AllofMp3.com Breaks Silence

An anonymous reader writes "The controversial Russian music site AllofMp3.com has fired back a return salvo on legality, royalties, and the WTO." From the article: "The entertainment industry however claims the service is flat out illegal. According to the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), AllofMp3.com fails to pay artist royalties - contrary to AllofMp3.com's assertions."

The British BPI say its illegal

and you will be breaking the law by downloading from there

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5051826.s tm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:The British BPI say its illegal

Next up, the British BPI announces a royalty on having a song stuck in your head. Freedom isn't free, chaps!

Re:The British BPI say its illegal

I am not disputing whether anything is legal or illegal. However, it does a disservice to allow a private organization unilaterally classify behavior as illegal. Things are illegal when the government establishes a law making it so. In most democracies, this involves a legislature passing a law. In situation where there is gray area, which is the vast majority of day-to-day situations, there are courts to interpret and apply the specific law. You should be rather suspicious when organizations like the BPI, MPAA, RIAA, or IAPI claim behavior is illegal. Usually, they are a bit biased and often claim things as illegal when, in fact, the behavior is not illegal. Some US examples are the claims: 1) Recording television shows for private use is a copyright violation. It was and is not. 2) Ripping CDs is a copyright violation. No court has ever been asked to establish that. 3) Recording songs off the radio, making a mixed tape, and sharing it with friends. Legal and even agreed to by the RIAA when creating the Home Audio Recording Act. Only now the RIAA wants to make a distinction whether it is digital or analog content. You surely should never quote anything such organizations say as being an establishment of what is legal or illegal.

Re:The British BPI say its illegal

Remember you don't "buy" copyrighted material (and you never could). Instead, you license it from the copyright holder.

Rubbish. You've been able to "buy" copyrighted material for as long as the idea existed. I have thousands of items of "copyrighted material" that I most certainly have paid for and own. Note: I own the ITEM; not the copyright. If you want to publish copyrighted material, you need to make arrangements with the copyright owner. Not if you want to read, view or listen to it yourself; or even make exerpts from it in certain cases.

Re:The British BPI say its illegal

>In the United States, copyright law gives the
>holder of the copyright great powers to say how
>their work is distributed, how you may use that
>work, and in what formats.

Not true, the copyright law gives a few specific rights as exclusive (but with exceptions) to the copyright holder. Ordinaru use is NOT one of those, nor is format decision. Please feel free to read the US copyright law below and if you find any reference to any exclusive rights that support what you say, feel free to quote or point it out.

>Can a company claim that recording their TV show
>is breaking their copyright? Yes, if you
>recorded it on a DVD. No, if you record it on a
>VHS tape.

I believe this has allready been mentioned, but this is a complete lie and not at all supported or even touched on in the copyright law.

>Now, companies like Sony owns the content, the
>distribution and the manufacturing sides.

Now, they don't own the content, they hold the copyright to it, which is a HUGE difference. Copyright only gives a few specific rights, and those are the ones given by copyright laws, in addition there is often exceptions to the exclusivness, one such being the fair use, but there are MANY others, see 107-122! Holding the copyright is quite different from owning something.

As for manufacturing, they hold control over creation of copies only as much as the copyright law gives and although it is a quite exclusive right, there are many exceptions when others can "manufacture" or create copies of a work that is not infringement, fair use is one such common exception.

As for distribution, they only control or "own" the initial distribution, after that, they have MUCH less control, I believe that in the US it goes under the "first sale doctrine". but basically after the initial distribution, that right is consumed for a particular copy of a work. That is why you can resell a book for example or borrow it from a friend and so on.

>Remember you don't "buy" copyrighted material (and you never could). Instead, you license it
>from the copyright holder.

This is not at all true. Most copies of copyrighted works are sold, there is nothing wrong with buying, selling or owning copies of a copyrighted work and such ownership and transfer of ownership has nothing to do with and is distinct from ownership and transfer of the copyright itself. See the link below and specifically 202 which tells about this in detail.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sup_01_17.html [cornell.edu]

law-abiding? Not always!

"We might not like the law, but we still have to obey it."

This remembers me about the book 'Bush: president of good and evil', in which the moral and ethical sense of Bush is analysed, and found it is stuck at the level of a 13-year old. (which, in fact, is not as uncommon as one would believe, for many adults are). The sociological and psychological roots of this behaviour would lead me too far, but I'll simplify by saying that there are several levels of 'ethical priciples' which are quite universal (thus, apparant through all times and cultures).

The ethic behaviour of a teenager between 10-15 years is often very stringent; the law is the law, and rules are rules. He does not yet possess the ability to understand thatrules for the sake of rules are useless, and that exeptions can and should be made on personal evaluation of the rules, not merely because society has put them there. To the surprise of the reseachers, many adults continue to live in that mindset, and never evolve to a more nuanced ethical view in which to look at the world. Your argument above hints at the same kind of mentality.

Thus, let me be clear: no, it's not because something is a law, that we should obey it. And while 'not liking it' is on itself not sufficent case to break a law, it DOES give a first indication and a ground to look closer at that law, and see if it is in harmony with itself (are there internal contradictions?), with other laws (which supercedes which?) and your own basic values (is it acceptable within my own ethical value-system?).

If you do not do that, and merely accept you have to follow a law, because the law is there, then one would sooner or later be confronted with unethical behaviour (even from oneself), even though one is following the law. If a law is passed that would put all niggers apart from white people, would you agree to it? If you're argument is that the law is the law, and you should obey it, then the answer would be yes. If you take the principles I just mentionned, then the answer could well be; no - EVEN if the law says something else. And mind you, a democracy is not immune to such unjust laws; it's just a matter of 'the dictatorship of the majority'.

In my own country, for instance - a most democratic one, more so then the rather doubtful two-party system - there has been talk lately about creating a law which not only criminalyzes immigrants, but also ALL people who help them (for instance, by taking them in their homes, giving them food, etc.). Without wanting to invoke the nazi's, that's rather a disturbing trend. If people offer that help freely, out of empathy, are they being wrong? According to the law (if it gets passed), they are, but I say: bullocks to that law. One should not follow unjust laws, whether they are created by due democratic processes or not.

One could even say that laws, which are generally just, still have to be measured by a persons own value. At least, that's what I do. For instance, I can agree, that stealing is, in general, a 'wrong' thing. When some rich western bloke would steal a television, I would agree with the law: punish him. And yet, if a kid stole food because he was starving, I would not think the same, and would not cooperate with 'the law'. Certainly, these cases are not always easy to spot and to know what is the best thing to do, but it does not absolve you from doing it, and making that personal evaluation.

Following laws just because they have been made is the ultimate stupidity.

Re:The British BPI say its illegal

allofmp3 does plainly not have the right to licence copyright to the BPI's artists in the UK...

They don't claim to have rights in the UK. They don't have a presence in the UK. The credit cards are run through Holland. Are they obliged to check your location before completing a sale? It's the customer's obligation to ensure what he buys or imports (if this can be counted as an import, which is not clear) is legal where he lives. allofmp3 is acting unlawfully...

If they're acting unlawfully, how is it that Amazon and hundreds of other online dealers who cheerfully sell across international borders, regardless of market segmentation, are not? Corporations are all in favour of globalisation when it cuts costs for them, but demonise it when it cuts their profits.

Re:This is scary.

I can almost imagine that there are fat purple elephants flying around in the sky, but it doesn't mean that it's true.

Ease up on the hyperbole.

Re:This is scary.

Actually, it is not simply an hyperbole.
There are many kinds of war, including political and economical wars.
Not all wars are military ones.

If you consider those other kinds of war, the possibility doesn't sound so far fetched anymore, does it ?

Re:This is scary.

The United States has gone to war over business before. Oil is the obvious example, but there are others as well. Or here's an example involving fruit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_fruit_company [wikipedia.org] Food for thought.

Re:This is scary.

I can almost imagine that there are fat purple elephants flying around in the sky, but it doesn't mean that it's true.

Ease up on the hyperbole.

Yeah, 'cause the United States has never gone to war to protect its business interests.

Re:It's Hardly Scary

On your lines of logic, I could ask what reason does a Law grad have to work at a public defenders all of his life? What reason does an MBA have for helping run a goodwill? But assuming "music is different" (which I'm sure you'll say), to answer your question about what incentive an artist would have to create: artistic passion (some of our greatist artists, not just in music, live and worked in squalor just to do what they loved. Even in science! Albert Einstien worked as a patent office employee, checking patents for chump change), and concerts. Artists make a shitload of money on concerts, and without widely distributed music they won't have enough buzz to put on a concert. As far as the war comment, we woudln't go to war specifically and instantly over such a debate, however a situation like this will breakdown communication (which inevitably leads to war as neither party knows how to think of anything other than themselves).

Re:It's Hardly Scary

if you think the United states wouldn't go to war to protect its economic interests you are fooling yourself.

Re:It's Hardly Scary

f you think the United states wouldn't go to war to protect its economic interests you are fooling yourself.

If you dom't realize that the United States went to war to protect its economic interests several times in the last century and has already done so once in the young current century you are fooling yourself.

Re:It's Hardly Scary (for an Imperialist)

Let's see,

• Hawaii
• Mexico
• Nicaragua
• Dominican Republic
• Iraq
• Spain for Cuba, Puerto Rico, Phillipines
• Cuba
• Native Americans (so many times it's too hard to itemize)

These all were commercial motivated to some degree or another.
Russia is way too big and has too many things that go boom to risk a war with and the copyright thing is probably too minor, but if this were a smaller nation with few friends who knows. Of course it would be over terrorism or for "liberation".
The major record labels are representations of capitalism at it's worse. Their demise might actually bring about a more efficient industry that meets the needs of consumers and artists better.
AllOfMP3 is what these companies deserve after their manipulation of copyright laws and buying congress for the DMCA.

Re:It's Hardly Scary

Britney Spears and every other no-talent hack being forced on the consumers out of a job?

I can live with that.

Re:It's Hardly Scary

with the availability of cheap music artists lose their incentive to create.

Yeah, right. Like with the availability of cheap (free) software programmers lose their incentive to create, too. The only trouble with your argument is that it's not true, and never was.

So, which "multi-billion dollar industry" company do you work for, hmm?

Re:This is scary.

It's scary how far the US is willing to go to pressure other countries into changing their laws to suit US interests. I can almost imagine the US going to war with other countries that "don't have the same copyright laws as us".

Somewhere, this thought is giving an **AA exec a hard-on that even Viagra couldn't achieve...

You are almost correct

I am not really disturbed at how far the US is willing to go to pressure other countries to change their laws to protect US interests, that's what sovereign states do. What disturbs me is that our current government thinks that *this* interest is worth so much diplomatic capital.

The global music market is only worth $32 billion [ifpi.org]. That's chicken feed really. Even assuming that US companies were making 100% of that revenue (they aren't) and that AllOfMP3.com could eliminate 100% of that revenue, it *still* isn't worth playing this kind of hardball. I'll bet EU restrictions on GM food cost US companies more money than that (please note, I am not advocating hard ball tactics over EU GM food restrictions).

The RIAA's response

We don't care who you're paying..... it's not us.

Re:The RIAA's response

Because the Russian law states they can pay the Russian government who disburses the money to the artists? :D

Time to Change Tactics

Well crap. Now I'll have to make a photocopy of a $20 and send it to the RIAA for every copy of an mp3 I make. A copy for a copy, neither being denied anything, it's only fair, right?

Re:Time to Change Tactics

It depends - do you mind being paid by your employer in the same photocopied bills? No? Why?

Because when I produce a creative work, my employer gets the rights to it, and I may or may not have a right to license it for my own use. So I want my paycheck, and the employer might get some of it if I decide to invest in them.

But when I buy music online, I get a copy of the music, and the only right I have is to listen to it on that device and make a backup copy. Even if I buy on a CD, I only get those rights. So why shouldn't I send them a copy of my money that they can look at and feel rich, but not give to anyonle else?

Quid pro quo.

Re:Time to Change Tactics

This argument is just absurd. That's like saying if you rent a dvd, you should be able to give them money, but when you return the dvd, they should also return your money...

Re:Time to Change Tactics

Well crap. Now I'll have to make a photocopy of a $20 and send it to the RIAA for every copy of an mp3 I make. A copy for a copy, neither being denied anything, it's only fair, right?

That's selfish. Make the copy of the $20 bill available as a torrent, and send the RIAA a link to it.

Pay attention record labels

While allofmp3 is probably undercharging what would be profitable in the US, its popularity does exemplify the fact that people are willing to buy alot more music if the price is more reasonable. I for one would probably buy x10 the music I do now if I could download it (sans DRM) for 25 cents a song. When are the record companies going to wake up and smell the profits?

Re:Pay attention record labels

When are the record companies going to wake up and smell the profits?

Probably when they stop smelling ass due to the location of their heads.

When will the *AAs learn...

It is time to phase out your old business model. It is obvious from online services like iTunes and Allofmp3 that people are willing to pay reasonable prices to obtain their music online. They also need to learn that CDs are no longer the preferred format people want to listen to their music in. Of the few people I know who do go buy cds the first thing they do is stick it into their PC, rip it to MP3, and toss it either on an MP3 CD or their iPod. I know I'm just talking crazy. It makes way more sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars greasing politicians hands and suing everyone instead of spending a few million to just design and implement a download system.

Re:When will the *AAs learn...

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on a couple of points. The breakage being the main one -- record companies make extra profit due to this, not less. Which also leads directly in to their main reason for wanting the most obtuse DRM possible. Right now, record companies make money hand over fist on reprints of old music, both on new formats, and on replacements. Digital copies have neither of these problems, and present a problem that they're not equipped to deal with: Not being able to resell the same old shit. Given time, say 10 or 20 years, eventually everyone will have all the old music they want -- and in a format that they never need to replace. This is bad news bears, coupled with the fact that as you mentioned, only a few tracks per album are worth buying, seriously reduces how much actual product they will have in the future.

AllofMp3.com fails to pay artist royalties...

Didn't the RIAA/IFPI know that In Soviet Russia, the artist pays YOU?

Yeah,,,,

I love how they are "bad" because they fail to pay artist royalties.

Of course, they're worried about how much money the artists make. Right. That's their casus belli right there.

Re:Yeah,,,,

Would it make the RIAA happy if allofmp3.com contacted the individual artists and paid them their royalties?

Of course not. The RIAA doesn't care a hill of beans about whether the individual artists are ever paid for their work. They just want to make sure that the major record companies get paid.

Re:Just an opinion

A lot of the stuff you've listed is slowly losing its validity.

For example, the studio's expensive equipment is not nearly as expensive as it used to be. Recordings made today with a little firewire preamp and a copy of garageband sound better than recordings made in the old magnetic tape based studios.

And all that advertising and shoving the music down peoples' throats? Look at how viral advertising on the interweb has made phenomenon out of the silliest crap. Make something enough people genuinely enjoy, and it has a good chance of making its way around the 'net.

More and more small bands are learning that they can get their music heard without bending over and getting fucked by the RIAA. This is great news! The only major hurdle at this point that's blocking non-RIAA bands from going mainstream is the strangle hold the RIAA has on the radio industry. Thankfully, thinks like podcasting are negating even that need.

Re:Just an opinion

I think we all support the artist's right to make money off their music, right?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Contrary to popular opinion, artists do not have a Natural Right to profit from their work. In fact it is the opposite: the natural state of creative works is to be "owned" by all of society, because (unlike real (i.e. physical) property) they can be freely shared and duplicated.

"He who receives ideas from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me" -- Thomas Jefferson

Now, because Jefferson and the other writers of the Constitution realized that enhancing this information sharing (through the Public Domain) was a Good Thing, they decided to construct a mechanism by which artists and inventors would be encouraged to create. So, they wrote a clause into the Constitution that gives creators an oppertunity to profit from their work, in the hope that the lure of profit would inspire them.

However, profit was only means to an end, not the end itself. The express purpose of copyright is "To Promote the Progess of Science and the Useful Arts." Copyright is not a right (despite the name); it is a construct of law -- a "social contract," if you will -- and as in all contracts, it requires concession from both parties. The artist concedes to give his work to the Public Domain, and the public concedes to grant him a temporary monopoly over distribution of his idea.

Now, just as with any contract, if one party breaks it then the other party is no longer bound by it. By bribing Congress the "content industry" has effectively caused copyright to become perpetual, which means that the artist (or rather, the entity the artist sold his rights to) effectively concedes nothing, at the cost of the public. Therefore, the social contract is null and void, and it is perfectly reasonable for citizens to ignore it.

Re:Just an opinion

I don't think anyone has a right to that work wihtout my permission.

The Universe doesn't care what you think, nor does it provide any mechanism to prevent copying of your idea other than you keeping it only in your head. The only thing that provides such a mechanism is copyright law, an artificial construct. That's the first half of my point.

The second half of my point is that Jefferson et. al. -- the guys that created copyright law as we know it -- would also disagree with you about its purpose. Although your interpretation seems to promote "fairness" (from a particular point of view), it also creates a monopoly and an entitlement -- and the Founding Fathers hated monopolies and entitlements. Instead, they explicitly rejected "fairness" as a basis for copyright law, and instead created it on the basis of being good for society as a whole.

In other words, you're entitled to your opinion, but if I'm "full of it" then Jefferson was too!

Why doesn't the RIAA address the real problem?

To me, it seems the RIAA is becoming so desperate for money that they're signing on anyone who can belt out a tune. They're doing nothing but churning out garbage and expecting people to buy it. The reality is that artists are pressured to do songs they haven't written and aren't that great just to fill out their albums in time. This makes it so there's really only 1 or 2 good songs on a CD. People are willing to pay for good songs. People aren't willing to pay $15 - $25 for a CD with 2 good songs and 9 that should not be. If the RIAA wants more money, then they'll make it in our best interest to buy CDs instead of individual songs.

No permission, fine, but is it legal in Russia?

From the IFPI's statement "Allofmp3.com: Setting the record straight":

Allofmp3.com is not a legal service either in Russia or anywhere else.

then:

The site claims to have a licence from ROMS, a Russian organisation that claims to be a collecting society. Yet ROMS has no rights from the record companies whatsoever to licence these pieces of music. ROMS and allofmp3.com are well aware that record companies have not granted authorisation for this service.

So is it legal under Russian law at the moment, or isn't it? If it's legal, then it's the Russian gov't at fault, not the site at all. If AllofMp3 is legal now, and they changes their business practice by the time the law changes, then it seems like they're being unfairly characterized as criminals.

Re:No permission, fine, but is it legal in Russia?

So is it legal under Russian law at the moment, or isn't it? If it's legal, then it's the Russian gov't at fault, not the site at all. If AllofMp3 is legal now, and they changes their business practice by the time the law changes, then it seems like they're being unfairly characterized as criminals.

Considering that the Russian police have investigated them before and not filed any charges, it seems to imply that the Russian authorities feel that it's legal. Now, whether it's legal for people outside Russia to purchase music from there is something I haven't seen a lot of discussion about either way, but AllofMP3.com's business certainly appears to be legal to the extent that Russian law covers.

Guilt trip avoided?

A lot of people download "legal" music because they want to support their artists or because they feel it's wrong to download music for free. Are these people just downloading from AllofMP3 and thinking that they're doing the right thing to alleviate whatever guilt they may feel?

Ignorance is bliss indeed.

The most amazing thing about this

"The US government officials and politicians have been demanding lately that the Russian authorities shut down allofmp3.com, alleging the site is pirate. Otherwise, they threaten Russia with sanctions, including blocking its entry to WTO."

US trade office is willing to cut off trading relation with Russia over some lousy MP3s? So lets look at this again. What's more profitable and logical? Russia in WTO and suck down RIAA and dumbdown copyright for tit sucking MP3s? or Kick Russia out of WTO and threathen with sanction?

All that in the name of MP3s??? Are we that fucking insane to the point of mental retardation? Oh wait, we are talking about RIAA and politicians.

I think they've got the right idea

iTunes, et, al. are trying to find the idal price for music from the high end, and AllOfMp3 is approaching it from the bottom. I would be willing to pay $4-$6 for a lossy album, roughly twice what AOmp3 sells them for. I will NOT pay $12 for a digital only, restricted, album with certain songs only available when the full record is purchased.

we should be so lucky

not sprprisingly, the massive attention has driven AOMP3 traffic through the roof Traffic Rank: 982 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? q=allofmp3&url=http://allofmp3.com/ [alexa.com] compared to itunes: 82,328 [lower is better] http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? q=allofmp3&url=http://itunes.com/ [alexa.com] nothing sells like controversy

Moderating

I'm trying to moderate this thread fairly, but I can't seem to find the "-1 Over-Generalizing Kneejerk and/or Poorly Thought-Out Rant" option on the list.

This is CowboyNeal's department, right?

what "new russian laws"? (from TFA)

On September 1, 2006 the changes to the Russian copyright legislation will come into force. Since January 2006 the site has been making direct agreements with rightholders and authors at the same time increasing the price of the music compositions and transferring the royalties directly to the artists and record companies. The aim of AllofMP3.com is to agree with all rightholders on the prices and royalties amounts by September 1, 2006.

I want to know what else besides the abolition of complsory license was included in this "copyright reform" to which AllofMP3 refers, but if this statement means what i think it means, this provision alone means Russia has at least partially caved to these pigopolists, and they now have the leverage they need to deliver the same unfair ultimatums they used to screw over crapster and the itunes store.. "put in drm or we refuse to license"..

daily operations

Well, I have some insight into the legality of these claims. Not because I claim to be a member of Allofmp3.com , but I know how they get their collection.

Mainly because I was a target at one time.

The story opens, I wanted to share my music collection with a small digital community with diverse origins, partly as a social experiment. So I shared with explict instructions to not put it outside of the community. Being at a university at the time 10mbit upstream was quite nice for anyone accessing this bare-bones Apache generated file listing.

Of course, someone leaked it. It took about a month, but then I had some real leechers on my hands. Tracking the URLs that they came in from resulted in click-throughs from forums interesting in sharing out MP3 WWW sites and other niche posting locations. It didn't take long after that before I got listed on MSN search (surprise, they found me first) and click throughs started coming in from MSN and then Google with searches which matched Apache-esque strings to find people who put up pages in apache as directory listings.

A reverse DNS of one of the biggest leechers resulted in a domain name matching allofmp3.com, I had never heard of this site before and took a look at what they were doing. I was very surprised to see they were clearly finding good content online aparrently through search engine hits of these Apache sites, and then turning around and selling it to people. Clever business model, pennys on the dollar of cost.

So, allofmp3 and some IP in Hungary were soaking up my 10mbit/s. I got tired of this game of cat and mouse, now that I had search engine penetration this bandwidth peak never dropped. Tracking to the sites who had linked to my site I posted to take down the link. Few complied (no surprise) so a little fooling with "find", and I had a "mirror" ready.

You get to break down what I did for fun ;-)

find . -type f -exec ln -s /tmp/target_file.txt /tmp/fakepath/{} \;
find . -type d -exec mkdir -p /tmp/fakepath/{} \;

target_file.txt contained the ascii, "go away".

After the automated bots swallowed a couple thousand of these files, someone figured it out. Tracking postings on the boards who had linked me, indeed they had gotten the message. Though I do admit it took some people 5 and 6 tries to figure it out. --- A 1kb file containing ASCII is not a MP3 file even if the extension says so dumbass.

Eventually it stopped bcause I took the site down from existence, the domain expired, I could care less.

I thought that I'd share this tidbit for you now anonymously, from my very publicly accessible IP address.

So, I'd like to hear if you ran into "MP3s" files filled with "go away" recently ? :)

Re:Enough of the FUD, here are some facts.

The RIAA is to the record companies as the AMA to the doctors in the US.

only if the AMA has been going around suing the manufacturers and purchasers of over the counter medications (specifically mothers, grandmothers, and little kids) because their manufacture, trafficing, and purchase of said over the counter medications is "stealing" from doctors.

only if they had laws passed making it illegal to do the above, and forcing many companies and unions to pay kickbacks to doctors because their newer and safer working conditions are also robbing doctors of valuable revenue they would have had in the archaic times before OSHA and unions.

maybe then there would be an analogy, otherwise we're looking at apples and oranges.

ROMS only legally and ethically represents Russian artists under Russian copyright law. Russian copyright law only applies to Russian residents.

in this case.. it applies to russion firms, which may sell anywhere they choose, and so long as they stay on russian soil only russian law applies. the recording industries of other nations could petition ROMS and have themselves added to the list of those compensated, but they don't want to.. they want iron fisted control to which they should not be entitled, but which our whores.. err political representatives.. have given them since 1998.

Because ....none of the money you paid to allofmp3 goes to the legal owners of the copyright, you would have paid someone for pirated music from the perspective of copyright laws outside of Russia.

replace allofmp3 with "the makers of the vcr", and you get the same argument, would you say using a vcr is piracy too?

Allofmp3.com is essentially the same as if one of you setup a site where you ripped CD's you owned or had borrowed and put up the rips songs for sale. The difference between your service and allofmp3 is that you would be arrested for piracy because you do not live in Russia or operate your business out of Russia.

ok true, but this is perfectly legal in russia, therefore it's only piracy in your opinion according to your morality.

Also, notice the russian recording industry is doing just fine in a nation which by our standards is "rampant with piracy".
ask yourself why we need these laws when theyre doing just fine without them?

Re:Enough of the FUD, here are some facts.

Record companies invest money first, then sell a product to recoup their investment.

Come on buddy, this is capitalism: investment failed--game over. It's not the government's job to legally ensure anyone profit in any market. Protection of "intellectual property", while not forbidden by the US constitution, is not gauranteed by it either.

Copyright is a bargain that the government makes on behalf of the public. It buys art and other intellectual property from artists by spending our freedom. With the help of copyright, publishing was once made sustainable. We've witnessed, however, that thanks to sites like allofmp3.com, that copyright protection is no longer a useful nor necessary foundation for the distribution of music.

Artists are not gods; they are not entitled to monetary rewards for their efforts. Neither are publishing companies. If they can manage to turn a profit, good for them--if not, ask if anyone cares. Lots of markets die, lots of industries go under. Cry me a river.

Times are changing, and artists will adapt. If music weren't so profitable, we'd probably see better music. Just as Free software has given us an example that self-motivated programmers can produce fantastic programs, self-motivated musicians can create amazing and wonderful music.

Also, we notice that many people who develop Free software actually make a decent living, and they're getting paid fairly. That's because there's more to making money than state-enforced manipulation of the distribution of information.

Lots of people scream at Free software and say it's not possible, that it isn't true, but that doesn't stop it from flourishing. Lots of people will scream at IP-free art. They can scream until they're blue in the face.

Love it

I love this site. When I was younger I used to download music or get it off friends. At the time I used to try and justify this by saying a lot of the music I was copying I had never heard and I would buy future albums of those artists.

Now I've started downloading music again, although in not really huge quantities through this website. I download a lot of what I've never heard. One instance, I heard a track at the end of a movie that a really liked. I looked into it and I bought the entire album and the previous album by the same artist.

The pricing structure is good. In fact I'd say fantastic. You pay for what you get and because the prices are so reasonable, you perhaps buy what you wouldn't normally as you don't necessarily care if you don't like it... each song is only 10-20 cents (Australian).

I hope Allofmp3 get to keep their licence and artists and recording labels alike see the advantages in such a flexible pricing structure. You've got a love the fact you can also choose your codec as well as bit rate.

Cheers AllOfMp3!

This is probably legal

Russians don't pay the same price for music as U.S. citizens... given the (pre-war) conversion rate. They can't. What sane individual would pay their month's rent for an N-Sync album? They won't, which is why prices in less able countries are adjusted according to what they'll pay.

The music industry is bothered by international sales. If Russians sold music to each other, then there'd be no problem. The objection to the business model comes when U.S. buyers make overseas purchases for pennies on the dollar. The site allows foreign citizens to overcome their regional price hike. A good example of this is U.K. movies and music... often much more expensive than U.S. versions of the exact same content. This is the only valid reason why DVD movies and video games continue to be region locked.

Keep in mind, this is the same industry that sues old women who've never owned computers for downloading songs over the Internet. They can be wrong, are often wrong, and should be looked upon with the most analytical and skeptical mind. Considering the amount of money involved, they have a vested interest in coming out on top.

As an AllOfMp3 customer

As an AllOfMp3 customer, I have to agree with what most people say;
You buy more music if its cheap.

A year ago, I hadn't spent a dime on music for over 5 years. I spend about $50/month now. Why? Incentive. More music for your money. The same amount of music would end up at (roughly calculated,) $520 to buy the actual CDs.
They see it as they are LOSING $520/month in sales on me alone, when they don't realize that it is BECAUSE OF the low prices that I'm spending anything AT ALL - because I couldn't afford it otherwise.

It's a "something is better than nothing" mentality that they should be focusing on, and not the "make as much as humanly possible" kind of thing.

Point 2 is a lie

I like them, I use them but


2. The Russian site AllOfMP3.com is not operating or advertising its business on the territory of other countries.

Is a lie. If you go to their site from a UK address you get offered the chance to pay by mobile phone (UK only). That's operating and advertising as I see it.

Weird

In Corporate West, the MP3 own YOU (DRM). But in ex-Soviet Russia, YOU own the MP3. The laws of Slashdot running gags have been turned upside down!

Globalization

Big business routinely makes use of differing laws around the world to maximize profits. e.g. The labour laws in third world countries may be hell for the workers, but they keep manufacturing costs down for multi-nationals. So it's a bit hypocritcal to cry foul when members of the public engage in the same geographical law shopping. If they do not like the effects of globalisation, they can join the ranks of protesters at the next G8 Summit. And who knows, a few Executives might even be shot by overzealous riot police.

Re:Pirates: Think about the people you're hurting

I realise this is a troll, but in this pretend circumstance, "legitimate" music download services like iTunes would do the exact same thing as "piracy" to a music store owner's business.

Re:Pirates: Think about the people you're hurting

How original [kuro5hin.org].

Re:Pirates: Think about the people you're hurting

No, the AC is just pirating someone else's pirating troll. Yay irony!

Re:Pirates: Think about the people you're hurting

If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society.

Like assaulting a teenage child, as you just confessed to? Why yes, yes indeed, you should be excluded from society. I'm certainly not condoning copyright infringement, but that doesn't entitle you to commit criminal acts.

Re:Pirates: Think about the people you're hurting

Hey, hey, hey, don't go insulting hippies in the middle of all this. Hippies pretty much invented free music. And Unix and Macs. You should be thanking hippies, not insulting them by suggesting that some money-grubbing parasite is one of their number! :)

Re:Pirates: Think about the people you're hurting

Wait, how did the kid misspell 'leet when he SAID it?

Re:Pirates: Think about the people you're hurting

Deja moo ... I've heard this bullshit before on Slashdot.

To be fair, however, I think the following are more contributing factors to your store's demise than piracy:
* eBay
* half.com
* amazon.com
* Best Buy
* WalMart
* Direct Artist Sales/Websites
* iTMS

Re:Pirates: Think about the people you're hurting

Your business model is dead. I would pay as much for a record store as I would for a "previously profitable" door-to-door vacuum cleaner sales route. Both businesses became obsolete.

If your big enough, or know others in your industry in the same boat as you and can join them , set up a commercial web site. If iTunes does not carry the rare stuff you do, you may have a market online for your material. The musicians want to sell it online, your clients want to buy it.

You probably only have a few years left. Get moving now while you have a customer base and cash. Step 1 is realizing that selling CD's is a dead end. Period. Gas Stations don't make any money selling gas. They realized that and now virtually every station has a (profitable) convenient store attached. Records stores don't make any money selling records. The big chain stores have already converted half their floor space to DVD's, MP3 players, electronics and accessories. They only carry CD's to attract browsers who buy profitable items. How much revenue do you make selling MP3 players? memory cards? CD accessories? DVD's? You do sell those, right? Because your customers trust you and are intimidated by the big box stores?

You have a lot of options. Music isn't going away. Quit whining and get to work....

Move with the market or get run over.

JON

WWJD?

My favorite part of this story is the implication that the good, clean, family-values, Christian types are the ones turning to piracy.

Re:Pirates: Think about the people you're hurting

My store specialised in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to. I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.

When they came to the counter to make their purchase, I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. ...

"Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store - and don't come back." I barked. Cravenly, they complied and scampered off.

Good thing you only sell wholesome, profanity-free music to our impressionable youth! Hate for them to hear any of that naughty language!