Alltunes.com Lets Users Download AllofMP3 Songs

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Alltunes.com Lets Users Download AllofMP3 Songs

Posted by kdawson on Thursday July 5, 2007 @05:38AM from the using-up-the-credit dept.

Stony Stevenson writes with word that, although AllofMP3.com was shut down by the Russian Government this week, customers from the site who have existing credit can still purchase songs through its downloadable windows desktop and smartphone client, allTunes.com. From the article: "A former AllofMP3.com user, who spoke to Computerworld on the condition of anonymity, purchased songs with his existing credit from the allTunes software client today and experienced no trouble doing so... AllofMP3's six million users will no doubt be delighted they can use their leftover credit to purchase songs, but the site's longevity hangs in the balance. Just days after the Russian Government shut down AllofMP3.com, its sister site, MP3Sparks.com, suffered the same fate."

168 comments

Has this not always been the case? by jackelfish · 2007-07-05 05:51 · Score: 0, Redundant

I am pretty sure you have always been able to use alltunes with allofmp3 credits.

--
"When Nature Calls We All Shall Drown" Johan Edlund
1. Re:Has this not always been the case? by moderatorrater · 2007-07-05 06:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, but the article's pointing out that alltunes wasn't shut down at the same time allofmp3 was and that allofmp3's credits weren't redacted.
2. Re:Has this not always been the case? by eln · 2007-07-05 06:32 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  allofmp3's credits weren't redacted. Of course they weren't redacted. Why would anyone feel the need to put them into proper literary form to be published? How would you even do that?
I don't get it... by _Griphin_ · 2007-07-05 05:55 · Score: 1

What I don't understand, why aren't people copying their own CDs (backing up there media, it's legit in Canada)? I understand the logic behind the site, but why support a system that doesn't pay the bands?!? (I understand they also don't pay the labels, but I don't care about that) Is copying data that difficult for many people?!? Perhaps I should write another article which explains to the user how to do this? I had a previous article published on MP3Newswire.net, but that was written in or around 2000, and since I can't contact the MP3Newswire site Op's, I can't update the article (using EAC with Lame to copy audio into VBR). Or perhaps people are too cheap to buy their music used?!?
1. Re:I don't get it... by Roachgod · 2007-07-05 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  because buying cds doesn't really pay bands either. So why pay 15 bucks instead of 2?
  
  FUCK YOU RUSSIA!
2. Re:I don't get it... by adolf · 2007-07-05 06:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  What I don't understand, why aren't people reading their own comments (proof-reading there words, it's common in written speech)? I understand the logic behind poor grammar, but why support an author that cannot produce comprehensible English?!? (I understand they also don't produce comprehensible German, but I don't care about that) Is writing proper English that difficult for many people?!? Perhaps I should write another article which explains to the user how to do this? I had a previous article published on englishnewswire.net, but that was written in or around 2000, and since I can't contact the englishnewswire site Op's, I can't update the article (using Punctuation and capital Letter's creatively). Or perhaps people are just too lazy to bother trying to communicate clearly?!?
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
3. Re:I don't get it... by penp · 2007-07-05 06:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I understand the logic behind the site, but why support a system that doesn't pay the bands?!? (I understand they also don't pay the labels, but I don't care about that) Is copying data that difficult for many people?!? Most often, buying music CDs doesn't pay the band, it pays the labels (unless you bought the CD from a band who recorded and produced the music themselves, in which case it's probably a burned disc anyway). If the band has been backed by a label, they've already been paid by the label to license their music and sell it. If you want to support the band, go to their shows (though a lot of times, the same principle applies)
  
  Or perhaps people are too cheap to buy their music used?!? Buying it used? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of trying to support the band? Say someone buys a CD for $14. They listen to it for a while, then it ends up at a used CD store once they're bored with it. I go in and buy the same CD for $6. The record label still only made that first $14. The only people that gain from used CD sales are used CD stores.
4. Re:I don't get it... by Darundal · 2007-07-05 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Well, even if you do publish an article, there are still several issues. First, the user has to know how to. This necessitates that either someone show them how to use a piece of software (including what the terms used in the software mean) or just show them what button to click to make it magically happen. You want to teach the user. However, the second one which you probably wouldn't be addressing is the second thing that has to happen. That is, the user has to feel that it is a good use of their time and that the convenience of non-drm'd files and the saved money is better than paying the $0.99 to whatever the rate is. That there is the hangup with most people. They don't encounter DRM (or if they do, they just knuckle-under and rebuy the song) and thus have no objections to it, and they believe that their time is more valuably spent (because nobody wants to miss that new episode of King of Queens).
5. Re:I don't get it... by Control+Group · 2007-07-05 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Well played. I applaud you.
  
  --
  
  Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
6. Re:I don't get it... by mi · 2007-07-05 06:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I understand the logic behind the site, but why support a system that doesn't pay the bands?!?
  
  A tiny minority is actually concerned about who is paid. The rest want to have convenient (illegal or not) access to songs, and ripping your own CDs is not convenient enough to many people.
  **AA are trying to make it less convenient to download, instead of making it more convenient to rip or otherwise buy legitimately. They are foolish, but they are within their rights — however clumsy they are in enforcing them.
  Then there is a vocal (on this site) minority of people, who justify "sticking it" to "the system" — the usual childish claptrap — who get more and more vocal with every rightful-but-clumsy step by the **AA. According to them, it is not quite stealing, and therefor is completely justified to produce unlimited copies of somebody else's intellectual property against the owner's will... Every once in a while, they will also claim, that it is the middlemen, who is deprived of revenue — as if that matters...
  For every falsely accused granny there are hundreds of justly prosecuted copyright infringers, none of whom are reported on this example of objective journalism of a site.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
7. Re:I don't get it... by The-Ixian · 2007-07-05 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well, at least you KNOW that the label got the $14 in the first place.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
8. Re:I don't get it... by GizmoToy · 2007-07-05 06:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A tiny minority is actually concerned about who is paid. The rest want to have convenient (illegal or not) access to songs, and ripping your own CDs is not convenient enough to many people.
  
  This is exactly what's at issue. Buying CDs and ripping them is more difficult than simply downloading them, or paying a site a few pennies to download them. AllofMP3 was so popular because for a couple cents getting music was even more convenient. You didn't even have to search through pirate sites to find them, they were all there in one place. They paid for the music because it was convenient, not because they wanted to make sure money went to the artists.
9. Re:I don't get it... by CastrTroy · 2007-07-05 06:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Having a used CD market brings up the value of CDs. If you can't resell an album after buying it, like with iTunes, then you may not pay as much for it. However, if you buy an album for $14, and you know you can sell it later for $6, then the album really only costs your $8. Same thing goes with video games. Most games aren't worth $60. But if you know you can sell it later for $20 once you've beaten it, then paying $60 doesn't seem so bad.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
10. Re:I don't get it... by shark72 · 2007-07-05 06:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  "Most often, buying music CDs doesn't pay the band, it pays the labels (unless you bought the CD from a band who recorded and produced the music themselves, in which case it's probably a burned disc anyway). If the band has been backed by a label, they've already been paid by the label to license their music and sell it."
  
  That's a bit backward from how most record contracts work. Contracts typically use a "the artist gets paid last" scenario, where royalty payments are held back and applied to the costs of production until they've been met.
  
  If, at the time that you buy the CD, the CD has not yet reached the point of profitability, two things happen:
  
  You're helping the CD reach profitability, so the artist will be paid that much sooner as a result of your actions.
  
  You are showing the record label that people want to buy the artist's music. Generally, artists who do well continue to have chances to make albums; artists who don't are dropped.
  
  If the first point is confusing, consider the situation of making a donation to a local public TV or radio station. Say they need $100K to meet their budget and have collected $10K so far. An AllOfMP3 fan might state that donating $50 at this point would be useless, as the station will still not reach their goal, but the reality is that the $50 donation puts them $50 closer to reaching their goal.
  
  The "pirate your music, but support the band by seeing the show" argument falls down when you do the math. If you pirate ten CDs a week, that's ten concerts you need to see a week -- that gets to be expensive, and a time sink. Then, of course, that there's the reality that not all the artists whose music you pirate are going to be able to play when and where you want them to. In most cases, when we pirate music, our actual contribution to the artists' livelihood is nil, despite our best intentions.
  
  "Buying it used? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of trying to support the band? Say someone buys a CD for $14. They listen to it for a while, then it ends up at a used CD store once they're bored with it. I go in and buy the same CD for $6. The record label still only made that first $14. The only people that gain from used CD sales are used CD stores."
  
  There are a couple of other benefits of buying a used CD vs. pirating it or downloading it from a Russian site. First, it's unquestionably legal, no matter how much the record companies would like to stop it. And, you support your local economy, vs. some Russian guy. I love having local record stores with ample selection of used CDs, but these establishments only stay in business with enough patronage.
  --
  Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
11. Re:I don't get it... by rockhome · 2007-07-05 06:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Slashdot is not a journalism site, it is an aggregator. The important thing to note about
  The outrage over AllofMp3 being shutdown and the actions of the RIAA is that many people
  believe that the most valid form of protest against an industry and its actions is to commit
  some kind of "theft" against the industry rather than engaging in a real boycott. To a great
  part of the community seemingly represented on slashdot, a complete boycott of the major labels
  supporting the RIAA is too inconvenient, so they redefine their illegal or quasi-legal actions
  as a kind of protest.
  
  I love that you hit the nail by noting that many belive that copyright infringement is not stealing,
  even though the end effect is the same.
12. Re:I don't get it... by kebes · 2007-07-05 06:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  ripping your own CDs is not convenient enough to many people.
  You've hit the nail, there. The convenience of digital downloads is the reason people love mp3s from sites like AllofMP3. Some may argue that iTunes provides the same convenience, but for many the DRM is an inconvenience that they don't want to put up with. I think Allofmp3 also showed what the value of convenient access to well-tagged, well-organized content is. They were selling mp3s for money, even though equivalent files are available for free form various P2P networks. Basically there is an unfilled consumer demand here...
  Then there is a vocal (on this site) minority of people, who justify "sticking it" to "the system" -- the usual childish claptrap -- who get more and more vocal with every rightful-but-clumsy step by the **AA.
  I think you're seriously mis-representing the opinions of copyright reformists. Or rather, you're combining the arguments of the copyright reformists along with the anarchists and along with the "I just want free stuff" crowd. This is not a fair way to represent those groups.
  According to them, it is not quite stealing, and therefor is completely justified to produce unlimited copies of somebody else's intellectual property against the owner's will..
  I view the widespread civil disobedience of copyright law (whether intentional or incidental) as a very strong indicator that most people unconsciously feel these laws are overly broad in their current form. I'll admit that many people break this law without thinking about it, or even just because they are "too cheap" or whatever. However there is a growing number of people who have carefully studied the arguments on both sides (e.g. Valenti vs. Lessig) and come to the conclusion that copyright in its current form is broken.
  
  Thus, they argue that the "rights" of which you speak are fictitious and illegitimate (or at least overly broad). The "intellectual property" which you refer to is seen as an oxymoron and antithetical to progress and free culture. I won't go into the arguments any further--they have been described in eloquent detail many times on Slashdot.
  
  The extent to which moral disagreement with copyright justifies civil disobedience is debatable. I'll give you that. However your characterization of the copyright reformist ideals as "childish claptrap" is quite unfair.
13. Re:I don't get it... by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2007-07-05 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  The labels don't get $14 a CD. That just shows an absurd ignorance of how the system works.
14. Re:I don't get it... by shark72 · 2007-07-05 06:40 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  "The labels don't get $14 a CD. That just shows an absurd ignorance of how the system works."
  
  This is Slashdot, where the total cost of sale for a CD is $0.25, and distributors and retailers don't charge markup. In this version of reality, record labels make a net profit of $13.25; this ridiculous profitability allows us to rationalize piracy.
  
  --
  Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
15. Re:I don't get it... by WED+Fan · 2007-07-05 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  What I don't understand, why aren't people reading their own comments (proof-reading there words, it's common in written speech)?
  
  Oh, the F*cking irony. "There" or "their"? Right in one place, wrong in the other, unless you were making a left-handed approach to a Mel Brooks routine. "Where words? There words.")
  
  Hey, next time, just let it go, Doofus.
  
  --
  Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
16. Re:I don't get it... by mi · 2007-07-05 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're seriously mis-representing the opinions of copyright reformists. Or rather, you're combining the arguments of the copyright reformists along with the anarchists and along with the "I just want free stuff" crowd. This is not a fair way to represent those groups.
  
  Until the noble reformists start debating/fighting/condemning the lowly thieves on this and other forums, my mixing them together will remain perfectly fair...
  The extent to which moral disagreement with copyright justifies civil disobedience is debatable.
  
  The use of the very term is offensive. "Civil disobedience" evokes memories of people like Sakharov and Gandhi. Using it over access to entertainment is a misnomer.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
17. Re:I don't get it... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2007-07-05 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Using it over access to entertainment is a misnomer.
  
  Freedom of expression, the press, and the public domain is not a trivial thing. De-facto perpetual copyrights are as outrageous in their own way as the H-bomb is in its own way.
18. Re:I don't get it... by Roachgod · 2007-07-05 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Well, I don't care if it is 'stealing' or not. Nor do I care about the copyright mess in this regard (which is to say that I care, but that this caring has nothing to do with my behavior). I feel that music is outrageously expensive right now. A CD is like $18 around here. I don't give a damn if it is 'within their rights' to price things they way they want. Every bit of music is it's own monopoly. I can't just go to a different vendor and buy the same thing at a different price (mass produced pop that I don't listen to not included). So, if I am to play by the rules then I either get overcharged or I do without. OR I could ignore the rules and do what I want. Since I have the ability to ignore the rules, and doing so is to my advantage, then why not. Especially when all the money is likely to go to people other than the band. If you consider this stealing then I am stealing from a group that I despise, and I am ok with that. The fair price of a CD, especially one that has the advantage of mass-market appeal (and therefore lower per-cd production costs), feels about right at $5. This means even iTunes is about 2x as expensive as it should be. Given that digital downloads do not bear the costs of shipping, stocking, manufacture, etc, digital files should be maybe $3 an album. I will not pay more than this. Period. Worst case scenario I will go back to what I did back in the days of ONLY $15 CDs. I will pool together with 5 friends and we will burn 4 copies with the person getting the orginal eating the tax. I wish I could just give the 3 bucks to the band. I don't listen to radio and I don't watch MTV. I find my new music through online channels talking to other music lovers. The PR, Advertising, etc people at the record labels aren't doing shit for my business. And having been a sound editor/engineer I can say with certainty that the price of producing a good sounding album these days is not expensive. In fact, a lot of what they do to modern albums to get them to sell more actually lowers the "real" sound quality on purchased albums. The people in charge of that crap should be paid in negative dollars.
19. Re:I don't get it... by _Griphin_ · 2007-07-05 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that's the downside, but everyone's looking for a free lunch it seems.
20. Re:I don't get it... by The13thSin · 2007-07-05 07:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's all very true, but you missing some of the point as well: not every downloaded song / movie is missed income to the artist (and label/studio behind them). In fact, I'd wager over 90% of the downloaded content wouldn't otherwise be converted into an actual sell.
  
  As far as I see it, there are only 2 viable solutions:
  1) Double the costs of bandwith costs and give halve to the entertainment industry (devided by downloads) and completely legalize it.
  2) Give the public a real alternative, that's what AllOfMP3 did (many formats, low prices, drm-free) and why it was so popular even *after* everyone knew it wasn't legal. Give the public a legal version of AllOfMP3 and I'm sure the entertainment industry could be making more then before the time of P2P.
  
  --
  "This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
21. Re:I don't get it... by mi · 2007-07-05 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom of expression, the press, and the public domain is not a trivial thing.
  
  None of the above are in anyway endangered by **AA, nor defended by AllOfMP3 et al.
  De-facto perpetual copyrights are as outrageous in their own way as the H-bomb is in its own way.
  
  Yeah, Disney's choke-hold on Mickey-Mouse really had a chilling effect on all of our freedom-fighters...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
22. Re:I don't get it... by Control+Group · 2007-07-05 07:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  **AA are trying to make it less convenient to download, instead of making it more convenient to rip or otherwise buy legitimately. They are foolish, but they are within their rights -- however clumsy they are in enforcing them
  
  Within their legal rights, yes; whether those legal rights are themselves right is the question at hand. Lobbying - successfully - for retroactive extensions to copyright protection, for criminalizing security research, for making the exercise of a protected right illegal (though not the right itself), all call into question how well the legal "right" matches up with the ethical "right."
  
  Then there is a vocal (on this site) minority of people, who justify "sticking it" to "the system" -- the usual childish claptrap -- who get more and more vocal with every rightful-but-clumsy step by the **AA.
  
  "Sticking it" to "the system" can be characterized as childish claptrap, or it can be characterized as civil disobedience. If a crime is so widespread that it is more common to commit it than to not, you can come to one of two conclusions: either the majority of your citizenry is made up of criminals, or it shouldn't be a crime. Clearly, music piracy isn't at that point, but it's approaching it. One consequence of a representative government is that if enough of the represented don't think something's a crime, it isn't one, regardless of who might want to make money off it being so.
  
  According to them, it is not quite stealing, and therefor is completely justified to produce unlimited copies of somebody else's intellectual property against the owner's will...
  
  That is a mischaracterization of the argument. Copyright infringement is not, in fact, stealing, insofar as those terms have specific meanings which do not match. Copyright infringement is also not high treason, murder, or barratry. This has no bearing on whether copyright infringement is illegal, unethical, or immoral. It has bearing on the framing of the debate - calling copyright infringement stealing is an appeal to emotion; an attempt to pre-emptively frame the debate about the ethics of the act by identifying it with an act that is universally agreed to be unethical. It's a classic straw man argument; claiming that the other side is trying to justify stealing, then aguing that stealing is unethical. If we want to have a debate about whether it's ethical to tear apart a Robo Sapien for fun, it's not a legitimate tactic to use the term "murder" to frame the debate.
  
  In fact, the debate centers precisely around to what extent it is right for creators to control the dissemination of their creative efforts (whether the current system actually protects or aids the creators is a completely different debate, and irrelevant to this point; you're quite correct about that). On what grounds do I, as a photographer, derive the right to absolutely control who can see, copy, manipulate, or sell a photograph I have taken? What justification do I have for imposing an artificial scarcity on a naturally abundant good?
  
  I do not intend these question to imply that no such right exists, simply to pose the questions that form the heart of the matter.
  
  --
  
  Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
23. Re:I don't get it... by Control+Group · 2007-07-05 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  I recommend reading the whole discussion before you post next time. In this case, you don't need to go any further than the "parent" link attached to the post you replied to.
  
  I'm just sayin' - because right now, you've got a serious case of "I don't get it" going on.
  
  --
  
  Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
24. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  it is not quite stealing, and therefor is completely justified to produce unlimited copies of somebody else's intellectual property against the owner's will.
  
  The moral arguments may be valid, but holey fucking christ in a breadbasket, for the last goddamn time, COPYING IS NOT STEALING. There is no grey area, no valid fucking dipshit "might as well be stealing" argument, no nimbly-bimbly purposeful loophole that makes it not stealing, COPYING IS NOT STEALING.
  
  Fuck you and everyone like you for being misleading pricks.
25. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  Because it is that way in the original that he is mocking, dumbass.
26. Re:I don't get it... by DnemoniX · 2007-07-05 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's not that allofmp3.com wasn't paying the labels. They were functioning under a loophole in Russian law. They were collecting royalties to pay artists/labels, money which was help is some sort of escrow. But the American industry refused to accept the payments because they were to low. Accepting them would have legitimized what they were doing.
27. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 07:13 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  A tiny minority is actually concerned about who is paid. The rest want to have convenient (illegal or not) access to songs, and ripping your own CDs is not convenient enough to many people. What, isn't iTunes convenient enough?
  
  Let's not delude ourselves. The main attraction of Allofmp3.com was the simple fact that $0.10 is a lot less than $0.99.
28. Re:I don't get it... by jb.hl.com · 2007-07-05 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  They paid for the music because it was convenient, not because they wanted to make sure money went to the artists.
  
  No, they went to allofmp3 to pay for the music because allofmp3 charge a fraction of the price of all the other online stores. Not only that, but they charge such a small fraction that after their markup and costs a grand total of next to fuck all went to the artists, or indeed anyone else associated with putting the record out.
  
  Allofmp3s users weren't looking for a convenient way to buy music; they wanted a way to buy music at the price they valued it at, which just happens to be so far below cost that just about all all of the purchase price went to the "middlemen" Slashdot seems to despise so much.
  
  --
  By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
29. Re:I don't get it... by swv3752 · 2007-07-05 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Apple only makes about $.20 from a song which is about how much AOMP3 charged. The majority of the rest went towards legalized minimums of copyright royalties. Hence a legal venue is not going to be any cheaper than Itunes.at least until we do a major overhaul of the system.
  
  --
  Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
30. Re:I don't get it... by mtmra70 · 2007-07-05 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  So I will pretend AllofMP3 is selling "used CDs" (used music). If a used CD can be resold countless times with the label/artist seeing $0, this would be no different than me "buying" the music from a Russian based "used music" "retailer".
31. Re:I don't get it... by jb.hl.com · 2007-07-05 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom of expression, the press, and the public domain is not a trivial thing.
  
  They're not trivial, no, but then they have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
  
  --
  By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
32. Re:I don't get it... by shark72 · 2007-07-05 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  "That's all very true, but you missing some of the point as well: not every downloaded song / movie is missed income to the artist (and label/studio behind them). In fact, I'd wager over 90% of the downloaded content wouldn't otherwise be converted into an actual sell."
  
  The question was "why buy instead of use allofmp3?". You are correct that many people state that piracy is not a substitute for sales.
  
  "As far as I see it, there are only 2 viable solutions:"
  
  Solutions for whom? The iTunes store is doing really well. That's the big picture... it may be the case that very few of your friends pay for music, but lots of people do. IMO it's not a problem that particularly needs to be solved. Piracy and the music industry is like shrinkage in the retail industry: they take steps to prevent it, but just as there will always be people who will shoplift, there'll always be people who pirate. Ten years ago the rationale was lack of online selection, then five years ago it was pricing, then last year it was DRM, and now it's email addresses in music files. Tomorrow it'll be something else; some folks will always pirate, and whatever reasoning works for you is cool. I know that it's common around here to state that the record industry will be going away Real Soon Now, but that's closer to wishful than truth.
  
  "2) Give the public a real alternative, that's what AllOfMP3 did (many formats, low prices, drm-free) and why it was so popular even *after* everyone knew it wasn't legal. Give the public a legal version of AllOfMP3 and I'm sure the entertainment industry could be making more then before the time of P2P."
  
  The record industry is like most other businesses, where the goal is not to move the most units, but to make the most profit. This involves a lot of complicated analysis involving pricing theory, consumer behavior theory, and so on, but ultimately you pick that point on the curve that represents the optimal trade-off between volume and net margin. Tracks have settled to about a buck each because that's the optimal point on the curve. This might boggle you, but if the iTunes store lowered their prices to $0.50 per track tomorrow, it would not increase my purchases... not one bit. Apple would be throwing money away. You see, I have a job that pays substantially more than minimum wage, and $1.00 a song really isn't a problem for me. And given Apple's huge success (they have many more customers than allofmp3's claimed 6MM), there are lots more people like me.
  
  Another real problem is that setting your price below the costs of sale won't work for very long. The Russian sites are able to sell tracks for $0.10 each because they need not worry about paying the supplier. Mechanical royalties are $0.08 by law, with contractual rates on top of that, so if you were to try to sell songs legally in the US at $0.10 each, your costs would blow way past that just in royalties before you added the rest of the very real and inconvenient costs of sale.
  
  --
  Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
33. Re:I don't get it... by gsslay · 2007-07-05 07:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Then there is a vocal (on this site) minority of people, who justify "sticking it" to "the system"
  
  Yes, there's lots of ways of justifying it. But you're missing the prime motivation. People want things for free, and will jump through however many hoops it takes to come up with any excuse that makes it appear reasonable to them. So we get;
  
  - It's not theft, it's only copyright infringement. (So that makes it ok?)
  - The artists don't get all the money anyway. (So giving them none is better?)
  - The RIAA are evil and don't deserve my money. (So boycott their product.)
  - All modern music is garbage, so they don't deserve to get paid for it. (So why are you listening to it?)
  - They don't 'get it', they need a new business model. (Ok, since you obviously are MBA expert, suggest one.)
  - I bought a CD once after listening to copies I took off a p2p network. (And the 50 others you didn't buy?)
  - The quality of MP3s sold aren't good enough for my highly attuned ear. (And the pirated versions are better? If you're that fussy, buy the CD.)
  - DRM restricts my freedom. (DRM is trivial to bypass if it bothers you.)
  - The prices aren't reasonable. (That can only ever be a matter of opinion. Others clearly have no problem.)
  - I am very concerned about official USA interference in legal Russian trade practices. (Yeah, right. Don't make me laugh.)
  - I support the artist by going to their live gigs. (I'll keep that in mind next time that Japanese ambient reclusive artist is touring my town.)
34. Re:I don't get it... by megaditto · 2007-07-05 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  I am pretty sure that the music industry wouldn't care about the pirates that don't have the money/wouldn't buy their music anyways.
  
  However, a lot of the casual pirates in the United States, at least, do have the money and would buy the music if they could not get it in any other way (mostly rich college-age kids that have thousands of dollars in disposable income). Maybe they wouldn't buy all of the 10,000s of songs they downloaded, but even if they bought only 10% that's still over $1000 in lost music sales per student.
  
  --
  Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
35. Re:I don't get it... by russotto · 2007-07-05 07:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Until the noble reformists start debating/fighting/condemning the lowly thieves on this and other forums, my mixing them together will remain perfectly fair...
  And until the decent defenders of copyright start distinguishing between theft and infringement, my mixing them together with despicable RIAA shills will remain perfectly fair.
  The use of the very term is offensive. "Civil disobedience" evokes memories of people like Sakharov and Gandhi. Using it over access to entertainment is a misnomer.
  
  The term comes from an essay by Henry David Thoreau. His crime was nothing larger than failure to pay a tax, one which he could well afford to pay. And in any case, putting a tactic up on a pedestal such that it can only be used for certain _Important_ issues pretty much guarantees that it won't be used.
36. Re:I don't get it... by swv3752 · 2007-07-05 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  It is arguable that the long term effect of perpetual copyright is an erosion of our other freedoms. There is a correlation, and what level is there a causation?
  
  --
  Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
37. Re:I don't get it... by MightyYar · 2007-07-05 07:40 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The art of parody is lost on the grammar Nazi.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
38. Re:I don't get it... by MightyYar · 2007-07-05 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  I speed, too. That's illegal. I also drank before I was 21.
  
  I'm such a bad-ass.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
39. Re:I don't get it... by adolf · 2007-07-05 07:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  My, how dense you are, AC.
  
  But you're right, I suppose. It is funnier your way. I just can't stop laughing about the way you sling about your grammatical corrections and editorial remarks.
  
  It reeks of genuine hilarity, and I thank you for that. Your veraciousness is to be applauded.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
40. Re:I don't get it... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2007-07-05 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  They're not trivial, no, but then they have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
  
  Your understanding is limited.
  
  Try publishing your own Mickey Mouse cartoons and you'll learn a lot about government-sanctioned takings from (what should be) the public domain.
  
  Try accessing a work protected by a DMCA-sanctioned cipher in the year 2412, and you'll learn a lot about de-facto perpetual copyright terms.
41. Re:I don't get it... by winkydink · 2007-07-05 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Either of which would have proven to be very expensive had you been caught.
  
  --
  "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
42. Re:I don't get it... by Maxo-Texas · 2007-07-05 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly he meant "proof-reading the words that are there" but he's using the form from the joke
  "were wolf!"
  "there wolf!"
  He's just a big fan of "Young Frankenstein".
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
43. Re:I don't get it... by richie2000 · 2007-07-05 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  The Russian sites are able to sell tracks for $0.10 each because they need not worry about paying the supplier. Except, well, they actually do. The difference is that in Russia, they pay 17% of the price, not a fixed amount. Furthermore, this all goes to the artists (via a collection agency), not the labels. Or it would, if the labels didn't hog the copyrights so the artists can't apply for their own money.
  
  --
  Money for nothing, pix for free
44. Re:I don't get it... by mi · 2007-07-05 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  It is arguable that the long term effect of perpetual copyright is an erosion of our other freedoms.
  
  That the tangible property (mobile and real estate) remains perpetually owned — passed from generation to generation and/or sold — without ever coming into "public domain" (unless abandoned) was never seen as somehow eroding personal freedoms.
  So, I don't think, what you are saying is even arguable. It certainly is not a sure thing, as the grand-parent has claimed.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
45. Re:I don't get it... by mi · 2007-07-05 09:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And until the decent defenders of copyright start distinguishing between theft and infringement, my mixing them together with despicable RIAA shills will remain perfectly fair.
  
  The difference between theft and infringement is irrelevant to the discussion, because the infringement is just as harmful to the rightful owners of the intellectual property, as the theft is to those of the tangible property.
  They are equally harmful to the rest of the society too. Because of thieves we must burden ourselves daily with locks, keys, alarms, chains. Similarly, the infringers force us to deal with DRM and other fair-use preventing implementations.
  Thus the terms can be used interchangibly without too much of a stretch.
  I don't even see RIAA "shills" as "despicable". They are doing their work, fighting for their employer's rights...
  The term comes from an essay by Henry David Thoreau. His crime was nothing larger than failure to pay a tax, one which he could well afford to pay.
  
  He was protesting against slavery and the Mexican war. To use the same term to describe a "battle" against a non-governmental organization in a fight for entertainment of all things, is, on one hand, a sign of a very substantial quality of life improvement, and, on the other, that of how silly your complaints and cheek-puffing really is...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
46. Re:I don't get it... by hackstraw · 2007-07-05 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Buying CDs and ripping them is more difficult than simply downloading them, or paying a site a few pennies to download them. AllofMP3 was so popular because for a couple cents getting music was even more convenient. You didn't even have to search through pirate sites to find them, they were all there in one place. They paid for the music because it was convenient, not because they wanted to make sure money went to the artists.
  
  Basically, what this is saying is that AllofMP3 has a better business model than the current RIAA one, which I agree with completely.
  
  Downloading crap from pirate sites is work. You have to search for the crap. Figure out if the quality is what you are looking for. Often times the downloads are not labeled correctly, may or may not include album artwork, you then have to then move the files from where you downloaded them to your archive once the download is finished and you are happy with the results. Often, you have to delete the stuff because it is not what you want. Then there are downloads where the seeders die off or whatnot.
  
  Regardless of the ethical, legal, or any other argument one can make about pirating music and/or movies, it is not "free" unless yo u consider your time and effort worth nothing. All the time people pay different prices for things due to the convenience and quanity of the purchase. Buy hotdogs from a warehouse store. $.10/dog when bought by the palate. Buy hotdogs from grocery store. $.20/dog bought by the 8-16 dogs per package. Buy 1 hotdot from convenience store. $2.00/dog.
  
  I know I'm a minority here on slashdot because I actually watch TV on a TV, but a majority of the people I know do this. I actually pay extra for the convenience of having a DVR from my cable company which records shows for me, and I can watch them when I want and skip the commercials, rewind, etc. My cable comes with music channels, but they suck and I don't pay any attention to those. Would I pay for a decent music service? Yes. I would view it to simply be more convenient than using torrent sites, but I'm forced by a lack of a business model to get the music I want the way I want it, so I either do without or on occasion I'll download music when I feel the urge. Now, I place about zero value on a majority of what I download because 1) I didn't pay for it, so I don't care if I lose it. 2) Many of the MP3s are of lower quality than I would prefer. They are OK for background listening or on the computer, but they are unacceptable to listen to on my car or home stereo. They are the equivalent of FM that I don't pay for.
47. Re:I don't get it... by Husgaard · 2007-07-05 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom of expression, the press, and the public domain is not a trivial thing. None of the above are in anyway endangered by **AA, nor defended by AllOfMP3 et al.
  In quite a lot of countries the freedom of the press is endangered due to the US copyright lobby. They want to listen to all our communications, including the so far confidential communications between press and the press informer, and they are pushing legislation for this purpose that was originally meant to be against terrorists. The EU data retension directive is a fine example of this.
  And no, allofmp3 is not defending this. But they are trying hard to deliver the service their customers have already paid for, as you can see from TFA. This is more than we can say about the RIAA members.
  And we all have to remember that allofmp3 has always been paying the about 15% they have to pay to the russian collection societies, and that the current problem really is because IFPI thinks this amount is too small, although it is significantly larger than what most artists get.
48. Re:I don't get it... by flink · 2007-07-05 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Allofmp3s users weren't looking for a convenient way to buy music; they wanted a way to buy music at the price they valued it at, which just happens to be so far below cost that just about all all of the purchase price went to the "middlemen" Slashdot seems to despise so much.
  allofmp3 provided lossless, DRM-free music for bands whose music could not be downloaded in a lossless format at any price. A 3:30 song encoded with FLAC weighs in at 22.5MB. At $0.03/MB, that comes to $0.67 for an average pop song. A ~62 minute album is 417MB = $12.51. I can walk into Newbury Comics and get most albums on CD for $10 to $14. Looks like a fair price to me.
  
  allofmp3 claimed that they were paying the Russian equivalent of BMI, and the RIAA said otherwise. How is the average consumer supposed to tell the difference, especially given the histrionics the RIAA is known for?
  
  It seems like if the labels weren't so greedy and paranoid, we could have an unambiguously legal, DRM-free, lossless download service in the states that charges a lot less than iTunes. Give the copyright holder 25% of the purchase price, let the provider keep the other 75% for operating costs and profit. Seems like a pretty good deal considering the rights holder risks nothing, pays nothing, and doesn't have to lift a finger besides cashing the checks. If they wanted to be really nice they could throw in a PDF of the album art.
49. Re:I don't get it... by Roachgod · 2007-07-05 09:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  - It's not theft, it's only copyright infringement. (So that makes it ok?)
  Under the circumstances, yes. Or we don't care. Tough.
  
  - The artists don't get all the money anyway. (So giving them none is better?)
  how about I work towards a system where I CAN give them all the money by breaking the current one. Given that I would like to make a living as a musician at some point, I would REALLY like to see this happen.
  
  - The RIAA are evil and don't deserve my money. (So boycott their product.)
  um, does music downloading do this effectively? They don't get paid. Even better the boycotters don't have to deal with the annoying side effect of most boycots: the inability to use a product.
  
  - All modern music is garbage, so they don't deserve to get paid for it. (So why are you listening to it?)
  Slight mischaracterization here. MOST modern music is garbage. I DON'T listen to it. Most stuff I get is to replace cds that have gotten lost/stolen/etc over the years. And before I hear any bitching about it, I "got a license" so this should all be legal. Unless I bought a physical item, in which case putting it online should be my business and no one elses....
  
  - They don't 'get it', they need a new business model. (Ok, since you obviously are MBA expert, suggest one.)
  Not our job. In fact, if they just die, that would be great.
  
  - I bought a CD once after listening to copies I took off a p2p network. (And the 50 others you didn't buy?)
  Those were crap. I don't remember if I erased them or not, but that might explain why my HD is getting full. At the same time, having already downloaded them maybe a friend would like them and HD space is cheap.
  
  - The quality of MP3s sold aren't good enough for my highly attuned ear. (And the pirated versions are better? If you're that fussy, buy the CD.)
  Actually, from Allofmp3.com, they were. They also came in the format of my choice. They were also 1/10th the price, and I was willing to sacrifice a bit of quality under those conditions (even though it turned out I didn't have to).
  
  - DRM restricts my freedom. (DRM is trivial to bypass if it bothers you.)
  I am too busy bother with CDs, you want me to go fussing around with DRM when I can just ignore it from the getgo?
  
  - The prices aren't reasonable. (That can only ever be a matter of opinion. Others clearly have no problem.)
  yes, in my opinion they are too high. As a result I don't pay it, because it is within my power not to.
  
  - I am very concerned about official USA interference in legal Russian trade practices. (Yeah, right. Don't make me laugh.)
  I agree. most people don't give a damn about this. We ARE concerned about the effect that corporations have on our legal system, rights, and the rights of others. This issue is part of what happened here. Oh, wait, I take it back, I DO care about USA interference in Russian trade practices....
  
  - I support the artist by going to their live gigs. (I'll keep that in mind next time that Japanese ambient reclusive artist is touring my town.)
  Please consider my lack of caring as a compassionate act to help this poor man get the hell out of his house. Life is too short to spend it inside a box, even one with windows. You're welcome.
50. Re:I don't get it... by xeromist · 2007-07-05 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  That exact piece of physical property also cannot be used as a basis for countless transformative works. Physical property laws exist to protect an individual's possessions. Copyright laws exist to benefit society. This is why there is a difference. Your comparison makes no sense.
  
  --
  This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
51. Re:I don't get it... by aslvrstn · 2007-07-05 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  In addition, you're removing one used CD from the total pool of used CDs. If everyone starts buying used CDs, they will run out of people willing to sell them, meaning someone has to buy a new one. You can't run out of downloads.
52. Re:I don't get it... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · 2007-07-05 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  > this is saying... AllofMP3 has a better business model than the current RIAA one, which I agree with completely.
  
  Any business model that reduces the costs of creating, developing, and producing your product to virtually zero is always going to be a winner. When you reduce those costs by assigning all those debts to your direct competition by stealing (oh, sorry... sharing) their intellectual property then yes, I suppose in some interestingly twisted way you can call that "better."
53. Re:I don't get it... by Moodie-1 · 2007-07-05 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's perfectly understandable. Most everyone from the past few generations seems to be a careless slacker (of one kind or another, more or less) who obviously thinks that proper English usage is totally passé. Even you, it seems:
  
  ...proof-reading there words... ... site Op's ... s/b 'site's ops'
  
  ... P unctuation... ... L etter 's ...
  Five mistakes! Maybe the next time you feel the urge to criticize someone else's spelling and grammar you'll check your own (thoroughly) first.
54. Re:I don't get it... by russotto · 2007-07-05 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  The difference between theft and infringement is irrelevant to the discussion, because the infringement is just as harmful to the rightful owners of the intellectual property, as the theft is to those of the tangible property.
  Obviously false, for the usual reason. The rightholders still retain the right infringed upon, whereas the victim of theft has nothing.
  They are equally harmful to the rest of the society too. Because of thieves we must burden ourselves daily with locks, keys, alarms, chains. Similarly, the infringers force us to deal with DRM and other fair-use preventing implementations.
  False again. DRM is not required at all. And DRM is used for reasons other than preventing infringement, such as region control, forced ad viewing, product tie-ins, etc.
  I don't even see RIAA "shills" as "despicable".
  I'm sure that helps you look yourself in the mirror every morning.
  To use the same term to describe a "battle" against a non-governmental organization in a fight for entertainment of all things, is, on one hand, a sign of a very substantial quality of life improvement, and, on the other, that of how silly your complaints and cheek-puffing really is
  It's not a fight for entertainment. It's a fight over control. They want control of everything -- including personal computers, TV capture cards, and, in one proposal, all analog-to-digital converters -- in order to prevent infringment of their precious copyrights. And they took steps for getting it before Napster, too, so don't try to claim it's just a reaction to infringement.
55. Re:I don't get it... by MightyYar · 2007-07-05 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I've been caught speeding 3 times in my 15-odd years of driving. I still do it, and I can honestly say that I rarely encounter anyone obeying the speed limit. Everyone seems to do at least 5 over the limit. As for drinking - I was caught once and the cop made me chug my beer.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
56. Re:I don't get it... by winkydink · 2007-07-05 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  I think the cops, for the most part, are a little stricter about underage drinking than they were ten years ago.
  
  5 miles over the limit? That's margin of error. Is your speedometer calibrated? When mine indicates 40mph, I'm actually moving at 35mph.
  
  --
  "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
57. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, the F*cking irony
  Reading comprehension involves the larger ideas and full body of the text, and would have, in this case, kept you from looking so foolish.
58. Re:I don't get it... by adona1 · 2007-07-05 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  If the band has been backed by a label, they've already been paid by the label to license their music and sell it.
  
  They may have been paid, depending on their deal. Courtney Love did an interesting article a while back giving the artist's account of how the record labels control the finances and payments.
  
  *Disclaimer: article has probably been posted many times on /. However, I've linked to the ad-free-all-on-one-page version, so it cancels out ;)*
  
  --
  Between the falling angel and the rising ape
59. Re:I don't get it... by MightyYar · 2007-07-05 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Admit it, even if you have no idea what the calibration status your speedo has, you still shoot for 5 over :)
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
60. Re:I don't get it... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2007-07-05 14:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You left off the best one -
  
  They do it because I it is a natural right. Listening to a song and then humming the melody yourself differs only in degree, not kind, with downloading and keeping the complete song. Either you believe in freedom of expression, or you don't. Because where you may choose to draw the line isn't necessarily where anyone else may choose to draw the line. After all, copyright law as defined by USC Title 17 is just arbitrary line as drawn up by a select few vested interests, no more meaningful than anyone else's opinion.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
61. Re:I don't get it... by gordgekko · 2007-07-05 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  > Except, well, they actually do.
  
  Except, well, no one has ever actually reported receiving a cheque.
  
  --
  You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
62. Re:I don't get it... by catprog · 2007-07-05 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  Because the labels have stopped them from doing so.
  
  --
  My Transformation Website
  Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
  Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
63. Re:I don't get it... by adolf · 2007-07-05 16:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Geez. You, too?
  
  Are all of you folks completely unable to see that I mirrored, as closely as possible, all of the original poster's mistakes, bad habits, formatting, and punctuation? Same number of sentences. Same number of parenthetical remarks. I even used the same exact words, wherever I found it possible to do so.
  
  proof reading there words: Misuse of "there" instead of "their," just like the original poster.
  
  site Op's: I don't even know where to begin describing the wrongness of these letters being juxtaposed just like this, but it's simply copied verbatim (as legally protected parody) from the text provided by the original poster.
  
  Punctuation and Letter's: I used a little liberty with these particular sins, but felt that was necessary to complete the body of work.
  
  Maybe the next time you feel the urge to troll yourself, look a little a bit more closely at the context before hitting the "submit" button. Otherwise, you may just make yourself look like a foolish and careless slacker.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
64. Re:I don't get it... by winkydink · 2007-07-05 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  I have a V1. I drive as fast as the mood suits. :)
  
  --
  "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
65. Re:I don't get it... by vuffi_raa · 2007-07-05 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that you shouldn't pay someone to get pirated material- but just for kicks rather than just "seeing the band" people should by other merchandise from artists. I am an independent musician and honestly I don't care if someone pirates my stuff and doesn't like it- but if you want to support me and you already got the album, just buy a shirt or somesuch- and if you don't like my merch- send me an e-mail and tell me- no skin off my nose that I didn't dictate what you bought or how many friends you gave it to- so long as it spreads and I get some kind of return, besides I would rather have someone download it, like it and support me than have someone spend $ on it and regret it because they didn't really like it when they heard it.
  All that does is fill landfills with more plastic.
66. Re:I don't get it... by geminidomino · 2007-07-05 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Can I play my iTunes on my Neuros II without jumping through hoops?
  
  No, I can't. So no, it isn't convenient enough.
67. Re:I don't get it... by donscarletti · 2007-07-05 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  This is Slashdot, where the total cost of sale for a CD is $0.25, and distributors and retailers don't charge markup. In this version of reality, record labels make a net profit of $13.25; this ridiculous profitability allows us to rationalize piracy.
  Ok, now what you are saying is that by us saving $13.50 we're probably only ripping off the record label by about $8.00 after the various markups are taken into consideration for middle-men we wouldn't be using. Doesn't your version of reality justify piracy more than the Slashdot collective mind's model?
  
  --
  When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
68. Re:I don't get it... by Hal_Porter · 2007-07-05 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  I would have thought someone called adolf would be immune from criticism from grammar Nazis.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
69. Re:I don't get it... by Hal_Porter · 2007-07-05 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  yes, in my opinion they are too high. As a result I don't pay it, because it is within my power not to.
  
  Yeah, and it's within the RIAA's power to try to put you in jail if they catch you. Once you start to make might-makes-right arguments to justify doing something which causes someone else financial harm, don't complain if they they sic the lawyers on you.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
70. Re:I don't get it... by shark72 · 2007-07-05 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  "Because the labels have stopped them from doing so."
  
  Do you have a citation for this claim? How on earth could a label prevent a lyricist or composer from collecting performance royalties? That's between the artist, the publisher and the performing rights organization; it's a wholly different revenue stream than CD sales. I think your statement is just one of those things that everybody just sort of "knows" to be true but which nobody can really confirm, but if you have evidence otherwise, please post it.
  
  --
  Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
71. Re:I don't get it... by shark72 · 2007-07-05 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Or it would, if the labels didn't hog the copyrights so the artists can't apply for their own money."
  
  I don't follow. The record company typically owns the copyright on the recording; the composer and lyricist own the copyright on the words and music. Tons of artists make pretty good money via BMI and ASCAP through radio play and other public performances; it's a revenue stream that's wholly unrelated to CD sales, and -- more importantly -- money that the record company never sees.
  
  Any rightsholder can try to get the money they believe that is owed to them by ROMS, provided that they can understand this page, provided ROMS answers their email (they've never answered mine), and provided AllofMP3 were to help out by reporting sales data (I've not heard of anybody who's been able to get it out of them). You certainly don't need a record company's permission, and the record label can't stop you. The issue is, as somebody has already pointed out, in that nobody has reported receiving a royalty check from AllofMP3 sales. This is not the fault of the record companies; it's the fault of AllofMP3 and ROMS not providing data, not responding to emails, and not mailing checks when asked.
  
  --
  Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
72. Re:I don't get it... by shark72 · 2007-07-05 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  "Ok, now what you are saying is that by us saving $13.50 we're probably only ripping off the record label by about $8.00 after the various markups are taken into consideration for middle-men we wouldn't be using."
  
  Sort of. It's my understanding that sell-in to disti is about eight bucks. Everything beyond that goes to the distributor and retailer.
  
  "Doesn't your version of reality justify piracy more than the Slashdot collective mind's model?"
  
  I can't answer that question for you. If the idea of paying a retail markup bothers you to the point that you think piracy is an acceptable alternative, then by all means do whatever you think is right. If pirating your music fits within your moral code, then go for it; nobody else (particularly not me) can provide you with absolution or sanctity.
  
  --
  Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
73. Re:I don't get it... by Claws+Of+Doom · 2007-07-05 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  The bands themselves are starting to spot the trends faster than the labels:
  
  A band called The Crimea who split with their label (Warner Brothers in some guise or other, I believe) decided to release an album completely free of drm, and completely free of cost.
  
  Their logic?
  
  They made their money from touring - having people listen to their music would make more turn up to their real money maker.
  
  The album?
  
  http://thecrimea.net/
  
  (forgive the shameless plug *blush* - disclaimer: I'm a friend of the band, but not a member)
74. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 21:46 · Score: 0
  
  And i don't get why i'm forced to pay a levy (that in sometime increase the price of the 100%)on evry blank recording stuff (cd-r dvd-r etc) that go to the recording industry only because i COULD use that support for copying copyrighted stuff (for my own use), when indeed i use them for back up my system and my stuff not copyrighted.
  
  (i'm in italy but this tax is in many other european country too)
75. Re:I don't get it... by Zebedeu · 2007-07-05 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly! This is the reason why I'm not happy with the current incarnation of the virtual console-type games.
  At least in the Wii, the virtual console games are way too expensive for software that is sometimes more than 10 years old and restricted (for ex. you can't take it to a friend's house), and you can't even offset this cost by reselling it after you're done with it.
  
  Fortunately, the Wii takes Gamecube disks which, when coupled with 2nd hand and eBay, means that you can basically play your games for the price of mailing the game from/to the next guy.
76. Re:I don't get it... by Dephex+Twin · 2007-07-06 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  So, instead of paying $14 for something I can keep and collect and play with forever, I'm spending a mere $8 for something that I won't be keeping? I sort of understand your point with video games, but you don't normally "beat" an album.
  
  --
  
  If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
77. Re:I don't get it... by dfiguero · 2007-07-06 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  I would rather pay $2 for the 1 or 2 songs I like from a band than pay $15 for their entire album when I don't care for the other songs.
  
  Of course there are albums which are worth the $15-$20 they charge but most of the time I find myself only liking a couple of songs.
  
  --
  My penguin ate my sig
78. Re:I don't get it... by Virgil+Tibbs · 2007-07-06 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Can i play itunes songs on my linux box? well ok i know there are a few which i can now... Magnatune is definily the best shop for online music, (in terms of honesty and fairness).
  
  --
  www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
79. Re:I don't get it... by lessermilton · 2007-07-06 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Well, technically it's only within the RIAA's power to file charges/civil lawsuit. Unless the RIAA has been granted powers of deputy by... well, I suppose it would have to do with the FBI, if it involves the internet... The problem that most people have with the RIAA's legal practices - how much of those cheques went to the artists? My educated guess? Somewhere in the realm of not-a-red-cent. Instead of bringing lawsuits in the realm of thousands and thousands of dollars, if they had simply required that the "consumer" purchase the files at a fair market value, no-one would really care. But instead they attacked people who were by-and-large innocent, in that they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong. I mean - if I can record what comes across my radio, then why shouldn't I be able to download that same music? That's the thought that most people (if any thought at all) had. See, I'm just curious why someone hasn't tried a class-action lawsuit (okay, I'm really not, it's probably in the recording contract). Why not an anti-trust against the RIAA? There seems to be somewhat of a monopolistic desire there. They want to have not only vertical integration from the point of origin (the artist) to the point of sale, but they want to completely control "their" product, to the point of telling you how, when, and where you can listen to it. I think their problem is they came 20 years too late... I'm sure plenty of people would've been glad they got those "pirates", with their boom-boxes, walking down the street, broadcasting music illegally. Take 'em down!
  
  --
  I wish I had a witty .sig
80. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-06 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  proof reading there words: Misuse of "there" instead of "their," just like the original poster. Yeah, right, good cover there. Someone might believe you!
81. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-06 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  allofmp3 claimed that they were paying the Russian equivalent of BMI, and the RIAA said otherwise. How is the average consumer supposed to tell the difference, especially given the histrionics the RIAA is known for?
  
  Exactly! When I got my account at allofmp3.com I believed the hype that it was legal in Russia. Most slashdotters wouldn't have a problem with operating a proxy router for Chinese dissidents (letting them do something that is legal in your country) - which was the basic understanding that I had of what was going on. I then assumed that the RIAA was just bitching about not getting enough money back from them. They aren't known for being truthful.
  
  So in the beginning, it was reasonable to assume that you were going through - admittedly convoluted - legal channels to get your music. I haven't used allofmp3 in a few months - but I'm quite happy to hear I can get rid of my remaining credits. It helped me find a bunch of really good Russian bands that I would never have found on my own. So right now I'm downloading the entire discography of Leningrad. Awesome.
  
  That being said, I don't believe that we have (or will ever) heard the real story of allofmp3. They developed a wonderful system of getting the music you wanted in the format you wanted for a price that was well within Russian market price. It's not surprising in the least that the American distribution cartel was against them.
82. Re:I don't get it... by Sancho · 2007-07-06 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  A better phrase would be, "When you're done with it." Plenty of people sell CDs when they get tired of them. Knowing you have the option makes it easier to justify the cost.
  
  I know that I'm probably outside the norm around here, but I still purchase CDs. I shop around and try to find the best prices, but if I knew that the second I purchased them, their value would drop to $0.00, I might think twice about taking chances on some of them.
  
  If you own CDs that you never listen to, DVDs that you never watch, or games that you never play (or hell, any piece of property that you never use), then it's the same thing. You can hold on to it just in case you ever need it (packrat mentality) or you can sell it and try to get something useful out of it.
83. Re:I don't get it... by Sancho · 2007-07-06 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Basically, what this is saying is that AllofMP3 has a better business model than the current RIAA one, which I agree with completely. Someone else already mentioned that AllofMP3 doesn't have to worry about paying production costs. Other than that, can you define 'better' in this context, and then explain how it's actually better?
84. Re:I don't get it... by Sancho · 2007-07-06 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  She lost me at:
  Orrin Hatch, songwriter and Republican senator from Utah, seems to be the only person in Washington with a progressive view of copyright law. One lobbyist says that there's no one in the House with a similar view and that "this would have never happened if Sonny Bono was still alive." She's also got a long way to go to overcome the image of the rocker who lives an outlandish lifestyle. While I was reading the words about how these people only make '$45,000 per year' (which is, by the way, almost exactly what I make working 7-6, Monday through Friday), I couldn't help but picture the cars these people drive, the drugs, the money, etc. And she implies that $45,000 would come from an outstanding record contract.
  
  What a joke.
  
  This is exactly like those sports stars who complain that they aren't making enough because they have to live to a certain lifestyle in order to attract the fans. Sorry. If your 'business model' revolves around creating an image that requires you to light your cigar with a c-note, but you're not making enough to do so, then your business model is flawed.
85. Re:I don't get it... by Moodie-1 · 2007-07-06 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Oops, you got me, pal. I've just got too much on my mind right now to look that closely at simple posts, even if they're not so simple. Kudos to you.
86. Re:I don't get it... by gsslay · 2007-07-07 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Under the circumstances, yes. Or we don't care. Tough.
  What circumstances? Are you saying we're in a situation where the rules don't apply? Who decides that? Cos having the rules no longer counting can be a two edged sword.
  how about I work towards a system where I CAN give them all the money by breaking the current one.
  This doesn't fit with your later statement. If you're so determined to break the system you better have some idea what's going to replace it. What is it?
  Even better the boycotters don't have to deal with the annoying side effect of most boycots: the inability to use a product.
  It's usual for a principled stand to involve some kind of sacrifice on your part. Otherwise your motives can easily be questioned.
  Most stuff I get is to replace cds that have gotten lost/stolen/etc over the years.
  Nice. We'll add that to the list of excuses.
  Not our job. In fact, if they just die, that would be great.
  See my point above. If you break it it's up to you to a least have half an idea what's going to replace it.
  Those were crap. I don't remember if I erased them or not, but that might explain why my HD is getting full.
  See, the problem with throwing about excuses is that they have to be consistent. I thought most of the stuff you had was replacing stuff you'd already bought? Are you downloading music you already know you hate, or are you changing your story to suit the circumstances?
  Actually, from Allofmp3.com, they were. They also came in the format of my choice.
  Isn't it amazing the service you can offer when you're selling stuff that isn't yours, you aren't paying for, and not investing in?
  I am too busy bother with CDs, you want me to go fussing around with DRM when I can just ignore it from the getgo?
  If music meant that much to you, you would make time. Anyhow, I'm not defending DRM. It's crap.
  yes, in my opinion they are too high. As a result I don't pay it, because it is within my power not to.
  Ah, the 'I do it because it suits me and I you can't stop me' argument. Does this philosophy work in other aspects of your life too?
  We ARE concerned about the effect that corporations have on our legal system, rights, and the rights of others.
  If this is the case then I can totally understand your concern about the music industry, and the basic human right to getting the next Linkin Park CD for free. Let other multinational industries like Arms and Pharmaceuticals wait in line while we tackle the big guns first!
  Please consider my lack of caring as a compassionate act to help this poor man get the hell out of his house.
  My point was that some music doesn't work in a live gig scenario, and many artists are very unlikely to tour anywhere near me soon. So the idea that they can support themselves financially through touring is a non-starter. And it's a particularly dumb suggestion from people who are otherwise so sold on the internet being a great global village and market place. Given the option to them endlessly touring trying to scrape an audience and living together, or working in the studio, I know what I'd prefer they do. Not all musicians are the Rolling Stones.
87. Re:I don't get it... by catprog · 2007-07-07 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Russia also promised to target other Russian sites that distributed copyright material illegally. Allofmp3.com insisted that it was a legitimate business because it paid royalties to a Russian organisation that collected fees for distribution to copyright holders.
  It argued that it was helping to prevent piracy by offering an alternative to free file-sharing sites. Western music companies refused to accept the fee, arguing that the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society had no right to represent their interests.
  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/euro pe/article2016297.ece
  
  --
  My Transformation Website
  Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
  Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Uhh... where's the link? by clubin · 2007-07-05 06:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Slashdot posters are traditionally link-happy. Where is the link to the article about AllofMP3.com's takedown? I didn't know about this.
1. Re:Uhh... where's the link? by casings · 2007-07-05 06:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/02/20 46241
  
  you mean that one?
2. Re:Uhh... where's the link? by janrinok · 2007-07-05 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/02/20 46241 You could have tried using the search - I did!
  
  --
  Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
3. Re:Uhh... where's the link? by clubin · 2007-07-05 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Thank you.
4. Re:Uhh... where's the link? by clubin · 2007-07-05 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  But I feel more socially connected this way, silly!
  
  (well, that and this points out what I feel was an omission :])
5. Re:Uhh... where's the link? by TheoMurpse · 2007-07-05 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  DON'T ENCOURAGE THE DUPES!!!
6. Re:Uhh... where's the link? by Hal_Porter · 2007-07-05 18:13 · Score: 1
  
  DON'T ENCOURAGE THE DUPES!!!
  
  They're not dupes, they're backups and the US Constitution guarantees our right to make them. Stop oppressing me, fascist ;-)
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
So this was the reason for the Bush/Putin meeting. by Bohnanza · 2007-07-05 06:02 · Score: 1, Troll

It had nothing to do with Iraq, Iran or the "missile shield", it was about IP rights.

--
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
Shucks by MadUndergrad · 2007-07-05 06:08 · Score: 1

Well, they've gone and shut down ALL the sites where you can buy reasonably priced mp3s! There are NONE LEFT. Darn. I guess the Russian government can go on some other kick now that we're thoroughly beaten... Yep, none left. They don't have to worry or be vigilant any more. *hopes they're using slashdot as their sole source to find these sites*
1. Re:Shucks by NetDanzr · 2007-07-05 06:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Don't worry; they'll be resurrected in Antigua, now that the US has lost in the WTO dispute and Antigua declared it was free to retaliate by ignoring US copyrights.
2. Re:Shucks by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  And how much bandwidth is available in Antigua for sharing terabytes of mp3s? At what cost is this bandwidth?
  
  What would stop ISPs from blocking this site from the general US public, or speed limiting all connections to Antigua?
  
  I'm not saying those are the right things to do, but I'm pretty sure it'd happen whether we like it or not.
Regardless of ethics by Control+Group · 2007-07-05 06:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

Whether or not you believe what AllOfMp3.com was doing was illegal or unethical, it has got to be at least a little worrisome that a group of American corporations can effectively control the legal system of another major nation.

In my more paranoid moments, I might consider this evidence for an upcoming shift from nation-state to corporation-state as the global political unit. Then again, I'm also prepared for the inevitable zombie outbreak, so perhaps you oughtn't listen to me.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
1. Re:Regardless of ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  Hey stop joking around. The zombie outbreak is for real.
2. Re:Regardless of ethics by sinij · 2007-07-05 06:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  >>> it has got to be at least a little worrisome that a group of American corporations can effectively control the legal system of another major nation
  
  Nothing is free in Russia, 'group of American corporations' paid dearly to get it shut down, be it in political power or 'sponsorship' funds or likely both.
3. Re:Regardless of ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  I'm also prepared for the inevitable zombie outbreak
  
  Hey, I'm a zombie you insensitive clod!
4. Re:Regardless of ethics by Phanatic1a · 2007-07-05 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  it has got to be at least a little worrisome that a group of American corporations can effectively control the legal system of another major nation.
  
  And not just because it speaks to ever-increasing amounts of corporate power, unrestricted by legal restraint.
  
  What does it do to the notion of rule of law in those countries where foreign corporations come in and throw their weight around? It was bad enough when Adobe, an American corporation, engineered the arrest of Dimitry Skylarov for acts that didn't break the laws of the country he was operating in; that at least took place in America, according to American law. But for the RIAA to arrange for a company that's *legal* in Russia to be shut down by the Russian government? That can only serve to increase the contempt and fear Russians have for their own legal apparatus, and that can't be good for anyone.
5. Re:Regardless of ethics by moderatorrater · 2007-07-05 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  No, the Canadian DMCA is an example of the US controlling other country's laws. In this instance, it's that Russia has agreed to respect our copyrights as long as we afford them the same hospitality. It's part of being a member of the WTO, if I remember correctly.
6. Re:Regardless of ethics by nomadic · 2007-07-05 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  it has got to be at least a little worrisome that a group of American corporations can effectively control the legal system of another major nation.
  
  Not that Russia has much of one.
7. Re:Regardless of ethics by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2007-07-05 07:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Whether or not you believe what AllOfMp3.com was doing was illegal or unethical, it has got to be at least a little worrisome that a group of American corporations can effectively control the legal system of another major nation.
  
  I don't think that is the right way to look at the situation. What is worrisome is that a group of American corporations convinced the US government that issues that are unique to the entertainment industry were such a big deal that the US government better care about them and in turn they became such a big deal that they were able to force Russia to care about them. I can assure you that Russia does not give in to bullying. They acted because they either got something under the table for doing so or the government concluded that there was some benefit that they would gain by shutting down one website that would outweigh the perception of giving in to US pressure. Russia does not do something for nothing so they are getting something out of the deal, but what they are getting I don't know.
8. Re:Regardless of ethics by TubeSteak · 2007-07-05 07:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Nothing is free in Russia, 'group of American corporations' paid dearly to get it shut down, be it in political power or 'sponsorship' funds or likely both. For those of you who aren't aware: Russia is only making this concession because it wants to join the WTO.
  
  I hope everyone going "zomg teh American Corporations" realizes that any payment for this was made during Clinton's Administration and Allofmp3 was shut down using Clinton era treaties.
  
  American foreign policy under Bush and Clinton, with regards to 'intellectual property' has always had the same restrictive goals. The only difference is that Clinton was willing to accept the foreign patent process while Bush's Administration has been pushing for other countries to accept the US process.
  
  Clinton was responsible for these international treaties:
  WIPO Copyright Treaty
  WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty which directly led to the DMCA (see the next one)
  WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act
  TRIPS
  
  Skim those wiki articles and you'll find things that you don't like. Patent protection for software, making it illegal to circumvent copy protection, etc.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
9. Re:Regardless of ethics by MightyYar · 2007-07-05 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Look at the big companies in the RIAA, and you will realize that only one - Warner - is American. EMI is British, Sony BMG is Japanese, and Universal is French. This doesn't hurt your corporation-state argument, but is a significant detail.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
10. Re:Regardless of ethics by Control+Group · 2007-07-05 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't indicting a particular administration - I was attempting to indict the political environment of the current world, and a trend towards corporations increasingly being the "power behind the throne" - or at least, seeming to be.
  
  --
  
  Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
11. Re:Regardless of ethics by Magic+Fingers · 2007-07-05 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  If it had been a site against US, I doubt they will shut the door closed.
12. Re:Regardless of ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  I think you mean "political capital." Unless you mean they relinquished political power, but that doesn't really fit with what they did.
13. Re:Regardless of ethics by bogjobber · 2007-07-05 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Those corporations are (mostly) not American. Only one out of the big four, Warner, is completely American. Sony BMG is Japanese/German, EMI is English, and Universal is American/French.
14. Re:Regardless of ethics by jrumney · 2007-07-05 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  In this instance, it's that Russia has agreed to respect our copyrights
  
  It already respected the copyrights. AllOfMP3.com paid a statutory license for all the music that was downloaded from them, in accordance with Russian law until the government was coerced into changing that law to suit the RIAA. This is the same sort of statutory license that the RIAA collects from Internet radio stations in the US through its SoundExchange subsidiary. Meanwhile, the RIAA was refusing to pass this money on to the artists, because it did not want to recognise the Russian equivalent of SoundExchange as having any legitimacy.
15. Re:Regardless of ethics by jrumney · 2007-07-05 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Universal's head offices are in Santa Monica and New York, despite the fact that the parent company is French. Sony BMG is also run out of New York, despite the parent companies being Japanese and German. EMI is the only one of the big four that does not base its operations in the US.
16. Re:Regardless of ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  Whether or not you believe what AllOfMp3.com was doing was illegal or unethical, it has got to be at least a little worrisome that a group of American corporations can effectively control the legal system of another major nation.
  
  It's nothing new. Just look at the US-Australia FTA.
Not MP3 Sparks! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 06:16 · Score: 0

Ugh, I just paid $10 and only got to download a couple of songs from MP3 Sparks :( Damn it.
Re:So this was the reason for the Bush/Putin meeti by jeevesbond · 2007-07-05 06:16 · Score: 2, Funny
It had nothing to do with Iraq, Iran or the "missile shield", it was about IP rights.

No, I think that was sorted out a long time ago (conditions on Russia joining the WTO). I believe the only reason they went fishing was so Bush could regail Putin with some crap jokes he found on Slashdot:
1. In Soviet Russia fish catch YOU!
2. All your allofmp3 are belong to us!
3. In Soviet Russia missiles shield YOU!
4. ???
5. International Diplomacy!
Putin would have been pissed off with all this, but whilst George W. was talking shit: he caught a fish.
--
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
Re:So this was the reason for the Bush/Putin meeti by AltGrendel · 2007-07-05 06:17 · Score: 1

No, someone just forgot to pay their bribe.

--
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Whack-a-Mole by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2007-07-05 06:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Looks like an ongoing game of Whack-a-Mole.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
1. Re:Whack-a-Mole by Jugalator · 2007-07-05 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Pfft... mp3sparks... That site is old!
  
  Nowadays it's all about mp3sugar!
  People need to get with the times, gee...
  
  --
  Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
2. Re:Whack-a-Mole by iamnafets · 2007-07-05 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Most people seem to be under the impression that because a new site shows up every time an old one goes down, the action is futile. I don't think this is true, simply because if I want MP3s I don't want to have to go out and find the new site every time the old one gets shut down, nor do I want to spill a bunch of cash into a site that I can't guarantee to be up for more than a day. They're winning.
Yeah, I know what you mean by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 06:28 · Score: 0

Us citizens from the Republic of Pepsi shouldn't really be mixing it with you subjects from the Kingdom of Coke.
What's so surprising? by C10H14N2 · 2007-07-05 06:29 · Score: 1

Company does business in a country, company seeks legal protection from the courts in that country. All corporations from all countries do that. BFD.

Besides, "effectively control the legal system" in the context of RUSSIA? That's a legal system in need of MAJOR work. Frankly, I'd rather the RIAA give a helping hand with getting it up to snuff than most of the local talent.
1. Re:What's so surprising? by Control+Group · 2007-07-05 06:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Besides, "effectively control the legal system" in the context of RUSSIA? That's a legal system in need of MAJOR work. Frankly, I'd rather the RIAA give a helping hand with getting it up to snuff than most of the local talent.
  
  You're presuming that our legal system represents being "up to snuff" from the point of view of the citizens of Russia. Which calls into question the whole notion of national sovereignty.
  
  While I agree with you that the legal system in Russia isn't one I'd like to live with - and, I suspect, isn't one the people of Russia like to live with - that doesn't mean that it's my right (or that of my country, much less that of some corporations with absolutely zero political accountability to anyone involved) to decide for them how it should be run.
  
  That kind of interventionist thinking has gotten the US government in plenty of trouble. I can't imagine it's better when it's being executed by the RIAA.
  
  --
  
  Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
2. Re:What's so surprising? by C10H14N2 · 2007-07-05 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  The Russian government is fully capable of saying "no." This is a trait they exhibit quite often about things far more consequential than the price of a frakking MP3. To say that it is somehow "interventionist" for their regulatory bodies to sit down at the table with industry associations they'd like to do business with and came up with an agreement at the expense of poor, disenfranchised organized crime that wasn't let in on the meeting is astoundingly stupid.
3. Re:What's so surprising? by eiapoce · 2007-07-05 20:35 · Score: 0
  
  Besides, "effectively control the legal system" in the context of RUSSIA? That's a legal system in need of MAJOR work. Frankly, I'd rather the RIAA give a helping hand with getting it up to snuff than most of the local talent.
  I'd fix it for you: Besides, "effectively control the moral values" in the context of USA? That's a moral system in need of MAJOR work. Frankly, I'd rather AL QUAEDA give a helping hand with getting it up to snuff than most of the local talent.
Re:So this was the reason for the Bush/Putin meeti by everphilski · 2007-07-05 06:34 · Score: 1

and George felt guilty for the joke-making at Putin's expense and complimented his fish

"it's a fine catch"
Why... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 07:04 · Score: 0

Why do people buy MP3s?

Either download them or buy the fucking album.

If you MUST have just one MP3 because you don't like a band or an album enough to get the whole thing, either forget about their one and only hit, or suck up your pride and get a DRM MP3 from iTunes.

Haha... CAPTCHA was "irritant"
1. Re:Why... by MightyYar · 2007-07-05 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  AllOfMP3 was soooo nice that it wasn't worth it to rip CDs or hunt around online. I could get a LAME alt-extreme encoded song for a few cents... all the convenience of iTunes with DRM-free downloads. Buy the album? How quaint.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
2. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 16:15 · Score: 0
  
  I used to be an iTunes fan, but got damn sick of the DRM issues. I then switched to Allofmp3. It wasn't about the money, it was about the freedom. I actually prefer to stay legit wherever feasible, but I'm also not stupid and can spot a better product when I see one (which also happens to be cheaper, in this case).
Posting at top. by Kagura · 2007-07-05 07:11 · Score: 2, Informative

I haven't tried Visa, but I just paid by Mastercard and was able to credit my account. Don't have a Mastercard? Me either. Check for Virtual Debit Card on Paypal's website. It works like a charm and withdraws instantly directly from my Savings account. Hope this helps people, because as recently as a month ago allTunes accepted neither Visa nor Mastercard.

You can either use the web page, or the new allTunes browser. It's a slight improvement of the allofMP3 browser, but you can't use the old one anymore. Hope this helps some people. Enjoy.
1. Re:Posting at top. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, after months of trying to top off my balance, finally. :-D The paypal thing is Windows only, but it worked!
2. Re:Posting at top. by XL70E3 · 2007-07-05 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  this business model has something going on for it. i never bought as much music as when i was spending on this site. too bad no label understands good and fair pricing. plus, the possibility of choosing your file format was a nice touch(ogg, etc) i hope they get out of this situation. imagine how much people would spend on music if it was that cheap everywhere. at 10 a song, whats better? to download it illegally and get a good compression if you are lucky, or choose it yourself in the file format you want?...
RIAA thinks they represent russian artists too by caseih · 2007-07-05 07:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Many Russian expats relied on allofmp3.com as the only real way to access a lot of the music they know and love from back home. You just can't buy CDs of Hi-Fi or even Russian folk bands in the US. The RIAA has now essentially stolen representation of russian artists whether the russian artists cared about allofmp3.com or not. I'm not saying that allofmp3.com supported Russian artists at all, nor am I saying that allofmp3.com wasn't pirating russian music (it appears not, due to russian copyright law). But rather that the RIAA has unilaterally declared themselves the owner of all copyrighted music material in the Russia as well as the US, whether or not they really do. That is the despicable part of their actions.
1. Re:RIAA thinks they represent russian artists too by DrEldarion · 2007-07-05 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  If a normal store sold 80% illegal goods and 20% legit merchandise, would you expect them to not be shut down?
  
  It doesn't matter if they have some legit stuff, the point is that a ton wasn't.
2. Re:RIAA thinks they represent russian artists too by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 21:08 · Score: 0
  
  If a normal store sold 80% illegal goods and 20% legit merchandise, would you expect them to not be shut down?
  
  It doesn't matter if they have some legit stuff, the point is that a ton wasn't.
  
  If there had been any illegal stuff on AllOfMP3.com, it would have been shut down long ago. Russia even changed their law to make what they were doing illegal. "Unfortunately", AllOfMP3 just changed their practices to be compliant with the new law.
3. Re:RIAA thinks they represent russian artists too by caseih · 2007-07-06 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  What allofmp3.com wasn't illegal for russians in russia. If a bar on Romulus sells Romulan ale to federation members, it's still legal even if Romulan ale is itself illegal in the Federation. Now of course this is a different situation since a) allofmp3.com was operating within the rules of Russian copyright law, and b) it's not illegal to import music for personal use into the US from abroad, no matter how you bought it. CDs on the street in Bangkok may be pirated, but it's not illegal to buy them and bring them home.
  
  In any even, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if allofmp3.com was wrong to offer 80% pirated music, it's just as wrong that the RIAA claims unilateral copyright privilege over anything that's remotely related to music, russian, or even American indie music. Just recently I was told of how the RIAA contributed to the demise of 3 popular indie bands. The anecdotal story goes that these local bands were becoming very popular but since they defied the traditional channels for marketing their music, the RIAA and cronies underhandedly arranged for their venues to be canceled, which pretty much spelled the end of their success since the most money is always made on live performances. From the sound of it, the RIAA would threaten venues with unspecified threats if they had the bands played. I wouldn't put much stock in such an anecdote, except that it fits very well with how the RIAA is perceived, and rightly so.
spyware/malware? by boguslinks · 2007-07-05 08:24 · Score: 1

Does anyone know the spyware/malware situation with the alltunes.com windows client? It is, after all, software from Russia running on Windows.
1. Re:spyware/malware? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  No-one is going to be able to absolutely guarantee that the software doesn't include malware, as it is closed source, and also downloads things over the network. If you are worried about this possibility, and you should be, the best option is to run it in it's own virtual machine. Make sure that the virtual machine does not have access to your LAN or any of the files on the host computer. A good option for this would be VMware server, which is free (as in beer).
2. Re:spyware/malware? by Xantharus · 2007-07-05 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  No, no. It is software from Redmond running on Windows that you have to be concerned about. The R's get confusing, I know.
Patio furniture and mp3s by Venik · 2007-07-05 10:09 · Score: 1

Recently I was looking for some new patio furniture. I went to all the usual places - Kmart, Sears, Walmart, etc. - but couldn't find anything to buy. In one store I liked the chairs, but not the table; in another store I liked the table but the chairs lacked the necessary butt support; Walmart had the chairs and the table that I liked, but they came with an umbrella the size of a traveling circus. The problem was - everything was sold in sets. If you like the umbrella - you have to buy the table and the six hideous chairs that come with it.

It was like shopping for music: you find a track you like and have to buy the whole album. If I had an option of buying - legally - any track that I want in lossless format, DRM-free, I would probably be spending around $100 every month on music. Why not - I have the money, I like music, I have the time to listen to it. But the way things are, I hardly buy any music anymore. Sony and the rest of the RIAA herd think they are protecting their bottom line. I think in reality their obstruction of online music business is exactly the reason behind their sales decline.
1. Re:Patio furniture and mp3s by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 14:05 · Score: 0
  
  It was like shopping for music: you find a track you like and have to buy the whole album.
  
  This attitude has always struck me as equivalent to saying that you resent being forced to buy a whole bag of assorted jelly beans. You've tasted and liked the red ones, so why bother with all those other flavors?
  
  Some of my favorites songs come from those *other* tracks on the album. The funky or moody or edgy songs which never would have made it on the public scene. Yes, sometimes the songs you bought the album for are the only one worth a damn (yes, All American Rejects, I talking about *you*). More often, though, it's the *other* songs on the album which make the purchase truly worthwhile.
  
  If all you ever hear are the songs you already know, you're doing yourself a great disservice.
2. Re:Patio furniture and mp3s by stewbacca · 2007-07-05 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Although I understand your sentiment, you are in a very small percentage of knowledgeable users. Most people have no idea what DRM is, what its purpose is, or what lossless formats are. They jump on iTunes, see a song they like, and buy it. Beats going out to Walmart to pick up a $20 CD to just listen to one song over and over, doesn't it?
3. Re:Patio furniture and mp3s by Venik · 2007-07-05 19:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  At a music store I can listen to any track on an album and I rarely like more than one. So why should I buy a whole bag of assorted jelly beans if I already tried them all and only like the red ones? Recording labels put artists under a great deal of pressure to produce albums. The result is a couple of good tracks and a dozen space fillers.
  
  I want the opportunity to buy what I want and not to buy what I don't want. I don't think I am being unreasonable.
  
  If an album has 20 tracks and costs $20, I want to be able to buy one track for $1. And it has to be the same quality as on CD - lossless format and DRM-free. Until the music industry shows such flexibility, labels will continue losing sales, music piracy will thrive, and musicians will remain under pressure to produce mediocre art.
International Waters by cdrguru · 2007-07-05 13:25 · Score: 1

How about if I get a ship with a nice Liberian flag registration and park it about 20 miles off the coast of California. Run a microwave or fiber optic link to shore for Internet access. Several connections might be necessary for backup and greater bandwidth.

As I doubt Liberia has any intellectual property treaties with anyone, this should be able to be a source for downloads according to whatever rules are determined by the Ship's Captain.

That would of course be $0.01 per GB of source material. So, if there were 1,000 GB of Sony-owned copyright music the payment would be $10. Once. Seems pretty fair.

Movies would be compensated at the same rate.

Software would be compensated at the same rate as well.

Upon payment of a one-time registration fee of $100 you would be able to download everything.

All of this would be conforming to the treaties for Intellectual Property of the nation of registry and done in conformance with additional rules, regulations and agreements with the Ship's Captain.

Sounds pretty fair, wouldn't you say?
1. Re:International Waters by RuBLed · 2007-07-05 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Sooner or later they would find out that they are in deep waters...
2. Re:International Waters by DoctorFrog · 2007-07-05 20:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Remember, allofmp3.com was legal under Russian law. Your scheme also sounds legal, but they will find a way of defining this as "piracy on the high seas" one way or another.
  
  Off topic, that's what really annoys me about the new FBI "Anti-Piracy"warning on DVDs. I can understand the MPAA and similar organizations misusing words like "stealing" and "piracy" because they're more interested in polemical wattage than legal accuracy, but the FBI is a law enforcement agency for crying out loud; they have no excuse for misapplying legal terms to the wrong crimes. Illegal copying is copyright infringement, it is neither piracy nor simple theft.
3. Re:International Waters by Virgil+Tibbs · 2007-07-06 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  try and get a backbone ISP tier 1 to peer with you. = Difficult
  
  --
  www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
In Putin's Russia WTO crack's down you by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-05 15:03 · Score: 0

In Putin's Russia WTO crack's down you
Ok I've done the math . . . by Wax_and_Wane · 2007-07-05 17:52 · Score: 1

The "pirate your music, but support the band by seeing the show" argument falls down when you do the math. If you pirate ten CDs a week, that's ten concerts you need to see a week -- that gets to be expensive, and a time sink. Then, of course, that there's the reality that not all the artists whose music you pirate are going to be able to play when and where you want them to. In most cases, when we pirate music, our actual contribution to the artists' livelihood is nil, despite our best intentions.

Well first of all "pirating" 10 CDs a week sounds a little excessive. I would say for most people an average of two to five a month might keep them in new music, considering that they have other passtimes. And out of those let's say 5 CDs a month, many people would not have bought 2 or 3 of them if they had to pay from $15 - $20 per album. So if these "pirates" were keeping it legal then they would stick within a budget of say $60 a month on music. Of course all of this is assumption but I am attempting to be realistic while doing my math. These figures fit my personal spending/"pirating" habits.

So out of that $60 I wonder how much the artist would have received? The holier-than-thou anti-pirating nazis trying to exaggerate to make their point might say half or they might say that it gets the artist "closer to getting paid." Kind of like minimum wage gets someone closer to not being poor. I would say unless the album is a huge success the artists over time maybe will be receiving 5-10% of the sales price for the duration of an album. From what Ive read that might even be high.

So 10% of my $60 budget is $6. Over a year $72. So if I go to 3 or 4 concerts a year and buy a t-shirt or two Im probably making up for what I download. That is my math, different conclusion than yours.

And the kicker of all this is, that if the recording industry would sell their albums online for about 3-4 bucks a piece (which is 2 - 3 times the russian rates) they would get all of my downloading money as well and in fact maybe more because I wouldnt have to worry about keeping some of my balance back in case the Russian payment options go offline.

And thats not even going into the reasons I dont want to give the recording industry my money -- such as the awful radio cartel that inhibits musical diversity and locks out independent music or the fact that they have done their best to destroy internet radio, or the fact that they have sued so many regular people who just didnt want to subsidize their cartel. And they constantly rip off artists. And they would make the majority of listeners criminals if it would increase their control over our culture or make them a few extra bucks.

Even after all that I know about them I would download legally if they would offer them at a fair market price which I think is around $3-4 an album. And yes we do get to determine price. The fact that they cant come to grips with the market value of their product is the reason why so many are still opting to "pirate".

Better yet I would love to see some sort of co-op recording system funded by artists who have already made their wealth. New distribution systems (protect internet radio rights). I would love to see technology being used to make the artists money without the need for the middle men. Decentralized. That is what I most hope for. The recording industry sinking and its weasels drowning will only be the icing on that cake.

So when I do the math I use a little more than dollars to calculate. And until there is an acceptable morally clear choice about how to spend my music dollars I will certainly choose to get more for my money no matter where its found.
1. Re:Ok I've done the math . . . by Sancho · 2007-07-06 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, you don't get to determine "fair market price." You get to determine what price would convince you to buy a given product, and that's all.
  
  The fact that the music industry is doing so well (despite their own protests to the contrary) indicates that they've found a fair market price. It's possible that they could do a little better, sure, but probably not much better.
  
  To sell for what you think is a fair price, they'd have to sell 2-3 times as many units (assuming digital downloads, and ignoring the fact that the costs for transferring the product don't scale with your 'fair market value.') and 3-6 times as many considering physical units in order to make the same profits. They'd actually have to sell more than that in order to increase profits. I don't think that this is likely to happen.
  
  It's usually around this point where someone says, "But they don't have to make the same profits! They're making plenty of money!" As a corporation, their goal is to maximize profit. Period. The RIAA doesn't care about promoting the arts, making the world a better place, or even producing music that people love, except as much as it takes to get money from your pockets. If this price point maximizes their profits, then it is the correct price point, regardless of whether or not it means that you can't (or don't want to) pay for their product.
  
  If a musician made a CD, and could sell it to a single person for $5billion, or to 5 million people for $10, the correct business decision is to sell it to the single person.
Your "Rights" online? by stewbacca · 2007-07-05 18:46 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I love how this is listed under "Your Rights Online", as If I have the right to shop with an illegal download company, because it is online? How is shopping with a company who has been shut down so many times for illegal business practices suddenly my "right"?
1. Re:Your "Rights" online? by Monkeyboy4 · 2007-07-06 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Hey Dufus - the point is that allofmp3.com is legal.
  
  The RIAA is using the WTO to strong-arm the Russian government into closing down - there has been nothing that says it was breaking any law. It just happened to be that through the wonderful series of tubes that is the internet, we can purchase something in Russia for use in the US (or elsewhere). This doesn't go over well with the greedy folks at the RIAA because they can't enforce price controls on it.
  
  Interestingly, I haven't heard of any artists saying 'don't use that Russian site' - I expect it is ignorance of the issue (which would mean they are not feeling it in the paycheck) or that they don't care (which means the RIAA works for themselves, not for the artsts)
Copyright infringment is not stealing. Period. by jotaeleemeese · 2007-07-05 23:12 · Score: 1

This is not a false rationalization borne out of a pirate's mind, it is the fucking truth.

There are full bodies of law to deal specifically with copyright, because it is completely a different beast.

I will not go into explaining this, it has been done ad nauseam on this website, suffice to say that an argument does not become false just because a person of dubious moral character (a pirate) states it.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It's not theft, it's only copyright infringement.. by jotaeleemeese · 2007-07-05 23:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

That is a statement of fact, not wishful thinking.

Copyright holders appeal to sentimental, loaded language because deep inside them they know their business model is broken.

Saying this as somebody that has never pirated a single song, mind you.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-06 06:24 · Score: 0

/offtopic
Russain mp3 site by a-nai · 2007-07-10 04:10 · Score: 1

Most othae russian mp3 site are cheaper than allofmp3 http://hubpages.com/hub/russianmp3site
Yes, this has always been the case by heavygravity · 2007-07-12 01:31 · Score: 1

But when AllTunes is "no more" (if that day ever comes), look for your alternative music source at songboom.com - there are reviews of over a dozen Russian based music services.

--
Cuban Music MP3's - cuband.com