Allofmp3 Passes The Buck, Says Entertainment Industry Won't Take Their Money

from the explanations dept

As the entertainment industry and US politicians have continued to push Russia on shutting down, the company finally decided to go a bit on the offensive, holding a press release to defend its business as being legal in Russia — which is exactly what they’ve been saying for years. However, the interesting thing here is that basically Allofmp3 is passing the buck. They claim that they have a legitimate license from ROMS, the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society, and that they are paying royalties to ROMS. In other words, they’re basically suggesting that if the entertainment industry has a problem, they need to take it up with ROMS. They also claimed that the recording industry is refusing to take the money that ROMS is trying to give them for the payments. The Infoworld article oddly tries to suggest that musicians probably don’t want money from Allofmp3, since the money they charge is so low — but that seems silly. If they can make some money, and do so by making their fans quite happy, why wouldn’t they want the money? In all honestly, it looks like the focus here is incorrect. It’s not an issue at all. They have been complying with Russian laws. If the issue is with the license they have from ROMS, then the issue should be taken up with ROMS. Still, the even bigger issue is why the industry still refuses to recognize that Allofmp3 has built a service that fans love, that they’re willing to pay money for and which doesn’t require DRM. It seems like they should recognize this as an opportunity, not a threat — but, as they say, this is one industry that never misses an opportunity to sue an opportunity out of existence.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Allofmp3 Passes The Buck, Says Entertainment Industry Won't Take Their Money”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
RantMax says:

I don't want your money

RIAA: You cost us money. C&D.

AllOfMP3: Here’s money.

RIAA: I don’t want your money, C&D.

AllOfMP3: Well that doesn’t make any sense you guys.

RIAA: Thanks for the compliment, this is what we’re paid to do.

AllOfMP3: … with money?

RIAA: Right, with money… But, not YOUR money, that’s for sure. C&D…

bentman78 says:

Re: illegally gotten?

That’s what people need to understand. By people I mean the entertainment industry. I refuse to buy tracks crippled with DRM…whether it’s music or movies. A lot of people feel the same way. I educated all my friends and family about DRM and what it means, and many of them now use allofmp3 or rip CD’s onto their music devices stripping the tracks of DRM.

DoxAvg says:

Re: Re: illegally gotten?

Refuse to buy tracks crippled with DRM? No rented DVDs? No VHS with Macrovision for the kiddies? No video games with license keys? These all are forms of DRM, but most of them aren’t as intrusive as the last round.

Now, if you insist that you that you refuse, I’m curious: would your moral indignation be as strong if you didn’t have an ocean of pirated content to sip from whenever you feld the urge? I’ve found that most people who wrap themselves in the flag of modern-day passive resistence only take the easy part of taking the stand. When it comes time to pay the price (being sued for piracy, arrested for public disturbance, or *gasp* living _without_ music, movies, or software) they’re indignant that they would be prosecuted for their illegal actions. The key to passive resistence is pointing out the injustice of the system by forcing it to prosecute those who are obviously right. Read:

When you just want to ignore the law and not pay the price, then you’re a thief. Try to justify it as you will, you’re breaking the law. If you don’t like it, fix the laws. If your representatives won’t do it, fix the legislative branch.

James says:

Re: Re: Re: illegally gotten?

Yes, people should refuse to buy music tracks CRIPPLED with DRM. Period. Your analogy isn’t very good.

People who rent movies on DVD (or VHS) or video games know there’s a fixed cost and a limited use period when they purchase this and do not expect much else. Music is not used or enjoyed the same way.

Music is, essentially, given away for free anyway on the radio, this makes it more popularity but lowers the barrier to entry and it value (ie I don’t have to buy your CD if I can hear the “popular” tracks for free).

I believe people do not have problems spending money on music and seeing that an artist is compensated appropriately. But no one is going to buy music that is so crippled that it has limited or no value (this goes back to I can listen on FM for free).

You’ve got to be able to take your music w/you be it on the computer, your mp3 player or a CD and no one is going to buy the track multiple times to do that, nor should they have to, this is now how the world works.

The RIAA should get a clue and then they could stop treating potential customers with comtempt and artists could go back to making money.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: illegally gotten?

Something people like you always fail to understand is that DRM and copy protection do not work at all period.

If I want to “steal” music all I have to do is go to any half decent torrent site and I can get the music that was originally DRM protected WITHOUT the DRM. Read that bit carefully, the DRM on illegally copied music is REMOVED. Therefore as a music pirate DRM has zero affect.

So what does that mean to the monkey who buys the DRM’d CD from a shop? Oh that’s right they realise they can’t play it on all the devices they choose thereby fucking off your REAL customers and doing nothing to the pirates.

Please get a clue of what this situation is all about before spouting your crap.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Of course They won't take their money !

Not exactly a valid analogy.

Further it so that the merch peddled by Adobe only works when Adobe’s whim says it can, which doesn’t entirely correlate when you want to use the product anyway. Then, say Adobe isn’t even making the product, but just saying it should get a cut from this set of programmers because they are affiliated with the company the programmers work for. And then you’re just a tiny step closer to a reasonable comparison.

Mrgastix says:

Price is not only issue


The prices (actually compensation) in Russia is governed by ROMS. It’s not the problem with They just pay the share to ROMS and with the current pricing they still make profit. ROMS needs to settle this thing with copyright owners or change russian’s laws.

But I believe the biggest issue here is DRM not price.

A chicken passeth by says:

Well I, for one, would purchase old versions of Adobe at cut down prices, even if they were no longer supported. But of course, companies are so greedy, they won’t even allow old , unused, yet perfectly working versions to be sold in stores – all y’all must buy the latest and (not-so) greatest whether ya’all like it or not.

PS: Nice copy-pasting there, can I have your text file?

Anonymous Coward says:

it is kinda funny. if allofadobe was around, i’d have to say, where’d they get their license? because it would be up to aoa to get the “permission” for online downloading. if they didn’t, they’d be illegal, flat out.

but, if aom wants to give money, and riaa doesn’t want it. what are they really saying? that they can get by wiht 5 cent song downloads? why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

what is funny tho, is this joke.

boy is “stupid” gets made fun of. older kids offer him a dime or nickle. boy picks nickle because “it’s bigger”. guy notices, and asks why he picks thenickle over the dime? boy says the dime is more, but if i did that, i wouldn’t get any more money. i saved $$ in nickles already.

so, if we keep offering to pay, the riaa will be happy to “take”

Xiera says:

On the internet, and in general, if people are willing to pay money for something, they like it. Money exchanging hands (or banks or whatever) is a reflection of a good service or product. This entire situation seems ridiculous. Most manufacturers (a record label is essentially a manufacturer) would jump at the opportunity to open new markets via new technologies. The music industry will figure this out eventually and wonder why they were so stupid for so long. Allofmp3 is essentially another vendor to sell their products… the industry would be wise to sell the music to allofmp3 and let allofmp3 set their selling prices.

iRule says:

It IS all about the money...

No matter what anyone on this site says…IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.

It’s the same music that iTunes sells. I just don’t want to pay $1 per song. I would rather pay a fraction of that. Plain and simple. The music industry doesn’t want me to have the option of paying such a small amount for the same content. They need to get rid of that option, and force me to pay a larger amount. The DRM issues would be less important if all songs were 10 cents on iTunes. In reality…this is ALL ABOUT MONEY. I don’t want to spend very much, allofmp3 gives me that option, and the RIAA wants to take that away. Plain and simple.

End of Line.

Anonymous Coward says:

it’s funny. in an open market, the prices should have adjusted themsleves. However they haven’t.

but then again, i know numerous of people who want high end expensive sports cars, but aren’t getting them.

so it’s like this. people are willing to spend $x on music. if the music costs more, they don’t buy. everyone who would pay anything above $x will buy because they are at their fair share price, or the price is below what they expected to pay, thus a “savings”

now, with napster, grockster, morpheus, aries, limewire and the like, people have expected to pay $0.00 for their music. the issue arrises in how p2p networks have “crappy” content. i.e. low bit rate, but DRM free. what itunes, newnapster, rhapsody and the like have is “ok” music. DRM protected. and moderate bitrate. the ultimate goal for the consumer is high bitrate 192 w/o DRM. however the RIAA won’t produce that. so the market adjusts itself to fit the situation.

so the piraters go and “steal” while RIAA brings suits against said people. this is an effort to “balance” the market.

where do we go from here?

coolfactor says:

they tried to pay

If they tried to pay, it means they’ve admitted to not compensating artists. They have a single copy of songs and are selling millions of duplicates, reaping nearly 100% profit on the selling price. Anybody that tries to justify is just wearing blinders to the reality of the situation. Most artists are not being fairly compensated for the enjoyment of their labors and creativity.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...