You guys seem unable to fathom even the simplest copyright laws. Stealing is stealing, doesn't matter if you break into someone's house and take something or if you plagiarize a body of work they've written. Doesn't matter if you stole the physical manuscript or not, you STOLE IT and profited. PC Tool (aptly named) is wrong as usual.

AllofMp3's claim that they have tried to compensate the recording industry sounds alot like "the check is in the mail". And regardless, if someone stole your stuff, pawned it, then offered you 15% of the proceeds, would you legitimize their actions by accepting it? Why do you expect the RIAA, the labels, and yes, the artists to do the same?
Isn't it a little fishy that AllofMp3 won't disclose the records on the royalty payments they claim they've offered?

I record and release music. Do I want to make a mint? No. Do I expect to make a living? No, it'd be nice, but no. Do I expect to have power over where and how my music is made available? Yes. Recording isn't free, promotion isn't free, it costs MONEY to do this, and if you aren't at least breaking even, it's damned near impossible to maintain. If the little paracommunists like PCTool and others got their fat butts off the computer and actually tried to PRODUCE something, maybe they'd get it.

visa.... accepted everywhere you want to be as long as it is not www.allofmp3.com.... gimmie a break...

Interesting to note:

VISA is now apparently helping us all decide what is "right" and what is "wrong" by denying payments to those they deem "wrong".

Funny how AllofMP3 is "wrong" while the hardcore beastiality site that keeps spamming me is apparently "right", since they say they accept VISA. (um, that'd be UNTESTED)

Let's see VISA drop all porn sites, gun sites, and sites that use spam to advertise.

IMO (as a friend of couple musicians), artis's most imidiate concern is sharing his creation with people. money is a byproduct.
if a musician finds the money as primary reason for his work, IMO his work is meaningless and he is not an artist who's work i care about. i will not even bother to download it for free.

art is a creation by individual, it simply cannot be produced in any kind of industry.

AoM accepts PIN codes from xrost, who accepts VISA. They've also already lined up another payment service that accepts VISA.

You folks with VISA cards are not out of luck just yet. :)

Hey. Whose side are you on? =p

he is on our - CONSUMER side. and who's side are you?

Mine. =)

As stated below:

While I do not necessarily enjoy seeing artists get screwed, I am absolutely *giddy* at seeing AllofMP3 thumbing their noses at the RIAA.

The more success they have, the happier I am. Now, I can be happy even if they fail, I don't base my entire psychological well-being on the success of these folks....but it helps. ;)

That said, Tankist is right. I'm on the side of the consumer, and the RIAA has got to be one of the most anti-consumer organizations in existance.

AllofMP3 is legal. Ethically grey, but legal. For the time being...

These grey markets actually help. The Industry is slowly coming to realize that they have to compete with these grey markets, or lose *more* legit users. We've seen some improvement. Many artists and even a label or two have jumped *off* the RIAA bandwagon. It's a good sign.

Hopefully, sooner than later, other labels and artists will realize that in today's marketplace, the business model the RIAA supports simply does not work.

AllofMP3, in it's own little way, is helping the labels and artists realize this. It's basically a revolution of sorts. The RIAA has played the tyrant for too long, and the people are finding ways to get by *without* them, even in *spite* of them.

wery well put. thanks

From what the article is saying AllOfMP3 is doing all it is obliged to do under Russian law by giving the royalties to RMIS, i.e. doing exactly what retailers do in the USA, give it to the RIAA. And it has been doing this from the start.
It's the RMISs fault that artists aren't being compensated to the full extent that they deserve. They should've demanded more, but obviously couldn't be arsed.
If the RIAA said to retailers in the USA: "OK all you are required to do by law is give us 25%, BUT we think the artists deserve more than that, so you can give us more if you feel like it" I seriously doubt any retailers would give more than 25%... It's not Allofmp3.com's fault.
And it is in no way ripping the consumers off in my opinion. It says the artists are being compensated and they are. Just not very much. :)

allofmp3 charges the "right" amount of $$$ for music in my oppinion.
makes all those filler songs you dont hear on the radio worth losing a few pennies.

sigh, cash rules everything around me.... regardless of who is right or wrong.

they still dont get it that USA law is not implemented in other countries....
What is legal is legal in that boundary (for that country) ... end of discussion

Yeah, but they're using U.S. produced goods without license.

...end of discussion.

Goods?

Nope.

IP? Yep.

Goods imply something tangible. Things that are tangible are much easier to assign value to. IP? Not so much.

To quote another enlightened poster: "Its legal under Russian law."

Such pathetic reasoning just justified Chinese (et.al.) piracy...Swooft reasoning.

I don't care what you think of DRM or RIAA. The creators of media are entitled to distribute it and sell it under whatever terms they define. You are free to either agree to the terms and buy it, or you are free to pursue your pathetic little life that you maintain cannot exist without some MP3 file!

But mommy, I want it!!! it's just not fair! I'm a victim... Waaaaaaaaa

And the reason the companies have refused 'too late' attempts to pay is that it would recognize the legitimacy of the entity's actions and procedures to begin with!

Gee, If only bank robbers could simply agree to pay back the money they stole and be forgiven!

Great illogic guys.

If you don't like the terms the owners of the material set, then act like big boys (OK, let's be more realisitic - like 8 year olds...) and find something else to buy that suits YOUR standards, however low you have demonstrated them to be...

So...if someone steals your BigWheel and takes it across the state line, you think its is OK for them to sell it...Hmmm...Maybe you can relate at this level...but somehow I suspect that even that is too advanced for the little minds that fail to understand the basic issue at hand here.

> So...if someone steals your BigWheel and takes it across the state line,
> you think its is OK for them to sell it...Hmmm...
> Maybe you can relate at this level...but somehow I suspect that even that
> is too advanced for the little minds that fail to understand the basic issue at hand here.

Here we go again...

If someone STEALS your BigWheel it is not OK.
If someone MAKES A COPY of your BigWheel then it is OK.

Let's see if you are big enough a boy to understand the difference.

Spoken just like somebody who doesn't make their livelyhood off of intellectual property and therefore has no concept of what it takes. Anything to justify getting what you want for free, even if you aren't entitled to it. Congratulations on being morally bankrupt.

I was stating a point, moron, not rationalizing or making any excuses for using them.

It *is* legal under Russian law.

That's a statement of fact. It's not an excuse or rationalization.

If you've not had the pleasure of reading any of my past posts on Piracy, please feel free to do so. Your understanding of my stance on this issue is... a bit off.

As for the rest of your comment?

*lmao*

Stay away from analogies, man. You suck at 'em.

Congratulations on being morally bankrupt.

He could very well have a thought out and legitimate gripe with the very fact that such a thing as IP exists and can be abused to the degree that it has.

Stating that making copies is OK, does not make him morally bankrupt, though his reasoning behind it may.

Probably not stating this well...haven't finished my coffee yet.

Let me put it this way:

The reward for an excellent idea should be the application of it, and any money made should come from the product produced.

Music, being an art form, has no real product. The only money garnered from such should be through performance and "personalized" (or official) copies.

You can go ahead and tell me how such a thing would destroy the Music industry, as others have. My response to those folks is, "Great! What an excellent perk!" The Music Industry is a joke. A made up organization to provide made-up value for a made-up "product". If we lost half of the "Music" artists out there, perhaps only the *good* one's would remain. Perhaps the "good" one's who've been buried because they refuse to buy into the Music Industry night actually get some light.

I'm ranting now...sorry.

Look, IP only has value because we assign it such. We give it made-up value because we've been taught that artists should be rewarded. Yeah, they should. But we've put *way* too much value on the *copies* of their art. The real art is in the performance.

I'm pretty sure the guy you responded to is of the "entitled" variety. I just didn't like the hasty conclusion of "morally bankrupt". Perhaps...perhaps not. Do we now base our morals on things of imagined value?

I respectfully disagree. It takes large amounts of money to produce the music that you enjoy. That money needs to be recouperated. Now, *could* the RIAA charge less? Of course they could but they charge what the market will bare, or in the case of the RIAA, that they can FORCE the market to bare.

However, in actuality I was thinking more of software when I wrote my comment. Software is where I make my own livelyhood and in my experience, those who download music without paying for it do not shy from doing the same thing with software. Software takes a very, very large amount of time and effort by many people and expensive infrastructure (at least for anything large) hence the rising cost of software. Should those companies not be able to recoup those costs just because some angsty teenager thinks he should get it for nothing? Not that it's only teenagers involved in this sort of activity, but you get my point. The viewpoint that people who make IP in general shouldnt be able to make money off their creations is narrow minded and shallow. Justifying it by saying that COPYING is somehow different then theft (and make no mistake, symantic games on the definition of "theft" or not they amount to the same thing, lost revenue) shows low moral character, thus my "moraly bankrupt" opinion.

Edit: I guess what im trying to say here, is that IP does have a value that can be assigned. Based upon the costs incurred in it's creation. Those who disagree and think it should be free, can take a flying leap off a tall bridge, go out and try to make it themselves and get back to me about how easy and cheap it was.

It makes me sick to my stomach to see that I actually agree with you on something.

You're still annoying though.

t takes large amounts of money to produce the music that you enjoy.

That's a *very* dangerous assumption. You do not know what music I like, and the cost of a great majority of music production nowadays is next to nil.

It costs very little to create music, less to upload it to the net for world-wide distribution. It also costs very little, if you are any good, to get a gig and actually make some money off of your music.

those who download music without paying for it do not shy from doing the same thing with software.

...if they are of the 'entitled' variety, sure. Again, this is another assumption on your part. ;) Not everyone who "Pirates" music does so because they feel as though they have some innate right to it.

IP does have a value that can be assigned. Based upon the costs incurred in it's creation.

What you are referring to is the recouping of operating expenses. Again, if this were the sole basis for *all* pricing, your PC would cost you roughly $10, and a CD would cost you about .00003 cents.

Those who disagree and think it should be free, can take a flying leap off a tall bridge, go out and try to make it themselves and get back to me about how easy and cheap it was.

You have, right now, everything you need to create and distribute music, except, possibly, actual talent. Not that lack of talent should stop you, there are millions of examples on iTunes at this very moment of talentless hacks making millions.

I guess that means I'll have to start looking for a tall bridge. Would the Hudson bridge between MN and WI suffice? I'm assuming I can bring my bungee equipment, since I am sure you are not advocating my death due to a disagreement concerning the value of "copies" of artistic works, correct?

>The creators of media are entitled to distribute >it and sell it under whatever terms they define.

Well, you see, this is a widely repeated falsehood. The creators of media are in most cases NOT entitled to pretty much anything except meagre royalty payments. Everything else belongs to the record companies. They get almost full control and reap most of the profits.

That is why many musicians are not against P2P and the new economical and distribution models that are enabled by the Internet. If you make most of your money gigging, you want all the free publicity and exposure you can get. Giving people access to your works, is an easy and fast way to do just that.

Read this very interesting piece by Steve Albini:

http://negativland.com/albini.html

On the entitlement issue, definitely. On using my comment near the bottom as a basis to rant against it? Hardly. :p

He don't know me wewy wew, do he?
/tweeety

"That's a *very* dangerous assumption. You do not know what music I like, and the cost of a great majority of music production nowadays is next to nil."

"you" as in the readers, not *you* personally. I'll grant you though, that if craptastic music is your thing then production costs are nil, true.

"if they are of the 'entitled' variety, sure"

I've yet to meet any other kind. Pirating music as a form of "social protest" doesnt hold water, the person downloading (avoiding the generic "you are" to avoid confusion that im targeting *you*) is far better off by just not buying and protesting with their pocket book...of course that would mean they would have to do without.

"What you are referring to is the recouping of operating expenses"

No im referring to the initial cost to build. Operating expenses are those incurred, usually in a service based architecture, on continuing to maintain the product. Those costs are not as trivial as you (yes this time i mean *you*) make them out to be, ESPECIALLY in the software circles.

"I'm assuming I can bring my bungee equipment, since I am sure you are not advocating my death due to a disagreement concerning the value of "copies" of artistic works, correct?"

My sarcasm meter isn't working well today so lets just say that it was just an "expression" and leave it at that. You do still have to go out and write your own version of "insert pirated software here" though.

Do you claim that what I said is wrong? If so, do you have any arguments to support that claim?

TIP: saying that I sound like somebody who [insert random crap here] is not a valid argument.

"TIP: saying that I sound like somebody who [insert random crap here] is not a valid argument."

Your right, but then again I never claimed it was an argument...it was a statement. I could say you sound like cheese, if you think thats some sort of argument instead of a statement, think again.

As to the argument to back my claim up. I offered just as many as yourself in saying that COPYING is somehow OK.

However, since you apparently want more then your willing to give....It may be legal in the location that you live, but that does not mean that denying a person/organization recompense for the expenses incurred in making the product is OK. Companies cant hire developers/producers/artists/whatever if they don't make money off their product because every entitlement minded twirp thinks he should be able to COPY it for free. What do you have then? It's called high unemployment rates, and it isnt pretty.

Ah. See, we're talking about 2 different beasts apparently. I am talking about music, you seem to be talking about software.

You do still have to go out and write your own version of "insert pirated software here" though.

;) That's what I pay you for when I purchase your software.

I could say you sound like cheese,

Are you implying he's cheesy?

My hovercraft is full of eels.

Saying "My hovercraft is full of eels." is not a valid argument.

Yes, there is that. I was looking at it from the perspective of a software developer. IP is my bread and butter...and my families for that matter. Though I feel the concepts in my stance still apply to music and other forms of art as well.

---I don't care what you think of DRM or RIAA. The creators of media are entitled to distribute it and sell it under whatever terms they define.---

only as long as those terms are fair in the opinion of consumer. i don't think 1$ is a fair price and i'm happy that there is someone who trying to get that point across. IMO it is morally ok to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

before you get on my case i want to add that i don't buy my music from the subj or any other online store but i don't pirate it either. the industry simply doesn't produce the music i like so i have no need to pirate anything. but there are still plenty of unknown musicians who WANT to share their creations with people and IMO this is the best quality music you can get. obviously it is available in any style you might think about.

I'll agree to that.

I'll pay a percentage of your operating expense and the time and effort you put in, as well as any production costs you rack up.

...so long as the same applies to the artists I buy my music from. I can still pretty much guarantee I'd be spending a hell of a lot less than I am now... Even using AllofMP3's costs.

Yes it is.

LOL oh, well since you put it that way :)

*nod* a reasonable, mature person sees things that way. But then there is the ...im gonna say it again..."morally bankrupt"... individuals who believe making a free copy is "ok".

You ruined it.

We had a Monty Python thing goin' there...and you killed it. Dead. You murdered it.

...

It's gone to meet it's maker, shuffled off it's mortal coil...

You are jumping from one incorrect assumption to another then pile them all up into one huge nonsense. Add to that personal attacks, and it becomes pretty difficult to have a conversation with you. I will try anyway :-)

In order not to type the same thing again, I will post here my reply to someone like you in one of the previous discussions on the subject:

> Why exactly are you an opponent of intellectual property?
> If we cannot be rewarded for our creativity, what is there left?

Because so called "intellectual property" concept is in direct conflict with the concept of freedom and I believe freedom is more important.

I believe I am within my rights when I make myself a copy of something my friend has (with his consent). We may discus ethics of such action, but ultimately I should have a right to do it if I decide so. If someone is unable to make a profit because of me exercising my rights, he should try to change his business model, not buy himself laws limiting my freedom.

I will give you an example. Imagine that tomorrow a device is invented which allows to make a copy of, let's say bread. The device itself is very cheap and makes instantaneous free copies of bread. What would you consider the reaction of BIAA (Bakers Industry Association of America) should be? If people are allowed to use this device BIAA can not continue to make profit using the same business model they used for decades. Should they try to buy the law which would make using such device illegal?

Such device for making a free instantaneous copies of information already exist. And so called "intellectual property" laws are making the use of such device illegal. Simply because someone's business model depends on people being unable to exercise their rights.

This conversation, like most before it, will no doubt fast degrade into hysterical cries like "creators should be rewarded", etc. And I agree they should. They just need to find a way to do it without limiting other people's freedom. And many of them are already doing that. Take for example Red Hat. A multi billion dollar corporation, which creates computer software, makes a lot of money from it, and does not rely on limiting people's freedom (allows anyone to make a free copy of it's software).

When people are allowed to make copies, only a particular business model (charge per copy) no longer works, not the concept of benefiting from creativity in general.

Oh boy....

As far is music is concerned....perhaps it should be. ;)

I should probably point out that I have a strong fondness for the days when such artists only source of income was from their performances. I believe that this should *still* be the case. The ability to mass distribute should be seen as a perk, not another opportunity to cash in.

The current business model worked when the costs to produce the copies were larger, like back in the day when we were listening to albums, less so when it was tapes, barely when it switched to CDs, and not at all now that the Net has made them all irrelevant. The cost to mass produce is *nothing* now, save the cost of a PC and a net connection.

Distribution should be free, IMO. Performances should be their main source of income from their art. Should it be the *only* source of income? Doubtful....unless they really like ramen noodles.

I should also state here that I firmly believe our society rewards greatly things that do not deserve such, and too little the things that do. Britney making millions makes me ill, as do the countless unrewarded everyday heroes living in poverty.

(No, this has nothing to do with software.)

"You are jumping from one incorrect assumption to another then pile them all up into one huge nonsense."

Really? Name one incorrect assumption about you that I have made.

"Add to that personal attacks, and it becomes pretty difficult to have a conversation with you. I will try anyway :-)"

LOL...I love it when a troll like you starts off insulting someone yet when they suddently get insulted back, now its a "personal attack" and "difficult to have a conversation with"...talk about your double standards.

"Because so called "intellectual property" concept is in direct conflict with the concept of freedom and I believe freedom is more important."

Freedom? What freedom have you lost? The freedom to screw someone else?

"I believe I am within my rights when I make myself a copy of something my friend has (with his consent). We may discus ethics of such action, but ultimately I should have a right to do it if I decide so."

Your right, sadly it IS within your rights in many places right now. Ethically it's disgusing and thus my label of "morally bankrupt"

"If someone is unable to make a profit because of me exercising my rights, he should try to change his business model, not buy himself laws limiting my freedom."

Again with the loss of "freedoms"...at any rate, that works both ways, why should I be forced to change my buisiness model to suit your complete lack of anything resembling decency?

"I will give you an example"...
Your example is fairly interesting, however bread has been around since the dawn of time and thus, in order to try and maintain cohesion with the argument at hand, would be considered in the "public domain" much like classic literature is. A better example might be a machine which instantly makes a Ferrarri...in which case I hope the machine makers get their asses sued off.

"Such device for making a free instantaneous copies of information already exist. And so called "intellectual property" laws are making the use of such device illegal. Simply because someone's business model depends on people being unable to exercise their rights."

Yes...how dare someone get paid in the fashion that they choose for their hard work and expense...thats just terrible. The sad thing is, I can see that you actually believe it. Make no mistake, IP is HARD work...if it wasnt, you can damn well record your own songs, write your own books, or program your own copy of Photoshop. But you can't, so therefore you pay someone else to do that work for you, nothing wrong with that except for people who start thinking that since their neighbor already paid for it, they shouldn't have to.

"This conversation, like most before it, will no doubt fast degrade into hysterical cries like "creators should be rewarded", etc. And I agree they should. They just need to find a way to do it without limiting other people's freedom."

Again with the mythical loss of freedoms. Who the hell do you think you are to tell me how I can market my own work? Do I go to your house and tell you that you can't work that job you have to go do another one instead?

"And many of them are already doing that. Take for example Red Hat. A multi billion dollar corporation, which creates computer software, makes a lot of money from it, and does not rely on limiting people's freedom (allows anyone to make a free copy of it's software)."

Yes Red Hat is a wonderful company. One in a billion really...and by the way its not a billion dollar company, couple hundred million in revenue with 80 million net for 2006 making it really just a small company. Red Hat had no choice in what they choose to do because they market a IP product that the makers CHOSE to give away for free, if the creators of linux had instead chosen to make money off their creation you can bet your a** RH would be charging you for it and making a fortune. The main point is, the creators of it, the IP holders, the copyright holders are the ones who decided to give it away...not you.

"When people are allowed to make copies, only a particular business model (charge per copy) no longer works, not the concept of benefiting from creativity in general."

Again with the telling me how to run my business and what I can do with my own creations. Your fond of using the term "freedoms" to mean anything you want, what about MY Freedom to run my business the way I want and protect my creations from those who have no right to them?

Sorry...im a kill joy today

Alright, you are beyond the limit, it was a mistake talking to you. I only hope others who read my post would have better comprehension ability.

Good job, that was ALMOST a believable copout. Whats the matter, no more lame excuses for your total lack of anything resembling morals, ethics, decency or concious? Your lame attempt at a redirect only further proves how truly depraved and selfcentered you are. How hard is it for you to understand that by making these innocent COPIES you are taking from people what they have worked hard to earn?

My original opinion of you seems to be quite accurate, your a morally bankrupt, entitlement twat who obviously never tried to create anything with his own hands, skills and ingenuity...or tried and failed miserably and therefore believe noone else should benefit from their hard work either...oh right...unless they benefit in a way approved by you.

"...the US Government has specifically fingered AllofMP3 as one of the reasons to hold up the country's entry into the [WTO] trade body."

Puh-leaze. The US government now tortures people by its own law. It needs to STFU forever. This the same government that dropped the anti-trust case against Microsoft. No one cares about the US, its Apple company charging ten times the value for the RIAA's trash, the WTO, or "sanctions." The world is laughing at you. Get used to it for the rest of your lives. The US is the loser with a capital L in the 21st century in every area from commerce to sports to war to trade to music to healthcare to manufacturing to automobiles. It can't even balance its own budgets under the current clowns. Grow up. Move on. It was a good run, but you blew it.

What still remains unclear is AllofMP3's profits or royalty payments. Officials refused to disclose that information at the press conference.

Exactly.

"Hey guys. What's the big deal? We're legit. We swear!"

"Can I see your documentation on royalties paid?"

"Umm... no... What's the matter? Don't you trust us?"

Morons.

In related news, Visa said Wednesday that it was stripping AllofMP3 of the ability to take Visa credit cards. The company said its move was to comply with recent Russian legislation and international copyright law.

Good. Finally, some good news.

AllofMP3 is not ripping off artists because they offered to pay the RIAA a perfectly reasonable amount! From the article it sounds to me like the RIAA is telling AllofMP3 "We don't want your money because 15% of the sales isn't enough." You shouldn't have to pay 10 times or more of the amount that AllofMP3 is charging for music. It's the RIAA that is ripping consumers off, not AllofMP3.

Since when do stores dictate the prices that they will pay to the manufacturer? Did you even ATTEND an economics class?

lol...

Visa said Wednesday that it was stripping AllofMP3 of the ability to take Visa credit cards.

Means nothing. AllofMP3 will begin using another company to take payments. They've done it before.

This will have no impact on them.

Ever hear of Wal-Mart?

Good point. Wal-Mart is the devil.

I didn't say it would have an impact, but I think it makes a pretty bold statement, don't you?

Visa is showing that they won't support their business as legitimate. They're giving up business for themselves to make that statement, and it probably won't even affect AllofMP3.

That's pretty cool IMO.

Heh... It was actually Chronopay that they stopped accepting payments from, affects more vendors than simply AoM, and AoM has already lined up another payment service.

VISA just made a publicity statement. For whatever reason.

*shrug*

Cool? Meh... Much cooler if they offered to moderate deal directly between artists and AoM, telling the RIAA exactly where they could stuff it. Just as effective (since artists signed under these labels are not allowed to generate income form these tracks elsewhere), but possibly much more impactful on US politics.

When did Google buy Wal-Mart?

Google is just a "wannabe" when it comes to evil.

US politics? Oooh, you mean the bleeding heart special interest groups and BigCo ltd lobbyists...got it now.

*confused*

Isn't that what US politics are driven by?

Sadly yes. Hence my confusion :)

maybe song downloads should cost just pennies per track with full albums retailing for as little as $1 or less.
Instead of the RIAA ripping off consumers.

The RIAA itself claims "that AllofMP3 is making millions".

That could the RIAA's millions but those greedy aholes want billions.

"by ripping off artists and consumers"

Ok, maybe the artists, but not the cosumers. iTunes and any other "legitimate" ones are ripping the consumers. There charging "at least 10 times as much" for DRM'ed downloads that only work in either your iPod or PlaysForSure player.

Maybe if the legitimate company's would take notes and at least give the consumer a choice like AllofMP3 does, then maybe they'ed do better. I could buy even a full album that's lossless FLAC from AllofMP3 for only about $7 or $8. That's still cheaper than iTunes $10 to $12 per album that'll only work in your iPod at a high quality of 128kbit/s.

In russia, the site is legal. Anyone buying outside of russia is bypassing there own laws and they are the ones causing the problem.

They could stop them, but they dont.

People shouldnt buy from them based outside of russia, but they do.

I hope they stay around.

Not US laws...

It is legal in the US to import music. The music was purchased legally in Russia, therefore, it does not qualify as contraband.

Russia does not need to cave to RIAA. Putin looks like he *may* cave to the WTO (the bia***es seem to be under the control of the US....which is pretty much RIAA's bia***).

Again, I dislike the fact that the artists aren't getting paid, but the sooner they realize that it is *not* the fault of AllofMP3, but of their deluded lobbying organization, the better.

Again, I dislike the fact that the artists aren't getting paid, but the sooner they realize that it is *not* the fault of AllofMP3, but of their deluded lobbying organization, the better.

I have never so completely agreed with a statement about this whole music piracy thing. You said it *perfectly* in just one sentence.

I tried not to speed but the car just went faster and faster, I tried to slow down, but I couldn't, so I'm not guilty, right?

Uh yeah, if the accelerator stuck or the car was possessed by satan, and you couldn't slow down it wouldn't be your fault. Allofmp3 is claiming they tried to compensate the record companies but they were turned down, which the companies have a right to do. So Allofmp3s excuse is bs and means nothing, they are still guilty. A better analogy might be:

"I tried to buy the car from him but he turned down my offer, so I just took it anyway."

Or better yet,

"I offered to give him the pennies I made from his music, but he didn't want 'em....so I kept 'em."

*shrug*

You can put this any way from Sunday you want, to make it look just about any way you want it to.

The question, if there is one, is whether or not AllofMP3 should be allowed to continue to operate in the way it has been and is currently operating.

I hate to say it, but I believe this is one thing the RIAA can't do squat about. I don't get giddy off of the fact that the artists aren't being paid, but watching them stick their thumbs in their ears and wiggle their fingers at RIAA sure makes my day.

It's legal in Russia, the RIAA has no say what goes on there, therefore, they're SOL.

Gotta love it.

Therein lies the rub right? It is legal under RUSSIAN law. The RIAA seems to forget that it is NOT an world wide legal/judicial body. It is simply a lobying group for a bunch of rich people.

It's legal in Russia, the RIAA has no say what goes on there, therefore, they're SOL.

Yes, but it can affect Russia's standing in the WTO, which is why this was made more of an issue recently. Russia just might shut them down to make everyone happy.

Yeah, Putin's a p****. There's news. >:/

"The RIAA seems to forget that it is NOT an world wide legal/judicial body."

not yet!