Jump to content

Talk:AllOfMP3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Payment methods

[edit]

There is one thing I am deeply confused about and that is that if allofmp3 says they won a court case against Visa to start prossesing their payments, it hasn't this change come into effect, its been like 2 days already.


Users can still make payments to allofmp3 by signing up for an xrost icard at www.xrost.biz.

umm how!!! i tried everything oh well screw this i found anouther site anyways

granted they are still not accepting visa or mastercard, but you can refill your account balance by getting an icard of any value at xrost and entering the pin and claim id on this page: http://account.allofmp3.com/pays/payments.shtml?action=step2&via=xrost

The xrost form has no formal link on the site. you have to either click on the link above or follow the directions below.

This url was derived from the following instructions: 1. Click on the balance link 2. Click on the refill balance button 3. Click on the add money from credit card button 4. Change via=ccard in the url to via=xrost

LucianSolaris 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason this should have a mention on Wikipedia? I can easily recharge my balance without following your link. The "Activate Xrost Card" link is directly above the credit card button.Spilla 09:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, at the time of writing there was no such link (or else i would have found it). I can't verify your claim today because the refill balance thing is down.
LucianSolaris 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as of 1700 PST 27 November 2006, AllOfMP3 has disabled the button that allows you to refill your balance. So, the step by step method I have outlined above no longer works (as you can't get to the page that has the url you change). Don't be mistaken by this; it does not mean you can't refill your balance via Xrost, my link STILL WORKS.
Enjoy my discovery!
LucianSolaris 01:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LucianSolaris, when I originally asked, the Xrost button was still visible. They must have changed it over the last couple of days. I thought it may have had something to do with the location where you access from, but apparently not anymore. Spilla 15:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact if you go to the xrost site these days it will tell you "This account has been suspended." Accordingly this would infer that the days of paying via xrost are over. (mike, 23/02/07).

[edit]

I've read on various boards that this service is run my the russian mafia and it funds organised crime involved in, not least, sex trade trafficking. Can anybody clarify the owners of the service and if they are infact gangsters/gang masters selling MP3 to fund drug and people smuggling? 62.3.70.68 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these links always made... either something is illegal or it isn't - just because something is (or might be) criminal doesn't mean it's funding other criminal activities - wouldn't those activities fund themselves anyway?...or couldn't they have been funded by the same funds instead of this? --193.63.247.68 09:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These links are always made because any hint that a Russian business might not be 100% kosher immediately produces the knee-jerk internet response that the mafia must be involved. I have yet to see any credible evidence that AllOfMP3 is anything but a legitimate business taking advantage of the ambiguities of Russian copyright law (evidence found on "various boards" should be dismissed outright, in my opinion; it hardly qualifies as credible). -- Hux 09:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MP3 spec and transcoding issue

[edit]

I edited the article to note that the downloaded files are transcoded from 384 kbps MP3 files. Another user deleted that edit, saying that the MP3 spec only supports up to 320 kpbs.

That's going to be news to AllOfMP3.com, which includes 384 kpbs as one of the options on the download dialog box.

--Alaska Jack 20:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then they're wrong. Please take a look at the MPEG 2 Layer III spec. Decoders are only required to support up to a 320kbps bitrate (there's a mode called 'freeform' that for instance LAME can create which has basically an arbitrary upper bitrate limit but that is virtually never supported by decoders and is hardly ever used). There are bitrates of 384k+ for layer 2 and layer 1 (aka MP1 and MP2). If *that* is what they're using, well, no wonder the sound quality sucks. --Bk0 (Talk) 02:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good info. I guess when you download a file, it's pretty hazy as to what exactly you're getting. I still think it's worthwhile, though, to note that most files from AllOfMP3 will be transcoded. I don't think most people realize that. Alaska Jack 01:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The spec goes up to 320 kpbs. AllofMP3 offer out-of-spec 384Kbps files. You can encode this type of file with the well-known program LAME, as stated, so why is it hard to believe that this is what allofmp3.com are doing? I find this conversation rather funny :) Why not go look at allofmp3.com and see how it works instead of quoting a spec? | Kristleifur 22:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to believe because very few (if any) players (hardware or software) would be able to decode it. MP2 is still widely used in the radio/telecommunications industry so I would be more inclined to believe that they are using layer 2 encoding (possibly some commercial hardware device) and calling it "MP3" just for simplicity's sake. --Bk0 (Talk) 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still what they do :) I have 384kbps files from them right here on my drive. They're freeform MP3s, I've checked. This is what they transcode from, when the tracks are marked "OE". "OEEX" tracks are transcoded from some form of lossless encoding. They don't offer 384kbps files as one of their "normal" encodings, but if you go to the Advanced view you can download these. And besides, the sound quality over there is just fine. Have you checked it out? :) | Kristleifur 00:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it doesn't matter, as the article is correct now. I didn't actually check the article to see what was in there - how appropriate :) | Kristleifur 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, if that's what they do. At least the article is correct now. Thanks. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their Online Encoding files are ripped into 384 kbit/s MP3. This is possible using the LAME encoder; it's called "Free Format". I've just corrected the page again to reflect this.

Official name of the service

[edit]

Wouldn't the official name be ALLOFMP3 (all in caps, "f" included)? --Theaterfreak64 02:34, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Legality in Russia

[edit]

Slashdot has a story (slashdot.org) about this story (gizmodo.com), which reports that the Russian judiciary cannot procecute AllOfMP3.com. Please read the articles and tell me what you think about it. In this light, we might have to rewrite or edit some of the article.

OK, I see that Paranoid has already taken care of this. Thanks a lot!--capnez 22:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Legality in the UK

[edit]

Kinda off-topic, since its not directly related editing the article, but what do people think about the legality of this service in the UK? I use it and find it to be excellent, but I am concerned about the legal side? I am not concerned about the threat of prosecution or the opinions of the RIAA/BPI etc but I don't want to break the law (as a christian I believe we should follow the laws of our country). Anyone have any opinions? Feel free to boost this comment to my user page if you feel it won't help the article! akaDruid 12:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't see why this is off topic. If anyone knows about legality in the UK it should be in the article. Why should wikipedia be more interested in US law than UK law? --Dilaudid 16:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's certainly on topic. I don't know much about UK copyright law, but I do know that it's illegal to make a copy of a work for personal use in Britain (software excepted in the case of essential backups) because I read in the news recently that the BPI (UK version of RIAA) recently advocated a change in the law to permit such copies. Additionally, a large bulk of US law is based on UK common law so, if I had to put money on it, I'd guess that the status of AllOfMP3 in the UK is essentially the same as in the US, i.e. if you're a user you're probably infringing. -- Hux 16:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what is says in the article it is almost certainly illegal in the UK. The exemption currently mentioned in the article only applies to importation of physical copies and isn't relevant here. The CDPA 1988 sections 17 and 18 (http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm) say that storing a musical work in a medium by electronic means without permission is copyright infringement.

Legality in the US

[edit]

There's no good reason why the importation discussion should be in this article. It's a red herring since importation only refers to tangible objects (a CD, for example). What is more relevant is the site's legality with regard to the copyright holder's exclusive right to duplicate their work. A&M vs. Napster was pretty unambiguous in defining downloading as infringement by virtue of the downloader initiating the process of duplication without permission from the copyright holder. Therefore, since the RIAA has not sanctioned such duplication, use of allofmp3.com in the US is illegal. If nobody has any objections I'll be happy to update this section with links to the relevant statutes/case law. -- Hux 13:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(IANAL) it is not obvious to me that the Napster case applies. In no way shape or form could a U.S. customer of Napster have been considered to be importing music. While you might argue that downloading from a Russian server to a U.S. location is not importing I suspect this would be a disputed fact if RIAA et. al. chose to sue an AllOfMP3 customer that could afford to defend themselves.
Considering that AllOfMP3 is an easy target (e.g. their server IP addresses are well known) and they are the biggest unsanctioned (by RIAA) distributor of music one would expect the music industry to get a court injunction against Paypal and/or VISA/MC to not make payments to AllOfMP3 on behalf of U.S. residents. Alternatively one might expect RIAA (et. al.) to sue at least one AllOfMP3 customer. While RIAA has tried and failed shutdown AllOfMP3 via the Russian legal system the fact that (AFAIK) they have taken absolutely no action to curb U.S. customers from shopping at AllOfMP3 suggests that RIAA doesn't think the legal basis for attacking AllOfMP3 customers is the legal slam dunk that you imply it is.
Perhaps RIAA considers attacking file trading on university networks lower hanging fruit and in a few years they will successfully stop U.S. customers from buying from AllOfMP3. Until RIAA does attack an AllOfMP3 customers in some way or other it looks to me like the curious incident of dog in the night-time. Funkyj 18:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funkyj: You misunderstood my post. Importation is a red herring, period. It is irrelevant to this article because it only deals with the movement of tangible objects. Downloads are inherently intangible (they're just electronic transmissions), thus any legal discussion that references importation is misplaced here.
A & M vs. Napster is relevant for a different reason: it established that users of the (original) service infringed the copyright holder's exclusive rights by initiating the transfer - and thus the inherent duplication - of copyrighted files from the remote machine to their hard drives. Use of AllOfMp3 by users in the US constitutes infringement for the same reason therefore I propose that the current section be changed to reflect this.
I strongly disagree with your reasoning when you argue that, "the fact that (AFAIK) they have taken absolutely no action to curb U.S. customers from shopping at AllOfMP3 suggests that RIAA doesn't think the legal basis for attacking AllOfMP3 customers is the legal slam dunk that you imply it is." Even if there was a practical way for RIAA to identify who in the US has downloaded music from AllOfMp3 (and I don't believe there is), the mere fact that they have not attempted to bring cases against the site's US-based users means nothing. Title 17 of the US Code, along with case law, defines the legality here and the law does not require copyright holders to legally defend their works in order to be protected. As it stands, duplicating copyrighted music without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal and, according to the precedent set by Napster, US-based users of AllOfMp3 are doing just that. It's pretty cut and dried from a legal standpoint.
Finally, your point about RIAA potentially preventing US credit card companies from honoring payments made by US residents is an interesting one, but well outside my field of knowledge. (Has a private entity ever managed to get such an injunction in the past?) But in any case I don't think it's relevant; that they haven't attempted to go down this legal route doesn't change the fact that statute and case law define the acts we're discussing as infringing. -- Hux 20:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Hux, when he says "As it stands, duplicating copyrighted music without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal and, according to the precedent set by Napster, US-based users of AllOfMp3 are doing just that. It's pretty cut and dried from a legal standpoint.". I do not know yet whether the contract in Russia is good or bad. And everything seems to point to that. If the contract is good, that would mean that the copyright holders agreed to do contracts in Russia and therefore abide by their law. When people go into a music store they don't turn around and ask for permission to play the music or to copy it onto their computer. 216.30.133.114 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The agreement between AllOfMp3.com, ROMS and the Russian government is a local issue that defines the legality of the service within Russia; it's irrelevant to users in the US. In the US, American law applies and that law says that you can't duplicate copyrighted works without permission.
I don't really understand the point of your music store analogy. If you buy a CD you then own that CD, at which point the law changes with regard to duplication. For example, "space-shifting" (duplication from a copy you own to another medium) can be legal in some cases. Ditto making backup copies of software that you own. However, in the case of AllOfMp3.com users are duplicating works that they do not own, which is almost always illegal without the permission of the copyright holder. See the difference? -- Hux 10:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the user is not duplicating, AllOfMP3 is duplicating. AllOfMP3 has a high quality music file and when the customer orders say, a 160kbps OGG file, AllOfMP3 makes a COPY of the music in the desired format and then transfers this copy to the customer. Sure, computers by their very nature copy data left, right and center -- they would be useless if they did not.
What you are claiming as user copying is analogous to saying that when some crook makes pirate copies of a DVD and I buy one I am doing the copying. This just isn't true, I may be guilty of receiving illicit goods (pirate DVDs) but I am by no means the copier.
Likewise, if I put a copy of illegal copy of The DaVinci Code on my web page I am the one guilty of copy infringement, not all the people who view the book on my web page or save a copy of my web page. While this point is not solidly established legal principle, AFAIK, RIAA has only sued people (grannies, teens, college students) for sharing (i.e. making available a la AllOfMP3 and Napster) music, not for the mere act of downloading. Quote from the RIAA page:
To date, the RIAA has sued approximately 16,000 [7] people in the United States suspected of distributing copyrighted works. They have settled approximately 2,500 of the cases. According to Digital Music News, the average number of users online simultaneously has more than doubled since the lawsuits began, from 3.8 million in August of 2003 to 8.9 million in June of 2005.[8]
Given the recent appointments to the Supreme Court it may eventually be decided that receiving copies of music files from foreign jurisdictions is ruled illegal. None the less until RIAA begins to, at the very least, make some threatening gestures towards AllOfMP3 customers, these customers have no reason to fear buying music from AllOfMP3. Funkyj 23:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funkyj: As I already noted above, A&M vs. Napster was quite clear in establishing that Napster users were inherently duplicating works - and thus infringing - based on the reasoning that the person initiating the download is the person responsible for causing the duplication to occur. Like it or not, that's where the law currently stands. Therefore, if Napster users were infringing then US-based AllOfMP3 users are also infringing on the same basis. The various points you raise above do not change the fact that the law is clear on this point, so I won't waste space here by addressing them specifically. The salient point remains that the "Legality in the US" section of this article is currently inaccurate and needs updating. -- Hux 14:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hux: This was because the technology behind Napster required that files were not only downloaded but shared as well, hence the implication of distributing copyrighted works. Why are you ignoring the lynchpin of this case? Namely, that the RIAA et. al. are going after those who are distributing. On another note, please stop using legal shorthand as some might be confused by the "subsection" headings you point out etc. This is nothing more than your interpretation of a case as a lawyer, and you should know better. I'm sure there are others that have their J.D. that would disagree with you. I think it rather presumptuous for you to completely edit the portion of the article to the point where only YOUR interpretation is stated. Bad show, bad show.
To the poster above: Firstly, there appears to be a serious misunderstanding here. The only edits I have made to the article have been minor edits for clarity and readability. None of the legal opinion in the article was written by me - check the history page. Not only that but if you scroll up you'll see that the reason I first started this particular discussion is because I think the "Legality in the US" section of the article is seriously legally flawed! And as it happens, I completely agree with you that the extensive legal citation in that section is confusing, not to mention messy and, frankly, unnecessary.
Secondly, regarding A&M vs. Napster, I am not "ignoring the lynchpin of this case." Allow me to clarify: in that case, A&M argued that Napster was liable in a contributory capacity for the copyright infringement of its users. The court agreed and found in favor of A&M. The basis on which it agreed was that Napster users infringed copyright holders' rights by uploading songs (distribution) and also by downloading songs (duplication). I think you're implying (correct me if I'm wrong) that AllOfMP3 users would have to be both uploading and downloading in order for the ruling of the Napster case to be relevant to them. That's not true. Both acts are separately infringing: if users do either one then they will be found liable (notwithstanding the fact that it's hugely impractical - and next to impossible in the case of AllOfMP3 users - for the RIAA to ever track down and prosecute downloaders, of course). So, the legal argument remains unchanged: AllOfMP3 users are infringing when they download songs without permission from US copyright holders.
Does that make things more clear? If not I will be happy to clarify further.
Finally, please note that I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be a lawyer. I am simply an interested party who has done a significant amount of legal research on this subject (copyright is my area of special interest, you might say). For what it's worth, the legal arguments I've discussed here have been formulated over a long period of time, in concert with an acquaintance who is a lawyer and whose area of practice is copyright law - I'm not simply pulling ideas out of the sky! As always, however, the facts are what matter here, not the claimed authority of the person stating them. -- Hux 19:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funky--
I must disagree with you. The customer is making a reproduction of the copyrighted works. There are three cases which seem to me to be on point here, which I have mentioned before.
As Hux noted, the Napster case, which states that "Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights. "
Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry dealt with a defendant who posted a link to a site where works had been unlawfully posted. In order to determine whether he was liable for the linking, the court had to determine whether or not there would be an underlying infringement if someone followed the link. The court was satisfied that there was: "When a person browses a website, and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright."
N.b. that your example involving The DaVinci Code is incorrect. The people who look at your page are liable for infringement just as much as you are liable for infringement, having put it on the page. The reason that the RIAA generally only sues people who infringe the distribution right (as apart from the reproduction right) is simply because 1) such infringers are easier to find, 2) stopping a distributor will impair the ability of downloaders to infringe. This second reason is the head of the snake principle. It's why the first lawsuits were against the people who ran entire networks, such as Napster. It's simply a more efficient allocation of resources.
Marobie-FL v. NAFED follows the reasoning of the perhaps better known Religious Technology Center v. Netcom. In RTC, the court asked "whether possessors of computers are liable for incidental copies automatically made on their computers using their software as part of a process initiated by a third party." It decided that, "Netcom's and Klemesrud's systems can operate without any human intervention. Thus, unlike MAI, the mere fact that Netcom's system incidentally makes temporary copies of Plaintiffs' works does not mean Netcom has caused the copying. The court believes that Netcom's act of designing or implementing a system that automatically and uniformly creates temporary copies of all data sent through it is not unlike that of the owner of a copying machine who lets the public make copies with it. Although some of the people using the machine may directly infringe copyrights, courts analyze the machine owner's liability under the rubric of contributory infringement, not direct infringement." While Allofmp3 is not as uninvolved as a mere ISP middleman like Netcom (which ran a Usenet server without themselves deciding what would be on it), the point is clear that the party that initiates infringement is liable for it. If a customer uses Allofmp3 to download -- and thus make an infringing copy of -- a file, then it is the customer that is liable for the infringement of the reproduction right. Allofmp3 may yet be liable for infringing the distribution right, but that's not really what we're interested in here.
Hux--
Sorry if my writing style seemed a bit dense. I'm a bit too busy these days (and kind of lazy, I have to admit) to take time to do a really good job on Wikipedia. Still, I think that on an issue that people find contentious, citations are good to have, and generally legal cites are embedded right in the text.
One other note regarding importation. Don't assume that the infamous section 602(a)(2) is particularly useful. What it confers, 602(b) takes away. For example, if Allofmp3 had a bricks and mortar store, where they sold CDs that they burned themselves (in a manner that, were they in the US, would be illegal), then importing those CDs would be illegal, and they may be intercepted by customs. And, while I am not sure I agree, I have seen strong arguments that imported copies, however lawfully made, are not within the ambit of the first sale doctrine under section 109.
Anyway, I hope this helps. --cpt (I am a copyright lawyer)
cpt said, "Sorry if my writing style seemed a bit dense." I'm assuming that there would normally be a Russified marsupial tacked on to the 'cpt' if we were posting on *cough* another website, correct? But anyway, are you saying you wrote the "Legality in the US" section? I don't think there's anything wrong with it as a legal discussion, I just think it's too legal for Wikipedia, i.e. it's too detailed and not very readable for the lay person. With some rearrangement, subheadings and some dumbing down I think it would be fine. I'd also probably focus less on importation (which, if you are who I think you are, I believe you think is a red herring anyway) and more on the straighforward reproduction angle. In any case, I hope I didn't cause offense with the criticism! -- Hux 17:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HUX, just because you have closed the book on importation does not mean that the issue itself has been resolved or that the rest of the legal community has done the same. I agree with you that the Napster case (and while we're at it the RIAA v. Grokster case)holds legal weight. Of course it will be up to the judge to interpret these rulings in light of further decisions. There has been no such ruling to my knowledge regarding importation, so while you may call it a "red herring" that is pure speculation without citation at this point. Speaking of the Napster case, is this not the case that set the precedent of the situation where a person who had purchased a licensed copy of a work, would still be in violation of copyright if they downloaded the same work in electronic form? The reasoning behind this was that copyright protects form. Funny, I always thought it was about intellectual property. What passes for logic in U.S. law leaves me astounded at times.

I really don't understand this bit:

"In the United States, while many supporters of AllOfMP3 have seized upon limited exceptions in US copyright law, most notably one half of an importation exception (importation is prima facie infringing under US law) at 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2), they typically do not follow through with their analysis, and fail to find a necessary matching exception in § 602(b) (exceptions in subsection (a) are limited to that subsection, and do not solve the problem of the prohibition in subsection (b)). More significantly, they also typically fail to find support for their underlying assumption that downloading can be construed as importation, despite importation being defined as a form of distribution of copies and phonorecords (17 U.S.C. § 602(a)), which are defined as tangible objects (17 U.S.C. § 101), which of course can no more be downloaded than a brick can be. Likewise, copyright in the United States is a matter of strict liability in civil cases (17 U.S.C. § 501), and so it is largely irrelevant whether or not a downloader thought he was acting lawfully. Federal courts in the United States have settled the question of whether unpaid downloading can constitute infringement on the part of the downloader in cases as diverse as Napster, Grokster, Marobie-FL, and Intellectual Reserve: it is infringing on the part of the downloader. However, there have been no rulings in U.S. courts to date regarding the specific legality of purchasing music from allofmp3.com."

Could someone who does perhaps break it up a little - it seems needlessly impenetrable. Tompagenet 00:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, reading that is painful. Someone who understands this stuff should summarize the legal minutia into something more accessible to the general public. --Bk0 (Talk) 01:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an entire page if impenetrable legal drivel. What's worse, it likely qualifies as Original Research unless it is clearly cited, which it isn't. I'm going to make some attempt to clean that section out and replace it with a shorter, summarized version. The May 6, 2006 version is below, but even that may be too technical for Wikipedia.
In the United States, many supporters of AllOfMP3 have pointed to limited exceptions in US copyright law, most notably 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2), which provides a personal use exception to the rule that importation of copyrighted items constitutes infringement. A corresponding exception does not exist in § 602(b), however, which governs whether importation is prohibited. Under § 603, where importation is prohibited, the federal government may seize or forfeit prohibited items "in the same manner as property imported in violation of the customs revenue laws." Thus, it appears possible that "importing" digital files from AllOfMP3.com does not constitute copyright infringement but does constitute a violation of customs law. There is no private right of action for violations of customs law, as there is for copyright law.
Whether downloading can be construed as importation is open to question. Importation is defined as a form of distribution of copies and phonorecords (17 U.S.C. § 602(a)), which are defined as tangible objects (17 U.S.C. § 101), which of course can no more be downloaded than a brick can be. So far, US Courts have not ruled definitively on the issue of whether unpaid downloading can constitute infringement on the part of the downloader. Moreover, there have been no rulings in U.S. courts to date regarding the specific legality of purchasing music from AllofMP3.com.
It was changed to it's current version in a single edit, by an anon editor who has no other contributions. On reading exactly what was changed [1] the edit seems potentially non-neutral, trying to shift reader's perception away from the possibility that AllOfMP3 is legal. I'll do what I can to summarize it later, but this entire section should fit into a single, layman-friendly paragraph. --TexasDex 18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent Infringer

[edit]

The statement that one can claim "innocent infringer immunity" is not true for those subject to US law. US copyright law is strict liability, which means that you can be liable even if you claim to have been unaware that you were breaking the law. (unsigned?)

from this link "If they don't have legitimate distribution licenses then they obviously have no right to distribute at any price. If they claim to have the licenses the end user might be seen as an innocent infringer" This is with regard to US law, and the RIAA's claim that there are "3 parts" to legitimate music licenses, and that allofmp3 is only paying one of them. So yes, this does apparently apply to US users too. Gigs 07:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that is incorrect. The relevant section of US law is 17 U.S.C. § 501. It does not make allowances for mental state, and is a strict liability statute. Whether an infringer knows he is breaking the law or not is irrelevant as to liability. It may be relevant as to statutory damages under § 504, however, even the most innocent of ordinary infringers still is at least liable for $200 per work infringed, if statutory damages are sought. Compare with the criminal infringement provisions in US law, at § 506, which does have a mental state element. The source cited above is wrong. For a discussion of this in the context of whether a person who downloaded a web page could be liable for infringement as a result, see the Intellectal Reserve case: "When a person browses a website, and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright. ... Although this seems harsh, the Copyright Act has provided a safeguard for innocent infringers. Where the infringer 'was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages. . . .'"

DRM

[edit]

I don't think it is a valid argument to say the "support for DRM-free files...suggest that the service is not legal." CD shops such as HMV and Amazon.com mostly offer DRM-free CDs, and iTunes, the biggest provider of DRM-encrypted files, allow users to burn songs into a DRM-free CD Audio format.--Tokek 14:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Magnatune for a counter example to the no DRM on music implies illegal business. Funkyj 22:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these arguments are non sequiturs. The point is that major labels would never willingly authorize their music to be sold electronically at such low prices and without DRM. The music industry has had a highly publicized and drawn out fight with iTunes in the US trying to force them to increase prices, yet they'll let a Russian website (with lots of US-based customers) sell at 1/4 of the price with no content protection? Absurd. --Bk0 (Talk) 23:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bk0 - Your argument assumes that "the music industry" is a homogeneous, global entity, i.e. that since RIAA would never allow DRM-free downloads at such low prices in the US, any service elsewhere in the world that offers such a thing must be illegal. It doesn't work this way. AllOfMp3.com is currently legal within Russia (see above about its legality for US users) because it has an agreement with ROMS (the equivalent of RIAA) and the Russian government. As Tokek said, the mere fact that it sells DRM-free downloads is, in and of itself, not relevant when it comes to its legality in Russia. The key issue is whether or not AllOfMp3.com has permission from the relevant local licensing authority, which it does. -- Hux 10:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The law currently allows US citizens to enter Russia and purchase cd's and other items legally and return with them to the United States. The law makes no mention that downloads do not count. The reason music is sold so cheaply in Russia is if they used US prices in Russia nobody could afford the music. Considering gas prices in America I doubt many minimum wage workers could afford the current prices of music at American prices. Does anyone seriously think that Brittney Spear's "Oops I did it again" is worth 4 dollars? What about the cost of repurchasing music to play back on a competitors media device? What value does music you have with DRM have when you can no longer play it back? Apple is right in it's fight to keep prices at 99c. I still consider the price too high to pay for DRM riddled, low bitrate, garbage. The only reason people argue that DRM free music sites are pirates is because they're not able to extort these people out of as much money. Also if a band came out and asked me to pay 2 dollars for DRM free, high bitrate, and format of my choice for just one song. I'd pay.

The poster above said, "The law currently allows US citizens to enter Russia and purchase cd's and other items legally and return with them to the United States. The law makes no mention that downloads do not count." The mistake you're making with this reasoning is that US law pertaining to importation is only relevant to tangible objects, such as CDs. Downloads are simply electronic signals - they are inherently intangible, therefore importation is irrelevant. Please see the "Legality in the US" section above, where I've discussed this in greater detail. -- Hux 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hux once again I point out the fact that you have interpreted what has yet to be decided. The issue of electronic transmissions as tangible or intangible has yet to be decided within the U.S. court system. While I appreciate your insight, anyone involved in this discussion should be made aware of the fact that the "importation" clause is debatable until a case with these particular circustances is heard and a decision regarding electronic transmissions is made. For instance, if they are only "electronic signals" then why have the courts ruled against those who transmit them via Napster and other P2P services, after all, they're just signals, nothing of significant worth. Clearly there is room for discussion.
"The issue of electronic transmissions as tangible or intangible has yet to be decided within the U.S. court system." I don't see how it needs to be, given that 17 U.S.C. 602 (the importation section) refers only to "copies and phonorecords," both of which are clearly defined "tangible objects" under the definitions at 101. What is being "imported" in this case is inarguably intangible: while it is in the process of traveling between Russia and the US the work is in the form of an electronic signal. What's to be decided?
"For instance, if they are only "electronic signals" then why have the courts ruled against those who transmit them via Napster and other P2P services"? The mistake you're making here is that they're not only electronic signals. Just as water can be solid, liquid or gas depending on the conditions, copyrighted works can exist in more than one state. They are electronic signals when they're being "imported" (because that is the form they are in as they cross the border), but once they reach their destination they become tangible copies in RAM (according to MAI vs. Peak). Napster was found liable because, as the court ruled, its users initiated the reproduction process and caused such tangible copies to be made.
Don't get me wrong though: I'm not implying with these posts that there is no debate at all on these points. However, precedent does exist for the US-based use of AllOfMP3 to be considered infringing on the basis of the user violating copyright holders' reproduction rights, just as Napster users were found to be doing. Effectively, it has been decided by the courts and - and this is an important point - even if a later case decided that the importation section can apply to downloads, this would not change the fact that a copy is still being made and, therefore, users are still violating reproduction rights. -- Hux 06:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offline... for good?

[edit]

allofmp3.ru is back online and running but users are redirected to the news page


well the time has arrived the return of allofmp3 is soon if you type allofmp3.ru on google you will see that is is sub options this signifies that allofmp3 will make a comeback.


There was a digg post about allofmp3 stating that Putin was going tougher on copyrights and that it could threat allofmp3. Allofmp3 has been down for three days now

  1. First it was simply not possible to make any orders
  2. Then they switched to "server is being maintained", something I had never seen before
  3. Now the site is not responding at all

Looks suspicious to me. Anyone has more info - are they being taken down? --Jens Schriver 20:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that its offline status is due to the criminal prosecution case against AllOfMP3 owner Denis Kvasova that was reopened a couple of weeks ago. (Sorry, the link is in Russian. Basically it says that he's facing criminal charges for infringing copyright and that the trial opened with statements from IFPI, Universal, Warner Brothers and EMI. It goes on to fill in the back story about the previous case that was dropped in March 2005.) I wouldn't be surprised if this all has to do with Russia's desire to join the WTO. The recent publication of the US goverment's annual "Special 301" report heavily criticized Russia for not cracking down on what it sees as piracy, and mentioned AllOfMP3.com by name. Reading between the lines, the US is saying, "Play nice or you can't join the club," thus Russia is going after AllOfMP3 again. -- Hux 18:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hux! Seems they are back up, although ordering is still not possible. I got a reply to my question about why ordering was unavailable. They said:
"We have some technical problems. It will be fixed in few days. Accept our apologies."
Fair enough... theres still hope, it seems. --Jens Schriver 17:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed they were back up. Perhaps my conjecture was premature and that it was just a coincidence that the site was down at the same time the law is being once again brought against them. I wonder, however, if the "technical problems" are the result of them taking steps to continue operating the site should the prosectors shut them down (e.g. by making it easy to move the whole thing outside Russia with minimal downtime). Time will tell, I guess! -- Hux 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, they may have cut a deal which required them to set up significant logging of their users, so that they can be turned over to RIAA and its counterparts around the world. IIRC similar things have happened with torrent tracker sites.
Last time I checked they had my entire download history logged so I'm not sure what more they would need. I think it is more likely they had to increase their bribes to the appropriate russian government officials before they could come back online.
As ever, the forces of evil use FUD in order to cloud the issues and bilk people out of their hard-earned money. The service was down due to technical problems. Now it's up. There is absolutely no evidence for any of these malicious rumours about AllOfMP3. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mp3stor.com = allofmp3.com?

[edit]

This article now claims that mp3stor.com is the new database of AllOfMP3. Where is the proof on that? Their design looks similar, but I thought they have already been around before ALLOfMP3. --Bapinney 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there are definitely recordings which were present in AllOfMP3's inventory before the outage that are not listed at MP3Stor. likewise, there are recordings in MP3Stor's collection which were not present at AllOfMP3. --G0zer 09:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AllOfMP3 does not seem to respond on e-mails. Even if you hassle for weeks, they just don't respond!

Use their assistance page - I get an answer within 24 hours every time.

  • BS with Big B*

mp3stor.com is one of a number of sites that copies allofmp3 and trades upons its good will. This is similar to the italian allofmp3.it which was investigated in 2004-05 and shut down. These sites use allofmp3.com as an inexpensive source of music (mp3 files) which they then pass off as their own.

No way, as a representative of MP3SALE.RU I can say that Allofmp3's music costs are very high to use it for own DB creation. Not sure about Italian site but Russian online music sellers DO NOT use allofmp3 as a source. At least MP3SALE.RU does not! Hey! Allofmp3 is the phenomenon and nowadays, there are many others (www.downloader.in). RIIA and co. ... they are not gonna win in the global scale.

[edit]

I don't agree with this warning - the section is factual, and is immediately followed by criticisms. Thoughts? guiltyspark 22:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the comment- the section is factual. I use wikipedia to find out what is going on with allofmp3 - and can often find the answer there before the allofmp3 assistance gets back to me - eg, on the shift to 3c/Mb. It sounds like an advert only because it provides the story of a business offering a great value proposition- which I think reflects the reality of the service.

Agreed. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Payment

[edit]

I think the article should have a separate section about how much artists are paid by the service. This issue should not be described under the Legality heading; it is a distinct issue. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find out exactly who ROMS is paying and how much. They are required by Russian law to pay all Russian artists and (to my understanding) any foreign artist who sends ROMS the proper paperwork. Does anyone know any Russian artists paid by ROMS? Does ROMS subdivide or sum radio and internet payments? Have any non-Russian citizen artists fluent in Russian sent ROMS the proper paperwork to get paid? Also, the ROMS article should be expanded. -Kslays 15:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Source: Museekster[reply]

Artist payment redux

[edit]

(as it was never answered above)

So is there any way of know whether an individual artist will get anything if I download from them? Someone said something about "those artists who have filed the paperwork", but I assume you can still download songs from those who haven't? Is there any way of knowing who is who? and should this be in the article anywhere? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Kslays said above, AllOfMP3 claims to pay royalties to ROMS for each song downloaded, provided that the copyright holder has registered with ROMS. As far as I know, none of the Western recording organizations (RIAA, BPI, etc.) have done this, presumably because doing so would legitimize the service, which would then make their claims that it is illegal rather hypocritical (even though, at this stage, there's little dispute that it's currently legal under Russian law). So basically, if you download a song from a Western artist you can fairly reliably assume that they won't be getting any royalties from it. Also, depending on where you are you might be breaking local laws by using AllOfMP3, so you should bear that in mind. -- Hux 05:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you can assume any artist represented by the RIAA, BPI, or other huge company is not getting paid, but it is certainly possible that many small labels could have registered with ROMS independently of the RIAA. Another concern I have is the size of the royalty payment. I'm guessing artists might only get something like $0.001 per song... I wish I had a friend with a small label who could try to register and download to see if ROMS sends them a check for 5 cents. Or a popular Russian band (anyone know the t.A.T.u. artists?) and ask how much ROMS paid them and whether they broke it down by radio, internet, CDs, etc. Kslays 18:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You think the artists get massive royalties from other download sites? Apple were challenged to display the artist's cut beside the price of every iTunes download (and even provided with the code to do it) and they refused. Cynical 14:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several indie labels pay out to 40, even 60% of the download revenue so there is not just one rule to be considered. Several indie labels who did ask Roms for payments said they never received answers or were told to get their check in Russia. So I think it is fair tosay Roms is a scam for western labels. Leolapinos 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I would love to see a reference for the specific independent labels that asked ROMS to pay them. Any of them have an address in Russia? Also, the iTMS article doesn't mention artist payment. If that is in fact a verifiable problem, it should be in the iTMS article and could be compared against AllofMP3 in this article. Kslays 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing confusion

[edit]

Hi, this line in the article is problematic:

"As of August 13, 2006, the basic price for one gigabyte of music downloaded is $0.03 or 3 cents per megabyte, increased from the previous 2 cents per megabyte set on January 15, 2005."

This implies that one GIGAbyte of music costs the same as one MEGAbyte to download. I propose we change the line to

"As of August 13, 2006, the basic price for one gigabyte of music downloaded is approximately $30 or 3 cents per megabyte, increased from the previous 2 cents per megabyte set on January 15, 2005."

or

"As of August 13, 2006, the basic price for one megabyte of music downloaded is $0.03, increased from the previous $0.02 per megabyte set on January 15, 2005."

Done. RichF 17:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

This paragraph seems to me beeing very POV and I think it should be rewritten:

This means that the court ruling finds that Tele2 are unlawfully making copies while routing their customers communication. So they are not directly forced to block information from Allofmp3.com, they are found to be making "pirate copies" when doing their job of directing communication on the internet, that is what a router does, and internet cannot function without it. This basically means that this court has forbidden the internet in Denmark. This goes also for modern mobile communication too, since a mobile phone also can be used to unlawfully communicate otherwise already published and not stamped with secrecy information. It is a lot like if the old telephone company had been held responsible for what its customers said on the phone. Tele2 has applied for retrial in higher court.

--Vladimír Fuka 13:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I have removed the cleanup tag from the article now, as I think it's much improved since it was first tagged. MartinBrook t 12:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Update about the Danish ISP Tele2" need clarification

[edit]

Being a dane, having read the referenced "verdict", knowing a bit about danish copyright legislation and law (although IANAL), I have to warn that this section needs clarification.

The danish court "Fogedretten" is not a real court. The role it has in danish law is more like the role of the US marshal. Fogedretten cannot make a verdict (in danish "dom"), and the link to "the court verdict" is simply a preliminary injunction. Also, the document linked to is not issued by "Fogedretten", but by the lowest danish court "Byretten" (although still not a verdict under danish law).

What happened was that the preliminary injunction issued by Fogedretten was appealed (in danish "kæret") by Tele2. Byretten then upheld the preliminary injunction, and the document you link to is the decision of Byretten to uphold the preliminary injunction.

Under danish law such a preliminary injunction is only temporary. If the parties to the case settle, or if a real court case to validate the preliminary injuction is not started within 4 weeks, the preliminary injunction is without effect.

Very little about this case has been publicised, but it looks like like the parties IFPI and Tele2 have settled because Tele2 (as most other ISPs) have started censoring the net by blocking all access to Tele2.

Reading the decision to uphold the preliminary injunction that you link to is quite scary: First it is obvious that the court does not understand the technology involved. Second several technologies that can be used to block access to certain websites are discussed. Some are deemed very effective for blocking "pornography" and "non-mainstream political speech" (the latter is "rabiate politiske budskaber" in danish). Third the legal theory that says Tele2 infringes copyright is perverted: When the IP packets passing through the ISP are forwarded by the routers of the ISP, copies of small parts of the copyrighted work is made, which is an infringing action. Unfortunately this perverted legal theory that makes almost all transmission of contents by danish ISPs illegal has been upheld in a recent unrelated ruling by the highest court of Denmark.

Sued!

[edit]

1.65 trillion bucks asked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.49.114 (talk)

  • Funny thing about that is Russia's GDP is only 1.57 Tril (according to the page here on Wikipedia). I'd like to see how the American DMCA holds up in Russia. This will be as funny as them sueing grandmothers, 9-yr olds, and dead war veterans. -Ghostalker
Ok, sueed. What now? Whats happening? No money to RIAA? Or did RIAA simply miss the fact that allofmp3 is located in Russia?Was this just something they did for media attention? Anyone got some news or something they can add? It simply doesn't give any sense to write that they got sued for 1.65 trillion, end of story. This is of cours my humble opinion. :) Mr Mo 21:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary updates

[edit]

I've been watching this page for a long time, paying attention to what gets changed, and I've come to a conclusion: the vast majority of the edits made are really unnecessary since they're concerned entirely with whether or not the service is currently operational, whether or not one can currently add money to one's account and by what method, etc. etc. These details are not relevant for an encyclopedic article. If anyone needs to know about the operational status of AllOfMP3 then the best place to go is AllOfMP3.com and their forums. This article should concern itself will what the service is, how it works in general, discussions of relevant legal issues, etc. etc. Frankly I think the whole thing could do with a major rewrite, excising all the superfluous junk and cleaning up the legal issues. That's a big job though! -- Hux 07:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point by getting hung up on the details. Whether or not AOMP3 (or Xrost or anyone else) has forums is irrelevant. The fact remains that status updates are not encyclopedic and things that are not encyclopedic do not belong on Wikipedia. They belong somewhere else. This should be obvious, shouldn't it? -- Hux 06:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at deleting some of the rubbish from the payment issues section. I think it's OK for the article to briefly mention the current status of the service, but a long list of 'as of 10th february, blah blah... as of 11th february, etc' is not necessary. MartinBrook t 14:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Credit Bureau?

[edit]

Re this quote under payment methods (by 24.211.249.157):

however AllTunes does not accept any major credit cards. They only accept credit cards from the Japan Credit Bureau.

I've just gone through the payment process at alltunes.com and the only option I get is MasterCard. I suppose it might depend on the user's location. Anyway, I think it's best not to be too specific, and it seems to me that the exact payment details aren't really relevant for this article. I've gone ahead and removed the statement, feel free to improve though. MartinBrook t 10:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MP3Sparks.com

[edit]

71.31.88.132 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC) It appears that AllofMP3 has spun off a sister site called MP3Sparks. It has the exact same look and feel of AllofMP3 with the exception that some colors and fonts appear to be changed on the new site. As of now, there is no way to pay for music on the new site as the only option is credit card payments and the site will not accept any kind of credit cards at this time, for U.S. customers. Thought this might be worthy of adding to the article since this hasn't been mentioned yet.[reply]

iTunes Plus

[edit]

The article needs to be revised now that iTunes offers DRM-free music via iTunes Plus. I believe the cost is $1.29 per track.

Requested move

[edit]

It's no longer Allofmp3.com so the article title needs to be changed as well.Funkbomb 23:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, I've added requested move template. I'll move the article if nobody objects (or beats me to it). MartinBrook t 13:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further consideration, I wonder if just AllOfMP3 would be the best title for the article. Although the site was rebranded as AllOfMP3.ru a few days before it went 'down for maintenance', it spent most of its years as AllOfMP3.com. I suspect this article will soon become a historical article about a defunct site, so it seems odd to refer to it by the name it took only in its final days. Plus, most people refer to it as just AllOfMP3 anyway, not AllOfMP3.com /.ru. MartinBrook t 10:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to AllOfMP3. - hahnchen 23:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, there's no major disagreement it seems, so I've moved the article. We will have to watch what happens in future with MP3Sparks et al, it may need moving again. MartinBrook t 13:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to come back up 7/12/2007

[edit]

It looks like the site is starting to come back alive. I added a small blurb that it looks like it's coming back, but didn't modify the whole article to remove ALL the closed references. Sstucker 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's not dead yet. I've made some more changes to the stuff about MP3Sparks, which is clearly alive and kicking. And of course, the only official line from AllOfMP3.ru is still "down for maintenance"... MartinBrook t 12:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Just wondering whether the section on legal issues should be given a more prominent position near the top of the article. It seems more relevant than 'how the service works' at the moment. I'm reluctant to do it without some input from others though. MartinBrook t 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely agree with this, this is one of the reasons I visited the article in the first place. --Aimaz 09:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Recommended Changes to the Article

[edit]

MediaServices is no longer in operation (and the link to their main website is broken). MP3Sparks.com is owned by Regiontorg, allTunes by Internet Audit. MemphisMembers is the only site that doesn't display an owner and appears to have ties to AllOfMP3.com. Here are some of my conversations with the support department at MP3Sparks and AllOfMP3.


MP3Sparks.com support reply:

You have transfered your account to mp3sparks.com This site doesn't support Alltunes program as download manager.


And this is from AllOfMP3.com before they shut down:

AllOfMP3.com support reply:

MP3sparks is absolutely another site that only has undertaken the obligations of allofmp3.com. Unfortunately your account was transfered to mp3sparks.com before we have allowed it an access to MephisMembers What's a problem? You don't like mp3sparks.com? You can refill his balance without any problems.


I think these three sites should be listed in separate articles, or at least a distinction made between them.


Perhaps AllOfMP3.com and MediaServices references should be moved to another article as they appear to have been taken down by the Russian government (as reported by several news sources).

One final thought, there is a community run forum that relates to AllOfMP3.com: http://www.aom3.org Not sure if that should be in the article or not. Just referencing it here for your information.

Thoughts?

TxTurbo 01:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there's no proof that mp3sparks and MemphisMembers are different companies - they seem to have MediaServices written all over them. They clearly all use the same user database, and sell the same music. So I think all of the sites should stay together in one article, at least for now. I'd perhaps support renaming the article if anyone can suggest a better name...
(The article should probably mention Regiontorg and Internet Audit as being the 'owners' of the other sites though.)
Oh, and Wikipedia policy on external links discourages linking to forums, so I don't think the aom3.org link should be added (and anyone with google can find it pretty easily anyway!)
MartinBrook t 14:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

Please don't remove the reference to the legal issues from the lead section of this article. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of all the relevant points from the article - the legal issues are probably the most relevant thing in this article at the moment! If you're not happy with the paragraph please try and improve it, but don't just remove it. MartinBrook t 13:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Of MP3 Replacements

[edit]

We should include somewhere in the article the recent existence of sites like www.mp3search.ru and www.legalsounds.com, which seem to be operating on very similar models to AllofMp3 ! BlackberryLaw 14:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


SUGGESTED CHANGES

[edit]

mp3sparks no longer offers full downloads if you have 50 bucks or more transactions on the account. Its now limited to 30sec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.198.97 (talk)

"past two months"?

[edit]

What does this mean? When was that written? Please add a specific date explaining when the mp3sparks shut down the ability to add money to your account. Is this still even the case? Not that I doubt it, I just would like to see a specific date or even month/year. comment added by Wellesradio (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Wellesradio (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)wellesradio[reply]

Works fine for me. They also still email out ways to fund your account occasionally... 86.18.149.57 (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nb - Any services that are considered legally licensed in Russia are completely legal to use in any country that is a signatory to the Berne convention.....

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on AllOfMP3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AllOfMP3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AllOfMP3&oldid=1198463438"