Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Shut Down, Again

ScuttleMonkey posted about 7 years ago | from the e-roller-coaster dept.

The Internet 291

studguy1 writes to tell us TorrentFreak is reporting that the Russian government has shut down Allofmp3, the popular online music site. "AllOfMP3 has been a thorn in the side of the RIAA and the US government for years. Last year, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said that if Russia wants to join the WTO, they should shut down the pirate music website that is robbing US recording companies of sales."

cancel ×

291 comments

Heh (2, Insightful)

Kingrames (858416) | about 7 years ago | (#19722935)

"...they should shut down the pirate music website that is robbing US recording companies of sales."

So then, they shut down the wrong website.
Exposure leads to increased sales, period.

An Important Announcement, Please Read (-1, Offtopic)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | about 7 years ago | (#19723031)

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

Sincerly,

Your President and Faithful Servent, George W. Bush

DON'T DO IT (4, Funny)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 7 years ago | (#19723547)

Every country that has joined the WTO so far has suffered a horrendous destruction of national sovereignty and a corresponding destruction of National Security. Is it really worth shutting down a music website just to destroy your own ability to control your own borders and trade?

No Big Deal (5, Interesting)

sam_paris (919837) | about 7 years ago | (#19722949)

In actuality, most people stopped using Allofmp3 when it became virtually impossible to pay, some months ago. (when Visa pulled the plug)

The rather more substantial thorn in the record industrys side is now iTunes and Apple.

Re:No Big Deal (5, Funny)

UPZ (947916) | about 7 years ago | (#19723001)

In actuality, most people stopped using Allofmp3 when it became virtually impossible to pay, some months ago. (when Visa pulled the plug)
Thats why I couldnt pay them. I thought they became communist or something.

Re:No Big Deal (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723071)

That's probably why allofmp3.com is now mp3Sparks.com [slashdot.org] , including the same logins/passwords and the same typos in the track names and album titles.

Re:No Big Deal (4, Funny)

fohat (168135) | about 7 years ago | (#19723151)

Shhhhh.... Ixnay on the parkSay

Re:No Big Deal (2, Interesting)

Harik (4023) | about 7 years ago | (#19723625)

except despite having spent hundreds of dollars at allofmp3, they never did transfer my account (or balance) to the new site. And they don't take any form of payment, either. They should get into linden dollars or e-gold or something goofy and obviously money-laundering like that.

I mean, hell, how the fuck do offshore casinos move cash around?

 

Re:No Big Deal (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723177)

That (along with Russia's desire to become a member of the WTO) is probably why allofmp3.com is now mp3Sparks.com [mp3sparks.com] , including the same logins/passwords and the same typos in the track names and album titles, and of course owned by the same people. more info here [timesonline.co.uk]

Re:No Big Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723231)

I stopped using allofmp3.com when I ran out of music that I wanted to download. For a long time I haven't heard anything in the radio I really wanted to waste the HDD space or time on acquiring (and I still had about $10 credit left on my AOMP3 account).

And it's not like I ever downloaded that much either, $30 is all I ever credited to my account.

Re:No Big Deal (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | about 7 years ago | (#19723499)

iTunes can't be that substantial a thorn. The record labels submit songs to iTunes willingly.

robbing == theft (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19722963)

thus copyright infringement == theft QED

Re: robbing == theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723079)

Ok so they're stealing sales, but who exactly is interested in buying stolen sales?

Re: robbing == theft (5, Insightful)

Belacgod (1103921) | about 7 years ago | (#19723839)

Precisely. The demand curve for music is very elastic. People will get free stuff that they wouldn't pay $1 for, people will pay $1 for stuff they wouldn't pay $16.99 for, and so on. The RIAA's claim that music demand is totally inelastic is, IMO, more laughable than any of their legal claims.

Re:robbing == theft (3, Informative)

superwiz (655733) | about 7 years ago | (#19723081)

nope. theft is only taking something in a way such that the original owner no longer has it. copyright infringement is not theft. it is what it is.

Re:robbing == theft (2, Insightful)

AnonymousCactus (810364) | about 7 years ago | (#19723209)


More accurately, the RIAA can't prove that it's theft.



The RIAA argues that if the person hadn't received the song illegally, that they would have purchased it. By providing an alternative means to get that song, allofmp3 are taking $X from the RIAA, which is ethically (if not semantically) the same as theft. Unfortunately, the RIAA can't prove when they actually lost sales, but I'm sure they are in some percentage of cases. Maybe that percentage is around what you'd argue (perhaps 0.0001%?) or maybe it's closer to what they'd argue (100%?). Either way, the RIAA really is losing some sales, they just overstate that loss.



The real point is that the government has provided the RIAA with a monopoly on certain goods by the granting of copyrights. A large subset of the population, however, disagrees with their current handling of that monopoly. Fortunately, the population can wield significant input on this situation from two ends - both through their involvement in the government which granted the monopoly in the first place and their formation of the consumers who the RIAA attempts to attract to purchase music from them. This makes it inevitable that what we're seeing now is just a blip.



The RIAA can't keep going like this and will adapt their model. The unfortunate collateral damage, however, is the vast number of people who have be sued, shut down or otherwise harassed by the RIAA while they adapt. Not to mention the large amounts of money being spent to prevent what is inevitable.

Re:robbing == theft (1)

nonsequitor (893813) | about 7 years ago | (#19723247)

That's why they said that allofmp3.com was robbing them of sales. They are contending that the sales which are made by that site directly correlate to purchases not made through RIAA sanctioned channels. Of course their assumption is that without sites like allofmp3.com they would be making those sales, therefore it is stealing. Whether those sales would then go to official channels is a moot point.

I know the copyright infringement != theft line is common around here, but please respond intelligently to issues raised by someone on the opposing side of an issue. This may prevent you from being immediately dismissed as a closed-minded zealot. The difference between the is when the copyright is infringed and the music is sold for a profit, that is stealing or theft of profits on the copyright through infringement. When the music is illegally downloaded by an individual it is copyright infringement, not theft, since it is difficult to say whether that one individual would have paid for the music otherwise.

IANAL, so I may be completely wrong, but that is my understanding of the issue. There's a huge difference between the college student who downloads a couple songs here and there and shares with friends, all 100,000,000 of them, and a company which is distributing the copyrighted material for a profit. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Copyright infringement is not the same as theft (1)

MarkByers (770551) | about 7 years ago | (#19723329)

> I know the copyright infringement != theft line is common around here, but please respond intelligently to issues raised by someone on the opposing side of an issue.

If you can't understand the difference between copyright infringement and stealing then it's better to keep quiet. Its pointless arguing the finer points of a legal argument with someone who doesn't even understand the basics of law.

Re:Copyright infringement is not the same as theft (-1, Troll)

heinousjay (683506) | about 7 years ago | (#19723483)

Kinda like it's pointless arguing the moral turpitude involved in depriving copyright holders of their rights when you're talking to a degenerate who believes they're entitled to everything for free?

Logical fallacy (1)

MarkByers (770551) | about 7 years ago | (#19723515)

Strawman and ad hominem.

Re:robbing == theft (2, Interesting)

YouTookMyStapler (1057796) | about 7 years ago | (#19723277)

"AllOfMP3 has been a thorn in the side of the RIAA and the US government for years. Last year, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said that if Russia wants to join the WTO, they should shut down the pirate music website that is robbing US recording companies of sales."

The RIAA is robbing itself of legitimate music sales because the recording companies can't be bothered to put music out that is actually worth paying for. Now they have taken to bullying countries for admission into the WTO.

When I was younger, I almost always bought the newest albums, because the music was good, or at least I thought so. Nowadays I still buy music, a majority from indy labels. I buy CDs, I don't like the idea of buying music online that can't be burned onto a CD as a back-up due to DRM controls. I guess I am just more particular of what I buy these days, mostly because I don't want to pay $15 for an album that is crap (which describes most, but not all, of new music today).

Re:robbing == theft (2, Insightful)

gsslay (807818) | about 7 years ago | (#19723529)

I don't like the idea of buying music online that can't be burned onto a CD as a back-up due to DRM controls


Well I don't know of a online site that doesn't allow burning onto a CD. Got any examples?

When I was younger, I almost always bought the newest albums, because the music was good, or at least I thought so .... I don't want to pay $15 for an album that is crap (which describes most, but not all, of new music today).

Congratulations, you have reached middle age. Next step - complaining that you can't make out the words. Did you think you were exempt from this? The problem here is not the music companies, it's that you are older and are still expecting a mainly youth-driven market to appeal to you. It's not that the album is crap, it's that it is not intended for you.

Re:robbing == theft (1)

YouTookMyStapler (1057796) | about 7 years ago | (#19723899)

I don't like the idea of buying music online that can't be burned onto a CD as a back-up due to DRM controls

Well I don't know of a online site that doesn't allow burning onto a CD. Got any examples?


I was under the impression that it the downloaded music had DRM controls on it , you cannot burn it to CD. My sister has an ipod and downloads music from iTunes and whatnot, and she cannot make a CD file of the mp3s from iTunes.

When I was younger, I almost always bought the newest albums, because the music was good, or at least I thought so .... I don't want to pay $15 for an album that is crap (which describes most, but not all, of new music today).

Congratulations, you have reached middle age. Next step - complaining that you can't make out the words. Did you think you were exempt from this? The problem here is not the music companies, it's that you are older and are still expecting a mainly youth-driven market to appeal to you. It's not that the album is crap, it's that it is not intended for you.


I buy music that is mainstream, but more on the indy side. I also buy music from The Killers, Modest Mouse, White Stripes and even Gnarles Barkley. I am talking the manufactured music, meaning music from groups that would never have gotten together if it weren't for some recording studio auditioning for the new 'pop tart' or 'boy band' crap that is the Top 40. I didn't say all new music is crap, just most of it.

I also didn't say that I bought less music than I did when I was younger. In fact I buy more. I am just more particular. FTR I never liked 'boy band' or 'pop tart' music when I was younger either.

As far as the music not being intended for me, that is BS. Music shouldn't be something that has an age range. If the music is good, it's good. My 60 year old mother who literally hated all new music will hear something I am playing and say "that's pretty good, who is it?" Now she's buying Flogging Molly and all sorts of stuff that has me asking "what did you do with my mother?"

Re:robbing == theft (1)

joseph_noire (1123171) | about 7 years ago | (#19723327)

Its awesome how this must be pointed out for every slashdot article on the mafiaa...

Awesome or tiresome? (1)

MarkByers (770551) | about 7 years ago | (#19723373)

I think it should be a standard footer to all summaries about copyright law to save us the effort of rewriting the same comment each time.

Re:robbing == theft (4, Funny)

wall0159 (881759) | about 7 years ago | (#19723353)

"..robbing US recording companies of sales"

-Stick 'em up!
-Yeah - git your hands in the air!
-We heard you got some "sales"
-No funny business - hand em over - slowly!
-That's right - nice and slow, and noone will get hurt...

Re:robbing == theft (1)

feepness (543479) | about 7 years ago | (#19723513)

nope. theft is only taking something in a way such that the original owner no longer has it.

You have taken away their ability to sell it to you.

Re:robbing == theft (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | about 7 years ago | (#19723675)

Consider this carefully: there is no right to profit.

So? You can only rob physical items, not opportunities and ideas If you own a diner, and I open a better one down the street, perhaps you won't be able to tell as many burgers. Does that mean that I've robbed you of sales in some metaphorical sense? You bet. Is the wrong? No. Is it legally actionable that I've caused the theft of your customers? Not in a million years.

Re:robbing == theft (1)

feepness (543479) | about 7 years ago | (#19724037)

You can only rob physical items, not opportunities and ideas
Then why does the GNU GPL exist?

Re:robbing == theft (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | about 7 years ago | (#19724073)

"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." - Charles Babbage

Re:robbing == theft (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about 7 years ago | (#19724069)

copyright infringement is not theft. it is what it is.

The notion that copyright infringement was a form of theft became current in English language and in English thought while the Black Flag still flew over the Caribbean.

It made perfect sense to Dickens, who had some choice things to say about the American character in this context. Copy Wrong: Internet Piracy and Dickens and Melville [americanheritage.com]

The geek wastes time and pursuing the linguistic argument, the philosophical argument, which were lost long ago.

The legal argument doesn't take him much farther - at least the states - where copyright infringement can put him in a federal penitentiary on a felony charge.

Hmmmmm! (5, Funny)

supe (163410) | about 7 years ago | (#19722971)

Bush - Putin visit?

Re:Hmmmmm! (2, Funny)

kryten_nl (863119) | about 7 years ago | (#19723315)

P: Yeah, W ... about that Missile Defense Shield. I'm not to happy with that. But I can give you Allofmp3.com.
W: Daddy what do you think?
Daddy: Read my lips, No New Taxes! Oh, on the MDS ... do we really care that much about protecting the EU?
W: Well, if you're going to be all kriptik about it, I'll call Jebb. He's always willing to help.

How does this work again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19722973)

Oh great, people will pay nothing for their music instead of paying a slight amount. Great job, RIAA, you've completely failed to grasp the situation again.

Re:How does this work again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723109)

You've failed to grasp the situation. If you walk into best buy and five finger discount a zune, you're a thief. If you pay $5 to a man in the parking lot, then walk into best buy and five finger discount a zune, you're still a thief.

Re:How does this work again? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723187)

But if you pay a man in the parking lot $5 for the Zune he stole, then you're just an accessory with a new accessory.

Re:How does this work again? (1)

Hucko (998827) | about 7 years ago | (#19723295)

Umm... why the hell are you buying Zunes?

Re:How does this work again? (3, Funny)

WilliamSChips (793741) | about 7 years ago | (#19723409)

The real question is: Why in fuck's name would you want a Zune?

Re:How does this work again? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | about 7 years ago | (#19723821)

It is the only media player compatible with the Zune Marketplace.

AND YOU WANT TO PURCHASE MUSIC FROM THE ZUNE MARKETPLACE.

And it comes in brown. So there... Not too hard to understand after all... :-p

Re:How does this work again? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723825)

to make a moron like you say "why in fuck's name" again.

what are you, 12?

grow up.

ipod/zune, they're tiny boxes that hold music...i.e unimportant, so keep your over the top self expressions stored for an important occasion, like when your real daddy finds you, or your mom get's off crack.

Soo... (5, Insightful)

Kamots (321174) | about 7 years ago | (#19722977)

Soo...

When US record companies see no positive impact in sales, will Russia be allowed to let allofmp3 reopen?

Because, for some reason I find myself really doubting that people that were paying pennies for songs are going to suddenly turn around and start paying an order of magnitude more.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just a lowly consumer...

Re:Soo... (2, Funny)

superwiz (655733) | about 7 years ago | (#19723123)

don't you mean 2 orders of magnitude?

Re:Soo... (1)

Kamots (321174) | about 7 years ago | (#19723219)

Not unless you're able to get tracks from them for a penny...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude [wikipedia.org]

Re:Soo... (1)

reanjr (588767) | about 7 years ago | (#19723705)

Unless the order of magnitude uses a base factor less than ten. For instance, 3. Two orders of magnitude with a factor of 3 is very close to an order of magnitude with a factor of 10.

Re:Soo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723575)

and don't you want a side of fries with those orders of magnitude?

  and since allof mp3 is russian, don't forget that 2 magnitudes order YOU!

Re:Soo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723545)

Well, no. From the record companies POV Allofmp3 is a fence selling stolen goods. Whether the customers would have bought the product at full price or not is beside the point, they simply cannot tolerate a merchant blatantly (and in their opinion, illegally) selling their music.

Further, they want to protect their copyrights over the music in question, and are obligated to file these suits to simply state or protect their claim in countries like Russia where the laws are murky at best. To NOT try to shut down Allofmp3 would be to allow rampant copycats and competitors not just in Russia but all over the globe. To protect intellectual property they are obligated to fight every time it is infringed. Maybe they won't win but they will never lose- this will simply be a neverending process.

By the way I'm not saying the record companies are in the right (not touching that one) but their reasoning is much more complex than you make it out to be. If you consider them the enemy then the least you could do is try to understand why they do what they do.

Re:Soo... (3, Informative)

Harik (4023) | about 7 years ago | (#19723725)

Don't post on copyright subjects until you can grasp the basic concept that Copyright is NOT Trademark, and doesn't have to be enforced to maintain it.

Copyright is for a period of time, period.
Trademark is forever until failed to be maintained.

And you're an idiot for telling people they HAVE to file copyright infringement suits - even worse, this isn't even copyright infringement, it's a civil issue over which of the (many) royalty schemes allofmp3.com should be paying.

But hey, feel free to think you knew something.

Re:Soo... (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 7 years ago | (#19723931)

I was wondering the same thing. Will the members of the RIAA now boast record sales now that the site that cost them hundreds of billions (!) in sales has been closed down?

Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil/.. (0, Redundant)

Cyberax (705495) | about 7 years ago | (#19722979)

3...2...1

GO!

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil (2, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | about 7 years ago | (#19723035)

Actually, it seems that http://www.mp3sparks.com/ [mp3sparks.com] already offers all the music from AoMP3.

So I guess AoMP3 has already reincarnated.

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil (3, Informative)

tyler_larson (558763) | about 7 years ago | (#19723103)

Actually, it seems that http://www.mp3sparks.com/ [mp3sparks.com] already offers all the music from AoMP3.
So I guess AoMP3 has already reincarnated.

From what I understand, the RIAA...I mean, US Government...I mean, WTO actually named AllOfMp3 by name, rather than specifying that a specific class of service be suspended.

So even though MP3Sparks is the same site, run by the same company, offering the same service, since the name is different, they've successfully satisfied the WTO request in this regard.

FWIW, you can't pay by credit card at MP3Sparks either.

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil (1)

Caetel (1057316) | about 7 years ago | (#19723171)

That would explain why the allTunes client still works then, which was their desktop client.

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723223)

FWIW, you can't pay by credit card at MP3Sparks either.
According to their website [mp3sparks.com] , you can pay with credit card:

We accept payment made by credit or debit cards. Just specify the card type and payment sum. The money is added immediately upon card authorization.
I can't imagine what they would have to gain by lying, so presumably they are able to accept credit cards for the time being. Anyone with an account who can comment?

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil (2, Interesting)

Cyberax (705495) | about 7 years ago | (#19723539)

Just tried to pay using my Visa. It works.

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil (4, Informative)

zarkill (1100367) | about 7 years ago | (#19723241)

FWIW, you can't pay by credit card at MP3Sparks either.
Why do you say that? It seems that they take all credit cards except AmEx, Cirrus, and Union Card.

http://www.mp3sparks.com/info/payments.shtml [mp3sparks.com]

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | about 7 years ago | (#19723457)

why would i give my cc to a russian run illegal mp3 site?

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil (1)

Joebert (946227) | about 7 years ago | (#19723535)

That's a REALLY good question.

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723585)

because they already have it.

cha cha cha

=)

Re:Countdown until AoMP3 reappears in China/Brasil (3, Interesting)

adona1 (1078711) | about 7 years ago | (#19724009)

Especially as seeing as the RIAA wasn't collecting the royalties that Allofmp3.com claimed to be setting aside, the artists weren't getting paid anyway

You may as well just download the various format torrents from TPB....the artist will get the same as they were anyway, your CC will be safe and you won't have to maintain the pretence that paying tuppence to a pseudo-legal site was legitimately buying the music ;)

Bribery? (5, Insightful)

Aranykai (1053846) | about 7 years ago | (#19722997)

AllOfMP3 has been a thorn in the side of the RIAA and the US government for years. Last year, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said that if Russia wants to join the WTO, they should shut down the pirate music website [AllOfMP3] that is robbing U.S. recording companies of sales.
Isn't that bribery?

bribe (plural bribes)

      1. Something (usually money) given in exchange for influence or as an inducement to dishonesty.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bribe [wiktionary.org]

Re:Bribery? (2, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 7 years ago | (#19723047)

Isn't that bribery?

More like extortion.

Re:Bribery? (1)

robbiethefett (1047640) | about 7 years ago | (#19723365)

If you really want to get into semantics, does anyone else find it absurd that the word "robbery" is used to describe an action that does not, by any stretch of imagination, have a single thing to do with the dictionary definition of the word? Similarly, I find it coincidental that the very same douche bags who force words like "robbery" to be used inappropriately are very afraid of words like "racketeering" being used in the appropriate context.

Re:Bribery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723423)

Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer 'extortion' - the 'X' makes it sound cool.

Re:Bribery? (5, Funny)

jez9999 (618189) | about 7 years ago | (#19723055)

It's legal in the US political system, why would international relations be any different?

Re:Bribery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723065)

Yeah dude, the evil Americans refusing to allow illegal piracy and bootlegging in the international forum on trade is totally bribery. And it's also bribery how they're going to make Turkey stop executing gays before they can join the EU.

Re:Bribery? (1)

morari (1080535) | about 7 years ago | (#19723073)

No, clearly it is a business transaction.

Re:Bribery? (4, Informative)

Caetel (1057316) | about 7 years ago | (#19723137)

Perhaps, but it is probably better described as coercion or extortion.

coerce [wiktionary.org] : to use force, threat, fraud, or intimidation in attempt to compel one to act against his will.

extort [wiktionary.org] : To wrest from an unwilling person by physical force, menace, duress, torture, or any undue or illegal exercise of power or ingenuity; to wrench away (from); to tear away; to wring (from); to exact; as, to extort contributions from the vanquished; to extort confessions of guilt; to extort a promise; to extort payment of a debt.

Oblig Futurama (1)

hoojus (935220) | about 7 years ago | (#19723985)

I prefer the term Extortion the x makes it sound cool - Bender

This would matter except . . . (4, Insightful)

Cyberllama (113628) | about 7 years ago | (#19723017)

There's already a good 100 clones of allofmp3 with similar music catalogs and pricing schemes all operating out of Russia. Shutting down one website is really a non-issue at this point, anyone can go to google and find dozens of alternatives all operating out of Russia.

Re:This would matter except . . . (1)

boguslinks (1117203) | about 7 years ago | (#19723671)

it doesn't matter how many clones pop up - I have $4 credit with allofmp3.com and dammit, I want to use it.

Mp3stor, clones still kicking though (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723051)

I don't see how the RIAA really accomplished much. Allofmp3.com was just the giant that took all the heat, like Napster. There are still copycats, like mp3stor.com, who offer almost identical selection and pricing, that are alive, kicking, and taking customers. They made a bust for the headlines, even though you can get identical sites with a quick google search.

wahhh. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723063)

i'm crying little emo tears for the RIAA and their butt-buddies in the Music industry. how are you ever going to pay for that fourth BMW you bought? wahhhhh.

And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up? (3, Insightful)

GodWasAnAlien (206300) | about 7 years ago | (#19723075)

So once allofmp3 is shut down, do they really expect sales to go up?

If there was a similar legitimate, and DRM-free service, and prices were low enough, perhaps sales would go up.

It seems that RIAA still does not get it, things like Napster, mp3.com, and allofmp3 will keep coming until the RIAA, or the artist themselves decide to stop fighting the Internet model, and instead profit from it.

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723191)

If there were a similar, legitimate provider of free luxury sports cars, auto theft would also stop. But that wouldn't be very useful to the people that worked hard to design and produce the cars, would it?

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723999)

Theft of a physical item is not comparable to duplication of information.
(You have been watching the piracy marketing on DVD's too much).

You would rather someone take a picture of you car, rather than steal it. Right?

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up? (1)

gsslay (807818) | about 7 years ago | (#19723381)

similar legitimate. And how is this going to achieved? AllOfMP3 was a business model based on zero costs, because they never paid anything to copy their output and had no investment costs. How is a legitimate service going to replicate this?

and prices were low enough. A subjective statement. What's 'low enough'? All prices in a free-market are the result of a compromise between producer and consumer, neither side gets free-reign to set the price.

perhaps sales would go up. Perhaps they would, but then if the prices are so low then perhaps profits would go down. No industry is interested in maximizing sales at the expense of profit, why should the music industry be any different?

You seem to have decided that the business case is solid because you've seen how Napster and AllOfMP3 businesses competed successfully. It's like expecting your local retailer to match the prices of the local fence.

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up? (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 7 years ago | (#19723449)

All prices in a free-market are the result of a compromise between producer and consumer, neither side gets free-reign to set the price.

I call bull. In the case of a monopoly or cartel, the price is solely set by the producer(s) at the profit maximizing point. Granted, the demand will determine this point, but there is no compromise to speak of.

In the case of a monopsony, there is a single consumer that likewise sets the price, take it or leave it.

Now, when it comes to used cars, that's true.

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up? (1)

gsslay (807818) | about 7 years ago | (#19723583)

True points, but are they relevant? You have to prove that a monopoly or cartel is in operation. The fact that CD prices (in real terms) have consistently fallen kind of suggests there isn't, and a free-market (or as close as you get in any actual economy) is in operation.

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up? (2, Insightful)

spearway (169040) | about 7 years ago | (#19724095)

I would disagree with you. Copyright by nature is a temporary monopoly granted by the state to an artist so that he can profit form his labor. This lands the copyrightholder with mauch higher standard of behavior than other regular business. I think most of the major have forgotten why they can collect a rent money and have tilted the playing unduly to their advantage. We should remind our represenative that this is not acceptable behavior and there is a good occasion for this in the coming election.

prove monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19724117)

The monopoly is a 95 year copyright publishing monopoly enforced by up to $250,000 fines and Police/FBI raids on you home school or business.

A free market is not possible with such a monopoly.

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up? (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 7 years ago | (#19723453)

The thing about AllOfMP3 was that it showed the marginal cost of running an online store. Even if we assume that AllOfMP3 was not paying anything to the recording industry, and not making any profit, they must still have been covering their bandwidth costs. Now, add on to that roughly what the RIAA pays artists, and you get something like 10-20/track as the minimum cost of running a fair music store. Then they can look at iTunes selling tracks for $1.29 (without DRM), and suddenly realise that $1 of every track they buy is going to middle men who aren't providing any service of value to them.

There isn't much a customer can do about this, but there is a lot an artist can do when they do the same sums. This is why the RIAA members want AllOfMP3 shut down. It shows exactly how much profit they are raking in from online sales to exactly the people they don't want to know; the ones they claim to represent.

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up? (2, Insightful)

adona1 (1078711) | about 7 years ago | (#19724103)

What the artists do need is recording studios and expertise. When an industry solely catering to that - without the binding contracts, points-per-production, excess marketing and and shady business practices - springs up, then artists can be freer to record then release their work online.

Unfortunately, the biggest and best studios and probably most of the good sound engineers work within the recording industry, so many artists find that the services that they need in order to produce albums are owned by the RIAA/MPA etc. That and the fact that far too many 'artists' out there are mediocre at best in relation to talent/creativity, and so could probably only make some kind of living within the RIAA model. Hopefully, they'll be the first against the wall, etc etc.

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up? (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | about 7 years ago | (#19723569)

allofmp3 WAS legitimate in Russia. It paid royalties to ROMS, the Russian organization responsible for collecting copyright fees. The RIAA simply didn't like ROMS' rates and structures (even though Russia, as a sovereign nation, has every right to set its own royalties), and declared allofmp3 illegal.

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up? (1)

gsslay (807818) | about 7 years ago | (#19723731)

The RIAA simply didn't like ROMS' rates and structures

AllOfMP3 was operating on a broadcasting licence. They were exploiting a loophole in Russian law and they knew it.

even though Russia, as a sovereign nation, has every right to set its own royalties

Indeed, but kind of irrelevant when we're talking about sales outside Russia. Russia has the right to do what it wishes, just as an industry has the right to say we don't care to do business with you on these terms. The point of the the news story here is that Russia has to decided if it wants to do business, it has to reach agreement.

Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up? (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | about 7 years ago | (#19723795)

Fair enough. But "loophole" or not, it was a perfectly legitimate website. It's disingenuous at best, and fraudulent at worst, to call allofmp3 an "illegal website." The fact is that it was a legal business that the US happened to not like.

Obligatory: Sorry have to do it for the record (-1, Troll)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 7 years ago | (#19723097)

In Soviet America, allofmp3 shuts *IAA down.

Re:Obligatory: Sorry have to do it for the record (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 7 years ago | (#19723207)

If only that were true. Well, the shutting down the **AA part, anyway.

Get the customer list and prosecute each one (0, Troll)

mi (197448) | about 7 years ago | (#19723135)

... for buying stolen property.

Oh, yeah, right. Since the original authors got to keep their notes and recordings, it was not really stealing. Never mind...

Thorn in the Side? (4, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | about 7 years ago | (#19723227)

"Thorn in the side" means "constant source of irritation". An MP3 bootlegger is certainly a "thorn in the side" of the RIAA. But of the U.S. government? Somehow, in this era of major terrorism, genocide, nuclear proliferation, insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other thorny issues, I don't think anybody in the government loses sleep over allofmp3.

Re:Thorn in the Side? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723463)

Hey, you're forgetting that the RIAA helped to pay for the government. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

And the site that replaces it is - (3, Funny)

Archon-X (264195) | about 7 years ago | (#19723291)

www.mp3sugar.com [mp3sugar.com]

Re:And the site that replaces it is - (1)

Jugalator (259273) | about 7 years ago | (#19723805)

What, another one?? So they kill Allofmp3 and then two more -- that clone and mp3sparks pop up. :-s

Re:And the site that replaces it is - (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 7 years ago | (#19723857)

Though losing your remaining balance every time they whack another mole is some deterrent.

US recording companies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723407)

Don't they mean US and foreign recording companies? After all, aren't foreign companies also represented by the RIAA?

I'm curious.... (2, Insightful)

martin_henry (1032656) | about 7 years ago | (#19723469)

...as to why anyone would give money to a russian website instead of just buying the album outright or downloading it for free (albeit illegally).

Please enlighten me.

AllofMP3.com works fine for me (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19723471)

As long as I use the AllTunes Explorer. Still getting daily music updates too.

And you can still refill your balance with Visa or Mastercard. Just click the links and follow the directions and use a $0 liability card.

In Soviet Russia... (1)

TheBrutalTruth (890948) | about 7 years ago | (#19723555)

All Your MP3's Are Belong To Everyone.


Too bad they are democratic and capitalist now (cough!). We all have to suffer for it.

Because the WTO is run by the US. (1)

Associate (317603) | about 7 years ago | (#19723659)

And Allofmp3 is the lynch pin keeping Russia out.
Remember when Russia was the enemy? And we had classic cliche's based on them? Meeeemmoorriiiiiieeesssss!!!!

Re:Because the WTO is run by the US. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19724049)

In United States, MP3 rips you!

Balance carried over to Mp3Sparks.com (5, Informative)

justinjas (1123183) | about 7 years ago | (#19723751)

I noticed the comments about Mp3Sparks.com. I'd never heard of them but saw that they we're run by the same guys. I was bummed to hear allofmp3 was shutdown since I still had $30 balance on it. What do you know though, I tried to login with my allofmp3 username/login on Mp3Sparks and my account and balance was carried over. And I just assumed they'd steal my money.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...