Posted by FatKat on 01/10/07 19:07

m-theory@superstrings.com wrote:
> "Technobarbarian" <Technobarbarian-ztopzpam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"M-Theory" <m-theory@superstrings.com> wrote in message
> >news:2ug5q25tal1kugit7rqrl1ve98g3inel0d@4ax.com...
> >> "Technobarbarian" <Technobarbarian-ztopzpam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip self-inflated blowhard bullshit]
> >>
> >> I'd say you're such an ass, you're funny. But you're not even funny.
> >> Just because you claim to be right and further claim everyone else is
> >> stupid, you assume that makes it so. You aren't Jean Luc Picard. What
> >> you say means shit. You have zero credibility except in your own little
> >> head. And I do mean little.
> >>
> >> AllofMP3 has a well-designed site, yes, that is well structured, and has
> >> been from their inception in 2000. Criminal sites don't stick around for
> >> 6 years building and maintaining excellent reputations with their
> >> customers.
> >
> > LOL, you're a hoot! You never heard of Enron?
>
> Enron wasn't a mere website enterprise, you idiot.

Is that really relevant? In any event, the web is full of
legally-questionable if not outirght illegal enterprises. Staying
alive on the internet for a decade doesn't prove much, and certainly
not legality. Also, you've got peer-share & Torrents and other
not-quite-industry-sanctioned ways to get files that have been around
for years, and nobody's questioning whether that's legal.
>
> > Not to mention hundreds
> >of other high profile criminal enterprises currently or formerly operating
> >in *this* country. Hell, our idiot government was recently bragging about
> >fining several illegal operations, with televions ads and beautiful
> >websites, $25,000,000--without shutting them down. For one of them it was
> >the second time they were fined for the same thing and the second time they
> >promised to go and sin no more. There really is one of you born every
> >minute.
>
> Why don't you "put up or shut up" as they say? Please provide proof of
> your claim that AllofMP3 is run by "Russian criminals." I'd like to see
> what you base your slanderous opinion on.

Maybe not criminals, but it's unneccessary to prove the character of
those who run it when its business model is per se problematic. By
distributing media, AllOfMP3.com has made itself a publisher of music.
By doing that against the will of those having a proprietary interest
in that media, it's hard not to call them music pirates. What they're
doing is effectively identical to what anybody on WinMX or eMule does,
with the difference being that users of those or other P2P systems
offer for free what AllOfMP3 charges for, and AllOfMP3 backs that
service up with claims of being legal but without being able to
honestly claim that they're legal. You can either say that AllOfMP3
isn't engaging in piracy, which means that its customer base is being
cheated of money they wouldn't have to spend if they did the same thing
peer-sharing; or you can admit that AllOfMP3 does pirate music, in
which case the same applies - only that customers are being goaded with
bogus claims of legality. On that subject, where does AllOfMP3 even
get their music? I'm guessing that they get their stuff by going on
peer-share networks themselves, or at least just buying single copies
of music - which is effectively the same thing, meaning again that
AllOfMP3 is charging people for what they could get for free.

The facts are:
>
> 1. AllofMP3.com has been around for 6 years and has a loyal customer
> base that is enormous by independent reports.

AllOfMP3 has maintained a presence on the web, but no offices in the
United States or any assets for that matter in jurisdictions where it
realizes sales and has been challenged. It's presence is virtual - it
hasn't had to be sufficiently tangible the way that other corrupt
companies have had to be, therefore its survival is meaningless. As
for its loyal customer base, how many of these "loyal customers" are
just people who couldn't learn the basics of P2P?
>
> 2. There are no reports whatsoever of identity theft or other problems
> associated with the customer base. In fact, customers are very happy
> with AllofMP3.

Did somebody mention ID Theft? I hadn't seen mention of it above.
Let's stay on topic, shall we?
>
> 3. The one caveat is that, according to Wikipedia, many customers began
> getting porn spam some months back, on email addresses that AllofMP3 had
> for a very long time without incident. No one knows if this was a breach
> on behalf of AOMP3 or not.

Russian porn, no doubt.
>
> 4. AllofMP3 knows customers were concerned about the legality of a site
> that offered music at such reasonable prices, and therefore included
> information about their legal standing, as per their position on Russian
> Law. Not being a legal expert I can only say that I appreciate that they
> assured me, as a customer, that it was a legal operation.

If you're not a legal expert, how can you be sure that they're saying
so makes it so?

> If there is some question about the law, it is for the courts to straighten out, not
> customers.

I'm sure the courts will be very accomadating, and even mail out "thank
you" notes to AllOfMP3 customers. Look for the special blue envelope
marked "SUBPOENA".

Just as a matter of advice, what you said above isn't simply the sign
of being non-expert in legal matters but willful blindness. Courts
tend to straighten out matters such as these by taking it out on the
customers. Law isn't decided in a vacuum - when the issue comes up, it
will be in a lawsuit, with the industry suing somebody under DMCA. The
existence of a legal controversy doesn't absolve everybody outside the
courts from following the law to the best of their understanding.

> All ofMP3 did not have to include this information on their site, but they did. That creates
> a certain amount of trust, imo.

Did you read what you just wrote? AllOfMP3 did have to put that legal
info there because they wanted your trust - they wanted that appearance
of legal propriety because otherwise, music fans would begin to wonder
why they were paying some guy in Russia for copies of music they could
download off eDonkey.

> If it is ill-founded or not, the courts will decide and take appropriate action.

Just remember, courts take appropriate action in lawsuits - actual
cases-in-controversy in which the resolution could significantly affect
the assets of either litigant. Also, unless I miss my guess, your
assets are probably much more accessible to the likely plaintiff (RIAA)
than the assets of AllOfMP3 are. Also, taking another stab here,
you're much less likely to be able to afford a fight than the industry
can.
>
>
> And I see you avoided the real issue: that the RIAA could be making this
> money themselves by starting a US-based site like AllofMP3 that sells
> music files at the same price structure of AllofMP3.

I thought the real issue was whether AllofMP3 was legal, or even
sufficiently legal as to be superior to ostensibly illicit avenues like
peer-share.

Also, how could the RIAA out-do an operation like AllofMP3. AllofMP3
probably pays nothing or close to it for their music, and can therefore
charge as little as it wants, unlike the legitimate license holders who
actually have to produce the stuff. The industry wouldn't be making
money, they'd be hemhorraging it.

> The problem with the RIAA, is that it too greedy to see that cheaper music equals far
> more sales, making volume the thing that will make them and the artists
> more money.

They're so greedy that they don't want more sales? No, that's not what
you said - only that they're so greedy that they *can't* see what's
perfectly clear to a business genius like yourself. BTW, just how low
can the industry go with its prices before it's not profitable? Likely
that point is a lot lower for AllofMP3 since they pay much less (if not
nothing) for their music.

> Instead they want to close down an affordable outlet, and
> force a situation where people are forced to pay a buck a song (or
> whatever outklets charge here).

Peer-share was more affordable than AllofMP3, so what's your beef?

> It won't work, b/c if AllofMP3 closes
> down, and music is too expensive,

sorry to cut-in, but just what is "too expensive" to you?

> people will just augment lower sales
> at legit outlets with P2P type resources

ummm, people do that already. I don't see how closing AllofMP3 will
drive anybody to P2P - people who know enough about P2P wouldn't be
using AllofMP3, since there's no legal difference between the two, and
P2P is free.

> that don't pay ANY royalties to ANYbody.

sounds like AllofMP3, though they likely pay royalties to themselves,
and they'd be nuts not to kick some of that into that Russian licensing
agency that gives AllofMP3 that veneer of legality. Do you really
believe that paying royalties to SOMEbody is one-step above not paying
it all?

> The RIAA can't win by trying to force this type of situation.

But consumers can lose all the same. We can't use "greedy, stupid
RIAA" as an answer for everything.

> It has to play along, or lose.

I'll remember that when they haul you into court. Remember, they've
got the deep pockets, so they can play a lot longer than you can.

> If it doesn't want to play along by letting AllofMP3 make the money, then the RIAA needs
> to start their own US-based service to make the money themselves by using an AllofMP3
> pricing structure.

Are you for real? No, really. AllofMP3 dumps their stuff on the
market - they can afford to do that because they can get their music
for nothing and need not worry about themselves being sued or
prosecuted.

> I would certainly choose to buy from a US-based site
> rather than an international site, if one were available that was as
> customer-oriented, convenient and well structured as AllofMP3.

Why would you care? All those nice and up-standing Russian
entrepreneurs are atleast as honest and wholesome than those nasty,
greedy and stupid bean counters who work in the industry. So why would
you care where they're from.

As for the rest of us who also choose to pirate music but don't like to
pay to pirate thier music, we'll go where the music is.

[Back to original message]