PDA

View Full Version : AllofMP3.com



Chop
2005-11-29, 18:51
Has anyone ever checked out AllofMP3.com?

It's a music download service with amazingly cheap
prices (most albums I scanned were around $1.10-1.30
at 192kb, individual tracks around 5-10 cents) where
you get to pick your format (mp3, aac, ogg, etc) and
your bitrate. Also, there are no DRM restrictions.
It seems a little to good to be true, but apparently
it's legit.

Personally, I prefer lossless music or Rhapsody
Unlimited, but I figured some people who use online
music stores might want to check this out.

- Chris

Dave Dewey
2005-11-29, 19:49
Quoting Chop (Chop.1zaedn (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com):

>
> Has anyone ever checked out AllofMP3.com?
>
> It's a music download service with amazingly cheap
> prices (most albums I scanned were around $1.10-1.30
> at 192kb, individual tracks around 5-10 cents) where
> you get to pick your format (mp3, aac, ogg, etc) and
> your bitrate. Also, there are no DRM restrictions.
> It seems a little to good to be true, but apparently
> it's legit.

It's not really legit. I think we've been through this before. It's hosted
in Russia due to a loophole in their copyright laws.

gjrhine
2005-11-29, 20:55
Then there is ripping, P2P and Usenet - even less legit and cheaper still.

jtfields
2005-11-29, 22:18
It's not really legit. I think we've been through this before. It's hosted
in Russia due to a loophole in their copyright laws.

Well, then I guess it's legit until the loophole is closed. Otherwise it really isn't a loophole, just someone breaking the law.

seanadams
2005-11-29, 22:37
Well, then I guess it's legit until the loophole is closed. Otherwise it really isn't a loophole, just someone breaking the law.

Eh? It's either a loophole or it isn't. A loophole, by definition, is legitimately working around the "spirit" of the law.

Mike Anderson
2005-11-29, 23:07
A loophole, by definition, is legitimately working around the "spirit" of the law.

You've got it backwards. Loopholes are usually thought of as working around the letter of the law, while violating the spirit of the law.

Whether or not that's technically illegal depends on the standards applied by a court. In tax law, for example, a structure may follow the letter of the law, yet still be illegal if it clearly takes advantage of a loophole in the law that was never intended by the drafters of the statute.

crapulent
2005-11-29, 23:40
ouch, my brain hurts just reading that. Can I sue you for my brain damages?

On 11/29/05, Mike Anderson <
Mike.Anderson.1zaq6n (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
>
> seanadams Wrote:
> > A loophole, by definition, is legitimately working around the "spirit"
> > of the law.
>
> You've got it backwards. Loopholes are usually thought of as working
> around the -letter- of the law, while violating the -spirit- of the
> law.
>
> Whether or not that's technically illegal depends on the standards
> applied by a court. In tax law, for example, a structure may follow
> the letter of the law, yet still be illegal if it clearly takes
> advantage of a loophole in the law that was never intended by the
> drafters of the statute.
>
>
> --
> Mike Anderson
>
> 'FREE RADICAL
> RADIO!' (http://nvo.com/cd) Hours of free radical MP3s.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Anderson's Profile:
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1705
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18642
>
>

agentsmith
2005-11-30, 02:25
I read Allofmp3's web site with various justifications of how and why they are legal.

However, being the seller side I think they have vested interest.

Russia may have a "loophole" that allows someone to sell music without any contribution to the copyright owner, (which in itself does not make any sense), buying and using that content from another country should be another matter altogether.

I wonder if the governments from the customer side of the table (e.g. US/Canada/Hong Kong/Japan) have ever made any statements or indications of whether this practice is considered legit. I highly doubt it. Especially the Hong Kong government which recently has taken a hard line against Bittorrent seeders, one of whom has landed in jail.

Khuli
2005-11-30, 03:06
What they say is:

All the materials in the MediaServices projects are available for distribution through Internet according to license # LS-3М-05-03 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society. Under the license terms, MediaServices pays license fees for all the materials subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All the materials are available solely for personal use and must not be used for further distribution, resale or broadcasting.

No idea what the loophole is.. for all I know they DO pay for copright, which just shows how overpriced CD's are.. etc etc...

Khuli
2005-11-30, 03:09
ouch, my brain hurts just reading that. Can I sue you for my brain damages?


Only in the US ;)

agentsmith
2005-11-30, 03:17
What they say is:

No idea what the loophole is.. for all I know they DO pay for copright, which just shows how overpriced CD's are.. etc etc...

I think it is fairytale, I am pretty sure that the record companies do not get a cent of this, it is like paying to the Mafia for use of a certain areas in a ghetto. The amount they charge for each MB is ridiculously low.

Regardless of the fact that the record companies are overcharging, (although I dont think they are rolling in dough these days), robbery is robbery.

agentsmith
2005-11-30, 03:20
What they say is:


No idea what the loophole is.. for all I know they DO pay for copright, which just shows how overpriced CD's are.. etc etc...

They claim they DO pay for copyright, but to WHO? Not to the copyright holder I bet. Some people pay the Mafia for right of way, doesnt mean it is legal either.

Khuli
2005-11-30, 04:32
I imagine (in Russia at least) it falls under the typical site copyright agreements which tend to only cost $300 or so per year.

eg. http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/feecalculation.html

So I bet they do pay copyright, just not the amount you might expect from a site that sells (rather than merely playing) music.

Not saying it's right, but if that's the loophole, then it's not illegal.

Enno Davids
2005-11-30, 04:55
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:32:15AM -0800, Khuli wrote:
|
|I imagine (in Russia at least) it falls under the typical site copyright
|agreements which tend to only cost $300 or so per year.
|
|eg. http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/feecalculation.html
|
|So I bet they do pay copyright, just not the amount you might expect
|from a site that sells (rather than merely playing) music.

In fact the suggestion is they pay an amount analogous to what a broadcaster
might pay. Of course they're not broadcasting as such. The loophole such
as it is is that Russian copyright law in this area is designed to prevent
piracy as an act of distributing physical media, not just the contents of
said media.

More details here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/07/allofmp3-com_let_off/

and indeed if you search their site for allofmp3 you'll see their articles
goin back to the most recent attempt by Sony to shut the site down earlier
this year. Sony... now where have I heard _that_ name recently...

For the record, I've dealt with allofmp3 for a while now and they seem OK.
Their selection of material is heavily slanted to Europe and possibly
eastern Europe at that, but their back catalogue of middle aged popular
music is OK (say 80's, 90's, etc.) Of course I'm one of those who wonders
how much of the usual ASCAP type money actually makes it back to the artists
from the record companies that collect it too... so my compunctions about
potentially depriving some record exec of his monthly nose candy allowance
are kinda low.


E.

gjrhine
2005-11-30, 05:22
And then you have weigh your compunctions against the prospects of having a rootkit deposited on your hard drive.

seanadams
2005-11-30, 05:30
You've got it backwards. Loopholes are usually thought of as working around the letter of the law, while violating the spirit of the law.

That's what I meant to say - oh the irony. ;)

Jacob Potter
2005-11-30, 08:08
On 11/30/05, gjrhine <gjrhine.1zb7jn (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> And then you have weigh your compunctions against the prospects of
> having a rootkit deposited on your hard drive.

Kinda sad when a shady Russian company deserves more trust than Sony, isn't it?

- Jacob

Jim
2005-11-30, 08:26
.....it is like paying to the Mafia for use of a certain areas in a ghetto.

As opposed to paying the mafia RIAA so they can install fear in 9 year old schoolgirls & 85 year old respectble grandmothers by suing them?

At least the mafia do have an incling of morals, hence they'd get my money over the RIAA any day.

kolepard
2005-11-30, 08:58
>ouch, my brain hurts just reading that. Can I sue you for my brain damages?

Only if you're in America. ;-)

Everything I've found on AllofMP3.com on the web and in mainstream
printed media suggests it is legal. I haven't found anything to the
contrary. I have read that one point the MPAA did try to shut them
down and it was unable to do so in the Russian court system.

So while IANAL, it looks like it is a legal service. Whether it is a
loophole or not depends on how you want to spin it.

The ethical issues are a different question. I certainly don't want
to short-change the performers and people who make their livings
producing music I enjoy, but neither do I want to be supporting
companies that have made it clear that their goal is to mistreat me
as a paying customer. I don't want to support companies that
secretly install root kits on my machines, or install software on my
computer even if you reject the EULA and deny permission to install
software (as we all know, both done by different SonyBMG CDs).

Personally, I buy used CDs when I can. It's legal (though I'm sure
they'll try to take away the right of first ownership too at some
point), provides uncompressed music, a physical backup, and doesn't
provide additional income to the companies that are in the business
of mistreating a paying customer.

The legal question appears settled for the moment. The ethical ones
do not appear to have any easy answers.

Kevin
--
Kevin O. Lepard
kolepard (AT) charter (DOT) net

Happiness is being 100% Microsoft free.

jtfields
2005-11-30, 12:16
Eh? It's either a loophole or it isn't. A loophole, by definition, is legitimately working around the "spirit" of the law.

Exactly, if there is a loophole then they are legit if there isn't a loophole then they are not legit.

Dave stated that because they are taking advantage of a loophole they are not legit. A loophole allows you to work around a law without violating it. If they are not violating the law, even if it is due to a loophole in the law, then they are legit until the loophole is closed.

Regardless, the term "loophole" doesn't necessarily apply here. For all I know, and I have no desire to research it, they are abiding by the laws in their country not trying to skirt them via some kind of loophole. The "spirit" of copyright law in Russia may be completely different from the spirit of the copyright laws in the United States or elsewhere.

My question would be, assuming the site is completely legal in Russia, is it legal for someone in the U.S. to use the site? Obviously there is very little means for getting caught. But I'm just curious.

I don't use them by the way (which is why I have no desire to spend much energy on the matter.) My brother-in-law, however, just happened to have signed on and downloaded an album from them last weekend. His experience was good overall although he complained the download speed was slower than he'd like.

Robster
2005-11-30, 12:41
Spending £12.99 or more for a CD in Virgin or HMV is criminal in my opinion. It actually really annoys me what they charge.

Anyhow I use Play or CDWow for fairly priced albums but I also use All of MP3 for most of my stuff now. Quality is great, the choices are excellent for me, downloads are fairly speedy, you can listen to the whole album before buying and anything I cannot find I buy a CD.

As long as the site is still trading I will use it. It has cut my expenditure big time, I used to buy 2-3 albums a week, now I can get say 10 for the same money. Whether it's legit or unethical I don't know but it's a damn good deal.
R

Brian Ritchie
2005-12-03, 17:15
Spending £12.99 or more for a CD in Virgin or HMV is criminal in my opinion. It actually really annoys me what they charge.

Anyhow I use Play or CDWow for fairly priced albums but I also use All of MP3 for most of my stuff now. Quality is great, the choices are excellent for me, downloads are fairly speedy, you can listen to the whole album before buying and anything I cannot find I buy a CD.

As long as the site is still trading I will use it. It has cut my expenditure big time, I used to buy 2-3 albums a week, now I can get say 10 for the same money. Whether it's legit or unethical I don't know but it's a damn good deal.
R
allofmp3 has greatly reduced my contribution to the music biz coke mountain; but more from encouraging some healthy quality control than anything else.

I'll admit it: I used to be a CD-holic. At the peak of my habit, I was averaging out at more than one CD a day, for several years. In the UK, that's a lot of money. Far too many were bought just because someone else had said they were good, got played once, and then went into the archive. A couple of years ago, just to make some room in the house, I went through my archive, and singled out for disposal all those discs that I *knew* I was never bothered about hearing again. It worked out at about 10% of my collection (and I was *extremely* conservative). A significant proportion of those were CDs that had been superceded by subsequent "definitive" remasters - and some of those had been superceded themselves. (Did I get a trade-in on those? Did I f... For the most part, the music industry's definition of "customer loyalty" seems to be, "We wallop them on the head with a stick but they keep coming back".)

Nowadays, I'm much more choosy, and have a strong preference to try before I buy. And that's where places like allofmp3.com come in. I can listen to a whole album (albeit in mono) for free - not just pathetic 30-second introductions. (This means I can listen to a whole load of things that I'd always wondered about, but had never quite got round to listening to, and so it's actually broadening my horizons; though admittedly, by-and-large this just means I have a long list of bookmarks to things that I might listen to sometime, but haven't got round to yet.) If I decide it's worth further investigation, I can download a good-quality version for a pittance, and try it out for a while. If I decide it's good enough to keep, and that the artist deserves my support, then I'll buy the CD (usually online - record shops are no longer the little Meccas that they once were to me). If I can find it, that is: there are things on allofmp3.com that I'd have real trouble sourcing otherwise, e.g. Polish artists, or artists whose albums have long been deleted (such is the record company's fervour to make more money out of them).

Unlike iTunes etc., I don't have to pay a premium just because I live in the UK. And no bloomin' DRM crap either.

As with almost every online download site I've seen (yes, I'm thinking of iTunes here in particular), you have to use your head. Is that the latest remaster of the album, or one of those early-CD-era versions seemingly made from a half-chewed cassette tape found under the pile of Rizlas in the glove compartment of some A&R man's BMW? Usually, it's impossible to be sure (even with the mono samples). I was delighted to find an album that has only ever been released on CD in Japan, only to discover that it had clearly been copied from a less-than-perfect LP. So that was a waste of $1.20. I felt so much more cheated than when I paid UKP 12.99 for that CD of a half-chewed cassette tape :-)

Oh, and it was allofmp3.com's habit of setting the URL tag in WMA files to "allofmp3.com" that gave me trouble with SlimServer 6.2.1, just after I'd ordered my SB3... ! (Yes, I'm usually too lazy to re-rip the kosher copy.)

(And so we preserve some sort of tenuous link between this article and the forum topic!)

In a world where the music industry is trying to piggy-back on panic-response anti-terrorist legislation to crack down on music sharing, it's astonishing that allofmp3.com and its ilk exists. I still worry that one day the Recording Industry Ass of America (to give it its proper name) will persuade allofmp3.com to part with its customer records and come chasing after me, even though it's none of their damn business. But since when has that stopped any US administration from doing what it wants to the rest of the world? :-)

-- Brian

P.S. Hmm, reading over this again, I feel duty-bound to point out that I don't really think the music industry is so entirely jaded and washed-out as my comments above might imply. For example, I do recognise that improvements in technology mean that earlier CD releases can be bettered; and there are some excellent examples of budget-price remasters (e.g. the Rhino Yes series). And there are numerous labels (such as ECM and Hyperion) where what they do is clearly a labour of love.

P.P.S. At the risk of sounding totally sucky, another big reason for a dropoff in my CD purchases has been the introduction of jukeboxes (of which the SB3 is the latest); simply, I'm enjoying rediscovering the music I already have so much that I have less time for investigating new things!

jackaninny
2005-12-03, 22:38
allofmp3 has greatly reduced my contribution to the music biz coke mountain; but more from encouraging some healthy quality control than anything else.

...

Nowadays, I'm much more choosy, and have a strong preference to try before I buy. And that's where places like allofmp3.com come in. I can listen to a whole album (albeit in mono) for free - not just pathetic 30-second introductions. (This means I can listen to a whole load of things that I'd always wondered about, but had never quite got round to listening to, and so it's actually broadening my horizons; though admittedly, by-and-large this just means I have a long list of bookmarks to things that I might listen to sometime, but haven't got round to yet.) If I decide it's worth further investigation, I can download a good-quality version for a pittance, and try it out for a while. If I decide it's good enough to keep, and that the artist deserves my support, then I'll buy the CD (usually online - record shops are no longer the little Meccas that they once were to me).
...

P.S. Hmm, reading over this again, I feel duty-bound to point out that I don't really think the music industry is so entirely jaded and washed-out as my comments above might imply. For example, I do recognise that improvements in technology mean that earlier CD releases can be bettered; and there are some excellent examples of budget-price remasters (e.g. the Rhino Yes series). And there are numerous labels (such as ECM and Hyperion) where what they do is clearly a labour of love.
...

ditto.

allofmp3.com allows me to get a reasonibly high quality copy of new music without DRM that i can listen to HOWEVER AND WHEREVER I WANT. if i like the album i always buy the disc and rip into my preferred format. essentially allofmp3.com has become a place where i can pass judgement on an album for $1.92 instead of $14.99. allofmp3.com has actually INCREASED my cd purchases perhaps because i am a more satisfied consumer - something the mainstream industry currently is not concerned with or addressign in the least.

magnatunes.com and cdbaby.com are also favorite spots for me as i find the REAL music happening at that level.

Jim
2005-12-04, 07:22
Great post Brian.

I buy the occasional second-hand CD, but think now won't ever buy a CD again after this Sony rootkit farce.

I bought a few times from allofmp3.com but wasn't happy that they included no EAC logs or cuesheets with their FLAC files so I had no way of telling how they were ripped. Also whilst not supporting the RIAA was good, the idea that some dodgy Russian guy was getting all the money rather than a lot of dodgy American guys made it an easy decision. I stopped.

I have a collection back home of about 800 original CD's in my parents house that are never played by them - but officially I broke the law when going overseas with a few hard drives and my entire collection stored as FLAC. The industry would like to make sure I paid again anyhow.

Now I just pirate music online in a true private lossless community, there's always taking a chance with eMule but logs/cuesheets/integrity cannot be trusted. I give money to charity when I never really used to and do rarely buy some CD's, but from local up and coming bands I would never have heard of or bought the CD - bands where you buy the CD from the band themselves - where you can be sure the full 100% of your money is funding their habits.

I'm not happy being a pirate, but ho ho ho shiver me timbers what else to do? iTunes lossy garbage? No thanks.

If any band wants my custom, well I'll wait for the day they start selling lossless DRM free music cause I won't ever trust a CD again. Never used to agree with people CDRing copies of music when it all started a few years ago, and always used to agree that piracy was wrong - but the music industry eventually turned me against them.

Just got hold of up and coming James Blunt's album so I might send off some money to him as I haven't seen him on MTV's Cribs yet, or maybe I just donate to an injured soldiers charity - I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

eliw
2006-01-11, 01:24
One thing you will notice that noone mentioned is that if you get the CD in flac you pay full price (nearly $9) ... but if you get it in a lossy format you pay less; only around $2 for an MP3 version...

Totally cool as far as Im concerned.

Why would I pay $10 or whatever on Itune for an album that has had 70% of its original content removed (bits lost by codec) the same price as an original CD.

I like this concept .. long may it last.

autopilot
2006-01-14, 06:36
This is very good; http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm

Michaelwagner
2006-01-14, 08:23
Thanks, Dom. All a bit hard to read for a non-lawyer type like me, but interesting ...

gjrhine
2006-01-14, 12:28
Seems like if it is "safe" to download music from them you might as well get it from Usenet which is "safe" and free.

ezkcdude
2006-01-14, 18:04
It is illegal, assuming you live in the U.S. No question about it. Just google "russian mp3 legal", and you'll quickly come to the same conclusion. On the other hand, if you move to Russia, it's perfectly legal there.

Scott F.
2006-01-14, 20:59
If you surf over to the IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industries) you'll find that AllofMP3 is not paying royalties to the artists or the record companies. Love or hate the RIAA and the record industry, the artists are not recieving THEIR royalties from AllofMP3.

In turn last year, the Russian Police, computer crimes division raided AllofMP3 hauling off the company execs. The following is directly from the IFPI News Release.

===========================
Recording industry welcomes police investigation of Allofmp3.com

February 22, 2005

The international recording industry has welcomed action by the Russian authorities against a Russian website alleged to be offering digital copies of recorded music for sale illegally.

Allofmp3.com and its principals are alleged to be involved in large-scale copyright infringement by offering music for sale without authorisation from rights holders in Russia and internationally.

The Computer Crimes unit of Moscow City Police formally passed the results of its criminal investigation to the Moscow City Prosecutor’s office on February 8. IFPI, on behalf of its members, also submitted a formal complaint to the prosecutor’s office in support of further action on the same date. The prosecutor has thirty days from the date of receiving evidence to decide whether to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

IFPI, which represents 1,450 record companies in over 70 countries, maintains that Allofmp3.com has not been licensed to distribute its members’ repertoire in Russian or internationally.

Igor Pozhitkov, Regional Director, IFPI Moscow says: “We have consistently said that Allofmp3.com is not licensed to distribute our members’ repertoire in Russia or anywhere else. We are pleased that the police are bringing this important case to the attention of the prosecutor. We very much hope and expect that the prosecutor will proceed with this case, which involves the sale and digital distribution of copyrighted music without the consent or authorisation of the rights holders.”

Background for editors:

* The Russian music market is ranked 12th in the world and was worth $US326.2 million in 2003.

* Russia, with a 64% piracy rate, is one of IFPI’s top ten priority markets targeted in the fight against commercial piracy.

* IFPI secured in 2004 the takedown of 60,900 infringing websites (41,000 in 2003), 477 unauthorised P2P servers (1,050 in 2003) and 1.6 billion infringing music files in 102 countries (1.6 billion in 2003).

For further information please contact Adrian Strain, Fiona Harley or Julie Harari at IFPI Communications on tel: +44(0)20 7878 7900
======================

If these guys are still operating, chances are they haven't seen their day in court yet.... but it will come. I'm not sure I would want some company under legal investigation in a remote foriegn country to have my credit card number.

Make no bones about it, these guys (AllofMP3) are stealing from the artists you all love so much. As I've said before, if the artists don't make money, they stop making music and go sell shoes in a mall (or something). Knowingly buying from AllofMP3 is the same as stealing.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the RIAA and their minions as much as anybody here but I'm absolutely for supporting the artists who make their living by producing music for our enjoyment.

....food for thought

mattybain
2006-01-15, 00:33
======================

If these guys are still operating, chances are they haven't seen their day in court yet.... but it will come. I'm not sure I would want some company under legal investigation in a remote foriegn country to have my credit card number.

Make no bones about it, these guys (AllofMP3) are stealing from the artists you all love so much. As I've said before, if the artists don't make money, they stop making music and go sell shoes in a mall (or something). Knowingly buying from AllofMP3 is the same as stealing.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the RIAA and their minions as much as anybody here but I'm absolutely for supporting the artists who make their living by producing music for our enjoyment.

....food for thought

Well they are still running and it appears they were cleared of any wrong doing.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/07/1137212.shtml?tid=141&tid=17

Re that statement "Knowingly buying from AllofMP3 is the same as stealing." I buy from AllofMP3 but where possible for the albums I really enjoy and listen to more than once I try and make a donation to the artist of around £5. How is that stealing?

BTW I agree it is not sensible to give companies like this your credit card number which is why I use my web card with a temporary card number and prepaid credit limit for all "dodgy" purchases.

Scott F.
2006-01-15, 07:49
Well they are still running and it appears they were cleared of any wrong doing.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/07/1137212.shtml?tid=141&tid=17

Re that statement "Knowingly buying from AllofMP3 is the same as stealing." I buy from AllofMP3 but where possible for the albums I really enjoy and listen to more than once I try and make a donation to the artist of around £5. How is that stealing?

BTW I agree it is not sensible to give companies like this your credit card number which is why I use my web card with a temporary card number and prepaid credit limit for all "dodgy" purchases.

Let me ask a question. The money that you give, is that to the artist or AllofMP3? If you are making a donation for each of the downloads you make to the artist on top of paying AllofMP3 for the download, that is extremely commendable. You are the exception rather than the rule.

As you dig a little deeper into the problems with AllofMP3, on top of the issue (as I have read) is that AllofMP3 is not paying royalties back to the music companies (and in turn the artists). Then to top it off, numerous artists do not allow their music to be uploaded or downloaded. The most notable of the artists is the Beatles whose full catalog can be found on the AllofMP3 website.

Then there is the issue with copyright infringements. Since the majority of the major artists deal with music companies based in the US and also copyright that same material in the US, here is a quote from the US Patent and Copyright Office;

========================
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150, 000 for each work infringed.
========================

Since the IFPI and the RIAA represent the music companies in the US and Worldwide, they also are the people that you deal with for liscensing and distribution rights (directly and indirectly). They state (and still contend) that AllofMP3 is operating illegally.

The BBC states that Russian copyright law does not cover digital media. ---> "But Moscow prosecutors will not take legal action because Russian copyright laws do not cover digital media, according to news agency Tass."<----

Knowing that, is this a loophole? Could you consider AllofMP3 cleared because of weak laws? ..... well I guess so on some plain of existance but consider this....

You go to work as a salesman every day, all day, week in and week out. You get paid for the fruits of your labors. At the end of the year you always get a nice commission check for recurring sales generated buy your new sales and previous work. All of a sudden you find out that you are no longer going to get commissions owed to you because it has been hijacked by some guy (or guys) over in Russia. They found some way to stiff you out of your rightfully earned commissions for sales made. Worst part is its not just one years commissions, it is forevermore. And to add insult to injury you now have scads of people cheering in the bacground all across the world asking for (and recieving) the way to help themselves to the work you produced further reducing your commissions. Soon they ALL begin taking advantage of this same security breach that reduces your commissions. To add insult to injury, before this all began you told everybody (in writing) that you didn't want your works to be reproduced and placed on the Internet because you were afraid someone would steal it.

Regardless of Russian law, they don't have the rights to copy and distribute music digitally as defined by the IFPI (who represents the owners of the copyright).

Again, I despise the RIAA and the music companies as much as anybody. What the RIAA has done is unforgivable in my books. The music companies are greedy bastards milking artists of their creativity and taking the majority of the profits and lining their own pockets. In some (well known) cases the music companies have outright stolen residuals from the artists. I think this is wrong.

What I am is; absolutely pro-artist and artists rights. These are the guys who suffer from illegal downloading. Screw the music companies, I'm all about the artist as you should be too because without them, there is no music.

Bottom line, many musicians deal with music companies that are based out of the US who have very strong copyright laws and a strong distribution network. AllofMP3 has circumvented both of those taking advantage of weak laws in Russia. Weak laws in country does not make distributing music legal in my books or in the musicians books. Supporting AllofMP3 by downloading music from them (regardless whether you pay or not) is not only insuring that the artist doesn't recieve money for their hard earned work, in some cases it clearly defies the fact that the artist didn't want their music placed (and distributed) on the Internet.

This wasn't meant to slam anybody (honestly). My hopes are to raise awareness. Most people don't know the issues at the heart of the problem. They think since they are 'paying', it's legal. The more people that know, (hopefully) the more people make the right descision NOT to support AllofMP3 and illegal downloads in general. Its just wrong on so many levels and we ALL know it.

JackOfAll
2006-01-15, 09:40
This wasn't meant to slam anybody (honestly). My hopes are to raise awareness. Most people don't know the issues at the heart of the problem. They think since they are 'paying', it's legal. The more people that know, (hopefully) the more people make the right descision NOT to support AllofMP3 and illegal downloads in general. Its just wrong on so many levels and we ALL know it.

As you seem to know more about this than I do, can you please correct the following if it is incorrect ....

Mediaservices has a ROMS license. Mediaservices pays a portion of revenue to ROMS. ROMS re-distributes the money collected to artists.

stinkingpig
2006-01-15, 11:09
....
> Re that statement "Knowingly buying from AllofMP3 is the same as
> stealing." I buy from AllofMP3 but where possible for the albums I
> really enjoy and listen to more than once I try and make a donation to
> the artist of around £5. How is that stealing?
....

These days many artists have websites and would be happy to sell you their
songs, T-shirts, &c through that channel.

--
Jack Coates At Monkeynoodle Dot Org: It's A Scientific Venture!
"I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin, so across the Western
ocean I must wander" - traditional

Scott F.
2006-01-15, 11:25
As you seem to know more about this than I do, can you please correct the following if it is incorrect ....

Mediaservices has a ROMS license. Mediaservices pays a portion of revenue to ROMS. ROMS re-distributes this money collected to artists.

hmmm, it seems there are conflicting opinions.

Quoting from an Internet source regarding ROMS;
"ROMS manages intellectual rights in the Russian Federation. All third party distributors licensed by ROMS are required to pay a portion of the revenue to the ROMS. ROMS in turn, is obligated to pay most of that money (aside from small portion it needs for operating expenses) to artists. Both Russian and foreign.
>>>This license is only supposed to allow content to be sold to Russians<<<."

Further quoting from that same source;
"They claim its a site created for Russians but those who come to their site from abroad are welcome and are provided with full service. Sales to non-Russians are said to be 'insignificant' but I rather think its because their management has wisely chosen a Russian processor www.cyberplat.com that does not offer AllofMP3 direct access the information from user credit cards. They get only notifications about successful transactions. Plausible deniability is as smart in business as politics."

You have to ask yourself, how wormy are these actions?

Clearly AllofMP3 was set up for Russian distribution but they are taking advantage of the weak laws to circumvent copyright law. This is (likely) why the IFPI and the major music companies whom they represent are trying to shut them down.

In my view it's wrong to support AllofMP3 and I think eventually the Russian courts will come to the same descision.

jackaninny
2006-01-15, 12:17
...
You go to work as a salesman every day, all day, week in and week out. You get paid for the fruits of your labors. At the end of the year you always get a nice commission check for recurring sales generated buy your new sales and previous work. All of a sudden you find out that you are no longer going to get commissions owed to you because it has been hijacked by some guy (or guys) over in Russia. They found some way to stiff you out of your rightfully earned commissions for sales made. Worst part is its not just one years commissions, it is forevermore. And to add insult to injury you now have scads of people cheering in the bacground all across the world asking for (and recieving) the way to help themselves to the work you produced further reducing your commissions. Soon they ALL begin taking advantage of this same security breach that reduces your commissions. To add insult to injury, before this all began you told everybody (in writing) that you didn't want your works to be reproduced and placed on the Internet because you were afraid someone would steal it.
...

would it be fair and economically feasible if that salesperson received a commission on the sales that his customers made? if he then got those commissions for almost 100 years AFTER he died? even if he left the company and another saleperson took over his accounts and managed them? what if the customers had to get written permission from the salesperson before any and all new transactions? i will leave the multiple examples of riaa/consumer lawsuits and the saleperson analogy to your imagination.

1) copyright law is broken almost entirely and we are in danger of watching our culture stagnate and we have handed the future over to corporate america to dictate what, when, where and how long we can enjoy a work. for evidence see drm, hdcp, hd-dvd, pvp-opm, etc etc.

2) we have, and are, creating an environment where EVERYONE is in perpetual violation of copyright law - ask the russians how they felt under the soviet regime.

i am also pro-artist but i also believe that many of them are complicit in the destruction of public rights. i also believe many of them are living in a fantasy world if they think they can extract the same profits margins as the greater world market opens up. don't expect a household in china to pay $15 bucks for a cd. when major labels start installing hidden software on my personal computer and that software makes my personal systems vulnerable in terms of stability and security well they can just go pound sand. the marketplace has made it quite obvious how they want their music and the industry has stalled and told us how wrong we are and then started to make us into criminals. how sorry do i feel for an artist who signed a contract with the likes of these corporations? no not very sorry. it seems many artists and companies have been able to make some money by actually addressing consumer wants without making them into criminals. see mangatunes, pandora, and cdbaby for a few examples of proconsumer and proartist policies.

i guess my point is that if you decide to make me into a criminal by asserting my personal rights don't be surprised if my perceived value of your work is diminished. we've seen where this cycle has led so far - will the artists rise up and change the future?

superbad
2006-01-15, 13:34
This may be a little silly, but I only use allofmp3 to buy music from artists who have been dead for at least 10 years. I figure they don't miss the royalties too much. And if BMG or somebody misses out on a couple bucks profit from a dead guy's work, oh well.

That said, if the record companies offered lossless downloads for less than $1/song, I would be all over it. I would even accept DRM, but only if it allowed me to play my music on the Squeezebox, or any other device I might own.

Considering that's the same price they would get for a CD, and they didn't have to manufacture, warehouse, distribute, or give a retailer any margin, they should be jumping all over themselves to offer songs at that price. And if they don't, then they deserve the piracy and Russian end-runs they are getting. Lossless files at $.50 each would eliminate %75 of music piracy, and it would kill allofmp3.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-15, 13:48
I only use allofmp3 to buy music from artists who have been dead for at least 10 years. I figure they don't miss the royalties too much.
But their families might.

Regardless of how you personally feel about it, society as a whole decided, not just for music but for all copyright issues, decades ago, that copyrights last for some period of time after the copyright holder has died (I think it's 50 years).

Notice that has nothing to do with the artist. The copyright holder is the person who wrote the music, the words or both. S/He might even be alive, even though the performer is dead. It often happens that they don't die at the same time :-)

JackOfAll
2006-01-15, 13:54
In my view it's wrong to support AllofMP3 and I think eventually the Russian courts will come to the same decision.

Maybe. My research into the subject led me to believe that the most likely outcome was that a label or artist would launch a civil suit on the basis that copyrighted music was sold without a fee being returned to the copyright holder. It is a matter of whether it can be proven that AllOfMP3 have not met there obligations to ROMS. My understanding from a statement made by someone at ROMS (which I'm unable to find a link to right now), is that they cared not whether the MP3 was downloaded by someone located in Russia or externally, only that Mediaservices honour the payments required by their license.

As AllOfMP3 have been operating for several years and have not yet been challenged on that basis, and I'm sure the relevent labels would have funded a case if there were the slightest possibility that AllOfMP3 are not fullfilling there license obligations, I am led to believe that the only way this site will be shut down is with a change in Russian legislation regarding copyright, which is probably not likely to happen for several years.

Your original post suggested that artists were not receiving royalties (regardless of however small they might be) from AllOfMP3. I took that to mean that AllOfMP3 were in breach of their ROMS' license, or that ROMS are not returning revenues.

Anyway, I agree with your sentiment and I will be the last person on earth to steal from artists, but my take is that the music industry only have themselves to blame and I'm damn well fed up with their stupid attempts to maintain their monopolies and profits. They shot themselves in the foot and will continue doing so for years to come.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-15, 14:01
They shot themselves in the foot
The Sony rootkit feels that way to me.

jackaninny
2006-01-15, 14:02
But their families might.

Regardless of how you personally feel about it, society as a whole decided, not just for music but for all copyright issues, decades ago, that copyrights last for some period of time after the copyright holder has died (I think it's 50 years).

Notice that has nothing to do with the artist. The copyright holder is the person who wrote the music, the words or both. S/He might even be alive, even though the performer is dead. It often happens that they don't die at the same time :-)

first - i believe it's life plus 70 years for works published after 1977 and 95 years if it's a corporate work. 'as a society' in 1998 'we' passed copyright term extension act which extended the term by another 20 years from the previous 50. the same 1998 act works created in 1923 or after will enter the public domain until 2019 and in many cases that date is even in question. have something create before 1978 but not registired for copyright protection? don't worry it's covered in the same 1998 act and will not enter the public domain until 2047. all of this legislation is private and corporate welfare plain and simple and at the expense of our society and culture.

perhaps someone could tell me how this benefits the general public and why we, the public, should subsidize the next 3 generations or more of a particular artist?

Richie
2006-01-15, 14:10
> Regardless of how you personally feel about it, society as a whole
> decided, not just for music but for all copyright issues, decades ago,
> that copyrights last for some period of time after the copyright holder
> has died (I think it's 50 years).

Copyrights only used to be valid for a much shorter period (14 years
with an option of another 14 years, from the time the work was
created). It's only intense lobbying by the entertainment corporations
that has had these periods increased. I don't think 'society' had much
to do with current state of affairs.

Richard

Scott F.
2006-01-15, 14:23
would it be fair and economically feasible if that salesperson received a commission on the sales that his customers made? if he then got those commissions for almost 100 years AFTER he died? even if he left the company and another saleperson took over his accounts and managed them? what if the customers had to get written permission from the salesperson before any and all new transactions? i will leave the multiple examples of riaa/consumer lawsuits and the saleperson analogy to your imagination.

1) copyright law is broken almost entirely and we are in danger of watching our culture stagnate and we have handed the future over to corporate america to dictate what, when, where and how long we can enjoy a work. for evidence see drm, hdcp, hd-dvd, pvp-opm, etc etc.

2) we have, and are, creating an environment where EVERYONE is in perpetual violation of copyright law - ask the russians how they felt under the soviet regime.

i am also pro-artist but i also believe that many of them are complicit in the destruction of public rights. i also believe many of them are living in a fantasy world if they think they can extract the same profits margins as the greater world market opens up. don't expect a household in china to pay $15 bucks for a cd. when major labels start installing hidden software on my personal computer and that software makes my personal systems vulnerable in terms of stability and security well they can just go pound sand. the marketplace has made it quite obvious how they want their music and the industry has stalled and told us how wrong we are and then started to make us into criminals. how sorry do i feel for an artist who signed a contract with the likes of these corporations? no not very sorry. it seems many artists and companies have been able to make some money by actually addressing consumer wants without making them into criminals. see mangatunes, pandora, and cdbaby for a few examples of proconsumer and proartist policies.

i guess my point is that if you decide to make me into a criminal by asserting my personal rights don't be surprised if my perceived value of your work is diminished. we've seen where this cycle has led so far - will the artists rise up and change the future?

Hi jackaninny,

I realize a analogy needs some work but it was the best I could do on short notice :-)

Believe me, I do a gree with many of your points. Unfortunately teh artists in order to be sucessfull in the music profession have to sign with the music moguels. I make no excuses for these guys. Unfortunately for all of us, they run the world of music as we know it.

On the other hand, I've not convinced myself that another persons creativity and work should ever be 'public domain' even after they are dead and gone. I'm conflicted about that one especially if that artist has heirs. Now, if there is no heir-aparent this now becomes a slightly different issue. Should the company get paid for ditribution, marketing and manufacturing rights. I think so. Should they recieve 'royalties' for a dead artist because they were the last to sign him or her? No, but that is best left for a class action lawsuit.

The last thing I want is to live in fear of being sued by the music companies. Just take a look at the whole DRM and rootkit debacle. Personally, I think the execs that came up with that little piece of artwork should be staked on a fire ant hill and have their fingernails pulled out with pliers then clensed with rubbing alcohol (the world is lucky I'm not in charge cuz things would change in a hurry).

I don't have a clue what the solution to this mess is. I guess time will tell.

Tell you what though, after thinking about this thread and the sources I used for my information and seeing some of the other sources named (as in ROMS), I'm going to do some more research. I want to know if AllofMP3 is actually paying royalties back to the artists or not. I don't particularly care if the record companies are getting stiffed (which is sort of ironic given my viament position defending the artists) but I'd like to know that too. If the royalties are being paid, I suspect the artist is being shorted because of the reduced revenue (read = music company is taking reduced portion and giving the artist the leftovers).

This should make for a decent article at ETM -IF- I can get people from the RIAA, IFPI and ROMS (assuming they have an interpreter) and any other organization involved to talk about the issue. I'll even give a couple of the major performers a call too and get their take on the situation.

Like everybody else here, I don't like paying $15 for a CD, especially when it only has a few good songs. I'd certainly like to use AllofMP3 because its cheap but I've refrained because of ongoing litigation. Imagine these headlines 'Audio Industry Professional Being Sued for Illegally Downloading Music'. Geez, I'd end up being the poster child for the RIAA.

This may take a few weeks to put together but I'll do my best to get to the bottom of it.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-15, 14:24
perhaps someone could tell me how this benefits the general public and why we, the public, should subsidize the next 3 generations or more of a particular artist?
First off, it's not the artist.

The general theory behind copyright law, patent law, etc, is that

society is benefited because the work of individuals is made available to the public.

inviduals are motivated to make the work available to the public because they are promised economic rewards for a fixed period of time into the future. This includes after their own demise, benefitting their heirs, which, for some, is a powerful motivator.

I'm not defending how well this works currently.

With the internet, the Pussycat Girls probably got a much more reasonable reward in 6 months or a year than Irving Berlin got for his works in 20 years of performance. So maybe people don't need as much "time" to get their rewards back as they did before. Ironically, the laws were changed recently, as you noted, to make the time longer.

Well, people live longer too, including artists, so I'm not sure how one should best look at this.

As another example, Apple Records and the Beatles and heirs earn money every day on the music they wrote. And why shouldn't they. If you or a new generation still enjoy their music now 30 years later, doesn't that prove that their music was enduring? And shouldn't it continue to generate revenues for them? If the stuff was really that good and timeless?

I'm not saying I have the answer. I'm only answering the question, how does this benefit the general public.

Do you watch the wizard of oz when they replay it sometimes? If so (and someone must, because it gets played every xmas), that shows the music, lyrics, etc still have appeal. And so should still generate royalties to the writers.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-15, 14:26
It's only intense lobbying by the entertainment corporations that has had these periods increased.
And (unfortunate) apathy by everyone else concerned.

jackaninny
2006-01-15, 15:01
http://www.lessig.org/blog/

also check out his creative commons project

http://creativecommons.org/

snarlydwarf
2006-01-15, 15:03
As another example, Apple Records and the Beatles and heirs earn money every day on the music they wrote. And why shouldn't they. If you or a new generation still enjoy their music now 30 years later, doesn't that prove that their music was enduring? And shouldn't it continue to generate revenues for them? If the stuff was really that good and timeless?


Bad example, though.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10493829/from/RL.2/

Considering EMI was selling King Crimson songs on iTunes, even though they didn't have rights to them.... nor did they pay King Crimson any of the royalties, even though EMI was making 69c/track... just what is the difference between, say, iTunes and allofmp3?

(FWIW, for King Crimson music, check out dgmlive.com where you can buy many King Crimson works as FLAC or MP3.. and the artists even get the money.)

jackaninny
2006-01-15, 15:11
...
Do you watch the wizard of oz when they replay it sometimes? If so (and someone must, because it gets played every xmas), that shows the music, lyrics, etc still have appeal. And so should still generate royalties to the writers.

the founders of this country did NOT repeat NOT intend for copyright protection to protect the original author from others stealing their work.

from the constitution:

'Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."'

this clause is the basis for the copyright protection act and the patent act.

re-read and commit to memory this phrase "...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."

i think l. frank baum has been promoted long enough - it's time for others to build on his work.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-15, 15:12
Yeah, I think there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that the current model is broken, and the greed of the record companies is part of what is broken.

Personally, I like the model proposed a number of years ago for print materials ... you go to the library, you take a book off the shelf, take it to the photocopier, a library staff member (or some automaton) checks how many pages you photocopied and charges you a couple of cents per page for the copyright, you leave 5 minutes later with the information you wanted, AND you paid your copyright dues to the right people.

Nowadays, I guess, you could browse the PDF, print the 3 pages you want, pay your 9 cents with micropayment software, and be gone with it.

Downloading MP3s should work the same way. Pity it doesn't, and pity the record industry doesn't see how they're pissing in their own soup by not getting ahead of this wave and offering it.

Back to the sticker in every slim box.

MP3 is not a crime.

JackOfAll
2006-01-15, 15:14
This should make for a decent article at ETM -IF- I can get people from the RIAA, IFPI and ROMS (assuming they have an interpreter) and any other organization involved to talk about the issue. I'll even give a couple of the major performers a call too and get their take on the situation.

Scott,

Look forward to reading it. Please try and talk to a couple of record labels too - you might also like to ask them to explain why in an attempt to protect their margins and revenues they are now penalising the very people that have never stolen music and are in fact, now encouraging them to do so.

How much revenue does the artist receive when I purchase a CD only to find out that it is not a Red Book CD, does not play in my car player, and return it for a refund?

Perhaps you might ask them to explain why they have deliberately corrupted data on my recent CD purchases with copy protection products that a) require error correction for certain samples where none should be required or b) are non-recoverable in the event of the lightest scratch causing drop-outs.

Could you also ask why their customer services have refused to even acknowledge my attempts at discussing a way of obtaining replacements for CD's bought in the 80's where the aluminium has rotted and they are no longer playable. Is it acceptable that I should go and purchase another copy? I still own an LP of Dire Straits Brothers In Arms and bought a second copy on CD back in the 80's. Should I have to purchase it again (a third time) just to have a working CD copy?

Is it reasonable that their attempts at copy protection should result in my computer being susceptible to attack by virtue of them having installed a rootkit? Is it reasonable that a President of Sony/BMG should have so little respect for his customers (or think them to be so stupid) as to comment, "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

Is it reasonable for them (having figured out that online music delivery can make them a lot of money) to refuse to work with each other, especially where DRM is concerned? Why should they make it as difficult as possible for me to use the music I HAVE purchased on my iPod. Why should I have to rip it to hard drive using a proprietary program, record it back to a CDR, to be able to import it directly into iTunes. Why can Apple and Sony not come to an agreement over licensing Apples DRM?

I own several thousand CD's and many more LP's. I'm not a teenager using AllOfMP3 to download music cheaply and re-distributing it to my friends for free. I figure I've lined the pockets of record company bosses and shareholders for long enough not to have to put up with the shit that they now think is acceptable practise.

Long live AllOfMP3. You never know - it may just focus the minds of the record companies enough that they come up with sensible solutions to the purchase and use of music in the internet age, rather than penalising the very people that have supported them and their artists.

Rant over.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-15, 15:18
Huh?

Did you invert something? Or did you not read what you wrote?


the founders of this country did NOT repeat NOT intend for copyright protection to protect the original author from others stealing their work.


securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."'




an exclusive right for authors and inventors means the authors and inventors can chose how their works are used.

This automatically includes theft as one of the things they can preclude.

jackaninny
2006-01-15, 15:42
well if you chop up and paraphrase then anything can mean just about everything. once again from the constitution - article I, section 8, clause 8:

"to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

key words and phrases 'limited' 'to promote the progress'

nowhere does it say to provide for 3 future generations of the authors family nor does it talk about the ability of a corporation to own anything for a century or longer. very little of the current system respects the founding fathers intentions as written in the constitution.

so no i did not invert anything and i stand by what i said.

Scott F.
2006-01-15, 15:56
Scott,

Look forward to reading it. Please try and talk to a couple of record labels too - you might also like to ask them to explain why in an attempt to protect their margins and revenues they are now penalising the very people that have never stolen music and are in fact, now encouraging them to do so.

How much revenue does the artist receive when I purchase a CD only to find out that it is not a Red Book CD, does not play in my car player, and return it for a refund?

Perhaps you might ask them to explain why they have deliberately corrupted data on my recent CD purchases with copy protection products that a) require error correction for certain samples where none should be required or b) are non-recoverable in the event of the lightest scratch causing drop-outs.

Could you also ask why their customer services have refused to even acknowledge my attempts at discussing a way of obtaining replacements for CD's bought in the 80's where the aluminium has rotted and they are no longer playable. Is it acceptable that I should go and purchase another copy? I still own an LP of Dire Straits Brothers In Arms and bought a second copy on CD back in the 80's. Should I have to purchase it again (a third time) just to have a working CD copy?

Is it reasonable that their attempts at copy protection should result in my computer being susceptible to attack by virtue of them having installed a rootkit? Is it reasonable that a President of Sony/BMG should have so little respect for his customers (or think them to be so stupid) as to comment, "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

Is it reasonable for them (having figured out that online music delivery can make them a lot of money) to refuse to work with each other, especially where DRM is concerned? Why should they make it as difficult as possible for me to use the music I HAVE purchased on my iPod. Why should I have to rip it to hard drive using a proprietary program, record it back to a CDR, to be able to import it directly into iTunes. Why can Apple and Sony not come to an agreement over licensing Apples DRM?

I own several thousand CD's and many more LP's. I'm not a teenager using AllOfMP3 to download music cheaply and re-distributing it to my friends for free. I figure I've lined the pockets of record company bosses and shareholders for long enough not to have to put up with the shit that they now think is acceptable practise.

Long live AllOfMP3. You never know - it may just focus the minds of the record companies enough that they come up with sensible solutions to the purchase and use of music in the internet age, rather than penalising the very people that have supported them and their artists.

Rant over.


All GREAT points.

I had planned on getting a hold of any major label that would talk to the points. I'm in the same spot you are, tons of CDs, even more vinyl and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay again for music I already bought the copyrights for.

I hadn't thought about those old CDs and replacing them for free (when you keep them in good condition and they fail due to medium that has a shelf life). I'll bet they give me the worn out automobile analogy but we'll see.

I just hope I can get people to talk about it (since it looks like one HUGE money grab to me).

Michaelwagner
2006-01-15, 15:58
I think, legally, "limited" just means finite. It isn't more specific than that.

You may think a reasonable limit is 1 generation. Others might differ. Your quote from the constitution doesn't say what they thought a reasonable limit was, only that there should be some limit.

And I don't get your point about promoting progress. Surely promoting music fits the category.

I get it that you think corporations are somehow different, but I'm not clear on why. Suppose I write some great song and I sell it to a corporation, who gives me a lump sum now because I don't care about my heirs and future royalties. We agree on the net present value of my potential future earnings, they give me this lump sum, I blow it on alcohol (or Squeezeboxen) and now the corporation owns the copyright. Is it any less legitimate because a corporation owns it? If you manage to establish that in law, you make it impossible for the next guy down the road who wants to do what I did.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-15, 16:00
well if you chop up and paraphrase then anything can mean just about everything.
That wasn't my intention.

I merely put side by side the two things you said that seem (to me)to be going in opposite directions.

stinkingpig
2006-01-15, 16:25
>
> superbad Wrote:
>> I only use allofmp3 to buy music from artists who have been dead for at
>> least 10 years. I figure they don't miss the royalties too much.
> But their families might.
>
> Regardless of how you personally feel about it, society as a whole
> decided, not just for music but for all copyright issues, decades ago,
> that copyrights last for some period of time after the copyright holder
> has died (I think it's 50 years).
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

That was the old rule, but it was about to allow Mickey Mouse into the
public domain, and we all know that if that happened, it'd be the end of
the world. Real Dogs and Cats Living Together type of stuff. Luckily, the
Senate acted in time and disaster was averted. Since most of us aren't
artists seeking to protect our work or re-use someone else's, most of us
just watched some more Seinfeld.

--
Jack Coates At Monkeynoodle Dot Org: It's A Scientific Venture!
"I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin, so across the Western
ocean I must wander" - traditional

stinkingpig
2006-01-15, 16:31
.... I don't have a clue what the solution to this mess is. I guess time
> will tell.
....

How about buying directly from the artist instead of using a broker at
all? Or how about using a broker that offers the artist a better deal?

There are a lot of independent artists and labels out there, and they make
music in all different styles. Look for them, listen to them, buy from
them.

--
Jack Coates At Monkeynoodle Dot Org: It's A Scientific Venture!
"I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin, so across the Western
ocean I must wander" - traditional

JackOfAll
2006-01-15, 16:48
I just hope I can get people to talk about it (since it looks like one HUGE money grab to me).

I can't really see anyone wanting to talk about it, especially if the discussion involves AllOfMP3. There have been two attempts to shut it down and neither appear to have succeeded.

From AllOfMP3's point of view, I'd think it would be great if it turns out that they have done no wrong, except discover a loophole in Russian law that they only found out about after their original business model. I'm pretty sure when it first started out that there was not an English webpage - Russian only. That was added later. It would sure make me laugh if it is the case that they do have a license, pay royalties (however small they may be as long as that were what were originally agreed when they were licensed by ROMS - the relevant Russian body in such matters), and are not breaking any laws. I mean - what's going to happen? I'll be looking forward to the day when the RIAA turn their bully boy tactics away from single-parent Texas mums, with internet savvy teenage daughters (with friends), that couldn't possibly afford to pay the sums they are asking for for having someone at that address download mp3's, and re-aim at a few extremely pissed-off audiophiles. They can start by telling me what they are going to do to me if I were to download another copy of Brothers In Arms (having already paid twice) to replace the CD copy that no longer works due to a manufacturing fault and age, having ignored my attempts at requesting a replacement. After all, I'm pretty sure that unless I added it after purchasing, printed on the back page of the original accompanying CD booklet, it says something to the effect that properly cared for, the disk will provide a **LIFETIME** of listening pleasure. Unless actually playing it can be classified as mistreatment, and I'm not really alive right now, (it could just be a dream), I kept my side of the bargain. ;-)

Michaelwagner
2006-01-15, 16:54
How about buying directly from the artist
I've done that. It's fun. And you get different stuff than the guy down the block :-)

dijon
2006-01-15, 16:59
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Coates" <jack (AT) monkeynoodle (DOT) org>
To: "Slim Devices Discussion" <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [slim] Re: AllofMP3.com


> How about buying directly from the artist instead of using a broker at
> all? Or how about using a broker that offers the artist a better deal?

amen,

aaaand perfect timing for a plug...we just released our new CD :)
http://www.starsnyc.net - come to the site and steal our music in glorious
128bit mp3! or pay a measly 10 bucks for a CD if you care about things like,
um...audio quality.

superbad
2006-01-15, 19:59
I don't really disagree with you at all. I still don't feel quite right doing it, but that's the compromise I have made. Mostly I buy used CDs, but of course the artist gets nothing from that transaction either (and most used CDs nowadays probably leave digital files behind on the original purchaser's computer).

Copyright used to expire a certain amount of time after the creator's death (I think it was 70 years), but Congress (at the prodding of lobyists from the MPAA and RIAA) has continually expanded that to the point where works created today have essentially unlimited copyright.

And there are two separate copyright holders on a recorded piece if music: the performer and the author. If I record an album of public domain traditional songs, I stll have copyright over the recording.


But their families might.

Regardless of how you personally feel about it, society as a whole decided, not just for music but for all copyright issues, decades ago, that copyrights last for some period of time after the copyright holder has died (I think it's 50 years).

Notice that has nothing to do with the artist. The copyright holder is the person who wrote the music, the words or both. S/He might even be alive, even though the performer is dead. It often happens that they don't die at the same time :-)

kdf
2006-01-15, 20:06
frankly, copywright should die. it is totally flawed. As an engineer,
and designer, I do creative work and I get paid for it. When my day is
done, I go home and I my salary is calculated. Why does music or text
garner some special status where simple hardware design does not?

The point is, pay for work. A musician is paid for the recording, paid
for performing. The music industry has created a pay for play
mechanism, no one else. Times gone past, this was simple. Now, you
have big corporate advocates claiming to be fighting for the rights of
the artist (many who have readily admitted they would "do it even if I
weren't paid"). Copyright is law, and so be it. I follow the law, but
I'm free enough of mind to realise that the law is not the same as ethics.

-kdf

pfarrell
2006-01-15, 20:18
superbad wrote:
> Copyright used to expire a certain amount of time after the creator's
> death (I think it was 70 years), but Congress (at the prodding of
> lobyists from the MPAA and RIAA) has continually expanded that to the
> point where works created today have essentially unlimited copyright.

It was driven by Sonny Bono and the behest of the Disney Corporation
because Mickey Mouse was about the move into the public domain.

The RIAA was probably there too, but it was Sonny's work.
The RIAA ghost wrote the evil DMCA law, which is probably
worse for society, but that is a separate issue. I believe
that depending on ones reading of DMCA, exposing the Sony/BMG
rootkit was illegal.

> And there are two separate copyright holders on a recorded piece if
> music: the performer and the author. If I record an album of public
> domain traditional songs, I stll have copyright over the recording.

Actually, the author has copyright of the song and lyrics.
The performer has separate rights. The recording is
covered as a "phonorecord" which is signified with a (p)
and covered by a separate section of the law.

Interestingly, it is not illegal to hire a group of musicians
and singers to record a 'cover' version of a song that sound
exactly like the original recording as long as you pay
the publisher the fee for their rights. You can't claim
that your new group is "The Beatles" but you can
make the song sound identical and use it in advertising,
etc. See Confessions of a Record Producer, 2 Ed: How to Survive the
Scams and Shams of the Music Business by Moses Avalon.

Of course, one can never tell is "Moses Avalon" is telling the
truth or not. It could be all fiction.

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

Michaelwagner
2006-01-15, 20:59
Why does music or text garner some special status where simple hardware design does not?
A good question. For which I have no good answer.

But I have another question. Why are you paid less than a supermodel or a baseball player?

(or are you?) :-)


The point is, pay for work.

Change the word work to "hours", and it sounds a lot like socialism. One persons hours work is as good as the next. I'm not sure I agree with that.

So if a talented musician's time and talent (say, Santana) is worth more than my inferious and indifferent coding, should we be paid the same?

Or I'm a musician and so is he. I play the violin (poorly). He plays guitar (better). The local radio station plays my record once and breaks it. Santana gets a few more plays than me :-) Should we be paid the same? Or should he get credit for the fact that they liked his playing more than mine?

Or let's put it another way. Say you write code that goes into an ATM. For every successful transation that your code processes, you get paid .1 cents stipend. Just to keep it interesting, for every transaction that fails and is traced back to your code, they ding you a buck. That's the basis that you agree to do the coding. Now I come along and say, I'm the new owner of the ATM, I don't agree to pay you your stipend any more. You've been paid enough (according to me). Is that right?


A musician is paid for the recording, paid for performing. The music industry has created a pay for play
mechanism, no one else.

This is so incorrect, on so many levels, I don't know where to start. Let's start with the musicians strike of 1942. I'm a swing dancer and occasional DJ, so this is near to my heart. The musicians strike was one of the things which (inadvertedly) brought the (first) swing era to a close.

From: http://www.swingmusic.net/getready.html


Several factors caused the Big Band Era to come to an early close. Among them, the 1942 American Federation Of Musicians strike

The musicians went on strike because the recording industry felt, as you do, "get paid for the recording, end of story". The *musicians* went on strike because *they* wanted residuals from (broadcast) plays. They went on strike *against* the recording studios. The idea was, the more popular my music, the more plays, the more I should get paid. A lot like baseball players today.

From: http://www.jazzstandards.com/history/history-4.htm


In March, 1940, ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Artists and Producers), proposed a new contract increasing by 100 percent the royalties they received from broadcast use. In retaliation broadcasters created their own organization, BMI (Broadcast Music Incorporated)
[...]
Then in August, 1942, American Federation of Musicians president James C. Petrillo initiated a ban on recording, in hopes of coercing record companies into returning part of their profits to the union to be used for special concerts and projects. This forced the record companies to focus on recording singers and singing groups and reissuing previously recorded material. The ban lasted until Decca Records capitulated in September, 1943, but it would be another 14 months before RCA and Columbia would give in.

So, really, I'm not sure much has changed. The record companies were greedy then, they're greedy now. And, like now, little musicians (like the guys in the little R&B bands that I buy CDs off the stage from) still aren't getting a fair shake from the record companies.

BTW, my musician friends tell me that Canadian broadcast law gives them more residual income per play than US broadcast law does. I'm not sure why that is.


The music industry has created a pay for play mechanism, no one else.

Not true. Playwrights are paid for every performance of their play (until the rights run out). Choreographers (I think) are paid for every performance of their dance. Musicians pay the songwriters (not the recording industry) when a performer covers a tune.


I'm free enough of mind to realise that the law is not the same as ethics.
I won't disagree with this. Except I'd probably say that many things are within the letter of the law but still unethical.

And ... In the back of my mind, there's this nagging "two wrongs don't make a right" arguement my parents always used to say to me. The recording companies are jerks. Their greed is obscene. There needs to be a legal process to put them back in their place. Especially after the rootkit thing.

But ... I'm not sure that gives me the right to be a jerk too.

Another way to look at it:

lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

(or in the case of (old) Napster, viruses).

Michaelwagner
2006-01-15, 21:11
BTW, I don't have any good answers for this situation. I'm no fan of the recording industry, but would dearly like to see the musicians get paid fairly ...

kolepard
2006-01-15, 22:44
>BTW, my musician friends tell me that Canadian broadcast law gives them
>more residual income per play than US broadcast law does. I'm not sure
>why that is.

Because in the US, money buys laws that favor special interests. The
DMCA, for example, exists not to benefit the producers of work
(artists, etc.) or the consumers thereof (that'd be me), but the
industries that comprise organizations like the RIAA and its ilk.
Sure the politicians would like to believe otherwise, but the
provisions it contains are clearly not for our (my) benefit.

Kevin
--
Kevin O. Lepard

Happiness is being 100% Microsoft free.

Marc Sherman
2006-01-16, 08:53
JackOfAll wrote:
>
> Could you also ask why their customer services have refused to even
> acknowledge my attempts at discussing a way of obtaining replacements
> for CD's bought in the 80's where the aluminium has rotted and they are
> no longer playable. Is it acceptable that I should go and purchase
> another copy? I still own an LP of Dire Straits Brothers In Arms and
> bought a second copy on CD back in the 80's. Should I have to purchase
> it again (a third time) just to have a working CD copy?

That's the only situation I've ever considered using AllOfMp3.com for,
myself; I've got a couple CDs that I really like which have deteriorated
to the point of unrippability. But the album I'm most interested in
replacing, Element of Light by Robyn Hitchcock, isn't even available on
allofmp3.com, and last time I saw it available used on amazon, it was
going for >$30, which is a ridiculous amount to pay for a record I
already own.

Argh.

- Marc

icky2000
2006-01-16, 16:56
But their families might.

Regardless of how you personally feel about it, society as a whole decided, not just for music but for all copyright issues, decades ago, that copyrights last for some period of time after the copyright holder has died (I think it's 50 years).

Notice that has nothing to do with the artist. The copyright holder is the person who wrote the music, the words or both. S/He might even be alive, even though the performer is dead. It often happens that they don't die at the same time :-)

I realize this is an old thread but let's be clear on this point: Society as a whole did not decide anything. The entertainment industry has amassed the world's largest group of lobbyist and experts whose sole job it is to purchase legislation from Congress. Because the issues of digital copyright have become so complicated and because Congress has become so corrupt, the industry has found a glorious loophole in our form of government that allows them to get what they want by paying for it. The current excitement on Capitol Hill surrounding Jack Abramoff admitting that this is how business is done in our government is a fine example. The system stopped working on behalf of "society as a whole" a few decades ago. There remains hope that the Abramoff debacle will help bring about corrections to this kind of corruption but until it does, the only people deciding on U.S. copyright laws are the entertainment industry who write them and the Congressmen & women who agree to pass them for a fee.

(yes, I realize that the corruption isn't as clear cut as in-the-open bribes but hiding behind corrupt campaign finance rules and vacations and all of the other things we're hearing about in the Abramoff case show that the corruption has merely been obfuscated to make it harder for the American people to follow)

The obvious response is, "well you have the opportunity to vote against these people." The obvious answer is, "no, you don't." Both parties in our system have constructed things to make the entry of third party and independent candidates virtually impossible.

Individuals no longer have a say when it comes to copyright. The debate is between electronics manufacturers and the entertainment industry. Both sides are interested in earning our dollars - neither campaigns for the rights of individuals. We've lost our voice.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-16, 18:13
let's be clear on this point: Society as a whole did not decide anything.
Let's be clear on another thing.

Some form of copyright was in the US constitution. I don't think the recording industry in it's current form was around back then.

snarlydwarf
2006-01-16, 18:31
Individuals no longer have a say when it comes to copyright. The debate is between electronics manufacturers and the entertainment industry. Both sides are interested in earning our dollars - neither campaigns for the rights of individuals. We've lost our voice.

And they don't protect the rights of the artists either.

icky2000
2006-01-16, 19:46
Let's be clear on another thing.

Some form of copyright was in the US constitution. I don't think the recording industry in it's current form was around back then.

Yes, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says "The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...". That's it.

The first Congress in 1790 was left to interpret that phrase into legislation and did so by establishing a copyright of 14 years plus the possibility to register for 14 more. That law has been amended dozens of times so that the current protection is for seventy years after the death of an author. The result is a copyright term that is well over 100 years vs. the 28 envisioned by the authors of the Constitution.

The length of copyright is only half the story, however. Individuls used to be protected by fair use, which allows individuals to use works they have purchased for their own personal use any way they choose to. These rights were further supported by the first sale doctrine which allows individuals to dispense with copyrighted works they have purchased as they see fit, including to sell them (this is how we're allowed to sell used CDs and DVDs and used books).

Unfortunately, fair use and the first sale doctrine are being constantly eroded. The entertainment industry wants to eliminate both of them and they are having quite a bit of success. The bill they authored that became the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, for instance, made it illegal for you tamper with something you have purchased even if that tampering is for your own personal use. This allows the entertainment industry to sell you something today and change what you can and cannot do with it tomorrow or the next day, whenever they see fit. You no longer own the things you buy. You no longer are allowed fair use or in some cases, the advantages of the first sale doctrine.

This is immoral. No one who is deeply familiar with the state of intellectual property in this country outside of those paid by the entertainment industry supports the rampant degredation of our rights that has been occuring over the last 40-50 years.

Is it wrong to violate an immoral law? That's a tricky question. Legally yes, but morally? Each of has to decide for ourselves.

Finally, allow me to point out that there is almost no one active in the movement to protect individual intellectual property rights that wants to stop financially supporting the artists that produce content. In fact, we want them to get their just dessert for their work and creativity. These two principles are not mutually exclusive.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-16, 19:55
You no longer are allowed fair use or in some cases, the advantages of the first sale doctrine.
Has this survived a supreme court challenge?

I'm not in the US, so I'm not familiar with US politics, but it's hard to see how DMCA could overturn fair use and first sale, principles which have been in place for eons.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-16, 20:18
BTW, on this topic, interesting web site here:
http://www.digitalconsumer.org/

icky2000
2006-01-16, 20:51
Has this survived a supreme court challenge?

I'm not in the US, so I'm not familiar with US politics, but it's hard to see how DMCA could overturn fair use and first sale, principles which have been in place for eons.

Parts of it have. Eldred v. Ashcroft challenged the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which extended the copyright term again (even after DMCA) but failed. The Court ruled that Congress has the power to make term decisions as they see fit (I agree, personally - I just wish they did a better job in making those decisions).

Fair use and first sale are much more tricky. Fair use was challenged in MGM v Grokster, the P2P file sharing case that the entertainment industry won this summer. The Supreme Court's ruling was relatively narrow but hinged on fair use in support of file sharing networks. The case was a bit messy unfortunately and dealt a blow to fair use in the minds of many even though the Court's opinion didn't exactly say that. It will be quite a few years I'm sure before anyone has the guts and dollars to mount a new case that is clean enough to force the Court to decide on fair use. The decision has certainly had a chilling effect on further innovation. Fair use's history is shaky in general - Congress has always avoided defining it, leaving it instead for the courts to decide because it is too contentious an issue for them to handle but the courts seek to release only very narrow opinions referring back to Congress (in MGM v Grokster they even suggested that Congress might get involved here but Congress hasn't and won't).

The next chapter in the story I think is that DRM technologies will make legislation all but unnecesary. Despite the first sale doctrine, courts have upheld the right of, for instance, software companies to bind purchasers to license agreements that are contained inside the packaging. Those license agreements can dictate that you do not have permission to resell the product and since you bought it and accepted those terms, you're stuck with them. The same can and is being used for purchases of music and other intellectual property when you buy things online. Even if the first sale doctrine exists in theory, contract law preceeds it and buyer beware (even if the buyer has no other option).

Michaelwagner
2006-01-16, 21:06
Thanks. That's good to know.

Well, it's not good, but it's helpful to have that explanation.

kolepard
2006-01-16, 21:28
> > let's be clear on this point: Society as a whole did not decide
> > anything.

>Let's be clear on another thing.
>
>Some form of copyright was in the US constitution.

This is what the US constitution says on the matter:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;"

I think current copyright law in fact curtails progress of Science
and Art, not promote the progress thereof.

Of course, I don't have enough money to buy laws I would like in Washington.
--
Kevin O. Lepard

Happiness is being 100% Microsoft free.