Slashdot Log In
Alltunes.com Lets Users Download AllofMP3 Songs
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:38 PM
from the using-up-the-credit dept.
from the using-up-the-credit dept.
Stony Stevenson writes with word that, although AllofMP3.com was shut down by the Russian Government this week, customers from the site who have existing credit can still purchase songs through its downloadable windows desktop and smartphone client, allTunes.com. From the article: "A former AllofMP3.com user, who spoke to Computerworld on the condition of anonymity, purchased songs with his existing credit from the allTunes software client today and experienced no trouble doing so... AllofMP3's six million users will no doubt be delighted they can use their leftover credit to purchase songs, but the site's longevity hangs in the balance. Just days after the Russian Government shut down AllofMP3.com, its sister site, MP3Sparks.com, suffered the same fate."
Related Stories
[+]
Allofmp3 Restarts Business 226 comments
An anonymous reader writes "With a pretty short message on their blog, Allofmp3 announced that they will resume their music store soon. According to a Russian court, their music store did not violate any copyright law in Russia, so there was no reason for them to keep it closed."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Uhh... where's the link? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you mean that one?
Re: (Score:2)
So this was the reason for the Bush/Putin meeting. (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, I think that was sorted out a long time ago (conditions on Russia joining the WTO). I believe the only reason they went fishing was so Bush could regail Putin with some crap jokes he found on Slashdot:
Putin would have been pissed off with all this, but whilst George W
Re: (Score:2)
"it's a fine catch" [www.eux.tv]
Re:So this was the reason for the Bush/Putin meeti (Score:2)
Shucks (Score:2)
Well, they've gone and shut down ALL the sites where you can buy reasonably priced mp3s! There are NONE LEFT. Darn. I guess the Russian government can go on some other kick now that we're thoroughly beaten... Yep, none left. They don't have to worry or be vigilant any more. *hopes they're using slashdot as their sole source to find these sites*
Re:Shucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Regardless of ethics (Score:5, Interesting)
In my more paranoid moments, I might consider this evidence for an upcoming shift from nation-state to corporation-state as the global political unit. Then again, I'm also prepared for the inevitable zombie outbreak, so perhaps you oughtn't listen to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing is free in Russia, 'group of American corporations' paid dearly to get it shut down, be it in political power or 'sponsorship' funds or likely both.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing is free in Russia, 'group of American corporations' paid dearly to get it shut down, be it in political power or 'sponsorship' funds or likely both.
For those of you who aren't aware: Russia is only making this concession because it wants to join the WTO.
I hope everyone going "zomg teh American Corporations" realizes that any payment for this was made during Clinton's Administration and Allofmp3 was shut down using Clinton era treaties.
American foreign policy under Bush and Clinton, with regards to 'intellectual property' has always had the same restrictive goals. The only difference is that Clinton was willing to accept the foreign patent process whil
Re: (Score:2)
And not just because it speaks to ever-increasing amounts of corporate power, unrestricted by legal restraint.
What does it do to the notion of rule of law in those countries where foreign corporations come in and throw their weight around? It was bad enough when Adobe, an American corporation, engineered the arrest of Dimitry Skylarov for acts that didn't break
What's so surprising? (Score:2)
Company does business in a country, company seeks legal protection from the courts in that country. All corporations from all countries do that. BFD.
Besides, "effectively control the legal system" in the context of RUSSIA? That's a legal system in need of MAJOR work. Frankly, I'd rather the RIAA give a helping hand with getting it up to snuff than most of the local talent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're presuming that our legal system represents being "up to snuff" from the point of view of the citizens of Russia. Which calls into question the whole notion of national sovereignty.
While I agree with you that the legal system in Russia isn't one I'd like to live with - and, I sus
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Regardless of ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that is the right way to look at the situation. What is worrisome is that a group of American corporations convinced the US government that issues that are unique to the entertainment industry were such a big deal that the US government better care about them and in turn they became such a big deal that they were able to force Russia to care about them. I can assure you that Russia does not give in to bullying. They acted because they either got something under the table for doing so or the government concluded that there was some benefit that they would gain by shutting down one website that would outweigh the perception of giving in to US pressure. Russia does not do something for nothing so they are getting something out of the deal, but what they are getting I don't know.
Parent
Whack-a-Mole (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA thinks they represent russian artists too (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the F*cking irony. "There" or "their"? Right in one place, wrong in the other, unless you were making a left-handed approach to a Mel Brooks routine. "Where words? There words.")
Hey, next time, just let it go, Doofus.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just sayin' - because right now, you've got a serious case of "I don't get it" going on.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Funny)
But you're right, I suppose. It is funnier your way. I just can't stop laughing about the way you sling about your grammatical corrections and editorial remarks.
It reeks of genuine hilarity, and I thank you for that. Your veraciousness is to be applauded.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are all of you folks completely unable to see that I mirrored, as closely as possible, all of the original poster's mistakes, bad habits, formatting, and punctuation? Same number of sentences. Same number of parenthetical remarks. I even used the same exact words, wherever I found it possible to do so.
proof reading there words: Misuse of "there" instead of "their," just like the original poster.
site Op's: I don't even know where to begin describing the wrongness of these letters being j
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the logic behind the site, but why support a system that doesn't pay the bands?!? (I understand they also don't pay the labels, but I don't care about that) Is copying data that difficult for many people?!?
Most often, buying music CDs doesn't pay the band, it pays the labels (unless you bought the CD from a band who recorded and produced the music themselves, in which case it's probably a burned disc anyway). If the band has been backed by a label, they've already been paid by the label to license their music and sell it. If you want to support the band, go to their shows (though a lot of times, the same principle applies)
Or perhaps people are too cheap to buy their music used?!?
Buying it used? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of trying to support the band? Say
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Most often, buying music CDs doesn't pay the band, it pays the labels (unless you bought the CD from a band who recorded and produced the music themselves, in which case it's probably a burned disc anyway). If the band has been backed by a label, they've already been paid by the label to license their music and sell it."
That's a bit backward from how most record contracts work. Contracts typically use a "the artist gets paid last" scenario, where royalty payments are held back and applied to the costs of production until they've been met.
If, at the time that you buy the CD, the CD has not yet reached the point of profitability, two things happen:
If the first point is confusing, consider the situation of making a donation to a local public TV or radio station. Say they need $100K to meet their budget and have collected $10K so far. An AllOfMP3 fan might state that donating $50 at this point would be useless, as the station will still not reach their goal, but the reality is that the $50 donation puts them $50 closer to reaching their goal.
The "pirate your music, but support the band by seeing the show" argument falls down when you do the math. If you pirate ten CDs a week, that's ten concerts you need to see a week -- that gets to be expensive, and a time sink. Then, of course, that there's the reality that not all the artists whose music you pirate are going to be able to play when and where you want them to. In most cases, when we pirate music, our actual contribution to the artists' livelihood is nil, despite our best intentions.
"Buying it used? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of trying to support the band? Say someone buys a CD for $14. They listen to it for a while, then it ends up at a used CD store once they're bored with it. I go in and buy the same CD for $6. The record label still only made that first $14. The only people that gain from used CD sales are used CD stores."
There are a couple of other benefits of buying a used CD vs. pirating it or downloading it from a Russian site. First, it's unquestionably legal, no matter how much the record companies would like to stop it. And, you support your local economy, vs. some Russian guy. I love having local record stores with ample selection of used CDs, but these establishments only stay in business with enough patronage.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's all very true, but you missing some of the point as well: not every downloaded song / movie is missed income to the artist (and label/studio behind them). In fact, I'd wager over 90% of the downloaded content wouldn't otherwise be converted into an actual sell.
As far as I see it, there are only 2 viable solutions:
1) Double the costs of bandwith costs and give halve to the entertainment industry (devided by downloads) and completely legalize it.
2) Give the public a real alternative, that's what Al
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"The labels don't get $14 a CD. That just shows an absurd ignorance of how the system works."
This is Slashdot, where the total cost of sale for a CD is $0.25, and distributors and retailers don't charge markup. In this version of reality, record labels make a net profit of $13.25; this ridiculous profitability allows us to rationalize piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A tiny minority is actually concerned about who is paid. The rest want to have convenient (illegal or not) access to songs, and ripping your own CDs is not convenient enough to many people.
**AA are trying to make it less convenient to download, instead of making it more convenient to rip or otherwise buy legitimately. They are foolish, but they are within their rights — however clumsy they are in enforcin
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what's at issue. Buying CDs and ripping them is more difficult than simply downloading them, or paying a site a few pennies to download them. AllofMP3 was so popular because for a couple cents getting music was even more convenient. You didn't even have to search through pirate sites to find them, they were all there in one place. They paid for the music because it was convenient, not because they wanted to make sure money went to the artists.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
allofmp3 provided lossless, DRM-free music for bands whose music could not be downloaded in a lossless format at any price. A 3:30 song encoded with FLAC weighs in at 22.5MB. At $0.03/MB, that comes to $0.67 for an average pop song.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The outrage over AllofMp3 being shutdown and the actions of the RIAA is that many people
believe that the most valid form of protest against an industry and its actions is to commit
some kind of "theft" against the industry rather than engaging in a real boycott. To a great
part of the community seemingly represented on slashdot, a complete boycott of the major labels
supporting the RIAA is too inconvenient, so they redef
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus, they argue that the "rights" of which you speak are fictitious and illegitimate (or at least overly broad). The "intellectual property" which you refer to is seen as an oxymoron and antithetical to progress and free culture. I won't go into the arguments any further--they have been described in eloquent detail many times on Slashdot.
The extent to which moral disagreement with copyright justifies civil disobedience is debatable. I'll give you that. However your characterization of the copyright reformist ideals as "childish claptrap" is quite unfair.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Until the noble reformists start debating/fighting/condemning the lowly thieves on this and other forums, my mixing them together will remain perfectly fair...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And until the decent defenders of copyright start distinguishing between theft and infringement, my mixing them together with despicable RIAA shills will remain perfectly fair.
The term
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference between theft and infringement is irrelevant to the discussion, because the infringement is just as harmful to the rightful owners of the intellectual property, as the theft is to those of the tangible property.
They are equally harmful to the rest of the society too. Because of thieves we must burden ourselves daily
Re: (Score:2)
None of the above are in anyway endangered by **AA, nor defended by AllOfMP3 et al.
Yeah, Disney's choke-hold on Mickey-Mouse really had a chilling effect on all of our freedom-fighters...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Within their legal rights, yes; whether those legal rights are themselves right is the question at hand. Lobbying - successfully - for retroactive extensions to copyright protection, for criminalizing security research, for making the exercise of a protected right illegal (though not t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, there's lots of ways of justifying it. But you're missing the prime motivation. People want things for free, and will jump through however many hoops it takes to come up with any excuse that makes it appear reasonable to them. So we get;
- It's not theft, it's only copyright infringement. (So that makes it ok?)
- The artists don't get all the money anyway. (So giving them n
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They do it because I it is a natural right. Listening to a song and then humming the melody yourself differs only in degree, not kind, with downloading and keeping the complete song. Either you believe in freedom of expression, or you don't. Because where you may choose to draw the line isn't necessarily where anyone else may choose to draw the line. After all, copyright law as defined by USC Title 17 is just arbitrary line as drawn up by a select few vested interests, no more
It's not theft, it's only copyright infringement.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright holders appeal to sentimental, loaded language because deep inside them they know their business model is broken.
Saying this as somebody that has never pirated a single song, mind you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I want the opportunity to buy what I want and not to buy what I don't want. I don't think I am being unreasonable.
If an album has 20 tracks and costs $20, I want to be a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Off topic, that's what really annoys me about the new FBI "Anti-Piracy"warning on DVDs. I can understand the MPAA and similar organizations misusing words like "stealing" and "piracy" because they're more interested in polemical wattage than legal accuracy, but the FBI is a law enforcement agency for crying out loud; they have no excuse