allofmp3.com is an ILLEGAL music download service

[GeneValgene]

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
dang, i guess i'll just be stuck with napster trials then and removing the DRM.

how do you remove DRM from napster?

 

[erikistired]

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!

if you really want to reward the musicians attend a concert and buy a few tshirts.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: 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!

when you buy a lottery ticket you know what you are getting into. it's funny, since using alternate sources to get my music i've been buying cds from bands i never would have heard of because 1) the radio doesn't play them and 2) i don't like to gamble. i pay a buck, listen to a cd. if i like it i buy a copy (usually at the used cd shop so piss off riaa). if not i delete the folder. and if you don't like it i could honestly care less. i've done a lot more immoral things in my life than downloading music.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: 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.

Bull.

Again, you're just trying to justify taking what you have no legal right to. No matter how you want to word it you aren't compensating the original author for their labors which is not only a violation of copyright it's downright cheap-assed.

If you aren't willing to pay the price that the author or a authorized distributor is selling it for, you have no claim to it.

Whether you choose to believe it or not does not change it.

please stop with the artist compensation crap. buying a cd doesn't do jack for them. why do you think bands tour so much? they make money touring and selling merchandise at concerts. unless you are metallica you aren't making huge bucks by selling one more cd. or 100 more cds. i'm not trying to justify downloading music, but this is a lame arguement and more label propaghanda than anything else.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Again, whatever the Russian gov't determines about U.S. law is irrelevant.

At the same time, whatever the US gov't determines about Russian law is irrelevant in many cases (thoguh not all).

Granted, but downloading to the U.S. is subjecting yourself to U.S. laws, not Russian laws, regardless of where you got the material from. It's certainly no defense to say you downloaded your kiddie porn from a country where it was legal (hopefully, no such country exists). You'll still go to jail if it's on your computer here in the U.S.

Certainly. Because it's illegal to possess child pornography in the US, if you possess it, you are breaking the law.

That analogy does not apply to the allofmp3.com situation: It's legal for me to possess mp3s here in the US. It is also (apparently) legal for allofmp3.com to host their site in Russia. Once again, I want you to explain what law I am breaking by downloading from the Russian site.

Edit: Clearly, I need to read to the end of this thread before replying to any one message. Note: I do not claim to be versed in any law; I am not a lawyer. However, I do not accept other people's bland pronouncements without evidence or proof, so if someone says "foo is illegal", I am inclined to be skeptical. Let's look at the evidence posted:

--
Title 17 Chapter 6 Sec. 602 of the U.S. Code

Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501.

This subsection does not apply to importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage



Good rebuttal, so it seems my hypothetical was incorrect. Still, I don't know if that applies to downloads.

EDIT: But then, part (b) of the same Code section states:

(b) In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited. In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable. In either case, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe, by regulation, a procedure under which any person claiming an interest in the copyright in a particular work may, upon payment of a specified fee, be entitled to notification by the Customs Service of the importation of articles that appear to be copies or phonorecords of the work.
--

The above seems to be somewhat vague and contradictory. Looking at it, I still can't make a clear determination that downloading music from allofmp3.com is illegal for me.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Again, whatever the Russian gov't determines about U.S. law is irrelevant.

At the same time, whatever the US gov't determines about Russian law is irrelevant in many cases (thoguh not all).

Granted, but downloading to the U.S. is subjecting yourself to U.S. laws, not Russian laws, regardless of where you got the material from. It's certainly no defense to say you downloaded your kiddie porn from a country where it was legal (hopefully, no such country exists). You'll still go to jail if it's on your computer here in the U.S.

Certainly. Because it's illegal to possess child pornography in the US, if you possess it, you are breaking the law.

That analogy does not apply to the allofmp3.com situation: It's legal for me to possess mp3s here in the US. It is also (apparently) legal for allofmp3.com to host their site in Russia. Once again, I want you to explain what law I am breaking by downloading from the Russian site.

Well, there's 17 USC 602, already quoted in length above. But I can't make you see anything if you insist on keeping your eyes closed.

 

[erikistired]

That analogy does not apply to the allofmp3.com situation: It's legal for me to possess mp3s here in the US. It is also (apparently) legal for allofmp3.com to host their site in Russia. Once again, I want you to explain what law I am breaking by downloading from the Russian site.

if the riaa had their way owning mp3s would be illegal as well. they already say it's illegal to rip your cds. how long til it's illegal to own them outright? i'd say moments after they develop their own "digital" solution.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Edit: Clearly, I need to read to the end of this thread before replying to any one message. Note: I do not claim to be versed in any law; I am not a lawyer. However, I do not accept other people's bland pronouncements without evidence or proof, so if someone says "foo is illegal", I am inclined to be skeptical.

There's nothing wrong with skeptical (especially of things one reads from strangers on the internet), but there are some clear tip-offs in this case - don't you think it's highly suspicious this site is based in Russia?!? You don't need a law degree (although I have one) to wonder about that.

The above seems to be somewhat vague and contradictory. Looking at it, I still can't make a clear determination that downloading music from allofmp3.com is illegal for me.

OK, it's not the clearest statute, but looking at it carefully, it starts to make sense. Subsection (a) deals only with importation without authorization, not duplication. Importation is illegal, with the 'one copy' exception found at (2). However, (b) clearly deals with duplication as well as importation - if the duplication was an infringement under U.S. law, then any resulting importation is illegal, irrelevant of (a). Which goes back to what I was saying all along - if this site does not have authorization to sell these tracks from the U.S. copyright holders (and I've seen no proof of that), then downloading them into the U.S. is illegal. Might as well steal the music.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: fisher

That analogy does not apply to the allofmp3.com situation: It's legal for me to possess mp3s here in the US. It is also (apparently) legal for allofmp3.com to host their site in Russia. Once again, I want you to explain what law I am breaking by downloading from the Russian site.

if the riaa had their way owning mp3s would be illegal as well. they already say it's illegal to rip your cds. how long til it's illegal to own them outright? i'd say moments after they develop their own "digital" solution.

Won't happen - it's called Fair Use.

 

[Zebo]

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.

You mean GWB the Iraqi Information Minister turned out to be quite correct. Even Buckley is saying we lost.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
Anyone who's paying for pirated music is a moron.

/thread

Why do you say that? Peer to peer is moronic^2, yeah it's free but with huge liability risks since the RIAA and MPAA can see you. Least with this service you get quality and as of yet blind downloads from the authorities.

I don't agree with pirating music, but if I were to, this service seems wisest route to take..

 

[ultimatebob]

I thought that allofmp3.com was legal in Russia, since they have some really loose copyright laws over there.

Of course, it's probably not legal for folks in the US to use that service, but Allofmp3 tries to cover themselves of any liability by adding a "You as the user are responsible to know and obey the copyright laws in your country" type of disclaimer clause on their web site.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Injury

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.

If you are still paying $17 for a CD you need to find a new store.

There are plenty of ways to listen to a CD legally before purchasing it... most commonly on the band's own website. Amazon and similar sites commonly have audio samples. Find someone who has it and ask them if it's good.

It still doesn't make theft legal.

Bullsht. 30 second clips does NOT constitute a way of listening before you buy. Allofmp3 allows me to preview the FULL album before buying it, albeit at a lower quality. Until a US mp3 service can math this level of service without some type of copyright, proprietary bullsht software attached to the mp3, then I'm going to be a lifetime allofmp3 user. Period.

RIAA, IFPI, can all blow me with their ripping rules and what is legal/not illegal. And if you say I'm not supporting the artist, going to their concerts, buying their gear/DVD is more than enough for my conscience.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: NutBucket
Meh. CD sales pay the label, concerts pay the artists.

As such, I gladly pay for concerts.

QFT

Labels are notorious for shafting musicians on royalties. I go to tons of concerts and buy music and merch THERE, when I know my money is going to the band. If I don't like their show, though, I usually stop listening to whatever of theirs I downloaded.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yup, DigDug has the post of the thread.

 

[DurocShark]

until there is a court decision at the federal level, I'm ignoring claims one way or the other. And will continue to use allofmp3 for stuff that is no longer available.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
until there is a court decision at the federal level, I'm ignoring claims one way or the other. And will continue to use allofmp3 for stuff that is no longer available.

You are not afraid that the RIAA might get ahold of your credit card data and trace the music back to you?

 

[SampSon]

Who cares?

 

[Udel]

Sweet. Allofmp3 is back online.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: 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.

Bull.

Again, you're just trying to justify taking what you have no legal right to. No matter how you want to word it you aren't compensating the original author for their labors which is not only a violation of copyright it's downright cheap-assed.

If you aren't willing to pay the price that the author or a authorized distributor is selling it for, you have no claim to it.

Whether you choose to believe it or not does not change it.

please stop with the artist compensation crap. buying a cd doesn't do jack for them. why do you think bands tour so much? they make money touring and selling merchandise at concerts. unless you are metallica you aren't making huge bucks by selling one more cd. or 100 more cds. i'm not trying to justify downloading music, but this is a lame arguement and more label propaghanda than anything else.

please stop with the "it doesn't do jack for them" crap. The average business never makes much more than a couple pennies on the dollar and musicians are no exception. Once again, the argument is moot point because where the money goes doesn't justify your actions. The band WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY signed a contact with a record company that gives them the ability to make music for a living which, in turn, gives them the ability to do large tours and make money. I wish the artists got more, too, but the record companies don't simply sign them and sit back to collect money, they do their promotions, fund their recordings, distribute the work and much, much more. Without the record companies, most bands would never be able to tour because the members would have to work day and night to fund the mass production of their album.

You are not entitled to music simply because you want it. Get over it. It's okay to admit it because clearly nothing is going to stop you from ripping people off.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
until there is a court decision at the federal level, I'm ignoring claims one way or the other. And will continue to use allofmp3 for stuff that is no longer available.

Right, innocent until proven guilty in my book. That is the American way.

 

[smack Down]

Don't you people know anything about the US justice system. It isn't illegal if you don't get caught.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: 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.

Is the quality of a downloaded song the exact same quality as a CD? Where is the cover art that you have to pay for then buying that $15 CD? The shipping cost? The utility bills of the shop you bought it from that are factored into all prices? Etc.? Why should it cost you the same to buy a downloaded version of a song as if you had bought it from a cd store?

 

[GeneValgene]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: 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.

Is the quality of a downloaded song the exact same quality as a CD? Where is the cover art that you have to pay for then buying that $15 CD? The shipping cost? The utility bills of the shop you bought it from that are factored into all prices? Etc.? Why should it cost you the same to buy a downloaded version of a song as if you had bought it from a cd store?

what completely sucks is that RIAA wants to raise the price of tracks sold on itunes...

but steve jobs told them to shove it

 

[Goosemaster]

Man, some of you are complete morons.