Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

BPI Sue AllOfMp3 In British Courts 433

Posted by Hemos from the just-try-and-make-it-stick dept.
Ckwop writes "AllOfMp3 is getting sued by the British Phonographic Industry. From the article:
"We have maintained all along that this site is illegal and that the operator of the site is breaking UK law by making sound recordings available to UK-based customers without the permission of copyright owners. Now we will have the opportunity to demonstrate in the UK courts the illegality of this site."
" The issue of course will be whether any injunction will be enforceable or not.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BPI Sue AllOfMp3 In British Courts More

BPI Sue AllOfMp3 In British Courts

Comments Filter:

  • So they sue.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tehgimpness ( 984446 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @10:52AM (#15650002)
    ... and win, are unable to enforce the verdict and therefore unable to retrieve any of the loss revenue.

    I wonder who will pay the High Court costs of the whole affair. Artists? Perhaps an increase in fees. Consumers? Without a doubt. Shareholders? Nope.

    • Re:So they sue.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @10:55AM (#15650027)
      I wonder who will pay the High Court costs of the whole affair. Artists? Perhaps an increase in fees. Consumers? Without a doubt. Shareholders? Nope.

      Has it ever occurred to you that many artists and consumers are shareholders?
      • Well then, they won't pay AS shareholders, but only by their positions as artists and consumers.

        People in green socks will be shot. People in red shoes will not be shot. If you're wearing green socks with red shoes, you're still on the block.

  • Blowing in the wind (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zane Hopkins ( 894230 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @10:55AM (#15650020) Homepage
    If Russian Courts can't close a russian website how does the BPI expect a British court to manage any better ?

    • Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:5, Funny)

      by oahazmatt ( 868057 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @10:56AM (#15650033) Journal
      If Russian Courts can't close a russian website how does the BPI expect a British court to manage any better ?
      They have a warmer, fuzzier accent. Less "k"s and "z"s per word.

    • Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mpcooke3 ( 306161 ) * on Monday July 03, 2006 @11:15AM (#15650160) Homepage
      I expect they are doing this for two reasons:

      A) To prove that it is illegal in britian.
      B) So that they can increase political pressure on the Russian Government. ie "AllofMp3.com is operating illegally in other countries please bring your laws in line with ours or we'll continue to impose tarrifs on XXX Russian goods." (Obviously this isn't a direct a plea by the MPAA but one made through other governments and possibly made through the WTO as the result of lobbying)

      • Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:5, Informative)

        by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdot@spamgoe ... minus herbivore> on Monday July 03, 2006 @12:30PM (#15650712) Homepage
        AllofMp3.com is operating illegally in other countries please bring your laws in line with ours or we'll continue to impose tarrifs on XXX Russian goods.

        Nyet, tovarish. The amount of gas that we get from Russia puts us in a very weak position when it comes to bargaining with them.

      • I think it'll go something like this:

        BPI: "OK, we've proved in court that you're illegal. Shut that site down or we raise the price of CDs shipped to Russia. Maybe we'll even *stop* shipping CDs to Russia!"

        AllOfMp3: "Oooh, we're scared!! Just kidding!! Go ahead and shut down shipments. People will buy more downloads and we could use the extra revenue..."

      • Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:4, Informative)

        by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @01:44PM (#15651179)

        A) To prove that it is illegal in britian.

        What is the "it" that you are referring to? I don't think anybody thinks it's legal for somebody to set up an AllOfMP3 in the UK that pays license fees in accordance with Russian law.

        And, while the BPI have claimed otherwise [bbc.co.uk] to the press (and had their claims blindly repeated), it is not illegal [opsi.gov.uk] for people in the UK to download from AllOfMP3.

        So what, exactly, are they trying to prove is illegal? One thing nobody thinks is legal anyway, and one thing is actually legal.

    • Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If Russian Courts can't close a russian website...

      ...first you have to provide the state prosecutor with an incentive to prosecute these guys, then you have to provide the judge with an incentive to find them guilty, then you have to provide the cops with an incentive to shut them down, then ...

      Isn't justice wonderful in countres with a low TI corruption rating? [infoplease.com]
    • They have more money than the Russian courts?

    • Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ckwop ( 707653 ) * on Monday July 03, 2006 @11:35AM (#15650302) Homepage

      That's a good point. My brother is a lawyer and I asked his opinion on it. His area of expertise is far removed from intellectual property but I suspect his opinion is still many times that of your average Slashdotter. Here's what he said:

      As far as I understand it, the contract is made in Russia between allofmp3 and the consumer. In such circumstances obtaining a successful judgment is one thing, there's still the question of mutual assistance and enforcement.

      From a political point of view, our courts have continuously refused to extradite Yukos linked Russians back home to face the music, so I see no reason why the Kremlin would suddenly lean on the Russian courts to assist in protecting our interests. It's not as if we already have a great tradition of mutual assistance. Besides, from what I understand, AllOfMp3 isn't breaking any laws in Russia, which makes enforcement even less likely.

      In any event, as I've learned the hard way on numerous occasions, being granted permission to proceed by no means indicates that you'll be successful in the full hearing. Very often a case is granted permission to proceed simply to provide an early opportunity to close the door on a potential cause of action. Don't be surprised if the court lays down a precedent indicating that allofmp3 is actually legal.

      The BPI have a lot of money but cases like this are nothing like OJ. There's no jury in cases like this in the United Kingdom. The law is applied as it is written and this means that even if you have all the money in the world, you can't buy a judgement. There's a good chance they will lose.

      Simon

    • Some possible outcomes:

      1)

      BPI: "Russians bad! Stop Russians!"
      JUDGE: "Russia != UK, bugger off"

      2)

      BPI: "Russians bad!"
      JUDGE: "Indeed."
      BPI: "Stop Russians!"
      JUDGE: "Wish I could mate. But... Russia != UK?"
      BPI: "Customers bad! Stop customers!"
      JUDGE: "Speak to the government if you want that legislation."

    • It's the typical European arrogance.

      There's something in the European attitude today that makes them think that they can control the world by passing laws and making "judgements". It probably stems from having failed to gain complete world domination through 500 years of inflicting their rule on any country they could sail to.

      The Geneva Conventions forbid a country from being subject to any law or treaty it has not passed. Therefore, the UK has begun an illegal court procedure against a Russian firm. We
    • They don't need to get the site shut down. If they can prove that the site is illegal in the UK then they can either go after people who use the site or force UK isp's to block access to the domain for their users.

      • Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:3, Interesting)

        by julesh ( 229690 )
        Or get orders that would allow them to seize any money that is owed to AllOfMp3.com from third parties (E.g. credit card providers) rather than sending it to the original destination.

  • AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:4, Insightful)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @10:56AM (#15650028) Homepage

    I have to say that AllOfMP3 is doing something right, and it shouldn't be ignored by the music industry.

    I've spent about $200 since discovering the site a few months back. That's particularly interesting given that I've probably spent a total of $200 on music *period* in the last five years. I'm now entirely a downloader when it comes to music, and I do not listen, download or accept DRM'ed music or music that's under 320k quality.

    I'm sure I'm not alone. Rather than shutting down AllOfMP3, the industry might want to pay attention to the hundreds of thousands of people who are actually spending on music and haven't done so in years.

    • Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @11:08AM (#15650111)
      How much of the money from allofmp3.com goes to the artists that actually made the music?
      • Q: How much money from AllOfMP3 gets back to musicians? - A: bugger all.

        Q: How much money from iTunes gets back to musicians? - A: bugger all.

        Q: How much money from Napster gets back to musicians? - A: bugger all.

        I'm beginning to see a pattern here.....
      • The "your stealing from the artist" argument is a red herring. Unless your a mega-star, you don't get crap from record sales anyway, and from recent articles, we can conclude that they get even less from legal downloads. Often the artist does not even own the recording. So in that case it is a little like asking how much of that cheeseburger sold down at the dinner goes to the guy flipping burgers at McDonalds.

        • Re:Irrelevent (Score:3, Interesting)

          by NulDevice ( 186369 )
          Hey, I don't get much from my recordings, period. We don't sell that many. We do own the recordings, though, which is quite common with indie labels. But still, we so far haven't made much from iTunes... ...But that $35 check beats the hell out of a russian selling my stuff and not giving me anything.
      • For american artists, none. That's not very different from the RIAA.

    • Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Monday July 03, 2006 @12:35PM (#15650751)
      But what's the right price point?

      Most full albums are selling for less than $2. And it's the content owners that get to set prices, not a web site. That's the problem. And complex international legality and copyright issues aside, they don't really own the content - they're treating themselves as if they're a radio station that lets people download whatever they want, whenever they want, and keep it. This isn't really about "failing business models" or anything of the kind.

      The real question is this, and try to answer it without muddying the waters with talk of copyrights and the thuggery of trade groups: when, how, and under what circumstances are the people who CREATE and/or OWN content allowed to set pricing on their own materials? Remember that record labels, however good or evil you think them, have legitimate ownership of the content within the bounds of society's frameworks on such matters. Other countries and jurisdictions may view the issue differently, but ultimately, there can't be entities that decide it's up to them to undercut others' rights.

      Try to think of yourself as, say, and author, and a new Russian site called AllOfBook.com opens, and sells your book without your permission or that of your publisher for about 1/10 or 1/20 of what it sells for elsewhere. (Yes, I realize that AllOfMP3.com believes it has a license to do this legally, but that is arguably AT MOST valid only in Russia, besides which, let's just forget about that for a moment.) Is what they're doing right? Is that just part of the cost of doing business? "Oh well"? What if they also sold pre-printed hard copies of your book (the essentially equivalent of selling lossless DRMless audio content)? What inherent rights do you think you, or the people who help print, distribute, publicize, and sell your work, have to that work product? Can someone else take it because a legal interpretation in their country allows them to make that decision for you not only in their jurisdiction, but the entire world over?

      Your point that you've spend money on music when you never have before is valid. But would you have spent as much if the full albums were $4? $8? $10? What if $2 isn't enough to sustain the current production models for music? I realize that there's this desire to say "change your business model, then!" or "they'll make up for it in volume, since this is electronic distribution!" But what if they DON'T WANT to sell it for $2? Isn't that their choice, and your choice to not buy it? Do you think AllOfMP3.com, aside from your PERSONAL opinions on the RIAA, BPI, etc., could exist in the US or EU legally? If not, why should people in those places be able to buy from it?

      I suppose at some level you can always argue that you personall disagree with copyright, or with the big record labels and trade groups, or that artists are abused in the current system, or that politicians' hands are in the pockets of the industry, and so on and so on and so on.

      But it still continues to ignore basic thing: even if you erase all that, do you still believe that the creator of a work should have some rights to that work, including the choice of how much to ask in return for that work?

      If you say yes, then we're getting somewhere. If you say no, I don't think this discussion would prove fruitful.

      But if you've said yes, consider:

      - That a society's legal framework may offer protections for such work, and punishments for not following those guidelines.

      - That an artist may elect to involve others in the distribution, sale, promotion, packaging, and so on, of his work, and that those entities may be entitled to protections and remuneration as well.

      - That there may be agreements between nations that attempt to insure that such work isn't sold for orders of magnitude less than what the creator and/or their agents intends to sell it for.

      I could, of course, continue. So I guess the ultimate question is this, and forget about all the trade groups, labels, posturing, "information wants to be free", and all the other crap that always swirls around this debate: does a creator have the right to ask what he or she so desires for compensation?

      (And the followons: If so, what if a site like AllOfMP3.com is too low? Etc.)
      • "Most full albums are selling for less than $2. And it's the content owners that get to set prices, not a web site."

        Okay.. let's LET the artists set their own royalty rate -- note that I said the actual artists, not the mythical "content owners" (which usually means the distributor, ie. RIAA cartel members).

        Just as a starting point, let's set the download royalty at what the artists are SUPPOSED to be paid by their RIAA masters, rather than what they are ACTUALLY paid after all "costs" are deducted (see htt [negativland.com]
    • AllofMp3 is not the consumer's friend.

      There was a period when most of our albums were on allofmp3.

      So you might think I'm just bitter. Well, it goes beyond that.

      They had two EPs of ours available for sale. Interestingly enough, we actually *give* those EPs away free on the internet - internet promotion, viral advertising, all that crap. These EPs were also mp3-only - high quality digital masters do not exist outside my studio.

      So how, exactly, does a consumer paying a premium to download a wav file that wa

  • British Pornographic Industry?! (Score:3, Funny)

    by dreddnott ( 555950 ) <dreddnott@yahoo.com> on Monday July 03, 2006 @10:56AM (#15650031) Homepage
    Who else read the summary as "Pornographic Industry" rather than Phonographic?

    I think I've been on the Internet for far too long...
  • that'll teach those offshore pirates!

    some of these parochial old twits should really get out of the club more often, look around, and see the hansom cabs have been replaced by buses.

  • There's no such thing as bad press... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OlivierB ( 709839 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @10:58AM (#15650044)
    Last time Allofmp3.com went offline for a few days, the traffic surged afterwards as more people were made aware of its existence and joined in on the fun.

    If they weren't able to take down PirateBay **in the EU**, what chance have they got to take down Allofmp3 in Russia?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • A month or so ago when they hit the news was the the first time I'd heard of allofmp3.com and since then I've spent at least $100 there. Before that... I probably hadn't spent $100 on music in the last three years. And I wouldn't have purchased any of the music I did if it weren't for the website.

      I could go out and download it all for free but I'm lazy and it can be a hassle to find good quality mp3s, not to mention a whole CDs worth. Allofmp3.com has it all right there for a really great price.

      If it were

    • "There's no such thing as bad press"

      Particularly not when that press has a picture in the top corner of the article with the caption "the website offers Keane's number one album for less than a pound". That sounds almost like an advert to me.

      If they weren't able to take down PirateBay **in the EU**, what chance have they got to take down Allofmp3 in Russia?

      I'm not sure they're aiming for a takedown. I suspect they're aiming to seize assets, which is much easier.

  • Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MostAwesomeDude ( 980382 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @11:00AM (#15650051) Homepage
    Well, of course they're suing. The global music industry would like to be able to fix prices all over the world, and it's very hard to do so when cheap alternatives like AllOfMP3 are available. Whether or not they actually have a case is irrelevant -- they have the cash necessary to pursue the suit, and will do so in order to maintain shareholder interest and control of the market.

  • So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Funny)

    by damburger ( 981828 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @11:03AM (#15650071)
    "But the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) says the Roms licence is not legitimate and it would not cover consumers in other countries even if it was."

    So you can be sued for breaking licensing laws in the countries where consumers are?

    This is disturbing, because the way the internet works is that its like a load of tubes (not trucks) and some of these connect different countries. So you could be sued for publishing something on the internet if its illegal in any country where it can be read, in theory.

    • the way the internet works is that its like a load of tubes (not trucks)

      You owe me a new keyboard, preferbably wireless with an LCD, did phantom ever come out with the full lcd keyboard?
    • I believe the objection is rooted in the fact that allofmp3 sells music by British artists, not that they sell to British consumers
    • So you can be sued for breaking licensing laws in the countries where consumers are?

      If you do business in a country, you have to abide by its laws. I don't know what's so difficult about this concept. ZOMG INTARWEBS doesn't change anything; when you sell someone something, even if you aren't shipping anything physical, you know damn well where he is, because he has to provide his billing address or you can't charge his credit card.

      IIRC, AllOfMp3 themselves admit that they are perfectly aware that the prod
      • "even if you aren't shipping anything physical, you know damn well where he is, because he has to provide his billing address or you can't charge his credit card."

        No he doesn't, and yes you can. Address verification is a completely optional step in credit card processing.
    • You can be sued (or criminally prosecuted) in any country that has a law that says that you can be. For instance, it is entirely possible to break the US computer security laws without ever setting foot on US soil or even targetting a US victim... it is only necessary that the packets you send pass through a network operated in the US.

      In the UK, you can sue anybody who breaks a UK law in a way which harms you. Of course, if they aren't in the UK, and their own government doesn't agree, enforcement can be
    • That's exactly what I'm wondering, and I don't think I want a precedent saying that, yup, if in East Bumfuckistan it's illegal to publish something, you can be extradited to East Bumfuckistan if you published it in the UK.

      I mean, seriously, almost every dictatorship somewhere has some things that are forbidden to publish or to even read.

      E.g., China doesn't like anything that contradicts its propaganda. I don't just mean anti-communist stuff, but for example they forbade the game Hearts Of Iron 2 because it

  • Typical for British law enforcement (Score:5, Funny)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @11:09AM (#15650115)

    "Stop! Or I shall say 'stop' again!"

  • Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jamu ( 852752 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @11:10AM (#15650121)
    There are lots of issues with this: Firstly, the UK High Court has no jurisdiction in Russia (unless you're British and then only for some crimes). Russian companys have no legal status in the UK. You can't sue them and they can't be prosecuted in the UK. I think what they might be doing is sueing the operator of a Russian site in the UK for damages for operating in the UK without a legal licence.
    • Thats like saying a person with a highpowered rifle shooting across borders is not culpable for murder (note to slashdot fanatics - Im not comparing copyright infringement with murder) if the killing didnt happen in the country hes shooting from.
      • Well, yes it's exactly the case. The other country *MAY* extradite the murdrerer, but it depends on the other country's laws and willingness to cooperate.
    • I think the idea is to first demonstrate that it is illegal in the UK, and subsequently threaten to go after UK users who use the site. Or perhaps they'll make this cause for a UK state firewall under the guise of "There's no legitimate use for the site and others like it which will be hosted offshore, and this is the only way."

      I know it's a huge leap, but with their cameras and complete impotance on otherwise

  • shopping around... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spacemanspiff18 ( 883238 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @11:14AM (#15650144)
    The question that I have always had is this: if it is legal, and even desirable (as certain parties would argue) for consumers of labor (i.e. employers) to shop around the world for the cheapeast source of labor, taking full advantage of local conditions and legal structures, why should it be illegal for me, a consumer of music, to shop around the world for the cheapest source of music?

    And please spare me any arguments centering on making sure that artists are compensated for their work. That isn't what the recording labels are about, and the argument is particularly spurious when you consider the types of artists that are represented on allofmp3.com. Good luck trying to find a small or independent musician on there.

  • Shut them down (Score:2, Insightful)

    by emj ( 15659 )
    These people basically pay no royalities at all to the muscians, and they give you a false feeling of buying legitimate stuff. I don't think this is nice at all, sure the the music industry is crooked, but these guys really are pirates for profit. They make money by selling stuff they have no right to sell.

    Allofmp3 are money hungry low lifes.

    • These people basically pay no royalities at all to the muscians, and they give you a false feeling of buying legitimate stuff. I don't think this is nice at all, sure the the music industry is crooked, but these guys really are pirates for profit. They make money by selling stuff they have no right to sell.

      And how much profit does the BPI/RIAA actually give to the artists ? Out of a $ 0.99 download from Apple, what does the artist get ? And why should the BPI/RIAA get ANYTHING from the music download si

    • Shut who down? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kebes ( 861706 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @11:33AM (#15650288) Journal
      These people basically pay no royalities at all to the muscians, and they give you a false feeling of buying legitimate stuff.
      Interesting how that sentence applies equally well to AllOfMP3 and the conventional recording industry.
      They make money by selling stuff they have no right to sell.
      Again, this applies equally well to the two of them. The record labels in North America claim that they have legally valid contracts that give them the right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists. I question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.

      AllOfMP3 claim that they have the legal right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists, in compliance with Russian copyright law. You question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.

      • Re:Shut who down? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cliffski ( 65094 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @11:45AM (#15650391) Homepage
        hold on, I was a musician once, I have seen a record contract. They arent written in 0 point type, or in a foreign language, its quite blatant the terms on which you sign (i chose not to), and many artists are more than happy to do so. And many artists DO make a considerable sum of money from the system. OF course, many are ripped off, and you can argue that the system is weighed too heavily in favour of the record companies (which is true), but that doesnt mean its fair for a website to sell something they dont own, and quite clearly not pay the artists ANYTHING.
        Even in a situation where the artist's royalties havent paid back their advance and not made a dime, they still got flown around the world, went to wild parties and got fed and put up in great hotels at the record companies expense. I dont see this russian website donating money towards recording studio fees, do you?

        Criticising the record biz is fine with me, its when people sue the lack of perfect competition in that industry to justify wholesale copyright theft, as a thin excuse to get cheap or free music, that it bugs people.

        There is no law preventing unsigned artists releasing their music for free on the web. The fact that most choose not to shows that they *do* actually want to be paid for their work.
        • My original point was simply that there is no legal difference between US/EU record labels and AllOfMP3. BPI is suing AllOfMP3. That's about as legitimate as AllOfMP3 suing BPI for not sending a portion of their profits to the Russian copyright agency. They are both operating legally in their respective jurisdictions.

          With regard to the "morality" however:

          but that doesnt mean its fair for a website to sell something they dont own, and quite clearly not pay the artists ANYTHING.

          You are arguing with hi

        • Re:Shut who down? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dave1212 ( 652688 ) *
          Yes, as a musician I want to get paid for my work. However, I don't believe that any major label is going to provide me with that.

          Even in a situation where the artist's royalties havent paid back their advance and not made a dime, they still got flown around the world, went to wild parties and got fed and put up in great hotels at the record companies expense. I dont see this russian website donating money towards recording studio fees, do you?

          Where the hell is this relevant? The artists chose those t

        • Re:Shut who down? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by rkww ( 675767 )
          There is no law preventing unsigned artists releasing their music for free on the web. The fact that most choose not to shows that they *do* actually want to be paid for their work.

          It's hard to make money on the web, it's a very crowded place. Some musicians try to cut out the middle men by licensing legitimate copies of their own material, see Cerebral Sounds [cerebralsounds.com] for instance, but they're swamped by sites such as allofmp3 who simply pocket the cash.

      • I question the morality of what they are doing

        What's to stop an artist going into business for themselves? Hire a studio and make your music available for paid download on your website. You can't call the approach of the recording industry immoral unless the artists have no choice about signing.
    • No. They have right to sell it, *according* to Russian copyright laws. It is whole in law and should be fixed first, otherwise any legal case against AllOfMp3 will be moot.

      I am nor against nor for AllOfMp3, but legal is legal.
  • I guess the British record industry is desperate for some positive publicity and hopes that calling Allofmp3 "illegal" in court will get people -- who just want to buy affordable DRM-free music -- to feel some sympathy for the BPI's hardworking lawyers. It should be obvious any injunction obtained would be unenforceable. How are they even going to get Allofmp3 to show up? If someone in Britain tried to sue me, I'd just ignore it like the hot air it was.

  • The business model works (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Exter-C ( 310390 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @11:30AM (#15650264) Homepage
    The allofmp3.com business model is one of the best that I have seen for Online music, Lets look at what the consumer gets
    - The choice of bitrate.
    - The choice of quality (vbr/etc)
    - A choice of albums which are simply not available on other sites like itunes.
    - Reliable service, friendly staff
    - Often has new albums well before other music stores have them.
    - VERY competitive pricing.
    - NO DRM.

    Now taking into account that they apparently are not paying enough for the rights to the music or whatever it may well be, the business model works, even if I had to pay 20cents for each song or 40cents US for each song I would still go with Allofmp3.com because they offer a service to the consumer that works.I can download the music and play it where I want when I want. So here the recording companies are in a sticky spot, they know that the consumers want that model and they are trying to restrict it as much as possible. I believe in paying for music and I believe that the artists should get paid for the music but there comes a point in time when your getting ripped off, and that is how the record companies and recording industry has been for such a long time and now they are wondering why there has been such a revolt.... Here Warner is offering 2.5bn for EMI and visa versa yet will that REALLY benefit the musicians, the end user.. Hell no its only going to make share holders richer which is going to screw me, and you and whoever else listens to music.
    • Ruling out all the other points (that I actually agree with), the big issue is that they can offer the prcing they do because they are not legit. They don't pay artists and either does ROMS. So, it's pretty easy to offer "VERY competitive pricing" when you don't have to pay your suppliers. So, in essence you are NOT paying the artists, but are paying a shady Russian company with your credit card. Don't kid yourself, you aren't doing the artists any favours.
      • Its true that the cost of music is cheap because they are not paying the royalties that the artists should get for the music that they create. AllOfMp3.com is in a fairly unique position in that it can sell the music at very low rates and has a very loyal customer base even if many of them KNOW that the music they are downloading is not legit in their country. Why do they do it, because many of them simply do not care, or perhapse they are sick of being ripped off by the Music industry. I know many people t
        • Right and they "could" do many other things to be fair to that artists, but they aren't. AS it stands right now you are saying that it's legit to say, "I am going to buy music from AllofMP3 because I am sick of the music industry "ripping" me off." So, you fuck the artist by not giving them any money and you give the music publishers even more ammo to mess with prices. And in the end, no one is ripping you off. You can easily choose not to buy music that is supported by the RIAA - http://www.dontbuycds.org/ [dontbuycds.org]
  • JC Penney is being sued by the Islamic Purity Party for serving web pages to Burkastan of women who are not completely covered.

    I think the freedom that was the web is going to be shut down before long and we are going to have national firewalls that only "whitelisted" sites can get through.

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Close