Russia Agrees To Shut Down AllOfMP3.com

Pro-SEO writes, "An official document (PDF), dated November 19, summarizes an agreement between the U.S. and Russia in which Russia has agreed to close down AllofMP3.com, and any sites that 'permit illegal distribution of music and other copyright works.' The agreement is posted to the Web site for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. It summarizes the joint efforts of the two countries to fight content piracy, an issue in which Russia and Eastern Europe figure prominently." From the document: "This agreement sets the stage for further progress on IPR issues in Russia through the next phase of multilateral negotiations, during which the United States and other WTO members will examine Russia's IPR regime."

Comments

Asshats

[seanadams.com]

And if the RIAA does not see a corresponding increase in their music sales, will they then realize that "stealing" is not the problem, but rather a lack of sanctioned paid music sites which offer the quality, convenience, unencumbered formats, and broad selection that piracy offers?

Re:Asshats

[pimpimpim]

Indeed, this is a disgrace! So they forced Russia to shut off basically a single website, and otherwise just don't let them enter WTO. What if they had refused, would the US have invaded them? Also notice that this was actually mainly the wish of the US, the rest of the WTO just following like sheep there I suppose.

I wonder how long this ass-licking of the US will go on. Decreasing value of the dollar, increase of the value of foreign currencies, and by now everyone except the UK is pissed of with how the US brings immense problems to the world, without having the slightest idea how to solve them. Such a democracy we have in Iraq now that the troops will be moved out there, or not? Maybe you can vote for a government, but they'll be blown to pieces by the end of the month.

In any case, I was hoping that of all government leaders at least Putin would have enough backbone to withstand these ridiculous demands of the RIAA^C^C^C^C US government. But maybe on the other hand they just don't give a damn out there in Russia, their citizens will find a way to get their cheap stuff anyway, and the foreign trade of allofmp3 probably wouldn't have gotten into the Russian state anyway, where there's a will, there's always a way to avoid tax. Then so be it, if the governments of the world are all too weak to protect their citizens from the claws of the RIAA (remember the police raiding of pirate bay in Sweden?), then maybe these governments and unfortunately their citizens deserve to be treated like shit.

Re:Asshats

[kentrel]

And if the RIAA does not see a corresponding increase in their music sales, will they then realize that "stealing" is not the problem, but rather a lack of sanctioned paid music sites which offer the quality, convenience, unencumbered formats, and broad selection that piracy offers?

And if they do see a corresponding increase in their music sales, will you then realise the opposite?

Re:Asshats

[seanadams.com]

And if they do see a corresponding increase in their music sales, will you then realise the opposite?

Yes, for I am not an asshat.

Re:Asshats

[Helix150]

no, why would they? they have been blissfully disconnected from reality for years, chances are they will be too busy declaring victory to notice any change in sales or lack thereof.

It's a sad fact of human nature- we naturally see things from our own POV and don't look at it from any other perspective. That's why the music industry sucks so much- they (the ones in charge) see things from their own POV. From their POV things are nice and cozy, they are ass raping the artists, and the consumers, and just about everybody else; and congress is on their side.
They don't think of it like this though, they see business as usual, and the internet threatens that.
For better or worse they (collectively) are a monopoly. People NEED music. And most people don't invest the energy to go looking for music they like- they absorb it via exposure, which comes from friends CDs, radio, etc. So most of the time, nobody with a clue can get big enough to actively change anything. As long as teens will buy ten million copies of "Grind That Ass Bitch" by 'D. Gangsta and da Thugz', they are all set.
Their only threats come from two sources- 1. that people will stop buying major label music (unlikely and if it happens they will just buy all the smaller labels), and 2. that the music scene as a whole will change into something they cannot control or profit from.
It's that which scares them- change. But the fact is people still like their music. So they react with the only weapon they have- their music. They increase their ownership of it to the point that artists are getting ripped off way worse than consumers, and then use this as a weapon, demanding that people stop 'pirating' and 'stealing' 'their music'.

Looking at the future- in 10-20 years none of this will matter. It's already cheap enough to record your own music at decent enough quality that anybody can do it, and there are a gazillion companies that will happily press CDs for a few hundred bucks. Suddenly the total cost of making a CD is down to under a grand and anybody can afford it.
The only things that the labels can add to this are sorting (only backing artists that don't suck), branding (creating a promotable brand for the artist) and marketing (pouring tons of $$ into getting ppl to buy the thing).
Currently we often see this applied as wholesale creation- label or producer will take somebody with *some* talent, give them a few catchy songs to sing, market them to death and reap the reward when ten million 14 year olds buy the album because the dude is good looking.

However many of these things can be done by other groups- websites and music store sites already provide ratings and let people discuss music to an extent that the separation may not be required. Promoting online is dirt cheap and Internet radio has already exposed a ton of new artists.

Where this leaves the concept of a record label is where it should be- helping an artist deal with the business end of music when they don't have to.

So I expect that over the next 10 or 20 years, this whole argument will become moot. Megacorp record labels will continue to produce trash but people will stop listening to it. Don't get me wrong, things will get worse before they get better. But as everybody gets more informed people will start to see what is actually going on and it will be routed around.
Satellite radio will help with this, because they cater to their listeners (who cancel their account if it sucks) not advertisers. Also, useful 3.5-4g wireless broadband will help with this... you will be able to listen to online radio in the car or from a cell phone, further opening up artist discovery.

And besides, there is (today) already a growing backlash against DRM and the labels lawsuits. I expect the MS Zune will move this along when everybody that bought music from walmart / napster / etc realizes they have to buy it AGAIN to make it work with the zune. This will educate a lot of people to what DRM actually is, and if they get pissed off enough to act then DRM will very shortly be a thing of the past.

Re:Asshats

[bersl2]

Five bucks^Wrubles says they cook the books.

Re:Asshats

[Ash Vince]

No, they will find someone else to blame instead.

Re:Asshats

[linuxci]

These sites are robbing the artists and companies of the revenue they are entitled to. Because they don't get this, they raise prices to cover what they lose...and so the spiral continues upward.
If you bothered to buy the music from real stores (online, or at a shop), then maybe we'd be seeing some cheaper prices for CD's etcIt's been said many times but I might as well repeat it back before most people had internet access then buying on CD, tape, etc was the only real option. Effectively at least one person in a group of friends had to buy the CD, but as CD often had more benefits than tape then people would often still buy their own.

So back then more people had to buy a CD if they wanted music but did the price ever go down? NO! What people forget is money doesn't magically appear, if someone has no money then them downloading 10,000 illegal tracks online doesn't mean any loss of revenue as they wouldn't be able to purchase the songs legit. Most people tend to be honest when they can and tend to support things that they like, so if the RIAA embraced a legal store on the AllOfMP3 model then it'd be popular as it would provide convenience. People are paying for AllOfMP3.com right now (when they could get it for free on P2P), a similarly priced legit store would make a fortune for the RIAA.

Re:Asshats

[estarriol]

and by now everyone except the UK is pissed of with how the US brings immense problems to the world, without having the slightest idea how to solve them.Speaking from and as part of the UK, I can assure you that the majority of the UK is extremely pissed off with US foreign policy, and the weakness of our own administrators who go along with it. This is most certainly not our finest hour.

Re:Asshats

[MostAwesomeDude]

Why would the RIAA, a cartel, lower prices?

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

First off, at the end of the day AllofMP3 was not giving artists and production / media companies their required due, so what they were doing was immoral, if technically legal at the time. No matter how you cut it, these goods and services have a value set by the vendor; if the market doesn't want to pay the price demanded, the market can simply not purchase them. It doesn't give people laissez-faire to take other people's work without paying for it. Before I get jumped on by the million-boot slashdot hive mind, I am completely opposed to the RIAA and MPAA and thier ilk, and think they are dinosaurs that should be expunged from the bodies social and politic.

Secondly, the US has vast amounts of wealth, which few other groups have. This is the reason for the "asslicking". How long the US will continue to be comparatively wealthy is another question entirely. Once the greenback stops being the de facto currency of global trade, it will decrease in value sharply, and US spending power with it. The natural inheritor of that throne is the euro; not only is it based in a group of stable democracies with no expansionist ideals, the EU market is what, double or triple the size of the US. Also you have to factor in enrmous foreign debt and a looming housing price collapse. What I do strongly object to is the US tying IP laws to deals for trade with third world nations, thus denying these nations the very means by which the US became so powerful (ignoring IP laws).

Iraq is a nasty snarl up, but to be honest you can lay the blame for that at the feet of Winston Churchill when he drew the lines on the map that bundled a group of unrelated cultures into one single country - fairly typical English ignorance in their colonial matters, I have to say. The most recent debacle involving the US is not going to end well.

This is a bit rambling, but the upshot of my post is, if you don't like the price, don't buy it. Its not like theres a steep barrier to entry. Buy a guitar. If you want to get worldwide audiences with your music and maybe get rich, into bed with the *AA you climb. Or set up your own one.

Re:Asshats

[pimpimpim]

Ah yes, sorry, I meant lap-dog Blair :) Didn't want to insult you!

Re:Asshats

[heroofhyr]

Shutting down one website in Russia will not end piracy. Have you ever been to Moscow? You can get practically any piece of software, DVD, or CD ever printed for nothing by just walking to an outside market. I have the first five Led Zeppelin albums in 256kbps MP3 format on CD which I got in Russia for the equivalent of about 1euro. How much are those albums worth retail? About 14eu apiece? I had a friend who moved here from the Ukraine and every time her parents would visit Russia on vacation they'd actually go around asking all of their relatives beforehand if they needed anything from Moscow (and I don't mind souvenirs or clothing or what-have-you, but copies of Windows XP or movies or things of that nature). Piracy is built into their culture. Hell, for 80 years they didn't have any private copyrights at all. Thinking that shutting down this one website will turn the citizens of Russia into sudden international-law-abiding retail purchasers, especially without a sharper increase in their standard of living and disposable income, has got to be the stupidest idea in the world.

Re:Asshats

[Antiocheian]

> Support the artists....not the pirates!

You can instead support a broader sharing culture by supporting pirates and not artists.

Re:Asshats

[temcat]

Well, I don't think that powers that be will need to do anything special to shut down AllOfMp3.com. The IV part of Civil Code passed recently which deals with all sorts of so-called "IP" effectively prohibits what the site was doing, though it used to be actually legal here.

Re:Asshats

[Redlazer]

Honestly, i would buy the CD of every song i have downloaded in a heartbeat if i knew that it would actually lower the prices of CD's.

I actually had this conversation with my mother recently, and she agrees that 15 bucks for a CD is retarded. Part of the "high cost" is the staggering amount of profits publishing companies expect from each CD - not how much they are actually worth to the populace at large.

It all boils down to value - i cannot value any cd on the market at 15 Dollars. No way. Wether or not that is its ACTUAL COST is irrelevant - if it doesnt seem valuable to people for the price you have to pay, then people will find alternate methods.

A good example - i've been trying to find a copy of a game i fancy, but so far i can only find the demo. It's pretty good, but it costs 20 bucks to buy. Clearly some reasonable talent went into the game, but i doubt i will get much replay value out of it, as its essentially a beefed up version of Scorched Earth, so itll really be the same game over and over again, therefore killing its value. I would pay 5 or maybe 10 in a heartbeat, but not 20. So they lost a sale and now im looking for "under the table" means of getting it. Ironically, i've failed miserably, but thats my sob story.

Companies have started including easter eggs, video DVD's, and other goodies with CD's to increase their value, which is good, and works better than just staying "deal with it". Although many times, the extra content is lame, and when i get home and put it in my computer itll either install a rootkit, or itll be really lame.

Its not our job to bend to their rules. It is their job, as the provider of a service, to make us want it.

Obviously, they arent doing a good job.

-Red

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

First off, at the end of the day AllofMP3 was not giving artists and production / media companies their required due, so what they were doing was immoral

Allof MP3 offered to pay royalties. All anyone had to do was fill out a form. The **AAs refused to deal with them, so they could do exactly what they've done today: call them pirates and get the US govt to force them out of business.

Re:Asshats

[Pieroxy]

After all, if their revenue drops, it must be because of a third-party actions. What else? Then, the only problem remaining across their path to rentability is to find these third-party terrorists and break them.

As simple as that.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

I thought music (and art, in general) is done not for money, but for the pleasure itself.

You could say the same about anything. Ultimately, what takes time to do costs money. The more people it takes to do it, and the more skill required, the more money it costs. Saying art is done purely for pleasure is nonsense.

An as far as I know, a very small procentage from CD selling goes to the artist, the big part is taken by the record company. Am I wrong?

They shouldn't have signed the contract without reading it then, should they?

Re:Asshats

[xtracto]

First off, at the end of the day AllofMP3 was not giving artists and production / media companies their required due, so what they were doing was immoral, if technically legal at the time.
Allof MP3 offered to pay royalties. All anyone had to do was fill out a form. The **AAs refused to deal with them,

The Russian Organization on Collective Management of Rights of Authors and Other Rightholders in Multimedia, Digital Networks & Visual Arts (ROMS) is the Russian equivalent to RIAA. Until September 1st 2006 the fact that Allofmp3 site payed the requird fees for the distribution of the intellectual property to this organization made the AllOfMp3 distribution legal. It did not made the "reception" of such intellectual property legal on your country but what they were doing was completely legal and moral in their country.

It is as simple as selling mariguana in the Netherlands. It is legal and moral to do it there, and in contrast it is illegal and immoral to sell it on the USA. It is legal to publish DIY methods for mariguana production while in other countries might not be the case.

Now, I do not know if *after* the amendment (see the link) the allofmp3 current practices became illegal, that would need to be tested in A RUSSIAN COURT. I hope it is tried there, and I hope Allofmp3 win. However, we will have to see that int he following months.

Hope this helps.

Re:Asshats

[robzon]

Yeah.. If they can't afford it why should we care? They are the worthless part of our society, they have no rights to make use of our culture! They have no rights to enjoy their miserable life, let's force them to buy some instruments instead of food, so that they see how hard it is to be rock star!

Think again.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

It did not made the "reception" of such intellectual property legal on your country but what they were doing was completely legal and moral in their country.

And your weak link is that the orginal vendors were not receiving their required due, regardless of the laws of the land. This would be the people that create the content. Analogies about marijuana fall flat here, I am afraid.

Re:Asshats

[Znork]

"these goods and services have a value set by the vendor;"

Oh, bull. The price is set with the assistance of coercive government monopoly powers; as such most of the price is entirely derived _from_ that particular legal construct, and has little to do with the inherent value of the good. And has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

"if the market doesn't want to pay the price demanded, the market can simply not purchase them."

Yes, that's how monopolies work and why they're such a destructive force on the wealth of an economy.

In a competetive market, the market can simply purchase the good from another vendor. I dont see five brands of specific modern recordings for sale that often, yet I have no trouble finding five brands of spaghetti in the store.

"Its not like theres a steep barrier to entry."

Mmmhmm. Try duplicating hammers and selling them for a while, then try duplicating a number of CD's and selling them, and I'll betcha you'll notice the barrier to entry fairly soon.

But even ignoring that, and playing along with your train of thought, pick up that guitar and go compete with the payola radio and monopoly financed media blitzes, and you'll find that, oddly, the 'protection' of copyright appears mainly to be protecting the *AA from playing on a level field.

But you knew that already. So, really, take a good look and examine that barrier.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

The *AAs have the right to refuse to deal with them, or any vendor they like. That doesn't give vendors the right to go ahead and sell their music anyway.

Under Russian law there is a compulsory licensing; i.e., a fixed rate mediated by a copyright bureau that collects from broadcasters and publishers and disburses payments. Something similar operates in many countries for radio broadcast rights, it's not a "communist" idea, just in case you were thinking that. Of course, if a rights owner and a publisher make their own contract, that will take precedence.

Re:Asshats

[pubjames]

and by now everyone except the UK is pissed of with how the US brings immense problems to the world

Just so you are aware, most people in the UK are very pissed off with the US (or more accurately, Bush and his cronies) as well.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Yeah.. If they can't afford it why should we care? They are the worthless part of our society, they have no rights to make use of our culture!

I know I shouldn't be feeding trolls, but... by your reasoning, taken to an extreme level why shouldn't social welfare add a lexus purchasing allowance? The "culture" is available for free on the radio and in libraries, and mostly for free on TVs. And another very important point that people like you seem to miss is that by taking up guitars and learning music for themselves, people are creating and enriching their own culture, producing works never before seen or heard, which for my money is a very very good thing. Isn't that how rap and jazz got started?

Re:Asshats

[antonyb]

And your weak link is that, if they were operating legally with respect to the laws that governed them, whether or not the original vendors received their "required" due is irrelevant (it strikes me that, in their case, legally, that due wasn't required).

Maybe you consider they were acting immorally; they obviously didn't consider that a business imperative.

Maybe you consider the laws that govern them were at fault; again, that is not the fault of their business model.

ant.

Re:Asshats

[Znork]

"a similarly priced legit store would make a fortune for the RIAA."

Revenue for monopoly protected goods is maximized at a pricing point where a lot of consumers cannot afford the product. A similarly priced legit store may mean more sold tracks, but _less total revenue_ for each particular track. It might mean more money to smaller artists and composers, it might mean more diffrentiated music, it might benefit consumers, but it would not benefit the *AA, so you're not going to get that until the *AA are eradicated.

Re:Asshats

[kentrel]

Five bucks^Wrubles says they cook the books.

Prove it.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

The price is set with the assistance of coercive government monopoly powers; as such most of the price is entirely derived _from_ that particular legal construct, and has little to do with the inherent value of the good.

What coercive monopoly? And heres a news flash, nothing has much to do with the inherent value of the good. The prices are set to what the market will bear, no more no less. Same with housing, same with cornflakes. If music seems expensive to you, your element of the market can't bear it, so don't buy it.

Yes, that's how monopolies work and why they're such a destructive force on the wealth of an economy.

I don't see how it is possible to have a monopoly on something that almost anyone can replicate.

In a competetive market, the market can simply purchase the good from another vendor. I dont see five brands of specific modern recordings for sale that often

Ye gods its not spaghetti we're talking about here. There aren't five brands of recordings because the artist didn't sign five contracts. If artists don't like the contracts, they don't have to sign them.

Try duplicating hammers and selling them for a while, then try duplicating a number of CD's and selling them, and I'll betcha you'll notice the barrier to entry fairly soon.

Aha so now we get to the crux of your problem. Its not about the music, its about the distribution, media and advertising. Yes, there is a steep barrier to entry on that, but thats the price you pay if you want to reach large populations. Or it was before the advent of the internet.

you'll find that, oddly, the 'protection' of copyright appears mainly to be protecting the *AA from playing on a level field.

Only if you try to sing other people's songs. Savvy? Write your own. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Re:Asshats

[Tom]

These sites are robbing the artists and companies of the revenue they are entitled to.

Without entering into the moral argument - don't forget that the artists get about $0.50 from your $19.95 CD sale. Google for Courtney Love's article about who the real pirates are, and you'll stop living in the dream world that CD sales make artists rich. They make record company CEOs rich and that's about it.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

the orginal vendors were not receiving their required due

Because they refused to take it.

Re:Asshats

[thannine]

And your weak link is that the orginal vendors were not receiving their required due, regardless of the laws of the land. This would be the people that create the content.Why would it be due "regardless of the laws of the land"? If the law says you only have to pay your local organization royalties, then that's it. Why would an US law stating that the original vendors need to get their money be anything more than a local law? It's just a local US law. It's not something that you can compare all the rest of world to, and then say that others are wrong just because their laws differ. Oh, sorry. Of course you can. You're from the USA. Anything that differs from your system is obviously wrong. Now, please excuse us, the rest of the world, for existing.

Re:Asshats

[cowbutt]

Google for Courtney Love's article about who the real pirates are, and you'll stop living in the dream world that CD sales make artists rich.

Or this one from Steve Vai.

Re:Asshats

[MadJo]

First off, at the end of the day AllofMP3 was not giving artists and production / media companies their required due, so what they were doing was immoral, if technically legal at the time. No matter how you cut it, these goods and services have a value set by the vendor; if the market doesn't want to pay the price demanded, the market can simply not purchase them. It doesn't give people laissez-faire to take other people's work without paying for it. Before I get jumped on by the million-boot slashdot hive mind, I am completely opposed to the RIAA and MPAA and thier ilk, and think they are dinosaurs that should be expunged from the bodies social and politic.

The problem is not whether Allofmp3 gave the required due to the artists and record labels.
It's the problem that ROMS (the Russian version of the **AA) does not have a standing agreement with the RIAA and the MPAA. Allofmp3 paid the required royalty fees to ROMS, which then failed to pay **AA. So where is it Allofmp3's fault?

Re:Asshats

[Darko8472]

and by now everyone except the UK is pissed of with how the US brings immense problems to the world No, it's just the government of the UK that isn't. The majority of the UK population hates the way we play lapdog to the US.

Re:Asshats

[Christian Engstrom]

Once the greenback stops being the de facto currency of global trade, it will decrease in value sharply, and US spending power with it. The natural inheritor of that throne is the euro; not only is it based in a group of stable democracies with no expansionist ideals, the EU market is what, double or triple the size of the US.

The EU market isn't quite that big, but the argument you're making is valid anyway.

In the excellent CIA World Factbook, we find that the purchasing power partity GDP numbers for the US, EU and the world are:

US: 12.31 trillion
EU: 12.18 trillion
World: 60.63 trillion

In other words: EU and the US each have 20% of the world's economic power.

This is all fine and well, but the problem is that the US is behaving as if it was still 1945, when the US was the economic giant of the world, and nobody else came close.

Especially in IP matters, the US has pursued a very agressive course against most other countries in the world. So far the US has managed to get away with this strategy, but it hasn't made the US any new friends around the world.

Looking at the GDP numbers and thinking about how the percentages will shift in the future, it's not obvious that the attitude "do as we say, or else..." will work indefinitely. If you want to behave like a bully and dictate the terms for everybody else, you'd better be considerably stronger than everybody else if you want to get away with it. And the US ain't, to put it bluntly.

It is quite possible that the RIAA/MPAA dictated strong arm tactics of the US government may one day start to backfire. When it does, that could be start of some very interesting times.

Re:Asshats

[Alioth]

So the majority is so pissed off with US foreign policy and our own administrators that go along with it...we voted them in for another term?

Re:Asshats

[Fred_A]

How does that change anything? The *AAs have the right to refuse to deal with them, or any vendor they like. That doesn't give vendors the right to go ahead and sell their music anyway.

You mean in practice the *AAs have the right to veto and shutdown any reseller for any reason whatsoever ?

I'll concede that they have the capacity, but the *right* ???

Re:Asshats

[Fred_A]

Just so you are aware, most people in the UK are very pissed off with the US (or more accurately, Bush and his cronies) as well.

I think he was referring to the official stance (as expressed by each country's government), not by the popular sentiment, which is fairly homogeneous worldwide.

Re:Asshats

[ninjaz]

In any case, I was hoping that of all government leaders at least Putin would have enough backbone to withstand these ridiculous demands of the RIAA^C^C^C^C US government.

I noticed a couple errors in your post. It's ctrl-h that is used to backspace and delete a character, not ctrl-c.

Also, you have misidentified a multinational interest group as a US issue. In the US, copyrights were extended to "harmonize" with Europe's after lobbying by this same group. Rather than blame Europe, however, I think most everyone figured out that it was The Cartel behind this kind of thing, not a particular government.

Re:Asshats

[rolfwind]

[quote]Looking at the future- in 10-20 years none of this will matter. It's already cheap enough to record your own music at decent enough quality that anybody can do it, and there are a gazillion companies that will happily press CDs for a few hundred bucks. Suddenly the total cost of making a CD is down to under a grand and anybody can afford it.[/quote]

In 10 to 20 years, they will look for webhosting and someone who can design a decent website or upload to iTunes or whatever site (whatever is like what mp3.com used to be like) that lets them sell music.

CDs will be a secondary concern, for those nostalgists. Sort of what vinyl is seen as today. Sad but true.

Re:Asshats

[Shawn is an Asshole]

If you don't sign the contract (which always screws the artist over) with the parasites, you don't get on the radio. Fucking Clear Channel. Indie labels get ignored.

Anything less than bankruptcy for RIAA members is too good for them.

NOFX put's it well in Dinosaurs Will Die:

Kick back watch it crumble
See the drowning, watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it
That's sarcasm, let it burn

I'm gonna make a toast when it falls apart
I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart
Then someone shouts "That's what they get!"

For all the years of hit and run
For all the piss broke bands on VH1
Where did all, their money go?
Don't we all know

Parasitic music industry
As it destroys itself
We'll show them how it's supposed to be

Music written from devotion
Not ambition, not for fame
Zero people are exploited
There are no tricks, up our sleeve

Gonna fight against the mass appeal
We're gonna kill the 7 record deal
Make records that have more than one good song
The dinosaurs will slowly die
And I do believe no one will cry
I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be
There to watch the fall

Prehistoric music industry
Three feet in la brea tar
Extinction never felt so good

If you think anyone would feel badly
You are sadly, mistaken
The time has come for evolution
Fuck collusion, kill the five

Whatever happened to the handshake?
Whatever happened to deals no-one would break?
What happened to integrity?
It's still there it always was
For playing music just because
A million reasons why

(All) dinosaurs will die
(All) dinosaurs will die
(All) dinosaurs will die

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

And your weak link is that, if they were operating legally with respect to the laws that governed them, whether or not the original vendors received their "required" due is irrelevant (it strikes me that, in their case, legally, that due wasn't required).

First off I said they were at the time operating legally. The vendors did not feel that they were getting anything from the sale of their goods, so they applied pressure any way they could to get what they felt they were due. Thats the market; if you don't like it, don't buy it. Make your own.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Why would it be due "regardless of the laws of the land"? If the law says you only have to pay your local organization royalties, then that's it.

Yup, I never denied that.

Why would an US law stating that the original vendors need to get their money be anything more than a local law?

Its not the US, its the PROPER LEGAL owners of the content that have a problem here. That they use the might of the US to get results is mildly objectionable, but I can understand their reasoning.

Re:Asshats

[robzon]

No, the music on the radio is mostly a pop-culture money-making crap. There's just sooo much beyond that.
Libraries do a pretty good job, it's not music tho.
And people like you miss the very important detail that not everyone is capable of creating music and not everyone can afford to learn how to make music. Besides that almost everyone would like to listen to music, but not everyone has to be a musician, we need other professions, too.
There ARE people who work 10h/day (or more) to make just enough money to feed their families and pay for basic stuff like bills and education of their children. Tell them that they should buy a guitar and start playing.
Music shouldn't be free, but it should me much cheaper!
And imagine that there are countries where 15 USD for an average Joe is more like 50 USD for an average American.

I guess this is pointless, there are always people who have more money and can't (don't want to?) understand others.

Re:Asshats

[jbourj]

What is legal changes from country to country, but morality is a universal constant. (Even if we don't agree on it.)

Re:Asshats

[FST777]

Totally agreed.

This reasoning goes for the bunch of the flock: I download songs to try something out, or to "just have it" when it's moderately good, but not great. I spent a large deal of my money to buy CD's, since I really would like to see more of the same stuff around, thus willing to support the artists and the label. Besides, some CD's are a "must have". I take great pride in owning some of my collection, or in owning all records of one particular artist.

Simillary, my sister (who is too young to have large amounts of money available to buy legal content) downloads her content most of the time. But when she has some bucks to spent, she does. Recently she really, really wanted a copy of Pirates of the Carribean II, but she didn't have the money to buy it. She wanted to download it to watch the movie while she was saving her pennies to buy it once she could. Then some of her friends gave her a legal copy as a thank you for something. She was extremely happy with it, and proud that she could add it to her small (but legal) collection.

On the other hand, there are some out there who really don't give a damn. They download everything they can get their hands on, and sometimes resell it whenever they can (mostly DVD's) to those who don't value the content enough to buy it legally. Those are the once that can pose a real threat to the artists and the labels. But they form a very small portion of the downloaders. It's time that the RIAA realizes this.

Re:Asshats

[smallfries]

The RIAA doesn't have a contract for music distribution in Russia. AllOfMp3 does. In fact the RIAA has no recourse under Russian law whatsoever. So for a Russian vendor - yes it does give them the right to go ahead and sell their music anyway

Re:Asshats

[Thelonious77]

Unless, of course, your morality requires you to be legal at all times in every locale.

Re:Asshats

[TapeCutter]

"They can do what they like with it"

And according to the Russian laws that AllOfMP3 diligently followed, so can anyone else who has possesion. So far AllOfMP3 have been operating as a legitimate business, regardless of what your opinion on the matter is.

Re:Asshats

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I agree. I mean, the guy might have been a war hero who was able to change his mind about his support for the Iraq invasion and who had plenty of experience in government, a general ability to get things done, and a heart in the right place on 99% of the issues, but he had a bad haircut damn it!

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

It's the problem that ROMS (the Russian version of the **AA) does not have a standing agreement with the RIAA and the MPAA. Allofmp3 paid the required royalty fees to ROMS, which then failed to pay **AA. So where is it Allofmp3's fault?

They took advantage of a dubious legal situation, to their own immense financial gain, using someone else's content.

Re:Asshats

[jez9999]

No, England didn't.

And the rest of the UK certainly hardly gave them a 'resounding' victory. Our electoral system did.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Eh where in any of my posts did I say that there wasn't? I am well aware of that. However the content owners in this case felt they were not being looked after, and so used whatever leverage they could get. I'll say it yet again, if you don't like the price, don't buy it.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

And according to the Russian laws that AllOfMP3 diligently followed, so can anyone else who has possesion. So far AllOfMP3 have been operating as a legitimate business, regardless of what your opinion on the matter is.

All that means is that Russian law was borked according to the owners of the copyright, and its their opinion that people listen to, not yours. Presumably because you don't own any copyrights yourself. The situation has now been rectified in any case.

Re:Asshats

[denebian devil]

It doesn't give people laissez-faire to take other people's work without paying for it.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Asshats

[Attrition_cp]

Actually morality is different throughout different cultures and different religions. There is no one 'right behavior' for every action in the universe, regardless of how many people may agree or not agree.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

All that means is that Russian law was borked according to the owners of the copyright, and its their opinion that people listen to, not yours.

People who own copyright don't make laws. Not in my country, anyway. But you're right in one thing, the government listens to them. Nothing to do with morality or legality though.

Re:Asshats

[26199]

There is a serious flaw in your argument: you are asserting that by raising prices the producers can make more profit, and that they would have chosen not to if there was less piracy.

This is incorrect. A business will always raise prices if it leads to more profit. They certainly don't need forcing into it.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

Eh where in any of my posts did I say that there wasn't?

When you said they had "no right" to sell the music. Now youre talking about "feelings". And "using leverage" to put someone out of business doesn't strike me as terribly moral. But they're only foreigners, after all.

Re:Asshats

[jbourj]

Morality is not a set of rules told to me by a religious leader, it is simply 'what is right.' And even if you and I do not agree about 'what is right' your concept of morality doesn't change when you cross a border.

Re:Asshats

[dyefade]

I think parent was referring to the 2005 UK General Election. See the (then) leader of the opposition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Howard

At that time, many in the UK saw Labour (Blair) as the only option, this to the point where Liberal (a third party in US terms) loyalists would vote for Blair just out of hatred for Howard's conservatives.

Re:Asshats

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Since most of the RIAA members are publicly traded companies, merely check their filings with the SEC and see if they claimed losses due to piracy in the range of the figures they quote to the press and Congress. If a!=b then they "cook" the books. Afterwards do a google search on royality payments, and see if some artists think they might not be getting their cut due to bizarre accounting practices.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

People who own copyright don't make laws. Not in my country, anyway. But you're right in one thing, the government listens to them. Nothing to do with morality or legality though.

Vendor says, my song is worth $x, if you want to sell it, thats what you pay. Country y says, no we don't want to pay that, vendor puts pressure on them through larger more powerful country until they get what they get everywhere else. No amount of misguided pseudo-moralistic posturing will change that. As I said, buy a guitar. And what is it with you people anyway, are you tag teaming me?

Re:Asshats

[Des Herriott]

You're completely right about the UK's totally broken voting system, but even with PR in place, the UK would still have re-elected a pro-war party last year. Both Labour and the Tories toed the US line on Iraq. Only the Lib Dems opposed the war from the start, and they only got ~22% of the vote, because they don't have an electable image.

The reason is "traditional" voting. I know plenty people who were strongly opposed to the war (not to menion some other highly questionable government policies) but still voted for Labour last year simply because voting for any other party was inconceivable to them. These are people who always voted Labour, since back in the days when it wasn't just another bunch of right-wing corporate lackeys.

Still, Labour's support was down last year, and with any luck it'll be down more in the next election. Labour voters may finally be beginning to realise that New Labour is not Labour.

Re:Asshats

[Orgazmus]

They might be duchebags, but at least they put on a damn fine circus.
"Hey waiter, more bread please."

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

You mean in practice the *AAs have the right to veto and shutdown any reseller for any reason whatsoever ?

They aren't selling twinkies here. In any case, I didn't at any point say they should shut down anyone; just in this case they were perfectly within their rights to refuse to deal with AllofMP3.com.

Re:Asshats

[v1]

Don't you see? music sales don't matter.

If you are trying to covince the RIAA of anything you are wasting your time. "follow the money". They are not doing what they are doing because they want to, because they think it is moral, or because they think it is legal. There is only one motivation, and that is money. They are being paid to do what they are doing. Money is one of the best motivators. So if you want to change their behavior, the pocketbook is the only thing you should be attacking.

In the case of the RIAA, they receive money from artists and owners of copyright on works. (a bit like membership dues?) In exchange for this money, they gain benefits, which include the RIAA "looking out for their interests".

Whether or not they are actually doing this is irrelevent. What matters is what the people writing the checks believe. And right now, a good portition of the artists and record companies believe the RIAA is doing the right thing, doing something that benefits them in some way, probably monitarily. If you want to change how the RIAA behaves, forget trying to change the RIAA, that's impossible. You have to change the views of the artists and distributors that are funding the RIAA.

If you look at how the RIAA operates it's easy to see why they are always trying to get into the news and do things that make them look like they are going after filesharers. The more publicity they can get that makes them look like they are doing something constructive with the artists' money, the more money they will continue to collect.

There's another interesting take on the whole RIAA situation also. Remember the axium of consulting - "You may not proffit in solving the issue, but there's plenty of money to be made in prolonging the problem." The RIAA is not trying to stop filesharing. If they actually succeeded, say through litigation that made filesharing completely illegal, they would lose one of the primary reasons the artists are paying them. Their purpose is to fight filesharing in a very public way so as to entertain the artists, but not so much as to destroy it.

It's too bad the artists don't realize this.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

What, free rein? I do not think you should be correcting people when you do not know what it is that you are saying.

Re:Asshats

[JoshJ]

It is as simple as selling mariguana in the Netherlands. It is legal and moral to do it there, and in contrast it is illegal and immoral to sell it on the USA.

No. Either it's legal and moral in the Netherlands, and illegal and moral in the US; or it's legal and immoral in the Netherlands and illegal and immoral in the US.
Morality is independent of the law.

Re:Asshats

[jez9999]

Not really. The Conservatives were getting quite critical of the war by last election, moreso than Labour (under Blair, of course). And, no party would've been elected with an overall majority, which would've been a lot better. The Lib Dems would have a much bigger voice than they do now, and a PR system would strongly encourage a larger variety of voices/parties into the mix as well, in the medium/long term.

Re:Asshats

[Fred_A]

It was implied: if the *AA refuse to deal with a reseller (for whatever reasons, justified or not), they are in practice refusing to letting it function "legally" and thus for all practical purposes shutting it down. This in itself is a bit of a structural problem of the current music market. Especially given the record (ha ha) of the *AA.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Yer as I said in my OP, I don't agree with or like the *AAs. However in this case I can see their point.

Re:Asshats

[tinkerghost]

Um when every major record label has at least 1 "promoter" charged with fraud & racketeering for "buying" airtime from DJs, it's not about hard work or the expense of producing good product. It's about not being able to flat out buy enough airtime to get into the market. Some of these "promoters" were spending as much bribing DJs to play specific songs as the company was buying actual airtime for advertisements.

Re:Asshats

[iainl]

"The *AAs have the right to refuse to deal with them, or any vendor they like."

Under Russian law, they don't, because music is under a compulsory license. We don't need to Godwin the thread to solve this one, as it's merely a correction.

Personally, I happen to believe they should have the right, but not being Putin my opinion doesn't count for much.

Re:Asshats

[clickclickdrone]

>Actually morality is different throughout different cultures and different religions.
And the sooner everyone realises that, the happier we'll all be.

Re:Asshats

[pimpimpim]

Indeed, but it's not the Russians they care about there anyway. It's about people from Western countries realizing that the prizes from allofmp3 are actually much more reasonable than what they are paying at their own stores, allmost all of which does not end up with the artist, by the way.

Re:Asshats

[gsslay]

So back then more people had to buy a CD if they wanted music but did the price ever go down? NO!

It doesn't matter how much you repeat this, it's never going to get any truer. CDs are much the same price as they were when they were first introduced over 20 years ago. This is a significant decrease in price in real terms.

so if the RIAA embraced a legal store on the AllOfMP3 model then it'd be popular as it would provide convenience.

The AllOfMP3 'model' involves taking what someone else has produced and not paying them for it. The AllOfMP3 'model' has production costs approaching zero. How do propose anyone else emulates this???

Re:Asshats

[golgotha007]

Allof MP3 offered to pay royalties.

So if the royalty price that AllofMP3 offered was not enough, does that mean that AllofMP3 can go ahead with their business model and not pay anything at all?

But this is exactly what did happen...Shame on AllofMP3 for selling products which did not belong to them nor had rights to sell.

p.s. I live in Russia

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

Ah the old racist strawman.

Ah, the old "You called me a Nazi" strawman...

Anyway, I said "foreigner", as you seem not to have any regard for the rights of anyone outside your own little nation. Your "feelings" are more important than anyone else's legal rights, and wil be enforced at gunpoint (or by trade boycotts in this case).

Re:Asshats

[danpsmith]

Why would the RIAA, a cartel, lower prices?

Because unlike most cartels, they don't have a stranglehold on supply anymore. The music is out there, and despite all their threats and attempts at litigation, P2P will continue forever if there's not a better business model to thwart piracy. It is in their best interest to stop having such a fix on pricing and back down from the hardass stance a little bit, as fixing pricing and being a hardass isn't going to stop people.

Re:Asshats

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not convinced "laissez-faire" is gramatically appropriate. I would say it should be used as an adjective, as in "laissez-faire capitalism", not as an adverb as it is here.
Anyhow, it is rather jarring in this context; most people would use "carte blanche".

Re:Asshats

[NormalVisual]

Its not the US, its the PROPER LEGAL owners of the content that have a problem here.

The creators don't "own the content". They have a state-granted monopoly on exclusive distribution of the content they create *ONLY* for the purpose of encouraging them to contribute more to society. The current US copyright term and "life + 50 years" term of the Berne Convention totally flies in the face of that, but the real concept of copyright in no way bestows "ownership" of their creations to anyone except society.

Re:Asshats

[tinkerghost]

The US has mandatory licensing for radio and public performances. The music industry has no ability to deny any venue the right to play anything. Are you saying that the US laws are borked according to the copyright owners?
Russian law says that AllOfMP3 can sell any music, so long as they pay the licensing fee to the Russian equivalent of the RIAA. AllOfMP3 did that. When the RIAA complained, they were told to sign up with the Russian Agency and they would get paid like everyone else. They refused, and demanded to be treated as above Russian law. Sorry, if as an American Artist I don't sign up with one of the disbursment agencies, I can't get a portion of the revenue collected for public performances of my works. I see absolutely no difference here.
I think the RIAA is a bunch of asshats who ignored the law in another country and managed to pull enough strings in congress to get what they wanted. I am really hoping Antigua asks the WTO for permission to void US IP next month. Shit like this just proves the US needs to wake up & realize they are not the end all & be all of the world - and that from an American.

Re:Asshats

[Knuckles]

how rap and jazz got started

Funny how you choose these two music styles: both were started using techniques that would be illegal today (well, they were at the time but people cared less). Both Jazz and Rap are full of adapted musical material produced by others, be it chord sequences, melodies, "standards", scratching or sampling.

Re:Asshats

[sgtrock]

The rules for impeachment are pretty tough for any party to utilize. In fact, there have only been a handful of impeachment efforts attempted in our 200+ year history. Only Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton faced truly serious threats. The effort to impeach Clinton was also geared to carefully avoid the real issues with his presidency and focussed on a couple of minor sexual indiscretions. IOW, it was a dog and pony show start to finish.

However, if you really want an idea of what Americans think of Bush Jr.'s presidency, you need look no further than the last election. Six months ago, only a handful of wishful thinkers thought that the Republicans might lose both the Senate and House.

OTOH, I don't see any evidence that the Dems have any clue as to what should be done instead. :(

Re:Asshats

[Knuckles]

Or this one by Steve Albini

Re:Asshats

[golgotha007]

Because they refused to take it.

Do you realize how dumb that sounds? Here, let me put it into some kind of perspective...

Let's say you're a musician and you give various companies the right to sell your music as long as they pay you 50 cents per song.

Now, imagine a company that tells you they are selling your music and they offer to pay you 1 penny per song. Of course you refuse.

So, they continue to sell your music and their excuse for legally being able to do so is because you refused the penny per song offered?

dumb.

Re:Asshats

[gordo3000]

that's all good and well but you are still cutting into their revenues. In the end, your ability to continue to consume the content(or more relevant, your sister's) and millions like her force the labels to lower prices from a very early stage to try adn make the initial sales while the movie is only moderately good. The ability to satiate that desire to see the movie makes it a difficult proposition to continue to have new releases at extremely high prices.

So while your sister and millions like her may be willing to spend their pennies on the music when its available, its very difficult to actually argue she isn't hurting the industry by receiving a free option to wait. The downward price pressure the weaker sales environment is providing does cut into profits.

Your situation is still creating a similar market environment. you say you download when you see a song you want, but don't have to have. that is all and well, but you are again getting a free option to wait. either for a lower price on that given good, or until your tastes move away. compared to a situation in which you did not have that particular option, there would definitely be some goods on the margin you would end up buying at some point(not all, and maybe only a small minority, but there would definitely be some non-zero amount. now, there exists a similar counter argument. there is equually the possibility that music you downloaded evolved into a must have song that you ended up buying. Again, this still has the embedded value you received of being able to wait but is probably offset by the added revenue the practice brought.

now let me say, I'm not condemning what you or your sister does and I'm not saying that the **AA don't have some shit business tactics, but there are real negative effects out there that seem to just get discounted. The current legal system does extend monopolistic pricing power to the **AA for an extended period of time on music (and personally, I think its horse shit how far it has been extended) but that is the system we are in. Every circumvention can very well be seen as a direct negative impact from their view point(even though there may be secondary positive effects whose magnitude is probably more difficult to determine).

Now there are those who rampantly pirate everythign they can get their hands on, but then again, they are just like your sister. They aren't willing to spend money at current prices and will wait till they ahve enough to spend. Every rampant pirater I have ever known (one standing at some 500 GB of music and movies on hard drives nad a few hundred cd's beyond that collection) owns some content. They just don't have the money on hand to buy the music today. Worse yet, they fall very close to you, in that once they do have the money, they generally don't care about the music any more(and it gets off loaded onto cd for some later time). So just because they are a bit more extreme in their preferences doesn't make them worlds apart in preferences to you.

but the idea that these people are the real threat is not a stance that has any rigorous proof. People have been violating copyrights by illegally reselling music for a long time(and on pretty large scales in many foreign countries). I'd say the danger is similar to what the pharmaceutical companies worry about. Pirating in a poor country is something to work against in a very small way, but when the pirating effects the main profit centers, its time to take up the fight. AllofMP3 was doubtfully attacked because lots of Russian and Asian citizens were using it to download music. It was most likely a target because it offered its services to markets the **AA wanted closed to its monopoly pricing to guarantee its profits. Well, I take that back. That's all my opinion but I'm sure one day we will find out what they were discussing behind closed doors during this time.

Re:Asshats

[tinkerghost]

In the US Vendor says my song is worth $X for every public performance, US Copyright law says it's worth $a - and you have to allow them to play it. It's part of the mandatory licensing that makes radio possible. Russian law does exactly the same. They simply state that since the MP3 doesn't change a physical media it's closer to a public performance than a record sale.
Remember IP is an entirely artificial construct. Once an idea has been expressed, natural law dictates it belongs to everyone who comprehends it. It's your "Intelectual Property" only because it's been artificially declared as such. The natural state of ideas is to belong to the public domain. Physical objects can only be in 1 place at 1 time, and are therefor subject to scarcity, theft, and ownership. Ideas cannot be "stolen" in that the use by them by other people does not deny you the use of that idea. Only in the bizarre context of a patent denying you the right to implement an idea you yourself have developed, can an idea be stolen.

Re:Asshats

[tehcyder]

I would pay 5 or maybe 10 in a heartbeat, but not 20. So they lost a sale and now im looking for "under the table" means of getting it.

I'm sorry, but there is no moral or logical justification for the argument that, because a non-essential item of goods is over-priced, you are entitled to steal it.

Re:Asshats

[NormalVisual]

Country y says, no we don't want to pay that, vendor puts pressure on them through larger more powerful country until they get what they get everywhere else.

That's not a matter of being morally correct, that's the Machiavellian principle of "might makes right". Regarding "buying a guitar", I have many, many thousands of dollars of music gear which includes about 5 or 6 guitars, and I work occasionally as a professional (i.e. I'm good enough to actually get paid for it) musician in my off time, and I disagree with what happened re: AllOfMP3. My full-time work is as an independent software engineer, so I do have a personal stake in what happens regarding copyrights. Does that officially make my opinion better than everyone else's now or something?

And what is it with you people anyway, are you tag teaming me

No one's tag teaming you. You merely are failing to see that yours is the minority opinion in the thread, but judging by the combination of your earlier statements and the criteria you laid down the earlier post about "Russian law being borked", I guess that makes you "morally wrong". Of course I don't really think that, but I do think that those who support copyright law in its current form (specifically the ridiculous term lengths) are morally bereft - they're basically supporting wholesale theft of that which rightfully belongs to society.

Re:Asshats

[jonwil]

Basicly, the RIAA are pissed off at allofmp3.com and the russian system for 2 reasons:
1.The royalties that would be collected (under russian compulsoty licencing) from a sale at allofmp3.com (either to a russian or to someone else) are signficantly lower than the proffit they make from a sale of the music at iTunes or on a CD or wherever. So they want allofmp3.com shut down so that people who were buying from it are forced to go to other places that make the RIAA more money (or download illegal copies which is something the RIAA can sue them for)
and 2.allofmp3.com does not implement any DRM. This means that the recordings purchased from allofmp3.com can be copied easily (further depriving the RIAA of revenue). But more to the point, having no DRM on allofmp3.com blows away the RIAA arguments that protecting it with DRM is the only way to sell digital music online.

Re:Asshats

[Khazunga]

Its not the US, its the PROPER LEGAL owners of the content that have a problem here. That they use the might of the US to get results is mildly objectionable, but I can understand their reasoning.

It *is* the US. The *US legal owners* of the content lobbied the *US government* to have Russia change how they handle copyright licensing. It was the US government who pressed for the change.

Allofmp3 is Russian, and in Russia all they legally had to do was pay the local copyright management authority. The legal owners of the content only had to reclaim the fee from the authority, which they did not. You may not agree, but you must accept it was legal and moral there.

It's understandable, from a business perspective. The American law is much more profitable, and they clearly had the muscle to change Russian law. Just don't try to throw sand in everyone's eyes. It's the US forcing their laws onto the world.

Oh, it was the US indeed. That's crystal clear. And it's not new. The WTO has been force-feeding the world US IP laws. Just follow the pressure for EU to adopt software patents to observe the same behavior in a different scenario.

Re:Asshats

[Shaper_pmp]

"However, if you really want an idea of what Americans think of Bush Jr.'s presidency, you need look no further than the last election. Six months ago, only a handful of wishful thinkers thought that the Republicans might lose both the Senate and House."

Fair point... but it's too little, too late. When Bush is removed from power, or investigated and punished after leaving office, then the world will believe he wasn't acting in the names of most normal Americans.

Unfortunately, we all know he's going to sit out the rest of his term as a lame-duck president, nobody's going to impeach him and by the time he's out of power it'll all be "old news" that nobody wants to rake over again by investigating.

However, when someone has done quite as much as Bush and the Neocons have, supposedly in your names, mere apathetic inaction isn't enough. The American people have to either swiftly and pro-actively either make it clear that you disapprove of his actions, or be condemned to history as supporting him.

This is exactly why many people in the Middle East hate America so much - they either believe you[1] approve of everything your leaders do, or they realise you disagree but know you're too apathetic to actually oppose them.

I think I'd be pretty pissed off if my life was going to hell... and even though the American people disagreed they couldn't be bothered to oppose the guy doing it in their names.

[1] "You the people", or course, not you personally.

"OTOH, I don't see any evidence that the Dems have any clue as to what should be done instead. :("

That's the problem. The Neocons have romped across America (and the world) unopposed for six years, and the Democrats have been unable to do more than stand idly by, flapping their hands and going "Ooooh, deary me". Kind of links in with the whole "can't even be bothered to oppose him" part, above.

Re:Asshats

[Khazunga]

What is legal changes from country to country, but morality is a universal constant. (Even if we don't agree on it.)

What?

Brazilian natives walk around bare-breast with no morality issues. A breast was on television on the US superbowl for ten frames and spurred nationwide rage.

Do you need more examples?

Fixed-price copyright licensing is legal and is moral in Russia. Compare it to the US monopoly system and I'm leaning to believe Russians got it right...

Re:Asshats

[dlim]

Do you really think law and morality are so closely connected? For example, US copyright law allows civil lawsuits to recoup damages for copyright infringement. Does that make the RIAA's legal campaign moral? The gap that sometimes exists between laws and morality is the reason for things like Civil Disobedience.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that both laws and morality are informed by the culture in which one lives, and can be limited in scope geographically. But with globalization and the internet, allofmp3.com was crossing those geographic boundaries, and effectively becoming a loophole for countries where a service like theirs could not legally exist.

Re:Asshats

[shark72]

"Why would the RIAA, a cartel, lower prices?"

Because record companies are ultimately in competition with each other, as well as in competition with other sources of entertainment. There are hundreds of labels who are members of the RIAA, and thousands more which are not.

That's why CD prices have been in freefall over the past several years. $18 - $20 CDs were pretty common five years ago; the average price of a new CD is now sub-$14.

Re:Asshats

[tinkerghost]

There is nothing dubious about it. The RIAA has agreements with most other countries - Spain, Italy, etc... They do not have one with ROMS because they didn't like the Russian version of compulsory licensing. Russian compulsory licensing says that any company wanting to be paid royalties has to sign up with ROMS, since the RIAA won't sign up with them, it's their loss and their fault, not that of AllOfMP3. You don't get to sit outside the system and scream cheat, when you're the one not playing by the rules.

Re:Asshats

[killerdark]

One little correction, money actually does magically appear. Federal bank inc. creates it by compression of paper and the American dream. For every $100 you bring to a bank as savings, any bank, magically they make $190 of your $100.

Re:Asshats

[mnoe]

I 100% agree. 1) I want to be able to buy lossless. I absolutely love the pay per byte model. I think it's much more fair than the currently "legal" models where you are paying nearly the same price for 128K as you would for the CD. 2) I don't want to be locked into a service by virtue of the hardware I choose for my portable device.

Re:Asshats

[Khazunga]

They took advantage of a dubious legal situation, to their own immense financial gain, using someone else's content.

If they asked their lawyer, or requested clarification from a judge, and got an OK, there's nothing dubious about it.

Re:Asshats

[runderwo]

No matter how you cut it, these goods and services have a value set by the vendor

No! The price is set by the vendor. The value is set by the market. The vendor assuming that they can set the value by setting the price is the problem - this is artificial scarcity. People see that the price set by the RIAA cartel does not match the value and seek an alternate supply.

Re:Asshats

[NormalVisual]

The problem there is that the music subsidiaries of the publicly-traded parent companies are usually *not* publicly-owned and their balance sheets get rolled up into the parent's for reporting purposes, so there's really no way to independently verify anything they say.

Re:Asshats

[NormalVisual]

If you want to change how the RIAA behaves, forget trying to change the RIAA, that's impossible. You have to change the views of the artists and distributors that are funding the RIAA.

(Score:5, Profoundly Wise)

Re:Asshats

[MMMDI]

Clearly some reasonable talent went into the game, but i doubt i will get much replay value out of it, as its essentially a beefed up version of Scorched Earth, so itll really be the same game over and over again, therefore killing its value.

Totally off topic, but Scorched 3D has to be almost as addicting as the original (though it takes a little longer to get the hang of it). Best of all, it's free, open source, and available for just about any OS you prefer.

Of course, I try to shill this game, and the site is down. Go to the Google cache for download links.

Re:Asshats

[shark72]

"People are paying for AllOfMP3.com right now (when they could get it for free on P2P), a similarly priced legit store would make a fortune for the RIAA."

I don't follow. Mechanicals alone are around $0.07 a track by law, and I think that the artist should get at least something. Even if the record label didn't pay the performers at all (perhaps using the common rationale that musicians should be doing it for the love of the art, and not financial reward), it's hard to make money selling tracks at $0.10 when your mechanicals might be more than that. When you sell for less than the cost of production, you can't make that back on volume.

It's clear that as a group, Slashdotters profess a greater knowledge of the supply/demand curve, production costs, and other grim realities of the recording industry, than the record industry itself. This raises the question: why don't you -- or anybody else reading this -- do just that? Start your own online record store, sign artists, pay for production and marketing, and sell albums for a buck each or ten cents a track, just like allofmp3. You said that the existing record companies would make a fortune doing that. Why not make that fortune yourself? The solution is quite clear as day to you -- I think you just need to take the initiative to make it happen.

On a related note, do you have any insight into why Magnatunes isn't more popular? They sell albums for as low as $5, which is almost a third of what they cost in stores. They pay their artists half of the sale price... do you think that's their mistake? Do you think they should go the allofmp3 route and pay artists nothing, then sell albums for $2.50 each? Do you think that Magnatunes are simply being greedy? Could they sell those albums for $1.00 each if they really wanted to?

Re:Asshats

[molarmass192]

... it wasn't so much the prices as much as the fact that the music is offered in the format you want it, all DRM free. If there was a legit site that offered music by the track at $0.99/track in un-DRMed mp3 format at 256kbps, it would have similar success. I don't like buying iTunes tracks at $0.99/track in a DRMed low bitrate AAC format that I have to burp, rip and convert to MP3 although I have several times in the past. Also, the fact that iTunes is Mac/Win only rubs me the wrong way as an OSS enthusiast, and Win only sites I simply do not buy from since I refuse to encourage MS tech at least for the foreseeable future.

Re:Asshats

[Otto]

I'm sorry, but there is no moral or logical justification for the argument that, because a non-essential item of goods is over-priced, you are entitled to steal it.

He wasn't making a point about "entitlement" or "rights". We live in the real world here. And in the real world, this is how people behave. Failure to recognize and adapt to this fact means that you lose sales. If a thing is overpriced for its perceived value, then people will either a) steal it or b) go to an alternative. Either way, you lose potential sales.

Overpricing an item means loss of profit. The RIAA has not woken up to this fact yet, they still seem to be focusing on profit per item instead of total profit.

Re:Asshats

[b0s0z0ku]

It is as simple as selling mariguana in the Netherlands. It is legal and moral to do it there, and in contrast it is illegal and immoral to sell it on the USA. It is legal to publish DIY methods for mariguana production while in other countries might not be the case.

Actually, marijuana is technically *illegal* in the Netherlands. The law is just not enforced anymore. In neither of those places is it immoral to sell 420 as long as you're doing so to consenting adults and selling a pure product (not adulterated with PCP for example).

-b.

Re:Asshats

[shmlco]

Of course they refused to take it, as "it" was about 1/100th the amount a legitimate contract would have produced. It would be like a Chineese company knocking off Gucci handbags, and then offering Gucci ten cents a bag so they'll feel better about being ripped off.

And AllOfMP3 had nothing to lose by making the offer. If accepted, it would have "legitimized" the arrangement. And if rebuffed, as they knew it had to be, they get to keep the money AND still announce that they'd made the offer, with all of the PR value it entailed.

And as such it worked, because it's obvious that "some people" bought into their PR...

Re:Asshats

[FST777]

If there wasn't a free option at hand, my sister would have waited an equally long time (the time it costs here to save the pennies) and have bought the same content on the same time. In the same manner, I wouldn't have bought the music I download now, simply because it isn't worth the money. My collection would have been limited to the legal part of the collection I have now (which is by the way the bigger part, since I happen to have enough money to buy it).

Point being: the free (and illegal) option doesn't matter for me (with money) or my sister (without money). It only matters to the obsessive-compulsive downloaders.

The difference in a world without illegal options would be that artists and labels would make more free and legal samples available to the public, in order to draw more sales. Those would take up the place of the illegal samples I download nowadays when I can't get legal onces.

I agree with your last points though: the markets which are crowded with equivalents of my sister are the ones which are under attack now.

Re:Asshats

[molarmass192]

... forgot to give props to http://www.werkshop.com/ if you like artists signed to the Nettwerk label, they have the right idea ... nice MP3 (some FLAC) all w/o DRM at $0.79-$0.99/track.

Re:Asshats

[hackstraw]

It is legal and moral to do it there, and in contrast it is illegal and immoral to sell it on the USA.

In ethics class, I missed the topic of morality and national borders.

So, its now moral to drive on the right side of the road in the USA, immoral to drive on the right side of the road in England?

The currently legal means of music distribution is simply outdated, just as outdated as casettes, 8 tracks, and vinyl. Sure, there are people that still use these things, maybe even prefer them, but I don't hear about how casettes, 8 tracks or vinyl is the new "iPod killer".

Currently, I can pay a flat monthly fee and store and watch my TV shows at my leasure. I can pay more for other content like HBO, and then store it and watch it at my leasure.

Currently, I pay the same people for internet access that sells me television service for internet access, but its illegal (and now immoral) for me to store and listen to music via that service, but legal and moral for me to watch television via that service.

CDs simply do not fit into my iPod any better than a vinyl record. So, what am I supposed to do?

With the current model, the option is to buy a CD, go through all of the plastic and crap to put the thing into my computer, convert the data from the CD to a format that my computer and iPod can use. So, at the end of the day all I have for my money is a backup copy of the music, when I never intended to pay for a backup copy, I wanted to pay for something that I can use.

Now, what is different between music and television? I don't want to watch TV while I'm at work, while I'm driving down the road, while I'm working out or any number of other situations.

Today, I download music that I already have on CD because its easier than ripping my CDs. Sometimes I listen to the radio because its easier to have a DJ choose the music for me. I don't believe I'm any less moral for downloading music than I am for listening to the radio or a CD that I bought.

Re:Asshats

[vertinox]

Because they refused to take it.

I actually work with a few indie bands on my label. We noticed that Lavamus.com (another Russian website) had put our MP3s up for sale. Frankly we usually don't care about piracy and our stuff is all over Pirate Bay (and we think it is flattering), but when people sell our stuff for money, it is kind of lame.

We sent them letters letting them know we don't mind that they sell as long as they give us something , they kept responding that they were protected by ROMs and there would be no compensation forthcoming. We are the furthest thing you will see from RIAA, but in general these people aren't given any money to any artist even if the artist is ok with them selling their music at those prices.

And we aren't on Allofmp3.com, but Lavamus is pretty much the same thing.

If they asked in the first place I don't think we would mind.

Re:Asshats

[antonyb]

The OP mentioned required dues. I was just pointing out that, legally, for AllOfMp3.com, there weren't any required dues from them to the Artists. Therefore, in this case, unless he meant morally required, which doesn't mandate any payment by AllOfMp3.com (rightly or wrongly), there was no requirement. ant.

Re:Asshats

[partenon]

OK, now, please kindly shut up. In my cannibal moral, it's time to eat you.

Re:Asshats

[luker0]

Exactly the case. If I wanted to pay$0.99 per song, I'd just buy the damn CD. Which has some manufacturing cost, as well as extra content in the form of liner notes. Digital media should be a fraction of the cost of CD as there are no manufacturing costs and the labour involved in the ripping of the media (which is not necessary when you own the original content) is miniscule when amortized over millions of downloaded copies. Also, the RIAA has lost in court on several occasion for price fixing on CDs. So in effect I've ripped off by them over the last 2 decades for every single one of the over 600 CDs that I own. Now they want to do it with digital formats. And they want to limit the formats I can use and the quality of those formats. AllofMP3 catered to those of us with discerning tastes that want our files in non-DRM encumbered formats and at the quality level we want for any song.

Re:Asshats

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's simply because of Wal-Mart.

Re:Asshats

[partenon]

No its not :-) Quoting Linus Torvalds: "If *you* need to think if something is legal, it *is* immoral". The problem is that morality depends on the environment you were born, grew up and lives. As I subtle said in a previous answer, being a cannibal is perfectly moral in some indonesian/african tribes, but it is not here in Brazil.

Re:Asshats

[Richard Steiner]

However, when someone has done quite as much as Bush and the Neocons have, supposedly in your names, mere apathetic inaction isn't enough. The American people have to either swiftly and pro-actively either make it clear that you disapprove of his actions, or be condemned to history as supporting him.

Except at election time, where the American people have spoken quite loudly about their opposition to the actions of the Republican party, how would you propose that the American people take action? Protests against the war have been happening for years, for example. Do those go ignored outside the US?

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

Vendor says, my song is worth $x, if you want to sell it, thats what you pay. Country y says, no we don't want to pay that, vendor puts pressure on them through larger more powerful country until they get what they get everywhere else. No amount of misguided pseudo-moralistic posturing

You seem to understand the situation. It's pressure; money and guns talk.

Which is an advance; first you claimed it was a matter of "rights". Then "feelings"; now it's just "power". People with powerful friends can fuck you over, and it's "pseudo-moralistic posturing" to complain.

And what is it with you people anyway, are you tag teaming me?

Yes, and we're opening your mail, bugging your phone and polluting your precious bodily fluids.

You may have noticed that there are about one million subscribers to Slashdot. Sometimes more than one person takes part in a thread.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

So if the royalty price that AllofMP3 offered was not enough, does that mean that AllofMP3 can go ahead with their business model and not pay anything at all?

As I understand it, it's not an offer. The amount is fixed by law. And supposedly AllofMP3 has paid this and it's being held by the Russian copyright agency. So if no one claims it you'll get a tax cut....

Re:Asshats

[dedeman]

If you bothered to buy the music from real stores (online, or at a shop), then maybe we'd be seeing some cheaper prices for CD's etc.

AHH HAA HAA!!!!HO HA HA!!!!..Oh, God....*wipes tears from eyes*

May I assume that you've started buying CDs within the last few years? I've been buying cd's since the late 80's/early 90's. If anything, I've seen a price increase. Perhaps newer CDs may only be priced for a much more reasonable $13.99 instead of $17.99 or so, and there are certainly $2.99 (or so) CD bins, but why the hell would you think that prices would come down?

Using your logic, CD prices should be at an all time low right about now, or at the very least, pre 2000 (or so), before the onset of this whole Napster/filesharing/pirating/stealing debacle.

They will always claim piracy, no matter how high or low their sales numbers are. I don't buy RIAA sanctioned music anymore, and I don't pirate/share/download (whatever). I'm sure that someone could spin it that they are losing sales from my not buying RIAA sanctioned music, and someone is a "pirate" because of that.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

Now, imagine a company that tells you they are selling your music and they offer to pay you 1 penny per song. Of course you refuse.

See my reply to your other message. And how much do you think an artist gets for radio play, in any country? They have no choice in that either. So do you listen to the radio? Do you feel immoral in doing so?

Re:Asshats

[Kuvter]

Legal and moral are not equivalent. If you believe this moral relativistic state, then you're saying the Nazis killing the Jews were moral, because it was legal and supported by the country. Just think about that.

Re:Asshats

[Captain Splendid]

Not really. The Conservatives were getting quite critical of the war by last election

Only because they realized they needed somthing major to differiante themselves from the Labour party because they were in (and still are) the worst shape they've been as a party for a long time. You know as well as I do, had 9/11 and the ensuing crap happened on their watch, they'd have been just as much up W's ass as Blair.

Re:Asshats

[Da_Weasel]

No...what they will realize is this:
No one is buying music CDs because they have already downloaded all of the music they want from illegal sources. They will then start fighting to get the sales records of these sites, and begin another round of lawsuits to recover the money they lost from their customers.

Re:Asshats

[NulDevice]

Yeah, excpet they built their practice on the backs of indie artist who they knew wouldn't have the resources to hire the russian lawyers to deal with the tangles of red tape needed to get those royalties.

Technically legal, yes, but pretty not cool.

And don't get me started on their other business practices, like selling "high quality" files that were just mp3's ripped off of torrents and such.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

they kept responding that they were protected by ROMs and there would be no compensation forthcoming.

Then you should contact ROMS. They should pay you; probably not much, but something.

Re:Asshats

[Maxo-Texas]

Funny,

And I thought it was because they were taught to blow themselves up and that we were not human since the age of 5. I thought it was because they have a culture that celebrates death and has absolutely no compunction about lying blatantly.

I voted against bush. based on social issues.

The only problem with iraq was the decision to stay with too few troops. If he wasn't going to commit, he should have withdrawn the troops as soon as saddam was found so they would be a credible threat again. If he was going to commit, then he needed to at least triple the troops, disarm the population, shoot anyone sneaking into the country, and utterly smash any kind of resistance with gross overkill anytime it popped up.

Then he needed to institute a new school system with books that don't we are non-human but instead taught western values. And hold the line firmly while a new generation of iraqi's grew up that had the same values we do.

---

It's very convincing to me when I see a mullah preaching tolerance to us in english and then right after that I see video of him saying it is okay to enslave and kill any non-muslim in arabic to muslims. And videos of children preaching jihad and blowing themselves up from bloody public television shows are pretty convincing too.

Of course, those are preaching to the choir. I've had this opinion since I interacted with them as a college student and found them to be arrogant liars without much honor. It was a unique experience among all the interactions I had with people from all over the world. It was almost like they were insane.

They want to kill us- it is a war to the death- and they are teaching this world view to their 5 year olds. It's going to continue being a problem until they stop. And even the "westernized" Saudi Arabia were still doing all this as recently as last year.

Re:Asshats

[NulDevice]

Also, let's not entirely conflate RIAA with "US artists and labels." The bulk of indie labels and artists in the US have no connection with the RIAA, which represents only a small subset (admittedly, a subset with the largest sales numbers) of labels.

So AllOfMp3 was not just screwing with the Big Evil RIAA, they were screwing with Your Fried Who Runs A Label Out Of His Garage On Weekends. In fact, when AllOfMp3 and similar sites (lavamus, jet, etc) got started, they primarily used material from non-major labels, presumably to avoid the RIAA's legal muscle and exploit the fact that indies didn't have the general wherewithall to deal with foreign copyright law.

Re:Asshats

[notasheep]

Here are some facts for this discussion. (I'm a former book publisher, so the margins may be a little off.)

- Of that $19.95 the record companies are receiving, probably, around 50% of that. ($9.97)
- Now, take out the cost of manufacturing/shipping/warehousing which probably amounts to $2.00 per sale. (In the book market you have to send out 100 copies of a book to sell 75 so you have about a 25% return rate. It cost us about $1.50 per book every time it left the warehouse or was returned.)
- Take out the cost of all of the people/facilities the companies need to employ/rent/maintain to produce/sell/distribute/market the CD.
- For every winner the record companies produce, they probably produce 3-4 break-evens or losers. So, to make money they need to produce a lot of different CDs.

In the business I worked in, the authors made as much money per book sale as the company did when we paid them as little as a 10% royalty - which was based on the amount of money the book stores/channels paid us.

If you look at Sony's financials you'll see that their net profit margin is 1.15%. Assuming (maybe incorrectly) their music division is even doing 4 times better than that, they're making about $0.60 per sale. (4.60% x $9.97) They make money on CDs because they make a lot of them. Artists make 1 a year.

In the end, the fact that Courtney Love isn't getting rich off of CD sales probably has more to do with the popularity of her music than it does from her record company being a thief.

Re:Asshats

[Maxo-Texas]

It's not just CD's.

Say I have $40 dollars.

I have to choose between 20+ very good boardgames, 12+ new very entertaining TV series (22 hours for $14.99), 18+ new somewhat to very entertaining movies, 6+ engrossing books, playing sports, getting massages, and relistening or rewatching something from my now huge collection (400+ dvd's, 30 to 40 seasons of TV shows) and using the money to upgrade from a burger to a steak or perhaps a fine wine.

Now add to that the lack of good music (I recently added "Blue October" - first encountered via a non-commercial copy of their music btw. I would have never bought them "cold" but now I like their music a lot- they are very good!). At one point, you listened to the radio to get exposure to new music. Now you get recommendations from friends, boards, or you look for popular torrents because the radio is all crap/same songs now.

Anyway, so you have $40- the question is what are you going to spend it on? Today you have MANY options. If they want to get a share of your $40, they better lower their prices. Because $22 for a 2 hour CD is not going to fly compared to a new boardgame, a season of TV, and a movie for the same price.

Re:Asshats

[NulDevice]

While I agree that DRM is the work of satan, AllOfMp3 was not necessarily giving you a higher quality product for less money. Quite often their "transcoded" high-bitrate files were nothing more than upsampled versions of files they pulled off the net or torrent sites.

I know this, because my band found some of our material on there in their early days. It amazed me that you could buy a "CD-quality" wav file of a song we'd never released except as a crappy 128bps download on mp3.com. While I do think that as their volume increased and they started dumping tracks like ours in favor of more major artists, it made me pretty suspicious of the quality and motivation of their entire enterprise.

Re:Asshats

[NulDevice]

Depends on your contract and your label.

A lot of indies give artists much better per-CD rates. Granted, their sales are lower and the advances aren't particularly large if they even exist, but for a lot of us, instead of $.50/$15CD, it's more like $3/$12CD, with the label still footing some of the cost of production and marketing.

The Big 3/4 are still notorious for their low per-CD rates, but they also are able to invest quite a significantly larger amount into production costs and marketing.

Re:Asshats

[denebian devil]

What, free rein? I do not think you should be correcting people when you do not know what it is that you are saying.

Well, let's first look at the definition:

An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws. ...
Noninterference in the affairs of others. ...
An economic theory from the 18th century that is strongly opposed to any government intervention in business affairs. Sometimes referred to as "Let it be economics." ...
People who support a laissez faire system are against minimum wages, duties, and any other trade restrictions. ...
French for "leave alone." ...
Of, relating to, or being an economy devoid of government interference. ...
With minimally restricted freedom in commerce.

Also, a more detailed description:

A French phrase meaning "let do, let go, let pass." From the French diction first used by the eighteenth century Physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it became used as a synonym for strict free market economics during the early and mid-19th century. It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production is best to roam free, opposing economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary to maintain peace, security, and property rights....

The term laissez-faire is often used interchangeably with the term "free market." Some may use the term laissez-faire to refer to "let do, let pass" attitude for concepts in areas outside of economics.

Laissez-faire does not mean "free rein." It is a philosophy about a "hands off" government, economically speaking. In the context of AllOfMP3, laissez-faire would in fact advocate that the US Government stop pressuring Russia, and would advocate Russia not attempt to shut AllOfMP3 down.

Let's look at your sentence again: It doesn't give people laissez-faire to take other people's work without paying for it.Based on the above definitions, your sentence basically translates as: It doesn't give people free market economics to take other people's work without paying for it.or It doesn't give people leave alone to take other people's work without paying for it.or It doesn't give people noninterference to take other people's work without paying for it.As you can see, your sentence doesn't mean anything!

And to top it all off, you completely missed my Indigo joke!

Re:Asshats

[estarriol]

It's clear that as a group, Slashdotters profess a greater knowledge of the supply/demand curve, production costs, and other grim realities of the recording industry, than the record industry itself. This raises the question: why don't you -- or anybody else reading this -- do just that? Start your own online record store, sign artists, pay for production and marketing, and sell albums for a buck each or ten cents a track, just like allofmp3. You said that the existing record companies would make a fortune doing that. Why not make that fortune yourself?

The bottom line, in layman's terms, is that it's not easy to break into any established market as an "average Joe", even if Joe is a smart, well-educated and creative individual, or set of individuals. If it were, we wouldn't see commerce in the world largely being driven by global corporations, and corner shop greengrocers would be effectively competing with the Wal-Marts of the world. There's plenty of smarts in the world, but capitalism rewards having lots of money and existing corporate structures far more than "smarts".

On a related note, do you have any insight into why Magnatunes isn't more popular? They sell albums for as low as $5, which is almost a third of what they cost in stores.

Easy - they're almost unknown to the general public. I certainly hadn't heard of them before you mentioned them.

Just to make it even more difficult for them - those in the know enough to know about Magnatunes also probably know about AllOfMp3... having a direct competitor at a quarter of the price (with a really usable service, too) hurts badly.

They pay their artists half of the sale price... do you think that's their mistake? Do you think they should go the allofmp3 route and pay artists nothing, then sell albums for $2.50 each?

AllOfMp3 pay royalties that, under Russian copyright law and the regulations of the non-profit organisations that regulate them (FAIR and ROMS), can be claimed by any relevant copyright owner. The royalties are 15% (see the AllOfMp3 legality FAQ, which is an interesting read). We could debate whether 15% is reasonable (even AllOfMp3 admit they are considering paying another 5% directly to the artist), but it's not really fair to say that they pay the artists nothing.

Re:Asshats

[Oriumpor]

The R and the D are just team logo's as far as I'm concerned. They all get paid by the same interests and lean the same direction for 99% of monetary policies.

Make it illegal to bribe politicians, then I'll think about not being apathetic about the shills on the hill.

Re:Asshats

[tinkerghost]

That doesn't change the fact that they ignored the laws of the country they were dealing with and slandered/libeled AllOfMP3 by declaring them pirates.
For point 1:
Yes, the royalties in Russia are lower than they are in the US. They are also lower in a large number of other countries around the world. The problem was that AllOfMP3 became a large distributor, in a country the RIAA had previously ignored. In Spain, Italy, and most of the rest of the EU, they already had arrangements hammered out over years of wheeling and dealing resulting in similar rates. In Russia, they went in claiming you have to follow our rules and pay us what we want, to which Russia properly said 'fuck off, play by our system or be ignored'.
For point 2:
I think this is exactly on point, the RIAA makes claims they can't support, and when someone shows them to be wrong, they wave their hands, scream pirates, an hand more money to Congress.
So I still say the RIAA is a bunch of asshats, and I'm sorry Russia caved.

Re:Asshats

[mspohr]

I've recently discovered eMusic.com which has 1.4 million mp3 DRM-free tracks. I particularly like their Jazz and Blues and Ethnic collections but they cover a wide range of music. They don't have the latest pop hits from Brittney Spears but I'm not interested in that music. Cost is very reasonable... about $0.25 a track.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

You seem to be about the only person here with actual experience on the supply side. I always did wonder if AllofMP3 actually would pay up if asked; but I wanted to give the m the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Asshats

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

And if the RIAA does not see a corresponding increase in their music sales, will they then realize that "stealing" is not the problem, but rather a lack of sanctioned paid music sites which offer the quality, convenience, unencumbered formats, and broad selection that piracy offers?

It's a sad commentary on the RIAA when this comment is modded +5 Funny (as opposed to Insightful/Interesting)

Re:Asshats

[Shaper_pmp]

Fair point - I wasn't aware even Jeb(?) had ditched GW.

It is, though, a little disingenuous to describe Blair's predicament as "some party dissent" - his own backbenchers (and even, unofficially, cabinet ministers) are openly trying to lever him out of Number 10 Downing St. His own second-in-command Gordon Brown is doing his absolute utmost to remove Blair from power short of coming out and flatly telling him to piss off.

In addition, I'd be happy if people wanted to impeach (or our equivalent) Blair for his part in the Iraq war, but given Bush lead the way and Blair was widely regarded as just doing whatever he was told, the public perception of the USA has taken much, much more of a battering than the UK has.

It's widely known that the ongoing post-9/11 fuckup in world diplomacy was mostly prompted by Bush - leaks and memos beyond count show Blair (rather pathetically) playing lap-dog and even trying to dissuade him form some of the more excessive or stupid moves. Not that this exhonerates Blair from his deserved share of nut-kicking, but it does mean the American people are going to have to go even further than the UK to convince the world their leader wasn't governing in their name.

Re:Asshats

[mrchaotica]

However the content owners in this case felt they were not being looked after, and so used whatever leverage they could get.

And the public feels that their Fair Use rights are not being looked after, and so are using whatever leverage they can get by obtaining media via P2P instead of buying it. Surely you have no problem, with this, right?

Re:Asshats

[mrchaotica]

And your weak link is that the orginal vendors were not receiving their required due

In Russia, the "orginal vendors" have no "required due!" How fucking hard is it for you to get that fact through your thick skull?!

Re:Asshats

[Mr. Hankey]

And if they do see a corresponding increase in their music sales, will you then realise the opposite?

The RIAA will never admit to increased sales until they run out of possible vectors to complain about. By that time, we won't be able to listen to music from their supporting labels without being wetwired to an RIAA-sanctioned DRM device.

Re:Asshats

[mrchaotica]

The vendors did not feel that they were getting anything from the sale of their goods, so they applied pressure any way they could to get what they felt they were due. Thats the market; if you don't like it, don't buy it.

No, it was not "the market!" It was politics -- the RIAA used the US Government's threat of force to get its desired outcome.

Re:Asshats

[Shaper_pmp]

"Except at election time, where the American people have spoken quite loudly about their opposition to the actions of the Republican party, how would you propose that the American people take action?"

Lobby for impeachment hearings. Buttonhole your representatives. Run for office. Write letters to newspapers. There are a million ways to agitate if you believe in it.

Well done, incidentally, for giving the administration a solid nut-kicking in the midterms - I didn't give enough credit for this in my previous post.

However, if you want to reach the guy in Buttfuck, Iran who still believes the USA kills Iranian babies for fun and is considering volunteering for suicide bombing duties, well, you might have to go a bit further than just giving Bush a wedgie in the middle of his second term of office... :-/

"Protests against the war have been happening for years, for example. Do those go ignored outside the US?"

From what I've seen of American media, they mostly go ignored inside the US, too.

For six years Bush has been able to do more or less what he wants, and that's pissed off a lot of people. A few token protests (maybe unfair, but...) don't do anything when he gets voted back in for a second term - that's what sticks in people's minds, and that's what you have to shift.

Voting the guy back in is an explicit approval of his policies - harrassing him and making him powerless while he's still in office is good, but isn't nearly as demonstrative as impeachment, a vote of no confidence or simply not voting him back in for a second term.

As it stands, Bush has won - he's had his maximum two terms in office, done exactly what he likes, and he's got away free - no jail-time, no impeachment, no embarrassment, no retraction.

"Taking away some of his power when he's heading towards the end of his presidency anyway" doesn't really stack up to that insult to the people he's affected.

Re:Asshats

[zoftie]

Plus you can't sue grannies, dead people and wheel chair cancer boys by thousands generating millions upon millions of dollars.

Re:Asshats

[hurfy]

"There aren't five brands of recordings because the artist didn't sign five contracts."

Have any artists signed nonexclusive contracts with multiple publishers?

I wonder what would happen if some major artists starting insisting on it. Could certainly create an interesting marketing scenerio if they were big/good enough.

Re:Asshats

[Shaper_pmp]

I had forgotten that fact when I posted.

If I've forgotten it, you can bet your arse that a poor guy living in Buttfuck, Syria has either forgotten it or never knew.

You approve your system. Your system allows Bush to be elected. Implicitly, this means you approved of Bush. I know it's very simplified logic, but it's reasonable and it's what people take away from the situation.

When the system is demonstrated not to reflect public opinion, nothing changes. This would be the "apathy" that people get upset about.

But fair point on the "with us or against us rhetoric" - maybe I should amend that to "or risk being condemned to history as supporting him"?

Re:Asshats

[Grishnakh]

Some other poster said here that it was perfectly moral for Brazilian women to walk around bare-chested (while here in the USA we have public outrage whenever a women shows a breast). Is this true? I know where I'm going for my next vacation...

Re:Asshats

[DogBotherer]

There was no choice at the last election, you had the two major parties bidding up against each other on authoritarian platforms. Currently, the Tory part may have a thin veneer of Libertarianism, but it'd wash off the instant they got into power.

Re:Asshats

[Grishnakh]

You really need to look up the meaning of illegal and immoral. Morality is not country-bound.

Sounds like you need to look up the meanings yourself. Morality is mostly culture-bound, and varies greatly between cultures and even individuals.

Re:Asshats

[Grishnakh]

Today, I download music that I already have on CD because its easier than ripping my CDs.

Huh? Try "grip"; it's really quite simple to rip CDs, and a lot faster than downloading MP3s of questionable (and usually bad) quality.

Re:Asshats

[Maxo-Texas]

What's so funny?

Perhaps you can tell me in a minute. First, let's drink. Me
from my glass, and you from yours.

Re:Asshats

[Cyraan]

He was talking about Charlie Crist, the Republican candidate for FL Governor (now Governor-Elect), at a big rally a few days before the election, he was slated to introduce Dubya, and was a no-show. Crist claimed it was because the area they were rallying in was already a fairly sure thing for him.

Touching on dissent (though not within the party) I remember once on The Daily Show a few years back (been looking for the clip for a while without much luck), they showed the US and British versions of "Town-Hall Meetings". At Bush's, he was lavished with praise by one of the GOP hand-picked sheep, asked "What can I do to fight terrorism?" by another, etc. The British version showed Blair under a barrage of criticism, "You lied to this country!", etc, they showed him 30 minutes into it looking much different, sweating and whatnot. How I yearn for such dialogue with our elected leaders here.

Re:Asshats

[AK Marc]

So, they continue to sell your music and their excuse for legally being able to do so is because you refused the penny per song offered?

Yes. The law says that there is a fixed price for certain copying or performances. So, if one country says they'll pay one amount and another pays a different amount, then they are both legal. Refusing to take the money from one because it so so small doesn't make it illegal. The US has lower fees for covering songs than some places, but that doesn't make the US law illegal since it gives back the least to the distribution company.

Or, to pull up an analogy, if a new road is built and the government uses eminent domain to take your land, it doesn't make it illegal for them to take your land if you don't cash the check. Whether you accept or don't accept the money has no effect on the legality of the action.

Re:Asshats

[AK Marc]

Of course they refused to take it, as "it" was about 1/100th the amount a legitimate contract would have produced. It would be like a Chineese company knocking off Gucci handbags, and then offering Gucci ten cents a bag so they'll feel better about being ripped off.

No, it would be like me covering one of their songs for profit. There is compulsory licensing for covers. I can send a tiny check to some PO Box somewhere in the US and I have then paid for the right to cover the song. Now, if I send them $10 and make $1,000,000 off the performance, is that fair? Well, guess what, whether it is fair is irrelevant to whether it is legal. Russia has compulsory licensing on distribution in the same way the US has compulsory licensing for covers. That the RIAA doesn't like it doesn't make it illegal. The law *can't* be illegal. It's the law.

Re:Asshats

[DreamingReal]

They took advantage of a dubious legal situation, to their own immense financial gain, using someone else's content.

Are you referring to AllofMP3.com or the Recording Industry?

Re:Asshats

[teamhasnoi]

You are ignoring the advantage that every current label has - back catalog. As a startup, I have no abillity to offer tens of years of music that has already made its money back hundreds of times over. Or do you think that Elvis, The Beatles, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Frank Sinatra, The Allman Brothers, Nirvana, The Sex Pistols, Michael Jackson, Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, Hootie & the Blowfish, Prince, Bon Jovi, Guns 'n Roses, Bruce Springsteen and the zillion others I haven't mentioned haven't paid off the cost of production and distribution of their records?

And yes, I have insight into why Magnatunes isn't more popular. Selection. Sadly, the marketing and distribution of the RIAA is a juggernaut that excludes by design. It's easy to start a Magnatunes-type site, but if you don't have the artists & manufactured hits that are in every commercial, TV show, and movie, you're not going to get the massive traffic that an iTunes.com is going to have. So no, Magnatunes can't sell those for a buck, they don't have loss leaders, they don't have a demanded back catalog, and they don't have a wide enough selection to make it up with economies of scale.

Re:Asshats

[Harik]

Geez. "Production costs", what a joke. "Production Costs" are an accounting trick where you subtract your profits (from your wholly owned subsidiary production studio) from the profits on an album/movie to make sure you can claim it made no money. Yeah, major labels will front you a quarter mil, which goes directly back to their studio time, producer time, promotoer time.... and comes out of your royalties. SO GENEROUS OF THEM.

Re:Asshats

[FishWithAHammer]

The artist can choose not to have their songs played on the radio. And there's nothing a broadcaster can do about that.

Re:Asshats

[FishWithAHammer]

And people wonder why socialism will implode.

Re:Asshats

[Husgaard]

Personally, I happen to believe they should have the right, but not being Putin my opinion doesn't count for much.

Actually the russian lawmakers thought the same way.

Effective Sept. 1st. this year, the russian copyright law was changed so that a record company could forbid one or more (or all) of the collection societies from licensing their contents.

The record company simply has to write to the collection society in question, but I do not think that any RIAA member has done that.

Most likely the US is taking this route in an attempt to avoid that non-RIAA recordings are being sold at a lower price than RIAA likes.

Re:Asshats

[Rakarra]

Voting the guy back in is an explicit approval of his policies

Not always. Many of the Americans who vote him in are just plain scared. They have the "terrorism boogeyman" hung over their heads by those in power far outweighing the actual threat. They don't like Bush really, but their first, primary goal is the safety of Americans and prevention of terrorist attacks, whatever the cost.

9/11 was the best thing that could have happened to Bush. He'd have been a weak one-term president otherwise.

Re:Asshats

[Anonymous Coward]

GGP +5 Funny, GP +5 Insightful, P +5 Informative? That's some of the craziest modding I've ever seen.

Re:Asshats

[Rakarra]

No, it is still immoral to be a cannibal. They may not consider it to be so, but that's why we call them "savages" and "uncivilized," because their view of immorality is inferior. It's quite unpopular these days to make morality judgements against others since it can so easily come back to bite you in the ass.

Re:Asshats

[b0s0z0ku]

Actually wrong. The law is enforced except if the following criteria are met: A licensed Coffeeshop, where only 18+ years old may enter (show id), a maximum of 5 grams per person is sold and maximum 500 grams is stored.

Which is still better than the US. NY City has one of the loosest laws - possession of "small quantities" carries a fine of ~$100 and no criminal record. In some states, you can actually go to jail or have to do community service for possession of even small amounts.

-b.

Re:Asshats

[Rakarra]

The "culture" is available for free on the radio and in libraries, and mostly for free on TVs.

I'll give you a quick hint, nothing is for free, including the mediums you just mentioned.

Re:Asshats

[pangloss]

morality is a universal constant Universal constant? I do not think it means what you think it means ;)

All joking aside, it's hard to imagine how you could justify claiming that morality is a universal constant. You defined morality as "what is right". But what is right? And is "what is right" a universal constant? In this case, your addition of a level of indirection hasn't contributed anything.

With respect to a given action, you and I may disagree what is right. So, what is right is not universal in that respect. Aha!, you say, but for an individual, what is right with respect to a given action is universal. Yet, over time, an individual may change his mind as to whether a given action is right. So, what is right is not universal in that respect either. Finally, we may disagree over the very meaning of right and likewise, you yourself may change your mind as to the meaning of right.

Re:Asshats

[SillyNickName4me]

So while your sister and millions like her may be willing to spend their pennies on the music when its available, its very difficult to actually argue she isn't hurting the industry by receiving a free option to wait. The downward price pressure the weaker sales environment is providing does cut into profits.

The problem with this reasoning is that if she doesn't wait she doesn't have the money to begin with, meaning no sale at all, and overall she won't magically have more money available when the 'free' option isn't there.

Re:Asshats

[SillyNickName4me]

I'm sorry, but there is no moral or logical justification for the argument that, because a non-essential item of goods is over-priced, you are entitled to steal it.

A CD is a non-essential item, but is its content? You can definitely live without the content of any CD as such, but can you live without the culture it represents in general?

There is another issue with your argument. Lets assume that the liberal way of using the word stealing is correct then we have the problem of the recording and movie industries having stolen decades of public domain material from us, the public. Two wrongs don't make a right, sure, but they are in a rather bad position to complain now. If you don't like calling this stealing, fine, give it another name, but do so in both cases.

Re:Asshats

[SillyNickName4me]

The people and equipment there still has to be payed for.

While you are probably right about tricks to present a number totally different from their real cost, they do have real cost there.

Re:Asshats

[partenon]

Well, sort of :-) We have as many nude-beachs as europe. But our chicks are younger and pretty =D

Offtopic: some time ago, a lady tried to do a topless at Ipanema (one of the most famous beaches in Rio de Janeiro). She was arrested, as well as her husband (no, he wasn't nude, but he said offensive things to the cop). So, while isn't impossible to see things like that, it not that usual, except in native tribes or rave parties =D

Re:Asshats

[tlacuache]

I'm sorry, but to me, the words "legal" and "moral" are not synonymous. I can think of plenty of legal things that I consider immoral.

Re:Asshats

[SillyNickName4me]

The rules for impeachment are pretty tough for any party to utilize.

Maybe so, but seen from outside the USA, the whole Clinton case was just hilarious and strongly suggesting that the rules for impeachment are anything but tough..

Re:Asshats

[SchroedingersCat]

They took advantage of a dubious legal situation, to their own immense financial gain, using someone else's content.

So? This is how capitalism works. People get rich by screwing other people.

Re:Asshats

[d34thm0nk3y]

What coercive monopoly?

Ever seen the FBI warning at the beginning of a movie?

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

As you can see, your sentence doesn't mean anything!

Your solid grasp of googling shows us, once again, that the internet is just no replacement for a decent education...

And to top it all off, you completely missed my Indigo joke!

That would be Inigo, and it wasn't funny.

Re:Asshats

[partenon]

Er... Excuse me, Sir, but they aren't inferior :-) They don't even need to get money to live, like you and me. So, I wouldn't say they are *inferior* than us.

And yes, its unpopular to make morality judgements, just because every single person on Earth have its own set of "this is moral" and "this isn't moral". Let me give you another example (based on your sibling comment), a bit less radical: do you think nudity is immoral? It is a public outrage in almost every spot on Earth, and it is immoral for a good number of people (kindly ask your mother/grandmother). But is it for you? It is certainly not to me. So, am I savage/uncivilized?

Re:Asshats

[AK Marc]

And people wonder why socialism will implode.

Because all the people that are liars and cheats that want to be rich will seize power and corrupt it. But what does that have to do with a company that requests a government monopoly being subject to some government regulations for it? If it was pure capitalism without government interference, there would be no copyrights or patents, those are artificial constructs of the government to meddle with free trade. So, if you are anti-socialism, then you are obviously against patents, trademarks, copyrights and other IP, right?

Re:Asshats

[Elektroschock]

It is further intresting to watch that the EU wants to make all infringements of an intellectual property right a criminal offense. That is not the case right now... for good reasons. So don't spit on the Americans, Europeans are equally crazy.

See here

Re:Asshats

[Pausanias]

OK, what is your reference for the generalization that monopoly profits are maximized at a high price point? The best explanation could find was this. As far as I can tell, the statement is based on the assumption that the demand grows fairly slowly as the price drops. But what if the demand grows faster (e.g. quadratically) as the price drops? Then the revenue would be maximized at a low price point.

So it seems to me that the optimum monopoly price depends on the income distribution of the customers. Simply put, if there are five times as many people that will buy the product at $5 as would as $10, then you sell the product at $5, because you would make 2.5 times as much money.

Revenue for monopoly protected goods is maximized at a pricing point where a lot of consumers cannot afford the product.

Re:Asshats

[SillyNickName4me]

And I thought it was because they were taught to blow themselves up and that we were not human since the age of 5. I thought it was because they have a culture that celebrates death and has absolutely no compunction about lying blatant

That is not what Islam teaches, it is what those who hijacked the religion are trying to get people to believe, with some success also it seems.

This is hardly a new thing, and not something unique for Islam. Please dig a bit into European history, equally evil and misguided things have been done in the name of christianity.

No, this doesn't mean whe should just let it be, but blaming Islam for things done in its name by people who don't follow its teachings doesn't seem like the right approach really.

Skipping part of your post, you make a good point about Bush and commitment there, but one thing at the end of your post demands a response:

And even the "westernized" Saudi Arabia were still doing all this as recently as last year.

As a matter of fact, they are a large part of the problem. See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabism
http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=18429&po stdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

Re:Asshats

[denebian devil]

As you can see, your sentence doesn't mean anything!
 
Your solid grasp of googling shows us, once again, that the internet is just no replacement for a decent education...

Good comeback. Next time try attacking the argument rather than attacking the person. Maybe then they'll let you onto the debate team rather than cutting you in the first round of drafts.

  And to top it all off, you completely missed my Indigo joke!
 
That would be Inigo, and it wasn't funny. Ooh, so I guess because I got on your case for completely misusing a term just to sound so much more intelligent than everyone else, you feel like you've got laissez-faire to make fun of me for a minor misspelling. Nice. So much for sounding intelligent.

Re:Asshats

[Kazoo the Clown]

These sites are robbing the artists and companies of the revenue they are entitled to. Because they don't get this, they raise prices to cover what they lose...and so the spiral continues upward. If you bothered to buy the music from real stores (online, or at a shop), then maybe we'd be seeing some cheaper prices for CD's etc.

Support the artists....not the pirates !

The thing is, the companies the RIAA represents are essentially pirates too! As long as independents can't get space on radio because of payola and monopolistic practices, and artists aren't getting their fair share of digital media taxes and other royalties (see: here) frankly I just can't get too excited about illegal music downloads. I say, download the music illegally and send the artist a check for it directly-- bypass the pirate middlemen, whether it's AllofMP3 or RIAA corporations...

Re:Asshats

[Rakarra]

Er... Excuse me, Sir, but they aren't inferior :-) They don't even need to get money to live, like you and me. So, I wouldn't say they are *inferior* than us.

I should have clarified this. I'm not saying necessarily that they, as a people are inferior or that every aspect of their lives is inferior, but that any value system that allows for killing and eating people is inferior. Now if by cannibalism we're talking about eating people after they've died for other reasons (natural death, accident, etc), well, it might -squick- me, but I wouldn't say it's immoral. In our western tales of cannibalism though we've sortof married the idea of murdering people and eating them with our romanticised versions of pop culture, so I suppose it pays to be totally clear on what we're talking about. Specifically, I would say murdering a person for food consumption is an immortal action regardless of the society it takes place in.

Let me give you another example (based on your sibling comment), a bit less radical: do you think nudity is immoral?

Nope.

It is a public outrage in almost every spot on Earth, and it is immoral for a good number of people (kindly ask your mother/grandmother). But is it for you? It is certainly not to me. So, am I savage/uncivilized?

Nope! You are not! (at least, for that reason) See? This is easy. ;)

Re:Asshats

[brianosaurus]

Copyright laws do not solely exist to protect the aging business models of international cartels, though we're definitely headed in that direction.

Re:Asshats

[Helix150]

its already starting to happen, look at services like cdbaby.com...

and i don't think it's sad, I think it's frackin awesome. Anything that puts the artist closer to the consumer is a good thing IMHO. Especially if it gets rid of the record labels (who for the record I would have no problem with if they weren't trying to screw everybody).

As for the death of CDs- worse things have happened. A lot of people now don't use CDs except as a purchase medium- they buy a CD, rip it to iTunes and throw the CD in a box to never be seen again.

Besides for the moment optical media still has a use (albeit a small one)- very high definition, multichannel audio for audiophiles. Currently that stuff is too large to easily download (although that too will change) but the people that use such things generally dislike lossy compression...

Re:Asshats

[partenon]

/me feeling better for not being a savage

Here in Brazil, we have a tribe in Amazonas (rain forest, if I'm translating correctly) which its members attacks other tribes and eat them whenever possible. They believe that by eating their opponents, they are getting all other's vitality, intelligence and so on. So, to them, cannibalism is moral. At the risk of being too simplistic, the one who eats more opponents is the most respected warrior of the tribe. I couldn't confirm which tribe is that, but a quick Google informs it is the "Maranhas".

So, getting back to the point, morality *is* dependent on the place you were born, on where you grow up and where you live. :-)

Re:Asshats

[novus ordo]

It's here. Thanks for the headsup. There is one very weird thing though:

Orrin Hatch, songwriter and Republican senator from Utah, seems to be the only person in Washington with a progressive view of copyright law.

Uh...wtf? Hatch, progressive? All that crack she's been smoking has gotten to her. Either that or there are a lot of worse people ready to take his place. Quite frankly, I don't know which is worse.

Re:Asshats

[pimpimpim]

I'm not on the supply side, but as far as I've read the other comments, allofmp3 had only legally to pay a certain percentage to the russian version of the riaa. It's a bit like the money collected on empty cassettes, there are organizations "representing the artists" collection the money, but what part of it actually goes to the artists (and how much effort the artists will have to do to get it from the organization representing them) is a big mystery.

Re:Asshats

[Xyrus]

In other news, several dozen RIAA leaders have come down with a strange illness resembling radiation sickness. More at eleven.

~X~

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

The artist can choose not to have their songs played on the radio.

I don't think so. There is a reason it's called a "compulsory" license.

Can you point out where in the copyright legislation there is an opt-out clause?

Re:Asshats

[TapeCutter]

The law may be an ass, illogical, immoral and piss CEO's off to no end, still doesn't mean you can ignore it. "Lobby" for change - yes, ignore it - no.

Also I doubt very much that the Russian government would even recognise the *IAA's much less listen to them, this deal was about a trade agreement that dwarfs the entire entertainment industry and their penny pinching concerns.

"Presumably because you don't own any copyrights yourself"

Bzzzzt, sorry try again!

Re:Asshats

[NulDevice]

Indeed. Pressing a CD is cheaper than it once was, but still, it's about a buck a CD.

Mastering costs aren't cheap either. Most people dont' realize that there's an intermediate step in between "mixdown" and "going to CD." You can get cheap houses to do it for a few hundred bucks, but if you want the real pros with the high-end equipment it can run several grand.

Also, most albums aren't recorded on some guy's laptop in is spare bedroom. While more and more are, there's still a lot of traditional studio recording, which entials buying time and often hiring an engineer, a producer, etc etc. Sometimes session musicians, backing singers, gear rentals...

For me, production costs per album run a few grand. For a professional artist it can be a few orders of magnitude more. And if you count advertising and marketing...it adds up.

Yes, I too agree that there's probably some goofy accounting going on, but even with everything above board, it's still not a really cheap endeavor.

Re:Asshats

[Durf]

Why would the RIAA, a cartel, lower prices?

Because Putin threatened to take them out for polonium and sushi?

Re:Asshats

[NulDevice]

Yeah, I wondered that too. I don't speak russian nor know any russian lawyers so I was never able to find out (and they eventually dropped our label's stuff - i'm guessing it just didn't sell. Niche genres and all that.)

It was never clear to me whether they actually constantly paid ROMS or just promised to pay ROMS if someone came to collect.

Re:Asshats

[X.mpls]

Well said. Not only that but nobody wants to buy this mainstream garbage. That's all of who cares about piracy because they're making 5 million instead of 10.

Re:Asshats

[fait]

And this is how many Americans feel as well. From my internet dealings, local talks, etc, it is pretty easy for me to see that many would love to get both the Dems and the Reps out of office and go with independant parties or at least get an independant in power (maybe Libertarian). However, it is common knowledge over on this side of the pond that to give a vote to an independant could put the real bastards into office because your vote didn't actually OPPOSE him. So many pick what they believe to be the lesser of two evils.

Re:Asshats

[Shaper_pmp]

I know America is made up of individuals, and I have to say almost all of the American individuals I've ever met are wonderful, charming people.

However, we're not talking about my opinion of individual Americans, but about world opinion of the general behaviour of the American people as a whole.

(Incidentally, I am aware I sometimes hammer the point home and sound like I'm anti-american, but I'm honestly not - I'm playing, at least partially, devils advocate. ;-)

Like it or not though, your leaders are democratically elected - what they do, they do in your name.

If you disagree, that makes you a nice person. Your objection does not make your entire country a nice country.

If you were living in a dictatorship, you could reasonably claim the leader wasn't acting in the name of the American people. If the leader is elected, and can be "unelected" at any time, "the American people" are responsible for what he does.

The problem I have is that I'll say something like:

"Individual Americans" I've met are lovely, but "America the country" is an internationally-ignorant quick-to-anger bully.

People will then post "I'm an American but I don't believe in what's happening, so "America" isn't bad."

I'll then point out that they're an individual, who I've already pointed out is in all probability lovely, but that one nice person doesn't make their whole country nice.

They will then claim that their democratically-elected leader isn't acting in the way they would personally wish, with the clear implication that the majority of people also don't agree with the leader.

I point out if the majority really disagreed then the leader wouldn't have got re-elected, or would certainly have been removed by now.

They point out how hard it is to impeach someone (conveniently ignoring Clinton's near-impeachment for lying in public about a private, personal matter).

I point how, when someone's killing thousands of people in your name, "I can't be bothered to stop him" isn't a valid excuse. If the majority of the American people didn't want thousands of Iraqis killed but couldn't be arsed to register their dislike, that still makes the country "not nice".

At this point they either stop posting, take personal offence or accuse me of hating America.

Nobody's explained how a country can either approve of such actions or simply be too lazy to stop them, and still be "nice".

Re:Asshats

[Shaper_pmp]

Like it or not, voting for him is by definition an approval of his leadership.

That approval might be motivated by fear, but it's still approval.

And to the poor middle-eastern farmer who's had half his family killed and his house bombed to shit by "collateral damage", I don't think he's going to have an easy time seeing the other guy's point of view.

Especially when the other guy's a rich, comfortable, affluent westerner who keeps voting back in the guy who started the war.

But I agree with everything you said about Bush - 9/11 was a neocon wet-dream. In fact, we were watching the whole thing unfold on TV, and when the second plane hit the twin towers my housemate and I turned to each other and said "Well, Bush is in for a second term, then".

Re:Asshats

[Shaper_pmp]

Hah, give it time. Blair's doing everything he can to move to US-style "scripted propaganda" drama rather than face actual questions from actual constituents.

But for the time being, it's sure great to see him get asked tough questions and watch him squirming.

Re:Asshats

[Shaper_pmp]

Dear America,

Actually, before 9/11 you were relatively highly thought-of.

Of course the middle east (Iran, Syria, etc) disliked you, but that's because you were a useful bogeyman the governments could use to keep their own people in check (kind of how your government now uses the threat of "Eeek - t3h TerR0r1st5!!!1!!1one!").

The rest of the world actually quite liked you. Sure, you bragged incessantly about how you were the shining example of successful democracy... but to be fair you were. Sure, people good-naturedly poked fun at you for your complete lack of international understanding, but it was always respectful, because you could pretty much squish anyone else like a bug.

Since you obviously haven't worked it out, there's a useful yardstick you can measure how much you're disliked - how many countries attack you, or how much terrorism you have to put up with.

Now, at the end of last century the UK had problems with Irish terrorists. That wasn't just words, that was hate - we were getting bombings, murders and abductions on a weekly basis at times, but we kept on going and eventually negotiated a peaceful solution.

America during this period had... no foreign terrorist incidents on its soil. You weren't hated - you were just envied a bit.

Thanks to your incessant interference in the Middle East, you finally managed to anger some violent people. They committed one (large, but one) terrorist act on your soil.

This was a horrific act, and garnered sympathy from around the world. For a few weeks, you were probably more popular than you've ever been.

Unfortunately, your new-found popularity (and your own national need to always "get one back") took over. Instead of beefing up security and putting political pressure on the countries harbouring the trerrorists, you went balls-out and invaded, killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process. Your media, public statements from your leaders and treatment of captives (irrespective of whether they were guilty or merely taken by mistake) managed to hurt world opinion of you massively, but you didn't care - you just kept ploughing on ahead, intent not on justice, but revenge.

You then went on invade a second country, which provably had nothing to do with the paper-thin excuse you offered. During this process you lost the remains of the symptahy the world had for you, and forced them to confront the fact that you were out-of-control, simply rampaging around in a tantrum and poking in the eye anyone who looked at your funny.

When you'd got yourself bogged down trying to hold two countries already and then publically started eyeing up Syrian and Iran, we knew you were a nutter. Sympathy went out the window and your image changed from a wronged innocent to an emotionally-unstable gunman. People stopped telling each other how awful what had happened to you was, and instead started planning how to limit the damage you could cause.

Now, since that time you've calmed down and started coming to your senses again. You've kicked out one of the leaders who caused this mess, and have reigned in the power of the rest. You're still occupying two foreign countries, and are now morally obliged to withdraw your troops without letting the whole region descend into chaos and bloodshed. This won't be easy, but having caused the problem it's your moral obligation to at least help fix it. Importantly, by doing this you can also recoup some of that lost respect that the world had for you.

We know you've had a tough time of it, and can even understand you wanting to lash out blindly because of it. Nevertheless, now you've calmed down and can look at where it's got you, it's important that you realise adults don't do that. We don't throw tantrums, we don't strike out at anyone near us - we try to respond in proportion to what was done to us, and only to the people who did it. Good luck with rebuilding Iraq, your reputation and your own half-gutted democracy.

You were never hated. You were occasionally disliked and widely envied. You made yourselves hated.

Now it's time to make make it up.

Re:Asshats

[Cyberax]

That's why a legal _licensed_ music CD costs about $4-$8 in Russia (usually about $5). My friend from England (I live in Russia) usually buys about ~100 CDs when he visits Russia or Ukraine just because it's so much cheaper and 100% legal.

Re:Asshats

[tehcyder]

He wasn't making a point about "entitlement" or "rights". We live in the real world here. And in the real world, this is how people behave.

Yes, but people's behaviour can still be categorised as right or wrong.

If a thing is overpriced for its perceived value, then people will either a) steal it or b) go to an alternative.

No, if something is overpriced your options are (a) not to buy it at all (b) buy it from a competitor or (c) make your own.

Re:Asshats

[code4life]

However, when someone has done quite as much as Bush and the Neocons have, supposedly in your names, mere apathetic inaction isn't enough. The American people have to either swiftly and pro-actively either make it clear that you disapprove of his actions, or be condemned to history as supporting him.I don't know about you, but in a country of 300 million people, do you think you can build that kind of effective consensus, do you think that there's that kind of high political awareness/motivation? I think it would be just academic daydreaming to say "Americans have to do this" or "Americans have to do that". Most Americans are your typical average person who is more in tune with local community events, wants to live a fulfilling life, have good friends, work hard at whatever job/career they have, and enjoy peace and security. And basically, with those set of values, the typical American has to choose, at their local electoral level, a candidate that is more or less palatable to them. And more often than not, in many parts of the US, the candidate who is more palatable to them, who has the same set of core values as them, has the same agenda as them, have proven to be from the GOP rather than from the Dems. It's less a matter of the Dems saying "oh deary me" and more a case of highly opinionated Dems failing to connect with their electorate - although that has changed with the recent election.

Re:Asshats

[shmlco]

Everyone acknowledges that AllofMP3 was operating under a loophole in the Russian system that made what they doing "legal", and that the loophole stems from conflicting interpretations of Russian copyright law. And which doesn't change the fact that the purchase and "importation" of said music here into the US seems to constitute infringement according to US law, and thus "can" be illegal. It's the law.

At any rate, anyone with half a brain should also know that such loopholes tend to be closed when they draw too much attention, and/or when too much money begins pouring through them.

Re:Asshats

[AK Marc]

Everyone acknowledges that AllofMP3 was operating under a loophole in the Russian system that made what they doing "legal", and that the loophole stems from conflicting interpretations of Russian copyright law. And which doesn't change the fact that the purchase and "importation" of said music here into the US seems to constitute infringement according to US law, and thus "can" be illegal. It's the law.

Well, I guess the law in the US concerning covers and copyright is a "loophole" as well. It is a loophole in that the law explicitly states that you can play a cover without the permission of the copyright holder. The Russian law "loophole" was the same in that some manner of distribution in Russia is allowed without direct permission from the copyright holder as well. When the law explicitly states "you may do this" it is a loophole, right?

I have never addressed whether someone from the US may or may not purchase from there legally. That is an issue completely separate from whether allofmp3 is breaking the law. Or are you arguing that it is illegal for American gun manufacturers to make handguns because someone who illegally smuggles one in China broke chinese laws, so the Americans making the handgun obviously broke the law too? That does appear to be your reasoning. Otherwise, why would you bring up consumption law when discussing the manufacture process?

Re:Asshats

[FishWithAHammer]

Patents, correct. Trademarks, copyrights, and IP, no. Because creators should be given rights to their work.

Re:Asshats

[FishWithAHammer]

I meant in a somewhat sane society. Obviously. =P Russia...does not exactly qualify.

Re:Asshats

[FishWithAHammer]

Only the best. :)

Re:Asshats

[AK Marc]

Because creators should be given rights to their work.

Right, in the socialist way of thinking. In pure capitalism, the government would do nothing to stop businesses. IP is a governmental construct interfering with business and would be done away with if the US wasn't a bunch of socialists.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

I meant in a somewhat sane society. Obviously. =P Russia...does not exactly qualify.

The USA has a compulsory licence for radio broadcasting. (Though that's hardly a beacon of sanity either.) I don't think there's an opt-out there either. If you don't sign up, you just don't get paid.

Re:Asshats

[gordo3000]

so in other words you are trying to actually say this poor poor girl has no other money (besides what goes to necessities like food, water, housing, medical care) and whose only discretionary purchase she ever makes is music?

Think about that for a second. as long as she is like most western consumers, she has a myriad of things she spends her disposable income on(going to movies, dinners, trips with friends, shopping, concerts, music, etc), then it does distort her choices. She can fill one of those discretionary areas at any time (at least partially, because she enjoys listening to and legally owning the music) then she can move some desired spending away from that category, even if for a short time.

oh wait, you were thinking she is destitute, living on the street, and going almost hungry, but still finds time to every now and then save up 15 bucks to get a CD (I believe that is the going rate for most new CD's now, right?) . So I guess my tirade only applies to about every other consumer of music.....

Re:Asshats

[gordo3000]

problem is, I'm betting your sister is destitute, barely making ends meet, and spending her only free income on music ( I can just see it, deciding between 20 cent ramen tonight or adding to the music money jar).

I don't mean to make fun of your sister is that, its just that as long as she is like most consumers, I'm willing to bet she spends her extra(even if meager) money on a myriad of options: dinner with friends, going to movies, concerts, trips, shopping, etc). As long as she is doing that, then the free option easily distorts her current rationing of her income, at least somewhat away from music. of course, this doesn't mean the CD won't every be purchased, but the lower demand it incites currently does hurt the **AA ability to have monopolistic pricing.

of course, if you sister really already puts 100% of her discretionary income towards music, then you are right, the free option is meaningless to her. As you the point about you, I cannot really say. That would take a study of your current listening habits compared to before you started downloading along with a more comprehensive comparison of your purchasing decisions during those times. so I concede that as at the best, not provable(from my perspective).

Re:Asshats

[SillyNickName4me]

so in other words you are trying to actually say this poor poor girl has no other money (besides what goes to necessities like food, water, housing, medical care) and whose only discretionary purchase she ever makes is music?


If you cant be bothered to actually read the thread you are replying to, then maybe you should also simply not reply..

Not to mention you are really mistaken. Looking at the USA alone, some 10% or more of the population does indeed not have the disposable income you are talking about. Most teenagers also have school and such and dnt have the knd of disposable income you are talking about.

Re:Asshats

[gordo3000]

that's amazing. I grew up in a area that was far below the US average income. in fact, we did actually car pool growing up and most of us ran cars on just a few bucks of gas to spare money for other things. but my god, we still went out to eat, rented movies, went to movie theaters......

but there was this amazing thing that most of us had to supply us the disposable income to go out to dinner(even if going out to dinner meant DQ), we called it a part time job and yes, they are out there even if they aren't fun or rewarding. Now I think you are making a big leap from what I was saying, so I'll say it again.

The parent didn't say his sister was destitute, he was trying to make the point that she bought music when it it fell in line with her preferences ( and implied as soon as she had the money, she bought the music so in fact, she didn't cause a negative impact). my point was simple, if she does have disposable income to do other things, then its just a choice and suddenly, there is a negative impact because the ability to download distorts those choices.

I was a teenager once without the most full of pockets. I made my choices on how to spend the money I had and it wasn't ever all on one item. if I had the chance of getting something small for free to free up money elsewhere, I took it. I"m not saying its not commonly done.

oh wait, you wanted me to take the OP literally when he said his sister was saving pennies to buy music. look up the word hyperbole. its extremely pertinent to the OP.

Re:Asshats

[SillyNickName4me]

that's amazing. I grew up in a area that was far below the US average income. in fact, we did actually car pool growing up and most of us ran cars on just a few bucks of gas to spare money for other things. but my god, we still went out to eat, rented movies, went to movie theaters......

Below average in no way imlies being part of the lowest 10% which to the standards of the USA live below the poverty line which means they do not have enough income to pay for proper housing, food and clothing.

but there was this amazing thing that most of us had to supply us the disposable income to go out to dinner(even if going out to dinner meant DQ), we called it a part time job and yes, they are out there even if they aren't fun or rewarding. Now I think you are making a big leap from what I was saying, so I'll say it again.

I have no idea about the sister of OP, but I definitely know that kids below 14 or 15 have very little to no chance on such a disposable income, or any income in fact. Yes, there are exceptions but it is not the rule.

The parent didn't say his sister was destitute, he was trying to make the point that she bought music when it it fell in line with her preferences ( and implied as soon as she had the money, she bought the music so in fact, she didn't cause a negative impact). my point was simple, if she does have disposable income to do other things, then its just a choice and suddenly, there is a negative impact because the ability to download distorts those choices.

And you are making assumtions about things that hae clearly not been said, and where the opposite of your assumption was implied, learn to read and stop assuming.

I was a teenager once without the most full of pockets. I made my choices on how to spend the money I had and it wasn't ever all on one item. if I had the chance of getting something small for free to free up money elsewhere, I took it. I"m not saying its not commonly done.

If you dont want to discuss the things being stated, but rather want to tell about your time as ateenager that is fine, but you are not the average person obviously.

If you want to get a clue, look at how people are doing on average, not how the more positive cases are. The later say what is possible, but not what is reasonable.

oh wait, you wanted me to take the OP literally when he said his sister was saving pennies to buy music. look up the word hyperbole. its extremely pertinent to the OP.

Maybe you should read the OPs reply instead of assuming things.

Oh wait, reading and actually basing a discussion on what is being said instead of your own assumptions is too difficult for you (and if you disagree, then start showign you can discuss what is being said)

Re:Asshats

[Shaper_pmp]

Bush is still in power, but people are trying to claim his actions don't represent what "America" really wants.

There are three possibilities

1. Actually a majority of people agree with Bush.
2. Most people disagree, but nobody has any power to change Bush's actions.
3. Most people disagree, but nobody can be bothered to change Bush's actions.

If 1 is true, then "America" agrees with what Bush and the neocons have done. Any individual Americans who wish to defend "America" from bashing by foreigners can now shut up and sit down, because while they may personally disagree, their country as a whole supports him. In this case you personally are a lovely American, but America as a country is exactly what all the USA-bashers are accusing it of.

If 2 is true, you no longer have a functioning democracy. America the country is absolved from responsibility for Bush's actions, but also now has to shut up about "Freedom" and "Democracy" and how you're exporting them to the entire benighted, unenlightened world. If 2 is true, these claims just make you (the country) both expansionist and hypocritical.

If 3 is true then America isn't a violent bully as the USA-bashers claim. It is, instead, a pathetically lazy, disgustingly self-obsessed, naval-gazing apathetic. I don't care how much work it is - if someone was threatening to shoot someone in front of me, I would personally crawl across a mile of broken glass with my flies open to stop them. Really, voting or writing a few letters isn't that big a deal, especially when there are hundreds of thousands of people being shot because America couldn't be arsed to remove Bush sooner.

It sounds like you're arguing for a combination of 1 and 3 - it's hard to oppose Bush's foreign policy, and most Americans don't really care that much if a lot of little brown people are shot, as long as their representative ensures their lives are fractionally more comfortable.

I'm being deliberately harsh, but try to see it from the point of view of an Iraqi. America the country is either:

1. Violent, aggressive and expansionist,
2. A lying hypocritical police-state, claiming democracy while engaging in the same faults as the very states they claim to "liberate".
3. So self-absorbed they'll honestly take a fractionally more affluent comfortable life for themselves, even if it means the death of your entire family.

None of these are particularly positive statements about America. All of these statements lead you to the conclusion that America is somewhere to be afraid of, and something to fight against. Statements 1 and 3 in particular are the kind of thing that could easily make you angry enough about to strap explosives to yourself.

ObCaveat: Not, obviously that I agree with these statements, and terrorism that targets innocent civilians is always and without exception unwarranted.

However... you don't get to stand idly by while your leader acts the way Bush has, and then claim that you can't stop him but you still live in a functioning democracy.

Seriously - try to find an excuse for America's actions that you think would be persuasive to the average Iraqi man-in-the-street.

You won't be able to.

What does that tell you?

Arcade game

[Toby The Economist]

There's an arcade game, where you have a dozen jack-in-the-box little heads which pop up, and a hammer, and your goal is to hit as many heads as you can as quickly as you can, as they pop up again a little while after you've hit them down.

Farewell

[sylvainsf]

Allofmp3.com I hardly knew ye.

Unrelated

[SuperKendall]

In completely unrelated news, the entire body of the WTO has gone home early today feeling ill and glowing slightly after being served tea by a thickly bearded new manservant.

The real PlaysForSure

[linuxci]

Although I've never used it I would have to say this site was the real Plays for Sure of the music world. It's a shame the record companies did not embrace this model as a lot of people would be willing to pay iTunes prices for DRM-free audio in a choice of formats. Instead the only site that offered consumers choice is being closed down which would be fair enough if a viable legal alternative would spring up, but until the RIAA start embracing technology that won't happen.

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[cliffski]

As I understood it, the artists never earned a penny from sales through this site, so it might be great for the consumers, but why on earth would you expect the music industry to embrace this? The RIAA might be bastards, but if they championed a model where the artists got zero, as opposed to 'not very much', you'd hate them even more.
I'm pretty sure theres enough economists working at sony etc to decide (with all the data they have) the sweet spot for music pricing. This just means that a lot of people who won't pay that will whine that its too expensive, but thats true of pretty much every product. I think cinema tickets are too expensive, so I dont go, but you can bet that the number of people who *do* go outweigh the small loses by losing me as a customer.

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[MichaelSmith]

Although I've never used it I would have to say this site was the real Plays for Sure of the music world. It's a shame the record companies did not embrace this model as a lot of people would be willing to pay iTunes prices for DRM-free audio in a choice of formats.

I just bought three tracks with my last 48 cents of balance. For the $10 I put in I got a lot of music and I would start buying at a higher price iff I can get it in high bit rate ogg. I have e-books in PDF as well and I don't walk around the office offering copies of the stuff I have bought to other people. Quite frankly I can't be stuffed. They can get it themselves.

I am sure that something else will pop up. Wait and see.

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[hopopee]

Actually, the money didn't go to the artists only because RIAA/MPAA/IPFI-affiliates would not them register to the Russian counterpart. Mainly because their rules state something along "we retain all rights to license your stuff from now on", but still. It was _not_ an unlawful operation.

And better yet, you could ask yourself _why_ they demanded closing the shop instead of trying to change the policies of the Russian copyright association or put up a competing "more lawful" operation themselves? Using WTO negotiations to shut down one company that operates by it's local laws but pisses you off otherwise (remember, it's the copyright association's rules that were the main problem here) is pure evil.

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[Dhalka226]

As I understood it, the artists never earned a penny from sales through this site, so it might be great for the consumers, but why on earth would you expect the music industry to embrace this?

Well if that is true, that's a shame. But he doesn't expect the RIAA to embrace the website; he expects them to embrace what the website offered: Choice of formats without DRM restrictions. Allofmp3, even at 320kbps MP3, was only like 20-30 cents per song and the grandparent rightly supposes that people would pay more for those same choices, even the $0.99 an iTunes track costs. I can vouch for this myself. I do not purchase from iTunes because of the DRM issues (the lack of choice too, but to a lesser extent) but would be happy to pay $0.99 for that 320 kbps MP3 if that is what I want a particular song in.

I doubt Allofmp3 was a charity operation, so they were making money even with the low prices. That means that if the RIAA were to set up an identical system, and increase the prices such that the highest bitrate MP3* was $0.99, they would have roughly 60 cents per download of guaranteed profit on top of whatever the production/distribution costs of the files are that they can split amongst the artists. Does the artist get 60% right now? Heck, even if the RIAA pocketed half I think the artists would still end up making more under this scheme than they do for the current incarnation of iTunes.

I think cinema tickets are too expensive, so I dont go, but you can bet that the number of people who *do* go outweigh the small loses by losing me as a customer.

That is a different issue. Cinema tickets are a limited resource. Once all the tickets for a show are sold out, they can't sell more. In that sense, losing you as a customer only matters if demand is less than the number of seats available. Otherwise, they simply won't even notice you did not come. If supply is great, they either need to add more show dates (which is not always feasible) or expand the theater size and hope that the next show that comes through has similar demand. If not, they're losing money.

Online music distribution is different. The costs to distribute another copy of a given song are miniscule, nearly negligible. The fact that you only produce that extra cost when somebody purchases the song means you ALWAYS make a profit on expansion. It would be like if every time somebody new wanted a ticket to that cinema show, a new seat--equally as good as every other seat in the place--would spring magically into existence. In this case, if you refused to buy a song because of the cost it would be a direct impact to them. Even if there are five buyers for every non-buyer, they'll still feel it because it's essentially free money to them. They had five sales where they could have had six, instead of having a sell-out where they could have had... a sell-out.

Allofmp3 obviously made this system work at less than $0.99 a song, so it's doable. The only explanation I can think of as to why the RIAA doesn't give it a shot is because they're control freaks who are desperately trying to prove to the world that they were somehow still needed when they really are not.

I'm sure piracy is a problem for them, although I'm also sure it's not nearly as big a problem monetarily as they would have us believe. The don't seem to realize that they can eliminate a large segment of that piracy by offering low-cost products. Pirating a $17 CD might be worth it. Pirating a $0.99 song becomes significantly less so. If I care enough about the song that I would want it at a high bitrate, such as this hypothetical new RIAA service would offer me, it would be even harder to find and less worth pirating.

But meh. Logic doesn't seem to be high atop the RIAA's list of traits.

* I keep mentioning 320kbps MP3 because that's what I got when I wanted a high-quality version. I could do OGG I suppose, but I don't; and honestly, I could personally hear no difference between the 320 MP3 and the FLAC when I compared once.

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[linuxci]

As I understood it, the artists never earned a penny from sales through this site, so it might be great for the consumers, but why on earth would you expect the music industry to embrace this? The RIAA might be bastards, but if they championed a model where the artists got zero, as opposed to 'not very much', you'd hate them even more.I don't think they have to support AllOfMP3 but they needed to offer an equivalent but legit service first before killing it. AllOfMP3 showed it was possible to sell loads with this model, in theory people didn't have to pay anything (P2P) but were willing to pay for the conveneince of AllOfMP3. I think people would be willing to pay more than the AllOfMP3 price if the royalties are being distributed. As long as the format is unemcumbered.

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the best alternative for now is probably emusic.com. Their catalog is a bit smaller (about 1,000,000 songs), but I find it has good quality music and a lot less junk than allofmp3. Of course they don't offer the same choice of formats (nothing free as in OGG), but at least they use LAME/APS encoded mp3's which are of course DRM-free. And they don't transcode mp3's like allofmp3 was reported to have done. No DRM means no big artists like Britney Spears, but I could care less when you've got Sonic Youth, Yo La Tengo, Cat Power, Johnny Cash, and the likes.

Their base plan (in Europe, at least) works out to 0.23 cents per song, and the more you buy, the cheaper it gets. I've signed up for a free trial a few times now, and every time I cancel they come back a few months later inviting me for another free trial. It's not our good 'ole friend allofmp3, but it beats iTunes hands down. So, there's at least one legal site which is getting closer to something worth using...

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[tttonyyy]

Actually, the money didn't go to the artists only because RIAA/MPAA/IPFI-affiliates would not them register to the Russian counterpart. Mainly because their rules state something along "we retain all rights to license your stuff from now on", but still. It was _not_ an unlawful operation.That's a very interesting statement. Do you have any evidence/links to back it up?

That aside, you're right, it's a total disgrace that the US would use joining the WTO as leverage to shut down one (locally legal) website, regardless of what it promotes or sells. That the argument is over a commercial rather than political website is even more bizarre.

There's not so many differences between the behaviour of Microsoft and the behaviour of the US administration. It would appear that the actions of both are increasingly seen as unfair by the rest of the world.

It's also sad that this paints a distorted picture of the citizens of the US to the outside world, most of whome are equally disgusted by this.

Way to go Mr Bush, creating rifts between cultures where there are none.

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[tomknight]

But it's pretty annoying that I have to register just to see their catalogue. It looks like this includes giving my credit card number. Sorry, but I can't be bothered with using such a company.

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[tomknight]

I take that back: http://www.emusic.com/browse/all.html

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[apollosfire]

That the argument is over a commercial rather than political website is even more bizarre.From what I've heard, Russia has its political problems under control..

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[AK Marc]

As I understood it, the artists never earned a penny from sales through this site,

That is incorrect. Artists did get paid. The only artists paid were Russian, however. Why only Russian? Because the RIAA refused to ask for money. When offered money (or a deal that would lead to money, not simply a check), the RIAA refused to accept it. Now, since the RIAA refused payment, they are claiming that because they weren't paid that it is unfair. I can't accept that as a valid argument. They *chose* to not earn the money.

I'm pretty sure theres enough economists working at sony etc to decide (with all the data they have) the sweet spot for music pricing.

The problem is that the "sweet spot" is not set per market forces. There are two "sweet spots." There is the one that maximizes revenue. That is the sweet spot that happens in a competitive and open market. Then there is the mazimized profit "sweet spot." This one can only happen with a monopoly or fixed prices. With competition, companies will still make money at the lower price, and consumers will buy more at the lower price, and the total revenue will be higher. However, the profits are higher with the higher prices.

What we have is monopolistic pricing on CDs. We have market prices on iTunes and allofmp3. The monopoly is abused.

So much for the new enlightened Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where else would you be able to make a deal with the government to shut down a private company that follows local laws? Of course it's not bribery if all you are giving in exchange is favorable trading regulations and a chance at WTO membership.

Re:So much for the new enlightened Russia...

[YouTalkinToMe]

It looks like according to the agreement, the Russian government also has to pass legislation to close the "loophole" that allows collection societies to act without the consent of the "rights holders".

If I remember correctly, allofmp3.com was getting licenses from these "collection societies", so probably the Russian government will first close down the societies, then close down allofmp3.com.

Re:So much for the new enlightened Russia...

[Kokuyo]

Yeah, as if that was only possible in Russia...

Re:So much for the new enlightened Russia...

[MrMickS]

How is the parent insightful?

It could be more properly written as 'in order to embrace its position in the world the Russian government agreed to institute laws so as to prevent people from earning money from the works of others without their permission'.

The whole holier than thou attitude around this subject on Slashdot sickens me. All of mp3 have been selling the product of artists work without paying any recompense to the artists. This is theft in all but name, its copyright breach but the difference is a technical one. The majority of people supporting this site weren't doing it for political reasons, opposition to the RIAA, but because it was cheaper. It was cheaper because it didn't recompense the artists.

This agreement shows that Russia is growing up, its just a shame that the Slashdot crowd isn't doing so as well.

Re:So much for the new enlightened Russia...

[idonthack]

Where else would you be able to make a deal with the government to shut down a private company that follows local laws?

Sweden.
 
And of course America, if there's enough cash involved.

Re:So much for the new enlightened Russia...

[tinkerghost]

If I remember correctly, allofmp3.com was getting licenses from these "collection societies", so probably the Russian government will first close down the societies, then close down allofmp3.com.

The US has compulsory licensing also. It's part of the FCC mandates, and the prices are set by the US govt not the Music industry. The only difference is that Russia sets a much lower per instance rate than the US, and Russia also puts MP3 transfers under public performances not sales because there is no physical media transferring. If the RIAA members wanted to get paid in Russia, they should have followed the Russian rules.

Damn that WTO

[Cyberax]

Well, AoMP3 was nice while it lasted. But mostly I care about http://www.lib.ru/ - it's the best Internet library in Russia.

But we still have a hope, there's a Russian proverb: "Drastic Russian laws are softened by their loose observance". So I hope that lib.ru will continue to work 'underground'.

Re:Damn that WTO

[Antiocheian]

> That is how affairs are conducted [in Russia] ... it is worse than hell on Earth!

And how do you know that?

Re:Damn that WTO

[larytet]

... or try litportal.ru and there are a couple of others

Re:Damn that WTO

[Vadim Makarov]

Whether lib.ru will continue to operate or not, ultimately does not matter. Once a book is OCRed and put online, it is impossible to eradicate. If publishers sue, resources will just go a bit deeper where prosecution is harder to do (just like it has happened with p2p music). For example, there is an IRC cnannel for English language literature far richer than any open web library.

Anyway, I think lib.ru is to remain. It is well accepted by the whole Russian-speaking internet community, and it is a non-commercial resource. Also it has a lot of stuff published with an explicit permission. It won't be gone.

Re:Damn that WTO

[shutdown -p now]

Worry not, there are plenty of similar websites in Ukraine. I wouldn't be at all surprised if allofmp3 just moves there as well. Or maybe even to Belarus, where the US does not have any influence at all.

Re:Damn that WTO

[Cyberax]

I live in Russia :)

Polonium-210 export is more important than MP3!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good news. P2P is communism and this means Russia finally left behind the last remnants of communism. She is now a honest to god capitalist dictatorship, like Pinochet's Chile or the generals' Turkey, where enemies of the state are assasinated or mass exterminated. Progress is undeniable. As an added bonus, Russia as a member of WTO will be able to export more of Polonium-210, which is a good news to anybody who has had enough of their mother-in-law.

Crap. Any idea how long this will take?

[RLiegh]

This was too good to last; now there are no decent (note that word) outlets for unemcumbered music. Anyways, anyone have any clue how long this will take?

Re:Crap. Any idea how long this will take?

[DuncanE]

Its still working at the moment, but I suggest you clear your balances quickly.

As it happens I've decided to switch back to CD's. I like the nice packaging. I don't buy many RIAA recordings anyway - there is plenty of quality independent music out there. Plus I can rip them at a reasonable bit rate and format of my choice.

The only thing that annoys me about CD's is that its not easy to "try before you buy". Nothing worse that spending your hard earned dollars on a CD only to realise that its total crap. I wonder what the law says about returning CD's? You can walk out of a movie and get a refund right?

Go go world police

[pembo13]

The US of A, fighting back actions they do not like around the world.

Re:Go go world police

[Lumpy]

Why do I have the theme song from Team America running through my head while reading your post?

On a sadder note for russian citizens

[sylvainsf]

TFA also mentions that pharmaceutical companies can't apply to sell generics of a drug in Russia without doing all their own clinical trials and submitting that documentation. I'm guessing that previously they could just use common sense and say IT'S THE SAME MOLECULE.

Re:On a sadder note for russian citizens

[Dr_Barnowl]

Whoever modded this offtopic, shame on you. I've seen diversions in topic thread far more meandering and less relevant over the past few days.

It's an interesting opportunity to discuss the differences and similarities of the Pharmaceutical / Music business models.

Both of them provide

  * something of perceived high value
  * something where the bulk of cost in in the R&D phase
  * something with a low per-unit production cost
  * something where if the product is copied, it can be just as good as the original

Arguably, both also

  * Advertise products excessively heavily given their actual value
  * Exploit the producers of their intellectual property

The major difference is that the music industry has a consumer base where a significant fraction can copy the product themselves, whereas the pharamceutical industry only has to worry about industrial competitors in markets where their pricing levels cannot be supported.

The agreement that Russia has entered is ostensibly about clincal trial data, but given that clinical trials represent the most time consuming and costly part of the development of any drug, it is essentially about prohibiting the marketing of that drug product by a competitor. This protection appears to be distinct and seperate from the protection that may (or may not) be afforded by patents, and is liable to be imposed upon other countries seeking WTO agreements. It is in effect, using the regulatory framework of the country against them.

It could of course, be trivially circumvented by any country willing to make their certification process as simple as "the FDA approves of it, thus so shall we all".

Re:On a sadder note for russian citizens

[zoftie]

Specifics of the way things are in russia, they'd try to sell you a fake one, in myriad of ways. Starting from distributors, fabricators and even legit factory might pack less medicine in then is written on the bottle. etc etc.

Re:On a sadder note for russian citizens

[Rich0]

something where the bulk of cost in in the R&D phase

True, but the scale is a bit different.

"R&D" costs for a music artist probably amount to maybe a million dollars - and that is being VERY generous. A few hundred thousand dollars is probably closer, and they probably only spend that on bands that are pretty sure to be hits.

R&D for a drug costs about a hundred-million dollars plus - and then you have to factor in the number of drugs that don't pan out after huge investments. For each drug that does get marketed the better part of a half-billion dollars gets spent in R&D. That is a VERY large up-front investment - much larger than what you'd find being spent by a record company.

Advertise products excessively heavily given their actual value

Uh, I wouldn't say that pharmaceuticals get any more air-time on TV than any other type of product. Are razors and shampoos excessively advertised given their actual value? I'd say their value is a LOT lower, and yet they're probably just as advertised.

In the case of music I'd argue that the branding forms a substantial part of the product's value. Not all music is of equal quality, but a lot of indie bands would do just fine if they could advertise on the radio.

In the case of Pharma there is no question that advertising has an impact on whether you buy Lipitor or Crestor or Zocor, but it isn't like there are a million other pills floating around that would be just as good if they could just get some air time. Most of the value of drugs is created in the R&D and not in the branding. Now, this is discounting generic competition - atorvastatin is a valuable drug regardless of who makes it. The only real question is whether the company that came up with atorvastatin should be rewarded for having done the work, or whether companies should be encouraged to avoid R&D in favor of just becoming chemical supply houses. Obviously if you allow anybody to generically manufacture a brand new drug then most of the differentiating value will come from the advertising. However, the danger in this approach is that it eliminates the incentive to actually research new drugs - who would buy pills for $5 when you could get them for 5 cents? And who would come up with a new drug if it would cost $2-3 per pill to recoup the investment - it wouldn't take generic manufacturers more than a few months to flood the market with cheap copies, and insurance companies would just wait until then before paying for the drug at all.

Exploit the producers of their intellectual property

Not quite sure what you mean here regarding pharma. Most drug researchers are very well paid, and drug R&D is actually a fairly competitive field (just look at all the biotech companies that had their roots in entrepenurial scientists working on shoe-string budgets to come up with drugs that they could license out). Often when people complain about "stolen IP" they are referring to companies reaping the benefits of public R&D, but most drugs that can trace their roots to some concept that came from the NIH still have hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, and most NIH-originated concepts never pan out (at least not on the first try). So, companies still have to spend a lot of money developing drugs. Now, if the NIH came up with a concept, a molecule, and some clinical results for the molecule then I'd argue a company patenting that molecule would be getting a free lunch, but usually what they're getting is pretty blue-sky and most of it doesn't pan out (despite costing quite a bit before this is discovered).

Western civ, we hardly knew ye...

[pla]

Russia has agreed to close down AllofMP3.com, and any sites that 'permit illegal distribution of music and other copyright works.'

One of the most significant contributions to human rights in all of human history came from Hammurabi - The concept of a written code of laws, which everyone could know and which applied equally to all people, thus making "justice" less subject to the biases of the king / emperor / caliph / whatever. He may not have quite lived up to that ideal, but as a basis for all modern reasonably-fair legal systems, it forms a cornerstone on which we've built everything since.

AllOfMP3, whether the RIAA like it or not, operated within Russian law (or at least, they did so until this past September). Whether or not the new law closes the "loophole" (if you can call strong fair-use rights and lax copyright enforcement by-design a "loophole") will have to wait for the Russian authorities to make a case against someone.

Either way, to announce the closing of AllOfMP3 as practically the basis of an international trade agreement strikes me as the most capricious undermining of the concept of modern jurisprudence imagineable. This announcement effectively says "The rule of law does not apply to the king's friends, and its protections do not extend to the king's friends' enemies".

Buildings do not remain standing very long if you undermine their foundations. This should chill us all for a much, MUCH deeper reason than merely the loss of a way to get cheap music. I personally never even used AllOfMP3, and this scares the hell out of me. Imagine the same precedent applied, 20 years or so from now, to the US trying to get some economic favor from China...

Re:Western civ, we hardly knew ye...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

This announcement effectively says "The rule of law does not apply to the king's friends, and its protections do not extend to the king's friends' enemies".

Never forget the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules.".

Piracy in Russia?!?

[skeldoy]

Well.. When I last visited Russia I saw ONE STORE that sold unpirated cds/dvds. I am only guesstimating here, but I would say about 30 stores selling pirated stuff. Even if Russia cracks down on one site, that will mean nothing for the black marked of pirated music. And *nothing* on a global scale, there being enough people interested in starting up a site for distributing music/movies in a "user-oriented" manner.

Re:Piracy in Russia?!?

[binary_ftw]

The big difference here is that AllOfMp3 was a _legal_ service in lots of countries (more like _technically_ legal). In fact the minister with responsibilities for copyright in Denmark gave their local RIIA equivalent a _severe_ public talking to, when the industry rep had claimed that users of that site were breaking the law to the media. Fun but true.

Now legal piracy's only for the russians again..

How about court decision?

[SolitaryMan]

agreement between the U.S. and Russia in which Russia has agreed to close down AllofMP3.com [CC]

Excuse me, but when such decisions became governments' jurisdiction? Doesn't this require some investigation and then court decision? We are not even trying to _play_ democracy anymore, are we?

Re:How about court decision?

[SkoZombie]

Governments are no longer about the will of the people, but the will of the corporations.

Re:How about court decision?

[GauteL]

Putin's Russia is hardly a democracy and anyone paying attention would have known this for quite some time.

If you think THIS is bad, you ought to read up on all the seemingly government ordered assasinations of people opposed to Putin recently. There has been a series of high profile murders. The lesson being that "thou shalt not oppose Putin".

Re:How about court decision?

[SolitaryMan]

Putin's Russia is hardly a democracy and anyone paying attention would have known this for quite some time. If you think THIS is bad, you ought to read up on all the seemingly government ordered assasinations of people opposed to Putin recently. There has been a series of high profile murders. The lesson being that "thou shalt not oppose Putin".

Well, I live in Russia, so I'm aware of this.

Strictly speaking, none of the "high profile murders" has been proven to have anything to do with Putin or his fellows(whether or not it is true is the matter of another discussion). Mr. Khodorkovski (Yukos Oil CEO) and some other opposing businessmen have been sent to prison through _court_. So formally everything is ok. (Playing democracy)

This agreement, however, involves other country, (namely US) and it clearly states, that "Russia has to invent the law that will make allofmp3.com's existance illegal."

Re:How about court decision?

[Alsee]

We are not even trying to _play_ democracy anymore, are we?

You must have missed the memo, it's spelled D-E-M-O-C-R-A-$-Y now.

-

Democracy

[Sub Zero 992]

I was going to write a post critizing the Russian government's ability to mug, steal, kill and rob at will.

But really, Russia is no worse than the USA, thanks to global hegemony induced TRIPS.

I'll be sad to see it go

[Genocaust]

I loved Allofmp3.com :(. I've paid to download so much nice DRM-free music from there, especially older works that are near impossible to find anyplace legal or otherwise. Guess I best burn through my remaining credit fast!

Re:I'll be sad to see it go

[xtracto]

I loved allofmp3 too, I always got credit from xrost (via debit card when it was possible) however the last time I wanted to buy the Xrost service did not accept CC so I could not buy (I did not want to give my CC details to whatever other company they where using.. even if the Debit card I used is one I have specifically to buy things on the interent [thus I only add funds accordingly]).

I always downloaded in ogg 0.7 and I found the quality pretty fine. I loved the fact that just 2 mintues after I remembered a specific song I could have it in my desktop without any problem. And of course the price in my opinion was fair.

Now, I hope that, the fact that the government signed an agreement wont mean it will be able to shut it down so easly. I really wish Allofmp3 people fight for their rights (in Russia). I also remember getting into other mp3 sites from russia sometime I was searching in google... so allofmp3 is not the only one (and there are other sites that have a lot of anime mp3s).

I like buying CDs, but I have not bought one in the last 2 years or so, since I arrived to UK because I refuse to pay £15 (thats US$29.2274 according to xe.com) for a CD which real value is USD$15 (Kamelot Hlack Halo amazon.com vs amazon.co.uk prices). And I would never "lease" music with the iTunes, Napster or any other "legal" online services available (ignoring the fact that the quality, at 128kpbs is terrible).

So yeah, I really hope Allofmp3 can stand. Also, does anyone know of a country where the ALLOFMP3 buisness model could be used? maybe Iceland or any other of those countries.

How much does an Island cost? we could buy one to make our own country and screw all copyright laws... then create a service ala allofmp3 =oP. Viva la revolución!!

Re:I'll be sad to see it go

[Peet42]

Yup. I used it as a reasonably-priced alternative to ripping all the vinyl that I already own - I don't see why I should have to pay the RIAA and their stooges a fortune just because I want to change the media I listen to my music on.

it might sound strange

[joe 155]

but I hope that they don't try and give people their money back automatically, I have about 5cents on the site and if they put it back in my account I'll get charged about £1.50 for it to go back in, which will annoy me no end. I don't want a few cents back, they can happily keep them. I only worry because they did say in their agreement that they would should the site stop opperating.

Damn exchange rates!

The Government of RIAA strikes again...

[Soloact]

,... also, what's with these "agencies" of the RIAA and MPAA? They don't want to allow fair-use copying of digital media, yet, when a movie comes out on DVD, or an advertised CD is released, all of the commercials say, "Own it today". This should be considered false advertising, because one doesn't actually "own" the movie or music one buys, despite the commercials. I continue to be disgusted by their tactics.

Re:The Government of RIAA strikes again...

[slaida1]

And, how can you go anywhere in a city without being bombarded with new hit music constantly and with replays? Forced advertising?

If you hear something good, you likely want to hear it again, don't you? How could one prevent himself from hearing music ads without crippling his ability to interact with rest of the world severely with earmuffs.

Music is so essential part of our being that it's screaming travesty to let only people who do it for money to cover magazines and show on tv and play in radio. They have nothing new to say, they don't make art, they make money. Music awards aren't about music, they are about good looking idols patting each others' backs.

Is it surprise that people strange to each other often inquire others' favorite music? Shouldn't the fact that so many big gatherings have music give a hint that music is not just any commodity and it can't be advertized, sold, pushed like soap or cars? Music is special because it's a from of communication, it's a common language and music industry has muddied the waters with constant push of meaningless garbage that doesn't communicate.

Look some parts of world where music still is everyones' right and language to make new friends and tell stories. Not this sick convoluted money grabbing scheme where music is no longer born, it's produced. /morpheus:off

MOD PARENT UP

[SolitaryMan]

If I didn't already post in this discussion, you'd have my modpoint.

My allofmp3 account

[NoGuffCheck]

Well i just went and spent the last $5.15 that was outstanding in my account. Now if I here they are going to move the operation to another country and continue to trade as they have been (or for that matter stand and fight), I may just be tempted to put another $50 in my account as im sure they could use the cash for the move.. fingers crossed i guess.. I use their service a lot and guess what I dont have a problem paying a for music, i just believe allofmp3 is closer to a fair price that itunes et al.

Oh no!

[SendBot]

I just bought $40 of credit there!

To, um... buy copies of music I have on LP and lack the means to digitize. Yeah...

In Soviet Russia...

[suparjerk]

... song pirates you!

Get it while you can

[Anonymous User 2000]

Russia has until June 1st, 2007 to come into compliance, according to TFA.

Don't panic!

[Captain Kirk]

From TFA "The government will be expected to begin complying by June 1, 2007."

In other words, no need to rush to use up any credit you have bought - we have 7 months before they begin complying. And given how fast legal process work in Russia, we are most likely looking at 2008 before things get serious.

Re:Don't panic!

[QuebecNerd]

Crap, I paniqued and ate my 15$ credit all at once when I saw it was still working before reading the article. Call me a premature downloader...

Just like Aljazeera

[WindBourne]

What amazes me is that allofmp3 is being shutdown due to selling to Americans. It is not that they are selling "illegal" or cheap music.

This is akin to American Gov's interest in Aljazeera. Roughly, they come down hard on it whenever they put Al Qaeda info on the English side. Interestingly, they do not mind if the info is on the main arabic site. I have seen what appears to be OBL tapes on the Arabic site, but once it is translated into English, then it gets stopped.

Re:Just like Aljazeera

[b0s0z0ku]

I have seen what appears to be OBL tapes on the Arabic site, but once it is translated into English, then it gets stopped.

As long as it's an accurate translation, OBL should be able to speak to the West. The first rule of war is "know thine enemy."

-b.

Re:Just like Aljazeera

[WindBourne]

I agree. I find it interesting that the NSA would actually block it for a while. Far better to allow this info in and then allow ppl to know what we are up against.

While I am very against W's war in Iraq (just a greedy oil grab), OBL and Afghanastan is a very different issue. If you read through his stuff, you realize that this is one dedicated and bright individual (sadly, much more so than W.). I think the ex-CIA guy got it right (in order to get OBL, we have to know him and even admire him for what he is; then kill him for the threat that he is).

funny enough, he is still a threat. My sister works for American West (now US airways) in mesa. She was there and knows the ppl involved with the Muslim deal. What is interesting is that 6 guys Muslims go on there, all claiming to not know one another, 1 claimed to be blind, wore black glasses but was not blind, all acted like they did not know each other (but casual watching showed that they had subtile interactions with each other and afterwards they admitted that they knew each other), sat in different places in the plane (2 in first, 2 in the rear, one over each wing) at their request. All in all, US airways will get in trouble over this, but it would appear that it was a practice run. I am guessing that they are trying to desensitize the system for the real attack. Sadly, that will be used as the reason for moving America to a military junta (with corresponding suspension of congress and all of our rights).

New name?

[xenobyte]

If the allegations about not paying for the music are correct, the people behind AllOfMP3 must have made a profit beyond belief. Sure some fund have gone to pay for servers, hosting and staff, plus some bribes I'm sure, but there must still be an enormous profit that must have made the owners incredibly rich. And if you are rich in Russia (and not on the Polonium 210 recipient waiting list) you can get away with everything, including simply moving the entire business elsewhere. So it must be just a matter of finding out what the new name will be and start shopping again.

The real troublesome issue here is that we again have seen the US bullying another nation into line, closely aided by (MP/RI)AA. We saw it with the highly illegal raid on The Pirate Bay in Sweden which was the result of government level pressure and thus a conflict between the separated powers (trias politica). We see the same here because there has been no trial against AllOfMP3 and thus their legality has not been questioned the proper way. That is the real thing that must be stopped.

Re:New name?

[James McGuigan]

Now how long until allofmp3.com starts getting hosted out of the principality of sealand

Re:New name?

[OverlordQ]

Probably not any time soon since they're still rebuilding after the fire

Re:New name?

[Alsee]

If the allegations about not paying for the music are correct

AllOfMP3.com is following Russian law which in fact imposes about DOUBLE the royalty payments for sending MP3s that the US C.A.R.P. imposes on companies sending the exact same MP3. Pandora.com for example sends you MP3s under US law, and Pandora.com pays 0.7 cents per song sent, as set by US law. (While Pandora plays, the songs the MP3 files end up in your TEMP directory with the name ACCESS-## and no file extention, just grab the file and rename it to SongName.MP3.)

Yep, US law says that US companies are permitted to send MP3s of songs by Russian copyright holders without the permission of those Russian copyright holders, just like Russian law does. US law mandates those fees be collected by a government collection body to be distributed to rights holders, just like US law does. And the Russian fees work out about DOUBLE the US fees.

How are US and Russian law different? US law tries to force the downloads to resemble a "radio" rather than a "store", for example if you request a specific song they can't send that particular download for at least an hour. US law also says they can't send more than three songs by the same artist in an hour, and a few other similar minor quirk restrictions. But they are still sending MP3 downloads, and you can still request the song you want, and they a licencing fee per download.

So there are some details different in Russian law, but nothing that can possibly validate the bullshit claims the RIAA is making. The RIAA is bitching that AllOfMP3.com is sending the music without RIAA permission. Well so what? Pandoa.com is sending RIAA music and Russian music under US statutory licencing without copyightholder permission. The complaint is bull, statutory licencing is 100% legitimate and is done by US law as well. Their bitching about piracy and illegal sales is pure lies.

Ahh.. but what about your original question... the RIAA allegations that the RIAA is not getting paid? This one is a real hoot!

You know WHY the RIAA is not getting paid? Because they REFUSE to accept the money.

Yes, you read that right. I'm serious. The RIAA is willfully refusing to accept the payments. The Russian collections body is collecting and distributing licencing fees, just as the virtually identical US collections body is colelcting and distributing licencing fees in the US. The RIAA simply dislikes some details of Russian law and therefore refuse to participate and refuse to accept the payments (payments that are about about DOUBLE those set by US law).

To be honest I'd say that the Russian licencing fees should probably be a bit higher, the downloads can and are offered in an easier "store" model rather than under the rediculous US restrictions trying to force downloads to resemble a "radio". The RIAA is worried about control, they want to impose DRM on all music sales. (The RIAA are desperately trying to "fix" the fact that US law permits internet radio to send non-DRM downloads.) The RIAA is lying their asses off to demonize anything they dislike, to convince legislators and apparantly now US foriegn policy to give them anything and everything they want. All to combat the evil pirates.... while they decline to accept the legitimate licencing fees for legitimate downloads.

-

Re:New name?

[Alsee]

Oops, I just wrote the last reply to you a moment ago, but I forgot something...

here has been no trial against AllOfMP3 and thus their legality has not been questioned the proper way.

Actually the RIAA long ago raised a fuss over and did in fact get the Russian government to investigate the legality of AllOfMP3.com. (Perhaps it even happened twice?) The government conclusion was that AllOfMP3.com was indeed operating fully within the law.

So yeah, AllOfMP3.com was questioned in the proper way.

I've seen some Slashdotters dismiss that investigation and the "clean bill of heath" as curruption by the Russian government, but that allegation comes from people who hate AllOfMP3.com anyway. I have never seen any news source even hint at such a charge.

-

Re:New name?

[Alsee]

Oops, another thing. I need to correct an error I made.

I stated that US law sets a 0.7 cent royalty on MP3 transfers (for Pandora.cod for example), and I claimed that Russian law payments work out to about double the US law payment rate. That was incorrect. The US law rate is actually 0.07 cent per song. That makes the Russian AllOfMP3.com payment rate about 20 times higher than the US Pandora.com payent rate.

-

Credible?

[Lonewolf666]

The official document does indeed read like the Russians caved in on all fronts. To an extent where I wonder if it is telling the whole truth. Russia is still a considerable power and I don't think they need to suck up everything the US is telling them.
Maybe the US government is just spreading propaganda here??

Re:Credible?

[Fred_A]

Russia is still a considerable power and I don't think they need to suck up everything the US is telling them.

Everyone says it is but is Russia actually a considerable power ? It has leverage against Europe because of its natural gas and oil reserves but is it really a power as such ? Are there any workable industrial infrastructures ? Financial infrastructures (other than money laundering) ?

From the little that filters out of the dictatorship, it seems to be as much of a mess (a different one though) as it was during the communist era (which is quite an achievement). Most of what works seems to be run through the various mafia groups. The state structure is all but gone in most places, infrastructures range from flakey to nonexistent... Is that what it takes to be a "considerable power" nowadays ?

Possible effects

[Vadim Makarov]

I'm in Russia, and I am an avid and price-sensitive media consumer. So let me make a prognosis.

1. Allofmp3.com will be closed, law or not, if the top of the government, i.e. Putin personally, orders it. Our government regularly follows such orders regardless of the law (by the way I'm not happy at all with it). The question is if Putin finds it fitting to "bow to the demands" of a foreign state, which I hope he will not, for the national pride reasons.

2. A slower solution that would satisfy the U.S. in the internet trade would be changing our Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. Here it depends on the Duma, which I think will not act on this without a request from the executive branch (see above). (Even given such a request, Duma may decide to refuse to bow to external demands, or simply not see it a high priority in their lawmaking.)

3. "Keeping raids at the same level" is not going to stop domestic sale of unlicensed disks. I often hear staff of media outlets complaining about raids and mass confiscations of their stock, but all that it has achieved by now is intermittent supply of some quality DVD copies (like DVD-9 of obscure titles), and somewhat higher prices (at most +50%).

Re:Possible effects

[binary_ftw]

One phrase i really miss from political analysis of USA; "for national pride reasons". Anyways, are there more people than me just finding this a little bit funny regarding the timing of this, and the polonium-stunt they pulled in London?

Re:Possible effects

[Vadim Makarov]

By national pride, I mean Russian national pride: "Bow to the demands of the Yankees? Never!" (Yup, we still need WTO. So we'd give you the absolute minimum, lip service if possible, until we are there.)

Polonium poisoning, IF it is what it appears to be to me, is a public reminder to all KGB (FSB, whatever) employees: you don't defact and go deriding the service unpunished. If you don't like this sort of a (de facto) contract, don't join the Russian security service. Or, at least, live silently if you choose to leave the service mid-way.

Goodbye allofmp3.com

[Frogbert]

Hello allofmp3.kz, or allofmp3.vu, or even allofmp3.va

That last one would be great, I doubt even the US would have the balls to go after that government.

Re:Goodbye allofmp3.com

[bjackson1]

'All I am saying is that there is a lot of room for WMDs in those basilicas...ehh I think that pointy looking thing outside of St. Peter's looks like a missile, either that or an ob-el-isk... I'm giving the go-ahead order' -President George W. Bush, last day in office.

Re:Goodbye allofmp3.com

[tehcyder]

... allofmp3.va

That last one would be great, I doubt even the US would have the balls to go after that government.

Yes, I'm sure the Pope would have no qualms about hosting a legally dubious music website.

Oh, well

[Petrushka]

Oh, well. Back to P2P I guess. Shame. It was nice being legal.

Re:Oh, well

[Uninvited Guest]

Allofmp3.com works under rules similar to radio stations in the USA. Every time you purchase music at Allofmp3, they encode it on the fly each time, effectively broadcasting it to you over the Internet. Instead of paying per copy royalties to something like the RIAA, Allofmp3.com pays performance royalties to something like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. The IFPI (the international equivalent of the USA's RIAA) is also considered with actual copies (not broadcasting or performances), and it finds the way allofmp3.com works unacceptable. Whether allofmp3 is making copies or broadcasting performances is a legal distinction that's not well established in Russia.

AllOfMP3's Response

[aarku]

In a press released issued just now, AllOfMp3.com replied, "No, AllOfMp3 agrees to shut down Russia."

Re:AllOfMP3's Response

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

In Russia, AllofMP3 shuts down you?

Weird

[ishmaelflood]

That's a weird point of view.

If allofmp3 charges 30c for a track, and iTunes charges 99c, do you really believe the artiste sees 69c? More like 3c, at a rough guess. I wish allofmp3 had set up a fund to pay the artiste via a VOLUNTARY donation equivalent to whatever pittance they normally get from a track.

Re:Weird

[BlueStrat]

I wish allofmp3 had set up a fund to pay the artiste via a VOLUNTARY donation equivalent to whatever pittance they normally get from a track.

I doubt that the RIAA-affiliate labels would allow the arists they "own" to receive any such payments, even if they were purely voluntary. The RIAA and the labels already had the option to be paid by the Russian copyrights organisation that collected those fees, and refused.

It's not about being payed for the RIAA/labels, it's about being in _total control_ of the distribution, including setting retail prices and in which formats and in what media the content is available, as well as how and by whom the artists may be paid. That ability to control is what is being threatened in the digital/internet age, and is why you see the RIAA (and MPAA) reacting in the ways they do.

I would argue that even if the RIAA got _more_ money from the Russian copyrights agency than they get from the western equivalents, they still would refuse it, if it didn't allow at least equal controls over distribution and artist compensation that they enjoy in the west.

If any RIAA-affiliated artist attempted to collect any of the money due them from the Russian copyrights agency, I'm certain they'd be litigated straight into the poorhouse. It wouldn't even surprise me if the RIAA lawyers went after any *NON*-RIAA affiliated artist that attempted to collect from the Russian copyrights agency, just to make an example of them, even if they knew they'd lose in court. Which, given the state of the U.S. legal system, is not a given.

It's all about maintaining control at any cost, as changing times and technologies make their current business model obsolete.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Weird

[grimJester]

It's not about being payed for the RIAA/labels, it's about being in _total control_ of the distribution, including setting retail prices and in which formats and in what media the content is available, as well as how and by whom the artists may be paid.

The RIAA represents the copyright holders, i.e. the labels - they are the ones who get paid. Only the label an artist is signed to pays that artist.

I wish people would leave the artist out of the discussion. What the artist gets paid has _nothing_ to do with copyright; that's down to what kind of contract the artist has with a label.

In RIAA-USA

[tommten]

the music downloads you!

Now where will I be able to purchase good (and drm-free)russian music, like ?

Re:In RIAA-USA

[tommten]

and of course ceryllic text is not accepted in plain text posts :)

The line should have been:
Now where will I be able to purchase good (and drm-free) russian music, like Diskoteka Avaria?

AoMP3 *did* pay

[DrYak]

As I understood it, the artists never earned a penny from sales through this site

AllofMP3.com did pay money to the local state copyright licensing organisation, as required by Russian law.
(Per Russian law, if you want to broadcast music, all you have to do is to pay that organisation. Which will, in turn take care of sending the money were it's due).
The problem is not at the level of AllofMp3.com. The problem is in the next step : that organisation then in turn paid the money only to local band and other cultural events.
That's because, as other /. pointed in this thread, the western artists aren't registered at the Russian copyright organisation. Neither are there arrangement between the Russian organisation and foreign counterparts.

By shutting down the AllOfMP3.com site, the USA doesn't solve the root problem. They only hide one of the most visible manifestation of the phenomenon.
Nothing technically forbids another company to set up a similar service elsewere (say, a website that sells audio albums in FLAC DRM-less format, and uses international bank-2-bank money transfers as payment). As long as they follow Russian law and pay the money they're supposed to pay to the local copyright company, they won't be illegal.

The real solution would be to find an arrangement between western artists and Russia. But that's highly unlikely, mostly because those artist have signed exclusive rights with the western companies. There for the only possible arrangement is between Russian an western companies. And that's something Russia doesn't want because probably the **AA, IFPI, etc. are going to ask for way too much money and nothing will be left for local projects. That's something Russia want to avoid. Therefor the current solution is what they find best as a way to earn an entry to the WTO.

Be sure to see more AllOfMP3.com clones to appear and go unharmed once the Russia has secured its place within the WTO.

(The Wikipedia article has more detailed informations about the problem)

Re:AoMP3 *did* pay

[emil10001]

I wonder why allofmp3.com is being shut down as opposed to being allowed to come into complacence. Ok, so I don't wonder, it just pisses me off. Still, it doesn't make any logical sense that they are simply shut down for this - they were following the law of their country, and they weren't breaking any US laws by allowing downloads from this country. And since the IFPI wasn't dealing with them, what else were they supposed to do? Shouldn't the changes happen at the ROMS level and then filter down to allofmp3?

Although, I guess it makes sense if you don't use any logic...

Offtopic

[temcat]

Hi Vadim! So you read Slashdot too. Would be nice to talk offline ;-)

Re:Offtopic

[Vadim Makarov]

Why not, if you hint at your real identity.

Re:Offtopic

[temcat]

Uhm, sorry - Artem Vakhitov here :-)

Re:Offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

group hug! *hump*

Re:Offtopic

[Vadim Makarov]

Just to explain this private exchange (sorry for a disclosure), this is a former student of my professor (well, a student of mine, too) who once chose to be a guitar player in Russia over taking a PhD in quantum optics. We could of course wonder what he thinks of allofmp3.com from a musician's position.

We haven't heard of you a while. Artem, I'd be glad if you contact me.

Re:Offtopic

[Vadim Makarov]

P.S. I can't find your contact info, so mail me your phone number please.

Re:Offtopic

[temcat]

We could of course wonder what he thinks of allofmp3.com from a musician's position.

More relevant question would be about one's opinion on the present copyright regime in Russia, since AllOfMp3.com seems to have been operating in accordance with Russian copyright laws. I personally think that this "lax" regime (explained in sufficient detail on http://www.allofmp3.com/press/centre.shtml?s=993&d =18191974) may be appropriate, but not from the moment of creation of an artistic work. I'm for a relatively short period (say, 10 years) of strict enforcement of a limited set of rights (that can restrict only distribution to others, but not any usage), followed by a relatively long period (say, 50 years) of lax enforcement similar to the one we have in current legislation (which will be soon superceded by the IV part of Civil Code).

We haven't heard of you a while. Artem, I'd be glad if you contact me.

Yep, I will.

They should sue.

[DrYak]

Whack-a-mole's creator - Aaron Fetcher - should sue the RIAA and MPAA because their business model infringes his game model.

(That would be fun. The bad the Fetcher didn't acually patent his invention...)

Nothing unusual is happening here.

[Narcogen]

AllOfMP3, whether the RIAA like it or not, operated within Russian law (or at least, they did so until this past September). Whether or not the new law closes the "loophole" (if you can call strong fair-use rights and lax copyright enforcement by-design a "loophole") will have to wait for the Russian authorities to make a case against someone.

People can repeat that site's FUD ad infinitum if they like, but it cannot make falsehood into the truth.

AllofMP3's rights derived from a Soviet government asserted right to any and all intellectual property being broadcast within the Soviet Union. That the Soviet government had no such rights to distribute intellectual properties from the holders of those properties was irrelevant to the Soviet government. The only intellectual property rights they were interested in were those of the state's. Anything the state produced or condoned was fine, and rights to those were distributed (if needed) by the state. Intellectual property that was not condoned was forbidden, and rights to those were irrelevant.

Any western films and music that were not officially allowed were prohibited, and any copies of them that might exist were contraband.

With the opening of Russia to the West and the collapse of the Soviet Union, western media were not so tightly controlled. However, the state still had agencies within it granted sweeping rights to control intellectual property anywhere within the Russian Federation, regardless of the fact that the government was no longer the sole source of all those rights.

When you watch a movie, the warning says that the intellectual property is protected by local laws and international agreements. The only way that companies who deal in intellectual property are willing to set up shop overseas and officially distribute their wares is if they know there are not just local laws, but international agreements in place so their rights can be protected.

Allofmp3 can have whatever rights it wants given to them by the Russian government, but the fact of the matter is, the Russian government did not have the authority to give the site those rights because it didn't have them. You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties.

Or, rather, you can, but as Russia has finally come to grips with, you cannot have a situation like this and enter into trade organizations like WTO.

Either way, to announce the closing of AllOfMP3 as practically the basis of an international trade agreement strikes me as the most capricious undermining of the concept of modern jurisprudence imagineable. This announcement effectively says "The rule of law does not apply to the king's friends, and its protections do not extend to the king's friends' enemies".

You have grossly misunderstood the situation.

The only concept that is being underscored here is the universal concept that international agreements supersede local laws. If the duly designated representative or representatives of a government of a country have entered into international agreements that state that the producers of intellectual properties from outside that country's borders will be respected within that country's borders, then other elements of that government, such as the legislature, cannot supersede that arrangement.

Rights granted to AllofMP3 were null an void because the government agency granting them did not have the authority to; and now, Russia has signed an international agreement that does nothing more than recognize that fact.

Buildings do not remain standing very long if you undermine their foundations. This should chill us all for a much, MUCH deeper reason than merely the loss of a way to get cheap music. I personally never even used AllOfMP3, and this scares the hell out of me. Imagine the same pr

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[Dunbal]

You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties.

      Yes you can. It's called sovereignty. If you don't like it your options are a) destroy that country's government by beating their army with your army or b) convince that government through incentives and international agreements to modify or eliminate that law.

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[Hatta]

AllofMP3's rights derived from a Soviet government asserted right to any and all intellectual property being broadcast within the Soviet Union. That the Soviet government had no such rights to distribute intellectual properties from the holders of those properties was irrelevant to the Soviet government.

It didn't need them. Copyright is an invented right that only exists because laws are in place to protect it. If the Soviet Union had no such laws, then there were no rights being violated. Copyright is not something fundamental like freedom of religion, only an expedient.

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[tinkerghost]

Allofmp3 can have whatever rights it wants given to them by the Russian government, but the fact of the matter is, the Russian government did not have the authority to give the site those rights because it didn't have them. You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties.

Actually the WTO has provisions for doing exactly that. Talk to Antigua, they are contemplating petitioning the WTO for exactly that right in retaliation for the US banning of international online gambling.
The thing you forget is that by default all ideas, inventions, and performances belong to the public domain and will eventually be there. All forms of IP are artificial constructs which are supposed to be contracts between the creator and society - as represented by the government - to encourage the growth of that body of public domain works. There is no natural right to own an idea. It is perfectly acceptable for different countries, and therefor societies, to determine that someone else's contract is not suitable for their society.
Moreover, your argument doesn't reflect the facts. Russian law says that the artists must be compensated - at a rate set by the Russian Govt - and that the way to receive your share of the compensation is to go through ROMS. It's no different than the way the US handles compulsory licensing for public performances - there are 2 or 3 agencies that collect funds & disperse them to their members based on performance records and at a rate determined by the Library of Congress. If you do not belong to one of these agencies, you don't get paid. Because no physical media changes hands, the Russian law determines any digital audio transfer over the internet to be a performance. US law determines only streamed audio to be a performance. Given the proliferation of programs which convert streams to MP3's I think the Russian approach is much more practical and reflective of the reality of the situation.

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[xtracto]

You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties.

You certainly are from the USA aren't you? always thinking you are alone in the universe...Of course any country can make any law they want. It is called sovereignty (the exclusive right to exercise supreme political e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself.). It is what countries can do. It is possible for a country not to havy any "copyright" or "patent" laws hence all the "intellectual property" would be property of the people (public domain). Of course, that will not make happy to countries like USA but that does not mean it is illegal or whatever.

Remember, legality is a concept defined at every country, what is legal in USA might not be legal in Durkadurkastan and viceversa. Morality is similar as, what is moral in usa (like women showing their hair to everyone or brazilian women showing their breasts to everyone) might no be moral in other places.

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[emil10001]

That's all well and good that Russia had bad intellectual property laws, and licensing practices, and they would like to fix those practices and laws in order to enter the WTO. The problem here is that they are, instead of trying to work with allofmp3.com, trying to shut it down. Allofmp3.com was doing what it needed to do by getting licensing from ROMS, and since in Russia, that is the entity that gives the licensing, why is the problem with allofmp3.com and not with ROMS? When ROMS changes how it does business, and plays nice with the international recording organization, shouldn't allofmp3.com be given the fair and proper chance to obtain a new license?

If you are following the laws of the country, and the international bodies deem your country's laws to be bad, shouldn't you have the opportunity to change your behaviors to be in compliance with the law? or should you simply be tossed in jail?

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[Gonarat]

The original poster is correct -- in a certain way. Russia cannot pass whatever laws it wants if it wants to be part of the international community. In this case, the Russian government has determined that joining the WTO better serves the country than allowing allofmp3.com to continue selling music. Since they have to play by the WTO's rules to play, that is what they decided to do. There are many talented people in Russia, and I'm sure that played a part in the decision along with other economic benefits. There was also a little arm twisting going on, but even though Russia may not be the 800 lb. gorilla that the Soviet Union was back in the day, it still is a fairly large gorilla and could have fought back if wanted to.

This is one lesson I fear that the U.S. is going to have to learn in the (near?) future. We may be the only 800 lb. gorilla right now, but other gorillas (China, the E.U.) are getting bigger by the day, and who says the U.S. will remain as big as it is now? In the end, no nation can afford to be isolated too long. Russia chose to play nicely instead of being a bully.

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[I'm Don Giovanni]

You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties.

Yes you can. It's called sovereignty. If you don't like it your options are a) destroy that country's government by beating their army with your army or b) convince that government through incentives and international agreements to modify or eliminate that law.

You must have skipped the line of the GP's post that immediately followed what you quoted: "Or, rather, you can, but as Russia has finally come to grips with, you cannot have a situation like this and enter into trade organizations like WTO." So you essentially have the same position as the GP.

Countries have sovereignty, but voluntarily give up some of that when entering into treaties (such as trade agreements). Even the US Constitution has a section saying, "International treaties entered into by the government are the supreme laws of the land" (not an exact quote). When you enter into a treaty, the treaty's "laws" trump your own. And it has to be that way, otherwise treaties would never work.

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[chazzf]

From Wikisource:

Article 6:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[Narcogen]

All you did was cut off my following comment and insert your own version of it.

I said a country CAN pass such laws, but if said country wants to join an organization like WTO, they are going to be asked to change them.

They did, and they have. Sovereignty has limits. You can do whatever you want within your own territory, but you can't expect everybody else to be happy about it all the time. And when they aren't happy about it, and you want something from them, then a negotiation begins.

What I objected to was the idea in the parent that such a negotiation somehow undermines the worldwide system of jurisprudence. It does not. It is a fairly well-established part of that system.

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[Narcogen]

Actually although I am originally from the States I have lived in the former Soviet Union for the past seven years.

Just like the user above, you've removed my following comment and inserted your own version. Considering national sovereignty to be carte blanche to do whatever you like is fine if you're willing to live completely outside any international community.

That includes membership in organizations like WTO, which includes countries like the U.S. The U.S. handles intellectual property differently than the Soviet Union did and differently than the Russian Federation does now. As a member of the WTO, the US is saying that if Russia wants the benefits of membership in the WTO, then it wants the intellectual property rights of US companies protected the same way in Russia as they are in the US.

If Russia doesn't care enough about WTO membership to do so, then they are free to get up from the table, and there is no shortage of pundits who think they should do exactly that.

Sovereignty is not being undermined here, at least not in any way that is fundamentally different from the influence that any sovereign state or group of sovereign states exercises on any other sovereign state during the normal course of trade relations.

  Russia is being induced to change itself in order to get something it wants.

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[Narcogen]

Actually the WTO has provisions for doing exactly that. Talk to Antigua, they are contemplating petitioning the WTO for exactly that right in retaliation for the US banning of international online gambling.

Applicants petition for all kinds of things. They don't always get them. In this case, there's really little relation between the two items. It's a negotiation tactic.

The thing you forget is that by default all ideas, inventions, and performances belong to the public domain and will eventually be there. All forms of IP are artificial constructs which are supposed to be contracts between the creator and society - as represented by the government - to encourage the growth of that body of public domain works.

One might as well say that the idea of personal property is also an artificial construct. That doesn't make it any less valid among parties that agree to honor it. What is happening here is that a party which does not treat IP rights the same way is being urged to in exchange for membership in WTO.

There is no natural right to own an idea. It is perfectly acceptable for different countries, and therefor societies, to determine that someone else's contract is not suitable for their society.

This is true but outside the scope of the discussion. If Russia did not wish to join WTO, there would be no issue, although doubtless US companies would eventually raise the issue in some other context, perhaps by opening local offices, taking local companies to court, and petitioning various groups for legislative reform favorable to their position.

It is not necessary for such a natural right to exist for the US or other WTO member states to urge Russia to respect their arbitrarily agreed-to rights as a condition for membership. It is merely a quid pro quo.

Moreover, your argument doesn't reflect the facts. Russian law says that the artists must be compensated - at a rate set by the Russian Govt - and that the way to receive your share of the compensation is to go through ROMS. It's no different than the way the US handles compulsory licensing for public performances - there are 2 or 3 agencies that collect funds & disperse them to their members based on performance records and at a rate determined by the Library of Congress. If you do not belong to one of these agencies, you don't get paid. Because no physical media changes hands, the Russian law determines any digital audio transfer over the internet to be a performance. US law determines only streamed audio to be a performance. Given the proliferation of programs which convert streams to MP3's I think the Russian approach is much more practical and reflective of the reality of the situation.

I'm not sure which of the facts my argument doesn't reflect. I've acknowledged that the Russian law allowed for the site's activity. I never stated that AllofMP3 was illegal under Russian law prior to September. However, there are a number of important points:

Copyright holders outside the US may see no need to join membership organizations in each sovereign state in the world in order to defend their rights. They would not want to set a precedent for doing so, so joining ROMS is probably not an attractive option. It may not even be possible for them to join ROMS. Even so, the value proposition for what they would be paid for performances through ROMS is probably not attractive at all.

The reality of the law which treats MP3s as performances strikes me as incredibly impractical, not to mention disingenuous. There is a distinction between a performance and a recording. That technology now allows that distinction to be blurred by the existence of streaming MP3s makes that distinction harder to see, but not impossible.

That the companies don't MP3s treated in a radio performance model is understandable, even if you do believe they are just dirty money-grubbing companies who don't deserve a lick of sympathy. And they don't. H

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[tinkerghost]

As regards the performance licensing bodies, I'd say that while ROMS is operating as it should domestically, I'd be surprised if the WTO didn't consider it somewhat less a legitimate body to handle international rights.

Do you also feel that BMI & APEC are not legitimate bodies to handle international rights?
ROMS is exactly the equivalent to those organizations, and the analogous ones in Spain, UK, and France. Actually, all of the organizations have what is referred to as the "blackbox" which is fees paid for songs by musicians who are not members of the societies. So if the Chinese restaraunt in Downtown Manhattan plays a song from a Cantonese musician, that fee goes to the blackbox. If a US musicians song becomes a big hit in Spain, it receives a substantial amount of airtime, but the artist only gets paid if they are a member of the Spanish system.
As for None of the copyright holders in question here are members of ROMS, but their materials are still "performed" because AllofMP3.com can buy a CD anywhere they like and create "performances" of it by allowing downloads. That is not analogous to the situation you describe.It's exactly analogous to the situation I am describing. A radio station, or web site can play any song they want, from a classic Muddy Waters song to the Demo CD the DJ picked up driving down the street. It's part of the compulsory licensing system. The only thing AllOfMP3 needs to do to be in 100% compliance with the RIAAs desires is to switch from MP3 transfers to streaming audio on demand. That's it, change the protocol from ftp to streaming audio. The practical effect of that is .... nothing. Most of the streaming audio players will also record the stream, meaning at the end of the day, everyone who buys a played song from AllOfMP3, has a copy of the song on their HD, and no American musician has received a penny.

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[Alsee]

the fact of the matter is, the Russian government did not have the authority to give the site those rights because it didn't have them.

That's not a fact. That is borderline insane.

There were no rights for the Russian government "not to have".

The US choose to temporarily lift works out of the public domain by taking certain limited rights away from the US public and temporarily granting those limtes rights to teh creator as an incentive to create, and then the works lapse back into the public domain. The rights originally lie with the US public and eventually lapse back to the public, the US Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that creators have *no right* to anything at all unless the US public chooses (via congress) to grant such a right and that creators only obtain the rights the US public choose to grant. The constitution merely permits the government to temporarily seize certain rights from the public to loan exclusively to the creatory. And it is strictly bounded US territory and the US public having chosen to temproarily waive thier rights to certain activities.

The copyright holder has no inherent right to anything, and the copyright holder has no property. The copyright holder has the limited monopoly that we chose to give him, which we choose to give him for our own benefit.

Saying Russia "didn't have the rights to give" is nonsense. Everything is in teh public domain. Russia can - and did - choose to create copyright themselves. Russia itself created temporary limited exclusive rights that *RUSSIA GRANTS* to creators.

And Russian copyright law is virtually identical to US copyright law. This entire fuss is over an astounding small difference between US and Russian copyright law. In fact as far as your next sentence below complaining about what Russia CANNOT do, US and Russian law are in fact identical:

You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties.

Lets skip past US statutory licencing for radio, and go right to US law on internet music distribution. US law says a business can distribute any music over the internet in any format (including MP3) *without* the authorisation of the copyright holder and may do so even if the copyright holder explicitly *forbids* it (just like Russian law!), and that that business may do so by paying 0.7 cent to a central government licencing body for each song transfered (just like Russian law, except the Russian ROMS collects 15% which turns out much more than 0.7 cent!)

Don't believe me? Go give Pandora.com a try. You can either use it FREE in ad-supported mode, or ad-free for $36 per year. The company running it pays that licence fee of 0.7 cent for each song you receive. It's all you can eat MP3s internet radio... and you can get virtually any song you want by defining a "station" based on it and waiting a usually short time for it to come up. The songs are 128k MP3 files, stored in your TEMP folder. You just need to fix the file names. The MP3 files are named Access-## with no file extension.

It's all 100% legal under US law, as worked out by the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) and passed by the US congress.

Under US law this file distribution is forced to resemble more of a "radio" type model, but fundamentally the gripe you made about "You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties" is absolutely identical. The only difference from what you said is that both countries *DO* mandate royalty payments, and the Russian law AllOfMP3.com payments work about DOUBLE the US royalty rate.

Copyright and patent

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[Alsee]

Oops, I wrote a post to you yesterday, and I wanted to correct an error I made.

I stated that US law sets a 0.7 cent royalty on MP3 transfers (for Pandora.cod for example), and I claimed that Russian law payments work out to about double the US law payment rate. That was incorrect. The US law rate is actually 0.07 cent per song. That makes the Russian AllOfMP3.com payment rate about 20 times higher than the US Pandora.com payent rate.

-

Illegal?

[RAMMS EIN]

``Russia has agreed to close down AllofMP3.com, and any sites that 'permit illegal distribution of music and other copyright works.'''

Since when does AllofMP3.com 'permit illegal distribution of music and other copyright works.'?

ID theft

[Aqua OS X]

Now I will sleep safe knowing my credit card information lies safely within the hands of people formerly employed as barely legal professional pirates.
Shhweet :D

Re:ID theft

[Aqua OS X]

What's sarcasm?

Legality in Russia = red herring

[john-da-luthrun]

The legality or otherwise of AllOfMP3 etc in Russia was always a bit of a red herring. Even if AllOfMP3 was acting legally under Russian law, that didn't make it legal to download the material outside Russia. Certainly in Europe, at least, you would be infringing copyright by downloading music from AllOfMP3, because you yourself are carrying out copying without the permission of the copyright holder. I'd be surprised if the position in the US were radically different.

Re:Legality in Russia = red herring

[Khazunga]

Even if AllOfMP3 was acting legally under Russian law, that didn't make it legal to download the material outside Russia. Certainly in Europe...

I recall a recent case where an Italian court condemned a citizen for accepting sport bet bookings on behalf of a UK company (betting is state-regulated in Italy). The EU court absolved the individual, claiming the transactions occurred in the UK, because that's where the betting company was, although betters were in Italy.

Sorry for the lack of a reference. However, the question of which law to use -- the seller's or the buyer's -- is still a fuzzy issue. When I purchase stuff from Amazon UK (I'm Portuguese), the contract that binds the transaction is British...

Re:Legality in Russia = red herring

[john-da-luthrun]

There are two differences here. First, the betting case involved using a service, not the reproduction of copyright material. Similarly your Amazon example is about buying goods, rather than copying digital content. Secondly, in each case both countries are in the EU.

If an AllOfMP3-type service were running, lawfully, in the EU, then any EU citizen could use it regardless of local law. The point is that no-one could run such a service legally anywhere in the EU.

Re:Legality in Russia = red herring

[Khazunga]

There are two differences here. First, the betting case involved using a service, not the reproduction of copyright material. Similarly your Amazon example is about buying goods, rather than copying digital content. Secondly, in each case both countries are in the EU.

It is either a good or a service. I was careful enough to provide examples for both, supporting my point: It is not clear which legal system (buyer's or seller's) covers an international transaction over the internet. I argue common practice today dictates it's the seller's legal system, so allofmp3 was operating within the law.

If an AllOfMP3-type service were running, lawfully, in the EU, then any EU citizen could use it regardless of local law. The point is that no-one could run such a service legally anywhere in the EU.

The question of which legal system is valid applies outside the EU also. If I buy from amazon.com, the terms of service are served under US law. If it is like this for Amazon, why is allofmp3 any different?

Cave in!

[ekran]

The US is a bulley in this world divided. I really can't believe Russia caved in to their demands.

Who needs to buy music? (Re:Asshats)

[MathFox]

Music CDs (and DVDs) and music/movie downloads are luxuries on my shopping list. They have to compete against game consoles, real computers, online gaming, holiday trips, etc. Heck, I can even start singing songs myself. The record labels had good times when people replaced their (vinyl) music collection with CDs, nowadays they have to provide products that appease the market. The internet has made other business models possible (the record labels didn't believe in iTunes at first), a large proportion of customers rejects DRM and isn't interested in Top 30 crap. Good arguments to pray for a quick extinction of the RIAA and its members.

RIAA Strikes Again

[RAMMS EIN]

Well, I guess this demonstrates that you're at risk of being strongarmed not just if you obtain RIAA music, but also when you sell it. And, as we all know, it doesn't matter if you're doing it legally or illegally. All in name of the artists, even if they get just a tiny share of what the cartel charges for the music.

I've had enough.

We don't need the copyright cartel to handle distribution and go after the pirates anymore. We definitely don't need them to set the prices, pocket most of the revenue, and randomly sue anyone who comes into contact with the music.

So let's see a list of sites that distribute (for pay or for free) music outside of the cartel, directly on behalf of the artists. I'll only do business with sites that offer Ogg Vorbis files and that let me listen to the music before deciding if I want to buy it.

I'll start:

Music is Here!
Independent Music Online
On Classical

Re:RIAA Strikes Again

[Aladrin]

I'd just like to say that I was going to call your bluff and try different music from those sites and prove that if there was anything good on them, it would be near impossible to find. Unfortunately, the second thing I listened to, I liked.

http://musicishere.com/artists/Dane_Varese_Band/No _Regrets

Still, unless there's a (internet) radio station that plays songs from these groups, how am I supposed to learn about them? If they aren't controlled by the RIAA, they'll never make it to the physical radio stations.

Also, how do I KNOW the money on these sites goes to the artist and site, and not the RIAA?

Re:RIAA Strikes Again

[fritsd]

http://magnatune.com/ (AFAIK)

Bring on Borat!

[mickq]

AllOfMp3 is a fantastic site and is clearly delivering what people want: unencumbered music at a reasonable price.

Its Russia's longest standing and most profitable internet business from what I hear.

I have little sympathy for the large record companies: they too are screwing the artists. Just check out what proportion of any CD sale goes to artists. And dont try to tell me it all goes into production costs, publicity or similar - it doesnt cost THAT much per CD to do all that!

The obvious solution is to move the business out of Russia and somewhere else harder to touch.

I for one vote for Borat to run AllOfMp3. Kazakhstan would make a fine location to host this valuable service.

Not to mention on top of credit cards I would then also be able to buy my songs in trade for pigs.

Re:Bring on Borat!

[gsslay]

unencumbered music at a reasonable price

Isn't it just amazing how 'reasonable' you can make your prices when you're not paying for your product?

I have little sympathy for the large record companies: they too are screwing the artists.

Your parents appear to have missed something fundamental out of your early moral training. Here, I'll fill in for them;

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

New Creditcard number please...

[lordperditor]

Well I guess now is a good time to tell my bank I think my creditcard number is compromised and ask for a new number.

Oh please

[Moraelin]

One of the most significant contributions to human rights in all of human history came from Hammurabi - The concept of a written code of laws, which everyone could know and which applied equally to all people, thus making "justice" less subject to the biases of the king / emperor / caliph / whatever. He may not have quite lived up to that ideal, but as a basis for all modern reasonably-fair legal systems, it forms a cornerstone on which we've built everything since.

AllOfMP3, whether the RIAA like it or not, operated within Russian law (or at least, they did so until this past September).

Bingo. So as of September, a Russian law _does_ exist, under which offering such downloads is illegal. And it applies to everyone, not only to AllOfMP3.

It's not even new. According to the very article you've linked to: " Luckily Russia passed just such a law a couple years ago... though it didn't go into effect until just last week." I took the liberty of highlighting a crucial point there. It's not some law passed over-night right now, but something that had been voted years ago.

So a law does exist, and it does apply to everyone. Exactly like in all modern legal systems. And there were a couple of years given to everyone to clean up their act, before it goes in effect. Which is actually a lot more than most other modern legal systems give you.

At best all that the new aggreement with the USA says is, "yep, we're actually going to enforce that law." Which, again, is perfectly normal in any modern legal system. And it seems to be what you ask for anyway: a law should apply to everyone equally, even if they're the emperor's friends or favourite purveyors of stolen goods. So, yes, it should equally apply to AllOfMP3 too.

So basically please spare me the bullshit. If you have something against copyright, fine by me. But you can find better stuff to support it with than bogus "oh, there goes western civilization and rule of the law" arguments.

Handy for previews

[Chris Pimlott]

While I never bought anything from them, they were often handle as a source of 30 second preview mp3s of nearly any song you could think of. It used to be easy to find music sites that offered mp3 previews, now it seems that nearly all of them use either RealPlayer or Windows Media. Blech.

Allofmp3 belong to US!

[marcelk]

'nuff said

In soviet Russia...

[Zaatxe]

...the government decides what companies can and can not do!

(Don't mod me redundant, this one is not supposed to be funny in the strictu sensu)

Move it to Sudan

[rev_karol]

And Palestine and anywhere else that needs the money bady. Screw the legality. I want cheap music. They need the money.

Maybe what the RIAA is saying is...

[pjr.cc]

We hate music, we hate people having it and the world would be a better place without it.

Personally, im just getting to the point where I really dont care anymore... The RIAA are scum, MPAA are scum, and the IFPI well they're scum too.

All I care about is that I dont work for the RIAA. I dont know how those guy manage to sleep at night doing the things they do, i really just wouldn't be able to live with myself. Its quite sad when you try and put yourself in their shoe's and see it from their point of view.

The kind of lawsuits they've put against students, grand people and even the dead really says alot about how much they lack even the basic forms of being a human.

Our rights to get robbed?

[Ilgaz]

Did allofmp3 pay a cent to artists getting downloaded? No RIAA , no DRM argument please. Lets say I downloaded David Gilmour album, did Mr. Gilmour get a cent?

So, our right to get robbed with a fake legit site and artists not getting anything at all is broken. Very sad!

Only thing allofmp3 has proven is: International users exist besides ~18 countries and they somehow pay for music they get. Yes, I am referencing iTunes store and "you can't buy anything at all, you are a thief!" attitude shown by Apple/RIAA/MPAA for years.

If you really hate RIAA and you love to pay for your music, http://www.magnatunes.com/ , 50% 50% share, quality music, FLAC, Creative Commons, no DRM.

That is what I do besides paying to Real Networks for "radiopass" broadband radio. Paying to a shadowy Russian site knowing the artists not getting anything just to have fake legal music isn't a right of me so I didn't lose anything.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[Aladrin]

What do you mean, 'no RIAA argument please'? The RIAA is the one making sure allofmp3 COULDN'T pay the artists. Allofmp3 DID pay the Russian agency in charge of compensating the artists. And that agency DID try to pay them.

Don't blame Allofmp3 for the RIAA's bullshit.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[alexgieg]

This is incorrect. The site was paying the Russian government, in complete accordance with the Russian law. If the Russian government wasn't forwarding the money to the copyright holders, this is something you should blame on that government, not on the service that was following the law strictly.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[Uninvited Guest]

Allofmp3 paid for broadcast rights to ROMS (Russian Organization for Multimedia and Digital Systems), just as Russian radio stations do. The IFPI refused to accept payments to artists from ROMS, fearing that accepting those payments would legitimize allofmp3. While artists never did receive payment from allofmp3's sales, it wasn't for lack of trying. Presumably, those payments are still in escrow at ROMS, waiting for the artists' representatives to collect.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[swillden]

Did allofmp3 pay a cent to artists getting downloaded? No RIAA , no DRM argument please. Lets say I downloaded David Gilmour album, did Mr. Gilmour get a cent?

Probably not, although his record label got a few. Perhaps too few, but they got some.

I seriously wonder if allofmp3's recent announcement that they were planning to begin paying artists directly didn't spur the RIAA to greater efforts to get this shut down. The very last thing the music cartel wants is for artists to get paid directly without the money flowing through the labels first. If artists begin to realize that in the Internet age they no longer need the record labels to make a living, the labels will disappear.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[Overzeetop]

Did David Gilmour register with the Russian Organization on Collective Management of Rights of Authors and Other Rightholders in Multimedia, Digital Networks & Visual Arts (ROMS)? If not, then it's his fault. If you think that's unfair that he would have to register, then I ask you - has he registered with ASCAP, BMI and/or SESAC?

You see, there's the rub - as an artist, you have to do the footwork, or have your label do it for you. The RIAA didn't want to play ball with the Russians - primarily because their cut under Russian law was not as big as they get in the west, and not as big as they liked. If Mr. Gilmou's label is a member of the RIAA, then his loss is a result of their inaction, and I do not take responsibility for the money chain between my retailer and the artist. I don't do it when I buy a physical CD, and I don't do it when I download an album.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[gryst1crash]

I'm all for a site like magnatunes.com. But could you do me a favor and at least get them to have a little more of a selection? When typing in bands like U2, Dave Matthews Band, or the Rolling Stones, I would expect to see some results. The site is all well and good. But my point is that a legal site has to have the vast catalogs that are offered at sites like allofmp3.com in order to draw a crowd. And draw they would, I'm sure of it. But for now, shutting such a site down like allofmp3.com will just drive people back to P2P.

Re: Our rights to get robbed?

[gidds]

Lets say I downloaded David Gilmour album, did Mr. Gilmour get a cent?

Let's say you bought a David Gilmour CD from a second-hand store. Did he get a cent then? Or say you recorded it off the radio. Did he get a cent then?

The answer's 'No' in both cases. And yet both cases are completely legal. (At least, I'm pretty sure they are in most jurisdictions.) Arguably, they're both moral and ethical, too. So no, I don't think whether the artists recieve money directly is the only issue here.

That second example, by the way, is particularly relevant, because AIUI Allofmp3 is licensed in Russia effectively as a broadcaster. And, under that, it pays 15% of its takings to the Russian Licensing Societies. That may not amount to as much as they'd get from a physical album sale, true, but they do pay. (It's hardly Allofmp3's fault that the recording companies refuse on principle to collect, is it?)

So, our right to get robbed with a fake legit site and artists not getting anything at all

There's nothing fake about it. Up until now, at least, Allofmp3 has been completely legal in Russia -- chapter and verse here. (Despite this agreement claiming otherwise.) At one point, the Russian authorities started legal proceedings, but gave them up before it came to court because they couldn't find any evidence. And, as I said above, Allofmp3 is doing it's bit in getting 15% of the takings to the copyright owners. So both claims are wrong. It might not be the way that US and European music stores work, but up to now it's been completely legal and above-board in Russia.

Up until now...

Ah well. Bang goes just about my only source of music over the last several years. Bang goes just about my only source for discovering new sounds, for trying out new artists, for finding new styles and old favourites. And bang goes just about my only vain hope that the US authorities have a shred of decency and aren't acting purely in their own narrow, biased, unfair, and immoral self-interest.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[gsslay]

The RIAA didn't want to play ball with the Russians - primarily because their cut under Russian law was not as big as they get in the west, and not as big as they liked.

Interesting. You have a problem with an organisation responsible for collecting the money from the sale of someone's product also dictating the terms of the sale? Let's be quite clear about what you're saying here. If you do not approve of the terms and profit margins offered to you by a supplier, you can just go off and make your own up? And if they then refuse to take the cut of the profits that you decide they're due, then it's all their fault?

Clearly the reason the RIAA refuse to take the Russian licensing money is because to do so would legitimise the arrangement, and that would have implications for every other arrangement they have in other countries.

You may not like RIAA's policies, but why do you think that gives anyone the right to sell their product against their wishes? AllOfMP3 are exploiting a loophole ('a broadcast licence', yeah right), let's stop pretending they are attempting to be honest retailers.

I do not take responsibility for the money chain between my retailer and the artist. I don't do it when I buy a physical CD, and I don't do it when I download an album.

Also interesting. You would shop in a store that you knew was full of CDs that the producers of which receive no payment, all the time washing your hands of all responsibility? Copyright infringement is not theft, but your reasoning here is no different from buying stolen goods and pretending where they came from was none of your concern.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[Klaruz]

They paid to ROMS, the RIAA refused to take money from ROMS. I'd assume because they'd be acknowledging that allofmp3 was in fact paying money, just at a rate they happen to not agree with. Being a cartel, it's not surprising.

It's the same when I listen to terrestrial radio, I expect the station to pay the ASCAP/BMI for the plays they make. It's up to the songwriter to collect. The same with internet radio, they have to pay ASCAP/BMI, and the RIAA for the bullshit 'reproduction' tax. As you can tell, I happen to disagree with the reproduction license, but that's the law, and it's up to the RIAA to get their due percentage from the people who collect the fees.

I somehow doubt if artists stopped collecting their royalties from ASCAP/BMI that you'd go screaming on slashdot that all radio stations in the United States are illegal, but that's what you're doing.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[grimJester]

Did allofmp3 pay a cent to artists getting downloaded?

Does iTunes? No.

Apple pays the labels represented by the RIAA for the license to distribute songs. Allofmp3 paid a Russian state agency for licensing. The labels got nothing from that agency.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[Ilgaz]

For those bands, they should deal with Magnatunes under non exclusive Creative Commons (other deals may continue) and they would get their half of the price. It would create a huge revolution if a band like U2, Dave Mathews band signed such Creative Commons deal.

Allofmp3 doesn't give a cent to production houses, artists. Magnatunes is a real producer who shares openly with artist, 50/50.

If U2 is not happy with Creative Commons they should explain why. They are the ones asking countries to erase billions of loans yes?

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[hackstraw]

Did allofmp3 pay a cent to artists getting downloaded? No RIAA , no DRM argument please. Lets say I downloaded David Gilmour album, did Mr. Gilmour get a cent?

I work for Microsoft as a programmer. I wrote Clippy. I don't get a cent off of every Office CD sold, bootlegged, or whatever, I just get a salary.

Actually, I lied. I work for Nike, I'm a sweatshop worker making sneakers. I don't get a cent off of every pair of shoes sold, bootlegged, or whatever, I just get a salary.

Actually, I lied. I'm a self employed shareware author. I wrote Paint Shop Pro. I get paid every time someone buys a copy of PSPro, I don't get a cent when its bootlegged or if noone buys the software.

Actually, I can't tell the truth. I work for Sony as a recording artist. I'm nobody big, just a studio musician that pays keyboard and effects for studio recordings. I don't get a cent off of every CD sold, I just get paid when I do work.

Besides big, brand name musicians, who works by the piece and expects lifetime royalties from each piece sold?

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[tinkerghost]

That is what I do besides paying to Real Networks for "radiopass" broadband radio. Paying to a shadowy Russian site knowing the artists not getting anything just to have fake legal music isn't a right of me so I didn't lose anything.

Do you think Real Networks only plays music from people who are registered with BMI? There are 2 other registration/dispersment agencies. Real only has to pay 1 of them to be legal. Most artists don't register with all 3. Some don't register with any - most foreign artists don't even know about them. In that situation, how much of the money you are paying Real Networks is handed to the artists?
The only - and I do mean only - difference between the US compulsory licensing arrangement and the Russian one is that Russia considers all digital audio transfers to be public performances, and the US only considers Streamed digital audio to be a public performance. In technical terms, the only difference is if I get to name the file or if it's sitting in a cache file on my computer.
If AllOfMP3 operated in the US and streamed the songs, paying BMI for each download it would be considered 100% legal by the RIAA, even if 95% of the music downloaded was in Russian & delivered to Russian IP addresses. Because ROMS was being paid instead of BMI it's a crime? Excuse me, is BMI paying anything to the Russian, Greek, and Chinese musicians who's music is being played in ethnic restaraunts around the country? - The general answer is no, but I don't see you screaming in moral outrage.
The issue of MP3 vs stream creates a division that is not supported by the technical reality. The mechanisms are identical*, only the implementation is different. Do we want a legal structure where individual implementations of achieving the same goal are deemed legal or illegal based on the whim of some corporation?
*Mechanism:

1. Music is digitally transcribed.
2. Music is encoded by $CODEC into $FILE
3. $FILE is sent by SERVER to RECIPIENT using TCP/IP protocols
4. $FILE is buffered by RECIPIENT
5. $FILE is decoded by $CODEC
6. Music is converted from digital signal to analog audio waves.

The only difference, is that an MP3 buffers in a named file, and a stream buffers in either memory or a temp file.
Add to that the fact that many of the stream players will also copy the stream to a set file, and the distinctions are worthless in a technical sense.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[gryst1crash]

I'm curious though...Would bands that are signed by major record labels be able to sign deals with Creative Commons? I would foresee the record labels fighting hard against such a deal, as this would destroy their old fashioned ideas of cd's and radio being the way to distribute music. Obviously, I see the legalities of sites like allofmp3.com and money not getting back to the artists, fine. But the entire business model of record companies and their distributors needs to change to take advantage of these new models. To me, the RIAA is imposing their will on us, and I know that people will continue to migrate to P2P if another solution is not presented to them. I am curious for your thoughts about Creative Commons. I dont know much about them, but it sounds like a decent alternative.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[NulDevice]

One problem is that, unlike registering with ASCAP (which you can do online), registering with ROMS is a difficult if not impossible slog for a smaller artist. If you don't have a label with the capability to hire translators and russian lawyers, or you yourself don't have that capability, you're kinda screwed.

I'm curious to know if allofmp3 actually gave any "unclaimed" money to ROMS, or if they just gave promissory money, as in "well, when and if Britney Spears comes to collect, THEN we'll give you the royalties she's owed from us."

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[NulDevice]

Point of note: Apple also pays labels not represented by the RIAA. I get my royalties from them just fine and my label has no connection to the RIAA whatsoever.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[Darth]

Interesting. You have a problem with an organisation responsible for collecting the money from the sale of someone's product also dictating the terms of the sale? Let's be quite clear about what you're saying here. If you do not approve of the terms and profit margins offered to you by a supplier, you can just go off and make your own up? And if they then refuse to take the cut of the profits that you decide they're due, then it's all their fault?

The Russian government collects and distributes royalties for the allofmp3.com use of the product. They collect royalties at a rate the government specifies. It is interesting to me that you feel this is unjust, but do not have a problem with copyright itself. Copyright is an artificial restriction created by governments that arbitrarily limits what everyone other than the original creator can do with items they acquire. Copyright is not a natural right.

If the Russian government's arbitrary rules around royalty rates and disbursement procedures are unjust, then why aren't their arbitrary rules that create copyright in the first place unjust?

Clearly the reason the RIAA refuse to take the Russian licensing money is because to do so would legitimise the arrangement, and that would have implications for every other arrangement they have in other countries.

Governments and their laws do not need companies or collusive organisations to approve of them for them to be legitimate. Their arrangements in other countries are subject to that other country's laws, not Russia's laws.

Also interesting. You would shop in a store that you knew was full of CDs that the producers of which receive no payment, all the time washing your hands of all responsibility?

Well, he's already buying cds from an organization that, through contractual wankery, licensing deals, and creative accounting, screws the actual artists out of almost all of their royalties for the albums. Why would screwing someone slightly higher up on the chain bother him?

But what he's actually saying is that when he buys merchandise from a retailer who exists as a legal entity (i.e. a registered corporation, not from the back of a guy's truck), it isn't his responsiblity to do due dilligence about their inventory.

If he buys a product from a store that is evading their taxes, should that be his responsiblity too?

Copyright infringement is not theft, but your reasoning here is no different from buying stolen goods and pretending where they came from was none of your concern.

Copyright infringement is a crime of distribution. The seller is violating it, the receiver is not. Buying stolen goods is illegal. Clearly, there is a significant difference between the two acts as far as the law is concerned.

With respect to AllOfMP3, this issue is moot anyway, since they are not infringing anyone's copyright.

Why is the AllOfMP3 situation substantially different from blank media taxes in places like Canada?

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[mrchaotica]

Point of note: Apple also pays labels not represented by the RIAA.

Point of note: so did AllOfMP3.com.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[asuffield]

Did allofmp3 pay a cent to artists getting downloaded? No RIAA , no DRM argument please. Lets say I downloaded David Gilmour album, did Mr. Gilmour get a cent?

Did the RIAA pay Mr Gilmour a cent when you bought his album in a record store? The answer is probably "no", so your point lacks relevance. Artists don't really get paid for albums (with the exception of a very small number of high-profile artists, who are used for PR purposes) - everybody in the industry knows that. Albums are what artists have to produce to satisfy their contract, for which they get paid a (small) flat fee, a bonus if sales go over certain limits, and a cut of the concert takings. If you want to get money to the artists, go to concerts. Album sales go directly into the pockets of the RIAA.

(While a lot of people have contracts which look like they pay album royalties, they only pay a cut of the profits, not the revenue, and the RIAA members use some creative accounting to ensure that albums almost never show a profit, so they never have to pay any royalties)

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[gsslay]

It is interesting to me that you feel this is unjust, but do not have a problem with copyright itself. Copyright is an artificial restriction created by governments that arbitrarily limits what everyone other than the original creator can do with items they acquire. Copyright is not a natural right.

Indeed it isn't, but I feel it is more a right than everyone else's right to the fruits of someone else's labour without paying them what they feel it's worth. That, I think, is a right. If you do not agree with their value of their labour, then do not pay them. You do not have a right to take it anyway and decide your own value for it.

Their arrangements in other countries are subject to that other country's laws, not Russia's laws.

My point was that if the RIAA agreed to deal with AllOfMP3s in a totally different set of rules, more than a few other countries may wish to "re-evaluate" their laws. The Russian laws are clearly flawed and being exploited. AllOfMP3 claim to pay a broadcaster's fee when they are obviously not 'broadcasting'.

Why would screwing someone slightly higher up on the chain bother him?

Two wrongs do not make a right. Is this too obvious and clear a moral standpoint? Whatever convenient criticisms you may have of the music industry, it does not excuse your, as an end-consumer, actions. Whatever way the monies are divided in the music industry, a lot of people still get paid.

AllOfMP3 currently exists as a freeloader, and no-one can offer any proof that if it was to operate as a genuine retailer it would be a fairer and more successful business model. Do you really think recording artists would be better off with their music being sold for pennies? Do you really believe that AllOfMP3 could operate successfully if it had to compete on a level playing field with all others? If he buys a product from a store that is evading their taxes, should that be his responsiblity too?

Why do you think no-one should be accountable for their own behaviour, purchasing or otherwise? If you buy at a store that you know can only offer such low prices because they are avoiding taxes then you (in your own small way) are sustaining and justifying their criminal behaviour. It is not someone else's problem. You are part of the problem.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[Darth]

If you do not agree with their value of their labour, then do not pay them. You do not have a right to take it anyway and decide your own value for it.

as far as i know, the copies of the music that AllOfMP3.com are selling are legally acquired (i.e. purchased). Also, they have not taken the artists' creations away from the artists. the artists still have them. (well, technically the record label took them away from the artists, but that is a contract issue between the artist and the label and isnt really relevent to this discussion).

My point was that if the RIAA agreed to deal with AllOfMP3s in a totally different set of rules, more than a few other countries may wish to "re-evaluate" their laws.

I'm not sure why you feel this would cause other countries to reevaluate their laws in this way. If those countries feel that changing the copyright laws in their countries is advantageous for the country, they absolutely should do that. The government's job is to do what is best for the country and its citizens . If they feel that changing their laws to create that effect in their country is a good idea, they should do it regardless of Russia's law.

The Russian laws are clearly flawed and being exploited. AllOfMP3 claim to pay a broadcaster's fee when they are obviously not 'broadcasting'.

Then the Russian legislature needs to fix their laws. They shouldn't shut down AllOfMP3 until the law changes though, because they aren't doing anything illegal.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Is this too obvious and clear a moral standpoint? Whatever convenient criticisms you may have of the music industry, it does not excuse your, as an end-consumer, actions.

My point wasnt that the action was justified because of the RIAA members' treatment of their artists. My point was that he's already choosing to contribute to injustice merely by buying music from a record label that is a member of the RIAA. If he has already accepted the wrong of harming the artist in that way, why would he suddenly care that he's harming the people one step up the food chain? My other point (which is implicit) is that to avoid contributing to injustice (by your argument), consumers must boycott the RIAA members products as well as not using AllOfMP3.

This bit isn't so much about AllOfMP3 and is more a question of how deep a recursion should personal responsibility go?

Whatever way the monies are divided in the music industry, a lot of people still get paid.

Well, your argument was about the artists getting paid. In many cases they clearly aren't regardless of what happens in Russia. (this is admittedly not relevent to the issue at hand.) Besides, one right (some people in the industry getting paid) doesn't absolve a wrong (other people not getting paid).

AllOfMP3 currently exists as a freeloader, and no-one can offer any proof that if it was to operate as a genuine retailer it would be a fairer and more successful business model.

I disagree that they operate as a freeloader. As far as i know they legally purchased the originating copies of the works they sell. (that may not be the case and i just dont know about it). They also meet their legal obligation of paying royalty money to the legally designated distribution agent. To be freeloaders, both of those would have to be false.

You may feel they are not paying as much as they should, but there's a difference between that and being a freeloader.

Also, I thought your point was that the way they operate isnt fair. If they operated the way you would like, wouldn't that have to be more fair?

Do you really think recording artists would be better off with their music being sold for pennies?

Nope. But then, the ways that the artists would be best off would be unfair to the consumers.
Besides, copyright (at least in the U.S.) doesn't exist to make money for the artists. That's not the purpose.

Do you really believe that AllOfMP3 could operate success

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[mei_mei_mei]

"Lets say I downloaded David Gilmour album, did Mr. Gilmour get a cent?"

No. But he has so much money to start with that even assuming an illegal download cost him personally the full retail value of the track he's absolutley nothing.

The downloader on the other hand has gained plesure from the music, so overall a net gain for society.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[Ilgaz]

But the person you replied to is an artist and allofmp3 could list them and sell his work and he wouldn't get any sort of money. He/his producer gets from Apple.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[Overzeetop]

Well, unless their lying in their FAQ, they pay 15% royalties directly to ROMS. Supposedly they have been paying up through 09/2006, actfa.

I'm not about to claim that it's easy to register in a foreign country for an individual, but I would suggest that if there's not enough money to make it worthwhile to register, then there's not enough money to worry about. This is, after all, business. If it's really that expensive, get together with a few dozen other "wronged" artists and split the translation and lawyer fees. I pay over $1000 dollars _every year_ to register in order to practice engineering in just 5 US states. The cost to register, in lost time, after I had passed all the exams to register in those five states came in at over $8,000. And when I was done, I got not a cent in residuals - all that paperwork just allowed me to get paid for my work (also covered under copyright, btw, if you were wondering). I have to continue to pay those fees every year, and pay for additional training every year, even if I only re-sell existing designs and do no new work. If I wanted to work in Quebec, I'd not only have to get a bunch of translators and lawyers to help me with the paperwork, I'd actually have to pass a law test in French. I can guarantee you that physics does not change when you cross province lines, but if I wanted to work there, I would have to pay the money. It's just business.

Re: Our rights to get robbed?

[Pastis]

> Let's say you bought a David Gilmour CD from a second-hand store. Did he get a cent then?

Yes. The first time the CD was bought.

> Or say you recorded it off the radio. Did he get a cent then?

Yes, at least in France, where radios pays authors labels/authors.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[Alsee]

You have a problem with an organisation responsible for collecting the money from the sale of someone's product also dictating the terms of the sale?

Non sequitor. The RIAA has no such responsibility nor right here in the first place. The law in Russia is in fact effectively identical to UK and US law on this issue.

If you do not approve of the terms and profit margins offered to you by a supplier, you can just go off and make your own up?

Again, non sequitor. No such thing is haoppening here. AllOfMP3.com is both a "consumer" and "supplier". AllOfMP3.com bought the CDs in full compliance with the law and at the prices set by their supplier, and AllOfMP3.com is distributing in full compliance the law at teh prices they set, and that are paying the statutory licencing fee set by law for doing their own reproduction/distribution. The law in Russia is in fact effectively identical to UK and US law on this issue.

And if they then refuse to take the cut of the profits that you decide they're due, then it's all their fault?

If the RIAA fefuses to take the UK or US statutory licencing fees, well yeah, that's their fault. The law in Russia is in fact effectively identical to UK and US law on this issue.

Clearly the reason the RIAA refuse to take the Russian licensing money is because to do so would legitimise the arrangement, and that would have implications for every other arrangement they have in other countries.

The RIAA has effectively identical arrangements in the US and UK, and those arrangments do in fact have implications for the arrangement in Russia... those arrangments prove the fundamental validity of the arrangment in Russia.

The RIAA dislikes some of the details of Russian law... and in fact I would agree that under the circumstances Russian law should probably set slightly higher statutory licencing fees... but tht things the RIAA dislike in Russian law in fact have no bearing on the legitimacy of that arrangment. The RIAA is just plain LYING when they bitch that they are not getting paid (because they refuse to accept the payments) and they are LYING when they bitch about the service beillegal (it is not) and they are LYING when they bitch that there is something WRONG in that Russian law establish statutory licences which permit redistribution against the will of the copyright holder at a lawfully set royalty (because the US and the UK and virtually every nation on earth does that as well).

why do you think that gives anyone the right to sell their product against their wishes?

The US and UK do it as well. If you want to claim there is something wrong with the Russian situation, you need to show how it is fundamentally different than the (presumably acceptable) same mechanisms of US and UK law.

AllOfMP3 are exploiting a loophole ('a broadcast licence', yeah right)

UK and US law have statutory licencing as well.

You appear to be from the UK, but I hope you will not object to me citing US law to prove my above statements. I am far more familiar with US law than UK law, but in the relevant principals and operation of copyright law US and UK law are substantially the same.

There is statutory licencing on lyrics, anyone and everyone can take and use and reproduce and redistribute a lyric author's "product" by paying a statutory-set royalty. Anyong and everyone can take that product and sell copies of if even against the express *prohibition* of that author. And if that author refuses to accept that payment, well that's his choice and his fault.

There is also statutory licencing for radio, and for commercial establishment preformances of song "product", and they are all authorized by law at a statutorily set licencing fee, and it is all authorized and legitimate even against the express *prohibition* of the copyright holder. If that copyright holder refuses to accept the statutory payments from ASCAP and

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[Alsee]

the person you replied to is an artist and allofmp3 could list them and sell his work and he wouldn't get any sort of money

Wrong.

Well, you'd be right if he was unfortunate enough to have signed a contract with the RIAA. But then the fault lies with the RIAA, not Russian law and not AllOfMP3.com.

The reason that RIAA artists are not recieving the payements is because the RIAA REFUSES to accept and pass on payments to their artists. The RIAA contracts give ownership of the copyrights to the RIAA itself, and thus prohibts their artists from directly going to anyone else (such as ROMS) to obtain payment. The RIAA are lying fuckwads here, they are deliberatly stiffing artists of these payments themselves and lying their asses off to claim Russian law and AllOfMP3.com are evil pirates.

Russian law actually sets a payment rate about 20 times HIGHER on AllOfMP3.com for sending each MP3 than US law sets on Pandora.com for sending the exact same MP3. (Pandora.com cannot send a specific requested song for at least an hour after the request, trying to force it to resemble a "radio" model than a "store" model. The MP3 file also gets dumped into your temporary folder without a .MP3 extension, to pretend they are sending a "radio broadcast" rather than the download that they did in fact send.)

The fundamental issue of law are the same in the US and in Russia. US law says companies can send MP3s against the will of artists, and a legally set fee, exactly as Russian law does. The RIAA bitching about this being done "without permission" is bullshit.

If the RIAA were to drop the bullshit and merely cliam the royalty payments should be higher, I would probably even support them. What the RIAA is really pissed about is control, and lack of DRM. The RIAA is desperately trying to "fix" the fact that US law permits Pandora.com and other US companies to send DRM-free MP3 downloads.

-

Yeah, a "reasonable" price

[Ogemaniac]

that does not reward the artists and technicians involved in the production of the music. AllOfMp3's token payments do not count. It would be no different if I stole your paycheck but then handed you a $5 bill.

If you pirate, you are stealing. Quit trying to justify your cheap and sleazy behavior.

Re:Yeah, a "reasonable" price

[Lumpy]

Cince when does a technician get paid based on royalties???

do you simply make this crap up?

aymp3

[eneville]

in soviet russia, all us are belong to your mp3!!

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[ban]

In Capitalist America Music Rips You!

New site coming soon...

[clickety6]

www.noneofmp3.com

Re: Digitizing LP's

[TaoPhoenix]

The quality is a bit thin, but there is one option possible. Emerson has a low end device that can auto-convert any signal into mp3's, which are then stored on its player. It's okay for an emergency backup.

I've often wondered....

[demallien2]

what would happen if someone set up a site, a bit like The Pirate Bay, or AllOfMP3, but with the big difference that they took the trouble to track down the artists who's work they sold, and gave them half the profits. What would the artists do? Reject the money? Ditch their RIAA contract?

Re:I've often wondered....

[clickclickdrone]

It sounds great in theory but in practice, the artists do not own the music they created, the labels do. Launching a web site that sold music then gave the money to the artist is on a one way trip to legal hell.

Re:I've often wondered....

[demallien2]

Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I was thinking specifically of another "illlegal" operation that operates along the same lines as AllOfMP3. So basically, they just don't care that they are in breach of contract. But imagine that you are an established artist. These sites have enough exposure that your music will still hit a wide market, especially if you are still being referenced by radio stations. They are also giving you a lot more money than your record label. They really could _become_ your record label. They only question is how would artists approached by such a site (and by approached, I mean 'be on the receiving end of a cheque')?

Re:I've often wondered....

[NulDevice]

That really depends on the contract. I'd wager most indie artists own all their own master recordings and rights, and that practice is becoming much more commonplace even among the larger labels.

Some labels will own pretty much everything - right down to the rights to the band name. But more and more artists are getting savvy enough to avoid signing such a contract.

It all comes down to the pricepoint!

[Sodade]

I can't stress this enough. I bought hundreds of dollars worth of music from these sites. Why? Because I am NOT going to spend a fucking dollar per song. Period. I don't care how much fucking money I make (barely 6figs right now). At the end of the day, a dollar is TOO MUCH FUCKING MONEY for a single song. I'll pay the prices that these russian sites charged, but that's it. That is my pricepoint. Period.

$3.50 for a CD's worth of songs seems like a good bit of money to the artists, but not the recording industry. Funny thing is, they are not needed anymore. Period. The only reason they are still around is because they are spending money to stay alive. Instead of helping to prop them up, the govt should be setting up an non-profit institue for musicians.

Re:It all comes down to the pricepoint!

[tepples]

$3.50 for a CD's worth of songs seems like a good bit of money to the artists, but not the recording industry. Funny thing is, they are not needed anymore. Period.

Some people cannot afford a recent computer, high-speed Internet access, a portable music player, and training in their use. How do you make these people your customers? That is, how do you promote your music to them while they are commuting by car or bus? Unlike independent labels, the major labels of the RIAA have the money to buy what are effectively advertisements on commercial FM radio.

Considerable Power.

[Kadin2048]

Is that what it takes to be a "considerable power" nowadays ?

Don't forget the 3,000-odd nuclear weapons. I think that's "considerable."

I suspect that if the Russians really did cave as far as this document suggests, it's because of internal powermongering between Putin and other factions. Someone -- Putin, probably -- is cozying up to the U.S., probably because they already have, or are about to do, something objectionable.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Chacham]

Thanx. Someone had to make the obligatory comment.

Immoral, right.

[Kadin2048]

However the content owners in this case felt they were not being looked after, and so used whatever leverage they could get.

A fine justification of government corruption that is. Don't like the laws? Just use 'whatever leverage you can get' to get them changed. Who cares if it involves furthering the subordination of our government to corporations; everyone else is doing it, therefore it must be okay.

Here's a thought: since it's obvious that the music companies are at the very least amoral, and are going to use whatever means they possibly can in order to further their revenue stream and business models, I don't see any reason why any "morality" is due them from consumers. When they start to show any signs of a moral sense other than the economic law of the jungle, then I'll stop trying to screw them for every penny I possibly can.

I'll save my morals for people and entities that might actually have some in return.

Do we have 'til June 07?

[Overzeetop]

It sounded from TFA like compliance will not happen until June 1, 2007. Well, "The government will be expected to begin complying by June 1, 2007." to be exact. So, really we have until at least June 1, 2007 before anything can be expected to occur. Just want to make sure my balance there is zero by the time the turn the lights out.

At least then they'd be honest.

[Kadin2048]

The RIAA might be bastards, but if they championed a model where the artists got zero, as opposed to 'not very much', you'd hate them even more.

Actually, I wouldn't, because at least I'd be able to appreciate their honesty and forthrightness in being utter bastards. I can't abide someone who hides their assholery behind a facade of do-goodery.

I'll take an unrepentant asshole over a hypocritical one any day.

obvious!

[onx]

"Why would the RIAA, a cartel, lower prices?"

1. Lower the prices on 1 CD no one wants anyway making people think CDs aren't stupidly expensive anymore.
2. Raise the prices on everything else.
3. Profit!


Wait, they've already done that.

Re:obvious!

[TheRaven64]

It depends on what you listen to. Last year, I bought a boxed set of 40 classical CDs for £25. A few were duplicates of things I owned and a few were less good recordings. The majority, however, were good recordings of things I didn't own, or better recordings than the ones I had (Carmina Burana, for example). At a (very) conservative estimate, I got 30 good CDs for £25; the real number is probably closer to 35. Even assuming it was only 25, that means I paid £1 for each one. iTunes, on the other hand, charges about £8.99 for each album (or more), includes DRM, and doesn't give a physical medium as a backup.

AllOfMP3.com has shown that you can distribute digital music at a reasonable price and make enough money to cover operating costs. Low cost CDs have shown you can distribute music at a reasonable price and make enough money to cover the cost of paying the musicians (and I can't believe that a 4-person band should cost more than a full orchestra). This seems like enough evidence to show the average consumer that they are being ripped off if they buy a CD, which is why I rarely do anymore (that, and I already have a reasonable sized music collection, so I don't feel compelled to add to it).

Re: Digitizing LP's

[SendBot]

I've actually digitized a few LP's using decent quality equipment. Once you get the levels right, it's pretty straight for recording. Encoding's not much of a pain, but splitting the tracks and labeling everything is not especially convenient.

We bully Russia? Whatever....

[tacokill]

The real troublesome issue here is that we again have seen the US bullying another nation into line, closely aided by (MP/RI)AA.

Do you honestly believe we are "bullying" our old cold-war partner (for 40 years) into doing something they really don't want to do? Doubtful.

This is the ex-USSR we are talking about here. Not some banana republic in the caribbean. If the USSR doesn't want to go along with us on something -- then they don't. It's that simple.

Prove it:

[tinkerghost]

New Line is telling Jackson that LOTR is still in the red - despite giving bonuses to it's board for huge profits.
It's a known fact that the numbers in recording companies books are magical. They are sued and loose every year for underreporting profits for individual artists. They just keep doing it because they get away with it often enough to make it profitable.
For one example from the video industry:

Kohn says in his lawsuit that he engaged an auditor who was barred from seeing numerous MGM documents but did find "material shortfalls, overcharges, discrepancies [and] irregularities" in his film's DVD accounting. In one instance, he says, MGM deducted $7,312.68 for "Basket" returns from a bankrupt video chain that appeared to have ordered no DVDs.

For the record, that's over 1% of the gross from the theatrical release of the movie.
If you want cooking the books, look no farther than the 15% "breakage" that record companies deduct from the digital sales through iTunes.

Re:Prove it:

[kentrel]

"It's a known fact" that quoting something as "a known fact" is a huge logical fallacy.

That aside, you're talking about the MPAA, we were talking about the RIAA - a completely different organisation, but don't let the facts get in the way!

Also you're talking about an alledged descrepancy, not a proof - but if you want to believe what you like without proof I'm sure nothing will change your mind.

Re:Prove it:

[AK Marc]

That aside, you're talking about the MPAA, we were talking about the RIAA - a completely different organisation, but don't let the facts get in the way!

Oh, so his comments about breakage being charged against the cost of music sold through iTunes were about the MPAA? I seem confused as to why you pick the one part of his post out that you can attack and attack it while leaving the part that is relevant and contradicts you out. Is it because you are dishonest and trying to confuse the issue? Why does breakage still get charged at the levels of the vinyl records when CDs, tapes, and digital have much lower actual breakage rates? Or, since I used the letters "MPAA" in this are you going to accuse me of changing the subject too?

Re:Prove it:

[tepples]

If you want cooking the books, look no farther than the 15% "breakage" that record companies deduct from the digital sales through iTunes.

"The connection has been reset." How is this not breakage?

Re:Prove it:

[kentrel]

Um dishonest? No. It's because he's using a strawman argument. Look it up, and you'll see that "confusing the issue" is what strawman arguments are used for, so send that accusation his way, not mine.

Re:Prove it:

[tinkerghost]

If your connection is reset at the point of sale, you don't get charged a second time, and the record company doesn't get paid for it. The storefront eats it as far as retransmision costs go. The record companies only receive money based on the actual sales of downloads. With a record, the record company receives money for 85% of the records shipped, the 15% discount being determined to be the average level of breakage for 78rpm records.
A connection reset in no way effects the amount of money going to the record company. The store has 1 copy of the song which is cloned for each sale. The record companies are paid for each sale. There is no 'breakage' in terms of the number of copies produced by the record company vs the number of sales they receive payment for.
With Records:

• Recordco ships 100 records to Storeco & is paid $10 each.
• Storeco receives 85 records in saleable condition & deducts $150 from Recordco's bill for breakage.
• Musicians accounting shows 100 records distributed with 15% breakage & royalty for 85 records.

With Digital Downloads:

• Recordco provides Storeco with 1 copy of the record.
• Storeco pays Recordco $8 for each of 100 sales.
• Musicians accounting shows 100 recordings distributed with 15% breakage & commision for 85 recordings.

With digital downloads, Storeco has to handle the "Connection has been reset" problems, not Recordco, yet Recordco is getting the benefits of breakage with regards to how much they pay to the musicians for royalties - in essence a 15% decrease in royalty payments plus 100% recoupment of losses from manufacturing defects.

Re:If you want the benefits of being in the WTO

[Khazunga]

one's "own laws" should reflect international norms and basic fairness. That's half the point of the WTO. Russia had a loophole in its law that allowed piracy. They have shut it down. Good ridance.

I'm continuously amazed how close-minded Americans are. "US norms and basic fairness" do not automatically translate to the rest of the world. At least in Europe it is common for (naturally) monopolistic markets (e.g. Electrical distribution) to be regulated, with fixed prices. That's what Russia had for music, and that's what the US forced them to abandon.

Now, take a step back and look. In the US, an album costs 15USD, where 50cents to a dollar is for the musician. In Russia, the copyright licensing price is fixed, with an electronic album costing 2USD with 50cents to a dollar for the musician. Which system is more efficient?

Re:Asshats - Mod parent up!

[estarriol]

his is exactly why many people in the Middle East hate America so much - they either believe you[1] approve of everything your leaders do, or they realise you disagree but know you're too apathetic to actually oppose them. I think I'd be pretty pissed off if my life was going to hell... and even though the American people disagreed they couldn't be bothered to oppose the guy doing it in their names.Sublime insight. I'd be modding this up myself if I wasn't in the discussion. This is one of the heart-of-the-issue realities, IMHO.

Crime prevention - the way it should be

[doodlebumm]

• Don't buy DRM music.
• Don't pay the high rates that are charged for the music (i.e. don't buy their CDs).
• Don't buy DRM music.
• Do go to your local library and check out the CDs that you like, listen to them and return them.
• Don't buy DRM music.
• Do buy from independents (where your money really does get to the artists, the artists that are really putting out good music).
• Don't buy DRM music.

The only way to make the mafia arm of the music industry realize that they will not get your money is to stop giving them your money, but you must also not abuse copyrights so that they don't think that you're going to steal from the real pirates (RIAA and their associated labels). By all means use the law to your favor and keep fair use alive. Use the library. If they only get 1/20 the sales, but there is no pirating, illegal sharing, etc., then maybe they will wake up. But if you give them money, you are only feeding their habit. Make them stop cold turkey. They need to enter rehab. They are addicted to the cash flow. Just say no to expensive or encumbered music!

Oh, and Don't buy DRM music.

Some more comments about similar practices

[zuki]

(As a disclaimer, I will write that I have an interest in a small independent non-RIAA-affiliated record label, in existence for over 10 years, and that we pay royalties to our artists for the sales of their recordings which are a part of our catalog. Most of our music is currently available for purchase DRM-free from a variety of online sites in all formats, ranging from full-resolution .wav to low-bit rate MP3, and even AAC via iTunes Music Store.

What would it feel like to you if one day you got notice that this overseas online store decided to start selling your whole entire catalog to customers worldwide without any permission or consent whatsoever, made from dubious (and inferior) pirated sound sources, or at best ripped from CDs if those were even commercially available, as many of AllOfMP3's customers have come to realize once they start downloading the product? This is basically what was happening, as far as I gather these people already had another earlier site which got shut down, all they did is try and exploit loopholes in Russian and international law, and leverage this to hopefully legitimize their business model by sheer brute force.

There are several disturbing points which are not really made clearly by anyone yet, the first being that the type of income which is usually payed to ROMS (as someone already pointed out) is customarily made for the same types of payments that radio or TV stations make to the song's publishers when there is airplay, in other words some form of compulsory license which translates to a very low income figure usually set by that country's laws addressing public broadcast; this amount usually strictly only covers the publishing rights to a song. While this does (in theory) compensates the songwriters and publishers, it pays nothing whatsoever to the actual owners of the sound recording, who are not necessarily the same entities.

In most every country, radio and TV play does not usually compensate the owners of the sound recording either, but any sale to the public stipulates that the amount payable to the owner should be negotiated in good faith between the recording's owner and the selling entity. As far as I know, there is no country in the world where someone can walk off the street and decide to start selling your music legally for whatever price they feel, just because they have unilaterally decided to grant themselves that right.

The other part of this bit of 'truthiness' is that even if - so far - AllOfMP3 was able to skirt commonly accepted international trade practices by exploiting the murky Russian legal loopholes in question, there is no question that a number of keys point should have been respected on their part in order for them to maintain the type of legitimacy their recent PR-stunt 'email press conference' hinted they were trying to gain:

• Although they were so far able to evade these issues due to the fact that Russian copyright law was antiquated and did not cover online sales, the sales in questions should have strictly been limited to Russian customers, not to the entire planet.... Come on, now! Many of the cutting-edge music sites like Beatport are finding that in order to get the right to sell music, they must respect territoriality, such as not selling a particular song in a certain country, as someone else already has those exclusive rights.

• If they were in fact a pseudo-legitimate organization that was just far ahead of the times in terms of forward-thinking copyright reform, then they should have made a point of keeping in escrow a sizeable portion of their earnings, to be held in good faith until such time that an agreement would be made with the sound recordings' owners, or at least an organization representing their collective rights in Russia for the music that was already sold to this date. Not publishing.... sound recording rights.

I well realize that similar things took places during the Gold Rush and at the time The West was

Re:Some more comments about similar practices

[jammer170]

As far as I know, there is no country in the world where someone can walk off the street and decide to start selling your music legally for whatever price they feel, just because they have unilaterally decided to grant themselves that right.That is not a true statment. Here in America I can decide to sell anything I've legally acquired. If I purchase several copies of CDs produced by your artist, I can stand on the corner of my street and sell them to people driving by, and it's perfectly legal. That's how businesses are started. You certainly don't have to sell me the CDs to begin with, but once I've paid for them, they are mine to do with as I please. Furthermore, if I legally record a band signed to your label, even just on a tape recorder in a park, I can make as many copies as I like and sell that all I want. I believe what you meant to say was "As far as I know, there is no country in the world where someone can take a product, make copies of it, and sell the copies without the producer's permission, just because they have unilaterally decided to grant themselves the right."

Re:Some more comments about similar practices

[Tap2]

This is so fascinating - who decides what's right, and what's not? Does an American lobby group have the right to decide the laws of Russia are inadequate?

How about war crimes? Can a majority of the nations of this planet decide that the actions of a given U.S. soldier are a crime, and make it stick?

Which of the above feels like a fairer thing to implement, given the parameters of the "lobbying group" are "correct"?

I know I'd prefer the second example to be in effect, but sadly, only the first example seems to have won through.

Then again, soldiers are supposed to follow orders, and if U.S. soldiers had to fear charges of war crimes, maybe they'd have to consider disobeying the evil orders...

And hey, I am aware of the fact that quite a few of you think I've besmirched the sacredness of your monetary discussion here, but I feel such concepts as freedom, human rights, and an independent judiciary system (just a few examples) are more important than your money.

Re:Some more comments about similar practices

[zuki]

The danger of this being of course that it usually leads to - for example -shady operators using these 'pseudo-moralistic values' to justify totally screwing content creators and to make $$ at their expense.

Morality's line does seem very thin indeed, in more ways than one, as anyone but the truly obtuse usually realize that wars and conflict are 9 times out of 10 borne out of economic disparities that have roots in similar situations as the kind of wholesale rape AllOfMP3 was basically committing.....

Z.

Mechanicals?

[Grendel Drago]

What are "mechanicals"? Is that the compulsory-licensing fee for a single track of music, which goes to the record company? It's a bit of a generic word to try and look up.

Re:Mechanicals?

[Hrodvitnir]

First hit on a Google search for "music industry mechanicals."

No more AllOfMp3? Awesome!

[Valacosa]

Seriously everyone, this is great news. I bet shutting down AllOfMp3.com does for music stores what shutting down Napster did for P2P.

Ten imitation sites coming in 3...2...1...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Getting It All

[Nom du Keyboard]

Anyone who hasn't already gotten all the music they're ever going to want by now simply isn't paying attention.

When?

[suggsjc]

When will this become effective? *cough* *cough* one of my friends has an account with some money in it and doesn't want to lose that money...so how long does he have?

Sorry, he was also too lazy to RTFA.

Re:allofmp3 in Anguila with WTO benediction!

[jackjeff]

allofmp3.ai

By dint of (ab)using their international pressure at the WTO level, the US may one day be struck with their own blade, and maybe sooner than later. Anguila is right now suing the US at the WTO for some online obligations the US did not respect, regarding "online gaming" sites(oh it's so morally wrong, blabla crap.. ).

Anyway, for once the born again morons may indeed lose the battle with great shame and economic consiquences. Just imagine scenario:
- 1) Anguila wins its case at WTO
- 2) US does not comply and pursue the "no online gaming website" policity(stupidity).
- 3) As a retaliation and with WTO approbation, Anguila decides to unilateraly ditch DMCA-like obligations!
- 4) Instead of online gaming websites, you've got online "music and videos" ones!!!

- 5) US does the same as for online gaming and forbids credit card companies to accept payment there
- 6) more people want to d/l music/video in non DRM formats than lose money stupidly online, so even if the law passses, loopholes will be found and published and it won't stop the emoragy
- 7) MPAA and RIAA come to beg the US to accept online gaming? nah lolz.. (but that'd be funny anyway). I wonder what #7 might be, it looks like the US morality+IP guard got pretty screwed on that one

- 8) As Billions of people on earth, I don't live in the US, so whatever happens after 4), I just don't care.... By the time the gov of my country realizes such website exists, RIAA/MPAA, and my favorite "Universal Studios" will have filed for bankruptcy ... ahh! what a good day to celebrate, the liberations of the artists from their procurers!

No seriously, does the MPAA/RIAA really think people will buy DRMs?

Re:Asshats - Oh Bull, Yourself!

[Nom du Keyboard]

Oh, bull. The price is set with the assistance of coercive government monopoly powers; as such most of the price is entirely derived _from_ that particular legal construct, and has little to do with the inherent value of the good. And has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

Oh, Bull yourself! That's the same government that gives them the "limited" monopoly -- i.e. copyright -- to start with. And if they set some more rules on how this monopoly can be exercised, you're calling that Bull? The only Bull is in you for thinking laws should only be written to favor one party exclusively.

Ooh, shiny!

[Grendel Drago]

I'm tempted to learn Russian just so I can read all that SF. (I can kinda pronounce the cyrillic, so I recognize a lot of the authors here.) At least "Young Zaphod Plays It Safe" is in English...

RIAA buying off politicians

[Omnifarious]

Why not try to get the Russian government to cooperate in going after Russia based phishers, DDOS extortion rings and the like? It seems to me that would be a lot more useful to more people than asking them to shut down allofmp3.com.

Oh, right, the copyright cartel uses its ill-gotten gains to pay off politicians to do their bidding.

World is a global village now!

[jackjeff]

Although they were so far able to evade these issues due to the fact that Russian copyright law was antiquated and did not cover online sales, the sales in questions should have strictly been limited to Russian customers, not to the entire planet....

allofmp3 pirating indedependant label's aside (yeah that's bad and if you bought music like that you should be ashamed and send directly a check to the label!), is it not because of those stupid local limitations that:

• I can't watch CSI on CBS website without using a proxy
• buy a DVD in the US, bring it back to Germany and play it without facing jail
• can't get a subscription to Sky digital satellite network without a bank account in UK.....
• wait forever until they finally dubbed that movie that the rest of the world has already seen...

grrr, when will they stop those stupid limitations. This is just pissing of customers and inciting them to pirate sometimes. The world is a global village now, and I for one, certainly don't care about what is on local/national TV any more...

Re:World is a global village now!

[jackjeff]

I actually have to complain. I once ordered tracks from "Laura Pausini" or "Mecano" (don't remember) from a certain album (WHICH CANNNOT BE BOUGHT IN MY COUNTRY GRRRR!!) and I ended up with tracks from different albums mixed up together. The thing did not match the list of all the official variations of the album... they just basically made their "own" compilation, and labelled it as "that" album. Pretty bad. After that I stuck to major US/UK albums to be sure I won"t have that labelling problem, that time it was just as bad as p2p...

Re:World is a global village now!

[Vadim Makarov]

Did you complain? Have they given you a refund for that album?

Too complicated.

[Grendel Drago]

The only reason Russia is bound by international law, as the grandparent poster pointed out, is that they're part of a trade organization; because they've agreed to follow those particular laws.

Of course Russia has sovereignty. They gave up a portion of it when they signed those treaties. That's what treaties do.

Not a charity - easy to do

[SuperKendall]

Yes AOMP3 was not a charity, and I'm sure they made plenty of money. It's easy to do when you pay almost NO royalties on any music you sell! Sure the MPAA didn't get anything from them but neither did the artists.

If you like giving the same people money that are basically behind the massive Zombienets you see today, then buying from AOMP3 was an awesome choice for music. Basically it was more ethical to steal it outright!

Re:Not a charity - easy to do

[ET_Fleshy]

You seem to be confused, you think that the artists get money from the current RIAA approved online distribution system?

Why just allofmp3.com?

[castlerain]

Why not legalsounds.com (yet another Russian based music site with almost the same exact setup) Just a different user database basically and slightly different look to the site.

Re:Why just allofmp3.com?

[mrchaotica]

Because until just now, I'd never heard of legalsounds.com. Presumably, very few other people have so far either.

Ah, well.

[Grendel Drago]

I'd been meaning to get while the getting was good. Back to oth.net and P2P off of some other poor sap's wireless connection.

It's about power (in this case, price-fixing)

[buxton2k]

Free trade is all about lowering restrictions and barriers to the movement of goods and capital across national borders. This has worked out well for the owners of capital. In a place like China, where the average income is not much more than $1/day, you can buy cheap labor; the produced goods flow back to the First World, where you can sell at a much higher price, but lower than the cost of the good if it was produced using First World labor.

What the RIAA and similar organizations absolutely can not allow is for consumers to employ the same principles. When you buy a song from AllofMP3.com, you pay about US$0.05 - but adjusted for purchasing power parity, that works about to about a US dollar in terms of what you can buy in Russia (roughly, it's been a while since I looked this up). In other words, to a Russian, AllofMP3.com sells songs (although unencumbered by DRM) for about the same real price as an American pays for a song at iTunes.

Thanks to the Internet, there is no real (i.e. technical or physical) reason why the American can't buy a song "in Russia" at "Russian prices" - so of course the American will, for the same reason that many retirees may choose to move to a lower-price economy to live off their pensions at a higher standard of living, or companies may buy their labor in Third World nations. AllofMP3.com is simply one of many situations where ordinary people, as opposed to corporations, make direct benefit off free trade. All of these examples, you might note, are of wealthier people benefiting from access to lower price markets.

For the RIAA (and similar orgs like the MPAA), this would be the collapse of the price-fixing system they have carefully constructed. The reason that a Asian-region DVD won't play in the US is because if it did play, there would be no reason to buy higher-priced US-region DVDs. "To every market, the highest possible price that particular market can support," is the cartel mantra. AllofMP3.com was selling to a "universal market", at prices that made it a profit in local (Russian) terms, and that was the real threat to the RIAA's control> and ability to price-fix. Even if AllofMP3.com paid most of its profits to the RIAA, it would still be eroding that control and needed to be destroyed or rendered irrelevant.

Re:Why? Just... why?

[NulDevice]

The problem is that your $45 most likely never went anywhere near the pockets of the people who created, licensed, produced, etc the music you bought. Oh, in principle, there were some provisions for payout of artist royalties, but in practice it looks like it rarely (if ever) happened.

Honestly, as a musican I kind of prefer illegal downloading to scams like allofmp3. In that case, at least nobody is making money off my works.

Re:If you want the benefits of being in the WTO

[Wovel]

I'm continuously amazed how close-minded Americans are. "US norms and basic fairness" do not automatically translate to the rest of the world. At least in Europe it is common for (naturally) monopolistic markets (e.g. Electrical distribution) to be regulated, with fixed prices. That's what Russia had for music, and that's what the US forced them to abandon. In the US electrical distribution, cable television and local telephone service are regulated monopolies. In most US markets they are finding ways to open some of this up to competition, but for now the owners of the last mile for electrical wire, cable tv and telephone service remain regulated monopolies.

That's Johnson

[XanC]

Andrew Johnson was the other president to be impeached.

when is its last day?

[TheGratefulNet]

I wasn't able to find that info.

when is the last day that a*mp3 will still be up and doing 'business' ?

WAY OT was Re:That's Johnson

[sgtrock]

You're right. I knew it was the post Civil War president. D'oh! A quick Google search turned up an interesting article on Info Please that discusses the 35 impeachment attempts in US history. A lot of judges on the list.

WTF

[SQLz]

There is a crap war in Iraq, Putin is assasinating people, but some dudes distributing mp3s is what our government is worried about.

Legality in Russia != red herring

[emil10001]

Actually, according to US copyright law, it is legal to download from allofmp3.com.

Point of correction....

[scheming daemons]

AllofMP3's rights derived from a Soviet government asserted right to any and all intellectual property being broadcast within the Soviet Union. That the Soviet government had no such rights to distribute intellectual properties from the holders of those properties was irrelevant to the Soviet government. The only intellectual property rights they were interested in were those of the state's. Anything the state produced or condoned was fine, and rights to those were distributed (if needed) by the state. Intellectual property that was not condoned was forbidden, and rights to those were irrelevant.

The "Soviet" government hasn't existed since 1991. It's been the "Russian" government for 15 years.

You're showing your age. ;-)

Re:Point of correction....

[Narcogen]

Showing my age is fine by me. ROMS, if I remember correctly, is a holdover from the Soviet era, as are other agencies like the KGB (well, KNB). Very little has actually changed in the day to day operations of the government in Russia since the Soviet Union has collapsed. Privatization took lots of assets out of the control of the government (many it is seeking to get back now) but the things the government does now and has always done are not very much different.

The value of a dollar varies

[tepples]

$100.00 in 1986 bought worth more hours of labor than $100.00 in 2006 does.

The major labels target their advertising poorly

[tepples]

If music seems expensive to you, your element of the market can't bear it, so don't buy it.

So why is expensive music constantly advertised on commercial radio to elements of the market who cannot bear the price? How can a child take a bus to and from school and opt out of listening to expensive music? How can anyone go to a grocery store and opt out of listening to expensive music?

Jewel boxes cost money

[tepples]

Why does breakage still get charged at the levels of the vinyl records when CDs, tapes, and digital have much lower actual breakage rates?

Many newer recording contracts have replaced "breakage" with "packaging" at the same rate. I'd imagine that jewel box for a CD is significantly more expensive than the cardboard and paper sleeve for an LP.

Not much, but something

[SuperKendall]

Yes artists get ripped off today - but much less if you go indie, and those guys were on AllOfMP3 as well.

Buying from ITMS sends .09 of every .9 to the artist.

Re: BZZZZT WRONG!

[gidds]

I wasn't asking whether would be compensated for having their music played on the radio; I was asking whether they'd be compensated if I recorded their music off the radio. Which is a different question entirely. Yes, in most cases I expect the copyright holders do get some form of compensation from having their music played on the radio. (Whether that actually makes much of a difference to the writers and/or performers is another matter, of course.) But they get that regardless of how many people happen to listen in, and of how many people happen to be recording the broadcast. If I choose to record, they make exactly the same as if I don't.

So my point stands: you can't call downloading from a web site illegal simply on the grounds that the artist doesn't make money from my doing so, because the artist similarly makes no money from my recording a radio broadcast, which is legal. Buzzer or no buzzer.

Revolutionaries ain't going down, juswent to China

[imkow]

When comrades in Russia have fallen, the victorious red flag was transferred to the hands of Chinese revolutionaries. The chorus that echoes the spirit of no charge, equality and public ownership still exists in the land of the Middle Kingdom.
Please from now on use the Chinese language to find music download.
http://mp3.baidu.com/

Re:Why? Just... why?

[Rakarra]

Remember, we're not talking about one of the many business contracts between Russia and the US but rather conditions to their application to the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Association! This is so absurd I can't possibly believe this.

If you wonder why the US Government is interested in protecting the foreign interests of the RIAA and MPAA, keep in mind that just about the only commercial product the United States successfully exports anymore is entertainment. Everything else (including the things we use) are made in other countries.

Re: Prove it

[janzen]

Courtney Love explained in some detail how record industry math works, here.

Before you cheer too loudly...

[soliptic]

"Oh but it's legal, it works like radio, they pay the Russian PRS, who pay the artists". Er... no.

My band's CD is for sale on various allofmp3.com-alikes. Not allofmp3.com itself, AFAIK, but certainly on other *.ru sites. I know quite a few other (more successful/well known) artists whose work is doubtless available on these sites.

Nobody's got any cheques from the Russian PRS.

Frankly you're better off downloading it off soulseek/bittorrent/emule/whatever the kids are using this week. I mean - if you're going to pay - the only reason for doing so is to financially support the artists you like, and that does not happen with these Russian mp3 sites. Seriously - just pirate it for free instead! Lining the pockets of some random Russian mafia dudes should do nothing to qualm your conscience, so you honestly might as well.

Piracy = tricky

[l0cust]

I know some people (specially those of you who are professional musicians etc.) are touchy about the subject of piracy, and I kind of understand a lot of points thrown against the 'pirates'. But there is another Big side to piracy which people try to downplay most of the times -> Future Market

Its may be a bit difficult for people living in the US to understand but in lots of countries, pirated music is the only way people get their first taste of music coming out of US. There is no way I would have been introduced to names like Pearl Jam, Jethro Tull, Nirvana, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Alice in Chains, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, Sinatra, Johnny Cash et al if it was not for pirated music during my college days. Now when I have started working, these are the names I look for when I am buying CDs for myself or friends/family. These are the names I recommend to anyone who asks for suggestion regarding the next music purchase. Its free publicity and it gives us a choice to actually know if the artist or his/her album/track is actually good. MTV and VH1 videos don't mean crap specially since they have started putting crap all over their screen now (who came up with the idea that everyone loves every kind of rap/pop/hip-hop just so long as you can show voluptuous models in skimpy clothes in the videos?).

50 cents my a$$

[Ogemaniac]

More like a fraction of a penny. Either way, that amount should be the copyright holder's choice, not AllofMP3's.

Re:50 cents my a$$

[Khazunga]

Either way, that amount should be the copyright holder's choice, not AllofMP3's.

And herein lies the error. The choice is not Allofmp3's but the Russian government's. Oh, and it should never ever in any realm be a choice from the *AA's or the US government...

Re:BZZZZT WRONG!

[Alsee]

Bzzzzt yourself.

So when a radio plays music it first pays a base fee to the owner fo the music

Right. Under the exact same kind of statutory licencing system as Russian AllOfMP3.com. The payments AllOfMP3.com is making under Russian law are a vastly higher rate than radio station pay, and a vastly higher rate than companies like Pandora.com pay for sending MP3s on the internet under US law.

If Russian recording companies were to REFUSE to accept those US radio-play licencing fees for their artists, or were to REFUSE to accept teh CARP licencing fees for internet MP3 distribution by Pandora.com and other US companies, that would not illegitimize the US law or US radio play or US internet MP3s like Pandora.com

The fact that the RIAA is REFUSING to accept the Russian ROMS royalty payments on behalf og artists does not illegitimize AllOfMP3.com. AllOfMP3.com pays about 20 times as much as the US Pandora.com for sending the identical MP3.

The RIAa is a lying fuckwad in trying to complain that their artists are not getting paid. It is RIAA that is refusing to accept the money and it is the RIAA refusing to distribute that money to their signed artists.

I sell cd to a used CD store, I am sellign them my right to listen to that music on that media

You misunderstand the principals of copyright law. I have read almost the entire text of US copyright law (and other countries' copyright law is substantially the same). There is no such thing as a "right to listen". The very concept is wrong. Copyright just doesn't work like that.

Under copyright law, the owner of the CD is the owner of the particular copy of music on that CD. When you sell a used CD, you are selling ownership of that copy of that music.

You own the CD, you have the right to do almost anything you like with your property. About the only things you cannot do are making/distribute new infringing copies or making infringing public performances.

If you buy a book, you have every freedom to look at your property and read it. You do not need or receive any "licence to read". If *you* buy a book, and for whatever circumstances *I* am able to see the page of your book, I have every freedom ro read it. I do not need any sort of "licence to read" it.

If you buy a CD, you need no licence of any sort and you receive no licence of any sort. You have the ordinary freedom and right to stick your disk in a CD player. If you sell it at a used CD store, you are selling physical ownership of the disk and physical ownership of the copy recorded on that disk. There is no copyrigh involvment in that transfer at all. Someone buying that used CD is buying that same ownership and buying teh right and freedom to controll where that physical property goes and where and when that physical property may be stuck into a CD player.

if I first copy everyhting I won then sell the original, well that is just blatently againt the tenants of fair use.

Yeah. You can make copies, for example backup copies or media shifted copies, but you should to either destroy them or transfer them along with the original when you sell the original. US law is not explicit on that point in relation to music, but is is explicit on that point in relation to software. I'd say it's a pretty overwhelming Fair Use argument to default to the same rule in one area as another area unless there is a clear and compelling reason to modify the rule.

-

Oops!

[Alsee]

Oops! Sorry. I accidentally made two silimar replies to two different posts from you. I simply didn't notice/recall the name on them. Heh. Oh well.

-

You mean "was"

[Ogemaniac]

Thankfully, Russia has agreed to stop allowing its citizens to rob foreigners. Now if they would only quit assassinating critics.

If you do not pay what someone is asking for their product, you are stealing. Even if your gang of thugs (err, government) says they don't care because they don't like the guy you are stealing from.

Re:You mean "was"

[Khazunga]

If you do not pay what someone is asking for their product, you are stealing. Even if your gang of thugs (err, government) says they don't care because they don't like the guy you are stealing from.

There is a huge difference between a band of thugs and a government. The failure to recognize such a difference has led to many many errors in history, from the crusades to colonization to, more recently, Iraq. This is the main point that Americans do not understand: Other countries can (and do) have laws that differ from your own. Since they're not your laws, you'll feel they are unfair/incorrect. However, have the humbleness to recognize the US does not hold the universal truth, nor the right to enforce it. Other countries are entitled to run the country as they see fit. The countries' citizens are the ones who should change the status quo if it isn't right.

All through this thread I've not been defending what Russians (as in their government) do. I will, however, always defend their right to manage their country (including IP laws) as they see fit.

Or, in a more down to earth summary: If they are thieves, you are bullies. Kettle, meet pot.