Is anyone still using allofmp3.com?

And you're not affraid of "stealing" from artists or the RIAA cracking down?

Anyone else out there still using this site?

i just used a legal! music store...i mean iTunes...99cents a song...and 9.99 an album what can go wrong?

Anyone else out there still using this site?

Do you work the for RIAA?

And you're not affraid of "stealing" from artists or the RIAA cracking down?
The thing that people continually miss is that there is NOTHING illegal in the United States (or most nations) about me purchasing music from allofmp3.com as of this time. No matter what the RIAA and other legal mafia's have to say on the subject, the service is, as of this time, a legitimate service and 100% authorized under Russian law to sell any music they want. With few exceptions (and digital music isn't one of them), U.S. import law allows private citisens to import anything not expressly forbidden or illegal in the U.S. if it was on sale legally in its country of origin. The result: you can email your credit card statements along with a detailed list of exactly which RIAA represented artists you purchased music by to the legal dept of the RIAA and there is nothing they could do to you.

Why do you think this one tiny website was such a sticking point in our strongarming of Russia for entry into the WTO?: we could either force Russia to make it illegal and stop it at the source, or we would have to specifically make it illegal in this country and then spend all the money on enforcement (because it would be a federal crime from that point out, not just a simple copyright violation). Even our corporation friendly federal gov't wasn't willing to turn something as harmless as buying music online into a federal crime so they've engaged in scare tactics and misinformation for the past few years in the hopes of brainwashing everybody from noticing that there was a much better, legal product competing with garbage like the iTS. Fortunately for the RIAA, they will get their wish as of June 2007

As for stealing from artists, that's all the RIAA's fault. ROMS has stated explicitly that they have tried to pay the labels for their artist's goods sold on sites like allofmp3.com and the labels refused to accept the payment.

The only winners in Russia's capitulation are the labels. The consumers and artists are as farked as always.

That said, yes I use allofmp3, and they just recently stated they aren't going anywhere because they feel that the service they offer is completely legal.
They will be gone by June 2007, though, since the Russian government has agreed to change their laws to reflect the same pro-corporation, perpetual copyright garbage that the rest of us suffer under. Use your balances now, because although it's legal today, it may not be any day now.

I have never used allofmp3 and never intend to use such services. All my music has been derived from purchased compact disks.

Still the best way of acquiring digital music. Let's hope they don't do anything to screw that up.

i just used a legal! music store...i mean iTunes...99cents a song...and 9.99 an album what can go wrong?Try playing that song in your car. that will "go wrong". You'll have to manually convert that song, and lose even more quality (on top of the original low bitrate) to do anything but play it on an authorized PC or iPod.

They will be gone by June 2007, though, since the Russian government has agreed to change their laws to reflect the same pro-corporation, perpetual copyright garbage that the rest of us suffer under.To be fair, its hardly "pro-corporation" to expect that people should obtain the permission of the copyright owner to distribute copies - this is just standard copyright practice. As a copyright owner (or seller of any product), you wouldn't find it acceptable for someone to just take what they want and offer you whatever price they felt like, but this is the way the Russian law is written. As absurd laws go, its right up there with the DMCA!

People like their pricing model because its cheap, but its also unfair - a gold record would give the artist $500-1,000. Generally only multi-platinium artists would have any hope of breaking even, and no one could expect to make a living as a recording artist with this sort of business model. Its not a viable business model.

Its also quite possible that the pricing model has been also bad for the consumer, long-term. Had ROMS offered to pay the labels fair market value, the only sticking point would have been DRM. That wouldn't have been a big enough issue to make it a WTO prerequisite (it probably would have just been confusing to government officials). We could have had flexible formats and no DRM for a long time to come.

From a technical standpoint allofmp3.com will go down in history as the best music download service ever. You have a choice of formats, no DRM, but they do use DRM where it makes sense - for music you DON'T own.

To be fair, its hardly "pro-corporation" to expect that people should obtain the permission of the copyright owner to distribute copies - this is just standard copyright practice. As a copyright owner (or seller of any product), you wouldn't find it acceptable for someone to just take what they want and offer you whatever price they felt like, but this is the way the Russian law is written. As absurd laws go, its right up there with the DMCA!
I consider it pro-corporation because it never has been about the artists. If government was all about the artist we'd take Universal, Sony Music, etc. and lop the heads off their executives and imprison their lawyers. The labels use their collective mafia power to dictate patently ridiculous terms to the majority of artists and arguably ridiculous prices to the consumers. This decision has nothing to do with anybody except the corporations.

Plus, once offered for sale anywhere, I believe that media should be compulsorarily licensed, if not from that point forward, certainly in the not too distant future. In my ideal world, you can't take your Mickey Mouse movies off the shelves for a decade every time you want to drum up some sales and expect governments to cover your butt. Artists, labels, studios, etc. would have X years to control their content according to their whims, but after that period (and I think 20 years would be exceedingly generous), it should become compulsorarily licensed to anyone who wants to pony up some publically decided compensation for the original content creators. Call me a socialist, but I do not believe in perpetual IP for anybody.

As for the business model, I don't believe it was broken at all. Most albums at LAME standard settings were averaging about $2.50 a pop, not the $1 from the site's launch (and at 128 kbps) - and at lossless quality, were approachinging standard CD prices. At $2.50 an album, there's a $1 for the web business, a $1 for the artist, and $0.50 for the labels. That's about the same money retailers and artists are netting today off a full-priced RIAA approved album sale; the loser is the labels, and I think we could all do with seeing them put on a starvation diet.

I consider it pro-corporation because it never has been about the artists. If government was all about the artist we'd take Universal, Sony Music, etc. and lop the heads off their executives and imprison their lawyers. The labels use their collective mafia power to dictate patently ridiculous terms to the majority of artists and arguably ridiculous prices to the consumers. This decision has nothing to do with anybody except the corporations. While the US copyright laws are certainly pro-corporation, the typical copyright provisions of requiring permission from the copyright owner is not. This is what is supposed to get changed in the Russian laws. Perpetual license is a separate issue that has little to do with most of the music on allofmp3.com.

As for the business model, I don't believe it was broken at all. Most albums at LAME standard settings were averaging about $2.50 a pop, not the $1 from the site's launch (and at 128 kbps) - and at lossless quality, were approachinging standard CD prices. At $2.50 an album, there's a $1 for the web business, a $1 for the artist, and $0.50 for the labels. That's about the same money retailers and artists are netting today off a full-priced RIAA approved album sale; the loser is the labels, and I think we could all do with seeing them put on a starvation diet.What makes you think it works that way? Allofmp3.com has stated that they give ROMS 15% of their revenue. That's 37.5 cents for an album selling for $2.50. Then ROMS keeps a portion, and the rest goes to the labels' representative (who likely keeps a portion). Say ROMS and the representatives keep (a very conservative) 10%, 34 cents goes to the label. Standard artists contracts will give them about 8-12% of revenue (after a number of things are eliminated from the "revenue"). Using an overly conservative estimate, the artist will get 2 to 4 cents per album. Reality is probably less than that.

While the US copyright laws are certainly pro-corporation, the typical copyright provisions of requiring permission from the copyright owner is not. This is what is supposed to get changed in the Russian laws. Perpetual license is a separate issue that has little to do with most of the music on allofmp3.com.Really? Is that why artists and bands that put out their best stuff three, four, or even five decades ago are fighting digital distribution tooth and nail and routinely referenced when discussing the "evil" of allofmp3.com (e.g. Beatles & Led Zeppelin) when, in reality, if copyright worked the way it was orignally intended their stuff would already be in the public domain?

What makes you think it works that way? Allofmp3.com has stated that they give ROMS 15% of their revenue. That's 37.5 cents for an album selling for $2.50. Then ROMS keeps a portion, and the rest goes to the labels' representative (who likely keeps a portion). Say ROMS and the representatives keep (a very conservative) 10%, 34 cents goes to the label. Standard artists contracts will give them about 8-12% of revenue (after a number of things are eliminated from the "revenue"). Using an overly conservative estimate, the artist will get 2 to 4 cents per album. Reality is probably less than that.That wasn't what I intended to say, I just stated there was more than enough money involved in the current model to make it work. It wasn't inherently broken, which is what your stand seemed to be. It was broken because the ROMS fees were based on the notion of a single broadcast as opposed to music sale. At $2-$5 an album, there's plenty of pie to go around for everyone.

We've got 6 billion people on this planet, instead of trying to sell 100,000 albums at $15@, they'd do a lot better trying to sell 1,000,001 albums at $1.50@..