Music downloads, how legal is legal enough?

johnthomas_2

Bernard_Coleslaw wrote:

Just to correct you a bit. According to the link you posted, the authorities (i.e. the legal powers-that-be, police, courts, etc) have not declared the site illegal. The IFPI have. The IFPI is the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, i.e. the trade association for record companies.

Of course they'd say it was illegal.:D

Bit like asking John Prescott if he is "value for money"

As this is a money saving website and nobody has been prosecuted for using it, yet people have been prosecuted for using p2p, and most of the national newspapers have made mention of it, why shouldn't Martin be able to mention it as well?

Competition will always be a fact of life, look at the number of art graduates this country produces every year, a lot of them go on to become art teachers and very few become full time artists, there just isnt a large enough demand to sustain them. The music market is much the same, and for all the hard up musicians who have had a go and not made a great career out of doing something they love doing, join the thousands of us "failed" footballers, golfers, cricketers..... You name it, i would dearly love to get paid as a professional golfer, but without the ability to shoot stupid numbers every week, i had to get a proper job. Should i qualify for a grant, because i was good but not that good? Most talent will rise to the top eventually, look at someone like Nick Drake, he couldn't sell a record when he was alive, in recent years he has become more listened to by an audience that couldn't possibly have seen or heard him while he was alive. More recently, bands have made it big off the back of the internet and its ability to promote an artist more on talent than advertising budget. I am not against paying for an artists work, (most of the stuff i listen to they are dead anyway) but i am against paying through the ar*e for anything.
Apart from anything, has anyone considered the environmental benefit of allofmp3? All users leave no carbon footprint, and should maybe even be subsidised by the Environmental Agency?
Long live Lenin......

johnthomas_2

mint wrote:

"These collecting agencies are thieves and frauds because they accept money while pretending to represent artists," said Eric Baptiste, director general of the confederation. "They play off a bizarre aspect of the Russian law that we are lobbying to change."

If it is already illegal why are they "lobbying to change" it?

lamp

It's illegal to rip your own cds and make mp3s out of them for personal use? really? wow!

I think it's some cheek for itunes and it's ilk to charge a shocking 79p per track. You can pick brand new cd albums for less in tesco and hmv!!!

However, I do think the russian website is a bit dodgy.

Here's an alternative for all you legal-loving downloaders, https://www.hearitbuyitburnit.com - you can 'rent' tracks at 10p each. You cannot burn them onto cd or move them onto mp3 player, however, you can listen to them as many times as you want on your PC.

Other tips, you can pick up 2nd hand CDs off ebay and Amazon for 4-5 quid each or less! Check out your local charity shops.

I'd love to set up a website for musicians, i.e. they pay a charge of say 5-20 pounds set up charge to have a page and their info, + bandwidth costs for each song they load up, + say, a monthly fee of 5-10 pounds a month, and they keep all the revenue generated by people buying their songs off the site

Alfie_E

Patr100 wrote:

Aside from the possible illegalities of downloading, what would deter me is providing my credit card details to a remote internet business not covered by UK, EU or even US laws.

Allofmp3.com do not process credit and debit card transactions. Currently, they’re handled by ChronoPay. They’re in the Netherlands, so safely within the EU. Allofmp3.com probably chose the Netherlands, because using Allofmp3.com is legal in the Netherlands. This is also likely to hinder record labels, if they were ever to try pursuing users of Allofmp3.com. I can’t see a court forcing a Dutch company to hand over data that’s part of, what would be, a trawling exercise, for something that’s not even illegal in the Netherlands.

psycho89 wrote:

I had a look at AllofMP3 but each time the "Paypal" payment option was "not available" ?

This is because PayPal don’t want anything to do with Allofmp3.com. This is understandable. Laws don’t apply equally to consumers and businesses. Even if it’s legal for consumers to use Allofmp3.com, it could just create problems for PayPal, and American company, that they don’t want. For a time, Allofmp3.com successfully managed to use a front company, XROST, to take PayPal payments on their behalf.

adm wrote:

Ebeneezer wrote:

As the charges are in dollars is there a conversion charge put on your credit card or are all payments taken in sterling. When I looked at the site I was put off by the dollar signs.

Well I guess its the same as if you buy from amazon.com. You'll get a Visa conversion from $ to £ (which is fair) plus a 2.75% (credit card) fee unless you're with Nationside... Whatever it won't cost you more than £6 to buy $10!

While the accounting of money through out Allofmp3.com is done in US dollars, card payments are taken as Russian rubles. However, conversion to rubles is done at a rate that makes it no worse than converting directly from US dollars to pounds sterling.

REDBAZ wrote:

…I'd want to know definitely either way before I start using my credit card. Can we have a definite answer on this from Martin?

No. The only “definitive” answer would come from a court room. Unless this is ever tested in court, there’s no way to be absolutely definitive. As lamp wryly noted, people in the UK copy their own CDs to their computers and portable music players, without a thought that they’re breaking the letter of the law.

sra

lol

So great is the official level of concern about AllofMP3 that American trade negotiators darkly warned that the Web site could jeopardize Russia's long-sought entry into the World Trade Organization.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/world/europe/01cnd-mp3.html?ex=1306814400&en=4c9bcba30952e86b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

stefni

Here here, as the partner of a musician who is earning less money from record sales in a year than Martin can save by switching utility suppliers, I am completely disgusted by the fact that not only is this been placed on here as a post, but it has also been included in the e-mail sent to god knows how many million people by now. Seven pounds is a bargain for an album anyway. Bringing this down to sixty pence is the difference betwen a musician making a livelihood out of their music and there being no new music created as no-one will have the heart or the money to make it any longer. Cheers Martin, what a star.:mad:

nickweeb wrote:

Totally agree - I was about to compose a pretty much identical email to this until I reached this final post! I run a small record label 'FARFIELD Records' and rely on royalties from CD, download sales and radio / TV use for a reasonable part of my income - as do the artists and composers I represent. I also run a legal download store in the UK, fully licensed with the MCPS /PRS and all the labels and artists. I can assure you that I am no corporate fat cat!

I have to say, Martin, that I think it's a poor show that you are promoting this website in the first instance - there's a fine line between money saving and theft!

It is the smaller labels that lose out the most from copyright theft, and not all music can rely on live performances for income - there's a very small minority of top artists who can make money from live shows.

Nick

asavory

I've been using allofmp3.com for about a year but I think it's history now - the site was down for a number of days recently and now you don't seem to be able to add money to your account. However there are a number of other sites strangely similar popping up in other Eastern European countries, but not Russia. So I think they've been told to shut down.

Maybe it is illegal to download from these sites, it's also unethical if no money gets back to the artists. So why have I used it if I feel like that? Well I also spend a fortune on expensive CDs so I reckon it's payback time - I try to buy CDs for new artists who need the money the most - the multi-million selling artists wont miss it. Anyway it's no more unethical than itunes, Napster, etc. ripping people off by charging 79p a track. That's nearly the cost of a CD if you shop around, how can they justify that? Where are the overheads in downloads compared to the manufacture and distribution of CDs?

This is just a case of the British public yet again fed up of being ripped off, and understandably exploiting loopholes if they exist. If legal downloads were priced reasonably this wouldn't happen.

Adrian

decadentlywasted

Just noticed this thread - very interesting.

Without a doubt, the record companies are - and have been - making a killing out of ripping off consumers. If they won't price their products fairly, and there's a cheaper alternative, then it's pretty obvious that they're going to lose out. I believe that's something to do with free markets (legal or otherwise) or some other capitalist crap.

Legal download sites - £9 for an album with DRM and fundamentally inferior sound quality? I don't think so!

Re. musicians (artists, whatever) - sure, they should be entitled to something for their creative efforts. How much? That depends on whereabouts you put music in the overall pecking order of "worthy occupations". As much as a doctor, fireman, ambulance driver? No. More than an estate agent, financial adviser? Yes (my opinions). As a consumer, why not just download whatever music you want from wherever, then send the artist a cheque for £5. Artist gets more money than they would off a record company, consumer gets cheap music.

On a side note, why do musicians whinge about downloads depriving them of money when they know that they're getting shafted by the record companies? Surely, if they stuck with smaller labels and/or got into setting up their own legal download sites then they'd get more money 'cos they'd cut out the money-grabbing practices of the middle men.

billshep

lamp wrote:

It's illegal to rip your own cds and make mp3s out of them for personal use? really? wow!

Is that true? Is it not covered under the same law that allows you to make backups? In my opinion, as long as you still own the original CD, you aren't really depriving the artist of royalties - why should pay twice for the same thing?

nej

I think it's classified as "Fair Use" and is intended for you to make backups of your own stuff. I think.

Here's a point nobody has mentioned before:

What about second hand CD's? If I goto a 2nd hand record shop and buy a second hand album, the artist gets nothing from that transaction (admittedly he already has from the 1st sale), but it I bought it new he'd get a new commision.

Thoughts on that, anyone? Should we ban 2nd hand record stores as well?