I hope this topic is ok to poll? I remember in the past, there seemed to be some negative AND positive comments about them...i.e. did the profits actually make it to any mucision or did they go directly to the Russian mofia? AND do they really deliver lossless music or are you purchasing transcoded mp3's? I really like the buisness model and would like to purchase more music from them...IF I'm really getting a lossless file, that is?

The legality of the site is questionable. Technically, it's legal in Russia, however, that does not mean that it is legal in the United States and other countries. The RIAA would like to shut the site down but due to loop holes in Russian law, it's not happening...yet.

Would discussion of allofmp3.com be forbidden if it was definitely shown to be illegal?

I have a friend who knows someone whose cousin has used allofmp3.com for over a year with no problems at all. The prices are right and the selection is good enough. They download AAC @ transcoding levels (~400Kbps).

Since it's not proven illegal yet, this friends cousin will probably continue to use this site as much as possible.

I've compared flacs purchased from AllOfMP3.com to flacs I've ripped with EAC and I've seen binary identical files. Using their download utility AllTunes makes the lengthy process of downloading files painless, creates files in directory structures as I direct and creates good tags.

-Ben

Binary identical?? Hmmm on most of them or all files?

I used to useallofmp3.com for purchasing Ogg Vorbis -q7 files. The prices were amazing and the quality good, as long as you only order tracks from ablums marked "Online Encoding Exclusive" because supposedly those are encoded from a lossless source.

I have been using Allofmp3 for about 9 months now. I have to confess I should probably be a little more concerned about what's happening to musicians' returns ... However, from the research I did on it before signing up, I understood that it is (or was then) completely legal, including in the 'States. Things may have changed since then, however.

I have not tried any Lossless format downloads yet. I have so far tried various LAME MP3 bit-rates, (now having settled on 320kbps), Ogg vorbis 520 and a couple of others. I did listening tests on them as best I could (but not very scientifically I'd have to admit) and am very impressed with the results. Under my listening conditions I was hard pressed to pick much difference between original CDDA and MP3/320, after burning a download to CD and comparing with a CD I already had.

I have now just started using their Alltunes software which claims to make the downloading process simpler and more reliable. That it is, but the downoad rate is very slow and, although their technical assistance desk is excellent, they have not said why this is. Otherwise, the software is a lovely piece of work and is a visual feast.

The other handy thing is, there is an excellent "samples player" built into Alltunes, which defaults to providing about 1 minute of a selected track. However, once you have spent $US50 or more, you become a "Gold" member (!) and you get the full duration. You can create sample playlists as well. I'd describe the quality as AM Radio. It enables you to roam free to explore their extremely impressive catalogue and dip into things you may not otherwise try.

So to sum up, yes you need to consider the moral aspects of using the site, but on a technical front it has performed brilliantly for me and, also, I consider the monetary transactions are secure.

A slight guilt-expunging footnote: when it comes to Australian artists, I still purchase the CD in the normal way. I've got to live with myself, after all....

Ian C.

This site is absolutely illegal, they do not get any permission from copyright holders. There is some absurd license fees mechanism in Russia, but this nonsense exists only for show (what a shame! ).

I personally love how they've managed to flaunt the idiocy of preventing free flow of information.

Transmission of information cannot be stopped, yet people insist on trying. How foolish. History has shown repeatedly that any attempt to limit the transmission of information will fail.

I like how they get people to pay for that "free flow of information".

I wonder where and when that was supposed to have happened?

For sure, one should not accept the RIAA's word on this matter. Did any other knowledged party make a statement as to it's legality?




You mean, like the copyright fees on blank media existing in other countries, yes? I'm sure that is used to reimburse Russian artist' CDs you might have copied.

Illegal for whom though? (and says who? Sorry Egor, I don't know your credentials - you may well be an expert ) Is this a moral argument or a technical legal question? In other words, is it illegal for the punters to download from it or illegal for Allof to put it up?

At the end of the day, an assertion that something like this is illegal can only be tested in a court and I'm not sure how jurisdictional issues work in these things, not being an international lawyer myself. Until then the issue is, I guess, moot since people will continue to use it as it is unlikely that proceedings wil be commenced against indiviual users.

Ah well, let's see what happens.

Ian C.

I mean, if someone wants to sell copyrighted material, he pays fixed fees to some РАО (RAO - Russian Author's Society) or it's comrade РОМС (ROMS - Russian Multimedia and Digital Networks Society), which then send money to the rights holder. I'm not sure that foreign musicians ever get paid for their work by these RAO and ROMS. I also do not copy or buy those CDs you mention, so I don't get the reimbursement point. Money should go to the owner of copyrighted artwork, not someone else.

Edit. Added link to ROMS.

Music industry says that.

What will happen? Since Allofmp3.com gains popularity, Russian law will be "fixed", and impudent owners of this site will be forced to obey the law.

It is a fact that in most western countries you are paying several taxes "to reimburse musicians", some direct, some indirect, and the fee on blank media being a prime example. I believe currently there is a fee on computers themselves in some countries.

Do you think any of this ever gets reimbursed to any Russian artists (particularly if they're not signed up to a major label)? Or just to the "correct" artist in general?

With this system being in existance, and instated by our goverments, I feel the given criticism on allofmp3 is entirely silly and misguided.



So, that's the record companies, or in Russia or China, the state (communism and all ). AllofMp3 pays the state. So, they're fine, by your reasoning.



This part I would agree upon. See what happened in Sweden

The RIAA cannot declare something illegal, only the courts. The RIAAs members engage in what any reasonable person would call Illegal behaviour all the time (rootkit drms, cartel practices, not paying artists: there are many artists who have sold 30 Million albums and not recieved 1 cent, it is upto the artist / family (if artist is deceased) to take them to court - the investigation is not allowed to be open as per contract, ie only recording industry appointed accountants can look at sales, etc, conflict of interest?).

BPI threatening to sue UK users of all of mp3.com. It's also going to sue the site in UK courts.

Your message is false. Nowhere in the linked report do they speak of suing users. It's specifically stated so. So, why not, if they are supposedly clearly breaking the law?

They are going to sue a foreign website locally. Way to go

Picky! More here.

Nope, they aren't. The state is not the owner, and democracy is being built for sixteen years already. (yesterday Russians celebrated kind of Independence day )
There are in Russia IFPI and major labels' offices, which are the real copyright holders. I'm not against rights to be reserved and money to be received by publishing labels, it's a business.


OK, it was not RIAA, it was IFPI. If you don't like "illegal" word, let it be "not right", but this offence is obvious, so I cannot call them innocent presumably.
Plus, Russia is forced to fight piracy to enter WTO, so soon the law will probably protect intellectual property thoroughly.

The official letter from Allofmp3:

The US government officials and politicians have been demanding lately that the Russian authorities shut down allofmp3.com, alleging the site is pirate. Otherwise, they threaten Russia with sanctions, including blocking its entry to WTO.

In this regard we would like to make a statement:

1. The site AllOfMP3.com belongs to a Russian company and for 6 years it has operated within the country, in full compliance with all Russian laws. Throughout this period the various government offices have scrutinized site's legality and have not found any breach of the law. So far there has been no decision by any Russian court contesting the site's legality.

2. The Russian site AllOfMP3.com is not operating or advertising its business on the territory of other countries.

3. The site AllOfMP3.com does regularly transfer substantial amounts of royalties to the Russian organizations for collective management of rights such as ROMS and FAIR, which have granted the site licenses to legally deliver music through the Internet.

4. The site AllofMP3.com reserves the right to take all steps necessary to protect its business reputation. We call upon everyone to take a thorough and unbiased view of the site's legality.

5. On September 1, 2006 the changes to the Russian copyright legislation will come into force. Since January 2006 the site has been making direct agreements with rightholders and authors at the same time increasing the price of the music compositions and transferring the royalties directly to the artists and record companies. The aim of AllofMP3.com is to agree with all rightholders on the prices and royalties amounts by September 1, 2006.

6. We believe in the long term and civilized business based on respecting the law, considering the customers' demands as well as the interests of both national and international rightholders.

The AllofMP3.com Administration

June 6, 2006 Moscow
Contact information: press@allofmp3.com
Available at http://allofmp3.com/statement.shtml

It is illegal over here, however, the site is run in a way that easily tops itunes.

If iTunes offered choice of encoding, DRM free files etcetera, I'd actually consider going legal.

But time and time again it has been proved that people that buy legal are kicked in the face by DRM, Copy protection, and other bull-sh*t to the point at which the MP3s you download from wherever are actually a better product.

If AoMP3 went legal and charged higher prices I'd still buy from them when I could.

Although nothing beats amazon.co.uk

>If AoMP3 went legal and charged higher prices I'd still buy from them when I could.

That is not the issue (or perhaps not the main one), the minute AllofMp3 have to negotiate with RIAA members about licensing (perhaps by Sept 2006) the RIAA is not going to let them have audio tracks which are DRM free, it is all about control, regardless of the price (allofmp3 could squash iMS, like it does now by offering lossless + lossy at the same price as iMS).

i have bought lossy in the past and the prices are very good, for some lossless stuff though its almost as much as a cd so i just dont see the point unless you have to have it right now and in that case its probably faster/cheaper and just as legal to check out alt.binaries.sounds.lossless

i know people like to say well it legal in russia but when they accept source material from members for a discount on downloads that just seems dodgy as fuck to me (and i say that as an ex user), in most cases i would rather just buy the cd/vinyl or maybe the mp3's from bleep if its a vinyl i own but cant be bothered ripping.

bleep.com is a really nice service its a shame they did not add more lossless stuff to go along with the autechre and boards of canada, lower prices on the lossless would be nice as well.

Why worry about legality? AllofMP3's payment process uses a 3rd party, so technically they can argue that they have no direct idea where their users are from. Nowadays with regards to digital media legality is whatever the consumer chooses to do, not what is dictated by the producers *shrugs*. I'll use it as long as it's around - thank you Russia . Besides, the music industry has indicated that any legal action will be directed at the site itself, not its users.

I've used the site for over a year and been pleased with what I've been able to download. My only quality-related concern is what the source format is for the albums that aren't "Online Exclusives" (original CDDA data available).

As for usability, AllTunes failed to download anything on my PC. AllofMP3 Explorer works well, but the database is browsed locally, meaning that the program has to go through a rather tedious update process every time you fire it up.

Stop! You're violating TOS #8.
To be serious, though, all the accusations are invalid until you prove that RAO/ROMS doesn't send the money to copyright holders.


That must also mean the money shouldn't go to say, the record labels cause they're not creating art themselves. And do you think the amount of profit they actually share with the artists themselves is really fair? May be true for indie/underground labels, but NOT for major ones. Period.


Yeah, right to mofia. ;D

IANAL, so can't comment on the legality. But what about the morality of using the site? Chances are that no money finds its way to the copyright holders. Which is immoral. About as immoral as record company contracts, which are structured so as to make the artists pay for the recordings they make (all costs are recovered from their royalties before a penny is paid), but which are owned by the record companies nonetheless. That is legally-sanctioned theft, and so pardon me if my heart does not bleed for the record companies.

Basically, no matter what method you use to buy music - legal or not - the artist is shafted. (There are of course exceptions, where the artist has managed to retain ownership of their own work, but they are a small minority). So it seems to me that buying through AllOfMP3 is morally no worse than through iTMS, Amazon, or even the local high street store.

From the first link:

"Because it is a professionally put together site it does look legitimate, although it should be obvious from the price that it isn't," Mr Phillips said."

I say the price IS fair! At LAST, I pay an honest price for a lossless copy that has nothing included like artwork and liner notes...not to mention DRM-free!

For most albums here in the USA I pay around $10-$14 through Amazon, then wait for it to arive in the mail. If I'm REALLY feeling impatient, I can drive to the record store and purchase the same CD for around $14-$19 and get the same thing....With Allofmp3, I get that same lossless copy(I personally don't like spending money on lossy encodes) for ussually around $6-$9, but that's JUST the music, period. No pretty pictures, liner notes, lyrics, ready-made archieve, ect! I think this price is very fair for what I'm paying for?

Some day I hope to be able to do this from a site that there's no question as to the legality of, but to my knowledge, such a site doesn't exist today, at least with half the selection Allof has?

To be honest, when I started this thread I was afraid I would find out that the files Allof was selling were merely transcoded pirated mp3's! I have not ever suspected they were, but then, really how good are my ears? I'm still on the learning curve when it comes to audio technology, that's why I come to this excellent site!

Judging from some of the articles people have posted, I guess I had just better get the files I can while the getting's good? The RIAA and all the equivalant entities will shut them down soon if they have thier way!

On a side note - I was wondering why the newest Pearl Jam(2006) was only being offered in lossy at up to 394Kb/s? Could that be related to not having an agreement signed with Pearl Jam?

From their letter:

"5. On September 1, 2006 the changes to the Russian copyright legislation will come into force. Since January 2006 the site has been making direct agreements with rightholders and authors at the same time increasing the price of the music compositions and transferring the royalties directly to the artists and record companies. The aim of AllofMP3.com is to agree with all rightholders on the prices and royalties amounts by September 1, 2006."

See what the hell is the idea of DRM?

Drm does very little to stop piracy, and just hurts those who buy legal.

Why/???

Oh man, this topic could run forever. Most of the artists AllOfMP3 sell, have more than enough money anyway, so I couldn't give a fuck.

Then again, I don't use them and never will. I will buy a nice physical copy or I will get a lossy copy from P2P. It blows my mind to think that people will pay for downloads...

Untill lossless audio is more commonly shared, I will sill buy most of my music in CD form from my local Best Buy. I might check this site out, though, because of the cheaper-than-CD raw downloads.

bottom line for me: I don't base my decisions in life solely on what's legal. I strive to buy music from artists that I want to support. there's soooooooooo much good music out there in the world. seriously. music that has never been on a radio in the US, or even anywhere else.

just as with anything, the only long-term sustainable model is to support what's producing the goodness. that means that I probably won't be buying from allof anytime soon. magnatune is hands-down, by far the most impressive (read: almost perfect) execution I have seen of a sustainable non-evil (mutually-beneficial) music distribution model.

That site looks really interesting! I wish more music was available?

Umm.. I think it has been long since established now that they don't give a dime to the artists. Why would they?

I'm no detective, public prosecutor or superhero so far, so how many times should I parrot this:Everyone should do his work, so let IFPI prove the thing.

You might want to visit ROMS office (interesting, how big it is?) by yourself and perform your own investigation:

No, I mean what I say: rights holder is not necessarily a musician or an artist.

And this is really a demagogy, you know, production of artwork also costs money, no matter how fair a signed contract is.

ftboomer sez:
>I have a friend who knows someone whose cousin

You cannot be too careful, can you? <bg>

More music? Dude. Magnatune's got a huuuge amount of music. There are so many artists that I just don't have time to check out right now. Unless... perhaps your confusion could be cleared by understanding that it's not just a download site; it's a record label. The point being that Magnatune signs talented artists and makes a [non-exclusive] license agreement with them to offer their music. The whole thing is very progressive (unlimited streaming of their full catalogue before buying; splitting purchase price half-and-half with artist).. who knows if it will work long-term, but it's working so far. But annnnnnnnyway.

Gee, I don't know what your talking about, or who reads these boards.

Sorry, I should have said, "more known musicians". I have access to a T1 line here at work and still going through all the listings took forever to find really good tunes. I listened to a few albums from the site yesterday and found out something I used to take for granted: There IS something to be said for a professionally produced CD! Todays music, loud as it may be, still sounds terrific and professionally produced. The CD's I sampled were full of mistakes made by the group, never edited...no re-do's? It did give me the feeling I was listening to the group live, which may be a positive for some? I like listening to live concerts on DVD, but I get to SEE the other musicians faces as they silently scold the one who goofed, or at least roll their eyes....not just keep playing like it was meant to sound this way!

Oh well, I'll still keep plodding through the site in hopes of finding some really good stuff, I would appreciate the ability to find a treasure to share with friends! Which brings me to one of your original points, I think: The site does offer a fantastic method of bringing new music to the masses!

Gotta say man.. I've actually never noticed that. In any case, if you're seriously looking for good stuff, you can check out the podcasts which I believe are updated every week, or do as I do and use the statistics page to find other popular/best-selling albums. =)

I'm trying it as I type(the stats page) and this seems better! VERY nice, thanks Ryran!

What I actually meant was that not only the production cost money. Distribution also does. Then, promotion. Finally, the media. Of all the money you pay for a licensed CD, up to 90%+ can go to different intermediaries and middlemen, and the artist himself gets a few cents. What you have said earlier ("Money should go to the owner of copyrighted artwork, not someone else") basically is an ideal world situation, and in the reality, most of the profit go to anyone else beside the actual artist. Thus, both the artist and the listener will suffer because of the same thing.

The amount of harm such a site as allofmp3.com causes for any major label is literally miniscule, but the organisations like IFPI and RIAA (especially the latter) make it clear that the whole concept poses a threat of an unbelieveable scale (as if there were no such things in pre-mp3 era).

That's why I don't get all the fuss about allofmp3.com and its legitimacy/morality. Yes, the Russian law may contain some wormholes that allow the site to exist in its present state; there is a disclaimer that has it quite clear that it may be illegal to use the site in your country, and all the morality issues lead to a moot point I've described earlier in the post.

So, I think the right position towards allofmp3 would be: if you want to use the site, use it while you can; if you don't want to, forget about it; but anyway, don't increase the idle talk.

I did not mean that they're proponents of the flow, but rather that they're doing things with info that the RIAA doesn't want them to. These American corporate interest groups are getting far too powerful, and any situation where some other organization can legally thumb their noses at the *AA is very exciting to me.

Neither did I. But anyhow...

They also happen to be thumbing their noses at the laws of other nations. Fuel on the fire for the entities who'd like a WWW with less freedom.

I wish someone from the site would comment on this poll. Surely they must have been around HA at some time, what with all the different encoding options etc..

Does anyone know what version of LAME, vorbis, MPC etc is stamped on their files?

I recall downloading a 320 kbps file from them that was stamped as Lame 3.92 earlier this year.

Hey, it's legal.



And as they restrict freedoms, the fire grows even bigger.

Here are a few links on articles written by Artists:

http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

A few select quotes:

"TLC declared bankruptcy after they received less than 2 percent of the $175 million earned by their CD sales. That was about 40 times less than the profit that was divided among their management, production and record companies."

"Toni Braxton also declared bankruptcy in 1998. She sold $188 million worth of CDs, but she was broke because of a terrible recording contract that paid her less than 35 cents per album."

"But there are hundreds of stories about artists in their 60s and 70s who are broke because they never made a dime from their hit records."

...a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act. He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature. That subtle change in copyright law will add billions of dollars to record company bank accounts over the next few years -- billions of dollars that rightfully should have been paid to artists. A "work for hire" is now owned in perpetuity by the record company. (instead of going to the artist after 35 years)

Who is stealling from who? The RIAA represent only themselves.

In light of the discussion, this seems like interesting 'news':

http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/2006/06...r-some-artists/