Allofmp3 Passes The Buck, Says Entertainment Industry Won't Take Their Money
from the explanations dept
As the entertainment industry and US politicians have continued to push Russia on shutting down Allofmp3.com, the company finally decided to go a bit on the offensive, holding a press release to defend its business as being legal in Russia -- which is exactly what they've been saying for years. However, the interesting thing here is that basically Allofmp3 is passing the buck. They claim that they have a legitimate license from ROMS, the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society, and that they are paying royalties to ROMS. In other words, they're basically suggesting that if the entertainment industry has a problem, they need to take it up with ROMS. They also claimed that the recording industry is refusing to take the money that ROMS is trying to give them for the payments. The Infoworld article oddly tries to suggest that musicians probably don't want money from Allofmp3, since the money they charge is so low -- but that seems silly. If they can make some money, and do so by making their fans quite happy, why wouldn't they want the money? In all honestly, it looks like the focus here is incorrect. It's not an Allofmp3.com issue at all. They have been complying with Russian laws. If the issue is with the license they have from ROMS, then the issue should be taken up with ROMS. Still, the even bigger issue is why the industry still refuses to recognize that Allofmp3 has built a service that fans love, that they're willing to pay money for and which doesn't require DRM. It seems like they should recognize this as an opportunity, not a threat -- but, as they say, this is one industry that never misses an opportunity to sue an opportunity out of existence.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I don't want your money
AllOfMP3: Here's money.
RIAA: I don't want your money, C&D.
AllOfMP3: Well that doesn't make any sense you guys.
RIAA: Thanks for the compliment, this is what we're paid to do.
AllOfMP3: ... with money?
RIAA: Right, with money... But, not YOUR money, that's for sure. C&D...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't want your money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raging Clue the RIAA can suck on...
model... for example allofmp3.com's. It's not about the money, it's about jealousy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A) Recognizing the legality of AllOfMp3
or
B) Accepting illegally gotten profits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A) Recognizing the legality of AllOfMp3
or
B) Accepting illegally gotten profits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In effect, cut out the middleman, and expose the cartel for what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: way to compensate the artists directly
its new, just started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
illegally gotten?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: illegally gotten?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: illegally gotten?
Now, if you insist that you that you refuse, I'm curious: would your moral indignation be as strong if you didn't have an ocean of pirated content to sip from whenever you feld the urge? I've found that most people who wrap themselves in the flag of modern-day passive resistence only take the easy part of taking the stand. When it comes time to pay the price (being sued for piracy, arrested for public disturbance, or *gasp* living _without_ music, movies, or software) they're indignant that they would be prosecuted for their illegal actions. The key to passive resistence is pointing out the injustice of the system by forcing it to prosecute those who are obviously right. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_resistance
When you just want to ignore the law and not pay the price, then you're a thief. Try to justify it as you will, you're breaking the law. If you don't like it, fix the laws. If your representatives won't do it, fix the legislative branch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: illegally gotten?
People who rent movies on DVD (or VHS) or video games know there's a fixed cost and a limited use period when they purchase this and do not expect much else. Music is not used or enjoyed the same way.
Music is, essentially, given away for free anyway on the radio, this makes it more popularity but lowers the barrier to entry and it value (ie I don't have to buy your CD if I can hear the "popular" tracks for free).
I believe people do not have problems spending money on music and seeing that an artist is compensated appropriately. But no one is going to buy music that is so crippled that it has limited or no value (this goes back to I can listen on FM for free).
You've got to be able to take your music w/you be it on the computer, your mp3 player or a CD and no one is going to buy the track multiple times to do that, nor should they have to, this is now how the world works.
The RIAA should get a clue and then they could stop treating potential customers with comtempt and artists could go back to making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: illegally gotten?
If I want to "steal" music all I have to do is go to any half decent torrent site and I can get the music that was originally DRM protected WITHOUT the DRM. Read that bit carefully, the DRM on illegally copied music is REMOVED. Therefore as a music pirate DRM has zero affect.
So what does that mean to the monkey who buys the DRM'd CD from a shop? Oh that's right they realise they can't play it on all the devices they choose thereby fucking off your REAL customers and doing nothing to the pirates.
Please get a clue of what this situation is all about before spouting your crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course They won't take their money !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course They won't take their money !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course They won't take their money !
Further it so that the merch peddled by Adobe only works when Adobe's whim says it can, which doesn't entirely correlate when you want to use the product anyway. Then, say Adobe isn't even making the product, but just saying it should get a cut from this set of programmers because they are affiliated with the company the programmers work for. And then you're just a tiny step closer to a reasonable comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Price is not only issue
The prices (actually compensation) in Russia is governed by ROMS. It's not the problem with Allofmp3.com. They just pay the share to ROMS and with the current pricing they still make profit. ROMS needs to settle this thing with copyright owners or change russian's laws.
But I believe the biggest issue here is DRM not price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PS: Nice copy-pasting there, can I have your text file?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but, if aom wants to give money, and riaa doesn't want it. what are they really saying? that they can get by wiht 5 cent song downloads? why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
what is funny tho, is this joke.
boy is "stupid" gets made fun of. older kids offer him a dime or nickle. boy picks nickle because "it's bigger". guy notices, and asks why he picks thenickle over the dime? boy says the dime is more, but if i did that, i wouldn't get any more money. i saved $$ in nickles already.
so, if we keep offering to pay, the riaa will be happy to "take"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zero with itunes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It IS all about the money...
It's the same music that iTunes sells. I just don't want to pay $1 per song. I would rather pay a fraction of that. Plain and simple. The music industry doesn't want me to have the option of paying such a small amount for the same content. They need to get rid of that option, and force me to pay a larger amount. The DRM issues would be less important if all songs were 10 cents on iTunes. In reality...this is ALL ABOUT MONEY. I don't want to spend very much, allofmp3 gives me that option, and the RIAA wants to take that away. Plain and simple.
End of Line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but then again, i know numerous of people who want high end expensive sports cars, but aren't getting them.
so it's like this. people are willing to spend $x on music. if the music costs more, they don't buy. everyone who would pay anything above $x will buy because they are at their fair share price, or the price is below what they expected to pay, thus a "savings"
now, with napster, grockster, morpheus, aries, limewire and the like, people have expected to pay $0.00 for their music. the issue arrises in how p2p networks have "crappy" content. i.e. low bit rate, but DRM free. what itunes, newnapster, rhapsody and the like have is "ok" music. DRM protected. and moderate bitrate. the ultimate goal for the consumer is high bitrate 192 w/o DRM. however the RIAA won't produce that. so the market adjusts itself to fit the situation.
so the piraters go and "steal" while RIAA brings suits against said people. this is an effort to "balance" the market.
where do we go from here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, they do - you just don't see it because any product is automatically SOL'd and removed from the lines when the prices drops below a certain value - see: mobile phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they tried to pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]