Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

British Record Industry Sues AllofMP3

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

July 3, 2006, 12:55 PM

A British record industry group has been given the go ahead to sue the popular Russian music download site allofmp3.com, however it is unclear if any ruling could be enforced outside of Britain. The British High Court agreed last week to hear the case even though the company is based outside of the country.

AllofMP3 claims it has licenses from Russian Multimedia and Internet Society (ROMS) and the Rightholders Federation for Collective Copyright Management of Works Used Interactively (FAIR). But the music industry has called the ROMS license invalid and said it would not cover users in foreign countries.

BPI first revealed that it would be taking AllofMP3 to court last month. While at the time it warned Britons to stop using the site, BPI said it did not plan to sue users but rather the company itself. The music service is the second most popular in the UK behind iTunes with nearly a 14 percent share.

"This is an important step forward in our battle against AllofMP3.com," BPI general counsel Roz Groome said. "We have maintained all along that this site is illegal and that the operator of the site is breaking UK law by making sound recordings available to UK based customers without the permission of the copyright owners."

"Now we will have the opportunity to demonstrate in the UK courts the illegality of this site," he continued.

Groome also said that the site was misrepresenting itself as a discount legal music service. Individual tracks on the site sell for as little as four pence (7 cents USD), with entire albums retailing for as low as one pound ($1.88 USD). "The reason AllofMP3.com downloads are cheap, is that neither the artists nor the record companies are being paid," he argued.

While the British music industry may be successful in proving that AllofMP3 is indeed illegal, it's unlikely that any decision in the UK would shut the site down. Russia would be under no obligation to implement the rulings of a foreign court, say experts. However, with president Vladmir Putin's efforts to bring his country into the World Trade Organization, Russia could be pressured to take action.

Add a Comment (161 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By tgreenthumb

edited Nov 14, 2006 - 3:52 AM

One more example of the collusion between
"Big Business" and the justice systm. Now that
an internet site has discovered a way to sell music to the public using a modern media that puts the focus of the consumer squarely in the face of the seller and does not allow him to "shop"for additional items, now that the music corporations and forced to modify their record "deals" with "artists" to include perhaps some of their own absurd profits, now that these hoards of directors are running crying to the legal system about what is not right, after forcing the musicians to live in outright poverty for decades, perhaps now the
public will wake up to the fact that corportions obtain their power from the "Justice system" to bleed the British public of as much money as possible as they have without as much as a by your leave, let alone a thankyou for decades and decades, so that a select fortunate few, and Groome is one of them, may continue to live off the money troff fed by graft, corruption, recognition, and who knows what else. I was not a socialist,but I am one now when I think of this
example: A school age child or school age leaver that must work for a minimum wage is forced to pay ridiculous prices for a CD, the
majority of which will put petrol in the corporation Bentley, or buy vine protection for the vines in the rock star's Tuscany vinyard. The child will never be able to afford
what these musician's and their savvy minded
investment friends will undoubtly obtain, simply because they do not steer the machine, they only make the damn thing go.
Take it like an adult BMI, and compete on an
even playing field like your US collegues are
attempting to do.

Score: 0

By chimpzoo

edited Jul 11, 2006 - 2:30 AM

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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

edited Jul 11, 2006 - 11:24 AM

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.

Score: 0

By chimpzoo

posted Jul 12, 2006 - 1:40 PM

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

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 12, 2006 - 8:32 PM

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.

Score: 0

By bbetauser

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 10:08 AM

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

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 8, 2006 - 1:06 AM

"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...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 7:28 PM

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'....

Score: 0

By KHamre

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 5:45 PM

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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 10:40 PM

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.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 5:32 AM

"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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 9:23 AM

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.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 2:03 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 2:46 PM

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%.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 3:44 PM

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).

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 5:47 PM

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.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 6:44 PM

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).

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 7:13 PM

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....

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 7:28 PM

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.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 3:27 PM

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.) ;)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 5:50 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Sensi

edited Jul 5, 2006 - 6:49 AM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 8:46 AM

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.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 7:40 AM

"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

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 11:10 AM

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

Score: 0

By technofiend

edited Jul 4, 2006 - 11:45 PM

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?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 8:43 AM

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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

edited Jul 5, 2006 - 9:27 AM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 10:17 AM

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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 11:19 PM

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.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 5:33 AM

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?

Score: 0

By technofiend

edited Jul 6, 2006 - 11:46 PM

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.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 9:31 AM

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

Prove it.

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 9:56 AM

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

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 10:15 AM

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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 10:45 PM

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.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 5:26 AM

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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

edited Jul 6, 2006 - 10:52 PM

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.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 5:44 AM

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

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 9:31 AM

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?

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 11:48 PM

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.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 3:49 PM

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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 10:50 PM

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.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 4:21 PM

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?

Score: 0

By technofiend

edited Jul 7, 2006 - 12:24 AM

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?

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Jul 7, 2006 - 3:49 PM

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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 8, 2006 - 12:44 AM

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'.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 5:36 AM

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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 9:33 AM

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.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 12:16 PM

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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

edited Jul 7, 2006 - 12:01 AM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 7:14 PM

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

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 7:30 PM

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

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 9:45 AM

"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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 10:53 PM

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.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 5:38 AM

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

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

Score: 0

By technofiend

edited Jul 7, 2006 - 12:25 AM

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.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 1:48 PM

"Thanks.

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

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

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 6:08 AM

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

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 7, 2006 - 12:06 AM

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.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 7:41 AM

I don't recall implying otherwise.

Thanks for the attempt at spin though.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 11:13 AM

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

Score: 0

By minus_seven_fold

posted Jul 4, 2006 - 12:07 PM

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.

Score: 0

By shicaca

posted Jul 4, 2006 - 3:50 AM

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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 4, 2006 - 11:43 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 8:37 AM

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...

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 9:37 AM

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.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 3:55 PM

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

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 12:37 AM

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.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 4:32 PM

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.

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 6, 2006 - 10:29 PM

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.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Jul 7, 2006 - 3:54 PM

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).

Score: 0

By technofiend

edited Jul 8, 2006 - 12:53 AM

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.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Jul 10, 2006 - 3:56 PM

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...

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 12, 2006 - 8:37 PM

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?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 5:50 PM

hear, hear!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 10:19 AM

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. ;)

Score: 0

By technofiend

posted Jul 5, 2006 - 10:55 PM

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

And the typo thing, again... whatever.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 11:37 PM

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

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Jul 3, 2006 - 4:26 PM

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?

Score: 0