Slashdot Mirror
Allofmp3 Shut Down, Again
studguy1 writes to tell us TorrentFreak is reporting that the Russian government has shut down Allofmp3, the popular online music site. "AllOfMP3 has been a thorn in the side of the RIAA and the US government for years. Last year, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said that if Russia wants to join the WTO, they should shut down the pirate music website that is robbing US recording companies of sales."
"...they should shut down the pirate music website that is robbing US recording companies of sales."
So then, they shut down the wrong website.
Exposure leads to increased sales, period.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
In actuality, most people stopped using Allofmp3 when it became virtually impossible to pay, some months ago. (when Visa pulled the plug)
The rather more substantial thorn in the record industrys side is now iTunes and Apple.
Bush - Putin visit?
Oh great, people will pay nothing for their music instead of paying a slight amount. Great job, RIAA, you've completely failed to grasp the situation again.
Soo...
When US record companies see no positive impact in sales, will Russia be allowed to let allofmp3 reopen?
Because, for some reason I find myself really doubting that people that were paying pennies for songs are going to suddenly turn around and start paying an order of magnitude more.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just a lowly consumer...
3...2...1
GO!
1. Something (usually money) given in exchange for influence or as an inducement to dishonesty. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bribe
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There's already a good 100 clones of allofmp3 with similar music catalogs and pricing schemes all operating out of Russia. Shutting down one website is really a non-issue at this point, anyone can go to google and find dozens of alternatives all operating out of Russia.
Actually, it seems that http://www.mp3sparks.com/ already offers all the music from AoMP3.
So I guess AoMP3 has already reincarnated.
I don't see how the RIAA really accomplished much. Allofmp3.com was just the giant that took all the heat, like Napster. There are still copycats, like mp3stor.com, who offer almost identical selection and pricing, that are alive, kicking, and taking customers. They made a bust for the headlines, even though you can get identical sites with a quick google search.
i'm crying little emo tears for the RIAA and their butt-buddies in the Music industry. how are you ever going to pay for that fourth BMW you bought? wahhhhh.
So once allofmp3 is shut down, do they really expect sales to go up?
If there was a similar legitimate, and DRM-free service, and prices were low enough, perhaps sales would go up.
It seems that RIAA still does not get it, things like Napster, mp3.com, and allofmp3 will keep coming until the RIAA, or the artist themselves decide to stop fighting the Internet model, and instead profit from it.
Ok so they're stealing sales, but who exactly is interested in buying stolen sales?
nope. theft is only taking something in a way such that the original owner no longer has it. copyright infringement is not theft. it is what it is.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
From what I understand, the RIAA...I mean, US Government...I mean, WTO actually named AllOfMp3 by name, rather than specifying that a specific class of service be suspended.
So even though MP3Sparks is the same site, run by the same company, offering the same service, since the name is different, they've successfully satisfied the WTO request in this regard.
FWIW, you can't pay by credit card at MP3Sparks either.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
... for buying stolen property.
Oh, yeah, right. Since the original authors got to keep their notes and recordings, it was not really stealing. Never mind...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That would explain why the allTunes client still works then, which was their desktop client.
If only that were true. Well, the shutting down the **AA part, anyway.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
More accurately, the RIAA can't prove that it's theft.
The RIAA argues that if the person hadn't received the song illegally, that they would have purchased it. By providing an alternative means to get that song, allofmp3 are taking $X from the RIAA, which is ethically (if not semantically) the same as theft. Unfortunately, the RIAA can't prove when they actually lost sales, but I'm sure they are in some percentage of cases. Maybe that percentage is around what you'd argue (perhaps 0.0001%?) or maybe it's closer to what they'd argue (100%?). Either way, the RIAA really is losing some sales, they just overstate that loss.
The real point is that the government has provided the RIAA with a monopoly on certain goods by the granting of copyrights. A large subset of the population, however, disagrees with their current handling of that monopoly. Fortunately, the population can wield significant input on this situation from two ends - both through their involvement in the government which granted the monopoly in the first place and their formation of the consumers who the RIAA attempts to attract to purchase music from them. This makes it inevitable that what we're seeing now is just a blip.
The RIAA can't keep going like this and will adapt their model. The unfortunate collateral damage, however, is the vast number of people who have be sued, shut down or otherwise harassed by the RIAA while they adapt. Not to mention the large amounts of money being spent to prevent what is inevitable.
"Thorn in the side" means "constant source of irritation". An MP3 bootlegger is certainly a "thorn in the side" of the RIAA. But of the U.S. government? Somehow, in this era of major terrorism, genocide, nuclear proliferation, insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other thorny issues, I don't think anybody in the government loses sleep over allofmp3.
http://www.mp3sparks.com/info/payments.shtml
I know the copyright infringement != theft line is common around here, but please respond intelligently to issues raised by someone on the opposing side of an issue. This may prevent you from being immediately dismissed as a closed-minded zealot. The difference between the is when the copyright is infringed and the music is sold for a profit, that is stealing or theft of profits on the copyright through infringement. When the music is illegally downloaded by an individual it is copyright infringement, not theft, since it is difficult to say whether that one individual would have paid for the music otherwise.
IANAL, so I may be completely wrong, but that is my understanding of the issue. There's a huge difference between the college student who downloads a couple songs here and there and shares with friends, all 100,000,000 of them, and a company which is distributing the copyrighted material for a profit. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The RIAA is robbing itself of legitimate music sales because the recording companies can't be bothered to put music out that is actually worth paying for. Now they have taken to bullying countries for admission into the WTO.
When I was younger, I almost always bought the newest albums, because the music was good, or at least I thought so. Nowadays I still buy music, a majority from indy labels. I buy CDs, I don't like the idea of buying music online that can't be burned onto a CD as a back-up due to DRM controls. I guess I am just more particular of what I buy these days, mostly because I don't want to pay $15 for an album that is crap (which describes most, but not all, of new music today).
www.mp3sugar.com
Its awesome how this must be pointed out for every slashdot article on the mafiaa...
> I know the copyright infringement != theft line is common around here, but please respond intelligently to issues raised by someone on the opposing side of an issue.
If you can't understand the difference between copyright infringement and stealing then it's better to keep quiet. Its pointless arguing the finer points of a legal argument with someone who doesn't even understand the basics of law.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
"..robbing US recording companies of sales"
-Stick 'em up!
-Yeah - git your hands in the air!
-We heard you got some "sales"
-No funny business - hand em over - slowly!
-That's right - nice and slow, and noone will get hurt...
I think it should be a standard footer to all summaries about copyright law to save us the effort of rewriting the same comment each time.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Don't they mean US and foreign recording companies? After all, aren't foreign companies also represented by the RIAA?
why would i give my cc to a russian run illegal mp3 site?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Please enlighten me.
www.purevolume.com/martyd
As long as I use the AllTunes Explorer. Still getting daily music updates too.
And you can still refill your balance with Visa or Mastercard. Just click the links and follow the directions and use a $0 liability card.
nope. theft is only taking something in a way such that the original owner no longer has it.
You have taken away their ability to sell it to you.
Strawman and ad hominem.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Well I don't know of a online site that doesn't allow burning onto a CD. Got any examples?
When I was younger, I almost always bought the newest albums, because the music was good, or at least I thought so
Congratulations, you have reached middle age. Next step - complaining that you can't make out the words. Did you think you were exempt from this? The problem here is not the music companies, it's that you are older and are still expecting a mainly youth-driven market to appeal to you. It's not that the album is crap, it's that it is not intended for you.
That's a REALLY good question.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Just tried to pay using my Visa. It works.
Every country that has joined the WTO so far has suffered a horrendous destruction of national sovereignty and a corresponding destruction of National Security. Is it really worth shutting down a music website just to destroy your own ability to control your own borders and trade?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Too bad they are democratic and capitalist now (cough!). We all have to suffer for it.
Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
because they already have it.
cha cha cha
=)
And Allofmp3 is the lynch pin keeping Russia out.
Remember when Russia was the enemy? And we had classic cliche's based on them? Meeeemmoorriiiiiieeesssss!!!!
Someone hates these cans.
Consider this carefully: there is no right to profit.
So? You can only rob physical items, not opportunities and ideas If you own a diner, and I open a better one down the street, perhaps you won't be able to tell as many burgers. Does that mean that I've robbed you of sales in some metaphorical sense? You bet. Is the wrong? No. Is it legally actionable that I've caused the theft of your customers? Not in a million years.
I noticed the comments about Mp3Sparks.com. I'd never heard of them but saw that they we're run by the same guys. I was bummed to hear allofmp3 was shutdown since I still had $30 balance on it. What do you know though, I tried to login with my allofmp3 username/login on Mp3Sparks and my account and balance was carried over. And I just assumed they'd steal my money.
Precisely. The demand curve for music is very elastic. People will get free stuff that they wouldn't pay $1 for, people will pay $1 for stuff they wouldn't pay $16.99 for, and so on. The RIAA's claim that music demand is totally inelastic is, IMO, more laughable than any of their legal claims.
I was under the impression that it the downloaded music had DRM controls on it , you cannot burn it to CD. My sister has an ipod and downloads music from iTunes and whatnot, and she cannot make a CD file of the mp3s from iTunes.
When I was younger, I almost always bought the newest albums, because the music was good, or at least I thought so
I buy music that is mainstream, but more on the indy side. I also buy music from The Killers, Modest Mouse, White Stripes and even Gnarles Barkley. I am talking the manufactured music, meaning music from groups that would never have gotten together if it weren't for some recording studio auditioning for the new 'pop tart' or 'boy band' crap that is the Top 40. I didn't say all new music is crap, just most of it.
I also didn't say that I bought less music than I did when I was younger. In fact I buy more. I am just more particular. FTR I never liked 'boy band' or 'pop tart' music when I was younger either.
As far as the music not being intended for me, that is BS. Music shouldn't be something that has an age range. If the music is good, it's good. My 60 year old mother who literally hated all new music will hear something I am playing and say "that's pretty good, who is it?" Now she's buying Flogging Molly and all sorts of stuff that has me asking "what did you do with my mother?"
I prefer the term Extortion the x makes it sound cool - Bender
Especially as seeing as the RIAA wasn't collecting the royalties that Allofmp3.com claimed to be setting aside, the artists weren't getting paid anyway
;)
You may as well just download the various format torrents from TPB....the artist will get the same as they were anyway, your CC will be safe and you won't have to maintain the pretence that paying tuppence to a pseudo-legal site was legitimately buying the music
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
The notion that copyright infringement was a form of theft became current in English language and in English thought while the Black Flag still flew over the Caribbean.
It made perfect sense to Dickens, who had some choice things to say about the American character in this context. Copy Wrong: Internet Piracy and Dickens and Melville
The geek wastes time and pursuing the linguistic argument, the philosophical argument, which were lost long ago.
The legal argument doesn't take him much farther - at least the states - where copyright infringement can put him in a federal penitentiary on a felony charge.
"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." - Charles Babbage
The monopoly is a 95 year copyright publishing monopoly enforced by up to $250,000 fines and Police/FBI raids on you home school or business.
A free market is not possible with such a monopoly.
Because if they steal your info, your CC company will just refund it all anyway?
You have stated: You can only rob physical items, not opportunities and ideas The GPL states: By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. If I take code and re-sell it in violation of the GNU GPL, I have misappropriated a non-physical item.
listen, we all hate the riaa. they use thug tactics and lobbyists to get their way here in the states and often overseas. but...
if you believe they ever saw one red cent from allofmp3.com you're nuts. it's one thing to attack potential consumers for exchanging music online. it's another to go after a company that is turning a profit on your product without your consent. what allofmp3 is doing is plainly immoral. they may be protected by some loophole in the russian copyright law but that doesn't make what they're doing okay. the riaa has the moral high ground here, like it or not.
slyck has a better article
It's not actually an illegal site. In russia, allofmp3.com actually has a licence to sell the music.
Just for the heck of it, I tried to log into MP3sparks using my allofmp3 login. And there I am with my old allofmp3 balance fully intact on MP3sparks. I was worried there for a minute.
Well, you'd better tell the industry that, because there are millions of people who have bought the same material again and again (vinyl, cassette, CD, ...) and that doesn't seem to make the recording industry think they won't be able to sell it again in a new format.
The notion that copyright infringement was a form of theft became current in English language and in English thought while the Black Flag still flew over the Caribbean.
So what? The times they are a-changin'. We have a more sophisticated understanding of intellectual "property" and similar doublespeak these days.
It made perfect sense to Dickens, who had some choice things to say about the American character in this context. Copy Wrong: Internet Piracy and Dickens and Melville
He's not exactly an objective bystander.
The geek wastes time and pursuing the linguistic argument, the philosophical argument, which were lost long ago.
The argument has never ended and the cartel's current attempt to control what others think is looking pretty shaky.
The legal argument doesn't take him much farther - at least the states - where copyright infringement can put him in a federal penitentiary on a felony charge.
I wonder who bought that law.
---
DRM'ed content breaks the copyright bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions. It should not be possible to copyright DRM'ed content.
No, you haven't. If I release a GPLed program and you distribute it in a way not allowed by the GPL, you haven't misappropriated anything; you've merely violated my copyright.
And there are companies in the US who don't even like what apple is doing with ITMS.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
The existing AllOfMP3 accounts actually continue to work on MP3sparks, including their account balance.
Yay.
I think "To use illegally" works best.
"Consider this carefully: there is no right to profit."
Straw man. Copyright holders -- whether they're individuals or corporations, painters, novelists, songwriters, you name it -- are not asking that you honor a so-called "right to profit" when they ask you not to copy their stuff. They are asking that you honor their rights under copyright law.
"So? You can only rob physical items, not opportunities and ideas If you own a diner, and I open a better one down the street, perhaps you won't be able to tell as many burgers. Does that mean that I've robbed you of sales in some metaphorical sense? You bet. Is the wrong? No. Is it legally actionable that I've caused the theft of your customers? Not in a million years."
My band releases an album. It kind of sucks, and your band releases a better album which sells better. Have you robbed me of sales? Not in a million years. Is it wrong? No. It's good old-fashioned competition.
My band releases an album which I am selling on iTunes. You put a copy on your popular web site and sell it for a tenth of the price without giving me a share of your income. Have you robbed me of sales? Yes, quite possibly. Is it wrong? Yes.
I think it's okay if we choose not to honor the rights of composers, songwriters, and so on. But we can do so without the straw men.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
All you have to do is set up a one-time account number for one transaction. I can set up a temporary number authorized for a limit of, say, $25, that is only valid for a week. Pay with that, your credit card company transfers it to your regular card, then the number expires.
TANSTAAFL
So you're saying a lot goes to the middle men. Right. Well, an average musician can't run a web site and sell and promote their own music online. That's ridiculously difficult right now.
Well, how about somebody write some very simple, very easy php modules that musicians can get their ISP's to install for them so that they can sell directly? Smart ISP owners then add that to their list of standard modules.
Duh.
I don't respond to AC's.
Quite strangely, my AllOfMp3 login/pass doesn't work. If click forgot my password, it finds my account just fine and emails me my password, but I can't log in with it.
I can't believe that Hugo hasn't started one up in Venezuela just to piss off the US...
Mp3Sparks.com
mp3sugar.com
mp3search.ru
mp3stor.com
-heinousjay
Anyone else having a problem logging into mp3sparks with their aomp3 account?
When I use the "forgot password" feature, it sends me the correct name/password from aomp3.
But when I try to use it, it errors out everytime.
Also, there doesn't appear to be an SSL on the connections, try https seems to just error out.
You're saying that Gordon Brown worries as much about selling the next Harry Potter book as he does about preventing the next bombing?
Sure, it seems stupid right now. But, over the long haul, yes he will. Were he still Chancellor of the Exchequer, he'd care even more.
Stepping back up the thread to whether this was a thorn in the US Government's side, anything that causes major lobbying groups to suck up space in a Congressional Rep's/Senator's/President's schedule for bitching and moaning counts as a thorn.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Either your sister is lying to you, or doesn't know how to properly operate the easiest-to-use music software (imo, ymmv) ever, or she doesn't have a cd burner. You choose.
Tracks bought from ITMS can be burned to CD a limited number (7) of times.
Why do I M2 everything negatively?
The WTO seems to be the main reason countries bother stopping piracy, when they are extorted enough to do it. But China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc is still on their members list. I dont even know what the WTO does, I dont care, I just wish they would cease to exist.
s/©//g
What's the big deal? Didn't the Mafie.. err.. I mean.. RIAA have the option of applying to the russian equivalent to retrieve royalties, but refuses to do so. In which case, it's deprived US artists of royalties due to it's own pig-headedness.
> Tracks bought from ITMS can be burned to CD a limited number (7) of times.
Close. It's not an individual song, but a playlist [group of songs] that has a limit. By including a given song in different playlists, it can be burned an unlimited number of times, even without ripping a 'burnt' copy of the song, thus removing the copy protection completely.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
That is a poor rhetorical trick to justify theft.
Copyright infringement limits the ability of the content owner to receive compensation for his
work. Even though nothing physical is taken in the act, the result is the same and, in such instances,
can be considered a proper analog for theft.
It is all well and good to deny that copyright infringement is not theft and hide behind a naive technicality
in order to continue to be in the wrong.
By your logic, were I to acquire your credit card and purchase items, I am not committing theft because i never actually
took anything from you and never intended to permanently deprive you of the use of any property.
I stand happily corrected :).
Why do I M2 everything negatively?
By your logic, were I to acquire your credit card and purchase items, I am not committing theft because i never actually
took anything from you and never intended to permanently deprive you of the use of any property.
That's correct... unless you had physically stolen my credit card (versus just getting a hold of my number somehow) then it's not theft. It's fraud.
~moofbong
If 'con' is the opposite of 'pro', what is the opposite of 'progress'?
In soviet Russia Mp3's rob you.
yep, that's what I'd do.
Allofmp3 has the ultimate business model for me dollars!
The real point is that the government has provided the RIAA with a monopoly on certain goods by the granting of copyrights
The government provides the creators with a temporary monopoly on reproduction of their works by granting of copyrights.
The creators have the ability to transfer their copyrights, license them (exclusively or otherwise), or manage them themselves.
Because of other aspects of the economy, it turns out that many artists have exclusive licenses with recording and production companies (labels), and through an organization they are members of they engage in political and legal actions to enforce those copyrights.
But it's not the RIAA that has the monopoly. Nobody buys music from the RIAA.
Going back to the original question, if you want to fight the RIAA you need to do something to reduce their income, influence, or power. The best way to do that is to support labels that are not RIAA members, and self-publishing musicians and musicians who contract with independent labels.
You can't "hurt the RIAA" or "promote independent music" by buying music from allofmp3, though. Allofmp3 isn't a neutron bomb that kills RIAA labels and leaves indie labels standing. Every time you buy a song from allofmp3 instead of emusic or cdbaby, you're really strengthening the RIAA... because that lost sale is *worth more*, comparatively, to the indies than to the majors.
If you want to hurt the major labels and the RIAA, BUY DIFFERENT MUSIC. It's not like you're going to be hurt by buying different music than the labels are pushing... but *they* will be, if only because strengthening the indies makes more artists consider abandoning the majors a viable option.
There was a quick process (basically, check I agree) you had to go through on allofmp3 site wherein they deactivated your allofmp3 login and activated the corresponding mp3sparks (with balance and bonus)
I'm guessing they'll move the remaining accounts in bulk now that allofmp3 is shutdown. I think the transfer was done piecemeal this way for the past several months to keep the existance of mp3sparks quiet for as long as possible.
My Band writes this song called "Happy Birthday to You", which is based on a public domain song. It is copyrighted for 56 years.
I sell the song to some nice corporation.
The corporation and many others convince the government with money to extend all the copyrights to 95-120 years.
So 80 years later, you sing "Happy Birthday to You" in public without paying the copyright fee. Are you stealing from the nice corporation, by taking lost revenue?
Yes.
I encourage all of you to write Time Warner and offer payment for your violations.
The point here is that copyright law obviously benefits society by letting the nice corporations control publishing information for an unlimited period of time.
Thomas Jefferson was wrong in trying to limit the monopoly of publishers. The medieval Stationers knew best.
- mininova search
- pirate bay search
- torrentspy search.
all came up bone dry.But that's still not stealing. :-)
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
So you wouldn't prosecute him for identity *theft*?
Yes, but it is taking something from them.
Just as violating the GNU GPL removes the author's ability to make their work free in that instance, using copied music removes the author's ability to be paid in that instance.
>You have taken away their ability to sell it to you.
Which in many cases is not illegal. People like to call it theft and then since theft is illegal they claim that whatever they called theft must thus be illegal and end up wrong.
>That's why they said that allofmp3.com was robbing them of sales.
Which in many cases can be completely legal despite you and them using the world "robbing", I believe it is common to call it competition in the market. Just because someone manage to use thw world "theft", "steal" or "robbery" to describe something doesn't turn it illegal (not commenting on allofmp3 here, just the use of the worlds). From what I see, people tend to use theft for all sort of things related (and not so related) to copyright infringement ending up claiming things that are perfectly legal being illegal. To avoid confusion and missleading statements, why not use the proper terminolgy from law when one want to discuss the legalness of things?
But to say the author's "ability to be paid" has been taken from him *still* relies on the very flawed assumption that the sale would have been completed absent the availability of the cheaper copy. I downloaded and use The GIMP for almost all of my graphic editing needs, so according to this line of reasoning I've deprived Adobe of a sale. But in reality I haven't, because I'm just not willing to pay the price Adobe is asking for their product. I would not have purchased Photoshop regardless of the circumstances, and the availability of the open source alternative didn't factor into that decision in the least. I'd really like to get a new copy of ELP's "Welcome Back My Friends, to the Show That Never Ends", but for me it's not worth the $20 that iTunes sells it for, and certainly not the even more expensive price one will pay in a record store. I'm quite content to do without rather than paying that price, so the only party that has deprived Warner of a sale is Warner itself.
The legality of AllOfMP3's downloads really doesn't factor into the argument, because from a purely economic standpoint the "lost sales" are solely the result of the RIAA members refusing to bring their prices in line with what the market has established they're willing to pay while someone else is quite happy to meet that price. I'm quite sure that if the same breadth of music were available on iTunes or any of the other licensed services for a comparable price, they'd see *vastly* increased sales. I know *I* would buy more. I do occasionally buy music via iTunes, but offer me a DRM-free album in the format of my choice for $3.99 instead of $9.99, and I will probably drop $50 or more per month on your service, instead of the one album every 2-3 months like I do now.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Which in many cases is not illegal. People like to call it theft and then since theft is illegal they claim that whatever they called theft must thus be illegal and end up wrong.
Oh, it isn't theft. I completely agree. But on the other hand, people like to say it isn't theft and then since it's not theft they claim that whatever isn't must be both legal and moral.
Copying music is no different than me selling code release under GNU GPL.
They'll not look at the sales that were generated from the exposeure due to allofmp3. The tech was excellent, but it didn't fit with the system. No shit. Anything that does fit within is doomed to corporate exploitation and infected with boyband, submissive band of the moment and celebrity heavy fake nonsense. The tech underlying allofmp3.com was excellent. Reference sources to as required downloads... who you gonna blame just because the Russians chose tech over middlemen. When you don't speak the language it's hard to find the words (nor should they). Perhaps they should look at why it was successful and not why it shouldn't be. Repression, negative re-inforcement, status quo... no wonder people looked elsewhere. The internet routes around bottlenecks. Perhaps it's about time the RI/MP AA found a way to work with decentralization and intercommunication instead of heavy handed beurocratic legalism. I found. I enjoyed. I bought.
So, the pressure we see being exerted on Russia to change their laws just to make their markets more open for the western music industry, is a good example of what the WTO is about, although a rather minor one. Your wish for the WTO to go away (it won't, though) would be supported by many people for much stronger reasons.
took anything from you and never intended to permanently deprive you of the use of any property. Wrong. If you take my credit card, I nolonger have it, which means you stole it. If you used it to buy stuff, money's been taken from my account and I nolonger have, which means you stole them.
If you *copy* my credit card, you *haven't* stolen it. But if you use it to withdraw money from my account, you will have stolen that money because I don't have it anymore. (Oh yeah, and I agree with the other guy saying that the technical term is 'fraud')
Not buying something can't be stealing. The whole confusion comes from that fact that the product we're talking about isn't a physical object but we try to act like it is, and then it gets weird and we start messing around with definitions of 'products' and 'theft' to make some sense of it.
Being a physicist I tend to think that it's better if the way something is priced reflect the work that was done creating it. In the case of a CD, you have a large starting cost (artist composing it + artist recording it) and small distribution costs (CD's are cheap to make, and distributing over the internet is virtually costless). So, how you pay the artist should reflect that somehow. The artist, or its sponsor, could also call it a start-up investment, spread the music for free over the internet to promote the concerts where the money's made. Or they could sell merchandise from their website (George Lucas made more than three times the money from the first Star Wars trilogy *merchandising* than they grossed at the box office).
In the end, for me, it's all about the value of the product or service. When I buy a CD, I get a nice cover and good quality physical medium. When I buy on-line, I don't get any of that - *and* I have to use my own internet connection *and* store it on my own harddrive (and sometimes it may be encumbered by DRM in which case I won't touch it!). To me, buying a song over the net is like taping it from the radio more than it is buying a CD, so I feel the price should be the same (I know there's the blanket license, but that's independent of how many songs I, personally, tape).
No. Using GIMP does not deprive Adobe of the ability to sell you Photoshop. Using Photoshop without paying for it does.
When a company overprices something they may "cost themselves a sale". But it doesn't deprive them of the ability to sell it to you at the asking price.
I think the prices of CDs are pretty silly too. I'm not defending them. But if you are going to use music without paying for it at least be intellectually honest. It's the hypocrisy that bugs me.
but offer me a DRM-free album in the format of my choice for $3.99 instead of $9.99, and I will probably drop $50 or more per month on your service, instead of the one album every 2-3 months like I do now.
They are betting that the smaller base at a higher price is worth the missed sales. Good bet? I don't know. I actually hope not!
It's true. The system did once have something closer to bottom-up than they do now. (Though even now, I think you could argue that the listeners have some say on who wins American Idol. [sardonic grin]) /. likes region limits, and they aren't quite as practical now--but aside from that, those were more diverse times.
Perhaps the music industry would be purer if there were still such things as regional record labels. Of course, no one on
But even in those early days, there were major labels, and the major labels even then influenced DJs from above. The first great rock&roll DJ, Alan Freed, had to leave the DJ biz over payola--back then, labels paid DJs for playing records directly. You can imagine that he wasn't alone.
Above a certain scale, recorded music was never really bottom-up. There were decades when it was much closer to it--before Clearchannel--but never really.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Loss of a potential sale does not equal theft. They have no right to my money. If I can find what I want at a lower price due to a legal loophole, then the law needs to be changed. I won't stop using a superior service that charges me far less solely on the specious reasoning of a corrupt cartel that preaches doing what's "moral" and "right" despite their decades-long history of doing the opposite when it suited them.
By your logic, were I to acquire your credit card and purchase items, I am not committing theft because i never actually
took anything from you and never intended to permanently deprive you of the use of any property.
Don't be a fool. Of course you are depriving someone of something - either the credit card holder who is responsible to pay the balance, or the credit card company who has to eat the cost due to fraud. If you're going to intentionally disingenuous, then stay out of the discussion.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
Umm, except for the fact that it is perfectly legal and acceptable to sell GPL code. In fact, it's a right given to me under the GPL.
Read it sometime. =)
Sorry... let's say without including the GPL.
There are 15+ alternative "legal" sites that one can use instead of AllOfMP3, even if AllOfMP3 were shut down (which it isn't). Check songboom.com. There are at least a dozen reviewed Russian MP3 sites that one could use if one were so inclined.
Cuban Music MP3's - cuband.com
You are aware that the correct word is "word", yes?
if the WTO rule against America - they dont do anything such as costa rica VS USA over the online gambling farce. The WTO ruled America is wrong but they dont do anything and threaten to back out the WTO. America will always pressure other countries to do what it wants.
No wonder so many countries around the world hate America
Yes CD sales are in decline - BUT digital sales are up. thats how supply and demand works.
In Russia AllofMP3 pays the broadcast rate (and, oddly, nearly the same rate is the standard rate in the US for radio song play: 5c/track/user cf 7c/track/listener). The collection industry could get their money from the russian collection agency but to do so will stop allofmp3 being "illegal" because they are getting paid for it.
So as long as they ignore telling you or anyone else that the reason why the artists aren't being paid is because the collection agency isn't ASKING for payment, they get to fool you.
So people aren't not paying, they are paying and it is legal.
RIAA dislike the rate (they don't want the radio rate being the rate to the public) and they dislike the lack of DRM (which is a license cost per track...). So they make shit up to persuade people like you AllofMP3 is illegitimate.
They aren't.
No, because stealing someone's identity isn't a crime. Stealing someone's identity and then using it to make illegal gains for yourself is, and it's still called *fraud*.
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
Da. Thank you for speedboat. Is nice.
I didn't say all new music is crap, just most of it.
:) )
Actually, I didn't think you said that at all. But guess what, new music has always been like that. Music companies have been constructing bands since Edison. People have been complaining things were better 'back in the day' when they were young since time began. The Top 40 has always been 90% lowest common denominator, and yet people just keep on buying it, for exactly that reason.
Music shouldn't be something that has an age range.
Well it does. Why should you expect a new song written by an angsty 18 year old to mean anything to you if you're 45?
If the music is good, it's good.
That's arguing in tiny circles. It's only 'good' if you like it, and part of what determines that is whether it means anything to you and your life, at your age. Of course there's plenty good music out there, but complaining that music companies are producing 'bad' music just demonstrates you're listening to the wrong music and looking in the wrong places. (Or are just getting to the age where you enjoy a good moan.
Using GIMP does not deprive Adobe of the ability to sell you Photoshop. Using Photoshop without paying for it does.
The *only* thing that deprives Adobe of the ability to sell me Photoshop is my unwillingness to purchase it. *Why* I'm unwilling to buy it makes no difference as the outcome is the same from Adobe's perspective.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
dully noted and sent to badbat@riaa.com
Per the Russian copyright laws, downloads from places like AllofMP3 are treated like public performances (Juke Boxes) not music sales. ROMS is the group that collects these fees. If AllofMP3 is paying ROMS, then whether the RIAA likes it or not, it's acting in a manner consistant with Russian law.
As for how much you owe the band, you owe what the compulsory licensing scheme of the country says you owe. If Russia says the per public performance rate is $.02/play, then you owe your band $.02/play not the $.20 provided for by the US compulsory license. So you're entire argument of 'oh I can't collect royalties because I'll owe the band more than I collect' is bogus.
As for ASCAP & BMI, my understanding is that they're not all that friendly if you're not in NA or represented by one of the big international groups. I also find it interesting that they're 'looking out for the artists interests' by insisting on collecting for CC licensed works.
> If you want to hurt the major labels and the RIAA, BUY DIFFERENT MUSIC.
Which is exactly what they would do if they were, in fact, interested in buying music. The truth is that what they're interested in is getting *free* music. All of this ranting and raving about "I'M SICK OF BUYING A WHOLE ALBUM FOR ONE SONG!" and "ALL POPULAR MUSIC SUCKS, THAT'S WHY IT'S POPULAR AND I'M DOWNLOADING IT!" and "IT'S NOT THEFT, IT'S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND I'M ONLY DOING IT TO STICK IT TO TEH MANG!" is simply a convenient excuse to get something they value for nothing. The same people in this discussion giddily announcing that all of their credit at allofmp3 has magically reappeared at mp3sparks are the same ones who would demand you be assraped at the Super Bowl on live TV if you violated the GPL, which never fails to make me giggle like a schoolgirl.
From the site: Unfortunately credit card payment is not available at the moment. Please come back later or try another method of payment
A more appropriate comparison would be if I had a restaurant and you had a way to make endless copies of my meal items. I have to buy the ingredients, cook the food and hire people to cook, sell and advertise, while you duplicate the items and wave your arms yelling "Food As Good as His Is, for Half the Price!". So long as your minion buys new items when items I change my menu, your business model works fine. How can it possibly fail?
Of course, that makes you dependent on me to make constant changes to satisfy people's changing wants, but as long as I'm stupid enough to provide a constant supply of new things, why should you care?
I think you go a bit too far. There are many people who say things like "I'm sick of buying a whole album for one song" or who disparage popular music who then go buy single tracks and indie music at iTunes and eMusic. And there really are people who think that copyright violation (which, and I'm not saying this to condone it, isn't 'theft') is a way to hurt "the man". They're mistaken about that, and there may be many people who are being totally hypocritical when they say things like that, but I think you go too far by implying that this is the sole or even primary motivation for everyone on that side of the discussion.
Ripping off a song via Kazaa or Allofmp3 instead of buying indie music doesn't support independent music or hurt the RIAA any more than ripping off a copy of Word instead of using another product supports independent and free software developers or hurts Microsoft. But people DO honestly believe it does... in both cases.
And apparently some people believe that it advances understanding to attack people who may be honestly mistaken and giggle like a schoolgirl about it. It's probably worthwhile to think about whether that might also be an error.
Indeed. The RIAA (who have no say in russia at all, or indeed any country outside the US) jump up and down saying they're too cheap, and suddenly a bunch of slashbots claim they're illegal.
Based on the exchange rate they're actually slightly expensive compared to the cost of music in russia.. but compared to what we're used to paying it seems cheap. Buying something overseas and importing it is not illegal.
This is a terrible post, and a troll to boot.
Why don't you go back to your cave and buy more crappy products like a good little consumer whore.
If you're going to support the mafIAA, at least make sure you've got a signature saying something about how much of a tool you are, so we know who to ignore. Do you work for them? Did they pay you money to insult people into paying for shitty inferior products and music?
By the way, I do pay for products and music. Nearly every game I have was paid for. I own about 100 CDs of independent musicians, whether it be punk rock or electronic. I also pirate some titles when I'm stuck with them as the only option. Bad business practices does not demand my respect, much less my hard earned money. Why would I pay 400 +/- USD for a photo editing program to which there is a free clone of available on Linux?
This isn't about legality anymore, I don't care anymore. This is about right and wrong, good and evil.
Blow it our your ass.
Internet: Serious Business
The *only* thing that deprives Adobe of the ability to sell me Photoshop is my unwillingness to purchase it.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. If you use GIMP, or if they sell Photoshop for $10K they still have the ABILITY to sell Photoshop to you. Photoshop is not GIMP and they do NOT have the exact same featureset. If you are already using Photoshop, they are UNABLE to sell it to you because you already have every feature of Photoshop. In this case WHY you are are unwilling to purchase it is important. Using GIMP or that is it too expensive are reasons that they may be able to change your mind about. Already having it for free would require them to compete against that price. There, I hope that makes sense. They might be able to change your mind about the other things... but competing with a free version of their product will put them out of business.
Going back to the GNU GPL, we use that because it promotes free code. If I am using Windows that doesn't use the GPL, can someone else then use Linux in a way that violates the GPL because "it's the same thing".
I have not. They can still sell it to me. It is an oft repeated story that people have bought music after downloading it. So the ability is still there. But that's moot, anyway. Because "ability" to engage some free person in commerce is not a property. It is a stroke of luck. So all I did was reduce your chances of getting lucky. That's not the same as taking from you the proverbial bird in the hand. All I did was make it less likely that you'll get that bird in the tree. But as the saying goes that bird in the tree is not quite your property, so it cannot be stolen from you.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Why not? Credit cards are a dime a dozen for most people these days. I have at least 2 extra that I keep "for emergencies" (in case one of my primary card #s is stolen), and which I don't normally use to buy stuff. So I just started using one of these extra cards *only* for allofmp3.com, and nothing else. If the number gets stolen, I cancel it, so what? No big deal at all. I'm not liable for the any charges on the card that I did not authorize.
Anyway allofmp3 is (or was) a business. They wouldn't have lasted as long as they did if they were stealing their own customer's credit card numbers. I used them for years, not once did any unauthorized charge ever appear on my credit card.
I read Usenet for the articles.
I am not justifying anything. I don't think copyrights should go away. I just think (and the US Constitution agrees) that they should give authors limited rights. Whereas, the rights of property owners (not to have their property stolen) is much more absolute. The argument is about matters of degree. And the more tangible and asset the more rights the owner should have. Calling copyright infringement "theft" gives copyright owners more rights than they deserve. That is not to say they don't deserve any rights. Just not as many as, oh say, the owner of a house.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
You forgot to prove that copyright infringement == robbing
> This is a terrible post, and a troll to boot.
Troll? Hardly. As a veteran of a zillion copyright arguments on Slashdot I think it's a completely legitimate position. If I were trolling I'd be posting AC so as to keep it out of the eyes of people who stay out of the murky depths of 0-rank posts.
> Why don't you go back to your cave and buy more crappy products like a good little consumer whore.
My cave doesn't have ethernet and I don't like to buy crappy products on account of, well, they're crappy.
> If you're going to support the mafIAA
I don't support any of the *IAAs, which is ironic considering my line of work. They're horrid associations that are unable to adapt to the changing media distribution landscape, they're outright hostile to the very people who consume their products, and in many cases have acted with highly questionable methods in an effort to protect their products. That doesn't change the fact that they have a legitimate beef with people who want to snag all their stuff for free, though.
> at least make sure you've got a signature saying something about how much of a tool you are, so we know who to ignore.
You're free to keep on scrolling whenever you see my name. That, or convince Slashdot to create an "ignore" feature to protect your fragile constitution.
> Do you work for them? Did they pay you money to insult people into paying for shitty inferior products and music?
No, I don't work for them, and if my argument sent you into such a frothing tirade then you really should consider a new site to hang out on. Eventually you're going to stumble across a GNAA post that will probably make your head explode.
> By the way, I do pay for products and music.
So do I. Gold stars all 'round.
> I own about 100 CDs of independent musicians, whether it be punk rock or electronic.
I own about 900, do I win? We should probably give you some sort of handicap, though, as a good number of the albums I own are by those evil, soulless major label artists that we shouldn't support. You know, Hendrix, the Beatles, Beethoven, sellout pop shit like that.
> Bad business practices does not demand my respect, much less my hard earned money.
I don't respect the *IAA any more than you do, but if I have to validate their efforts to make sure that the artists I value can make a living then I'll treat them as a seething, corrosive, and necessary evil. It doesn't really matter in the end, though, as their death is right around the corner.
> Why would I pay 400 +/- USD for a photo editing program to which there is a free clone of available on Linux?
I have no idea, unless you like having the support of a large company like Adobe for your software. GIMP's good enough for me.
> This is about right and wrong, good and evil.
I hope you were wearing a mask and a cape while you posted that.
> Blow it our your ass.
Strong talk for someone who labeled *me* a troll.
Except MediaSentry doesn't live in the allofmp3.com server. So really it goes to show that the Russian Mafia can out protection racket the RIAA.
That's just small potatoes, fit for the vodka. The real danger is that once the WTO is involved, Russia will get hooked on foreign goods- with so many shipping containers coming across the border that it becomes impossible to inspect even a small percentage of them- or even know where they've come from. Pakistan and Iran have brothers fighting for freedom in Chechnya- you do the math.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
In Soviet Russia, your website is 0wnd, haxx0rs!
Hey, wait......
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Because your alternative is to give it to some other "legitimate business" that support the RIAA.
Choose your cartel.
There's another word for that called fraud, a crime. Different words have different meanings. Welcome to the English language!
I'm an economist, so I know what you're talking about, and that argument seems real slippery to me. I want to believe what you are saying is true, because I myself have downloaded far more music than I ever would have bought for $16.99 an album. But OTOH I would pay $1, or even $5, for a lot of that stuff if forced. Who's to say what would happen in the counterfactual world where no IP infringement exists? Particularly with all these incredible gadgets nowadays that make music more enjoyable and portable than ever before. Would we really settle for listening to the same CDs over and over again on our iPods? I doubt it. I'm pretty sure we'd reorient our expenditures slightly and buy more music. So, yes, the idea that the demand for music is inelastic is pretty risible (did they really say that? I've never heard that claim.) It's not oil. But I think the people who go around assuaging their guilty consciences by telling themselves they wouldn't have bought it anyways are equally delusional.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
There is also substantial controversy about U.S. regulations aomp3 fell under since no physical cd was changing hands, they could have been considered 'radio'. even if a physical cd changed hands, there are no laws preventing importing cd's. our laws do need updating, but those aren't the laws being updated.
Let's see, ITunes pays $.6 - $.10 per dollar to musicians (not including a few lawsuits saying they weren't even getting that, but closer to $.4 / song) and royalties from radio play is even less. How much do you think musicians are loosing?
aomp3 was the most innovative distributer on the net. to heck with the price. i paid as much for a song as i'd pay anywhere but i could get it in the format i wanted, at the bitrate i wanted. i did not want crummy sounding music at 128 kpbs! aomp3 charged just as much for high quality encoding in a lossless, DRM free format of my choice.
what a concept. giving the customer what they want. it's a scarey day that Russians are more capitalistic than the U.S. has become.
Well, I'm glad all of you were able to log in using your old login names and accounts. Apparently I'm out $13.94. :( For those it works, does the explorer program work still?
I run Ubuntu skinned to look like a Mac on a PC. Go figure.
Thank god! At least they quit calling it "stealing".
What?
If it was theft we would not have completely different laws dealing with copyright infringement.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Nobody has probed conclusively that copyright infringement actually harms sales of anything.
People parrot this like if it was a given but come with precious little in the way of proof.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
>But on the other hand, people like to say it isn't
>theft and then since it's not theft they claim that
>whatever isn't must be both legal and moral.
If so, correct those that do that. It doesn't make it any more or less correct to call it theft though. In many cases when people like to call "theft" on something related to copyright though, it is in fact many times not even copyright infringement and hence legal. In other cases it might be infringement and then one should point it out for those that say it is legal. The point I made is that people should call things for what they are and if they happens to be wrong, one can correct them. It is however much easier to correct someone using the correct terminology than the wrong one in my opinion.