Russian police probe cheap music download store Allofmp3.com

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Russian police probe cheap music download store Allofmp3.com.

 Up until  now, a Russian based music store Allofmp3.com has been selling a 300,000 music library at a cost  of 1c per megabyte in a  user choice of audio codec and bitrate.  The music...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/9916-Russian-police-probe-cheap-music-download-store-Allofmp3_com.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/9916-Russian-police-probe-cheap-music-download-store-Allofmp3_com.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

My understanding was that they did compensate the artists, however they failed to compensate the record companies. If that is not true, then they genuinely have been doing wrong. If however everything I have heard elsewhere (that they do compensate the artist) then they are fine under Russian law. Let’s hope this is simply a mischaracterization of what they have been doing. One of the reasons I liked their model was the possibly misguided assumption that the artists were getting paid while the record companies weren’t. To me that was close to the perfect situation.


#3

That is just down right stupid. You think all the personnel working for the record companies are there for charity? You think they dont have to pay their bills or feed their children? You seem to imply that all the other employees at record companies except artists are embodiments of evil and therefore deserve no compensation whatsoever for their work. Just think of all the people working for the artists and the record company as a whole: assistants, marketing and sales personnel, recording engineers, producers and so on and so on. Why do you think the artists’ recordings were at allofmp3s in the first place? Because record companies have marketed and supported them to reach their financial goals through their journey to success. The artists would not get the lousy 1c/MB without the broad personnel behind them. When artists do all the ground work and marketing and distribution themselves, THEN it is justified to reward only the artists. And luckily this does happen in the real world too, thanks to the internet.


#4

When Record labels take 98 percent of whatever a record sells to recoup there investment (which job other then this actually has the employee pay to work?) I don’t see any harm in giving the artist a bigger chunk of the pie since it’s my money. Also when they blame me for not buying lil bow wow new cd and now there at a loss don’t expect much sympathy. I don’t buy crap so stop selling crap. Change your way of buisness and I will change the way I do mine


#5

“I don’t buy crap so stop selling crap.” I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that while I’m sure the recording industry is keenly interested in what you call crap… I don’t think they’re at all concerned with the “crap” you don’t “buy” but rather the music that you steal. I agree with some ideals, but lets leave this idea that crappy music means it’s okay to steal. I don’t like Stephen King novels. That doesn’t give me the write to yank them off book store shelves. I absolutely detest most Sony products, but I don’t have the right to steal it. If you don’t like music, don’t buy it. I personally know there’s plenty of great music out there. If you can’t find it, don’t use it as a justification to steal… simply talk a brief walk away from the “Top Selling” section of your CD store.


#6

I don’t steal music i don’t like. I sometimes download music I can’t find (try to find the rob zombie cd at best buy that isn’t censored I dare you) or singles or the one that really got me mad at these record companys which is the cd I just bought has a protection agent on it and I can’t make mp3’s for my mp3 player (the only way i listen to my music). Then of course easily finding it online which of course makes all the money they spend on copy protection worthless. They need to stop this stupidity if they are ever worried about getting there money back. Spending millions to try and force consumers back into there hands is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen. They are losing money because they are not great at money managment not because we didn’t buy all the albums they shove down our throat.


#7

Just quit buying music and listen to the radio. If you finally hear a song that doesn’t suck and you’re not tired of listening to it, buy the single for 99 cents online and don’t buy the whole album. If everyone would get that message and the recording industry took a 50+% loss in sales they’d get the message and quit trying to screw us. Honestly…what’s the WORST thing these bastards can do to us…take away their artists and their music?? Other artists will still have to be fed and still make music. You’ll still have independents and locals you can listen to that are really good. As long as you people keep feeding the machine, it’s going to keep running and keep screwing you. Boycott all labels!!!


#8

Of course allofmp3 could not last forever. Anybody with a semblance of intelligence knew that the site was shady, at best. I doubted, the first time I visited, whether it was even legal in Russia, and I knew with certainty that downloading to locations outside of Russia was not legal.


#9

Do you think a lot of the losses that the music industry is having happen to them is due to the more independent scene that is coming out and the uprise of more independent record labels? Also Kain you made a good point but here is a little twist on it. I remember back before mp3’s people would go out to the record store pick up a few cd’s they never heard of and listen to them and see if they liked it. These being either lesser promoted bands or older cd’s. Since mp3’s have been around now lots more people have become better consumers. Without this market I bet there is a lot of money to be lost.


#10

I do not think downloading to locations outside of Russia is illegal. Just because the record companies may not like it, does not make it illegal. Can I buy a CD in canada, Taiwan, Russia, etc…? YES Can I bring that CD back home to the US with me? YES Can I buy a CD online from one of those places? YES I see downloading a CD as the same thing. The music is not Illegal, the rights have been taken care of where I bought it. It the US charges a $10.00 Tax per pack of cigarets, and I can get that pack from Mexico, cheeper and without the tax, LEGALY, I did not break the law… I was Resourcefull. As long as there is no law against bringing the cigarets across the border, then I did not do anything wrong. I dont believe there is any law against buying a CD in Russia and bringing it back to the US.


#11

That is not the case here. Allofmp3 keep all cash flow to themselves. None of it goes to the people responsible for the products existence. Same thing if someone was selling personal copies of retail CDs in the USA and keeping all the money to himself.


#12

quote: Allofmp3 keep all cash flow to themselves /quote Not true. Allofmp3 pays royalties to ROMS. As far as I recall 10% of their revenues are paid out for copyrights. Allofmp3 is legal in Russia, the only thing that is unclear is wether people outside Russia can legally download the songs they offer.


#13

Not so - much of the content they’re distributing has not been approved by the original owner to be distributed in digital format. allofmp3 CLAIMED that they were legal in Russia, but apparently russian authorities are not so sure–thus, on March 7 it seems we’ll find out.


#14

Oh, ok… I was referring to this part of the article: “It claims a loophole in Russian law means it doesn’t have to pay artists and labels.” But if they pay to ROMS, then they DO compensate the artists. In any case, record companies are getting nothing. That IS wrong. Work should pay. I’m like a broken record here but I want to stress that as much as I do hate record companies’ strategies, artists approvingly still do work for them. As soon as an artist breaks away from record companys leash, and takes care of all operations, THEN it is justified to compensate SOLELY the artist.


#15

My comments regarding: Reaction Posted by jab1981 on 23 February 2005 - 13:32 "I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that while I’m sure the recording industry is keenly interested in what you call crap… I don’t think they’re at all concerned with the “crap” you don’t “buy”… Oh yeah jab1981? Who the HELL do you think pays their bills? The CONSUMERS; if people find out something is crap and they don’t buy it that means they LOSE revenue, plain and simple. (I say “they” because I personally am boycotting the MPAA and RIAA, because I’ll be damned if my money goes to corrupt primarily FOREIGN entities who buy laws, and are trying to buy laws from U.S. Senators and Congressmen to destroy technology, secretly support policeware, spyware, make PRIVACY a crime, and “redefine” the definition of Fair Use into a perverted, disgusting corporate whore version of it) “…but rather the music that you steal.” …“I don’t like Stephen King novels. That doesn’t give me the write to yank them off book store shelves. I absolutely detest most Sony products, but I don’t have the right to steal it.” Pull your head out jab1981, Ever hear of a PUBLIC LIBRARY? Guess what? When tens of thousands of Americans or millions worldwide walk into a public library and read Stephen King novels then you can call that “stealing” as well, because the copyright holder doesn’t get a single dime from the individual consumer. (noone is required to pay them under law, and millions upon millions would be DAMNED if they are ever charged for renting or reading copyrighted library materials) In some cases the Library has agreements to compensate the copyright holder to some extend unless a work is donated to them. But the millions of Americans who use our God given freedom to enjoy Public Libraries has been enjoyed for over 200 years jab1981. From your point of view and from the Entertainment Industries–that makes over 295,000,000 Americans “pirates” and countless foreigners “pirates” who use American Libraries. One could argue again that because of Public Libraries, billions of dollars of lost revenue occur every year (with your mentality). I have read dozens of books for free in this free country and I do not intend to compensate the copyright holder, ESPECIALLY if the Author writes “Crap” --akin to the the film industry releasing “Crap” -same principle. If he’s a great author I might have the INCENTIVE to support him or her and buy his book, EVEN if I have already read it. Consumers decide if a company, or an artist is successful -not the artist, nor the company. It’s all about information lockdown and control --if the masses don’t know something sucks, then they won’t know any better not to buy it and the fat cats will have to go cry in their beer and find another job or get some real skill and/or develop real quality. If it were up to these people you so misguidedly and ignorantly defend (a.k.a anyone who holds a copyright, or enforces one); they would start CHARGING to read books in the library, or rent movies,CD’s or books, magazines etc. “That doesn’t give me the write to yank them off book store shelves.” --Excuse me, time for a wake up call, when you STEAL you are DEPRIVING the authorized dealer, owner, or retail outlet from a piece of QUANTIFIABLE MERCHANDISE, it SHOWS UP as a LOSS of INVENTORY. When you download something, the original copyright holder still POSSESSES their copyrighted work, they have lost NOTHING. If you and they think this is really stealing then you better not release anymore “works” at all or SHUT DOWN the Internet entirely, because it is UNSTOPPABLE PERIOD. jab1981 , if you have ever used a library and “consumed” (absorbed) ANY copyrighted information, including that contained in an encyclopedia, without buying that work personally, then you are a “pirate”. Obviously this show the monumental flaws in your thinking as well as the basis of the DMCA. The ONLY thing that should be illegal regarding copyrights is if someone tries to make monetary gain of off selling a copyrighted work, such as copying a DVD and selling that DVD burned onto a blank on Ebay -THAT is the real threat, there is a huge difference, and any argument by you or the MPAA, RIAA, FBI, or Department of Justice is nothing more than pure spin to support monopolistic, power-mongering, obsolete business models. No musician on earth needs the RIAA with the freedom and power the Internet gives to the people. And lastly, Mel Gibson proved he didn’t need the MPAA to make a movie, and a tremendously successful one at that. I happily spent the $8.20 to go support an independent filmmaker to see the Passion, knowing not one penny of my money was going to fuel lawsuits against college kids, ruining their lives and possibly their career. And not one penny went to an organization hell-bent on trying to make computers themselves effectively illegal without mandated hardware, ISP lockdown attempting to be imposed from continous, unrelenting pandering, disingenuous, egregious whining for new laws by the United States Government.