“A Russian Web site that lets visitors download albums for less than $1 is a smash hit with music fans – but not with U.S. trade and music industry officials,” Alex Nicholson reports for The Associated Press. “According to a report by the Britain-based IXN data company, which compared traffic volumes on Web sites offering music downloads, Allofmp3 leapfrogged U.S. online music store Napster over the first half of the year to make it the second-most popular music site in the U.K. after iTunes.”
“But popular or not, the site is already under criminal investigation by Russian prosecutors and has been picked out by the U.S. Trade Representatives Office as an example of Russia’s bad record on tackling piracy. Allofmp3, officials say, is jeopardizing Russia’s WTO [World Trade Organization] bid as it seeks to reach an accession deal with the United States,” Nicholson reports. “The site warns users to check to make sure they are not violating the laws of their country before downloading songs and insists its mother company – MediaServices – is fully licensed to operate under Russian law. ‘MediaServices pays license fees for all materials downloaded from the site subject to the Law of the Russian Federation,’ the site says, citing an agreement with the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society.”
That group, which goes by the acronym ROMS, says it collects and distributes royalties for online use of copyrighted music. ROMS claims that under Russian copyright law, it does not need permission from copyright holders to license the sale of music on the Internet. ‘What can I say – this has to be decided by a court and no court has said this is illegitimate,’ ROMS general director Oleg Nezus told The Associated Press. ‘… Believe me – I’m a lawyer, you have to understand the law as a whole.’ But Igor Pozhitkov of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which represents Western recording giants such as Universal, Sony and EMI, says Nezus is reading the law selectively,” Nicholson reports.
“According to IFPI’s lawyers, agencies such as ROMS do not need to seek permission from rightholders if they are licensing the broadcasting, performance or transmission of works by cable – but they do if it concerns their sale over the Internet. ‘They (ROMS managers) are using this as a money machine,’ Pozhitkov said. ‘Hopefully they will defend it for a while and then disappear.’ Allofmp3 provides no phone numbers and questions e-mailed to addresses listed on the site went unanswered,” Nicholson reports.
Full article here.
Advertisements:
• Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook. Starting at just $1099
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
In Soviet Russia… you own the music.
In Capitalistic America… music owns you.
(a twist on the “in Soviet Russia” jokes)
Ohhhh……..Those Russians.
Goverment recently urged restaurants to serve less food , it is obvious that Obesity is probably more than just a problem in america.
What will obese people do?
They will try to buy Healthier food.
and they will start exercizing more. Which means they will buy more Shoes.
As far as i can tell , Future is all about healthy food and shoes.
Nike is to big, however any small cap stock should do well.
Hurry! Hurry! Hurry!
Hurry to Yuri’s for reasonably priced western music.
Act now and when you buy 4 freshly burned factory CD’s you get a free bottle of Vodka off back of truck that is parked in alley!
Hmmmm?? I just don’t feel comfortable giving my credit card information to a russian site that is ripping off music labels. I am sure they are honest, I mean, look at their track record!!!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Now if I could pay thru pay pal??????? That might be a different option.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
N.
I am not, and never have been, member of Communist Party.
“Now if I could pay thru pay pal??????? That might be a different option”
Until very recently there were some creative ways to do just that.
You don’t know the history of the Communist party. And, neither do I.
-Tom
Don’t know about you, good deal or not, I don’t trust giving credit card info to Russian business. The land of credit card fraud.
Can anyone check to see if “Back in the USSR” is available on that site?
In Russia the legal retail price for a cd is around $2.00 to $3.00 per unit. Allofmp3 is charging around $2.00 for a cd quality product. They collect royalties and pay to ROMS. If the record companies refuse to take the money collected on their behalf that’s their business.
For the record, the company is no longer under investigation as the relevant prosecutor decided against legal action because they hadn’t broken Russian law.
Some might rail against the company but when we travel to other countries or purchase over the net we pay whatever the going rate is for that purchase. And that’s exactly what I do when I use allofmp3. I refuse to pay 99 cents for “near cd quality music. Likewise DRM just plain sucks. When I use allofmp3, I purchase what I want in whatever codec and whatever bitrate I want. In particular I purchase cd quality music in the AAC format.
I have always found allofmp3 to be helpful when I’ve had technical problems. They ALWAYS reply to my emails within 24 hours. If you refuse to use the service that’s your problem. I take the view that main aim of the internet is to foster trade in information and products and that’s all that the company is doing. And if you want to pay $16.99 for sub cd quality that’s your choice as well.
“Allofmp3 leapfrogged U.S. online music store Napster over the first half of the year to make it the second-most popular music site in the U.K. after iTunes.”
That’s not saying much. I leapfrogged Napster after selling 3 CDs on eBay!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
When you use allofmp3 you do not pay though the company you pay through chronopay.com which is a European equivalent of paypal. I was at first reluctant to use the service but I’ve been using allofmp3 for a couple of months and my credit card account is intact and everything’s OK. I checked them out over the net beforehand and there were no complaints…except for the fact that at times their servers slow down.
Oh one thing I didn’t say is that just because the music is cheap I’m still pretty picky about the music I purchase. In three months I haven’t spent more than $60.00.
If you’re worried about the service do what I did use an account with a small amount of money that way you still have peace of mind.
I think the music industry has way too much pull to allow this sort of thing to happen. To criminalize stealing music to some degree is just ridiculous. I mean after all the music industry has been robbing artists blind from the very beginning. Where’s the outcry?
I’m sure allofmp3.com are loving all this publicity.
I thought the Beatles weren’t on any download services
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
“In Russia the legal retail price for a cd is around $2.00 to $3.00 per unit. Allofmp3 is charging around $2.00 for a cd quality product. They collect royalties and pay to ROMS. If the record companies refuse to take the money collected on their behalf that’s their business.”
Ah, so the hell with the artists then is it? You don’t find it even remotely immoral to screw the hard-working artists who created the music in the first place? Don’t they deserve to make something? If not for the artists, THERE IS NO MUSIC.
It’s completely fricked up, whether it’s this russian site or “all you can eat” subscription plans, if the artists get essentially zip.
DON’T SUPPORT PLANS SCREW THE ARTISTS!
DON’T SUPPORT PLANS THAT SCREW THE ARTIST
I meant
The record compaines need to pay attention and get their heads out of their a&^%s.
I just went to Allofmp3 (for the first time) and found a whole collection of Jethro Tull albums for sale there.
None on iTunes Music Store. Why? (Not Apple’s fault, I’m sure)
So there’s another reason we go buy from places like Allofmp3.
Allofmp3.com pays royalties into ROMS and it is the record companies who refuse to accept the payments, and as such it is they who are depriving the artists of royalties. Perhaps the critics of this site should do what I did before using the it; do some research. It’s all there on the net.
i use pre-paid VISA cards to use allofmp3… works great, and i don’t have to worry about attribution or them getting my account numbers.
Music companies own the music… the musicians are given royalties… it is the responsibility of the record company to pay the musos out of what they get.
How does paying $2 bucks in Russia screw musos?
Are you saying that Free Trade is bad?
Hmmm pity we don’t think of that every time we buy Nike or other “Free Trade loving” ware, or worse—assume that free trade is really “free”
Free Trade is about making products permeate borders but people and their rights are contained behind national borders.
If Orange County residents (and their ilk) could work out a way to truck their front lawns to Tijjuna then you would see the Berlin Wall go up in days.
I think the phrase quoted above says it all:
“this has to be decided by a court and no court has said this is illegitimate.”
In other words, we’re not running a real, legal business, but no one has proved that we’re doing something illegal – yet.
This sounds remarkably similar to the sort of things that Napster (Mark I) were saying when they were getting hounded. “Well, it’s just people sharing their own personal files. There can’t be anything wrong with that.”
If you want to give money over to some Russian criminals just to make yourself “feel good” about what is essentially theft, you go ahead. I personally think you’d be better off just downloading on a P2P network for free and just admitting that you don’t like paying for things. At least you wouldn’t be bankrolling scam artists in the process.
Some people’s moral justifications are funny. “The record companies are big nasty dishonest corporations, they deserve it.” “I don’t have to deal with DRM, and I get what I want.”
You know what? You can get what you want all the time, any time. Just don’t try and rationalize it to me as being a good thing. I’m sure there’s people out there that like to molest 10-year-old boys that could give you a load of justification for it – but that still doesn’t make it right. It just means you can rationalize away anything that doesn’t agree with you getting what you want.
By the way, getting what you want is not an inalienable human right. Geez, I’m starting to sound all crotchety. Sorry. Must have woke up on the wrong side of something today.
Oh, Telstar please don’t tell me you really believe this B.S.
Let’s say for example that I stole your car, drove it around for a week, and then offered you $40. I put it in an envelope in your mailbox, and explained that it was payment for gas, maintenance, and rental for use of your vehicle.
Now I can justify that I didn’t steal your car, I’m renting it from you, and if you don’t accept the money, well that’s your problem. You’re just screwing yourself.
PLEASE get a clue you effing moron.
They’re still stealing, you’re still stealing, and nobody’s getting paid but some Russian pseudo-gangsters.
This isn’t about free trade or any other bullshit.
And I still hate DRM, Record companies, and most modern popular music. But 2 wrongs don’t make a right. (Although three Rights do make a Left when you’re driving.)
It is pretty amazing that this is affecting Russia’s WTO bid. The recording industry has WAY too much power.
I use allofmp3 exclusively. I have deposited over $100 and NEVER had one single problem. They use a secure Visa authentication from Visa itself.
I then take all of the music I purchase (including cover art) and just drag it into iTunes.
BTW – you can encode your purchased music at pretty much any bitrate you want and any kind of compression scheme (MP3, AAC, OGG. etc.). You aren’t limited to 128 kbps DRM’ed AAC. Also, most songs cost about .09 – .11 cents.
Screw iTunes, screw artist royalites, and screw all you self-righteous, sanctimonious dipsh*ts.
Lois GriffinWhy don’t you go back to the doctor to suck the fat out of your head?
Peter GriffinMaybe I will! And then I’ll put it on my feet and skate on Paul Bunyan’s giant skillet to cook his flapjacks!
Lois GriffinThat doesn’t make any sense.
Peter GriffinIt doesn’t have to. I’m beautiful!
Buy your music from AllofMP3.com, then send the difference from 99¢ a song to the individual artists.
SCREW THE RIAA
To the artists, make better contracts that give you choice and more profits, not to some greedy, dope snorting record label sleezeball.
I wonder if, when the site is finally taken down by the Russian Government, they will seize the names and information of the people who purchased the music and give it to the RIAA or others? You may be buying cheap (stolen) music now, and a big legal headache later.
“When I use allofmp3, I purchase what I want in whatever codec and whatever bitrate I want. In particular I purchase cd quality music in the AAC format.”
I won’t delve into the legal issue at all, but I did think about using allofmp3 because of the ability to choose codec and bitrate. Wish anyone else did something that cool! I might actually buy legal downloads of all my music.
OK, I will get into part of this, re: this exchange
“In Russia the legal retail price for a cd is around $2.00 to $3.00 per unit. Allofmp3 is charging around $2.00 for a cd quality product. They collect royalties and pay to ROMS. If the record companies refuse to take the money collected on their behalf that’s their business.”
Ah, so the hell with the artists then is it? You don’t find it even remotely immoral to screw the hard-working artists who created the music in the first place?”
It seems to me the first person is saying that the artists should be getting just as much. If allofmp3 isn’t distributing royalties, that has nothing to do with the business model (distributing without permission, but paying royalties) – it has to do with illegal business practices.
Where is the evidence that allofmp3 is NOT distributing fees? I’m not saying they DO, but the legal issue as I read it is not about paying fees, but whether they asked permission.
Again, the legal issue is simple – they aren’t paying fees in a way that’s accepted. Setting up some bogus “fund” that has all the “fees” that they claim they owe is not legit.
Secondly, where are these tracks coming from? Do they rip them on their own? They certainly aren’t being provided by the record companies. How do you know what you’re getting? The bit rate might be 500kbps, but is the quality any better, or is it just upsampled from some 128kbps download off the internet?
And thirdly, I may be a sanctimonious dipshit (go ahead and say it, brother, there ain’t no shitty censorship mechanism here… this is MDN), but at least I’m not kidding myself.
Again, Chris, I’ll ask: why are you paying for the downloads at all? If your attitude is truly “screw iTunes, screw artist royalties…” then why pay anyone for the downloads? Why choose to reward some Russian scammers when you could just download for free on P2P?
The only reason I can imagine for anyone doing so, is that they think they are somehow doing it “legally” or “morally”. And clearly you’re deluding yourself if you think that either is the case. As already demonstrated, this will be proven illegal, and morally the artists aren’t getting any. So what’s your excuse? You like their website?
So screw you too, Chris. You and your “everything should be cheap or free because I want it to be” mentality. You make me sick, and I hope you and your VISA and your name, address and phone number are in some Russian Mafia database for their future misuse.
I use All of MP3 pretty much exclusively. I pay for the albums I download which a lot of people don’t. Just because 2-3 dollars is the going rate in Russia the royalties are still paid. Musicians have always been screwed by the record companies. Artists typically earn 7-10% of their income from albums sold through the labels. They get a lot more through ticket sales and merchandise than they do from the record companies. By making music cheap to aquire, m ore people hear the bands and buy more tickets to watch the concerts. The band wins, the fans win and the only real casualties are the record companies who have been ignoring amazing talent for years and forcing you all to listen to Britney and Justin.
blucaso,
I would imagine allofmp3.com has purchased at least 1 set of CD’s for everything they sell. It would be easy to rip those CD’s into the various formats and compression rates they offer.
I don’t know why anyone would leave a trail when stealing music. P2P and allofmp3.com leaves a trail. All you need to do is join a subscription service for 2 or 3 months and Audio Hijack all you can eat from your own computer. It means using Windows for 3 months but there is a price to pay for everything.
Besides, if artists didn’t want to be ripped off, they wouldn’t sign with The Labels. They know they are going to get screwed, who am I to disappoint them?
And the sound quality is every bit as good as what you get from itunes, you can get better, too if you are willing to pay a bit more and wait a little while longer to download. They’ve had my credit card number for about six months now and nothing bad has happened to me. Touch wood!
I didn’t know you can choose codec, now that’s cool! I just find it absurd that Apple is currently offering something that is more expensive – but also with lesser quality. The sound quality at the iTMS is holding back most of my purchases. The average pop or electronic sound production might sound okay-ish – but classic, soundtracks, jazz or anything with a broader spectrum sounds limited IMHO.
I havent spent more than maybe 200€ on the iTMS so far. I just find it annoying not having liner notes, musicians, additional infos, lyrics etc. When I do buy something its not because its cheap or anything but because its convenient. also if the music sounded better I would gladly pay more. I didnt know there were download services like this one offering higher quality of the music. Does anyone know if someone is offering 192kbps encoded music including liner notes etc. ?
Which reminds me – where can you get a good pre-paid credit card (without a bunch of additional fees and surchages)?
Blucaso –
“Again, Chris, I’ll ask: why are you paying for the downloads at all? If your attitude is truly “screw iTunes, screw artist royalties…” then why pay anyone for the downloads?”
Becuase P2P sucks in comparison to allofmp3. I can get what I want right away without having to search around a P2P network, having to wait for my download to begin, and then not knowing whether or not the file you get is going to be the song I was looking for or of a great quality. I don’t mind paying a pittance for convenience.
“So screw you too, Chris. You and your “everything should be cheap or free because I want it to be” mentality. You make me sick, and I hope you and your VISA and your name, address and phone number are in some Russian Mafia database for their future misuse.”
First off, DIPSHIT, you don’t enter ANY of that information into a Russian DB. Second, I have been a professional musician for over 23 years – both performing and recording. People like YOU make me sick because you don’t have a fucking clue as to how the recording industry works or how musicians are compensated.
People like YOU make me sick because you don’t have a fucking clue as to how the recording industry works or how musicians are compensated.
You’re absolutely right, Chris.
Some of cliche comments on Russia are pathetic.
The point is on July 1st new law will be active and that site will be immediately illigetimate and will be shut down unless it will not re-arrange with IFPI members.
Me Likey MDN: If not for the artists, THERE IS NO MUSIC.
Oh, Jeebus Frickin Christ on a bagel! Use your hand waving to put your hair out. Then tell the person nearest you to slap you for me.
blucaso: Let’s say for example that I stole your car, drove it around for a week, and then offered you $40. I put it in an envelope in your mailbox, and explained that it was payment for gas, maintenance, and rental for use of your vehicle.
You have no clue what you’re talking about. Where is the wear on the music? What maintenance costs? What use is lost from the property owner? What would you return?
they’re still stealing, you’re still stealing
Technically, the US resident would be violating local copyright laws while the Russian business is simply complying with its local copyright laws. Calling it stealing muddles the subject. And it makes you look like you’re being self-righteous.
In other words, we’re not running a real, legal business, but no one has proved that we’re doing something illegal – yet.
Yeah, welcome to the real world, Pollyanna.
Chris: “First off, DIPSHIT, you don’t enter ANY of that information into a Russian DB.” Well I wouldn’t know, because I don’t steal music. But thanks for the info. And thanks for letting me know what you’re really paying for – the convenience. That would have been my first guess. It’s what made Napster Mark I so popular (at the time) – the convenience of so much music in one place.
“Second, I have been a professional musician for over 23 years – both performing and recording. People like YOU make me sick because you don’t have a fucking clue as to how the recording industry works or how musicians are compensated.”
Let’s see. You are a professional musician for 23 years and you justify stealing music? You are worse than a thief. You are a cannibal. You eat your own.
It just so happens I do know a little bit about these things, but that’s neither here nor there. The fact is, if someone takes your music, without your permission, and sells it, and offers you a few pennies per track (again, without asking your permission or negotiating the rate with you) then what exactly do you feel is fair about the deal?
Now if your argument is that any exposure is good exposure because it increases your audience and sells tickets and merchandise I’ll listen. But that isn’t what you said above.
You said “Screw iTunes, screw artist royalites, and screw all you self-righteous, sanctimonious dipsh*ts.”
Well since you ARE an artist (although apparently not a very bright one) you just basically are screwing yourself. Good luck with that, Chris.
effwerd: “You have no clue what you’re talking about. Where is the wear on the music? What maintenance costs? What use is lost from the property owner? What would you return?”
You misunderstood my analogy. My analogy didn’t relate to the physical wear and tear. It related to the PERMISSION TO USE SOMETHING OF YOURS and the idea that taking it would be ok if I dropped a little cash in a box and told you that the cash was there to compensate you for using your stuff without asking you. As if that makes everything ok.
The “automobile” was just a convenient, easy to relate to example.
You continue: “Calling it stealing muddles the subject. And it makes you look like you’re being self-righteous.”
Perhaps so. Maybe it’s just “avoiding reality through technicalities.” Truth is, the people who say they use AofMP3 because they “pay for music, unlike many others” sound just as sanctimonious, and they’re kidding themselves to boot. If you’re paying “11 to 13 cents” a track (as someone mentioned above) then how much do you think the artists are getting? You think bandwidth is free? Credit card processing fees don’t exist?
Sorry, this sounds sanctimonious and full of it to boot.
“Yeah, welcome to the real world, Pollyanna.” – You’re certainly entitled to your world-view, man. I’m certainly a realist. I just like putting forth my opinion sometimes too. Even if it’s apparently not very popular with the masses, who all want to believe that everything is better if it’s cheaper.
You know, that’s why I use a Mac. Because I prefer quality, and I prefer to pay people who work hard and produce something of quality. Whether that’s music, or computers, or shareware. I guess you guys all don’t pay shareware fees or buy software either. Because only “suckers” pay for software, right?
I guess it’s a good thing there are a few of us “pollyannas” left to pay the people who make the stuff for all you freeloaders. You’re welcome, assholes.
You misunderstood my analogy.
Arguing by analogy requires that the analogy be apt. I understood what you were trying to say but the analogy is flawed, for the very reasons I imply with my questions. Your analogy uses a physical object. The harm in your example is quantifiable and verifiable. The harm in using intellectual property without consent is not quantifiable or verifiable. You can’t draw parallels between the two because the circumstances are not parallel despite superficial similarities.
I guess it’s a good thing there are a few of us “pollyannas” left to pay the people who make the stuff for all you freeloaders. You’re welcome, assholes.
Hey, I don’t even use AllofMP3.com. I use music blogs, eMusic and iTunes. I also go see musicians at performances and give them my money directly.
I prefer to pay people who work hard and produce something of quality.
There you go sounding self-righteous again. If the whole “sharing is stealing” crowd would stop being so prescriptive and used all that effort toward adaptation, this problem would’ve been solved years ago. Instead all we get is this arrogant sense of entitlement.
Well, that’s what I thought you might say, but I wanted you to say it.
You’re saying that if I use something of yours that isn’t “physical” and where the loss of it isn’t “substantial” then there’s no harm done. It’s not “quantifiable”, as you say.
Let’s use another example, then. Let’s say that I hacked into your computer and just so happened to find nude pictures of your wife that you had taken for your own uses. And let’s say I uploaded them and sold them online to anyone who wanted them. Same deal, I send you a check for a few dollars to let you know that I’m being fair and compensating you for your “intellecutal property”.
There, now there’s no loss of use to you, no wear and tear, and no physical object. Is the harm quantifiable or verifiable?
Again, the analogy isn’t perfect of course. But come on, the point is still valid. What’s yours is yours and you should have a say in when/where/how it is used. Whether it’s physical property, intellectual property, etc.
I do want to be clear, despite all this ranting – I’m not a proponent of the over-the-top DMCA, I hate the RIAA and their stupid “intimidation” tactics, I think record labels suck and screw artists, and I wish artists would (as you suggest) adapt to the changing world around them. Frankly the whole thing has been quite amusing at times.
By the way, the “arrogant sense of entitlement” – who did you think feels this? Because unless I’m reading it wrong, you think I represent that viewpoint?
Sorry, but it’s the “everything should be free” crowd that feels entitled to whatever they want, whenever they want. Mass consumerism gone wild. I do agree with you that working toward solutions is more productive than ranting, I just hate to see people being deluded (or deluding themselves) that by buying music in a way that is obviously “Too good to be true” that they are doing the honorable thing. I can’t help it, I just want to clue them in (or call them out).
And if defending my position and having an opinion sounds self-righteous, I guess so be it. I don’t FEEL self-righteous, although it’s hard not to sound that way in text form. But I do like to encourage people to think about the consequences of their actions. It’s so easy in the impersonal internet age to allow the interface to eradicate the sense of others and live in a solipsistic environment.
Damn, too many big words and there I sound all freakin’ high and mighty again. What can I say? Sorry, it’s just the way I talk.
And for what it’s worth, I’m glad you don’t kid yourself. By the way, what is a music blog? You’ve lost me there, I’m not much of a blog person.
“If the whole “sharing is stealing” crowd would stop being so prescriptive and used all that effort toward adaptation, this problem would’ve been solved years ago.”
– If the whole “sharing is not stealing” crowd would respect copyrights, the problem would’ve been solved years ago.
Let’s say that I hacked into your computer and just so happened to find nude pictures of your wife that you had taken for your own uses. And let’s say I uploaded them and sold them online to anyone who wanted them. Same deal, I send you a check for a few dollars to let you know that I’m being fair and compensating you for your “intellecutal property”.
My wife’s investment in protecting the use of her likeness and image is a privacy issue, not an intellectual property issue.
The harm you do to my wife by invading our privacy is direct and aggressively hurtful. The damage can be quantified and verified by the social and psychological repercussions of your crime.
Now if you were talking about modeling shots that you had previously received permission to use within a limited scope then went outside that scope without proper authorization but with token monetary compensation, then you might have an example.
What’s yours is yours and you should have a say in when/where/how it is used. Whether it’s physical property, intellectual property, etc.
This is an ideal. This is the sense of entitlement I mentioned. The idea that the music industry should receive any and all theoretical money that might have been possibly remitted to them for abstract and fluid “property” is a logistical pipe dream. Instead of futilely trying to shape the world to their liking and favor, they should work at competing in the market and securing what reasonable guarantees they can from the legitimate markets. Such guarantees should not imply suing 90 year old grannies either. Unless granny is reaping substantial reward for her activity.
Also, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be anti-piracy laws on the books. I’m just saying that they need to be based on demonstrable and significant harm.
Also, I am averse to international institutions that promote the adoption of specific legislation in order to participate while offering no sacrifice of its own. Contracts and agreements should fairly distribute risk and reward. One-sided contracts are for dupes. There should be no reason why a sovereign nation should be coerced into adopting Western IP legislation simply as a lubricant for market penetration.
By the way, what is a music blog?
It’s just a blog where music is featured instead of workaday malaise. I check out about 7 to 10 of them but I’ve found 3Hive is best suited to my tastes.
And if defending my position and having an opinion sounds self-righteous […]
It’s not about defending the position and having an opinion. It’s about trying to bolster your opinion with insinuations of superiority. “I would prefer to pay for quality.” “You are stealing.” “You’re deluding yourself.” That sort of thing.
If the whole “sharing is not stealing” crowd would respect copyrights, the problem would’ve been solved years ago.
If only people would stop killing. If only people would stop stealing. If only people would stop taking drugs. Any ideal that depends on every single human adopting a very specific behavior is a pipe dream. Meanwhile, my prescription requires only that capitalists properly analyze their market position and capitalize on it.
Your bullshit requires that all people become saints like you. Mine requires that capitalists get to work, like they should.
Thanks for playing, though.
I’m with Blucaso: The folks who produce things that enrich our lives deserve to be compensated and supported. It’s simple – we stop supporting, and the things we enjoy go away, whether it’s music, software, or any other intellectual property. And, if these do not go away, then those of us honest enough to pay end up paying higher prices to make up for what the freeloaders refuse to pay. Freeloaders aren’t stealing from artists so much as they’re stealing from all of us who do pay. This is the practical understanding on which civilized societies are based. From this springs the moral stipulation that freeloading is wrong.
From this point of view, use of allofmp3 seems morally unjustified and destructive to our cultural resources IF one assumption proves true, and that is that the artists are screwed even worse by allofmp3 than they are by the record companies. I, for one, don’t know if this assumption is correct. But, I do know that buying the illusion of propriety for pennies per CD seems like a powerful temptation to shortchange artists.
Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re going to find out definitively whether allofmp3 is less supportive of artists than the record companies. Clearly, the record companies are one of two evils here. But, in the presence of doubt about allofmp3, and in the absence of a better solution, I will choose to buy from the record companies simply because I know that the artists at least get something. If I could buy direct from the artists, I’d do so at every opportunitity, even if it meant paying more than the record companies charge.
I don’t know the answer to this controversy. But, I urge those of you who care about music to do what you think will best support the musicians. In the end, we’ll all benefit.
“Your bullshit requires that all people become saints like you.”
– Ah, no. It requires a set of guidelines in order to protect society. It does not require perfection, merely the acknowledgement that guidelines are necessary for a society to function smoothly, efficiently, and productively.
“Instead of futilely trying to shape the world to their liking and favor, they should work at competing in the market and securing what reasonable guarantees they can from the legitimate markets. Such guarantees should not imply suing 90 year old grannies either. Unless granny is reaping substantial reward for her activity.”
– I agree with that sentiment, but it is not a valid justification for copyright infringement. Maybe someday in the future the market and the technology will permit the open market competition that you envision, but that time is not now. If the RIAA were to turn a blind eye to illegal file-sharing, they would in effect be legitimizing it, which could destroy the music economy altogether. Currently music artists rely too much on records sales to allow those sales to suffer a major disturbance. Maybe someday things will be different.
“Also, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be anti-piracy laws on the books. I’m just saying that they need to be based on demonstrable and significant harm.”
– Unfortunately that ideal is quite unrealistic in this situation. Lost sales is a very real harm, but it’s not readily demonstrable. Or are you suggesting that everyone should be permitted to copy any and every song they desire without compensating the artist, and that this does not produce any amount of harm whatsoever?
Effwerd, you have the right idea in some respects and I agree with you. Capitalists should stop crying and suing and start aggressively responding to market circumstances.
But there’s a big caveat there – and that is that in order for capitalism (which I am a big fan of..) to work, it assumes that there is at least a reasonable foundation of the “rule of law”. Not (as Realist points out) perfection and saints, but that people at least generally behave in predictable, lawful ways.
When that basic level of humanity breaks down… when people no longer believe that any of the rules apply to them as long as they can personally justify their own actions… when there is no sense of anything beyond “self”… then capitalism will fail just as surely as anything else will.
And my biggest fear is that as these societal boundaries continue to get pushed, the biggest reaction will be the Ultra-Radical response. More government, more controls, more laws, more lawsuits and lawyers, more prisons, etc.
Effwerd seems to want to lump me in with the “more controls” crowd, which couldn’t be further from the truth. You’ll notice I haven’t pushed once in any of my posts for record company lockdowns, government actions, or “suing grannies”. I have pushed for individual common sense and personal responsibility.
And far from believing in some utopian society where everyone acts like saints, I believe that what is really important is more people trying to point out harmful behavior. Majikthize has it right on here – these actions are not harmful to record companies only. They are most directly punishing the people at the ends of the system – the consumers who are honest (or in Effwerd’s world – less capitalistic and resourceful), and the artists.
Now I agree with Eff – the artists should be aggressively direct marketing instead of relying on the “old” dinosaur methods of distribution. And the record companies made their bed, they really should have figured this out by now and they keep cutting their own throats. But that doesn’t make wrong into right. And that’s my only real point.
I’m one of those people who doesn’t believe that every single thing can be boiled down to moral relativism. There are things that are simply selfish, greedy, hurtful, or even evil.
And yes, if that means calling it stealing, I will. If that means calling out someone who wants to put on rose colored glasses and a halo and pretend they’re doing the right thing, I call it. And believe me, I’ve been called on it too. What’s good for the goose…
I certainly won’t pretend to be better than anybody else. I’m no saint, I’m no judge. But on those rare occasions where I feel like I have a viable or useful opinion, I refuse to be shouted down just because it’s unpopular to say what I’m saying.
And of course by now no one’s still reading this thread, but thanks anyway to all for a good spirited debate. I wish there were more like this on MDN.
Don’t give up yet. Heh. I’ll have time to comment in about an hour.
You too, realist. I’m not done with you either
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />.
It does not require perfection, merely the acknowledgement that guidelines are necessary for a society to function smoothly, efficiently, and productively.
Your distortion of my original comment required ideal circumstances, if only “sharers” would stop stealing music, the problem would’ve been solved years ago. Not everyone will acknowledge such guidelines. Legislation may pass to delineate expectations and redress, and people will still go along their merry way doing whatever the hell they can get away with. “If only people wouldn’t steal…” is as pollyanna as thinking abstinence-only sex ed will eradicate premarital and teenage sex. Or “Just say no” will end drug use.
If the RIAA were to turn a blind eye to illegal file-sharing, they would in effect be legitimizing it, which could destroy the music economy altogether.
That’s just hyperbole.
Maybe someday in the future the market and the technology will permit the open market competition that you envision, but that time is not now.
This was in response to my comment:
[…] they should work at competing in the market and securing what reasonable guarantees they can from the legitimate markets.
Why do you say this? Why can’t the mainstream music industry compete with a bunch of ragtag pirates? Why can’t they lobby for legislation? Isn’t that what they’re doing already? Or do you think their spurious lawsuits and the WTO have actually lessened IP piracy to any significant degree?
Lost sales is a very real harm
That’s debatable. The equation has too many unknowable variables. How many P2P users would’ve purchased the product without access to the P2P network? Does P2P sharing spur legitimate purchases? Are “lost sales” actually due to P2P? Or music sharing in general?
For example: I recently found Star Witness by Neko Case online. I liked the song enough to search out more of her stuff. I loved a lot of it and ended up buying 28 songs. Where is the harm in the initial file sharing?
but it’s not readily demonstrable.
This is the problem. It all relies on speculative harm and arbitrary redress. No harm is proven but the 100K per violation is already set. It’s just a fact for fluid and abstract “property” that you can only do so much to “secure” such a monopoly.
Or are you suggesting that everyone should be permitted to copy any and every song they desire without compensating the artist, and that this does not produce any amount of harm whatsoever?
Your question goes to an extreme to try to invalidate any point near that extreme but that’s a fallacious argument. Simply because I can accept that I will not receive all possible revenue for my art does not mean that I feel “everyone should be permitted to copy any and every song they desire without compensating the artist.”
Capitalists should stop crying and suing and start aggressively responding to market circumstances [but this] assumes that there is at least a reasonable foundation of the “rule of law”.
That’s fine. I think even with the level of file sharing and real piracy, the rule of law stands. Why do you think iTunes has become so successful?
And this is my original contention with your opposition to allofmp3.com. This is a company that is complying with Russian law and yet you dismiss them as criminals. The rule of law is already established and the company is legitimate. Russia is a sovereign nation. Sure, you might not respect their sovereignty but that doesn’t make your position valid.
And my biggest fear is that as these societal boundaries continue to get pushed, the biggest reaction will be the Ultra-Radical response. More government, more controls, more laws, more lawsuits and lawyers, more prisons, etc.
Um, like the last ten years?
Effwerd seems to want to lump me in with the “more controls” crowd […]
That’s not true. I lumped you in with the “sharing is stealing” crowd.
They are most directly punishing the people at the ends of the system – the consumers who are honest (or in Effwerd’s world – less capitalistic and resourceful), and the artists.
See, I think this type of thinking is overly sensitive. Any government regulation that creates extra costs for businesses will simply get worked into their product price. This would mean that all government regulation of business is direct punishment of the citizenry. It’s a fine laissez-faire position. But that would make you more free market friendly than I am.
And what’s with that parenthetical comment? Where did I imply that I believe “honest consumers” = “less capitalistic and resourceful”?
I’m one of those people who doesn’t believe that every single thing can be boiled down to moral relativism. There are things that are simply selfish, greedy, hurtful, or even evil.
See, I think denial of moral relativism is a completely selfish position. And as it applies to copyright violations of music, of all things, it seems rather melodramatic.
“”If only people wouldn’t steal…” is as pollyanna as thinking abstinence-only sex ed will eradicate premarital and teenage sex. Or “Just say no” will end drug use. “
– That may be true, but a partially effective law is still better than no law or expectation whatsoever. Legalizing drugs is not necessarily an appropriate response to the impossibility of completely eradicating drug use.
“Or do you think their spurious lawsuits and the WTO have actually lessened IP piracy to any significant degree? “
– Did I imply that? Either way, regardless of the effect of the lawsuits, it is still important for the music owners to protect their copyrights, much like authors and fan fiction.
” For example: I recently found Star Witness by Neko Case online. I liked the song enough to search out more of her stuff. I loved a lot of it and ended up buying 28 songs. Where is the harm in the initial file sharing? “
– It could also be argued that the only reason that the 28 songs were purchased at all is because you know that file sharing is illegal. If it weren’t illegal and you were able to get the same quality songs for free, why pay for them at all? Personally, I’m too cynical to think that the vast majority of people will pay for things that they can legally get for free just because they appreciate the artist.
” This is the problem. It all relies on speculative harm and arbitrary redress.”
– Interestingly, the same can be said about your earlier response to an analogy. “The harm you do to my wife by invading our privacy is direct and aggressively hurtful. The damage can be quantified and verified by the social and psychological repercussions of your crime.”
Let’s say that the hacker never shared the stolen photos, and you never knew they were stolen. Your wife would suffer no harm because she would never know that her privacy was invaded, but that surely doesn’t make the theft permissible.
“Your question goes to an extreme to try to invalidate any point near that extreme but that’s a fallacious argument. Simply because I can accept that I will not receive all possible revenue for my art does not mean that I feel “everyone should be permitted to copy any and every song they desire without compensating the artist.” “
– I admit I was using a slippery slope argument, but it’s still valid nonetheless. By not taking some action they are risking the threat of larger problems. Condoning copyright violations not only threatens their ability to pursue other copyright infringements (see fanfiction), it is essentially saying that anyone is permitted to violate them, regardless of whether they actually do so or not. So yes, by saying that it is allowable for some people to violate copyrights, you are in effect saying that everyone is permitted to.
Accepting that some revenue will be lost and protecting one’s copyrights and future interests are not mutually exclusive ideas.
I think even with the level of file sharing and real piracy, the rule of law stands. Why do you think iTunes has become so successful?
I think that it’s successful for the same reason that AllofMP3 is so successful – it’s convenient, it’s priced within expectations of its consumer market.
The ability for most consumers to bypass 99¢ singles in favor of 11¢ quasi-legal or FREE illegal singles with absolutely no qualms about doing so is why I think that iTunes is not even more extraordinarily successful than it is. It’s by far the best, easiest and most intelligent interface I’ve seen, and yet it’s still an also-ran to the number of people downloading freebies by the hundreds.
This is a company that is complying with Russian law and yet you dismiss them as criminals. The rule of law is already established and the company is legitimate. Russia is a sovereign nation. Sure, you might not respect their sovereignty but that doesn’t make your position valid.
First, I don’t know enough about Russian law to say that I believe they are operating within it. I do know that when their own defense is “No one has shown this to be illegal”… well, that’s the old non-denial denial, isn’t it? That’s the sound of the Cheshire cat grinning away in his quasi-corporeal state, knowing that he’s protected behind a government and system that doesn’t care enough to do anything to him.
Look, child labor sweatshops in China or elsewhere may be operating within the laws of their country, perfectly legitimately. But that doesn’t mean we should not hold them to a higher standard and refuse to buy from them or their downstream suppliers when we find out about them. There’s “legal”, and then there’s “good”. I know, melodramatic again.
Um, like the last ten years? Yes. Even worse. Far worse. I imagine a society where the Ultra-religious, ultra-conservative zealots rival any foreign terrorist operation in their belief that they are the only ones who see “Right” and “Truth” and will do anything to uphold that vision.
All zealotry, no matter what its basis, when it overwhelms logic is a dangerous thing.
I lumped you in with the “sharing is stealing” crowd. And here’s a revelation. I don’t disagree with sharing. I don’t mind sharing my music, or others sharing theirs with me. Often I end up buying my own copies of the very things I’ve been burned for free by my friends. That is exactly the kind of capitalism you talk about, and I agree with it.
But that’s not what’s happening here, is it?
LOL! I hit the character limit! I didn’t even know there was a character limit, but I’m proud to report that’s it is 5000 characters per post, and I tried to submit 5164. 😀
To continue:
See, I think this type of thinking is overly sensitive. Any government regulation that creates extra costs for businesses will simply get worked into their product price. This would mean that all government regulation of business is direct punishment of the citizenry. It’s a fine laissez-faire position. But that would make you more free market friendly than I am.
Well, you’ve got me there. I believe that less regulation is better in general. I believe that the IRS and Social Security and Medicare and all that are a pox on our Capitalism. I am a libertarian at heart, despite a lot of conflicting problems with that world-view. There’s not really a good answer for it all, is there?
But I’d like to hear someone convincingly argue that the Income Tax is not a punishment of the citizenry and its businesses. That’s a whole ‘nother topic, though.
And what’s with that parenthetical comment? Where did I imply that I believe “honest consumers” = “less capitalistic and resourceful”?
Well, you basically assume that the companies facing pirates aren’t resourceful enough to be good capitalists. Ergo, the pirates are winning because they are resourceful and capitalistic.
Following that logic to its natural conclusion, any consumer paying for music isn’t resourceful and capitalistic enough to come out ahead in the consumer game, i.e. they are wasting their money when they could be getting it for free.
I’m not saying you believe it, but by taking the first position, you essentially are taking the second, and ergo endorsing the third.
See, I think denial of moral relativism is a completely selfish position. And as it applies to copyright violations of music, of all things, it seems rather melodramatic.
It may be melodramatic. Certainly the exercise of the argument itself has exceeded my personal level of concern about the topic that started it. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy the exercise. Keeps the brain alive. Always good to test one another’s boundaries and capabilities. On this much, at least, I feel certain we agree, or you wouldn’t still be here.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
As to denial of moral relativism being a selfish position?
Perhaps it’s a selfless selfish position. Pushing the idea is purely a selfish thing, in that it certainly isn’t going to make anyone who is a moral relativist feel better.
On the other hand, pushing the idea certainly has no personal benefits to me, I can only hope that someone might consider it, and perhaps be more considerate of their own world-view at some point. So selfless as well.
Personally, I’m too cynical to think that the vast majority of people will pay for things that they can legally get for free just because they appreciate the artist.
Yes, you are too cynical. Regardless of what moral stance an individual might take, the average consumer will more likely choose the white market over the black market. This is how mass market consumerism works so well.
Let’s say that the hacker never shared the stolen photos, and you never knew they were stolen. Your wife would suffer no harm because she would never know that her privacy was invaded, but that surely doesn’t make the theft permissible.
But my wife and I would have suffered no harm and lost no real property. Permissible or not, there is no circumstance there to fight – your example is the tree falling in the forrest. At least blucaso’s version had actual grievances that needed to be resolved.
Accepting that some revenue will be lost and protecting one’s copyrights and future interests are not mutually exclusive ideas.
Well, there you have it. That’s basically what I’ve been saying all along. There is a time and a place to defend copyrights – against real piracy. Accepting that individuals might share music via the internet is not condoning copyright violation. You don’t have to defend your copyright in order to retain your rights.
Look, child labor sweatshops in China or elsewhere may be operating within the laws of their country, perfectly legitimately. But that doesn’t mean we should not hold them to a higher standard and refuse to buy from them or their downstream suppliers when we find out about them. There’s “legal”, and then there’s “good”. I know, melodramatic again.
No, in context, that’s all well and good. But the problem here is using commerce as coercion. Rather than evangelize out one side of your mouth (not you, you in general) about how global economic partners should behave while the other side coos them for their market isn’t much better than sweat shop child labor as far as I’m concerned.
But that’s not what’s happening here, is it?
As I said, many of the relevant variables are thus far unknowable. You can take realist’s jaded view and see all people who use P2P as unrepentant deadbeats who are only looking for free shit no matter what the quality of service or product. Or you can see them as misguided music enthusiasts who might rather use legitimate means if only they were available.
I believe that less regulation is better in general.
Yes, another thread. I’m sure there will be a few political MDN stories closer to November.
basically assume that the companies facing pirates aren’t resourceful enough to be good capitalists. […] any consumer paying for music isn’t resourceful and capitalistic enough to come out ahead in the consumer game […] I’m not saying you believe it, but by taking the first position, you essentially are taking the second, and ergo endorsing the third.
I did not define any essential character of these capitalists or consumers. The industry may have in the past failed to confront the market correctly but that doesn’t make them “bad capitalists.” You can be a fine capitalist and have no grand vision. And consumers who consume without forethought is one of the corner stones of American capitalism. Nonetheless, your progression is still a string of assumptions.
As to denial of moral relativism being a selfish position?
When you say “I know what is right and wrong and it doesn’t matter what you think is right and wrong if it doesn’t fit within my framework,” that is a selfish position.
“Yes, you are too cynical”
– Um, you might want to read my statement that you responded to again. When comparing legal options, the cheaper option in many cases is the more popular option.
“Regardless of what moral stance an individual might take, the average consumer will more likely choose the white market over the black market.”
– Interestingly, P2P networks were far more popular before the lawsuits appeared. This suggests that either people thought the file sharing was legal, or they didn’t care whether it was legal or not. The people that belong in the former category shows that the average consumer may not actually know what is legal. In that case, for the consumer there is no white market/black market choice to be made. For the latter category, they have obviously already chosen the black market.
“But my wife and I would have suffered no harm and lost no real property. Permissible or not, there is no circumstance there to fight – your example is the tree falling in the forrest. At least blucaso’s version had actual grievances that needed to be resolved. “
– Then you missed the point. Laws do not depend entirely on demonstrable and significant harm. Regarding the analogy, it is still illegal to steal photos whether the victim was aware of the theft or not.
“Accepting that individuals might share music via the internet is not condoning copyright violation.”
– Except that it is. It is essentially saying, “go ahead and do it because we’re not going to do anything about it.”
“You don’t have to defend your copyright in order to retain your rights.”
– An author needs to defend his copyright or else he loses it. Granted, this isn’t the same situation, but the principle still applies. Allowing some copyright violations makes it harder to pursue others.
“You can take realist’s jaded view and see all people who use P2P as unrepentant deadbeats who are only looking for free shit no matter what the quality of service or product. Or you can see them as misguided music enthusiasts who might rather use legitimate means if only they were available.”
– Strawman anyone? In any case, both of your descriptions do exist, but they are the extremes. Although, if it is true that they are all misguided music enthusiasts who might rather use legitimate means if only they were available, now that legitimate means are available, why aren’t they using them?
Actually, denial of moral relativism doesn’t necessarily imply that I know what’s right and what’s wrong, only that I’m saying there are definitively things that are “Right” and “Wrong”, and that these things are in some way self-evident and not subject to individual, personal world-views.
And realist said exactly what I would have said – P2P should have virtually disappeared overnight once millions of tracks showed up cheaply in iTunes and other stores, but they didn’t. And even though it disagrees with my personal world-view that most people, as Eff put it “will more likely choose the white market over the black market” – that didn’t seem to be the case here.
Look at internet porn, just as an example. How much do you think is paid for, and how much is shared for free? If there’s no compelling incentive to use the white market, and/or there’s no hint of a threat of punishment for using the black market, the black market will win.
Now if the black market is pushed to the fringes, making it cheap but inconvenient and risky, then yes, most people will choose the white market. That’s why more speakers are sold at Circuit City than out of the backs of vans in parking lots.
Unfortunately for my “ideal” view (that people are generally going to do the right thing) the weighing of risk is probably consideration #1, the convenience is probably #2, and the “feeling that I’m doing the right thing” is probably a distant #3 for most.
And while I found the P2P lawsuits to be a ridiculous, embarassing (for the record companies) farce of an action, distasteful in the extreme, even I can’t deny the seeming effect they had.
But this is exactly why the “seeming legality” of AllofMP3″ is something that the record companies should fight. Because it convinces those that won’t download for free anymore to think they’re now doing it “right”.
This kind of goes back to the old axiom – If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
By the way… this has been making the news rounds the last few days:
http://www.mp3.com/news/stories/4830.html