"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.uk/1/hi/entertainment/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?

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.

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

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

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 ...

the latest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/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.

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?