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."

Comments

No Big Deal

[sam_paris]

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.

Re:No Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

That's probably why allofmp3.com is now mp3Sparks.com, including the same logins/passwords and the same typos in the track names and album titles.

Re:No Big Deal

[fohat]

Shhhhh.... Ixnay on the parkSay

Hmmmmm!

[supe]

Bush - Putin visit?

Soo...

[Kamots]

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...

Re:Soo...

[Harik]

Don't post on copyright subjects until you can grasp the basic concept that Copyright is NOT Trademark, and doesn't have to be enforced to maintain it.

Copyright is for a period of time, period.
Trademark is forever until failed to be maintained.

And you're an idiot for telling people they HAVE to file copyright infringement suits - even worse, this isn't even copyright infringement, it's a civil issue over which of the (many) royalty schemes allofmp3.com should be paying.

But hey, feel free to think you knew something.

Bribery?

[Aranykai]

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 [AllOfMP3] that is robbing U.S. recording companies of sales. Isn't that bribery?

bribe (plural bribes)

      1. Something (usually money) given in exchange for influence or as an inducement to dishonesty. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bribe

Re:Bribery?

[jez9999]

It's legal in the US political system, why would international relations be any different?

Re:Bribery?

[Caetel]

Perhaps, but it is probably better described as coercion or extortion.

coerce: to use force, threat, fraud, or intimidation in attempt to compel one to act against his will.

extort: To wrest from an unwilling person by physical force, menace, duress, torture, or any undue or illegal exercise of power or ingenuity; to wrench away (from); to tear away; to wring (from); to exact; as, to extort contributions from the vanquished; to extort confessions of guilt; to extort a promise; to extort payment of a debt.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This would matter except . . .

[Cyberllama]

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.

And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up?

[GodWasAnAlien]

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.

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up?

[TheRaven64]

The thing about AllOfMP3 was that it showed the marginal cost of running an online store. Even if we assume that AllOfMP3 was not paying anything to the recording industry, and not making any profit, they must still have been covering their bandwidth costs. Now, add on to that roughly what the RIAA pays artists, and you get something like 10-20/track as the minimum cost of running a fair music store. Then they can look at iTunes selling tracks for $1.29 (without DRM), and suddenly realise that $1 of every track they buy is going to middle men who aren't providing any service of value to them.

There isn't much a customer can do about this, but there is a lot an artist can do when they do the same sums. This is why the RIAA members want AllOfMP3 shut down. It shows exactly how much profit they are raking in from online sales to exactly the people they don't want to know; the ones they claim to represent.

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up?

[adona1]

They were exploiting a loophole in Russian law and they knew it.

Upstart Russian website exploiting a loophole in law = filthy communist thieves.

Established tax-paying middleman business exploiting a loophole in law = good business practices?

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up?

[shark72]

"allofmp3 WAS legitimate in Russia. It paid royalties to ROMS, the Russian organization responsible for collecting copyright fees. The RIAA simply didn't like ROMS' rates and structures (even though Russia, as a sovereign nation, has every right to set its own royalties), and declared allofmp3 illegal."

Well, for what it's worth, ROMS isn't recognized by any of the world's performance licensing groups. Whether that's a badge of honor or a shame is, as the math texts state, an exercise left to the reader.

Contrary to popular belief, the cost of sale of a music download usually isn't zero. There are mechanical royalties to the composer and lyricist to deal with (the mechanical rate is set by law), and there are usually contractual royalties as well, paid to the performer. Record companies have tricks for minimizing these royalties, but it's a safe assumption that for a typical track sold on iTunes, mechanical and contractual royalties are being accrued.

Now, let's say you're a record company. For the sake of simplicity let's say you're one of the cool indie labels, and you pay your artists fairly. One track you sell has a mechanical of $0.08 each to the composer and lyricist, and you're throwing the rest of the band an additional $0.04, for a total of $0.20 that you owe to the artists for each track sold.

So this ROMS outfit tells you that you can have a portion of the licensing fee that they've collected, if you really want it. The web site sold your track for $0.20, for which they paid ROMS $0.02. ROMS takes their cut, so that penny is ready for you to take whenever you want it.

Trouble is, if you take that penny, you still owe the band $0.20. If you take it and don't pay them their $0.20 (for a net loss of $0.19 to you), the best case is that they'll be mightily (and rightfully) pissed. The worst case is that they'll find themselves a lawyer.

So, you eat the difference. ROMS says that they've collected royalties for 10,000 downloads and they owe you $100. You take the $100 and pay your band the $2,000 they're owed. You're out $1,900.

And then ROMS tells you that they have another $100 for you. And another. And another.

My story is hypothetical; mainly for the very big reason that artist who've tried to get sales info from allofmp3.com have failed in their quest. Yes, I am aware that AllofMP3 stated that they supported artists' rights, but they could have at least shared this basic sales data, just as iTunes and legitimate stores do. And, if you try surfing the ROMS site for information on how to collect royalties, it quickly becomes frustrating, even if you speak Russian. Compare this with the two US performance right societies, ASCAP and BMI -- they go out of their way to make it easy for artists to find out how much they are owed. I know that lots of people reading this see ROMS and allofmp3 as the good guys in this situation, but it's just not showing from their actions.

Re:robbing == theft

[superwiz]

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.

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil

[tyler_larson]

Actually, it seems that http://www.mp3sparks.com/ already offers all the music from AoMP3.
So I guess AoMP3 has already reincarnated.

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.

Re:How does this work again?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Thorn in the Side?

[fm6]

"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.

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil

[zarkill]

FWIW, you can't pay by credit card at MP3Sparks either. Why do you say that? It seems that they take all credit cards except AmEx, Cirrus, and Union Card.

http://www.mp3sparks.com/info/payments.shtml

And the site that replaces it is -

[Archon-X]

www.mp3sugar.com

Re:robbing == theft

[wall0159]

"..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...

Re:How does this work again?

[WilliamSChips]

The real question is: Why in fuck's name would you want a Zune?

DON'T DO IT

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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?

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil

[Anonymous Coward]

because they already have it.

cha cha cha

=)

Balance carried over to Mp3Sparks.com

[justinjas]

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.

Re:Balance carried over to Mp3Sparks.com

[Mspangler]

"And I just assumed they'd steal my money."

Ironic isn't it. The "pirates" are more honest than the corporations supposedly being harmed.

Re: robbing == theft

[Belacgod]

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.

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil

[adona1]

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 ;)

slyck.com

[SilverwoodUG]

slyck has a better article

Re:robbing == theft

[davester666]

> 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.