iPod Music download sites for iPod

[feelthefire]

I still use allofmp3 in good faith as nobody has yet to point me to definitive evidence that says it is illegal in a cut and dry manner. Shady, maybe. Technically illegal? I'm not so sure.

Actually, under international law, the activites of AllOfMP3.com are in fact legal. They are protected under russian law and since that is the country where the site originates, the United States can't do anything about it. The RIAA keeps blowing smoke about it and threatening to keep Russia out of the world trade organization over it, but there's not anything they can do right now.

We are one of the only countries worldwide in which DRM is legal. Apple just got fried in Norway for DRMing their files and using a noncompatible proprietary format. Reason being- you want to run a music store, you should be selling to everyone, not just those who buy your expensive devices to play the files on.

Apple also lost in france for file limitations. We are the ONLY country that kills their consumers over DRM. If I purchase that 4MB of file, it should be my file, and I should be able to put it on 20 computers if I want to. There's no reason five is a fair number, especially since you lose one if a computer dies, since you can't go back in and deauthorize it and give it to another computer.

AllOfMP3 continues to be worth it because it offers you choice: not only a vast selection of music, but you pay based on the encoding rate you choose (and you can choose from many, including different file types) and therefore can pick the quality and pay accordingly.

When iTunes can do that, quits blocking some songs as album only, and allows you to purchase one song, then purchase all the others for the total overall cost as the whole album (e.g. if I download one song, and decide I like it, and then go to purchase the other 11 songs on the album, that album has now cost me $13 instead of $10 because you can't split apart albums like that) then I'll go over.

In the meantime, and until allofmp3.com gets proven to be illegal, I am staying with them. The price is really secondary to me over the options allofmp3 provides.

 

[Veldek]

In the meantime, and until allofmp3.com gets proven to be illegal, I am staying with them. The price is really secondary to me over the options allofmp3 provides.

The question I have is, what do you do with all the songs that you paid for if they're proven illegal? You would have to delete them, which is reason enough for me to not buy from them (apart from the reason that giving your CC info to a russian site might not be a good idea, which was already mentioned before).

 

[decksnap]

The question I have is, what do you do with all the songs that you paid for if they're proven illegal? You would have to delete them, which is reason enough for me to not buy from them (apart from the reason that giving your CC info to a russian site might not be a good idea, which was already mentioned before).

Just so you know, you don't have to give them your CC info. They use an intermediary like Paypal.

I think perhaps they will BECOME illegal, but aren't now, and if that's the case, everything I've bought is fine to keep.

 

[feelthefire]

The question I have is, what do you do with all the songs that you paid for if they're proven illegal? You would have to delete them, which is reason enough for me to not buy from them (apart from the reason that giving your CC info to a russian site might not be a good idea, which was already mentioned before).

well, programs like napster, limewire, and bittorrent have been proven illegal, but as yet I've heard no requirement to delete files obtained from the use of those programs, I don't think any previously downloaded content will be under a destroy order. Laws and decisions generally don't apply retroactively, so they can't say that "any content you bought before we got around to fighting it is also illegal, even though it wasn't when you bought it."

The AllTunes program and allofmp3.com clearly state the laws protecting their distrubution of content several times, so I think any american judgement against it would not be able to stipulate that content purchased under the assumption of legality is actually illegal.

Also, the company does use a secure intermediary that uses the Verifed by Visa service, so I'm reasonably sure that my CC information is not actually going to the russian host.

 

[wasimyaqoob]

What programs are there for Windows/Mac which can strip the DRM from Songs, since what I'm doing is legal as i'm not going to share the songs.

 

[CanadaRAM]

This is just great, all y'all who think using allofmp3 is fine because the songs are stolen, but not technically illegal.

The composers and performers don't get paid. You can call it what you like, I call it stealing and you should be ashamed that you twist words to justify taking somebodies property for nothing (or next to nothing simply because it assuages your conscience to pay $0.03 to a russian who would be a criminal in any country who respected international copyright law.)

 

[feelthefire]

This is just great, all y'all who think using allofmp3 is fine because the songs are stolen, but not technically illegal.

The composers and performers don't get paid. You can call it what you like, I call it stealing and you should be ashamed that you twist words to justify taking somebodies property for nothing (or next to nothing simply because it assuages your conscience to pay $0.03 to a russian who would be a criminal in any country who respected international copyright law.)

I have yet to have it proven to me that the songs are stolen. If anyone can prove to me that the service is illegal, or the product of stolen property, then I will stop, but no one has been able to do this yet.

There are countries that do respect "international copyright law" that are saying DRM is wrong. They are protecting the rights of the CONSUMER, which doesn't seem to be important in this country.

I'm not saying it's a justification for using free download sites, but I'm an intellectual property holder (patents) and there is absolutely no protection given to these property holders. Why is the artist so much better than anyone else with a good idea? Patent holders generally get told "s**t happens" if their idea is appropriated without pay, but as soon as an artist doesn't get paid the whatever cents he feels he deserves for his song, everyone has a heart attack. I don't see that as fair or correct.

Artists really need to understand that the consumer has rights too, and things like DRM and high prices on digital music infringe on them.

 

[chris200x9]

This is just great, all y'all who think using allofmp3 is fine because the songs are stolen, but not technically illegal.

The composers and performers don't get paid. You can call it what you like, I call it stealing and you should be ashamed that you twist words to justify taking somebodies property for nothing (or next to nothing simply because it assuages your conscience to pay $0.03 to a russian who would be a criminal in any country who respected international copyright law.)

meh....ok artist get paid a small percentage anyways...and in my opinion musicians care more about getting their music out then making money(at least any artist I listen to and have respect for) so I would have no problem legaly stealing from a label. btw I don't even use it it's just how i feel

 

[yellow]

meh....ok artist get paid a small percentage anyways...

In the artist's defense... "small percentage" is infinitely more than 'zero percentage'.

 

[decksnap]

This is just great, all y'all who think using allofmp3 is fine because the songs are stolen, but not technically illegal.

The composers and performers don't get paid. You can call it what you like, I call it stealing and you should be ashamed that you twist words to justify taking somebodies property for nothing (or next to nothing simply because it assuages your conscience to pay $0.03 to a russian who would be a criminal in any country who respected international copyright law.)

Rules are rules. We have to take advantage of the law when it is in our favor, because that's what they do. If you got a coupon from Best Buy that said '$10 off' on it, but was supposed to say '10 cents off', wouldn't you use it? Would you feel bad that Best Buy is not getting paid?

 

[yellow]

If you got a coupon from Best Buy that said '$10 off' on it, but was supposed to say '10 cents off', wouldn't you use it? Would you feel bad that Best Buy is not getting paid?

That depends entirely on the depth of your ethics.. same as using allofmp3.com.
Each of us has to choose where we fit into the scale of honest, semi-honost, & I'm-out-for-me.

Personally, I think "Best Buy" is a massive oxymoron and would relish the chance to screw them back just a tinybit for how they consistantly overcharge the consumer and pretend that it's a 'great buy'. However, I don't don't steal music. I don't give my credit card data to a Russian site (sorry, lax cybersecurity abounds).

 

[decksnap]

Personally, I think "Best Buy" is a massive oxymoron and would relish the chance to screw them back just a tinybit for how they consistantly overcharge the consumer and pretend that it's a 'great buy'.

Ah, thank you. that's what I was hinting at. The Recording Industry has been screwing us with their prices on CDs for years. But you're right about the morals thing... When it comes to big corporations such as this, I let the law take me as far as it will take me. Let's just say it doesn't tear at my heartstrings.

 

[yellow]

I think in a lot of cases, for a lot of people, they're willing to go as far as they can assuming they won't get caught.

 

[chris200x9]

In the artist's defense... "small percentage" is infinitely more than 'zero percentage'.

your worried about the artist?....meh LEGALY steal it...send them a couple bucks...cheaper than buying the music and they make more mony then they would have

 

[Blue Velvet]

...and in my opinion musicians care more about getting their music out then making money(at least any artist I listen to and have respect for)

So a professional musician and all those who work in the music industry should work for nothing? When was the last time you did some work for free?

Or have you worked before and got paid for doing so? And if so, how on earth could I and others respect you for 'making money'?

 

[chris200x9]

w/e

 

[technicolor]

There is no better legal alternative to ITMS, but that isn't to say ITMS is good. All that music you have legally purchased that you now own is totally useless should you decide to get some new fancy "music" player that may come out in the future that isn't an iPod.

Thats the fundamental flaw with DRM, it punishes those who do actually buy the music, while those that don't still continue to get it free elsewhere, in higher quality audio, with no DRM. The sooner the music industry learns this the better :/

You do know that if you burn itunes songs to a cd and rerip it strips the drm...

im not sure what that does to quality
or whether its legal

but its an option

 

[feelthefire]

So a professional musician and all those who work in the music industry should work for nothing? When was the last time you did some work for free?

Or have you worked before and got paid for doing so? And if so, how on earth could I and others respect you for 'making money'?

Well when someone infringed on my patent, I essentially did all the work for free for them, did I not? I certainly didn't see any money from it. Couldn't do much about it, either.

This happens to patent holders ALL THE TIME. And there is little recourse since pursuing the case would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Patent holders, unless it is for something huge, tend to take the losses as part of the game and unless they amount to some kind of competitive technology or huge financial loss just move on. I don't understand why the artist has all these rights that protect his right to squeeze every cent out of a consumer for his work, but when someone invents an assisitive technology or something that has a huge potential, and someone steals it, it becomes a "tough s**t" situation.

It seems that with the way the technology has evolved, there needs to be a better solution, since clearly most consumers completely disagree with DRM. It basically says that the artist's right to make a constant flow of money supercedes the consumer's right to pay a reasonable price and actually get fair use of what they paid for.

The RIAA is waging a battle, and the consumer is losing, bigtime. They're paying a lot of money for something with a miniscule production cost (a bleepin 4 mb digital file) and the RIAA keeps fighting to take even more from them.

I really don't think it's a fair way to do things.

This has nothing to do with allofmp3. if iTMS offered the same encoding options and selection, I'd switch. As it is they don't and never will.

 

[feelthefire]

This is just great, all y'all who think using allofmp3 is fine because the songs are stolen, but not technically illegal.

The composers and performers don't get paid. You can call it what you like, I call it stealing and you should be ashamed that you twist words to justify taking somebodies property for nothing (or next to nothing simply because it assuages your conscience to pay $0.03 to a russian who would be a criminal in any country who respected international copyright law.)

Just to clear this up- the songs on allofmp3 are NOT stolen. ROMS, the russian equivalent of the RIAA has distribution rights to ALL music in Russia. AllOfMP3 pays fees to ROMS for the distribution of content, and ROMS is responsible for thereafter distributing the monies to artists and record companies. Many artists claim they don't get paid for these downloads, but that is for the most part because they refused to sign an agreement with ROMS entitling them to pay. This is a CHOICE on the part of the artist and label. Under russian law, ROMS has the right to approve distribution of any music, without permission of the copyright holder, and any changes to that law have been strongly opposed by the russian populus.

ROMS has approved the site in Russia, and since they are the governing body of copyright and media rights, every court therein has upheld. In Russia, RETAIL (not bootleg) CDs often cost less than they are on AllOfMP3, so therefore it's sort of the russian equivalent of iTMS.

The songs ARE liscensed by a government organization. Simply because russian law does not mesh with our own does not mean the songs are stolen.

It is not at this time illegal to import MP3 files to the US, so long as they are for personal use, and as long as they're legal in the country of purchase (and they are) there is nothing prohibiting an American purchaser from using the service, including a moral opposition to stolen property (the songs aren't stolen.)

 

[Blue Velvet]

Well when someone infringed on my patent, I essentially did all the work for free for them, did I not? I certainly didn't see any money from it. Couldn't do much about it, either.

We're not talking about patents here. I fail to see the relevance.

 

[CanadaRAM]

I have yet to have it proven to me that the songs are stolen. If anyone can prove to me that the service is illegal, or the product of stolen property, then I will stop, but no one has been able to do this yet.

Satutory royalty on songwriting = 9 cents per song.
Plus performance and mechanical royalties
allofmp3 price = 3 - 10 cents per song
Q.E.D.

They. Don't. Pay. The. Artists.

New York Times
"AllofMP3 asserts its legality by citing a license issued by a royalty collecting society, the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society, known as R.O.M.S. for its Russian initials.

In most countries, the collecting societies that receive royalty payments for the sale or use of artistic works need reciprocal agreements with overseas copyright holders, according to agencies that represent rights holders.

According to Russia's 1993 copyright law, however, collecting societies are permitted to act on behalf of rights holders who have not authorized them to do so. The result is that numerous organizations in Russia receive royalties for the use of foreign artistic works, but never pass on that money to the artists or music companies, according to the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers, the umbrella organization for collecting societies.

"These collecting agencies are thieves and frauds because they accept money while pretending to represent artists," said Eric Baptiste, director general of the confederation, commonly referred to by the acronym Cisac"

C-net news
"The site says it complies with Russian laws and does make royalty payments to the country's rightsholders organization. Not so, says the BPI, which maintains that all of the site's claims to legal operation are false and that no artists have received royalties from the site to date."

side-line magazine
"Allofmp3.com has since its start sold for over 250 million dollars via its site causing losses of over 3 billion dollar in revenue for bands, labels, shops and distributors. Not a single cent from this huge amount went to the labels nor the artists - so-called 'represented' by Allofmp3 - although Allofmp3 falsely claimed in the past that it does pay out via obscure organisms such as ROMS and FAIRS. In a reaction the site now admits acting illegally to western law"

There are countries that do respect "international copyright law" that are saying DRM is wrong. ...Artists really need to understand that the consumer has rights too, and things like DRM and high prices on digital music infringe on them.

I absolutely disagree with your argument. (and BTW don't change the subject, this isn't about DRM, big record companies or high prices for music. This is about somebody selling something they have no right to sell.)

DRM is a condition under which consumers may choose to buy music. IF you accept the terms, THEN you may purchase music cheaper, or faster, or playable on 5 computers or whatever the terms are. There aren't consumer 'rights' that nullify the contract.

A fundamental principle of law is that the owner of a property has the right to set the asking price and terms for sale of the property, and choose whether or not they are going to offer it for sale. The owner cannot be compelled to sell, or compelled to accept lower terms.

If you don't like DRM, buy on a different media - like CD. Or buy from record companies with different distribution methods.

 

[feelthefire]

As of June 6, 2006, AllOfMP3 continues to assert its legality. I have never heard a citation in which allofmp3 declares it is operating illegally.

Allofmp3 songs can cost well more than 3 to ten cents. Part of the reason they're so cheap is because american artists refuse to sign agreements with ROMS, which then has no obligation to pay them, but DOES have the right to distribute all music in Russia. The songs are NOT stolen. Under russian law a collecting society such as ROMS has full right to lisence any intellectual property to russian distributors, regardless of whether the artist is subject to russian law or not.

You forget that in Russia, retail, "legal" music often costs less, yet the artists somehow get paid for that. A CD in russia costs about $3USD, so over there, it's as expensive as iTMS is here. It's only inexpensive relative to the AMERICAN market.

The artists could be getting paid if they signed agreements with ROMS. But, since many refuse to, they are in fact accessory to their own complaint of not getting paid.

From museekster: "Right holders have to sign an agreement with ROMS to be able to collect their royalties. Probably artists and labels from outside Russia refuse to sign an agreement or are advised by their lawyers to refrain from addressing ROMS because this could be deemed as an acknowledgment of ROMS' position as a collection society.
"According to Section 2 of Clause 47 of the Law of Russian Federation on Copyright and Related Rights, any owner of copyright or related rights that had concluded an agreement with ROMS, has the right to demand due compensation according to the distribution performed by ROMS." See www.roms.ru/?fms=2"


I'd like to see the source for the quote about financial losses. And I don't mean to the site that posted it, but to the source of THEIR information. Until then, I consider it an unsubstantiated claim that is meaningless.


If AllOfMP3 has purchased a liscence from ROMS, they have every legal right in russia to distribute the music files. So "selling something they have no right to sell" is false. Russian law gives ROMS the governing rights over music distributon in russia, regardless of its source, and they do not by law have to seek permission from anybody.

As the files are legal in their country of origin, and importing MP3 for personal use is EXPLICITLY allowed under US copyright law, I see no illegal activity.

"Licenses given by ROMS 'allow using of all works and objects of related rights only in the form provided by such licenses, and are given on behalf of all owners of copyright and related rights, including those who have not given their authority to the organization' (Section 2 of Article 45 of the Law of Russian Federation on Copyright and Related Rights)."

"Until January 1, 2004, all the compensation collected by ROMS for foreign owners of copyright concerning the use of music compositions was transferred to RAO, which, in accordance with the ROMS-RAO agreement, undertook to transfer the due funds to the respective foreign rightsholders.



As of January 1, 2004, ROMS independently distributes the compensation to and concludes agreements directly with foreign author societies as well as foreign rightsholders.



According to Section 2 of Clause 47 of the Law of Russian Federation on Copyright and Related Rights, any owner of copyright or related rights that had concluded an agreement with ROMS, has the right to demand due compensation according to the distribution performed by ROMS."

If they want the money, they should sign the agreement and demand it. They're talking about shutting down the second largest music purchasing store worldwide, instead of signing on and actually profiting from it. Sounds like an RIAA beef and a political issue far more than an artist issue.


by the way, ROMS is not an "obscure organization:" "Russian Organization on Collective Management of Rights of Authors and Other Rightholders in Multimedia, Digital Networks & Visual Arts (ROMS) is the national Russian organization providing professional collective management of authors’ property rights and protection of interests of rightsholders in cases of use of their works in digital interactive networks, including the Internet." It's a government sanctioned management group that is national in Russia. Just because it's not the RIAA, IFPI, or BPI, doesn't make it an "obscure" rights management group.

 

[princealfie]

It's not allofmp3 is illegal. The music industry here is more illegal than the servers.