For everyone who's sick and tired of the RIAA's shenanigans regarding the
expensive and very restrictive US-only pay per download sites
currently getting all the attention, you might want to check
www.allofmp3.com >

AllOfMP3 offers a lot of commercial albums (not just indie labels) for either
$10 per gig or 1000 tracks p/m for $15 p/m (¢ 1.5
per tune), or to put it another way 60x cheaper then either iTunes
or Napster

Not only that you get to choose the file format & bitrate, including MP3,
there's no DRM what so ever, and rather then just 30 sec clips you can preview
whole albums (all be it at 24kbps).

They can do this because the company is based in Russia, which has much less
restrictive copyright laws.

I recently stumbled across this site by accident basically (It's 2 years old
but isn't well known) but already I doubt I'll be turning to filesharing
for albums I find on there.

If the RIAA offered a site with similar prices, terms and conditions,
had all their back catalogue and advertised it as much as Apple
did theres, I've a feeling it would have a huge effect on P2P, much more
so then bludgeoning citizens into submission with the US legal system.

Anyway I recommend everyone checks the site out and spreads the word, the
RIAA could do with learning a valuable lesson from this site.

Has anybody checked the actual download quality and how deep their catalogue is?

????????????????????

interesting delema. I've always wondered this. If you download from a server in another country where it's not illegal, does it make it illegal here. which juristiction would apply if there is no consistancy. for instance if a country hostile to us that we have to treaty with sets up a centralized server and makes it legal to put any artists songs or movies avalible for download, is it ok? Technically it is a legal in the country so it's not illegal distribution

The RIAA will probably start suing ISP's to block this website next, remember the listenforever.com website? The RIAA went on a mad rampage and started suing every ISP around to block access to the site.

that is very interesting. Very interesting indeed.

they seem to have a pretty big selection...

here's a few biggies: Beatles, Depeche Mode, Deep Purple, Beach Boys, Rolling Stones, Frank Zappa, Jethro Tull, Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, Elton John, Michael Jackson, Pink Floyd, Omega, Led Zeppelin, Nazareth, David Bowie, Eric Clapton, Rick Wakeman, Alice Cooper, Modern Talking, Duke Ellington, ABBA, Jimi Hendrix, Louis Armstrong, Mylene Farmer, Tom Jones, The Cure, Scorpions, Kitaro, King Krimson, Rush, Barbra Streisand, Yes, Demis Roussos, Black Sabbath, Rod Stewart, Roxette, Santana, Bee Gees, Tangerine Dream, BB King, Astor Piazzolla, Queen, Fleetwood Mac, Peter Hammill, Aerosmith......

there are a lot more too... a LOT more.... those are the artists with the most albums available... Beatles are at the top of the list with a whopping 86 albums, and Miles Davis in second with 72. This site has an incredibly large selection.

sorry to post so many times in a row, but they also support the following:

MP3 (up to 384 kbps)
Windows Media Audio (WMA) (up to 320 kbps)
Ogg Vorbis (OGG) (up to 320 kbps)
MusePack (MPC) (up to 270 kbps)
MPEG4 AAC (MP4,LC) (Up to 320kbps)

12464 albums 3779 artists, total 139868 compositions

I just got a few songs after using paypal cause i figured it was worth a shot. They sound great so far(i'm getting the 384 files), but we shall see what they sound like in my car. When its this cheap, it is not even worth looking at dling on kazaa or otherwise. RIAA needs to take a good look.

I thought this story wouldn't be posted as it basically took over the Napster 2.0 thread.

Anyway, whether this site is illegal or not, this is the kind of thing that will probably move the most people off filesharing

Even if the price is a bit higher, maybe in the region of c5 to c10 per song, if they get just 10% of the 60m (I think) filesharers to spend only $5 worth of music, that’s $30m more then they’d otherwise get for almost 0 distribution cost.

Smaller artists would be far better off too (at the expense of the big artists I guess, not that they get much if any money from their CD sales) as with prices like that people will be able to experiment much more, rather then having to spend all their money on their one favourite.

remember the site in China that actively went out and uploaded a TON of artist to a central server and offered them for download? the RIAA got an injuction stopping the ISPs from allowing people to connect to the site....they probably will do the same here

The sites about 3 years old so I'd have thought the RIAA would've already acted by now if they could...

remember the site in China that actively went out and uploaded a TON of artist to a central server and offered them for download? the RIAA got an injuction stopping the ISPs from allowing people to connect to the site....they probably will do the same here

******************

That seems like illegal censorship to me if I ever saw it! Down with the RIAA!!!!!!

As for me, I will be doing alot of shopping from allofmp3.com in the future.

I'm not a lawyer or anything...
but it seems (the way I understand it) it's the act of distribution, or UPloading that is supposed to be the copyright infringement. -not downloading.

"Beatles are at the top of the list with a whopping 86 albums"

This site is illegal! LOL Did you see how many Beatle bootlegs they have? They are stocking titles that were originally released on bootleg labels.

"They can do this because the company is based in Russia, which has much less restrictive copyright laws."

Oh really?

http://www.balfort.com/discussions/napster.shtml

"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. But there are millions of such infringers, and it's very difficult to make them liable. Moreover, the major part of them doesn't derive any direct or indirect incomes from distribution of counterfeited files."

You know, mroop, you're so clueless it's funny.

"This site is illegal! LOL Did you see how many Beatle bootlegs they have? They are stocking titles that were originally released on bootleg labels."

Let's see... How is it illegal if you have to pay for the music you download? So that means iTunes and the new Napster should be shut down 'cos the mp3's were ripped off CD's and put up for sale thus giving a portion of the money to the RIAA? Please explain your logic here.

The way you virulently defend the RIAA, I guess you like listening to pop and eating at McDonalds. Since you have been brainwashed by one corporatemonger's bullshit, you must also be that gullible to believe the things that other big companies say. When artists sign up to record labels, in the end they make little or even NO money doing their jobs. We're not helping the RIAA suck the blood of artists who need money. To be honest, the starving-artist musician stereotype is still true in some ways. Underground bands over the world are trying to get recognition by the masses, but only a few make it to even semi-mainstream, let alone world-famous. I should know, 'cos I'm a musician, and I very well know the system. Learn to debate with facts instead of opinions disguised as facts, then maybe people will take you more seriously.