boycott-riaa.com - Article: Boycott the RIAA by supporting the Ruskis

Boycott the RIAA by supporting the Ruskis

Posted by on February 6, 2004 at 3:52 PM (printer friendly)

The past few months I have followed a number of forum discussions about Music Download Services in Russia.

Services like Allofmp3.com, mp3.search.ru and 3mp3.ru are offering tracks from all labels and artists for prices that seem to good to be true. Songs can be downloaded for as little as $0.01 per MB.

When I first visited these sites I was convinced that this was some kind of fraud, but I have found evidence that these are completely legitimate operations.

The Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems (ROMS) has licensed the services. ROMS is a member of CISAC (www.cisac.org) - the International confederation of authors and composers societies. Under the license agreement the services pay out fees for downloaded materials. ROMS distributes the royalties to the authors. The artists do get paid.

The best service by far is Allofmp3.com. Their unique Online Encoding makes it possible to download the music in MP3, OGG, WMA, MPC or AAC, all in a variety of bit rates. All files are unprotected.

Of course the RIAA noticed this service. About two years ago they approached Russian officials to try and shut it down. The RIAA lawyers initially would not even get the time of day out of the Russian authorities. Eventually, the RIAA was told to worry about their own affairs. The RIAA inquired of Russian legal experts about pursuing a case, and they were told it would be thrown out of court immediately. That was the end of the RIAA's involvement in Allofmp3. They seem to have no authority, domestic or international, to affect Allofmp3's operations.

I know most of you hate paying for music and prefer P2P. You want to share the music you have. Here is more good news: you can also upload your albums to Allofmp3 or 3Mp3. Russian legislation allows both services to use the uploaded tracks for further distribution as long as they pay the copyrights. Amazing isn�t it. For every Mb you upload you are entitled to 2Mb of downloading.

This way we can actually help building the world�s greatest resource for music. It can be better than P2P.

What's your opinion? Is this the way to go?

Here are some links to forum discussions and reviews:
RIAA �s actions:
.fatwallet.com/forums
Look for Dampier's reply.

Allofmp3 review:
http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3info.htm

Allofmp3 discussion by former Emusic subscribers:
mixtape forums

Interview with Allofmp3�s content manager:
www.techimo.com/news

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


PyroHazard	Date: February 6, 2004 @ 8:11 PM Judging by the searchs Ive made, the libraries dont look limited like iTunes.

purfus	Date: February 6, 2004 @ 8:20 PM very nice, can we buy in the US?

tasadar24	Date: February 6, 2004 @ 8:21 PM sounds cool, I might check it out sometime(not like I have any money at all... -16-)

raoulduke1	Date: February 6, 2004 @ 9:29 PM I just want to giggle and say, "the RIAA is screwed" but then I remember that this whole fight is about control and big brother (of one sort or another) and the fight has not even really begun.

kyodylee	Date: February 6, 2004 @ 9:51 PM I've been downloading music from these sites for several months without a single problem. Most mp3s are 192 bitrate and I get d/l speeds between 100-150kbps. A penny a megabyte. I've spent a total of $40 (Paypal) for 4GB of music. No DRM. No complaints here.

burner97119	Date: February 6, 2004 @ 9:52 PM i looked at the legal notice and it says "Users are held liable for the use and distribution of the MediaServices site information materials according to local legislation." does this mean that in the usa we still fall under the riaa ? this was the allofmp3.com site

zippythechip...	Date: February 6, 2004 @ 10:29 PM I'm guessing a little here, but if I'm right, there's no problem downloading from allofmp3.com since here in the US receiving isn't the problem. Just don't distribute. Comments anyone?

compmore	Date: February 6, 2004 @ 10:31 PM I wonder if the RIAA would make a pact with the devil (many of you will say they already did) and pay some Checiean rebels to place a large explosive at one of the servers

Bl1ster	Date: February 6, 2004 @ 10:40 PM Wonderful site! I'm gettin' started ASAP! All those "Hard to Find" albums are there....gotta go...

kyodylee	Date: February 6, 2004 @ 11:00 PM I don't share any of these mp3s online. I burn to audio CDs for my CD player in my truck. They work great and if I lose or damage one. Just burn another.

lordperrin	Date: February 6, 2004 @ 11:48 PM Im downloading from mp3.search.ru right now. Excellent underground metal selection, as well as more popular artists. Funny, I JUST found this site a few hours before I saw this article. Weird.

autodidact	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 12:33 AM It works fine. Sometimes the downloads don't complete, and you have to re-do. But it isn't a major hassle. One word about sonic quality. You can get the same song in all sorts of different formats at different bit rates. I don't know what their source materials are, but this much I can say for certain -- an MP3 file from allofmp3 will usually not sound as good as one you could make yourself if you had the CD. They say they use LAME, which is good. But possibly they are transcoding from another lossy source file. Nevertheless, the sound quality is acceptible. Better than that Spanish site that is much more expensive. If it irks the RIAA, I'm all for it. You know, if you do some very rough calculations on the number of people online at that site on average, multiplied by the number of songs each user is downloading per hour (again, you'd have to take an educated guess), times the number of hours in a month, times months in a year... well, I came up with the figure of maybe 10 or 20 million files per year. That's almost as much as what iTunes did last year, isn't it? Is my math way off? Anyway, all those files add up. This is no Mickey Mouse service. Even if I overestimated, we are still talking about many millions of songs sold. Yee-ha!

nitedreamerxp	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 1:12 AM I've checked only two of them out and they sound good to me. one prob, I can't access mp3.search.ru for some reason it can't find it oh well anything that P's off the RIAA I'm all for it happy searching and keep the boycott here at home going.

nyer82	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 2:32 AM WOOOOHOOOO RUSSIA

kyodylee	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:23 AM nitedreamer - there's no "dot" after mp3 in http://club.mp3search.ru/artists.html

Synthetikk242	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:19 AM The RIAA is so stupid. If they had implemented a business model similar to this one (allofmp3.com) with either Napster or Kazaa, they would be making 10 times what they currently claim they are losing. Imagine if they charged P2P users 1 cent for every MB of audio data they downloaded, and 1 cent for every 3MB of audio data they uploaded. If the average P2P user ended up with a monthly bill of $15, multiplied by 50 million P2P users a month, that comes to $750,000,000 per month. Now, if they took 70% of that (assuming they would, because they take roughly 70% for every download from iTunes, Napster, etc..) that would be $525,000,000 per month. They claim they are losing $700,000,000 per year because of P2P. How f*cking stupid ARE they?...

fjones987	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:49 AM The two problems are, firstly and always, that the music is already available for free on p2p networks, and if it's only 1 cent per MB why even bother paying at all? Then there's the sheer hassle with "digital money". Once again, you could have a thousand bucks in your wallet, but you can't just use that online. You have to sign up for a service, like paypal, and/or have a credit card, both of which have an unwritten age requirement in it. Then there's always transaction fees tacked on by the services as well as your bank (Hell even ATMs in real life are getting ridiculous with this.) I will never pay for a computer file, whether it's an audio file or software program if I download it over the internet. If it's on the internet, it's there for public use, you can try and bullshit about fees and licenses all you want, but if it's there, it's open. Online pricing is never going to work or be fair.

Prorubel	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 5:09 AM Another thing worth mentioning are the free albums at allofmp3.com. This site has listed them http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3free.htm @fjones987: You don't have to pay, you can build credit by uploading albums. It's almost like P2P.

Prorubel	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 5:11 AM Sorry fucked up the link. here it is: http://www.museekster.com/allomp3free.htm

Prorubel	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 5:12 AM Have to go to sleep I guess: http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3free.htm

dave109100	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 5:59 AM "The two problems are, firstly and always, that the music is already available for free on p2p networks, and if it's only 1 cent per MB why even bother paying at all?" Paying a dollar for all the tracks right there and in high quality is extremely worth it. If it was that cheap here I wouldn't have any problem paying for it. Its not even worth the hassle of trying to get it free in my opinion. The only thing about this service is my peerguardian always blocks some spylog thing from there. So make sure peerguardian is running and your all good.

Synthetikk242	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 7:10 AM "The two problems are, firstly and always, that the music is already available for free on p2p networks, and if it's only 1 cent per MB why even bother paying at all?" Because 1 cent per MB is hardly a dent in anyones wallet. at 192 bit rate, that ranges anywhere from 14 to 25 full length albums. At 128 bit rate, that could be as many as 50 full length albums. A lot of people are willing to do the right thing if they feel they're being treated fairly. If you think that paying 6 cents for song, or 60 cents for an entire album is unfair, then you're just being fcking stupid. "Then there's the sheer hassle with "digital money". Once again, you could have a thousand bucks in your wallet, but you can't just use that online. You have to sign up for a service, like paypal, and/or have a credit card, both of which have an unwritten age requirement in it. Then there's always transaction fees tacked on by the services as well as your bank (Hell even ATMs in real life are getting ridiculous with this.)" With all the billions of dollars a year spend on ecommerce goods, I would hardly call 'digital money' a hassle. I'm sure some parents would be more than happy to set up an account for their kids, if they knew just how little they would actually be paying (in return for what they get). The transaction fees are hardly anything to worry about. The merchant pays those, you don't. "I will never pay for a computer file, whether it's an audio file or software program if I download it over the internet. If it's on the internet, it's there for public use, you can try and bullshit about fees and licenses all you want, but if it's there, it's open." You payed for your operating system, that's a software program. So now software engineers shouldn't get paid for what they do just because it's a computer file? "Online pricing is never going to work or be fair." No, $20 is unfair.. but but 6 cents for a song? Some artists out there actually DO work hard at what they do. They put hard work into their music.. And it's not just synthetic manufactured crap coming off the assembly line.. 6 cents isn't asking for that fcking much..

surfside6	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 10:00 AM Ya know I mentioned the russian music sites in http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/9986 about halfway down. Back then we had alot of flaming going on about this. Truth is they are legal in Russia, and buying from them is rather like going to Russia, buying a CD and bringing it back. If anyone would have a problem it would be customs, and thus far they have not gotten into charging duties for file exchanges on the internet. They also come without the riaa, mediaforce, orrin hatch, and all the other music cronies. They do use something called spylog, but peergaurdian blocks them. They are paying the artists for their music, granted at a very reasonable price but at least they are being paid. And when you consider the riaa pays the artists less than that, I think you and the artist are getting a good deal. Besides, what do you think some of the P2P fee proposals will do? It is only a matter of time before something like that happens. Right now they seem to be off the riaa radar, just be aware this could change if alot more people begin using this site or someone like Time magazine does a big article on them.

surfside6	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 10:02 AM Question for Geroge Z, Would you use this service to distribute your music?

lordperrin	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 10:27 AM fjones987, I get the distinct feeling that you know NOTHING about how transactions are made over the net. You arent charged ANY transaction fees. Ever. Those are charged to the online merchants. As for never paying for something you can get for free? Have you lost sight of this site's goals? These sites have many non-RIAA artists hosted on them. Do you feel it's right to screw them over as well? 1 cent for a megabyte is too much for you? As a musician, I find myself downright offended at that attitude.

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 12:43 PM "Truth is they are legal in Russia" Truth is these sites are NOT legal in Russia. Read my posts carefully at the link provided surfside6 and you will see why. They are selling Beatles music including Beatles bootleg material - unreleased studio recordings. As we all know, The Beatles have not authorized their music for online downloading anywhere in the world.

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 12:47 PM From the St. Petersburg Civil Law Center: http://www.balfort.com/discussions/napster.sh tml "According to the Russian Law copyright protects published works, musical compositions in this case, as well as non-published if they exist in objective form. Musical compositions published on the Web exist, without any doubt, in objective form. That's why they are objects of copyright laws including the Russian Copyright Law. THE AUTHOR HAS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF USE OF HIS (HER) COMPOSITIONS IN ANY FORM AND BY ANY METHOD (Article 16 of the Law of Copyright and Intellectual Property). THESE RIGHTS INCLUDE RIGHTS OF reproduction, DISTRIBUTION, public exhibition (rendering), broadcasting by radio or by cable etc. Performers (owners of allied rights) have similar rights. Therefore, distribution of somebody else's compositions, objects of copyright laws, on the Web contradicts those laws. The problem is who should be considered as the infringer. Without doubt, those who distribute musical files with copyright belonging to somebody else on the Web infringe copyright of the owner. Such distributors have no right to reproduce, distribute, broadcast by radio, especially as the authors have no appropriate reward."

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 12:48 PM The above post was written by Alexander Sergeev. "Alexander Sergeev is a professor at the Law faculty of St. Petersburg University. He had graduated from the Law Faculty and began his work as a lecturer in early 1980s. Since then he has been working at the Faculty. He holds a Doctor degree in Civil Law and is currently the Chief of the Civil Law Department. Alexander is one of the best specialists in intellectual property rights. He has written a lot of books and articles on these problems. His most famous work is Intellectual Property Rights in Russain Federation. A.Sergeev serves as editor for many scientific journals. Along with his scientific activities he provides sufficient practical work. He has served as a legal expert in dozens of court cases and develops expert decisions on different complicated legal problems for courts." http://www.balfort.com/biographies/

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 12:58 PM "Another thing worth mentioning are the free albums at allofmp3.com." LOL. Oh yeah, they are a legal site giving away free albums. Maybe Pepsi is sponsoring this give away? : ) I clicked on the Rolling Stones and saw two Rolling Stones bootlegs. I guess bootlegs are legal in Russia. Nope. It's that the Russian govt. is so screwed up the last thing they care about is illegal music sites.

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 1:06 PM So in conclusion, you'd be better off downloading for free from a P2P than supporting the freaking Russian Mafia by using this site. Do you realize how violent and vicious the Russia Mafia is? Don't be a dumbass and give them money through this site.

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 1:11 PM I know we can get most of these free elsewhere but I think the purpose is that the artists are actually getting paid according to what the article is said. if that's true then it should be supported. The only problem is that darn credit card thing. Legal or not, if it hurts the RIAA and the artists get paid then it's a good thing

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 1:28 PM They are collecting approximately 1 penny per song downloaded and you think the artists are getting paid? You think ROMS is sending out checks to rights holders for this? And remember, if they are sending out checks (highly unlikely) the check would go to the rights holder, not the artist. You are against ITunes but in favor of this ripoff? Go to a free P2P before you pay these jerks.

nitedreamerxp	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 1:32 PM Thanks kyodylee that was a great help :-)

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 1:44 PM I said IF the article was true. do me a favor and ignor me please.

kyodylee	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 1:44 PM You know, I think it's time to spend a little more $ in Russia! Lemme see, umm, so many choices. Hard to choose. But since I'm a longtime Beatles fan ... ;)

kyodylee	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 1:46 PM compmore, I agree. Hey admins, where is that ignore button anyway. Can't seem to find it. ;) :(

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 1:49 PM kyodylee lol not sure how to take that. :)

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 1:50 PM just kidding

kyodylee	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 2:10 PM Sorry, comp, I see now I misread your original comment. I thought you too were also looking for the ignore "switch". I was remembering the thread that surside posted above in which it also would have come in handy for you. ;)

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 2:17 PM kyodylee no need to be sorry. I'd like to find that ignore button it myself. either way you read it, is still right

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 2:18 PM surfside made a good point too

dave109100	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 2:59 PM I guess the point is that this could be a good model. it could be done in the US if they wern't so damn greedy. "So in conclusion, you'd be better off downloading for free from a P2P than supporting the freaking Russian Mafia by using this site. Do you realize how violent and vicious the Russia Mafia is? Don't be a dumbass and give them money through this site." Didn't know you had mafia connections....or are you just assuming? you seem to rip everyone else apart for doing that.....

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:17 PM These threads always crack me up. All the people crying "We care about the artists!". What a load of bull. As soon as you get a chance to get their music for a penny a song you jump on it like rabid dogs. Yeah, you care about the artists, sure! What you really care about is free music, artists be damned. So sad. So hypocritical.

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:19 PM Dave109100 you're right. he does like to assume and draw false conclusions

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:19 PM he just did it again

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:25 PM "I guess the point is that this could be a good model. it could be done in the US if they wern't so damn greedy." If you think a penny per song is fair then you are the greedy one.

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:34 PM "I said IF the article was true. do me a favor and ignor me please." I know exactly what you said. Assuming the article is true, then this site is the same thing as Itunes, except the rights holder gets 1/100th of what they get on ITunes. And you like that! That means that you don't care about the artist, all you care about is cheap music for you.

kyodylee	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:36 PM Umm. Lemme see. Last count I had eight of those large wooden crates completely filled with LPs (all purchased new, beginning from 1964 thru sometime in the eighties). Where I switched to cassettes. I'm now looking at about 25 of those black cassette racks that hold 30 cassettes each (all purchased new beginning in the seventies thru the early nineties). Now I turn my attention to my CD racks (started buying them in early nineties until the present - only the last couple years I've been buying used CDs). Looks like mebbe 500-600 CDs in my collection at the moment. Heck that doesn't even count the 200 I have in my Kenwood Jukebox, and 20-30 I have in my truck. And yes I have very many albums in all three formats. Yep, riaa, I guess I just don't support you enough. mrpoop, :yawn:

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:36 PM if the article is true then the recording industry gets nothing. that's what the article said. assuming based on incomplete facts and arguments again

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:42 PM "if the article is true then the recording industry gets nothing. that's what the article said. assuming based on incomplete facts and arguments again" Sheesh. Talk about wearing blinders. Talk about willful ignorance. Maybe you should look at the ROMS site. The RIGHTS HOLDER gets paid. Apparently you believe what you want to believe. If the article says what you want to hear then you stop there and say: This site is great! Cheap music for me!

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:43 PM "the recording industry gets nothing. that's what the article said." The article says the record industry gets nothing? Where do you see that?

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:46 PM "Yep, riaa, I guess I just don't support you enough." Well gee, you bought a lot of stuff there. I guess that means everything you want from here on out should be one penny per song. That makes so much sense!

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:50 PM You know, I buy a lot of food. In fact, I buy food every damn week! From now on, I think I am entitled to free food! OK, I'd be willing to pay one penny for a day's worth of food. That sounds fair to me. After all, look at all the food I've purchased in the past!

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:51 PM perhaps you should go back to law school and look up the definition of IF. If the Roms site says that then the article is untrue. I never said I believed the article. I said IF IF IF IF IF it were true then...... ROMS distributes the royalties to the authors. The artists do get paid. perhaps I misread it and authors translates into copyright holders but I interputed it as authors of the music. Remember what I said about have a civil discourse with people. You aparently don't know how to do that. I'm amazed Judges don't throw you out of their courtroom. Quit drawing false conclusions and insulting people. You'll make more firends that way. oh what am I saying, you're a lawyer you don't need friends.

kyodylee	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:52 PM "I guess that means everything you want from here on out should be one penny per song." Sounds good to me. And it's not a CD audio quality "song". It's a lossy format mp3 "file". Put out a quality CD audio single for a buck, and I'll buy it.

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:54 PM "if the article is true then the recording industry gets nothing. that's what the article said." To reiterate, the article says nothing about the recording industry getting nothing. Somehow you read that into the article when it is not there. Amazing thing, the human brain. It makes you see what you want to see.

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:56 PM "Sounds good to me." That's what I figured. It's good enough for you to listen to, but not good enough to pay more than a penny. : )

kyodylee	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 3:58 PM mrpoop, i see the veins popping outta yo head. better simmer down or you might jess 'plode! :)

kyodylee	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:00 PM "Put out a quality CD audio single for a buck, and I'll buy it." Apparently you're practicing "selective" reading now. This is sooooo fun. :)

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:01 PM Amazing thing, the human brain. It makes you see what you want to see. works both ways, unless of course you assume lawyers aren't quite human then maybe you are perfect. I've got two teenagers at home I have to deal with when I get off work I don't need to deal with another with a law degree. I'm going to another thread where the conversation is a little more intellegent.

Bufo	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:02 PM I find it very hard to believe that these Russian sites are actually paying artists, songwriters, or anyone else for the tunes they sell. Even if they did, I don't think that artists would be allowed to accept money for somebody distributing their songs without their label's permission.

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:04 PM "ROMS distributes the royalties to the authors. The artists do get paid. perhaps I misread it and authors translates into copyright holders but I interputed it as authors of the music. " and obviously you missed that minor concilitory statement and explanation of why I thought that. But since you don't make mistakes I assume it's not relevant. good bye

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:06 PM "I find it very hard to believe that these Russian sites are actually paying artists, songwriters, or anyone else for the tunes they sell." Of course not. But let's assume the artists are paid for everyone who think this site is the bee's knees. The site charges 1.4 cents per song. Of course they get a chunk because they are running the site and distributing the song. ROMS gets paid because they are distributing the payments to the artist. The record company gets paid because they pay for the recording and promotion of the music upfront. Finally, the artist gets paid. So what is left? 3/10ths of one penny for the artist? So all the people touting this site just love artists, right? You are all so artist friendly!! Yeah, sure you are.

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:10 PM "mrpoop, i see the veins popping outta yo head. better simmer down or you might jess 'plode! :)" I'm very calm. I just like to point out the hypocrisy of people who claim they care so much about artists but are so quick to rip them off if they think it is "legal". Let's face it, anyone who wants to pay a penny for a song is not artist friendly in the slightest. They want cheap music for themselves and that is all.

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:18 PM A little math. One million downloads with 3/10ths of a penny for the band means if a band gets one million downloads they get 3000 dollars. Split among a band of four means 750 dollars each. I'm not counting the fact that the songwriter gets a piece of that 3000 dollars too. And so does the manager. Woo hoo!

Jazzmary2U	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:22 PM While I don't particularly like mroop's flame-slinging methods.. I gotta agree about the hypocrital nature of the filesharers unrelenting push to find "free" music.. from sources that are obviously questionable.. Why is there not a similar push to BOYCOTT the whole riaa-garbage mess?? Imho.. it is crack music.. folks get addicted to it, and don't care where it comes from, or who gets the money, or who gets hurt by their actions.. all they want is the lastest... what, I don't know.. when there are plenty of actually free and legal music sites with excellent tunes on them to be enjoyed.. So I gotta agree with mroop's assessment of this situation.. :shrug:

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:37 PM Jazmary there is. many on this site advocate no downloading or buying of RIAA music. I haven't downloaded an RIAA song in months. I have a large video and CD collection legally bought. I'm not looking for free RIAA music. I'm suporting anything that hurts the RIAA. and this can't hurt the artists anymore than the industry already has. He's taking facts and twisting them around to make an assumption about our intentions that isn't true. that's as dangerous of an attitude as what the RIAA is doing.

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:40 PM Personally I don't fault anyone who downloads their music. there are worse leeches in the world. namely lawyers. this whole mess we're in right now is totally and one hundred percent a result of lawyers. They become politicians, corporate CEO's, and congressional lobbyists. talk about your leeches.

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:44 PM "there are worse leeches in the world. namely lawyers." Yeah, like leflaw who runs this site. And Fred Von Lohmann of the EFF who argued against the RIAA in court this week. I hate lawyers. : )

compmore	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 4:51 PM no lawyers in general. there are exceptions. sorry to say you haven't proven yourself as one

stilltrying	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 9:38 PM mroop at least the Russian mafia isn't suing 12 yr old kids and besides if anyone can get rid of the RIAA it would be the Russian mafia

stilltrying	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 9:40 PM Come on RIAA dare you to go after these guys like you did Napster?????? bunch of pussies!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bufo	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 9:42 PM Jazzmary, You are right about there being free and legal music sites. Check out, for example, HTTP://www.epitonic.com This site has tons of music (mainly indie) for the taking - in either mp3 or wma format. There are also brief bios of the bands which offer the music, along with links for buying CDs from these groups.

stilltrying	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 9:43 PM Wait till all the itunes fools(customers) find out about these's sites dare to say "Do the words RIP OFF" mean anything to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bufo	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 9:44 PM Opps. my link doesn't appear to work. Maybe http://www.epitonic.com/

stilltrying	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 9:58 PM Send a thug to deal with a thug!!!!!!!!!!!

CodeWarrior	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 10:04 PM WOW.... and here I am with nothing to add...I don't download songs from anyone... oh well...I read all the posts.... :)

stilltrying	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 10:10 PM I don't download songs either only Indie music and not much of that to busy doing my own music I get a kick out of the fact the RIAA is to affraid to mess with this russian site. WHY??????

stilltrying	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 10:24 PM When Rich corp. buy off the so called reps of the people to bend the laws to their liking and destroy the fair use of the people given to them by the AHRA then it's time to take off the gloves!!!! By the way mroop how much of the cd-r special tax money do you think the RIAA has collected and how come we are paying this cd-r tax anyway .?????

stilltrying	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 10:38 PM Mroop don't support the Russian Mafia WHAT let's support the RIAA Mafia instead???????

mroop	Date: February 7, 2004 @ 11:47 PM "By the way mroop how much of the cd-r special tax money do you think the RIAA has collected and how come we are paying this cd-r tax anyway .?????" Maybe you need to read more carefully. Did you see me say anything in support of the RIAA in this thread? I don't think so. "Mroop don't support the Russian Mafia WHAT let's support the RIAA Mafia instead???????" Again, read the freaking thread. Did I say you should support the RIAA? Nope, here is what I said: "So in conclusion, you'd be better off downloading for free from a P2P than supporting the freaking Russian Mafia by using this site. "

stilltrying	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 12:14 AM Downloading from p2p sites might get your ass sued by the RIAA at least at the Russian site i don't see how you could get sued because the RIAA is to chicken to go after them!!!!!!!!!!

stilltrying	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 12:23 AM I did read your freaking threads and from what I saw you were coming down on everybody for wanting to check out this Russian site!!!! Don't get me wrong this Russian site is no better than the RIAA but if it gets out over the web that it's there and if it were to get bigger than kazza well then I would love to see the RIAA go after them cause the Russian mafia would make the RIAA cry Mommy real quick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

stilltrying	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 12:32 AM As far as the Artist's getting the shaft from the RIAA or this Russian site isn't it about time the artist's started standing up for themselfs. If all of them got together and went on strike and started telling the truth about the major labels then maybe things would change!!!! But no their to chicken!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dave109100	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 3:12 AM "These threads always crack me up. All the people crying "We care about the artists!". What a load of bull. As soon as you get a chance to get their music for a penny a song you jump on it like rabid dogs. Yeah, you care about the artists, sure! What you really care about is free music, artists be damned. So sad. So hypocritical." I don't think I've ever said that. I never said I used it on a regular basis....just tried it once.. It could be used as a good basis to start something legit in the US that more ppl would be attracted to. So don't call me a hypocrit.... "Paying a dollar for all the tracks right there and in high quality is extremely worth it. If it was that cheap here I wouldn't have any problem paying for it." I would be willing to pay more too, just not 99 cents(a track) and the quality should be selectable up to 512k or so.

dave109100	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 3:17 AM You know the funniest part about this all is that mroop keeps coming back to argue. Why? I'm sorry that you have wasted your time here.

surfside6	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 9:10 AM Note to Webmaster, if you want a good flaming thread, do a article on the russian music websites. Mroop, the article you mention concerns the old Napster in Russia. The Russian sites buy a license from the state. Did it ever occur to you that maybe copyright laws are different in different countries? We all know things are different, note the riaa raids in Austrailia, not possible in the US. Maybe you should get some more sources familiar with international copyright law and present your case. Cite some articles in respected sources that say that it is illegal. What is presented here is an alternative to the pay per song websites that offer music at .01 cents per meg verses .25 cents per meg. Maybe if the riaa had done something like this at the reasonable cost when they closed down Napster they would not have their p2p situation they have today. Finally, what makes you think these sites are affiliated with the russian mafia? Do you have proof/facts for this? Why would this not be a group of music loving techies doing business legally under Russian copyright law in Russia? At about 4 cents a song I gurantee you the russian mafia would not be getting rich on this venture.

stilltrying	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 12:31 PM Not to take up mroop side but the fact that they have an huge amount of Beatle songs up is a good reason to have doubts???????

fremont	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 1:26 PM Hello, I have read many of your opinions for several months, but this is my first post. I have a question about the allofmp3.com website. Whenever I connect to that site, my PeerGuardian goes crazy with connection rejections of Spylog (194.67.35.191). A quick search on Google reveals an ".ru" (Russian) web address. But the description is in Russian. Is this possibly a hired arm of the RIAA? Or is it checking for a Russian agency because allof mp.3 is violating Russian copyright laws? I'm definitely not nearly as knowledgable as most of you re: these matters - so any input would be appreciated and most probably quite interesting!! Thanx

Prorubel	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 2:10 PM Don't get paranoid. The RIAA has no business in Russia. Spylog is a company that lists the most visited websites, kind of a counter. Their icon is at the bottom of every Allfmp3 page. As far as I know it is just counting visits. Have not got a clue why Peerguardian has "blacklisted" this IP. You had better ask the Peergardian guys. BTW the Altavista Toolbar enables you to translate every Russian page to english. Real handy!

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 2:51 PM "Mroop, the article you mention concerns the old Napster in Russia. The Russian sites buy a license from the state. Did it ever occur to you that maybe copyright laws are different in different countries?" READ THE ARTICLE. It mentions Napster - so what. It clearly states that the copyright holder holds the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE. The article is from the St. Petersburg Civil Law Center and is written by an intellectual property specialist. As you know, The Beatles have not authorized their music online for anyone. And yet this site has Beatles music including Beatles BOOTLEGS. "Cite some articles in respected sources that say that it is illegal." I already did! Now it is your turn to counter my article with something from an authority. My authority is the St. Petersburg Civil Law Center. What is yours? "Finally, what makes you think these sites are affiliated with the russian mafia? Do you have proof/facts for this? Why would this not be a group of music loving techies doing business legally under Russian copyright law in Russia?" Music loving techies? LOL That's a good one. Who do you think runs organized crime in Russia? "Not to take up mroop side but the fact that they have an huge amount of Beatle songs up is a good reason to have doubts???????" You aren't taking my side. You are MAKING SENSE! Some people here just don't want to believe it. They even have Beatles bootlegs! I am reading a book about the bootleg industry right now by Clinton Heylin. The books talks about the famous Beatle bootlegs called Sweet Apple Trax. And guess this web site is selling something called "Sweetest Apples - Unpublished songs and alternative versions 1967-1970"

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 2:55 PM "Maybe you should get some more sources familiar with international copyright law and present your case." Maybe you should get just ONE source and present your case. Allofmp3.com obviously doesn't count - it is their web site. FYI, the Russian child porn sites claim they are compliant with Title 18 of US law - that doesn't mean it is true. So you are left with the anonymous "Dampier". What are his credentials I wonder? : )

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 3:28 PM Here is another source for you. A letter written by: Dr. Svetlana I. Rozina Senior Partner member of Board of Bar Association of Moscow City the principal author of the Russian Federation Law "On Copyright and Neighboring Rights" an author of the Russian Federation Law "On Legal Protection of Computer Programs and Databases" In this letter Dr. Rozina states: "[C]opyrights are protected on the territory of Russia by the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Neighboring Rights" dated July 9, 1993 # 5351/1-1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Russian Copyright Law"). Both the Russian Federation and the United States are members of the Bern Convention on Protection of Literature and Art Works of 1886 and pursuant to Article 5 of the Russian Copyright Law the rights of the Unites States copyright owners are under protection in Russia. It means that under Article 16 of the Russian Copyright Law the above named copyright owners represented by us enjoy the exclusive right to exploit their works in any form and by any means, including but not limited to, by mean of Internet. According to Article 16 (par.2) of the Russian Copyright Law the copyright owner's exclusive right to exploit the work shall be construed to mean the right to perform or authorized the following acts, namely: reproduction of the work, id est: making of one or more copies of the work or part of a work in any form, including the form of sound or visual recording, or making of one or more three-dimensional copies of a two-dimensional work, or one or more two-dimensional copies of a three-dimensional work; the storage of a work in computer memory shall also constitute reproduction; distribution of copies of the work by any means, including sale, rental and other means whatsoever which are known or will be known in future;" http://fzba.chat.ru/copyright.txt There you go. : )

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 3:31 PM If you want to do your own research you can google "russian copyright" and the exact phrase "Article 16". Have fun. : )

kyodylee	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 3:45 PM "As you know, The Beatles have not authorized their music online for anyone. And yet this site has Beatles music including Beatles BOOTLEGS." Where are you getting this dribble?

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 4:11 PM "Where are you getting this dribble?" Since you called my post dribble, I guess I can call you a dumbass. : ) What do you consider dribble? 1. It is common knowledge that The Beatles have not authorized their music for online sale via download. Do a search. EMI is pissed because they want Beatles on the download sites. For Beatles bootlegs - check allofmp3.com and they are there.

autodidact	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 4:36 PM mroop is probably right about the Beatles bootlegs. But what is the point? If you want to rant about bootlegs, rant about the people selling them at record-collector conventions for big money. However, mroop's figure of 1.4 cents/song is not near correct. The cost of a song on allofmp3 is 3 cents up to maybe 15 cents, depending on the length of the track and whether you get 128kbps or 320kbps. So that is just flat out wrong. I usually get the cheap files at lower bitrates, because I don't view this as a substitute for buying CDs. I am just previewing the music to see if I would ever want to buy the album. Three cents a track is a reasonable cost for that, and morally, I don't care if anybody gets paid just for me to sample an album. On other occasions I have downloaded MP3s of albums I already legitimately own on LP. Certainly I feel no moral guilt about that whatsoever. The artist deserves no double compensation for that, do they? Then mroop says use P2P instead of allofmp3. Why? Whether what this site does is strictly legal or not, it serves two purposes. Number one, it annoys the excrement out of the RIAA, and number two, it demonstrates a cheap and viable way of getting a known product (unlike P2P -- free, but not reliable). In other words, it is a model for what pay-for-download services should be more like, i.e. great choice of formats, no DRM, reasonable prices. For those reasons, I hope this site keeps on truckin'. mroop paints with a broad brush. I mean, the Boston Tea Party was about as illegal as you can get. But I'm still glad those patriots did it. When mroop suggests people download from P2P instead, he obviously has made the issue of legality moot to begin with. So why the fuss?

Prorubel	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 4:45 PM Found some good info about the legality. This was posted in the CDFreaks Forums: Hey everyone. I accidently came by this thread and thought would give you some details. It seems to me that there are not a lot of people who know law good enough to arrive to some legality conclusion. So here goes. ALLOFMP3.com is a completely legitimate service. Both from Russia and US standpoint. According to Russian Law, an organization called ROMS (similar to RIAA) manages all intellectual rights in Russian Federation. All 3rd party destributors licensed by ROMS are required to pay a portion of the revenue (notice, not profit) to the ROMS. ROMS in turn, is obligated to pay most of that money (aside from small portion it needs for operating expenses) to artists. Both Russian and foreign. Under Russian law, ROMS automatically has the right to license ANY intellectual property to Russian destributors, even if the author is not subject to Russian law and did not give his permission for the license. I think this is the perfect system. It was designed during USSR times. Now we really gotta ask ourselves here in US. How do countries like Iraq (Iraq has similar copyright laws) and Russia, that are regarded as dictatorships, have such liberal copyright laws; while in US companies can sue the hell out of the teenagers and use FBI and courts, funded by taxpayers money in their battle. Aww, that smell of freedom. I must have stepped in something. Now lets look at the US law. You can legally acquire music from anyone who has a legitimate right to destribute it. You can buy from a iTunes, because it was licensed by RIAA, you can buy it from Canada, if it is licensed by CRIA, you can buy it from Russia, if it was licensed by ROMS. Now the key difference is that RIAA and CRIA need to obtain licenses from songwriters and artists. ROMS owns rights to intellectual property automatically. Until changes are made to US and/or Russian law, allofmp3.com is completely legal. Notice how RIAA is silent? Those assholes sit and wait having their fingers crossed because if allofmp3 becomes popular; they are #ucked. They cannot sue either ROMS or allofmp3. Much less can they affect Russian law. Their best bet is to change American law. Which they will probably will do, but until then, everything you do with allofmp3 is legal and you can not be accountable for it after the law is passed. Why so cheap? Very simple. In Russia, most pirate CDs cost close to $1.5 and legal $2-3. In addition to that, most Russians are poor. So allofmp3 to Russians would in fact be more expensive than iTunes to Americans. Many people have moral issues regarding artists not being paid and such. That is not an issue for me, but I will try to explain things to those people somewhat. ROMS gets money for each song that people download. It pays yearly fees to Russian record labels and represetatives of foreign record labels. Rest of the money, it destributes through these labels, specifically to artists, depending on the number of sales of works. At least that how it should work in theory. Unfortunatelly I cannot attest to whether it works in practice. In any case, if artists are not getting their money, it would most likely be fault of ROMS or record labels. Not allofmp3. Some could argue that if artists receive something from allofmp3, it is extremely little. Well, although it is clear that they receive less than from say RIAA, it is not much less. Only 10% of iTunes revenues goes to artists, while RIAA gets 70%. That situation doesnt exist with ROMS. It gives (or at least should) most of the money it gets from sites like allofmp3 to artists. Even though songs cost pennies, you can now essentially afford to have 20 songs in your collection for $1 or 1 song for $1. And from that dollar, artists will get just about the same amount of money. I can assure I that no one would be downloading 1000s of tracks from iTunes, while I know people who have got over 10,000 of the allofmp3 tracks and paid for them. Afterall does artists really care whether I purchased 3 songs I like, or his entire CD, if he gets paid the same. I wouldnt buy the rest of the songs if they did not cost pennies, but since they do, I would rather have complete CD, you see the logic? I'm not even going to dignify people who state that allofmp3 is run by Russian mafia with a response. Let me just say that the only way those people get idea about Russia is by watching movies like Armageddon. (In the movie, Russian astranauts on the spacestation were wearing ear-hats and were drunk.) I have more pity for Americans than Russians. It is really sad when according to National Geographic poll, only 36% of the Americans could point out New Jersey state on the map. Wheew, that was long. Cheers. Anthony. http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?s=8c9bfe3f2f13a1c512da5f17f5ba6a17&threadid=83313

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 4:48 PM "mroop is probably right about the Beatles bootlegs. But what is the point? If you want to rant about bootlegs, rant about the people selling them at record-collector conventions for big money." I pointed out the Beatles bootlegs to demonstrate the site is not legit. "However, mroop's figure of 1.4 cents/song is not near correct." The 1.4 cents number was based upon a price I saw of 14.95 for 1000 songs. "Then mroop says use P2P instead of allofmp3. Why?" Hold on a second. I thought the people on this site were against people who make money from illicit recordings. What happened to that? "number two, it demonstrates a cheap and viable way of getting a known product (unlike P2P -- free, but not reliable). In other words, it is a model for what pay-for-download services should be more like, i.e. great choice of formats, no DRM, reasonable prices." Hardly. It demonstrates a model that is cheap when the rights holders are not paid. Again, if you are paying 1.4 cents per song (even if that is the least expensive of the options) then the artist might see 3/100ths of one penny per song. At one million downloads the band sees 3000 dollars minus songwriter costs and manager costs and lawyer costs. Artist friendly? I don't think so! "When mroop suggests people download from P2P instead, he obviously has made the issue of legality moot to begin with. So why the fuss?" Again, my point is to counter the people who claim this site is "legit". It is not. People want to believe this is a legit site so they can console themselves while they screw over the artists. Why not just make a donation to the RIAA instead? : )

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 4:52 PM "Found some good info about the legality." LOL. Yeah, that's some "good info" you got there. More spurious BS from anonymous know nothings. Hee hee. I have cited two authorities on Russian law. Can anyone cite an authority to counter mine? (crickets chirping) I didn't think so. : )

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 4:59 PM "I'm not even going to dignify people who state that allofmp3 is run by Russian mafia with a response. Let me just say that the only way those people get idea about Russia is by watching movies like Armageddon. " Heh. I got that from reading an extensive paper on the role of organized crime in piracy of copyrighted material in Russia. It is all run by organized crime and it is huge. An operation like this based in Russia is either run by organized crime or they are getting a piece of the pie in return for "protection".

kyodylee	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 5:07 PM "1. It is common knowledge that The Beatles have not authorized their music for online sale via download. Do a search. EMI is pissed because they want Beatles on the download sites." mrpoop, no you do the search. You asserted it. You prove it. And since you escaltated dribble to dumbass, I guess you won't mind me calling you a shithead. :)

compmore	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 5:47 PM Geeze, I came back after a day to see what was happening and I just can't believe this. Mroop what the hell kind of a lawyer are you? do you actually work for the RIAA or do you just hate people in general and like to make yourself look big by making everyone else look small. You kept telling everyone to back up their arguments so Prorubel found a very interesting law on the books that would tend to back up his claim. You never once addressed that Russian law he brought up, rather you resorted to name calling again and picking apart isolated sentences taken out of context that have nothing to do with that law all the while quoting Russian lawyers. Sorry but Lawyers are not a reputable source. If they are quoting law and what Prorubel says is also law then there is either a conflict or something has been overlooked. You obviously are a person who comes to a conclusion first then looks for legal decisions that back up your preconcieved conclusions and ignors everything else. What do they teach you in Law school, bullshit 101. You have zero credibility.

stilltrying	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 7:30 PM mroop the RIAA knows about this Russian site and yet they haven't shut it down or even tried to so. If it is not legit then WHY doesn"t the RIAA do something.??? Maybe it is legit and the RIAA can't do anything about it but try to keep the people of the U.S. in the dark which wouldn't be the first time!!!!!!!!!!

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 9:16 PM "mrpoop, no you do the search. You asserted it. You prove it." That took all of 30 seconds. Here you go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3190052.stm "A spokeswoman for publishers EMI told BBC News Online: "The Beatles have chosen not to put their music online." "I do not know their reasoning."" "Geoff Baker, a spokesman for Apple Corps, told BBC News Online: "We have no plans at the moment to go online." "When asked why the former band members were not putting the group's music online, he added: "I do not think there is any reason for it at all."" "And since you escaltated dribble to dumbass, I guess you won't mind me calling you a shithead. :)" No problema. : ) "You kept telling everyone to back up their arguments so Prorubel found a very interesting law on the books that would tend to back up his claim." No he didn't. Do you see a citation to a law there? All I see is a post from an anonymous person on a message board with nothing to back it up. I quoted experts who quoted Article 16 and I listed their references. Prorubel provided nothing but anonymous garbage with no back up. "rather you resorted to name calling again and picking apart isolated sentences taken out of context that have nothing to do with that law all the while quoting Russian lawyers. Sorry but Lawyers are not a reputable source." I'm sorry that you don't have the reading comprehension skills to grasp the information I provided. Now please go back to ignoring me because you do not have the ability to understand the information that I have provided for your edification. "mroop the RIAA knows about this Russian site and yet they haven't shut it down or even tried to so. If it is not legit then WHY doesn"t the RIAA do something.??? Maybe it is legit and the RIAA can't do anything about it but try to keep the people of the U.S. in the dark which wouldn't be the first time!!!!!!!!!!" Why doesn't the FBI shut down the child porn sites from Russia that are all over the net and accept Visa and Mastercard? It's not that easy for the US to do these things because it is Russia.

compmore	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 9:52 PM I'm sorry that you don't have the reading comprehension skills to grasp the information I provided. that's what I'm talking about, because you're an arrogant ass and you know full well that the average person is not trained in research and understanding legal language like you are so for some strange reason you assume if we disagree with you we're some sort of idiotic dummies worthy of insults. As far as I'm concerned your sources are no more credible than his. either way you still haven't addressed it. All you have done is degraded it, the author and all those who agree. If it doesn't come from one of your shister lawyers then it's not credible. far as I'm concerned you and people like you are the reason we're so screwed up in this country and no amount of posturing on your part can hide it. lawyers like you who have no respect for people who disagree with you (you keep saying that's not true then you go and prove it by insulting others again) are the lowest form of scum on the earth. I put you in the same catagory as nazis and child molestors because your arrogants ways rape society. I'm not talking about your ideas. I'm talking about your stupid disrespect for humanity.

stilltrying	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 10:10 PM mroop I know your not an RIAA lawyer and it would only be your best guess but WHY doesn't the RIAA bring a lawsuit against this site allofmp3.com I did some checking on alexa and it's listed around 10500 for traffic and it is even beating kazza for traffic. If this keeps on and the word get's out this site could kick the ass of the RIAA and major labels. All the RIAA seems to be interested in is Kazza and P2p this site allofmp3.com seems to me to be a bigger threat to them now and in the future so why no RIAA action even if it is not easy you would think somebody somewhere could stop it?????

kyodylee	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 10:16 PM mrpoop, I will address my one and only question to you. The rest of your response, although you make it appear to be to me as well, is actually to an entirely different poster's comments to you. Hmmm, purposely misleading or just plain lazy. Neither one bodes well for a lawyer. mrpoop said: "That took all of 30 seconds. Here you go:" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/musi c/3190052.stm "A spokeswoman for publishers EMI told BBC News Online: "The Beatles have chosen not to put their music online." "I do not know their reasoning."" "Geoff Baker, a spokesman for Apple Corps, told BBC News Online: "We have no plans at the moment to go online." "When asked why the former band members were not putting the group's music online, he added: "I do not think there is any reason for it at all."" ---------------------------------------------------------- The article also goes on to say "Mr Baker said Apple Corps was unaware of any particular demand for the band's music to go online and was unconcerned by the numbers of Beatles' tracks being downloaded by so-called pirates for free." Hmmm, unconcerned. Unconcerned about the numbers...downloaded...for free. Hmmm, The Beatles are unconcerned about this. Mr Baker goes on to say "As far as I am concerned we are doing very well as it is." Hmmm, very well, very well indeed. In fact, Mr Baker was unable to articulate the reason for this decision. He said neither of the band members have expressed any interest in online music. His only comment was "I have never heard Paul McCartney talking about it," he said. Hmmm, unconcerned and haven't expressed any interest in it. Perhaps, mrpoop has Sir Paul's direct phone line and has been in communication with him about this. Or maybe, mrpoop goes to the same psychic adviser as Yoko Ono and has the inside track. Or, I know, mrpoop is in direct telepathic communication beyond the grave with John and George. They purposely issued an ambiguous statement but our all-knowing mrpoop, has decided that only his interpretation is the correct one. Try this: http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2003/10/20031014184906.shtml Comments: Only "Illegal" Beatles Music on the Internet? Tuesday, October 14, 2003 By Applelinks Senior Editor John H. Farr There's a rather confusing article about online Beatle music at BBC.com, not hard to understand per se, but difficult to penetrate as far as understanding everyone's motives is concerned. In a nutshell, the Beatles' Apple Corps music company has apparently decided not to facilitate legitimate digital music sales online. If so, that's one bargaining chip of Steve Jobs' that's been taken off the table. Apple Computer is being sued by Apple Corps, you understand, over a long-ago secret agreement Steve Jobs made with the Beatles' music company. We think but do not know for sure that he agreed to keep Apple Computer out of the music business in return for being allowed to keep the name (Apple). People have speculated that bringing the very attractive Beatles music catalog to iTunes would be good for all concerned and help settle the current dispute, but apparently this isn't going to happen, at least not right away. The BBC article simply says the following; A spokeswoman for publishers EMI told BBC News Online: "The Beatles have chosen not to put their music online.I do not know their reasoning." There are several ways to interpret this if you have the time or inclination, but we think it goes something like this: a) Most Beatles songs ever recorded are already available on fileswapping networks. b) The last thing Paul McCartney et al. need is more money. c) The only people who want more money are greedy corporate goons and others eager to take money from music fans, so ... d) "The Beatles" (i.e. Paul, Ringo, and assorted heirs) have told the suits to buzz off. The John Lennon we remember would have wanted it that way.

stilltrying	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 10:37 PM Mroop one last question how could someone get in trouble from downloading from this site allofmp3.com. The RIAA has no uploading charges to bring and I don't see how they could track anyone using this site and even if it has cheap rates if and that is a big IF the artists do get paid at least the RIAA doesn't get a chance to steal most of it from them. I check it out and was impressed with allofmp3.com site. So what's the beef don't support the RIAA and don't support the allofmp3.com site BUT it seems to me that allofmp3.com site could defeat the RIAA. We can deal with the Russian mafia later at least the major labels would get whats coming to them and just maybe the RIAA strangle hold on music will cease!!!!!!!!!

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 11:29 PM kyodyoloee - I don't understand the point of your post. I demonstrated that The Beatles have not authorized their music to be sold via download. Yet allofmp3.com is selling their music. That was my point and I backed it up. What the motives of The Beatles are has nothing to do with it. If they don't care about allofmp3.com that is irrelevant. The point is that they have not authorized the sale of their music to anyone via download. Stilltrying - I don't know if the RIAA has tried to stop this site and failed or what the RIAA's story is in relation to this site. I do know that Russia is a chaotic government that has little control over their people. Organized crime is incredibly rampant. They can't even control their nuclear weapons and have had to seek US assistance to try and keep their nukes from the hands of varioius dissident groups. US copyrights are probably the last of their worries right now. They are struggling for survival. "Mroop one last question how could someone get in trouble from downloading from this site allofmp3.com." I don't know, but I wouldn't worry too much about getting caught. The RIAA is not going after people for downloading from P2P's either. I have read many people on this site who say: It's OK to trade, but counterfeiters selling for profit are bad. If you feel this way, then download from a P2P for free and don't pay these ripoff artists at allofmp3.com. That is my humble opinion.

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 11:33 PM "As far as I'm concerned your sources are no more credible than his." No surprise there. : ) "either way you still haven't addressed it." Sigh. I did address it. I will do so again. No citations, no sources = speculative bullshit. "I put you in the same catagory as nazis and child molestors because your arrogants ways rape society." Ouch. Now you've gone and hurt my feelings. : )

kyodylee	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 11:44 PM No, I did make my point. My point is that you are making your own personal interpretation of what was stated. While you are free do this this, it in no way makes you an authority to speak for them. Other interpretations of their statement also exist, but you refuse to to acknowledge any other interpretation but your own. Where do you get: "The Beatles have chosen not to put their music online." ~ Beatles Spokesman Geoff Baker EQUALS "The Beatles have not authorized their music to be sold via download. The point is that they have not authorized the sale of their music to anyone via download." ~ mrpoop You jump to conclusions too much. Better get yourself a parachute.

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 11:45 PM "As far as I'm concerned your sources are no more credible than his." I just want to go over this one more time because it is so freaking funny. Here are my sources: 1. Alexander Sergeev - Professor at the Law faculty of St. Petersburg University. He had graduated from the Law Faculty and began his work as a lecturer in early 1980s. Since then he has been working at the Faculty. He holds a Doctor degree in Civil Law and is currently the Chief of the Civil Law Department. Alexander is one of the best specialists in intellectual property rights. He has written a lot of books and articles on these problems. His most famous work is Intellectual Property Rights in Russain Federation. A.Sergeev serves as editor for many scientific journals. Along with his scientific activities he provides sufficient practical work. He has served as a legal expert in dozens of court cases and develops expert decisions on different complicated legal problems for courts. 2. Dr. Svetlana I. Rozina Senior Partner Member of Board of Bar Association of Moscow City The principal author of the Russian Federation Law "On Copyright and Neighboring Rights" and author of the Russian Federation Law "On Legal Protection of Computer Programs and Databases" Here are Prorubel's sources: 1. Anonymous person posting on a message board. And you consider these sources equally credible? That speaks more to your reasoning abilities than anything I could ever say. Nice job, bucko. : )

stilltrying	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 11:49 PM Thanks for your humble opinion Mroop but I was just wondering remember I don't download no need to. If the truth be known none of us at boycott RIAA need to but if all the p2p ers all over knew of this site allofmp3.com and wanted to give it a try and put a Big dent in the RIAA music sales well that's their biz and if it brings the RIAA to it's knee's well all the better after all this whole movement was started to get rid of all the dirty dealings that exists in the music biz today which I and others like yourself would like to see. Let me end with this Mroop I was damn tempted!!! They do have a huge Beatle catologue. PEACE

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 11:50 PM "Where do you get: "The Beatles have chosen not to put their music online." ~ Beatles Spokesman Geoff Baker EQUALS "The Beatles have not authorized their music to be sold via download. The point is that they have not authorized the sale of their music to anyone via download." ~ mrpoop" Please tell me you are joking. "Other interpretations of their statement also exist, but you refuse to to acknowledge any other interpretation but your own." What are you talking about? Other interpretations? What do you think "The Beatles have chosen not to put their music online." means?

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 11:52 PM Geoff Baker, a spokesman for Apple Corps, told BBC News Online: "We have no plans at the moment to go online." What is the interpretation for this? Could this mean anything other than The Beatles music is not online legally?

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 11:57 PM http://www.bizreport.com/article.php?art_id=5969 No Tunes by the Beatles Music companies have more luck with some of their artists than with others. England's EMI Group, the world's third-largest music company, gave Courtney Love's latest single, "Mono," to Napster, iTunes and Musicmatch for sale in the second week of December at the same time it was given to radio stations for play. But EMI's biggest act, the Beatles, remains intransigent. EMI distributes the Beatles' songs but the group's performance rights are owned by the band members and spouses. (Michael Jackson owns the publishing rights.) EMI has held numerous meetings with Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono and the rest of the tight group that controls perhaps the most-loved songs in the pop canon. So far the group remains unswayed. It is not surprising; the Beatles were among the last artists to license their songs for sale on CD, in the 1980s. "We hope they agree to make their works available very soon, " EMI spokeswoman Jeanne Meyer said.

mroop	Date: February 8, 2004 @ 11:58 PM Stilltrying - your welcome.

compmore	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 12:21 AM Mroop - so what. I could care less who your sources are. You're not a credible person so as far as I know you're distorting your sources like you distort everyone elses view on this site. I know for a fact that the RIAA screws it's artists and pays off radio stations to keep others out. Where are my sources? Here on this and other sites like it. I don't have any (what you consider) credible sources but we all know it's true. yet you've got your head so far up your ass because you think your shit smells sweet you don't even want to look at anything else that's possible. No you didn't address it or the possibilities. if it is a law then you and your perfect all knowing research and legal experts should have found out about it. that means either it is a law and you're being selective in your research, or it isn't and you have no way to refute it except that it's "speculative bullshit" that's dealing with it in a childish way. We're not in a court of law here. we don't have to be a perfect as you to get our point across. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings with my comment. I know that you and others like you are as much of a scum bag as nazis and molestors for one simple reason. you have no concious, heart, concern, or respect for people who think different than you. that's why the sarcastic response to my statement. I didn't expect someone like you to even care. That's how I honestly feel about you. Months ago when I would read your drivel I would get irritated because of your heartless mannor. but as time wore on you have shown time and time again what you're really made of and it's purely sickning. and you haven't disapointed those of us who dispise your attitude, with your actions on this thread here. I know you don't care but good honest lawyers should take you in a back room somewhere and teach you what professionalism and respect is because that's the one thing that you should have as a lawyer and fall far short of.

kyodylee	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 12:30 AM mrpoop said: "What are you talking about? Other interpretations? What do you think "The Beatles have chosen not to put their music online." means?" You have made my point exactly. Apparently you feel you are the only person in the world qualified to quantify this statement. You have added the words "not authorized", "not for sale", "illegal download" to this one tiny short little statement on your own and have decided that the addition of your words constitutes facts. I don't see your added words in their statement at all. Maybe they are invisible and I need a secret decoder ring to see them. mrpoop, :sigh: :yawn:

mroop	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 12:38 AM "You have made my point exactly. Apparently you feel you are the only person in the world qualified to quantify this statement." Wow. I guess you have chosen to play word games rather than address the issue. I posted another article for your perusal, as you may have noticed. Please make your case. Are you suggesting that The Beatles have authorized their music for download? Maybe you have some information that EMI does not have? Here it is again in case you missed it: NO TUNES BY THE BEATLES Music companies have more luck with some of their artists than with others. England's EMI Group, the world's third-largest music company, gave Courtney Love's latest single, "Mono," to Napster, iTunes and Musicmatch for sale in the second week of December at the same time it was given to radio stations for play. But EMI's biggest act, the Beatles, remains intransigent. EMI distributes the Beatles' songs but the group's performance rights are owned by the band members and spouses. (Michael Jackson owns the publishing rights.) EMI has held numerous meetings with Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono and the rest of the tight group that controls perhaps the most-loved songs in the pop canon. So far the group remains unswayed. It is not surprising; the Beatles were among the last artists to license their songs for sale on CD, in the 1980s. "We hope they agree to make their works available very soon, " EMI spokeswoman Jeanne Meyer said.

mroop	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 12:41 AM "You have added the words "not authorized", "not for sale", "illegal download" to this one tiny short little statement on your own and have decided that the addition of your words constitutes facts." This is beyond belief. What do you not understand? The Beatles have not made their music available for online downloading. Am I speaking a foreign language? It's pretty funny that the entire Beatles loving universe knows that there is no Beatles available for legal download but you seem resistant to this concept. LOL Btw, I am stil waiting for your "alternative interpretation. : )

mroop	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 12:43 AM But EMI's biggest act, the Beatles, remains intransigent. EMI distributes the Beatles' songs but the group's performance rights are owned by the band members and spouses. (Michael Jackson owns the publishing rights.) EMI has held numerous meetings with Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono and the rest of the tight group that controls perhaps the most-loved songs in the pop canon. So far the group remains unswayed. It is not surprising; the Beatles were among the last artists to license their songs for sale on CD, in the 1980s. "We hope they agree to make their works available very soon, " EMI spokeswoman Jeanne Meyer said.

autodidact	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 12:48 AM mroop, as a lawyer, I'm sure you know that two legal opinions, even two expert ones, do not a consensus make. And so, your legal experts may have an opinion about Napster -- I know you once quoted one of them discussing the legality of Napster, and I didn't see what the heck that had to do with allofmp3 -- but that does not necesarily represent the whole of legal opinion on the matter. But it is a start, I'll give you that. Second, though the Beatles material on that site may be authorized and therefore illigitimate, that does not necessarily mean that all of the material on site is illigitimate. It may be a legitimate operation that sells some stuff legitimately, and other stuff illegitimately. I am not expressing an opinion one way or another about this. I am only pointing out that there are other interpretations than the one you have insisted on. I have no knowledge of how the Russian copyright compensation mechanism works. Obviously if they are selling legitimate CDs in Russia at under $5 then the system is much different, and compensation is likely much less, than it is here in the states. You have presented some evidence, I will grant you that. To this juror, it falls short of proof.

kyodylee	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 1:02 AM mrpoop said: "Wow. I guess you have chosen to play word games rather than address the issue." No, mrpoop, it is you playing the word games. You are the one adding the nonexistent words to their statement. mrpoop said: "Are you suggesting that The Beatles have authorized their music for download?" I have not made one suggestion as to the meaning of their statement. I read their statement verbatim and stated that it is open to interpretation and that your interpretation was not the only interpretation. I provided you with a link of just such an alternate interpretation. To use your own words "I posted another article for your perusal, as you may have noticed." Do I need to post it again for you? You are pretty good at adding words where there are none and at implying a suggestion where none was made. It's a tactic called deflection when your own case is weak or nonexistent. You're pretty good at it, I'll give you that. But you have yet to defend your position and state categorically some facts of how you have quantified their statement with your own added words of interpretation. mrpoop, as they say, it's been real, and it's been fun, but it ain't been real fun. Goodnight.

mroop	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 1:12 AM "I provided you with a link of just such an alternate interpretation." Oh really. Your link agrees with me. Here you go: "In a nutshell, the Beatles' Apple Corps music company has apparently decided not to facilitate legitimate digital music sales online."

mroop	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 1:18 AM "It's a tactic called deflection when your own case is weak or nonexistent." How bizarre. I could post 100 more articles saying The Beatles have not made their music available for legal download. But I will content myself with knowing that you know I am right but for some bizarre reason you won't concede the point. Is it that difficult to admit it you were wrong? I guess so.

mroop	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 1:22 AM "mroop, as a lawyer, I'm sure you know that two legal opinions, even two expert ones, do not a consensus make." I do agree. It is just that no one has yet offered a legal opinion with any backup that has contradicted the opinions that I posted. "but that does not necesarily represent the whole of legal opinion on the matter." I agree again. I am just waiting for a counter opinion. As I noted above, an anonymous poster stating his opinion without a backup or citation is not valid. "Second, though the Beatles material on that site may be authorized and therefore illigitimate, that does not necessarily mean that all of the material on site is illigitimate. It may be a legitimate operation that sells some stuff legitimately, and other stuff illegitimately." Good point.

compmore	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 1:22 AM when you're as obnoxious as you are, yes.

compmore	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 1:25 AM Our court system is full of legal opinions that are wrong and have been ruled against. a legal opinion doesn't make it valid. Legal opinions are no more reputable than a news source or other sources. Don't you get it. people don't consider you valid, therefore your sources are in question

mroop	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 1:29 AM "But you have yet to defend your position and state categorically some facts of how you have quantified their statement with your own added words of interpretation." I did not quantify their statement or offer added words of interpretation. I just stated the same facts using different words. http://uk.news.launch.yahoo.com/dyna/article.html?a=/dotmusic_news/31197.html&e=l_news "THE BEATLES HAVE REFUSED TO MAKE THEIR EXTENSIVE BACK CATALOGUE OF MUSIC AVAILABLE TO INTERNET USERS, according to reports. Despite the growing success of legitimate paid-for services, music publishers EMI say The Beatles will not be putting their music online."

mroop	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 1:31 AM And by the way autodidact, it's good to see that you grasp my point about The Beatles rather than playing silly word games like Kyodylee. It seems like the only one he is fooling is himself. : )

mroop	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 1:33 AM "Don't you get it. people don't consider you valid, therefore your sources are in question" You're a laff riot. I know I can always count on you for a good laugh. : )

Prorubel	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 4:18 AM Looks like I am being accused of using anonymous sources ;) Some sources are anonymous, I agree, but not all. To cut a long story short. The legitimacy of Allofmp3 has been confirmed by the assistant to the lawyer of the Russian society on multimedia and to digital networks (ROMS) www.roms.ru, Bahanets Roman Igorevich. What more do you need Mroop? If you don�t trust this send an email to ROMS and ask the big question yourself. As for the Beatles albums. The situation in Russia is cannot be compared with the things work in the US . It�s a complete different ballgame. You are watching a soccer game and shout that the players break every rule of American football! Under Russian law, ROMS automatically has the right to license ANY intellectual property to Russian distributors, even if the author is not subject to Russian law and did not give his permission for the license. That�s why they can offer Beatles music. Crazy as it may seem that�s the way it works in Russia. Mroop, one other suggestion. Before you reply get in touch with Alezander Sergeev and check this.

ilikethissite	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 8:55 AM Hi all. Legal or Illegal for Allofmp3. That is the question. In Russia, it may appear that it is legal, otherwise the Russian lawyers and the Russian-RIAA equivalent (ROMS) would go after Allofmp3. Or, maybe, allofmp3 is not big enough to make a big impact in the Russian music industry. I dont know?! While allofmp3 claims that they do give royalties to the artists, how do we know for sure? Also, I do wonder why the ROMS does not mention anything about their distributors, or mention anything about allofmp3 for easy access to Russian citizens. Moreover, users can actually upload music to their site if it's on their "Wanted List"; which means, most likely illegal in Russia. However, in the US, it is totally illegal for any of us to download, copy, etc... copyrighted material. This is based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, and most ISP's state that you're prohibited to upload, post, publish, transmit, reproduce, create derivative works of, or distribute in any way information, software or other material obtained through the Service or otherwise that is protected by copyright or other proprietary right, without obtaining permission of the owner. Thus, illegal! Mroop is correct; it's definitely illegal for us. As we have seen, it's also illegal for us to share music on kazaa, from the settlements last year to RIAA and the new lawsuits against the 532 illegal "jon doe" file sharers from Jan.21,2004. My worry... now that the RIAA has to officially file lawsuits by the judicial process, which means it's more expensive for RIAA, they will ask for legal fees if they win (or if they settle.) It'll be interesting to find out what happens... Finally, allofmp3 issue can also be compared to online gambling sites. Obviously, in Antigua and other offshore places, online gambling is legal. However, in the US, it is illegal for the people to take part in this. How will the US government find out if you partaked in online gambling? I think the same may apply to allofmp3; however, i'd be very skeptical providing them with an address...who knows what THEY will do with it, and what kinds of info they can get based on your name and address (real one if you use a credit card; i'm not sure if anyone can link paypal accounts to addresses.) Lastly, it's still tempting to think that allofmp3 is legit. They definitely have a large database of music. Where did they get it??? How are the US labels getting a piece of 1cent per 1Mb fee??? (do they get anything?--probably not, right.) How about the ROMS? How about the music artists? How about allofmp3's operating and distribution costs? How about the transaction costs allofmp3 is absorbing to process credit cards? In any case, their business model at allofmp seems very reasonable. Most albums appear to be just alittle under $1.00. How much is $1.00 in Russian currency? The US can implement something like this, or even something similar to the big CD distrubutors, like the BMGmusic service or Columbia House. I recall they had awesome deals....buy 1CD (@$16.99) and get 10 free. Shipping and handling for the 11 CD's total was usually about $33. Taken together, 11 CD's for the price of $50. It would be nice to see Rhapsody, itunes, napster, buymusic and others to sell music for at least half off the current 0.99 per song and 9.99 per album. But, of course, even at these levels they're probably wont see any profits.

Prorubel	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 9:07 AM @ ilikethissite: Most of your questions have already been answered in the interview Allofmp3's content manager gave. www.museekster.com/allofmp3interview.htm Of course uploading is illegal. Still Allofmp3 can use these uploads. Strange but true. ;) .

compmore	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 11:06 AM I'm glad you find it amusing Mroop. I call it the way it is. Truth does hurt though it's often masked with laughter. And unlike you I don't need any court rulings or overpriced lawyers to tell me how to think.

surfside6	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 5:23 PM Mroop: Never give up, never surrender, take no prisoners, I like your style. You are just the type of lawyer I would like to be on my side. Tip o the hat... HEY BTW, Code, Geroge Z, a suggestion, How about a interview with the guys at allofmp3.com. It looks like from the thread it could be a very good interview...

compmore	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 6:18 PM surfside6 - in a court of law maybe you're right. you need assholes to attack other assholes. but in a public forum where all opinions should be welcomed and respected, reguardless of what another person thinks, absolutly not. we strive in these forums to just makes our views vocal. he does more than volcalize his views, he shows a total lack of respect for anyone else that disagrees with him and turns common forum threads into legal debates. This is not a court of law here and everyone should be respected. His style of debate doesn't belong in this forum, in a courtroom, maybe but not here. you never ever ever hear Leflaw, code, Tomsung, Carla, George or anyone else who takes the time to research and gather facts act this way to those with oposing views. they respect them period. I encourage Mroop to voice his views but I do not encourage him (nor should you or anyone else) to do so in a disrespectful and arrogant manner. because that closes off free debate and that is, after all, what this site is about.

surfside6	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 8:33 PM compmore: Point taken, every board that has talked about this gets some big-time flames. A good russian-english translator is: http://plugin.imtranslator.com/ click translate all and put the text in the box.

mroop	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 8:59 PM Surfside: Someone posted about this site on the VR. So far one music publisher has weighed in and says the site is a scam - she's been in publishing for 20-30 years. Keep an eye on the link to see if anything interesting comes up. I woudn't be interested in an interview with allofmp3.com because of course they are going to give you the company line. I would rather hear from an expert in Russian copyright law. http://velvetrope.starpolish.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=425210&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 Compmore - Biggest. Crybaby. Ever.

ilikethissite	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 10:13 PM I too would not beleive the reviews of museekster.com or the people at allofmp3.com. First, the nonenglish at museekster is full of info about the p2p networks. A few years ago, the old-Napster or aimster appeared to be legal by people. mrooop is correct, that of course the people at allofmp3 will give you the company line in an interview or review. Still, if allofmp3 signed an agreement with ROMS, why doesnt the ROMS mention anything about this? Also, why are there only ~840 users on the site when i checked? I'm anxious to wait for interesting news about this, especially with the recent events of ARIA on kazaa.

compmore	Date: February 9, 2004 @ 11:21 PM if wanting to see everyone treated with respect is being a crybaby then I'm guilty. coming from you that's a compliment

Prorubel	Date: February 10, 2004 @ 3:31 AM @ ilikethissite The non-english part of museekster.com contains the same info about allofmp3. The have stopped the filesharing part for this reason: I quote: "We�re sorry, but we have closed our English filesharing section. We just could not find the time to keep it up to date. Other websites are doing a much better job. We now focus on lesser known legal music services to show that it is possible to find a legal music service that is consumer friendly and cheap!" Check: http://www.museekster.com/startfiles.htm I have personally contacted ROMS and they have confirmed me by email that they have licensed Allofmp3. I can understand your doubts. It all seems to good to be true, but trust me Allofmp3 is definitely legal. The only thing that remains uncertain is the question if US users are in the clear. My guess is that they are, but I have not found a legal expert yet that can give a 100% garantuee. I am still working on this.

mroop	Date: February 10, 2004 @ 12:13 PM "I can understand your doubts. It all seems to good to be true, but trust me Allofmp3 is definitely legal." You sound like the guy mentioned at the VR link I posted above. "The bigger problem is my friend, lost in some sort of copyright denial haze, is still under the impression that this is all perfectly legal and must pay the artists ... because their own website and various other questionable sources decree it so."

Prorubel	Date: February 10, 2004 @ 2:31 PM I don't think ROMS is a questionable source.

compmore	Date: February 10, 2004 @ 4:19 PM Prorubel, if it proves him wrong it is

Prorubel	Date: February 10, 2004 @ 4:21 PM I guess your right. lol