Alltunes.com Lets Users Download AllofMP3 Songs

Stony Stevenson writes with word that, although AllofMP3.com was shut down by the Russian Government this week, customers from the site who have existing credit can still purchase songs through its downloadable windows desktop and smartphone client, allTunes.com. From the article: "A former AllofMP3.com user, who spoke to Computerworld on the condition of anonymity, purchased songs with his existing credit from the allTunes software client today and experienced no trouble doing so... AllofMP3's six million users will no doubt be delighted they can use their leftover credit to purchase songs, but the site's longevity hangs in the balance. Just days after the Russian Government shut down AllofMP3.com, its sister site, MP3Sparks.com, suffered the same fate."

I don't get it...

What I don't understand, why aren't people copying their own CDs (backing up there media, it's legit in Canada)? I understand the logic behind the site, but why support a system that doesn't pay the bands?!? (I understand they also don't pay the labels, but I don't care about that) Is copying data that difficult for many people?!? Perhaps I should write another article which explains to the user how to do this? I had a previous article published on MP3Newswire.net, but that was written in or around 2000, and since I can't contact the MP3Newswire site Op's, I can't update the article (using EAC with Lame to copy audio into VBR). Or perhaps people are too cheap to buy their music used?!?

Re:I don't get it...

What I don't understand, why aren't people reading their own comments (proof-reading there words, it's common in written speech)? I understand the logic behind poor grammar, but why support an author that cannot produce comprehensible English?!? (I understand they also don't produce comprehensible German, but I don't care about that) Is writing proper English that difficult for many people?!? Perhaps I should write another article which explains to the user how to do this? I had a previous article published on englishnewswire.net, but that was written in or around 2000, and since I can't contact the englishnewswire site Op's, I can't update the article (using Punctuation and capital Letter's creatively). Or perhaps people are just too lazy to bother trying to communicate clearly?!?

Re:I don't get it...

The art of parody is lost on the grammar Nazi.

Re:I don't get it...

My, how dense you are, AC.

But you're right, I suppose. It is funnier your way. I just can't stop laughing about the way you sling about your grammatical corrections and editorial remarks.

It reeks of genuine hilarity, and I thank you for that. Your veraciousness is to be applauded.

Re:I don't get it...

Having a used CD market brings up the value of CDs. If you can't resell an album after buying it, like with iTunes, then you may not pay as much for it. However, if you buy an album for $14, and you know you can sell it later for $6, then the album really only costs your $8. Same thing goes with video games. Most games aren't worth $60. But if you know you can sell it later for $20 once you've beaten it, then paying $60 doesn't seem so bad.

Re:I don't get it...

"Most often, buying music CDs doesn't pay the band, it pays the labels (unless you bought the CD from a band who recorded and produced the music themselves, in which case it's probably a burned disc anyway). If the band has been backed by a label, they've already been paid by the label to license their music and sell it."

That's a bit backward from how most record contracts work. Contracts typically use a "the artist gets paid last" scenario, where royalty payments are held back and applied to the costs of production until they've been met.

If, at the time that you buy the CD, the CD has not yet reached the point of profitability, two things happen:

1. You're helping the CD reach profitability, so the artist will be paid that much sooner as a result of your actions.
2. You are showing the record label that people want to buy the artist's music. Generally, artists who do well continue to have chances to make albums; artists who don't are dropped.

If the first point is confusing, consider the situation of making a donation to a local public TV or radio station. Say they need $100K to meet their budget and have collected $10K so far. An AllOfMP3 fan might state that donating $50 at this point would be useless, as the station will still not reach their goal, but the reality is that the $50 donation puts them $50 closer to reaching their goal.

The "pirate your music, but support the band by seeing the show" argument falls down when you do the math. If you pirate ten CDs a week, that's ten concerts you need to see a week -- that gets to be expensive, and a time sink. Then, of course, that there's the reality that not all the artists whose music you pirate are going to be able to play when and where you want them to. In most cases, when we pirate music, our actual contribution to the artists' livelihood is nil, despite our best intentions.

"Buying it used? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of trying to support the band? Say someone buys a CD for $14. They listen to it for a while, then it ends up at a used CD store once they're bored with it. I go in and buy the same CD for $6. The record label still only made that first $14. The only people that gain from used CD sales are used CD stores."

There are a couple of other benefits of buying a used CD vs. pirating it or downloading it from a Russian site. First, it's unquestionably legal, no matter how much the record companies would like to stop it. And, you support your local economy, vs. some Russian guy. I love having local record stores with ample selection of used CDs, but these establishments only stay in business with enough patronage.

Re:I don't get it...

A tiny minority is actually concerned about who is paid. The rest want to have convenient (illegal or not) access to songs, and ripping your own CDs is not convenient enough to many people.

This is exactly what's at issue. Buying CDs and ripping them is more difficult than simply downloading them, or paying a site a few pennies to download them. AllofMP3 was so popular because for a couple cents getting music was even more convenient. You didn't even have to search through pirate sites to find them, they were all there in one place. They paid for the music because it was convenient, not because they wanted to make sure money went to the artists.

Re:I don't get it...

ripping your own CDs is not convenient enough to many people.

You've hit the nail, there. The convenience of digital downloads is the reason people love mp3s from sites like AllofMP3. Some may argue that iTunes provides the same convenience, but for many the DRM is an inconvenience that they don't want to put up with. I think Allofmp3 also showed what the value of convenient access to well-tagged, well-organized content is. They were selling mp3s for money, even though equivalent files are available for free form various P2P networks. Basically there is an unfilled consumer demand here...

Then there is a vocal (on this site) minority of people, who justify "sticking it" to "the system" -- the usual childish claptrap -- who get more and more vocal with every rightful-but-clumsy step by the **AA.

I think you're seriously mis-representing the opinions of copyright reformists. Or rather, you're combining the arguments of the copyright reformists along with the anarchists and along with the "I just want free stuff" crowd. This is not a fair way to represent those groups.

According to them, it is not quite stealing, and therefor is completely justified to produce unlimited copies of somebody else's intellectual property against the owner's will..

I view the widespread civil disobedience of copyright law (whether intentional or incidental) as a very strong indicator that most people unconsciously feel these laws are overly broad in their current form. I'll admit that many people break this law without thinking about it, or even just because they are "too cheap" or whatever. However there is a growing number of people who have carefully studied the arguments on both sides (e.g. Valenti vs. Lessig) and come to the conclusion that copyright in its current form is broken.

Thus, they argue that the "rights" of which you speak are fictitious and illegitimate (or at least overly broad). The "intellectual property" which you refer to is seen as an oxymoron and antithetical to progress and free culture. I won't go into the arguments any further--they have been described in eloquent detail many times on Slashdot.

The extent to which moral disagreement with copyright justifies civil disobedience is debatable. I'll give you that. However your characterization of the copyright reformist ideals as "childish claptrap" is quite unfair.

Uhh... where's the link?

Slashdot posters are traditionally link-happy. Where is the link to the article about AllofMP3.com's takedown? I didn't know about this.

So this was the reason for the Bush/Putin meeting.

It had nothing to do with Iraq, Iran or the "missile shield", it was about IP rights.

Shucks

Well, they've gone and shut down ALL the sites where you can buy reasonably priced mp3s! There are NONE LEFT. Darn. I guess the Russian government can go on some other kick now that we're thoroughly beaten... Yep, none left. They don't have to worry or be vigilant any more. *hopes they're using slashdot as their sole source to find these sites*

Re:Shucks

Don't worry; they'll be resurrected in Antigua, now that the US has lost in the WTO dispute and Antigua declared it was free to retaliate by ignoring US copyrights.

Regardless of ethics

Whether or not you believe what AllOfMp3.com was doing was illegal or unethical, it has got to be at least a little worrisome that a group of American corporations can effectively control the legal system of another major nation.

In my more paranoid moments, I might consider this evidence for an upcoming shift from nation-state to corporation-state as the global political unit. Then again, I'm also prepared for the inevitable zombie outbreak, so perhaps you oughtn't listen to me.

Re:Regardless of ethics

Whether or not you believe what AllOfMp3.com was doing was illegal or unethical, it has got to be at least a little worrisome that a group of American corporations can effectively control the legal system of another major nation.

I don't think that is the right way to look at the situation. What is worrisome is that a group of American corporations convinced the US government that issues that are unique to the entertainment industry were such a big deal that the US government better care about them and in turn they became such a big deal that they were able to force Russia to care about them. I can assure you that Russia does not give in to bullying. They acted because they either got something under the table for doing so or the government concluded that there was some benefit that they would gain by shutting down one website that would outweigh the perception of giving in to US pressure. Russia does not do something for nothing so they are getting something out of the deal, but what they are getting I don't know.

Whack-a-Mole

Looks like an ongoing game of Whack-a-Mole.

RIAA thinks they represent russian artists too

Many Russian expats relied on allofmp3.com as the only real way to access a lot of the music they know and love from back home. You just can't buy CDs of Hi-Fi or even Russian folk bands in the US. The RIAA has now essentially stolen representation of russian artists whether the russian artists cared about allofmp3.com or not. I'm not saying that allofmp3.com supported Russian artists at all, nor am I saying that allofmp3.com wasn't pirating russian music (it appears not, due to russian copyright law). But rather that the RIAA has unilaterally declared themselves the owner of all copyrighted music material in the Russia as well as the US, whether or not they really do. That is the despicable part of their actions.

spyware/malware?

Does anyone know the spyware/malware situation with the alltunes.com windows client? It is, after all, software from Russia running on Windows.

Patio furniture and mp3s

Recently I was looking for some new patio furniture. I went to all the usual places - Kmart, Sears, Walmart, etc. - but couldn't find anything to buy. In one store I liked the chairs, but not the table; in another store I liked the table but the chairs lacked the necessary butt support; Walmart had the chairs and the table that I liked, but they came with an umbrella the size of a traveling circus. The problem was - everything was sold in sets. If you like the umbrella - you have to buy the table and the six hideous chairs that come with it.

It was like shopping for music: you find a track you like and have to buy the whole album. If I had an option of buying - legally - any track that I want in lossless format, DRM-free, I would probably be spending around $100 every month on music. Why not - I have the money, I like music, I have the time to listen to it. But the way things are, I hardly buy any music anymore. Sony and the rest of the RIAA herd think they are protecting their bottom line. I think in reality their obstruction of online music business is exactly the reason behind their sales decline.

International Waters

How about if I get a ship with a nice Liberian flag registration and park it about 20 miles off the coast of California. Run a microwave or fiber optic link to shore for Internet access. Several connections might be necessary for backup and greater bandwidth.

As I doubt Liberia has any intellectual property treaties with anyone, this should be able to be a source for downloads according to whatever rules are determined by the Ship's Captain.

That would of course be $0.01 per GB of source material. So, if there were 1,000 GB of Sony-owned copyright music the payment would be $10. Once. Seems pretty fair.

Movies would be compensated at the same rate.

Software would be compensated at the same rate as well.

Upon payment of a one-time registration fee of $100 you would be able to download everything.

All of this would be conforming to the treaties for Intellectual Property of the nation of registry and done in conformance with additional rules, regulations and agreements with the Ship's Captain.

Sounds pretty fair, wouldn't you say?

Your "Rights" online?

I love how this is listed under "Your Rights Online", as If I have the right to shop with an illegal download company, because it is online? How is shopping with a company who has been shut down so many times for illegal business practices suddenly my "right"?

Russain mp3 site

Most othae russian mp3 site are cheaper than allofmp3 http://hubpages.com/hub/russianmp3site [hubpages.com]

Yes, this has always been the case

But when AllTunes is "no more" (if that day ever comes), look for your alternative music source at songboom.com [songboom.com] - there are reviews of over a dozen Russian based music services.

Re:Has this not always been the case?

Yes, but the article's pointing out that alltunes wasn't shut down at the same time allofmp3 was and that allofmp3's credits weren't redacted.

Posting at top.

I haven't tried Visa, but I just paid by Mastercard and was able to credit my account. Don't have a Mastercard? Me either. Check for Virtual Debit Card on Paypal's website. It works like a charm and withdraws instantly directly from my Savings account. Hope this helps people, because as recently as a month ago allTunes accepted neither Visa nor Mastercard.

You can either use the web page, or the new allTunes browser. It's a slight improvement of the allofMP3 browser, but you can't use the old one anymore. Hope this helps some people. Enjoy.

Re:Why...

AllOfMP3 was soooo nice that it wasn't worth it to rip CDs or hunt around online. I could get a LAME alt-extreme encoded song for a few cents... all the convenience of iTunes with DRM-free downloads. Buy the album? How quaint.