't have it both ways people!

Fine. Outsourcing is the right of every company, whether it's outsourcing motherboard construction or programming. Of course the flip side to the free market is being able to buy from any country.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[cayenne8]

All I know of India is what I see on TV, but, from what I can ascertain, middle class there is NOT what middle class standards of living are here. The 'metropolitan' areas I've seen there on tv, look only about 2-3 steps above the dirt roads and poverty with animals walking around free in the 'lower class' areas.

And, on a lighter note....while I like India food as much as the next guy, I think I'd get REALLY tired of it 24/7....

:-)

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not exactly true, you can buy a car in a diffrent country as long as you pay taxes and shipping costs.

For example you can import a volvo from europe and bring it to the us by picking it up in sweden, and shipping it over. (You actually don't save any money from it, but you do get basically a free trip to europe from the states)

Re:Allofmp3.com

[sevinkey]

Geographic price discrimation is illegal? Then why is my milk in Arizona twice as expensive as milk in Indiana?

Or how able an example that doesn't involve increased costs... why does a dentist in Arizona cost twice as much as a dentist in Indiana?

If you want to talk about price discrimination, I bet a $4 part in Cambodia is actually more expensive to the Cambodians than the $10 part is to an American.

It's about supply and demand... the company can set whatever price they want, if people will pay $10 in America, then they're gonna sell them for $10... I doubt the same is true in Cambodia.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's what happens in the Soviet Matrix.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[zbuffered]

Hey man, my mom bought a Prius in October, and she still doesn't have it. She paid cash, and it's nowhere to be found. You think they'll ship one to you? They one even give her hers. Those little bastards are scarce!

Re:Allofmp3.com

[theLOUDroom]

Geographic price discrimation is illegal? Then why is my milk in Arizona twice as expensive as milk in Indiana?

Perhaps I should have said geographic price fixing rather than discrimination. I think it's fairly obvious what I was saying. There's a legal diffence between artificial scarcity created by a corporate cartely and real scarcity.

It's about supply and demand...

Not when a cartel is involed.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Brandybuck]

That's exactly the same argument that can be used for outsourcing IT jobs. You can't have it both ways people!

You're assuming that outsourcing is the result of the free market. It is not. While the movement (and/or obsolescence) of jobs is inevitable in any economy, the free market does not explain the near religious ferver in which public corporations are shipping off all non-management jobs overseas.

First, the only companies participating in the outsourcing fad are public corporations. By definition such companies cannot exist without government grant of special privilege. Public corporations are not the free market. They are shielded from the many of the competitive pressures that private companies face.

Second, domestic government regulations and taxations have made domestic employment too expensive. According to my HR rep, it costs my employer thirty thousand dollars per year to employ me, over and above what I receive in salary and benefits. As a result of government regulation. Holy shit!

This morning's SJMN talked about how investors (you and I) were choosing not to invest in companies that outsourced. This was proclaimed as a rejection of the free market. Huh? Voluntarily choosing where to spend your money is counter to free markets? I think the SJMN needs a new dictionary. To me this inidcates the opposite. It is evidence that the free market is fixing the problem!

Re:Allofmp3.com

[shiftless]

Dude, screw $0.99 per song, it costs 1 CENT PER MEGABYTE to download a song off that site. That's it! And you can encode the song to OGG, MP3, WMA (I think), get it as a WAV file, or whatever you want, at any bitrate you choose. I use the site, and download in 192-256 kbps OGG format. It typically costs around 5-10 cents per song like that.

It's a really awesome service. When you order some songs, they've typically finished encoding within 5-10 minutes and are immediately available for download. Your account balance is not charged until you've completely downloaded the song. You can resume it as many times as you want but until you completely finish you are not charged.

Check it out!

Re:Allofmp3.com

[edrain]

Paypal charges a fee to the seller, I believe, so that really shouldn't annoy you too much.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[marc_gerges]

Of course companies hedge exchange rates so they don't suffer from fluctuations - you can do that as a consumer too...

With the kind of monetary politics the US follow - basically printing more dollars once they're all spent - it'd be very bad management not to hedge. :-)

The problem here isn't import taxes and duties, either. When I buy an article, I pay the duties, whether I import on my own or have it done by a local reseller.

The real problem is that the vendor decides to up his price for you based on your whereabouts and makes sure it's very tough for you to get around this. That goes from things like region coding for DVD's over artificially high shipping charges to other countries to flatly refusing to sell high price items to foreigners.

The european commission fights this behaviour as much as possible, but obviously concentrates on inner european cases.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[fcrick]

IANAL, but according to my lawyer friends, while this is legal if you are a Russian resident, you and allofmp3.com are violating copyright law when the music enters the United States (or any other country, I guess). I think they are committing contributory copyright infringement, and I believe you are as well (or worse).

Point is, even though its legal under Russian law (not sure if thats even true), both you and them are breaking U.S. laws by downloading music off their site.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Eraser_]

True story, California avocados cost more in California than they do in Canada. I don't know the exact price, but an avocado here is $1USD, an avocado in Canada is .80CAN. As you can see, there is a massive price difference there even if you don't account for the exchange rate.

BTW, Supermarkets in a mall is a cool idea. Hint Hint. (I visited Canada ~year.5 ago when I noticed these differences)

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Deraj DeZine]

Since when did the meaning of "-1, Off-topic" change to "+5, Insightful"?

Re:Allofmp3.com

[AndyL]

You mean "In this country "? The RIAA is an American organisation. That's what the last 'A' stands for.

Aparently in Russia the Recording Industry Association is not as bad.

Probably because in Russia people are poor enough that they can't affoard to be ripped off by the recording industry.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

So it is possible to download 99% of a song and cancel it.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[danielsfca2]

I've given them my credit card number. There has never been a charge on it other than the one I first authorized.

I did use PayPal at first, but I realized they were at trustworthy and cut out the middleman after that.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[danielsfca2]

> With Paypal's fees, that's a real annoyance.

No. If you pay AllofMP3 $5 with PayPal, they get $4.75 or so. They bear the PayPal fees, not you. Have you ever used PayPal?

Re:Allofmp3.com

[adrianbaugh]

True - same equalisation effect, though.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[mrsev]

Few points:

"If you import legally purchased marijuana you will be in violation of drug possession laws."

Yes it is illegal to IMPORT drugs.

"But can you name a law you would violate when importing a legally purchased piece of music?"

Im no expert but you might me liable for an import duty on the goods you purchaced as you are importing them. In the same way if you tried to bring a truck full of vodka into the US customs might ask for some(lots of) money.

My opinion is that it is 100% Ok to do this as you are complying with Russian copyright law. The legal grounds for this depend on where is the "official" location of the transaction. Good luck to them!

Re:Allofmp3.com

[SEE]

he EU is all about opening up markets, not closing them

Oh? Three letters for you -- CAP.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

20 cents? no.. more like $7-8 -- typical album prices when I use encoding at ogg Q7 are $0.60-0.80 and, you don't get annoying DRM, and it's in the format of your choice. iTunes can't beat that.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Kelz]

Yes but is there anything but old TATU songs on there?

Re:Allofmp3.com

[sevinkey]

Oh agree totally that there is a legal difference to artifical scarcity and real scarcity, but it the laws aren't enforced then the difference in reality is nil.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[trentblase]

That's cause we send you the smelly ones :) Seriously though, it might have something to do with freshness, and you have to compare specific brands as well as seasonal fluctuations. Ok, I just realized that I'm actually responding to an OT post about apocados. So, I'll conclude with a book reccomendation: The Snarkout Boys and the Avocado of Death

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Eraser_]

Avocados are a pretty special lot though when it comes to freshness, since they can sit out on a shelf for awhile before they ripen to a point where you can eat them. You have to brown-bag them if you want to eat them in any short period of time.

The other thing to consider if cost of transport, surely trucking them from distro to store is cheaper than distro->{truck|train}[->truck]->store should keep them up in cost.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a joke man. Maybe later I'll tell you something that isn't a joke and you can compare the two.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[trentblase]

Indeed, I hail you as the new Avocado king! Most likely, the demand for Avocados in CA is relatively inelastic (a decrease in price would not increase sales). Seriously, that book I mentioned... it's pretty good. No foolin'.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Outsourcing is fine for both consumers and businesses in my book.

You should research "employees" for inclusion in your book.

Some people (neither consumers or businesses) have these things called jobs, which they usually hate but they have to go to in order to receive money that they can exchange for things like food and a place for their family to live and electricity to heat their living space and pay taxes to buy bombs and ammo that their government can use on other people and so on. They get very dependent on these jobs, and it's traumatic when they go from having a job for 20 years to not having a job for 2 years because their job was "outsourced", meaning that their employer found a pool of people to do similar work that would work for much less money. It's an interesting phenomenon that will have far-reaching consequences for the economies of many different countries.

It's already having some pretty far-reaching consequences for my ass. Now, don't get me wrong - I don't think that someone in the U.S. deserves $50.00 a hour when someone else can and will do the exact same work for $0.17 an hour. That holds true for executives, programmers, attorneys, ditch diggers, you name it. The part that I have a problem with is the abruptness of the shift. Within about a two or three year period, huge numbers of jobs have been moved by U.S. corporations out of the country. There's been no room for markets to adjust. Bread is still $2.00 a loaf in Seattle. A cheap beater house costs $400,000 in my neighborhood. I'd take a programming job now for $20 a hour even though I'm in my 40s and was making $100,000 a year at my last job.

Outsourcing is like a huge change in the setting of the thermostat of global economy. The first wild economic temperature swing hasn't even occurred yet because everybody's money is still running out, but it will occur, and the hysterisis effect will keep it swinging for years.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[joeljkp]

We can't? I can buy music from the above-named site all I want.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you think they're outsourcing money management or lawyers?"

Yes they're also outsourcing accountants, financial experts/advisors/managers, and paralegals.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[nzkoz]

NO, this is not like outsourcing. What this is doing is using the industry's geographical price discrimitation against them.

You never mentioned why it wasn't like outsourcing? Isn't outsourcing just companies' using the labour market's Geographical price discrimination against the employees?

Same service, two prices in two different countries. Buy from the cheap one. I fail to see how this is different except that in one case it's the evil Industry and on the other it's the valiant Workers.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[cpt kangarooski]

They're licenced with the Russian equivalent of the RIAA, so I don't see where the problem is.

Provided you're in Russia, no problem at all I assume. Otherwise, there's an excellent chance that it violates your local copyright laws that you can be held subject to.

This is a great example of the free market combined with the internet. I'm able to buy goods and services from wherever it suits me.

Yeah, but copyright was set up deliberately to prevent just anyone from doing this sort of thing. It's artifical scarcity. So when it's undercut like this, copyright interests probably will take it personal.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[cpt kangarooski]

But can you name a law you would violate when importing a legally purchased piece of music?

Yes. 17 USC 106. That was easy, give me a hard one next time.

But it's not relevant. This is NOT importation. Which means that it violates a different part of the same statute, the part about reproduction. This is somewhat worse, since while _some_ importation is legal, it's harder to find a situation where this is legal as reproduction. At least in the US.

Re:Allofmp3.com

[asjk]

Fine. Outsourcing is the right of every company, whether it's outsourcing motherboard construction or programming. Of course the flip side to the free market is being able to buy from any country.

GMTA! I think one thing is obvious from reading the comments that have been posted. Globalization has too many variables and is still too new for us to fully appreciate the impact it will have. What is obvious is that there is going to be some kinda re-alignment of resources, incomes, profits etc. A commentary on CNBC noted that the US, being more flexible will be at some advantage over more rigid economies. But who knows for sure?

Re:Allofmp3.com

[Epistax]

Thank you for ccompletely not taking into account that, and to add your equal emphasis, THINGS COST LESS. Yes if I were to work and India and pay for US goods, I'd be poor as hell.

As a side note, please PLEASE never confuse IT with any engineering discipline. Anyway my most likely course would be to get a transfer through Intel (working there now) to another site off-country. We work with people in Bangalore and all over all the time and have never heard any financial complaints.

Hmmmm...

[elmegil]

I dunno, having "Russia" and "legal" in the same sentence leaves me a bit ... skeptical.

Besides, in post-Soviet Russia, the songs MegaByte You!

Er....

Re:Hmmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

And it differs from today's Bush/Ashcroft/Patriot act in what way?
Sadly, Russsia has more freedoms than we do while we decay into the old Soviet Union.

Re:Hmmmm...

[elmegil]

I didn't say Russia wasn't free, just snidely referring to their vast mafia presence.

Re:Hmmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia changes.
Everyone and everything does.
It's been now more than 10 years since collapse of the Soviet regime.
Many things are different now.
Of course, there is a long way to go, but the progress has been immense.
Young generation does not know Soviet modus vivendi.
Mafia belongs to the first half of 90-ies.
It's very much different from what you see in a Hollywood movies...

Obviously not rip...

[hanssprudel]

It doesn't rip it on the fly, it encodes it on the fly. Big difference (thousands of CD-ROMs???)

More importantly, has anybody tried this? I found it many months ago, but I am loath to send my credit card data to a semi-shady Russian site, and I am worried that credit card records could be used to go after people who used the site when it (inevitably) gets shut down eventually. What do people think?

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Hakubi_Washu]

Why not put PayPal inbetween? That way you can't be charged... (I use PayPal exclusively, because I don't have a creditcard, they're not that common over here in germany :-)

Re:Obviously not rip...

[dimethyltryptamine]

The site has been online for at least a year, which is how long I've used it for. Knowing people pretty high up the company (and given that its Russia) I can say that it will be difficult to stop even if there are legal issues with it.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[GraZZ]

The files they encode from are IIRC 384kbps wav files. Pretty good sources :)

Re:Obviously not rip...

[troon]

384kbps wav files. Pretty good sources

Pretty poor sources, actually. Red book CD rips to 1378kbps WAVs (44100 samples per second × 16 bits per channel × 2 channels).

Maybe 384kbps mp3s...?

Re:Obviously not rip...

[GraZZ]

My bad, it was 384kbps of what they claimed was a "lossless compression", but I think was just mp3.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. Who do I trust? A shady Russian website selling MP3's or a shady US website who takes your money and promises to send it where you say?

Re:Obviously not rip...

[drudd]

My wife and I have used it for several months now, and have been very happy (although lately the servers seem to be overloaded too often).

The funny thing is, after we put the first amount on our credit card, Citibank called up to make sure that the charge was legit. Then when we put more money on a few months later, they called again! I guess Citibank just can't believe people might purchase stuff from a Russian company :)

Doug

Re:Obviously not rip...

[XMyth]

Some albums do have the original CDA as the encoding source but most have 384kbps VBR MP3s. Also I believe the price of encoding from the original CDA is a whopping 2cents per meg instead of 1cent.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Anonymous Coward]

> My bad, it was 384kbps of what they claimed was a "lossless compression", but I
> think was just mp3.

Sounds fraudulent to me. If I was happy with MP3s I'd be using SoulSeek or KazaaLite, not some dodgy Russian crooks.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[AKnightCowboy]

Hmmm. Who do I trust? A shady Russian website selling MP3's or a shady US website who takes your money and promises to send it where you say?

eBay is a shady company? Never had a problem with Paypal yet, but I've only used it twice. ;-)

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Ubergrendle]

Actually, if my credit card was ripped off, I would assume that downloading online music would be a preferred activity. Why use my credit card to buy CDs from the HMV at the mall when I can go to a website and download 10x the amount? Also, i might get ~physically~ caught at a mall.

I'm sure Citibank isn't skeptical of the company itself per se, more that you've changed your buying habits to purchase something internationally.

BTW, this can be bad from a precedent setting perspective. Citibank will (eventually) adjust its fraud-detection settings for your account, so the next time a questionable internet-based Russian purchase happens it might not trigger a flag.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[fingerfucker]

Use the "one-time disposable credit card number generation" service provided by your bank. Citi has it, MBNA has it, Discover has it, AmEx has it, almost everyone these days has it.

The way it works, you log in, specify the maximum amount to charge and set your own expiration date per your wish. A credit card number from a static pool is given to you and associated with the amount and your billing information for the period of time until expiration. After that, the number is useless. The number also becomes useless once you use it to charge up to the amount that you specified (i.e. exhaust your "quota" on that number). They typically even generate the CVV code for you, should you ever need it, so it works pretty well.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[no soup for you]

http://www.paypalsucks.com/

According to PayPal accepting their ToS (Terms of Service) in effect means you waive your rights to credit card consumer protection laws, and that you may not issue a chargeback for unauthorized use of your credit card and PayPal account. Is this legal? We don't know. But it's how Paypal operates.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[TwistedGreen]

I guess Citibank just can't believe people might purchase stuff from a Russian company.

Good to know they're actually looking after your money, though.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've used allofmp3 for about a year now, and I'm EXTREMELY happy with their services and quality. The credit card verification is done through a third party called CyberPlat, which is actually a respected banking firm in Russia/Europe. I did a some checking on them before I submitted my credit card. The Diner's Club trusts them! Anyways, I have not had anything BUT a pleasant experience with them... and they give me OGGs!

Re:Obviously not rip...

[ajs318]

Is this legal? We don't know. But it's how Paypal operates.

It's almost certainly illegal.

In most countries, if the law of the land gives you a right, nobody can take that right away from you. Which is why EULAs are on such shaky ground ..... you can't be held to an agreement not to reverse-engineer or disassemble the software {which the law gives you a specific right to do, as long as it's for the purpose of satisfying your own morbid curiosity and you aren't trying to run a business based on it}. It's also the reason why a man can still be convicted of raping his own wife -- a marriage certificate does not override a woman's right to refuse consent to sexual intercourse. And it's why you see the words "THIS GUARANTEE DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR STATUTORY RIGHTS".

Re:Obviously not rip...

[pyite]

Unfortunately, AMEX discontinued their one time number service as of April 15. It's a minor inconvenience, but AMEX holds you liable for Zero Dollars in the event of fraud.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Anonymous Coward]

i know at least 2 people who have been screwed by paypal (had over $10K of transactions, they started an "investigation" for no good reason, froze their money for months and wouldn't let them have it)

Re:Obviously not rip...

[coyote_oww]

More importantly, has anybody tried this? I found it many months ago, but I am loath to send my credit card data to a semi-shady Russian site, and I am worried that credit card records could be used to go after people who used the site when it (inevitably) gets shut down eventually. What do people think?

My credit card company will generate one-time-use credit card numbers for me through their web site - I imagine many other banks do the same. This addresses the "shady Russian site" issue. I suspect you could still be tracked down by the RIAA though.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[jrockway]

Maybe it was The Free Lossless Audio Codec?

Re:Obviously not rip...

[fingerfucker]

Didn't know that. Thanks.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[WindBourne]

Open a small bank account with x amount ( say 25-50) in it.
Then use a debit card.
that way, the worse thing is that you are out x amount, no more.

I have several neighbor friends that I have moved to linux due to all the problems. The biggest issue is lack of music and their getting screwed by sites. I think this just became the answer, combined with the idea of how to handle the money.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Nos.]

Because of course we all know that people who use stolen credit cards would never just download their music off a P2P, they want to pay for legitimate copies.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Anonymous Coward]

Been using them for over a year now. A quick check of my account tells me that I've downloaded 6141 tracks from them. Never had a single problem or payment go astray. I usually use a combo of PayPal (because it's easier) and Mastercard. No duplicate charges, no 'unusual' charges at all in that time. As far as I'm concerned this is the best download site and leaves iTunes standing both in quality of options and variety of albums available.

Ark

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds fraudulent to me. If I was happy with MP3s I'd be using SoulSeek or KazaaLite, not some dodgy Russian crooks.

So what you're saying is: you would steal directly, not use some "crooks" (if they are, in fact - you provide no evidence that they are) as intermediaries. How very noble of you.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Anonymous Coward]

what kind of shady fuckers transfer 10k by paypal?

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Ubergrendle]

Although your comment is sarcastic, I beleive you do have a point -- a tech savy criminal probably wouldn't bother with a 'pay' site. However, many criminals _aren't_ tech savy, at least as far as the internet goes. In addition, the P2P networks are all full of crappy corrupted copies; collecting full albums is problematic; and performance is questionable usually. Its much easier to just bulk-download from a reliable provider.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Fratz]

Why not put PayPal inbetween? That way you can't be charged...

Do you really believe that? I used Paypal to buy something from eBay, and the product never arrived. I had dozens of emails back and forth with the "seller", claiming it was on its way, but he never provided a tracking number.

You'd think PayPal would only need this email exchange to refund my money, right? WRONG. Of about $100, I got $5 back from PayPal, even though PayPal admitted the seller was clearly in the wrong.

I had to go through my credit card to get the rest back.

If credit cards are not common in Germany, perhaps you can help change that by getting one :)

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Anonymous Coward]

Citibank obviously understand its obligations to its members...
When I had an acct w/ Wells Fargo, I had to deal with Wells refusing to honour a CC payment at a local Chinese restaraunt, 'cos I had "suspiscous" transactions... After two /hours/ of my life wasted, I was able to talk to a supe who realised that I would take 150 000 USD from my accounts if they didn't honour 28 USD in debit-card charges...
Thus said, I cancelled all accounts w/ the company, and went to Citibank...
Citi has /never/ blocked any of my transactions, but has given me the courtesy of calling me whenever a charge is "suspicious."
In the end, I'd rather get a phone call from a company who is concerned about fraud, than a company which would construe a meal as such..

Re:Obviously not rip...

[RockyMountain]

I'd like to use that. I use MBNA, but can't find it on their web site. Any clue to help me find it?

Thx.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[RockyMountain]

I'd like to use that. I use MBNA, but can't find it on their web site. Any clue to help me find it?

Never mind, just found it.

The trick is, you have to be logged into your account to find it. There seems to be no info about it on pages accessible while not logged in.

Thanks for telling me about this. Very useful.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[zdr1977]

I've been using this service for several months now. I've got several albums that would've been impossible to find...and encoding at 192kbps, cbr, a disc usually costs in the $0.50-$0.75 range. No funny charges have appeared on my credit card bill. I was skeptical about it at first, too, but did some research into it and discovered the site was totally legit.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[fingerfucker]

Alright, I see you found it - "MBNA ShopSafe".

It's a pity they don't advertise it on their website, you can't even find out what "MBNA ShopSafe" is until you log in, which presumes you have an account with them. It's a pity they don't have more info publicly available on the webiste for potential customers, I think this could be a great sales pitch instead of those annoying "Get fraud protection for $99.99 a year" phone calls.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't open a second bank account at the bank you already do business with. If your "small" account is overdrawn, most banks will happily withdraw the money from your other accounts and charge you for the service. And they'll do it over and over again even if you ask them to stop.

Open an account with a completely different bank if you want to secure your money.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[shiftless]

Yep, I use it, it's awesome. The site is in no danger of being "shut down" because it is a legally licensed business in Russia, licensed by their version of the RIAA. If you're worried though you can pay via PayPal instead of credit card. Check it out, you'll love it.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[AeroIllini]

"Although your comment is sarcastic, I beleive you do have a point -- a tech savy criminal probably wouldn't bother with a 'pay' site. However, many criminals _aren't_ tech savy, at least as far as the internet goes. In addition, the P2P networks are all full of crappy corrupted copies; collecting full albums is problematic; and performance is questionable usually. Its much easier to just bulk-download from a reliable provider."

But my question is, "why would someone with a stolen credit card purchase digital music anyway?" It's not in the least bit profitable or even resellable. No, someone who steals a credit card would go buy something physical that s/he could then resell on eBay -- effectively laundering the money.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[jalefkowit]

AmEx just canceled their disposable number service (called "Private Payments"). Ticks me off, because it was one of the reasons I got my AmEx card in the first place...

Re:Obviously not rip...

[zbuffered]

That's true. To a small extent, Credit Card companies are like consumer protection agencies. If you have a dispute about something you've purchased, and you used a Credit Card, you have, basically, American Express or Visa to help you fight being charged for it. As well if it's stolen and used without your permission. The most you'll be charged for in America is $50 unless you screw up (so read the fine print and check your bill!).
Used responsibly, Credit Cards are a tool that can help you, not harm you.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Anonymous Coward]

ps: I meant credit cards. Lower case. Preview, preview, preview!

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Hakubi_Washu]

Do you really believe that? Actually, I do. You haven't been charged, you have willingly paid and THEN the product didn't arrive. What I am talking about is that with a credit card you can be charged money without ever agreeing to pay for a product, you can even be charged without knowing of the payment in advance to your credit card company's bill... very different situation, and, as I stated before, a good reason NOT to use a credit card.

Re:Obviously not rip...

[Anonymous Coward]

> So what you're saying is: you would steal directly, not use some "crooks" (if
> they are, in fact - you provide no evidence that they are) as intermediaries.
> How very noble of you.

How is downloading MP3s from a P2P network remotely analogous to stealing?

Bandwidth testing

[tomknight]

And here's where we do them the service of testing their bandwidth ;-)

Tom.

Re:Bandwidth testing

[RoboRay]

They failed.

Re:Bandwidth testing

[hugzz]

Here's when the slashdot effect gets kind of worrying- destroying a website which is the front end of a business, and in turn killing their business (costing them money).

But on the other hand, you cant pay for advertising like this! (unless taco takes cheques?)

Re:Bandwidth testing

[1u3hr]

Here's when the slashdot effect gets kind of worrying- destroying a website which is the front end of a business, and in turn killing their business (costing them money).

Maybe they lose a day's uptime while the story is on /.'s front page; they'll rake it in later when even a tiny percentage of us come back as customers.

Re:Bandwidth testing

[Anonymous Coward]

like me:)

cheaper?

[the_unknown_soldier]

according to the article in the smh, as long as they say it is legal im not liable... im going to download like crazy.... o wait, suprnova is still cheaper.

The price is right

[NSash]

$5 for 500 megabytes. Now this is more like it.

Re:The price is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Easynews is $9.95 for 6 gigabytes. And just as legal.

Re:The price is right

[Anonymous Coward]

yes but I encode at 2048kbps.

Re:The price is right

[Grakun]

Easynews is $9.95 for 6 gigabytes. And just as legal. What makes newsgroups any more legal than IRC, FTP, AOL, BT, or P2P?

Re:The price is right

[Anonymous Coward]

it's called a troll, mate. don't feed 'em, please. a nd keep your hands and feet inside the ride at all times.

Re:The price is right

[jrockway]

Nothing illegal about them. Not "unlawful" either. All of those are media for file transfers. What you transfer is up to you.

(That said, I've only used BT legally once :) to get the UT2004 demo)

Re:The price is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Point being that AllofMp3 is supposedly licensed to share the content, whereas the guy running an irc fserv probably isn't. Ditto with news groups.

Re:The price is right

[Fweeky]

Note they assume 900kbps for lossless though, which is a bit pessimistic. I'm just downloading my 5th album from them though, with no complaints, aside from the lack of tags. Their download tool properly names them though, and foobar2000's masstagger takes care of the rest \o/

Re:The price is right

[Guitar Wizard]

What about $0 for 44.3 GB? That's how much I've paid ;P!

We knew it was going to come down to this...

[ILL Robinson]

...music has now become shovelware!

Re:We knew it was going to come down to this...

[TwistedGreen]

No, most of it was just overvalued in the first place.

Seems legit on the surface.

[dhasenan]

Anyone have more information? Especially someone who reads Russian? I could translate, but I wouldn't trust the result--I haven't studied Russian at all.

Re:Seems legit on the surface.

[NSash]

The website is in English.

Re:Seems legit on the surface.

[iapetus]

The site's in English - did you have any Russian pages on it that you wanted translating in particular?

Re:Seems legit on the surface.

[lovemayo]

Well, I could try... I know the "russian" up in the left corner means "russian" and the "english" next to it means "english"...

Re:Seems legit on the surface.

[dhasenan]

I just noticed a fair amount of Cyrillic. Some of it might be interesting.

Re:Seems legit on the surface.

[Anonymous Coward]

They've got an english language version of the site, check the links at the top-left

Re:Seems legit on the surface.

[The Evil Couch]

there's a button in the upperright corner to switch to an english mode. I'd tell you what it looks like, but their server is crying in a corner.

Re:Seems legit on the surface.

[The Evil Couch]

err, upper left. my mistake.

Re:Seems legit on the surface.

[iapetus]

The only Cyrillic I can see on the site right now translates as follows:

"Our apologies, but at the moment there are too many connections to the server. Try reloading the page."

From what I saw of it before the site went down, the whole thing is translated into English. If you see the Cyrillic version to start with, there should be a link to the English version up in the top left corner of the page. The translation's a little ropey in places, but the meaning's intact at least.

seems legal

[VC]

Considering that the RIAA sued weblisten for RE-distributing allofmp3.com's content, but didnt sue them, this is probably legal..

Re:seems legal

[Anonymous Coward]

oops, that should have said "sued puretunes", apologies, next time ill RTFA again and not rely on my infalliable memory.

Re:seems legal

[Anonymous Coward]

They are probably just afraid of suing them. I mean a country who's new leader is a former KGB director... Do you think he is going to think "Lets fight this in court" or "Lets make problem disappear"?

Re:seems legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has Putin been "new". He's been President for 4 years, and he was the Russian Prime Minister before that.

Re:seems legal

[golgotha007]

the RIAA and MPAA has zero jurisdiction here in Russia. why do you think piracy is as bad here as in the Asian countries? i would not be surprised if allofmp3.com license is made up and bogus, as it is not needed.

every street corner has CD shops loaded with the latest games, apps and music.

they also package MP3 CD's which is loaded with albums, lyrics and CD art. each CD is 65 roubles, which is about $2

very strange to see this story; i am currently working on getting credit card functionality for my mp3 distribution engine. my site is at least a month before seeing production, but the site will be 100 percent in english, has a beyond amazing collection (just under a terrabyte) and offers each song for a penny.

the thing slowing me down is getting a merchant account here in Russia that will allow me to do credit card transfers.

Re:seems legal

[sorlov]

The piracy in Russia is so bad because the prices for music and movies are too high for Russian consumers. When several years ago Russian movie distributors negotiated lower prices and DVD were not popular the average legal video cassette cost was $5 there was a huge boost in legal sales. Also many Russian computer game makers (see for example www.buka.ru) several years ago lowered their prices down to $3-10. They don't make huge profits but they work profitably.

Re:seems legal

[Anonymous Coward]

the RIAA and MPAA has zero jurisdiction here in Russia

Despite what the /. majority think, that last 'A' does not stand for "Anywhere".

Re:seems legal

[Nick_dm]

They have zero jurisdiction in America, they are not a government organisation, they only have power because they are so big they can influence the government and launch lots of lawsuits. They are free to try suing people in Russia (which is signed up to honour international copyrights whether or not this is enforced), just the Russian authorities might not help them as much.

Re:seems legal

[Anonymous Coward]

the thing slowing me down is getting a merchant account here in Russia that will allow me to do credit card transfers.

Use PayPal! A lot of people aren't going to trust you with their credit card numbers anyway.

Shady spelling

[Zagar]

Dear users!
We proud to announce a new encoding function called Online Encoding Exclusive, which is a part of the "Online Encoding" service and became available at AllOFMP3.com in the test mode. Online Encoding Exclusive enables you to:

1. Encode music with LossLess encoding algorithms (Monkey's Audio, FLAC and OptimFrog) using the data of original audio CD as a source.
2. Encode music with our usual encoders (MP3, Ogg, etc.) using the data of original audio CD as a source.

Albums, that available for ordering through Online Encoding Exclusive service are marked with a special label . The amount of such albums will grow from day to day. We hope that you'll enjoy our new service.

More details about Online Encoding Exclusive service.

AllOFMP3.com team.

Re:Shady spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

If Rocky and Bullwinkle has taught me anything, the text is a little too good. Too many uses of the words 'a' and 'the' -- just doesn't sound intimidating with thick accent.

Re:Shady spelling

[guiscard]

And they read Slashdot?

Re:Shady spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

If poor spelling make a site shady then Slashdot must be the fucking redirect for www.internationalcriminalilluminati.com

Re:Shady spelling

[Roofus]

Dude, the site is in Russia. English probably isn't their first language. Why don't you translate the above into Russian and we'll see how many spelling issues you have?

Too good to be true

[JosKarith]

So...I send my credit card details to Russia and some nice company will protect me from RIAA.
Riiiight. And as an added bonus I suppose I'll get 10% off my next Russian Bride too?

Re:Too good to be true

[Anonymous Coward]

10% off a Russian bride? I just signed up!

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sounds a little to good to be true :)"

too good to be true

Not legal

[Simon Lyngshede]

allofmp3.com isn't legal, it migth be in Russia, but that doesn't mean that people outside russia can buy from them legally. If they wish to tell to say Denmark, they must have an agreement with KODA (Danish RIAA), THEY DON'T. Same deal as with Spanish weblisten, legal in Spain, not outside.

It might be a nice service, but I won't recommend using it. If they do not have a deal with the RIAA equivalent in what ever country you're in, it is a waste of money.

Don't trust sites that sell music that doesn't have an agreement with a record label or the artists.

Re:Not legal

[Anonymous Coward]

But still, you get a pretty good service compared to the crap which is flying around on all different filesharing networks.

Re:Not legal

[Simon Lyngshede]

That you do, but Im not paying to download music which is going to be considered illegal where I live. That would be stupid.

Re:Not legal

[tolan-b]

Actually, as the downloader you're probably not breaking the copyright at least in the states, as you're not doing the copy. As long as you only use one copy.

There was an article from a supposedly well respected lawyer about this a while ago, on groklaw possibly? I think so.

Re:Not legal

[Cred]

I'm no expert on the matter but if I buy a CD from Russia that's $15 cheaper than in my country, do I have to pay again to the local RIAA just because I got it cheaper? Does it make the record illegal if I got it cheaper from Russia? No. If I buy legal online music from Russia instead say.. iTunes, does it make the songs illegal? I doubt. Why would it be? The only reason what I really can come up is RIAA way of thinking "it's never too expensive".

Re:Not legal

[G-funk]

I can buy music from anywhere I like, and parallel importation has been legal in australia for about 10 years now, ACCC ruled it unfair for ARIA to be the only ones allowed to import music.

Re:Not legal

[GraZZ]

However, when your g-men break down your door and ask you where you got all the mp3s, you're far more likely to get off on having bought them a site that looks legal than from having downloaded them for free off p2p.

Also the high quality tracks on allofmp3 are well worth the pennies you pay for them.

Re:Not legal

[RAMMS EIN]

However, I aksed the folks at weblisten and they replied it was ok for people in the USA to buy from them.

For me, it's not a problem, as I am outside RIAA jurisdiction - I can download anything I want - for the time being.

Re:Not legal

[SubtleNuance]

IANAL:

But the Berne Convention (and others) covers copyright between nations (ie: protect ours this, that, and the other-way and we'll protect yours the same). If I buy from Russia -- and its legal in russia -- than I can import it into my own country. Nothing is the matter.

Here is the real problem: Copyright is an outdated and broken concept, with all manner of issues involved now that physical scarcity of music has ended. Outside of oppressive cabals rigging the market (Koda/RIAA etc), how do you expect this all to work? It costs nothing to move $intellectual-property, so geography is irrelevant. It costs nothing to manufacture (cp mysong.wav yoursong.wav;wget http://allmusicisfree.com/yoursong.wav).

This hodge-podge of nonsense is collapsing under its own stupidity... and I say good. Its high time The People got to enjoy the benefits of our technological advances.

Re:Not legal

[dncsky1530]

good point...
just like kazza wasn't started in America, nor run anywhere close, the RIAA is still suing thousands of americans for using the service.

Re:Not legal

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually, as the downloader you're probably not breaking the copyright at least in the states, as you're not doing the copy. As long as you only use one copy.

This is incorrect. The downloader _is_ making a copy. Several, in fact. It's inevitable, given how our computers are designed. I'd suggest taking a look at the relevant bits of the infamous MAI v. Peak case. I don't pretend to agree with it, but it's commonly relied upon. The Napster case also confirmed that both downloaders and uploaders on P2P nets are seperately infringing. (RIAA hasn't gone after downloaders much yet because it's more effective to get suppliers than leechers, but the fact that they haven't sued downloaders yet doesn't mean that they can't -- they can, per 17 USC 106)

Re:Not legal

[misterpies]

This might be what the RIAA and equivalents want you to think, but it's not the law. The reason is the "first sale" doctrine of copyright law. Once a song has been legally marketed & sold, then the copyright owner loses most rights over resale/reimportation. E.g. If you go to a Russian music store and buy a bunch of cheap (legal) CDs, then you don't need the RIAA's permission to bring those CDs back into the US. The copyright in that CD, at least as far as the right to profit from its sale, has been exhausted. Similarly, if you go to Russia and legally download a lot of songs to your laptop from a Russian website, you can bring those songs back to the US.

Now the difference here is that you're actually buying the songs on a Russian website without leaving the US. But legally, that doesn't really matter - it's pretty clear that for long-distance transactions, the transaction takes place at the point where it is received, not where it is sent. E.g. if you order something by phone or fax, the transaction takes place where the call/fax is received. There seems to be no reason why this should be different on the internet though I can't pretend to have checked if there are any cases on it.

Of course, it's pretty clear what will happen. All the US record labels will change their licensing deals in Russia to prevent services like these being offered - i.e. it will be a breach of allofmp3.com's license for them to sell songs outside to people based outside Russia. In other words, exactly the same deal iTunes reached with the record labels that stops them selling songs outside the US. So better get your MP3s from Russia while you still can

Re:Not legal

[guiscard]

And from this Guardian article:

The problem is that, according to the recording industry, these sites are breaking the law. As Alan Dixon, general counsel of the London-based International Federation of the Phonograph Industry, says of Weblisten: "They have not less than six lawsuits pending against them, and two criminal proceedings. They are taking advantage of the way the Spanish legal system moves incredibly slowly: they have never been declared as legitimately distributing the plaintiff's recording."

The issue is that recorded music has three sets of rights to be argued over. The songwriter has the copyright to the song, the artist his own rights in it, and the record label and producers a third set. While these Russian and Spanish sites may be paying the songwriters, via a collection agency, they are acting without the permission of the other copyright holders.

The Russian sites claim that, under Russian law, foreign record labels releasing music in Russia give up their rights to prevent this. Not so, says Dixon. Such Soviet-era rules were rescinded under "article 47 paragraph 2 of the Russian Copyright Code" years ago. Downloading from such sites would be infringing both British and Russian copyright law, he says.

Re:Not legal

[KDan]

You may not, but I know people who will pay that much just for the service of having all the mp3s organised and easily downloaded and good quality without the incredible hassle that you'd have to go through with kazaa et al. Me, for a start. Regardless of whether it's legal or not, I'll pay 1 cent per megabyte for a quality mp3 serving service.

And that's what the muppets at the RIAA need to get into their heads. People will pay for service - though they'll only pay a fair price. "copyright legality" is an insubtsantial concept that some people can be fooled into considering wortwhile, but at the end you're buying wind (quite literally in the case of music!). A service, though, is a service, a concrete thing that can't be copied at zero cost.

Daniel

Re:Not legal

[dago]

To be complete, this ruling and the consequences are only valid in US.

In most european countries where no "new and improved" copyright law has been passed, UL is illegal and DL is considered legal, even our local ASCAP (?) websites says so.

Re:Not legal

[richie2000]

allofmp3.com isn't legal, it migth be in Russia, but that doesn't mean that people outside russia can buy from them legally.

So you're saying that unless for example amazon.com doesn't have an agreement with KODA, a Danish citizen can't buy music from Amazon?
How about an American citizen currently in Denmark?
A Danish citizen in the US?
How about the free-trade agreements that are in place in most of the civilized world, don't they apply to music?
What about the fact that parallell imports are deemed legal throughout the EU, is music somehow exempt from that ruling?
Could a Danish citizen buy a CD in Russia and legally bring it back to Denmark with him/her?

Since you're obviously a lawyer specializing in international intellectual property rights, I figured I'd ask.

Re:Not legal

[sir_cello]

Nice try, but you are obviously not very well aware of the law.

In the UK, under the CDPA 1988, it is _expressly_ not an infringement of copyright to import infringing articles that _are for personal use only_. This means that bringing dodgy CD's back from the far east through customs doesn't get you in trouble (so long as they are not in commercial quantities), and it equally applies to something imported electronically.

If you're a UK resident, there's nothing that can be done until they change the law or stop the site.

Re:Not legal

[binbag]

IMHO (IANAL), the big difference between this and filesharing should be the intention of the user. However much we all do it, and whatever the moral arguments regarding record companies fixing prices and ripping off artists, filesharing is obviously against the law. (Please note I said against the law rather than wrong). With this service it could be argued that the end user has made a payment to an apparently legal service in return for music, and therefore I think it should be a lot harder for the record companies to take legal action against those users. I guess this would never stand up in court if it got that far, but it should make issuing the lawsuits harder. Hopefully...

Re:Not legal

[cpt kangarooski]

This might be what the RIAA and equivalents want you to think, but it's not the law.

As it happens, in the US it is indeed the law.

Once a song has been legally marketed & sold, then the copyright owner loses most rights over resale/reimportation.

That's not quite right, actually.

First sale deals with specific copies. The copies need to have been made in a manner that would be legal if they were made in the US, regardless of the legality under foreign law.

So if Perry Como makes a punk rock record and sells it, anyone can then turn around and resell it. If he sold it in the UK, then you can import it into the US, no problem.

However, if you copy it and get a second record, assuming the copying isn't legal (per 17 USC 107 or 1008 or whatever) then you CAN'T resell the second record under the first sale provision (109).

Likewise, if Perry sold his rights in the UK to his close friend Sid Vicious, and Sid was the one making copies in the UK, you couldn't -- as a matter of first sale -- import those copies into the US. There is a good reason for that.

Imagine that there was a small country that bordered the US and could easily ship stuff here. We'll call it Moosylvania. Further, imagine that Moosylvania has no copyright laws at all. This means it's legal for the locals to copy anything they want. If they could freely export it to the US, they'd just do an end run around our copyright laws, and everyone would buy cheap, unauthorized Moosylvanian copies, basically leaving the US copyright holders screwed.

So, for first sale to apply, the copyright holder who made the copy has to be the US copyright holder. If that's not so, even though the copy was made legally over there, it won't qualify, because it would not have been made legally if it had been made over here.

Some degree of importation despite first sale is still allowed under 602. But importation is very clearly the bringing of things from one country into another country. It is, you'll agree, NOT the same as making new things in a country that are based on those in another country. For example, I could import a Scottish castle, but that would involve taking it apart brick by brick, mailing the bricks here, and putting it back together again. If I built an exact replica, and the original is still in Scotland, then I didn't import it, I reproduced it.

When you download from this site, there is a master copy in Russia. At the end of the process, there is a master copy in Russia AND a copy on your hard drive. That's two copies, and that already indicates that it's not an import. And the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce his work in the US per 106.

So it's not legal for Americans to use this site here. Ironically, it probably would be legal to use the site in Russia, provided that the provisions of 602 were complied with (as noted, first sale would likely not apply) when you brought the copies back in, but I expect few /.ers are going to be doing that.

Re:Not legal

[Anonymous Coward]

So how does that apply then to downloading infringing mp3s from users outside the UK?

Re:Not legal

[dave420]

It can be illegal, actually. If the omnipotent RIAA-esque organisation has sole distribution rights for music in its catalogue, then yes - bringing it into the country without them saying it's OK is breaking the law. It happened in the UK with records being imported from Hong Kong.

Re:Not legal

[TheRaven64]

They copyright holder has exclusive right to distribute their work (unless they waive it). This right is then licensed to distributors. With music, this is usually done on a per-country basis. They organisation they licensed their distribution rights from almost certainly didn't have a right to wold wide distribution (if they did, then Apple would have bought a license from them and launched their store worldwide at the outset). Since they don't have a license to distribute music world wide, they are not legally allowed to sell it to you, if you are not in Russia. Thus, any copy you download is not a legal copy.

The only defence I can think of to this is to argue that you bought the music in Russia, and then exported it yourself (in which case you may be liable for import duties).

Re:Not legal

[gclef]

If it's for personal use, no, you don't have to pay. But, if you make a business of buying CDs on the cheap in Russia and importing them to America to re-sell at below-market rates, then yes, you probably have to pay. (This exact scenario is causing quite a fuss in the perscription drug world, as well.)

The Russian site is effetively exporting music with their website (this is part of the reason why iTunes was restricting membership to US folks only), which is a fairly questionable area of internet/US law right now. It might be legal...or it might just be too much damn trouble to stop them in Russian court.

Re:Not legal

[sir_cello]

Nice rant, but you don't know what you are talking about.

(a) the Berne Convention does provide for national treatment, but typically the owner of the copyright is the first marketer _in the respective territory_, which means that although the song Russia is technically the same as the copy original provided from the parent company in the US, it is actually (in legal terms) an entirely different one because two separate legal personalities in the US and Russia own the copyright in the respective songs: so the US owner cannot ligitate against someone who copies the Russian version (capice?), nor can the Russian owner litigate against someone who copies the US version. Remember that in the case of copyright infringement, you have to _prove_ an act of copying, and thus a _chain of copies_ leading back to the original version that was infringed.

The Berne Convention does offer a "thirty-day" window in which if you publish in several countries during that period, then the owner of the work _is_ the single owner. This means that if the US owner had also published in Russia within 30 days of the release of the song, then they would own the copyright in the work, and could litigate against the Russian copyists.

(b) Copyright is not outdated: firstly, it costs time, effort and money to make these musical works: so the creators deserve to own rights in those works. This fundamental concept is never going to change. You say "it costs nothing to manufacture" - umm, how do you account for the costs of studios, equipment, people's time and effort, etc ? Sure it costs nothing to make _a copy_ of the first original copy of the work recorded in the studio, but it still costs a lot to make that first copy.

Re:Not legal

[JInterest]

It might be a nice service, but I won't recommend using it. If they do not have a deal with the RIAA equivalent in what ever country you're in, it is a waste of money.

HAHAHA. Good one.

You were joking right? I mean, you DO know that you are posting to Slashdot?

Re:Not legal

[skarmor]

You honestly think that one cent per megabyte is a fair price?

Re:Not legal

[Hettch]

From what i've read about this site before (i didn't rtfa today, but what do you expect, its slashdot) they acquired licenses to these songs from the RIAA already and are allowed to sell them as they see fit.

Re:Not legal

[avdp]

This exact scenario is causing quite a fuss in the perscription drug world, as well

Except it's actually illegal to import drugs - even for personal use. If you take the bus to canada and buy your drugs over there because it's cheaper, you've broken the law. The US government has just chosen not to go after individuals at this time.

Re:Not legal

[lone_knight]

Power to The People!

Viva La Revolution!

Re:Not legal

[laird]

"I'm no expert on the matter but if I buy a CD from Russia that's $15 cheaper than in my country, do I have to pay again to the local RIAA just because I got it cheaper? ... If I buy legal online music from Russia instead say.. iTunes, does it make the songs illegal?"

It's not a matter of pricing being lower in Russia; the site is pretty obviously illegal. Many of the artists whose work is being sold (e.g. The Beatles, Led Zeppelin) have never agreed to have their work sold digitally, which is why you can't find their music on any legitimate music download service. And of course, if they're selling music for a few cents a track, they're not paying the artists and composers for the recordings.

Even if it were legal in Russia (which it clearly isn't) they clearly wouldn't have the right to sell that music anywhere else, since the companies that have the Russian rights to the music aren't the same as the companies that have the US rights, and those rights are exclusive. So even if the Russian company decided to sell music for almost nothing, they couldn't sell it to US customers, etc. This legal issue is why iTunes only sells to US customers, etc. -- to do things legally, you have to negotiate the rights to sell the music country by country.

Re:Not legal

[KDan]

No. I think a subscription plus a nominal bandwidth cost (probably around 1 cent per megabyte or less) would be more fair.

With a system like this, the number of each track downloaded can be calculated and the appropriate percentage of the subscription income can be paid as royalties to the artists, while the service makes money from the bandwidth fee and a small part of the subscription. Perhaps the subscription fee level could be mandated by the government or WIPO or something like that, through some sort of compulsory licensing-like scheme.

Daniel

Re:Not legal

[The Evil Couch]

I'm pretty sure import duties only apply if you import with intent to sell or a large amount of items. I've been across international borders quite a few times and customs really only cares about those two things.

it can be argued that the internet is basically a world market, with a bit of a laise faire attitude. so long as it's legal in the country of origin, import restrictions don't really apply.

now, if their liscense to distribute music prohibits them from selling for foreigners, then the RIAA has a leg to stand on.

I shouldn't have to say it, but IANAL, so all of that could be wrong.

Re:Not legal

[dasmegabyte]

So...what you're saying is that the black market makes it EASIER to steal music, and therefore it's a better solution? That a "fair price" is whatever you decide it is? That you're willing to pay for somebody to help you steal in a more organized fashion?

$.01 per megabyte is obscene. That's $.65 for an album on MP3. An artist makes more than that on a CD sale...what do you think their cut is of this?

My buddy's sunk about $10,000 into his demo so far. They'll be lucky to recoup that selling 1000 CDs at concerts for $10. To recoup it from allofmp3.com -- a service they have never agreed to be a part of, and in Russia they don't have to be -- they'd have to receive nearly 16,0000 downloads. That is not fair. And I know you don't care about artists' costs and think the label is screwing everybody...but this is an amateur produced demo! Music is expensive to make and of limited appeal -- and "legal" overseas services that give it away are bad, bad, BAD for American artists. It's like having your sales outsourced against your will!

Re:Not legal

[dasmegabyte]

Its high time The People got to enjoy the benefits of our technological advances

Benefits such as hassle free theft of whatever music you want for a penny a megabyte?

Get your communism out of my CD player, man. I prefer my musicians not to die of poverty in the gutter -- unless they're punk, of course.

Re:Not legal

[xpl_the_myst]

Oninw sruff is a different benchmark but in terms of trade, certain items cannot be imported into the country easily by law. Atleast, you would have to pay heavy duties for them. The idea behing such laws is to protect domestic businesses.

Otherwise, you would be able to buy CDs from India which cost you about Rs 200 = 4-5$ (These CDs come with a warning - For sale in India only).

On a sidenote, India had a pretty complicated system to keep foreign companies out. Coke, for example. There used to be heavy import duties (something like 300%) to keep imports away.

Of course allofmp3.com being online changes the definition of 'import', but I believe it's not as simple as you think. There is grey area here. The world is still not all one global marketplace.

Re:Not legal

[theLOUDroom]

"since a song has been legally marketed & sold, then the copyright owner loses most rights over resale/reimportation."

That's not quite right, actually.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

First sale deals with specific copies. The copies need to have been made in a manner that would be legal if they were made in the US, regardless of the legality under foreign law.

So if Perry Como makes a punk rock record and sells it, anyone can then turn around and resell it. If he sold it in the UK, then you can import it into the US, no problem.

....

Likewise, if Perry sold his rights in the UK to his close friend Sid Vicious, and Sid was the one making copies in the UK, you couldn't -- as a matter of first sale -- import those copies into the US. There is a good reason for that.

Now this part I don't buy for a minute. If Sid has legal rights to copy the album, then he has legal rights to copy the album. If I buy a legally produced copy of the album from Sid while on holiday in the UK, are you actually suggesting that's it's illegal for me to bring it back with me?

That's crazy.

I understand your example RE Moosylvania but in the case of Sid or this Russian site, the proper licensing bodies are being paid so the creation would have been legal under US law. (In the case of Moosylvania it would not have been.)

You interpretation is basically that the license under which Sid copies the work can enact arbitrary export limitations on the work. That does not make sense.

The only way what you're saying works is if by saying "this agreement does not give you the right to produce copies of the work in the US", copies that are not produced in the US, but imported into the US are considered "produced in the US" and therefore illegal. Obviously, they aren't. Therefore the copys were produced within the terms of a valid contract with the artist.

From a later post of yours:
This involves a copy made HERE, itself based on a copy in Russia. When you download something, the bits on the server aren't magically sent to you -- instead a new copy is made.

Sure a copy is being made, that's why you're paying them but.... the copy is being made in Russia, by the people you are paying to do so, and is being done legally under Russian law. If this is illegal, buying a hardcopy of a CD from Russia is illegal as well.

Re:Not legal

[1u3hr]

If they do not have a deal with the RIAA equivalent in what ever country you're in, it is a waste of money.

If you'd RTFA, they got a (qualified) opinion from an actual lawyer:

We sought some advice from a Melbourne barrister and contributor to these pages, Simon Minahan, who practises in the area of intellectual property. His opinion: "There's probably nothing to stop the individual from downloading this material for private use. For end users, the issue is a basic question relevant to acquiring a reproduction of any copyright work: has the rights owner consented?"

The absolute worst that could happen, if the site doesn't have any permission to sell (in Russia) is you'd be asked to delete all the downloads.

I don't live in the US, but I can buy CDs from Amazon in Seattle, or hundreds of other onlne dealers. What difference is there?

Re:Not legal

[Anonymous Coward]

What communism you stupid hippie?
Your knowledge (so to speak) is very outdated

Re:Not legal

[mst76]

> Copyright is not outdated: firstly, it costs time, effort and money to make these musical works:

Agreed.

> so the creators deserve to own rights in those works.

I don't see how this follows from the premise. It also costs time, money and effort to discover an efficient algorithm or to map the human genome. Should the resulting information be "owned" as well? I'm genuinely curious. Do you consider copyright a natural right or merly a government granted monopoly?

Re:Not legal

[10101001 10101001]

However, if you copy it and get a second record, assuming the copying isn't legal (per 17 USC 107 or 1008 or whatever) then you CAN'T resell the second record under the first sale provision (109).

Problem one, you assume the copying isn't legal. The fact is, there's the equivalent of two copying going on. Labels are selling music to allofmp3 and allofmp3 is selling songs to you. The slight difference is more than likely allofmp3 isn't actually getting source copies from the label each time but has some contract. So, allofmp3 has to follow its contract for which it might need for you to sign a contract to remove itself from liability for your illegal actions. And then the legality is placed squarely on the user.

Likewise, if Perry sold his rights in the UK to his close friend Sid Vicious, and Sid was the one making copies in the UK, you couldn't -- as a matter of first sale -- import those copies into the US. There is a good reason for that.

If Perry sells his rights in the UK to Sid, then you can obviously import any copies Sid makes for sale because they're copyrighted. Or do you think the RIAA can't sell US music in the UK because it got hold of the copyright for songs from the authors?

Imagine that there was a small country that bordered the US and could easily ship stuff here. We'll call it Moosylvania. Further, imagine that Moosylvania has no copyright laws at all. This means it's legal for the locals to copy anything they want. If they could freely export it to the US, they'd just do an end run around our copyright laws, and everyone would buy cheap, unauthorized Moosylvanian copies, basically leaving the US copyright holders screwed.

Except Russia has copyright law. And Russia and the US have almost certaintly set up a treaty to deal with copyright law (the whole point of the Berne convention and its cousins, btw, was to unify copyright law enough so that copyright could extend around the globe..and that means importing copyrighted works from Russia should be perfectly legal in itself).

So, for first sale to apply, the copyright holder who made the copy has to be the US copyright holder. If that's not so, even though the copy was made legally over there, it won't qualify, because it would not have been made legally if it had been made over here.

That really doesn't make sense. Of course, it's a good question on whether it's even possible for someone in the US to hand over their copyright in just one country. And if it *was* possible, then it obviously means you can import the song because it's still under copyright (just not a local one). If copyright can extend from the US to the UK, I'm not sure why it can't extend back again.

When you download from this site, there is a master copy in Russia. At the end of the process, there is a master copy in Russia AND a copy on your hard drive. That's two copies, and that already indicates that it's not an import. And the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce his work in the US per 106.

Then how can iTunes do it? Through a contract, of course. And the contract involves making a copy for sale. That copy for sale is paid for before being resold to the consumer. If that weren't true, iTunes wouldn't be paying another company. Or are you saying the contract isn't a valid way of reproducing a work? If that's true, then I hope you don't believe an even less strong legal item called a license (like GPL or the BSD variety) to redistribute works.

Re:Not legal

[KDan]

Read this post for a more complete answer about "what I'm saying". In my original post I wasn't necessarily talking about fairness. Just about what will work and what won't. It doesn't matter if solution A is "fair" (which is highly arguable), if people won't buy it.

Daniel

Re:Not legal

[sir_cello]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding and I suggest you read something about the protection offred by different IP laws.

Copyright does not protect concepts and ideas; so if you discover an efficient algorithm, then someone can extract it from your paper and use it. However, they could not blindly copy your paper.

Your perspective on IP is driven by your view of how societies social model should be. Sure, you can set up a society where there are no property rights and everything is under communal ownership. That's not how current society works, but feel free to convince the world that we should change.

Re:Not legal

[spiritraveller]

Sure a copy is being made, that's why you're paying them but.... the copy is being made in Russia, by the people you are paying to do so, and is being done legally under Russian law. If this is illegal, buying a hardcopy of a CD from Russia is illegal as well.

The parent is saying that this is legally NOT the same as buying a cd and carrying it with you on the airplane home.

If the copy is made in Russia, how does it appear on your harddrive in the US? They don't mail it to you. They don't hand-deliver it to you.

The parent is saying that you aren't "importing" a copy, because the copy is produced on your harddrive. He says that it is not "copied in Russia" and then delivered to you.

I think that is a reasonable argument. OTOH, it also seems reasonable to argue that the bits and bytes ARE copied in Russia and that you are importing them and placing them on your harddrive via the internet.

It seems that it would depend on how the law defines "physical medium" in the internet age. Now that information flows across physical mediums in a transitory nature, the concept of what is a "copy is much less clear".

Are the packets a "copy" as they travel over the internet? Do they not become a copy until they arrive on your harddrive?

Would it make a difference if allofmp3.com uploaded it to you on the fly, without saving the reencoded copy on their server?

If this becomes widely used, it won't matter.

RIAA will lobbying and/or litigation to make sure that this becomes illegal.

Of course, they still have to catch you.

Re:Not legal

[happyloman]

What if they mailed CD's full of mp3s here? Then it would have to be an import instead of a replica, because the copying obviously happened in Russia.

Re:Not legal

[mst76]

This was your statement:

it costs time, effort and money to make these musical works: so the creators deserve to own rights in those works.

I'm not convinced that the conclusion follows from the premise.

Your perspective on IP is driven by your view of how societies social model should be.

My perspective on "IP" is driven by economic reasoning. I'm still curious what your perspective on copyright is. As I understand, the Continental European and American traditions differ somewhat with regards to copyright law. I'm interested in your position.

Sure, you can set up a society where there are no property rights and everything is under communal ownership. That's not how current society works, but feel free to convince the world that we should change.

There is a difference between property rights, and copyrights.

Re:Not legal

[theLOUDroom]

The parent is saying that you aren't "importing" a copy, because the copy is produced on your harddrive. He says that it is not "copied in Russia" and then delivered to you. I think that is a reasonable argument.

I find it ridiculous.

I'm I'm the one making the copy, what the hell am I making it from?
Without them making a copy of the data in Russia and sending it to me (via postal service or the internet or reading the bits to me one by one over the phone) I have no information to use.

It's during the sending that to copying happens. Otherwise, either:
A) I don't get anything
or
B) They loose their copy

Re:Not legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, mst76. The point seems to be that property rights are enforced by nature; they are naturaly exclusive rights. Copyrights, on the other hand, are not enforced by nature at all. We can't both eat the same apple, but can both listen to the same song.

What provides natural exclusivity for artistic works is the 'creation bottleneck'. The original thing of value that artists do is to *create* art, not to distribute it. But it is just more annoying to have to get paid for the creation, so artists lobbied to have a distribution monopoly. Distribution is easy to get paid for. This is what is unnatural, and exists purely for economic reasons (right or wrong).

Re:Not legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Import of the work into the UK would be legal even if it was an infringing copy as long as its for personal use. The query here is whether this counts as "importing" or "copying". Importing is legal for personal use whereas copying is not. See the CDPA 1988 around s25.

Re:Not legal

[sir_cello]

You can debate the overall "fundamental" reasoning that underscores the whole idea of copyright system and whether works are protected or not, but fundamental it comes down to a simple question of "artist spends time, effort and cost making a creative work", and in return are you going to give the artist some protection for what he is created, or are you going to allow people to take it and use it as they please ?

"social model" includes economics; there's no way in this limited time and space all the issues cna be fleshed out, but quite simply you fundamentally erred on understanding exactly what coypright protects (it protects expressions, not ideas), so therefore it seems to me that you don't have a full grasp of the facts to entertain an enlightened debate.

Re:Not legal

[sir_cello]

You don't understand.

All property rights in modern are "social constructions", whether they are tangible or note: you can easily live in a society that has no notion of property (in fact, research into tribal societies has found this, they actually don't grasp the idea that someone can "own" something: owning "land" is unnatural to them).

Owning land is an intangible right: it's just a bit of paper that says you own it upheld by intangible laws and customs, it's purely economic, there is no "physical attachment" (e.g. you own your leg because it is attached to your body).

Re:Not legal

[mst76]

You can debate the overall "fundamental" reasoning that underscores the whole idea of copyright system and whether works are protected or not, but fundamental it comes down to a simple question of "artist spends time, effort and cost making a creative work", and in return are you going to give the artist some protection for what he is created, or are you going to allow people to take it and use it as they please ?

"social model" includes economics; there's no way in this limited time and space all the issues cna be fleshed out, but quite simply you fundamentally erred on understanding exactly what coypright protects (it protects expressions, not ideas), so therefore it seems to me that you don't have a full grasp of the facts to entertain an enlightened debate.

Copyright law protects expressions, not idea or facts. This is standard in about any text on copyright. But I don't see why this distinction should be made following your justification for copyright. After all, the scientist may spend more time and effort and costs to make a discovery. Of course he has copyright on the expression in a paper (at least until he publishes in a major journal), but the value is in the idea. Why should his algorithm not be protected? After all, most non-trivial algorithms are already named after the discoverer(s). Arguing that these facts and ideas exists "in nature" is as futile as arguing that a work of fiction already exists in a dictionary. By your reasoning, it is the work and costs involved in the expression that justifies protection. Why not the work and costs involved in discovery? If you follow reasoning, would you not need to give more protection work that was costlier to produce?

The fundamental issue is whether you believe that authors or artists naturally have some rights over a copy that I make with my equipment, or that copyright exists merely as an economic stimulus to creativity. You have not answered this explicitly yet.

Re:Not legal

[kitzilla]

Damn -- you mean I don't get something for (almost) nothing? Where's my free ride? I have a RIGHT to an artist's songwriting and performance. I have a RIGHT to the uncompensated labor of all the studio technicians, managers, and support people who brought a given CD to market. You clearly don't understand the internet.

Re:Not legal

[sir_cello]

"Of course he has copyright on the expression in a paper (at least until he publishes in a major journal), but the value is in the idea. Why should his algorithm not be protected?"

Because if it has industrial application, it could be protected by patent.

"Why not the work and costs involved in discovery?"

ditto.

"If you follow reasoning, would you not need to
give more protection work that was costlier to produce?"

Not entirely, the IPR laws actually restrict the work in accordance with how how socially important the work is. This is why patents last for only 20 years, but copyright for 70 years+.

"The fundamental issue is whether you believe that authors or artists naturally have some rights over a copy that I make with my equipment, or that copyright exists merely as an economic stimulus to creativity. You have not answered this explicitly yet."

Well, if the authors or artists don't have any rights, then simply you are going to make the copies and profit from them, either by enjoyment or monetary worth. Is it fair that you should profit on their hard work?

I don't need to answer anything else. I suggest you go and check out a few books on how IP works (copyright, trademarks, patents, etc) and read them.

Re:Not legal

[zuzulo]

This is actually very explicitly *not* true. There are well defined exceptions in US import regulations regarding purchasing prescriptions drugs for which you have a prescription in foreign countries and bringing them back in.

Look at the relevant sections on the US customs site. The restrictions are that you can only bring in one 'refill' for each valid prescription you have. You are in violation of import statutes if you try to bring in large quantities of drugs even if you have a valid prescription, however.

This is designed so folks who have valid prescriptions can purchase drugs when they are travelling and bring them back with them.

Relevant reference can be found at
http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/travel/alerts/medic ation_drugs.xml

Re:Not legal

[AeroIllini]

"My buddy's sunk about $10,000 into his demo so far. They'll be lucky to recoup that selling 1000 CDs at concerts for $10. To recoup it from allofmp3.com -- a service they have never agreed to be a part of, and in Russia they don't have to be -- they'd have to receive nearly 16,0000 downloads. That is not fair. And I know you don't care about artists' costs and think the label is screwing everybody...but this is an amateur produced demo! Music is expensive to make and of limited appeal -- and "legal" overseas services that give it away are bad, bad, BAD for American artists. It's like having your sales outsourced against your will!"

You're right -- making music is expensive, time-consuming, and not necessarily universally appealling. But that was not the point of the grandparent post. It's all well and good to cry foul when something is not "fair" .... but having things not be fair is the whole point of a free market economy. Do you think it's "fair" to the BP station that the Mom-and-Pop gas station across the street is selling their gas for $0.05 less? Do you think it's "fair" that Amazon sells books for 15% less than brick and mortar stores? No. But that's the whole point. If someone can figure out how to do things more cheaply, the public will follow. The competition will then need to either adapt their ways and sell for less, or die. It's very simple.

The Russian website in question is clearly illegal, and is not considering all parties when they pay royalties. But the point of the grandfather post was not that particular Russian website, but digital music in general. What the RIAA doesn't seem to get is that people are willing to pay for digital music, but only when there is some advantage to doing so. The RIAA/record companies are service organizations. They perform services to both the consumer and the artist, for a fee. For the artist, their service is providing capital for recording/prodution fees and promoting the artists' music. For the consumer, their service is researching the thousands of potential artists and choosing to promote the ones they think the consumer will enjoy listening to. Somewhere along the line, that service to the consumer was lost. It's not about finding good music that the consumers will like anymore. Now it's just about molding someone into something marketable; they're not looking for good music as much as they're looking for low-risk salable products.

The problem with your cry for "fairness" is that your buddy has paid over $10,000 producing his music, and you feel that he should be entitled to make all that back. Well, I've got news for you. There's no such think as a no-risk business opportunity. He spends $X producing music, and then offers it for sale for $Y per album. If it doesn't sell because no one likes it, then he will have to reduce the price to $(Y-1). This will continue until he finds a price where it will sell. If he ends up not making back his $10,000, then that's not the market's fault. If the product being offered is worthy of sale and sold at the right price, then people will buy it.

I, for one, would happily pay for an online download if I thought the price was representative of the cost of producing the music, with compensation for all parties involved, and if I was able to *truly* *purchase* (as in "own" ... and do whatever I like with -- no DRM) the music. So far, there is no online service that provides both of those, so I will continue to not download music.

Re:Not legal

[mst76]

Because if it has industrial application, it could be protected by patent.

Patents cover machines, human made products, compositions of matter, and processing methods. Laws of nature cannot be patented. Mathematical algorithms cannot be patented. (Knuth has argued that there is no such thing as a non-mathematical computer algorithm, but lawmakers have just ignored this). I don't believe you can make a coherent argument that something needs protection based on the amount of work that went into it.

Not entirely, the IPR laws actually restrict the work in accordance with how how socially important the work is. This is why patents last for only 20 years, but copyright for 70 years+.

Why restrict them at all? Why not give authors and inventors unlimited inheritable rights? Because society as a whole would be worse off. That indicates to me that copyright should always be seen in light of total benefits to society, rather than natural rights of authors and performers.

Well, if the authors or artists don't have any rights, then simply you are going to make the copies and profit from them, either by enjoyment or monetary worth. Is it fair that you should profit on their hard work?

Why not? You seem to argue that producer surplus should receive larger weight than consumer surplus, a rather curious position. A complete welfare analysis of the music industry may be a little ambitious, but I can attempt something more modest. Consider this.

At the moment, Apple's iTMS stores 700,000 songs, about 2TB of AAC. Ignoring album purchases and bandwith costs, a consumer would now pay $693,000 to Apple and about $1500 in storage to obtain the whole library. At some point in the future, say 20 years from now, it becomes affordable for everyone to buy a computer (or maybe even a portable music player) that stores 2 million tracks for $300. Now, what do you think will provide society as a whole the greater benefit. Giving everybody access to the whole historical library of music at duplication and storage costs. Or keeping the price high though copyright as incentive to new talent? At what point does the costs of stimulating new musical output outweight the benefits? Remember, it's unlikely that new works will completely dissappear, or even fall to pre-copyright levels. When we have a back catalogue of 700,000 tracks? 2 million? 5 million? At the point where nobody will have enough lifetime te listen to his whole collection? If abolishing copyright for music sounds too radical, consider limiting it to 14 years, the argument remains the same.

Re:Not legal

[avdp]

OK, good to know you can get one refill. However, that's not what people going to Canada for prescriptions do - they get many refills (it would not be cost effective otherwise). But like I said, according to a recent program I saw on the subject (I think it was 60 minutes) the US government is not actively enforcing this restriction since doing so would have terrible backlash.

This article on USA Today both confirms my point, while conceding yours. Here is the relevant quote: The FDA contends it is illegal for U.S. citizens to purchase drugs from foreign sources. But they have told Customs officials to permit individuals to re-enter the country with up to 90-day supplies of drugs for personal use.

Re:Not legal

[spiritraveller]

Copying, by its very nature, happens in two places... the source and the destination.

Unless you deliver the physical medium itself, you must be making a copy.

It is not possible to copy something over the postal service, because you are sending a physical object, not mere information.

But when you transmit something over the internet, you are ALWAYS making a copy. You are not delivering a physical object. You are delivering information, which is then stored in some form at the recipient's end.

Re:Not legal

[jp10558]

I think the point is that as absurd as it may seem, eventually(hopefully soon) the law will have to define copying in regards to electrons. I personally see storing electrons sent to you is the same as storing a CD sent to you. Copying is when you have an original and then duplicate it some way. As to sending a physical object - electrons are physical. I know, this is absurd level of techinicality, but it is very important to how copyright law will work.

I don't think we have figured out a way to transmit information without involving physical particles at some point, so if people want to get technical - photons and electrons - they are physical. When you listen to anything - you are making a copy ... analogous to the way the internet makes a copy. I believe copyright law in the US does not cover a copy necessary to utilize the data, for instance in RAM, or the sound waves that are a physical disturbance in the air so we can hear them. Copyright law falls apart because it never envisioned us making electrons so cheap to make.

I sadly do not have an answer, but I see it as just as intellectually defendable to claim that the copy is made at the server side(probably more so actually - when you compare to physical duplication) as it is made on the recievers computer. And what about the copy on the net while in transfer?

Re:Not legal

[cpt kangarooski]

If Perry sells his rights in the UK to Sid, then you can obviously import any copies Sid makes for sale because they're copyrighted. Or do you think the RIAA can't sell US music in the UK because it got hold of the copyright for songs from the authors?

No, you're wrong. Look, a copyright is not a single, indivisible thing. Think of it like a bundle of sticks. One pair of sticks are the right to reproduce and distribute copies in the US. Another pair are the rights to reproduce and distribute copies in the UK. Perry gave Sid the latter pair, but kept the former for himself.

This means that Sid has no right whatsoever to reproduce copies in the US. And the way the law is written, first sale only applies to copies that were made legally by whoever had the US rights. Since Sid does not have _those_ rights (despite having other rights), the UK edition cannot be imported as a matter of first sale. To do so would be infringing.

This is true even though Sid made his copies totally legally in the UK and has the blessing of the US rightsholder.

And in fact, it is not uncommon to see various publishers and distributors only having rights in certain parts of the world. Some movies are distributed by different companies, for example. And a lot of books have different publishers all over the place.

If copyright can extend from the US to the UK, I'm not sure why it can't extend back again.

Well, it doesn't. There's no such thing as a single worldwide copyright. There are US copyrights, and UK copyrights, and while the same person might hold both and get both at the same time, they are still different, and neither has any effect on the other. Bundles of sticks!

Then how can iTunes do it?

They're given permission to do so by the US copyright holder. And note that they try very hard to only do business where the local rightsholders have given them permission to do so.

No one AFAIK in the US has given these Russians permission to do what they're doing. So while it's fine for Russians in Russia to use it, it's not okay for Americans in America to.

Re:Not legal

[cpt kangarooski]

If Sid has legal rights to copy the album, then he has legal rights to copy the album.

Well, Sid does NOT have legal rights to copy the album. He has legal rights to copy the album IN THE UK. If he goes to France, Japan, the US, anywhere else, he can't do it. He only has the right to do it in the UK.

If I buy a legally produced copy of the album from Sid while on holiday in the UK, are you actually suggesting that's it's illegal for me to bring it back with me?

I am saying that it would be, if not for the fact that Congress anticipated this situation and made a special exemption that allows this to some extent in 17 USC 602. If not for that, you'd have to hope that a court relied on the judicial first sale doctrine which is highly uncommon, or fair use, which is unpredictable since it's always a case by case analysis. And those are exceptions too.

That's how copyright law is currently set up -- several extremely broad rights are given to copyright holders, and then little holes are cut in it to let some people get through without needing permission.

the proper licensing bodies are being paid so the creation would have been legal under US law

No, this is incorrect.

The proper RUSSIAN people are getting paid off. If you, in the US, paid the Russian copyright holder, and did not pay the American copyright holder, you would be fucked. Because the American copyright holder is the only one that matters as far as American copyright law is concerned.

People who are buying mp3s off of this site and who are American are basically getting suckered into buying the Brooklyn Bridge. If they get caught hauling it away, it will not go well for them, no matter how convincing the 'seller' was.

You interpretation is basically that the license under which Sid copies the work

Nit: Sid is not copying under license. He doesn't have authorization from Perry in my example. Perry SOLD the UK copyright to Sid. Sid is now the copyright holder in the UK, just like Perry is the copyright holder in the US and everywhere other than the UK more or less.

arbitrary export limitations

Well, import limitations. And the limitations are established in law.

US law says that the only person who can distribute copies in the US, including importing into the US, is the copyright holder. (106)

BUT that if the copy was made in a way that would be legal if it had been made in the US (i.e. only the US copyright holder can make it in the US, so that means him), then first sale applies. (109)

OTHERWISE, there might be minor exceptions available. (602)

AND OF COURSE the US copyright holder can always give permission to anyone to do anything, but it's up to him. (106 again in that it's his call as to what he wants to do)

If this is illegal, buying a hardcopy of a CD from Russia is illegal as well.

No one in the US gives a rat's ass what you do in Russia. It's not our problem. These laws only kick in when you're in the US or trying to import things into the US.

It's legal to buy a CD in Russia. It's legal -- provided that either 109 or 602 apply -- to bring it into the US. It's legal to order it and have it brought into the US for you under the same provisions, if they apply.

But here, they don't apply; it's not importation, and there's no similar exception that covers reproductions.

Re:Not legal

[SubtleNuance]

it costs time, effort and money to make these musical works

The manner of being renumerated is in question -- does a plumber ask for a fee everytime i flush my toilet? The reality is it does not take money from, nor does it cost anything when i manufacture a song (cp).

Now, recording / etc may (or may not frankly) cost money. It has become simply not reasonable for musicians to expect to be paid in this way. Its time to invent an new model, after all, the old one is an abstract, not natural law.

Re:Not legal

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you talking about McCarthy?

Go back to civics class moron.

Re:Not legal

[10101001 10101001]

> No, you're wrong. Look, a copyright is not a single, indivisible thing. Think of it like a bundle of sticks. One pair of sticks are the right to reproduce and distribute copies in the US. Another pair are the rights to reproduce and distribute copies in the UK. Perry gave Sid the latter pair, but kept the former for himself.

I'm not sure how that prevents importing. Once it's distributed in the UK, why can't it be imported? I don't see anything in US law that prevents it. More importantly, I wonder how Sid ever got the work in the first place. The distribution to Sid from Perry seems to fall under your case too.

> And the way the law is written, first sale only applies to copies that were made legally by whoever had the US rights.

First Sale Doctrine, as I've read it, never makes mention of US rights. It only makes mention of copyright in general. And I don't see mention of dealing with the scenario you mention, either. Or the situation of importing a copy made in the UK into the US when an author has copyright over a work in both countries.

>>Then how can iTunes do it?

>They're given permission to do so by the US copyright holder. And note that they try very hard to only do business where the local rightsholders have given them permission to do so.

I think I said this already. They have a contract with iTunes. It'd seem that at least one of the reasons a contract is in place is because otherwise exporting to other countries would be legal. But maybe I'm wrong. I'd really like to know what part of US law covers importing original or used copies of a copyrighted work for various situations (like the same right holder in one of the two countries or in both).

Re:Not legal

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyright holders hold a number of different rights, several of the most important of which are listed at 17 USC 106. One of them is the right to prevent others from distributing copies of the work.

If that right were not subject to exceptions, no one could ever give a legally created copy of a work (i.e. a copy bought from the copyright holder; an official copy) to anyone else, much less sell it, rent it, or whatever.

As it happens, there are exceptions -- limitations -- to that right. But due to the precise language of one of them (17 USC 109) things get a little wonky. What it says is: the owner of a particular copy ... lawfully made under this title ... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

Copies that aren't lawfully made under US law are not eligible for first sale, which is what 109 is. This applies to copies that are unlawfully made in the US (e.g. pirate copies) but also to copies that, while made lawfully in foreign countries, wouldn't have been made lawfully if they had been made here. Typically because they're not being made by the US copyright holder, who is the only person who can make them lawfully here.

Since the UK copyright holder cannot make copies lawfully in the US, first sale does not apply to any copies he makes. Ditto for people who make copies legally in countries where anyone is lawfully allowed to. This means that the US copyright holder controls importation of those copies.

More importantly, I wonder how Sid ever got the work in the first place. The distribution to Sid from Perry seems to fall under your case too.

Perry is the copyright holder in the UK initially, and can do whatever the hell he likes. When Perry and Sid act together once Perry's given Sid some rights, they can together do whatever the hell they want. And either of them can do whatever the hell they want where they have rights.

So, assuming that the UK had the same laws, Sid CAN import a copy from the US to the UK, since regardless of the law, as the copyright holder, he can just allow it.

Remember, copyrights are always controlled by the rights holders. The law says that the rights holder can tell other people to not copy something. It doesn't stop him from doing what he wants -- as long as he's a person who has the right to. In this respect, it is kind of like property law (in that you cannot trespass on your own property, and you can let others in or not at whim).

First Sale Doctrine, as I've read it, never makes mention of US rights. It only makes mention of copyright in general.

Not so, as demonstrated above. In the US, first sale originated in 1908. It made a big splash, and Congress immediately put it into the statutes in the 1909 act, and there has been a first sale statute since. You can read EXACTLY what it says at 17 USC 109, and I guarantee that it will hold surprises for you if you read the whole thing carefully. Judical first sale AFAIK hasn't ever done much because the statutory form usually applies negating any need to bother with the judicial form of it. Courts, as a rule, don't bother with finding two reasons to allow something when one will do.

Or the situation of importing a copy made in the UK into the US when an author has copyright over a work in both countries.

In that situation, there is no restriction, because first sale applies. 602 is only needed where the copy to be imported would not have been made legally had it been made under US law, i.e. wasn't made by the US rightsholder. There have been cases to that effect already.

But maybe I'm wrong. I'd really like to know what part of US law covers importing original or used copies of a copyrighted work for various situations (like the same right holder in one of the two countries or in both).

17 USC 101 -- useful definitions to refer to
17 USC 106 -- the distribution right
17 USC 109 -- first sale exception
17 USC 602 -- limited importation exceptions

Re:Not legal

[cpt kangarooski]

it comes down to a simple question of "artist spends time, effort and cost making a creative work", and in return are you going to give the artist some protection for what he is created, or are you going to allow people to take it and use it as they please ?

I will do what is most socially beneficial.

Society benefits from artists creating works. Society benefits from not having to pay for, or otherwise be limited as to, works.

Assuming that they scale in interesting, non-linear fashions, I will juggle how much of each I have so as to maximize social benefit.

And that's the American model of copyright: it's wholly utilitarian. It's only recently that special interests (who I don't blame too much, as I expect everyone in this area to act out of self interest) have been fucking it all up to their benefit. I'd like to see reforms that fix it all up to the public's benefit.

Re:Not legal

[theLOUDroom]

Consider my "human reading off the bits via telephone" example.

The human that's reading the bits is making a copy and transmitting it by reading them. This copy may be transitory, if no one's actually writing the bits down, or long lasting if the bits are recorded, but the initial duplication of the information is taking place on the transmitting end of things.

The very nature of copyright points to the transmission side of things. We don't have laws saying that you can only listen to (and thereby make a copy of from the air to your speaker) songs on the radio if you pay someone a royalty, The royalty is due on the transmission side of this.

This has all been established before for ANALOG electronics, and I don't see that using a digital encoding should change the law.

Re:Not legal

[10101001 10101001]

>Copyright holders hold a number of different rights, several of the most important of which are listed at 17 USC 106. One of them is the right to prevent others from distributing copies of the work.

Yes and no. The problem is, if you give the copyright of a work to someone in the UK, the Berne convention should extend that copyright to the world (and hence back into the US)--just like two people can create the same copyrighted work independently and claim copyright on it. As a result, the transfer of copyright to someone else could effectively make two distributors in a single country. The only way around this is to *not* hand over copyright but instead setup a contract that limits the reach of distribution.

>As it happens, there are exceptions -- limitations -- to that right. But due to the precise language of one of them (17 USC 109) things get a little wonky. What it says is: the owner of a particular copy ... lawfully made under this title ... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

You're actually taking the line out of context. Here is the whole line.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

So, if allofmp3 is authorized to make copies (it obviously is under some contract), then the user as well as allofmp3 can resell the music. The only way to stop the user from doing it is a contract. And the only way to prevent allofmp3 from doing it outside of the scope of what is wanted is also a contract. Of course, such contracts could convievably be struck down as illegal (by extension of copyright law written under scope of the constitution). So, I'm still not sure where copyright stops it.

Re:Not legal

[rickshaf]

Whether or not it's legal isn't the question we should be asking. Here are three I think we should ask: 1. What do we think will happen if music is available so cheaply that pro musicians can't make a living recording their music? 2. If it's OK to buy music for next to nothing from a Russian website, is it also OK to pay for a ticket to a concert and then tape it and sell repros of the tape? 3. Say you go to work for a company making framuses. On payday, your boss comes up to you and says, "Hey, your check's pretty weak this time around. This is all we could get for what you made on "Boris' WebFramus". Would you regard this as a fair system?

Re:Not legal

[Cred]

No.

1. Paying $20 or so for a album which contains 12 songs is fair? And if it contains two so called "hot" pieces is a bit too much. Musicians can make a living by selling one song under $0.50 say.. million times. Loosing all the extra "costs" such as printing CD, store profit, transportation etc. I bet the musician can still make a living.

2. No, but it's totally different thing when talking about live concerts that cannot (or actually can be but again it's not beeing done because of record labels) be easily transported to customers all over the world.

3. I have no idea how Madonnas contract is done but I guess she gets an advanced payment and some percentage of sold records.

Yes I do find it quite interesting how someone can sell songs that so low when we have used to see same songs in album with a price tag of $20 or so. But this when millions of songs are beeing sold I hope musicians will understand that there's an option for "old CDs".

Re:Not legal

[cpt kangarooski]

if you give the copyright of a work to someone in the UK, the Berne convention should extend that copyright to the world (and hence back into the US)

No. If Perry gives Sid some rights, that's it. It's vaguely like selling land (which is in fact selling rights pertaining to land) -- you get what you paid for. Perry can limit what he gives Sid to being a copyright on derivative operas written by left handed people. And then that's all it will cover.

As a result, the transfer of copyright to someone else could effectively make two distributors in a single country.

No, when you _transfer_ copyright to someone else, you are it seems, not keeping anything for yourself. You're giving it away. This is not uncommon. Many authors have no rights whatsoever as to their works, having sold them off previously.

You're actually taking the line out of context. Here is the whole line.

The bit you added says, in short, that the owner of a copy that was lawfully made under US law, or a person authorized by the owner of such a copy can redistribute it. They are NOT talking about authorizations stemming from the copyright holder, nor anything involving anything other than taking an existing copy of a work and selling that specific copy.

It's really quite pointless as far as this discussion goes, that's why I cut it out to begin with. You need to parse this stuff better.

So, if allofmp3 is authorized to make copies ... then the user as well as allofmp3 can resell the music.

Unless they are authorized by a person who can grant them such authority under US law -- which is likely different than Russian law -- those copies they make are STILL not lawfully made under our law, and hence cannot qualify for first sale in the US.

This is what I've been saying for a while: that while they might be perfect law abiding people in Russia, that doesn't mean they're ok to do business with Americans in America.

you bastards

[jaxon6]

Oh you rat bastards. I thought I had a good thing going. I was getting all the music I wanted for cheap, and the site was under the radar enough not to upset the sue-happy music bizfolk. Now my speeds are going to be shot, the company is going to be closed, and I'll have to go back to buying my four cds a year. So, once again slashdot screws me. To that I say fuck you very much.

Oh ya, I almost forgot. I found out about them from a slasdot post of somebodys. So, uhh, forget what I just said.

Re:you bastards

[silverfuck]

My story and thoughts to the letter - think I found it in somebody's sig a few months back. Works good with paypal, encoding how you like (although their lame --preset standard seems more like preset extreme, if only from the bitrates produced), and comparatively speaking legal.

Damn you all to hell, it's going to go down the drain now isn't it?

Re:you bastards

[sffubs]

Yes, I thought this site was well-known to the /. community.

Sounds a little to good to be true :) ..Why?

[evil_roy]

If you think that then you must live in some authoritarian state like ....

Who'd have thought it... Russia..the home of the brave and the free.

Re:Sounds a little to good to be true :) ..Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

when you live in a plutocracy like ...

Where companies override peoples rights.

Re:Sounds a little to good to be true :) ..Why?

[dasmegabyte]

The home of stealing goods from other people, selling it against their will, and calling "legal" just because you give them a little back.

I seem to recall a raging black market and powerful mafia in Russia back in the soviet days. It's good to know that pioneering spirit is still alive.

Re:Sounds a little to good to be true :) ..Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Capitalist America, YOU pay for mp3s!

Seriously, though, where are the Soviet Russia jokes? I was expecting the story to be flooded with them, and I can't find a single one...

Re:Sounds a little to good to be true :) ..Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The home of stealing goods from other people, selling it against their will, and calling "legal" just because you give them a little back.

It's music. It's not stolen. Nobody lost anything. If someone doesn't want their music to be distributed, they shouldn't release it. I don't believe in copyright laws. Neither should you, little sheep.

I seem to recall a raging black market and powerful mafia in Russia back in the soviet days.

Black markets only exist for illegal or highly regulated stuff. This is not black market. It's perfectly legal. Just not according to your twisted, corporate-influenced morality that says people have some inherent right to lock up knowledge.

Nothing new here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using another service from Russia, MP3 Search Club with great success for some time now. Frankly, I'm surprised this qualifies as news. This service, too, is liscenced by the "Russian RIAA". As a Canadian, I find this site an invaluable compliment to my right to make personal copies of music to share with others. ;-P Given, though, that this other site lets you encode in your favorite format, I'll probably soon switch over to them.

Re:Nothing new here...

[mike449]

I could not get to allofmp3.com, but found some intersting info on mp3search.ru.
They claim that they have a blanket license from RUSSIAN ORGANIZATION FOR MULTIMEDIA & DIGITAL SYSTEMS (ROMS)
That organization is not the Russian equivalent of RIAA, it is the equivalent of ASCAP - organization of authors and composers.

The copyrights for the tracks on mp3search.ru may have been cleared with songwriters, but not with publishers. So this is half-legal (which means illegal).

Re:Nothing new here...

[chargen]

Uh... NO Lagwagon and only two NoFX albums? I'll maybe use this when I want to but the latest Birtney Spears or Christina Skankulera album, as it seems that's what they specialize in!

-Pete

Who are "The MB"

[nutcracker666]

I am afraid I am too old to have heard of "The MB" so why would I want their music ? Are they one of those new-fangled rap / hip-hop groups ? All I can think of is The Moody Blues.

Re:Who are "The MB"

[Anonymous Coward]

"The MB" are just megabytes, not artists. :)

Re:Who are "The MB"

[dasmegabyte]

I'm das megabyte, and I've been known to play music now and then. In fact, I've got a demo coming out soon. I play a very specific genre of music called Surf/Punk/Funk/Folk/Rock/Hip/Ska/Metal.

I won't sell it to you for a penny a song though.

Re:Who are "The MB"

[Anonymous Cowabunga]

You've never heard of the Russian MB? Have they got a deal for you (that you can't refuse).

Reason this is legal...

[GraZZ]

They Legal Info page on allofmp3.com has changed since I first started using the site (great service, they're definately NOT stealing credit card info), but the gist of their old legal page is that they were paying license fees as if they were broadcasting their music over radio; hence the license fee per song for them is probably less than a penny.

The best part about the site? After getting your account upgraded, you are able to rip and upload music to them and recieve DOUBLE your size credit in downloads :)

Re:Reason this is legal...

[Anonymous Coward]

you are able to rip and upload music to them and recieve DOUBLE your size credit

How can you claim this service is legal and then in the same breath make this statement? This service is *not* legal. The artists you should be supporting are NOT GETTING A DIME from the money you are spending. It is all going into the pockets of the russian mafia, lining the pockets of the government on the way.

Re:Reason this is legal...

[GraZZ]

By uploading you're just providing them with source they don't yet have (is the argument they make). They then concievably would start paying license fees on this new material.

I suppose my subject title should have been "Reason they say this is legal"...

Re:Reason this is legal...

[nattt]

And how is that different from buying a CD in a store where all the money goes to the store and the RIAA, and the artist doesn't see any of it?

The fact is that if it costs a radio station a small fraction of a cent per listener per song, why does the licence component of a CD that I'm going to listen to $1?? It's one price for the radio (cheap) and another for the consumer(gets screwed)

Re:Reason this is legal...

[silverfuck]

all the money goes to the store and the RIAA, and the artist doesn't see any of it?

Simple solution: Buy all your major-label stuff from allofmp3, and buy CDs from small bands. Somehow you get the impression that more money is going to the artists if you can go up to them after a performance and buy a CD directly from them (and buy them a drink).

Well, that's how I see it anyway.

Re:Reason this is legal...

[drinkypoo]

While the answer will not comfort you, and you probably know it already, the reason is that the RIAA does not want to dissuade clearchannel from carrying out its mission of playing 100% payola-supported music. Meanwhile, consumers are still buying CDs at full price, though thankfully it's fewer and fewer of them all the time.

Re:Reason this is legal...

[dasmegabyte]

*sigh*

There are a lot of reasons for this, though most of them may be too mired in "what things actually cost" for you to understand them. Needless to say, a consumer isn't "screwed" because a major label gives a radio station volume pricing any more than a consumer is screwed when he pays $2 for a small jar of a spice, when on the commodities market a pound of it would only cost him $5. There's less work involved with selling a massive volume of something at wholesale, and so it costs dramatically less. I mean, if YOU want to buy three thousand copies of that new Vines album, you can get a price break too. Those are 3000 copies they don't have to market, distribute or display in a storefront.

Furthermore, radio play is generally considered by labels and artists to be a method of marketing. If they want their songs played more, they needed to decrease the cost to play them. That's why the RIAA lobbied for such cheap radio rates. Their whole goal is to sell you the album; not because they want to SCREW you, but because in a subjective field like that of music sales it's better for the consumer to be the linchpin. That way, the consumer decides what music is made by providing a larger share of the money paid. If it were the other way around, radio stations would have even MORE control over what you hear, and I can't see how that's a good thing.

Anyhow, the "all the money goes to the store, poor artist" argument is very myopic. In a major label release, the artist gets less of a cut, but gets an upfront budget to make the album, and in theory promotion including guaranteed airplay. In an independent label release, generally the artist gets a bigger cut but has to cover all the costs of production and marketing himself. This means that the major label could be a great deal if the promotion comes through. Consider, for example, The Darkness. Thanks to Atlantic's promotion, wardrobe cash and a seriously goofy video, they've sold over 300,000 records. If they had been an indie with that same sound but no exposure, they'd be hoping for 10-30,000 records. The 10x difference in sales more than makes up for the 2-5x inequity in percentage.

Selling an album is no different from any other business venture. As a small business, you take more home off each sale if you can use your own cash and labor where possible...but some investments can take you to the next level while draining a bit of your future profits. RIAA is just a VC protecting its investments. If you're going to hate them, hate them for being so BAD at marketing new acts most of the time that a lot of great, fresh acts have no choice but to go indie.

Re:Reason this is legal...

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what? The Darkness is still in the red, despite what is obviously a sucessful album. Atlantic ain't in the red, but the group is in the red and is unlikely to get out of the red unless they have a hit second album. Funny way that is always the case in the music industry...

Re:Reason this is legal...

[aeryn_sunn]

It cost the radio 8 Cents everytime they play the song...would you rather pay 8 Cents yourself to listen to each song on your CD everytime you want to listen to it instead of just paying one price of the CD and then get unlimited listens?

Re:Reason this is legal...

[Anonymous Coward]

I read most of your posts in this thread, and I was considering debating them point-by-point (whether I agreed in the abstract, there are debateable points), but... eh... I think I'll just add you to my foes list. It's the lazy man's way out, really.

10 minutes, and already suffering

[eofpi]

It seems another site falls to the slashdot effect.

If you try to browse anything not on their top 10 list, you get interminable "server busy"-type messages. I don't think they'd planned to be slashdotted yet.

har har har

[maxdamage]

Wow, You say I get 19 cds for just a penny!?!? How can I go wrong!

The Russian Mobsic Industry

[53cur!ty]

It's good to see the Russian Mob...I mean Music Industry meeting the needs of the consumers!

Two observations:

1st - Do any of you see the hypocrisy in buying from the Russian site? Are you the same people complaining about the outsourcing of American jobs/economy?

2nd - Has it occurred to anyone that the music industry is now mob run? Look at the tactics they employ compared to past mob practices. And no the mob doesn't kill everyone since then they don't pay, only when they need to make an example or you steal directly from them. However, the recent pay or we'll sue definitely follow their intimidation tactics. The mob goes where the money is; right now, that's media (music and movies).

Just my two-cents, think about it!

Let us streamline your world

Re:The Russian Mobsic Industry

[meringuoid]

Has it occurred to anyone that the music industry is now mob run?

I'd just like to say that this is a damned lie. The music industry has never had anything whatever to do with organised crime.
- Frank S., NY, NY

Re:The Russian Mobsic Industry

[tbone1]

Has it occurred to anyone that the music industry is now mob run?

Oh, piffle. The music industry has always been run by the mob.

Re:The Russian Mobsic Industry

[kfg]

1st - Do any of you see the hypocrisy in buying from the Russian site? Are you the same people complaining about the outsourcing of American jobs/economy?

They're just trying to hasten the revolution. It's dialectics. I'll explain it to you later.

KFG

Re:The Russian Mobsic Industry

[eclectro]

1st - Do any of you see the hypocrisy in buying from the Russian site? Are you the same people complaining about the outsourcing of American jobs/economy?

Though I do not think I speak for all of slashdot, I think that it's safe to say that some would like to see the music industry (aka RIAA aka The Untouchables) be outsourced downward

2nd - Has it occurred to anyone that the music industry is now mob run?

Stop giving the mob a bad name. It's either these people or maybe these people.

Re:The Russian Mobsic Industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankyou Captain Obvious
I think that was the whole idea of the "Frank S.S" reference.

Re:The Russian Mobsic Industry

[XMyth]

1st - Do any of you see the hypocrisy in buying from the Russian site? Are you the same people complaining about the outsourcing of American jobs/economy?

Yes, because Slashdot is one big collective hive mind. Score -1, Shut up

Re:The Russian Mobsic Industry

[ReTay]

WTF?

Two Words "Frank Sinatra" :)

Re:The Russian Mobsic Industry

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, if you can't trust a people with nice Christian names like "Jackie 'The Knife' Valenti" and "Hilary 'Boom Boom' Rosen" who can you trust?

-- Vito "AC" Vinta, Alantic City, NJ

Re:The Russian Mobsic Industry

[meringuoid]

Two Words "Frank Sinatra"

Um... who did you think I had in mind when I signed myself 'Frank S., NY, NY'?

small "versions" of legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?
I thought this was Slashdot. Shouldn't that be VALUES of legal? As in a description of a variable. Or is this one of those .NET things?

Russians

[deutschemonte]

Those wiley Russians, always the first ones out the gate trying to stick it to the man.

Incredibly good and useful

[cshuttle]

Excellent site; I've obtain gigs and gigs from this site, and everything's available in my AR 320k VBR format that all my MP3's are in.

Re:Incredibly good and useful

[Anonymous Coward]

Have been using this for only a week, but bought many albums. Excellent download speeds! My recommendation - download the MP3explorer software, it handles all the file downloads automatically. You can queue up several albums and let it do it's work :) You will also find all the ID3 tags are correct (apart from the occasional ` instead of ' and spaces before commas. Much better than Usenet (and bittorrent to a lesser extent). If you're worried about credit card security, they accept paypay and the money is credited within a minute (before slashdotting anyway!) I tend to stick to the 192Kbs, Lame Encoded files (constant bit rate), which makes an album around $0.60 to $0.80 (or about 0.40 for those in the UK) On our 1MB ADSL we get 40-100K/sec typically.

Re:Credit Card?

[Gryffin]

More importantly, has anybody tried this?

A lot of people, apparently. Including me. I've been very happy with it.

I am loath to send my credit card data to a semi-shady Russian site

I don't think they even accept credit cards directly; at least, I don't recall seeing that option when I signed up.

I signed up using PayPal. That's one reason I took the plunge: a (more or less) reputable American intermediary for the financial end. I have a balance, that's deducted from for each download. When it's near empty, I go to PayPal and fill 'er up again. It's pretty painless.

Re:Debsux

[Tore S B]

apt-get install mplayer mencoder, retard.

Top Notch

[twbell]

This is a great site in my experience. Primarily b/c:
- they work with OGG files (and FLAC if you dig that)

- you can get them at high quality.
- no copy protection

Here's two links from Museekster for more info:

Review

Interview

Re:Top Notch

[twbell]

And of course with the links...
Review
Interview

Re:Top Notch

[Walkiry]

I though for a second you had made a preemptive slashdotting.

Slashdotted

[gkelman]

Their site is struggling under the load. Someone setup a mirror with content, ta. :)

Wish Apple would hurry up and let me buy music in the UK. Although they probably don't have the Scorn albums I want, as _nowhere_ does.

Yes, rip-on-the-fly as well - hard disk is a cache

[Morgaine]

There's got to be rip-on-the-fly functionality in there too, as well as encode-on-the-fly, because in no way could any sane operation pre-rip every known CD.

Their hard disk storage is probably configured as an intermediate cache (well that's how I'd do it anyway), with cache-load requests coming up on the monitors of a bunch of unskilled temp employees who have the task of loading newly requested CDs into the racks of CDROM drives, ejecting the LRU CD as instructed.

And even this group of people probably forms a cache which feeds its misses as requests to the poor sods who have to run out into the Russian weather to chase down obscure CDs in the shops. :-)

Dosvidanya to another source of inexpensive music

[Anonymous Coward]

First emusic changed their rules, now allofmp3 has been /.ed. Sure the RIAA knows about them, just look at the emusic msg bds - how could they not? But now, with the bright lights and fame of /. they will be forced to take action. Great.

This just in, 541 lawsuits filed in Seattle, WA against: Comrade Doe1, Comrade Doe2, Comrade Doe3

News for Nerds

[Quo_R]

You do realize that they have been in business for years? Welcome to last year.

Re:News for Nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes! I remember last year. Lots of sex... to cheap dl music!!

Thanks for the memories.

Why?

[MoThugz]

Amazingly, the site offers files in any format and encoding you choose and rips it on the fly. Notifications by email follow when the songs are ready for download. Sounds a little to good to be true :)

Why does it sound too good to be true? There's no such technology? They can't possibly have all the CD titles that you're interested in?

This could have been done at least three years ago. The USian companies missed out not because of technological factors, but their stupid laws and of course, the paranoid state of mind of the RIAA.

This could have been "the" way to listen to music in this age and time... but noooo, somehow you MUST stick DRM in the files and whatnot. When will the relevant bodies realize that the more you restrict the consumers, the more they will look for an easier (and not necessarily legal) alternative.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with technology. The artists are not getting a dime from the money you send to the Russians. That is a legal and moral issue, not a technological one.

This service is absolutely not legal to use in the U.S., and you could be help accountable.

And God help you when the site is closed down and your credit card info is sold to the Russian Mafia.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be such a pussy.

Re:Why?

[Jamie Lokier]

The artists are not getting a dime from the money you send to the Russians.

I disagree with your prejudicial statement.

The article says that the Russians are paying to license this music, and your payment to the site funds that payment. That license fee goes to the artists' association, specifically to fund artists, engineers etc. in the same way that radio airtime fees are supposed to fund those involved in making the music.

Because of the price differential between countries, perhaps only a very small sum or none makes its way to U.S.-based artists. It is hard to know without seeing the figures. U.S.-based music would surely not be licensed at all in Russia if the RIAA didn't make something from doing that.

U.S.-based artists are not the only ones in the world, though. I bet there are plenty of Eastern European artists (among others) for whom Russian licensing fees represent substantial income.

-- Jamie

Re:Why?

[Lumpy]

Why does it sound too good to be true? There's no such technology?

sure there is it's called linux.

have a large hard drive array with WAV files or even FLAC files and simply encode. I had something like this for a garage band website 4 years ago. you pick the song and the mp3 bitrate and it encodes and gives you the link in an email.

Works great, is really old technology (how old is lame and mplayer?) and only takes a slightly clever IT person to come up with the solution.

as to legal issues? if you have a piece of paper saying you can, then you can.

About time

[RAMMS EIN]

About time this made the front page. Allofmp3.com, weblisten, mp3search.ru, and others were there long before ITMS, they are way cheaper, and they offer their service to all the world.

How is it that ITMS got so much more publicity, even on a site like Slashdot that typically doesn't blindly play along with the major corporations?

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

well if you had known about all this for so long, why didn't you post something instead of leaving us all out in the dark?

Re:About time

[RAMMS EIN]

I did, a long time ago, but my story was rejected.

Blast!

[neoThoth]

I was just getting into a nice groove and finding songs to download when a swarm of ravenous crack monkeys swarmed on the server!
I don't suppose someone mirrored the entire trip hop section of previews?

RIAA != ASCAP

[Peter Desnoyers]

AllofMP3 has a license from the artists' association in Russia, not the record labels - i.e. the ASCAP equivalent, not the RIAA equivalent. Under Russian law this is sufficient, according to the website. (I'd give a link, but the server is slashdotted at the moment...)

Re:RIAA != ASCAP

[SydShamino]

>> AllofMP3 has a license from the artists' association in Russia, ... not the RIAA equivalent.

Uhhh.

RIAA is the Recording Industry ARTISTS Association.

ASCAP is the writer's association, right?

Re:RIAA != ASCAP

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what, a joke, a troll or you just arrived on this planet? RIAA is Recording Industry Association of America. No art in there.

Re:RIAA != ASCAP

[camusflage]

RIAA is the Recording Industry Association of America. They're a trade association that lobbies on behalf of the member organizations, namely the recording industry.

ASCAP is the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers. ASCAP collects on public performances.

BMI is Broadcast Music, Inc. BMI collects royalties for broadcast music.

ASCAP and BMI collect royalties for artists. RIAA pushes the recording industry agenda.

This would be akin to BMI licensing music to Napster. Nice, but because in the US, the studio often retains such rights, not likely to happen here.

Re:RIAA != ASCAP

[ChaosDiscord]

RIAA is the Recording Industry ARTISTS Association.

Only on bizarro world. Here on earth it's the Recording Industry Association of America.

Re:RIAA != ASCAP

[skzbass]

No..., The RIAA is the Recording Industry Association or America, its a consortiunm of all the major record labels. The RIAA does not directly represent the Artists. The RIAA represents the interest of the Music Coporations, Money.

Vorbis

[RAMMS EIN]

Amazingly, /. forgot to mention you choose includes Ogg Vorbis, besides the MP3/WMA choice other sites offer.

Otlichna!

[suso]

Saychas ya magy slysheet Gyst uz Bydeshevo.

Like I can't listen to it already. mp3.ru already offers free music by the megabyte. Several Russian sites do.

Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

It's probably great for Russians. But for Americans at least, the site is illegal.

Our laws prohibit most unauthorized distribution and reproduction of copyrighted works in the US per 17 USC 106. The party that can authorize it is the US copyright holder -- this is prone to be a different entity than rights holders abroad.

While some degree of importation is allowed per 602 and 109, this doesn't qualify. A copy isn't merely being brought into the country, but rather due to the way computers work (see the infamous MAI v. Peak case, which while wrong is commonly relied upon), a new copy is being made on the downloader's end that did not originate in Russia, and thus wasn't imported as 602 requires. (Though what it was copied _from_ did -- it's the difference betweeen a CD that can be brought from place to place, and making a tape of what you hear on the phone)

Even the ability to legally import unauthorizedly is somewhat limited; the idea is that if we have copyright laws domestically, to allow people to do an end run around it by operating in a country with less or no copyright, then importing works here en masse would result in things being, well, fucked up, basically. This site basically demonstrates how such a thing might happen.

The Russians are probably fine -- if they're careful, RIAA won't be able to shut them down. OTOH, Americans using the service could get into significant trouble if they're caught.

All that having been said, I'd like to see the law changed to better suit the desires of the public, but for now there are problems for this.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[paulhar]

Why is this any different to physically flying to Russia, buying a CD off the shelf for a much lower price than you pay in the US, then flying back with it?

I.e. if you are legally buying something in another country (as allofmp3 claim) and you are shipping it to your computer (via an internet, just as software etc is distributed), then how can this suddenly become magically illegal?

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

Why is this any different to physically flying to Russia, buying a CD off the shelf for a much lower price than you pay in the US, then flying back with it?

Because that involves a copy made (legally, we assume) in Russia. The selfsame copy is then brought here. When you listen to it, you're listening to a copy of foreign origin.

This involves a copy made HERE, itself based on a copy in Russia. When you download something, the bits on the server aren't magically sent to you -- instead a new copy is made. Since, in the end, there is a copy on your computer, and a copy on their computer, it is pretty obvious that this involved an act of copying, not an act of importation (where only one copy exists, and it's moved physically).

Do you see the difference?

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[TheDigitalRaven]

Do you see the difference? Does the Berne Convention (mentioned above)?

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

I could really care less about the Berne Convention, and it's such a piece of crap, too. We really gotta get rid of that thing and abandon international copyright agreements.

But US copyright law treats them differently, and that's enough for Americans, at least.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[PhilHibbs]

It's easier and cheaper, and therefore everyone would do it, therefore effectively stripping USian content producers of the protection that the US has fought so hard to afford them internationally. Effectively, you are buying this musc in the US. You are in the US, you are buying the music, therefore you should be subject to US copyright law. There is an exception for bringing back music that your bought while you were abroad, so you can bring back your music collection if you've been working abroad for instance, but saying that this exception should be expanded to an infinite degree is just silly.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[micromoog]

So, if this company simply burned all of your songs to a DVD and mailed it to you, that would be legal?

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[paulhar]

> You are in the US

Actually I'm in the UK, though because of DRM etc still subjected to US rules. Ho hum.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[paulhar]

Interesting. They (allofmp3) make a copy of the bits in Russia and then send them to you via the internet. You aren't creating the copy by them sending you their legal original to create the copy from.

This should be identical to them sticking them on a cd and physically sending that to you too - they make the legal copy for you.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

In the US, yes. But it would have to be no more than one copy of any work at a time, and the copies would have to be not for further distribution in the US, and it would have to be for the private use of the importer. And probably a business couldn't receive it, but a natural person would have to.

The relevant statute is 17 USC 602. First sale, at 109, doesn't apply unless the copies were made lawfully under US law (regardless of where they were made) or with authorization of the US copyright holder (again regardless of where they were made). So 602 parallels first sale, it doesn't overlap. If first sale did apply, e.g. because the copies were made abroad in compliance with US law, then importation is a-ok without bothering with 602 and its more annoying limitations. (in fact there was a case about that, but the name escapes me at the moment)

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[Quaryon]

To be pedantic, the Russian site creates a copy specifically for you - once you've finished downloading it gets deleted - that might make a difference, not sure. This happens because the file you download is encoded specifically for you, with your own desired LAME (or whatever) parameters.

Q.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

make a copy of the bits in Russia and then send them to you via the internet

Well, now we get into the nitty gritty of how computers work. The bits on your hard drive are not the same PHYSICAL objects as the bits in your CPU or RAM or NIC or ethernet wire or whatever.

This means that -- due to current (albiet wrong, IMO) interpretations of the law in the US -- they're all seperate copies of the same work. The leading case here is MAI v. Peak. I don't like it, but it's often followed, and it would hose you here. Though frankly, common sense would as well.

Importation involves moving physical objects. This means that the exporting place ends up with one object less, and you end up with one object more. That isn't happening here, as your ending up with a copy doesn't cause Russia to lose one.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[rhs98]

a new copy is being made on the downloader's end that did not originate in Russia

But, they are encoding it on the fly (assuming they don't cache it, which they probably are) - the file could be deemed to have been moved to your pc - i.e. there is only one instance of it.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[weetjerm]

It sounds like you know what you're talking about, but still this service raises questions...

Thusfar, the RIAA has only been going after people sharing copyright material, not downloading. If I recall, this has to do with (1) limited resources and (2) the fact that it is almost impossible to prove that someone is commiting copyright violation when downloading (i.e. the download is not a copyright song, the downloader owns the song, the downloader is unaware he is violating copyright until he listens to the song, etc.)

This all falls in the legal grey area, but is the RIAA ever going to go after downloaders and not sharers in general? And if so, will they target these Russian websites when they could just go after the regular P2P users?

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[meringuoid]

But it would have to be no more than one copy of any work at a time

Fine.

and the copies would have to be not for further distribution in the US

Also fine.

and it would have to be for the private use of the importer.

Still fine.

And probably a business couldn't receive it, but a natural person would have to.

This is again fine.

So: if allofmp3 turns out to be illegal or if the *AAs start suing its customers, how about it? I think the Russian MP3-DVD By Mail-Order business plan shows great promise. Venture capital, anyone?

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[demigod]

...(see the infamous MAI v. Peak case, which while wrong is commonly relied upon)...

The American (in)justice system at work.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[coyote_oww]

I think you're applying the law incorrectly. We are, after all, allowed to legally tape that which we hear on the radio. As pointed out by another poster, the Russians are essentially running a high bandwidth radio station. Give them a call (via their convinient website) and they'll play the song of your choice, on a channel convienent to you, at a time of your choosing. It's essentially up to you to "record" it - that is, save a copy to disk.

I mean, is it illegal to listen to Russian radio?

Is it illegal to tape what you hear?

If not, then the only illegality here would be if the Russian's were violating their licence by playing music to order - something the RIAA is nervous and restrictive about in the US...

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[pyite]

"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major

Heh, your Catch-22 sig is very apt to this situation. In effect, the RIAA is saying the last thing they want to do is deal with someone who wants something. Lots of people in the US are willing to pay for music, in fact, are paying for music, but don't want to pay the crazy prices the RIAA demands.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[Anonymous Coward]

No, those are *transient* copies. Unlike in the UK, that is not a "copy" as far as copyright is concerned.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[starman97]

Interesting, I wonder if they could add other codecs
like OGG or AAC?

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[Quaryon]

They already do - both AAC and OGG, as well as others..

Q.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[N0decam]

They already have OGG, AAC, FLAC, and a bunch of others that I can't check right now because slashdot killed my favorite music site :)

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[wagemonkey]

Well, now we get into the nitty gritty of how computers work. The bits on your hard drive are not the same PHYSICAL objects as the bits in your CPU or RAM or NIC or ethernet wire or whatever.

So anytime my hard disk is defragmented a new copy is created. If I move a file to a different location a new copy is created, the old copy is marked as deleted, and can be recovered.

And then you get to the nitty gritty of physics - with a hard drive you are probably using the orientation of magnetic domains to encode the file (I'm not aware of any revolution in storage tech, with your RAM, CPU etc then you're using quantum states. If you consider electrons to have a physical existence then you're using different electrons to continuously re-create the copy in question. It is pretty metaphysical really which is not something you want courts to get involved in.

I'm struggling to come up with a pragmatic definition of 'a copy' here, so I'd take this as a sign that the law is going to struggle. NB I'm not saying I'm a genius or anything, and I'm not saying that there won't be legal rulings on any of this, just that there's going to be lots of room to argue this.

Importation involves moving physical objects. This means that the exporting place ends up with one object less, and you end up with one object more. That isn't happening here, as your ending up with a copy doesn't cause Russia to lose one.

By that logic it is impossible to steal an electronic file (without deletion of the original) as the owner still has it. You just have a perfect copy.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[theLOUDroom]

This means that -- due to current (albiet wrong, IMO) interpretations of the law in the US -- they're all seperate copies of the same work. The leading case here is MAI v. Peak. I don't like it, but it's often followed, and it would hose you here.

There's no way this can be "often followed" because this would make all sorts of things illegal like:

• Pretty much all *legal* internet radio
• anti-skip buffers in CD players
• running ANY software program without a supplemental EULA authorizing addition copies

The prevaling interpretation of copyright says that you get all the temporary copying rights necessary to run a program, play a digital music file, etc via the doctrine of first sale.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[WindBourne]

IANAL (but I suspect neither are you).

This site may be doing something interesting in treating it like a radio. That is, think of the site as doing a radio broadcast, but time shifted. totally legal by US standards iff they pay their money. I believe that is exactly what they are doing. That is legal in the US.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

the Russian site creates a copy specifically for you - once you've finished downloading it gets deleted

That wouldn't make a difference, IMO. The infringement revolves around the fact that the downloader's copy is not the copy -- even if it is bit for bit identical -- as the copy in Russia. What happens to the Russian copy later on, whether it's just after or years later isn't important.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[Gulik]

A copy isn't merely being brought into the country, but rather due to the way computers work (see the infamous MAI v. Peak case, which while wrong is commonly relied upon), a new copy is being made on the downloader's end that did not originate in Russia, and thus wasn't imported as 602 requires.

If this is the reasoning that is eventually followed by US courts, I'm wondering who in this instance is breaking the law. If I'm making a copy on my end, as you say, but that copy is for my personal use and I don't distribute it, haven't I stayed within the bounds of US copyright law? If it's a local copy, I couldn't have run afoul of restrictions on importing, either, so that should also be okay.

So, could the RIAA come after a US downloader under current laws? Well, yes, obviously they can, but would the case have legal merit?

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm struggling to come up with a pragmatic definition of 'a copy' here

Well, the law defines a copy -- a fixed copy, rather -- as being a material object in which a work is fixed by any method and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, OR otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

That includes a hell of a lot, since even all the little tiny copies made in the course of using a computer can be perceived since obviously they're then passed along to different bits of hardware or software that wouldn't be able to get them otherwise.

It's a stupid definition, as anyone familiar with mercury delay lines and the game of telephone will know. But it's what we're stuck with for now.

By that logic it is impossible to steal an electronic file

That's right, provided that you're not talking about stealing the medium the electronic file is fixed in. That doesn't mean it can't be illegal, though, for a half-dozen different reasons.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

We are, after all, allowed to legally tape that which which we hear on the radio

Not quite.

First, the 1008 statutory exception only applies to certain sound recordings; not everything on the radio -- or on CD or whatever -- is fair game. Second, it all hinges on the medium or method involved in the copying; taping is analog, and analog is allowed. Few forms of digital copying are allowed, and this won't qualify when you look at 1001 (upon which 1008 relies). Third, that only applies to reproduction, not distribution; arguably the Russian site violates US law by distributing to Americans, though there's a lot of strong arguments the other way as to that specific issue. Fourth, fair use might apply, but it might apply to literally any sort of otherwise infringing activity. Here it's not likely that this falls under fair use, as there are enough differences between this and recording from US-legal sources where no money changes hands. Even I couldn't find this a fair use, and I'm notoriously pro-public with regards to copyright issues.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[PhilHibbs]

Actually I'm in the UK, though because of DRM etc still subjected to US rules. Ho hum.

The UK rules are pretty much the same as in the US. It has been illegal to circuvent copy-protection measures since 1988 over here. It has been illegal to copy a CD that you bought onto a cassette tape or MP3 player since at least then as well.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[wagemonkey]

Well, the law defines a copy -- a fixed copy, rather -- as being a material object in which a work is fixed by any method and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, OR otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

That would seem to exclude files on a computer. There is no material object that is fixed. The file may be moved in the normal operation of the computer and can be deleted with no harm to the physical medium on which it is temporarily stored. Arguably a different thing with optical media, of course.

That includes a hell of a lot, since even all the little tiny copies made in the course of using a computer can be perceived since obviously they're then passed along to different bits of hardware or software that wouldn't be able to get them otherwise.

Hardly a fixed copy. You might even have some fun with fair use as often the use of a file involves reading only part at a time...

It's a stupid definition, as anyone familiar with mercury delay lines and the game of telephone will know. But it's what we're stuck with for now.

It's even more stupid when applied to computers.

That's right, provided that you're not talking about stealing the medium the electronic file is fixed in. That doesn't mean it can't be illegal, though, for a half-dozen different reasons.

Oh agreed, the fact that new laws on 'hacking' and electronic intrusion etc are introduced is evidence of that. IIRC when someone broke into Prince Phillip's mail box many years ago (before the 'net was spread wide, it was Prestel) the culprit was charge with stealing electricity. I would have thought a good lawyer could win that one!

The way you and I are going we're going to have have to stop using computers as you can't do anything useful without breaking several laws.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[paulhar]

> It has been illegal to copy a CD that you bought onto a cassette tape or MP3 player since at least then as well.

The EUCD trumps the copyright act 1988 for most of this stuff since we ratified it.

E.g. Article 5
Exceptions and limitations
1. Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable:
(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or
(b) a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2."

Is this not a lawful use of a work (purchasing and downloading onto our computer) that has no independent economic significance (goods are already paid for and we aren't redistributing them).

We aren't working around any copy protection measures by using allofmp3, we aren't distributing.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[PhilHibbs]

Downloading it from Russia and keeping it on your hard drive is not a temporary act, and is neither transient nor incidental.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[jonathan_95060]

The Russians are probably fine -- if they're careful, RIAA won't be able to shut them down. OTOH, Americans using the service could get into significant trouble if they're caught.

yeah right! AllofMP3 has been in business for more than a year, RIAA is obviously aware of them yet RIAA not so much as whispers a threat to US ALLOFMP3 customers.

Go ahead, try googling 'allofmp3 RIAA' and see what you find. Go ahead, try contacting RIAA and ask them to comment on ALLOFMP3. RIAA can't do jack about ALLOFMP3 so their stragegy has been to be silent on the issue and hope nobody notices these websites (although I do expect they are lobbying to fix this problem)

these russian sites are obviously the biggest fish in the ocean with regards to distributing RIAA content. While RIAA may not be able to sue ALLOFMP3 in russia, it should be a trivial matter to get an injunction against VISA, MasterCard and Paypal so that these services won't allow U.S. customers to pay ALLOFMP3, if RIAA had a legal leg to stand on.

Of course if you frighten people away from ALLOFMP3 and that makes it easier for you and me to access the very busy ALLOFMP3 servers I guess that is OK ;)

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

That would seem to exclude files on a computer. There is no material object that is fixed.

The material objects are hard disks, floppy disks, and arrangements of circuits (typically banks of transistors) such as RAM.

we're going to have to stop using computers as you can't do anything useful without breaking several laws

Well, yes, that or reform the laws, or ignore the laws. It's the middle one that's best, IMO.

For a good example of how crazy this all is, consider the Utah Lighthouse case a few years back in the US: A website posted copies of documents pertaining to a religious group online. They were copyrighted, and the site had to take them down; that's not too unusual. But some other sites still had them up. The first site then pointed people to the other sites and encouraged them to read what was there. The first site was sued again for contributory infringement, and such a claim absolutely requires that there was a demonstrated instance of a direct infringement by someone else which they could've contributed to. In this case, based on the aforementioned MAI v. Peak case, the plaintiffs claimed the users who were reading the other sites were the direct infringers, since web browsers necessarily make copies of the pages viewed in RAM and typically on hard disks as well.
The court agreed -- just _looking_ at something on a computer, due to the way a computer works, is capable of infringing copyrights.

It's crazy.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

internet radio

Actually, that's specifically covered by something else now, so we can leave it aside. If Congress wants to treat it as being more performance like than reproduction like, courts will abide by that.

anti-skip buffers in CD players

Yeah, that would count. But a court is fairly likely to accept a laches or fair use argument in that very limited case, I imagine. Plus, they won't give a rat's ass until someone brings the case.

[running software without EULAs]

Also specifically excepted. 17 USC 117 permits the owners of a copy of a computer program to make all the copies and adaptations they need to to run it. And all the (legitimate) backup copies they want.

EULAs actually interfere with this because they tend to claim that the user doesn't own that copy of the software -- and must then get the right to use it from the EULA. Try reading a decently drafted one, and you'll find the appropriate provisions sure enough.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[Hatta]

This means that -- due to current (albiet wrong, IMO) interpretations of the law in the US -- they're all seperate copies of the same work.

Doesn't this just prove the point you're arguing against? In the process of sending a music file from russia to the US, a copy is being made that exists in the ram of the server and in the ether. That copy is being made in russia, since there's obviously no way for me to make it. Since they apparently have a license to make copies in russia, that's legal there. And since the buffered copy is ceases to exist once I have it, the exporting place does wind up with one object less, and I have one object more.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[shiftless]

I'm not a lawyer.

I use this service and I notice that when you have a song encoded and ready for download, a copy is made on THEIR end, and placed in a special directory. When you download that file it's deleted from their end.

So wouldn't that be basically the same as going to Russia and buying a Russian-made CD? Since the copy is made over there, and you just bring it home.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, the thing is, it doesn't matter what ultimately happens to the server-side copy if it's seperate from the copy you have, despite being identical. What's important is that your copy, although identical to a copy in Russia, was made locally. The issue of the sum total of copies floating around is for illustrative purposes, it's not determinative legally.

The point is that unless your copy was fixed in a medium in Russia and hasn't changed mediums since, you're probably reproducing the work, not merely moving a copy from one place to another. Importation is inescapably a physical world thing.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

That's just stretching too far IMO. A court will look at places that sell music online -- Napster 2, iTMS, etc., and will look at Internet Radio, and I will eat my hat if they decide this site is even slightly radio-like.

There is a good expression to keep in mind when one develops tortured arguments like this: "The law is not an ass."

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[Hatta]

How can I make a copy locally if the original is in russia? The russian made copy that exists on the line and in the buffers of routers is being physically transported from there to here.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

Because there are several copies:
1) Master copy (Russia)
2) Transcoded copy (Russia)
3) Copy in RAM (Russia)
4) Copy in NIC (Russia)
5) Many copies at different points on the Internet
6) Copy in NIC (US)
7) Copy in RAM (US)
8) Copy on hard disk (US)

Information in a computer can't physically move from place to place -- rather each destination creates a new copy according to what it is told by a source. If it worked the way you're saying, then when you ran a program, the hard drive copy would literally move from hd to ram. Instead, copies are made.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[Hatta]

1) Master copy (Russia)
2) Transcoded copy (Russia)
3) Copy in RAM (Russia)
4) Copy in NIC (Russia)

Those are all legal, they have a license to make those copies.

5) Many copies at different points on the Internet

This is the importing step.

6) Copy in NIC (US)
7) Copy in RAM (US)
8) Copy on hard disk (US)

Fair use. I can legally copy a cd onto my hard drive, so I ought to be able to copy a song from my nic to my ram to my hdd.

Of course we're just beating off here until a court decides. It is truely pathetic that the issue is so confused.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is that the bits (the information the RIAA "owns") are copied IN RUSSIA and sent to Joe Consumer in countryX, where they are reassembled by Joe Consumer's browser. In order for Joe Consumer to make a copy, he would have to possess an original in his country that he could make the copy from. How would he do that if the original resides in Russia? Clearly the copies are made in Russia and are being sent to other countries through a distribution system known as the internet (as opposed to sending them via FedEx).

Some people might think this is unfair to the recording companies or the artists, and it may or may not be, but it's a sign that existing copyright law is broken, however you see it.

-Tony

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

In order for Joe Consumer to make a copy, he would have to possess an original in his country that he could make the copy from. How would he do that if the original resides in Russia?

Rather easily, in fact. Consider this example:

Alice is in Russia, and Bob is in America. Alice has a copy of War and Peace, which we will assume is copyrighted for the purposes of this example, even though in fact it is not.

Alice makes a collect call to Bob's cellphone. She starts reading the novel to Bob over the phone. It starts out, "Well, Prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now just family estates of the Buonapartes," and continues from there for a godawfully long time.

Bob has been carefully writing down what Alice has been saying. In the end, he has a handwritten copy of War and Peace, and Alice's copy has never left Russia. Two copies now exist, where before, there was only one.

It's fairly simple, unless you're a total dumbass.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

Let's try a different sort of example, which I used above to respond to a similar point.

Imagine that Alice is in Russia, and has a copy of War and Peace. She calls Bob in America who has a lot of patience, blank paper, ink, and overseas minutes on his phone.

Alice can read her copy to Bob, who transcribes it. Obviously Alice didn't export her copy to Bob -- she still has it, and it never left her hands, much less Russia. But in the end, Bob has a brand new handwritten copy of War and Peace, writer's cramp, and the biggest phone bill ever.

There is no substantial difference between Alice's voice being transmitted over a phone line or packets. In fact, there's a decent chance that Alice's voice is being transmitted over the line as packets! It's not importation. This should be fairly clear by now.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

That's not relevant. It doesn't matter how many instances there are -- I just made the point that there are likely to be two for purposes of illustration. What's relevant is the the downloaded copy is not the actual same thing as, despite being identical to, the server-side copy, however long it lasted.

If it was written to a fixed medium like RAM or a hard disk on your side -- a new copy was made. Computers copy stuff constantly in normal operation -- it doesn't move around in there.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm wondering who in this instance is breaking the law

Downloaders for sure. The Russians maybe -- depends on if a court decides to treat them as vicarious infringers.

If I'm making a copy on my end, as you say, but that copy is for my personal use and I don't distribute it, haven't I stayed within the bounds of US copyright law?

Probably not, no. Look at the four factors in 17 USC 107 -- the fair use statute. You'd be copying the whole work exactly as is, it's not transformative, it directly competes against the US rights holder, and it's a creative work. I see very little hope of fair use helping, and that's the only hope you'd have.

So, could the RIAA come after a US downloader under current laws? Well, yes, obviously they can, but would the case have legal merit?

No question that they could, and if they did, that they'd win. But it's not really effective for them to do so -- that's why as a strategic matter they go after bigger fish like P2P services or at least uploaders. Plus downloaders are marginally harder to catch. Only marginally though, IMO, as RIAA honeypots are easy to set up, especially as uploaders get busted or at least get careful. And since the statute of limitations is 3 years civilly, they can take their time about it.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[wagemonkey]

The material objects are hard disks, floppy disks, and arrangements of circuits (typically banks of transistors) such as RAM.

They're not fixed in those material objects, turn off the power and where's the copy? It's transient and not fixed. We probably now need a definition of 'fixed', but I really don't feel like going there.

Well, yes, that or reform the laws, or ignore the laws. It's the middle one that's best, IMO.

I quite agree, it's also going to be the hardest to get changed in any sane fashion, again IMHO :-)

The court agreed -- just _looking_ at something on a computer, due to the way a computer works, is capable of infringing copyrights

Which demostrates again that which needed no proof: namely that the courts often don't understand matters on which they rule, but they don't let that interfere with them.
It brings to mind the hoary old chestnut about a law being passed to make pi three.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

They're not fixed in those material objects, turn off the power and where's the copy? It's transient and not fixed. We probably now need a definition of 'fixed', but I really don't feel like going there.

We have a definition of fixation in 17 USC 101 already: A work is ''fixed'' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.

I've got karma to burn .......

[un1xl0ser]

Is this a true statement?

Something Not Funny || Something Off Topic + Mentioning(Karma Burn || Having Karma to Burn) == Karma Points

If so.. .... fuck that

- un1xl0ser

Album is Wanted??

[HarryCallahan]

Some of the albums have a category of "Wanted" i.e. they don't currently have it but would like someone to give it so them I presume. Like this page here has one http://catalog.allofmp3.com/mcatalog.shtml?group=4 564&albref=14

Someone else above also said that if you upload an album you get 2 free as credit, or something like that. So this would mean they are receiving uploads from people and then onselling the music. This is definately not legal in the west.

Seems to just be a case of Russia saying screw the west we'll do business our way in our country. And good on them.

VERY LEGAL.

[scum-e-bag]

allofmp3.com isn't legal, it migth be in Russia, but that doesn't mean that people outside russia can buy from them legally.

If you live in Australia, where the article is written, then it is legal The parallel importing of music is legal in Australia. The parallel importing of music helps keep the price down and is evidence of a free market economy working well, unlike the USA with the BSA and MPAA and RIAA and other IP outfits where these gestapo like organisations control the free flow of information.

We can't see any legal or moral objection to using the site. We're using the material for private use, there is no restriction in this country on the parallel importing of recorded music and none of the artists seem to have been deprived of their rights.

Re:VERY LEGAL.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but you have to live in Australia :P And spare me the envy-motivated U.S. bashing. It is so passe.

Re:VERY LEGAL.

[vivian]

unlike the USA with the BSA and MPAA and RIAA and other IP outfits where these gestapo like organisations control the free flow of information.
Guess what - they are coming to Australia too.

Re:VERY LEGAL.

[Anonymous Coward]

unlike the USA with the BSA and MPAA and RIAA and other IP outfits where these gestapo like organisations control the free flow of information

Put the hat down and step away from the tinfoil. BSA, MPAA, RIAA don't "control the free flow of information" in the USA or anywhere else.

I must be reading Slashdot again - the parent was modded +5 Informative...

Re:VERY LEGAL.

[dasmegabyte]

the BSA and MPAA and RIAA and other IP outfits where these gestapo like organisations control the free flow of information.

Word. I'm also pissed off at the FDA for preventing the free flow of untested drugs, and the FBI for restricting the free flow of raw, uncut heroin. And I'm not a big fan of the "State Police" slowing down the free flow of my neighbour's high deifnition TV into my basement.

Shit, man. The internet is threatening to destroy the viability of creating entertainment because people like you seem to think that just because it's easy to do something that it should be legal too. Remember: a painting is nothing more than some coloured oil on cloth. Can't possibly be worth more than $10. So you'd be a fool to pay more, right?

Re:VERY LEGAL.

[Politburo]

You're not looking at the argument correctly.

The internet is threatening to destroy the viability of creating entertainment because people like you seem to think that just because it's easy to do something that it should be legal too.

No. Most people in this thread are saying it should be legal due to the way copyright law and international trade is setup. If these songs are legally obtained and distributed under Russian law, then no law is broken if they are imported into the USA or other countries. It doesn't matter if that's done over the Internet, or if I walk to Russia during the next ice age.

Word. I'm also pissed off at the FDA for preventing the free flow of untested drugs, and the FBI for restricting the free flow of raw, uncut heroin. And I'm not a big fan of the "State Police" slowing down the free flow of my neighbour's high deifnition TV into my basement.

You appear to be sarcastic here, but many people consider these legitimate beefs with the government (although I don't quite understand what the last one is supposed to be.. your neighbors TV turned up too loud?). The idea that the government can regulate what we put in our bodies is appalling to many, including myself.

Re:VERY LEGAL.

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is threatening to destroy the viability of creating entertainment because people like you seem to think that just because it's easy to do something that it should be legal too.

Wow, looks like the schoolroom propoganda is working. Do you drink Pepsi for lunch there too?

So you think the whole wide world would just stop making video, music, and all other forms of entertainment if your corporate copyright power structure was disassembled, huh?

Like there's no-one out there who does art for the sake of, er, art, or pleasure? Or who can find other means of supporting themselves besides putting virtual chains around their knowledge. Or who maybe wouldn't feel the need to live like a king, or spend $50 million hyping their album.

News flash for you, dasidiot: Art would indeed survive. In fact, you might say that the art that does survive is going to be that made by the real artists, and not all the stars-in-the-eyes in-it-for-the-money corporate executives and boy bands.

Stop letting the man do your thinking for you. Try not watching TV for a few weeks, stop reading the mass-hysteria news sites, and stand up to authority from time to time. Smoke a joint, drive over 55, and drink alcohol on Sunday. Then, if you're lucky, you might just become enlightened.

P.S. This rant isn't really to convince you. You're beyond hope, and I'm sure this antagonistic little tirade is just going to help cement your position. Instead, it's for some of the people who might be on the fence over this whole copyright issue. Here's to hoping some of them fall on the right side.

Re:VERY LEGAL.

[dasmegabyte]

Hey asshole. Drop the "everybody who agrees with the party line must be brainwashed" bullshit. Sometimes, people look at a viewpoint critically and STILL agree with it.

I make art, music, and software and I offer it all on my web page for free. I choose to do so, because it makes me happy. I also do it because I don't work as an artist or a musician and don't feel my shitty work is worth charging for.

However, if it were my job to create art and music, I'd be pretty pissed if some foreign agency started selling my work to Americans for a few cents. I don't think people should have to live in poverty just because art COULD survive it.

Yes, copyright helps corporations. But it ALSO helps independent artists. In fact, I'd say that independents would suffer more from the repeal of copyright (or the "trumping" of copyright that this service represents) than corporate rock would. Indies don't have the clout, the marketting prowess, the distribution network, or anything else BESIDES the copyright to their work.

I know a lot of artists and musicians. I think it's incredibly selfish of you to demand that they all quietly step back and let other people copy and sell their work without their permission. Who cares if technology makes it "trivial"...technology makes it trivial to do a LOT of things that aren't good for society.

If the right side of the copyright fence is a return to artistic feudalism, I'll stay in my FairPlay hell, thanks.

Re:VERY LEGAL.

[scum-e-bag]

Like there's no-one out there who does art for the sake of, er, art, or pleasure? Or who can find other means of supporting themselves besides putting virtual chains around their knowledge. Or who maybe wouldn't feel the need to live like a king, or spend $50 million hyping their album.

News flash for you, dasidiot: Art would indeed survive. In fact, you might say that the art that does survive is going to be that made by the real artists, and not all the stars-in-the-eyes in-it-for-the-money corporate executives and boy bands.

I do not know why you posted as Anonymous Coward because that was a good post, in fact I belive you are correct. I'm now slightly OT however. Art that is good sells itself, the artist is in demand for personal art shows, be these personal paintings or live musical concerts et al. The individual smalltime artist is then fairly recompensed, provided massive copyright violations do not take place, where large distribution companies profit from the artists expense. This is the fundamental reason for copyright laws. The concept that I have just described is one of capitalism "the price of an item is worth only what the market will pay for it".

Re:VERY LEGAL.

[jimmy page]

Link to legal analysis of allofmp3.com:

http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm#Is%20A ll ofmp3%20legal?
I think someone has done a lot of analysis here..

Link to museekster's review of online services..
http://www.museekster.com/index2.html

-jp

While legal in Russia

[Daath]

While legal in Russia, it may not be legal in YOUR country to use their services.
Just a thing to bear in mind, if you want to keep a clean path.

What makes you think . . .

[Idou]

the poster is against outsourcing? Slashdot is a diverse group of individuals voicing their diverse opinions, which all conflict. I am tired of individuals saying "gotcha" when two completely SEPARATE individuals voice CONFLICTING opinions. Btw, if ALL prices (not just wages) were to drop at the same rate, then, yes, nobody would be complaining about outsourcing. The problem is that there are market inefficiencies that are keeping some prices the same while others go down.

Spanish?

[The Limp Devil]

Are these the same guys that operated out of Spain originally? At least some of the MP3s I bought from a Spanish website have www.allofmp3.com in the tags.

I can't remember the name of the website though, and it's long gone now. I just saw www.allofmp3.com in the tags the other day, and it made me wonder.

Re:Spanish?

[guiscard]

This one?

So I guess that means that in America...

[oldosadmin]

Wait a second. In Free America You MegaByte the songs? Hm.

Re:So I guess that means that in America...

[micromoog]

No, the songs just MegaByte.

Re:So I guess that means that in America...

[elmegil]

Amen brother.

If something seems too good to be true..

[mpk]

..then it probably is, and that's why I treat these claims with a hefty degree of scepticism. Let's look at a few points:

If they claim they're legal because "we're licensed as if we were broadcasting the material", then as far as I understand you have no right to make or keep a recording of anything they might broadcast. Broadcasting is "we broadcast it and you listen", and there's no automatic right to tape records off the radio.

It's highly possible that the reason they haven't been closed down is that taking legal action against shady Russian entities is extremely difficult at the best of times.

If they're interested in people uploading stuff *to* them in exchange for download rights, then the legitimacy of their source material seems doubtful.

Ultimately, applying Occam's razor to this story makes me wonder that if it's so spotlessly legal, why isn't everyone setting up stores like this on Russian territory?

Anyway, something here smells sufficiently fishy for me to be extremely sceptical of the wisdom of giving them money.

Re:If something seems too good to be true..

[Anonymous Coward]

Broadcasting is "we broadcast it and you listen", and there's no automatic right to tape records off the radio.

How does time-shifting fit into that? It's legal to tape shows off TV, one would think it's legal to tape from radio as well.

Re:If something seems too good to be true..

[RadagastTheMagician]

Your thinking is the sad result of so much copyright fear from the RIAA and MPAA. "Copyrights" and "intellectual property" aren't natural laws - they're artificial constructs, and if we (as a nation, as a world) decide they get in the way of the advance of culture or society or just plain old happiness, we should water them down or eliminate them.

Re:If something seems too good to be true..

[fingerfucker]

Of course it is legal. The guy is clueless and talking shit and gets rated +5, typical for Slashdot.
My comment explaining why it is legal is here.

Re:If something seems too good to be true..

[mpk]

For starters, I'm in the UK, so what the various Associations of America say has relatively little impact in my mind. Secondly, you seem to be missing the fairly simple point that *ideology* is not necessarily the same as *legality* - in your ideological world this may be legal, but in the real world it's most likely that laws are being broken somewhere, even if it's only on a technicality.

Something which is illegal *on a technicality* is still illegal, and some people thinking something *should* be legal doesn't necessarily make it instantly so. This story was about the legality or otherwise of a particular music download site, and therefore is something that's governed by facts rather than being an ideological matter.

Your ideology has little to do with the law *as it stands now*. So don't tell me I've been brainwashed, when it's pretty obvious that your thinking is pretty closed as well.

Re:If something seems too good to be true..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you do have the right to tape records off the radio. You can record any broadcast, as long as you don't replay it for a group of people without the express written consent of Major League Baseball. If we didn't have the right to do this (timeshifting) then TIVO couldn't exist.

Re:If something seems too good to be true..

[Eccles]

Broadcasting is "we broadcast it and you listen", and there's no automatic right to tape records off the radio.

What about the 1984 Betamax decision? Recording radio for time-shifting is nigh-identical to recording TV for time-shifting, and the Supreme Court ruled Americans can use their VCRs.

Re:If something seems too good to be true..

[cpt kangarooski]

I concur, but it is important to know the current laws so that we a) know what we're being held to, b) know what we want to change and why, if it comes to that.

You can't effectively lobby against the current laws in favor of anything else unless you know what the current laws are. /. is chock full of mistakes about copyright law. Few posters here have a good grasp of it. I'd be very careful in following any advice here, particularly if it seemed to run against CONVENTIONAL common sense -- the kind that non-computer using judges and opposing counsel might have.

Re:Debsux

[chegosaurus]

This must be an example of the friendly Linux community I've been hearing so much about.

Say what you like about commercial support, but it's not often Sun or Microsoft will call you a retard. Not until after you've hung up at least.

Just one teeny problem.

[Phidoux]

The songs have all been dubbed into Russian!

Re:Just one teeny problem.

[pjt33]

Hope they did a better job than the team which dubbed The Lion King into Russian. When Simba's dad dies, he cries "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!" The dub is a snappy "Nyet".

Re:Just one teeny problem.

[lone_knight]

"Listen to Alec Shrapnelpolski sing your favorite tunes, from The Rolling Stone's 40 Licks to Barbara Streistand Live...."

Re:Just one teeny problem.

[nearlygod]

Thanks for the spoilers space. I haven't watched the movie yet!

Re:Just one teeny problem.

[Bambi Dee]

Wouldn't even surprise me :) ...not after seeing a Russian "Sleepy Hollow" video CDs with one single voice actor droning robotically over the original. Way to destroy an atmosphere... would subtitles have been so bad? At least I would've been able to read (though barely ever actually understand) them...

Record Company Pays YOU

[handy_vandal]

You knew that one of these days record companies would "get it" and find a way to sell their wares over the internet. Now I await them finding a way to do it without charging money.

Better yet, the record company should pay YOU (yes, in Soviet Russia, etc. etc.) to listen.

Example:

You download the latest hit from Britney Spears. (I'll repeat: "you download", not me.)

About halfway through the song, there's an ad for Pepsi ... followed by the rest of the song.

Pepsi pays you a nickel (or whatever) for actually listening to the damned thing.

"4. PROFIT -- !!!"

-kgj

Re:Record Company Pays YOU

[sburnett]

I don't think they would even have to have the Pepsi ad -- they should still pay me a nickel for listening to Britney Spears.

Re:Record Company Pays YOU

[Catharsis]

> About halfway through the song, there's an ad for Pepsi ... followed by the rest of the song.

I thought the latest hit from Britney Spears _was_ an ad for Pepsi?

Maybe if I'd had the volume on I'd be able to say one way or the other...

Re:Let's get this out of the way

[un1xl0ser]

Mod parrent down.

Isn't anyone else sick of the "karma sacrifice" line as a way to get points?

-un1xl0ser

Re:Debsux

[parksie]

Microsoft already did that when they turned Windows XP into a Fisher-Price exec's bad dream.

Moral Legal

[Morgaine]

Several people here have already addressed the issue of legality in their countries by pointing out that parallel imports are legal for them. Unfortunately, this would seem to leave everyone else doing something illegal under their local law, if that were the end of the story. But it is not.

What is "legal" is not necesssarily right or moral, and the actions of the RIAA and its cohorts definitely places them in the wrong. It is not the same world today as it was back in the days of vinyl, yet the cartels have steadfastly refused to reflect the virtual elimination of replication and distribution costs for digital music in their pricing. Instead of adapting to a new world, they corrupt the lawmakers to provide them with bully boys to enforce their claimed right to continued profits in perpetuity.

Well, sorry, the new generation isn't having any of that rubbish. The founding fathers left a land of repression for the freedom of a new world. Now their offspring are turning to Russia for their freedom. If somebody at home isn't getting the message, they should.

An Evil Plot by the RIAA

[kuma_act]

It's obvious this Slashdot story was submitted by the RIAA in an apparently successful attempt to eliminate the foreign competition. I weep for the servers, now turning to slag under a severe slashdotting...

Re:Yes, rip-on-the-fly as well - hard disk is a ca

[micromoog]

And even this group of people probably forms a cache which feeds its misses as requests to the poor sods who have to run out into the Russian weather to chase down obscure CDs in the shops. :-)

They prob'ly just hit Kazaa for those.

The Western Internet is American, dude

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's a nice idea to think of a World Internet Community, but the supermajority of slashdot visitors are Americans, so the GPP is not contradicted by your protest, in all practical reality.

Awesome Site

[XMyth]

I've been using it for a few months now. 1cent per meg! 3gigs of music = $30. You can pick your bitrate and format (including OGG, AAC, MP3, and some lossless compression algos).

Also, for those of you worried about re-encoding, many albums have the original CDA as the encoding source, but the majority have 384kbps VBR mp3s as the source...some quality is lost on re-encoding but it's hardly noticable.

Re:Awesome Site

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, for those of you worried about re-encoding, many albums have the original CDA as the encoding source, but the majority have 384kbps VBR mp3s as the source...some quality is lost on re-encoding but it's hardly noticable.

The MP3 format is not capable of 384kbps VBR. The maximum bitrate an MPEG 1 Layer 3 can contain is 320 kbps CBR.

Re:Awesome Site

[BlackWind]

I've been using the site for a couple years now as well as a few other people.
Great quantity, and quality of music available. (I usually download at 320 kbs.) Never had a problem with anything I've ever had to do with them.
There are a number of artists that I've tried listening to after the site lists them as "Artists similar to". A lot of them I liked, and ended up buying the cd's for.
Oh, and the download speeds for the VIP members, are usually around 200kb or so.

Re:Let's get this out of the way

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny mods don't affect karma. Informative, Insightful, etc. do.

This is not the only site to offer this

[Tiber]

You should also check out http://mclub.te.net.ua and see their selection. As far as I know, these guys are newer then the Russian site, but offer the same services.

Re:Credit Card?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I am loath to send my credit card data to a semi-shady Russian site
> I signed up using PayPal.

So you'd rather use a shady American company AND a semi-shady Russian one?

Re:Vorbis - In the Summary

[NewStarRising]

"the site offers files in any format and encoding you choose". (Presumably, 'any' covers Ogg?)

Battery chickens have the right to suffer I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

spare me the envy-motivated U.S. bashing

What an odd thing to say. Why ever would the poster living in a land free of the oppression that the US places on its citizens be envious of the US?

Far more disturbing is the fact that you seem to enjoy living under a repressive regime where big business can treat you like chickens in a battery farm, undeserving of rights, bled to death of your cash, and criminalized by default. Well, each to their own I guess. Enjoy.

oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

too bad there's no such thing as "free market" and we have big government intervention and intellectual property laws to make sure the consumer has to pay big no matter what

free market is acceptable when it benefits the corporate world (outsourcing), and unacceptable when it benefits the consumer (this example). nothing new under the sun

Re:oh well

[Asterisk]

Except that this is perfectly legal and acceptable.

Straight from the Terms and Conditions

[q-the-impaler]

You agree with the fact that you are not able to use and even to download audio and video materials from Allofmp3.com catalogue if it is in the conflict with legislation of your country. Allofmp3.com Administration is unable to control all Allofmp3.com users, therefore the users are responsible for usage of the materials represented on the Site.

So basically they leave it up to you to figure out if you are breaking the law or not. IANAL, but it sounds like the RIAA would definitely fine me for DLing music from here.

Re:Straight from the Terms and Conditions

[golgotha007]

IANAL, but it sounds like the RIAA would definitely fine me for DLing music from here.

but the best part is, how could the RIAA ever find out? impossible, they cannot find out. you are 100 percent safe.

And who are you to judge?

[achurch]

Given that the site is located in Russia, it is (or at least was originally) probably intended mainly for Russian users. I doubt any of the service administrators speak native English. Think how you'd feel if you had a site in English and Russian, and Russian users called it "shady" because your Russian was bad. Then think again on your comment.

Re:And who are you to judge?

[Mateito]

Nyet!

Re:And who are you to judge?

[Bluesman]

Then again, if your Russian was bad, how would you know they were calling it shady?

Re:Who are "The MB" - pricing scheme?

[JLavezzo]

I don't know why the parent was modded "Funny". I seriously didn't know what the heck the post was talking about. One of the comments mentioned that you pay $5 per 500 Megabytes so I'm going to presume the poster meant "music downloads with $/Mb pricing".

Re:Credit Card?

[geniusj]

Well, obviously it's worked out for him. In fact, it's worked out for me too. I have downloaded about 1.5GB or so ($15) worth of songs from allofmp3 without any problems whatsoever. I used paypal in between as well. What is your point? If it works, it works.

Most complete catalogue?

[artemis67]

Does anyone know how large their catalogue is? I just did a search on the Beatles, who are notoriously absent from all of the digital music services, and AllOfMP3.com has ALL of the Beatles' music available. I would therefore assume that their agreement with the RMIS is exhaustive.

Wow, this has the potential to put all of the competition, including iTMS, out of business virtually overnight.

Re:Most complete catalogue?

[Hettch]

Yes they do, including Rain, which has been SOO hard to find a quality recording of

why isn't everyone setting up stores like this...

[sorlov]

Why isn't everyone setting up stores like this on Russian territory?
They do, but they all have Russian only interface:
http://club.mp3search.ru/
http://deli t.net/
http://mp3zzz.ru/
http://audiostore.ru/
http://www.mp3charts.ru/

in unrelated news - MPAA: brainwashing children

[Avishalom]

what did you learn in school today
I will go to a music shop and buy more CD's

that is the scariest bit of news i've heard lately
(mpaa has a new program that teaches children they should buy more , 'if you don't pay for it - you've stolen it' , by giving , get this, the teachers yearly free movie passes,... there's more , worth your time ..)
originally here , a couple of days ago, and making waves

What are 'American' jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have I missed something?

Do Americans have more right to jobs than the rest of the world?

This is the 'Free Market' that you love so much. Please don't complain when it works against you.

Importing Music Issues

[TubeSteak]

You might be correct... but I know there was a lot of flap over stores importing/exporting overseas version of CDs and whatnot. This article from BBC News shows what i'm talking about.

CD-Wow! had been accused of violating UK copyright law by importing cheaper CDs from outside Europe to the UK.

"The record industry claimed that CD Wow! was obtaining sound recordings from outside Europe and selling them to UK and Irish consumers."

The BPI is also investigating online retailer Amazon to see whether it is importing CDs from outside Europe.

"If we find a net retailer is importing music from outside Europe, then they are infringing copyright law," a spokesman said.

And you're right, normally this kind of market segmentation wouldn't work. But pharmaceuticals, the RIAA/MPAA & various other multinational corps can effectively set their own rules b/c they run the only game in town.

It works

[beckerie]

We bought all those songs for $US48.65, or $66 in local currency, which works out, according to our arithmetic, to 6.8 cents a track.

Obviously, the more you buy the cheaper it is. It's the "buy in bulk" incentive. These days, parents are more than happy to buy their nagging teenage kids music online because it's cheaper, it saves the hassle of being dragged into a music store blaring punk rock at 100 dB and you can pick and choose the music. Who's ever enjoyed every song of every album? Not I.

Considering that a typical CD album with about 12-15 tracks retails for 25 bucks, it's around $2 a track vs. 6.8 cents. In the end, parents will do it cheaper. Legal or not.

Re:It works

[pyite]

Who's ever enjoyed every song of every album?

Dark Side of the Moon

Kind of Blue

I could go on.

Fight! Fight!

[Sfing_ter]

This is gonna be great, Lawyers vs. RIAA/MPAA, feces vs. feces, lumpy pustule vs seething carbuncle.

This will cause the EU feces to hit the rotary oscilator. Would it not be of the greatest irony, that Russia winds up being the place we regain our freedom from opression?

Fuck them

[fingerfucker]

They charge.

I was willing to sacrifice the "search" functionality and I happily wrote myself a program to monitor any set of Shoutcast stations and when metadata arrives that matches my search query, I split, rip, save. Free.

For those who can't write it themselves, here you go, you can buy it out of the box, it's called RipCast.

Re:Fuck them

[t_allardyce]

you havnt discovered p2p filesharing yet have you?

Re:Fuck them

[fingerfucker]

You haven't discovered that what I am doing is 100% legal as opposed to p2p filesharing, have you?

Re:Fuck them

[t_allardyce]

Yes but is it 'ethical'? maybe its as ethical/unethical as filesharing, in which case, whats the difference? you get the same end result! filesharing is more convenient. But ofcourse I only know that from watching other people use filesharing apps, id never use one myself!

Re:Fuck them

[fingerfucker]

When I rip a stream, I do so with without any intention of sharing what I have ripped with other people. It is legal because I do it for 'personal use only'.

I do not have any motivation WHATESOEVER to share what I rip any more, because I could care less about other people's desires for songs in this case. In this case, I only care about makign sure that I am a RECIPIENT of a service that allows me to rip music.

This system potentially allows for consolidation of the distribution channel from the music companies to a tree-like structure: artists -> publishers -> radio stations -> listeners. In the current P2P model, there is no chain and thus no CONTROL.

From that perspective, I am being "a good boy" and it's only a matter of the happy-go-suing RIAA folks to figure out how to charge me for that music. They could charge radio stations for the license, which in turn the radio station would recoup by introducing advertising into their stream (which is rather inefficient and irrelevant, since I can skip commercials when ripping) or charge me a listener fee.

Therefore, I claim that from the perspective of artist and distributors compensation, it is more ethical to do stream ripping than P2P sharing and therefore IT IS NOT THE SAME.

As you can see, this type of a paradigm shift is already happening. It's called XM Radio and Sirius and what I am doing right now, I am doing for free, but only until that gap closes.

PS: In this case, I have omitted considering the fact that since P2P already exists, by the very definition of P2P, there is nothing technically that can be created to stop P2P for as long as there are more or less unobstructed communication links between people.

Good site.

[man_ls]

I've been using their site for about 6 months now, for pay, with no problems. They haven't stolen my CC number, the files are immaculate quality, and I've been able to get hard-to-find music that doesn't exist except in a few random music stores here in the states.

Best part?

It's legal.

Or just the opposite

[Namarrgon]

In some countries (e.g. here in Australia), "sole distribution rights" does not make parallel importation by the consumer illegal - and if the "sole distributor" tries to tell you it is illegal, that's considered Restriction of Trade (which is illegal :-)

I believe this has been tested in court over here, and it's still legal to "grey-market" CDs and other products.

Re:Or just the opposite

[dasmegabyte]

Right...but think about this. With a grey-market CD, the copy was made overseas, and therefore was subject to that country's copyright laws.

With a download service, the copy is (technically) being made by the downloader in THIS country. They are receiving the bits offered by Russia, and copying them onto a local drive. Ergo, this country's copyright restrictions would apply.

At least I hope they do. $.01 per megabyte is $.65 per MP3 Album...how can that be fair to artists, getting a cut of $.65 for their hard work?

Re:Or just the opposite

[zuzulo]

Actually, the Russian version of the RIAA (with whom allofmp3.com is licenced) pays artists *directly* for licenced downloads. Thier share of a .65 cent album download is actually significantly *higher* than artists get from an equivalent retail purchase in the US.

As a point of reference, after all distribution, licencing, and record label costs are taken out, artists are extremely lucky to see around .25 cents per $15 purchased CD. .05-.10 cents is more common.

Most artists make almost all their money through royalties on airplay and concerts. The CD sales merely drive listener attention and make labels and the distribution chain money.

Anyone see any problems with this model? I personally think the Russian model makes more sense.

Of course, whether artists see any of the money they should be making according to the actual regulations for each Russian transaction is another question entirely, and one to which I do not know the answer.

Re:Or just the opposite

[dasmegabyte]

Wow, these numbers keep getting lower and lower, and more and more wrong. Sure, some musicians get totally fucked on their deal. But none of them make less than $.50 per CD sale, and most are in the $1 to $2 range.

Now, your numbers APPROACH being right if you include recoupment costs from that $.50. But remember, recoupment is like paying back an interest free loan. It's not like the labels are stealing money from people, they've ALREADY PAID them. An advance is a really great thing, it lets you focus on the album without having to bust your ass at a day job or work shows all week.

Still, the fact that some artists get screwed on major label deals does not mean that ALL artists will suddenly think $.35 from some Russian service they didn't ask to be on is a good thing. I mean, that same artist gets $1.20 from iTunes, and has an actual say in how the music gets used and marketed!

In fact, the only thing I can think that will come out of this is that American labels will stop marketing their artists in Russia altogether.

By the "MB"?

[johnthorensen]

Is this songs by the "Megabyte", or what? Acronyms without at least one explanation given in the text are re-tar-ded. The way they say it makes it sound like it's a musical group or something.

Interview with AllOfMp3 / ROMS

[geighaus]

AllOfMP3 Intervew ROMS (Russian equivavelent of RIAA) interview Some interesting points there about legality of this service.

obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

In The Soviet Union, Music Rips You!

"Visiting India is not a vacation. It's work."

[Futurepower(R)]

An woman from India who worked in India's embassy in London told me, "Visiting India is not a vacation. It's work."

STFU

[Anonymous Coward]

ANY modern OS could do this, you fucking Linux troll.

Re:STFU

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, windows CAN NOT.

we tried the same thing. IT CANT NOT DO IT reliably and securely.

Probably not legal

[mike449]

I could not get to allofmp3.com, but a similar site, mp3search.ru claims on their copyright page that they have a blanket license from the Russian equivalent of ASCAP (www.roms.ru). So while there seems to be a license from songwriters, they don't mention another necessary license, the one from publishers (RIAA).
I suspect (but can not verify at the moment) that allofmp3.com has similar licensing issues.

The appearance of legality seems to fool many people. "Look! They have some kind of license!"

New RIAA strategy: slashdot the enemy

[hpo]

Allofmp3.com has been hard to reach. Maybe the RIAA decided to slashdot the site...

Re:Let's get this out of the way

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as sick as I am of lame Soviet Russia jokes...

"you insensitive clod" jokes and Step 1 - Do this, Step 2 - ????, Step 3 - Profit jokes weren't funny the first time, they're not funny the 150,000th time they're used on Slashdot. You slashdotters need to get a better sense of humor, no offense.

AllOfMP3 Top Ten

[telstar]

For anyone interested in grabbing AllofMP3's top-ten, I've compiled their current list.

10. Boris - Boris Sings the Blues
9. Svetlana - Oops, Svetlana did it again
8. Katerina Jones - Feels like Moscow
7. Natalya - Toxic ... Water
6. Igor - Looking For You ... on the Bread Line
5. Leonid - Damita Leonid
4. Yuri - Yuri, Unplugged
3. Karina - 99 Bottles of Vodka
2. Sonya - The Red Album
1. 50 Rubles - Get Warm or Die Tryin

Re:AllOfMP3 Top Ten

[meadowsp]

Slashdot, the home of American racism.

Re:AllOfMP3 Top Ten

[Purple_Walrus]

Slashdot, the home of people without a sense of humor.

I'm Russian and I found that list hillarious. Quit getting offended over everything...

They offer dozens albums for free!

[FrederiCH]

Allofmp3 offers dozens of albums for free. Check this page for a list of the free albums. Download speeds for free stuff is way slower than for the paid ones. Don't be scared of by this.
I am using this service for over a year. Never had a single problem. Can recommend it to anyone.

Worthless!

[Anonymous Coward]

If there are no songs by William "She Bangs" Hung, it just aint worth the time.

Gobalization - US style

[DuncanE]

Another classic example of Globalization. US product is exported to Russia where its sold at a price much lower than in the US. Hence it is reimported back into the US by its own citizens.

The corporations cant have it both ways... either Globalization is good and we all pay less... or Globalization is bad and product should be bought by the same people producing it (ie same country).

I'm sure the US government will impose import tariffs on these bytes.

Re:*RI* represents artists... not. Think RA*

[Uninvited Guest]

But ideally they're representing artists rights, put to that position by artists...

That is not correct. The *RI* organizations represent the recording industry, not artists. Recording artists are represented by organizations like the Recording Acadamy and the Recording Artists Coalition --organizations which are often at odds with the RIAA.

Try it. You might like it.

[Oncogene]

I have used to it several times before, although I notice that they've given their site a visual upgrade since I was last there.

They have an excellent selection of both Russian and International music. (If you'd like to try a Russian band, check out Nochiye Snipyeri, aka Night Snipers. They're essentially the Russian version of The Cranberries.) I have an ongoing account with them as of now that I've yet to ever have an issue with.

Signup Page Link

[timlee]

Direct link to signup page

Also, I didn't notice it sending anything over a secure https connection when I checked the box "Transfer personal data via secure connection" but I wasn't really paying that much attention. Anyone know if it did or didn't?

Yeah right...

[SPYvSPY]

...so I'll just go to Romania to burn 8 thousand copies of illegally downloaded Britney and fly it to the USA and sell it to Tower Records on the cheap. I'm sure there's no violation there at all.

Re:Yeah right...

[Anonymous Coward]

although it will cost you a lot more to do than Tower Records are paying for the proper ones..

Re:Yeah right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually importation is specifically allowed, but only one copy (per lifetime, I believe) per work (song, etc.) per person. So you couldn't do what you are describing, but you could bring back one copy for your own use. However, if it was an illegal download even in Romania, you would still have a legal problem somewhere. The point here is that it is legal in Russia, and also legal to import one copy per work for personal use. I don't believe you even have resale rights on the work.

Re:Yeah right...

[Nick_dm]

Firstly, if those are illegal coppies they will be considered as such when they reach a country that recognises the copyright, in this case Romania does and so does the USA so those copies would be illegal either way, the same would hold in Russia. (In say, Taiwan, you could get bootlegged copies, but these would be illegal if you took them into America.)

The music in this case though is all legal and licenced properly in Russia (with money being transfered back to the American companies and artists involved) so there is no issue with piracy.

If you are purchasing musics from other countries this is normally fine, possibly there will be laws on reselling in another country. In this case the transaction takes place in Russia and then they send you the goods, it's no different than if I (living in the UK) purchased something from amazon.com and got them to ship it to me.

Re:Yeah right...

[Nick_dm]

There are some other posts further down the thread that point out some more issue that could change the legality... a few things I hadn't realised.

Well Said

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here.

Monday morning legal experts!

[pw1972]

All these monday morning legal experts crack me up!

Sigh. Here we go again.

[nanojath]

I wouldn't presume to argue the legality of this for people outside Russia. I have no idea. I'll continue my policy of trying not to purchase or access new copies of copyrighted materials unless I'm confident they are sold with the approval of the copyright owner or their agent. I would be curious to know if copyright owners are getting anything back from these sales.

The primary interest in this to me is how it points out the growing gap between the major content conglomerates' business models and the reality of what they're producing. We all know the prices on CDs are ridiculously high compared to their production costs - one or two dollars versus ten or twenty, very very roughly. With online it has become even more ridiculous - pennies to deliver the data versus a dollar or more to buy a song. Yet Apple tells us it can't make money.

The lesson I wish was being learned here is that we have entered the age where a recording contract with a major label is like a huge freaking albatross around your neck. The reason Apple can't make money on iTunes is because between the cumbersome necessity of verification and the enormous skim the labels are demanding there's nothing left over - bringing the ridiculous situation where they can't make money selling data transfers of say 3-10 MB for a buck.

The labels are indeed to blame but I personally don't want to rectify the situation by finding a way to get their stuff for free or extra cheap. I'd much rather see artists realize that they don't need the labels anymore, they just need some technical help and better organized consumers. Just as anyone can now go and pay someone a pretty nominal amount to burn CDs in bulk with whatever data they want on them, anyone can now go and pay an even more nominal fee per bit to have someone serve whatever data they want on demand. Screw Russia, go hit http://www.bitpass.com and check the music offerings - songs for pennies. That's a real revolution, my friends.

Site is down!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just when I go to take a look the site crashes. THe nerve

Indeed

[poptones]

I've posted about them several times. I also like to point out that I regularly buy Russian music CDs from an importer in NY, and each of those CDs costs me all of 6 bucks. So for those trolls saying "these aren't legal" then I offer you this: how is an importer able to get away with selling these physical goods in the US?

The big RIAA labels all have a presence over there. My fave artist, Linda, has had a record contract with (I believe) BMG for quite some time. She regularly appears on Russian MTV and there was even an English language version of "Vorona" ("Crow") made for (always impending) US release. And remember TATU?

So, if these labels are so insistent that there is no money to be made in a country where lax copyright controls exist, why (and how) have they retained a presence in a country where nearly two thirds of all content sold in stores is "pirated?"

From Tatu's own website, these figures:

February 2002 - Universal Music Russia releases an enlarged edition of the album "200 in the opposite direction" with a new design and with a new track "Clowns". The song "Clowns" appears regularly on the "Russian Radio", "Dynamite FM", "Hit-FM" and "Europe +".

March 2002 - re-release of the album "200kph in the wrong lane" beats all the records during the first week of sales: 60,000 of legal copies sold!

Now the number of sold copies of the TATU albums is about 1,100,000!

60,000 "lega" copies out of more than a Million are sold, and Universal seems to have no problem with betting on this horse... meanwhile, here in the US, laws keep getting passed...

Russia is not the problem here. The US is the problem. and I hope sites like this continue to prosper, and it demolishes the US entertainment industry. After all, "constructive destruction" is what capitalism is all about. How ironic these "capitalists" seem only able to realize this lesson at the hands of a formerly soviet socialist state.

Production vs. distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish schools hadn't dispensed with formal logic. Noone seems to be able to think these days. This site constitutes a means of distribution, i.e. a online retailer for products. The location of a distributor can be (and is) completely distinct from the location of the producer. How does foreign distribution constitute "off-shoring"? It doesn't. The production of related products may be anywhere. Moving the distribution apparatus (or adding to it in other locations) does not necessarily affect the locale of the producer.

TANSTAAFL.

[son of the moon]

" We can't see any legal or moral objection to using the site. We're using the material for private use, there is no restriction in this country on the parallel importing of recorded music and none of the artists seem to have been deprived of their rights. While we suspect the recorded music industry would like to earn more from their music, we're in no position to judge the arrangements they might have made with Russia." TANSTAAFL. No moral objection to using the site? Then why in the article does it seem like you're doing acrobatic backflips to justify this? 6.8 cents per song? What ever happened to a fair day's wage for a hard day's work? And don't think that many of these musicians who are getting screwed by this deal don't work hard. I am continually appalled at both the apparent conception that musicians (really) don't deserve to get paid as well as the idea itself that music ought to be free. Why? Why shouldn't these artists get paid for the time and effort? We pay bankers to handle our money, cooks to make our dinner, maids to clean our houses, but we can't pay artists who actually make our lives enjoyable? And every argument i've seen supporting cheap or free (read illegal) downloading of mp3s hides a desperate search for moral justification of outright theft. If you like an artist, and listen to his work, then you have a moral and artistic obligation to support their efforts. Period. This system of patronage extends back for countless millennia and is the basis for nearly every great masterpiece. If you don't think the music you're downloading is worth paying for, then why are you listtening to it? Or is it something more insidious? Have we finally become a race so selfish and cheap that we actually believe there might be such a thing as a free lunch? That somehow, we're privileged enough not to have to pay for what we use in this life? No one wants to pay for anything anymore. And it's making the lives of those who make the stuff we use unbearable. It's just a matter of time before somebody pays for it.

Re:TANSTAAFL.

[ratboy666]

Please put paragraph breaks in. Makes it easier to follow what you are trying to say...

"Why shouldn't these artists get paid for the time and effort? We pay bankers to handle our money, cooks to make our dinner, maids to clean our houses, but we can't pay artists who actually make our lives enjoyable?"

I do go to concerts. I spend about $1000 per year on: concerts, musical theatre, movies, and sports. That is more than I pay to maids (4 visits per year, $100 per visit).

When I do something, I don't get paid after it is finished. Doesn't matter how many people use it. Yes, you my have my code in your computer RIGHT NOW. But I don't get royalties. And that's ok with me... Now, the musicians do get royalties. I would think that 1 cent over a million uses is still 100,000 dollars. More than I make, anyway. And for this, do nothing.

As to THIS being the "system of patronage extends back for countless millennia"?

I don't think so. 100 years ago the only way to hear an artist was to be there. Or listen to someone else play the music. Works *were* commissioned. Certainly, no one made money on selling recordings -- there weren't any.

I don't mind people making money selling recordings... just get it into line with costs and reasonable profit. Or I won't buy. $1 per song is FAR too much. Given that 10 cents a song pays for royalties, encoding, distribution *and* profit.

If you insist on pricing electronic recordings at $1 a song, and CDs at $15, I won't buy. [Note - WalMart - usually not known for generosity - sells some DVD movies at $4.88 CDN].

I will still go to concerts. Am I selfish and cheap? Thanks for thinking that about me, but I have purchased more CDs and sound recodings than the entire human race did before 1850. More, even. I think that make me really generous to the artists.

Ratboy.

Re:TANSTAAFL.

[BlueStrat]

As an artist/musician myself, I won't *ever* sign with a label. That being said, I know a number of my fellow musicians/friends who *did* sign with a label, and I can safely say they don't give a rip if you buy the music they created for the labels from Russia, Ethiopia, or simply d/l it from a P2P or steal it off the damned shelf at your local record store! Unless your sales put you near the top, as an artist signed with a label, you make next to *nothing* from sales. You actually make *much* more from the damned T-shirt sales at your shows than you do from record sales if you're signed with a label! Have no fear, if you're worried about how much money you're taking out of the mouths of starving artists/musicians by screwing the RIAA/labels don't. You aren't. The RIAA/labels beat you to that decades ago.

Re:TANSTAAFL.

[son of the moon]

"Please put paragraph breaks in. Makes it easier to follow what you are trying to say..."

Sorry. First time i've posted. Wasn't familiar with how /. handles it.

"I do go to concerts. I spend about $1000 per year on: concerts, musical theatre, movies, and sports. That is more than I pay to maids (4 visits per year, $100 per visit)."

That's great. Really, no sarcasm implied. I spend about the same. But when you pay to see a performance, you're entering a contract wherein you're paying to hear that specific performance, and nothing else. Paying for one hot dog doesn't justify swiping three more dogs when the vendor isn't looking.



"When I do something, I don't get paid after it is finished. Doesn't matter how many people use it. Yes, you my have my code in your computer RIGHT NOW."



Do I? Where? Just curious. I'm on a mac, so if so, that's very cool. Always glad to meet people who write for mac.

"But I don't get royalties. And that's ok with me... Now, the musicians do get royalties. I would think that 1 cent over a million uses is still 100,000 dollars. More than I make, anyway. And for this, do nothing."

You don't get paid royalties because you don't stipulate so in your contracts. Artists do. Now, you can agree to not support this system, by not using their product. The creator of a product has the right to stipulate how and where he gets paid for it. You as a consumer have the right not to buy that product if you don't like the method of payment or billing. What right you don't have is to take the product without agreeing to the sellers terms. That, is theft. Simple, really. You want the business model to be different? Cool. Just don't use the product until the seller is willing to change the model.



I don't think so. 100 years ago the only way to hear an artist was to be there. Or listen to someone else play the music. Works *were* commissioned. Certainly, no one made money on selling recordings -- there weren't any.



Sort of. Further back, successful musicians were supported by patrons, who housed and clothed and fed them. Which is what we do know, just not directly.



I don't mind people making money selling recordings... just get it into line with costs and reasonable profit. Or I won't buy. $1 per song is FAR too much. Given that 10 cents a song pays for royalties, encoding, distribution *and* profit."

"If you insist on pricing electronic recordings at $1 a song, and CDs at $15, I won't buy. [Note - WalMart - usually not known for generosity - sells some DVD movies at $4.88 CDN]."



Once again, that's fine. Don't buy it. But don't steal it either.

Look, my ire isn't directed at you personally. It's just that nearly every time this subject comes up, you hear the same tired arguments. And it really is a simple concept. If you don't want to pay a dollar a song, or ten bucks a cd, then don't use the product. Eventually the recording companies will be forced to make things more palatable so that you will buy the product. Or they'll go out of business and a new model will emerge. It's kinda the basis for our entire economy.

But taking the product against the creators express wishes is theft. Period. And if you do that, (and i'm not saying that you personally do this), but if you do, you're a thief.

Personally, I'm more than a bit tired of hearing people justify it otherwise. But hey, that's just me.

Re:TANSTAAFL.

[Anonymous Coward]

If an artist sings a song for me in a private room where only I can hear, I will gladly pay him $10 (to the hell with it, even $50), for 5 minutes singing that song would take. Mind you, that's $600 an hour. Such a yummy rate.

But by no means I'm paying that much to him for 5 minutes of recording that 1.000.000 people listen to alongside with me. $0.05 sounds more like it. (and he still gets $50.000, mind you)

It WAS done three years ago

[poptones]

I've been using allofmp3.com since about 2001...

Citibank and Russia

[sorlov]

http://www.citibank.ru/
They work in Russia too and they are pretty successful there.

Re:Battery chickens have the right to suffer I gue

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing you have to remember is that Americans are brainwashed from birth that they live in "the land of the free", and nowhere else has such freedom. The vast majority of Americans don't know (or won't believe) that the rest of the first world has just as much freedom as those in the USA.

Cool

[t_allardyce]

It makes perfect sense - the RIAA will be pissed off as hell with Russia, but in the end, an entire country and its government is far more powerful than the crappy RIAA - they actually _do_ have an army, not just some guys that jump out at you in a parking lot with RIAA jackets. All i can say is GO RUSSIA! - where the music industry listens to you, not the other way around :P Also the idea of selling by some unit - eg MB is more appealing somehow, i dont know why, and choosing format just rocks!

Not licenced by Russian equivalent of RIAA...

[blorg]

...but rather ROMS, the Russian equivalent of ASCAP/BMI. Like a radio station, they pay money to the authors/composers association and sidestep the record companies altogether. Also like a radio station, there is no way that an individual record company can keep their work off their service.

How about this...

[razmaspaz]

I set up shop in Russia. My company will, for a reasonable fee, purchase a hard drive for you. Fill it with the music you want- legally obtained from this service. Ship it to you in your country. You have now purchased and imported legally copyrighted material. The copy was made legally and the import will not be subject to american copyright law. Is this correct?

Does anyone know what UPS would charge to ship a hard drive from Russia to Yourtown, USA?

Re:How about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Does anyone know what UPS would charge to ship a hard drive from Russia to Yourtown, USA?

It's probably much cheaper to use DVD-R.

Re:How about this...

[razmaspaz]

I would imagine so. And a little easier too. Want to be my business partner? :)

Re:Well, it ISN'T too good to be true

[Uninvited Guest]

While some degree of importation is allowed per 602 and 109, this doesn't qualify

Let's go to the code, shall we?
US Code Title 17, Chapter 6, Sec. 602 Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords

(a) Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. This subsection does not apply to -
(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage;

MAI SYSTEMS CORP. v. PEAK COMPUTER didn't involve importing for personal use, so hardly applicable here.

And, as we learned from RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia (regarding the Diamond RIO MP3 player), facilitation of personal use gets broad protection under fair use.

So, is downloading MP3's from Russia importation or not? If it is importation, then personal use is covered under section 602. If it is not importation, then the duplication in the U.S. should still be covered under personal use; i.e., you legally bought the right in Russia to duplicate the copyrighted work to your Diamond RIO MP3 player for your personal use in the U.S.

Wrong again

[poptones]

Because this is, at least for now, unenforceable. The only possible way to enforce such a restriction as you mention would be to eavesdrop on all internet communications originating from the US and to prosecute U.S serfers who utilize this "illegal" service.

And, since that would require all sorts of invasive precendents, it would surely take multiple SCOTUS cases to settle the issue - an issue, as you know, the SCOTUS has a long record of siding with "users" and not corporate holders. Just as they sided with home users having a right to record Disney's movies on their Sony VCRs in their homes, it's doubtful the record industry could ever win a case against a user for "importing" their own legally purchased CDs via these electronic means.

And BTW, whether you like the Berne convention or not, we're stuck with it until our own politicians get smart - you can't defend the law in one breath and then in the next say "well, I don't like that part of the law so I'm not going to argue it - as a student of law you should fucking well know better than to even try such nonsense. And, so long as Russia ia a signatory on that treaty that none of us "like," we're bound to accept their protections just as they're bound to accept ours. And in Russia (Ukraine, Poland, etc) there are far fewer protections for corporate entities when it comes to copyight (another discussion we have had before - should I cite some Polish or Ukraine law?)

And record companies may not like this fact, but they seem to have no problem living with it: Sony, Universal, BMG... these all have presence in Russia just as elsewhere. Madonna may not like her music being sold so cheap, but she has little say over it - a little something is better than whole lotta nothing, which is what she'd get is she refused to allow Maverick records to have any official presence in the country.

In short: I been using this service for a long time. I told you about it over at Arstech and no one there seemed to find it worthy of front page comment, and I've mentioned it here multiple times and yet it's remained a pretty well kept secret until now.

So, Slashdot may have finally accomplished what Berne could not - deprive me of a steady supply of cheap, quality encoded music at a fair price (cheaper even than "free" usenet, BTW). I'm sure there's a lesson in there about capitalism and the power of a free press, but right now I'm too pissed to think much about it...

Re:Wrong again

[cpt kangarooski]

The SCOTUS has a long record of siding with "users" and not corporate holders

Not to this extent, they don't. I agree that it's unlikely to see cases against users of this service anytime soon, but the practicalities of getting caught doesn't make it any less illegal.

It's doubtful the record industry could ever win a case against a user for "importing" their own legally purchased CDs via these electronic means

Well, I agree there is some doubt -- but things get much more clear cut when people are downloading music they don't have otherwise legal copies of.

"You can't defend the law in one breath..."

Like fun I can't. First, they're different laws. I think that import restrictions are necessary to keep the copyright system afloat, but that the particular system of the Berne Convention is totally unacceptable. A different system would be far better -- and need to be saved somewhat from end runs as importation could result in if left totally unchecked.

But I really could care less as to what goes on in Russia -- their laws should suit them, ours should suit ours, and I see no need for harmonization at all, with the possible exception that foreigners should be allowed to file for copyrights just as though they were locals.

Download Speed

[timlee]

The restrictions depend on the status of the material. FREE ZONE albums have 3 kB downloading speed for each of 3 simultaneously connections. Previews have no download speed limits. For VIP there are no any download speed limitations. There are no any restrictions on quantity of downloaded files per day.

Emphasis mine. And on top of that, it's coming in from a Russian server. I can tell already that this service will be painfully slow. I might as well use dialup.

Re:Download Speed

[Grimster]

I don't use allofmp3 but I have use another russian site to get some mp3's of bootlegs and other stuff I've yet to find for sale anywhere, and I can tell you I got fantastic speeds from them, 200+ K per second up to 400K which is more a limitation of my cable modem as I rarely see over 300K/s from anywhere, Russian or otherwise.

I doubt at this price the artist gets much, ok I would bet cash they get jack and shit, of course we all know that at even $18 a CD the artist doesn't see much, yes I wish I could buy my music direct from the artist so I know they're getting a cut.

Re:Credit Card?

[default luser]

I used my credit card, just because I checked up on the certificates of the company tha handles all their credit transactions, and it seemed satisfactory. I figured that the worst that could happen was I'd be out 50 bucks, and get a new card issued.

My card actually failed to work because, due to the international nature of the purchase, my bank automatically declined the charge and gave me a call to confirm that it was legitimate. After that was cleared up, it worked fine, and I've since seen nothing suspicious on my bill.

Best unpaid Advertisement ever?

[jcrash]

I'll bet their revenues are up 50% this next month after being slashdotted.

Try refreshing the page...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotted.

We are sorry, but the server is busy now due to numerous calls. Try to refresh the page.

Yeah, keep hitting refresh really fast, that will help....

Allofmp3.com and ListsOfBests.com

[jestill]

Allofmp3.com is great, the best part is the free 'preview' of entire albumss if you are a VIP member. I've been listening to the top albums from Lists of Bests for free and learning about some great music that I have not heard before.

The downloads can be a bit on the slow side (sometimes as slow as 1kb) but I just use the download manager and let things go overnight. There are also a number of completely free albums on the site, and the paid online encoding is great.

Legal, Shmegal

[Eponymous, Showered]

Legal, shmegal. I guarantee the artist isn't getting a single ruble from music sold at allofmp3.com. So I'm not buyin.

Not that they're getting much when I buy from iTMS, either. Wish I could buy direct from the artist...

Colo in Russia then

[FreeUser]

When you download from this site, there is a master copy in Russia. At the end of the process, there is a master copy in Russia AND a copy on your hard drive. That's two copies, and that already indicates that it's not an import. And the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce his work in the US per 106.

If it is illegal for Americans to legally purchase music in another jurisdiction and move it directly to their computer in the technological backwater that is quickly becoming the United States, then perhaps one might colo a computer with some storage in Russia, download the legally purchased music there, and then move the files personally from the computer in russia to the computer in the soon-to-be-impoverished-through-asinine-IP-laws United States.

The purchase and download all happen in Russia. The importation from one's personal PC in Russia to one's personal PC in the United States is, well, personal, and shouldn't run afoul of any laws.

And if it does ... well, that is just one more in an ever growing (and already very long) list of reasons to emigrate to a more sensible jurisdiction (read: just about anywhere else in the developed world, and plenty of places in the developing world)

Music by who? MB?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I'm getting a little old and out of touch with today's crappy music scene, but who are the MB (the Mario Bros?) and why are they worthy of mention on /.?

Six fingers discount?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else notice the guy with the cigar on the homepage (lower left corner) has six fingers? Maybe he just got back from here.

Racism and Outsourcing (and H1 visas)

[Anonymous Coward]

I fear you're correct, at least partially. The last big employment demon was the H1 visa. I'm a Briton, in the US with one of those, and it's strange how friends could somehow get way into conversations about "cheap H1 labor" "taking American jobs" before they'd remember (often because I reminded them) that I was here on an H1 too...

It's certainly unfair to tar all people with the same brush (you could make a fairly robust argument that Europeans here are not the same because they come from first-world countries to begin with, and aren't here for the money or quality of life), but I'm sure that for a large number of people the fact that I'm "the same" and Indians are "different" and that "different people" are working here on H1s is the real root of the dual view.

Re:Racism and Outsourcing (and H1 visas)

[Anonymous Coward]

In each case the part that annoys locals is "cheap"-many immigrants will work for less than natives for a few years until they become fully assimilated. Many unassimilated immigrants stick out in society, whether it's because they look different or speak with a strange accent, so they are extremely visible. The natives are simply aiming the hammer at the nail that sticks up the highest.

And of course, if the "different people" refuse to be assimilated and reject the native culture in favor of their own, the natives will react the same way people in other parts of the world do when they complain about "American cultural imperialism" and throw bricks through the window of Starbucks. Well, actually Americans sometimes vandalize Starbucks too, but you know what I mean.

Re:Racism and Outsourcing (and H1 visas)

[Anonymous Coward]

In each case the part that annoys locals is "cheap"-many immigrants will work for less than natives for a few years until they become fully assimilated.

Many Canadians moved to US working for "cheap" until they got their green cards. Many call-centers and R&D shops have moved to Canada because labor is cheaper here. Yet Canadians are never mentioned by the vocal anti-outsourcing folks.

Many unassimilated immigrants stick out in society, whether it's because they look different or speak with a strange accent, so they are extremely visible.

That's the issue: they look, sound and act different therefore they should be picked on. And that's pretty much what racism is about. It really doesn't matter whether they make less or more money, whether they're worse or better at their jobs, whether they're smarter or dumber. What matters is that they look different, that they eat rice instead of hamburgers, drink tea instead of coffee: racism.

EULA

[joeljkp]

I'm trying to sign up right now...

Their EULA states: "You agree with the fact that you are not able to use and even to download audio and video materials from Allofmp3.com catalogue if it is in the conflict with legislation of your country."

Is this illegal in the US? I wouldn't think so... but what do I know?

Story at the register

[schmiddy]

Here.

had to happen sooner or later....

[zorcon]

shit, this thing had been my own little secret for two years and now it's /.'d.

Of course, it's nice to see some reassuring coverage about this site...the first time I was a bit sketchy about putting 144.303 Rubles on my Visa.

wealth is leaving US

[SethJohnson]

Are they relying on cheap Asian labor to build their fast cars and gigantic bungalows?

In fact, these fatcats are purchasing european-built cars such as Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, TVR, etc. That's a hundred+ grand that leaves the US for good. And the dudes building those bungalows are mexicans who frequently are paid under the table by a subcontractor, so no money is collected by the IRS in the form of income tax. They mail the bulk of their paychecks back home to family in Mexico, which also means little is collected in terms of sales tax. This is why the Bush Administration is trying to legalize so many immigrant laborers. We need them working here, but we also can't afford to lose all that money from govt. coffers. I vehemently oppose Bush being in the White House, but this is an issue that he seems to be coming to grips with even though the rest of his party is against it.

Re:wealth is leaving US

[dasmegabyte]

This is silly. Legalizing immigrant labor won't help anything, because the whole point of immigrant labor is that it's cheaper than paying minimum wage and insurance. Legalize a group of immigrant laborers without imposing stricter labor controls on those who employee such laborers, and another group of immigrants will take its place, leaving the first group to fend for itself in a difficult job market. Remember, if you work full time at minimum wage, you won't pay federal income tax anyway (and may be elligible for the EITC to offset the costs of social security), but you do receive full government benefits. In other words, you cost more to the society than you are worth. This is why you should need to be a skilled laborer to legally immigrate to the US.

However, I think it's obvious that Republicans don't really care about getting taxes anyway. As long as they can borrow against the future and funnel that money into lucrative contracts for corporations, they don't give a whit who pays taxes.

Legalizing immigrants isn't a ploy to stop illegal immigration -- at least, not one that will work. It's a ploy to introduce more laborers willing to work cheap into the "legitimate" workforce and decrease salaries for the rest of us while increasing shareholder returns. We do not *NEED* illegal immigrants. We do not *NEED* cheaper labor. We do not *NEED* increased returns for the wealthy...but as long as cheap labor Republicans are in power, that's exactly what we're going to get.

Which is why I support latching on to the neck of these fatcats and sucking them dry.

Re:wealth is leaving US

[osgeek]

However, I think it's obvious that Republicans don't really care about getting taxes anyway. As long as they can borrow against the future and funnel that money into lucrative contracts for corporations, they don't give a whit who pays taxes.

Bah, you directly employed by the DNC?

Politicians are mostly corrupt and looking out for themselves. They worry about their constituents only to the extent of getting re-elected. You're a fool if you really think that sweeping generalizations like the one you made above applies to the Republicans, but not to the Democrats.

Those guys completely lack discipline. On this particular topic, I'd give a little credit to the Republicans for lowering taxes. Despite all of the crying about tax breaks being for "the rich", my tax burden went down noticeably over the past couple of years, and I'm by no means rich.

If the government has less money, that's generally a good thing, because it means they'll have less power.

Democrats and Republicans all suck. The more Americans who realize that and vote for viable independents, the better.

Re:wealth is leaving US

[dasmegabyte]

Yeah, I got some money too. I ended up giving it to New York State and my township, both of which raised taxes this year. When taxes coming in do not equate services being provided, by no means should the government be lauded. Give the Dems credit for this at least: they understand that if government's role includes public services, then it should be the government's role to collect money to pay for them.

If the government has less money, that's generally a good thing, because it means they'll have less power.

Now who's being naive. Last year the federal government passed the largest budget ever. Having less money didn't affect that in the least. Much of that money went to private contracts, part of the Republican plan to get fewer bodies in government. The problem is, if a government program doesn't have any money, it can be dissolved. A contracted program has to be paid for, anyway, or the contractor will sue. In this sense, not only does the government seek to do more with less money, we, the people, have less control over what they're doing!

I'll take good old Democratic graft and scandal over this New World Order neoliberalist bullshit any day of the week.

Re:wealth is leaving US

[Anonymous Coward]

But then I read this, and almost changed my mind. It's OK, I guess. No philosophical genius, you, but I'll give you a pass in case you say something smart in the future. Sorry for being mean.

Get a new computer. 1GHz doesn't cut it these days. And, BTW, I measure mine in total GHz, ie 2.8 + 1.8 + .350 = 4.95GHz.
OMG. I have a P133 over in the corner! 5GHz+. w00t.

Since you're all obsessed!

[jpmorgan]

That's because if you go to the UK, everybody's driving around shiny new Mercedes. The only reason people in the UK pay crazy prices for cars is they're willing to pay crazy prices to buy a brand new car every year.

If people living in Britain stop being obsessed with proving their status by the emblem on the front of the car and the license plate on the back, then car prices will drop to what the rest of the world pays.

musician's cut?

[zpok]

what's the musician's cut?

If it's nothing, then why bother buying it, just go back to kazaa...
"Legal" and "Right" aren't the same things.

I really like the idea of free or extremely cheap music, but I'm not sure if I'd like the minority of really good musicians to give up on recording because it doesn't pay and only costs.

Disclaimer: I don't copy from the internet, think it's a fucked up thing to do (personally, you do whatever you think you have to do), which doesn't mean I never copied a CD from a friend.

Music Bites Back.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you'd rather had it otherwise?

First capitalistic rock'n'roll music has devalued Soviet ideology, now Russian capitalistic music store devalues western style recording industry business. Survival of the fittest.

In Soviet Russia you bite yourself

way to go jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

you just had to ruin it for the rest of us didnt ya?

now that /. knows about it, it's gonna go downhill fast.

I doubt this is legal in Russia

[melted]

Despite what most of you think there ARE copyright protection laws over there. They aren't enforced often, but they DO exist. So if RIAA goes through Interpol, or asks one of their Russian partners (major labels have presence there, too) to file a lawsuit, this site will be closed within a DAY.

Another issue is that there's no question in my mind that the musicians themselves aren't getting a dime off their sales. This is not fair, and this should be stopped. Musician should get his cut.

Cost-of-living in (urban/rural) USA

[cduffy]

$10k a year might just barely rent you a studio apartment in most of LA, not including any taxes, food or utilities.

Then don't live in LA.

I've got friends who are considering moving to rural parts of the US where payments on a 15-year mortgage for a decent house are below $400! Granted, these are out in the middle of nowhere with no net connection, a loong drive to get to any decent jobs, and so forth... but damnit, don't go living in LA unless you want to get screwed on cost-of-living.

If you're single and healthy, it's easy 'nuff to live on $10K/yr in Small Town USA -- even parts of Small Town USA not quite as desolate as those mentioned above.

Re:Cost-of-living in (urban/rural) USA

[walt-sjc]

Um, to give a clearer picture, I moved to Maine from the SF bay area. From the profits of my home sale in San Jose, I was able to buy a house 3 times the size with several acres on a lake with the only payments being taxes and insurance. I'm able to get DSL just fine, and work from home. I'm also making more than I was in the bay area. You do the math. :-) Even if I couldn't get DSL, the cheaper cost of living / housing would allow me to get a full T1 line.

Two russian friends

[geirlk]

I have two russian friends who've been using this service for quite some time. It actually works, and they've got a lot of music to choose from.
Of course, the beeing Norway, I get this music for free from my friends, as we're legally allowed to give away music to our friends and close cow-orkers.

RIAA, get lost!

"In Soviet Russia, the mp3's play you"

How the **** did this get "Insightful?"

[crimethinker]

Government grants - we the people benefit from music, so surely what we want is we the people to fund it.

That is wrong on so many levels I scarely know where to begin.

What the government pays for, the government expects to control. And please wake up; this is 2004. It is no longer "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Someone else is in control, not vox populi.

those in charge of issuing grants determine what music deserves to be made

We already have a system like this, sort of. It's called "the record store." The people in charge of issuing grants are the consumers. Granted, a large number of them are deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid, but their money spends just as well. Ask Britney Spears if you don't believe me.

Yes, the RIAA gets in the way. Massive media control of the airwaves also gets in the way. But that didn't stop me from discovering a lot of great bands on IUMA and MP3.com (oh, how we miss you, MP3.com).

Of course, compromises will have to be made - music about sex, politics, religion, or that uses any of the words George Carlin was fined for protesting about his inability to use on television, will obviously not be made.

Who the fuck died and made you king?

We don't want tax payer's money spent on that

That's the first thing you've said with which I agree. Consumers, not taxpayers, should decide. Let's examine: if someone is completely deaf, should they get a tax deduction for this new "music tax"? After all, it's not like they can hear it, so why should they pay for it? And then you start to open up a huge can of worms (legitimate, though) about taxes for schools when people either don't have children, or send them to private schools, tax dollars funding the military when the tax payer is a Quaker or Jehovah's Witness, tax dollars going to the NEA to produce such wondrous works of art as "Piss Christ," and so on.

if the government issuing grants means that alternative sources of funding dry up,

This is what gave us the modern welfare state. People don't give to private charity because they can't afford to (after Uncle Sam has raped them), or they figure "not my concern, the government runs a soup kitchen on the other side of town." And we all know how well the government-run welfare system works. No waste, no fraud, no political patronage there, right?

well, that's just a positive side effect that will keep America clean

Noble thought, but no. If you could magically make all "gangsta rap" disappear overnight, the little thugs would still be shooting each other the next morning. The music does not cause the behaviour; the music is made to reflect the fact that the behaviour is already occuring. Those who create and those who consume such music desire (openly or subconciously) for said behaviours to continue. Put it this way: if you didn't believe on some level that "bustin' a cap" was the way to solve a problem, would you listen to music that advocated it as the solution?

Back to my point: government funding of anything is so very rarely the best way to go. Let them build roads, string power lines, and protect the nation. Leave the rest to the market.

-paul

Re:How the **** did this get "Insightful?"

[squiggleslash]

The mods who modded the post Insightful probably understood it... you might want to read it again. I'd have thought the tone would have been set by the first entry (the product placement in Slashdot posts) but, well, I'd be the first to admit that I seem to have a problem writing stuff that people do not read into the exact opposite (see latest journal.)

Re:How the **** did this get "Insightful?"

[Hatta]

Put it this way: if you didn't believe on some level that "bustin' a cap" was the way to solve a problem, would you listen to music that advocated it as the solution?

Certainly, if the music is fun to listen to. Hell, you don't even have to understand what they're saying to enjoy it (and I seldom do). Same for Bach's cantatas. I'm not religious at all, yet I can still empathise with the passion and joy of worship when I listen to them.

Otherwise you're right on the mark.

Pirates

[Rick Zeman]

No doubt these are the same guys who want to sell me "OEM software" really cheap...with OEM being their definition of pirated.

mod +1 sarcastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wanted to clarify for the mods and those who replied to your great post but missed the point...

Slashdot is not a borg mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have it both ways people!

Repeat after me:
Slashdot is not a borg mind!
Slashdot is not a borg mind!
Slashdot is not a borg mind!

Slashdot is not a borg mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's hipocrisy for you kids.

It's only hipocrisy if the same person said it. You have to learn to understand that Slashdot is not a borg mind!

These are live people. Many people with many different beliefs. You post to Slashdot. Are you guilty of the same hipocrisy? I'd think you would already know that we are not a borg mind.

Parent heavily overrated because

[fingerfucker]

Broadcasting is "we broadcast it and you listen", and there's no automatic right to tape records off the radio.

There IS.

It's part of the 'fair use' concept:

"Personal use also permits music fans to make "mix tapes" or compilations of their favorite songs from their own personal music collection or the radio for their own personal enjoyment in a more convenient format. [...] They do not have the right, however, to make their music collections available to others by uploading them onto the Internet for public downloading."

So as long as you're not sharing your recordings that you make off of public broadcasts, you are legal.

More info: http://fairuse.stanford.edu

Re:Parent heavily overrated because

[mpk]

And followup heavily overrated because, let me say this once again:

UNITED STATES LAW DOES NOT APPLY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

I am in the United Kingdom. Please stop making assumptions that everyone is in America or that the US Congress and the RIAA somehow write copyright law for the whole world. Because they don't.

For what it's worth, my understanding is that recording programmes *in the UK* is more-or-less legal if it's for the purpose of personal use or for convenience in watching/listening at a later date. I don't believe you're entitled to make copies of broadcast works for any other purpose.

Of course, the fact that nobody's going to sue you for recording EastEnders and keeping it for your own use means that the law's pretty well unenforced unless people start taking the piss (i.e. recording stuff off the television and selling copies on eBay)

Re:Parent heavily overrated because

[fingerfucker]

Please don't insult me by pretending that I failed to understand a basic premise of applicability of law.

My follow up is not overrated (and not just because it wasn't rated at all at the time of your reply yet). The parent of my followup implied that it is illegal to record music off of radio for personal use. That's what I was disproving. In addition to all that, even you explained yourself, and it turs out it is actually legal even in the UK jurisdiction.

Also, please stop making assumptions that it is self-implied that every post containing references to regulations is talking about United Kingdom. Next time, state that explicitly to avoid confusion.

PS: There is no such thing as "more or less legal" in front of a judge or jury. It's a yes or no question based on series of considerations but with a binary result. That's why it's so tough to decide a case...

Re:Parent heavily overrated because

[mpk]

Well, I know there's no such thing as more-or-less legal, there's just "things you're less likely to get sued for".

I actually got something wrong in my followup - it's *not* legal, AFAIK, to record stuff off the radio in the UK, especially rebroadcast music, for the purpose of building up your record collection. My bad. This would kind of make this illegal again, but I think we've played enough "Is!" "Is not!" "Is too!" ping-pong on this one.

Anyway. IANAL. Then again, hardly anyone here is.

Re:Parent heavily overrated because

[fingerfucker]

Yeah, I agree it's pointless to engage in "special olympics" ping-pong conversations. You mentioned "rebroadcasting" and "building up your record collection". The way I see it is that these two are fundamentally different. I am sure we both agree that in most jurisdictions, it would be illegal to rebroadcast any recordings, but if you don't redistribute what you record and use it for personal use only - that constitutes what they try to protect here in the U.S. as "fair use".

There are not very clear demarkation lines between many issues. Like someone pointed out, copyright as a legal subject is kind of 'artificially created'. And I know that many of the issues are handled on a case-by-case basis.

In the end, it's probably good that things like this Russian site spur up a controversy and discussions because in the end, it will help the system evolve into (hopefully) what the customer wants and at the same time create a solid foundation that we can all use (as well as enforce) internationally.

Re:Parent heavily overrated because

[cpt kangarooski]

Broadcasting is "we broadcast it and you listen", and there's no automatic right to tape records off the radio.

There IS.

It's part of the 'fair use' concept:

There is NOT. the previous poster said "automatic," and fair use is NOT automatic. In fact, it's impossible to make any blanket statement as to what is and is not fair use. In each case, you have to look at the specific facts at hand and test them according to the four part fair use analysis. Anything might pass, anything might fail -- you have to check.

Re:Parent heavily overrated because

[fingerfucker]

You are contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that it is "impossible to make any blanket statement as to what is and is not fair use" and on the other hand you claim that you can check via a simple pass/fail evaluation of the four aspect fair use analysis (clearly showing that hyou misunderstood that the 4-point fair use analysis really results only in a guideline as to which side the fair use vs. not fair use balance MIGHT be tipped and not an ultimate decision).

But this is Slashdot, it's okay to contradict yourself...

Re:Parent heavily overrated because

[cpt kangarooski]

I didn't say it was simple. It's fairly complex, in fact. Hell, the entire analysis is subject to change; it's changed before and it will again.

Just that _that_ is how you determine if something is a fair use or not; by searching inquiry. You do not say 'parody' and it's magically protected, as the Air Pirates found out

Re:Parent heavily overrated because

[fingerfucker]

While researching the case of Air Pirates, I stumbled upon this article. It only proves that case-by-case analysis is the only currently workable method of evaluation and that the subject is so complex and varied that it cannot be encompassed on short exchanges of messages such as ours here on Slashdot. The complexity is indeed frustrating...

Am. Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers

[Jammer@CMH]

ASCAP is the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. From the How To Join page:

You can join as a writer, a publisher, or both if you meet the eligibility requirements.

You can join as a writer, a publisher, or both if you meet the eligibility requirements.

To become a writer member, you must be the writer or co-writer of a musical composition or a song that has been:

• commercially recorded CD, record, tape, etc.;
• or, performed publicly in any venue licensable by ASCAP club, live concert, symphonic concert or recital venue, college or university, etc.;
• or, performed in any audio visual or electronic medium film, television, radio, Internet, cable, pay-per-view, etc.;
• or, published and available for sale or rental.

Not impressed by selection offered

[Ryan O'Rourke]

I'm rather unimpressed by the music they are currently offering.

Sure, most of those artists listed below are considered jazz and therefore not "popular" - but none of them are obscure, and many are no less than legendary masters. In fact, certain artists listed even have huge followings among young, twentysomething music fans.

When requested "charlie hunter" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "melvin sparks" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "medeski martin wood" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "g love and special sauce" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "richard groove holmes" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "soulive" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "pernice brothers" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "don caballero" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "clifford brown" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "dexter gordon" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "pat martino" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "karl denson" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "fela kuti" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "joey defrancesco" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "dave douglas" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "fred anderson" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "cannonball adderly" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "maceo parker" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "ron miles" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "stanton moore" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "madlib" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "tortoise" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "shuggie otis" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "sugarman 3" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "the bad plus" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "sex mob" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "modern jazz quartet" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "les mccann" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "robert walter" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "don byron" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "john scofield" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "jimmy smith" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "kenny burrell" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "lee morgan" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "sonny clark" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "sebadoh" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "zony mash" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "old 97s" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "jon spencer" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "r.l. burnside" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "antibalas" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "st germain" the search engine found 0 documents
When requested "grant green" the search engine found 0 documents

Re:Not impressed by selection offered

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? Big deal.

Volume - I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll make it up in volume.

How will louder music help?

Yet another russian mp3 site

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is another russian mp3 site i recently found they too sell by the mb which means songs for pennies. club.mp3search.ru

Re:Yet another russian mp3 site

[Anonymous Coward]

ref=3462 whats your cut?

Re:Yes, rip-on-the-fly as well - hard disk is a ca

[shiftless]

I don't think that's how it works (though that would make sense), because they have two options- online encoding and online encoding exclusive. The "exclusive" one is only available for certain titles and it means to rip and encode the track. The regular online encoding thus must work off a huge RAID array or something.

Living in rusia give you more freedom than the USA

[urbieta]

its very obvious, with less money youll be able to do almost anything in rusia because laws are so inmature and I bet law enforcement is even lower than in mexico ;)

Its scary, the fact that you simply are in the USA, gives you a sense of fear from being sued for even breathing hehehee

USA is the new comunism, since everybody grabs you by the balls and you think you are in advantage when you grab some one elses balls and squeeze hehehe

Re:Well, it ISN'T too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

MAI v. Peak is pertinent since it deals directly with what constitutes reproduction and what does not. Importation exemptions like 602 don't permit reproduction.

If downloading results in reproduction -- as the MAI line of cases (e.g. Utah Lighthouse, Napster) indicates, then 602 is inapplicable.

Fair use _might_ be applicable, but it's unlikely IMO. Just looking at Diamond isn't good enough -- if you're interested in looking at the law, you need to conduct the four factor fair use test of 107 AND you need to remember that a Russian copyright holder cannot authorize you to do jack shit in the US -- only the person who holds the US rights can do that. So courts will consider the economic impact on American copyright holders and I predict that it won't go well for the defendant in such a case.

SHIT! Watch this go down now.

[danielsfca2]

Shit! I've been using AllofMP3 for a year now too. It has always seemed too good to be true, so I only tell people about it sparingly. My thinking is, the fewer Americans that know about it, the better.

Now with US media exposure the pressure will be on for the RIAA to bring them down. This sucks a lot.

lacking math skills?

[geekoid]

"Now, the musicians do get royalties. I would think that 1 cent over a million uses is still 100,000 dollars."

I think the number you are looking for is 10,000.

Legal? I'm not so sure.

[rew]

Here in the Netherlands, we have an institution called "Buma/Stemra". They have something to do with copyrights on music and stuff like that.

For some small monthly fee you can have up to 30 seconds of music on your site. (Mono, not encoded with more than 128kbps)

But if you read the smallprint, they only handle the copyrights on the notes and the lyrics. Not for the performing artist. They make you believe that you're allowed to put michael jackson's "bad" on your site for that fee, but you're not (unless you perform it yourself).

I wouldn't be surprised if this was similar....

Roger.

look at the legal code

[geekoid]

look at 2.

US Code Title 17, Chapter 6, Sec. 602 Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords

(a) Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. This subsection does not apply to -
(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage;

Re:look at the legal code

[cpt kangarooski]

Yeah, I know. I fucking CITED 602. But it only applies for importation. If this isn't importation, 602 is irrelevant. Well, this isn't importation, and so it doesn't apply.

When you're buying literal CDs or a disk of mp3s or what the hell ever, as opposed to downloading, then go nuts with 602.

It works great!

[thebra]

I just downloaded 70 songs, it works great. The speed isn't the best but I'm sure this is due to the slashdot effect. I'm getting from 30k - 70k sec. There is a good selection of artist, not just the new pop crap. I've found music from Nickel Creek, Doc Watson, and Tony Rice to name a few. (bluegrass music, nickel creek rocks!)

You can download the download manager and have it running, then while on another pc buy some more songs and they will be on your computer when you get home.

I don't really care if the artist get any money, I go to concerts of good artists. I doubt they make much from cd sales. I just hope the RIAA a$$hats will learn that they can make money if they will sell at a reasonable price.

I'd pay for movies like this

[bungley]

Well, maybe not $7 (at least for a rental, and assuming 700mb * $0.01), but I've always been far too lazy to commit to going to a rental place, choosing something, watching it in the time given, and then returning what's really just a token.

It's not like the physical security under the current system offers any real protection anyway.

Site is 100% legal

[Anonymous Coward]

This site is 100% legal, for more info see this review

Allofmp3 misrepresents the quality of their music.

[Kevin143]

I'm very happy with the sound quality of allofmp3, for the most part. It's definitely better than iTunes or any competitor. However, they most definitely misrepresent the quality.

All of their CDs are stored in their database as a 384 kb/s LAME encoded mp3, not in a lossless form. So, you're pretty much wasting your time if you use extremely high quality ogg or mpc encoding since the quality can never be higher than the original mp3, and whatever you use will have been reencoded at least once, with whatever associated quality losses that entails.

Allofmp3 is trying to resolve this quality issue, fortunately. Right now, they have about fifty of their most downloaded CDs (White Stripe's Elephant, Outkast's epic album, REM's greatest hits, etc.) available online [allofmp3.com] to be encoded losslessly. You have to check the box that says "use original cd data" and you also have the option of getting SHN, FLAC, or APE encoded music. However, you have to pay twice as much for that priveledge, at which point it would almost be cheaper to buy the cd new. See this interview [museekster.com] with someone working for allofmp3.

The interview also reiterates some of the legality issues, but of course, it's straight from the mouth of allofmp3 which certainly isn't a non-biased source.

Re:Well, it ISN'T too good to be true

[jp10558]

I think this hits to how the internet needs to be under some sort of international convention/law because I don't clearly see how I'm duplicating something I don't have. I also see that this has far reaching applications for all sorts of services/commerce that more than ever will occur across national boundries. As internet connections get faster and more people use the net as a storage device, yet again things like the Diamond issue will have to be considered. If your storage for information is kept internationally for whatever reason - what laws apply to that?

Should laws change for importation based on if you buy a physical product and have it shipped to you, or if you buy an electronic product and have it e-mailed to you?

It almost seems like the **AA's want to have their cake and eat it too. In some cases they want electronic copies treated like physical copies, i.e. one copy - no other uses than what would be allowed by a physical copy; but in other cases, say when you might be able to purchace something internationally, want it treated under different laws than the analogous physical laws.

I do think that copyright law and laws in general need to take into account differences with the net compared to physical items. However, I also think that as much as possible, the electronic items need to be treated the same as the traditional analogues.

When you are getting a specific item, the delivery method should not restrict or grant more or different rights. Delivery method should not affect rights/laws at all. It just seems absurd that it would be legal for Allofmp3.com to mail me a MP3 CD, but illegial for me to download those MP3's.

And to all the people who say that downloading is reproduction - I say, not any more than running a computer program involves reproduction, or playing an Audio CD on a computer involves reproduction. I was under the impression that american law did provide an exemption of copyright in so far as the "copy" was necessary due to the architecture of the device to actually use whatever it is that you bought that was getting copied.

ITunes

[Anonymous Coward]

My question is, how come Apple's ITMs supposedly doesn't make any money.

These guys sell their product for drastically less, and even offer this online encoding feature, which must take quite a bit more server power.

Do the liscencing fees cost that much?

Something doesn't add up here. Either allofmp3.com is losing big time, or Apple is being dishonest about their profits, or the licsences cost at least 90% of the 99c that Apple charges.

Re:ITunes

[zpok]

There's quite a bit of information on that. If you google, you'll find maybe more accurate stuff than what I offer here below...

1) the iTMS is a massive logistic feat, that includes programming a cross-platform jukebox/burner/storefront and a sizeable staff of music-lovers
2) labels take about 60%, musicians about 12% and the rest is for Apple (btw, downhill battle has the stats on their website)
3) but last quarter, the iTMS returned a small profit, so with larger volumes it could become a money maker after all.

Allofmp3 doesn't need to have such a large staff, doesn't have its own player, and seems to need less lawyers and dealmakers.
Otoh, they do automated conversion and offer bandwidth eating formats. Their website is in russian and very passable english, commendable.

So back to the thing that bothers me: with such a low price point, what do they pay musicians and labels???????

Re:Allofmp3 misrepresents the quality of their mus

[joeljkp]

What? It says on their site that the songs are stored in 44.1KHz/24-bit/PCM WAV

program wanted & how do I prove I bought it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Program Wanted Looks slightly weird, & I don't know how this system works legally..

Alos, do they provide me with a receipt that I can prove that I bought my songs with? Why should I pay $5/500MB if I can still get fscked for having mp3 on my HDD without the CD?

Used for over a year...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using it for just over a year. I've sent money in via PayPal. No problems at all.

Very, *very*, happy with the service.

Quality 7 Ogg Vorbis files at my fingertips. I love it!

One complaint: Some idiot posted it on slashdot, now the server load is up 50%. ;-)

AMEX is discontinuing :private payment"

[davebarnes]

I called AMEX to ask about this disposable number concept. Customer Service informed me that as of April 30, 2004, it is being discontinued.

So much for that payment option.

Re:AMEX is discontinuing :private payment"

[fingerfucker]

The associate of AmEx forgot to pitch to you that even though they canceled disposable numbers, they added a true zero liability for fraud so that customers don't pay anything, not even the first $50 (as typical for other banks).

Re:Well, it ISN'T too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't clearly see how I'm duplicating something I don't have.

I've worked out a new example of how easy this is to do that should illustrate it more clearly.

Imagine that Alice is in Russia, and has a copy of War and Peace. She calls Bob in America who has a lot of patience, blank paper, ink, and overseas minutes on his phone.

Alice can read her copy to Bob, who transcribes it. Obviously Alice didn't export her copy to Bob -- she still has it, and it never left her hands, much less Russia. But in the end, Bob has a brand new handwritten copy of War and Peace, writer's cramp, and the biggest phone bill ever.

There is no substantial difference between Alice's voice being transmitted over a phone line or packets. In fact, there's a decent chance that Alice's voice is being transmitted over the line as packets! It's not importation.

I was under the impression that american law did provide an exemption of copyright in so far as the "copy" was necessary due to the architecture of the device to actually use whatever it is that you bought that was getting copied.

Actually, that's only for copies of computer software you own. N.b. that copies of EULA'ed software may not be owned by you, at least according to the EULA.

Anything else would have to be under fair use, or in some cases, laches. But it's hardly widespread.

Re:Allofmp3 misrepresents the quality of their mus

[arkane1234]

Umm...
check into the online encoding.

Re:Well, it ISN'T too good to be true

[jp10558]

Alice can read her copy to Bob, who transcribes it. Obviously Alice didn't export her copy to Bob -- she still has it, and it never left her hands, much less Russia. But in the end, Bob has a brand new handwritten copy of War and Peace, writer's cramp, and the biggest phone bill ever.

Ok, so there apparently is no law regarding export of books or other media using any electronic media, so it's assumed to be illegal. I can dig that, even though I think it's stupid. I really wasn't implying illegal copying, my point being that iTunes is basically the same, except for the countries. If you pay for the licence to obtain a copy through iTunes then I can hardly see them suing you over illegial copying, when under your argument, they could. This all of course assumes they are licensed with their local people.

I was under the impression that american law did provide an exemption of copyright in so far as the "copy" was necessary due to the architecture of the device to actually use whatever it is that you bought that was getting copied.
Actually, that's only for copies of computer software you own. N.b. that copies of EULA'ed software may not be owned by you, at least according to the EULA.

Ok, so you are breaking the law then by watching a DVD or listening to a CD on your computer(or most likely on your DVD player) because they make a copy to working memory to display it? That just doesn't make any sense, and I am sure that any lawsuite brought on those grounds would be dismissed. "You can buy it but can't use it because the very use of it breaks copyright law"???

I just see the mp3 purchase as being the same. In fact, how is this different than looking at a website hosted in a different country? They are digital data, they are copyrighted, they are streamed to your computer, by looking at them you are copying them... How does the same laws not apply to web pages as purchased mp3's? Is the theregister.com going to sue you for looking at theregister.co.uk if you live in the USA? Could they? It seems like decisions regarding purchasing music from overseas for download could affect the entire internet - especially web sites as any act on the net basically requires you to download(making an unauthorized copy by your logic) the site to look at it.

Re:Well, it ISN'T too good to be true

[cpt kangarooski]

Ok, so there apparently is no law regarding export of books or other media using any electronic media, so it's assumed to be illegal.

Well 1) it fails a common sense check as to being import/export since nothing tangible is moving. Those terms are too well tied to the real world to have any utility in this discussion; 2) There is a law -- 17 USC 106 says that the copyright holder can exclude other people from making or distributing copies of the work. What you want is an exception to that law that prevents that very broad rule from applying to this sort of behavior. First sale is an exception. Fair use is an exception. The 602 import exception is an exception. They're little holes cut in much broader laws, and sometimes you can go through them. If there were no law at all, it would in fact be legal. For example, the copyright holder LACKS the power to say who can and can't read things (assuming no copying is going on -- and computers copy all the time very subtly) so remember that it takes a law to make something illegal, and that another law can shrink the scope of the previous one.

Ok, so you are breaking the law then by watching a DVD or listening to a CD on your computer(or most likely on your DVD player) because they make a copy to working memory to display it?

Sort of. First, there's excellent arguments for fair use, but even better still is a concept known as laches, or equitable estoppel. Or, as one of my profs liked to call something similar, the Superchicken Rule.

Because the copyright holder KNEW that those copies were going to be inevitable as people used the media in the intended manner, and that they went around and sold it anyway, it's no good to cry foul later. That is, you cannot set someone up for a fall by encouraging behavior that you later sue them for; it's not fair, and courts do consider matters of equity all the time.

(Superchicken, as you'll recall, often told his sidekick that the sidekick knew the job was dangerous when he took it)

So those cases would really just get nowhere fast. But that isn't what's happening here, and it doesn't invalidate the MAI rule. I think there are excellent grounds for overturning MAI and I'd like to see the courts or Congress do it asap. But it is popular, despite not really being correct.

In fact, how is this different than looking at a website hosted in a different country?

Which brings us to the Utah Lighthouse case, which followed MAI, and held that when a user looked at material on a website that was illegally posted, the user broke the law. I agree, it's crazy, especially when you realize that in any non-computer related situation (e.g. reading an infringing book) the result would be the opposite, but this is what's actually going on.

Britney's Breasts

[handy_vandal]

I thought the latest hit from Britney Spears _was_ an ad for Pepsi?

Her breasts are the real ad for Pepsi.

See also: The Mystery of Britney Spears' Breasts.

-kgj

Re:Allofmp3 misrepresents the quality of their mus

[joeljkp]

Still don't see it. I went to http://allofmp3.com -> Help (top right corner) -> Online Encoding.

The only thing that I see that says what they store music as is in the description of Online Encoding Exclusive, which says WAV files.

Re:Allofmp3 misrepresents the quality of their mus

[oook_in]

However, you have to pay twice as much for that priveledge, at which point it would almost be cheaper to buy the cd new

Wait a minute, you normally pay 1 cent per MB of data transferred, double that and it's still only 2 cents per MB. And that works out to be more expensive than the new CD how? It's only if you were to download the original audio data uncompressed as a PCM wave would you pay more than a regular CD

Legal or moral, take your pick.

[NNland]

In other forums I've stated this before, which still makes sense. I don't know if other people are taking this stance or not, so I'm going to go ahead and post it.

While I don't know the legal aspects of the license that was given to the site via "Licence # LS-3M-02-36 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society", most countries that license such things limit the licensees by a stipulation that states, "you are only licensed to distribute to people currently residing in this country", 'this country' being the country of issue, and 'residing' meaning that they purchaser only needs to have a physical presence. Generally, having a license to sell something, doesn't necessarily mean that you have a license to export.

If it does include such a clause, then distributing abroad (from Russia to anywhere else) is in fact illegal, and at least in America, "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law", copyright or otherwise. Generally if one really had no idea, there is a lenient penalty (except in the case when the RIAA comes knocking, or when the crime was horrendous). However, if one was conscious of the questionable legality of something, that is pretty much an admission of guilt.

If it doesn't include a clause, then I suppose this email was basically pointless. Though I will point out (which you do as well) that for the price that they are selling tracks, I doubt much, if any of the proceeds goes to the artists themselves. This moves us from a legal conundrum to a moral one.

Re:Debsux

[Tore S B]

Oh come on, you retard (here we go again)

He was saying that the distro I'M working on as a developer sucked, and the reason was that you could only "compress" to WAV. However, this is false, and based on his most likely stupid mistake.
I called him a retard, because he was acting like one.

Re:Who are "The MB" - pricing scheme?

[Fjord]

It's a joke based on the /. post title "Russian Music Site Offering Legal Songs By The MB"

Slashdot is 50% American...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and 50% other. There was a poll about this a few months ago - check out the archives.

Meaning, clearly, information about legality for non-American countries is very relevant.

Re:Allofmp3 misrepresents the quality of their mus

[arkane1234]

Right, because that's what CDs are. They're WAV format, essentially. raw if I'm not mistaken. It's not an issue....

The WAV are automatically converted to whatever you want them to be. I download them in MP3 format (highest bitrate, CD quality)

Allofmp3.com and Russian Mafia

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi people!

I think that it's very immoral to buy from these services since they're all financed and backed up by Russian mafia.

Russian mafia is constantly involved in murders, extortion, rapings, weapon trade, online credit card fraud and spamming.
If you're in doubt of what kind of people you support by supporting these services, I'd recommend you to read following articles:

http://www.west.net/~wwmr/mafia.htm
http://news .bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/03/ 98/russian_mafia/70485.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/0 3/ 98/russian_mafia/70095.stm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/ 19 /212847.shtml

http://www.mobmagazine.com/managearticle.asp?c=2 30 &a=5474

http://spamwatch.codefish.net.au/modules.php?op= mo dload&name=News&file=article&sid=127