What is Digg?174 Comments
- thedreaming1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+159Is the RIAA high? Who has 1.65 Trillion dollars? They might as well ask for a Jillion while they are at it!
- onreact, on 10/12/2007, -10/+160A new reason to invade a country!
- 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 - 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.
- 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 - 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.
- 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!
- rawM3TAL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+54I was hoping for more of the "Haha, silly RIAA! ***** off and die!" approach from AllofMP3.
:/ - olddirtycr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+53Because they are retarded?
- 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. - lo0ol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+47Nah, though you can always get your fix here:
http://thepiratebay.org/legal - 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:: - 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?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+47Real idiots attacking artists
- 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. - 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.
- 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? - 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. - 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.
- Dested, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37Ohhhh, sarcasm. Ty mdnash.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31Too bad a trillion US dollars is now worth, what.. 25 euros? allofmp3 can handle that..
- glock22ownr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27What'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 ***** than the US Gov't is...
- unclesaamm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25haha what a bad insult
- 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.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27In Soviet Russia, you sue RIAA!
- 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! - 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. - insinuate, on 10/12/2007, -13/+31Gotta pay for the Iraq war somehow I guess? =/
- SonnyW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18"Will you be paying by cash, credit card or cheque?"
- 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
- 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.
- inactive, 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! - Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I was expecting a counter suit of a zillion dollars USD :p
- 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. - 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. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@knodi: I think you mean "tsk tsk".
@d3koy: I think you mean "shows".
Pft...stupid Americans...
/irony - titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26In Soviet Russia music downloads you!
- 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. - 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. - 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. :( - 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* - 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? - 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.
- 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.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14This is great allofmp3 = heros
- cwalk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11So it's the RIAA vs AllofMP3 or conversely, the American mafia vs the Russian mafia.
- 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. -
Show 51 - 100 of 174 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is