BPI Sue AllOfMp3 In British Courts

Ckwop writes "AllOfMp3 is getting sued by the British Phonographic Industry. From the article: "We have maintained all along that this site is illegal and that the operator of the site is breaking UK law by making sound recordings available to UK-based customers without the permission of copyright owners. Now we will have the opportunity to demonstrate in the UK courts the illegality of this site." " The issue of course will be whether any injunction will be enforceable or not.

Comments

So they sue....

[tehgimpness]

... and win, are unable to enforce the verdict and therefore unable to retrieve any of the loss revenue.

I wonder who will pay the High Court costs of the whole affair. Artists? Perhaps an increase in fees. Consumers? Without a doubt. Shareholders? Nope.

Re:So they sue....

[ScentCone]

I wonder who will pay the High Court costs of the whole affair. Artists? Perhaps an increase in fees. Consumers? Without a doubt. Shareholders? Nope.

Has it ever occurred to you that many artists and consumers are shareholders?

Re:So they sue....

[croddy]

Am I right to assume it would be technically straightforward?

it would only stop the least technically inclined users, unless the BPI is going to set up a China-grade firewall around *.uk.

Re:So they sue....

[Tony Hoyle]

A lot of ISPs here make great noises about how they do *not* filter traffic (and many of them are uncapped also).

There's simply no framework to require them to filter it - they don't filter anything else, why this?

A friend who used to work at an ISP says the reason UK ISPs are so against filtering is it would jepoardise their common carrier status - at the moment they're not legally liable if someone accesses kiddie porn over their connection.. once they have filtering in place it one judgement to remove their immunity and force them to filter *everything* that could get them into trouble.

Re:So they sue....

[Ravear]

Has it ever occurred to you that many artists and consumers are shareholders?

How did this get modded up? It doesn't matter if the consumer & the shareholder are the same individual. Point here is the fees are targetted towards a specific group. The shareholder may end up buying something, but the hurt is aimed at the record prices, not his portfolio.

Blowing in the wind

[Zane Hopkins]

If Russian Courts can't close a russian website how does the BPI expect a British court to manage any better ?

Re:Blowing in the wind

[oahazmatt]

If Russian Courts can't close a russian website how does the BPI expect a British court to manage any better ?

They have a warmer, fuzzier accent. Less "k"s and "z"s per word.

Re:Blowing in the wind

[mpcooke3]

I expect they are doing this for two reasons:

A) To prove that it is illegal in britian.
B) So that they can increase political pressure on the Russian Government. ie "AllofMp3.com is operating illegally in other countries please bring your laws in line with ours or we'll continue to impose tarrifs on XXX Russian goods." (Obviously this isn't a direct a plea by the MPAA but one made through other governments and possibly made through the WTO as the result of lobbying)

Re:Blowing in the wind

[Anonymous Coward]

If Russian Courts can't close a russian website...

...first you have to provide the state prosecutor with an incentive to prosecute these guys, then you have to provide the judge with an incentive to find them guilty, then you have to provide the cops with an incentive to shut them down, then ...

Isn't justice wonderful in countres with a low TI corruption rating?

Re:Blowing in the wind

[Ckwop]

That's a good point. My brother is a lawyer and I asked his opinion on it. His area of expertise is far removed from intellectual property but I suspect his opinion is still many times that of your average Slashdotter. Here's what he said:

As far as I understand it, the contract is made in Russia between allofmp3 and the consumer. In such circumstances obtaining a successful judgment is one thing, there's still the question of mutual assistance and enforcement.

From a political point of view, our courts have continuously refused to extradite Yukos linked Russians back home to face the music, so I see no reason why the Kremlin would suddenly lean on the Russian courts to assist in protecting our interests. It's not as if we already have a great tradition of mutual assistance. Besides, from what I understand, AllOfMp3 isn't breaking any laws in Russia, which makes enforcement even less likely.

In any event, as I've learned the hard way on numerous occasions, being granted permission to proceed by no means indicates that you'll be successful in the full hearing. Very often a case is granted permission to proceed simply to provide an early opportunity to close the door on a potential cause of action. Don't be surprised if the court lays down a precedent indicating that allofmp3 is actually legal.

The BPI have a lot of money but cases like this are nothing like OJ. There's no jury in cases like this in the United Kingdom. The law is applied as it is written and this means that even if you have all the money in the world, you can't buy a judgement. There's a good chance they will lose.

Simon

Re:Blowing in the wind

[pr0nbot]

Some possible outcomes:

1)

BPI: "Russians bad! Stop Russians!"
JUDGE: "Russia != UK, bugger off"

2)

BPI: "Russians bad!"
JUDGE: "Indeed."
BPI: "Stop Russians!"
JUDGE: "Wish I could mate. But... Russia != UK?"
BPI: "Customers bad! Stop customers!"
JUDGE: "Speak to the government if you want that legislation."

Re:Blowing in the wind

[prof_vestanpance]

They don't need to get the site shut down. If they can prove that the site is illegal in the UK then they can either go after people who use the site or force UK isp's to block access to the domain for their users.

Re:Blowing in the wind

[caluml]

AllofMp3.com is operating illegally in other countries please bring your laws in line with ours or we'll continue to impose tarrifs on XXX Russian goods.

Nyet, tovarish. The amount of gas that we get from Russia puts us in a very weak position when it comes to bargaining with them.

Re:Blowing in the wind

[surprise_audit]

I think it'll go something like this:

BPI: "OK, we've proved in court that you're illegal. Shut that site down or we raise the price of CDs shipped to Russia. Maybe we'll even *stop* shipping CDs to Russia!"

AllOfMp3: "Oooh, we're scared!! Just kidding!! Go ahead and shut down shipments. People will buy more downloads and we could use the extra revenue..."

Re:Blowing in the wind

[julesh]

Or get orders that would allow them to seize any money that is owed to AllOfMp3.com from third parties (E.g. credit card providers) rather than sending it to the original destination.

Re:Blowing in the wind

[Bogtha]

A) To prove that it is illegal in britian.

What is the "it" that you are referring to? I don't think anybody thinks it's legal for somebody to set up an AllOfMP3 in the UK that pays license fees in accordance with Russian law.

And, while the BPI have claimed otherwise to the press (and had their claims blindly repeated), it is not illegal for people in the UK to download from AllOfMP3.

So what, exactly, are they trying to prove is illegal? One thing nobody thinks is legal anyway, and one thing is actually legal.

AllOfMP3 has me spending

[popo]

I have to say that AllOfMP3 is doing something right, and it shouldn't be ignored by the music industry.

I've spent about $200 since discovering the site a few months back. That's particularly interesting given that I've probably spent a total of $200 on music *period* in the last five years. I'm now entirely a downloader when it comes to music, and I do not listen, download or accept DRM'ed music or music that's under 320k quality.

I'm sure I'm not alone. Rather than shutting down AllOfMP3, the industry might want to pay attention to the hundreds of thousands of people who are actually spending on music and haven't done so in years.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[BenjyD]

How much of the money from allofmp3.com goes to the artists that actually made the music?

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[swillden]

Believe it or not, neither the RIAA nor the BPA was set up to safeguard the wellbeing of Russian con artists.

You missed the point. The point is that whoever is making the money, allofmp3.com is wildly successful, and would continue to be wildly successful at a considerably higher price point. The point is that even though people *could* download the same music for free from the P2P networks, the quality, convenience and ease of use provided by allofmp3.com convinces them to spend real money for the music. In every case I know (anecdotal evidence, but it's all we've got), the discovery of allofmp3.com caused people to *increase* their spending on music. The record industry needs to realize that it's more valuable to increase the number of dollars flowing into the system than it is to keep the price per song high, or to retain control of the distribution system. The point is that the RIAA membership should try emulating allofmp3.com, rather than shutting it down.

They won't, of course, because they're blind.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[julesh]

As far as I understand it, AllOfMP3.com pay for a redistribution license that's similar to what a radio station requires in most of the world -- i.e., it's ludicrously cheap, not much money goes to the artist, and you're not supposed to be able to legally make a permanent copy of the resulting "broadcast" -- but due to a loophole in Russian law are allowed to effectively sell a permanent license. So the artist probably gets a little money, but nothing like as much as they would if a copy of the record was purchased through more traditional means.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[AvitarX]

Are they really selling perminant liscenses?

I thought that Russian law included wire as a type of broadcast (like cable), and the loophole is that internet is being included this way too. So sending be an mp3 is like me tuning the raidio to your station.

AllOfMP3 is essentially an internet raidio station. They are not selling liscenses, and it is just a side effect of their broadcast methd that you get a perminant copy.

Just my understanding, probably not true.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[caseih]

Do you have proof of this, or is this just your own opinion? Is there a documented link between organized crime and allofmp3.com? Or is this just standard prejudice against all Russian businesses?

While the selling of western music on allofmp3.com is questionable, certainly for many Russians and people loving Russian and other foreign music who live abroad, allofmp3.com is the *only* source for a lot of foreign (Russian, Ukranian, etc) music. You cannot buy Hi-Fi on CD in an american store. Nor can you find a lot of this kind of music on the download networks. It's just not there. For these people, allofmp3.com is a godsend.

One thing that allofmp3.com demonstrates is that people are willing to spend money (a lot of money) on music when you can offer the music in the formats that *the customers want*. From what I've seen allofmp3.com provides sufficient value to customers that it is actually cheaper to buy from allofmp3.com than to download from the peer-to-peer networks. I even find that it's easier and cheaper for me to buy albums off of allofmp3.com than to even rip my own CDs. That's the kicker. And that's the thing the RIAA has failed to grasp. Even at 10 cents a track and without any DRM, they could be making a fortune.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[swillden]

So.... RIAA is "blind" and should not only allow AllOfMp3 to continue its' illegal activities, but EMULATE them? What should they do, sell pirated copies of Stephen King's e-books?

I sure hope you're actually trying to miss the point, because if you're doing it unintentionally... wow.

No, the RIAA members should put up their own site(s) using the same model as allofmp3.com to sell their music. They'd wipe out ITMS in a heartbeat, kill most music sharing on the P2P networks and make a boatload of money. But they won't, because they're blind.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[Tackhead]

> None of that $200 has gone to the artists, it's all gone to Russian criminals. And you're happy with this?

None of that $200 would have gone to the artists anyways, it all goes to the RIAA mafia. Why are you happy with that?

> See, the industry is actually only interested in people paying money for music if that money is going to the industry and the artists. Believe it or not, neither the RIAA nor the BPA was set up to safeguard the wellbeing of Russian con artists.

See, the industry is actually only interested in people paying money for music if that money is going to the industry, and to hell with the artists. Neither the RIAA nor the BPA was set up to safeguard the wellbeing of any artists.

Fixed it for you.

The Russian mob is providing better product, at a better price, than RIAA, who are merely the the government-approved mob in charge of the US music racket.

The situation is eerily similar to the Numbers Game, in which the (Italian) Mafia ran a gambling operation that took in a rake of 20-40%. They were promptly run out of business for the (government) Mafia, wherein the "legal" lotteries take in a rake of 50% and higher. The private mob gave better odds of winning to bettors, but the government's mob had the guns.

When Fedland collapses, I'm moving to an American Mafia town. Uncle Enzo's Cosa Nostra Pizza for the win!

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[DaveCBio]

Actually you are wrong on all but the first point. Both iTunes and Napster do pay. People actually get cheques. A friend of mine finally got his albums approved on iTunes and started getting his first royalty cheques a few months later.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[ThePhilips]

None of that $200 has gone to the artists, it's all gone to Russian criminals. And you're happy with this?

I came to shop and cashed out €18 for old Queen's album The Works. How much of that went to artists?

€5-7 is retailer's fee. about €10 is label fee. So how much went to artist? I wonder.

See, the industry is actually only interested in people paying money for music if that money is going to the industry and the artists.

[ You really seem to work for RIAA/whatever. You speak too well. Or if not, talk to them - probably they are hiring now for astroturf campaing. You would fit. ]

The point here is that people want art on their conditions, not on conditions of labels. It's simple as that. And at moment there are no other ways to easily buy music. Read any review on how subscription model works in real life and what kind of PITA it can be. (At least for some people Apple's iTMS kind'a works - better than nothing).

Just try to get that in your head: it's not about money, it's about music. It's not about industry - it's about art and music. Ring any bells?

I think the all story with "recorded music" is just bluff. Now how do I understand the russian copyright law. The law is quite simple. The performace is what artist is paid for. I can record the performance and (granted that I have paid artist the fee for performance) I would own the recording I did (with copyrights etc). It's my recording of her/his performance. I can make money selling the recording. Artists can go on doing money by performing. It's easy as that. Nobody is robbed, as RIAA/BPI/IFPI/friends try to tell everybody. Artist has to pay taxes from the profits s/he makes performing. If I would be distributing recording, I would need a license for that from gov't and of course I will pay taxes too. (*)

As much as idealistically it sounds, I think such model can work: only way for artists to profit is to perform. Not like the starlets a la Britney Spears, living off huge promotional and ad campaigns. They have to perform. No performance - no money. I think it's even logical.

In the end, as live music fan, I can tell that in reality that how it is works. Recorded music is in quantity - but it will never beat the quality of live performance. All best music I ever heard in my life was in Dresdner "Blue Note" cafe sitting against musicians play live jazz.

(*) I hope I did not infriged your copyrights for quoting *your* words in *my* comment? Or would you sue me for that??

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[kickdown]

I'd mod you Insightful if only I had modpoints.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[jdcook]

"You really seem to work for RIAA/whatever. You speak too well."

Slashdot has finally bottomed: basic literacy now marks you as teh man.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[daveschroeder]

But what's the right price point?

Most full albums are selling for less than $2. And it's the content owners that get to set prices, not a web site. That's the problem. And complex international legality and copyright issues aside, they don't really own the content - they're treating themselves as if they're a radio station that lets people download whatever they want, whenever they want, and keep it. This isn't really about "failing business models" or anything of the kind.

The real question is this, and try to answer it without muddying the waters with talk of copyrights and the thuggery of trade groups: when, how, and under what circumstances are the people who CREATE and/or OWN content allowed to set pricing on their own materials? Remember that record labels, however good or evil you think them, have legitimate ownership of the content within the bounds of society's frameworks on such matters. Other countries and jurisdictions may view the issue differently, but ultimately, there can't be entities that decide it's up to them to undercut others' rights.

Try to think of yourself as, say, and author, and a new Russian site called AllOfBook.com opens, and sells your book without your permission or that of your publisher for about 1/10 or 1/20 of what it sells for elsewhere. (Yes, I realize that AllOfMP3.com believes it has a license to do this legally, but that is arguably AT MOST valid only in Russia, besides which, let's just forget about that for a moment.) Is what they're doing right? Is that just part of the cost of doing business? "Oh well"? What if they also sold pre-printed hard copies of your book (the essentially equivalent of selling lossless DRMless audio content)? What inherent rights do you think you, or the people who help print, distribute, publicize, and sell your work, have to that work product? Can someone else take it because a legal interpretation in their country allows them to make that decision for you not only in their jurisdiction, but the entire world over?

Your point that you've spend money on music when you never have before is valid. But would you have spent as much if the full albums were $4? $8? $10? What if $2 isn't enough to sustain the current production models for music? I realize that there's this desire to say "change your business model, then!" or "they'll make up for it in volume, since this is electronic distribution!" But what if they DON'T WANT to sell it for $2? Isn't that their choice, and your choice to not buy it? Do you think AllOfMP3.com, aside from your PERSONAL opinions on the RIAA, BPI, etc., could exist in the US or EU legally? If not, why should people in those places be able to buy from it?

I suppose at some level you can always argue that you personall disagree with copyright, or with the big record labels and trade groups, or that artists are abused in the current system, or that politicians' hands are in the pockets of the industry, and so on and so on and so on.

But it still continues to ignore basic thing: even if you erase all that, do you still believe that the creator of a work should have some rights to that work, including the choice of how much to ask in return for that work?

If you say yes, then we're getting somewhere. If you say no, I don't think this discussion would prove fruitful.

But if you've said yes, consider:

- That a society's legal framework may offer protections for such work, and punishments for not following those guidelines.

- That an artist may elect to involve others in the distribution, sale, promotion, packaging, and so on, of his work, and that those entities may be entitled to protections and remuneration as well.

- That there may be agreements between nations that attempt to insure that such work isn't sold for orders of magnitude less than what the creator and/or their agents intends to sell it for.

I could, of course, continue. So I guess the ultimate question is this, and forget about all the trade groups, labels, posturing, "information wants to be free", and all the other crap that always swirls around this debate: does a creator have the right to ask what he or she so desires for compensation?

(And the followons: If so, what if a site like AllOfMP3.com is too low? Etc.)

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[gsslay]

I'm sure I'm not alone. Rather than shutting down AllOfMP3, the industry might want to pay attention to the hundreds of thousands of people who are actually spending on music and haven't done so in years.

Hundreds of thousands eh? People who haven't spent money on music in years? Do you have figures to back up these figures or are you just making them up?

As for the fact that AllOfMP3 is selling lots. Yeah, isn't it amazing how much money can be made selling something you don't own, haven't paid for and don't produce. Never mind the music industry, I'm sure there's lots of industries who'd fancy a go at this business model! You could sell anything for pennies and it's pure profit!

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[NulDevice]

Thanks for pointing that out.

When my band's album sells, you know how much money from the sale goes to the RIAA?

Absolutely nothing.

The label I'm on is not an RIAA member. In fact, the vast bulk of indie labels aren't. For every CD sold, we get $2.50. That's a pretty awesome deal. Granted, we don't get a studio advance, and we don't sell thousands of albums, but...still.

So it pains me that allofmp3 sells my stuff and gives me, or the label that works so hard to promote my music, nary a red cent. It pains me even more that people repeatedly justify buying from such a place with statements as "the artists wouldn't see any of it anyway" or "it's the RIAA's fault."

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[NulDevice]

AllofMp3 is not the consumer's friend.

There was a period when most of our albums were on allofmp3.

So you might think I'm just bitter. Well, it goes beyond that.

They had two EPs of ours available for sale. Interestingly enough, we actually *give* those EPs away free on the internet - internet promotion, viral advertising, all that crap. These EPs were also mp3-only - high quality digital masters do not exist outside my studio.

So how, exactly, does a consumer paying a premium to download a wav file that was merely upsampled from a free mp3 benefit them?

Seems like kind of a ripoff to me.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[CellBlock]

Thank you. Thank you for taking the time and effort to make your arguments in a well-written, eloquent post. Thank you for not jumping on the Internet-wide "Fuck the RIAA/MPAA/whatever" bandwagon. Thank you for being one of the increasingly rare few that can cope with the fact that "digital" does not equal "no payment required." Thank you.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[Scudsucker]

Wrong.

No, he's not. For songs sold online, the RIAA takes the artist's paltry royalty fee and further reduces it by deducting the same distribution costs they do for physical media. This is obviously a crock as the physical costs for online distrubion are going to be almost nothing per song.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

[Reziac]

"Most full albums are selling for less than $2. And it's the content owners that get to set prices, not a web site."

Okay.. let's LET the artists set their own royalty rate -- note that I said the actual artists, not the mythical "content owners" (which usually means the distributor, ie. RIAA cartel members).

Just as a starting point, let's set the download royalty at what the artists are SUPPOSED to be paid by their RIAA masters, rather than what they are ACTUALLY paid after all "costs" are deducted (see http://www.negativland.com/albini.html). And let's pay the royalty directly to the artist, not to any distribution scheme or middleman.

The artists are now ahead of the game, the downloaded music costs a mere few cents more per track, and the RIAA is rendered superfluous**.

Back to letting the artist set their own royalties -- fair enough, now that the RIAA is out of the picture, let's do that. Artists who get greedy will price themselves out of the market (or back into MP3 piracy), making gouging unprofitable. But artists who set their royalties sanely will have another income stream that they didn't have before, with no effort or expense on their part.

** Noting that THIS is exactly what the RIAA fears the most. Piracy has nothing to do with it.

British Pornographic Industry?!

[dreddnott]

Who else read the summary as "Pornographic Industry" rather than Phonographic?

I think I've been on the Internet for far too long...

There's no such thing as bad press...

[OlivierB]

Last time Allofmp3.com went offline for a few days, the traffic surged afterwards as more people were made aware of its existence and joined in on the fun.

If they weren't able to take down PirateBay **in the EU**, what chance have they got to take down Allofmp3 in Russia?

Re:There's no such thing as bad press...

[BigDork1001]

A month or so ago when they hit the news was the the first time I'd heard of allofmp3.com and since then I've spent at least $100 there. Before that... I probably hadn't spent $100 on music in the last three years. And I wouldn't have purchased any of the music I did if it weren't for the website.

I could go out and download it all for free but I'm lazy and it can be a hassle to find good quality mp3s, not to mention a whole CDs worth. Allofmp3.com has it all right there for a really great price.

If it weren't for the RIAA/BPI and all going after the site I'd never have found it. They sure are doing a great job of stopping piracy. If they never made such a stink over it I doubt they'd be getting as much business as they are now. Oh well... their loss, my gain.

Re:There's no such thing as bad press...

[julesh]

"There's no such thing as bad press"

Particularly not when that press has a picture in the top corner of the article with the caption "the website offers Keane's number one album for less than a pound". That sounds almost like an advert to me.

If they weren't able to take down PirateBay **in the EU**, what chance have they got to take down Allofmp3 in Russia?

I'm not sure they're aiming for a takedown. I suspect they're aiming to seize assets, which is much easier.

Monopoly

[MostAwesomeDude]

Well, of course they're suing. The global music industry would like to be able to fix prices all over the world, and it's very hard to do so when cheap alternatives like AllOfMP3 are available. Whether or not they actually have a case is irrelevant -- they have the cash necessary to pursue the suit, and will do so in order to maintain shareholder interest and control of the market.

So let me get this straight...

[damburger]

"But the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) says the Roms licence is not legitimate and it would not cover consumers in other countries even if it was."

So you can be sued for breaking licensing laws in the countries where consumers are?

This is disturbing, because the way the internet works is that its like a load of tubes (not trucks) and some of these connect different countries. So you could be sued for publishing something on the internet if its illegal in any country where it can be read, in theory.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[MindStalker]

the way the internet works is that its like a load of tubes (not trucks)

You owe me a new keyboard, preferbably wireless with an LCD, did phantom ever come out with the full lcd keyboard?

Typical for British law enforcement

[Weaselmancer]

"Stop! Or I shall say 'stop' again!"

Huh?

[Jamu]

There are lots of issues with this: Firstly, the UK High Court has no jurisdiction in Russia (unless you're British and then only for some crimes). Russian companys have no legal status in the UK. You can't sue them and they can't be prosecuted in the UK. I think what they might be doing is sueing the operator of a Russian site in the UK for damages for operating in the UK without a legal licence.

Re:Did somebody else read that...

[BecomingLumberg]

Don't knock it... it was #1 for 90 years running. Thats a little stronger than the Minidisk...

shopping around...

[spacemanspiff18]

The question that I have always had is this: if it is legal, and even desirable (as certain parties would argue) for consumers of labor (i.e. employers) to shop around the world for the cheapeast source of labor, taking full advantage of local conditions and legal structures, why should it be illegal for me, a consumer of music, to shop around the world for the cheapest source of music?

And please spare me any arguments centering on making sure that artists are compensated for their work. That isn't what the recording labels are about, and the argument is particularly spurious when you consider the types of artists that are represented on allofmp3.com. Good luck trying to find a small or independent musician on there.

Shut them down

[emj]

These people basically pay no royalities at all to the muscians, and they give you a false feeling of buying legitimate stuff. I don't think this is nice at all, sure the the music industry is crooked, but these guys really are pirates for profit. They make money by selling stuff they have no right to sell.

Allofmp3 are money hungry low lifes.

The business model works

[Exter-C]

The allofmp3.com business model is one of the best that I have seen for Online music, Lets look at what the consumer gets
- The choice of bitrate.
- The choice of quality (vbr/etc)
- A choice of albums which are simply not available on other sites like itunes.
- Reliable service, friendly staff
- Often has new albums well before other music stores have them.
- VERY competitive pricing.
- NO DRM.

Now taking into account that they apparently are not paying enough for the rights to the music or whatever it may well be, the business model works, even if I had to pay 20cents for each song or 40cents US for each song I would still go with Allofmp3.com because they offer a service to the consumer that works.I can download the music and play it where I want when I want. So here the recording companies are in a sticky spot, they know that the consumers want that model and they are trying to restrict it as much as possible. I believe in paying for music and I believe that the artists should get paid for the music but there comes a point in time when your getting ripped off, and that is how the record companies and recording industry has been for such a long time and now they are wondering why there has been such a revolt.... Here Warner is offering 2.5bn for EMI and visa versa yet will that REALLY benefit the musicians, the end user.. Hell no its only going to make share holders richer which is going to screw me, and you and whoever else listens to music.

Shut who down?

[kebes]

These people basically pay no royalities at all to the muscians, and they give you a false feeling of buying legitimate stuff.

Interesting how that sentence applies equally well to AllOfMP3 and the conventional recording industry.

They make money by selling stuff they have no right to sell.

Again, this applies equally well to the two of them. The record labels in North America claim that they have legally valid contracts that give them the right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists. I question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.

AllOfMP3 claim that they have the legal right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists, in compliance with Russian copyright law. You question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.

Re:Shut who down?

[cliffski]

hold on, I was a musician once, I have seen a record contract. They arent written in 0 point type, or in a foreign language, its quite blatant the terms on which you sign (i chose not to), and many artists are more than happy to do so. And many artists DO make a considerable sum of money from the system. OF course, many are ripped off, and you can argue that the system is weighed too heavily in favour of the record companies (which is true), but that doesnt mean its fair for a website to sell something they dont own, and quite clearly not pay the artists ANYTHING.
Even in a situation where the artist's royalties havent paid back their advance and not made a dime, they still got flown around the world, went to wild parties and got fed and put up in great hotels at the record companies expense. I dont see this russian website donating money towards recording studio fees, do you?

Criticising the record biz is fine with me, its when people sue the lack of perfect competition in that industry to justify wholesale copyright theft, as a thin excuse to get cheap or free music, that it bugs people.

There is no law preventing unsigned artists releasing their music for free on the web. The fact that most choose not to shows that they *do* actually want to be paid for their work.

Re:Shut who down?

[dave1212]

Yes, as a musician I want to get paid for my work. However, I don't believe that any major label is going to provide me with that.

Even in a situation where the artist's royalties havent paid back their advance and not made a dime, they still got flown around the world, went to wild parties and got fed and put up in great hotels at the record companies expense. I dont see this russian website donating money towards recording studio fees, do you?

Where the hell is this relevant? The artists chose those things, paid for it out of their advance, and will have to repay it. I can record an album for a lot less, and have it sound just as good, if not a lot better.

The Allofmp3 site was sold all the RIAA music they have for bargain-basement prices by the RIAA. If musicians want to 'make it', they need to get involved in the new recording industry and take control of things themselves. I refuse to 'owe' multiple albums to anyone.

Re:Shut who down?

[rkww]

There is no law preventing unsigned artists releasing their music for free on the web. The fact that most choose not to shows that they *do* actually want to be paid for their work.

It's hard to make money on the web, it's a very crowded place. Some musicians try to cut out the middle men by licensing legitimate copies of their own material, see Cerebral Sounds for instance, but they're swamped by sites such as allofmp3 who simply pocket the cash.

Re:Shut who down?

[Anonymous Coward]

"cliffski" wrote:
you go to a website, download the music yourself and choose to listen to it. Then you insist you shouldnt have to pay for it.

What if I rewrite it like so:
1. you go to a forest, take a photo of a tree yourself and choose to look at it later. Then you insist you shouldnt have to pay for it.

2. you go to a public parc, walk towards a statue yourself and choose to look at it. Then you insist you shouldnt have to pay for it.

3. you go to a website, download the index.html file yourself and choose to read it. Then you insist you shouldnt have to pay for it.

4. you go to a website, download the music yourself and choose to listen to it. Then you insist you shouldnt have to pay for it.

In all cases, someone had to do work (rangers, sculptor, website author, musician). Yet am I really supposed to pay each time I merely encounter the fruits of someone's labor? Isn't it simpler to just pay people for the time it took them to produce the given thing, and leave it at that. If the pay is too low, they can simply refuse to produce the work.

Re:Visibility is key

[Thorsten Timberlake]

You must be new here... On Earth.

Big props to parent

[Mateo_LeFou]

"Even at 10 cents a track and without any DRM, they could be making a fortune."

I once did a rough calculation on the true marginal cost of distributing music online. It was something like 0.3 cents a tune -- and this was with a woefully inefficient, viz. my laptop. About a third of the cost was power, and half the power cost is my laptop display, which would be unnecessary with a similar but headless setup.

So at 10 cents a track, the gross profit margin would be 'round 95 percent.

Re:Big props to parent

[TheRaven64]

Assuming a track size of 3MB, the bulk hosting provider run by my my hosting company quotes 0.62 per track. That includes hosting and transfer; they have already built the infrastructure, so there is no capital cost. All you would need to do is set up the payment method. Even with that overhead, and the cost of preview downloads, I find it hard to imagine it coming to more than about 5/track.

Re:Big props to parent

[Fallingcow]

Think of how much music people would buy with it that cheap!

"aw crap, my hard drive just crashed with those five CDs I bought last week and hadn't backed up yet. No biggie, I'll just shell out five more dollars and buy all five albums again, right now, because it's so cheap"

Or, "Oh, man, you have to hear this song... I've got it at home... eh, fuck it, I'll just buy another one here for .10 so you can hear it."

Re:The issue of course will be whether any injunct

[agentcdog]

Interesting, eh? Find the whole story.. the Indian gvt. was trying to use this guy as a scapegoat. The US didn't play along. Everyone dealing with day-to-day operations of the plant was a local. Modding this parent up is just asking for a war of words. Let the coward make his comment, but don't reward him for it.

Re:Irrelevent

[NulDevice]

Hey, I don't get much from my recordings, period. We don't sell that many. We do own the recordings, though, which is quite common with indie labels. But still, we so far haven't made much from iTunes... ...But that $35 check beats the hell out of a russian selling my stuff and not giving me anything.

Re:And people wonder why (Re:So they sue....)

[TheJediGeek]

I don't know about you, but I prefer good old fashioned cds; atleast then you know what you're purchasing.

Yeah... like a rootkit...

Re:The real problem

[geminidomino]

The only problem with AllOfMP3 "going legal" is that I can promise you, with 5 nines of certainty, that part of going "legit" would involve losing the one thing that makes it more palatable to me(and, I suspect, many others) than, say, iTunes: they'd be required to DRM the shit out of the files.

You are sacrificing culture and freedom....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... for 35 dirty bucks.

Musicians play and meet their fans, they sing, play, compose and perform.

A "recording artist" is not such. People expecting to make a living from recordings are dishonouring the profession.