I think it's kind of pointless to have a debate about the rights and wrongs about companies like this and other forms of file sharing. The bottom line is - it's here to stay and it's just stressful trying to fight a losing battle.
I don't think it's possible for people to feel lke thieves (that's what they are)in their own home. Have i ever shoplifted? of course not, i'd never even dream of it. Have i shared a file? well, yes i have. The two thing have a similar effect on the industry but to get the public to acknowlage what they are doing is an anti-social crime is impossible.
I have an album coming out in september, i'd love to quit my job and live from music alone, but it's not going to happen, i'm sure at least a month before the official release it'll be on soulseek. That's something that i accept but am not happy about. It won't stop me from making music, i don't make music for money.
Perhaps eventually all artists will make music for the love of it and not for the financial rewards.

Well, that's fine for you, but it's still no one's right but their own to decide if their music is simply given away or sold through means where they see no profit.

So, no, it's not pointless to debate this - it's crucial. You may not personally care if your music could possible contribute to your income (and thusly help pay for itseld) but others spend load of time, energy, and yes. money, making their music. And if people enjoy the results of that the artist should have the right to be compensated.

And wanting to possibly make something on one's music and making it for the love of it aren't mutialy exclusinve conditions. Pretty much every band I work with makes music for the love it above everything else. But many benefit greatly from their music making a little money, too - it helps defray all those expenses and allows them to more easily keep doing what they love to do.

And giving people the information that so many obviously lack, in how the current state of music 'sharing' and how it's really hurting artists can allow them to make more informed, intelligent, and responsible choices. And when many people learn that file 'sharing' is actually theft and illegal, unauthorized distribution, and can actually hurt the bands they like and listen to, they make the choice to actually pay for what they like and listen to. I've seen it happen - people change their habits like this when they know more about what they are actually doing and how it potentially has an effect on artists.

Simply throwing up our hands and saying "oh well - it's here to stay" is not only unacceptable, it's not true. Change can and is happening. Culturally, as people learn about the pros and cons of all this stuff, and learn a bit more about the actual realities of bands, how they survive (or don't) and how rich most actually aren't, how illegal music distribution can really hurt them, we change our behaviors.

Am I saying "go hug a major label"? Heck no. I'm merely saying that people should stop and really think about the possible effects of their actions, in all aspects of their lives, and act accordingly and responsibly. Real fans support the bands they like - they don't steal from them or support those who do steal from them.

Points taken, and perhaps i shouldn't have said it was pointless - after all i'm back!

I'd love to see people change their habits - I have. However think it's expecting too much to think that if everyone was explained the facts that they will stop stealing. I know you have seen people change their habits which is great, but i've also had this argument with lots of friends who still continue to illeagally download despite them knowing the whole story.
I still think that today, right now, not much will change but hopefully a system can be introduced in the future to prevent theft.
This was just on the news today, which is quite interesting >>>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...tertainment/5172816.stm

Interesting link- it's nice to hear the word *independent* in conjunction with this issue, too.

Thank you so much for your intelligent, insightful, and frankly, refresighly mature response. Seems some people are actually capable of that, as opposed to "clever" flame-throwing.

Yes, some people won't change, others will. But even stemming the tide a little is better than not at all. Better than sitting back and simply accepting it as defacto.

So, as much as I accept that some will always simply 'take' music, with a little education, many will understand the potential damage and stop, or at least curb their activities. And hopefully stop partonising crooks like allofmp3 who take their money and stil rip off artists and rights holders.

Thanks for being so cool... and listening, and responding so thoughtfully.

I still love and will continue to use allofmymp3.com...

"I still love and will continue to use allofmymp3.com..."

That's nice.

Please read below very carefully. You might learn something about the bands you enjoy and how you might be actually doing them a disservice.

Don't take that personally - plenty of people apparently have no idea how bad this all is for the future of bands...

few more things:

Under Russian law, ROMS automatically has the right to license ANY intellectual property to Russian distributors, even if the author is not subject to Russian law. Since in order to release music in Russia a copyright holder has to register as such, it automatically gives ROMS the right to license its music.

Simple solution? If an artist (even an indie artist) wants fees from AllofMP3, they should register with ROMS. problem solved.

"But," you say, "AllofMP3 charges so little, the artists will *still* not get anything."

That, however, would be wrong. Consider:

From RIAA associated labels, an artist, on average, will get 10% of a 10$ CD sale. (~$1.00) When purchased via AllofMP3, a ROMS registered artist will get about 70% of a $1.10 Album download (~$0.77). The difference is actually quite miniscule. On FLAC encodes (CD quality lossless), the difference leans *much* farther in the other direction. (70% of $5.00 being ~$3.50, while they'd still only get $1.00 from their labels)

An artist can actually make *more* from AllofMP3, than they would from RIAA & iTunes.

Just sayin'....

Okay then, has ANYONE ever been paid by ROMS?
The Beatles haven't, apparently... you'd think that'd get sorted out right quick. Also, many, many artists make more than 10% from a CD sale. And that $.77? Imagine a small budget for an indie label to record a record. Not promote, press, or even master, just record. Let's say a lowish budget of $12,000. At that rediculous royalty rate the record would have to sell over 15,000 copies just to break even. To even sell a third of that requires a LOT of promotion. And that's a lot of money. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars.

Regardless, again, just because it's (barely, loophole-based and vague at best) "legal" in Russia doesn't make it so for the rest of the world.

If someone in Russia were to make bootleg CDs for export to the US and UK and sell them for $1.10, you better believe they'd get stopped right quick. There is not one iota of difference here.

"Okay then, has ANYONE ever been paid by ROMS?"

How about checking with them, huh?

What a concept.

Like a bunch of people on a forum can answer that question.

ROMS claims they do, but as no bands have stepped forward to say that registering with them have yeilded any royalties, I have yet to see any proof of that.

And why should we just believe them?

And you bring up a good point - why should a bunch of people on a forum have this information?

Well, I for one, work with dozens of bands and am in contact directly with several entertainment lawyers. All of these topics here have been dicussed by us many times over. The lawyers I know don't represent labels - they represent artists and artists rights. And all agree that allofmp3, sites like them, and ROMS are not acting in the best interests of artists.

What is this ROMS anyway?

I am not so sure that ROMS has the rights for licensing intellectual property.

There are something called collecting societies that artists become mebers of and who the artists then authorize to collect their mechanical righs (composer and lyricist) money, be it from CD sales, radio play, tv, film as well as digital sales. In most cases ones national collecting society has an international greement with collecting societies in other countries.

Take for instance, if I record an album. When i am done with that I register all the songs with TONO (the norwegian one). When it comes to albums etc released outside Norway, my copyrights are handled and collected by NCB (Nordic Copyright Bureau). NCB again have partners all over the world, and I just checked ROMS is not the one for russia, that's RAO. That should mean that RAO is more likely the one authorized by TONO/NCB to collect on their behalf for sales, radio play etc in Russia.

It's like GEMA does for Germany, and ASCAP/BMI does in the US.

With music registered through such organizations the general length the music is protected is from the day of registration and 70 years after the copyright holders death.

It seems to me that some of the underlying issues are getting lost with all the arguments I've read. (Let X represent any service such as AllOfMP3). Some of these questions have obvious answers (in which case I've answered them!)
Others are unclear.

1) Should X have the right to sell music without permission of the publisher (who may or may not be the actual artist)?

1a) Are publishers entitled to royalties for music to which they own the rights?
YES! Nobody in a capitalistic economy is obliged to make their work product available for free.

2) Should X be allowed to set the price at which they sell music? Put another way, should an artist (or publisher) be entitled to receive a specified dollar amount or should they be entitled to a specified percentage? If the former, then X has to sell at a price above that dollar amount to make a profit. If the latter, then X can set the price as low as possible and make their money on volume

3) What happens if I bought an album in vinyl (say) and it got destroyed or is otherwise unplayable? Do I have the right to a replacement? In other words, if I want to use X to replace my old vinyl albums (or CDs) with MP3 files, is that (and/or should that be) legitimate?

4) The argument about stealing it because it's too expensive is stupid - if you're not willing to pay the price, then you are NOT entitled to the product. Supply and demand works - if people refuse to buy stuff at a particular price, the price WILL come down.

1) Should X have the right to sell music without permission of the publisher (who may or may not be the actual artist)?

If the music is played over the air? Yep. Sorry guys, public domain is public domain. If it hits the air waves, it's mine. But. They should not be able to sell it at a higher quality than that which was played over the air.

1a) Are publishers entitled to royalties for music to which they own the rights?

Sure. But it might help if they actually register with the reigning authority *in the country in question* before whining about not receiving any royalties. It's actually not all that hard to license through ROMS. See response to "2" for how long.

2) Should X be allowed to set the price at which they sell music? Put another way, should an artist (or publisher) be entitled to receive a specified dollar amount or should they be entitled to a specified percentage? If the former, then X has to sell at a price above that dollar amount to make a profit. If the latter, then X can set the price as low as possible and make their money on volume

For a limited time, yes. Upon 30 years, or the death of the original author of the works in question, however, they should become public domain.

) What happens if I bought an album in vinyl (say) and it got destroyed or is otherwise unplayable? Do I have the right to a replacement? In other words, if I want to use X to replace my old vinyl albums (or CDs) with MP3 files, is that (and/or should that be) legitimate?

If you saved the reciept, yes. Download it, riup it from a friend, use your backup. (if you purchased vinyl, you'r pretty much out of luck unless you can find a rip from another vinyl, same goes for cassette, and...uh...8-track.) ;)

4) The argument about stealing it because it's too expensive is stupid - if you're not willing to pay the price, then you are NOT entitled to the product. Supply and demand works - if people refuse to buy stuff at a particular price, the price WILL come down.

Agreed 100%.

If music is played over the air, then the radio station pays a royalty. I don't see however why such a "performance" should cause the music to become public domain - I'm willing to buy the argument that you as an individual can record a song to listen to it later (same argument as timeshifting video) but that doesn't give you the right to sell it and make a profit, regardless of the format/quality.

--->If the music is played over the air? Yep. Sorry guys, public domain is public domain. If it hits the air waves, it's mine.

Agreed completely.
--->Sure. But it might help if they actually register with the reigning authority *in the country in question* before whining about not receiving any royalties. It's actually not all that hard to license through ROMS. See response to "2" for how long.

You didn't answer the question the way I intended :-) The issue on how LONG a copyright should last is different from whether the copyright owner should be allowed to set the price or set the percentage.

---->For a limited time, yes. Upon 30 years, or the death of the original author of the works in question, however, they should become public domain.

Assuming I have proof of ownership of vinyl (say), are you arguing that I should only be allowed to rip at the same quality as vinyl allows? Note that the quality can depend on the equipment used to play the vinyl and note also that the original recording on multitrack tape was of significantly higher quality.

---->If you saved the reciept, yes. Download it, riup it from a friend, use your backup. (if you purchased vinyl, you'r pretty much out of luck unless you can find a rip from another vinyl, same goes for cassette, and...uh...8-track.) ;)

I don't know if i fully agree with 30 years. I think most music will lose compercial viability in a few years (if that). If you haven't made a profit on the song, by then, chances are slim you will decades afterwards.

I'm of the opinion that i'd like to see some kidn of "non-commercial public domain," where works are released into the public domain (after a few years to earn money for the creator), then people are allowed to use it freely for non-commercial purposes and a longer extent (maybe the life of the creator for commercial pusposes.

In other words, after 7 (just a random number) years, i could freely copy the latest song out today, but if i tried to make money off of it, then i'd have to get permission, not matter how long. Also, i think there should be more openess for people to create non-commercial derivative works (say home made music videos).

I don't know if i fully agree with 30 years. I think most music will lose compercial viability in a few years (if that). If you haven't made a profit on the song, by then, chances are slim you will decades afterwards.

A few that will go long after the 30 is up:

Beatles
Elvis Presley
The Commodores
...

I agree with you on the non-commercial derivatives.

If music is played over the air, then the radio station pays a royalty. I don't see however why such a "performance" should cause the music to become public domain - I'm willing to buy the argument that you as an individual can record a song to listen to it later (same argument as timeshifting video) but that doesn't give you the right to sell it and make a profit, regardless of the format/quality.

Gotta pay for the servers and bandwidth somehow. :)

You didn't answer the question the way I intended :-) The issue on how LONG a copyright should last is different from whether the copyright owner should be allowed to set the price or set the percentage.

May I direct your attention to the "Sure" portion of my statement. Being the first word, I'd have thought you'd catch that. Perhaps you only start reading after the fifth word or so?

Assuming I have proof of ownership of vinyl (say), are you arguing that I should only be allowed to rip at the same quality as vinyl allows? Note that the quality can depend on the equipment used to play the vinyl and note also that the original recording on multitrack tape was of significantly higher quality.

Yes, I am. Why should you get more than you paid for, eh? Pay for vinyl quality, *get* vinyl quality. Hell, lots of folks will tell you (I;m not one of them) that vinyl is better.

Yes a few, for thos efew, we could probably allow for exentions, as long as they can demonstrate that they are still attempting to make profit fromt eh product (ie, still marketing and selling), but i don't think it should ever go beyond the life of the creator (unless, the creator dies before the fixed time is up).

Never said they should be allowed extensions. Those are some of the very same artists whose pirating I will wholly stand up for.

30 years is more than enough. This goes for Software, Music, Television, basically any form of publication.

And for Pete's sake, if they're dead, copyright and IP protections should end immediately. This idea of selling copyright, or handing it down generations is ridiculous. You cannot transfer creation from one person to another, copyright is basically rights to profit from your creation. If *you* didn't create it, you *shouldn't* be able to hold it's copyright.

Germany's got this down pat. Makes me miss the homeland....

fair enough. the only reason i might support inhereted copyrights, is if an artist were to die prematurely, before their work turned profit, i think his/her heirs should be given something, because they helped support the artist during that period and are now cut short on financial compensation. It's not a strong argument, but i can sympathize with that.. on the other hand, a children of an artist who died and inhereted a large estate from the profits of a work, are entieled to nothing from added royalties as far as i'm concerned.

As for the no extentions. I can favour that, but an extention is a concession i'm willing to make if i can get non-commercial public domain. to me, that's an important enough cause to make some concessions.

AllofMP3.com? hmm, ty for the link. ^^P

Joke apart, "free" music? yep, free music (teknival and free parties sounds/public domain classical...) is the point, i am sticking at it for near a decade.

The music industry and its majors is a mafia, illegal agreements on the CD price, "heavy-rotation" fascistic conditioning and auto-promotion with the help of their TV/radio networks, "newbie artist -must buy- of the year" talent-less charts. Them and their "producers" have stolen, copied as much that they have a head in advance to be qualified as crooks.

Artists (real ones) MUST screw them, and come back to the golden age of music, where talent and mouth-to-ear were the vectors of the music sales, and that the mainstream media were talking of these artists because that were the audience/people wishes, not those of a crappy producer/label/major.

To get back on topic, of course AllofMP3.com seems to make a living from its piracy, and as every criminal organisation, they must be sued.

"Russian law says it's not illegal, so compete or step aside."

I don't know if it is legal in Russia -i highly doubt of this- and if they actually pay for some copyrights/licenses within Russia, but as soon as the sale is made outside Russia that is becoming illegal because they do not pay for that and don't sell abroad at legal owner's wished price in others countries, which depends on the standard of living of each country. Competition is irrelevant in such case, otherwise everybody would buy a license in/for the poorer country in the world, and sale from there the product to Japan or USA's happy customers... which would be just an illegal and international dumping.

"On Friday, Russian news agency Tass reported that prosecutors had declined to press criminal charges, citing specifics of Russian copyright law."

- http://news.zdnet.com/21....html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed

which depends on the standard of living of each country.

Wow.

Pricing based not on the cost of production, but the maximum amount folks can pay.

The very definition of price fixing. Nice.

March 2005 that was over a year ago buddy and obviousily Russia sees a problem with it now...

Well, it's not the RIAA. But that doesn't matter.
What matters is "companies" like allofmp3.com are selling works WITHOUT the artists' or labels' permission. Regardless of whatever little BS loophole the Russian sites are hiding behind, it's illegal to use their services outside of Russia in almost every country in the world. And even if it wasn't, they aren't paying artists/labels like they claim. And even if they were, what they would be paying would be so petty it would make what artists get from even the worst of label deals look like riches.

Bottom line again is, they are selling music, not paying those who they should, and diminishing/eliminating the chance for artists/labels to sell legitimately and actually have a possible revenue stream.

Are legal CDs overpriced? Probably! (At least in lots of crappy mall stores, and so on...) Does this in ANY way justify crooks selling artists' works without their permission? Not one bit.

So even IF all artists could sell their music directly to the public, to possibly compete with these thieves undercutting them at every turn would be impossible. How can ANY music lover not understand this?

Russian law says it's not illegal, so compete or step aside.

actually russian law says its legal in its country it says to check the laws and regulations in others

I don't recall implying otherwise.

Thanks for the attempt at spin though.

IFPI, BPI, RIAA... All the samne organization.

If you do not believe that, you're deluded. They may have started out seperate, but they are now one entity.

it's illegal to use their services outside of Russia in almost every country in the world.

Are you really that ignorant?

Importing music from outside the US (A pretty major country last I checked) is *still* legal. Therefore, use of AllofMP3 from within the US *is* legal.

Notice: Legal does not necessarily mean correct, or right.

Actually, just because it's legal to import music from outside the US, doesn't mean it's legal to import BOOTLEGGED music from Russia.

So, no. I'm not "that ignorant." Don't call someone ignorant just because you assume they are wrong.

And like I said, it's not the RIAA, but that is irrelevant to the argument at hand (so what if BPI and RIAA are in bed together? It doesn't change the fact that in this particular case they are 100% in the right going after these crooks.)

And you're right, even if it were legal, it wouldn't mean correct, or right. So in this case it's incorrect, wrong, and illegal.

At those prices, where proper royalties are NOT getting paid (or any at all) it's IMPOSSIBLE to complete. Don't people get it? They're only able to sell music at these prices because they are the only ones making money - the artists (the most important people in this case as far as I am concerned) and the labels aren't seening a penny. Never mind even if they were, at those prices the number of downloads that would have to be sold would be so rediculously high to even pay for the food eaten during the recording session to record the music, never mind the session itself...

To put it another way, how about I decide today that you're no longer going to make what you make an hour at your job, but rather, 1% of your hourly wage. Have fun eating, paying rent, keeping the lights on.

Man, people are just not thinking this through, what this all means, are they?

"So in this case it's incorrect, wrong, and illegal."

Prove it.

"To put it another way, how about I decide today that you're no longer going to make what you make an hour at your job, but rather, 1% of your hourly wage. Have fun eating, paying rent, keeping the lights on."

Boy, this is a tough one. I quit, have a nice day. I'll have another job tomorrow doing something else or perhaps the same thing making enough to survive.

I really care less that an artist gets a 10,000 guitar or has to eat at mcdonalds because he can't afford caviar. Not my problem, take that up with the industry you support.

Thanks.

I get it, you have no proof so you can only post spin.

How simple is it: It's illegal in the US to import and/or sell pirated or bootlegged materials.

You have to prove the goods are in fact illegal before you can use that argument.

This has not been done in ANY court of law.

Bootlegged, eh?

To make, sell, or transport for sale illegally. Legal in Russia.
To produce, distribute, or sell without permission or illegally: (licensed and legal in Russia)

Huh. Nope, sorry, doens't qualify. It's legal. For now.

Since music is *not* outlawed in the US, neither is the importation of such.

"so compete or step aside" sounds very clear of what you implied

"Thanks.

I get it, you have no proof so you can only post spin."

That is one of the best burns for forumnoobs...

never mind that almost no artists actually makes a living on cd royalties and that a few artists have even sued their labels for owed royalties.

When it comes down to it, most artists make their living on performances and promotional efforts.

Don't forget Merch...unless you're counting that as promotional.

yeah, i was counting any use of name and likeness (personal appearences and mechandise too) as promotional work.

Really, then. Then how is it that people get busted all the time for selling pirated/bootlegged items, without a court of law proving beforehand the item is bootlegged? Simple, it wasn't theirs in the first place to make and distribute copies of.

Uhuh. How many bands do you really think, percentage wise, actually make enough money touring to live? And who's right is it to deny them ANY legal revenue stream?

Most bands, aside from some really major ones, consider a tour that breaks even successful, and a tour that actually makes enough money for those involved to call a 'living' WILDLY successful.

I work with bands that tour. Many bands. Many are even considered "sucessful" bands on a national level. All of them have to work day jobs when the tour is over. Only once or twice have I known a band to come home from tour with enough profit to actually call it 'income'. It's a myth (perpetuated by stupid TV shows like Cribs (that stuff's all rented, folks)) that most bands instantly make money by playing shows. Simply aint so.

How about caring that an artist can come home with the rent paid and heat working? That's more the reality of it.

Again, most bands aren't buying $10 guitars or eating caviar. That's simply a myth. A few, very few, get to some kind of level of success like that, but most never do.

I see enough proof every day with the bands I work with.

The importation of illegally duplicated entertainment media is not legal in the US. Piracy rings get busted all the time. Just because the distribution media isn't a CD and the distribution channel is the internet doesn't change anything regarding the fact that if a US band/label's work is copied and distributed without their permission, the goods resulting from that act are pirated, and therefore illegal. The same basic priniciple applies in the UK, hence the suit.

Really, who is getting busted in russia?

How about we keep on the topic, huh?

It's legal until it's proven illegal in russia which it has not.

Sorry if you don't like facts, but too damn bad.

LOL

You still have to prove that the media is illegal first, in Russia this hasn't been done with allofmp3 so your argument fails.

Why are you still trying to use it when it's invalid?

Who gave them the right to make money?

There is no law that says if they make music that they have to make money.

Sure, there are laws to protect what they make but most of that is work for hire so they don't own it anyway.

"All of them have to work day jobs when the tour is over. Only once or twice have I known a band to come home from tour with enough profit to actually call it 'income'"

So what are they crying about then, they have jobs. If they are doing it for the "love" of music then they are successful.

If they are just greedy, then they get no sympathy from anyone.

Sorry.

How an "artist" pays his rent is his business.

Sorry, find a viable method to sell your music then.

The have a right to make money if people consume the results of their labors, just like anyone who makes anything has the right to sell it.

A maker of coffee mugs has the right to get paid when someone purchases one of their mugs, and they have a right to a fair price for said mug. A song is no different.

And if you haven't read the contract, don't assume it's a work for hire outright. And if it IS a work for hire, the rights holder consequentially has the right to that compensation.

If they have to spend 40 hours a week to simply pay the bills, it becomes much harder to keep the music going. Making music takes a lot of time. Making music well takes even more of it.

Sheesh. Some people think that making good music is easy or something...

So, no, they're not just greedy. Most would like to simply be in a position of not having to work a combined 100+ hours a week just to make music and still live.

Sorry.

Sorry, everyone else in the world works 40-100 hours a week to pay the bills.

It's a fact of life.

I write code on the side as a hobby, I don't cry when I don't make any money on it because I enjoy it. I also don't focus my family's livelyhood on it because I know we would be bankrupt if I did.

Facts of life.

Sounds like a bunch of crying to me.

I only know a few professional musicians and they ALL primarily make their living from playing live. It's not a rich living, but they are happy with what they do and they make enough money to live off of and have a family.

I am not saying i deny them a source of legal revenue, i'm saying that if they want to make it into a business, they need to compete with what ever else there is out there... you know.. face the real world and stuff. And best as i know, by russian law, that site is perfectly legal. Would you deny the owners of the site from making a living doing what is legal in their country?

It's not who's getting busted or not in Russia that I'm talking about - it's about the illegality if imported pirated goods into the US and UK.
And it's illegal to do so in the US (as I suspect it is in the UK, hence the lawsuit.) Over the years a lot of piracy rings have been busted in the US for the importing of pirated music.

Perfectly on topic.

I do like facts. You apparently do not.

By it's very nature, any unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material is a violation of copyright law. And thusly automatically illegal. Proof isn't nessesary. (Again, yes, I've talked about this with more than one lawyer.)
Perhaps, as a vague interpretation of one Russian law is read this appears to be possibly legal *in Russia* then yes, it might be considered legal *in Russia*. But I'm talking about other countries. And how they look at pirated goods. And most countries are quite clear about the importation of pirated goods.

So, no, it's not invalid. It's on topic.

And no, Russian law does not say it's legal. A vague interpretation of a law regarding a different kind of use of copyrighted material is being used as a loophole to claim it's legal. And that's all they've got.

Again, it's only vaguely legal at best. And really then that only applies within their borders. Outside of those borders all bets are off. How many pro-allofmp3 people here are inside of Russia? Anyone who isn't should be getting a lot more intimate with their own country's copyright and import laws before making such claims of a "legal use".

Such incredibly obviously unfair price tactics is impossible for labels, never mind independent labels and independent artists to compete with.

So by supporting such services, one is by default denying bands a source of legal revenue.

Additionally, while many bands might not see royalites directly from the label, they are paying back advances for tons of other things that they couldn't have afforded for their careers otherwise, like promotion, tour support, merchandising support. And the relationship also benefits the artist through the availability of decent distribution channels, booking connections, and so on. And don't assume that it's only majors that do this for bands, even tiny labels do it to some degree. Sure, the larger the label, the more likely the band won't actually see cash royalties, but that still doesn't change the fact that the might, if people actually buy music legitimately.

I'm really not as concerned with the majors, however - it's the smaller labels and independent bands that are also getting hurt by these attitudes and misbeliefs.

And I know more than a few professional musicians, and the few who do make a living may indeed get a large chunk of their income from playing live, but they also need, and count on, other sources to supplement that income.

Would you knowingly deny those profesionally musicians you know such an opportunity?

It's not crying. Everyone else who works 40-100 hours a week actually *gets paid* for every hour they work. The difference in my example is that musicians usually don't. They work 40 or 50 hours to make enough money to scrape by, then spend the other 50-60 or more trying to make the most of their music.

Pay attention to the differences here.

Everyone else: 40-100 hours at an hourly wage or salaried job - many with benefits, health insurance, 401Ks, etc.
Folks in my example: 40-100 hours, with only some paid hours, little if no benefits, often no health insurance, little or no retirement options, etc. So those 40 or more hours go to keeping the bills paid so they, too, can enjoy that the like to do. Doesn't mean they should simply give away the product of their labor of love, unless they choose to.

Bottom line? If you enjoy music, the creators of said music should be compensated fairly.

Just like any other occupation.

Perhaps, you, like a musician, put in 40 or more unpaid hours writing your code. Your choice then. That's a good thing.
And if you choose to give away your code, that's your choice too - but if you don't, and someone steals it, or moreover, takes it an makes a profit on it without paying you, you're being ripped off. C'mon. Think about it.

How anyone pays their rent is their business. But if someone makes something, and decides to sell it, and the market wants to posess that something, they (the maker and seller of said items) have every right to be fairly compensated.

And again, how is it possible to find a viable method to sell music when some crooks are taking your music and selling it at below any price that anyone with basically any real overhead to cover could manage?
No one legally can compete with such tactics. That's my point. That viable methods are be default weakened, damaged, and outright eliminated when such unfair competiton exists.

Even Russian law doesn't explicitly state it's legal - only a vauge interpretation of a law applying to a different use of copyrighted materials could be said to imply its legality - like I've said over and over again. It's not even in true black-and-white.

I don't think the legality of it is somethign i mentioned in this thread. i think you were debating that with others. since, i don't use the site, i have never read it's terms, policies, or tries to look at it's legality. only that i haven't come accross anything that specifically says it is illegal.

As for the services that the big labels provide, the costs for those services are outrageous. I believe it was TLC that, after a multi-platinum album, they declared bankrupcy, cause their royalties weren't enough to pay for everything...

Based on what Courtney love and a few other artists have written, the TOTAL cost to the record industry for producing a big run (over a million seller) is somewhere close to $1 per CD. That is including all the recording, promotion and distribution costs... we get charged $15+ and the artist gets maybe $1... tell me that sounds fair? To me that sounds like a predetory monopoly on distribution. They have already been found guilty of screwing the consumer, i'm surprised anyone would think they have the artist truly in their best interests.

As i said before, i would not personally deny an artist attempting to make money by sellng his/her works, but they also need ot face reality. Recorded music is becomming a simple commodity.

Sorry if you took anything personal from that...

But I know for certain that $1 per unit is more like the production cost, plus a little more, for the CD itself, not including anything like promotion costs, and certainly not including recording costs, for a major label release.

No, even at a large scale, when you factor in promotion (often in the millions of dollars for really major major-label artists) and the price is still significantly more than simply a dollar per unit.

And when you get down to the indie level, the per-unit price per CD pressed is still above a dollar for sure, not counting anything else besides pressing.

Are the majors overcharging? Sure, by a bit in some cases, and by a lot in others. But most labels lower than the full-on major level are barely making due. Really.

Indies spend tens of thousands on promotion on a single record that maybe sells five to fifteen thousand copies. Fifteen thousand is sometimes referred to as a 'hit' in the indie world.

Only the minority of records ever sell in the kind of numbers where, all things included, the per unit cost - including everything, pressing, recording, promotion and all that - even approaches the kind of numbers you're talking about.

The fact that it does sometime reach that low of a figure has somehow spread the myth that ALL records are that cheap to make. It's simply not true, nor common.

The vast majority of releases are far more expensive to make, on a per-unit breakdown, than that $1 per unit figure.

Take, for example, a common indie budget (the likes of which I've already posted here) of $10k for recording, $1.5k for mastering, $5k for pressing 5000 copies (a hopeful figure, depending on the artwork), $10k for publicity and promoton and $5k for tour support. In this example. That's about $31,500. At 5000 copies, that works out to $6.30 per CD pressed.
Numbers may vary, but the vast majority of record pressed aren't pressed in the millions - they're pressed in the low thousands. So these kinds of numbers make more sense.

So add to the $6 per unit (all inclusive cost) the fact that by the time it makes it through the distribution and retail paths, and the consequent markups that that entails, to even expect it to retail for $10 bucks means the label must be selling the discs to the distributors for, well, less than six bucks apiece. And that math doesn't work.

Hope that adds some info to the mix. Courtney Love, as well intendend as that ditz is, doesn't know diddly-squat about the real world of the average band. She's actually the kind of major label twerp that people here are feeling justified at ripping off - yet they are using her as some kind of landmark case. Sadly, she has no real footing in reality when it comes to the majority of bands' situations. And consequently is damaging indies with her so-called 'indie cred'.

First, where does the UK get the nerve to sue a company in ANOTHER COUNTRY.
It wont work its been tried against the US a Million times over and no one has ever won.
I dont care what the RIAA think they can get away with here, but it's not gonna happen.

I'm sorry, but I kind of doubt the RIAA has the amount of clout (sp?) to coerce the WTO to decline their admission into their organization ... I mean, come on. If we got out the scales and weighed world peace, possible ends to world hunger, etc., I HIGHLY doubt the WTO would really give a rats fat rear end about a stupid music industry.

I mean I guess I could be wrong, but if I am the world is f**ked. I guess the world really already is, but ... damn I didn't know it was THAT bad.

It's about protecting intellecutal property, and the rights of those who make, promote, and distribute such goods. The right not to be ripped off.
And it's not just the music industry. It's the movie, TV, video game, heck, even publishing worlds that are being affected by such crooks.

It's world economy, too. And the right for people to be justly compensated for their work.

So suing the allofmp3 crooks is very important, in both a concrete and cymbolic way, that things have to change.

1.) Name one site that does what AllofMP3 does with Movie, TV, or video games. Can't? Typical astroturf.

2.) The world economy? My friend, if the World economy is controlled by RIAA, we have a HUGE problem.

3.) Symbolic, not cymbolic. That's not even a typo...

If you think that people aren't stealing movies, tv shows or video games online, all in the name of "sticking it to the man" (the common argument against record labels" then you missed my point completely. I didn't say specifically that there is an allofmpeg.com or anything. But that wasn't my point.

And I mean it was a symbolic illustration of how protecting intellectual property is part and parcel of protecting international trade, in the world economy. Not that the RIAA controls it, but if we can't control rampant theft of property internationally then we really do have a problem.

And that was a typo... whatever.

If you think that people aren't stealing movies, tv shows or video games online,

Does not apply to AllofMP3. You are trying to derail. Why?

IP needs reform in the US. Germany's got it pretty much dead on. You are saying that the US needs to forde it's IP laws on other countries. You are wrong.

As for typos, yeah...that C key is *so* close the the S key. ;)

It's one thing to protect IP, it's a whole other thing to horde it and buy laws to atificially protect your monopoly...

hear, hear!

It was a point illustrating how this is part of a larger problem, that's all.

And the typo thing, again... whatever.

There is a broad spectrum of protection, or not, of IP. One one end, the RIAA and their ilk perhaps don't always have the consumers' or artists' best intentions, granted. But crooks selling pirated music have no one's but their own greed in mind. In cases like that, I'll go with the side that errs at least somewhat towards actually upholding rightsholders' rights to distribute their works how, where, and for how much they see fit. And, that right now falls on the side of agencies like these going after the pirates.

I don't want a monopoly in the music business, either, but after all of the complete blow-off stories I've heard about bands (indies, without labels) trying to get their music off sites like allofmp3, and being outright ignored, something's gotta change. And that change has to include the rightsholders' rights being upheld internationally.

You honestly think the RIAA has anything but their own greed in mind? Seriously, this is an organization that has been found guilty of price fixing that ripped off the american consumer over $480 MILLION.
Sorry, but i cannot support the rights of an entity that bribes legeslators to pass laws that greatly impede my fair use rights, in an attempt to protect their own ditribution monopoly. if you were truly concerned about the small indie artists, you'd be that much against the RIAA too.

When it comes down to it, the ONLY reason they want to shut down all of this internet distribution, is because they don't and can't control it. It gives other artists an oppurtunity to be heard without the record labels. If enough artists realize that they can become know without signing their life and works over to a major label, the big labels will die out.

Wired has a great article on how we are headed more toward a nichie market, where everyone will gravitate toward their own interests and the day of the huge superstar is going to die out.

All I really care about is people not stealing music. That includes crooks like allofmp3 selling stuff they're not granted permission to, as well as people stealing music through torrents and p2p. When the possiblility of the artist getting NOTHING over them possibly getting something, and regardless of the RIAA's direct intent, the side effect of them shutting down pirates is a greater chance that the artist can actually make money.
Am I talking about major labels? Not really, but when a site like allofmp3 can go unchecked selling major label music, as well as the indie music they sell, what's to stop them from selling more indie music? And the more indie music they sell, the more the very rebellion against major label monopoly you're calling for is damaged! By allowing pirates to pirate some music, they can effectively pirate all music - and that will hurt any independent effort to rise up against major label dominance.
Picture it - how could an indie band sell their album on their own site, for say a reasonable price of $5 or $10 when allofmp3 comes along, is far more visible than the band site probably is, and sells it for less than two bucks?

The very dismantling of the monopoly in favor of the indie is already getting pummeled by sites like these.

Many bands I know have had their *independently released* CDs show up on sites like allofmp3 (and others I won't name as I don't want to promote them) merely weeks or even days after - and sometime before - their record is officially released! HOW can an independant band compete with that?

So yeah, I too would love to see the end of Payola, the end of corporate dominance of the music 'industry', and the dawn of a fair and equitable marketplace where bands can stand on their own merit. But crooks like allofmp3 are NOT helping that happen.

While I'm for independent artists, and against a lot of what the RIAA stand for, I'm more opposed to the criminal behavior of pirates - so therefore I side with the RIAA's actions in this particular matter. Does it mean I do in all, or even most matters? No. So don't assume so.

This is where we differ.. i think the RIAA is doing far more harm to the music industry than sires liek all ofmp3. Plain and simple, the RIAA has like x1000 the power to influence the music industry as any of these services do. They control all the distribution channels. They control who gets herd and who doesn't. Until they fall out of power, smaller artists just won't have a chance to things like true radio airplay and a fair shot at distribution channels.

Yes, after the death of the RIAA (and it's big labels) there won't be nearly as many mega-stars, but there will be many more moderately sucessfull musicans and a much large rrange for the fans to listen to... trying to fight the P2P and allofmp3 is really missing the bigger enemy (IMHO).

See also my above response for my position on this, to some degree.

On one level, I completely agree with you. The RIAA, acting as corportate 'watch dogs' are f'ing this all up. They've made themselves into the enemy of the music fan. And I don't blame music fans for that position. At all. But in this particular discussion, the issue is the wholesale ripping off of rights holders - whether it be corporate or complete indie. And in this paricular case, does anyone really believe that allofmp3 and their ilk really care about the difference? Not one bit - if they can take it and sell it, they will. And that's where I have to say that, horrid or not, I agree that they should be shut down. How can ANY indie compete with the kind of price undercutting that these crooks are doing? They simply can't!
The (hopefully) 'moderately successful' musicians you talk of in the future will have zero hope of competing with these crooks. I've already explained that it costs much more per unit for indie musicians to make recordings (even if you don't include CD pressing, and go only digital-download) when compared to majors. So, if majors have such a great per-unit cost, and *maybe* could compete with such price-slashing theivery, how can anyone look at the reality of the numbers and thing that indies could possibly stand a chance?

It's just not possible. And thusly, in this very specific case, I support the RIAA, and their kind, for shutting down these crooks.
For the ultimate good of the indies. F' the majors - I care about the independent and small label bands.

I am honestly indifferent as to the existence of a site like this. Honestly i have seen/read things that go both ways on the harm it causes to the industry. Until i see some kind of defiante proven harm, i am inclinded to believe it doesn't have that much affect on actual CD sales...

I understand how the harm might not be immediately clear. But when a site such as this is reported as #2 ONLY to iTunes in the UK, how can anyone surmise that there isn't some damage being done??

That is, second only to iTunes, these unfairly-competing, non-rights-holder-paying, selling without consent crooks are doing really well... taking legitimate sales from those who deserve to be paid for their hard work, for their labors, for their craft.

I'd say it's safe to assume harm is being done. Logically, how could anyone come to a different conclusion?

I can hear the lawyers laughing all the way to the bank. The music "industry" is making itself extinct right before our eyes.

what people fail to understand about allofmp3 is these artists do not get a penny from roms...its a bulls*** loophole that exists...its not all about the riaa trying to get everyone even indie labels who the riaa could give a piss about are suffering because of this allofmp3 site they have obtained NO permission from any artists...hell some of the stuff on their site is released before the artist himself and the label have received their copies how can you not call this criminal?

I'd feel for them all (RIAA etc), but they are mostly all crooks so screw them.

heh

I would relish the option to send $5-10 for an artist's latest album directly to the artist themselves - but I can't do that. On principle I don't think paying $30 for the album when the artist gets about 50 cents (if that) is fair. THAT is criminal.

More artists need to setup their own websites, with options to donate money or buy direct.

No artist these days needs a record company. There is no reason these days to sell your stuff online and earn more money than a record company deal. Back in the old days they were the only way to create records, cd'd and tapes in enough quantity and distribute them world wide.

Any 12 year old can make a track and website and sell it online. Granted for an artist its more involved, but throw some money at it and the artist doesnt need a record company.

That's true and alot of bands have started doing that already. Its the way of the future and the record companies refuse to see that, and change with the times.

your statement may very well be true for say... the big labels but smaller labels pay the artist more then 50 cents a cd... and you can pay artists directly that are on smaller labels...what people fail to realize is the artist that is trying to do things on his own is getting screwed as well and has nothing to do with the riaa yet he's being penalized because people fail to realize that this site is indeed criminal

What many people forget about labels and artists having relationships is, well, simply, without a label helping them, it's next to impossible for a band to get enough exposure to actually sell enough records to even pay for the recording. And don't tell me that artists don't need to sell records to make money! Who's right is it to deny an artist the right to ANY avenue of income? Touring certainly isn't the cash cow for bands that the common myth would have you believe! The vast majority of bands consider a tour 'successful' if they come home having not LOST money, with the rent paid and the electricity still turned on.

Sure, some acts can self-release and self-promote and actually get a decent response. But now that basically ANYONE can do that, the pond is so huge it's even harder than ever to be a big fish, never mind a medium sized one.

Also, it's no one's place to assume that all artists signed to labels are getting shafted. Unless an artist actually says so, one has to assume they're happy with their relationship with their label!
Sure, maybe they only make a buck or two in royalties from a CD sale, but the label is putting up all sorts of money and manpower for promotion, recording/touring budgets, etc. While that generally has to get recouped, that support dramatically increases the odds that the band will, in the long run, be able to make making music their day jobs.
Again, unless the artist says directly they're unhappy with their label, trying to be 'robin hood' about 'the man' and promoting things like these crooks (or p2p/torrent "sharing") as ways of 'sticking it to the evil label' will actually be sticking it to the bands!

While the RIAA may not be saints, look at this equation:

allofmp3.com and sites like them pay the artist $0.
The RIAA and folks like them are trying to, in addition to making sure labels get paid, make sure the artists get paid.

Again, everyone always goes on and on about how BAD labels are. But remember, artists don't have guns held to their heads when they sign contracts. And generally, they hire lawyers to explain every detail of those contracts to them, and to negoitate the poor terms into better ones. The result is a relationship where the artist might actually stand a chance at success greater than if they simply went it alone. I have to keep repeating this, because common believe in this "all labels are evil" myth says otherwise: If a band doesn't explicitly come out and say "we're really unhappy with our relationship with our label and think we're getting ripped off" then it's no one's right or position to assume so. And even if they do come out and say so, the place for action is with the artist, to get out of their contract, or renegotiate it. Not for the general public to assume they're somehow then entitled to steal the music.

When are people going to think this stuff through? Or is it simply too enticing to find any justification needed to get "cheap" or "free" music?

And people complain all the time about how expensive music is. Well, think about how much you spend every day on, say, coffee, soda, snacks, cigarettes, perhaps? All stuff that once consumed, it's gone. And all stuff most likely made by some 'evil corporation' too. Give up one candy bar a day - that's like one sone you could buy! (And hey, you'll get arrested for stealing an candy bar - why should stealing music be any different?)
Music, legitimately bought music, is an excellent value. It's reusable indefinitely, and when people, when FANS, pay for the music they listen to, it actually helps labels and artists make MORE music.

More RIAA astroturf..

"What many people forget about labels and artists having relationships"

That's the artist's stupidity.

More astroturf.

you sir do not listen very well...as its been stated over and over the riaa interests are only in the big labels...small labels and even artists that do not have labels are still getting screwed so what does the riaa have to do with artists who are doing all the work? the simple fact no matter how you look at it this site has NEVER obtained any permission from the artist and they have NEVER paid the artist any money that is owed....so you are paying money to a site that is using your money for their benefit..you might as well just download it off of p2p at least then you know you aren't getting screwed and not paying criminals to keep up this sham

Where is your hard evidence that proves the artists are not paid?

How is a consumer using the site getting screwed? Did I ever say that I was their customer?

That's a pretty bold statement to call them criminals when no one has had any hard evidence, *AND* that russia refused to press charges because the law makes it legal for them to exist.

The RIAA did that for years, abuse the law in every way possible to sue 12 year olds.

Screw them.

oooh $.50 on $19, I see how the artists will profit on that!

LOL, and you folks called allofmp3 criminals.

Hmmmm..

How about because it's *not*?

At least, not in Russia. :)

Yet...

The smaller labels are not very well represented on AllofMP3.

Folks looking for indie music are *much* better off using other services.

Just try looking for Letter Kills, D4, Lot Six, etc....

The artist trying to do things on his own is not on AllofMP3. :)

But remember, artists don't have guns held to their heads when they sign contracts

I love this.

It's pure BS. While it may not be guns, if they *ever* wwant to get played on the radio, they *need* to be signed with a big label. (Aside from the few and far-between indie stations)

Do you actually believe radio stations play songs for free? BNL admitted that they owe every success they've ever had to 'payola'.

Hint: if you don't know what it means, look it up.

small labels and even artists that do not have labels are still getting screwed

Name *one* that is on AllofMP3?

Small labels and artists are not represented there, and thus, are *not* being screwed.

Ever used the service? Ever *looked* for a small-label, indie group? No? Then please stop talking out of your ass.

I work with bands all the time, many on larger labels. The vast majority know exactly what they're doing when the sign label deals. To assume that it's "artist's stupidity" is just that - an assumption.

Did I ever say that radio was perfect? No. In fact, it sucks. And do major labels often try to wring every penny they can out of bands? Sure.

The argument is not that labels are saints, but that artists and labels deserve to get paid for music sold. That's all.

Just like anyone should get paid for work they do.

Artists and labels who have their works sold on that service have not been paid and have said so.
Moreover, their works are on that service without their consent. I even know a few bands personally.

That's enough criminal behavior to me.

And that "law" is a veil-thin loophole.

The consumer is perhaps getting a "deal" in the short run, but it is equivalent to them simply stealing music as far at the artist goes...

Screw me once shame on you, screw me twice ..

Change your business model then.

'nuff said

I've seen lots of indies on there - stuff on Metropolis Records, for example... And it's only a matter of time before they add more - why wouldn't they? It costs them nothing.

No one ever said that labels and artists shouldn't make money. It's pretty obvious that they should, however when you use the law to force an out dated business model on your consumers, they usually give said company the finger.

To what? What do you propose? To a system where it's suddenly free to make music, and artists have their bills paid for them, so they can work for free?

So, no, not 'nuff said.

But if we don't enforce the right to sell a product and have the owner of that product make a fair and reasonable outcome from that sale, then no possible business model would work. As long as thieves undercut even what could be reasonable pricing of music to such a degree, new business models will fail as well.

Sell music without DRM at a reasonable cost.

That was just so very difficult to come up with.

I never said free, you did. More spin because you don't have sh*t to argue with.

waah waah waah, we can't take our limos today because we can't afford them!

Go away.

$.45 a song is not unreasonable, it's 2x more than allofmp3 but to know it was legal music I'd shop there.

Give me the right back to use it as I see fit and I'd buy it again.

The music industry seems to have forgotten that consumers have rights too. Locking people into music that only works the way you tell us it should work is the other reason people give them the finger.

If I want to take a song I downloaded and convert it to tape it's my right.

$.45 a song is not unreasonable, it's 2x more than allofmp3

Not quite true.

For a lossy rip, perhaps. But for a FLAC encode, it's a bit low. ;)

Huh.

Server space, administration, support licensing to ROMS...

Yeah, nothing.

And give me an artist name. I want to look for 'em. If they *are* putting indies up there, I will agree with you. on *that* point.

AllofMP3 do have several artists listed that one could put under the umbrella small artists and even small labels (as their labels are small in comparisons to Major labels). For example just looking briefly at AllofMP3.com and artists here is a few small artists/labels in their catalogue:
Raison d`Etre, Blood Axis, Ulver, Elend, Arcana, Lustmord, Stoa, Autumn Tears and so on...

As being an artist myself, such a site as AllofMP3 should have my written permission or in the cases other labels has released it the labels permission to put it available for download sales. Simply they need a contract for digital sales, otherwise it is stealing or bootlegging the music. Maybe Russia do have weak copyright laws to prevet piracy, which this is. Nevertheless it do have to end.

Being in a band your statement is very true.
We know what were getting into, but usually its the best way to go at that time.

actually smaller labels such as dsbp, metropolis, alfa matrix, noitekk, dependent many of their bands can be found on allofmp3.com and these bands are lucky to sell 5000 cds if even that (typical take for this kind of music is 500-1000 cds) they dont have the power of the riaa hell their offices look like someone's bedroom...and they work their a** off just to support the music they love...how can you call these labels evil and justify allofmp3 not giving them a single cent?

actually they are...

* Assemblage 23
* Hocico
* Panzer Ag
* In Strict Confidence
* Funker Vogt
* Covenant
* Velvet Acid Christ
* Project Pitchfork
* Apoptygma Berzerk
* Solitary Experiments

* Das Ich
* Front Line Assembly
* Haujobb
* And One
* Fictional
* L`Ame Immortelle
* Birmingham 6
* Psyclon Nine
* Die Form
* Diary Of Dreams

* Monofader
* Beborn Beton

just to name a few...

you missed his point all together...small artists on labels such as metropolis DO NOT GET a penny these artists work 2-3 jobs just to make the music they love...ask them since they are on small labels they dont have attitude problems and talk to their fans aftershows and through email and on msg boards...they are lucky to break even from selling their cds...a limo ride? lol they are lucky to be able to pay the electric bill each month if they had to support themselves on music alone

Do you represent any of these bands, or know of their agreements if any with allofmp3.com, or are you assuming that they don't have any agreement?

Proof, lets see it.

How can you justify you assertion that AllofMP3 is screwing them?

Really, half of the bands you mentioned below probably don't even have a distribution channel and would not have been available to anyone who doesn't attend one of their shows.

But for arguments sake, lets assume they could. I gotta wonder, since the bands you mentioned are only available through lossy codecs, how many folks who bought 'em from AllofMP3 also purchased a CD or merch from teh band.

Pretty much sounds like what *every* band has to go through.

Do you think that once someone starts up a band, they should be rocketed to stardom instantly?

Sorry. Provide some proof these guys are actually bleeding money due to AllofMP3. Then we'll talk.

Seriously. Would any of the folks who downloaded their songs from AllofMP3 have purchased a CD from these guys had AllofMP3 not been there? If they're only selling 'em at shows, it's pretty damn doubtful, and AllofMP3 isn't touching their profits one bit.

One would think it's pretty obvious - but there are an awful lot of people going around trying to leverage the "Information wants[sic] to be free" to justify their right to just take stuff without paying for it.

Totally Agreed!

I'd buy the new Chamillionaire Album for $2.10 and then click over to Chamillionaire's personal website and pay his personal paypal account $15 or $20.

Ive already send a $40 donation to Moby for downloading some of his music.

LOL@bestcomment on betanews

well, actually, the reason why we beleive the artists are getting shafted is precisly because the artists have said so. I know Courtney love wrote something on it. Prince has gotten shafted as well. Several artists have had problems with getting the shaft froom their labels.

just email said artist and ask them if the site is legit and if they get a penny of it...their answer will be a no and a few of them are my friends and they have never received a cent they didnt even know their stuff was on there nor did the label...plus these bands DO NOT GET radio play you will not see them on MTV

and I am sure your next response will be more or less well they probably did not do this...or they are just saying that so you buy their cd...they would rather you download their cd illegally then buying it from a crooked site...look up any of the said bands ask them about allofmp3.com or better yet go to side-line.com see what kind of response you get there...

I really have no interest in asking them if allofmp3 has their permission or not. It's up to the artist to contact allofmp3 or {insert company here} and work that out on their own. If they don't well then that's their problem, the site is currently legal so they should do more than nothing about it. (read: contact them and get a contract written if they are quasi legit.)

Have your friends contacted allofmp3 and asked that their music be removed?

If they don't remove it after the owner demands it, then there is probably an opportunity for a lawsuit.

P2P, LOL now that's not illegal. (yeah, uh-huh)

HAHA

I didn't spend that long looking at their site, you are probably right.

Artists have to move with the times. I agree that the market is saturated and very hard for bands to survive, but they are in the real world and most people and businesses are in the same situation. The big record companys are taking the lions share of the money for a service that is no longer required. With them out of the way the money will goto the artist, and hence they will need to sell less to get more. Store deals and other download services offering direct payment to artists will almost certainly appear, taking a little cut but not as much as the record companys, since the record companys take an absurd cut !

These agencys shutting everything down are in the pockets of the big guns, take em down and you will see a different industry in five years time. It will be one of cheaper music, yet with more funds going to the artists and a stop to record companys taking a cut from sales downloaded via itunes ..... this is a SCAM, since the record company simply isnt doing aything to get the lions share of the cash. FACT !

Point of fact:

I'd pay a buck fifty for a flac encode with zero DRM.

The extra (over and above the itemized CD cost) would be the ease of use bit. It's a hell of a lot easier for me to buy a track I like, than go to the store, but it (along with 9 I don't like) and then have to rip it. ;)

Yes, i think the owner of the product should be allowed to make a fair and reasonable profit. That would be a beautiful situation, instead of doing things liek ripping the artist out of their hard earned work, then using illegal price fixing to rip off the consumer.

that is the point everyone has stated here the only way allofmp3.com will remove it is by going through a lawyer...this is completely unnecessary and should not lead to this...they should not have to ask roms for money...their stuff is not played on the radio so their argument for roms does not fly here..they have NEVER had any permission to do this and to say 15-45 cents is fair is bulls***

More spin.

$.15-$45 is fair compensation for a single downloaded song, don't like it move to another market.

Maybe you can make a living selling baby stuff sure have the whine down pat.

I know a lot of bands who make more like $3.00 on a $12.00. Or better. And even in the worst case of like $2.00, the label is also kicking in non-recoupable (as well as some recoupable) funds for tour support and advertising. Things that the bands simply can't afford to front on their own.

Sure, some label deals are poor. But that's the band's problem, not some bunch of "robin hoods" who decide to take it upon themselves to "correct" the situation.

If there is a shadow of possibility that one might be hurting a band you love, how can anyone do something potentially damaging and still call themselves a fan is beyond me. And more and more bands are starting to see this all the time.

At shows, many bands I know overhear things like "you buy it and I'll rip it from you" - at the merch table, talking about the CD that the band released *themselves*. One band I know had a "fan" walk up to their singer and ask him to autograph a CD-R copy of their CD.
My point in bringing this up is, if people even have reason to believe that allofmp3.com and other sites like them even *might* be hurting bands they love, that should be reason enough not to use them.

I've seen plenty or decent-size indie artists have their legitimate music sale revenue fall by over a third after the first p2p wave, and now many report two-thirds loss. All the while the attendance at their shows remains the same or has gone up. This loss in sales is in all channels (CD sales via retail, online orders, *authorized* download channels, and so on, including sales at shows. Sales at shows are actually the easiest way to tell. One band, for example, would sell enough CDs back in 1999 to pay for all of their lodging expenses on the road. Now, with even better audience attendance, they sell only a fraction.)
While allofmp3 (and the myriad sites like them) aren't all of them problem, it would be foolish to assume they're not part of it.

Oh, and no, I don't think for a minute that if a band starts up that they should be immediately propelled to stardom. And if a band thinks that's gonna happen, they're nuts, too. But to think that a band shouldn't had the right to choose how and where their music is distributed is also nuts.

That limos comment is just part of the myth that all bands are rich. And that myth is what allows people to justify not paying legitimatly for the music they listen to. Again, the vast majority of bands arent' rich. At all. Including many you probably listen to. They're just happy that they're even possibly making something at all making music. And if they're even making a living only making music, all of the ones I've met aren't rolling in dough and buying mansions. That rarely happens. MTV would have you think otherwise, but that's the way it really is.

But even if bands take all matters into their own hands, and choose not to have a site like allofmp3 sell their work, it's still their right to do so.

I completely agree that the times are changing. But when a company comes in and undercuts everyone, even the indies that are trying to make at least a decent payback for their efforts, how can this be good?

Do I think that $19 for a CD is right? No way. I support the concept that a full length album should be around ten, twelve bucks maybe. That's fair, considering how much it costs to record, press, distribute, promote (with ads and such) and tour (further promotion for most bands...)

So if bands are too all go indie completely, where is all that money going to come from, if all they can make is $.77 per album download? (IF they even get paid, and no one's yet shown me proof that ROMS has paid anyone. I'd love to see a band's deposit slip/paper trail showing a payment from them.)

Yes, we need a new paradigm. No, this isn't it.

how can you move to another market when you havent given the said market who is stealing your music permission in the first place? those songs have to get on there somehow...if the labels did not consent to it nor did the band...they did not get them off the radio because those bands are not for radio play... those songs had to come from somewhere so if no one gave permission and it has never been played on the radio how exactly did these artists appear on the site with NO PERMISSION?

I don't "love" any bands just as I don't love any brand of soda or milk.

Music is a business, it's not about emotion.

Sorry.

$10-$12?

Is it made of gold?

I don't think so.

$5-$8 tops, more than that is a waste.

Then work something out so they have permission.

Quit whining and crying about it, and do something then.

"allows people to justify not paying legitimatly for the music they listen to"

This is an outright lie.

I haven't tuned to MTV in over 15 years, so they don't have me thinking in any way.

What evidence do you have that proves it's P2P and not that the "artist" sucks?

Hard facts please.

Hmm, I wouldn't.

Okay, so say you steal a bottle of soda or milk. You should, and most likely would, be punished for stealing. Now, say, you hijack a truckload of soda, and sell it at a lower price than the average market price. That's a bigger crime still. Now, say, you use strongarm mafia-like tactics to keep those stolen truckloads coming, and sell it all at a rock-bottom price, and hide behind a loophole in a "public performance" law that is really written (in the case of music) to protect the broadcasting and/or streaming - not permanent sale - of music. There's where this is.

Sorry for you that you don't find music enjoyable enough to feel emotion from it. Most people who call themselves music 'fans' do.
I guess the difference for me is, there are faces, names, people, individuals behind the music being made. I see them every day. They're not corporate (most are independent, or on small labels at best) and sacrifice a lot in life to be able to make their music the best it can be. That's very diffrent than some corporation churning out soda. I'm sorry you can't see the difference. Maybe if you knew a lot of bands, saw them struggle, work hard, and spend tons of their own money just for the chance to get their music heard you'd understand.

But the average of society is still affected by attitudes that prevail, even if not directly. How, then did you get the mistaken belief that all artists somehow feel entitled to daily limo rides, much less can afford them?

Like I said. They are playing to the same, if not larger, audiences. They are even sometimes getting better guarantees from the clubs, more and more people are coming out to see them. But CD sales, and legit online revenues, are going in the opposite direction. Pretty obvious.

When a "fan" walks up to a band member and says "I love you guys - I downloaded all your records from Limewire" that's hard enough evidence to me. And pretty much every band I know has more than one story like that. It happens at every show, they tell me.

The problem here with your argument is that no one is stealing anything, according to the law.

Unethical? yeah, probably.

Illegal? no.

That's a single case, hardly evidence to support anything.

Not only that, it's circumstantial at best so it's completely irrelevant.

Actually, the law they hide behind is simply a "public performance" law that allows anyone to broadcast, either over the airwaves or a PA, or to, but fairly clear interpretation, stream over a network. There is a very clear difference in almost all intellectual property and copyright laws that differentiates between "public performance" and "private performance" - i.e. the distribution of a permanent copy of a recording for personal use on demand. Digital Permanent Download is the term for such digital distribution. It is not streaming, it is a single-user license for the purchaser to "privately perform" the contents of the delivery media.
The loophole in the law that they are hiding behind is a vague reading that is loosly interpreted to include end-user Digital Permanent Downloads. However, most countries much more clearly differentiate between broadcasts (streams), being not permanent downloads, and DPDs.

As the file in a DPD represents the delivery media, and as the delivery media represents the license for private performance of the contents of that media, the unauthorized duplication of said media is piracy.

And importing pirated goods into the US is illegal.

And yes, I've talked to not one, but several lawyers about this.

A waste of what? Doesn't anyone understand how much it costs to record, promote, press and distribute a record? A low indie budget of $10k is just the starting place. Many smaller label budgets for recording alone can get up to $50k. Add to that $5k -$50 or more for promotion, and pressing costs...
Let's say we've got a recording budget of $10k. Mastering is $1,500. Pressing of 3,000 copies is somewhere around $3k. $5k in ads in small magazines around the country for a few months. That's $19,500. Not counting promo copies, the band would have to sell almost 4,000 copies just to break even - and they didn't even press that much. At $8 per, that's still almost 2,500 copies they'd have to sell.
And they'd have to come up with almost $20k to even begin.

Heck - most people get a pizza for 10-15 bucks, eat it, and never think about it again, nor even think about how incredibly high the markup is on that pizza, but complain about something that can be enjoyed over and over again, and that took a lot more money, time, and care to make in the first place.

Perspectives are really skewed here, folks.

Should CDs be $19? No way. That's gouging. But for a small band to ask people to pay $10 for a CD they shelled out their hard earned cash, and poured all kinds of time and energy into making is completely reasonable. And anyone who doesn't understand this simply doesn't have a clear concept of how incredibly expensive it is to put out a record, and have it do anything.

Do I think that everyone who puts out a record should expect to sell tons? No way. The cream always rises to the top. (Some rancid cream rises with the help of Payola, admittedly...) But do I think every band has the right to expect people to pay for their music if they want it? Absolutely. There's no logic to thinking any other way about it.

No, it's a single example of many many cases. This is happening all the time, to pretty much every band out there. Some bands might not care, but most do.

As it happens all the time it's not circumstantial, it's evidential. It shows pattern. And consequently it is relevant. Quite so.

If an artist has a problem with their label, then they need to do something about it. That is, renegotiate their deal, or get out of it. That doesn't grant anyone license to steal music "on their behalf" - nor does it go even further like many would assume, and justify stealing any music simply on the assumption that the artist must be getting somehow screwed.

I know one lawyer who used to work for a major. Her job was to find as many ways to not pay the band as allowed by their contract. She quit, and now represents artists. Even she still believes and defends what I am talking about - that the average person simply doesn't have the right to 'decide' that they shouldn't have to pay for music based on assumptions, heresay, and the disgruntled complaints (often justified complaints) of an artist about their label. It's still theft, after all. And if one doesn't know conclusively that their not possibly hurting artists by their actions (the illegality of stealing music aside) then they really have no choice but to not do it.

"$.15-$45 is fair compensation for a single downloaded song"

And allopmp3's royalties pay (allegedly) what now? Does anyone actually know? Has anyone actually seen a payment? Really now.

Even if they did pay, the defenders of allofmp3 have stated a guess of about $.07 for a single song. (And most royalty calculations I've seen based on that kind of pricing suggest more like $.02-$.04 cents a song - pretty much what an artist gets for a *single stream* on a legitimate streaming site. NOT what they get for a Digital Permanent Download.)

So you even admit with this statement you think that (if they actually did pay - and no one has offered up substantiation of it) they're off by about 50% of the *lowest possibly fair compensation* for a single song.

Easier said then done. Their alleged system for "paying royalties" has yet to show any real payments - at least not one person I've ever seen has said "yeah, ROMS paid us!".

And even so, it's payment based on a completely arbitary (and impossibly low, competitively speaking) price point, yeilding far below what the majority would realistically find reasonable compensation.

So artists ARE trying to do something about it. We're trying to stop the unfair (and again, illegal) competition that we're faced with.

Artists simply can't afford to compete with the undercutting of the likes of allofmp3.com.

P2P music "sharing" is not legal, no, but a few bands would rather people simply steal their music on a p2p site or via a torrent than have some crook make a profit off of their stolen music.

I am not one of those artists, nor are the vast majority of the bands I work with. We all basically feel theft is theft is theft. And that no fan of ours is a real fan if they steal our music.

terminalx posted just a handful of indies on there...

And regarding that 'overhead' they have. Yes, basically nothing. Peanuts, no, one single peanut, to what a band actually has to pay out to properly market a recording enough to even conisder breaking even. And that's at realistic, not unbelievably unfair competitive pricing from some crooks with a server and some database software, and a veil-thin loophole of a legal interpretation to stand behind.

Actually, pretty much all of those bands can be found easily online at legitimate outlets, and in a lot of bricks-and-mortar stores, too - especially ones that feature specialty markets like the ones they're in.

I think you are making the wrong argument against me. Take a look at one of my other replies to you. My basic point is that, i think, the RIAA is far more harmful to th emusicians and the fans as a whole than p2p or allofmp3, simply, because i consider them a predetory monopoly that is trying to choke the musicians for what ever they can ger, while rewarding little or nothing in return.

Actually, you and I agree on a lot here!
But see my two recent replies for elaborations...

While I agree in many cases that the RIAA are not the friends of indies, in this case they are the only allies that any artists have who have enough firepower to shut this crap down. Like I mentioned above, indies actually stand to suffer more from the wholesale pricecutting of crooks like allofmp3 than majors, do, really...

Talk about a waste of time.

I sincerely doubt any action will come about with the communist party still holding a lot of influence in Russia.

Russia should make sure the artists are getting paid their royalties directly - of course the BPI don't care about the artists getting payed, just themselves. I hope Russia doesn't give in.