AllofMP3.com

  • 27 February 2006
  • 17 replies
  • 2400 views

I have noticed that a couple people hear have used the site and I decided to check it out. When I noticed the company was based out of Russia I immediately began to think twice about using it. Is this a legal outfit or am I just asking to have my identity stolen? You can't beat the price and the catalogue seems better than ITunes but the whole Russia thing makes me uneasy. Any previous experiences would be helpful. Thanks in advance!

17 replies

Userlevel 2
Badge +1
So I have used them a couple of times, it is a little annoying as you seem to be only able to download song by song. On the security side, I just checked my back account and there is still money in them :)

Guy
I've used it quite a bit and never had any problems. As far as I know noone has ever had their money stolen from them by using Allofmp3.com. They actually use a well-known merchant facility based in the Netherlands (Chronopay) for payments.

As far as downloading one song at a time, you should consider downloading their explorer which allows you to browse and order as well as queues downloads.

Cheers,

Keith
I use there Explorer and it is far better than there web interface.
Userlevel 2
I'll second that, their Explorer is worth using. And with the Explorer and $50 loaded up on your account you can also preview a whole song before buying, as opposed to 30 seconds on their web page. Despite their cheapness, you'll be surprised how quickly you can burn through $50! 🙂
Userlevel 2
I know some peeps who use this as well, and they have not had any financial problems to date.

That being said, you all should be aware you are totally screwing the artists buy using this site. They pay the musicians nothing, or next to nothing; it sort of like if you decided to charge people to download the shit off your ipod. That's what they are doing. Now i dislike the record industry as much as the next guy and think they are clueless, but OTOH I think it's equally wrong to screw the artists. I have a lot less sympathy for Metallica, say, but if you are downloading really small artists it's pretty lame.
They pay the musicians nothing, or next to nothing; it sort of like if you decided to charge people to download the shit off your ipod. That's what they are doing. Now i dislike the record industry as much as the next guy and think they are clueless, but OTOH I think it's equally wrong to screw the artists. I have a lot less sympathy for Metallica, say, but if you are downloading really small artists it's pretty lame.

Do you have a comparison of what record companies pay the artists versus what they get through performing rights licences?

I have a friend who is a recording artist. Rest assured the record companies finance themselves by stiffing artists, especially small ones who usually end up owing the record company for "costs" which are totally unfair and outside the artists control.

Most small artists make far more money from performing rights organisations then they do from CD sales (apparently ringtones normally come under performing rights licences and these have benefitted authors significantly of late)

Allofmp3 do pay performing rights fees and although they are relatively low, if I spend $50 and 10% goes to the artists through performing rights then the artists benefit.

So why is this much different than me buying a song from iTunes for 99c and the artist getting a few cents? Or even me buying the artists songs on a compilation album for the equivalent of 25c a song and the artist owning the record company for the privilage?

The real difference is I buy more, the artists gets more, and the only people really getting stiffed are the record companies (but quite frankly they wouldn't have got most of this money from me anyway).

I'm also buying a much wider range of music from much more obscure artists than ever before, who normally wouldn't have seen a dime from me.

Having seen evidence the corruption, greed, and lies from the record companies (they make accusations about piracy, but they are nothing but privateers), I have no qualms at all about using a service such as allofmp3.com

Keith
Userlevel 2
Trust me, we're in total agreement about record companies.

It's the artists we should focus on. Are you so sure that allofmp3 pays them anything whatsoever?

"allofmp3 is screwing them just as much as everyone else" is just not so convincing of an agrument to me...
This article is related to another Russian site (not as good IMO), but explains the situation nicely:

http://p2pnet.net/story/3098

Hans: What amounts or percentages should we think of when are talking about the royalties you pay? Do you pay royalties per song or is there some other kind of arrangement with ROMS?

Sergei:We pay 10 % of our full income (not of the net income only). ROMS's tariffs will increase beginning from the 1st of January 2005. We do not know yet how far they will increase.

...

Hans: Recently you have changed the pricing from a penny per Mb to $ .10 per song. What was the reason for this change?

Sergei:Many Russian and foreign copyright holders were displeased with such low prices ($0.03 - $0.05 USD) per song, and the price of $0.10 USD satisfies them.

Also this change is to make calculations with our clients much more clear and transparent. In fact, bitrate and size of a file are unimportant both to our clients and copyright holders. That is why it is not reasonable to take money for megabytes.


I don't agree with this last point BTW. I'm absolutely on board with the idea you pay more for higher quality copies. For a start the artists should benefit from this as I can preview their music very cheaply, and if I like it "upgrade" to a better quality in the future.

With allofmp3.com, CD quality music is often as expensive as buying the CD from Amazon (sometimes more).

To compare, one wonders how much royalty money makes its way into the pockets of artists with music services like Yahoo! and Napster where you pay a flat-rate of $15 per month for unlimited music. Over a month I could easily download 300 tracks: that's 5c per track.

Cheers,

Keith
Userlevel 4
Badge +2
With allofmp3.com, CD quality music is often as expensive as buying the CD from Amazon (sometimes more).


That's why I only ever buy original CDs.
Userlevel 2
Badge
That's why I only ever buy original CDs.

Me too - so long as they aren't crippled in some way.

Downloads just don't work for me any more - low quality and drm. No thanks!
Userlevel 2
I'd happily pay a little extra over the amazon.com price for lossless music downloads. lossless music downloads are to me superior to the physical cds because I get them right away and don't have to rip them and then shove them away in a closet.


This article is related to another Russian site (not as good IMO), but explains the situation nicely:

http://p2pnet.net/story/3098



I don't agree with this last point BTW. I'm absolutely on board with the idea you pay more for higher quality copies. For a start the artists should benefit from this as I can preview their music very cheaply, and if I like it "upgrade" to a better quality in the future.

With allofmp3.com, CD quality music is often as expensive as buying the CD from Amazon (sometimes more).

To compare, one wonders how much royalty money makes its way into the pockets of artists with music services like Yahoo! and Napster where you pay a flat-rate of $15 per month for unlimited music. Over a month I could easily download 300 tracks: that's 5c per track.

Cheers,

Keith
Userlevel 2
Badge
I'd happily pay a little extra over the amazon.com price for lossless music downloads. lossless music downloads are to me superior to the physical cds because I get them right away and don't have to rip them and then shove them away in a closet.

Unless the service you download from allows unlimited redownloads you will end up having to burn them to a dvd for backup purposes. Admittedly that would require fewer disks but you'd still have to store them soomewhere. And pay for the blank dvds.
Userlevel 2
Unless the service you download from allows unlimited redownloads you will end up having to burn them to a dvd for backup purposes.

Errmm.. Since when did the DVD Consortium go house to house and force people to use DVDs for backup? That's not even a good media to backup lossless audio on. With a dual-layer DVD (~8GB), you can fit only about 20-ish albums on a disc. And then you have to always worry about the optical media degradation -- the average shelf life of home-burned optical discs is probably less than a decade. No thanks.

Keep your music in a RAID setup (like the Buffalo TeraStation Pro 1.0 TB). That survives hard drive failures. Then do periodic backups to other external hard drives and keep them offsite. That survives floods and hurricane and fires.

You can keep your DVDs.

-=og=-
Userlevel 2
Badge
Errmm.. Since when did the DVD Consortium go house to house and force people to use DVDs for backup? That's not even a good media to backup lossless audio on. With a dual-layer DVD (~8GB), you can fit only about 20-ish albums on a disc. And then you have to always worry about the optical media degradation -- the average shelf life of home-burned optical discs is probably less than a decade. No thanks.

Keep your music in a RAID setup (like the Buffalo TeraStation Pro 1.0 TB). That survives hard drive failures. Then do periodic backups to other external hard drives and keep them offsite. That survives floods and hurricane and fires.

You can keep your DVDs.

-=og=-


Wow - easy dude, it's not like I was telling you what to do 😛

Point is you are still going to have to have some backup procedure in place. If you buy cds and rip them then you already have that backup in place. No need to malarkey around with offsite hard drives and expensive raid setups and the like.

To each his own.
Userlevel 2
I keep all my music on my RAID server, which is mirrored to another RAID server, and also to another PC, and also to my computer at work for an off-site backup. I'm not worried about losing it.

I ALMOST threw away all my physical cds but got a little nervous about the RIAA somehow then coming to my house and wondering why I have so much music but no way to prove I bought it. Instead, I threw out all the jewel cases (replacing with slimline ones) and inserts.




Unless the service you download from allows unlimited redownloads you will end up having to burn them to a dvd for backup purposes. Admittedly that would require fewer disks but you'd still have to store them soomewhere. And pay for the blank dvds.
Userlevel 2
I ALMOST threw away all my physical cds but got a little nervous about the RIAA somehow then coming to my house and wondering why I have so much music but no way to prove I bought it. Instead, I threw out all the jewel cases (replacing with slimline ones) and inserts.

That's a good solution for a problem a lot of us probably face. CDs just take up way too much physical space in their gigantic and fairly fragile jewel cases. Can you elaborate (perhaps in a new thread) on how this worked for you, how much space the slim cases take up vs. regular cases, whether or not you can salvage all the paper from the original CD (liner notes, back, spine, etc.), what issues there are (too thin to browse spines?), etc.

P.S. garty -- I was responding to "you will end up having to burn them to a dvd for backup purposes", which was a concrete statement that makes it sound like that's your only choice. If that works for you, that's awesome, but people should realize there are other (better 😉 IMHO) solutions. And if a RAID setup is too complicated/expensive, you can always just buy an external 300 GB drive for $250, backup ~800 losslessly compressed and properly tagged albums to it, and throw it in a closet.

-=og=-
Userlevel 2
What I did was go to frys and buy multiple boxes of 100 thin-line jewel cases. I picked ones that came in a cardboard box that looked sturday, so that after transferring the disks, I could just keep them densely packed int he box that the jewel cases come in. The boxes of cds+cases were then just stacked in a closet.

I actually after some thought, just threw away all the inserts. I was willing to part with them, because:

1. Its not like I'm going to look at them ever, sitting in a closet.
2. for lyrics, its trivial to find them on line
3. for album art, I already hunt it down for display on the computer, and honestly, album art lost all its luster with the cd format anyway because of the small size.
4. for liner notes, I can find far more interesting articles about any album or band in google than they print with the CDs.




That's a good solution for a problem a lot of us probably face. CDs just take up way too much physical space in their gigantic and fairly fragile jewel cases. Can you elaborate (perhaps in a new thread) on how this worked for you, how much space the slim cases take up vs. regular cases, whether or not you can salvage all the paper from the original CD (liner notes, back, spine, etc.), what issues there are (too thin to browse spines?), etc.

P.S. garty -- I was responding to "you will end up having to burn them to a dvd for backup purposes", which was a concrete statement that makes it sound like that's your only choice. If that works for you, that's awesome, but people should realize there are other (better 😉 IMHO) solutions. And if a RAID setup is too complicated/expensive, you can always just buy an external 300 GB drive for $250, backup ~800 losslessly compressed and properly tagged albums to it, and throw it in a closet.

-=og=-

Reply