Author Topic: tech crunch article comparing music services (Read 79960 times)

vegas · « **Reply #50 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:15 AM »

allofmp3.com has been down for maintence for a couple of days before, i am confident they will return

kiwi2b · « **Reply #51 on:** May 16, 2006, 07:35 AM »

The server seems to be back up!!!! javascript:void(0); Or at least I can get through to the home page and the links seem to be working. But .... "ordering is still temporarily unavailable". Still, things are looking up (hope so, I just spent a week working out the best software to play their music through my computer, stereo, car, computer-phobic partners).
If they don't, I can't see any alternative. Have you noticed how all the sites code the music for mp3 players (ie, low bit-rates). Believe me, itunes bought music sounds about 10 to 20% worse than a cd through a good stereo system. It's easy to hear the difference. With their OEEX options, AllofMP3 fills a need that isn't easily replaced.
Am I wrong here? Does anyone know of a site that sells well-priced music at higher bit-rates?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #52 on:** May 16, 2006, 10:00 AM »

Yes MP3 Explorer seems to be working now except that ordering is not available and previews don't find the files.

I'd guess they have been upgrading the server or else suffered some intrusion damage!

nudone · « **Reply #53 on:** May 16, 2006, 01:11 PM »

interesting...

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #54 on:** May 18, 2006, 10:37 AM »

AllofMP3 back up and running now

nudone · « **Reply #55 on:** May 18, 2006, 12:57 PM »

amazing.

kiwi2b · « **Reply #56 on:** May 18, 2006, 08:22 PM »

Just beat me to the draw Carol, I should have got up earlier I guess. It's up, running, selling, downloading, the tray icon is spinning and so are my eyes!

nudone · « **Reply #57 on:** May 28, 2006, 02:36 AM »

is this the beginning of the end...

http://www.afterdawn...ews/archive/7591.cfm

i have to repeat that i still think allofmp3 isn't a moral way of doing business. i won't be sad if they were closed down - it would have been (or would be) a greater example for the Labels (money grabbing b*stards) if allofmp3 had been working under an ethical model, i.e. paying the artists directly. okay, i know i don't understand how that would be done but i would hope there is someone out there that does.

i've read that allofmp3.com proves that people will pay for material even though they could obtain it for free elsewhere, very true. it also proves that people will pay for material and not care one jot that the artists that created the material actually get paid for their efforts (i still can't really get my head around justifying this business practice - people don't normally buy goods when they know they are stolen and yet this is how allofmp3.com appears to trade. marvellous.)

tsaint · « **Reply #58 on:** May 28, 2006, 04:43 AM »

Nudone, did you actually establish that no one gets paid from allmymp3?. If not, we can't factually talk about the ethics of their operation.
Having said that, let me relate what happened to me recently (last month).
My car was broken into, 13 cds full of mp3s from emusic were stolen (insurance company said sorry, we don't cover that - ethics?) but because they were ALL from emusic, I've just downloaded the whole lot again. What a top service from emusic is all I can say. That company is just great.
err, I could also say what a bloody idiot I was for only having one copy of the music.

nudone · « **Reply #59 on:** May 28, 2006, 05:09 AM »

you're right, tsaint, i don't really know the legalities - all i can do is repeat a quote from the link i provided. i suppose it all has to go court first (and i've also read that allofmp3.com is run by a less than ethical set of people in Russia so they probably don't fear the law anyway - might be rumour, i'm only repeating gossip.)

here's the quote from the link:

The site, run by MediaServices Inc., claims that it is completely legal in Russia because the music it distributes is licensed by the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society (ROMS) and the Rightholders Federation for Collective Copyright Management of Works Used Interactively (FAIR). MediaServices states that it pays licence fees "subject to the Law of the Russian Federation," and whether or not it is legal in other countries depends on local copyright laws.

"AllofMP3.com is not a legal service either in Russia or anywhere else," told Lauri Rechardt, head of litigation at IFPI, in an interview with OUT-LAW today. "Unlike all the legitimate sites, it does not pay artists or copyright holders so it is effectively stealing from those who create music.. Like most things that appear to be too good to be true, AllofMP3.com is not what it seems."

Regarding the claim of a licence from ROMS, Rechardt described ROMS as "a Russian organisation that claims to be a collecting society." He added, "ROMS has no rights from the record companies whatsoever to licence these pieces of music. ROMS and AllofMP3.com are well aware that record companies have not granted authorisation for this service."

here's the original article it's all from http://www.out-law.com/page-6956

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #60 on:** May 28, 2006, 05:35 AM »

Trouble is that IFPI are bound to argue that as their case (whether it is correct or not). They are hardly going to say ROMS and FAIR are the ideal model - otherwise all companies would be dashing off to Russia !! (Including iTunes and MSN who would probably still charge the same prices!)

Allofmp3 may be illegal/immoral (though we can only take at face value what they say about fulfilling their legal obligations in Russia) but I wouldn't trust the record industry to be any more moral - they certainly haven't been in the past. They not only rip of their own artists all the time (which is why so many are now going independent) but stifle all creative musicians in favour of commercial pap.

nudone · « **Reply #61 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:33 PM »

the death knell http://news.bbc.co.u...tainment/5051826.stm

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #62 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:21 PM »

Maybe, maybe not - don't forget the people quoted (BPI) are the music industry attempting to bring a law suit (the UK equivalent of the IFPI).

They have tried before in Russia and not been able to bring it to court.

As for bringing the case in the UK I can't see how the UK/US courts can rule on a Russian business based entirely in Russia - how can they enfoce any judgement? Presumably they could block internet access to the site (which I believe is already the case in Germany) but short of sending in the SAS/CIA to 'extract' them to the UK/US there isn't much they can do unless Russia changes the law and applies it retrospectively.

The BPI have said they aren't going to chase site users (presumably because it would be a massive undertaking - with no certainty of winning). It isn't illegal to import music from a legal source in the UK and so far, at least, AllofMP3 has been considered legal in Russia so no one in the UK has violated copyright by purchasing from the site.

nudone · « **Reply #63 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:39 PM »

however legal they are in russia, after all i'ver read, i still wouldn't want to give them my dollar when it appears they aren't passing it on to the artists. to me, it still blatantly seems anyone doing business with them is paying a load of thiefs. if they were allowing you to download everything for FREE it wouldn't be as bad as charging you for stolen content.

vegas · « **Reply #64 on:** June 06, 2006, 06:24 PM »

If people don't feed the growing monster that is Allofmp3.com how will we ever have a chance for fair pricing & fair usage in our music files. This time I must look the other way in the interests of the long term. I would like to see the artists get their FAIR share through AllofMp3 even if it meant I pay a quarter a song instead of 12 cents. But again, if this company can continue to somehow exist and do more and more damage to the Music Industry and its rip-off model for business, GOOD. Then they have to rethink their approach to business and make more consumer friendly models and offerings.

nudone · « **Reply #65 on:** June 07, 2006, 01:36 AM »

that is a good point but i doubt it will influence the industry. maybe if allofmp3.com had the backing of the artists that it was selling it would work.

nudone · « **Reply #66 on:** June 07, 2006, 03:11 AM »

worth reading: http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1212

as it says in the article, point 5 is the most interesting...

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

looks like allofmp3.com is heading in the right direction. i hope it's all true.

nudone · « **Reply #67 on:** June 09, 2006, 11:06 AM »

more here: http://news.bbc.co.u...tainment/5061610.stm

JavaJones · « **Reply #68 on:** June 10, 2006, 02:22 AM »

Nudone, what are your thoughts on how the record companies do business? You're aware of how poorly they treat most of their artists, right? They may not be doing something illegal, but legality is just government endorsement, that's it. The difference between a legal and illegal drug is essentially an arbitrary decision. How many people does marijuana kill a year? How about alcohol? Which one is illegal?

Anyway, tangent, my point is the legality of something has little bearing on its *morality*. So I would say the record company's business practices are *immoral* and that they too are crooks. This is not to say that AllOfMP3.com is morally in the clear, but it seems kind of hypocritical to say "I won't shop there because it doesn't support the artists" then buy CD's or iTunes or other tracks that goes through the record companies who, as others have said, pay their artists something like 3% of what they make on each sale. Now their traditional reasoning has been that marketing, production, and distribution costs are very high and this must be accounted for. Well, you can get rid of production and distribution costs for downloaded music. So shouldn't the music either be less expensive or the artists should get more? In fact neither one is true. Go figure. The music industry is woefully corrupt and hoping to support artists by utlizing its services in any way is a lost cause.

- Oshyan

mouser · « **Reply #69 on:** June 10, 2006, 02:30 AM »

the sooner artists can receive direct payments for their work and cut out the middle man the better.

JavaJones · « **Reply #70 on:** June 10, 2006, 02:46 AM »

Hear-hear! There are some decent services out there for this. They just need support from big names. It's funny too because it's not like they'd really lose a lot of fans just changing record labels - as long as the same merchandise/media were available (and they could/should be). Considering they'd be making more money on every sale most big artists would probably make heaps more with alternative services like Magnatune. Are they simply afraid of change? I know a lot of them have long-term contracts with the record companies, but that can't account for everything.

There's some hope though. Artists like Wilco and others of semi-renown are pushing the boundaries. Hopefully this trend will continue.

- Oshyan

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #71 on:** June 10, 2006, 06:42 AM »

that is a good point but i doubt it will influence the industry. maybe if allofmp3.com had the backing of the artists that it was selling it would work.
-nudone (June 07, 2006, 01:36 AM)

Not sure about that - it was the Napster debacle that forced them into the MSN and iTunes (amongst others) model of internet selling. The music industry beofre that was absolutely opposed to anything but selling plastic.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #72 on:** June 10, 2006, 06:49 AM »

Now their traditional reasoning has been that marketing, production, and distribution costs are very high and this must be accounted for. Well, you can get rid of production and distribution costs for downloaded music. So shouldn't the music either be less expensive or the artists should get more? In fact neither one is true. Go figure. The music industry is woefully corrupt and hoping to support artists by utlizing its services in any way is a lost cause.
-JavaJones (June 10, 2006, 02:22 AM)

I listen to a lot of classical music (amongst other types) and regularly find that buying plastic is actually cheaper than downloading from iTunes or the others - even when you take postage into account ... this is just plaine ridiculous.

This is also true for a lot of classic pop music (eg. check out the David Bowie Platinum Collection on iTunes and at Amazon - which would you buy?).

The trouble with the current royalties setup is that as far as I can tell the roaylties still go to the record companies - not the artists.

This isn't a new problem though. I remember an interview with Freddie Mercury after the mega hit Bohemian Rhapsody. They were still driving to gigs in a borrowed van and couldn't afford to rent somewhere to live because they were so screwed by the record company even back in the early 70s.

nudone · « **Reply #73 on:** June 10, 2006, 09:51 AM »

javajones, for what it's worth here's my 'real' opinion on allofmp3.com

i'm not at all interested in how much the online music services charge. i'm not interested in how much they pass on to the artists they are selling.

i've never used one of these online services but i was tempted to use allofmp3.com because they are so cheap to use.

i'm still prepared to use allofmp3.com (or any other company that wants to offer such low prices) but only if i know for sure that they have the blessing of the artists they are selling.

the difference between allofmp3.com and the rest is that the artists have obviously agreed for their music to be sold using the other services. whether they receive 1% or 99% royalties is none of my concern. it's the job of the artists to strike out better deals for themselves or move onto other methods of distributing their music - yes, i'd like to see them break away and find a system where they can be paid directly, but for the moment they appear to be content enough not to want to try.

my only interest in any of the allofmp3.com debate is that i find it odd that people are willing to defend a company that (according to the news articles) is just a load of high tech criminals selling goods that they have no right to be profitting from.

it's so simple i don't know why i'm repeating it: (assuming the news articles are correct) allofmp3.com are a load of thieves. they have absolutely no right to sell what they do. i don't care what the morality of itunes or napster is - it's completely irrelevant to my point.

my point is simply this (and always has been): why pay someone when they do not own what they are selling? why pay someone when they haven't the consent from the manufactures of the goods being passed on? why knowingly pay a criminal for stolen goods?

i don't care where anyone obtains their music from. borrow it. tape it. whatever. all i can object to is paying criminals for the pleasure of getting your music.

where such good mannered fair play appears to exist within the DC community, where everyone here understands the point of donating for software so that the coders are rewarded for their efforts - i have to say i'm absolutely astounded that this isn't reflected in paying musicians for their efforts. even worse is that strange contortions are justified in paying a bunch of criminals in Russia (allegedly) that don't appear to honour any agreement in passing on royalties to those they should.

as soon as allofmp3.com start appearing in the news with headlines like 'musicians love allofmp3.com' then i'll subscribe to them straight away. whilst i keep on seeing 'allofmp3.com are a load of criminals' and then reading the related article does indeed convince me that they are criminals then i'll consider it immoral to use them.

my honest to god true opinion is that i don't really care if musicians around the world don't make enough money from being in the music industry - it's the life they've chosen for themselves.

all i ask is why stick up for a company that behaves in a criminal manner. any company. why champion allofmp3.com, why should anyone defend them when we know they are doing wrong. i'm not preaching for itunes and the rest. i don't care if you copy all of your music collection from a friend, i don't care if you've still got 500 gigs worth of mp3's from the old days of napster.

if there was an online service offering software for sale that they had no right to sell because they didn't pay the authors then wouldn't you think twice about paying?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #74 on:** June 10, 2006, 10:24 AM »

my point is simply this (and always has been): why pay someone when they do not own what they are selling? why pay someone when they haven't the consent from the manufactures of the goods being passed on? why knowingly pay a criminal for stolen goods?

The trouble is that this doesn't seem to be correct.

The people who are the representatives of the music industry - not the artists. They are effectively a trade body that also acts in various illegal ways (like international price fixing which illegal), restrictive practices and victimizing anyone (including artists) who disagree with their views. What the articles express is their opinion of the law.

According to the criminal prosecution services in Russia - where allofmp3 trade - there is no case to answer. They have been repeatedly accused and there have been attempts to take them to court but as of today they have not been charged with any crime - despite the interets of mulitnationals with their lawyers.

If you are going to take partisan statements as true then surely Allofmp3's 'putting the record straight statement must also be taken into account too. They claim to pay all royalties required under Russian law and the organisations responsible for the collection of these fees have confirmed that they do pay what is required under Russian law.

I am not sure how Americans or Brits would react if the Russians started to try and dictate laws applicable in other countries ?