Allofmp3 Battle the World

November 29, 2006 6:56 AM

AllofMP3 gets a copyright lawyer to help with their FAQbut with Russia's entry to the WTO apparently at stake and Putin getting involved their future looks a bit perilous.
posted by rongorongo (47 comments total)

it's kind of cool the way american companies can make laws that sooner or later apply to everyone on the planet.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 7:10 AM on November 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

It's called a treaty. You don't have problems with it when it's called Kyoto.
posted by smackfu at 7:39 AM on November 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

Matt, please close this thread; it's NP-complete.
posted by dhartung at 7:50 AM on November 29, 2006

Good riddance to them.

It really irks me that people use this system when there are truly legal alternatives, not just symantically legal systems. For instance, the Decemberists' Picaresque is $2.20 from All of MP3. The artists and label get zip. The same record from emusic is between $2.86 and $3.66, depending on the plan you get and the artists/label get the cut they agreed on in their contract. Explosions in the Sky's Those Who Live... is $1.93 from All of MP3. The legal download from emusic is $1.60 to 1.99. If you buy tracks in bulk on a yearly basis, you get the tracks from emusic for 20% less.

Sure, their catalogs aren't exact matches, but still...

I never understand why people who like music don't want to pay the people that make is so that they can make more of it. Wtf is the logic there?
posted by dobbs at 7:55 AM on November 29, 2006

Wtf is the logic there?

The music industry does a lot to suffocate the people that make music, so undermining it is job #2.
posted by eustatic at 8:00 AM on November 29, 2006

emusic is a subscription service with a monthly fee and a fixed number of downloads that don't roll over from month to month. It's silly to compare numbers against a service just selling tracks.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:01 AM on November 29, 2006

dobbs - could be a format issue. For example I don't buy anything from the iTunes music store because if I buy music, I don't want any restrictions on it. If it is mine I should be able to play it on my computers, n my car, on my iPod, or on any other portable music device. If AllOfMP3.com gives me plain old .mp3 files with no DRM, I can see the attraction. (I don't buy music from there myself, I generally buy new/used CDs and rip them, or do an old-fashioned swap with friends.)

If AllOfMP3.com is moving to a free download but adding restrictions on use, they are going to go away. iTMS works because they have a big enough catalog and there are enough iPods out there to make it fairly easy to get and play music.
posted by caution live frogs at 8:01 AM on November 29, 2006

Wtf is the logic there?

"I get it for free and other people will still pay for it."

It works for credit cards... I use mine for free since I pay the balance each month, and yet other people are in crippling debt. They're essentially subsidizing my use. Should I feel bad about that?
posted by smackfu at 8:03 AM on November 29, 2006

emusic is a subscription service with a monthly fee and a fixed number of downloads that don't roll over from month to month. It's silly to compare numbers against a service just selling tracks.

AllofMP3 doesn't allow you to spend less than $10 in a go, according to their faq. emusic's tracks don't roll over, true, but you can cancel and reopen as much as you like so you don't have to keep it month to month.

caution, I understand avoiding DRM (I've never bought a track from itms because of it), which is why I didn't mention that store. emusic has no DRM and just sells straight MP3s.

smackfu, that analogy is ridiculous.
posted by dobbs at 8:14 AM on November 29, 2006

AllofMP3 doesn't allow you to spend less than $10 in a go, according to their faq.

AllofMP3 subtracts the cost of tracks ordered from a pre-funded balance associated with the account. You can't replenish the balance with less than $10, but you can "spend" that balance any way you want. It's effectively a store credit, and the main risk is that the store itself goes away.

emusic's tracks don't roll over, true, but you can cancel and reopen as much as you like so you don't have to keep it month to month.

You have to remember to cancel, you have to sign up again, you have to download the maximum number of tracks or lose them, if you want more tracks at some point you have to wait until next month or pay for a more expensive subscription. It's a lousy model for people who just want to buy music now and then.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:27 AM on November 29, 2006

I've avoided AllofMP3 since they just pay Russia's recording industry association. Here we have WTO pressure to force renegotiation between the recording criminal associations in the U.S. and Russia. Idiots at the RIAA are just asking Uncle Sam to break the bad deal they brokerd for themelves.

Its immoral to buy from any recording industry approved services, like emusic, allofmp3, etc. Piracy is the only way to be sure your not subsidizing lobbyists and corporate criminals while still listening to anything.

Magnatune and similar are the only places you should ever buy music.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:38 AM on November 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

If all you want is stuff like the Decemberists, emusic is probably a better choice than AllOfMP3. Too bad most people don't want the Decemberists.
posted by smackfu at 8:50 AM on November 29, 2006

ALLOFMP3.COM IS KILLING THE DECEMBERISTS
posted by cillit bang at 8:53 AM on November 29, 2006

I never understand why people who like music don't want to pay the people that make is so that they can make more of it. Wtf is the logic there?

My credit card is Irish, and I live in Germany, so iTMS Ireland blocks access from my IP, and iTMS Germany won’t allow me to pay. Should I get an extra credit card just for the sake of iTunes? I’ve had really terrible customer service from credit cards in the past, and am very happy with that of my current one, and all actual German businesses accept EC (debit) cards, one of which I have already. (Note, maybe they’ve changed the details of this since when I was looking into sourcin music online.)

Stealing music is inconvenient and tedious, and I am technically adept; the music industry has had the opportunity for ten years to make it a one-click process at first-world prices for a billion people. And to include the Beatles in that catalogue. Offering a billion people the opportunity to search for and to buy your music on a whim. In their pyjamas. Without leaving their houses. Without being annoyed immensely by some other country having a much, much larger selection of songs available, that you would be interested in but can’t access. I sense a business opportunity that is not being exploited to the full.
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 8:57 AM on November 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

Armitage, I wasn't intending to turn the thread into an emusic vs allofmp3 argument, just trying to say that there are perfectly legal alternatives that reward the people making the music you're enjoying. Yes, every system (including allofmp3) has its ups and downs--nothing's perfect.

Still, I think your initial post implied you could just go to allofmp3 and buy an album for $2 or whatever, which isn't the case. Regardless of whether my remaining $8 is ususable in 31 days or not, I still had to charge $10 to get the $2 album, not much diff from emusic's $10 min on that level.

You have to remember to cancel

Far as I can recall, you can cancel immediately after signing up. Your tracks will remain till the expiry date and you won't be rebilled. It's not like you have to go in on the exact date and cancel it.

Too bad most people don't want the Decemberists.

You're right. They want the same shit they can hear on the radio or MTV 24/7.

And to include the Beatles in that catalogue.

You don't think the Beatles should have any say in the matter?

Anyway, I'll pull out of the thread as, like every other music industry thread in mefi history, it's just gonna be rationalization after rationalization of why one shouldn't really have to pay for music at all. Here's hoping come the end of the week all your bosses decide not to pay ya for the work you've done.
posted by dobbs at 9:03 AM on November 29, 2006

You can't even buy CDs anymore. Take a look at a recent major-label release. See a Philips "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo on there? Maybe not; in order to provide "copy protection," many albums sold don't conform to Red Book standards anymore. "Good enough?" I don't think so. I bought music from Allofmp3 because it was convenient, unencumbered, and cheap.

Here's hoping come the end of the week all your bosses decide not to pay ya for the work you've done.

If I forced my boss to accept my output in a format he didn't want, with restrictions that make it inconvenient for him to use it, I wouldn't expect to be paid, particularly if, when I was first hired, I had provided him with exactly what he asked for.
posted by uncleozzy at 9:09 AM on November 29, 2006

it's just gonna be rationalization after rationalization of why one shouldn't really have to pay for music at all

I would steal from real stores too, if there were no consequences.
posted by smackfu at 9:10 AM on November 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

I have no problem with paying for music; I just want it lossless (well, CD-quality encoding, no music is truly lossless in an absolute sense), DRM-less, and cheaper than a regular album, since they don't have to provide me physical media.

I would happily buy music from any service that offered me these things. If they got it cheap enough, under 5 bucks or so, I'd buy a LOT of music.

The problem with this model, from their standpoint, is that they can only charge me for a given piece of music once. They want to charge me for every device I use it on.

So, at this point, I just buy used CDs. They meet all my requirements: lossless, DRM-free, and usable on any device I choose. And the RIAA doesn't get any money from me.

I would buy new CDs if they weren't such dicks. I refuse to give them money to sue grandmas with.
posted by Malor at 9:30 AM on November 29, 2006

one shouldn't really have to pay for music at all

The industry has done a fairly thorough job of making sure that musicians are not paid at all, or as little as possible. It is this that is the crux of the matter.
posted by asok at 9:42 AM on November 29, 2006

I just spent my allofMP3.com balance down since this looks like the end for them. I couldn't give a fuck about the Decemberists, BTW.
posted by fixedgear at 9:46 AM on November 29, 2006

Armitage, I wasn't intending to turn the thread into an emusic vs allofmp3 argument, just trying to say that there are perfectly legal alternatives that reward the people making the music you're enjoying. Yes, every system (including allofmp3) has its ups and downs--nothing's perfect.

Dobbs, the entire point of this thread is that allof is perfectly legal and the money does go back to the recording artists, as per the licensing agreement. If you want to argue that it's somehow immoral, go ahead, but I think that's a bit silly.

How much money do bands actually get from emusic? How much do they get from Allof? How is "semantically" legal any diffrent then "legal" anyway?
posted by delmoi at 9:55 AM on November 29, 2006

Anyway, I'll pull out of the thread as, like every other music industry thread in mefi history, it's just gonna be rationalization after rationalization of why one shouldn't really have to pay for music at all.

Well, I guess your gone now but, so what? Why should we have to pay for music anyway, I ask? Not like "intellectual property" is some intrinsic moral right, or anything.
posted by delmoi at 9:59 AM on November 29, 2006

Armitage, I wasn't intending to turn the thread into an emusic vs allofmp3 argument, just trying to say that there are perfectly legal alternatives that reward the people making the music you're enjoying.

Fair enough. I've bought music from Audiojelly and MP3tunes, both of which (AFAIK) pay the artists a percentage. I just wish there were a similar service for less obscure artists. (I like emusic's catalog, just not their pricing model.)
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:01 AM on November 29, 2006

The industry has done a fairly thorough job of making sure that musicians are not paid at all, or as little as possible. It is this that is the crux of the matter.

I also love making sweeping generalizations that give me a convenient and morally justified excuse not to part with my money.
posted by cillit bang at 10:15 AM on November 29, 2006

The rule I came up with for my own use of AllofMp3 is to only purchase music from long-since established musicians (e.g., I bought the early Beatles and Rolling Stones albums I didn't have). My rule has some problems, but it makes me feel good.
posted by mullacc at 10:35 AM on November 29, 2006

Dobbs, the entire point of this thread is that allof is perfectly legal and the money does go back to the recording artists, as per the licensing agreement.

delmoi, yeah, I was gonna stay out, but I can't let this slide as it's a misunderstanding that I think is far reaching. Let me make this clear: allofmp3 does not pay artists. At all.

Regardless of what they say on their faq or to the press or anyone else, they do not pay the artists or labels one cent. I know this because bands I speak for in a professional context have albums on there which they've never been paid for and which allofmp3 does not have the right to distribute and which allofmp3 refuses to take down (though again, they say the opposite to the press).

If you have any proof whatsoever from any band or label or company that isn't allofmp3 that they've received monies for music sold thru the site, I'd love a link.

As for how much money the artists/labels get from emusic or any other service operating legally, the answer is always the same: whatever they agreed to in their contract. Whether you think the amount is insubstantial (or too substantial) is irrelevant. My point is that it was agreed to by both parties.
posted by dobbs at 10:37 AM on November 29, 2006

Regardless of what they say on their faq or to the press or anyone else, they do not pay the artists or labels one cent. I know this because bands I speak for in a professional context have albums on there which they've never been paid for and which allofmp3 does not have the right to distribute and which allofmp3 refuses to take down

Did they request the funds from ROMS?

Just like the American licensing organizations, payment is only made if an artist notifies the organization collecting the licensing fees. Remember a few months ago when ASCAP was simply going to keep the money for hundreds of copyright holders they "couldn't find"?

From the faq:

Yes. Similar to Music Licensing Societies in other countries (like ASCAP and BMI in the US), all a copyright owner needs to do is contact the Russian Licensing Societies (e.g., ROMS) and show proof that they own a copyrighted work; after which they can collect accumulated proceeds.

I also love making sweeping generalizations that give me a convenient and morally justified excuse not to part with my money.

Again with the odd reasoning where intellectual property is assumed as a moral right.
posted by delmoi at 10:43 AM on November 29, 2006

dobbs: eMusic not only has a fairly lame catalog for anyone that isn't into jazz or "indie" music, but they have a track record of fucking over their customers. I had an account with them ages ago when it was all-you-can-download for a fixed monthly fee. Then they changed the bitrates, and I went to re-download stuff. I got my account suspended for "abuse." I explained that I was re-downloading the same stuff I had before, just at the higher bitrate. They reinstated my account, but shortly after they totally changed their TOS. That's about the time where the 40 songs per month (or whatever it became) limit came about. I absolutely did not agree to the TOS as that's not what I had signed up for. I asked them to cancel my account, and their response was "Too bad, you're on the 12 month plan. You can't cancel until then." Thanks to their newly imposed limits, I never did get to finish downloading my songs at the higher bitrates.

People use allofmp3.com because it's cheap, easy to use, DRM free, and they don't seem to be farking over their customers.
If you also have some magical links showing that artists don't get paid from allofmp3.com (or the Russian music agency, whoever is supposed to handle the payments) then I'm sure everyone would like to see them.
Buying music shouldn't be this much of a hassle or a moral dilemna.
posted by drstein at 10:47 AM on November 29, 2006

AllOfMP3 (or a similar descendent) will be setting up in Antigua soon, apparently.
posted by meehawl at 10:54 AM on November 29, 2006

Did they request the funds from ROMS?

We requested the albums be removed. They haven't been, though allofmp3 claims they will (I'm talking years, now, not months; multiple requests).

The ROMS thing ignores the issues of music distribution that make it, for the most part, "work". For instance, one of "my" bands has distributions deals on just about every continent. One label distributes in the USA, another in Europe, another in South America, etc. For allofmp3 to simply take the record and put it on their site and say, "contact us if we should actually pay you" is not a simple matter. Which label should be compensated for allofmp3s actions? There's no simple answer to the question and it puts a burden on the musicians, their management, myself, our lawyers, and the labels to do work that shouldn't be required, all in exchange for a "royalty" that is determined and undisclosed by allofmp3 without agreement from any interested party. It's ludicrous.

If you also have some magical links showing that artists don't get paid from allofmp3.com (or the Russian music agency, whoever is supposed to handle the payments) then I'm sure everyone would like to see them.

I'm telling you first hand. If you think I'm lying, fine.

As for emusic's changing it's TOS and pricing scheme, anyone who thinks this wasn't inevitable is off their tree. I've been a member there for years and have bought upwards of six thousand albums from them and I didn't even hit the download cap in the "unlimited" days. The choice, once ITMS arrived, was between closing emusic or changing the TOS. There was no other way to do it--every band/label would have left and there'd be no music to download. When Apple announced ITMS, people on emusic's forum were deluding themselves saying it wouldn't affect the industry.

To this day, I can log into emusic and re-dl the records I bought 4 years ago without incurring any additional cost. You're blurring the line between the unlimited days and the subscription days--it wasn't blurred. Unlimited became capped. Capped became subscription. They didn't co-exist.

My understanding is that if you know your username and password from the old days, you can sign in now with the basic $10 subscription, and re-dl those albums you bought previously, regardless of how many there are, for free. I'd confirm it first (maybe they delete memberships dormant for a year, I dunno), but that's my understanding.
posted by dobbs at 11:08 AM on November 29, 2006

dobbs is right, just because you don't like the agreements put in place by the RIAA doesn't mean you can just circumvent them. If you don't like the DRM, high prices, or profit distribution, you shouldn't buy (or steal) the music from anywhere. Stick to radio or the music you already own. If enough people demand the DRM be removed and costs to be lowered, eventually it could happen. Of course, the masses were never very good at organizing, so don't hold your breath.
posted by Crash at 11:19 AM on November 29, 2006

I tried emusic for a month, and I love indie music, but their catalogue was seriously lacking. They seem to only have a certain selection of "indie" music similar to what was considered "alternative" in the early 90s, ie, after it was not really that alternative anymore. I downloaded a bunch of stuff I never listen to just because I had to use up the credit. I mean, I got some good stuff too, but I was really scraping the bottom of the barrel by the end of the month.

In contrast, Allofmp3 gave me as much time as I needed, and over the course of a year or so I used up the money I originally laid out, and got a lot of good tracks, including some fairly obscure or random ones I would not have expected to find. I did not use it as my primary source, and I still buy CDs (on amazon), but to answer your question, for me the choice between emusic & allofmp3 was purely based on what was available to buy.
posted by mdn at 11:32 AM on November 29, 2006

Since when is it my job to support some giant corporation's outdated business model? I buy music from AllofMP3 because they have what I want at prices I am happy to pay. Other places charge more and offer less, so I refrain from favoring them with my custom. This is plain old Adam Smith economics.

Part of "what I want" is to not be screwed over. AllofMP3, apparently alone among the online-music-file vendors, has no stake in pretending that the distribution model arising from limitations of audio reproduction technology has any relevance to the modern, lossless world of digital file transfers, and is consequently happy to give me plain ol' standards-compatible DRM-unencumbered audio files.
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:49 AM on November 29, 2006

[holds breath, crosses fingers]
posted by algreer at 12:07 PM on November 29, 2006

Well, I guess your gone now but, so what? Why should we have to pay for music anyway, I ask? Not like "intellectual property" is some intrinsic moral right, or anything.

It's the moral idea of patronship, supporting an artist; the same reason you'd buy, say, more expensive local groceries than cheaper foreign imports. There's an understanding that buying the albums supports the artists, and that we should thus pay for the music.

Of course, this isn't necessarily true, so whenever I can I try to buy directly from the artist's website (higher profit for them) or attend concerts, buy their tshirts, etc. In my opinion, pirating isn't bad if it doesn't affect the musicians at all -- so, say, when Ringo and Paul die, I'd feel fine about downloading the White Album. Until then, I'll gladly subsidize their (or the Decemberists') efforts to make music to make me happy.

I buy music from AllofMP3 because they have what I want at prices I am happy to pay. Other places charge more and offer less, so I refrain from favoring them with my custom. This is plain old Adam Smith economics.

Not to snark, Mars, and not to equate allofmp3 to thieves, but that's like saying I bought a bike from a random guy on the street because he sold a nice $1000 road bike for $200 -- a price I was happy to pay. Would it matter if you were buying stolen goods? The issue of DRM/file format, and the issue of compensating artists for their work is a completely separate thing; from what dobbs says it sounds like allofmp3 does the former well but not the latter.
posted by suedehead at 12:56 PM on November 29, 2006

The ROMS thing ignores the issues of music distribution ...

Isn't that pretty much the way the law is in fact written in Russia? I'm given to understand that it's essentially a compulsory licensing scheme, much like mechanical licensing of songs here... and that AllOfMP3 has complied with the requirements there. But I also understand that may have been played up. Anyone know the facts regarding those particulars?

(I do have little doubt that most artists will never see a cent from whatever compulsory fees are paid to ROMS. I've had songwriting acquaintances here that have had trouble getting money through ASCAP and BMI.)

I buy music from AllofMP3 because they have what I want at prices I am happy to pay. Other places charge more and offer less, so I refrain from favoring them with my custom. AllofMP3...is consequently happy to give me plain ol' standards-compatible DRM-unencumbered audio files.

This is pretty much why I use them. I bought through the iTunes store for a while, but found the DRM to be a hassle.

There's also the sense that the iTunes price is also still 2-4 times what the cost ought to be. AllOfMP3.com could probably quadruple their prices, give half the increase to the artists and the other half to orphans and still make their business work just fine. With iTMS (at about eight times AOMP3's price) labels are looking to raise the prices and excuses to pay their artists less, while Apple breaks even. I'd almost rather just donate my money straight to russian organized crime. They seem more honest.

Instead, I probably just ought to try eMusic and Magnatune and the like.
posted by weston at 1:00 PM on November 29, 2006

Did they request the funds from ROMS?

We requested the albums be removed. They haven't been, though allofmp3 claims they will (I'm talking years, now, not months; multiple requests).

You're missing the point. Russia is a different country, with different laws. You asking them to take stuff down is only useful if, in fact, they've done something wrong by putting up the information. (Perhaps the information was obtained illegally, who knows - that isn't the issue.)
posted by odinsdream at 1:54 PM on November 29, 2006

I bought a bike from a random guy on the street because he sold a nice $1000 road bike for $200 -- a price I was happy to pay

most people agree that a bicycle is property
posted by FreedomTickler at 2:39 PM on November 29, 2006

dobbs is right, just because you don't like the agreements put in place by the RIAA doesn't mean you can just circumvent them.

Of course it does. You just can't do it without - theoretically - breaking the law.

It's always interesting to me when RIAA etc run up against law they dislike. They're tickled pink by the ones that let them claim statutory damage when going after file sharers, no matter how insanely over-inflated that number might be, but when confronted with the question of whether AllOfMp3 might be legal within the country it operates in they revert to "we're not getting paid." Live by the sword, die by the sword.
posted by phearlez at 3:21 PM on November 29, 2006

"anyone who thinks this wasn't inevitable is off their tree"

Although this is off topic now, I don't think that it was unreasonable to ask them to cancel my account and quit billing me because I did not agree to the new terms of service. They basically told me to go pound sand. I also didn't have much luck going back in to re-download previously purchased music as the new limits made it rather difficult, especially with the 30 song per month limit.

Just for fun, I just tried to log in. Not only was it successful, but I see that they have stored my credit card information for YEARS. (I cancelled the account in mid 2003) Fortunately the card has long since expired. Gah! I'm not giving them a new CC number just so they can ding me for another $9.99.

/offtopic
posted by drstein at 5:02 PM on November 29, 2006

(Perhaps the information was obtained illegally, who knows - that isn't the issue.)

I have personally downloaded albums from Allofmp3 that still have the warez info in the tags. I don't have access to my collection at the moment, but I'll try to post the ID3 info here later.
posted by fake at 5:20 PM on November 29, 2006

Just like the American licensing organizations, payment is only made if an artist notifies the organization collecting the licensing fees. Remember a few months ago when ASCAP was simply going to keep the money for hundreds of copyright holders they "couldn't find"?

delmoi, that wasn't ASCAP it was SoundExchange, and the royalties held in escrow were for streaming media plays, not for downloads. See post here.

drstein, I don't think any amount of testimony will change your opinion on emusic, fair enough, but when I was on the 30/mo. plan, I had a hard drive crash & re-dl'd 75 albums of material with no limit, no caps, no shut off. The pain was in scrolling through the list and clicking one by one instead of being able to access my stored library and the sad fact that several items were no longer licensed to emusic.

Those two problems aside, I found them easy to deal with. But then I joined just after the unlimited days.

I have not used allofMP3 because I have felt them to be sketchy but not on any proof, just feelings.

I have no great love for the RIAA and harbor no strong feeling that obscure artists get royalties in any meaningful amounts from physical album sales. I wish for the day when the old distribution model built on a Cosa Nostra business plan dies a deserved death and artists get paid for their performances through realistically priced downloads that do not carry ridiculous DRM restrictions.
posted by beelzbubba at 7:12 PM on November 29, 2006

I'm ambivalent about AllofMp3 so I thought I'd refrain from posting my own opinion at the top of the thread. On the one hand they are one of a very small group of companies that provides digital music in a form that makes sense: no DRM encumbrance, a choice of bit rates, a large library and a reasonable price (albeit one would be a lot less of a bargain if I were living in Russia - it would be very interesting to hear from any Russians reading this). In sane world all on-line music vendors would work like this I think and their current popularity (they are the #2 seller of on-line music in the UK after ITMS) bears this out.

On the other hand I had always assumed they were a shady organisation and that their plea about giving money to artists via ROMS was merely a way in which they and their users could delude themselves that what they were doing was wrong. I think dobb's point about whether artists are actually getting money from ROMS is right on the money in this respect (although I guess this would also apply to any other company in Russia who was playing music and contributing to ROMS).

I thought their FAQ made interesting and surprising reading - the mark of a true cowboy organisation is to simply shut up shop and head for the hills when the authorities start to get onto your trail. Instead it would appear that they are going to try to fight this one out. I would even say they have a reasonable chance of winning.
posted by rongorongo at 2:38 AM on November 30, 2006

I would even say they have a reasonable chance of winning.

Think again. Of course, this isn't necessarily the end of all this, but it seems like Russia, at least, is more interested in getting WTO membership than protecting a maverick music site.
posted by wabashbdw at 9:30 AM on November 30, 2006

I have personally downloaded albums from Allofmp3 that still have the warez info in the tags.

Yes, this is true. The reason being that when allofmp3 started, they rewarded customers with download credits for uploading full albums to the database. They changed this policy (or at least removed it from their FAQ) after being taken to task for it. With such a policy in place it was impossible to hoodwink anyone into thinking the service was at all legit.
posted by dobbs at 12:24 PM on November 30, 2006

get ‮you get ‮you get ‮you get ‮you get ‮you get ‮you get ‮you get ‮you get ‮you get ‮you get ‮you get ‮you get ‮

rofl PENISPENIS PENIS

how the fuck did do that! :D

="http://myspace-971.vo.llnwd.net/00000/17/94/134971_s.JPG">‭
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 4:39 AM on December 14, 2006

hm
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 4:40 AM on December 14, 2006