tech crunch article comparing music services

[nudone]

"The organisation asked Russian authorities to take action against the download site, citing breach of copyright, in February 2005.

But Moscow prosecutors decided not to pursue the case because Russian copyright laws do not cover digital media, reported the news agency Tass." from the link i provided http://news.bbc.co.u...tainment/5061610.stm

allofmp3.com keeps trading on a technicality. if 'digital media' was part of copyright laws in Russia then that would be the end of them - or, maybe they'd get off on another technicality.

does anyone believe that allofmp3.com methods of business would work in they were based in a country with more up to date copywrite laws? doesn't that indicate there is something dodgy going on?

i'm not defending the people that run the music industry. i really don't care if 'digital media' is paid for or not.

i just cannot understand why anyone bothers to pay allofmp3.com at all when there are alternatives. just get on with it and download it from a peer 2 peer program - or borrow it from your local library. steal it from a friend - it's none of my concern.

but, why justify allofmp3.com, does anyone believe the royalties are passed on - the company has said themselves that they are in negotiation with artists to sort things out - why bother doing that if everything is sweet already.

i wouldn't doubt that there are plenty of dodgy things already going on in the music industry but how does using allofmp3.com make that any better?

[Carol Haynes]

but, why justify allofmp3.com, does anyone believe the royalties are passed on - the company has said themselves that they are in negotiation with artists to sort things out - why bother doing that if everything is sweet already.

The two Russian copyright bodies have confirmed that they do pay royalties. The reason they are changing what they do is because a new copyright law is coming into force in September and they have stated they want to comply by the new regulations.

[nudone]

quote from BPI General Counsel Roz Groome: "AllofMP3.com’s claims to be legal are false … Neither artists nor record companies receive any payment from the site." taken from http://www.out-law.com/page-6985

i won't post any other quotes as you'll easily be able to counter it with quotes from the same article.

i look forward to when it's absolutely certain that allofmp3.com are paying the artists and not just paying a token amount to ROMS.

[Carol Haynes]

Sorry nudone - but that was the point - could you honestly expect BPI to say anything else? They are trying to take them to court and this is their stance on the issue. It doesn't mean they are necessarily correct - and I still can't see how a British company can take Russians to court in the UK for something that doesn't appear to be illegal in Russia?

[JavaJones]

So, if I'm understanding you right, you wouldn't have any problem if AllOfMP3.com were free? In other words if people weren't "paying criminals" but just taking stuff from them for free?

- Oshyan

[nudone]

So, if I'm understanding you right, you wouldn't have any problem if AllOfMP3.com were free? In other words if people weren't "paying criminals" but just taking stuff from them for free?

- Oshyan

-JavaJones (June 10, 2006, 03:36 PM)

correct.

whilst allofmp3.com isn't illegal in Russia (because of the digital media technicality it appears) there are obviously changes taking place - pressures from outside the country appear to be working - this seems obvious to me that allofmp3.com have conceded that they were/are a bit naughty in the way they do business.

what javajones said about legality just being government endorsement can be applied here - but it seems completely irrelevant to me. if allofmp3.com were a UK based service that had the full backing of the law but used a technicality to avoid paying the correct royalties to artists i'd still consider their business unfair/immoral.

let's just see what happens around september time. if allofmp3.com's prices go up then i think it will be fair to assume the royalties will be going to the right people and that they weren't before.

here's another link for what its worth: http://www.ifpi.org/.../press/20060601.html

can i just ask everyone if they are actually bothered whether the artists they are downloading from allofmp3.com get paid royalties or not?

if the general response is "no, we aren't bothered we're just glad that it's a cheap service and we really don't care who receives the money" then i have absolutely no argument here.

[JavaJones]

I am 100% bothered when artists don't recieve royalties. That is precisely why I don't like supporting record companies. Supporting them just *perpetuates* the ugly situation we have now. I mean talk about legalized immorality - the way copyright law works has basically allowed these giant record company monopolies to control almost all for-sale musical expression for decades, and they pay the artists a pittance. It is truly ridiculous.

I think the missing piece of the puzzle here is that you think if they were doing things legally then artists would be getting royalties and all would be well. OK, they *would* be getting royalties, but such a small amount compared to the total cost that it's insulting. So I will gladly agree that what AllOfMp3.com is doing may be immoral and potentially soon illegal, but I think that being the case you simply can't ignore the immorality of the record industry itself.

- Oshyan

[nudone]

i agree. and i would assume that most people on this forum will to. we've felt compelled to donate to the software authors around here because it was personal and we can be assured that the donation is going to the right place.

i would love to see a method of donating or paying directly to an artist or band to show how much i appreciate what they are doing. it isn't news to say that their are plenty of musicians already doing this - it's what the internet is perfect for.

i hope we do see a time when the individual or small collective can compete with how the dominant corporations run the industry - i thought it would have happened by now but as it hasn't i obviously have no idea how complicated the music industry is.

maybe it is artificially complicated so that the organisations can continue to exist. maybe people are too lazy to seek out artists unless they are force fed to them by the music industry - in which case the industry deserves what it charges.

[Carol Haynes]

To lighten the mood slightly ...

I mentioned going to see Janis Ian recently in concert. Not only is she a mainstream artist of 35 years standing but she is totally anti record companies (do a search on here to find and read her article if you haven't read it).

A really neat and refreshing idea at her concert was that all the notices outside the concert hall saying bags will be searched, no cameras and no recording euqipment had been beautifully covered up with a notice saying record what you like and take photos too. The only comment she made from on stage was a request that people avoided photography in the quieter songs for the sake of the rest of the audience. Rock on Janis ...

[JavaJones]

That's awesome. I love artists like that.

People have the right to feel however they want but I honestly think that a lot of artists have just been caught up in the corporate RIAA way of doing things and they can't even imagine another way, let alone that any alternate way might actually be *better* - better for them, their fans, for just about everyone except the record companies. What would Lars Ulrich have to say if the record companies died, they were forced to go into independent distribution, and they made *more* money?

It's not nice to change people just because you disagree but I do think a lot of people are just misinformed or flat out bribed. This shouldn't come as a surprise though considering how much of the rest of the world works this way.

- Oshyan

[nudone]

the latest: http://news.bbc.co.u...tainment/5140788.stm

Copyright lawyers say that, even if the BPI obtains a verdict that the website is illegal, it might have "enormous practical difficulties" enforcing the ruling in Moscow.

so, i think we can see where this is going to end. allofmp3.com will be even more popular in a few months time because of the the publicity it will get and everyone that uses it (in the UK at least) will know that they are breaking the law. perhaps more importantly the BPI will have to accept that no one cares.

[Carol Haynes]

Anyone notice that AllofMP3.com seems to be morphing into alltunes.com ?

[vegas]

Just wanted to drop back in to this topic and say I am still happily using AllTunes/AllOfMp3 with no digital rights restrictions and only $.10 - $.20 per song. Glad they are still around because any 'legitimate' offering under the music industry is still oh so unacceptable. Yes, I feel bad that artists don't get their fair cut (but do they really under the music industry either? - i think not), but at least I don't feel like I'm the one being ripped off and that matters to me, selfish or not.  I thought I remembered reading though that one of the main labels was gonna try to go DRM-free in '07 (was it Universal?), let's hope so, cuz it's not the price of the song that holds me back it's the lack of freedom and ability to choose what quality/format I want to buy.  Personally, I think the music industry doesn't want to let go of DRM, not to protect the songs as much as to have a way to always be able to recharge people for having to buy they same songs over and over, like they have always had (ie. new formats like vinyl-tape-cd-dvdaudio-sacd, or new packaging, new compilations, remastered versions, new super glamorous box sets, etc..). But, they can rely on people to get a new computer and lose their previous songs (or some other incident) and have to buy all over again, if they didn't have THAT how could they survive?  I mean they would, but it wouldn't be as profitable.  Once you get a lossless copy of a song in your hands for $1.00 you should be safe in never having to buy *THAT* version again.  I think the funniest part is, people like to buy music (own something), they would just buy more of it and be exposed to more artists.  Anywho, it's been a while, what is everyone else using this year to get music?

[Carol Haynes]

I have subscribed to eMusic which is a legitmate company. All of their music is in non-DRM MP3 format but having said that it is only good if you don't want the big names. There is quite a lot of music I like though - not least folk and country type stuff and a pretty good collection of classical music (including the London Symphony Orchestra's LSO label).

It works on a fixed monthly subscription and you get a set number of tracks which you can download but you can buy more tracks if you like at any time. See http://www.emusic.com/ for details (they also do a free trial offer where you can download a number of tracks for free - you do have to sign up but you can cancel any time during the free period).

Personally I have gone off DRMed music completely. I have a few WMA DRMed albums and it is a real pain in WMP 11 as it constantly connects to stores to revalidate you DRMed licences.

Personally I can't see the point - I can burn and rip then import the albums again in MP3 format so what does DRM actually achieve? Same goes for iTunes and Audible - both let you burn to standard CDs which can then be ripped as non-DRM so what is DRM actually achieving apart from inconvenience for legitimate purchasers??

By the way if I burn WMA files to CD and then rip them back to WMA format at the same bit rate (with the same software) will I get identical files to those I started with except without the DRM or will degradation still occur?? It would be nice to think that the decode to CD - reencode to WMA procedure would produce a transparent conversion without introducing noise.