Alltunes.com Lets Users Download AllofMP3 Songs 168
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."
Uhh... where's the link? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you mean that one?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
The Russian government is fully capable of saying "no." This is a trait they exhibit quite often about things far more consequential than the price of a frakking MP3. To say that it is somehow "interventionist" for their regulatory bodies to sit down at the table with industry associations they'd like to do business with and came up with an agreement at the expense of poor, disenfranchised organized crime that wasn't let in on the meeting is astoundingly stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It already respected the copyrights. AllOfMP3.com paid a statutory license for all the music that was downloaded from them, in accordance with Russian law until the government was coerced into changing that law to suit the RIAA. This is the same sort of statutory license that the RIAA collects from Internet radio stations in the US through its SoundExchange subsidiary. Meanwhile, the RIAA was refusing to pass this money on to the arti
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Universal's head offices are in Santa Monica and New York, despite the fact that the parent company is French. Sony BMG is also run out of New York, despite the parent companies being Japanese and German. EMI is the only one of the big four that does not base its operations in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Whack-a-Mole (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays it's all about mp3sugar [mp3sugar.com]!
People need to get with the times, gee...
RIAA thinks they represent russian artists too (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patio furniture and mp3s (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
International Waters (Score:2)
As I doubt Liberia has any intellectual property treaties with anyone, this should be able to be a source for downloads according to whatever rules are determined by the Ship's Captain.
That would of course be $0.01 per GB of source material. So, if t
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
"were wolf!"
"there wolf!"
He's just a big fan of "Young Frankenstein".
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that I'm probably outside the norm around here, but I still purchase CDs. I shop around and try to find the best prices, but if I knew that the second I purchased them, their value would drop to $0.00, I might think twice about taking chances on some of them.
If you own CDs that you never listen to, DVDs that you never watch, or
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.
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)
"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."
The question was "why buy instead of use allofmp3?". You are correct that many people state that piracy is not a substitute for sales.
"As far as I see it, there are only 2 viable solutions:"
Solutions for whom? The iTunes store is do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except, well, no one has ever actually reported receiving a cheque.
Re: (Score:2)
"Because the labels have stopped them from doing so."
Do you have a citation for this claim? How on earth could a label prevent a lyricist or composer from collecting performance royalties? That's between the artist, the publisher and the performing rights organization; it's a wholly different revenue stream than CD sales. I think your statement is just one of those things that everybody just sort of "knows" to be true but which nobody can really confirm, but if you have evidence otherwise, please post i
Re: (Score:2)
"Or it would, if the labels didn't hog the copyrights so the artists can't apply for their own money."
I don't follow. The record company typically owns the copyright on the recording; the composer and lyricist own the copyright on the words and music. Tons of artists make pretty good money via BMI and ASCAP through radio play and other public performances; it's a revenue stream that's wholly unrelated to CD sales, and -- more importantly -- money that the record company never sees.
Any rightsholder can
Re: (Score:2)
However, a lot of the casual pirates in the United States, at least, do have the money and would buy the music if they could not get it in any other way (mostly rich college-age kids that have thousands of dollars in disposable income). Maybe they wouldn't buy all of the 10,000s of songs they downloaded, but even if they bought only 10% that's still over $1000 in lost music sal
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the music industry is doing so well (despite their own protests to the contrary) indicates that they've found a fair market price. It's possible that they could do a little better, sure, but probably not much better.
To sell for what you think is a fair price, they'd have to sell 2-3 times as many units (assuming digital downloads, and ignoring th
Re: (Score:2)
They may have been paid, depending on their deal. Courtney Love [salon.com] did an interesting article a while back giving the artist's account of how the record labels control the finances and payments.
/. However, I've linked to the ad-free-all-on-one-page version, so it cancels out ;)*
*Disclaimer: article has probably been posted many times on
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)
Ok, now what you are saying is that by us saving $13.50 we're probably only ripping off the record label by about $8.00 after the various markups are taken into consideration for middle-men we wouldn't be using. Doesn't your version of reality justify piracy m
Re: (Score:2)
"Ok, now what you are saying is that by us saving $13.50 we're probably only ripping off the record label by about $8.00 after the various markups are taken into consideration for middle-men we wouldn't be using."
Sort of. It's my understanding that sell-in to disti is about eight bucks. Everything beyond that goes to the distributor and retailer.
"Doesn't your version of reality justify piracy more than the Slashdot collective mind's model?"
I can't answer that question for you. If the idea of payin
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they went to allofmp3 to pay for the music because allofmp3 charge a fraction of the price of all the other online stores. Not only that, but they charge such a small fraction that after their markup and costs a grand total of next to fuck all went to the artists, or indeed anyone else associated with putting the record out.
Allofmp3s users weren't looking for a convenient way to buy music; t
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:2)
Basically, what this is saying is that AllofMP3 has a better business model than t
Re: (Score:2)
Any business model that reduces the costs of creating, developing, and producing your product to virtually zero is always going to be a winner. When you reduce those costs by assigning all those debts to your direct competition by stealing (oh, sorry... sharing) their intellectual property then yes, I suppose in some interestingly twisted way you can call that "better."
Re: (Score:2)
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
Copyright infringment is not stealing. Period. (Score:2)
There are full bodies of law to deal specifically with copyright, because it is completely a different beast.
I will not go into explaining this, it has been done ad nauseam on this website, suffice to say that an argument does not become false just because a person of dubious moral character (a pirate) states it.
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.
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)
Obviously false, for the usual reason. The rightholders still retain the right infringed upon, whereas the victim of theft has nothing.
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That the tangible property (mobile and real estate) remains perpetually owned — passed from generation to generation and/or sold — without ever coming into "public domain" (unless abandoned) was never seen as somehow eroding personal freedoms.
So, I don't think, what you are saying is even arguable. It certainly is not a sure thing, as the grand-parent has claimed.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of expression, the press, and the public domain is not a trivial thing.
None of the above are in anyway endangered by **AA, nor defended by AllOfMP3 et al.
In quite a lot of countries the freedom of the press is endangered due to the US copyright lobby. They want to listen to all our communications, including the so far confidential communications between press and the press informer, and they are pushing legislation for this purpose that was originally meant to be against terrorists. The EU data retension directive is a fine example of this.
And no, allofmp3 is not defending this. But they are trying hard to deliver the service their customers have alread
Re: (Score:2)
They're not trivial, no, but then they have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
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:2, Insightful)
Under the circumstances, yes. Or we don't care. Tough.
how about I work towards a system where I CAN give them all the money by breaking the current one. Given that I would like to make a living as a musician at some point, I would REALLY like to see this happen.
um, does musi
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:2)
No, I can't. So no, it isn't convenient enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm such a bad-ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
5 miles over the limit? That's margin of error. Is your speedometer calibrated? When mine indicates 40mph, I'm actually moving at 35mph.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Posting at top. (Score:2, Informative)
You can either use the web page, or the new allTunes browser. It's a slight improvement of the allofMP3 browser, but you can't use the old one anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA is using the WTO to strong-arm the Russian government into closing down - there has been nothing that says it was breaking any law. It just happened to be that through the wonderful series of tubes that is the internet, we can purchase something in Russia for use in the US (or elsewhere). This doesn't go over well with the greedy folks at the RIAA because they can't enforce price controls on it.
Interestingly, I haven't heard of any artists