an interesting point most people seem to miss is that a lot of songs/albums get sold at cheap prices that otherwise NEVER would have been. Is it the consumer's fault that the pittance sent to the artist is not being used? Even if it was money they NEVER would have had at full price. Also emusic limits their selections to keep the price down - you cannot find a lot of stuff there.

You claim that buying from allofmp3 is no better than downloading for a peer2peer network. I have certainly been perfectly aware of that, and, honestly, i don't care. i use allofmp3 not because i feel more honest when i pay somebody, but because it is more convenient than searching a peer2peer network

I think that there are a couple of points to be made. If I am an average worker in Russia making average pay, the $1.50 album I just bought is what percentage of my weekly pay. In other words the music being sold may represent the fair market value for music in Russia. And who are we (the United States or RIAA,whomever) to tell a Russian business that they should sell their products at our market prices? Secondly: You say "This site and its fans say that's because the record labels are refusing all offers of payment. But maybe those labels--not all of whom are Large Evil Corporations--have a good reason not to want to do business with a company like this." What is this good reason? Do you know? Should someone find out? And what do you mean "a company like this"? Are they evil because they sell at less than OUR market value? I am all for the artists making their money. Maybe the RIAA should collect their money and pay the artists who have earned it. Maybe we should discard the old business models and quit trying to preserve "the old buggy whip factory". There really isn't that much overhead in digital music. Oh, and it's DRM free too. You don't think that "Big Music" is screwing over us and the artists do you? I hope not. Maybe we need to fix our own wagon.

Honestly (or otherwise depending on your point of view..)
The music downloaded from lo-price sites like allofmp3 has at least three advantages.
Price
Mostly good quality
Well organized
Large selection
These are my main reasons for consideration. I don't want to shoot down the music industry because of their selfishness (that is the problem the artists have to deal with). I say this because also available and frequented by my are Indie sites that gather together artists and offer low cost downloads and like Magnatunes.com recommend you share the music you have purchased.

Honestly (or otherwise depending on your point of view..)
The music downloaded from lo-price sites like allofmp3 has at least three advantages.
Price
Mostly good quality
Well organized
Large selection
These are my main reasons for consideration. I don't want to shoot down the music industry because of their selfishness (that is the problem the artists have to deal with). I say this because also available and frequented by my are Indie sites that gather together artists and offer low cost downloads and like Magnatunes.com recommend you share the music you have purchased.
I hope this helps.

Here's a new angle....why do we need record companies now anymore anyway? If the medium is digital music, why then do we even BOTHER with dealing with record companies? MySpace is everywhere. Preview your songs there. Have people pay for it via an online credit card payment center. Email them the files. This way, no one has to hear about the record companies and their whining because they won't be involved. Radio will have to go back to finding what people want to hear by actually getting REQUESTS (shock and horror) instead of being spoon-fed what the record companies want us to hear and buy...goodbye payola. Ta-dah!

As someone who has grown up internationally in many developing and third world countries, let me ask you this question. Is it fair to compare our pricing model to that of other nations, when it is legit over there? In one particular country while I was in high school during the 90's, the price of a legitimate American album on compact disc was roughly $5 (based on the conversion rate of the time), whereas a black market copy with the same quality cost merely a dollar in that very same country. During that same time period, the price of the same album in the United States was more than double that of $5. As an American living in that country, it would be considered wrong if I bought the $1 black market album, but perfectly within the realms of ethics if I had bought the $5 album. As a high school kid living in that particular country, my weekly allowance was also a fraction of that of what my relatives living back in the United States were getting, so $5 is actually something not easy for me to just splurge on an album. I had to pick my music with extreme care.

Now the question is, are the artists getting paid the same amount of money per album sold in such a developing country as that sold in the United States? Probably not. Did the artists and the music labels demand that they be paid the same? I doubt it, or else we would have seen their music sell for much more, which in turn would have alienated their fans in such countries where the cost of living and minimum wage are only a fraction of that in the United States. So such a setup where the comparably smaller royalty fee is considered legal. But is it illegal for me as an American citizen as a visitor to such a country to buy the $5 album, especially when my parents were getting American salary? Hmm...

Since technology is without national boundaries, it is inevitable that other countries will catch up in technology. First music is distributed in cassette tapes, then compact discs. When compact discs and players first came out, consumers balked at the price of both. We were promised that once the technology becomes widespread, the cost of compact discs would go down. Yet, albums on compact discs remain expensive, despite their lower cost of manufacture and distribution than cassette tapes. It is so cheap to stamp out compact discs today that it makes me sick to think that I have to pony up $20 to buy a music album today.

Next came electronic formats, such as MP3 and AAC. Of course other developing nations embraced them while Internet access is getting more common. Now other businesses are getting smarter and innovative, especially that from developing nations, or nations where the cost of living is a fraction of that in the United States. Instead of selling a physical compact disc for $5, what if the right to listen to music is sold without physical limitation (i.e. compact disc or cassette tapes)? The cost of manufacture (if any), printing, distribution, etc is now a smaller fraction of $5. Now they can sell electronic formats of music at a fraction of $5, assuming that they can still stay within their own legal framework like that of AllofMP3.com and ROHM in Russia.

If such business were to strictly sell to its own citizens over the Internet, while blocking out other citizens, then it would have be fine. But unfortunately, the Internet is just that, a network of computers throughout the world without limits. Now a foreign citizen can access such a business without having to fly all the way over an ocean and purchase music. I think it is still legal. Because of the way Internet is designed, it becomes transparent from national borders. And since such a pricing model is extremely attractive to American citizens, more and more people purchase music at $5 (or less) over the Internet instead of $20 at their neighborhood music store. As music labels see this trend, they stop collecting royalty from such a foreign country like ROHM, and scream piracy.

Is this right? I don't believe so. How would you like to go to a store and buy an item, but have the vendor refuse your cash and call security saying the product wasn't paid for? Sure, you can argue in a different way that the fact that the music is distributed without DRM in itself is illegal. But isn't DRM monopolistic and against the idea that information should be free? Consumers are forced into buying iPods just so they can listen to music purchased from iTunes! Even Steve Jobs have something against DRM. So let's leave the DRM argument out of this, as the argument against monopoly is entirely separate.

If selling music at a reasonable price in a foreign country to its own citizens is okay, but became questionable once other nationals were to take advantage of their pricing model, then shouldn't we take a closer look at our own economy? We should deem it illegal in our American law if American companies outsource their workforce to developing countries where labor is a fraction of that in the United States. It is exactly the same concept! I just cannot believe that we can have a double standard in this issue. Sure, corporations can argue that businesses are now international and without border and that the world is shrinking. Then why can't the same argument go for technologies without borders, like AllofMP3.com? To me, the American labor market is the same as that of the music labels, where their own income is diminished because their source of income (American employers in the case of labor, royalty fees from sales originated in America) is now a fraction of what we are used to see.

Instead of crying foul and lobbying the government to put pressure on the Russian government, why not embrace the business model? The music labels are only looking at how much more cash they can have by keeping the price constant, instead of lowering the price of electronic music in the hopes of more people will buy it and reduce piracy overall.

By the same token, shouldn't Americans over the age of 18 and under 21 be arrested once they return to the United States just because they took advantage of international law when they crossed over to Mexico where legal drinking age is different than that of the United States? After all, the act of drinking under 21 is illegal here in the country. Similarly, shouldn't American citizens be fined when they return from a vacation in a developing country if they were caught having purchased legitimate compact disc albums there, which happened to be significantly cheaper than a legitimate compact disc album here?

Think about that seriously... I welcome your rebuke.

Rick,
I think you missed a step in your logic. The fair market rate for a car in Laos is much lower than it is here. But that doesn't mean they get the same cars for less, they get lower valued cars. The fair market rate for music in Russia probably is lower than here. So they should be able to get lower value (less popular) music for less. Different standards of living around the world shouldn't throw copyright law out the window.

Of course the reason I don't get music from p2p or allofmp3 isn't b/c of my love of IP but b/c I don't want spyware on my PC or my credit card info floating around in Russia.

I am sad to see allofmp3 go, but being a consumer, I am kinda pissed that I still have credit on allofmp3 that I haven't used. Is alltunes a site owned by the same people as allofmp3? Can I use my credit their?

Yes, you can use your credit at Alltunes.

Tim,

It's THERE not THEIR. I'm surprised you didn't use THEY'RE

Long story short, the recording industry screwed up big time in the 1990's and they still don't get it. If they embraced the AllofMP3 model instead of fighting it, most participants (artists, consumers) would be better off.

I used to be a radio DJ, club DJ, record store clerk, etc. I have thousands of vinyl records many of which were provided to me for free or below retail by the music industry, in exchange for me providing promotion for same. Even when I left that career behind, I used to routinely visit my local Tower Records and spend $30/month on singles.

Key word: "singles". That all ended for me when unbridled greed led to the industry essentially eliminating the single and trying to get me to pay $12-$20 for an "album" on CD when all I wanted was one song.

Don't give us the "poor artist who tries to make a living" story. 98% of all music created isn't good enough for the creator to make a living at, just like 98% of bloggers, software programmers, painters, poets, etc.

The problem was/is trying to force the consumer to buy 10 filler songs at the same price as the one song they really wanted. Not to mention the deliberate deception of promoting one version of song for airplay but putting a different version on the album -- something that still happens a lot.

Now, too late, the dollar-a-song stores are trying to pick up that model again, but heck even back in the 60's I could listen to an entire song, not just 30 seconds, before deciding to buy it. And if I purchased it, I could take it to my friend's house and play it there without licensing his turntable.

Plus, AllofMP3 had a huge amount of back catalog which the $1/song stores don't provide. How are the record companies helping the artist by not licensing their back catalog at a discount?

The software industry took care of the business model in only about ten years from the mid-80's to mid-90's -- shareware, support, freeware, no DRM, etc. It seems to work pretty well.

The music industry has had its collective head up its butt for 60 years now -- what will it take to to finally perform a successful recto-cranial-ectomy?

Eventually reality will take over.
The market can only charge what consumers are willing to pay.

I remember when VHS movies sold for $77 to $125. Then one christmas a company sold "Batman" for $19.99. Everyone thought they were crazy... but they sold so many copies that it made more of a gross profit than any previous VHS release.

Other companies saw this, and their prices plumeted, and it established the VCR in every home industry.

The record companies should use this as an marketing example.

Instead of suing people and trying to scare them into only legally buying songs at $1 each... sell them for 5 to 10 cents! They would sell more, gross more profit, and piracy would dwindle to almost nothing. And it would establish a solid music download industry similar to the what we see with VHS and DVD rentals. (Possibly even launching an industry of at-home or portable satellite units that people can use to purchase and download songs.)

Personally I dont think it will ever happen, as the music industry is too driven by greed and deciet to grasp that more sales at cheaper prices can result in a greater total gross profit.

I congratulate the posts by JHo and DJ Greyhair .. quite well balanced. As a Brit, I used to download from AllofMP3 precisiely because it offered the product I wanted i.e. different levels of format/quality, DRM free, but mainly, it had an extensive music catalogue. I take great exception that someone in the UK loses his commercial choice as a consequence of Music Industry Executives (?) failing to provide me with the choice and range of products that these 'cheap-skate' ;-/ Russian music websites provide. The RIAA et al should stop bleating, take stock of what the WORLD markets i.e. the music fans want and provide it. ..... and we would probably end up with an allofmp3 - type business model ;-) .. iTuneAllofmp3 hybrid??!! Enough said.

Truly when you step back and take a hard look there are no ethics anymore, only a bottom line.

Hey Folks, Is there any hope for someone like me who still has a credit on her AllOfMP3.com account, but cannot utilize the AllTunes.com software because I use a Mac? Is there an alternative for Mac users who still have AllOfMP3.com credits? (I still have a balance of $53.00 on my AllOfMP3.com account.) Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Setting aside politics and monetary factors, I think the technology and infrastructure that made up AllofMP3 be embraced. No other music service has format options plus their library is enormous and in fact, carries more hard-to-find albums than any US based service. I had found albums on AllofMP3 that I thought were totally extinct. Instead of shutting the system down, it should be reorganized with abiding policies.

This has been some interesting feedback here. My thoughts:

* It's a serious stretch to call Russia a developing country. And even if the relative cost of goods and services in Russia explains why AllofMP3 charges so little per track, why aren't there even cheaper music-download stores in countries where things cost still less?

* And in any case, the price of a CD is irrelevant here. What AllofMP3 is doing is ripping CDs and re-selling those digital copies; it's not reselling digital copies that it bought from the labels involved.

* This site may have a lot of obscure releases, but I wouldn't describe a total inventory of 700,000-some tracks as "enormous," not when iTunes carries 5 million or so.

* Lastly, let's be careful about talking about "the recording industry" as some monolithic whole. Not everybody agrees with the RIAA or even belongs to it; some of these labels operate on pretty tight budgets, precisely so they can make their music available at the lowest price possible. (I jogged past the "headquarters" of one of the D.C. area's best punk-rock labels this morning; they consist of a basement office underneath a 7-11.)

- RP

AllofMP3/Alltunes is a beautiful service. I am grateful to them for the happiness they provided me during their existence, and I sincerely hope for their survival. I deposited a large balance with them before their disappearance. I knew it might be lost, but I wanted to support them in legal fights coming from the "respectable" media sources and political pressure from the US. The interface was efficient, attractive and functional. The price per song made the difference between by buying LOTS of music for 20 cents per song, versus buying none from the RIAA type sources at a dollar a song. For me, a dollar a song simply rules out all purchases. (Add DRM and I wouldn't take the music if it were free, literally.) If AllofMP3 does not revive, I will buy no further music, but enjoy my considerable library. Frankly, even if the media companies started selling music at 20 cents, they have alienated me so much, in so many ways, that I don't think I would or could deal with them. Their political meddling in Congress to extend copyright to ridiculous extremes, their bully tactics, and their exploitation of a monopoly position are throughly offensive, and even harmful to our culture. Fortunately, I agree with a previous writer above, I think that 'record companies' as middlemen are an anachronism. Best wishes to allofmp3.com.

RP:

Herein lays your problem. You have automatically associated "ripping" as something that is inherently wrong. Ripping is just a technical term for conversion from one format to another. Now, if you were to write that AllofMP3.com converted their electronic music catalogue from CDs, all of a sudden it doesn't seem wrong. How else do you think MP3 files come from? I'm not quite sure if Apple does the same thing, or they actually get their music from the music label in electronic format, but in either case, Apple has to convert whatever format they receive to their own DRM'ed AAC format. That in itself is ripping or conversion. It is also quite possible that the conversion tool is licensed to the major music industry that provides songs for sale on iTunes, so that Apple is not in the middle doing the conversion. But whatever the case, your logic is a bit flawed.

If I as an independent film maker want to include some popular tunes in a sequence in the movie, obviously I have to get permission or pay some sort of royalty for the inclusion of said music. Now can I just include the music that was digitized on my own from my own CD collection, and still pay the royalty? YES! Do I have to wait for the music label to provide me the digital version of the music so I can only use their format for inclusion? NO! Do you think high profile DJs have to buy a separate and special set of albums if they want to play in clubs for their for-profit DJ business? NO! I'm not in that business, and I'm sure the DJ's don't pay royalty fees directly to the music label or artists themselves. I'm sure the payment scheme is much streamlined, almost similar to that of ROMS, except for the difference in that the amount of the fee is substantially different.

From what I understand of ROMS, it has been placed as a legal framework in Russia through proper legislature for a long time. Why is it that the music labels have been willing to accept royalty payments when Russian film makers or other types of artists that incorporate American music pay through ROMS? Why is it all of a sudden illegal when some smart businesses take advantage of their existing law that did not catch up with the digital millennium? If AllofMP3.com was not accessible to the world but just Russia, I seriously doubt we would be hearing much of this contentious issue.

The root causes of the issue should be addressed, not in making a scare tactic in labeling something illegal just because the terms are no longer favorable when the pricing is suddenly not limited to Russian citizens, but world-wide. First and foremost, we should be pressuring the Russian government to review their existing ROMS structure, and update it as necessary. Secondly, the Russian government should develop a means to prevent international access to their own services that employ pricing schemes favorable to Russian citizens. Thirdly, the American government should write and enact a new law that prohibits its citizens to purchase electronic music from legitimate (in its own nation) sources. The whole lawsuit against Media Services is a joke, and a lazy shortcut into stopping American consumers from purchasing music from non-American outlets. Similarly, the act of purchasing a Cuban cigar in the nation of Cuba in itself is not illegal; but it is illegal for American citizens to purchase them by law of illegal trade. The burden lies on the nation that makes it illegal for its own citizens, not for the nation that merely produces and sells cigars.

Sure, there are ethical questions that come into play when companies stay within their legal framework and take advantage of their own loophole. We as Americans should pressure the Russian government into amending their ROMS structure, not merely pressuring the government to suddenly deem Media Services an illegal business and forcing its shutdown. As a citizen of the United States, I would be really irritated if some nation that has the upper hand in deciding the fate of our goals (used here as an analogy to how the US has the upper hand in deciding Russia's entrance to the WTO) force us to abolish a simple human rights violation that we routinely practice, specifically the capital punishment for people under 18. I would much appreciate if another nation would properly request that we review our own laws and change them instead of the use of threats.

It is no secret that the world-wide access to products and services that are priced for a portion of the world, namely a nation such as Russia) is hurting American channels of revenue for similar products and services. But labeling such business practice illegal? That would be wrong. This is similar to how the pharmaceutical companies are lobbying to deem it illegal for Americans to cross the border up north to purchase the exact same drugs but that are priced specifically for Canadians which happen to be cheaper than American pricing. It all boils down to the fact that it reduces their greedy bottom line.

In my point of view, if we make such access to cheaper priced products and services that are priced specifically for their own respective nation, then we should abolish the practice of outsourcing of American jobs. Sure, if an Indian or Brazilian or Chinese software programmer of equal aptitude to the American counterpart can be had for a fraction of its normal American cost to American companies, then why can't American consumers access similar products and services priced for other nations? In principle, the two are the same. And my argument against outsourcing is huge in and of itself, and should not be discussed in further detail other than simply mentioning its similarity in principle to the issue at hand.

Although I may not be taking advantage of AllofMP3.com and could care less for music, iPod or whatever gizmo is out there, I am simply more irritated at the argument presented to deem it illegal. I myself am very irritated that my friends', coworkers' and my own job securities are at the mercy of this unregulated access to foreign-priced foreign labor, which is exactly the same in principle. And nobody seems to care about this segment of the American population, while at the same time wasting enormous amounts of resources in trying to shut down something that is not even in our own jurisdiction. It's like the state of Illinois will ban intrastate commerce with the state of Indiana unless Indiana amends its own law to increase the age of consensual sex from 16 to 17, just because Illinois's law states 17. (On a side note, I personally would want it raised to 25 when I have daughters myself.) When you boil it all down, this whole "AllofMP3.com is illegal" allegation is simply ridiculous and has no reasonable legs to stand on.

Post script: I apologize for using the term ROHM in my earlier post when in fact the proper acronym for the Russian Multimedia and Network Society is ROMS. And let us not forget that even the Russian judicial system has reviewed AllofMP3.com's use (or "exploitation" for those who blindly sympathize with the majority of the music industry) of existing ROMS loophole. If the Russian judicial system cannot rule to favor our music industry, then let's just blackmail them with the threat of their WTO application. That's real mature...

Post-post script: Yes, I agree with you that I am wrong for categorizing all music labels into one giant entity. I simply mean the majority of it, or the four main cry-babies: EMI Group, Warner Music Group, Sony BMG and Universal Music Group. Or the four entities that happen to have an impressively huge lobbying group behind them.

The RIAA would have nipped Napster in the bud had they come in with a similar allofmp3 type structure...

1. Realistic, affordable, per track pricing.
2. Choice of format and quality to equal a manufactured cd.
3. Ability to hear entire track before purchase.
4. No restrictions.
5. Vast selection.
6. Ease

Crippled by greed, lack of foresight and failure to do the math...time for them to end their reign of terror, spare themselves further humiliation and just go away.

I had a relative that worked for a company that manufactured CDs for the record companies. She told me that the AVERAGE cost of CD, including the labeling, sleeve insert, and packaging was $0.35.

Now we're almost at a stage where there is no manufacturing costs involved. Why must we pay 17.99 per CD when all we're really after is that one catchy tune we heard on the radio and the rest of the CD simply sucks?

I've tried the Russian websites, (and there are more than one), and have been very pleased with the pricing and quality of the music. The downloading process is all web based. The main reason I HATE iTunes is because its a huge monolithic program that has to run on your computer so you can down load files in a format that will only work on an iPod. Not to mention that every 2-3 weeks, you have to update the software. That is a pain in the rear. I prefer it when I can just drag & drop the songs I want to a device that shows up as a portable drive on my computer. No fuss.

If you feel bad that the artists aren't getting paid, the single most thing you can do to "honor" your favorite artists is to buy a concert ticket and GO TO THEIR SHOW when they come into your area for a concert. Buy a t-shirt even. If they are selling DVDs or CDs at the show, buy them there. That is how they make the lion's share of their money.

The sooner the RIAA realizes that they are fighting a losing battle, the better. First it was records...and we bought them....then it was 8-tracks....and we bought them...then it was cassette tapes...and we bought them....then CD's....we bought them. We all found ways to copy & share our music on all the above mentioned formats. Now, with MP3s, its just too easy. Well too bad. I bought Van Halen I on vinyl, on tape, and then on CD....I will not be paying for it a fourth time...ever.

Just to add to H.C.D.'s comments...

What I don't really get is that whenever I buy an album on cassette tape or compact disc, I thought I could do whatever it is I want with them: copy songs, make a mix tape for the girl of the moment, et cetera. But as I got older and went to college, I understood that I didn't have the right to do all that, and I didn't really own the music. I simply paid for the right to listen to the music that was on whatever media that was delivered to me, and what I really owned was the plastic case and the physical media, not the art the media contained.

Okay, so fine. If I already paid the right to listen to an album, and my compact disc got scratched and ruined in the car, why was it that I was forced into replacing the album with the same priced compact disc? Why couldn't I bring the scratched compact disc, along with the sleeve, cover and a receipt, to show that I had already paid for the right to listen to the music, so that I can pay a lower price to replace the media? After all, the majority of the cost of an album is all in the right to listen, whereas the physical media is just a mere fraction. Did my right to listen to the music in the privacy of my home suddenly vanish just because the media it happened to be in got destroyed? Instead, I am forced to spend the same amount of money just to replace the physical media! Similarly, if I have an album on cassette which I had paid full price, I should be able to buy the exact same album on compact disc media for a reduced price, because I already paid the record company the right to listen to that exact intellectual property! So which one is it? Do I own the music or do I simply have the right to listen to it? I would be okay with paying full price for a replacement media if I owned the music.

This is all a consumer lose-lose situation, where the majority of the record companies are just financially raping consumers to no end. And I don't see how there are no lobbying groups to represent us. It is simply sad to say that the software industry treats the right to use intellectual property way better than the record industry. If I had lost the compact disc for a piece of software, all I have to do is send the software company a copy of my sales receipt, the damaged media, and whatever else is required of me, and I can get a replacement media for the same software for a nominal fee. This just goes to show that the record companies for the most part are content with the inflexible business model of the yesteryears which happen to rake in the most money for them. They don't change with the times. Any threat to their business model where their income may be diminished is being treated as something illegal with the help of the lobbyists.

R.P., if you think my reasoning is flawed, please do feel free to enlighten the rest of the readers and myself.

The people who think I'm saying that ripping a CD is illegal, or that buying a CD doesn't mean you actually own it, must have me confused with some other tech columnist.

But: Just because you own the CD doesn't mean you have the right to sell digital copies of it without paying the artist involved--whose creative work constitutes the actual worth of the CD, not the layers of plastic and metal that make up the physical product. This isn't like reselling your CD to a used-record store or even giving a friend a copy of a song or a mix CD based on your library.

I understand the annoyance at being resold the same song multiple times in multiple formats. But are you all only downloading songs that you already own by virtue of having a copy on vinyl or CD--or are also grabbing songs you've never heard before?

- RP

My $2.13 well spent.... An mp3 file format should not cost as much as an aiff file. This is where allofmp3.com's offerings are amazing. If you download any one of the lossless, flac, (whatever they're called) formats you are paying close to cd prices and getting cd quality sound. If you buy an mpeg4 or an mp3, you pay significantly less.

This, in my opinion is how it should be, lower prices for lower quality sound. itunes and other music site which charge cd prices for compressed sound like an mp3 or aac (mpeg4) are rip offs.

As for the issues with who's being paid and what percentage artists/companies are paid needs to spend some more time in court. There's is no comparison between the real cd versus and an mp3 and the consumer should not pay the same price nor should the artists or record company expect to make the same profit on a lower quality formats of downloadable music.

I really enjoyed allofmp3's, the player that let you sample the whole album in mono but still listen to the whole album let me check out a lot of new music. As I said before being able to choose my file format is a great advantage and is what I appreciated most from allofmp3.com.

I'm sorry allofmp3 is gone and my $7 balance!

My $2.13 well spent.... An mp3 file format should not cost as much as an aiff file. This is where allofmp3.com's offerings are amazing. If you download any one of the lossless, flac, (whatever they're called) formats you are paying close to cd prices and getting cd quality sound. If you buy an mpeg4 or an mp3, you pay significantly less.

This, in my opinion is how it should be, lower prices for lower quality sound. itunes and other music site which charge cd prices for compressed sound like an mp3 or aac (mpeg4) are rip offs.

As for the issues with who's being paid and what percentage artists/companies are paid needs to spend some more time in court. There's is no comparison between the real cd versus and an mp3 and the consumer should not pay the same price nor should the artists or record company expect to make the same profit on a lower quality formats of downloadable music.

I really enjoyed allofmp3's, the player that let you sample the whole album in mono but still listen to the whole album let me check out a lot of new music. As I said before being able to choose my file format is a great advantage and is what I appreciated most from allofmp3.com.

I'm sorry allofmp3 is gone and my $7 balance!

My $2.13 well spent.... An mp3 file format should not cost as much as an aiff file. This is where allofmp3.com's offerings are amazing. If you download any one of the lossless, flac, (whatever they're called) formats you are paying close to cd prices and getting cd quality sound. If you buy an mpeg4 or an mp3, you pay significantly less.

This, in my opinion is how it should be, lower prices for lower quality sound. itunes and other music site which charge cd prices for compressed sound like an mp3 or aac (mpeg4) are rip offs.

As for the issues with who's being paid and what percentage artists/companies are paid needs to spend some more time in court. There's is no comparison between the real cd versus and an mp3 and the consumer should not pay the same price nor should the artists or record company expect to make the same profit on a lower quality formats of downloadable music.

I really enjoyed allofmp3's, the player that let you sample the whole album in mono but still listen to the whole album let me check out a lot of new music. As I said before being able to choose my file format is a great advantage and is what I appreciated most from allofmp3.com.

I'm sorry allofmp3 is gone and my $7 balance!

I worked the IT field where a good portion of the jobs have been outsourced because they pay people less money and have their product produce by a lower labor cost country and then FTTP:'ed from that lower cost labor country to here. If private companies can get away with this, why shouldn't consumers be allowed to do the same thing?

Before MP3's, there were a group of artists that got together (one of them being Garth Brooks) telling people not to buy used CD's because the artist doesn't get any money for them. That didn't stop anyone from buying used CD's.

Here's where I disagree with you: >>>absurdly low per-song and per-album prices>>>.
Says who? What makes them "absurdly low?"
I think the prices are fair and represent what the market should be charging...not the inflated prices demanded by RIAA "approved" sites. It's time someone took a good, long, hard look at the digital music business model...except that the record companies will never open their books so you could see just how much 99-cents a song is a rip-off to the consumer and big money in their pockets.

Rob:

I'm amazed and appalled that ANYONE would pay one dollar per download.

Look at the physical infrastructure and jobs that are eliminated by transporting sound across the internet. The pressing plant-gone. The packaging, individual and bulk,--gone. Transportation to distribution warehouses--gone. The warehouses--gone. Transportation to retail recording stores--gone. Record stores--gone.

All this replaced by an electronic network, not cheap to build or maintain, but certainly cheaper than everything (and person) that's been eliminated.

Surely the savings should be passed on to the legal downloaders.

A postscript nod to sentiment.
My two favorite local record stores, one specializing in classical, and the other in "roots" music, still exist, but I'm not betting on their long-term existence. If they pass, they'll be mourned. No other part of the old infrastructure elicits much emotion, but these stores are worthy institutions, staffed by experts who are passionate about music.

Talking about the theory of this issue is nice, but isn't what's actually going on in the real world what matters in the end? In 2004 I made a promise to myself to be a good role model for my daughter. That involved only using legal sources for downloading music. That decision led me to 2 years of fighting with such things as corrupted DRM licenses from Napster, software that kept changing ins interface just after I got used to how it worked, and an inability to use a brand new Samsung mp3 player with my Napster and Rhapsody subscriptions, even though the box touted the player as "Napster compatible." It also meant poor audio quality and a switch to having to use Windows Media Player or RealPlayer to play music on my computer. I am totally blind, and these pieces of software do not work very well with my screenreader, lacking the hotkey power of Winamp and contain lots of graphics to be clicked for common tasks. ITunes isn't an option for most blind people since its screen can't be spoken at all. I still need sighted help with Rhapsody and Napster if I want to burn one of my purchased albums on CD or change the order of my playlist.

After 2 years of this mess, I was given a new Olympus player for Christmas. After discovering that it couldn't handle files from Rhapsody either, I finally decided that I was sick of jumping through so many hoops just to get to listen to a song I'd paid for. I went to AllOfMp3, got my Winamp back, and can play my music on my Samsung and my Olympus. I made this choice because I do not believe the members of the RIAA have made a reasonable effort to earn or retain my business. The practical application is simple. I pay $10 or so for an album with DRM that I can only play with Rhapsody and can't listen to on either of my portable devices. On the other hand, I can pay around $2 for the same album in mp3 that I can download with my web browser, play on my devices, and use Winamp to play music without sighted help. In my position, which would you choose?

I have come to believe that the major record labels actually want people to have a hard time obtaining legal digital music both because lawsuits are an easy way to bring in cash and because they think people will cheat them somehow if getting music is too easy. I believe that a business that won't listen to its customers will eventually fail and that the RIAA has created an environment of hostility, distrust, and dislike that undermines the good will of customers. When a company treats its customers as its enemy, there is no way it can win in the long run. Big artists like Tim McGraw or Garth Brooks should use their influence to break the stranglehold the RIAA has on everyone and open a dialog where artists, record companies, and customers work together to find solutions where we all can win. Until the record labels start treating us like valued customers again, services like AllOfMp3 will thrive. As far as I'm concerned, long live AllOfMp3!

Talking about the theory of this issue is nice, but isn't what's actually going on in the real world what matters in the end? In 2004 I made a promise to myself to be a good role model for my daughter. That involved only using legal sources for downloading music. That decision led me to 2 years of fighting with such things as corrupted DRM licenses from Napster, software that kept changing ins interface just after I got used to how it worked, and an inability to use a brand new Samsung mp3 player with my Napster and Rhapsody subscriptions, even though the box touted the player as "Napster compatible." It also meant poor audio quality and a switch to having to use Windows Media Player or RealPlayer to play music on my computer. I am totally blind, and these pieces of software do not work very well with my screenreader, lacking the hotkey power of Winamp and contain lots of graphics to be clicked for common tasks. ITunes isn't an option for most blind people since its screen can't be spoken at all. I still need sighted help with Rhapsody and Napster if I want to burn one of my purchased albums on CD or change the order of my playlist.

After 2 years of this mess, I was given a new Olympus player for Christmas. After discovering that it couldn't handle files from Rhapsody either, I finally decided that I was sick of jumping through so many hoops just to get to listen to a song I'd paid for. I went to AllOfMp3, got my Winamp back, and can play my music on my Samsung and my Olympus. I made this choice because I do not believe the members of the RIAA have made a reasonable effort to earn or retain my business. The practical application is simple. I pay $10 or so for an album with DRM that I can only play with Rhapsody and can't listen to on either of my portable devices. On the other hand, I can pay around $2 for the same album in mp3 that I can download with my web browser, play on my devices, and use Winamp to play music without sighted help. In my position, which would you choose?

I have come to believe that the major record labels actually want people to have a hard time obtaining legal digital music both because lawsuits are an easy way to bring in cash and because they think people will cheat them somehow if getting music is too easy. I believe that a business that won't listen to its customers will eventually fail and that the RIAA has created an environment of hostility, distrust, and dislike that undermines the good will of customers. When a company treats its customers as its enemy, there is no way it can win in the long run. Big artists like Tim McGraw or Garth Brooks should use their influence to break the stranglehold the RIAA has on everyone and open a dialog where artists, record companies, and customers work together to find solutions where we all can win. Until the record labels start treating us like valued customers again, services like AllOfMp3 will thrive. As far as I'm concerned, long live AllOfMp3!

In your blog you state: "[A]bsurdly low per-song and per-album prices (from 15 cents and $1.99 each, respectively)."

Three Points:
(1) At a high quality bit rate, an album costs around $4.00 to $6.00;

(2) Around $5.00 per album is a fair price; and,

(3) Why is paying $1.99 for recordings that in many cases are twenty to fifty years old (The Beatles "Please, Please Me" was released 44 years ago) "absurdly low"?

At the end of your article you state: 'I'd also like to hear from anybody who writes or plays music for a living: Have you gotten a check from AllofMP3 ".

I would also like to hear from anybody who writes or play music for a living: Have you gotten a check from iTunes?

I have been a loyal customer of allofmp3, and I absolutely believe that it is much more ethical than simply downloading pirated music through bittorrent or what-have-you. If the recording companies have chosen not to accept payment, that is their fault and their responsibility, not allofmp3's. My understanding is that the funds are there waiting for them, in an escrow-like arrangement.

The tracks are also extremely reasonably priced, compared to something extortionate like itunes (where buying an album's worth of music will quite often cost you more than actually going to a store and buying the physical cd... Now *THAT* is absurd.)

And, finally, and this is a clincher for me... allofmp3 allows you to choose your own bit-rate and format. Anything from 128, through to lossless formats. Since tracks are variably priced according to the file size (which makes sense, since when you are providing a service on the internet, the bandwidth consumed is what is costing the money. The percentage paid to the artists is therefore also variable. Artists receive more for higher-quality audio tracks than for lower quality ones. {quality in this case meaning just the pure audio quality, not a qualitative assessment of the music!))

ABSURDLY LOW????

Have you ever been to Russia? Perhaps you don't understand that economies around the world differ. Believe it or not, it is actually cheaper in Russia to buy a CD than to download the tracks off allofmp3. Please try to do some research before spouting off next time.

These are the whiniest, most self-centered commenters I've encountered in a long time. I'll give the prize to Monica W., who is using her disability as an excuse for being a thief. If she develops diabetes next, I guess that will give her permission to set up a second AllofMP3 account.

Anyone who avails him or herself of AllofMP3 is just being greedy and inconsiderate. If you value an artist's work enough to want it, you should be willing to pay a fair price for it. A person who chooses to knowingly 'purchase' an artist's work knowing he will never get a penny for it is knowingly stealing from that artist.

thanks to person who referred me over to alltunes to retrieve the rest of my credit. id be p'd if that money was gone. ive been looking at all these sites and there was no direction on where to go to get your money...and here it is...alltunes people. thanks man.