Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AllofMP3 Voucher Resellers Quit After Police Raid

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the squash-enough-bugs-and-the-hive-dies dept.

Music 137

Broohaha writes "Europeans who resell AllofMP3.com vouchers are quitting the business after a UK raid against one prominent reseller there. An Ars Technica article talks to several of them about their situations. 'Until a few days ago, I had never heard of the IFPI [the international music trade group],' said one reseller. 'But yes, I am concerned about them now. Although my attorney assures me that reselling gift certificates bought from AllOfMP3.com isn't breaking any laws, it isn't worth the possibility of engagement with their legal machine.' The music industry seems determined to choke off AllofMP3's funding, no matter how small the source."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

God Smack Your Ass !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19237321)


God Smack Your Ass/Arse !!

The RIAA wins then... (4, Insightful)

BecomingLumberg (949374) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237363)

I guess the RIAA wins... I'll just have to go back to BitTorrent...

Re:The RIAA wins then... (4, Insightful)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237869)

Actually, that's exactly what I was recommending to my friends to whom I previously recommended Allofmp3. I don't have the time and energy to keep troubleshooting their problems with music file formats from various legit stores that don't play on their mp3 players, and Allofmp3 was the only significant source of regular mp3 files that worked; now it's back to music piracy again...

Re:The RIAA wins then... (2, Informative)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238633)

AllofMP3 was operating on dark grey margins of legality, so it's not as if you are just now starting piracy, you were pretty much supporting such an operation. They stretch the loophole a lot. The licensing clause they are operating under was one that allows for radio over cable TV networks as a broadcast mechanism, not for the sales of music tracks.

Shhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238777)

Dude,

Shhhh, you are making too much sense.

We don't want people to know allofmp3.com was a front and that no American artist ever saw one cent of the proceeds from them selling their music.

if they think it is legit it is legit.

Re:Shhhh (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238823)

And we ALL know the RIAA supports full compensation for artists as well. Oh, wait.

Re:Shhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238879)

Oh shit! Argument disproved! Oh, wait.

Re:Shhhh (1)

robbiethefett (1047640) | more than 7 years ago | (#19241483)

parent is modded funny, but its an informative sort of statement.. do some research and find out how much, exactly, artists are compensated for cd sales by the riaa.. i think you'll find several conflicting points of data, all well below a "reasonable" amount. (think fractions of a percent)

Re:Shhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19242317)

Actually it is not informative, it is not even funny. It somehow implies that the infringement committed by allofmp3.com is justified because he thinks the RIAA does not give enough money to the artists.

I personally am unable to draw a parallel between a company which artist enter into a voluntary legal contract with and a company that resells another persons intellectual property with permission and without compensating the creator.

Correct, that isn't at all why it's justified. (1)

Ahnteis (746045) | more than 7 years ago | (#19244407)

It's justified because it's legal in the company of operation. Or were you talking morality? In that case, the RIAA argument makes a lot of sense.

Re:Shhhh (2, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 7 years ago | (#19242781)

"parent is modded funny, but its an informative sort of statement.. do some research and find out how much, exactly, artists are compensated for cd sales by the riaa.. i think you'll find several conflicting points of data, all well below a "reasonable" amount. (think fractions of a percent)"

I've talked to people who've done quite well on sales through iTunes -- the $0.15 per track estimate is about right, in the instances I've confirmed. It's actually much higher than that for many indie artists (whose labels tend to pay them more), and unsigned artists who use CDBaby make much more.

Selling 1,000 albums and making $0.15 per track will only net you $1,200 -- but those same copies downloaded from allofmp3 will net you something approaching fuck all. And, I know we all like to think of artists as living a life of luxury, but you have to understand that for many artists, that is simply not the case. They need that $1,200 to pay the rent. A check from CDBaby or your record label for $1,200 will help you pay the rent. A non-existent check from allofmp3 will not.

You can talk about how a pirated copy from allofmp3 might ultimately help you, as it might create the interest which might allow you to travel to the pirate's town to perform live, where he might buy a ticket, or even buy a t-shirt. But paying the rent in the here and now beats pleasing some random pirate who might buy a shirt.

If you disagree, come to work for me for free. I can use some coders, some designers, and some editors and copyrighters. I might recommend you to my friends. If you believe that abstract concepts like giving your work away for free and making others happy are more important the realities of selling your work for money to pay the rent, let that start with you.

Re:Shhhh (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 7 years ago | (#19245045)

If you believe that abstract concepts like giving your work away for free and making others happy are more important the realities of selling your work for money to pay the rent, let that start with you.


Mod parent up!

It doesn't really piss me off that some people pirate copyright material. I'd be a hypocrite if it did. It pisses me off that some people try to wrap it into some kind of moral armor by which what they are doing is the right thing to do, instead of just admitting that they'd rather steal than pay if the chance of getting caught is effectively nil and it's just too inconvenient to pay. The bullshit justifications are endless:

"The artists are getting screwed, so I steal to support their righteous cause."
Well, the artists are the ones signing the contracts. If I were an artist I'd probably want to get more, too, but I fail to see how it will help to rip me off for what little I did get. The parent post did a much better job than me with this one.

"The product is overpriced and I can't afford it, so I steal it instead. It's company XYZ's fault for trying to charge me such a ridiculous price in the first place."
There are things we need and then there are things we want. You can sometimes find moral justification for stealing something you need, but never for what you just want.

"The RIAA sues grandmothers and little girls, which makes them evil, so I steal to get back at them."
I just can't make the connection between them being evil making it ok for me to be evil, too.

"DRM prevents me from purchasing legitimately for my XYZ device that doesn't support it, so I am forced to steal instead."
DRM doesn't prevent you from purchasing legitimately. It might prevent you from purchasing conveniently, though. It's not as easy to buy a CD/DVD and rip the content onto your portable device, but you can do it if you really want to. Please note that I am not talking about DMCA here, I have no moral problem ignoring the conflict in law between fair use and DMCA restrictions.

Re:Shhhh (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#19245147)

Come on, be fair.

They've got the "full compensation" bit down to a fine art. It's the "for artists" bit they have trouble with.

Re:The RIAA wins then... (1)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238957)

I didn't say Allofmp3 was legal; in fact, I warned people I recommended the site to that they operated in a gray area. However, they were still willing to pay for songs that had a guaranteed quality, were easy to find and worked on their devices. Now that they can't use Allofmp3 anymore, they prefer to pirate songs - they are more difficult to find, don't have a guaranteed quality, but work on their devices. It appears that the market (at least the portion I'm involved with - eclectic mp3 players and too lazy to burn and re-rip songs) values playable file formats more than the question of legality.

Re:The RIAA wins then... (1)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 7 years ago | (#19240881)

There is at least one alternative [musicmp3.ru] to AllOfMP3.com.

Re:The RIAA wins then... (1)

lfreedling (1101287) | more than 7 years ago | (#19241895)

or you can use mp3stor.ru

Re:The RIAA wins then... (2, Interesting)

shark72 (702619) | more than 7 years ago | (#19241253)

"I didn't say Allofmp3 was legal; in fact, I warned people I recommended the site to that they operated in a gray area. However, they were still willing to pay for songs that had a guaranteed quality, were easy to find and worked on their devices. Now that they can't use Allofmp3 anymore, they prefer to pirate songs - they are more difficult to find, don't have a guaranteed quality, but work on their devices."

If your friends are willing to pay for pirated content, sounds like a good opportunity for you to make a little extra money from your less technically savvy friends:

  1. Your friends tell you what music they want.
  2. You get it via BT (if you don't have it already) and do the necessary format conversion.
  3. Sell the tracks to your friends
  4. Steal underpants (optional)
  5. Profit!!!

If you want to be more like allofmp3, you can have another friend set up his own rights clearance organization. It doesn't matter if he's recognized by BMI/ASCAP, etc. -- ROMS certainly isn't, so that's not the point. Then, pay your friend 10% of the money you get from selling MP3s to your friends, and you'll be precisely on the same moral ground as allofmp3.

For extra bonus points, tell your friends that you are "considering" giving some of your money to the musicians, just as allofmp3 has stated.

Re:The RIAA wins then... (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 7 years ago | (#19244239)

is not converting and reselling part of illegal activities that riaa and other copyright nazis are after?
I wonder.

This has nothing to do with justice or paying royalties. It is pure nonsense from technical point of view (does the purcased material work on all owned media?), it is abuse of consumers because they become criminals if they make backup copies and it does bring money to lawyers and organisations like riaa.
The choice, justice, our rights and quality suffer in a process.
Sad thing is: there is no escape. They won the war already because they have bigger bugs to buy bigger guns or lawyers.

I stopped buying CDs few years back. I do not use 'illegal' copies but I dont buy 'legal' ones either. I suffer a little but I can live without it. I can sing to myself (god forbids that anybody hears) so I am fine. I am sure however that there is a law making this illegal too. //

Re:The RIAA wins then... (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 7 years ago | (#19239019)

now it's back to music piracy again...


AllOfMP3 was piracy, you were just paying for it. Just because it dressed itself up in a professional website and pretended to be something else doesn't change that.

Re:The RIAA wins then... (3, Informative)

davester666 (731373) | more than 7 years ago | (#19242465)

AllOfMP3 was piracy, you were just paying for it. Just because it dressed itself up in a professional website and pretended to be something else doesn't change that.

It's my understanding that AllOfMP3 is legally operating within Russia, that the various music associations have tried to get it shut down within Russia but have been unable to because it has been following the law, as it is written in Russia. It may or may not violate copyright and/or other laws for an individual to download from their site from where they happen to be located when downloading.

Also, it's my understanding that the major labels could be receiving their portion of money that AllOfMP3 collects by participating in Russia's licensing system. It could be that they have decided not to participate because the amount of money they would receive is less than what they would like, so they are instead trying to have the laws changed so that they can extract more money than what they would be paid under the current laws in Russia.

Re:The RIAA wins then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19241289)

"now it's back to music piracy again..."

allofmp3.com is music piracy, you moron,

A: There's Another dead Allofmp3... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238951)

... voucher re-seller on the landing!
B: Really?
C: Where do we send the invoice?
A: Waddya mean?
C: What's its merchant charge code?
A: Well, it looked a bit Bath and Wells-ish to me...
B: (getting up and going out the door) I'll go and have a look.
C: I don't know...kids bringin' 'em in here....
A: It's not me!
C: I've got three of 'em down by the bin, and the dustmen won't touch 'em!
B: (coming back in) Code number 935726217923000012/A/9-1.
C: 'Ow d'you know?
B: Barcoded on the back o' the neck. I'll call the police.
C: Shouldn't you call an economist?
A: Call the economics police!
B: All right. (shouting) The Economics Police!

Re:The RIAA wins then... (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 7 years ago | (#19240967)

Everyone is missing one major point here - Nobody gets any money from AllofMP3. They keep 100% of the revenue. The labels and publishers do not get a single penny from them. In turn, the poor musicians and publishers get nothing back for the song they made. The IFPI, RIAA or BPI for example should win here, as the poor person, whether they are very good or dismally bad will not get money for their work.

Check out http://www.pro-music.org/ , it lists all legal places to buy digital music on the web. It's also run by the IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industries).

Re:The RIAA wins then... (1)

jamar0303 (896820) | more than 7 years ago | (#19241825)

I use MP3 (and sometimes OGG) because it's all my music player supports. I pirate because I can't find music in a format usable on my MP3 player (I live in *China*, I bought a no-name player that doesn't support any kind of DRM because it was cheap and I'm not buying another player just to support a store's DRM). My cellphone is a different story (it supports SD-Audio DRM and I'm fully willing to buy from the store that uses it) but this time the opposition's on their end (IP check at purchase time blocks me because I'm in China- or was it because I wasn't in Japan?). I don't particularly like to pirate, though, so I buy legitimate CDs when I can (most of the time- just those obscure J-pop acts that don't sell their CDs here legit that I pirate, and even then I bought some of those CDs when I gotthe chance to go to Japan). I know it's wrong- I won't try to pretend it's OK anymore. I just try not to do this when I can (which is most of the time).

Re:The RIAA wins then... (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 7 years ago | (#19241831)

Only if you let them...

Personally, I prefer to cut out these parasitic middlemen and deal with my bands directly - either with their own web shop, or their nominated seller. Fortunately my favourite bands are fiercely independent, so buying direct is the norm rather than the exception.

Re:The RIAA wins then... (1)

bdjacobson (1094909) | more than 7 years ago | (#19243951)

Funny, I thought pirates were the ones that raided. So the RIAA should go after themselves?/0

actionable? (4, Interesting)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237407)

Okay, first, IANAL. But I know that in the US, harassment of a company's business partners can be considered actionable under RICO. Anyone know if AllOfMP3 may be able to bring a suit against IFPI?

Re:actionable? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19237947)

I agree they should stop harassing my drug dealer because it is killing his business.

Re:actionable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19242683)

A drug dealer is comitting a crime; these people are not.

Re:actionable? (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238865)

Anyone know if AllOfMP3 may be able to bring a suit against IFPI?

They already have in the country of Eurasia.

Seriously, the world today is almost like the wild west where there really isn't any law except for those that think there is law and that they are in charge. IFPI. Who are those guys?

No respect for the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19237411)

These guys are doing nothing illegal, and yet the music industry is still using their legal machinery to harass them. Apparently the music industry has no respect for law abiding citizens rights and privileges under the law. If the music industry doesn't respect the law, then why should the 'pirates'?

If the State EXECUTEs, Why Can't I Execute?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19237653)

If the State EXECUTEs, why can't I execute?? God I love sound logic !!

You know and I know allofmp3 is a crock of crooks.

Re:If the State EXECUTEs, Why Can't I Execute?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238061)

Your 'point' is as incoherent as it is superfluous. If party A is within the law and party B uses it's lawyers and money to harass party A despite that fact, then party B is in the wrong. If you can't understand that then there is something wrong with you.

Re:If the State EXECUTEs, Why Can't I Execute?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238293)

I think you mean, "If *I* can't execute, why can the state?" Better question.

Re:If the State EXECUTEs, Why Can't I Execute?? (2, Interesting)

miskatonic alumnus (668722) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238683)

God I love sound logic !!

Good. You should think about using some. The social contract that you have implicitly entered into by being a citizen of said state forbids such activity to its citizens, and allows it, under a certain set of circumstances, to certain state employees. Now, as long as the state upholds its end of the deal, the citizens should uphold theirs.

In the matter of copyright law, we have a similar contract. However, the music industry has cleverly bankrolled legislation to make sure they don't have to uphold their end of the deal, to wit, placing the copyrighted material into the public domain after a limited time. Furthermore, they also use their near infinite resources to use the legal machinery as a tool to harass law-abiding citizens. MAFIAA, indeed.

Re:If the State EXECUTEs, Why Can't I Execute?? (2)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#19239505)

However, the music industry has cleverly bankrolled legislation to make sure they don't have to uphold their end of the deal, to wit, placing the copyrighted material into the public domain after a limited time.

The US Supreme Court, ruling on the legality of the Bono copyright extension of a few years ago, very clearly stated that while their ruling should not in any way be interpreted to mean that copyright extension was a good idea, that "life of the author plus 70 years" (or is it 75 years?) did indeed meet the definition of "limited time" and was therefore constitutional. Until a court is willing to establish limits on what "limited time" means, there is no legal reason why this can't be extended. I fully expect Disney in roughly 30 or so years (whenever Steamboat Willie will be in threat of losing copyright) to push for 50 more years and get it.

One of the best ideas I heard was a compromise that copyright be extended, but that it require companies to actually apply for it in order to be extended. That way Disney, etc. could protect everything they wanted to and stuff that is forgotten about, like old photos from many decades ago, could fall into the public domain. Unfortunately the current law provides for a "do nothing" automatic extension of copyright for everything, which means that truly nothing will fall into the public domain again, maybe ever (assuming copyright keeps getting extended, as it probably will).

My best friend is an attorney and in fact he has nothing to do with copyright stuff at all in his legal specialty. I mentioned to him how bad this was and he was unable to understand why people and companies shouldn't be able to copyright stuff forever and have people over a 100 years from now make a living on stuff that they inherited copyrights for and had no role in creating. This illustrates exactly why copyright will be continuously extended. The US Congress is mostly attorneys and attorneys see nothing wrong with this.

Re:If the State EXECUTEs, Why Can't I Execute?? (1)

miskatonic alumnus (668722) | more than 7 years ago | (#19240351)

The US Supreme Court ... clearly stated that ... "life of the author plus 70 years" did indeed meet the definition of "limited time" and was therefore constitutional.

You know, that's great. It must be nice to be the one party able to re-negotiate the terms of a contract. Does it work for banks? If you get a loan to purchase a home, and it comes time for your last payment, can the bank run to Congress or the courts and demand that you should continue your monthly payments for another 20 years? Name another contract that works that way.

It could be argued that life of the author plus 1e9 years is limited in the sense that it is bounded. The question is, is it excessive?

Re:If the State EXECUTEs, Why Can't I Execute?? (2)

Control Group (105494) | more than 7 years ago | (#19240447)

The US Supreme Court, ruling on the legality of the Bono copyright extension of a few years ago, very clearly stated that while their ruling should not in any way be interpreted to mean that copyright extension was a good idea, that "life of the author plus 70 years" (or is it 75 years?) did indeed meet the definition of "limited time" and was therefore constitutional. Until a court is willing to establish limits on what "limited time" means, there is no legal reason why this can't be extended. I fully expect Disney in roughly 30 or so years (whenever Steamboat Willie will be in threat of losing copyright) to push for 50 more years and get it.

The problem was that the case was argued poorly. Due to the way the argument was presented, the SCOTUS got to rule that the provisions of the act did comply with the "limited times" clause, which they do.

What was not addressed was the legitimacy of the retroactive extension of copyright - whether that a) set the stage for effectively endless copyright, since it allows Congress to not let anything fall out of copyright, ever or b) met the "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts" test (which, intuitively, it seems to fail, since you can't incent artists in 1925 with legislation passwed in 2007).

I also think you're over-generalizing your assessment of attorneys. Both my mother- and father-in-law are attorneys, and have no trouble whatsoever with understanding the problems of perpetual copyright. Especially in terms of Constitutional law.

Re:No respect for the law (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 7 years ago | (#19239381)

These guys are doing nothing illegal


You say it as if it was a fact. It would appear the law thinks there's a good chance they were.


If I sold vouchers redeemable at your local fence, would I be doing anything illegal? It's not a distinction I'd like to argue in court, which is what all those resellers have concluded.

If the music industry doesn't respect the law, then why should the 'pirates'?

Well if you're going to use that level of argument, I think a "They started it first!" answers any further questions you might have.

See the comment in the summary? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237415)

Although my attorney assures me that reselling gift certificates bought from AllOfMP3.com isn't breaking any laws, it isn't worth the possibility of engagement with their legal machine

I would love to see how the astroturfers here spin this, go on.

At this point doing things the RIAA doesn't like is basically necessary civil disobedience.

Re:See the comment in the summary? (2, Insightful)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238219)

Civil disobedience also means going to jail and suffering the consequences of your actions.

Civil disobedience! (1)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19240681)

At this point doing things the RIAA doesn't like is basically necessary civil disobedience.

Yes, because the right to share somebody else's creations with friends and strangers is unalienable.

Saharov [wikipedia.org] and Ghandi [wikipedia.org] would've been proud of your stand.

my attorney in the UK ? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19237423)


since when has anybody in the UK called a solicitor or lawyer/barrister an "attorney"
that word is used almost exclusivly by Americans, was this reseller an American in the UK or was the "quote" edited for a US audience

smells like bullshit here in London

Re:my attorney in the UK ? (3, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237605)

Mod parent up! UK people rarely use the term 'attorney'. They are 'solicitors' or 'barristers' or even (less often) 'lawyers.'

The whole story seems like astroturfing designed to scare the bejesus out of the remaining resellers.

Re:my attorney in the UK ? (2, Informative)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238159)

The whole story seems like astroturfing designed to scare the bejesus out of the remaining resellers.

Whatever works. They don't care. It is clearly up the us to be more careful how we spend our money. To keep it our of their hands, don't buy their product. Lot's of talk about boycotts and stuff, but a closely related industry is making more money than they ever have (plugging journal). So I would see no reason why they should change their behavior. It still pays off quite well. Just like with spammers. It is we who reward their actions. The simple fact is, you can't argue with success. Sorry.

In the US... (2)

guruevi (827432) | more than 7 years ago | (#19239387)


we call them leeches, parasites,...

Re:my attorney in the UK ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19237987)

Err, the article never says that quote came from the UK. The -raid- happened in the UK. The quote in question is from someone "from Europe." It sounds like these resellers were from across Europe.

Re:my attorney in the UK ? (1)

malkavian (9512) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238055)

Note: The article referred to a seller in Europe. This does not necessarily mean the UK, just a reseller who may travel through the UK now and then, but is based in the EU (which covers a lot of ground).
There are a goodly many English Teachers who teach American English, thus anyone who has learned to speak/write English after learning in that environment will refer to a legal representative as an Attorney, rather than a Solicitor.

So, no, doesn't smell like Bullshit here in Bath/Bristol.

Legal system problem (4, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237465)

This quote has the essence of the biggest problem in the 20th century, boiled down to one simple sentence:

Although my attorney assures me that reselling gift certificates bought from AllOfMP3.com isn't breaking any laws, it isn't worth the possibility of engagement with their legal machine.'
I would paraphrase that to:

Although what I am doing is legal, I dare not engage the legal system
Which makes justice impossible. No justice, kiss freedom goodbye.

Re:Legal system problem (4, Insightful)

haggisbrain (945030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237743)

Which makes justice impossible.

Almost there.

Which makes justice impossible. for those who aren't wealthy .

Re:Legal system problem (1, Redundant)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238271)

Which makes justice impossible. for those who aren't wealthy.
You keep using that word [reference.com] . I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Legal system problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19241685)

The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.

Oh sure. Then I publish a book of your posts and you change your sig to "All rights reserved." No way Buddy. I'm not falling for that old trick.

Re:Legal system problem (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19242063)

Hey, if you are crazy enough to think that anything I say is book-worthy, go for it. ;)

Re:Legal system problem (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237805)

It's a protection racket, pure and simple. No-one's breaking the law, but it upsets the guys with the money, and that's just not done "if you know what's good for you". It's not the exception - it's the norm.

Re:Legal system problem (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238267)

No justice, kiss freedom goodbye.

After being raped, that's the least I could ask for. But some flowers and a box of chocolates with a "thank you" note would be a nice touch. Maybe even a phone number?

sigh (4, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237505)

the selling of gift certificates isnt illegal but the use of them is frowned upon and thus anyone selling them is brought into the whole mess. The RIAA and company represent a group of interests that foolishly cut off any legal way to try out music or be locked in with DRM. that is why they lose cash, you cant screw people like that and expect to make MORE cash forever. if they were smart they would realize that they'd make more money by giving people the legal freedom to listen to music more freely than current and piracy would probably decrease as well- why pirate what is easy and cheap to begin with?

Re:sigh (2, Insightful)

edizzles (1029108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238339)

Is it me or is the whole DRM, RIAA, ect getting out of hand realy fast, there attacking people in other contries. I can only hope that over the next 20 years people will get fed up with this crap and just stoping buying mussic from anyone working with these crazy power drunk freedy ashats

Re:sigh (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 7 years ago | (#19241461)

"Is it me or is the whole DRM, RIAA, ect getting out of hand realy fast, there attacking people in other contries."

Huh? This article was about the IFPI; they're an international trade group operating in a whole bunch of countries.

If this were about the RIAA (a US organization) causing a ruckus in the UK, then you're right -- it would be a little weird.

"The music industry seems determined to choke off" (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237521)

To me, "The music industry" seems to have become the bane of civil and modern life. As if there exist no problems in the world, no wars, no poverty, no economic issues but fucking more-cash problems of the "music industry". makes one start to treat individuals involved in this "music industry" like lowlifes in everyday life.

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237875)

To me, "The music industry" seems to have become the bane of civil and modern life. As if there exist no problems in the world, no wars, no poverty, no economic issues but fucking more-cash problems of the "music industry". makes one start to treat individuals involved in this "music industry" like lowlifes in everyday life.
- emphasis mine

"Makes one start to treat individuals involved in this 'music industry' like the lowlifes that they really are."

There, that sounds better

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238127)

i said "everyday life", because i didnt mean it as a metaphor, i really meant i would start treating these people like shit in everyday life.

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (3, Informative)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238869)

mea culpa - I just read an article about NIN's Trent Reznor. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,217 41980-5006024,00.html [news.com.au] and he's pretty blunt about it. These people you reference ARE lowlifes, and this is coming from one of their clients.

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238931)

well. if people oust them from society, they would have to reconsider their crap.

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 7 years ago | (#19240011)

Not really, they'd simply buy a few boats and spend their lives fscking models.

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#19244401)

at least then they wouldnt be harming the progress of civilization

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (1)

MooseTick (895855) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238095)

"To me, "The music industry" seems to have become the bane of civil and modern life. As if there exist no problems in the world, no wars, no poverty, no economic issues but fucking more-cash problems of the "music industry". makes one start to treat individuals involved in this "music industry" like lowlifes in everyday life."

As far as I can tell, if you don't download music you don't own or aren't getting from a highly questionable source then you won't have any problems. Maybe I missed it but has there been a rash of people being sued from using iTunes, the new version of Napster, or local CD stores?

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238475)

The problem lies in your phrase "highly questionable". This selling is legal (my attorney assures me that reselling gift certificates bought from AllOfMP3.com isn't breaking any laws) but the corporations involved have deemed it "highly questionable". (it isn't worth the possibility of engagement with their legal machine.) And so justice is subverted.

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238515)

As far as I can tell, if you don't download music you don't own or aren't getting from a highly questionable source then you won't have any problems.


hmmm.

like having innovation, free speech and competitio not being stifled by insane laws that are passed through music industry funding ?

like, "intellectual property" exploitation that walks in the verge of banning people from using certain words in daily speech ?

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (1)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 7 years ago | (#19239787)

"As far as I can tell, if you don't download music you don't own or aren't getting from a highly questionable source then you won't have any problems. Maybe I missed it but has there been a rash of people being sued from using iTunes, the new version of Napster, or local CD stores?"
Apparently you missed people getting sued by the RIAA who don't even own computers.

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238297)

To me, "The music industry" seems to have become the bane of civil and modern life.

Really? Musicians, and the people they pay/hire/work with to handle the business end of what they do (so they can concentrate on making music) are the 'bane of civil and modern life?' But some company that wants to rip those musicians off by not paying for their work, and then turn around and sell what they've ripped off... you consider that to be... what? a good example of civility? If civilization is marked by its ability to support people who specialize in things (like, making the music that untold millions of people seem to want, as opposed to having to go out every morning and tend to your crops before you come home at night exhausted and THEN see about making some music), then civilization is also marked by the ability for people to offer their work up for sale - and not be ripped off.

If you consider artists to be uncivil for deciding that being paid for their work, when someone wants to be entertained or informed by it, then you have SUCH a simple solution: don't pretend you like those artists. Walk away. Turn to people who ARE willing to let a Russian company sell their work without in turn getting paid for it be your source of entertainment. If you're right, that someone like Sting, or Amy Winehouse or the Dixie Chicks, or Elvis Costello, or Andrea Bocelli - whatever your tastes - or others that choose to charge for their work are the bane of civilization, then (if your point is valid, and you're at all persuasive) surely you've got a nice healthy list of complementary writers, performers, filmakers, and all of the other creative people who produce what you like without charging. And since you DO have such a list, why do you care about the artists who choose to work with traditional publishers? Just walk away, and into the loving embrace of artists who WANT a Russian dot-com to earn a living off of their unpaid work, and be happy, since you're saving (your) civilization.

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (1)

SoulRider (148285) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238923)

How come when the music industry talks about piracy they always talk about the starving artists? But when someone points out the totally unethical behaviour on the music industries part towards said artists and exposes the fact that the said music industry is more responsible for those starving artists than any consumer could ever be they get all tough and claim it is their property? Face it the music industry looks out for the artist in exactly the same way that someone buying mp3's off of allofmp3 does. There is no difference.

Re:"The music industry seems determined to choke o (2, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19240251)

There is no difference.

There is an enormous difference. Follow a few successful artists' business careers. They work (in starving artist mode), and some of them produce something with enough critical and commercial draw that they make some real money. MANY of them form their own production and publishing companies specifically so that they can help out or promote other "starving" artists with contracts that are favorable to the artists. And guess what: many of those company-forming artists immediately see the wisdom in joining a trade association. Just like plumbers do, auto mechanics do, authors do, and scientists do. Without the artists, there IS NO trade association. The artists, and the publishing companies they hire DECIDE TO JOIN or not. Many do not, many form their own coalitions, and many go with the bigger association because they can get more done in protecting their rights to their own work.

The thing is, it is their content. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19237769)

I believe in their right to control it. If they don't want it sold in this fashion because they aren't making enough (or any) profit, so be it.

You can argue that it's a self-defeating strategy, but it's still their right.

Re:The thing is, it is their content. (1)

Lithdren (605362) | more than 7 years ago | (#19244333)

They have the rights to the music. This is a reseller of gift certificates, they dont have anything to do with the damn music.

Its overstepping their bounds. If someone builds a house thats identical to mine, and I have a patent on my home design (say its something really quite asoundingly diffrent and usefull, or hell, given our patent system its just any old home, but thats a diffrent discussion) this would be akin to suing not only the home owner who paid for the home to be built, but to sue John Smith, the construction worker to put up the walls. Its not his fault! He was doing what was perfectly legal, even if what was being build at the time, was illegal. Its not his responsability to confirm this.

Nice to See (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237885)

Nice to see that the Mafia's muscle has been replaced by lawyers.

Re:Nice to See (1)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238247)

Why not? The government took the Mafia's "numbers game" racket too.

The Fraud Act 2006 Requires Intent (1)

giafly (926567) | more than 7 years ago | (#19237949)

...so I'm not sure whether these people were potentially "guilty". See Fraud Act 2006 [opsi.gov.uk] . We need advice from a lawyer.

how can I fund my account now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19237975)

Any ideas?

Ironic (4, Insightful)

caseih (160668) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238023)

The RIAA is trying to stop allofmp3.com (operating under certain Russian copyright licensing laws) for doing the exact same thing that they are pushing to be allowed to do right here in the US. The RIAA wants to collect fees (sell if you will) for music played on radio stations (regular radio stations) regardless of whether or not the music is actually copyrighted by any of their members. This means that if a public radio station plays a few RIAA songs, but the majority are indie labels or any music not owned by the RIAA members, the RIAA gets a cut as if it was.

One can certainly argue against the moral rightness of the way the Russian copyright licensing laws work, since no American artist will ever see any of the fees that the Russian copyright organization collects. But certainly the RIAA is clearly acting morally wrong as well.

Re:Ironic (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238837)

But certainly the RIAA is clearly acting morally wrong as well.

And you think that is somehow ironic? How ironic.

Re:Ironic (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238929)

Actually, any artist can collect fees from Russian music collecting agency. And Russian collecting agency is also a non-profit organization.

Re:Ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19239419)

"But Mr Dent, the royalties have been available in the local allofmp3 office for the last nine months."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to get them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the royalties were right there ..."

"Right there? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the royalty department."

"With a torch."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the royalties didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. They were on in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."

Re:Ironic (3, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 7 years ago | (#19243631)

"Actually, any artist can collect fees from Russian music collecting agency. And Russian collecting agency is also a non-profit organization."

Okay, pretend you're a moderately successful artist. You sold 1,000 copies of your album on iTunes last month for which you netted about $1K. You suspect that allofmp3 also sold about 1,000 copies of your album last month (you have no way of knowing... artists have asked allofmp3 to release sales data, but they refuse). They sold them for $0.60 each, to which the collecting society perhaps got about $0.06, of which you might see $0.04. So, somewhere out there, somebody has $40.00 for you.

After finding ROMS' site and the English version thereof, you get to this page [www.roms.ru] before you hit a wall. If says that if you had "concluded an agreement" with ROMS (which you most likely have not), you are entitled to compensation, but ROMS does not tell you how you can go about this. You might note that by comparison, the corresponding page on ASCAP [ascap.com] is much more useful. This is because ASCAP is run by and for artists, and is looking out for your best interests. Unlike ROMS, they're not a front for a pirate site.

At what point do you give up, and admit that the Russians effectively get to keep your $40?

That;'s not irony, this is IRONY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19240765)

When you win the lottery and die the next day

When you get a death-row pardon two minutes too late

When you get a free ride when you already paid

When you take your first flight in 42 years and your plane crashes

When there's a traffic jam and you're already late

When there's a no smoking sign on your cigarette break

When you have 10,000 spoons and all you need is a knife

When you get good advice and didn't take it

When you meet the girl of your dreams and she introduces you to her pimp (god that always happens!)

Now, that's IRONIC !!

Re:Ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19241377)

Selling a song to someone iTunes style and then thinking that all you need to do is pay a broadcast fee is not what the music industry is doing in the US. whoever modded up this comment is retarded.

IFPI (1)

dexomn (147950) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238051)

It is interesting that this cheesy gestapo has no office in the US. I went to the website to find a phone number, but I'm not paying international rates to tell someone off. =)

Re:IFPI (1)

kosanovich (678657) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238943)

I just went to their website and found an office in the US

IFPI Regional Office for Latin America
10451 NW 117th Avenue
Suite 105
Miami
Florida
33178
USA
Tel: +1 305 567 0861
Fax: +1 305 567 0871

Russian Law (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238801)

The central question is whether AllOfMP3.com is operating legally under Russian law. Or, given the totalitarian/anarchy that is modern Russia, whether a service that does what AllOfMP3.com does, operating as it does in Russia (and operating outside Russia only on the Internet), is at risk of takedown by Russian authorities (not including their mafias, but that's a basic risk of doing business in Russia).

If AllOfMP3.com doesn't survive long enough to be tested in Russian court (and subsequently in Russian police offices), we might never know whether another bizmodel or just other outside-Russian operations could survive to be tweaked into a way that survives.

Re:Russian Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19241573)

Allofmp3 has been investigated numerous times by the Russian police, usually at the behest of non-Russian entities - the latest was about a year ago pre-WTO negotiations with the US, IIRC. Upon every occasion, their legality under Russian law has resulted in no charges, no court cases and no action. One observation of that WTO pre-agreement was the US request that AllofMp3.com AND the Russian copyright fee collector must be shut down - in essence, the US recognises that (a) AllofMp3.com is legal because they pay fees to ROMS, the copyright fee collector for broadcast services; (b) the copyright fee collector, ROMS, confirms these payments - made at a level to be expected in a developing economy where the average monthly salary is $300; (c) Russian legal changes in the past few months to the broadcast services definition and copyright collection methods have not had the impact they are seeking on AllofMp3.com's popularity - so they have decided to demand Russia nuke the whole bloody thing in the vain hope that no other such entities will spring up.

Re:Russian Law (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19241841)

(c) Russian legal changes in the past few months to the broadcast services definition and copyright collection methods have not had the impact they are seeking on AllofMp3.com's popularity


Last year, when AllOfMP3.com made headlines (on Slashdot, at least), there was some indication that Russian law would be changed by the end of last year to undermine AllOfMP3.com's freedom to operate as unhindered as they had. Were those changes made? What are the new restrictions? How have they changed AllOfMP3.com's operations? Is it merely their popularity that determines how un/safe they are, or does Russian law still protect them?

whoops (1)

blhack (921171) | more than 7 years ago | (#19239609)

Meanwhile, allofmp3's servers are painfully slow due to the huge influx of traffic from all of the publicity this is giving them.

I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19240617)


how long until someone creates a distributed, encrypted, peer rated, port-shifting darknet that stores every single piece of recorded music ever published. It is a rather finite amount of data.

www.mp3sugar.com (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 7 years ago | (#19240715)

Out with the old - and in the the new - http://www.mp3sugar.com [mp3sugar.com]
Only downer with this is that all music is 256kbps

I RTFA but I don't get it. What am I missing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19240979)

So some people were buying and selling gift certificates that could be redeemed to acquire songs from AllOfMP3.com. I have never heard of AllOfMP3.com until today. Why are these people in trouble?? Am I missing something?? Who cares about their legal might and deep pockets if they are absolutely wrong?? Why not gang up and fight it??

Where to buy vouchers/cards in the US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19241081)

I'd like to buy credit for AllOfMP3 in the US -- in cash. Anyone know of US retail outlets carrying the vouchers? The enemy of my enemy is most certainly my friend in this case, but I'd prefer not to have my name in the database when the RIAA sets up its own death camps.

rYou Fail it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19241129)

This is a hard choice for me.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19241363)

As a musician I would like to say a hearty FUCK YOU to allofMP3.com for making money off of someone else's work, but I must be reserved and save roughly 50 times more gusto for the companies the RIAA fronts for. These assholes rip-off both the artists and the consumers, at least allofMP3 only rips off the artists. AllofMP3 = free advertising for the artists, and if only 5% of your fans buy your music from a source that actually pays you then the more fans you have the better.

Sometimes I think what we need is a good old fashioned letter writing campaign, something about the implacability of 750,000 envelopes expressing our disdain and guaranteed non-patronage might get the message across, that all this forum board bitching isn't, that we're not not buy CD's because we're pirating the shit but because it is shit and we are displeased with the way you treat the few musicians who do bring us joy. But I guess I'd have to get you guys to put down the mountain dew and write a freaking letter.

Re:This is a hard choice for me.... (1)

riceboy50 (631755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19243717)

That the RIAA is unwilling to pass along the reserved monies from ROMS that have been stockpiling for years, as a result of people using AOMP3, is no fault of the service itself. The RIAA just doesn't want to give AOMP3 any more legal legitimacy than it already possess. Whether ROMS collects enough to fairly compensate the artists is irrelevant to this argument. Every artist should be complaining about the RIAA rather than distribution innovators. Once that near monopoly on music is dismantled, perhaps market competition can decide what is a fair amount of compensation.

where can I get my pot vouchers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19241769)

What next, expect to sell vouchers for pot?

What about all of the other Allofmp3 clones...? (2, Interesting)

Sad Adam (1036862) | more than 7 years ago | (#19245149)

There are literally tens of other clone sites of allofmp3 out there spread across the countries of the former USSR. It will only take a post on Slashdot with a list of these for the symbolic value of RIAA v allofmp3 to be rendered meaningless. The genie is out of the bottle and cat is out of the bag....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?