PDA

View Full Version : Visa and Mastercard Cut Off AllofMP3



ftlight
2006-10-19, 13:54
Visa and Mastercard have stopped accepting credit card transactions for
Russian music downloading site AllofMP3.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/business/6065492.stm

--
Bill Burns
Long Island NY USA
http://ftldesign.com

Kurt
2006-10-19, 16:10
How about http://www.gomusic.ru/ ?

autopilot
2006-10-19, 16:40
I thought this was old news TBH, they stoped taking Visa and Mastercard a few weeks ago, and Paypal months ago. Maybe its just official now. They are already in the process of getting around it with some kind of credit/voucher system from what i can tell.

propup
2006-10-19, 19:32
FWIW guys, I just replenished my allofmp3 account today WITH MC.
My last refill was via Click&Buy since there was no MC option. Guess they just re-instated that payment option.

funkstar
2006-10-20, 03:20
Does it not flag up to people that there is something not right about allofmp3.com if money grabbing credit card companies are refusing payment through them?

dae3dae3
2006-10-20, 04:37
Does it not flag up to people that there is something not right about allofmp3.com if money grabbing credit card companies are refusing payment through them?

Many people want cheap music and evidently don't mind funding the Russian mafia. It makes them feel like they're not stealing if they pay somebody for it.

(Putting on flame suit)

GoCubs
2006-10-20, 06:27
Many people want cheap music and evidently don't mind funding the Russian mafia. It makes them feel like they're not stealing if they pay somebody for it.

For me it's not really the price, but the fact that it's DRM free. I'd be happy to pay 99cents a track if it were of good quality and DRM free. If my 99cents is just going to get me a lower quality and crippled song (DRM'd) I'd rather just buy the CD and rip it for around the same price per track (although with a CD I have to buy all the tracks).

-Greg

shabbs
2006-10-20, 06:40
Does it not flag up to people that there is something not right about allofmp3.com if money grabbing credit card companies are refusing payment through them?
I think this is a case of the bigger bully (RIAA) winning a round in the war. They (RIAA) can't control Russia and allofmp3.com but they can control the companies that handle transactions.

I wish the RIAA would wake up and take a hint from the success of allofmp3.com - this is what the consumers want. If they embraced this type of business model, I think they'd do just fine.

Cheers.

autopilot
2006-10-21, 02:47
Many people want cheap music and evidently don't mind funding the Russian mafia. It makes them feel like they're not stealing if they pay somebody for it.

(Putting on flame suit)

Russian mafia? that sounds like something an RIAA spokesperson would say! Is there any evidence to support that?
You may view using Allofmp3 as wrong from a moral standpoint, as the bands get little money from it. But then even many American (and British) corporations, such as Nike and McDonalds operate in even more imoral ways. Yet it seen as un American to not buy from them.

From a legal point of view, it has not been proven to be illegal, dispite constant investigations. The US authorities have consistantly failed to shut them down. Its not illegal to purchace the music over there and its not illegal to import music, the RIAA is telling lies.

There will always be ways around the payment system, but the only feasible way to stop people using it is to bully the ISPs into blocking access. It surely cant be long before they do.

It might be wrong in some ways to use it, but thats a moral choice which people cant make there own mind up over. Heavy handed restrictive DRM is just as wrong imo.

Whos fault is it that allofmp3.com is the only place worth downloading music from?

simontindemans
2006-10-21, 05:00
Whos fault is it that allofmp3.com is the only place worth downloading music from?

If your tastes are slightly different from the mainstream (ie, the smaller labels), you should check out http://www.emusic.com and http://www.bleep.com Both deliver high-quality non-DRM MP3's and seem to be properly licensed.

Cheers,
Simon

iainshaw
2006-10-21, 12:53
If someone can give me a sensible non DRM download alternative so I can rebuy the stuff I've already bought on vinyl and CD and had knicked then I'll use it. It's not the cost (or cheapness) of allofmp3.com that is the main attraction for me. It's the fact that I can go and buy The Scream or All Mod Cons or Machine Gun Etiquette.......I don't go and flog it down the market on a CD with a thousand tracks.

So I just stuck another $50 into my account and it's merrily chugging away now.

autopilot
2006-10-22, 09:03
In fact, the last time they tried to sue AllOfMP3.com (back in July) it was not based on the prices and royalties - it was because they (The British Phonographic Industry - BPI) claimed they "contribute to piracy". In other words, the lack of DRM. Well 99% of CD's are sold DRM free, so will they sue themselves too?

blackbear
2006-10-22, 10:42
It could be a coincidence, but the amount of email spam I am receiving increased markedly after I registered at allofmp3.com.
And 1 in 15 or so spam messages is now in russian, which I never received before.
The time and money I saved by purchasing music from allofmp3, I now have to spend on spam filtering :-(

snarlydwarf
2006-10-22, 11:00
It could be a coincidence, but the amount of email spam I am receiving increased markedly after I registered at allofmp3.com.
And 1 in 15 or so spam messages is now in russian, which I never received before.
The time and money I saved by purchasing music from allofmp3, I now have to spend on spam filtering :-(

Coincidence.

I use spambaited addresses when registering anywhere: no one has ever mailed the address I used at allofmp3. (Yes, I am paranoid, but I like keeping track of who is selling my name. Besides, I own a few domains so I can have wildcard email addresses.)

And I get russian, japanese and turkish spam all the time... no clue what it says at all..

blackbear
2006-10-22, 14:52
Coincidence.

I use spambaited addresses when registering anywhere: no one has ever mailed the address I used at allofmp3. (Yes, I am paranoid, but I like keeping track of who is selling my name. Besides, I own a few domains so I can have wildcard email addresses.)

And I get russian, japanese and turkish spam all the time... no clue what it says at all..

Thanks, that's interesting to know. Since I registered at allofmp3.com, I have also set up my own domain and mailserver and follow the same practice as you. Beeing paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't after us. ;-)

Anyway, now that Visa, MasterCard and PayPal have all stopped transfers to allofmp3, I probably will not ever use allofmp3 ever again.

Harry G
2006-10-22, 16:43
I checked out AllofMP3 because someone had told me I could legally download Wave and Flac files. To not have to rip and tag would be a wonderful thing.

The site was impressive but the only albums I could find available in anything other than MP3 were the most popular American pop albums. Not the kind of thing I usually buy. Did I miss something?

Khuli
2006-10-23, 01:07
Anyway, now that Visa, MasterCard and PayPal have all stopped transfers to allofmp3, I probably will not ever use allofmp3 ever again.
MasterCard worked fine yesterday.

adamslim
2006-10-23, 01:55
What are you doing giving these people money? Far better to pirate using Bittorrent - at least then your money doesn't go to profiteering mafiosi!

They pay no money to the artists. The fact that it may be legal in Russia does not make it ethical anywhere. These guys are worse than the touts at car boot sales - at least *they* are honestly dishonest!

I hate the RIAA, BPI et al as much as anyone, and think that they are using bonkers tactics. But that doesn't mean the artists don't need money - especially when you are looking at small, niche stuff.

Please be sensible - buy some CDs; music is good value - how many hours' pleasure do you get from one good CD? If you must pirate, for whatever reason, please don't do it in a way that remunerates the dishonest.

funkstar
2006-10-23, 02:04
Well said Adam

autopilot
2006-10-23, 02:41
The site was impressive but the only albums I could find available in anything other than MP3 were the most popular American pop albums. Not the kind of thing I usually buy. Did I miss something?

Yes, thier online encoding. It can sometimes take up to 24 hous for your music to be ready, but i have always been able to get everything, even some of the more obscure stuff, in any format/bitrate i wanted.


What are you doing giving these people money? Far better to pirate using Bittorrent - at least then your money doesn't go to profiteering mafiosi!

They pay no money to the artists. The fact that it may be legal in Russia does not make it ethical anywhere. These guys are worse than the touts at car boot sales - at least *they* are honestly dishonest!

I hate the RIAA, BPI et al as much as anyone, and think that they are using bonkers tactics. But that doesn't mean the artists don't need money - especially when you are looking at small, niche stuff.

Please be sensible - buy some CDs; music is good value - how many hours' pleasure do you get from one good CD? If you must pirate, for whatever reason, please don't do it in a way that remunerates the dishonest.

Indeed, well said. You make an excellent point, and i do largely agree with you.

But you could look at it another way; By using Bittorrent you are give the RIAA/BPI the excuses and ammo they need to continue on thier stupid crusade and using heavy handed tatics and overly restrictive DRM because we are all criminals and must be stupid at any costs (consumer rights). Using AllOfMP3.com could be considered a 'protest purchace' in many ways. If The RIAA/BPI could only just realise that this is what customers want.

That said, i do prefer to buy CD's when i can.

For me, it's not about the price, i would be happy to pay more - it's about quality, value for money, choice and the ability to play my music where, when and on what device i want. I'm not actually anti-DRM per say, if the record industry wanted to win people over they should force the music vendors to open up the DRM to allow people to use there music on all there devices, while still retricting the sharing for files. Such a system is not imposible - the music could be locked to my PC, allowing it to be played on my Squeezebox, ipod, PDA, whatever without me sharing it with someone else, simular to what thet are doing with HD content.

But it's not just the RIAA/BPI's fault, the likes of Apple are wrong to lock down thier music to thier devices. If every vendor opened up thier DRM then Apple, etc, could actually gain some customers, such as the ones that have bought lot of MS Plays For Sure stuff but would now like an Ipod to pay it on. People would by more music too - If they starting making CD's that could only be played on one CD player, it market would fall through the floor. So by that logic, opening up DRM would make the download market properly explode. It would be better for consumer too, as music prices would have to become more competitive, the services would have to offer better quality and the player manufactures would have to concentrate on just making the best devices, as they can't rely on Jo Public having to buy device X just to play the $/£100's of music they have invested in.

AllOfMP3 may not be the most ethical of companies and thier days may be numbered. But good on 'em i say, there are a shining beacon for how music should be sold. We have a lot to thank AllOfMP3.com for, even if they are just in it for the money.

I am ranting a bit now, so i will shut up!

cparker
2006-10-23, 02:45
MasterCard worked fine yesterday.

Excellent News, I just took out a MasterCard just to be able to restock my account, previously only had Visa cards and had to borrow the wifes Mastercard last week :)

BTW With AllofMP3 the genie is out of the bottle and the consumer has realised they are getting screwed by the big corps demanding excessive payment per track, surely this is what globalisation and the free market is all about and why you lost your job to India? ;) But this time in favour of the consumer??

I buy more music now its reasonably priced, for example I went to a comedy performance at the weekend and liked some of the music tracks used during scene changes and off the back of that purchased two albums, if I was paying iTunes prices I wouldnt have bought them.

There is no evidence that the money funds the Mafia and since when did the average consumer care about the creator of a product? Do you care about the person that made your Nike trainers for next to nothing and who will end up crippled with arthrightous?? hmm thought not!

:)

blackbear
2006-10-23, 02:49
What are you doing giving these people money? Far better to pirate using Bittorrent - at least then your money doesn't go to profiteering mafiosi!

They pay no money to the artists. The fact that it may be legal in Russia does not make it ethical anywhere. These guys are worse than the touts at car boot sales - at least *they* are honestly dishonest!

I hate the RIAA, BPI et al as much as anyone, and think that they are using bonkers tactics. But that doesn't mean the artists don't need money - especially when you are looking at small, niche stuff.

Please be sensible - buy some CDs; music is good value - how many hours' pleasure do you get from one good CD? If you must pirate, for whatever reason, please don't do it in a way that remunerates the dishonest.

Good post, adamslim!

I fully agree with you on all counts. When I signed up at allofmp3.com, I didn't even know they were Russian and dubious. I've only spent $50 there and won't be spending any more.

adamslim
2006-10-23, 03:13
BTW With AllofMP3 the genie is out of the bottle and the consumer has realised they are getting screwed by the big corps demanding excessive payment per track, surely this is what globalisation and the free market is all about and why you lost your job to India? ;) But this time in favour of the consumer??

I buy more music now its reasonably priced, for example I went to a comedy performance at the weekend and liked some of the music tracks used during scene changes and off the back of that purchased two albums, if I was paying iTunes prices I wouldnt have bought them.

I agree with much of your sentiment but not your solution. Many (not all) record companies are inefficient, ultra-conservative, promoting their safe trash over interesting but risky music, and give too little back to artists. They are not ideal.

But to use AllOfMP3 is the best way to kill off music altogether. If the artists get no money, they will just have to stop.

If you want to protest, why not download via Bittorrent and donate £3-5 per CD to a music charity (or even to the RIAA/MCPS, for direct distribution to the artists!). It would be interesting to see the RIAA launch a lawsuit on someone who had paid them directly for the music!

cparker
2006-10-23, 03:25
When I signed up at allofmp3.com, I didn't even know they were Russian and dubious. I've only spent $50 there and won't be spending any more.

The fact they are Russian is not important.

Dubious; make up your own mind and do some research, a good starting place for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allofmp3

cparker
2006-10-23, 03:33
But to use AllOfMP3 is the best way to kill off music altogether. If the artists get no money, they will just have to stop.

Artists make their money from merchandising and airplay so it wont kill off music. For the small guy they probably arent in the catalogue anyway and will be on youtube etc.

To say that AllOfMp3 is destroying the musical world doesnt stand up and why do people have the opinion that every succesful company in Russia is automatically a front company for the Mafia? Maybe to many hours spent watching Hollywood films? ;)

smc2911
2006-10-23, 04:00
Interesting thread. Personally, with CD prices so low these days, I have been quite happy to buy CDs to rip even when I already have an old vinyl copy. My interest in this thread is prompted by those albums that don't seem to be readily available on CD. To take one example, I have a copy of Psychic TV's Dreams Less Sweet on vinyl. There was a CD produced, but it seems to have been deleted, so what to do? I could go through the pain of ripping from vinyl, but I know that particular LP has a lot of static and cleaning doesn't seem to help much (true of quite a few in the collection). Someone is selling a copy through Amazon second hand for US$69.99 (no royalties for the artist there of course!). I could try to find it for BitTorrent but, although I have never used allofmp3, I notice that the whole album is available for dowload for $2.53. Very tempting (although it does seem to only be available in 192kbps...would a flac rip of the vinyl be better? probably not!). Ethical dilemmas abound! If I could buy it on cd for $10-20 I'd do it in a flash.

autopilot
2006-10-23, 04:40
Another very interesting link egarding AllOfMP3.com - http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm

cliveb
2006-10-23, 05:34
To take one example, I have a copy of Psychic TV's Dreams Less Sweet on vinyl....
I notice that the whole album is available for dowload [from AllOfMP3] for $2.53. Very tempting (although it does seem to only be available in 192kbps...would a flac rip of the vinyl be better? probably not!).
If the CD of this album is out of print, then it is highly likely that the AllOfMP3 copy is a vinyl rip anyway, and potentially not a good one.

For example, I took the risk and bought Rick Wakeman's Criminal Record from AllOfMP3, hoping it had been sourced from the fairly rare (and expensive) Japanese CD. It turned out to be a pretty shoddy vinyl transfer - worse than the one I had already done from my own LP copy!

adamslim
2006-10-23, 05:47
If the CD of this album is out of print, then it is highly likely that the AllOfMP3 copy is a vinyl rip anyway, and potentially not a good one.

For example, I took the risk and bought Rick Wakeman's Criminal Record from AllOfMP3, hoping it had been sourced from the fairly rare (and expensive) Japanese CD. It turned out to be a pretty shoddy vinyl transfer - worse than the one I had already done from my own LP copy!

While I have argued fairly forcefully against AllOfMP3 on this thread, I do agree that this is a reasonable use of the site. Sadly, the results seem to leave a little to be desired.

Dig #3124 at record companies: why not put your entire deleted back-catalogue on a simple 'download an album for £1' site? If you deem it now so uncommercial that it's not even worth having a CD available (how much does it cost?), why not give it away, subject to distribution costs?

Not if it's all Rick Wakeman though ;)

Khuli
2006-10-23, 05:58
What are you doing giving these people money? Far better to pirate using Bittorrent - at least then your money doesn't go to profiteering mafiosi!
Because 95% of what I download is replacing what I currently own on vinyl or cassette.

funkstar
2006-10-23, 06:33
Dig #3124 at record companies: why not put your entire deleted back-catalogue on a simple 'download an album for £1' site? If you deem it now so uncommercial that it's not even worth having a CD available (how much does it cost?), why not give it away, subject to distribution costs?
To me, this would be the killer reason to start buying music downloads. If indipendant music stores can sell older albums for £5 why can't we get out of print releases for £1 - £2. I can think of several albums i'd like to own that i can't find.

cliveb
2006-10-23, 07:42
Dig #3124 at record companies: why not put your entire deleted back-catalogue on a simple 'download an album for £1' site? If you deem it now so uncommercial that it's not even worth having a CD available (how much does it cost?), why not give it away, subject to distribution costs?
Sounds like a great idea, but there are problems:

1. Ask a record company to find the master tapes for any particular old album and the chances are they'll have been lost/chucked out/stolen/etc.

2. Even if they did do it, you can bet the downloads would be 128kbs lossy with DRM.

3. Record companies don't give a s**t about music, so they just couldn't be bothered.


Not if it's all Rick Wakeman though ;)
Yeh, he has done some stinkers - most of his output, come to think of it. But Criminal Record is actually a pretty good album.

diomark
2006-10-23, 11:02
They've offered to give 15% of their income to the record associations.. the record associations have just been greedy and not taking the money.

I've spent on average $50/month on there since discovering it about 6 months ago.. that's about $35/month more then what I used to pay for music per month.

They have a product, at a resonable price point. (a full 80 minute cd at the quality I like comes to ~$3-4$..) - and it's extremely easy to use. I.e. I think of something I want, I go to their site and add it; my slingbox server has a program which then automaticlaly downloads it.. - why wouldn't you use that? so far the record asssociations in the US haven't given us anything with anywhere near that usability.
-mark



What are you doing giving these people money? Far better to pirate using Bittorrent - at least then your money doesn't go to profiteering mafiosi!

They pay no money to the artists. The fact that it may be legal in Russia does not make it ethical anywhere. These guys are worse than the touts at car boot sales - at least *they* are honestly dishonest!

I hate the RIAA, BPI et al as much as anyone, and think that they are using bonkers tactics. But that doesn't mean the artists don't need money - especially when you are looking at small, niche stuff.

Please be sensible - buy some CDs; music is good value - how many hours' pleasure do you get from one good CD? If you must pirate, for whatever reason, please don't do it in a way that remunerates the dishonest.

shabbs
2006-10-23, 13:26
The only people getting screwed by allofmp3.com are the RIAA and the big labels.

An interesting read about how much money a band really makes when they sign with a label:
- http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Another good article about how "little" money is given to the artists via iTunes sales:
- http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

Who is the real enemy?

;)

SatanicT
2006-10-24, 03:08
Good the have stopped. Allofmp3 tried to charge my Visa for about 4.000$ ...

mattybain
2006-10-25, 13:31
So what is the deal here? just dug out my cut up mastercard (was in the process of cancelling it) and it still works! It looks like visa has gone but Mcard seems to be keeping working.

Is this a short term thing or have Mcard had an about turn?

cparker
2006-10-25, 14:24
So what is the deal here? just dug out my cut up mastercard (was in the process of cancelling it) and it still works! It looks like visa has gone but Mcard seems to be keeping working.

Is this a short term thing or have Mcard had an about turn?

Not sure.. allofmp3 have a blog, reading it you feel kind of sad for them really. Its pretty amazing the power of the big 5 and the lengths they are going to; Take a look at http://blogs.allofmp3.com/

You can get around the payment issues by signing up with XROST, for now anyway!!

blue
2006-10-25, 22:41
I would guess that I buy more CDs than the majority of the population. I whole-heartily support www.allofmp3.com. They demonstrate that the paradigm the RIAA is fighting tooth and nail to drag into the 21st century is OUTDATED and blind.

The RIAA and other outdated media industry organizations have been screaming that they are being wronged while at the same time acting like bullies and thugs. This was how the Roman politicians would act, as their civilization was burning down around them. That only works for so long, and then the damn bursts.

These organizations have had it sweet, each year the cost of producing and distrubting music goes down, while the basic price for a CD retail is still $12 to $15 USD. How is it that CDs haven't come down in price? Does the music industry really look like a market where free market pricing is occuring? And this $1 USD a song price online. Essentially, for a 12 song CD, you are paying slightly under retail for a virtual CD. One that didn't need to be produced physically, shipped, stored in a warehouse, shipped again, take shelf space in a store, and incur return/damage costs for defective media. And the price is the same as the physical CD?

The media industry are thugs dressed in suits saying they are honest and you are evil to consider trying to go around them. They are playing us by using our good nature to keep us acting like sheep. On the flip side, they have done EVERYTHING in their power to shutdown any competition that goes around their desired sales channels. Nasty and vile things. Their lawyers twist any legit businesses trying to do the interet thing into little inefficient efforts doomed to failure.

We need allofmp3, we need them to show the world that this model works. That music at a reasonable price will drive huge volumes. The fricken RIAA needs allofmp3 as well, even though they don't get it yet. Just like the automotive industry needed Japan in the 70's. Is this really about morality? Take a closer look. In my mind, the broader, far reaching immorality is the approach the media industry has taken to all of this.

Don't call me immoral as I fight the thug dressed in a suit, price gauging me while at the same time trying to convince me it isn't right to expect them to to pass the huge cost efficiencies technology affords them onto me, the consumer. I'm not buying that.

tom permutt
2006-10-26, 07:06
Don't call me immoral as I fight the thug dressed in a suit, price gouging me ...I'm not calling you anything, but I still don't understand what people mean by "price gouging" in this context. If music is so cheap to produce, why don't you go produce some?

I do. I play it very cheaply to very small audiences. Most people prefer what's on CDs even at the prices the "thugs" charge. I don't blame them.

You can get cheap music, but you want the high priced spread. I don't understand why you think it's somebody's obligation to supply it to you cheaply. Take it and pay up, or leave it and support the real starving musicians. Just don't paint yourself a hero for jumping on the same bandwagon as everyone else and dodging the fare.

adamslim
2006-10-26, 09:36
I'm not calling you anything, but I still don't understand what people mean by "price gouging" in this context. If music is so cheap to produce, why don't you go produce some?

I do. I play it very cheaply to very small audiences. Most people prefer what's on CDs even at the prices the "thugs" charge. I don't blame them.

You can get cheap music, but you want the high priced spread. I don't understand why you think it's somebody's obligation to supply it to you cheaply. Take it and pay up, or leave it and support the real starving musicians. Just don't paint yourself a hero for jumping on the same bandwagon as everyone else and dodging the fare.

I wholeheartedly agree. Music is not cheap to produce; much of the best music is not commercial (e.g. BBC Radio 3) and may well not be able to pay for itself. Starting a band costs a fortune in promotion, as well as recording costs.

How on earth can the $10 CD price not be justified? If you play it ten times, that's a dollar for an hour's entertainment. I have CDs that I have played hundreds of times; I can't think of anything that is better value (DVDs I pay $20 for and play once? No thanks!)

I agree that it may increase the record companies' bottom lines if they reduced prices - their unit sales might increase dramatically. However, such a strategy is very risky - once you do it, there's no going back.

Blue paints the music industry as suited thugs; I've met a lot of people in music, and none of them were thugs (some *were* suited!). Most of them are great people who love music, and would love to find a solution to the current problem.

There may be a few very big players who are doing well, but must of the guys I know are much smaller; they're struggling and get really upset when they see their artists, on whom they have spent a huge amount both financially and emotionally, getting pirated. They can't invest in new music if they don't make profits from their existing ones.

Adam

simontindemans
2006-10-26, 12:12
I really don't get why everybody is happily giving their money to allofmp3.com. The way I see it, is you're using their services, one of the following applies to you:

1. You want DRM-free music, and you want to obtain it legally. Go buy your music somewhere else. Allofmp3 is clearly not legit. And no, offering pocket change to record companies does not make you legit. If someone offers you $100 for you Squeezebox, does it give them the right to buy it from you?

2. You want DRM-free music and want to send out a signal to the other stores/record companies. Why not buy at a proper DRM-free online music store? I have mentioned http://www.emusic.com and http://www.bleep.com before.

3. You want cheap music. You have to wonder how cheap legit music can really be (see the post's above). Still, cheaper stores than iTunes can be found. Again, eMusic comes to mind.

Really, using allofmp3 is no better or worse than using a P2P-client, and it costs money, too! I really don't know why people use it at all.

Simon

dagordon
2006-10-26, 13:17
I really don't get why everybody is happily giving their money to allofmp3.com. The way I see it, is you're using their services, one of the following applies to you:

1. You want DRM-free music, and you want to obtain it legally. Go buy your music somewhere else. Allofmp3 is clearly not legit. And no, offering pocket change to record companies does not make you legit. If someone offers you $100 for you Squeezebox, does it give them the right to buy it from you?

2. You want DRM-free music and want to send out a signal to the other stores/record companies. Why not buy at a proper DRM-free online music store? I have mentioned http://www.emusic.com and http://www.bleep.com before.

3. You want cheap music. You have to wonder how cheap legit music can really be (see the post's above). Still, cheaper stores than iTunes can be found. Again, eMusic comes to mind.

Really, using allofmp3 is no better or worse than using a P2P-client, and it costs money, too! I really don't know why people use it at all.

Simon

How about 4. You want individual DRM-free tracks encoded in a lossless fashion? emusic seems to only offer mp3. bleep seems to have some flac, but it's limited to certain indie labels.

If you want an individual track but not a whole album in a lossless, DRM-free format, what are you supposed to do? Show me a service with a catalog comparable to allofmp3's that is offering DRM-free, lossless music.

Regarding 1: unclear what you mean by 'legit'. Do you mean that it's obvious that the site violates Russian law? Or international law? Or that it's obvious that someone purchasing music through the site from the US will be himself violating US law? Do you know the details of the licenses that allofmp3 owns? Do you know the details of the relevant US laws?

Using allofmp3 is 'better' than using a P2P client in that a) despite what you say, the legal issues surrounding it are not at all clear -- that is, it's not obviously illegal; b) it's been verified that the tracks advertised by allofmp3 as losslessly encoded are, in fact, losslessly encoded (not transcoded from a lossly format), whereas who the heck knows what you're getting from a P2P client; c) the metadata provided by allofmp3 is uniformly correct, again in contrast to what you'd find using a P2P client; d) who knows what various garbage and nasties you might be downloading in addition to or instead of music through a P2P client.

adamslim
2006-10-26, 13:33
the legal issues surrounding it are not at all clear -- that is, it's not obviously illegal

I didn't know they were going to be gassed, I just put them on the train...

Or, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

snarlydwarf
2006-10-26, 14:00
I didn't know they were going to be gassed, I just put them on the train...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

dagordon
2006-10-26, 14:04
I didn't know they were going to be gassed, I just put them on the train...

Or, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Brilliant analogy! The problem is that certain legal issues are a bit more complicated than "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck." Some people even go to school to learn about these issues and to be able to render informed judgements about particular cases.

Do you also claim to have infallible intuitions about, say, the intricacies of tax law?

This is a matter of interpreting U.S., Russian, and international copyright laws and U.S. import/export laws and applying them to an area that they were not designed to cover. Anyone claiming to be able to discern a priori whether downloading from allofmp3 is legal or not must be truly gifted.

adamslim
2006-10-26, 14:17
Brilliant analogy! The problem is that certain legal issues are a bit more complicated than "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck." Some people even go to school to learn about these issues and to be able to render informed judgements about particular cases.

Do you also claim to have infallible intuitions about, say, the intricacies of tax law?

As it happens, I am a qualified tax advisor :)


This is a matter of interpreting U.S., Russian, and international copyright laws and U.S. import/export laws and applying them to an area that they were not designed to cover. Anyone claiming to be able to discern a priori whether downloading from allofmp3 is legal or not must be truly gifted.

The exact legal issues are what keep the lawyers earning lots of money. The ethical issue is clear - AllOfMP3 pays no money to artists, so is just plain wrong. To use your tax analogy, it's like setting up a complex offshore scheme solely for the purpose of avoiding tax: it's just wrong. In the UK, our government has put in systems to make offshore tax avoidance much more difficult, and I approve wholeheartedly.

Stretching the analogy, tax is good because it pays for many vital services. You may not like how much you pay, or how the government spends it, but it's a better thing to live in a tax-based society than in an anarchy. Paying for music (to the musicians!) is the same - you may not like the RIAA, BPI and their tactics, but you need to pay for it or the music will stop.

simontindemans
2006-10-26, 14:21
Dagordon, you're right that allofmp3 does give you something the others don't. Properly ripped FLACs are indeed nice. That makes it equivalent to a really nice P2P service! ;)

To be clear, I'm not an expert on legal issues. Therefore I can't tell you whether allofmp3 is breaking any applicable law. However, the fact that the musicians are not seeing any money gives some clue as to whether it is a 'proper' business model.

For comparison, here in the Netherlands it is not illegal to download copyrighted material, only to upload it. Even so, that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Simon

jfalk
2006-10-26, 14:26
The ethical issue is clear - AllOfMP3 pays no money to artists, so is just plain wrong.

But what if (and I'm taking them at their word here -- I have no idea whether or not it's true) they are turning money over to the artists but the artists refuse to take it? Where does your ethical concern go then?

simontindemans
2006-10-26, 14:30
But what if (and I'm taking them at their word here -- I have no idea whether or not it's true) they are turning money over to the artists but the artists refuse to take it? Where does your ethical concern go then?

The question then becomes who decides how much money should change hands? Apparently the artists (represented by the studios) didn't think they were getting enough.

snarlydwarf
2006-10-26, 14:39
The ethical issue is clear - AllOfMP3 pays no money to artists, so is just plain wrong.

In the United States, radio airplay pays nothing to performers, so it is just plain wrong. (It only pays songwriters, composers and publishers.)

This is why Allofmp3 isnt paying artists. It is through a confusion in law as to whether Internet downloads count as radio or purchase.

(The US has different fees for Internet Radio, like Live365, than for over-the-air: ironically license fees for an Internet-Only radio station are substantially higher than a broadcast radio station.)

jfalk
2006-10-26, 14:42
The question then becomes who decides how much money should change hands? Apparently the artists (represented by the studios) didn't think they were getting enough.

I agree. But the ethical concern goes away. It like the old joke: "We've established what you are. The question is the price."

snarlydwarf
2006-10-26, 14:48
The question then becomes who decides how much money should change hands? Apparently the artists (represented by the studios) didn't think they were getting enough.

No, the studios think they weren't getting enough.

They don't care about artists: they never have, and never will.

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/vol_1_no_4/001688.shtml for why internet streams are more expensive to license than radio: it isnt because the artists get a better deal -- it is because the record companies wanted a better deal.

simontindemans
2006-10-26, 15:50
No, the studios think they weren't getting enough.

They don't care about artists: they never have, and never will.

But I'm wondering...if the artists, especially the bigger acts, don't agree with what the studios do, why don't they change labels (after contractual obligations have been satisfied)? I can only conclude that the studios are (silently) backed by many of their artists.

The RIAA and its sister organizations in other countries are a different matter, of course, having a 'monopoly' in their respective countries. An artist can't avoid being represented by them ;)

snarlydwarf
2006-10-26, 16:15
The RIAA and its sister organizations in other countries are a different matter, of course, having a 'monopoly' in their respective countries. An artist can't avoid being represented by them ;)

Hrrm? Sure they can. Who says RIAA labels are the only labels?

They aren't.

There are dozens of labels that are not part of RIAA.

blue
2006-10-27, 10:03
But I'm wondering...if the artists, especially the bigger acts, don't agree with what the studios do, why don't they change labels (after contractual obligations have been satisfied)? I can only conclude that the studios are (silently) backed by many of their artists.

The RIAA and its sister organizations in other countries are a different matter, of course, having a 'monopoly' in their respective countries. An artist can't avoid being represented by them ;)I think the musicians have less power than people think they do. Do you recall how Pearl Jam tried to boycott Ticket Master? This was a mega-band at the height of their popularity trying to influence the music industry. Pearl Jam had no impact on Ticketmaster and paid a dear price for their attempt by the loss access to large venues to play in for about 5 years.

shabbs
2006-10-27, 10:16
Hrrm? Sure they can. Who says RIAA labels are the only labels?
I think they are the only labels that can get you significant radio play. More play, more popularity... and that translates to more CD sales... and more profit for the RIAA. I don't really understand how it all works and I'm sure most of the bands don't either, but it does seem like the RIAA has the upper hand across the board as far as profits go. I think the only place bands makes any significant money is on tour selling merchandise.

I'm not sure how it works with artists that create their own labels like Prince did with Paisley Park Records. The digital age has certainly made it easier to produce your own stuff but I think the RIAA still controls distribution.

Cheers.

blue
2006-10-27, 10:42
I wholeheartedly agree. Music is not cheap to produce; much of the best music is not commercial (e.g. BBC Radio 3) and may well not be able to pay for itself. Starting a band costs a fortune in promotion, as well as recording costs.

How on earth can the $10 CD price not be justified? If you play it ten times, that's a dollar for an hour's entertainment. I have CDs that I have played hundreds of times; I can't think of anything that is better value (DVDs I pay $20 for and play once? No thanks!)

I agree that it may increase the record companies' bottom lines if they reduced prices - their unit sales might increase dramatically. However, such a strategy is very risky - once you do it, there's no going back.

Blue paints the music industry as suited thugs; I've met a lot of people in music, and none of them were thugs (some *were* suited!). Most of them are great people who love music, and would love to find a solution to the current problem.

There may be a few very big players who are doing well, but must of the guys I know are much smaller; they're struggling and get really upset when they see their artists, on whom they have spent a huge amount both financially and emotionally, getting pirated. They can't invest in new music if they don't make profits from their existing ones.

AdamTo be clear, I differentiate in my mind the media industry and musicians. I thought it was clear I was alluding to the media industry, those that own the music and sell it as the 'suits'.

With regards to the comment above "How on earth could a $10 CD not be justified?" The industry can charge what the wish, I ask for no 'justification'. However, I do suggest that the CD price seems to be artificially fixed at the current price of $12-$15 over the last 20 years without adding value (while computers remain at a $500 to $1500 cost, their computing power aka value, has dramatically increased).

So how does one price a CD? If the price were indeed just a reflection of recouping the costs of production plus a fixed profit margin, then simple logic dictates that the cost to record/produce and manufacture/distribute an album 10 years ago versus today should be dramatically lower given technology advances (even including inflation costs, etc.).

So, say the above is currect and the cost to produce an album has gone down in cost. Is the media industry obligated to pass the cost savings onto the consumer? No. They can price the CD however they want to. They do not have to justify any price. However, in a free market where price is not artificially fixed, since there is more margin in the CD price, logic again says that someone will try to undercut someone else's prices and start lowering their price. The price of CDs should naturally float to a lower stable price point until more technology advances occur. Has this happened? No. Something is gumming the works up artificially.

On the other hand, lets say my reasoning above is not accurate. Lets leave the costs of CDs alone all-together. Lets now look at the online price of a song. I question the $1 per song online price. They have taken the entire physical production and logistics component out of the loop (and replaced it with a far less costly technology computer distribution method) and yet the price remains almost exactly the same as a CD per song? Either the media industry was losing money on the sales of CDs (surrre) or they have artificially set the online song price high. Why in the world would they do that? I don't know why, but I think it is because they want to stifle the online sales channel.

Am I a socialist who thinks people "deserve" free things? No. I support real capitalism which needs free markets. The media industry is not that. True competition looks different than the media industry. I believe that as alternative methods that lower the net cost to the consumer have sprung up over the last 5 years (not just piracy) they have been ruthlessly and short sightedly cut down. There is a cost for this policy.

tom permutt
2006-10-27, 14:36
... in a free market ...Of course it's not a free market in the sense of a perfectly competitive one. It's a market of monopolistic competition. For people who buy CDs, there are no close substitutes for their favorite bands. Accordingly, the sellers can extract some monopoly rents. This, I believe, is enough to account for your observation that prices don't track production costs. (But also, there are a lot of costs besides manufacturing that probably haven't gone down.) But then, I think, the heroes are the almost-as-good bands, not the people who "liberate" the stars' product.

As to the price of downloads compared to CDs, I think the key is that most people don't want most songs on most CDs. Yes, $12 for downloading 12 songs compares unfavorably in many ways to a $12 CD. But if you want 3 songs (or 1), your choices are 3 downloads for $3 or $12 for a disc, a box, and some "bonus material." In this sense the suits are in fact selling tracks for less than they have ever sold them for before. Even 45 rpm singles used to sell for close to a 1960 dollar (for much the same reason), if I remember right, which is close to the price of a CD in real terms.

kweller
2006-10-28, 04:30
warf.2g3cmb1161540301 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
From: Kevin Weller <SlimDML (AT) TheWellers (DOT) net>
Reply-To: discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com

In article <snarlydwarf.2g3cmb1161540301 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>,
Snarlydwarf wrote:
> > It could be a coincidence, but the amount of email spam I am receiving
> > increased markedly after I registered at allofmp3.com.
> > And 1 in 15 or so spam messages is now in russian, which I never
> > received before.
> > The time and money I saved by purchasing music from allofmp3, I now
> > have to spend on spam filtering :-(
>
> Coincidence.

I don't think so. I am getting lots of porn spam to an address only used
for allofmp3. Other allofmp3 users are reporting the same problem on
another system I use.

Kevin

El_Thicko
2006-10-28, 07:05
Well, that's strange. I also have an email address known to Allofmp3 (plus around ten other sites and forums) and yet the address has never been hit with spam.

Mandarb
2006-10-28, 09:21
Well, that's strange. I also have an email address known to Allofmp3 (plus around ten other sites and forums) and yet the address has never been hit with spam.

I've been signed up for AllofMP3 for a couple years and I never received any spam to that address until October 3rd. Since then I've been getting a pretty steady flow, about 16 per day on average. I wonder what happened that some of us are suddenly getting spam and
others aren't.

Omen

El_Thicko
2006-10-28, 14:59
They've had my address for a couple of years as well, but still no spam.

ccaccc
2006-11-27, 16:48
http://digg.com/business_finance/Mastercard_and_Visa_Banned_AllofMP3_Yeah_right

Pétur
2006-11-29, 05:19
I've never used this but for those that do:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/29/012244



ps: no it's true. Call me oldfashioned but I still buy CDs :)

adamslim
2006-11-29, 07:01
I've never used this but for those that do:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/29/012244

ps: no it's true. Call me oldfashioned but I still buy CDs :)

Great news - confirming that AllOfMP3 was a pirate operation. They've made a lot of dirty money, and I'm glad it's stopped.

Interestingly, given that its status is now confirmed, does it seem possible that one could apply for a credit card chargeback, as it is now clear that you've got illegal goods? Since Visa/MC have no chance of getting money back from the Russians, it could be a good way of forcing them to be a bit more careful who they supply financial services to.

Adam

snarlydwarf
2006-11-29, 08:47
Great news - confirming that AllOfMP3 was a pirate operation.

Confirming? I don't see any confirmation: I see the US Gov't calling it that. Allegations are not confirmation.

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

It is not confirmed unless/until they are found guilty.

(And they do have interesting legal arguments: they contend they are legal in Russia, and that they are paying the mandated licenses fees... so the real question is more about electronic commerce across international borders.)

TiredLegs
2006-11-29, 09:45
Confirming? I don't see any confirmation: I see the US Gov't calling it that. Allegations are not confirmation.

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

It is not confirmed unless/until they are found guilty.

(And they do have interesting legal arguments: they contend they are legal in Russia, and that they are paying the mandated licenses fees... so the real question is more about electronic commerce across international borders.)
I agree. AFAIK, no court anywhere in the world has found AllofMP3.com guilty of any crime. In fact, the RIAA and its cohorts have deliberately avoided taking AllofMP3.com to court, out of fear that they might actually lose.

(By the way, I still buy CDs for about 95% of my music. The rest are individual songs purchased from legal sites. I don't have any personal stake in the success or failure of AllofMP3.com, but I resent the strongarm tactics of the RIAA, including its efforts to restrict consumers' rights to copy/record music at home for personal use.)

snarlydwarf
2006-11-29, 09:56
(By the way, I still buy CDs for about 95% of my music. The rest are individual songs purchased from legal sites. I don't have any personal stake in the success or failure of AllofMP3.com, but I resent the strongarm tactics of the RIAA, including its efforts to restrict consumers' rights to copy/record music at home for personal use.)

And me as well, though I do use Bittorrent: because DGMLive recommends it for downloading music I purchase from them. (Emusic and Amazon make good money from me, though RIAA probably doesn't mainly because much of my music is from Non-RIAA companies.)

I am also intrigued by the legal aspects of moving electronic media across borders, which includes things like DVDs (despite MPAA's assertions, DVDs arent copy protected: they are region-locked... you can make a copy of an encrypted DVD and it will play just fine -- in the same regions the original were available in).

Oh, yeah, and I am annoyed at the insane license fees for "Internet Radio".... Since it should be something the music publishers embrace, just as they do over the air radio: sure, like over the air there is a minimal piracy risk, but the chance to have your music micro-targetted to potential customers outweighs that risk greatly.

Victor
2006-11-29, 15:30
Great news - confirming that AllOfMP3 was a pirate operation. They've made a lot of dirty money, and I'm glad it's stopped.

Interestingly, given that its status is now confirmed, does it seem possible that one could apply for a credit card chargeback, as it is now clear that you've got illegal goods? Since Visa/MC have no chance of getting money back from the Russians, it could be a good way of forcing them to be a bit more careful who they supply financial services to.

Adam

Interesting viewpoint. I assume you then also agree with the US arresting Dmitry Sklyarov when he was in the US?

Details here for those unfamilar with the case:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45298,00.html

If you don't agree with Sklyarov's arrest, please explain the differences in legal principles between the two cases.

shabbs
2006-11-29, 15:37
Great news - confirming that AllOfMP3 was a pirate operation. They've made a lot of dirty money, and I'm glad it's stopped.
I hope you don't own any Nike shoes...

http://www.american.edu/TED/nike.htm

Cuz that's a lot of "dirty money" supporting Child Labour.

Cheers.

adamslim
2006-11-29, 15:46
Interesting viewpoint. I assume you then also agree with the US arresting Dmitry Sklyarov when he was in the US?

Details here for those unfamilar with the case:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45298,00.html

If you don't agree with Sklyarov's arrest, please explain the differences in legal principles between the two cases.

I actually struggle to see the parallels - AllOfMP3 sold, directly, stuff that was someone else's copyright, without paying them for it. I don't like a lot of what the record companies are doing re downloads, DRM and the like, but I do recognise the necessity for them to make money from their artists (and, indeed, pay some of that to the artist!)

Cracking a proprietary system might be a copyright breach, and it might then allows others to break copyright directly, but it's certainly a long way short of directly selling others' copyrighted material.

My personal view is to welcome challenges to DRM restrictions, as I think the long-term solution has to be a radical rethink of how fair use works and how artists are remunerated (I don't really have answers beyond that). Trying to close ranks around the challenges is not the way.

Oh and I agree that the 'confirmed' word in my earlier post was ill-advised, but I still think they're crooks ;)

Adam

adamslim
2006-11-29, 15:51
I hope you don't own any Nike shoes...

http://www.american.edu/TED/nike.htm

Cuz that's a lot of "dirty money" supporting Child Labour.

Cheers.

I make a lot of effort to avoid products sourced from countries with poor records on matters like child labour, but the problem is actually more complex than it first seems. Yes child labour is bad, but in some instances where regions have stopped it, the children have actually become worse off - some even going into prostitution. Rarely going to school. Life is irritatingly complicated at times.

And no, I own no Nike shoes.

Adam

Victor
2006-11-29, 16:09
I actually struggle to see the parallels -
I would say the parallels are quite striking --

In both cases, a person/company performed acts that are 100% legal in the jurisdiction of the country they reside in. And in both cases they were subject to penalties (civil or criminal) by American laws due to the strong-arming of corporate interests.

Let me phrase my original question differently -- if the Russian government decided that the iTunes music store was violating Russian copyright laws by selling music (since they don't pay into the Russian copyright system and ASCAP and BMI don't deal with Russian artists), and then they tried to pressure MC/Visa to stop accepting orders from iTunes -- would you feel any different?

snarlydwarf
2006-11-29, 16:14
I actually struggle to see the parallels - AllOfMP3 sold, directly, stuff that was someone else's copyright, without paying them for it. I don't like a lot of what the record companies are doing re downloads, DRM and the like, but I do recognise the necessity for them to make money from their artists (and, indeed, pay some of that to the artist!)

Actually, allofmp3 contends that they have a license to sell music in Russia and that they pay the fees to do this. The attempt to shut them down a couple of years ago failed because of this: they do appear to be telling the truth that they are legally allowed to sell music in Russia.

The question then becomes whether it can cross borders legally... and where all the interesting legal questions are. If it is legal to sell their music in Russia, can you go to Russia with a laptop or USB drive, buy a bunch of music return home with it? Why or why not? Could you go to Japan and buy a copy of a Japanese game and bring it home to play on your Playstation? What if you bought a truckload of games in Japan and brought them home to sell to others who couldn't make the trip?

We are going to see more of this in the next few years: the UK has refused to extend copyrights into eternity... what about something like the Beatles library, still copyrighted in the US, but with an expired copyright in the UK? Could you go to the UK and get a free copy on your laptop and bring it home? What if you bought a CD and brought it home?

That is exactly why the legal issues here are interesting: the world is getting smaller, not just because of the 'net and mp3's -- but because of increased trade, easy conversion between monetary types, and airmail.... But each country has differing rules on the terms of copyrights, for example, not to mention different interpretations on what exactly is "download music" and what is "streaming radio" Or prices things differently in different territories: why is a Nikon camera made for the Asian market considered bad if a retailer imports it himself? And if I want to pay for a copy of Final Fantasy in Japanese, why can't I?

adamslim
2006-11-30, 02:36
I think the difference here is that you are looking at this from a legal perspective, while I am coming at it from an ethical angle.

IMO it is unethical to sell something and not give back part to the owner. Putting into place international structures as a legal smokescreen doesn't change this.

We should concentrate on what (I think) we agree on - the lowering of barriers to international trade and ease of reproducing recordings perfectly has caused issues for the record companies, and their response has been inadequate and inappropriate.

Adam

cliveb
2006-11-30, 03:20
I think the difference here is that you are looking at this from a legal perspective, while I am coming at it from an ethical angle.
If you're going to argue from an ethical perspective, you ought to examine how ethical (or not) is the typical recording contract offered to artists by the big labels.

Here's what usually happens:

1. The label advances the artist some money, which is used to record the album.
2. The label owns the recording.
3. The advance, plus all costs incurred by the label in manufacturing, distributing and marketing the album are recouped from the artist's royalties. Such costs include the expensive lunches and parties thrown by the label's executives.
4. If by some miracle the album is successful enough that it generates more royalties than the label's costs, then the artist starts getting paid (provided there hasn't been some creative accounting at the record label).
5. Meanwhile, the recording, which the artist has paid for out of their royalties, belongs to the label.

Is that ethical? Seems more like legalised theft to me. AllOfMP3 was just a different kind of legalised theft.

You might argue that signing such a contract would be insane. But most wannabe pop stars will sign pretty much anything if they think this will be their "big break".

Anyway, history is overtaking us. I read today that the Russian government has agreed to shut down AllOfMP3 in order to progress its application to join the WTO.

adamslim
2006-11-30, 06:13
If you're going to argue from an ethical perspective, you ought to examine how ethical (or not) is the typical recording contract offered to artists by the big labels.

You are right in many ways here, but I think you paint too one-sided a picture.

The other side includes the independent record companies, who invest much more time and effort into their artists. A lot that I know of are doing very badly financially, often being supported by their directors; when they get a big return it's all effectively put back into the pot for all the artists.

I also have a friend who had a band. They did very well from their record company, and he hasn't a bad word to say about them. They helped them when times were bad, got them touring the US, Europe and Japan, and overall he had a great few years. Sure there's nothing left now - they're not selling records any more - but without the initial support and investment by the record company, nothing would ever have happened.

The (larger) record companies give themselves a bad rep by wasteful largesse (fat-cat salaries, parties etc), overpaid formulaic artists, insufficient investment in 'risky' music and much more. However, it can be argued that they need to do something like this, in order to make an artist really big.

I think the real problem might be the obsession the media has with the celebrity culture. Maybe the record companies are a function of this, rather than the cause? Just a thought.

Adam

Khuli
2006-11-30, 09:00
Anyway, history is overtaking us. I read today that the Russian government has agreed to shut down AllOfMP3 in order to progress its application to join the WTO.
Not exactly... they have agreed to shut down websites which operate illegally. Allofmp3 is not illegal in Russia, and they'll have to change the law first. At which point Allofmp3 will change their business model to remain compliant.

cliveb
2006-12-01, 04:39
You are right in many ways here, but I think you paint too one-sided a picture.

The other side includes the independent record companies, who invest much more time and effort into their artists.
No argument there. Most of the independents do indeed operate fairly ethically. That's why I was careful to say I was talknig about the big labels (the likes of Warners, EMI, etc). But the point is that it's these big labels who are driving all the heavy-handed stuff, like DRM, lobbying for the DMCA, etc. The level of their hypocracy is breathtaking.

Mind you, I can give you an example of an independent label who operate anything but ethically. Charly Records never pay a penny in royalties to Daevid Allen, and as far as he knows, nor to anyone else.