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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
This is Putin. He has another option: do what they say now, join the WTO, then do whatever the hell he wants after.
I can even throw a "Profit!" in there if you want it.
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.
"And I just assumed they'd steal my money."
Ironic isn't it. The "pirates" are more honest than the corporations supposedly being harmed.
>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?
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.
bad analogy.
If I go to Russia and buy a CD which costs a couple of $$$ where it would normally costs about $15, then bring it back home, have I stolen anything?
If you aren't far left by the age of 18 you have no heart. If you aren't far right by 30 you have no brain.