| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2005 11:41:04 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Allofmp3 seems like the best of all worlds. Cheap prices and reimbursement for the artist. I'm always pretty skeptical of "if it's too good to be true...", so I think it's going to take a bit of investigating including 3rd party opinions. I'm interested though...
It seems less illegal than buying something online and not paying sales tax on it. (Most states have a line on their income tax forms asking for reimbursement for online purchases...)
I'm not totally convinced yet. I don't want my money to wind up with the russian mob. |
Doc,
We both know there is nothing can be less illegal... You can't be less pregnant.
:) |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 12:16:12 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not totally convinced yet. I don't want my money to wind up with the russian mob. |
Funny you say that. Straight from the FAQ.
Originally posted by allofmp3 FAQ:
"I am not going to let my credit card number fall into the hands of Russian mafia". A phrase that appears in almost any discussion about Allofmp3.
This is absolute nonsense. Credit card payments are processed by Chronopay, a third party payment processor in The Netherlands. This company is verified by companies like Visa and Mastercard.
We have been in contact with lots of users. No one has ever reported credit card abuse as a result of payments made to Allofmp3. You are quite safe using your credit card with this company. |
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 12:27:28 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by eslaydog:
How would they go about sending the money to the artists? Do they mail it to their home address? Certainly they can't mail it to the record company, Care Of Artist. There is no way they are mailing checks to these artists. |
The Russian government requires it. You think American companies would continue to send records to Russia if the copyright laws weren't being followed? What makes you think they can't send a check to the record company in care of? It'd be illegal for the record company to cash it, or even to try to take some of it.
Even if they aren't, artists do have addresses, or P.O. Boxes, maybe their managers take their mail, something. They have to receive their royalty checks from somewhere... I don't see how they wouldn't be getting the checks. It's regulated by Russian law and they (allofmp3) doesn't have to pay the actual artist, simply the agency that does it for all of Russia. If it wasn't happening I can't imagine we would continue trading with Russia being unable to protect our exports...
Originally posted by eslaydog:
Also, is it fair that the record company who markets the artist, who gives them their big break, gets them started commercially, etc. get no money at all? |
As I stated earlier: "The artist receives their fair share. Anyone else involved with the making of said music, however, does not."
Implying they are not receiving their fair share. However, I feel that most record companies have continually held artists hostage, as well as in essence legally stealing from them. (Exactly part of the reason this thread even exists) I refer back to my original post containing this link : The problem with music
So I have no qualms about record companies getting the shaft on the deal (it's frankly about time). I do, however, feel bad that others involved with the creation (anyone invovled but not employed the record company) is getting the shaft with them.
Message edited by author 2005-11-19 12:58:58. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 12:35:38 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by eslaydog:
How would they go about sending the money to the artists? Do they mail it to their home address? Certainly they can't mail it to the record company, Care Of Artist. There is no way they are mailing checks to these artists.
Also, is it fair that the record company who markets the artist, who gives them their big break, gets them started commercially, etc. get no money at all? |
The Russian government requires it. You think American companies would continue to send records to Russia if the copyright laws weren't being followed? What makes you think they can't send a check to the record company in care of? It'd be illegal for the record company to cash it, or even to try to take some of it.
Even if they aren't, artists do have addresses, or P.O. Boxes, maybe their managers take their mail, something. They have to receive their royalty checks from somewhere... I don't see how they wouldn't be getting the checks. It's regulated by Russian law and they (allofmp3) doesn't have to pay the actual artist, simply the agency that does it for all of Russia. If it wasn't happening I can't imagine we would continue trading with Russia being unable to protect our exports... |
Jadin,
It is nice to believe that this is legit. It would be a great deal. Unfortunately, this is not so. Are you contending that the record companies, the same ones that claim this is illegal, are sending the actual music to the allofmp3.com company so they can turn around and sell it hundreds of times and cut them off? Also, where do you think the Russian govenrment gets these artists PO box numbers? Are they sending these checks to the same place people send their fan mail? Also, what portion of the $1.57 the site makes does the site earn? What portion is the Russian government taking for their time? After all this, what is the artist making?
The answer is nothing. This is a sham, like the people from Nigeria that want to tranfer their fathers inheritance to you and have you keep some and send a money order back to them for the rest. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 12:53:30 PM · #55 |
I edited my previous reply to answer the rest of you original questions.
Originally posted by eslaydog:
Jadin,
It is nice to believe that this is legit. It would be a great deal. Unfortunately, this is not so. Are you contending that the record companies, the same ones that claim this is illegal, are sending the actual music to the allofmp3.com company so they can turn around and sell it hundreds of times and cut them off? Also, where do you think the Russian govenrment gets these artists PO box numbers? Are they sending these checks to the same place people send their fan mail? Also, what portion of the $1.57 the site makes does the site earn? What portion is the Russian government taking for their time? After all this, what is the artist making? |
Not at all. I would assume that people in the import / export business would be the ones responsible for delivering the music to Russia, who then sells it to stores / radio stations etc etc. There's no way each record company mails out one individual CD to "KCCR radio". This is no different.
The same place you and I would get their P.O. Boxes. Artists receive their (american) royalty checks somehow, they aren't going to keep this address secret if people are sending money to it. I'm sure record companies would even give out addresses requested by a foreign government.
As far as amounts of earning? There's no way to know that. According to the f.a.q. I listed, the Russian government does take out operating expenditures, but sends most of the money to the artists. The U.S. has tried to get Moscow police to shut the company down, but they couldn't because they were following current Russian copyright law. And that law says that the artist must be paid.
Originally posted by eslaydog:
The answer is nothing. This is a sham, like the people from Nigeria that want to tranfer their fathers inheritance to you and have you keep some and send a money order back to them for the rest. |
I understand your cynism but frankly I just don't see it.
One thing the f.a.q. brought out was that in Russia cd's sell for about $3 American. This means Allofmp3 costs a Russian about the same price as iTunes does to an American. I'll ask you the same question. How much of that whopping $3 is the artist getting? Surely they are getting some. Just not very much.
I think the real issue is that we (Americans) are taking advantage of the world wide web to purchase foreign goods at highly reduced rates using our much more valuable dollars. Not that the respective parties aren't getting their share. (With the obvious exclusion's)
Message edited by author 2005-11-19 12:55:41. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 02:46:08 PM · #56 |
IF it's legit (and I still think that's a big IF), there are certainly clearing houses which deal with royalties. It's how radio stations work or how artists collect a royalty for you singing their song on Sunday morning at church. You give your money to the clearinghouse and a list of what you've played and they handle it. I think this happens all the time. This company would be no different. Here's their legal spiel:
"All the materials in the MediaServices projects are available for distribution via Internet according to license # LS-3Ì-02-36 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society. Under the license agreement, MediaServices pays license fees for all the materials subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All the materials are available solely for personal use. Further distribution, resale or broadcasting is prohibited."
eslay, I think there are definitely shades of legality. Especially when we start looking at the global scale. An action can be simultaneously legal in one country and illegal in another. Loopholes allow for legalities even though the action is "against the spirit" of the law. Something can be illegal and few condone it (murder). Something can be illegal and everybody does it (speeding). Would you view those two acts in the same light?
I had said before I'm less concerned with legality. This is such a murky issue for digital rights anyway. By moving my computer 250 miles north my action now becomes legal? (Unless it was reversed, the Canadian supreme court ruled that peer-to-peer activity was legal in Canada.)
I'm more concerned with the morality of the situation. I have little to no sympathy for the record companies. I do have sympathy for artists. This seems like a possible winner scenario in my eyes. That is, once again, IF everything is as it seems. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 04:08:18 PM · #57 |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 04:43:31 PM · #58 |
Copyright laws are usually only of benefit to the big fish. An example of this is that SONY's rootkit illegally used software code of another individual. Their ROOTKIT was a violation of copyrights.
So SONY see's no problem violating copyright to ensure it's own are not violated.
Why should I have regard for such a company's concern.
Furthermore, the labels get approx. $0.75 of iTunes $0.99 fee. The artist are lucky to see a few pennies, a nickel...maybe a dime. SONY pays absolutely nothing. But reaps 3/4 of the profits. Now they're saying "it's not enough".
In fact, they want more $$$ and variable pricing. Why? So they can !@#$% over artists some more. THey want it for negotiating purposes in order to threaten artists. If you don't agree, we'll release your new song at the $0.99 instead of the $1.99 rate and put your career straight into the bargain bin.
Lastly, if you understand anything, you realize copyrights are a fairly new concept (only within the last few centuries) and that the copyrights & intellectual property laws we have now are only a few decades old.
Copyright owners have stolen trillions of dollars from the American public. Why should I care if a few kids infringe a government sanctioned monopoly and cost them a few thousand dollars.
Copyrights are a mutually beneficial arrangement when implemented properly. However, in their current form they are a one-way benefit.
Also....when RIAA explains why we are paying close to $20 a CD that costs them less than a $1 to make...and artists are getting only a few pennies. Than I might give a damn about their profit loss. But there is no reason we should be paying $20/CD.
$1.50 to manufacture and ship a CD when produced in a 1,000 quantity going thru a third party manufacturer.
How much do you think a CD made in house by SONY in quantity of 1,000,000 really costs? Maybe $0.50
Oh, and did you know that the record labels automatically write off 10% of that as "lost, damaged goods" So of the million CDs made and sold an artist only collects on 900,000. Oh wait, they also write of a few more % under the claim of cost of using "new" technology becuase CDs are new technology. (Bull!@#$)
Nope - it comes down to the simple point. The record labels are mobsters with tons of money from ripping off artists for 50 yrs. And they have spent millions of $$$ to buy legislative votes in order to ensure they can retain their stranglehold.
(By the way, the exact same problem used to exist with automobiles...) |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 05:28:26 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Nope - it comes down to the simple point. The record labels are mobsters with tons of money from ripping off artists for 50 yrs. And they have spent millions of $$$ to buy legislative votes in order to ensure they can retain their stranglehold.
(By the way, the exact same problem used to exist with automobiles...) |
What, the automobile manufacturers used to rip off artists too? |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 05:43:04 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Oh wait, they also write of a few more % under the claim of cost of using "new" technology becuase CDs are new technology. (Bull!@#$) |
I agree with your post, but just wanted to point out that I was under the impression that Sony actually owns the copyright of CD technology. And collect a few pennies on every CD produced.
But I agree that cost is grossly inflated to extort more money from the artist. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 06:59:49 PM · #61 |
Sounds like the petrol companies and oil suppliers to me.
Wonder how different this debate would be if it were not music but original photo files that were been downloaded and printed?
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 09:06:00 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by "nsbca7":
What, the automobile manufacturers used to rip off artists too? |
No, but when Ford motor corp released it's cars they were sued. Why? Because there was an automobile association of america, if you made a car - you had to pay them.
It became a big legal battle for many years. Ford arguing that he was building cars, why should he have to pay an association in order to build.
Eventually the automobile association of America started suuing people who bought Ford's. And after awhile the popular opinion (one fairly divided between "Ford" the illegal car maker and the Automobile Industry Association of America (AIAA) [pun intended]. Once the lawsuits began, the support declined and general attitude toward was one of opposition to the association. And popular support grew for Ford Motor Corp.
Eventually the courts decided in Ford's favor and as for the automobile association - well, it ceased to exist. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 09:15:15 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Steveinnz:
Sounds like the petrol companies and oil suppliers to me.
Wonder how different this debate would be if it were not music but original photo files that were been downloaded and printed? |
I doubt it'd be any different...but you'd have to put it into perspective.
You, can't print your own photos...so it is distributed by the Photo Industry Association of America. And even if you want to print your own photo, you must pay them $1.
They buy all the photo printers, and charge the public $20 a print. So the public decides to start printing their own photos with their computers. And PIAA sues them...
You have to realize RIAA spends most of their money and efforts on killing alternative methods of delivery that are LEGAL. Look at how they're trying to hurt iTunes by forcing them to raise their prices, and they want Apple to give them a percentage of every iPod sold.
Now imagine that PIAA is in charge of collecting the $$$ for any photo you sell. You sell 100 photos @ $10 (that should equal $1,000), and PIAA gives you a check for $600. When you ask where the other $400 is they explain to you that $100 was taken because they estimate that 10% of product is damaged in delivery and they write that off. Then another 10% is taken out because photographs are new technology therefore it's exceptionaly exspensive. Another 10% is deducted because they bill you for the development process. And the other 10% is well....wouldn't you like to know where the hell that went too. Um promotional costs...yeah...that's right. Oh, but they never really promoted your pics....they spent all that money promoting Ansel Adam's. Cause he's their big seller.
Now, you see what the same situation would be if it were for photographs.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2005 10:31:55 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Finally, Sony BMG cried uncle. The company had already announced that it would no longer use the rootkit method of copy-protecting its CD's. Next, it announced that it would stop shipping all of the existing albums that included the software, and even remove the 3 million discs already on store shelves.
Then it went even farther, and actually recalled the 2 million rootkit discs that had already been sold-a costly move. If you bought one of these albums, Sony BMG will exchange it for the same CD minus the nasty software; shipping will be free both ways. Details, along with an uninstaller, will be posted at //www.sonybmg.com.
|
IIRC, Sony weasel-worded the statement as "they would _temporarily_ stop using the rootkit method".
This has snowballed; The rootkit "uninstaller" actally only makes the DRM programs visible. And it opens up you PC to attacks--seems any website can access your computer after you install the patch. See //www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-11-17-sony-rootkit_x.htm
And the rootkit developer seems to have violated the license (LGPL) of at least one other copyrighted software product: //www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1888878,00.asp
Note that Sony seems to use several copyright protection schemes (see the USA Today article mentioned above). Talk about slowing your PC down!
Also, I heard the rootkit remover doesn't remove the copy protection program, all it does is make it visible.
It also seems that the copy protection company reports your personal information back to Sony and to its developer.
Message edited by author 2005-11-20 22:35:19. |
|
|
|
11/20/2005 10:41:14 PM · #65 |
After the Sony BMG fiasco, I'm not buying anymore CD's from anybody. How can I trust them? In fact, it seems to be safer (and cheaper) to buy from websites such as allofmp3.ru. Which is, in fact, legal website.
And you can choose if you want mp3,ogg,wma or other formats. And it is free of spyware.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 04:19:59 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by jonr:
After the Sony BMG fiasco, I'm not buying anymore CD's from anybody. How can I trust them? In fact, it seems to be safer (and cheaper) to buy from websites such as allofmp3.ru. Which is, in fact, legal website.
And you can choose if you want mp3,ogg,wma or other formats. And it is free of spyware. |
The web site is legal, but buying from them might not protect you from copyright violations. I have no idea what Iceland's copyright laws entail, but it certainly is no better than downloading the songs over your favorite file-trading system in the U.S.A. legally. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 04:33:15 AM EDT.
