What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don’t need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
73 Comments
- sagedude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+39FTA:
"Because it is a professionally put together site it does look legitimate, although it should be obvious from the price that it isn't."
Thats right, it's only legitimate if you are getting ripped off. - deut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37If Mr Phillips could actually cite a section, sub-section, paragraph and clause of the the law(s) that UK users of the allofmp3 service are allegedly infringing, that would sure help clear the air.
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25> If Mr Phillips could actually cite a section, sub-section, paragraph and clause of the the law(s) that UK users of the allofmp3 service are allegedly infringing, that would sure help clear the air.
I believe Mr Phillips is wrong. According to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
"The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner, imports into the United Kingdom, otherwise than for his private and domestic use, an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work."
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_3.htm#mdiv22
Pay special attention to "otherwise than for his private and domestic use". That would seem to clearly absolve people from copyright infringement if they are buying from allofmp3.com for their own use as opposed to reselling copies. - deut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@monkeypete
"AllofMP3.com are NOT licensed by the BPI to sell copyrighted recordings in the UK, that makes it illegal."
errrr, I think you meant to say, "...that makes it illegal for them". Meaning it is *THEY* that are in breach of UK law. However, my point is I'm not sure how that applies to UK users of the allofmp3 service.
UK law is quite specific.....
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
[QUOTE]
23. The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner---
(a) possesses in the course of a business,
(b) sells or lets for hire, or offers or exposes for sale or hire,
(c) in the course of a business exhibits in public or distributes, or
(d) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work.
[ENDQUOTE]
Now, can you point out which of these clauses a user of allofmp3 is in violation of ? - puneypunk, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23What utter ***** BS, no ones ever been _done_ for *downloading* music illegally, only for sharing files of which you sure as hell won't be with this system. So teh BPI can ***** off.
- zirtbow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14More free advertising for another mp3 group. I actually did not know allofmp3.com existed until I started seeing the digg stories. I browsed around there and thought it seemed pretty damn nice. If the record industry would just setup a site like that so it were all legal like I sure as hell would use it. I'm guessing a lot of the same sort of things happened when TPB was on the news. Its only a matter of time before the *AA make a mess of allofmp3.com and actually end up helping their cause rather than hurting it ala the pirate bay.
- cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11AllofMP3 becomes legitimate, very fuzzy legitmate because of it's huge scale. If the # 2 d/l service in the world is this Russian site then just like TPB they become legit in a sense. I really thing it's success is more than price. They allow you to listen to the entire album and give you very good choices of file type. It's a killer package because in a world of conflicting music playing devices allofmp3's files work. Hollstupid will give that to all of us soon with mandatory DRM. In the time I have left before DRM I will get music files music files that work on anything.
- olliholliday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Britain is the country, Britons are the inhabitants.
you learn to spell, idiot. - waz67, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10How about if they're not sellling them in the UK, but in Russia. They've already been declared legal in Russia. Is there a law against buying music in Russia and importing it for personal use?
- Indie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Monkey Pete thats where you are wrong, It is actually more legal than P2P as under UK copyright law you can't be charged with downloading illegal music as it is the Servers responsibility to monitor what is stored on their systems. If illegal music is on there the people that are downloading it are only taking what is avaliable on a server and not breaking any laws.
- PumpkinEscobar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8John C. Dvorak discovering AllOfMp3.com and The PirateBay.org on this week's TWiT was hilarious.
So I guess it's time to move the servers to someplace like Turkmemistan or Uzbekistan? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10And of course, instead of LEARNING from AllOfMP3 and following suit with affordable, uncrippled, and hopefully losslessly compressed music, the record companies and publishers simply sit on their fat asses and complain, waiting for taxpayer-funded agencies to arrest taxpayers simply so those taxpayers are forced to pay more for CRAP.
- DruggedBunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8> "AllofMP3.com are NOT licensed by the BPI to sell copyrighted recordings in the UK"
The BPI aren't generally the copyright holders... it's not their work to license. - MatthewWilkes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7British Phonographic Institute ≈ R.I.A.A.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah, I am sure suing a Russian site in the UK is really going to do some good.
- electricinca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This seems to me to be nothing more than blatant scaremongering by the BPI. Regardless of whether AllofMP3.com are selling the files illegally or legally it is not illegal under UK copyright law to purchase and import into this country any article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work if it is solely for his private and domestic use.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_7.htm#mdiv107
The BPI claims that users are making copies of the works themselves when they make a purchase but that is I believe a spurious claim. - JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'm a Dual Citizen of the UK and US... I've been to the UK more times than anyone would want to count. On the customs cards, there is nothing along the lines of "Do you have any products of Russia in your possession at this time?".
This means that those currently under the jurisdiction of the UK can safely assume that AllofMP3 is legal, and this poofter is full of tripe.
Colours, Flavour, Favourite. There. I've proved I'm English. - XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And we still don't have digital radio because the MPAA is worried about broadcasting digital quality music...
AllofMP3.com can simply be thought of as an on demand digital radio that you pay for bandwidth just like you pay XM radio for their subscription. Unlike the domestic crippled services, AllofMP3.com also makes it very easy to time shift the songs and move them to a portable device by saving them as files for personal use. This is not unlike recording a HBO or video on demand program on my TiVo or Media Center PC and transferring to a portable device. XM and other music broadcasters have been kept from doing this and I still can't use my TiVo to save XM songs broadcast on DTV.
HBO and the actors don't get extra money over the broadcast rights HBO paid because I saved the program on TiVo or Windows Media Center, musicians don't need extra money for me to save a song on my PC after getting their broadcast payment from AllofMP3,com. If anything needs to happen then the broadcast license needs renegotiated because of the worldwide audience but there is not necessarily a need for a pay per person per download fee for it to be legal.
If the labels want more money then they should create better content in the physical product they produce. Include DVDs of the music videos, quality album art, covers, include the digital files ready for me to transfer on my portable player, etc. And DON'T put DRM and root kits n the CD. Why the heck would I want to buy that?!?!? - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4> And piracy is not hurting the music industry?
Everybody who is using allofmp3.com is clearly demonstrating that they prefer to pay to download music in a non-DRM format. If anything is hurting the record labels, it's that they choose to turn away 14% of sales (according to the statistics you quoted). - XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"I actually did not know allofmp3.com existed until I started seeing the digg stories."
Congratulations for finally crawling out from under that rock! :)
Seriously, allofmp3 has been, and I hope continues to be an awesome service with what I consider a reasonable pricing model. - cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This is a good digg even with all the PB & allofmp3 stories. Poor music consumers just can't seem to do anything right if they want to buy unencumbered mp3's of music. I hope non DRM sites like this and sharing of mp3's continues in light of industry activities like the one reported.
- Drizzit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So it's illegal to go to Russia and buy music and take it to the UK? If not then there's no law broken.
- f777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm no expert in Russian law, but I'll consider it legal until its is defeated in court. The groups can say whatever they want, but it doesn't make it true. Keep using ALLOFMP3 until it is shut down by Russian courts. This is the best music website available, period.
- Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jaimz >"A guy down at the pub was offering me a DVD player for $10 the other night - why don't Sony and Pioneer do the same?"
Believe it or not, but you *can* get brand new DVD players for $10 wholesale in lots of 10 or more. Walmart and Target sell them for $35 at full retail markup. Used ones generally go for $5 to $10 or less at flea markets. - kendawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4How much does it cost to distribute that song to you? They should be charging you AT LEAST a dollar for that bandwidth ;)
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wow, whats with these industrys wild claims? I mean, yes, I am sure that these things slightly impact business in some way, I'll give them that. It would be foolish to say it does absolutely nothing.
Just make a download service similar to allofmp3's business model. Same stuff, all licensed, but you OWN what you download, after signing an agreement to not resell them afterwards. They should keep a record of what you've bought and let you download another copy within 24 hours of the last download of said song in case something goes wrong with it. Keep the prices low, make sure you pay the artists at least 50% of earnings (as I'm sure what they get now is next to nothing, if not nothing itself), and make sure people KNOW you're giving them that much. So now you have a low priced, DRM free download service, where people know that their artists are compensated. The popular format is MP3, so put out high quality VBR MP3s in the service.
Maybe have a relatively low quality radio service similar to last.fm? But with each play contains a link to purchase said song. Let bands (after a detailed signup process to keep out duplicates and a little quality control) put their songs on the service, add them to the radio with similar artists and tags and such, and both parties can make money from there. Give consumers full legal rights to burn and have (personal) backup copies.
It would take a massive amount of money to start, a whole lot of work, and plenty of designers to get the look right, but if there was a service like that, I'd work late nights to keep my downloads going. - Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jaimz
Believe it or not, music is actually licensed based on countries. Apple pays the RIAA in the US; which it turn pays the copyright holders (not the artists). Allofmp3.com pays ROMS (the Russian RIAA) which in turn pays the copyright holders. So by purchasing music and downloading from allofmp3 you are effectively NOT giving money to the RIAA.
***%u0422he availability over the Internet of the ALLOFMP3.com materials is authorized by the license # LS-3%u041C-05-03 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society (ROMS) and license # 006/3M-05 of the Rightholders Federation for Collective Copyright Management of Works Used Interactively (FAIR). In accordance to the licenses' terms MediaServices pays license fees for all materials downloaded from the site subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All these materials are solely for personal use. Any further distribution, resale or broadcasting are prohibited.*** - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3thank you very much
- bentman78, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I beg to differ. DRM is the big thing for me. Why should I pay for a DRM riddled file and waste time cracking. Circumventing DRM restrictions is against the law anyway...so I'll buy my music without it thank you very much.
Quality is another thing. 128kbps AAC file or a 320kbps mp3, or FLAC file? hmmmm..
People say a 128k AAC file is better than a 320 mp3, but it's not. Besides I can choose ogg or FLAC.
So it isn't only about DRM, it's about choice as well. I don't want to be locked into a service that offers an inferior product. Bottom line...I'll spend my money on the best product for the price. I'd pay 99cents it that's what allofmp3 were offering prices at - deut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Come to think of it XStatic, I'd never thought of allofmp3 in that way.
Interestingly, Freeview (our free to air digital broadcaster in the UK) does transmit radio stations digitally and our PVRs are equipped to record them. I could if I wish keep mine recording 24/7 to HDD if I wanted, no DRM or nothing. (I would have to convert the MPEG2-TS to MP3 on my pc though.)
It seems that here in the UK, we aren't really that bothered about taping stuff off the radio. There certainly isn't a fuss over here it like the bother you guys seem to be having over in the US. - vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1why on earth should they have to justify there reason, same with the RIAA. They're in charge, so they don't need to justify things they say or do.
/sarcasm - there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Although he actually fails to mention the specific UK law that is being broken."
Isn't it obvious what law? Paragraph 3 of Article 2 in subsection 8 of the RIAA manifesto. We are now all employees of the RIAA and must follow their wishes because as you all know we all voted on it and our interests were properly represented by brave politicians everywhere (who depend on good media relations to get voted in).
And if you don't listen to every new law they annouce to the world---they'll eventually get the police to show up at your house with guns and long prison sentences. I wonder why they are even stopping at 10-20 and bother with trials? They should just have public executions. Seems fair. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3british phonographic industry
- f777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Prove it in the courts instead of talk. Don't believe everything the press says.
- seanalltogether, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Exactly exactly exactly!
The music industry has done a fantastic job muddying the issue on what activity related to acquiring mp3's is illegal. You'll notice that most headlines claim people are being sued for "downloading" mp3s or movies. In reality, people are being prosecuted for uploading or distributing copyrighted material. You will not get sued for purchasing and downloading mp3s from allofmp3.com, and there is no moral grey area in doing so.
The rule of thumb is that something is only illegal to "download" if it is also illegal to possess, (e.g. child porn) - EiderDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It never ceases to amaze me that people correct others when they clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about.
- Spanca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't understand why you'd use this site. If the legality of it is lacking, why bother paying them at all? If you want to use dodgy places, why use dodgy ones that make you pay as well!
- twollamalove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Regardless, dude, no one's on trial here. The point is the spokesman has, as of yet, not cited any laws being broken. Perhaps a better point would have been "absence of evidence is not evidence of absense".
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2> i know for certain that in many labels' cases, allofmp3.com does not have a license to replicate and distribute their music... yet it is still up there.
I seem to recall reading that Russian law, for the moment, has mandatory licensing in the same way as other countries handle covers. Are you sure that allofmp3.com doesn't have a license? Permission might not come into it. How have you established that they don't have a license?
> (i realize us law has no relevance in russia, but this is not about law.)
When you say "this" is not about law, what is the "this" that you are referring to? In context, "this" would seem to imply the article about a BPI executive claiming particular things about UK law. "This" is certainly about law. If you are talking about something other than this article, please be more specific.
> what is the rationalization for allofmp3's existence when drm-free mp3s are already available at a low (but not allofmp3-low) price?
First and foremost, the rationalisation for allofmp3's existence is that somebody wants to do it, and they are legally permitted to do so.
Secondly, if allofmp3.com provides the same service at a lower cost, then that's a very good reason for people to choose them over another vendor.
Thirdly, DRM is only one factor - an important one - in a general principle. That principle is the value of the service that is provided. Just because DRM-free songs are available elsewhere, it doesn't necessarily mean that a better service is provided elsewhere. The first thing that comes to my mind is that it's a hell of a lot more convenient to buy from a single source than find a different source for every song you want - especially when in most cases, you'd find that there aren't any. Not being an allofmp3.com customer, I can't say *exactly* what value they provide beyond speculation.
> if major labels can't afford to fight much longer, indies surely cannot either.
Major labels can't afford to fight much longer? Are you delusional? Major labels are still raking in an obscene amount of money.
I think that it's important to note that the majority of musicians speaking out in favour of less restrictions on online music are either signed to indie labels or unsigned. Why do you assume that the little guys are worse off than the big guys? The little guys seem more progressive than the major labels and have more to gain from changing the distribution model.
> bottom line: the **aa are not helping the problem, but neither are allofmp3 or tpb.
Which problem are you talking about? - EiderDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>And piracy is not hurting the music industry?
When the RIAA proclaims that sales of CDs have declined in recent years and blames it all on piracy, they *always* fail to mention that sales of legal downloaded digital music have more than made up for the shortfall in CD sales. It's like complaining about the decline in sales of LPs in the mid-1980s without considering the increase in sales of CDs. - Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exactly. AllofMP3 is only legal because Russian law has enough loopholes in it to allow them to exist, albeit existing in varying shades of gray to black depending on what country you live in. If you are in the UK or US, then AllOfMP3 is most certainly a "black" site -- no possible way it would be legal. The same is true for Australia and many other countries.
The fact that AllOfMP3 is legal in Russia (and then again, only legal due to lax regulations that allow loopholes such as this), does not in any way make it legal for anyone outside of Russia.
Firecrackers and Roman candles can be easily purchased in Mexico, to use a small example. But they cannot be legally brought back over the border into the US. The mere fact that technology allows you to effectively "cross the border" by simply sitting at a computer and watching your router's lights flash and a little progress bar go across your screen, doesn't mean you are not also illegally crossing a border with prohibited goods.
People also get confused between the words "copying" and "stealing," claiming that since with "copying," the person or company that you are copying FROM is not losing THEIR copy of the product, then since they didn't lose anything, you are not stealing. *****. You are still acquiring a product for free -- or in the case of AllOfMP3, for a very nominal fee -- for which you would normally have to pay the regular price. Just as downloading a Hollywood movie or the latest Adobe PhotoShop from The Pirate Bay is taking a product for free that you would normally have to pay for, so too is purchasing a song from AllOfMP3 acquiring a product illicitly. Yep. No two ways about it -- It's stealing.
And even though it is legal in Russia -- whether it is moral is another question entirely, isn't it? And it's a question that most people decide to push to the back of their minds and not confront head-on.
The RIAA certainly has it wrong, too. I look forward to a model that includes these features:
1. Lossless digital files. NO compression.
2. NO dynamic compression. Stop destroying the music, already!
3. NO DRM of any kind whatsoever. Let me do what I want with my purchased music, period.
4. Charge a reasonable price, on a per-track basis. (I'd say no more than 79 cents a track.)
5. When I buy a track, I OWN the track. None of this "I'm only licensing it" *****.
6. The artist gets the bulk of the profit.
7. When I buy an album or single digitally, give me that album or single's FULL album cover, booklet, lyrics, liner notes, back cover, and CD label. I don't want to be denied anything just because I'm buying a digital rather than physical copy.
If that means the end of the RIAA, or a massive reinvention of it (although I don't see the RIAA as being capable or willing of reinventing themselves at this point), then I welcome it. Something has got to give. I don't see AllOfMP3's shady dealings as being the answer, both practically (as in giving the artist what he should rightfully earn) or morally. But in a way, AllOfMP3 does show a model that, if employed in a modified way here in the US, in a way that would meet all of the 7 criteria items above, I think would definitely work and be embraced by the public.
Would it stop piracy? No. After all, one of my criteria items is absolutely no DRM. But given the choice, I think most people would prefer to pay in a fully legitimate way for full lossless music that has no goofy restrictions on it, than mess around trying to take it for free and trying not to get caught. - jals, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry to single you out, Indie, seems like an honest mistake. But it does happen a lot with other people, I can't help but think people do it just so their post stands out more as a parent post rather than lost amongst the replies... which I suppose kind of makes sense.
OK, ignore me. - Indie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Jals I clicked the reply button but it posted my message in a different topic
- Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's "it's," not "its."
- nautilist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2bogtha,
many electronic music labels release drm-free music these days, in the form of well-encoded mp3s. however, these labels do not have the visibility that allofmp3.com has, and they cannot afford to charge as little as allofmp3 does; thus, they lose sales to allofmp3. i know for certain that in many labels' cases, allofmp3.com does not have a license to replicate and distribute their music... yet it is still up there. (i realize us law has no relevance in russia, but this is not about law.)
what is the rationalization for allofmp3's existence when drm-free mp3s are already available at a low (but not allofmp3-low) price? if major labels can't afford to fight much longer, indies surely cannot either. as an avid music fan and musician myself, this is a sad sad thought!
bottom line: the **aa are not helping the problem, but neither are allofmp3 or tpb. - Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@bonchbonch OK, how may times do you have to be told this.
">How about when people rip off artists by not paying them a dime? Allofmp3 doesn't pay artist royalties.
***** sir. allofmp3.com operates fully under the laws of Russia. They pay broadcast royalties to ROMS. ROMS the pays the labels or other licensing organization, and they pay the artist. - weiran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is *****, since when did the BPI make laws, or even decide on the legality of anything? This is just a scare tactic, I mean it's one thing "declaring" something illegal in the UK, but when it's in ANOTHER country where you have NO legal standing AND the authorities in that country have found nothing illegal!
This just makes me angry! - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'd say something about being too lazy for Google, or complaining about lack of knowledge, but honestly, after a quick glance at their main site, I couldn't find it either.
- f777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Because you are guaranteed uniform quality, can purchase albums as a whole, tags are correct, and best of all, you can pick any type of encoding you want without DRM. I prefer LAME encoded mp3's at high bitrates (i.e., alt standard or extreme), try that on iTunes. The small fees outweigh the junk circulating on P2P.
- Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@bonchbonch You are completely wrong. Couldn't be wronger.
>"Even though the law being broken is that Allofmp3 doesn't pay royalties to artists it sells, WHO CARES! We're pirates!"
allofmp3.com is not a pirate. They operate fully within the Russian laws. They pay broadcast royalties to ROMS and ROMS pays the labels, and the labels pay the artists. -
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is