digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

AllofMP3.com Responds to RIAA Lawsuit

slyck.com — AllofMP3 takes the Ares Galaxy approach to the music industry's $1.65 trillion lawsuit.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • onreact, on 10/12/2007, -10/+159A new reason to invade a country!
    • mdnash, on 10/12/2007, -136/+14dont digg ^^^ down. its called sarcasm people!
    • Dested, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37Ohhhh, sarcasm. Ty mdnash.
    • Zafras, on 10/12/2007, -27/+10Yep - a new job for Team America, World Police.
    • expiredmeatbag, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9thats 43.502415 trillion rubles, for those Russians
    • andyrobo60, on 10/12/2007, -2/+91The RIAA is just pissed because AllofMP3.com shows that people dont like DRM. Just watch as they try to shut down all sites that sell non DRM music 1 by 1.

      Down with DRM. Up with AllofMP3.com
    • garreh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42@andyrobo60

      Well I just don't see how the RIAA can possibility get settlement when AllofMp3 operates legally according to Russian law's.

      I hope the Russian government (if it exists ;)) does not change its laws because of this suit.
    • lcohiomatty86, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@andy.. you cant really make that claim since the cost of allofmp3's songs are approx 6-8 cents.. if they cost 99 cents apop.. just like the ITMS, than u could compare what service customers perfer, but for now, i'd attribute the MUCH lower price rather than lack of DRM to be the deciding factor for why the service is popular.
    • Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37Well the funny part is that the parent company is exactly right. Their business is not in New York. Its in Russia. They are paying all the fees required by Russian law. Its not their problem that the Russian groups that are supposed to handle it from there haven't.

      As has been mentioned before I think. Its just a simple fact that they are pissed someone is out there selling DRM free music and doing so successfully despite their attempts to choke it off. And last I checked selling DRM free minus is not illegal which is why they are attempting this route. Personally I think that the music artists should all abandon the RIAA. Its making them look bad and added to that the RIAA is trying to make it so they don't have to pay as much back to artists in the form of royalties.

      Something stinks in Denmark if you ask me. They spout that they are there defending the artists, and yet they are trying to cut back what they have ti pay to the artists... Not to mention, of these lawsuits, I'd like to know how much of the money actually goes back to the artists that are supposedly being cheated out of their money. I'll bet is little or nothing.
    • andyrobo60, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@garreh
      Just because its a stuped lawsuit and they have no chance of winning has not stopped the RIAA before has it. Even if they don't win I think this is just the start of a lot of RIAA FUD against AllofMP3.com.
    • cgomez, on 10/12/2007, -25/+1It's not a thing of it being a success because it was DRM-free. It's the fact that the record labels were not being paid in a way that is legal or fair in the United States. I mean, allofmp3.com has never made sense to me. Cut this middle of the road crap with ten cent songs without DRM; take a side. Either you don't care and you steal the music via BitTorrent or you purchase it legally in stores or with an online music store like iTunes. You can't act like, "I'm paying for it..." when that isn't going to support the artists... Make a decision (and I believe BitTorrent is the wrong one).
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+50@cgomez

      $0.10 is a reasonable price.

      Remember when long distance calls cost $1.00 per minute? Then $0.10? Now you can call all year on Skype for $15, or on Yahoo for a penny per call. $1.00 per cut is not a sustainable price. Not only did AllOf MP3.com get the DRM thing right, they also got the pricing right.
    • cgomez, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5But the thing is, while they got the DRM right (in it being non-existent), they were not providing compensation to the music industry. The best possible outcome I can see in the next two years or so is us getting to a $.50 to $.75 price point with no DRM. And that is a huge push because of all the cajoling it would take with the popular labels because any attempt for wide-spread adoption of a new online music purchase model would have to include Chamillionaire and Nelly Furtado and all the popular one-hit wonder crap.
    • snozle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@cgomez

      $0.10 is a justifiable expense. It's not really middle of the road if you think about it. If you go the "bit torrent route", or any other P2P route for that matter, you are liable to encounter poorly encoded and or incorrectly named files. AllofMP3.com gives you the option to choose the encoding you prefer; that, coupled with the ease of use (everything is in one place and I know the albums are complete), makes it worth my $0.10.
    • cgomez, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6But the thing is that the ten cents that was being paid to allofmp3.com was not going back to the record labels. I agree that the main reason I subscribe to URGE and use the iTunes store is because it's nice to have a quick download that is properly tagged and comes with album art. But let's be realistic about the price we're talking about here, $0.1 will never happen. A more realistic price is $.5 at best when we get the music industry behind it and hopefully let it be DRM-free. I mean, at the moment, look at eMusic which I would say it probably the most realistic example of what a fair online music store would look like in the future. No DRM but it's not ten cents.

      Be real folks. I know the view is unpopular here, but I support legal music at a fair cost.
    • sirloin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5price is part of it for sure(probably most for most)
      but no other store offers music in the formats that allofmp3 does
      and many audiophiles like myself do want a better choice.
      i like flac, I like quality
      ANd if both allofmp3 and itunes charged the same 99cents, i would still go to allofmp3
      matter of fact i would pay $1.25 just to have uncompressed drm free high quality flac.
      SO even if allofmp3 raised their prices i would rather shop there.
    • LycoLoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"If you go the "bit torrent route", or any other P2P route for that matter, you are liable to encounter poorly encoded and or incorrectly named files."

      I don't know where you go for torrents, but I very rarely get badly encoded tracks or mislabeled files. Private trackers excluded, the stuff you can find over at Torrentz.com is rarely under 196kbps and is most times very well named and tagged. It's places like Kazaa and Limewire where you really have to watch out for that kind of crap.
    • anchorman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I think AllofMP3 should just go ahead and write the RIAA a check for the full amount. Yep... all 1.65 Trillion. Send it certified mail. Case closed!

      There isn't a bank on earth that could cash it!
    • shark72, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"Well the funny part is that the parent company is exactly right. Their business is not in New York. Its in Russia."

      The important thing is that they are offering their services in the US. That's how the government is getting the online gambling outfits, too.

      If that's not clear, say that you're selling fireworks from California by mail order, and you fulfill an order of fireworks to, say, Alabama, that happen to be illegal there. State and federal authorities will still get ya, even though you're in California. The "ha ha, I'm in California!" defense would not work.

      People who've studied law know this, and allofmp3's lawyers know this, too. Their "we're not in New York" excuse was more for the benefit of people like you.

      "They spout that they are there defending the artists, and yet they are trying to cut back what they have ti pay to the artists..."

      You nailed it. Specifically, they want to lower the mechanical royalties they must pay to songwriters and composers, which (by US law) are $0.08 a track. It's funny when people say "the RIAA should just get a clue and sell tracks for $0.10 like the Russian sites!". Unfortunately, in order for this to happen, the law would have to change to allow the record companies to pay less to the artists, which pisses people off any more. I guess what we really want to happen is for the record companies to char $0.10 per track, pay $0.08 to the composer and songwriter by law, and find a way to squeeze the remaining $0.02 to cover the performers' royalties and the costs of producing and selling the track.
    • one2gamble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@shark72

      Thats not true at all. Nations and the businesses inside of them are sovereign in the sense that they are only obligated to follow their own laws. Allofmp3 is not obligated to prohibit those "outside of russia" from using their services. Its up to said country to prohibit its citizens from obtaining those services. For example, the US could legally block allofmp3's domain on the grounds that it is violating US law but it could only do so within the US. Though this is a bit of a slippery slope which is why nobody has even considered this route at this time and probably never will. Not to mention a good portion of the internet viewing population would know how to circumvent any measures put in place to do such a thing.
    • excalpius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4cgomez...none of that money is going to the artists. All you are supporting is the currently legal exploitation of the talented artists who create the music in the first place.

      Where's the iTunes for the independant musicians, so that the money gets split 50/50 between the iTunes site and the actual artists?

      That is what the RIAA and its five monopolists are truly afraid of...
    • MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@shark

      The cost of producing the record comes from (is "recouped" from) the artist's $.08. The record company just loans them the money, and must be paid back before the artist sees a dime.

      When talking about the recording industry, there's also no such thing as "performers' royalties". If you play on a record, you get paid up front. For example, even though Eddie Van Halen played the guitar solo on Michael Jackson's hit "Beat It", he received nothing for each copy sold. (Performers may get royalties from radio airplay, I'm not sure, but that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about unit sales.)

      So, yeah, the record companies are going to need to figure out how to survive on far less money. Maybe $.02 is a little low, but if the artists are the ones who are ultimately paying the production costs, as well as the promotional costs (which are often recoupable), it doesn't make much sense to have the record companying receiving more than the artist.

      In 1982, when he released Thriller, Michael Jackson was a big enough star that he was able to negotiate to receive $1 for each copy of the album that sold. While that seems like nothing, it was an unprecedented amount, and even heavyweights like Metallica don't get that much even today. Thriller sold ~27 million copies. Michael got ~$27 millon.

      So, how did the record company do? Well, it probably cost half of a million to produce, but Michael paid that. The wholesale price (what the retailers paid the record company) was probably about $10. Assuming manufacturing and distribution costs of a dollar per disc, and subtracting out Michael's dollar per album, the record company made ~$8 per record. For the 27 million copies sold, the record company netted $216 million versus the $26.5 that Michael made (after he paid back the production costs).

      That was the best deal that a record company ever gave a recording artist, and the record company still made almost 10 times as much in the end. It's no wonder that Michael Jackson lost his freaking mind! It's also completely unsurprising that no one, not even many artists, give a crap about the giving the RIAA and record companies their cut, because the industry's been screwing the artists for decades.

      Any artist, big or small, will make more money touring than from album sales. They couldn't care less about you downloading their songs for free. If that's what it takes to get you to turn up at a concert and buy a T-shirt, they're happy to give it away, because if you weren't stealing it, the record company would be getting all the money anyway.
    • khyberkitsune, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I hate to be the party crasher....

      But almost specifically because of this site, plus a couple of others, Russia was denied entrance into the WTO.

      They're gonna hurt one way or another form this. Free-spirit or not, this is gonna HURT like hell.
    • mekongcola, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Once again the RIAA shows themselves to be the incompetent jackasses that they are.

      I will take great joy in watching this lawsuit go absolutely nowhere, and the RIAA becoming the laughing stock of the international internet community.



      ALLOFMP3PWND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • shark72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The cost of producing the record comes from (is "recouped" from) the artist's $.08."

      The $0.08 I was talking about was the mechanicals: composer/songwriter.

      "When talking about the recording industry, there's also no such thing as "performers' royalties". If you play on a record, you get paid up front."

      When I used the word "performer" I was differentiating from the mechanicals; the contracted royalty rate that goes to the "named performer" / "celebrity" / "the person whose name is on the CD" or whatever term works. Michael Jackson, in your example.

      "Any artist, big or small, will make more money touring than from album sales."

      Even the ones who don't tour? Or maybe we shouldn't really consider them "artists."

      "They couldn't care less about you downloading their songs for free. If that's what it takes to get you to turn up at a concert and buy a T-shirt, they're happy to give it away, because if you weren't stealing it, the record company would be getting all the money anyway."

      What should you do if you like music from artists who don't tour or sell t-shirts?

      I still don't understand that "any artist," though. I've seen plenty of people point out that they don't like their stuff being downloaded illegally. Are they not really artists, in that case?
  • thedreaming1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+158Is the RIAA high? Who has 1.65 Trillion dollars? They might as well ask for a Jillion while they are at it!
    • olddirtycr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+76I think the RIAA knows they arent going to get a cent and is trying to scare allofmp3 offline along with every other site like it.
    • wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39Yea, I like that. Ask for more than the GDP most members of the G9. Doesn't make for a very compelling lawsuit.
    • rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+70I guess they are trying to emphasize the severity of their claims. It's hard to take them seriously when they are claiming each download cost them 150,000 dollars :)

      It's a stupid lawsuit because allofmp3 does not operate in the US and does not fall under its juridiction.
    • TheGilmanator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+661.21 Jijabucks!
    • insinuate, on 10/12/2007, -13/+31Gotta pay for the Iraq war somehow I guess? =/
    • PDAIsAOk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+49No the RIAA is really Dr. Evil.


      We're going to sue you for....one....Hundred....trillion dollars ::puts pinky up to mouth, raises eyebrow and smirks::
    • SonnyW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18"Will you be paying by cash, credit card or cheque?"
    • cwalk, on 11/01/2007, -2/+36I still can't figure out why the RIAA insists that each song is worth $150 000. Last time I checked, iTunes was selling songs for $0.99 each.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@PDAIsAOk

      Number 2: *Ahem* That's more than the gross income any Nation...... Sir....
    • Llanowar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@cwalk

      They need to pay for their funeral costs.

      Every time someone downloads a song from allofmp3 a RIAA member dies. :(
    • koonkii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10it always puts a smile on my face when i see someone stand up to them
    • BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5 You know what? The article refers to the sum of money as being slightly less than Britain's GDP. Well, if they want the money, they can have Britain. Russia won't mind. I'm sure that makes no sense to you, but neither does the outrageous sum of money demanded and the claim RIAA has any jurisdiciton in Russia.

      Another thought - an organization making such humongous demands mush have something to back themselves up with. I bet they have nukes stashed somewhere purchased with all the extortion money, itching to make an example of some country for violating their lawyer... ahem... artist protection system!

      Please don't take anything I've said seriously... or the lawsuit itself.
    • MrFrostyUK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Don't we citizens of England get a say in who owns us? Please don't throw us to the RIAA
    • ahsanfarhan22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11.65 trillion dollar! It reminded me of Dr. Evil, who wanted something like this from world leaders. At least he was going to destroy the planet.
  • kloof, on 10/12/2007, -6/+137Can't touch this! Da na na na -- na na -- na na. Can't touch this!
    • thatsmyaibo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+127Hmmm for 3 cents, I might as well download that too.
    • randomgeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+134You did not pay the RIAA for the rights to use that MC Hammer song. That is a $150,000 violation right there, pal. Pay up or we'll sue your family into bankruptcy. Thank you for your compliance.

      - RIAA
    • avihappy, on 10/12/2007, -32/+1Name of Song?

      Edit: Thanks randomgeek.
    • GruntboyX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21You have posted lyrics on the web without authorization, thats a 150K fine. your intent was to sing the song which constitutes public performance.....thats 150k * 6.5 billion people...... 975 trillion Dollars.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6 Oh man! God forbid RIAA, and the Church Of Scientology to ever combine their legal teams. The universe migh just collapse onto itsef!
  • homerj14, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46Real idiots attacking artists
  • RGCook, on 10/12/2007, -37/+1@homerj14

    Is your last name Simpson homer? The artists ARE NOT getting any royalties.
    • cw1925, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3While that may be true, at least we're willing to pay it.
    • unclesaamm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25haha what a bad insult
    • UnknownCzar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Technically they would be if ROMS payed up. However that whole area is kinda gray; since the RIAA seems to completely ignore that ROMS even exists... Makes me wonder that if the RIAA acknowledged ROMS, that this whole thing would go away and the artists would get payed their royalties.
    • randomgeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39They aren't getting any royalties _only_ because the RIAA refuses to accept payment from ROMS. Allofmp3.com pays ROMS for the right of distribution. ROMS would then hand a cut of that over to the RIAA. In this case, it is absolutely the fault of the RIAA itself that the "artists" (lets face it, they could give a ***** about the "artists) aren't getting paid. The RIAA wants exclusive world-wide rights to distribution and refuses to acknowledge that ROMS even exists.

      They're shooting themselves in the foot on this one and I'm really interested to see how a court interprets it since Allofmp3 _is_ paying royalties in compliance with their countries laws. It is only the stubbornness of the RIAA itself that is at issue here.
    • jjesusfreak01, on 11/01/2007, -2/+38"The artists ARE NOT getting any royalties"

      Which is different from their treatment by the RIAA how?
    • carl0ski, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4The fact artists are not getting money is definetly true

      however who is to blame

      AllofMP3
      or the 3rd party subsidiary they passed money on to pay artist royalties
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No royalties? Are or those golden Bentleys on MTV fake or what?
  • rawM3TAL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+54I was hoping for more of the "Haha, silly RIAA! ***** off and die!" approach from AllofMP3.

    :/
    • lo0ol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+47Nah, though you can always get your fix here:

      http://thepiratebay.org/legal
    • Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I was expecting a counter suit of a zillion dollars USD :p
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31Too bad a trillion US dollars is now worth, what.. 25 euros? allofmp3 can handle that..
    • GruntboyX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I was expecting them to post the lawsuit and letters on their website ...pirate style
  • baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18these Rooskies are my heroes. Thanks F-ing God someone has the Cajones to stand up to the corrupt Lawyer regimes representing the artists
    • radiofrequency, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13The artists don't give a much of a damn if people "steal" their songs. It's the long chain of theft that happens before the album ever exits the warehouse that is much worse: the manager, the label, the distribution people, the PR people, the lawyers, etc, etc. The only thing keeping the wheels greased are the paying customers and the artists understand that: they can accept a loss of a song sale here or there because they will make it up another way.
  • homerj14, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@RGCCook
    lol.. i couldnt think of another acronym.
  • chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10http://blogs.allofmp3.com/allofmp3/2006/12/26/allofmp3-response-to-complaint-by-major-record-labels/

    That's what allofmp3 officially said.
    • whiskeysquared, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Over at the official blog, Stewart, a very observant man from Australia replied to another comment posted by an American, Stewart is comment 18. He said:

      "I hope the RIAA realizes that the youth are going to rise up against …" Yeah right Wes, dream on dude. So you come from America right. And what percentage vote in elections in your country? Fifty percent that's how many. I don't exactly see the youth of any western country rising up. (Except perhaps the French but they do that all the time.)

      There isn't one mainstream Western politician who gives a fig about about allofmp3.com. Likewise, most politicians don't really understand the issues behind copyright. And when the record companies tell them it will lead to industry unemployment they'll shaft allofp3, Kazaa, Limewire et. alia.

      For crying out loud. Your country has lost over 3000 soldiers in Iraq. Do we see mass protests? No! Do we see Americans demanding subsidised medicine? No. Do we see Americans dumping their gas guzlers and making do with one car instead of three? No! And you think that American youth are rising up against the RIAA whilst at the same time being sued into history? A big fat NO!!!!

      My father, an American vet had a saying: "People get the government they deserve." You got George W. Bush: a liar and a cheat.

      If you think it's any different in Australia forget it. We've got John Howard (and he's a rascist AND a liar and a cheat) and his government has just criminalsed copyright breaches. And Tony Blair…another liar.

      Copyright is slowly dying out. It will take another decade or so. And what's doing it is the power of technology. Eventually DRM and copyright will become a thing of the past. But the youth rising up. Forget it. In the West if there was an attempt at revolution most people would stay at home and watch it on television. If they thought it interesting they might email some of the footage to their friends.

      --
      He made some awesome points. We host, here in America, some of the most apathetic citizens ever; who would rather complain than stand up to do anything. What are your thoughts here?
  • m1ch184, on 10/12/2007, -0/+43How is it that the RIAA plans to win a lawsuit based on American laws against a non-american company?
    • olddirtycr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+53Because they are retarded?
    • Chaotyk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Good call.
    • SonnyW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Well, they're used to almost always getting their way because they buy their power with money in the U.S.
    • shark72, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"How is it that the RIAA plans to win a lawsuit based on American laws against a non-american company?"

      Because the non-American company is doing business in the US (ie. you and other US citizens are buying tracks from them). This allows them to be sued in the USA.

      I know this boggles a lot of people reading this, but this is the way that the law works.

    • Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Nah, we're doing business with them in Russia, not the other way around. :)
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@shark

      Doing business in the U.S.? What is their presence in the U.S.? Surely there must be some U.S. location where they could receive service? Can you point to any? Or are you just making ***** up that sounds vaguely legalese?
  • strabes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Who does the RIAA think it is? Suing a foreign corporation for breaking United States laws? Am I the only one this doesn't make sense to?

    I have recently begun using Allofmp3.com out of spite for the RIAA.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I might start using it too, even though I can download songs for free elsewhere...just to piss off the RIAA!

      AllofMP3 should offer to pay the RIAA $1,000 every year, for the next 1.65 billion years...plus another $1billion at the end, for interest.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6it's funny because I never heard of allofmp3 until this article. I'm sure they are thanking the RIAA for the free publicity
    • Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@waterdragon

      I think you're pissing the RIAA off enough just by not paying them. Doesn't matter if you get the music free or at 3 cents a download.
    • Glass_Onion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9They're American so they obviously have the right to sue companies in foreign lands for not obeying their laws. I believe it's in the 3rd amendment or something.
    • interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3It's actually the 1.65 trillionth amendment. :)
  • shirosamurai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I can see how a good number of people would be against AllofMP3 because of their business practices. But all of that goes right out the window when you hear that these idiots at the RIAA are filing a lawsuit for $1,650,000,000,000...

    One TRILLION dollars... *holds pinky up to mouth*
  • ernasty10050, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1...anyone else notice SiteAdvisor shows 8 links to the site, all red?
    • JacNet, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3If i had it my way you would stuff that siteadvisor up your arse.
  • titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26In Soviet Russia music downloads you!
    • Jun168, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27In Soviet Russia, you sue RIAA!
    • glock22ownr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26What's funny about that comment is that at this point it seems the Russian Gov't is more willing to protect its citizens, businesses, and consumers from rich overpowered wealthy assholes than the US Gov't is...
  • Slipdisc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Yeah, they respond with
    "a decision on their future legal tactics has yet to be formulated - pending the review of a yet unreceived $1.65 trillion complaint."

    Which basically means they have no response yet.
    • ketsugi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Actually, what that means (as I see it, anyway) is that despite all the big hoo-ha about the lawsuit, AllofMP3 hasn't actually been served the lawsuit yet.

      Please correct me if I'm misreading this.
  • pizpot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is great news. I can hardly wait until a few RIAA bosses get shot. Hey, if they don't show up in NewYork, meet them in Moscow!
  • timla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If the court decides that it has jurisdiction then the RIAA may prevail in it's suite, this is not a very unlikely outcome. The real question is how do they plan on collecting? It is doubt full the Russia authorities will enforce the damages amount, and if mediaservices has little or no property in the US's jurisdiction, then the RIAA will get nothing. As a matter of principal the RIAA may use a judgment as propaganda.

    This whole thing stinks of a media stunt.
    • klawz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5media stunt it is - and guess what, ALLOFMP3 gets EVEN MORE publicity, more unique hits, more new customers - Hell, people can now listen to ALLOFMP3s entire collection for free because of the stunt the MPAA pulled off a few months ago.
  • thearrow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The RIAA might as well change their name to SPECTRE and flat out say they want world dominance.
  • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19When is someone in Russia going to start a site called AllOfAvi?
    I would be way more interested in that!
    • kenthorvath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Well, at $0.03 / MB a 700 MB divx version of a DVD would run you $21.00, which is more than most would cost if you just went to WalMart. Of course, there is the benefit of there being no DRM, and you could always request a lower quality rip, but you see the point.

      I wonder how cheap it would have to be to be worth it, and how much the operating costs would be.
    • javaroast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@kenthovath
      You sir have made the post of the day. Your post underscores the point that the record companies continue to gouge their customers. How is it that the movie industry can sell their product at a price that an allofmp3 can't compete against while the music industry can not?
    • SAOSiN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If all new release DVDs cost at around 10 dollars, I would be more than willing to buy the movie. 20 dollars isn't ridiculous but its expensive, if you love owning original copies of movies.

      Hopefully the DRM scene dies soon. Its going to come...its just a matter of time.
    • goldfenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If such a service existed and was decently priced, I think it might be the first time ever in the history of the internet that the porn producers actually get paid when somebody downloads their movie.
  • jbonnain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I'm sorry, the RIAA is simply scared to death of their demise. The idea of $150,000 violation per song is ludicrous. The value of the song is truly the fraction of the original album as a whole. Who ever gave the music industry the right to enforce this penalty?

    It defies all logic, as a peach from the grocery store costs about the same as a single song, yet I would never have to pay such a fine if I was caught stealing one. Not even if I stole ten MILLION peaches would I be sued and ordered to have to pay such fines as AllofMp3. The RIAA simply needs to accept their fate. At the very least they need to give up their greed, DRM, or both. All I know is that if they don't see the light soon, something else is going to take them down.

    Natural selection at its best, baby.
    • klawz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9quote
      Who ever gave the music industry the right to enforce this penalty?
      /quote

      We, the people of the United States, who elected the corrupt ***** in Washington D.C. that create/amend/append/re-write laws for the Power-Hungry, Profiteering, Money-Hungry bastards.
  • digitallysick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14This is great allofmp3 = heros
    • Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1AllofMP3 is not my hero until I can get all the music I like for whatever I feel like paying... ;) But I love them for stiffing it to the RIAA.
    • klawz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1How about all the music for FREE? You can download their player, it will play their entire collection for free. (and not some 30 second ***** iturds/zuner preview).
  • knodi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6RIAA makes us Americans look stupid. tis tis.
    • D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4the RIAA shoes that us Americans ARE stupid..
    • Zaphod2016, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@knodi: I think you mean "tsk tsk".

      @d3koy: I think you mean "shows".

      Pft...stupid Americans...

      /irony
  • juliocgrajales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Damn, if RIAA can't legally sue AllofMP3, what is the next step, mark my words, sue individuals in the US who downloads from AllofMP3 and soon after either ban the website by internet service providers or allow it and the RIAA will illegally request this information from the ISP's. At the end of the day the RIAA will not let down... By the way I totally support AllOfMP3.com completely... there is a market for it and they are fulfilling a need, of course, the argument is well they are stealing by who's account, by who's laws, by who's moral compass and also is stealing wrong all the time?
    • klawz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That's the type of ***** that will start a revolution; The RIAA won't last long (physically) after that ***** hits the fan.
  • Brandondork, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I want this thing to be over with, Visa and Mastercard need to come back and work with All of mp3 and I need to start downloading some music, limewire
  • inkhead, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4wait a minute, i bought a freaking Zune, I have the right to download all of universal's collection for free in my mind, and this is the closest I can get, buying it for pennies. So I'll stop using allofmp3.com when Universal stops stealing from me considering they don't have A SINGLE SONG I LIKE. Maybe I should sue them for paying for something I didn't buy... :P
  • klinellyred, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I don't like paying for my songs...so screw you RIAA
    • superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4no, screw them anyway.
      i'll pay a couple bucks for my songs if i want to support artists and record labels. but i'm not doing that until i get my share of free samples to try out.

      free distribution of music is advertising for record labels, damnit.
    • fupresti, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That is the dumbest f-ing comment ever. You don't want to pay for music at all? What is the incentive for the artist to make music if they won't get paid? AllofMP3 has the right idea and charges an appropriate fee. If you want free music, listen to terrestrial radio.Are you too cheap to spend .10 for a song?
  • Darth_tater, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4is there anyway we can support allofmp3 w/o actually downloading the song? like a T-shirt or something, the logo would draw more attention to the matter than some song on an ipod.

    do they have tshirts like TPB ?
  • D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So I'm not clear on how the RIAA operates, can someone help me?
    Does every recording artist belong, or is it a union you CAN join?
    Do they give 100% of the money to the artists?
    Where do they get values for songs, 150,000 is just dumb?
    Does any group ever actually take them seriously?
    have they ever actually made any real money?
    • Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's a consortium of record labels, including all the major ones in the US. So it doesn't actually represent the interests of artists; it represents the interests of its member labels, which is often at odds with what's best for the artists whose music is published by those labels.

      The RIAA has power because the labels have money. They use the money to hire lawyers and lobbyists.
    • shark72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"So I'm not clear on how the RIAA operates, can someone help me?"

      Of course.

      "Does every recording artist belong, or is it a union you CAN join?"

      They don't represent artists. They represent record companies. They're a trade group. When you're a doctor, you join the AMA, and when you're a record company, you join the RIAA.

      "Do they give 100% of the money to the artists?"

      They don't give money to anybody. The record companies pay the RIAA for the priveledge of being members, sort of like how your doctor pays his annual dues to the AMA.

      "Where do they get values for songs, 150,000 is just dumb?"

      That's what it says in the law book. Of course, the law is what it is based on lobbying from -- wait for it -- the RIAA.

      "Does any group ever actually take them seriously? have they ever actually made any real money?"

      They've been around for 60 years or so, so yeah.
  • Zammo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Could this create a new cold war with Russia, or are we going to see allofmp3.com's customer list in the hands of the RIAA?
  • Myomax65, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is like Rocky IV, only reversed.
  • cwestpha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The great irony is that the court in question is violating legal precident and the law by taking a matter that is out of their juristiction. Under the US legal system if the justic(s) knowingly take a case out of their juristiction they could be removed from their position. Oh and also any rulling it legaly void. :p
    By this logic I will sue a chinese clothing manufactorer for violating US minimum wage and overtime laws in a court in New York tommorow. :p
    • superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4on a related note, while they get paid less than US workers on minimum wage, they certainly don't work that hard.
      it's in the US that people work too damn hard. 100 hours a week in ibanking in new york? to me that sounds like slavery... "work your [theoretically expected] 40-50 and get fired! no vacation time! work on weekends or be called a slacker!" wtf? the US is where hour laws are violated by the very existence of uncontrolled salaried systems. salaried workers need to be given legal caps on the number of hours they are allowed to work in order to ensure that the population stays physically healthy and mentally updated of what's going on in the world.

      back when i worked in germany, you would lose your medical insurance if you worked more than 10 hours a day... legally. thus the company couldn't make you, and thus kids got raised by parents not babysitters, and thus people had a life, and thus people understood the rest of the world beyond their borders in their own time.
    • UrbanPug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2that doesn't make sense. the chinese company violating "us law" by not respecting us labor laws -- the violation of those laws is not related to the contacts it has with the US.

      for example, if that chinese company makes a defective product and sells it to a US distributor who then sells it to wal-mart who then sells it to a consumer, then that company may be subject to the jurisdiction of a US court. the claim and the conduct are related in such a way that it's fair to bring them into court there.

      sure, maybe it's debatable whether AllOfMp3 will be subject to jurisdiction in NY, but it's at least debatable, it's not a slam dunk "no way" -- a lower court could hear this case, and sure, maybe it could be overturned, but it's not the kind of abuse of power that would get a judge thrown out or sanctions posed against the lawyers.
  • superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1how can RIAA "sue" allofmp3?
    when it's a US organization vs. the Russian organization, who said that the US court is the system to be using?
    can't allofmp3.com just say "try the hell to get into our country, bitch" to the RIAA and if they show up at the immigration lines, deny them access! it's that simple? do you think a US cop can just meander into russia and shut down allofmp3.com?
    • DangerMouse9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Well, the RIAA can spend that 1.45 trillion dollars before it has it petitioning the Gov't to impose trade sanctions on Russia, who in turn can say "***** you, no more vodka for you then" and we'll end up in another cold war because of ***** greed. Each side retaliating against the other by denying imports/exports and Joe Consumer will get ***** again.
    • UrbanPug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1AllOfMP3 could show up in court and say:

      "there is no jurisdiction here"

      they could also show up and petition for something called "forum non conveniens" which basically asks the court to dismiss the case on the theory that it's better tried in another court. There is a famous case called "Piper v. Reyno" where something similar happened -- some Scots tried to sue a US propeller and airplane maker for wrongful death over a potential product defect that caused an airplane crash. I believe the case made it to the SCOTUS, which found that it was OK to grant forum non conveniens.

      Bottom line, yeah you can show up and object.

      If you don't show up and object, there are negative consequences.
    • superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0yes, but how exactly do you "show up and object", when you (a) don't have access to the USA because you're russian, and (b) don't have the cash to spend on the flight or are simply deathly afraid of flying?, assuming (b) is true?
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Personally I wouldn't "show up and object" if some random crazy organisation sued me in the US, for the same reason you wouldn't turn up in Fiji if it happened to you - for 4 reasons.

      1. What they are doing is perfectly legal and OK from their point of view, so the court case is meaningless.
      2. Time and money is not infinite, you can't go wasting your time flying off to fight huge but meaningless court cases.
      3. The RIAA is clearly a lunatic organisation, if you don't have to, why on earth would you get yourself involved with such an outfit?
      4. Given 1, 2 and 3, would you really be bothered enough to spend all your profits fighting a court case - not in a proper court, but in some foreign one? I think not.
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1that should read "well, 4 reasons really:"
  • cwalk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11So it's the RIAA vs AllofMP3 or conversely, the American mafia vs the Russian mafia.
  • nlschd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Well, at $0.03 / MB a 700 MB divx version of a DVD would run you $21.00, which is more than most would cost if you just went to WalMart. Of course, there is the benefit of there being no DRM, and you could always request a lower quality rip, but you see the point."
    .
    Are you talking about upload or download costs? Upload costs for an OC3 fiber optic line is about 1 dollar every 10GB if you have unlimited. I don't really see how you could pay that much for download in the U.S.
    I use about 25GB a month of download on a 12Mb/s line for 20 dollars a month. Sorry I really don't get it. Storage is also nowhere near that expensive.
    I think its quite standard for a company to pay 20 cents a GB for SATA storage and for a consumer to pay about 22-40 cents per GB.
    • SAOSiN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2$0.03 / MB is the amount you pay at AllofMp3...if the song is 3 MB you pay .09 cents.
    • DangerMouse9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so it's ~ 1/10th of a cent for a 3 MB file?

      There's a huge difference between $0.03 and .01 cents I believe this has been discussed several times on here.
    • chaos386, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4SAOSiN must work for Verizon.
  • superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0what the hell do allofmp3.com peolpe get? a note that says "show up in court X in new york"? they expect that they'll enter the US so that they become subject to such a statement? they expect that the US will let random russians in? they expect that russians care about entering the US for the sole purpose of getting punished?
    • HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"This suit is unjustified as AllofMP3 does not operate in New York. Certainly the labels are free to file any suit they wish, despite knowing full well that AllofMP3 operates legally in Russia. In the mean time, AllofMP3 plans to continue to operate legally and comply with all Russian laws."

      That's the polite English translation of the Russian, which is more literally, "***** off RIAA you mother of a Siberian bear whore."
    • whiskeysquared, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@hunter - Your comment stinks of awesomeness. Upon your death I shall have a statue commissioned in your honor.
  • feech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 "This suit is unjustified as AllofMP3 does not operate in New York. Certainly the labels are free to file any suit they wish, despite knowing full well that AllofMP3 operates legally in Russia. In the mean time, AllofMP3 plans to continue to operate legally and comply with all Russian laws."

    That is such a classic line..
  • Drakkor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Used to be "America,Land of the Free,Home of the Brave' , now its 'America land of the corporate slaves and home of the wimps" Thanks Dubya !! "The Constitution is just a piece of paper"
    • Zarchon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0You're an idiot Drakkor. RIAA sues and you turn it into a political bash. I remember now, the RIAA was the good guy until Bush took office. He corrupted them. And being as how the RIAA has the right to sue AllofMP3, we can change the law so they can't thus getting rid of another right (an abused right but a right none the less) and call it freedom. That makes no sense.
  • Smokalot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0We should all download alot more MP3s from AllofMP3 to help them Pay for this lawsuit. I mean I'm a law abiding U.S. citizen and I want the RIAA to get it's money. ha ha
  • negtiveye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1RIAA is run by a bunch of stooges. Soon no judge will take their suits seriously.
    • misterjangles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2judges have to take seriously any case that's falls within the laws as they're written. that's why you get people that can sue Mcdonald's for millions (and win) by spilling hot coffee on themselves. that's a major reason why the legal system is so screwed up - because it's an eternal process of plugging up loopholes and such with amendments and various legal mumbo-jumbo.
  • UrbanPug, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Just because AllofMP3 is a Russian Corporation does not mean that they're not subject to the laws of the US.

    IANAL (yet), but a foreign corporation can be sued over claims relating to its ties to the forum state. I guess what it boils down to is whether doing an online sale of music to a resident of NY is what they call "purposely availing oneself" of NY. Basically, there has to be some real reason for bringing you into court in a certain place for the court to be able to hear the case. I'd say it is. I doubt the RIAA would go through the trouble of filing this suit if there were no chance of getting what they call "personal jurisdiction"

    if AllOfMP3 doesn't show up for court, they'll get a default judgment. Once they get a default judgment against them, that judgment can be used to sieze assets (credit card payments? bank accounts?) -- i don't know how protected they are and to what lengths attorneys can go with the whole asset siezing thing, but i'd imagine they'd be able to go pretty far.

    once there's a default judgment against them, they can't really appeal except on jurisdictional grounds. This means that if AllOfMP3 is indeed subject to jurisdiction in NY, then if they don't show up, they'll get a non-appealable trillion dollar judgment agains them -- does that shut them down? i don't know, but it certainly isn't good.

    maybe there's something i'm not seeing -- i don't know much yet (I'm a software engineer turned first year law student)
    • misterjangles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i'm with you that this is much more interesting than just the downloadable music issue. I think most of the people here are just focusing on their own personal desire for cheap music downloads and/or DRM. But, this is a going to be a very interesting case as far as basic law for transactions that go across international boundaries.
  • smojo12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm really stunned at how stupid the RIAA is. You would think they would have some sense of what they are doing right now.
    This is the greatest thing to happen to AllofMP3.com Huge publicity for them and I'm sure they are making a buttload of money from all this free press.
  • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3REMINDER: HOW TO TRANSFER MONEY INTO ALLOFMP3 USING A CREDIT CARD...since the RIAA has strong armed Visa/MC into not allowing direct payments..

    IT'S REALLY EASY!!

    Note: I wrote down the detailed steps...its REALLY quite fast and easy to do....its really just a matter of getting a "prepaid purchase card" from XROST by buying the prepaid card with your credit card, and THEN using that prepaid purchase card to pay allofmp3.com instead of paying with a credit card directly.... big deal....and only takes about as much time as a paypal transaction.


    Here are the detailed steps:

    Step 1: go to http://www.xrost.biz and sign up for an account. (xrost is a well known "prepaid purchase card" company)

    Step 2: Login to your xrost.biz account and click PURCHASE to buy a xrost prepaid card...

    Step 3: Use "Pay with Click&Buy" to buy a prepaid xrost icard with your credit card. Click&Buy is a well used credit card payment system used by many web retailers to process their credit cards...including APPLE ITUNES! :)

    Step 4: Take the CardID and PIN numbers you see on the "The Xrost iCard has been issued for you"

    Step 5: Use those xrost card numbers by clicking "refill balance" on allofmp3.com and selecting the XROST Prepaid iCards.

    Step 6: Download Music...



    Enjoy.
    • t3chnomanc3r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11. Go to Giganews.com, sign up for $20/mo 25GB/mo or $30/mo unlimited GB/mo, SSL encrypted Usenet service
      2. Purchase Newsbin Pro for $35
      3. Download to your hearts content
      4. Make sure you support bands you pirate by purchasing tickets & attending their concerts

      Additional benefit: You can download all your favorite TV shows for free and dump the DVR rental fee.

      All this and you not supporting scumbags like allofmp3!

  • kmb1794, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I luv rossiya matoshka!
  • xSEED, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0i didn't know russia had to obey us law
  • djbob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What will probably happen is that the US court will count AllOfMP3.com as illegal, but won't be able to shut it down. It'll end up with the same status as most P2P programs... the RIAA can't shut them down, even though it knows the service is being used for purposes it doesn't like. The worst thing that could happen for AllOfMP3 is that the US blackmails Russia into shutting the site down in order to join the WTO. Also, the US might try to force ISP's to blacklist AllOfMP3.com. The best thing that could happen for AllOfMP3 is that the US takes no action, but this probably isn't going to happen.
  • t3chnomanc3r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1***** these Russian scumbags and ***** allofmp3. If you are going to pirate (and clearly this is what AOMP3 is) then you don't pay money for it as someone is profiting from piracy which is just plain wrong.

    Trade and trade alike but do not pay some thief for a product they are not paying for.
  • rayblasdel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3^.^;; Can’t say I’m surprised by their response. Its almost the exact same problem that the Swedish have with the Piratebay. Local law precedes International law. As long as AoMP3 has followed Russian law, then all the RIAA can do is sue ROMS or the Russian Government itself.

    Sure the state departments of both countries want this resolved, but any movement by the Russian government outside of normal litigation would be seen as nothing less then the US dictating Russian policy. Last I checked the Russians have a very low tolerance for that.
  • insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Sounds like an 11 million dollar suit, not 1.65 trillion.
    "11 million songs were allegedly pirated"
    • tjkisst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+111 million * $150K/violation = 1.65 trillion
  • dorkino, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I've been using this site for years - ever since it was in Russian when you first visited - and will continue to do so until they manage to close it's doors. I figure since they are over in Russia, the RIAA won't be able to do much to shut them down, so instead they'll come after all the U.S. users who have used the service. I can't wait for my "lawsuit" rofl :)
    • one2gamble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0which would in fact be interesting
  • Zuggy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2More proof that everyone over at the RIAA offices are smoking crack.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.