Russian Music Site Offering Legal Songs By The MB

Dunno why no link by lordkuri · 2004-04-27 23:30 · Score: 5, Informative

Re:Dunno why no link by guiscard · 2004-04-28 00:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe the RIAA submitted the story to Slashdot to bring down the server?
Re:Dunno why no link by TedCheshireAcad · 2004-04-28 01:01 · Score: 5, Funny

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 by ahaning · 2004-04-28 01:53 · Score: 4, Funny

Wayback Machine / Karma-Whoring link.

--
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."

Allofmp3.com by p0ppe · 2004-04-27 23:32 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--

"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Re:Allofmp3.com by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 23:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

"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 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 23:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by Urkki · 2004-04-27 23:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

*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 by Rico_za · 2004-04-27 23:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by rmezzari · 2004-04-27 23:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds !"
Re:Allofmp3.com by s0meguy · 2004-04-28 00:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Not a problem - they take Paypal.
Re:Allofmp3.com by etymxris · 2004-04-28 00:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by Epistax · 2004-04-28 00:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by marc_gerges · 2004-04-28 00:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Mattsson · 2004-04-28 00:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Re:Allofmp3.com by gl4ss · 2004-04-28 00:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Allofmp3.com by adrianbaugh · 2004-04-28 01:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Re:Allofmp3.com by nelsonal · 2004-04-28 01:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:Allofmp3.com by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-04-28 01:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:Allofmp3.com by TopShelf · 2004-04-28 01:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

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...

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:Allofmp3.com by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-28 01:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Allofmp3.com by dasmegabyte · 2004-04-28 01:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Allofmp3.com by bankman · 2004-04-28 02:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
I feel so sig.
Re:Allofmp3.com by akadruid · 2004-04-28 02:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
Re:Allofmp3.com by nomadic · 2004-04-28 03:12 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by Fancia · 2004-04-28 04:11 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--

Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
Re:Allofmp3.com by nzkoz · 2004-04-28 13:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Cheers Koz

Hmmmm... by elmegil · 2004-04-27 23:33 · Score: 4, Funny

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....

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001

Obviously not rip... by hanssprudel · 2004-04-27 23:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by Hakubi_Washu · 2004-04-27 23:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

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... by drudd · 2004-04-28 00:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Re:Obviously not rip... by Ubergrendle · 2004-04-28 01:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Re:Obviously not rip... by fingerfucker · 2004-04-28 01:13 · Score: 4, Informative

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... by ajs318 · 2004-04-28 01:41 · Score: 2, Informative

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".

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Obviously not rip... by Nos. · 2004-04-28 02:29 · Score: 2, Funny

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 03:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

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..

Bandwidth testing by tomknight · 2004-04-27 23:34 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Tom.

--
Oh arse

The price is right by NSash · 2004-04-27 23:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:The price is right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 00:08 · Score: 4, Funny

yes but I encode at 2048kbps.
Re:The price is right by Grakun · 2004-04-28 00:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

We knew it was going to come down to this... by ILL+Robinson · 2004-04-27 23:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

...music has now become shovelware!

Seems legit on the surface. by dhasenan · 2004-04-27 23:35 · Score: 2

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. by NSash · 2004-04-27 23:39 · Score: 5, Informative

The website is in English.
Re:Seems legit on the surface. by lovemayo · 2004-04-27 23:41 · Score: 3, Funny

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

seems legal by VC · 2004-04-27 23:37 · Score: 5, Informative

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

--
Official GOD FAQ.

Re:seems legal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 23:39 · Score: 2, Informative

oops, that should have said "sued puretunes", apologies, next time ill RTFA again and not rely on my infalliable memory.
Re:seems legal by golgotha007 · 2004-04-28 02:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Shady spelling by Zagar · 2004-04-27 23:37 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
YAFIRL (Yet another Free iPods referral link)

Re:Shady spelling by Roofus · 2004-04-28 00:53 · Score: 2

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?

Not legal by Simon+Lyngshede · 2004-04-27 23:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Simon+Lyngshede · 2004-04-27 23:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Cred · 2004-04-27 23:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by G-funk · 2004-04-27 23:54 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:Not legal by SubtleNuance · 2004-04-27 23:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by misterpies · 2004-04-28 00:17 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
Re:Not legal by guiscard · 2004-04-28 00:24 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by KDan · 2004-04-28 00:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
Carpe Diem
Re:Not legal by cpt+kangarooski · 2004-04-28 00:55 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:Not legal by sir_cello · 2004-04-28 01:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by avdp · 2004-04-28 01:58 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by laird · 2004-04-28 02:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

"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.

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Re:Not legal by The+Evil+Couch · 2004-04-28 02:07 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
The World's Worst Webcomic!
Re:Not legal by dasmegabyte · 2004-04-28 02:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Not legal by 10101001+10101001 · 2004-04-28 02:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h

you bastards by jaxon6 · 2004-04-27 23:40 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
Do you see the sig? Do you have it in your sights? Why yes, Miss Moneypenny...

Sounds a little to good to be true :) ..Why? by evil_roy · 2004-04-27 23:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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? by dasmegabyte · 2004-04-28 02:39 · Score: 2

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.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju

Nothing new here... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 23:42 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Who are "The MB" by nutcracker666 · 2004-04-27 23:42 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Reason this is legal... by GraZZ · 2004-04-27 23:43 · Score: 4, Informative

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... by nattt · 2004-04-28 00:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

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)

--
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Re:Reason this is legal... by silverfuck · 2004-04-28 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
You know you've been IMing too long when you almost say 'lol' out loud to a non-geeky friend...
Re:Reason this is legal... by dasmegabyte · 2004-04-28 03:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

*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.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju

Re:One of these days, Alice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 23:46 · Score: 2, Funny

>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?

har har har by maxdamage · 2004-04-27 23:46 · Score: 2, Funny

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

The Russian Mobsic Industry by 53cur!ty · 2004-04-27 23:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

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:Credit Card? by Gryffin · 2004-04-27 23:49 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

Re:One of these days, Alice by tbone1 · 2004-04-27 23:54 · Score: 5, Funny

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

They'll make it up in volume.

--

The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines

Yes, rip-on-the-fly as well - hard disk is a cache by Morgaine · 2004-04-27 23:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

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. :-)

--
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra

Re:One of these days, Alice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 23:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

News for Nerds by Quo_R · 2004-04-27 23:57 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Why? by MoThugz · 2004-04-27 23:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers

Re:Why? by Jamie+Lokier · 2004-04-28 01:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

About time by RAMMS+EIN · 2004-04-28 00:03 · Score: 2, Informative

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?

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.

RIAA != ASCAP by Peter+Desnoyers · 2004-04-28 00:05 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by ChaosDiscord · 2004-04-28 06:45 · Score: 2, Informative

RIAA is the Recording Industry ARTISTS Association.

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

--
Search 2010 Gen Con events

Well, it is too good to be true by cpt+kangarooski · 2004-04-28 00:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:Well, it is too good to be true by paulhar · 2004-04-28 00:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by cpt+kangarooski · 2004-04-28 00:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:Well, it is too good to be true by Quaryon · 2004-04-28 01:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

VERY LEGAL. by scum-e-bag · 2004-04-28 00:12 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
Does it go on forever?

Re:VERY LEGAL. by Politburo · 2004-04-28 05:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

While legal in Russia by Daath · 2004-04-28 00:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.

What makes you think . . . by Idou · 2004-04-28 00:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!

If something seems too good to be true.. by mpk · 2004-04-28 00:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

..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.

Just one teeny problem. by Phidoux · 2004-04-28 00:21 · Score: 2, Funny

The songs have all been dubbed into Russian!

--
Free Firefox news reader.

Record Company Pays YOU by handy_vandal · 2004-04-28 00:28 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
-kgj

Moral Legal by Morgaine · 2004-04-28 00:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra

Re:Yes, rip-on-the-fly as well - hard disk is a ca by micromoog · 2004-04-28 00:47 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

This is not the only site to offer this by Tiber · 2004-04-28 00:49 · Score: 2, Informative

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:So I guess that means that in America... by micromoog · 2004-04-28 00:53 · Score: 2, Funny

No, the songs just MegaByte.

Straight from the Terms and Conditions by q-the-impaler · 2004-04-28 00:57 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform

And who are you to judge? by achurch · 2004-04-28 01:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

why isn't everyone setting up stores like this... by sorlov · 2004-04-28 01:12 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by Avishalom · 2004-04-28 01:15 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
-- Avishalom is usually vish

Importing Music Issues by TubeSteak · 2004-04-28 01:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

Good site. by man_ls · 2004-04-28 01:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Namarrgon · 2004-04-28 01:27 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

Interview with AllOfMp3 / ROMS by geighaus · 2004-04-28 01:33 · Score: 2, Informative

AllOfMP3 Intervew ROMS (Russian equivavelent of RIAA) interview Some interesting points there about legality of this service.

AllOfMP3 Top Ten by telstar · 2004-04-28 01:52 · Score: 4, Funny

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:One of these days, Alice by squiggleslash · 2004-04-28 01:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Re:*RI* represents artists... not. Think RA* by Uninvited+Guest · 2004-04-28 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.

Sigh. Here we go again. by nanojath · 2004-04-28 02:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--

It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

Indeed by poptones · 2004-04-28 02:25 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Citibank and Russia by sorlov · 2004-04-28 02:33 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.citibank.ru/
They work in Russia too and they are pretty successful there.

Not licenced by Russian equivalent of RIAA... by blorg · 2004-04-28 02:36 · Score: 2, Informative

...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... by razmaspaz · 2004-04-28 02:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

--
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.

Re:Well, it ISN'T too good to be true by Uninvited+Guest · 2004-04-28 02:41 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.

Wrong again by poptones · 2004-04-28 02:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

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:One of these days, Alice by 10101001+10101001 · 2004-04-28 02:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

>>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.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h

Re:TANSTAAFL. by ratboy666 · 2004-04-28 03:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061

Story at the register by schmiddy · 2004-04-28 03:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Here.

--
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search

Re:TANSTAAFL. by BlueStrat · 2004-04-28 03:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:One of these days, Alice by cayenne8 · 2004-04-28 03:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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).

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

wealth is leaving US by SethJohnson · 2004-04-28 04:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!

Allofmp3 misrepresents the quality of their music. by Kevin143 · 2004-04-28 10:28 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Russian Music Site Offering Legal Songs By The MB

126 of 614 comments (clear)