text:
Talk:AllOfMP3

Payment methods
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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)

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).

Organised Crime or just dubious copyright
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

MP3 spec and transcoding issue
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * Fair enough, if that's what they do. At least the article is correct now. Thanks. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Legality in Russia
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
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)

 * 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)

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
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)

 * (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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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  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)

Innocent Infringer
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)
 * 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
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)

 * See Magnatune for a counter example to the no DRM on music implies illegal business. Funkyj 22:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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)

 * 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)

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

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

mp3stor.com = allofmp3.com?
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)
 * 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)

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.

advertisement warning
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)

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)

Artist Payment
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

Artist payment redux
(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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Pricing confusion
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)

NPOV
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)

Cleanup
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)

Section "Update about the Danish ISP Tele2" need clarification
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!
1.65 trillion bucks asked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (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)

Unnecessary updates
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)

 * AllOfMP3.com does not have any forums, how are we supposed to go to them? Additionally, the only way to tell XROST's status is to login to XROST. Eztli 03:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 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)

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)

 * Cleaned up the rest of the article too. Have removed the 'february 2007 issues' section - waiting to see what happens. MartinBrook t'' 15:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Japan Credit Bureau?
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)

MP3Sparks.com
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.

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

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Move to AllOfMP3. - hahnch e n 23:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Starting to come back up 7/12/2007
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)
 * 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)

Legal issues should be moved higher up?
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)

 * 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)

Some Recommended Changes to the Article
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)
 * 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)

Lead section
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)

All Of MP3 Replacements
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)

SUGGESTED CHANGES
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"?
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

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)

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.....

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070110055529/http://www.nypost.com/seven/12212006/business/music_labels__nyet_to_russian_pirates_business_peter_lauria.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/12212006/business/music_labels__nyet_to_russian_pirates_business_peter_lauria.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106100423/http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Transcripts/2006/September/asset_upload_file794_9872.pdf to http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Transcripts/2006/September/asset_upload_file794_9872.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201050141/http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6122879.html to http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6122879.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213442/http://www.russianspy.org/2006/10/27/swedish-tele2-will-block-allofmp3com/ to http://www.russianspy.org/2006/10/27/swedish-tele2-will-block-allofmp3com/
 * Added tag to http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=173284
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070322040930/http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/22/allofmp3com-sued-for-165-trillion/ to http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/22/allofmp3com-sued-for-165-trillion/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070110055529/http://www.nypost.com/seven/12212006/business/music_labels__nyet_to_russian_pirates_business_peter_lauria.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/12212006/business/music_labels__nyet_to_russian_pirates_business_peter_lauria.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823070406/http://eng.cnews.ru/news/top/indexEn.shtml?2007%2F07%2F13%2F258719 to http://eng.cnews.ru/news/top/indexEn.shtml?2007%2F07%2F13%2F258719

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

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

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120906024755/http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12348 to http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12348

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

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

title: Talk:AllOfMP3


text:
User:Jamesdacat

Jamesdacat
Jamesdacat or Hemitengeru in maori is one of the contributors to the non profit collective whiriwhiriwhakaro which roughly translates to thought gatherer/weaver ostensibly providing  independent apolitical digital research for free to the grid. Born in Taranaki in November 1976 provides a Scopio Fire Dragon_(Zodiac) personal qualities which prove useful for general invention and esoteric thought processes required in the areas of the organisation he contributes chiefly the, hacking of archaic computation technology for the 21stCent.

whiriwhiriwhakaro

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Jamesdacat


text: Category:Battles of the War of the Spanish Succession


text: Category:Battles of the Napoleonic Wars

title: Category:Battles of the Napoleonic Wars


text:
Diceros

Diceros (Greek: "two" (dio), "horn" (keratos) ) is a genus of rhinoceros containing the extant black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) and several extinct species.

Taxonomy
Diceros is more closely related to the genus Ceratotherium (which contains the white rhinoceros) than it is to other living rhinoceroses, with the clade containing the two comprising the tribe Dicerotini (also spelled Diceroti) or subtribe Dicerotina.

Diceros has been suggested by some authors to have branched off from an early species of Ceratotherium, specifically C. neumayri, which has also been assigned to Diceros in some studies. However, other authors have disputed the close relationship between Diceros and ''"C". neumayri.''

The oldest species assigned to the genus is "Diceros" australis from the Early Miocene of Namibia, dating to around 17-18 million years ago. It is only known from fragmentary remains, and its assignment to the genus, and even to Dicerotini have been questioned by other authors. Other species assigned to the genus include Diceros praecox from the Late Miocene (from about 7 million years ago) and the Pliocene of Sub-Saharan Africa. D. praecox has been suggested by some authors to be the ancestor of the modern D. bicornis. Diceros primaevus is known from the Late Miocene (c. 12-10 million years ago) of Algeria. Diceros douariensis is known from the Late Miocene of Tunisia and possibly Ethiopia. Some authors have assigned this species to ''Ceratotherium.  The species Diceros gansuensis'' has been reported from the Late Miocene of China, dating to around 10 million years ago. The earliest remains assigned to the modern black rhinoceros are known the Late Miocene (around 7 million years ago) of East Africa.

title: Diceros


text:
Firewall (Mankell novel)

Firewall is a crime novel by Swedish author Henning Mankell.

Synopsis
A series of bizarre incidents sweep across Sweden: a man dies in front of an ATM, two young women slaughter an elderly taxi driver, a murder is committed aboard a Baltic Sea ferry, and a sub-station engineer makes a gruesome discovery while investigating the cause of a nationwide power cut. As Wallander investigates, he uncovers a sinister plan to bring the Western world to its knees.

Theme
The major background theme around which the action takes place is the dilemma of the Western economic system versus poverty. The criminal mastermind is a persuasive and talented IT specialist who plans to right the wrongs of the world by deleting vast quantities of money from multinational banks' accounts system, so bringing on a credit and financial panic.

The criminals believe their intended cybercrime is justified; for them the big picture involves the sacrifice of the banking system in order to wipe out third world debt. At a crucial moment Wallander unwittingly manages to persuade a key accomplice that, ethically, there is in fact no big picture, that instead we just have lives that are fragile but also miraculous.

Adaptations
In 2006, Swedish production company Tre Vänner Produktion produced a four-part television miniseries adaptation of Firewall, starring Rolf Lassgård as Wallander. In 2008, British broadcaster BBC One broadcast a 90-minute adaptation as part of its Wallander television series starring Kenneth Branagh.

title: Firewall (Mankell novel)


text:
User talk:Foriskak

Greetings Foriskak,

it appears you are relatively new here, so I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome you aboard. Thanks for updating the Boo.com article, I was suprised to see that it didn't exist already. GregRobson 12:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wheelbase
Hi Foriskak. I like your wheelbase page & illustration - kudos. But could I check out with you whether the first sentence and the second sentence convey different meanings?
 * 1) In automotives, the wheelbase is the distance between the center of the front wheel and the center of the rear wheel.
 * 2) It is equal to the distance of the rear tire from the CG(center of gravity) plus the distance from the front tire to the center of gravity.

I'd have thought that 1, being a straight line, would be shorter than 2, which appears to be a couple of lines which would only describe the straight line if the centre of gravity was on the line between the two centre points; if the CG is not on the straight line connecting the two points, then 2>1 and => 1!=2. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, but, err, I am :) best wishes --Tagishsimon

Hello Foriskak.

I see you uploaded your wheelbase image as a .bmp file. This works fine, but for the type of image you uploaded, .gif files provide better compression and a smaller file size. As a bmp the file takes around 300 kilobytes, but as a gif it's closer to 2 or 3 kilobytes.

I only noticed because I'm on a 56k modem, so it's not a huge issue or anything. It's just something that'll be helpful in the future. Welcome to the community. --Michaeltoe 00:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I have changed the image to wheelbase_2.png. If you don't like it you can change it back... TwoOneTwo 00:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mandalay
Hey Foriskak,

Thanks for your help with the Mandalay article. I was wondering if you could write the captions for the images you put up. Thanks.

--Alsocal 01:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Eucalyptus Globulus AZ.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Eucalyptus Globulus AZ.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Longhair 10:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Query on a section of the "Kiska" article
Hi Foriskak, I was going through the article history on the island of Kiska in Alaska and saw that your edit on 7 August 2004 added this reference about a Navy weatherman who hid on the island after the Japanese invasion: One member of the detachment escaped for 50 days. Starving, thin, and extremely cold he finally surrendered to the Japanese. The next day Attu was captured by the Japanese.

This reference is still on the current article for Kiska.

I'm an animation student currently researching this topic for a one minute film project I'm doing, and this anecdote has really grabbed my attention. It's quite dramatic and is almost like an American echo of Hiroo Onoda. I was wondering though if you have any more information on this anecdote, perhaps who this person was, what his name was, where he came from or what his fate was after the war... Or even just what source you encountered this information in. Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated! If you'd prefer to email me the information rather than using a publicly viewable form like this, or if you have any reasons for not giving out such information I understand. Just let me know and I'll give you my email address.

Again, thanks for the help!

--Altima 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Foriskak


text:
Dicerorhinus

Dicerorhinus (Greek: "two" (dio), "horn" (keratos), "nose" (rhinos) ) is a genus of the family Rhinocerotidae, consisting of a single extant species, the two-horned Sumatran rhinoceros (D. sumatrensis), and several extinct species. The genus likely originated in the Mid to Late Pliocene of Northern Indochina and South China. Many species previously placed in this genus probably belong elsewhere''. ''

Taxonomy
Species provisionally considered valid include:
 * †Dicerorhinus fusuiensis  originally described as Rhinoceros fusuiensis  Early Pleistocene, South China.
 * †Dicerorhinus gwebinensis Zin-Maung-Maung-Thein et al., 2008 Known from a skull of Pliocene-Early Pleistocene age found in Myanmar. Some authors have considered the skull not distinguishable from that of D. sumatrensis.

Historically, Dicerorhinus was a wastebasket taxon. Revisions by several authors over the years have removed many species:

Transferred to Stephanorhinus
 * Dicerorhinus merckii
 * Dicerorhinus hemitoechus
 * Dicerorhinus etruscus
 * Dicerorhinus yunchuchenensis
 * Dicerorhinus jeanvireti
 * Dicerorhinus choukoutienensis (synonym of Merck's rhinoceros)
 * Dicerorhinus orientalis (synonym of Merck's rhinoceros)
 * Dicerorhinus nipponicus

Transferred to Dihoplus
 * Dicerorhinus megarhinus
 * Dicerorhinus schleiermacheri
 * Dicerorhinus ringstroemi

Transferred to Caementodon
 * Dicerorhinus caucasicus

Transferred to Lartetotherium
 * Dicerorhinus sansaniensis
 * Dicerorhinus cixianensis Chen and Wu, 1976

Transferred to Rusingaceros
 * Dicerorhinus leakeyi

Placement of the Sumatran rhinoceros among recent and subfossil rhinoceros species based on nuclear genomes (Liu, 2021)

Bayesian morphological phylogeny (Pandolfi, 2023) Note: This excludes living African rhinoceros species.

title: Dicerorhinus


text:
Magic Roundabout (Swindon)

The Magic Roundabout in Swindon, England, is a ring junction constructed in 1972 consisting of five mini-roundabouts arranged in a circle. Located near the County Ground, home of Swindon Town F.C., its name comes from the popular children's television series The Magic Roundabout. In 2009, it was voted the fourth-scariest junction in Britain.

Concept
The roundabout was constructed according to the design of Frank Blackmore, of the British Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Traffic flow around the inner circle is anticlockwise, and traffic flows in the usual clockwise manner around the five mini-roundabouts on the outer loop.

The roundabout
The complex junction offers multiple paths between feeder roads. The outer circle carries traffic in a clockwise direction, like a normal roundabout (in places where traffic drives on the left side of the road), and less proficient users may choose to use only the outer circle. The inner circle carries traffic in an anticlockwise direction, and more proficient users may choose to use the alternative paths.

Virtually the same overall configuration has been in place for 51 years.

When the roundabout complex was first opened, the mini-roundabouts were not permanently marked out and could be reconfigured while the layout was fine-tuned. A police officer was stationed at each mini roundabout during this pilot phase to oversee how drivers coped with the unique arrangement.

The roundabout is built over a section of the old Wilts & Berks Canal—Swindon wharf. A narrow, stone bridge built c. 1810, which is a Grade II listed building, carried the old Saxon way known as Drove Road over the canal half a mile (800 m) east of the town centre. Its site became covered by Drove Roundabout, which was later redeveloped as the Magic Roundabout. A wharf occupied one edge and the area was known as the Marsh. The Wilts & Berks Canal Trust are currently in negotiations with Swindon Council to include in the New Swindon Regeneration Framework plans to restore the canal through the town centre. The restoration would use the route of the North Wilts Canal and not the main West Vale route that the Magic Roundabout sits over. The North Wilts Canal was a separate branch which exited the town northwards through Moredon.

A calendar is produced each year by the UK Roundabout Appreciation Society depicting the town's finest examples. The official name of the roundabout used to be County Islands, but it was changed in the late 1980s to match its popular name.

In 2005, it was voted the worst roundabout in a survey of the general public by a UK insurance company. In September 2007, the Magic Roundabout was named as one of the world's worst junctions by a UK motoring magazine. In December 2007, BBC News reported a survey identifying The Magic Roundabout as one of the "10 Scariest Junctions in the United Kingdom"; however, the roundabout provides a better throughput of traffic than other designs and has an excellent safety record, since traffic moves too slowly to do serious damage in the event of a collision.

In 2010, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program concluded that the roundabout reduces injurious crashes by three quarters.

The roundabout in Drove Road is not the only one in Swindon that worked on the same principle; until recently, the roundabout at Bruce Street Bridges had a similar layout, but had only four entry/exit points. It was converted into a conventional roundabout in 2016.

title: Magic Roundabout (Swindon)


text:
Royal Engineers A.F.C.

The Royal Engineers Association Football Club is an association football team representing the Corps of Royal Engineers, the 'Sappers', of the British Army and based in Chatham, Kent. In the 1870s, it was one of the strongest sides in English football, winning the FA Cup in 1875 and being Cup finalists in three of the first four seasons. The Engineers were pioneers of the combination game, where teammates passed the ball to each other rather than kicking ahead and charging after the ball. With the rise of professional teams, in 1888 the Engineers joined a newly formed Army Football Association.

History

The club was founded in 1863, under the leadership of Major Francis Marindin; the earliest game recorded for the Engineers against a non-military side is a 3–0 home win over No Names Club in March 1867. Sir Frederick Wall, who was the secretary of The Football Association 1895–1934, stated in his memoirs that the "combination game" was first used by the Royal Engineers A.F.C. in the early 1870s. Wall states that the "Sappers moved in unison" and showed the "advantages of combination over the old style of individualism".

Contemporary match reports confirm that passing was a regular feature of the Engineers' style. An 1869 report says they "worked well together" and "had learned the secret of football success – backing up"; whereas their defeated opponents had "a painful want of cooperation". In February 1871 against Crystal Palace it is noted that "Lieut. Mitchell made a fine run down the left, passing the ball to Lieut. Rich, who had run up the centre, and who pinched another [goal]"

By early 1868, a contemporary match report states "For the R.E.s Lieuts Campbell, Johnson and Chambers attracted especial attention by their clever play"

Another contemporary match report clearly shows that by 1870, ball passing was a feature of the Engineers style: "Lieut. Creswell, who having brought it up the side then kicked it into the middle to another of his side, who kicked it through the posts the minute before time was called"

The Engineers used their team playing style with effect against the Wanderers, a side considered as early as 1870 to be the MCC of football. In a match of March 1871 against Wanderers their victory was due to "irreproachable organisation" and in particular that both their attacks and their backing up were both "so well organised" In November 1871 similar passing tactics are described in a contemporary account of a game against the Wanderers in which two goals were scored through tactical passing: "Betts, however, soon seized his opportunity, and by a brilliant run down the left wing turned the ball judiciously to Currie, who as judiciously sent it flying through the strangers' goal in first rate style" Later in the match it is reported that "Lieut G Barker, turning the ball to Lieut Renny-Tailyour who planted it between the posts" "Turning" the ball clearly points to the short pass.

There is evidence that opponents sometimes adjusted their playing style to counteract the organisation and passing of the Engineers. For example, in February 1872 against Westminster School, a brief contemporary match report states that: "The school captain took the precaution of strengthening his backs, deputizing HDS Vidal to cooperate with Rawson and Jackson and so well did these three play in concert... they succeeded in defying the... RE forwards". What is most notable about this report is that it confirms that the Royal Engineers "played beautifully together" That the engineers were the first side to break the trend of dribbling is shown in a contemporary account of their victory against Crystal Palace in early 1872. This said that: "very little dribbling was displayed"

The Engineers played in the first-ever FA Cup Final, losing 1–0 at Kennington Oval on 16 March 1872, to regular rivals Wanderers. They also lost the 1874 Final, to Oxford University A.F.C.

The Royal Engineers were the first football team to go on a tour, to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield in 1873. Wall's memoirs state that this tour introduced the combination game to Sheffield and Nottingham. In 1875 the Engineers won the FA Cup, considered their greatest triumph. In the final against Old Etonians, they drew 1–1 with a goal from Renny-Tailyour and went on to win the replay 2–0 with a further goal from Renny-Tailyour after a goal from a scrimmage.

The winning side was:
 * Capt. W. Merriman; Lt. G.H. Sim; Lt. G.C. Onslow; Lt. R.M. Ruck; Lt. P.G. von Donop; Lt. C.K. Wood; Lt. H.E. Rawson; Lt. W.F.H. Stafford; Lt. H. W. Renny-Tailyour; Lt. A. Mein; and Lt. C. Wingfield-Stratford.

Their last FA Cup Final appearance came in 1878, again losing to the Wanderers. The Engineers continued to compete until the introduction of qualifying rounds in 1888–89, but with ever diminishing returns; in the first round in 1884–85, the club lost 10–1 at Great Marlow, the club's heaviest competitive defeat. Its final tie in the competition was a 5–1 defeat at the Crusaders of Brentwood in the first qualifying round in 1888–89.

Summary of the Royal Engineers early playing style
The evidence above contains detailed descriptions of passing that are lacking in reports of the 1872 Glasgow international. For example, in a lengthy account the Scotsman newspaper makes no mention of passing or combination by the Scottish team and specifically describes the Scottish attacks in terms of dribbling: "The Scotch now came away with a great rush, Leckie and others dribbling the ball so smartly that the English lines were closely besieged and the ball was soon behind" and "Weir now had a splendid run for Scotland into the heart of his opponents' territory". Although the Scottish team are acknowledged to have worked better together during the first half, this contemporary account acknowledges that in the second half England played similarly: "During the first half of the game the English team did not work so well together, but in the second half they left nothing to be desired in this respect. " The Scotsman concludes that the difference in styles in the first half is the advantage the Queens' Park players had "through knowing each others' play" as all came from the same club. Unlike the 1872 Glasgow international, the contemporary evidence above shows that the Engineers' team playing style benefited their team play by winning games. Similarly, the 5 March 1872 match between Wanderers and Queens Park contains no evidence of ball passing.

The early accounts all confirm that the Engineers were the first club to play a passing game of cooperation and organisation with both their forwards and their defence. Although they could also play rough – as would be expected for an army team – The Engineers are the first side to be considered to play the football "beautifully". All of these developments occurred before and independent of the 1872 match between England and Scotland.

Ireland
It was not only in England that the Engineers helped pioneer association football. While stationed in Ireland during the early 1900s the Royal Engineers, together with other British Army regimental teams organised and competed in local competitions. In 1902–03 the Engineers won the Munster Senior Cup. The regiment also entered teams in the Munster Senior League.

Later years
Professionalism arrived in Northern England in the 1880s, with the Football League starting in 1888. In the early years, the Engineers was one of several amateur teams who could defeat the professionals in challenge matches.

The Army Football Association was formed in 1888. Its teams were organised by battalion, and later by regiment.

The Engineers' Depot Battalion won the FA Amateur Cup in 1908.

On 7 November 2012, the Royal Engineers played against the Wanderers in a rematch of the 1872 FA Cup Final at The Oval. Unlike the actual final, the Engineers won, and by a large margin, 7–1 being the final score.

Ladies team

In 2014, Keith Stubbs founded the REAFC Ladies squad which runs in line with the male squad.

Veterans

REAFC have a serving veterans team that play in exhibition type games. Recently the "Vets" have played games against the House of parliament and invited to some prestigious events.

Colours
The club has worn scarlet and blue hoops since its foundation in 1863.

Ground
The club plays on the Chatham Lines, originally marking out a pitch where available, but now a formal set of pitches at the barracks.

Honours

 * FA Cup
 * Winners: 1875
 * Runners-up: 1872, 1874, 1878
 * FA Amateur Cup
 * Winners: 1908
 * Munster Senior Cup
 * Winners: 1902–03

Army FA Challenge Cup
Various regiments and battalions within the RE Corps have won the Army FA Challenge Cup:
 * Service Bn: Won 1903; Runners-up 1904, 1905
 * Depot Bn: Won 1907
 * Training Bn: Won 1937
 * Barton Stacey: Won 1947
 * 4th Training Bn: Won 1950, 1957, 1958
 * 4th Divisional Engineers: Won 1969
 * 32nd Engineer Regiment: Won 1970; Runner-up 1971
 * Training Regiments: Won 1980; Runner-up 1991, 1993
 * 28 [Amphibious] Engineer Regiment: Won 1981, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002; Runner-up 1983, 1988
 * 40 Army Engineer Support Group: Runner-up 1985

England
The following six Royal Engineers players played for England. The number of caps gained while playing for club is in brackets.

 * Horace Barnet (1 cap)
 * Alfred Goodwyn (1 cap)
 * Herbert Rawson (1 cap)
 * Bruce Russell (1 cap)
 * Pelham von Donop (2 caps)
 * Cecil Wingfield-Stratford (1 cap)

Scotland
The following played for Scotland.

 * John Edward Blackburn (1 cap)
 * Henry Renny-Tailyour (1 cap)

title: Royal Engineers A.F.C.


text: Category:Battles of the Crusades

title: Category:Battles of the Crusades


text: Category:Battles of the Hundred Years' War


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madness Temple

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 07:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Madness Temple
There's no point in it. Madness Temple is an enclosed forum. We rarely get new users. If someone wanted to know about the site, they's actaully visit it or type it into google. This article does not serve a purpose at all. Can we be rid of it again, please?

Jakemcmahon 16:50, July 13, 2004 (GMT)

 * Delete, just another message board. Dcarrano 18:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable message board. JamesBurns 08:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

An apparently non-notable website created a few days ago. So new it does not even have an Alexa ranking. Andris 12:24, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. Vanity/advert; delete. Lupo 12:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the idiots from my board (yeah, the temple) trolling this page. Note: the page was created by a non-admin member. I believe you both have a point, and support the deletion of this page. Alreadyinuse 12:44, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi, I'm one of the people that created the Temple. I can assure you it was a member who created the entry. However, if you wish to delete it... then you will, I suppose. Which is a shame, as it's a completely valid site. The only decent case you have against it is the Alexa thing. Never mind. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * What he said
 * Comment I'm another person from the Temple, yes its new, but why should that mean it gets deleted. freakimus
 * Because it is non-noteable, and also because Wikipedia is not a web directory. Lupo 12:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising new sites; even a "spin-off" of Slashdot probably wouldn't make it here. --Ianb 12:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess this is a losing battle (and quite a pointless one at that) but the fact is that Madness Temple is a fast-growing community. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The point isn't that it's a fast-growing community- it's that the temple isn't really a notable site. b3ta has tens of thousands of members, it has got a lot of press attention and it is very well known around the web community. Madness temple has been up for about five days. Hardly anyone knows about it, and it's done nothing particularly important. Yet. Alreadyinuse 13:00, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We'll see what happens in the future. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Comment Hi, I'm the guy who wrote the piece...I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to inform about various issues, including sites on the Internet? I wrote the piece from a neutral standpoint as requested (writing only to inform, as is the whole point, and without giving an opinion either way) and stressed heavily the fact that it was new and a b3ta spin-off of sorts. I didn't realise that Wikipedia only lists major sites; to me, that seems rather moot, as everyone knows all about the major sites anyway. I felt the MT had enough noteworthy stuff on it to deserve a place here, hence my entry. Heh, please don't bash, 'twas an honest mistake if it can really be considered as such. Feral.

 * Delete: Wikipedia does not offer web guide functions.  Geogre 13:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete - neither notable nor encyclopedic - the sort of article that makes me think that the criteria for speedy deletion should be more widely drawn. Cutler 22:49, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory/promotional tool. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.