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?
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?
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.
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.
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
But if you pay a man in the parking lot $5 for the Zune he stole, then you're just an accessory with a new accessory.
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
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
"..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...
The real question is: Why in fuck's name would you want a Zune?
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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....
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.
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.
because they already have it.
cha cha cha
=)
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.
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.
slyck has a better article
It's not actually an illegal site. In russia, allofmp3.com actually has a licence to sell the music.
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
> 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.
Guaranteed quality (you chose the encoding bitrate yourself on most of their albums).. Great search engine/catalogue navigation without having to worry about download speeds or what downloads finished..Basically, it was just a really convenient service. And since time *is* money, well worth the small charges they applied.
>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.
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.
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.