allofmp3.com is an ILLEGAL music download service

[NutBucket]

Meh. CD sales pay the label, concerts pay the artists.

As such, I gladly pay for concerts.

 

[AnyMal]

Anyone who's paying for pirated music is a moron.

/thread

 

[GeneValgene]

from what it looks like, Russian authorities didnt' follow through with the IFPI's request

 

[DigDug]

Either way you slice it, what you are doing is WRONG. You are taking something that doesn't belong to you and trying to justify your actions with stupidity and your own take on how the laws should be.

No I am not TAKING anything. I am making a copy of something - the "original" is never taken. If I were to steal a CD, then I submit to you.

And that's my point. Intellectual property is simply NOT the same kind of property as the tangible equivalent. The legislature has to STOP trying to retrofit it into the laws and framework of an ownerhip system that simply doesn't properly apply to it.

You can say that I'm breaking a law. You are correct. But don't tell me (1) that I'm "stealing" because that word simply does NOT apply, and (2) that I'm "WRONG" because there is nothing inherent in our visceral, fundamental notions of property that applies to the intellectual kind. And I "visceral" and "fundamental" because THAT is where our consensual "right" and "wrong" comes from. The very lack of consensus over this issue stands as a perfect testament to this.

 

[edro]

I would still rather "steal" using AllofMP3 and pay them for their trouble.

 

[kranky]

It wasn't that long ago that people justified stealing music by saying that $15 for a CD with one good song wasn't fair, and if they could only buy the songs they wanted for a buck, well, then they'd buy them instead of stealing. Nearly everyone was on that bandwagon.

Now that you CAN get them for a buck, somehow that's still too much money?

Oh, and now we don't want to pay ANYTHING unless we know exactly who gets how much of the money.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: DigDug
And that's my point. Intellectual property is simply NOT the same kind of property as the tangible equivalent. The legislature has to STOP trying to retrofit it into the laws and framework of an ownerhip system that simply doesn't properly apply to it.

So you are saying that until "the legislature" (quoted because when dealing with autonomous nations, the US legislature can only go so far) cooks up laws that you feel are more suitable, we all have carte blanche to "copy" however much "intellectual property" we want without compensating the intellects that developed it?

 

[notfred]

The IFPI can screw off. Like I give a sh!t what the international version of the RIAA thinks about anything. The plain-old American RIAA says that ripping CDs to MP3 is illegal. Are we taking what they say at face value, too?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead
I knew it was illegal, but I prefer it because of several reasons...

It's not P2P; and more importantly you get your song almost instantly instead of having to wait for sources to be found and then dick around with slow downloads and mis-titled songs. You get exactly what's advertised, in the format and quality of your choice. Well worth .02/MB in my book.

God forbid that you actually buy the song and credit the people who create the music for you!

And how much of that .99/song at itunes do you think actually goes to the boys of nSync?

don't know don't care. the reason i do not buy CD's is becasue i do not like spending $15 on one or two good songs.

At $.99 a song i can get a CD full of songs i like for the price. I have spent more on ITUNES then i have on cd's in the last 5 years.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: DigDug
What does "illegal" mean? And I don't mean that facetiously.

If the Russian authorities are fully aware of AllofMp3.com and yet have done nothing to prosecute it, it stands to reason that calling it "illegal" in Russia is something an irrelevant exercise.

Here's the *bottom* line. Why should we follow laws, when the laws themselves are made by the private industry? Copyright laws are probably the clearest example of backpocketing of the U.S. legislature by big business.

I'll pay for music when they pay the musicians.

i agree that laws that are made corprations are wrong. being a theif is not the asnwere.

 

[samgau]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
So the IFPI (international version of the RIAA) says that allofmp3.com is illegal, but does not yet have a conviction. Of course they're going to say it's illegal...

It's like taking the Iraqi Information Minister's word for something.

One thing I heard on the rumor mill was that the IFPI was trying to get the russian govt. to change its laws regarding broadcasting so as to make AOMP3 illigal cause as it stands AOMP3 is supposedly acting within the limits of russian laws.... but I think that both sources can't be fully trusted... IFPI is nothing but an extension of the RIAA and everybody knows of their stance and reputation.... and AOMP3 being russian... who knows whats going on in the background... its a loose loose situation for the consumer anyway...

 

[DigDug]

So you are saying that until "the legislature" (quoted because when dealing with autonomous nations, the US legislature can only go so far) cooks up laws that you feel are more suitable, we all have carte blanche to copy however much "intellectual property" we want without compensating the intellects that developed it?

I am saying that until our own goddamned legislature provides and objective analysis of the situation and provide suitable laws - not ones concocted by the music industry, advanced by their lobby groups, and carte-blanche (to use your term) approved by the legislature - I will not respect the boundaries set.

You make it sound as if I am the demon here, when the very inherently problems with the concept of intellectual property have been continually used to the advantage of these very industry groups. Next to the Patriot Act and the Rockefeller Drug Laws, the DMCA is probably the most overreaching legislation we've ever seen.

And notice a connection between all of them? They are all products of "wars" on intangibles: The war on terror, the war on drugs, and the war on piracy. When will you idots recognize that such "wars" are inherently flawed (and tools of the controlling bodies) because the objects of such wars will, and have, been defined to include anything and EVERYTHING that the powers-that-be want it to include.

Did you know that RIAA said copying your own CDs is not fair use? And because they say so, it is so!

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: waggy
well i guess that ends the argument over if it was legal or not eh?

There was never an 'argument', except among stupid tools determined to delude themselves. I've been saying it's illegal since these threads started.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: DigDug
I am saying that until our own goddamned legislature provides and objective analysis of the situation and provide suitable laws - not ones concocted by the music industry, advanced by their lobby groups, and carte-blanche (to use your term) approved by the legislature - I will not respect the boundaries set.

You make it sound as if I am the demon here, when the very inherently problems with the concept of intellectual property have been continually used to the advantage of these very industry groups. Next to the Patriot Act and the Rockefeller Drug Laws, the DMCA is probably the most overreaching legislation we've ever seen.

And notice a connection between all of them? They are all products of "wars" on intangibles: The war on terror, the war on drugs, and the war on piracy. When will you idots recognize that such "wars" are inherently flawed (and tools of the controlling bodies) because the objects of such wars will, and have, been defined to include anything and EVERYTHING that the powers-that-be want it to include.

Did you know that RIAA said copying your own CDs is not fair use? And because they say so, it is so!

actually i agree with this. not to mention the RIAA useing strongarm and possibley illegal tactics with the lawsuits.

 

[DigDug]

i agree that laws that are made corprations are wrong. being a theif is not the asnwere.

But if one becomes a theif only because the law created by the corporation say so, where does that leave him?

Why am I a thief if I copy something which has no detriment upon the original item? If the item is not that which is being diminished, but its value, then should we not have a different system of accounting for this behavior? It certainly is not STEALING.

 

[edro]

Originally posted by: kranky
It wasn't that long ago that people justified stealing music by saying that $15 for a CD with one good song wasn't fair, and if they could only buy the songs they wanted for a buck, well, then they'd buy them instead of stealing. Nearly everyone was on that bandwagon.
Now that you CAN get them for a buck, somehow that's still too much money?
Oh, and now we don't want to pay ANYTHING unless we know exactly who gets how much of the money.

CDs are one of the only products you cannot return if you are not satisfied. If I hear of a new band, buy their CD for $17, and it sucks... that is pretty much gambling. If I buy any other product in a store and it sucks, I can return it.

CDs are basically legalized gambling.

 

[Jzero]

I think that was a "yes." It's amazing what people will tell themselves to try to justify their own actions.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: edro

Originally posted by: kranky
It wasn't that long ago that people justified stealing music by saying that $15 for a CD with one good song wasn't fair, and if they could only buy the songs they wanted for a buck, well, then they'd buy them instead of stealing. Nearly everyone was on that bandwagon.
Now that you CAN get them for a buck, somehow that's still too much money?
Oh, and now we don't want to pay ANYTHING unless we know exactly who gets how much of the money.

CDs are one of the only products you cannot return if you are not satisfied. If I hear of a new band, buy their CD for $17, and it sucks... that is pretty much gambling. If I buy any other product in a store and it sucks, I can return it.

CDs are basically legalized gambling.

Then don't buy them - or listen to demo tracks; they're everywhere.
And there are lots of products you can't return if you're not satisfied. Try to take back your lottery tickets!

 

[DigDug]

think that was a "yes." It's amazing what people will tell themselves to try to justify their own actions.

Its amazing to watch people STFU up when they get stomped. Is this all you can muster?

I bet its wrong because George Bush said so, right?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: waggy
well i guess that ends the argument over if it was legal or not eh?

There was never an 'argument', except among stupid tools determined to delude themselves. I've been saying it's illegal since these threads started.

And you have been wrong, as Gene Valgene details earlier in this thread. The IFPI stating that something is illegal does not mean that it is illegal.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: DigDug

Its amazing to watch people STFU up when they get stomped. Is this all you can muster?

I can STFU because your words work just fine:

Originally posted by: DigDug

So you are saying that until "the legislature" (quoted because when dealing with autonomous nations, the US legislature can only go so far) cooks up laws that you feel are more suitable, we all have carte blanche to copy however much "intellectual property" we want without compensating the intellects that developed it?

I am saying that until our own goddamned legislature provides and objective analysis of the situation and provide suitable laws - not ones concocted by the music industry, advanced by their lobby groups, and carte-blanche (to use your term) approved by the legislature - I will not respect the boundaries set.

And then you go on to complain about the semantics of the word "thief," as if that somehow mattered.

You do realize that it's not just the RIAA that wants you to buy your music - the NON-RIAA artists do as well.

 

[DigDug]

And you have been wrong, as Gene Valgene details earlier in this thread. The IFPI stating that something is illegal does not mean that it is illegal.

Astaroth, don't worry - its one of those things that let him sleep a little better at night. This is right, and that is wrong. You know, "you're either with us or against us" thinking.

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: edro

Originally posted by: kranky
It wasn't that long ago that people justified stealing music by saying that $15 for a CD with one good song wasn't fair, and if they could only buy the songs they wanted for a buck, well, then they'd buy them instead of stealing. Nearly everyone was on that bandwagon.
Now that you CAN get them for a buck, somehow that's still too much money?
Oh, and now we don't want to pay ANYTHING unless we know exactly who gets how much of the money.

CDs are one of the only products you cannot return if you are not satisfied. If I hear of a new band, buy their CD for $17, and it sucks... that is pretty much gambling. If I buy any other product in a store and it sucks, I can return it.

CDs are basically legalized gambling.

Software?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: kranky
It wasn't that long ago that people justified stealing music by saying that $15 for a CD with one good song wasn't fair, and if they could only buy the songs they wanted for a buck, well, then they'd buy them instead of stealing. Nearly everyone was on that bandwagon.

Now that you CAN get them for a buck, somehow that's still too much money?

I'd say I delete about 96-97% of the stuff I DL from AOMP3. Like many people, I'm just desperately searching for something....anything half decent to listen to. My options are spend $1500 a year buying CDs I'll instantly shelve or listen gleefully to Beyounce Knowles latest hit single played for the fourteenth time today on the same radio station. Which of those are you?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: waggy
well i guess that ends the argument over if it was legal or not eh?

There was never an 'argument', except among stupid tools determined to delude themselves. I've been saying it's illegal since these threads started.

And you have been wrong, as Gene Valgene details earlier in this thread. The IFPI stating that something is illegal does not mean that it is illegal.

Not even close. Determinations by Russian legal authorities are irrelevant here (in the U.S. - I can't speak for other jurisdictions).