Copyright licenses grant distribution rights. No matter where their server is, they're distributing it to your computer. If your computer is outside Russia, then they don't have the right to do this.

And therein lies the difference in our opinions. I do not see using allofmp3.com as stealing. In MY opinion it is a legal service. In your opinion it is an illegal service. Lets just agree to disagree on that one, and please excuse me while I go download the new Katie Melua album.

Why do you think it's legal? I'm really curious, but you seem unwilling or unable to answer that question. Because you want it to be?

If you're that concerned, you could use a virtual credit card number offered by Citibank/Discover Card. And to up it even further, you can buy a gift card through XRost and use PayPal (without logging into your account) to complete the transaction.

There own prosecutors do not think the site is violating any laws.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4328269.stm

Do you live in Russia? It may be legal there. It is certainly not legal elsewhere. I find it strange that otherwise ethical people talk themselves into thinking this is okay.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap6.html#602

Several people have interpreted this section of the US Copyright Law to mean that importation of infringing material into the United States is legal if for personal use. The copies of the work were lawfully made on the servers in Russia and "imported" into the US, assuming for personal use.

If the RIAA really thinks this site is illegal then they should go after them, not some defenseless grandma or high school kid as they have wont to do heretofore. It's the fascistic methods that RIAA employs that make me want to stick it to them by downloading songs from sites of questionable legality such as alltunes.com but so far I've resisted the urge. :)

Several people want it to be legal, and are willing to contort themselves to make it seem so. But come on, does this site really pass the sniff test? Really, if one is comfortable taking music and not having the people who created it be compensated, fine. It's none of my business. But to claim this service is any more legal than gnutella or the illegal torrent sites is wrong.

Having it be endorsed by a FlyerTalk moderator is really lame. Why lock this thread, and then endorse a site whose entire business is based on selling other people's property?

1) What proof do you have the artists ARE NOT being compensated?

2) Whether or not I am a moderator is totally irrelveant, I am a member 1st and a moderator 2nd.

3) I can't "endorse" anything, I said that **I** find it to be a great service, based on what I read online **I** feel comfortable downloading from them. And that is really all that matters. What you feel about it means nothing to me, and I expcet it is the same way with you.

4) Some people have taken the time to show that THEY think it IS legal, but you seem to ignore those posts.

Your logic is of course bogus. The people that upload a torrent do several things that make it clear that it is illegal:

1) Their means of gathering content are illegal (grabbing off TV or using camcorders in a theater)

2) I have yet to see ANY torrent uploader point to a rights organization and tell me that they pay dues to that body. Unless of course you visit some torrent site I've never heard of...

3) With P2P distribution I am receiving the content from 1000's of peers, and I have no way of verifying whether those peers have legal rights to own the content they distribute, in the case of Allofmp3 they DO claim that they pay dues over their content, the only issue unanswered (even by the RIAA) is whether or not it really is illegal to download content from a provider that pays licensing fees to a foreign organization.

Legal and wrong / ethical are two different things.

Are they not innocent until proven guilty? I haven't seen any proof that the service is illegal from someone who has the authority to say for certain.

The people who created the music are being compensated. The site pays ROMS, the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society, which in turn pays the artists their due royalty.

It's the RIAA and the labels who are not compensated in the same amount that they would be if the music were sold in the US.

My understanding is that it is basically the same as going to Russia and buying the physical CD there. CDs cost about that much in Russia.

I don't understand why you feel like there is something wrong when all the evidence suggests that there is in fact nothing illegal happening. I haven't seen any proof that there is anything illegal.

I do think that this is a loophole, but there is nothing illegal about taking advantage of a loophole.

The rights organization you keep talking about (ROMS) was kicked out of CISAC.


IFPI has made it very clear that allofmp3 has no right to distribute its material.

Here's a long article from a lawyer who appears to know much more than me about copyright. He claims it's illegal.


Here's an article from slate that concludes it's "probably" illegal.

Here's an article from Jupiter Research claiming slate was irresonsible in qualify the illegal with "probably".

But you keep telling yourself it's all above board, and different from buying pirated DVD's out of some guy's trunk.

it is legal
 

there was a court decision in russia that allofmp3 is legal within russia.

if something is legal within russia this doesnt mean that if a foreign country user is downloading music from there.

but in a globalized world, it should be difficult to blaim a user if he buys something online from another country.

so if you download from allof mp3 i can only advise you the following.

use the creditcard of someone who doesnt has a computer at all.

use paypal to buy the xroost prepaid card.
with the xroost prepaid card they cant track you down directly , if you pay allof directly the records will be there for years.

i think that the prices of apple music store are too high, and allof is offering a good price range for the music.

the point is, many friends of mine were downloading with P2P tools, but after they are using now allof , they are paying 2usd per album and doing it "LEGALLLY " now.

so users are willing to pay for music but the prices should be fair.

if apple offered these prices, i think a lot lot more people would download, and in the end the labels would earn more many than now.

dp

No, I keep saying that IN MY opinion it is legal. Your pirated DVD theory is just flawed piece of logic, with a pirated DVD I KNOW that the guy that made the DVD-R didn't pay ROMS, MPAA, BUMA or any other international organization, in the case of Allofmp3 I am downloading knowing that the vendor DID pay ROMS.

You keep on posting stuff, but have yet to point me to any publication that states that it is against the law to download music from a Russian service that pays dues to the recognized Russian authority. Whether or not the IFPI and/or CSAIC approve of what these services are doing is irrelevant (seems pretty logical that they wouldn't approve, they have a lot to lose in this case). There is one Russian organisation that deals with rights, and that is ROMS, and they approve of the service.

If all you have is 2 old links of organizations that don't like them and one that says that it is "probably" illegal then this discussion isn't going anywhere, I'm still waiting for the definitive proof that downloading from allofmp3 is illegal.

Just for fun I went to the RIAA website and did a search for "allofmp3":

Your search for "allofmp3" returned 0 pages. Search time 5.625 seconds.

Then I searched for "russia", and all I got were articles talking about:

Weird, nothing about music downloads and the RIAA not approving of ROMS

In fact, there is NOTHING on their website at all about concerns regarding music download services providing illegal downloads claiming ROMS support.

If you can't trust the RIAA then who CAN you trust? Surely if this service that is used by millions really were illegal they would be all over it like a granny in South Dakota that let her grandchild download one song off bittorrent?

I then checked the "pro music" site of the IFPI, that is meant to answer some of the myths regarding music downloads:

http://www.pro-music.org/freemusic.htm

And surprise surprise, even they don't have an answer whether or not it is considered illegal to download from a different country.

Actually, the IFPI even says this:

So, why after 3 years still no action against allofmp3? Napster came and went in under a year... Sharman (Kazaa) isn't based in the US yet the RIAA didn't mind going after them too...

And finally, I found what i consider to be one of the best explanations yet:

http://3cx.org/item/21

Edit: and another excellent description of why it is considered legal:

http://www.fadmine.com/allofmp3-legal-cheap-mp3s.html

All I'm getting from your argument is that they are doing something illegal.

Not legal in US
 

I have followed this topic on other sites over and over again. Allofmp3.com is NOT legal in the US- period. Anything they say or you say to justify their legality is simply rationalization. They pay NOTHING to the label or artist for royalty. They have no authorization to copy the music they have on their site, let along resell it.
The fact is there are several foreign governments who could care less about US intellectual property laws. China is one, Russia another. In Russia it is estimated that well over 95% of all computer software used in that country is pirated. We used to joke about this that there must be some kind of lottery where the loser has to buy the new software and everybody else gets a free copy of it.
You can try to rationalize this by saying you are paying for it, but you pay something for stolen property it is still illegal to posses it. Will you get caught? Who knows. Probably not. This does not make it legal however.

If ROMS isn't part of the global rights organization (CISAC) then why does it matter if they paid them?
Sure they don't approve. You are stealing their music. Anyway, there's more than one Russian rights org. ROMS was created by RAO, which has since broken with them. Anyway, music licensed in Russia can't be downloaded outside of Russia. You are aware that there are ITMS in several countries, and you can't use the store of a different country. Why should this be different?

I posted 5 links. I'm beginning to realize that God himself could tell you it's illegal and you wouldn't believe it, so I'll avoid posting 5 more.


Do you know what the second A in RIAA stands for? Why would they discuss Russia? Go to IFPI and search for allofmp3. They are the International org.

Again, its the RIAA. Somehow, I suspect allofmp3 would be less likely toturn over their logs under subpoena than American ISPs have been.

My 2nd link was a discussion of the complaint IFPI filed with the Russsian prosecutor's office.

Well if 3cx.com says ronross over on ipodlounge says it's all good, then who am I to argue? Especially when backed by fadmine's thread on fatwallet. My third line refutes every one of your's and ronross' arguments, by the way. Did you bother to read it?

I really don't care if you steal music, or if you buy allofmp3's stolen music. I do care that people who don't know the whole situation might read your tortured rationalizations for it and believe it's the truth.

Hey, have you noticed that neither ROMS nor allofmp3 claims their downloads are legal outside of Russia? You only hear that from people who shop there. Wonder why that is?

They are. And when you purchase their stolen music, you are too.

allof
 

i think if allof addet the download option only to russia based users everything would be ok.

if you download something in the us, which is only licened for
russia you might have problems.

lets say in country XXX children xxx videos are allowed, so these people might be able to download and not to get any problems in their country.

but than an US or EU user downloads this stuff even for private use this is an illegal action.

so the laws of the country you are living and in which you did the download the files will apply.

sure mp3 are not illegal xxx vids, but it shows that in one country you are not breaking any laws, but you might be in trouble in another countrie only because you are downloading something.

dp

Your long explanation of the royalty process is jibberish. This is a VERY complicated subject, and what you have quoted is simply rationalization of the legality of a pay-for-pirated music site. For example, ever hear of "mechanical royalties"? You fail to mention these. FYI--this is how the performing artist gets paid. Yes, when Rod Stewart records album after album of "standards", he actually MAKES MONEY from the sales. Not just the composer/publisher. Likewise, he gets money from internet sales. You are generally correct, however, that he gets nothing for radio play royalties. Somehow, that was considered promotional for record sales--where he got something. Internet downloads are considered a form of mechanical recording sale. The rates of royalties are all over the place, and changing (in the artists favor generally) quickly. Saying there are no royalties as that article does is not true, however.

Interesting discussion.

Glad that I live in Amsterdam. The Dutch Copyright Act of 1912 (insert satanic laughter) makes things much easier:

BREIN (the Dutch RIAA) was not amused. They went to court and bit the dust. Technodesign vs. BREIN: http://www.solv.nl/Rechtspraak-6.pagina?nid=5&lang=en .

Downloading music, movies, dirty pictures, and eBooks for personal use is legal even if the source is not. Russian sites, P2P networks, anything goes. As long as you only download (not upload) you can legally keep the bits and bytes flowing in.

Hahaha...da's geweldig!

<yawn>

You've made your point. Don't think the service is legal? Don't use it.

Don't like Howard Stern? Don't Listen.

Don't like the thread? Move on...

BTW, if you use the allofmp3.com explorer app, go to download>settings>download and crank up the 'simultaneous threads per file' number to 18. You'll increase your download speeds by 3-10x.

There ya go. If anyone asks where you aquired the music just say 'internet cafe in Amsterdam'. In fact I'm writing a massive long list of albums I plan to download, in Amsterdam :D

I do have one question though. Do that artists recieve ANY money at all as that might change my mind on the subject?

Stealing is stealing, regardless of the rationalizations.

Don't know about allofmp3.com, but in The Netherlands and many other countries artists receive money for private copying through a levy charged on blank CDs, DVDs, etc.: http://www.onbezorgdkopieren.nl/User...ven%202005.pdf (pdf file in dutch, but I'm sure you can read the numbers). Any recording company - not just the dutch ones - can apply for a cut.

If you burn your own pictures on a DVD, you still pay the artists. Even if you never ever listen to any music and never buy blank CDs the artists still get some of your money, because clubs, theaters, opera houses etc. are subsidized.

I see. Well that's ok I guess, I can't imagine it's a huge 'tax'.

€0.52 (US$0.64) for a blank audio CD.

If you want to support the artists, don't buy their CDs. Use the money for concert tickets instead.

The guy that took the type to type up a post with "yawn" is telling me to move on? That's rich.

I agree. And speeding is breaking the law.

Yes. I'm working on being less of a hypocrite. Taking Pills and injections.

And I agree with that. Some speeders wind up in jail, too.

I downloaded alltunes, but when I start it, I gt a wondow that says "connecting to servers" and never goes any further. :confused:

According to a recent article in the BBC:

>>>According to XTN Data, legal downloads are up by five per cent since last September.

The most popular legal download site is iTunes with 44% of the market. This is followed by Moscow-based AllOfMP3.com, which accounts for 14% of legal downloads, according to the report.

The Russian service offers entire albums for a pound, compared to 80 pence per track on most sites.

The IFPI regard the service as illegal and tried to have the site shutdown last year, but failed.

Napster, who re-launched as a legal service in 2004, took third position with 8%. <<<

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4875142.stm

Interesting. I wonder why they failed? If this service is as illegal as some claim, what made an attempt at closing them fall through?

because there isn't any real copy right laws in place in Russia. Allofmp3 could give them away if they wanted to. In the western world it's illegal. In their world it is legal.

The major labels around the world have been trying to sut the site down for years.

/E

Record companies pay an advance to an artist so the artist can record an album. The advance is to cover the cost of producer, studio time, mixing engineers, mastering etc. there might be something left for the artist to use for living costs and if the manager is lucky he may get a commission.

The record company will always recoup the advance before they start sending out any further checks to the artist.

So do the maths.

Artist gets $200k in and avance.
The artist will receive $2 per sold CD.
The first 100k sold CDs he see's NO CHEQUE for at all.
Starting from CD sale 100.001 the artist can see a cheque.

Some record companies will even claim packaging costs on the royalty. Up to 25% out of the artists royalty so and artist who has gotten a $200k advance will have to sell 125k CDs BEFORE the artist start generating a royalty cheque. The packaging clause in a contract is a scam that many artist managers are picking up on and some are successful in arguing against it.

A record company may sell a CD at whole sale price of $9 - $15 per CD to the stores. (I paid a major 3letter label £9.90 + VAT in wholesale for an artist whos website I run. That's $20+ wholesale price!)

The artist, who has managed to get the packaging clause dropped, receives $2 out of the whole sale price. The record company keeps the rest, claiming it is used for marketing. Normally a label budgets for x amount of sold CDs as a goal. Per CD around $1.50. So a goal of 200k sales they'd spend not much more than $300k in marketing.

So - say the label is selling the CD to the shops for $15 a pop.
100k CDs is $1.5 million.

The artist has had his $200k advance

Leaves $1.3 million to the label.

the label has spent $150k on marketing.

Leaves the label with $1.15 million

The label has also paid $2 per printed CD in mechanical rights.

Manufacturing a CD including jewel case and sleeve is about $0.4 per CD so deduct another 40k.

Leaves the label with a profit of $910k.

The artist may have gotten $400k out of the sales (inc mechanical rights) in total. the initial 200 has covered the recording costs. Leaves him 200k and the record company has made a profit of 910k.

Please tell me what is wrong with this picture?

More often than not will a label drop an artist who doesn't sell according to the goal. Sometimes they will even drop an artist who does reach the target but as they haven't sold more they still get dropped. They don't look at the profit. They look at what it has cost them to get it out there.

Let's do the maths again.

An artist who has a fan base and can sell upwards of 500k CDs on a release. Gets an advance of say - $400k. They get $4 per sold CD.

After having sold 100k CDs they start seeing a royalty cheque. This may turn up every 3, 6 or 12 months depending on the deal and whatever cut off date the label has decided on.

After 500k sold albums the band is paid $1.6 million in sales. The label has made $4.75 million, after marketing. Probably more. Still they decide to drop the band. Why? Too much royalty to pay out.

As for radio play and PRS, that can take as much as 2 years before the band see anything. If they have a publishing contract and an advance from that - they get a cheque. They also sign off 30-50% of the ownership of the songs to the publishing company AND the publishing will also recoup that. The chances of seeing anything is highly unlikely.

Most pop artists out there don't write their own songs. The composers get the PRS money.

What the illegal download has an effect on is the profit margin with the record companies. Very few artists sell enough to recoup the advance but the label may still be going on a profit on the artist. Still the label is looking at their diminishing profit and to cut cost will drop the artist and/or start spending less on advances = less quality recordings, less on the packaging = ugly CD covers, not be too keen on removing the packaging clause from the deal and so on. The end result is that us consumers don't get a quality product for the same money the shops and labels had us pay when the labels were running on a high profit margin.

Itunes has revolutionised the entire industry. It's no longer the label who decide what song is the single release. The music buyer can do that by buying single tracks of the album. Any random one they like and not what the label pushes at them. So even if ONE track sell enough on itunes to cover the advance, the marketing, the mechanical rights etc. The label looks at the big picture and see that they lose money on the other tracks that do not sell.

Itunes video gave the artist a second revenue stream. I believe the top list of downloaded music videos on itunes are videos recorded in the 80s and early 90s. Says a lot who the real music consumer is. The 40 somethings, or the "50 quid guy" as he also was called.

About 1 artist in 10 is profitable for a label. Another 2 - maybe even 3 break even. Leaves 6-7 artists going on a loss.

Some labels will sign artists they know will go on a loss as they can use that for tax write off's.

Now, don't get me started on the touring business.....

/E - have written songs that are recorded and released, been signed to a publisher, manage a band and run websites for other bands + is an old roadie.

You lost me after the first "do the math". Sorry. :D