allofmp3.com

[andygrif]

It's nice to know these blisters on the ends of my fingers were not in vain then.

Originally Posted by andygrif

The problem with the leeching arguments is that people like to wear it like a badge of honour. The same behavior is exhibited in West Coast gangs, where they take a slice out of their eyebrows for each person they have killed - different end of the scale...but same basic level to show-off to others they they have broken the rules.

However, I don't think the issue on discussion is whether you're a leech or not - that's a subject for another thread.

The question is whether you'd pay someone to leech. And is this worse than leeching for free? Personally, and for the reasons given, I think it is. A comparison could be drawn that it is worse to buy a pirated DVD from a bloke at a carboot sale than it is to borrow it from your mate and copy it.

A badge of honor no I just tell the truth.I download things for free im not gonna sit here all righteous and say its wrong.And I note you didnt answer my question.I think its worse in those who have copied dvds and cds off there friends or like I said even borrow a dvd then come here holier than thou preaching how wrong it is

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

A badge of honor no I just tell the truth.I download things for free im not gonna sit here all righteous and say its wrong.And I note you didnt answer my question.I think its worse in those who have copied dvds and cds off there friends or like I said even borrow a dvd then come here holier than thou preaching how wrong it is

What question did you ask me?

I'm not preaching how wrong it is...what you do is up to you. But you must be aware of the facts, which is what i'm talking about.

The issue I think is pertinent here is that a company is taking your money (which people said that they were so against paying to the record company for some reason) and not paying the REAL people (i.e. people like composers that you've probably never heard of) and to me that is more wrong than just taking it.

And I would take issue about not wearing as a badge. There is no reason to announce that you take music. It had nothing to do with the discussion, which I why I presumed that you were in some way boasting about unauthorised downloading.

[andymt]

im sure we all agree-i dont want to have to download illegally.
but if you think of it logically-
i generally take a fancy to about 15 tracks a month (i like to the extent that i would be willing to pay for them)
79p a track= £11.85 per month on music downloads.
(hmv unlimited package = £10 per month)
so that means im paying £10 per month for tracks that i cant put on my mp3 player. i cant put them on another pc as you only get 1 copy of licence.
you can't rename/change the tags of the file in order to make it fit into your music collection (ie windows media player library)

i do have an unlimited subscription with hmv, but having to burn and rip EVERY track i download is just stupid.
and, after burning and riping it, guess what? THE TRACK IS ILLEGAL AS IT ISN'T LISCENCE PROTECTED-JUST THE SAME AS GETTING IT OFF LIMEWIRE THEN!!

[TheBlueRaja]

Thats what is rediculous about it - why the hell if i have paid for something should i be restricted in how i use it. If the compaines out there be that games, movies, music or whatever want to make it difficult for me to use what i purchase then screw them.

I'll just get them another way.

The music industry is by far the worst though - this money is not going to the artists who create the music - its going to the record companies themselves - who in my opinion stifle creativity by churning out the same old crap by creating groups who will sell records by looking good and who have their music written for them. Generally these same groups are also artificially elevated by big marketing spends which is paid for by the extra subsidies that are levied on all the music they sell.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by andymt

im sure we all agree-i dont want to have to download illegally.
but if you think of it logically-
i generally take a fancy to about 15 tracks a month (i like to the extent that i would be willing to pay for them)
79p a track= £11.85 per month on music downloads.
(hmv unlimited package = £10 per month)
so that means im paying £10 per month for tracks that i cant put on my mp3 player. i cant put them on another pc as you only get 1 copy of licence.
you can't rename/change the tags of the file in order to make it fit into your music collection (ie windows media player library)

I'd agree with you, the restrictions placed on people who do legitimately download music are too restrictive in the main, with the possible exception of iTunes.

However, what's the alternative?

Originally Posted by andymt

i do have an unlimited subscription with hmv, but having to burn and rip EVERY track i download is just stupid.
and, after burning and riping it, guess what? THE TRACK IS ILLEGAL AS IT ISN'T LISCENCE PROTECTED-JUST THE SAME AS GETTING IT OFF LIMEWIRE THEN!!

Of course it's not the same as getting it from Limewire. If we were to expand on your analogy then pocketing the £10 note you find in the street is the same as stealing it from someone else's purse, making photocopies of it and then giving the copies to your mates.

Whilst you may be in a technical breach of copyright by ripping the CD back into your PC, so that you can play the song on your iPod, I can categorically tell you right now that, even if you wrote a letter to the CEO of the record company, the management company of the artist and the head of the BPI, telling them all that this is what you'd done - the worst that would happen is that they would laugh at you.

If, on the other hand, you sent letters to the same people telling them that you'd first downloaded a track from Limewite, then burned a few copies for some people you barely knew and then posted the songs you'd found on the newsgroups - I think they might be calling round with a court order.

So, of course it's not the same - and herin lies the problem. You have the record company on the left, you have file-sharer on the right. Each has whipped each other into such a frenzy that there is little common sense being applied anywhere.

If you look back at what you've just posted today, Andy, I can summarise it in a few points:

• Is allofMP3 legitimate?
• I don't want to download illegally.
• I use filesharing systems to download music illegally
• iTunes licensing is too complex
• I can't be bothered downloading legally
• Whatever I have to pay, it's too much
• Making a copy of a song I have bought is the same as downloading it illegally

If I was having this conversation with you in a pub, I'd be laughing my nads off! iTunes licensing is the simplest and most generous of all of them, and DOES allow copies to made for personal use. It DOES allow CDs to be burned. It DOES allow you to back-up the actual audio files. It DOES allow you to make copies onto your iPod. So what's complicated about that?

People who download music in this way, as well as the record companies, need to address this issue like adults. I can already see that the industry has at least given sensible people an alternative - but the bottom line is as I said before - people like things that are a bit dodgy.

You know the bloke in the pub flogging that after shave for a fiver didn't get it from the Calvin Klien warehouse. You know the little Chinese guys outside Farringdon Station selling DVDs of films that aren't even in the cinema yet didn't get them as a present from the Walt Disney Corporation. And you know that downloading music without paying it will ultimately kill off much of the creativity, innovation and great music that has come about in the last few years - but (as the Fast Show said) you're a little whoo, a little bit wha-ay - and that is why people come on here bragging about downloading music to prove what a geezer they are.

These people also wear fake Burberry caps I assume.

it doesn't matter about the moral arguments, it doesn't matter about the financial ones - because you're sticking one up 'the man'.

I hope 'the man' doesn't get pee'd off and start sticking one up you....cos his is much bigger.

[nffc]

I don't get downloading. People would rather pay nothing to get a file, of dubious legality, poor quality and with zero presentation, or pay about a fiver to do the thing legit, with all the proper sleeves, etc, and better quality?

I buy CDs, and then MP3 them to 192 for my PC, and then convert the 192s to 128 for my walkman so I can fit more on. Don't share them... and I don't use filesharing anyway because it's a potential malware gateway.

[Gareth]

A fiver...? Where d'you get your CDs for a fiver, mate?

[MadGamer]

Just to get one thing off my mind, my mate tells me that when i buy a CD in the shops and make copies of it for my own use, am i doing anything dodgey

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Wayne A

Just to get one thing off my mind, my mate tells me that when i buy a CD in the shops and make copies of it for my own use, am i doing anything dodgey

Technically it's breach of copyright, but in terms of common sense, no-one will care.
__________________

Originally Posted by Gareth

A fiver...? Where d'you get your CDs for a fiver, mate?

Depends what's on them, innit?

[littld]

Allofmp3 is legal in Russia. Restricting them selling outside Russia would break international trade law which is why it'S still running.

Allofmp3 have been very good with my credit card details (unlike some uk companies I could mention).

Originally Posted by Gareth

A fiver...? Where d'you get your CDs for a fiver, mate?

Car boot sale with nice photoshop covers and shrink wrap

[Stuart]

Or maybe your local record shop (not chain)? Mine does an excellent range of CDs (all original as far as I can tell) for £5.

The downside is that they don't sell chart CDs in that range (even they start at around £8 or £9).

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Wayne A

Just to get one thing off my mind, my mate tells me that when i buy a CD in the shops and make copies of it for my own use, am i doing anything dodgey

As nnfc says, on a technicality you are in breach of copyright - in the same way as people who made a copy of an LP to listen to in the car all those years ago were also.

In addition, whilst maintaining the technicality (mostly as removing it from the laws would allow a loophole just like that which allofMP3 are exploting) the recent EU directive on copyright urged local bodies in its member states to behave 'reasonably' to individuals that do things like copying for their own use. And before some smart-alec pipes up and says that sharing MP3s is personal use - no it's not. Mr EU said so.

Originally Posted by Gareth

A fiver...? Where d'you get your CDs for a fiver, mate?

Some bloke in the pub

Seriously though, I buy new releases at between 8 and 9 quid each and back catalogue stuff and best-ofs are now dirt cheap...3/4 quid a pop.

Originally Posted by littld

Allofmp3 is legal in Russia. Restricting them selling outside Russia would break international trade law which is why it'S still running.

Incorrect. I explained the situation with allofMP3 earlier and the fact that they are permitted to operate under a loophole. However they do need the permission of the body that takes care of half of the repertoire in the country - and as they won't speak to anyone (even their counterparts in the other licensing body) allofMP3 actually have NO license to operate in Russia or anywhere else.

The reason they are still operating is becuase the body that needs to take action won't talk to anyone, after a falling-out with their opposites - and so nothing in Russian licensing gets done. This is also why the loophole has yet to be closed.

It will happen, allofMP3 will shut (or move somewhere even more lawless) but it could be many years before this happens.

HOWEVER....if you'd read my earlier post, you would have seen that under the legal precident of Levis vs Tesco, it is the case that the copyright owner (or their representatives) can control how their product is imported. Levis won that case in the UK, Tesco was found to be in breach of copyright by buying 501's quite legally in the US and importing them in to the UK.

This precident, which now forms UK & EU copyright law, means that you, as the importer, are in breach of copyright by not sourcing a copyrighted work from within the EU or seeking the copyright owners permission to import from Russia (which would be denied, one assumes).

So whilst allofMP3 may very well be operating within the law in Russia - YOU are acting ILLEGALLY by downloading from them. Oops.

Originally Posted by littld

Allofmp3 have been very good with my credit card details (unlike some uk companies I could mention).

I'm glad for you...no really, I am!

However, when and if allofMP3 is shut down following a change in the copyright laws in Russia, it is quite possible that the bodies that make up the IFPI (the international umbrella group of many nations' licensing and music industry bodies) may very well press for the Russian courts to order that subsriber information be released, as the subscribers have breach copyright. This might well mean that your credit card information may be used to trace you many years after the fact and you may well be presented with the highly collectable BPI "come to court or pay us 5 grand" invitation.

Good luck.

[littld]

Fair comments here.

I think it's a little different than with jeans physically being imported. If we had to look into copyright on the stuff available on the Internet every day (e.g. the BBC news website, for example) then millions of people are "illegally" importing and exporting copyright all the time.

I'd better stress here that I don't use AllOfMP3 all the time - it helped me to get some copies of tracks I only have on vinyl (damaged but paid for in full) and which were unavailable on any other site or CD.

A good legal way to copy music in this country is by recording it from TV or radio - still completely legal here in the UK. You have already paid for the copyright and the right to listen to it via the advertising or the BBC licence fee.