Allofmp3 Doesn't Really Care If Russia Joins The WTO Or Not

from the try,-try-again dept

Fri, Oct 6th 2006 4:14pm — Mike Masnick

The US (thanks mostly to RIAA lobbyists influencing politicians) has been putting pressure on Russia to shut down the infamous Allofmp3.com as a condition of being admitted to the WTO. However, there's still the same old problem that Russian authorities don't really see Allofmp3 as violating local laws. The company itself has finally put out a statement on the matter basically saying that Russia's position in the WTO is of no concern to them, and they're just going to keep selling music as they've always done. In fact, they've picked up on the idea that all this anger over their existence is helping them on the marketing side (just as every other attempt to shut down online services has done). An Allofmp3 spokesperson is quoted as saying: "[US Trade Representative] Susan Schwab markets us so effectively -- she could already be our press secretary." They then reiterated that they're in complete compliance with Russian law, and that the complaint is really anger over them being a better, cheaper competitor.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

88 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2006 @ 4:36pm

This is pretty damn true. I didn't know about allofmp3.com until I heard Hollywood complaining about it. Now thanks to them, I actually purchase music online. I would not do it before because I refuse to purchase music that has any DRM in it. Allofmp3.com also has a much wider selection of music from what I've seen with Napster and ITunes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Smith, 6 Oct 2006 @ 5:00pm

Dogs and tails
Here we have the tail wagging the dog. The US should be far more concerned about the tendancy of Russian businesses, and officials to cheat (and even murder) foreign investors than whether some (generally atrocious) songs get sold over the Internet.

If the US wants to shut down foreign music services they can just make it illegal for the credit card companies to process the payments the way they did with the gambling sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Macro Man, 6 Oct 2006 @ 5:30pm

The controversy Converted me
I admit I didn't know of allofmp3 until I read about it on Techdirt. Again I actually by music from them as well. Of course I use a prepaid credit card that has no attachment to me, but I've used and love it. They don't have everything but what they do have I can actually afford. Thanks RIAA and the goverment for letting me know there is a source of online music for the common poor folk like me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cleverboy, 6 Oct 2006 @ 6:26pm

Sad
You know... its interesting. Were it not for the fact that they're taking something that lawfully belongs to someone else and making money off of it, I could probably admire AllofMp3.com's service.

As it stands however, if musicians (the vast number that don't subscribe to the myth that they should all make money from performances only) had the bulk of their online fans purchase through AllOfMp3.com, they'd be fucking broke.

I could care less about the cock-fight between the recording industry and pirate sites like AllOfMp3.com (of which the clones still march). Programmers and software publishers have been fighting this war far longer, and their methods have recently begun getting even more draconian with major vendors like Microsoft and Adobe signing on to "activation" schemes to stem the flow of pirated versions of their software. So, no... I don't think piracy or warez sales somehow force digital content publishers to "get it". When are they supposed to take the ball and go home?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the openness of "trying" something, before deciding to buy it... but to think that creators have a right not to have their representatives ridiculed and defied for doing their jobs. If I'm a musician, and I choose to get promoted by giving my song away to certain people... that's my choice. If people start setting up "pirate" houses, like the outfits in Russia and China... only "virtual", and start re-distributing my work without compensation... I've a right to be upset... as much as those that represent and manage my music.

Music is one of the most powerful and moving expressions of humanity on the face of the Earth. It'd be nice to think we existed in some wonderful wilderness of oral tradition where we share songs freely and no one cares about compensation and everyone had a "real" job... but it ain't so. As an illustrator, I'm happy about all the family and friends who have original artwork of mine. If they went around running off copies for hundreds of thousands of people... it kind of changes things.

If a company like AllOfMp3.com started offering downloads for books and videos and saying they were paying 2 cents a piece to some Russian organization that could give two shits... I'm sure it'd be as popular as sin, but it still... still... still... doesn't make them right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drjones, 6 Oct 2006 @ 8:13pm
  
  Re: Sad
  "As it stands however, if musicians (the vast number that don't subscribe to the myth that they should all make money from performances only) had the bulk of their online fans purchase through AllOfMp3.com, they'd be fucking broke."
  
  Actually.... most bands do make their money from performances... you think they get money from CD sales? Most bands get more pennies every time a cd is sold.
  
  Bands basically become indentured servants for the record companies and spend years paying back their studio advance and recording/production costs (no the studio doesnt foot the bill). If they are lucky, they are hugely successful and can negotiate better deals.. The vast majority arent, and end up far worse off finacially than they were before they started.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cleverboy, 7 Oct 2006 @ 8:33am
    
    Re: Re: Sad
    "Actually.... most bands do make their money from performances... you think they get money from CD sales? Most bands get more pennies every time a cd is sold."
    
    As long as we're dealing with opinions, in my opinion, we're in a place now where many musicians who create music aren't always playing venues as bands, or moreover, aren't playing as bands under their own names, and often release a CD album under independant labels in hopes of generating revenue from their music. From great books like "The Music of Business" and great software like Garageband, Digital Performer, and Logic, and awesome services like Cd Baby and iTunes, people are getting more opportunities to release their music and make money from it. This notion that you can paint all musicians/bands with the same brush, smile politely and take money out of their mouths by saying it wasn't much of their income to begin with... continues to be a bogus argument.
    
    If I were to show you even one artist who feels like the buzz on their music seems to be growing but the music sales aren't allowing them to really make it anywhere... that's one artist too many.
    
    It's really a bogus argument no matter how little you feel "big artists" make from Cds vs performances.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh, 7 Oct 2006 @ 11:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sad
      Although annonymous coward got it right Mark has pretty much has gotten the point on this. Alltunes is well within their rights in their home country. If thats the way Russia has set things up then its up to Russia to decide to fix it or just let it alone. However when you mention "opinions" as to how much an artist gets paid from the purchase of a CD then you actually have to state an opinion. It's a known fact that artist only get pennies off of Cd's not an opinion. And as for an artist stating that they aren't able to make it anywhere there's plent that will. If they don't it's because of a major record label putting pressure on them. When you buy a cd your basically supporting the label. Now when you say they "represent" the music. They aren't "representing" the artist they are "representing" themselves they could care less about they artist. When they see a hot new artist they don't see talent they see an huge ATM machine only there to make sure they can sleep in their million dollar homes when they don't really do anything besides call MTV and make sure their artist is seen on TRL. It's the artists that need to wake up and realize that they don't need record labels for anything and that mindless adherence to outdated rules creates only politicians (RIAA).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - David, 9 Oct 2006 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad
        What bothers me is that people think that just because they have a hit song, they should be set for life. As in, musicians don't have to work like the rest of us do. You aren't entitled to a "movie-star" life. I'd go so far as to say that most "big" musicians don't deserve anything like the life they're living.
        The problem is that it's completely free to copy things. You do the work once, and you can make however many copies of it for a negligible incremental cost. So people see very little value in it. And even then, artists as a whole have been selling MORE cd's lately (check the books... it's just that the market hasn't been growing like they're wanting it to, not that they're actually losing marketshare).
        I pay for concerts. I have no problem, and rather enjoy, supporting bands I like. But their recordings aren't anything they work for. It should be like an advertisement. Most smaller bands are finding that free mp3's really expand the number of CD's they sell, and the number of people that listen to them. It's only the big names that it hurts, and most of those people haven't done work in years, so I find it hard to feel sympathy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cleverboy, 9 Oct 2006 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad
        "I have no problem, and rather enjoy, supporting bands I like. But their recordings aren't anything they work for. It should be like an advertisement."
        --And you're not alone. Koff, koff... [looters]. I mean, nevermind the fact that the people who mix and master CDs, often as analogous as "editors" are in film, or at times even "directors" need to make a living. I have good friends in that line of business, and sometimes I marvel at their talent when I watch them work. I was listening on the radio the other day about Jazz musicians that have $200 pensions, and depend on unions and new tax laws to help them live out their declining years, given that playing the local bars never quite paid the rent... but they sure sounded nice.
        
        Should painters/illustrators get paid for every print of their masterpiece? Should inventors of such wonders as velcro or duct tape amass fortunes on their past labors? Should writers continue to live off of sales from the books they've written? When Prince liberated his music and changed his name, was it all a moot point considering? The answer to this and many other questions can be yours if... you only have a clue.
        
        Come on... is that really an argument?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- myself, 7 Oct 2006 @ 4:57pm
  
  Re: Sad
  Sad is that can not get the concept that a diferent country a diferent law
  In russian law internet download service has the same consideration than radio.
  They only need to pay a flat fee per song and has no need to ask permision, so legally they are just a radio on demand and from that emision you can do a copy as always you have been able to do with radio.
  So they are steling in the same way that FM radio do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cleverboy, 7 Oct 2006 @ 5:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Sad
    [ so legally they are just a radio on demand and from that emision you can do a copy as always you have been able to do with radio.]
    
    Um, they are making the copies FOR you... in several formats... its all interactivy... and... its not even "free" to "tune in"... --they're not "streaming" or "broadcasting" anything, the legal language of the Russian law is just out of date (hey, I don't blame them, they're pretty busy holding the country together), so that its the closest definition even though its not what they're doing.
    
    I get it though... your fingers are in your ears and your hands over your eyes. Not sure how you got 4 arms but... ok. I understand... you're the person who gets the "fringe benefit" to pretend that a crime isn't being committed. Suddenly things get all "blurry" and hard to see through.
    
    The human mind has an unparalleled capacity to rationalize anything if its in their interests. --Personally? My only vested interest is that I know musicians personally, and while its feasible to put their songs online from their own stores or through iTunes, I'm pretty clear that sites like AoMp3 are just bandits... worse than the RIAA, but they're bribing music fans from the back of their truck with a country specific loophole, so its worse.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2006 @ 9:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sad
      Um, they are making the copies FOR you... in several formats...
      Kind of like some radio stations that accept requests and simulcast on both AM mono and FM stereo.
      
      its all interactivy... and... its not even "free" to "tune in"...
      Kind of like satellite radio.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - myself, 9 Oct 2006 @ 4:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sad
      On demand is not usually for free and is usally interactive you, ask for a movie on demand (in cable) they send it to you an you pay for it
      
      They encode it and send it to you as packages you are the one that take them and make the physical copy. Do you know what is the difference between a streamed mp3 song and a no streamed one? The program you use to access it. If you capture an streamed file and you open it with a normal reproductor it work without flaw.
      
      The law is not outdated just different, basically any form of no physical transmission has the same consideration that "radio".
      
      There are several flat fee policies in USA copyright law if I am not mistaken. So I suppose you must cancel that too, So no more fotocopiers or music radio anymore?
      
      Who are you to decide what should get a flat fee and what should be negociate case by case?
      
      If that flat fee is an option and you are talking about something new what is wrong with that option.
      
      You has to understand is only a loophole from the point of view of the RIAA, not from the point of view of russian law. The russian law say that any method of no physical transmission of copyrighted material must/could operate by a flat fee licence. You can discuss what was intended when it was writen but it looks to me that they intended to be quite inclusive. You say is outdated law others could considered a very advanced law with a great future proyection.
      
      The truth is russian law is that way and the internatinal WTO treaties don´t say anything in one way or another so no loophole, well maybe in the WTO treaties but usually thats the way all the international treaties are the loophole of ones are the correct interpretation of anothers.
      
      They don´t steal anything they pay to the collection agency (ROMS) that would agreagete the incomes and the music company must collect their money from the agency that would give it share to the artist, thats the way all the flat fees work. The artist isn´t geting anything because the RIAA (IFPI) dosen't like it and wish to change it so it left the money at ROMS and do not collect the money for the artist as it should because do not like to accept this situation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Cleverboy, 9 Oct 2006 @ 4:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad
        "You has to understand is only a loophole from the point of view of the RIAA, not from the point of view of russian law. The russian law say that any method of no physical transmission of copyrighted material must/could operate by a flat fee licence. You can discuss what was intended when it was writen but it looks to me that they intended to be quite inclusive."
        
        You want quotes from Russian legislators and AllofMp3.com also calling it a loophole? I'm too lazy, but you should be able to find them yourself. Don't say things in hopes of them being true. Know that they are. Just make an honest argument. That's all I ask.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        myself, 9 Oct 2006 @ 10:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad
        "You want quotes from Russian legislators and AllofMp3.com also calling it a loophole? I'm too lazy, but you should be able to find them yourself. Don't say things in hopes of them being true. Know that they are. Just make an honest argument. That's all I ask."
        
        So you are telling me that you can find a politician that when presured for a powerfull foreing country and the lobby behind it would say
        
        I´m sorry is not what we intended with that law!
        
        And a company that is getting a huge publicity out of it going along with it.
        
        for me if you can´t close it in an ademdum or with a decree is not a loophole.
        
        you don't need to rewrite a hole article of a law to close a loophole.
        
        Although we can just be discussing the definition of loophole.
        
        For me a loophole is if the law did not say a thing about it so you can move in an alegal area.
        
        If the law say you can or must do something and it have unexpected consecuences could be a bad law (or a very good depend of the consecuence) but not a loophole.
        
        If the problem is a loophole is easy to close in the second case you need to rewrite a law and could be a lot more difficult. Rewriting laws always is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FreeHear, 9 Oct 2006 @ 11:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad
        for me if you can't close it in an ademdum or with a decree is not a loophole. you don't need to rewrite a hole article of a law to close a loophole.
        You're right. As of September 1st, the loop hole was closed with a new amendment to Russian law. Now its just illegal to distribute works without concluded agreements from the holders if such holders have indicated... so "loophole or no" is a moot point.
        
        Checkout point #5 on their site (with translations from Bull-ese): http://allofmp3.com/statement.shtml
        
        On September 1, 2006 the changes to the Russian copyright legislation will come into force. [translation: the jig is up] Since January 2006 the site has been making direct agreements with rightholders and authors [translation: who are in Russia] at the same time increasing the price of the music compositions and transferring the royalties directly to the artists and record companies[translation: which are in Russia]. The aim of AllofMP3.com is to agree with all rightholders on the prices and royalties amounts by September 1, 2006 [translation: here we are admittedly lying because this would be impossible given the requests that we take U.S. and U.K. content off our website, publically evident by their futile attempts to navigate our Russian judicial system without previously having enough explicit rights granted under Russian law. now we're screwed, but will continue to keep up appearances while we continue bribes and tap dancing].
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Big Mike, 10 Oct 2006 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad
        Does anyone really think that allofmp3.com can be shut down for more than a few hours or days? Can you say "Pirate Bay"?
        
        If the Russkies shut them down they will probably pop up again like a whack-a-mole in some other country. They only need to worry about setting up their distribution servers in a "digital friendly" country, The task of collecting, ripping and preparing the content could be done anywhere or everywhere. They'll also need to find some ways for people to make payments, but considering how well money talks in this world that won't be a problem either.
        
        I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they have hot standbys ready to go in some far flung corner(s) of the world. Perhaps that's why the Russians are so hesitant to shut them down; they know that it won't be permanent but instead will just lose some jobs for the locals.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wizard Prang, 9 Oct 2006 @ 4:45am
      
      If allofmp3 is breaking the law...
      ...how come they haven't been shut down? It's not as if the RIAA haven't tried.
      
      So I am forced to the conclusion that AoMP3 is not illegal. What impresses me about AoMP3 is not the price so much as the convenience. You can purchase your music in a high-quality DRM-free format. I might pay the RIAA for such music... but they are not interested.
      
      If AoMP3 are "bandits", what does that make the RIAA? Mafiosi.
      
      The RIAA have done a wonderful job of alienating an entire generation of would-be customers. The sooner they stop treating their customers like criminals, fire their lawyers, give themselves a pay cut and start paying the musicians, the sooner they will start winning back the hearts and minds of the people who will keep them in business.
      
      Like that's going to happen.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2006 @ 3:24pm
  
  Re: Sad
  boo hoo moan moan.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry Rivethead, 6 Oct 2006 @ 6:31pm

Foolishness
Weather or not allofmp3.com is paying artists fiarly notwithstaning...They are correct in stating they offer a better, cheaper product. They have a superior product at a price consumers like. If the RIAA was half smart, which they're proven time and again that they are not, they would start up a knock off site. $0.99 for a next-to-no overhead product is entirely too much. I really don't understand how they justify it. Songs on CDs cost an arm and a leg to produce and distibute...stores...artwork...physical CD...and they charge about the same price...Its total foolishness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Mixer, 6 Oct 2006 @ 6:33pm

This ,I like
Well this is refreshing,. The goons have leaned as hard as they can, pulled laws out of their asses and the beat goes on. First Piratebay, now Allofmp3, who's next on the "ignore 'em and they'll disappear" train? I personally hope that the experiment on Myspace selling music takes off and every artist goes there to sell themselves. The traditional music industry with all of it's bloodsucking leec-I mean lawyers will be as fashionable as piss stains on a toilet seat in a few years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stu, 6 Oct 2006 @ 7:28pm

about pricing merchandise
The selling price of an item, whether it is physical or virtual, has only a small relationship to the costs of production. At the core, there are only a few questions that a seller must consider.

1) What is the perceived value of this item to potential customers? In other words, "How high a price can we charge for the item before sales are hurt?"

2) If we can sell it for x and sell y quantity, is it worth doing? Repeat this until a viable answer is found. If not, don't sell the product - costs must be covered, and profits made.

Thinking about their costs of production will just make you bitter. How much is it worth to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wizard Prang, 9 Oct 2006 @ 4:56am
  
  Rubbish
  The sunk costs - production - are one-off costs and have already been sunk.
  
  When you buy a retail CD, the retailer, wholesaler and manufacturer have to get their money. There are transportation costs. Looking at the figures at...
  
  http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6558540/walmart_wants_10_cds
  
  these costs account for $9 of a $16 CD. Add a dollar back for hosting and payment processing and you have $8 for an "online" CD purchase.
  
  And everybody still gets paid.
  
  Did I miss anything?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A chicken passeth by, 6 Oct 2006 @ 7:38pm

"Songs on CDs cost an arm and a leg to produce and distibute...stores...artwork...physical CD...and they charge about the same price...Its total foolishness."

This is about the biggest fallacy in the anti-piracy argument. EVER.

The only hard part is the production of the content, which results in data. This includes the protection mechanism. Once this data becomes prepped for your media - IT CAN BE INFINTELY COPIED by the cheapest means ever, and no extra effort is required from the makers of the content itself.

The above is the reason why the middlemen like the RIAA give the REAL author pennies in exchange - after all, they are the ones duplicating the content in lieu.

Hardware?
A CD-Burner, standard, costs only $25 ea.
DVD Burners, $85 ea. Dual layer model, with Lightscribe.
(most people just buy a 5X duplicator or similar - $200)
You only really need 1 computer to do it all, and you don't need a good one - $500.
CDs are pennies apiece ($36 for a stack of 100).
DVDs are slightly more expensive ($36 for a stack of 50).

DO YOUR MATH.
Each CD sells for $15, cheapest price.
Each DVD sells for $30, cheapest price.

You'd be able to BREAK EVEN by the 2nd or 3rd media spindle or so, INCLUDING ARTIST ROYALTIES, and possible maintenance costs. That's about less than 300 discs total... now what are the sales of the media companies? They're in their tens of thousands.

Stores don't factor into the cost - THE STORES BUY THIS STUFF TO STOCK SHELVES, and THEY PAY YOU, NOT YOU PAY THEM.

I can have a full manufacturing suite in a month's salary, and I'm just someone on a starting pay.

Once again, the only hard part is the content - DO NOT FALL FOR RIAA PARTY LINES. They are the same lines that justify them paying pennies to the content producers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tom, 6 Oct 2006 @ 7:53pm
  
  Re: A chicken passeth
  Your logic is horribly flawed, but the ends justify the means
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 6 Oct 2006 @ 9:09pm
  
  Re:
  You're talking homemade CD-Rs vs. professionally pressed and produced CDs, complete with extras such as the printed booklets which, again, cannot be compared to any homemade inkjet- or even laser-printed booklets. So there is quite a difference between the two.
  
  Not to mention that part of the price you are paying IS for the production of the content. Studio time costs a lot of money, and home studios don't cut it for many applications. Then there's the cost of the gear, engineers, etc. You address only the raw media costs and the manufacturing of the physical product. That's not what you're paying for at all.
  
  I just got Invisalign braces. They're just a bunch of clear pieces of plastic -- pennies to make. Yet I paid over $5000 for them. Why is that? Well, it takes a hell of a lot of work and expertise to invent those braces and to produce those precision pieces of plastic to specifications that will gently coax my teeth over time in the right direction. I'm not just paying for the plastic.
  
  I agree, CDs are too expensive at $15 apiece, especially since a lot of today's bands do not put out enough quality to make a full album purchase a wise decision. About half that price, at $7 or $8, would be more like it.
  
  Of course, that is about what I was paying for vinyl back in the '70s and '80s. And unlike CDs or digital media, vinyl deteriorates over time and can't be as quickly copied. Not to mention inflation. So, I'm not at all surprised that CDs cost what they do these days. Not happy with it, but not surprised either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2006 @ 9:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You're talking homemade CD-Rs vs. professionally pressed and produced CDs, complete with extras such as the printed booklets which, again, cannot be compared to any homemade inkjet- or even laser-printed booklets. So there is quite a difference between the two.
    
    Yes, there is a difference. The incremental cost of the mass produced commercial product is even _less_ than the homemade version.
    
    I just got Invisalign braces. They're just a bunch of clear pieces of plastic -- pennies to make.
    Not quite. You seem to believe that the braces are mass produced. They are not. They are custom made and fitted for your personal case. The cost of production is far more than mere "pennies".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ?, 7 Oct 2006 @ 4:30am
  
  Re:
  For somebody who says "do the math" you are missing an aweful lot of math.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glenn T., 6 Oct 2006 @ 8:07pm

Can buy some legally on CD cheaper than allofmp3
In my local cheap store they are selling for 3 Buddy Holly CD's for $us5, or 50 tracks @ 10c each. To buy online they should be cheaper, no CD's, no distribution, no retail profit etc etc. Yet even from allofmp3.com they are $1 over this cost.
Isn't it about time the artists represented by the RIAA got their act together and told them to drag themselves out of the 19th centrury into the 21st.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drjones, 6 Oct 2006 @ 8:16pm

from my last post: "Most bands get more pennies every time a cd is sold."

Just to further clarify, they get pennies for each album, that must then BE SPLIT BETWEEN THE BAND MEMBERS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solo, 6 Oct 2006 @ 8:35pm

In the end, AlOfMp3 will be steamrolled by the russian officials.

If the recording industry and the copyright lobbyist have managed to pass such laws as the DMCA and extension of copyright (what is it now? 100 years?) They are not going to let themselves had by an obscure Russian company.

If the russians want to enter the WTO, and if the US buttheads about allofmp3, who do you think is gonna win?

Not a chance that you can get cheap music. Ever. Download as much as you can now, because you're soon going to be stuck with $22 per CD (no kidding, $22 bucks? what is it? 1952) or evil low bitrate crappy DRM'd 99 cents a song, that you don't own, that you can't resell or share.

Greed will win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A chicken passeth by, 6 Oct 2006 @ 9:25pm

"You're talking homemade CD-Rs vs. professionally pressed and produced CDs, complete with extras such as the printed booklets which, again, cannot be compared to any homemade inkjet- or even laser-printed booklets. So there is quite a difference between the two."

While I agree with you otherwise - on cost of producing the content in the first place...

I think the above is another fallacy - both home users and pros use the exact same materials AND software you can get from the store. They don't get no "special batch" - because there ain't no "special batch". All it takes is a good graphic designer behind said computer to produce the extras, and it doesn't take much effort and know-how to loading and pressing the "copy" button on your duplicator.

Corporatism is all about cutting costs - what makes you think they'd use the cutting edge if they can get better quality for lower cost of production?

Oh, and making braces is FAR HARDER than burning a CD, because you aren't hammering a CD into the proper shape now, are you. All you are is running the likes of Nero over and over and over again.

There's nothing hard about that... it's just tedious, repetetive work, that's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 7 Oct 2006 @ 6:30am
  
  Re:
  You think that both the home users and pros use the exact same materials?!? What the....?
  
  That shows me right there that you have no idea what you are talking about. Professionally pressed CDs have no relationship to home CD-Rs, other than that they superficially "look" about the same. And I don't even know what you're talking about regarding a "special batch," because I never mentioned anything like that. It's not a "special batch" -- it's a completely different production process.
  
  Finally, you COMPLETELY missed the point I was making with the braces comparison. Of COURSE the actual manufacturing of braces is harder than burning a CD. That was intrinsic in the point I was making in the first place. The point being that the actual manufacturing of the plastic, or the burning of the CD, or whatever it may be, does not constitute the main cost of the product. You can't base your arguments solely on the costs of the raw materials and the production of the physical product, as you are doing, because that does not comprise the bulk of the cost of production of the ENTIRE PRODUCT, including the content (remember that word "content"?) that is on it.
  
  Your arguments are horribly flawed, and your math is extremely fuzzy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A chicken passeth by, 7 Oct 2006 @ 7:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "That shows me right there that you have no idea what you are talking about. Professionally pressed CDs have no relationship to home CD-Rs, other than that they superficially "look" about the same. And I don't even know what you're talking about regarding a "special batch," because I never mentioned anything like that. It's not a "special batch" -- it's a completely different production process."
    
    They "look" the same because they "are" the same - why do you think they are different?
    
    Oh, because of that extra track which keeps the DRM in? No, that's done by the burning software. CDs and DVDs are the same all around. The only time where there can BE a material difference is when DVDs start coming with fancy RFID chips embedded inside.
    
    And different process? The only thing that's different is them using a duplicator of higher capacity, printers that can print on more CDs at once, AND more people to do the same thing, AND the manufacturers getting a higher discount because they purchase all their raw materials in bulk, straight from the factory.
    
    What, you think this one requires specialized machinery and machining processes? At the most they'd buy the machines for stuffing and closing the CD case, but what DO you think CD manufacturing is like? A motherboard factory?
    
    "That was intrinsic in the point I was making in the first place. The point being that the actual manufacturing of the plastic, or the burning of the CD, or whatever it may be, does not constitute the main cost of the product. You can't base your arguments solely on the costs of the raw materials and the production of the physical product, as you are doing, because that does not comprise the bulk of the cost of production of the ENTIRE PRODUCT, including the content (remember that word "content"?) that is on it."
    
    Yes, I did include the content, but my point was that the content is only PRODUCED ONCE - after that it can be copied as many times as possible, with no extra effort whatsoever required by the manufacturer.
    
    Unless you are telling me that people literally bundle the artists into the studio AGAIN just to make "This CD Copy # 2".
    
    While without content a CD can't exist - Aren't we placing too much emphasis on something that occurs only once in the product's entire lifespan?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dosquatch, 9 Oct 2006 @ 9:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They "look" the same because they "are" the same - why do you think they are different?
      
      Because I know better. Because I've done this before. Because pressed CDs have been around longer than CD-R. Because of any hundred reasons that you seem to insist on not hearing other folks tell you. I'll be generous and assume it's because you're young and naive.
      
      And different process? The only thing that's different is them using a duplicator of higher capacity, printers that can print on more CDs at once, AND more people to do the same thing, [...]
      
      Oh... wow. it looks like you really do believe Sony has a warehouse with 10,000 CD burning monkeys. Sorry to burst that bubble for you.
      
      OK, here's the scoop on the real world. The 10,000 monkeys thing doesn't fly because labor is expensive. Automated machinery is expensive. BUT, and this is crucial, you only have to buy the machines once. Labor you have to pay. And pay. And pay. For a one-time fee of the salary for 10,000 monkeys for a year, they can buy a machine that will do the same hourly work, 24 hours a day, year after year after year, and only have to pay one guy to watch it just to be sure everything is running smoothly. Which do you think is the better investment?
      
      What, you think this one requires specialized machinery and machining processes? At the most they'd buy the machines for stuffing and closing the CD case, but what DO you think CD manufacturing is like? A motherboard factory?
      
      I shudder to think what your vision of a motherboard factory might be. Probably something along the line of 10,000 monkeys with hobby-kit breadboards building them out one by one. But, assuming you do know what a circuit board factory looks like, then yes, pretty much closer to that than some guy with a PC and a CD burner.
      
      Large scale manufacturing of just about anything - from clothing to automobiles to the humble twinkie - bears such little semblance to what it would look like at home as to be nearly unrecognizable. That includes CDs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dosquatch, 9 Oct 2006 @ 8:12am
  
  Re:
  I think the above is another fallacy - both home users and pros use the exact same materials AND software you can get from the store. They don't get no "special batch" - because there ain't no "special batch".
  
  Repeat after me: "Professional CD inserts do not come from inkjet printers or copiers, they come from offset presses." For a single copy, the inkjet is faster & cheaper. For a thousand copies, the press wins. And again...
  
  Repeat after me: "Professionally produced CDs and DVDs are not burned, they are pressed."
  
  These processes aren't producing five or ten at a time, they are producing THOUSANDS per hour, and at a cost far, FAR less than you cite for some knock-off home pirate setup.
  
  Professionally pressed CDs, with insert, shrink-wrapped & delivered in quantity, are around 50 to 70 cents a piece, and the contracted manufacturer is still making a profit at that price.
  
  Do you really believe that Sony has some warehouse full of monkeys pressing record 10,000 times every time a band puts out a new album?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spoon, 6 Oct 2006 @ 10:48pm

From Russia with IP
I can buy the entire Soulfly discography at a decent bitrate (192 KB/s? I hope it's just a database problem...)from allofmp3 for less than a single CD from WAL_MART or some vast media hut, but I ain't unless that money, or a significant amount of it, goes to Soulfly. That's really all I care about. I kinda envy all those Ayn-Rand-ian middlemen that can speak and muddle about the issue and the characters in it until the whole thing becomes a puddle of goo.

Why do they call music 'content' anyway? It's too much more than that to be called that. And, obligatory contracts are evil. If you start to think of writing of music as content to be manufactured for a deadline or quota, then that's what it eventually becomes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wizard Prang, 9 Oct 2006 @ 4:59am
  
  Be Content!
  "Why do they call music 'content' anyway?"
  
  Because to these people, that's all it is - a product to be marketed, hyped, sold... and dumped on the scrapheap when it is no longer profitable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monsuco, 6 Oct 2006 @ 11:18pm

Soulfly
"I ain't unless that money, or a significant amount of it, goes to Soulfly." Well currenty, if you use AOMP3, none of that money goes to Soulfly, if you buy a CD or a song off iTunes, soulfly gets 5-15 cents to divide amonst the band members. So either way, little money reaches them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Effeminem, 7 Oct 2006 @ 12:38am

Gratuitous swipes at Ayn Rand? That's just funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shohat, 7 Oct 2006 @ 1:58am

Retarded
Imagine a site , named allofAdobe.com , selling photoshop and Macromedia products for 1$ a copy .
Same here . But they are legal in Russia , and with all due respect , US is doing a great job of giving them free publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2006 @ 9:17pm
  
  Re: Retarded
  Remember the Russian researchers that Adobe had the FBI arrest when they visited the U.S.?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wizard Prang, 10 Oct 2006 @ 12:16pm
    
    You mean Dimitry Sklyarov?
    Ah yes, I remember it well... a Russian programmer, working in Russia for a Russian company, who was prosecuted under an American law...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
KT NAAN, 7 Oct 2006 @ 4:00am

Music Distribution
Surely you have to look at newer sites than those mentioned. Get involved with the production and distribution of music. Create your own distribution sites, contact local bands, if you care about what music you listen to BE PROACTIVE. Contact bigger bands and get them to chuck some freebies your way so you can advertise them on your new site. Just a thought....

Question and debate, then action. Repeat...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob Miles, 7 Oct 2006 @ 4:46am

You can argue about the legality or ethics of sites like allofmp3.com, but it's really not the musicians that are hurt by sites like that, at least not directly. The recording industry is hurt by them, but it's mainly their own fault for wanting to hold on to an obsolete distribution method and mentality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A chicken passeth by, 7 Oct 2006 @ 5:07am

"For somebody who says "do the math" you are missing an aweful lot of math."

Well, I'm missing as much math as the RIAA is overloading all its statistics with, so it'll all balance out one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nuntukamen, 7 Oct 2006 @ 6:10am

allofmp3 rocks on
The recording industry is just like the auto industry; does anyone really think it costs nearly $30,000 to build a car or truck? $17 for a CD? Foreign markets are costing these industries plenty by exposing where the billions for packages that executives gleefully and greedily pay themselves while laying off line workers comes from--our pockets that already are taxed by politicians the same way. We need to wake up and smell the coffee. Go, you Ruskies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2006 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re: allofmp3 rocks on
  Um, bad example buddy. :)
  
  Several models of cars sold by many auto makers are indeed sold at a substantial loss. Ford Focus and virtually all VW cars sold in the US come to mind. Considering Ford burned through 8 billion dollars this year, the losses appear substantial.
  
  Could CD prices be made lower? Probably. Is there a point at which losses start to be created? Yes. Are we communists that do things for zero profit? Maybe you are, but generally, No.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wizard Prang, 10 Oct 2006 @ 12:21pm
    
    Yes and no
    True, some American cars are sold at a loss... but IIRC this is mainly because some Automakers are saddled with union/labor agreements that require them to pay some of their workers exorbitant salaries.
    
    So that, too, was perhaps a bad example.
    
    The music industry, OTOH, offshored and outsourced production, and are getting upset because some of us are outsourcing our purchases.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 7 Oct 2006 @ 8:18am

Why focus on Allofmp3.com?
They are operating within the confines of Russian law. If said russian law doesn't require x entity to pay the artists a share of the price, then change the law.

Bitching and moaning about AllofMP3.com is like harrassing a person for going 60 in a 60 MPH zone. If you think it's too fast for the area, phone your city rep - don't bitch at the driver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2006 @ 8:45am
  
  Re: Why focus on Allofmp3.com?
  I hate to add no new content to this, but Mark said it perfectly.
  
  STFU
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cleverboy, 7 Oct 2006 @ 12:33pm
  
  Re: Why focus on Allofmp3.com?
  "They are operating within the confines of Russian law. If said russian law doesn't require x entity to pay the artists a share of the price, then change the law. Bitching and moaning about AllofMP3.com is like harrassing a person for going 60 in a 60 MPH zone."
  
  By all accounts, the law has been written, and its taking a while to be implemented (remember that story)... because this is clearly (to everyone) a "loophole", not a "perfectly valid application under the law", --a pretty bad "loophole"... which means everyone agrees this was NOT intended, and they're trying to close it. The U.S. and U.K. is already having trouble with legitimate advances in industrial production in countries like China... what, they should bend over for digital content through illegitimate sources too? Come on.
  
  --So... not quite like saying 60 in a 60 MPH zone, more like 120 mph in a 60 MPH with an exemption due to a loophole that says technically you're not driving a car (government hasn't classified your vehicle yet), so you can't be otherwise fined, sued, or charged. Meanwhile, everyone is putting their fingers in their ears waiting for you to crash and hoping you don't take anyone with you on your off-ramp to the pearly gates (or is that highway to hell?)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Iko, 7 Oct 2006 @ 11:04am

Meh.
If I didn't buy songs from Allofmp3, I'd get them from IsoHunt or BTJunkies. Like someone else said, I refuse to pay more for music crippled by DRM. If the industry had a functional brain cell between them, they'd realize that you can't charge more for less product. I might feel bad for the artists, but I know that the vast majority of the money I spend on legal music is going to the RIAA's companies, not the artist, which makes it MUCH easier to look elsewhere. If anyone, it should be a message to the artists to motivate the industry to change. Naive, I know, but every little bit helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ponder, 7 Oct 2006 @ 11:24am

A note for the RIAA
Now if the RIAA etc, just gave in and stopped making all this fuss, then the US could be making money in this industry. I'm sure more sites like AllofMP3 would spring up if it was legal to do so in the US. They could be more popular, as then you know your creditcard data is in safe(r) hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jo Mamma, 7 Oct 2006 @ 11:52am

Just buy used CDs
Used CDs are the best compromise between buying pirated music, and paying retail for music.

And if you want to get really creative, buy used CDs, rip 'em, then sell them back. That way, you're paying as much as you would off this Russian site but it's (technically) legal.

Now, I don't sell the CDs back because I like keeping the physical disk, but that's just the way I justify being a cheapass when it comes to buying music without inviting a lawsuit from the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2006 @ 9:19pm
  
  Re: Just buy used CDs
  There are people in the music business that claim that buying a used CD is stealing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jo Mamma, 8 Oct 2006 @ 7:08pm
    
    Re: Re: Just buy used CDs
    I'm sure there are those that consider buying used CDs stealing... and perhaps they have a point. It is fairly similar to buying off of allofmp3 or any other non-RIAA website, because you're cutting them out of the deal.
    
    But the difference is that it's technically not illegal. And why is it not illegal???
    
    Because the major resellers would lose a lot of business... and I'm guessing they won't allow that crap to be passed into law.
    
    Good or bad, that's the way the system is, so as pawns, we might as well make the most out of it :-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Cleverboy, 8 Oct 2006 @ 9:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Just buy used CDs
      "I'm sure there are those that consider buying used CDs stealing... and perhaps they have a point. It is fairly similar to buying off of allofmp3 or any other non-RIAA website, because you're cutting them out of the deal. "
      
      That's pretty loopy logic, don't you think? If you do your homework... you can understand a few things about how the recording industry sees it. According to them, your "license" is the physical CD itself. This longheld truth is what prompted the original Mp3.com's my.mp3.com service to assume that confirmation of the CD's possession (whether by software process or record of online purchase), should entitle users to virtual access to their music library anywhere in perpetuity. Unfortunately, it was a slight leap too far for a number of sketchy reasons. In the minds of the record companies, if you destroy the CD, your license is history. While they also tend to say that the license is non-transferable, that's bullshit as people have been reselling used media for a good long while, and that's never made any sense (meaning good luck in the courts, guys).
      
      So, is it anything like AllofMp3? No. If you still think it is, splash cold water in your face and stare in the mirror repeating "no" at least 10 times. Repeat as necessary. Equating the two things is basically an attempt to ascribe more legitimacy to that Russian warez site that it deserves. Just call it what it is and argue from there. Moving the pieces when no one is supposed to be looking still doesn't change the game.
      
      Re:Thank God! by Rog
      "I would gladly pay a reasonable fee for music whose creator would benefit (I belong to EMusic for that reason), but I'm thrilled to circumvent parasitic corporations that add nothing more than their logo to the value of the product they sell. "
      Ah... I see how it works. Musicians should ask you how much they should charge you, and after pulling together a general consensus, they should charge only that, or you'll "happily" steal from them... How sporting of you. (YIKES.) Sounds keen. Maybe that's the model of the future, PricelineEXTREME!. Dunno... sounds like the mafia though.
      
      Why do people insist on acting like over-priced music (in their view) is crack and they need their fix? Nancy had it right, kids. If price ain't right, just say "no"...! Are they already halcyon days, when consumer objection was voiced by a dirth of commercial interest in the product?
      
      Boy... when consumer replicators start selling and people start sharing pattern buffer data for physical matter reintegration online, the world will be screwed all over again.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bunny, 7 Oct 2006 @ 11:55am

why waste your money if its going to stolen music in the end? the russians dont give even the penny to the artist so instead of keeping a few russians warm and happy driving the latest mercedes around the frozen babushkas of moscow, you might as well use a napster free trial and fairuse4wm and download everything they have in a week and strip the DRM...stealing is stealing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2006 @ 1:35pm
  
  Re:
  yeah, that's my question o.O if no money gets to the artist, why pay? If anything I'd steal the song and send whatever it would have cost me directly to the artist! All Of MP3 makes no sense to me XD It's like if I went and copied all MY music library and sold it at 10cents a song, and you bought it cause it's cheaper than iTunes--thanks, I make money, but the artist sure doesn't. How's that any better than the current music industry?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2006 @ 1:27pm

You all can argue about how much it costs and all that fun jazz. Here's the facts-
Allofmp3 works perfect, sounds great, good price (even though that price has tripled since all this publicity- songs used to be 1cent/MB, now its 3cents/MB.)
No one reads the booklets in cd covers- what could they possibly say that would be of any interest to anyone. No one even keeps the CD case for that matter.
Artists DO NOT HAVE TO SIGN UP WITH RECORDING COMPANIES. If your music is any good it doesnt take much to get it heard. Radio stations LOVE finding good music, makes them look good and gives you a reason to listen to them.
Sell the song on your website which costs a couple dollars a day to run if you bring any traffic at all.
Dont complain to the RIAA about them being an old business model, complain to the artists for using that old business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cleverboy, 7 Oct 2006 @ 4:47pm
  
  Re:
  [(even though that price has tripled since all this publicity- songs used to be 1cent/MB, now its 3cents/MB.)]
  
  Oh, is it the publicity that's raising prices? Do you read the news? AllofMp3 knows its not in the right in terms of its pricing, and they're making moves to bring their prices up to reflect what they need to if they're to be charging for proper licensing. They're making most of their money on the float anyway.
  
  This is what they've said ("slowly raising prices"). Of course we all know that they're just making more money for themselves as they wait for the Russian law to pass closing the loophole. Once that happens, they'll need a lot more than a price hike to figure out how to stay "legal" even among Russian customers.
  
  Slowly grinds the wheels of justice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2006 @ 2:49pm

So many misguided people...
Why are there so many people assuming that allofmp3 is not paying th eartists? why are so many people under the impression that ANYONE in Russia thinks what they are doing is wrong?

Allofmp3 is perfectly legal in Russie. they are not operating through a loophole, they are operating under the principles that the copyright laws in russie require them to operate under.

THEY ACTUALLY PAY THE ARTISTS, JUST LIKE THEY ARE REQUIRED TO UNDER THEIR LAWS.

The reason the **AA doesn't like it is becasue the law does not require obtaining a license to resell copyrighted works. It specifically ALLOWS you to resell without being authroized. HOWEVER, for every copy resold, you are required to payback X% of the original purchase price to the copyright holders.

Noone is stealing anything, and if the artists aren't getting paid, its because the copyright holder (**AA) is keeping all the money and not sending any of it to the artists.

Once again, the true "thief" here is the RIAA and not the store doing the reselling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cleverboy, 7 Oct 2006 @ 4:32pm
  
  Re: So many misguided people...
  [Once again, the true "thief" here is the RIAA and not the store doing the reselling.]
  
  Get a dictionary and come back when you know what "theif" means. Its NOT legal outside of Russia, and AllofMp3 says that on their website, and makes NO effort to obey the laws of other countries. How hard would it be to block U.S. customers? VERY EASY. Are they unaware of the legality of their operation with U.S. customers? Nope. Get a new argument, your current one is very very broken. Like a record.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2006 @ 4:35pm
    
    Re: Re: So many misguided people...
    Hey, uh... they're not breaking any laws in the us.
    
    Neither is any buyer.
    
    You really are buying everything the RIAA is saying, hook line and sinker.
    
    what a great sucker you make.
    
    (and.. uh,, WTF woudl they want to block USA customers for? where do you get your brilliant business ligic from?)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Cleverboy, 7 Oct 2006 @ 4:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: So many misguided people...
      [Hey, uh... they're not breaking any laws in the us. Neither is any buyer.]
      
      Wow. Someone better tell the U.S. trade representative that AllOfMp3 is "totally legal" in the U.S., 'cause apparently our government doesn't think so! And as for what AllofMp3.com says:
      
      [[ As for foreign buyers, "we announce on our website to every user that he or she should check the laws of the country in which he lives," Levitov said. ]]
      
      This is the equivalent of covering ones ears and saying "we know no-theeng...!" Please. I don't mind you having a different opinion, but at least get your facts straight and make an HONEST argument... not one you know full well is full of holes.
      
      I'm all for the future of music distribution and I'll cheer change on... but AllOfMp3 isn't putting money in the hands of any artists. They know this. They're just paying ROMS. Western musicians aren't seeing diddly squat. Don't argue its cheaper... it IS. Don't argue that makes it right simply because its cheaper. It AIN'T.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2006 @ 9:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So many misguided people...
        Wow. Someone better tell the U.S. trade representative that AllOfMp3 is "totally legal" in the U.S., 'cause apparently our government doesn't think so!
        That's because the U.S. government and some of its citizens seem to believe that U.S. laws apply worldwide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cleverboy, 8 Oct 2006 @ 4:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So many misguided people...
        That's because the U.S. government and some of its citizens seem to believe that U.S. laws apply worldwide.
        Or... they believe that U.S. laws apply to U.S. citizens. SHOCKER! Some Russian businesses apparently believe that they have no idea where their customers come from... hm. Been following the news about the rukus over Canadian pharmaceuticals coming into the U.S., circumventing FDA rules and setting state and Federal government and legislators at odds? Or maybe the news on Google getting sued all over the world under different legal systems concerning trademarks and such? Or the scramble to even gain access to the Chinese population by Internet heavy weights? Or maybe how Apple was possibly pulling out of France with its ITS due to new laws? Local laws do actually matter y'know, whether shipping by FedEx, conducting the commerce, or just transmitting digital content. Remember how Microsoft and Netscape used to have those caveats for downloading the added 128 encryption if they could not verify where you were downloading from? Sorry for the wake up call, but this isn't new, and it isn't about dumping on the U.S. all the time, ya commie bastid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wizard Prang, 9 Oct 2006 @ 7:13am
        
        Show me!
        Wow. Someone better tell the U.S. trade representative that AllOfMp3 is "totally legal" in the U.S., 'cause apparently our government doesn't think so!
        
        Show me the law that applies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cleverboy, 9 Oct 2006 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Show me!
        Wizard Prang
        "Show me the law that applies."
        You know as well as I do which laws apply. Whether the U.S. laws governing right of distribution (17 U.S.C. § 106.1) or reproduction (17 U.S.C. § 106.3), both of these laws depend on services like AllofMp3 having valid contracts with the copyright holders, which they do not (those are links, fyi). This application has been successfully (key word here) litigated in U.S. courts as it specifically concerns the download of music in the P2P service bloodbath of the last few years... whether or not one agrees with how it hampers the perfect legitmacy of P2P as a technology.
        
        Seems simple. Does that work for you or are you looking toward twisting or reformulating the question some? AllofMp3 is illegal here, its illegal in Russia. All I'm saying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wizard Prang, 12 Oct 2006 @ 8:03am
        
        Last time I looked...
        ... American laws did not apply to Russian companies.
        
        Unless you are Adobe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wizard Prang, 9 Oct 2006 @ 5:08am
    
    The King's Shilling
    It is not illegal for me to download files from Russia.
    
    Last time I looked, there was no trade embargo with Russia.
    
    It is perfectly legal for me to fly to Moscow, buy music in a store and bring it home with me.
    
    I find it ironic that the record companies can outsource production without the slightest hesitation - a process that may cost jobs in the US... but when consumers outsource their purchasing, they start yelling. Globalization cuts both ways.
    
    "Its NOT legal outside of Russia"
    
    Show me the law that applies, and explain how it applies to items purchased overseas.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A chicken passeth by, 7 Oct 2006 @ 8:02pm

Oh, and braces aren't a good analogy.

Let's discount the manufacturing process, which we seem to agree on.

1. Do braces come with "content"? Nope.

2. Does the making of a CD require the expertise of making braces? Nope. And if you're going to argue about the expertise of making "content" - see point (1).

My logic ain't perfect - is yours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2006 @ 12:15am

Driving their Mercedes all over their Babushkas? Damn, if I could get a Mercedes to drive all over my Babushka by selling tracks for a few pennies each, more power to me. At a nickel per track, selling 1 million tracks, that's like $2000. And if I don't have any business partners to split it with... man, where's that Mercedes dealer? No wait, I'll get a Rolls Royce for that. I mean, after I pay for my ISP and bandwidth, servers and electricity, that's bound to be at least a cool $1500. Babushkas here I come!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LJSeinfeld, 8 Oct 2006 @ 7:29am

What's the difference between
What's the difference between CD-R, CD-RW and pressed (commercial) discs? There are three technologies involved: CD-R uses a dye to record information; it can be written only once. CD-RW uses the change of state of an alloy and can be erased and rewritten. These are discussed elsewhere in this primer. A pressed disc is, in fact, pressed. The information of the audio stream and the TOC is prepared by a special program to create a glass master. That master is used to make one or more metal stampers. A stamper is pressed into a fluid plastic layer of the blank disc to impress the information. Once set, that disc is given an aluminum coat from which the read laser is reflected. At any point in that process, a speck of dust means a flaw in reproduction, so pressing requires a clean room and special operations to avoid contamination. Fortunately, CD-R and CD-RW are more tolerant and small amounts of contamination are seldom detected.

So there yo have it. There are considerably higher costs in setup, and the media IS NOT the same. That's why you can tell the difference between a CD-R and a Pressed Disc when you look at them... you can see the dye.

Cleverboy?
Your arguments regarding Copyright law -which is broken, and pharmaceuticals from Canada are the same... An example of price of a given item being artificially inflated by, what amounts to, a cartel. Calling people "Commies" because they disagree with you speaks more to flaws in your character than theirs. Here's a quarter -- now go get your brain dried too. =)

The recording industry, as well as a handful of others, are trying desperately -and in vain- to cement their positions as "middle-men" in the sale of something in a market/distribution system that no longer needs them. They are going the way of the Dodo.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cleverboy, 8 Oct 2006 @ 9:39am
  
  Re: What's the difference between
  "Your arguments regarding Copyright law -which is broken, and pharmaceuticals from Canada are the same..." - LJSeinfeld
  
  You're off target... my arguments were NOT about justifying cartels etc, they were examples of how its not simply the U.S. or its citizenry thinking that its laws should be enacted in other countries, so much as letting other countries know that our laws apply to our citizens and that those laws should be respected when dealing WITH our citizens, especially while such citizens are operating out of this country. Make sense?
  
  If a U.S. citizen chooses to repatriate and move into another country so that they can live outside of the laws of the land, they're free to do so. No country should except that their citizens are free to defy the law, as long as its on the Internet, and the server is not on American soil. Were that true, I'm sure the pedophiles would be ab-SOLUTE-ly euphoric. Not to mention those recently bummed out gambling website owners.
  
  "The recording industry, as well as a handful of others, are trying desperately -and in vain- to cement their positions as "middle-men" in the sale of something in a market/distribution system that no longer needs them." - LJSeinfeld
  
  Well, back to this argument... yeah, I'm all for pushing a marketing and distribution system that "no longer needs" the recording industry middlemen. I am... but AllofMp3 doesn't represent that.
  They're not a "distribution" system... or you'd be hearing how they're making deals with independant labels... On their website, you'd see a page that says "Want to see your music on AllofMp3.com? Contact our business relationship department, etc, etc." You see independant artists giving each other high fives and saying "FUCK THE INDUSTRY, we have ALL of MP3! Awesome!!! Fuck yeah!"
  
  Reality: [INSERT SOUND OF CRICKETS]
  
  They're the back of a truck, selling stolen goods. They're the virtualized version of the crooks that the recording industry combats by "dumping" product onto the streets at fire-sale prices in smaller markets they can't bother with. I mean... but, that all said... let's support legitimate on-DRM places like eMusic. Why celebrate a theif, just because they pay your patriarchal part lip-service for pennies? I mean... sure, it feels good, but don't you just feel a little dirty?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob Gibson, 8 Oct 2006 @ 11:21am

The bottom line...
They tried to squash blank cassettes when I was a kid. They tried it with blank CDs. The did it to Napster and they'll find a way to do it to AllofMP3. AllofMP3 gives you the ability to pick your format and the ability to play the song anywhere you want. I'd gladly pay 99 cents to Napster or iTunes if they'd get rid of that ridiculous digital rights management. If I buy a CD I can play it, copy it, sell it back to the used CD store. Hell I can get a decent enough copy of my buddy's iTunes songs off of the analog out on my sound blaster card fed back in to the computer. Why spend all the time and money on DRM... it really doesn't work!! If the record industry wasn't so bloody out of whack on their pricing and restrictions people would not have to resort to this type of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cleverboy, 8 Oct 2006 @ 11:54am
  
  Re: The bottom line...
  "Hell I can get a decent enough copy of my buddy's iTunes songs off of the analog out on my sound blaster card fed back in to the computer."
  Boot up Audacity, and choose the wave input from your soundcard. Press record. Stays digital. No fuss. The DRM is there to force you to do that extra step, not to stop you cold. Not even the RIAA is that stupid, though you'll learn most people think one thing and say something different, just for appearances.
  
  If you want to sit there all day lifting digital music off the air waves or the Internet radio streams, there's nothing to stop you... for personal use. It's about not letting everyone become aggregate distributors en masse (as what happened with Napster). It always has been. "Where did you get the latest X album? Why... I got it off the Internet for FREE!" Why pro-ponents and opponents insist on all the FUD is truly beyond me.
  
  So... yes, if you want your iTunes library in a different format, you're going to have to do some work. Just like if you wanted all your LPs in a different format... or that smooth cassette remix your pal gave you back in the day... or that 8-track soundtrack for Star Wars you used for your 7th grade humanities project... or that Limited Edition Coca-cola "I'd like to Teach the World to Sing" record your dad gave you when you were 10.
  
  Hm. I think that line said "TMI" back there... we've PASSED and are passing the line where "quality" will make a difference. The format wars are about to come to an abrupt end, and so... in fact... will the long tradition of reselling people content on different physical formats. The industry is moving to technologically enforced "standards" using DRM. Big deal.
  
  Its all the piracy that's driving them to make copying harder and harder to do. People are creating the problem while thinking they're "resisting" it. Back in the day, they couldn't tell people were doing it. Now that they have that technology, its making them crap their pants like an adulterer's spouse running "FamilySpy 3.5". Enough to drive ya to do some down right unsavory things. Just stop sleeping around on them for christsakes... they'll snap out of it. I promise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2006 @ 12:17pm

Re: Sad
I don't know how it all works, but I'm gonna throw an idea out there.

If AllofMp3 is doing things legally (with their licenses in place and what not) shouldn't the money that they are paying to whomever in order to be able to sell music online be distributed to the artists accordingly?

Might it be a problem between the people AllofMp3 gives money to and the artists?

Again, I don't know how the whole thing works, but it would seem logical for AllofMp3 to give a percentage of the money they make to the recording industry and the recording industry distributes the money to the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A chicken passeth by, 8 Oct 2006 @ 5:00pm

"Just stop sleeping around on them for christsakes... they'll snap out of it. I promise."

An industry which bent over backwards to introduce enforced obsolescence and licensing instead of ownership, long before the DMCA was even formulated?

...if they couldn't snap out of it at a time piracy was purely underground, they probably won't snap out of it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rog, 8 Oct 2006 @ 8:31pm

Thank God!
in this day and age, I'm thrilled that allofmp3.com even exists. Why? Because we're being pimped out by profit-drunk commercial interests, that's why, and it's nice to see someone strike a blow against the deceit, greed, and short-sightedness of the U.S. entertainment industry. This is 2006, when the American president starts wars because oil companies want him to, the American public watches juvenile television sludge because advertisers pay them to, and social needs are debased and commoditized to funnel public revenues to private pockets. Everything we value has been sold or is being sold to someone for a quick profit, so it's great to see indie musicians, pirate labels, and P2P sharing, not to mention allofmp3, prosper and thrive. Intellectual property isn't sacred -- it needs to be bought and sold in open markets just like any other commodity. Yes, individual innovators need protection, but in the music industry innovators are called "musicians". IP laws have done very little for them and a great deal for the economic interests of those they feed. I would gladly pay a reasonable fee for music whose creator would benefit (I belong to EMusic for that reason), but I'm thrilled to circumvent parasitic corporations that add nothing more than their logo to the value of the product they sell.

Thanks --

Roger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A chicken passeth by, 8 Oct 2006 @ 11:21pm

"Are they already halcyon days, when consumer objection was voiced by a dirth of commercial interest in the product?"

Well, they are, considering that most of the necessities today are derived from monopoly. Even unqualified desk clerks these days need to know Office, the M$ one, before someone decides to hire 'em, you know - and of course, we have the oil issue. It's changing 'round, sure, but you won't see the change in another 5 years or so.

But yes, at least you can say no to music for now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcos, 9 Oct 2006 @ 3:33am

Hehe
I bought a cd for $2 from a chinese lady in the street selling CD's.

I was in the store a few days before listening to it, I woulda bought it but I felt 15 euros was way to much.

How much goes to the artits from CD sales? 3% of their earnings?

I've always hated paying so much for music CDs, I love this whole download / piracy thing you can get stuff for cheap or free.

Mind you I have no problem dishing out 50 euros for a good video game (world of warcraft?) and then dishing out further 15 euros a month if its worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cleverboy, 9 Oct 2006 @ 6:36am

How about this...?
Is paying ROMs paying the artists? Is it legal? Let's put the two questions to bed.

http://www.museekster.com/files/press-release%20ROMS.doc

ROMs press release (their OWN words, people... not anyone else... regarding Russian LAW):
"According to Section 2 of Clause 47 of the Law of Russian Federation on Copyright and Related Rights, any owner of copyright or related rights, including those who have not concluded an agreement with ROMS, has the right to demand due compensation according to the distribution performed by ROMS."
Furthermore... [ROMs press release]:
"2. The possessors of author's and adjacent rights, the not granted authorities organizations with respect to the collection of reward, provided in the point of 4 articles 46 present of laws, are right to require from the organization to pay off the reward in accordance with the produced distribution being been due to them, or to exclude their works and objects of adjacent rights from the licenses, allowed by this organization to users."

Ok... B-But, they were paying the artists anyway, right? ROMs has in the past, claimed to be a member of CISAC (the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers). Anyone bother to report on their expulsion at the end of 2004 (pretty much two years ago exactly)? Anyone care to read WHY they expelled ROMS?

CISAC Press Release:
"The General Assembly of CISAC decided at its meeting in Seoul on October 2004 to expel Russian organization ROMS from CISAC membership on the grounds that it has been issuing licenses to copyright users without the authority to do so from all relevant copyright owners. CISAC concluded that such actions contravened internationally accepted collective administration principles, to the detriment of the creative community represented by CISAC."

http://www.cisac.org/web/Content.nsf/Popup?ReadForm&Page=Article&Lang=EN&Alias= Web-2005-03-ROMS

The director of Mp3Search has publically said:
"An amended legislation will come into force beginning from the 1st of September 2006. It will be obligatory for an organization on collective management of copyrights (RAO, ROMS and others) to conclude agreements with all copyright holders whose works they want to give in the Internet. We have time yet to decide how to win in this situation."

Sounds like a man without legal options to me.

Alex Jacob of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has stated clearly earlier this year:
"Allofmp3.com is not a legal service either in Russia or anywhere else. It is distributing music without any permission from the artists or copyright holders. Unlike all the legitimate sites, it does not pay artists or copyright holders so it is effectively stealing from those who create music. Like most things that appear to be too good to be true, allofmp3.com is not what it seems."

As of September 1st, its never been more true. Has anything changed in the last 39 days? I'm guessing... "no". Yet, people continue to act as if the old argument is still in effect... "Me know noootheeenk!" Just because AllofMp3.com or comments regarding legitimacy through ROMs doesn't have a legal leg to stand on anymore... and as such, will remain quiet while scratching their collective chins... doesn't mean they win arguments by virtue of silence. I'm sure ROMs makes loads of money through AllofMp3 over the years.

Will there be foot shooting and face spiting? Will Russian law be enforced? Stay tuned true believers as the world watches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wizard Prang, 9 Oct 2006 @ 7:28am
  
  Okay, Cleverboy...
  ...educate us.
  
  The IFPI has tried to shut down AoMP3. And failed. More than once. The obvious conclusion is that AoMP3 is legal in Russia. Saying otherwise don't make it so.
  
  It is also perfectly legal to purchase music anywhere, and last time I looked, music was not on any embargo list.
  
  So educate us. Tell us which law specifically makes AoMP3 illegal. It's easy to say "it's illegal in this country", but until you point to a specific law, nobody is going to take you seriously. And rightly so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
chris (profile), 9 Oct 2006 @ 1:00pm

driving over Babushka's in your mercedes
babushka is russian for "old woman".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cleverboy, 30 Nov 2006 @ 4:00am

Re: Last time I looked...
>> "... American laws did not apply to
>> Russian companies."

Koff... this is a remarkeably stupid comment. Do you know what the word "extradition" means? I'm curious. Hint: "Not everyone in the world is subject to diplomatic immunity". Go to Google news... and in quotes, type this: "extradition to the U.S."

They don't pull these words out of asses. They actually are used out there in the big blue world. Also... I won't get mad, but Russian laws apply to Russian companies too. I clearly outlined those laws above, as quote by ROMs and AllofMp3. Don't be a dullard. Maybe you're intentionally being all "troll-like" and ignoring rationale discourse, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nayan, 23 Jan 2007 @ 5:00am

about making cd
dear.... friends iwant to need iformation about the making cd how that costing ???? plz reply me on my mail id
[ link to this | view in chronology ]