Forget iTunes...

June 10, 2004 9:23 AM

So, you want some hot mp3's? Well, this is the place (Russian, but English cookie-set option in top-left). Huge repositories of legal music, yours to download for only $0.01/Mb! If that's not enough, they'll even serve it up to you in any format or bitrate you require (MP3, AAC, FLAC, OGG, WMV). Add on to that the fact there's no DRM built into the files downloaded, and the option to pay with Paypal is a nice touch too. So, I ask you, MetaFilter, what is the catch?
posted by metaxa (41 comments total)

MetaFilter has been asked that before ;)
posted by riffola at 9:26 AM on June 10, 2004

Drat. I did search before posting, but the standard Meta search turned up nothing.
posted by metaxa at 9:37 AM on June 10, 2004

I think you may as well use kazaa to download music. I don't think that the artists actually receive any of your money. So the catch is that this is only a good service if you a) have a guilty concience over downloading for free b) but not so guilty that as long as somebody gets money everything is hunky dory even if the artists really don't get anything.

It's like buying from a fence. Sure, you didn't steal the goods but they're still stolen goods even if you purchased them from a country that has no laws against operating as a fence.

I'm not trying to impose moral judgement here, just stating what seem to be the facts. I'm also not trying to equate copyright violation with theft, they're two different animals but I couldn't think of any other analogies.

Here's a FAQ on allofmp3. It argues that the site is legal and pays the artists but I think it's wishful thinking. They base their legality on Russian copyright law, licensing fees to the Russian equivalent of the RIAA for broadcast rights and that this Russian organization will divy out the proceeds.

I think it breaks down because I think that the Russian broadcast fees are very cheap. Dividing up a few thousand dollars, minus the corporations cut, between hundreds of artists is still near zero on average. You're not really broadcasting anyway. To qualify for broadcasting they'd need to stream the music real time, even if it's on a request basis. So your download of Stairway to Heaven would take 7 minutes 55 seconds (from memory) and it'd be up to you to do the conversion.
posted by substrate at 9:50 AM on June 10, 2004

the catch? it's commie corrupted music. even if they are western hits, the fundage is underwriting siberian terror cells. even hama7 could have told you that.
posted by quonsar at 10:09 AM on June 10, 2004

To qualify for broadcasting they'd need to stream the music real time

Really? You couldn't use, say, buffering as an excuse, and place the blame on the downloader for using the Firefox Download Manager instead of the proper streaming software?
posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:15 AM on June 10, 2004

it's just as bad as file sharing, though it's worth the few cents spent just for the option to have the file in any format or bitrate you want. unlike substrate though, i'd suggest another p2p app to "get your file share on," as no one who knows better uses kazaa anymore.

ripping-off artists aside (which you'd be doing whether you're using stealing music on kazaa or sending your money to the RIAA with iTMS), this really is how music should be sold online: no DRM, in the format you choose, and with a lossless format. otherwise, you might as well buy the real thing, in my opinion. i'd rather have a quality music experience over the convenience of downloading a lossy mp3 with proprietary and limiting DRM slapped on it. that just isn't acceptable to me, whether it's from sony, apple, or real. they're all the same.

of course, no one's forcing you to listen to what they're selling. really, your best bet for listening to music is independent music--places like Audiolunchbox or Magnatune. there's a lot out there to satisfy everyone. most people forget there more to music than britney spears and outkast.
posted by lotsofno at 10:24 AM on June 10, 2004

if you a) have a guilty concience over downloading for free b) but not so guilty that as long as somebody gets money everything is hunky dory even if the artists really don't get anything.

As a rational actor in a capitalist society, I am obligated to seek optimal returns on my capital. If this service is legal--if it puts me in no danger of prosecution--then I can see no reason not to avail myself of the service.

I consider it my own little effort at outsourcing.
posted by monkey.pie.baker at 10:43 AM on June 10, 2004

rational actor in a capitalist society

two clever oxymorons in 6 words. good job!
posted by quonsar at 10:48 AM on June 10, 2004

it's just as bad as file sharing

i don't understand that argument at all. (aside from the dubious assumption that file sharing is "bad")

this is a loophole in the global distribution of music. screw the record companies for not working a better deal for Russian copyrights. their fault, our gain. maybe they go out of business and our favorite artists lose money. that's globalization, fellas. sorry.

you can't have it both ways. if corporations are allowed to hire poor brown workers for pennies a day, i'm allowed to download music for a penny per MB. so there.

stupid is as stupid does. you can't break the system without abusing it.

i definitely agree with your last two paragraphs, lotsofno. it's exactly the way music should be sold: pick your song, pick your format, here's your price; discounts on bulk. it's not that hard. the buying *model* itself is alone reason to use allofmp3.com.

i've been using allofmp3.com for about a year now. nothing i've read has given me any indication that it is illegal. they have a pretty decent catalog. it's not my thing, but i hear the metal selection is very good.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:49 AM on June 10, 2004

"itself is alone" ... d'oh.

nb: not all of the the free downloads from metaxa's "FAQ" site above are still free. and the free songs download quite slowly, about 10k/s. that's a long time for an album ...
posted by mrgrimm at 10:54 AM on June 10, 2004

It's like buying from a fence. Sure, you didn't steal the goods but they're still stolen goods even if you purchased them from a country that has no laws against operating as a fence.

How is it 'stealing' music to buy legaly licensed music? That dosn't make any sense at all.
posted by delmoi at 11:25 AM on June 10, 2004

i'd be very interested in allofmp3.com, however, when i attempt to switch it to english, i just get 2 redirects followed by a blank white page. firefox as well as IE. stoopit rooskies.
posted by quonsar at 11:27 AM on June 10, 2004

Fuck y'all and your sense of entitlement.

As a rational actor in a capitalist society, I am obligated to seek optimal returns on my capital. If this service is legal--if it puts me in no danger of prosecution--then I can see no reason not to avail myself of the service.

No, you're not obligated to do that. You're only obligated to do that if you firmly believe in the goals of free-market capitalism to the exclusion of other things, like say, morality or fairness.

If someone drops a $100 bill on the street in front of you and fails to notice, you're not obligated to return it, but you (IMHO) should. It's the same principle at work.

you can't have it both ways. if corporations are allowed to hire poor brown workers for pennies a day, i'm allowed to download music for a penny per MB. so there.

Two wrongs don't make a right. As a matter of fact, this logic justifies bottom-dollar outsourcing.

Here's a different argument- You can't have it both ways. You can't rail against the RIAA and then turn around and try to squeeze them out of their revenue, justifying it from your Higher Moral Ground as merely a loophole.
posted by mkultra at 11:32 AM on June 10, 2004

No, you're not obligated to do that. You're only obligated to do that if you firmly believe in the goals of free-market capitalism to the exclusion of other things, like say, morality or fairness.

Which is exactly what is meant by "rational actor in a capitalist society". Things like morality or fairness are held in constant (say 0). It's not a value judgement, just that (if you believe in such things) people in toto* (or whatever 80s group you like) tend to act in the most efficient manner, which suggests they would do what monkey.pie.baker said. Whether it upsets your stomach is irrelevant.

* I probably made this up.
posted by yerfatma at 11:38 AM on June 10, 2004

I download music to sample it, if I keep it then I go and buy the cd. Its pretty simple.

There's no way this system's going to kick down any money to the artists so I don't see how it's legal.

Besides, with the new Airtunes, Apple's taking another step from the pack and leading by example again. Airtunes promises to get me away from my desk and spending more time with my family while still enjoying my sizable and ever growing collection of music.
posted by fenriq at 11:40 AM on June 10, 2004

Fuck y'all and your sense of entitlement.

fuck you and your morality song and dance, eh?
just because morons like that little punk from metallica are willing to pimp themselves off for corporate crumbs doesn't mean everybody has to play thier game. listen, if music consuming kids didn't feel assraped by the industry, they wouldn't delight so much in fucking it back. your whiney "who'll think of the morality?" theme just tears at my heartstrings - why don't you go deliver it to the record industry?
posted by quonsar at 11:43 AM on June 10, 2004

There's no way this system's going to kick down any money to the artists so I don't see how it's legal.

That's funny. Really, it is.
posted by mr.marx at 11:56 AM on June 10, 2004

yerfatma- If there's anything that's not held in constant in capitalism, it's morality and fairness. Again, it comes down to the old "what you CAN do vs. what you SHOULD do" argument.

quonsar- listen, if music consuming kids didn't feel assraped by the industry, they wouldn't delight so much in fucking it back.

I don't buy that argument for a second. NO ONE cared about the plight of the recording artist before Napster. As valid as it is to gripe about the RIAA (and god knows I do), it's an argument that is simply used as a cloak for people's selfishness. When you're a kid, EVERYTHING is too expensive.
posted by mkultra at 12:12 PM on June 10, 2004

Selection is sorta crappy.
posted by effugas at 12:16 PM on June 10, 2004

The catch is I just searched for the first 10 albums in my Amazon wish list and none came up...
posted by danny the boy at 12:16 PM on June 10, 2004

See also the Slashdot thread on this.

Legality aside, I've signed up and sent them $10, and the amount of music you can download for your money is quite good, and I've found stuff there that is difficult or impossible to find on Kazaa. And, as a VIP member, you can upload your own albums for credit.

As soon as iTunes improves their selection of electronica, though, I'll go with them. Allofmp3's download system is clunky for a Mac user.
posted by armage at 12:21 PM on June 10, 2004

I rarely buy new CDs anymore. I ain't a kid and they are still too fucking expensive. Same thing with movies. From the time the first LotR movie came out, I have seen those three films and Attack of the Clones in the theater (after it had been out for months and was cheap) and that is all.

I know people that go see every fucking movie that comes out, paying at least 7 bucks a ticket, usually more + the cost of the fattening, nasty sugar-coated rat feces that they sell inside.

Back to music, if I find something I want to try, I find it for download if possible and if I like it I will buy it. Used. I usually don't get CDs within the first few months of release, but that does not matter to me.
posted by bargle at 12:37 PM on June 10, 2004

...if music consuming kids didn't feel assraped by the industry, they wouldn't delight so much in fucking it back.

Heh.

I somehow doubt the average Hoobstank-downloading 14 year old (or Ted Leo-downloading college student) is actively copping revenge on Corporate America because they're feeling "assraped by the industry". I realize it's convenient and fashionable to blame everything on the RIAA, but please--people are downloading music 'cause it's FUCKING FREE. And for the time being, they can get away with it. And frankly considering how much it costs to record an album and tour and buy equipment and make flyers and write songs and still give a significant cut to the label, $15 is quite cheap for a CD so that arguement doesn't hold much water either.

As valid as it is to gripe about the RIAA (and god knows I do), it's an argument that is simply used as a cloak for people's selfishness.

Exactly.
posted by dhoyt at 12:41 PM on June 10, 2004

That's Hoobastank.

Ahem.
posted by dhoyt at 12:43 PM on June 10, 2004

but please--people are downloading music 'cause it's FUCKING FREE.

Indeed. It's extremely unlikely that they would have actually bought that much music on CD, which means that the lost profits the record companies are whining so loudly about are, largely speaking, imaginary.
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:02 PM on June 10, 2004

yerfatma- If there's anything that's not held in constant in capitalism, it's morality and fairness.

That's why I said holding them to 0-- it's a worst-case scenario. Sure there will be people who won't pocket $5 dollars lying on the ground. Just not enough of them to be statistically significant.
posted by yerfatma at 1:14 PM on June 10, 2004

Well, according to everything I've read about the music biz, unless the artist is platinum level the recording industry skims, lies cheats and steals to the point the artist barely makes a dime. Sometimes an artist can end up owing due to the production costs etc. all having to be repaid to the label before the artist makes a dime.

I choose to, by and large, support bands that allow taping and trading for free. I give them money by going to concerts, something where they make a much higher profit margin than the 3% or so they mainly make on albums. I would guess most bands make at least 50% of gate or more.

So, I say get the recorded music any way you can, and give the money to the artist for the live shows where they aren't as screwed over. Hopefully that model will kill the labels and allow bands to profit more from their work than the way things are now.

I believe even with universally permitted taping and trading studio albums would still sell. At least the dead still sell albums, and pretty much every concert they have ever given is available for free.
posted by jester69 at 1:29 PM on June 10, 2004

and write songs and still give a significant cut to the label, $15 is quite cheap for a CD so that arguement doesn't hold much water either.

The cost of CDs has little or nothing to do with the ones writing songs and doing tours because the record company markets and prices the CDs and rakes in most of the dough, no matter how well the CD does.

Bands frequently "owe" the record companies tons of money after a CD is made, especially after their first CD, even if it sells tons, because the record companies are equal-oppertunity shitbags. THey'll fuck the consumer over and then turn right around and fuck the artist too. TLC's CD "Crazy Sexy Cool" sold 10 MILLION copies and they ended up having about 50 grand a piece after paying everything the record company, IRS and others wanted.

The Goo Goo Dolls had an album that sold 2,000,000 copies and they OWED the record company money when it was all said and done.

The truth is that the costs are that high because people are stupid enough to pay them. Save your money for concerts and other things that give to the bands themselves and buy your CDs used.
posted by bargle at 1:38 PM on June 10, 2004

In Soviet Russia, music downloads you!
posted by britain at 6:10 PM on June 10, 2004

I think it breaks down because I think that the Russian broadcast fees are very cheap.

It seems to me that if corporations can outsource labour and production costs onto developing nations in order to take advantage of pricing differentials, then the same "freedom" should ideally be available to consumers within our new, globalized, fast-forward economies.

Just because you think the Russians are undercharging for access to music relative to what you consider a "fair deal" doesn't mean that people shouldn't patronize them. It seems as if people within this post-Communist socieity have learned at least some lessons of capitalism quite well.

I note that during the early days of its economic development right up until nearly the 20th century, the United States specifically repudiated most foreign copyrights and intellectual property registrations to enable cheap reproduction of foreign copyrighted material within the US.
posted by meehawl at 6:14 PM on June 10, 2004

with the new Airtunes, Apple's taking another step from the pack and leading by example again

it does seem like a good step forward for Apple.

Mind you, with Media Center I have been streaming audio and video files and sharing libraries for years over Wifi with no problems. I honestly didn't know iTunes couldn't do this previously.
posted by meehawl at 6:17 PM on June 10, 2004

You can debate business models all day long... but, as far as I'm concerned, here's the difference between allofmp3.com and any other website that offers MP3s at a price. That is, the former has a managed to actually convince me to send them money while any example of the latter has NOT.

There's not a chance in HELL that I would EVER go out to a store (or even online) and purchase a CD copy of Jefferson Starship's Red Octopus. But I downloaded the whole thing the other day for about a buck... because at that price it was worth it.

To be honest, I probably would have paid twice that (1mb for 2 cents). Without this service, I would have spent ZERO dollars on the same music. With it, I've spent about $50 over the last several months. Most of what I have downloaded has been old (because I'm old... as far as the music industry is concerned). I did snag the new Lenny Kravitz record last week (crap)... that's the only example of anything really new I can think of.

The only way I can think of making the pricing structure potentially more profitable is to offer certain albums at certain prices based on their projected popularity. As long as those particular tracks are being downloaded at that "popular" rate, then the price remains fairly constant. But if the downloads fall off or just don't bring in the numbers from the get-go, then so the price should follow. It makes sense to pay one dollar for Helmet's first album while expecting to pay much more for Radiohead's latest. If no one is buying Genesis' Abacab at 14 dollars, EVER, then why wouldn't you try to sell it for $2.00?

No, allofmp3.com doesn't have everything. But they do have quite a bit and they add more stuff everyday. They offer it fast, cheap (with PayPal even) and at the quality I'm looking for. The service has been perfect for those times where you say, "I wonder if they have that song Never Been Any Reason by Head East?"

Why yes they do! And I bought the whole damn record for a buck.
posted by Witty at 7:11 PM on June 10, 2004

i'd be very interested in allofmp3.com, however, when i attempt to switch it to english, i just get 2 redirects followed by a blank white page. firefox as well as IE. stoopit rooskies.

hey quonsar, I finally visited the site and had the same problem. after it does it's thing and you get the blank white page, just type in the address and then it will load and be in english. at least it worked for me. apparently it sets the cookie but fails to reload the page.
posted by bargle at 8:07 PM on June 10, 2004

Witty, you'd better patent that idea of constantly surveilled download rates as the pricing model. Make the Slashdot effect pay!
posted by infowar at 8:13 PM on June 10, 2004

I have a hard time believing that it is legal to download them from the USA. Yes, you are paying for them and there is an agency to take some money and give to the songwriters, but you still are buying something that the RIAA has not approved of.

I suspect that since it is legal for them to do this in Russia (they can not stop the "uploader") that is why they have not yet tried to go after all of the downloaders since that could be negative publicity and would be extremely difficult.

They are unable to stop the free file sharing and this would be even harder since it is at least legal in the country of origin and there is some money coming back to at least part of those involved in creating the music.

Hell, if sometime down the line they do decide to take action, and some judge said "yeah, this is legal," how would a person prove that they paid for all of the mp3s on their hard drive? Doesn't stuff from the Apple service have some sort of copyright protection and IDing built into it? I mean if this site just lets you download mp3s, how does one prove that the 2.4 gigs of mp3s they have bought are not just things they downloaded off some filesharing app or usenet or whatever?
posted by bargle at 8:28 PM on June 10, 2004

The problem with the RIAA making a big stink and fighting this is that there is always the change they might lose. And then all the legal objections disappear. At the moment it's just a niche site and they want it to stay that way.
posted by smackfu at 8:47 PM on June 10, 2004

you still are buying something that the RIAA has not approved of.

Well I for one welcome our new RIAA consumer overlords, who can now apparently dictate to us what is and is not acceptable international trade between citizens of different WTO treaty nations.

Once again... globalization - the door swings both ways.
posted by meehawl at 8:54 PM on June 10, 2004

Oh dear, here we go again. Well, in the spirit of repeating at great length the pointless arguments of the past, I offer this :


posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:33 AM on June 11, 2004

There's not a chance in HELL that I would EVER go out to a store (or even online) and purchase a CD copy of Jefferson Starship's Red Octopus. But I downloaded the whole thing the other day for about a buck... because at that price it was worth it.

To be honest, I probably would have paid twice that (1mb for 2 cents). Without this service, I would have spent ZERO dollars on the same music.

I like the idea of market-driven pricing, but this logic seems weird to me. If you're going to base your willingness-to-buy on "worth", you need to keep all other variables the same. Prevailing logic says that the record companies' cut of allofmp3.com is effectively zero.

So whether you download it from P2P or allofmp3.com, the supplier's take is the same. The only person who makes out in this deal is the middleman. How is that supposed to salve your conscience?
posted by mkultra at 6:54 AM on June 11, 2004

P2P software: Illegal copying of copyright digital media

AllOfMP3: Legal (claimed) purchase of digital media from distribution rights owner

Now, you can dispute the validity of their distribution rights claim, but there is a significant difference between the two models.
posted by daveg at 8:23 AM on June 11, 2004

So whether you download it from P2P or allofmp3.com, the supplier's take is the same. The only person who makes out in this deal is the middleman. How is that supposed to salve your conscience?

It's not my problem. I'm not suggesting that I would RATHER give my money to allofmp3.com and that I somehow don't care about the artist. I'm just saying that allofmp3.com has put together a service at a price and quality that I'm interested in getting involved in. No other service has been able to compete with it so far (one that cost money anyway).

For instance, here's another idea. If an RIAA represented company wanted to offer new(ish) MP3s at regular or varied market prices, then I would be interested if they also included, say, 25 additional downloads from the "oldies, but goodies" vault... at the quality I'm looking for (maybe less downloads at higher bit rates or something). Kind of like the old CD clubs. Maybe they're out there and I just haven't been introduced to them yet. I want just a plain 'ol MP3 too, not some proprietary security tagged non-compatible format bullshit either. I want to be able to burn it, rip it, play it at home, in the car and in any MP3 player I have.

The RIAA makes no money off me when it comes to Heart's catalogue of albums. But I might be interested in downloading them at the right price. I mean how much are the 8 MP3s of Heart's crappy 1978 release of Magazine really worth? Right now, for me, it's probably worth a buck, from the comfort of my own home and DSL line. Otherwise, it's worthless.
posted by Witty at 9:07 AM on June 11, 2004