Slashdot Log In
BPI Sue AllOfMp3 In British Courts
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Jul 03, 2006 09:47 AM
from the just-try-and-make-it-stick dept.
from the just-try-and-make-it-stick dept.
Ckwop writes "AllOfMp3 is getting sued by the British Phonographic Industry. From the article:
"We have maintained all along that this site is illegal and that the operator of the site is breaking UK law by making sound recordings available to UK-based customers without the permission of copyright owners. Now we will have the opportunity to demonstrate in the UK courts the illegality of this site."
" The issue of course will be whether any injunction will be enforceable or not.
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: UK Recording Industry Wants Allofmp3 An Issue at G8 248 comments
alveraan writes "According to a the BBC, 'the UK recording industry is urging the foreign secretary to raise the issue of Russian bargain music download website allofmp3.com at the G8 summit'. British Phonographic Industry (BPI) chairman Peter Jamieson wants Margaret Beckett to 'urge the Russian government to take action against the operators of the site by insisting that it is removed from the internet'. Allofmp3 has insisted in the past that it is operating in compliance with Russian copyright laws."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
So they sue.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder who will pay the High Court costs of the whole affair. Artists? Perhaps an increase in fees. Consumers? Without a doubt. Shareholders? Nope.
Re:So they sue.... (Score:5, Informative)
Has it ever occurred to you that many artists and consumers are shareholders?
Parent
Re:So they sue.... (Score:3, Interesting)
it would only stop the least technically inclined users, unless the BPI is going to set up a China-grade firewall around *.uk.
Re:So they sue.... (Score:4, Interesting)
There's simply no framework to require them to filter it - they don't filter anything else, why this?
A friend who used to work at an ISP says the reason UK ISPs are so against filtering is it would jepoardise their common carrier status - at the moment they're not legally liable if someone accesses kiddie porn over their connection.. once they have filtering in place it one judgement to remove their immunity and force them to filter *everything* that could get them into trouble.
Parent
Blowing in the wind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:4, Insightful)
A) To prove that it is illegal in britian.
B) So that they can increase political pressure on the Russian Government. ie "AllofMp3.com is operating illegally in other countries please bring your laws in line with ours or we'll continue to impose tarrifs on XXX Russian goods." (Obviously this isn't a direct a plea by the MPAA but one made through other governments and possibly made through the WTO as the result of lobbying)
Parent
Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:5, Informative)
Nyet, tovarish. The amount of gas that we get from Russia puts us in a very weak position when it comes to bargaining with them.
Parent
Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:3, Funny)
BPI: "OK, we've proved in court that you're illegal. Shut that site down or we raise the price of CDs shipped to Russia. Maybe we'll even *stop* shipping CDs to Russia!"
AllOfMp3: "Oooh, we're scared!! Just kidding!! Go ahead and shut down shipments. People will buy more downloads and we could use the extra revenue..."
Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:4, Informative)
What is the "it" that you are referring to? I don't think anybody thinks it's legal for somebody to set up an AllOfMP3 in the UK that pays license fees in accordance with Russian law.
And, while the BPI have claimed otherwise [bbc.co.uk] to the press (and had their claims blindly repeated), it is not illegal [opsi.gov.uk] for people in the UK to download from AllOfMP3.
So what, exactly, are they trying to prove is illegal? One thing nobody thinks is legal anyway, and one thing is actually legal.
Parent
Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:5, Informative)
That's a good point. My brother is a lawyer and I asked his opinion on it. His area of expertise is far removed from intellectual property but I suspect his opinion is still many times that of your average Slashdotter. Here's what he said:
The BPI have a lot of money but cases like this are nothing like OJ. There's no jury in cases like this in the United Kingdom. The law is applied as it is written and this means that even if you have all the money in the world, you can't buy a judgement. There's a good chance they will lose.
Simon
Parent
Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:3, Funny)
1)
BPI: "Russians bad! Stop Russians!"
JUDGE: "Russia != UK, bugger off"
2)
BPI: "Russians bad!"
JUDGE: "Indeed."
BPI: "Stop Russians!"
JUDGE: "Wish I could mate. But... Russia != UK?"
BPI: "Customers bad! Stop customers!"
JUDGE: "Speak to the government if you want that legislation."
Re:Blowing in the wind (Score:3, Interesting)
AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to say that AllOfMP3 is doing something right, and it shouldn't be ignored by the music industry.
I've spent about $200 since discovering the site a few months back. That's particularly interesting given that I've probably spent a total of $200 on music *period* in the last five years. I'm now entirely a downloader when it comes to music, and I do not listen, download or accept DRM'ed music or music that's under 320k quality.
I'm sure I'm not alone. Rather than shutting down AllOfMP3, the industry might want to pay attention to the hundreds of thousands of people who are actually spending on music and haven't done so in years.
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Irrelevent (Score:3, Interesting)
You are sacrificing culture and freedom.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Musicians play and meet their fans, they sing, play, compose and perform.
A "recording artist" is not such. People expecting to make a living from recordings are dishonouring the profession.
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:5, Insightful)
Most full albums are selling for less than $2. And it's the content owners that get to set prices, not a web site. That's the problem. And complex international legality and copyright issues aside, they don't really own the content - they're treating themselves as if they're a radio station that lets people download whatever they want, whenever they want, and keep it. This isn't really about "failing business models" or anything of the kind.
The real question is this, and try to answer it without muddying the waters with talk of copyrights and the thuggery of trade groups: when, how, and under what circumstances are the people who CREATE and/or OWN content allowed to set pricing on their own materials? Remember that record labels, however good or evil you think them, have legitimate ownership of the content within the bounds of society's frameworks on such matters. Other countries and jurisdictions may view the issue differently, but ultimately, there can't be entities that decide it's up to them to undercut others' rights.
Try to think of yourself as, say, and author, and a new Russian site called AllOfBook.com opens, and sells your book without your permission or that of your publisher for about 1/10 or 1/20 of what it sells for elsewhere. (Yes, I realize that AllOfMP3.com believes it has a license to do this legally, but that is arguably AT MOST valid only in Russia, besides which, let's just forget about that for a moment.) Is what they're doing right? Is that just part of the cost of doing business? "Oh well"? What if they also sold pre-printed hard copies of your book (the essentially equivalent of selling lossless DRMless audio content)? What inherent rights do you think you, or the people who help print, distribute, publicize, and sell your work, have to that work product? Can someone else take it because a legal interpretation in their country allows them to make that decision for you not only in their jurisdiction, but the entire world over?
Your point that you've spend money on music when you never have before is valid. But would you have spent as much if the full albums were $4? $8? $10? What if $2 isn't enough to sustain the current production models for music? I realize that there's this desire to say "change your business model, then!" or "they'll make up for it in volume, since this is electronic distribution!" But what if they DON'T WANT to sell it for $2? Isn't that their choice, and your choice to not buy it? Do you think AllOfMP3.com, aside from your PERSONAL opinions on the RIAA, BPI, etc., could exist in the US or EU legally? If not, why should people in those places be able to buy from it?
I suppose at some level you can always argue that you personall disagree with copyright, or with the big record labels and trade groups, or that artists are abused in the current system, or that politicians' hands are in the pockets of the industry, and so on and so on and so on.
But it still continues to ignore basic thing: even if you erase all that, do you still believe that the creator of a work should have some rights to that work, including the choice of how much to ask in return for that work?
If you say yes, then we're getting somewhere. If you say no, I don't think this discussion would prove fruitful.
But if you've said yes, consider:
- That a society's legal framework may offer protections for such work, and punishments for not following those guidelines.
- That an artist may elect to involve others in the distribution, sale, promotion, packaging, and so on, of his work, and that those entities may be entitled to protections and remuneration as well.
- That there may be agreements between nations that attempt to insure that such work isn't sold for orders of magnitude less than what the creator and/or their agents intends to sell it for.
I could, of course, continue. So I guess the ultimate question is this, and forget about all the trade groups, labels, posturing, "information wants to be free", and all the other crap that always swirls around this debate: does a creator have the right to ask what he or she so desires for compensation?
(And the followons: If so, what if a site like AllOfMP3.com is too low? Etc.)
Parent
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay.. let's LET the artists set their own royalty rate -- note that I said the actual artists, not the mythical "content owners" (which usually means the distributor, ie. RIAA cartel members).
Just as a starting point, let's set the download royalty at what the artists are SUPPOSED to be paid by their RIAA masters, rather than what they are ACTUALLY paid after all "costs" are deducted (see htt [negativland.com]
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a period when most of our albums were on allofmp3.
So you might think I'm just bitter. Well, it goes beyond that.
They had two EPs of ours available for sale. Interestingly enough, we actually *give* those EPs away free on the internet - internet promotion, viral advertising, all that crap. These EPs were also mp3-only - high quality digital masters do not exist outside my studio.
So how, exactly, does a consumer paying a premium to download a wav file that wa
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe it or not, neither the RIAA nor the BPA was set up to safeguard the wellbeing of Russian con artists.
You missed the point. The point is that whoever is making the money, allofmp3.com is wildly successful, and would continue to be wildly successful at a considerably higher price point. The point is that even though people *could* download the same music for free from the P2P networks, the quality, convenience and ease of use provided by allofmp3.com convinces them to spend real money for the music. In every case I know (anecdotal evidence, but it's all we've got), the discovery of allofmp3.com caused people to *increase* their spending on music. The record industry needs to realize that it's more valuable to increase the number of dollars flowing into the system than it is to keep the price per song high, or to retain control of the distribution system. The point is that the RIAA membership should try emulating allofmp3.com, rather than shutting it down.
They won't, of course, because they're blind.
Parent
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:5, Insightful)
So.... RIAA is "blind" and should not only allow AllOfMp3 to continue its' illegal activities, but EMULATE them? What should they do, sell pirated copies of Stephen King's e-books?
I sure hope you're actually trying to miss the point, because if you're doing it unintentionally... wow.
No, the RIAA members should put up their own site(s) using the same model as allofmp3.com to sell their music. They'd wipe out ITMS in a heartbeat, kill most music sharing on the P2P networks and make a boatload of money. But they won't, because they're blind.
Parent
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:5, Insightful)
While the selling of western music on allofmp3.com is questionable, certainly for many Russians and people loving Russian and other foreign music who live abroad, allofmp3.com is the *only* source for a lot of foreign (Russian, Ukranian, etc) music. You cannot buy Hi-Fi on CD in an american store. Nor can you find a lot of this kind of music on the download networks. It's just not there. For these people, allofmp3.com is a godsend.
One thing that allofmp3.com demonstrates is that people are willing to spend money (a lot of money) on music when you can offer the music in the formats that *the customers want*. From what I've seen allofmp3.com provides sufficient value to customers that it is actually cheaper to buy from allofmp3.com than to download from the peer-to-peer networks. I even find that it's easier and cheaper for me to buy albums off of allofmp3.com than to even rip my own CDs. That's the kicker. And that's the thing the RIAA has failed to grasp. Even at 10 cents a track and without any DRM, they could be making a fortune.
Parent
Big props to parent (Score:3, Interesting)
I once did a rough calculation on the true marginal cost of distributing music online. It was something like 0.3 cents a tune -- and this was with a woefully inefficient, viz. my laptop. About a third of the cost was power, and half the power cost is my laptop display, which would be unnecessary with a similar but headless setup.
So at 10 cents a track, the gross profit margin would be 'round 95 percent.
Re:Big props to parent (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Big props to parent (Score:3)
"aw crap, my hard drive just crashed with those five CDs I bought last week and hadn't backed up yet. No biggie, I'll just shell out five more dollars and buy all five albums again, right now, because it's so cheap"
Or, "Oh, man, you have to hear this song... I've got it at home... eh, fuck it, I'll just buy another one here for
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:5, Insightful)
None of that $200 would have gone to the artists anyways, it all goes to the RIAA mafia. Why are you happy with that?
> See, the industry is actually only interested in people paying money for music if that money is going to the industry and the artists. Believe it or not, neither the RIAA nor the BPA was set up to safeguard the wellbeing of Russian con artists.
See, the industry is actually only interested in people paying money for music if that money is going to the industry, and to hell with the artists. Neither the RIAA nor the BPA was set up to safeguard the wellbeing of any artists.
Fixed it for you.
The Russian mob is providing better product, at a better price, than RIAA, who are merely the the government-approved mob in charge of the US music racket.
The situation is eerily similar to the Numbers Game [wikipedia.org], in which the (Italian) Mafia ran a gambling operation that took in a rake of 20-40%. They were promptly run out of business for the (government) Mafia, wherein the "legal" lotteries take in a rake of 50% and higher. The private mob gave better odds of winning to bettors, but the government's mob had the guns.
When Fedland collapses, I'm moving to an American Mafia town. Uncle Enzo's Cosa Nostra Pizza for the win!
Parent
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:4, Insightful)
When my band's album sells, you know how much money from the sale goes to the RIAA?
Absolutely nothing.
The label I'm on is not an RIAA member. In fact, the vast bulk of indie labels aren't. For every CD sold, we get $2.50. That's a pretty awesome deal. Granted, we don't get a studio advance, and we don't sell thousands of albums, but...still.
So it pains me that allofmp3 sells my stuff and gives me, or the label that works so hard to promote my music, nary a red cent. It pains me even more that people repeatedly justify buying from such a place with statements as "the artists wouldn't see any of it anyway" or "it's the RIAA's fault."
Parent
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:4, Interesting)
I came to shop and cashed out €18 for old Queen's album The Works. How much of that went to artists?
€5-7 is retailer's fee. about €10 is label fee. So how much went to artist? I wonder.
[ You really seem to work for RIAA/whatever. You speak too well. Or if not, talk to them - probably they are hiring now for astroturf campaing. You would fit. ]
The point here is that people want art on their conditions, not on conditions of labels. It's simple as that. And at moment there are no other ways to easily buy music. Read any review on how subscription model works in real life and what kind of PITA it can be. (At least for some people Apple's iTMS kind'a works - better than nothing).
Just try to get that in your head: it's not about money, it's about music. It's not about industry - it's about art and music. Ring any bells?
I think the all story with "recorded music" is just bluff. Now how do I understand the russian copyright law. The law is quite simple. The performace is what artist is paid for. I can record the performance and (granted that I have paid artist the fee for performance) I would own the recording I did (with copyrights etc). It's my recording of her/his performance. I can make money selling the recording. Artists can go on doing money by performing. It's easy as that. Nobody is robbed, as RIAA/BPI/IFPI/friends try to tell everybody. Artist has to pay taxes from the profits s/he makes performing. If I would be distributing recording, I would need a license for that from gov't and of course I will pay taxes too. (*)
As much as idealistically it sounds, I think such model can work: only way for artists to profit is to perform. Not like the starlets a la Britney Spears, living off huge promotional and ad campaigns. They have to perform. No performance - no money. I think it's even logical.
In the end, as live music fan, I can tell that in reality that how it is works. Recorded music is in quantity - but it will never beat the quality of live performance. All best music I ever heard in my life was in Dresdner "Blue Note" cafe sitting against musicians play live jazz.
(*) I hope I did not infriged your copyrights for quoting *your* words in *my* comment? Or would you sue me for that??
Parent
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot has finally bottomed: basic literacy now marks you as teh man.
Parent
Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
British Pornographic Industry?! (Score:3, Funny)
I think I've been on the Internet for far too long...
easy to enforce it. disconnect britain from web. (Score:2)
some of these parochial old twits should really get out of the club more often, look around, and see the hansom cabs have been replaced by buses.
There's no such thing as bad press... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they weren't able to take down PirateBay **in the EU**, what chance have they got to take down Allofmp3 in Russia?
Re:There's no such thing as bad press... (Score:3, Insightful)
Particularly not when that press has a picture in the top corner of the article with the caption "the website offers Keane's number one album for less than a pound". That sounds almost like an advert to me.
I'm not sure they're aiming for a takedown. I suspect they're aiming to seize assets, which is much easier.
Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Funny)
So you can be sued for breaking licensing laws in the countries where consumers are?
This is disturbing, because the way the internet works is that its like a load of tubes (not trucks) and some of these connect different countries. So you could be sued for publishing something on the internet if its illegal in any country where it can be read, in theory.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Funny)
You owe me a new keyboard, preferbably wireless with an LCD, did phantom ever come out with the full lcd keyboard?
Typical for British law enforcement (Score:5, Funny)
"Stop! Or I shall say 'stop' again!"
Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
shopping around... (Score:5, Insightful)
And please spare me any arguments centering on making sure that artists are compensated for their work. That isn't what the recording labels are about, and the argument is particularly spurious when you consider the types of artists that are represented on allofmp3.com. Good luck trying to find a small or independent musician on there.
The business model works (Score:5, Insightful)
- The choice of bitrate.
- The choice of quality (vbr/etc)
- A choice of albums which are simply not available on other sites like itunes.
- Reliable service, friendly staff
- Often has new albums well before other music stores have them.
- VERY competitive pricing.
- NO DRM.
Now taking into account that they apparently are not paying enough for the rights to the music or whatever it may well be, the business model works, even if I had to pay 20cents for each song or 40cents US for each song I would still go with Allofmp3.com because they offer a service to the consumer that works.I can download the music and play it where I want when I want. So here the recording companies are in a sticky spot, they know that the consumers want that model and they are trying to restrict it as much as possible. I believe in paying for music and I believe that the artists should get paid for the music but there comes a point in time when your getting ripped off, and that is how the record companies and recording industry has been for such a long time and now they are wondering why there has been such a revolt.... Here Warner is offering 2.5bn for EMI and visa versa yet will that REALLY benefit the musicians, the end user.. Hell no its only going to make share holders richer which is going to screw me, and you and whoever else listens to music.
Re:Did somebody else read that... (Score:3, Funny)
Shut who down? (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, this applies equally well to the two of them. The record labels in North America claim that they have legally valid contracts that give them the right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists. I question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.
AllOfMP3 claim that they have the legal right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists, in compliance with Russian copyright law. You question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.
Parent
Re:Shut who down? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in a situation where the artist's royalties havent paid back their advance and not made a dime, they still got flown around the world, went to wild parties and got fed and put up in great hotels at the record companies expense. I dont see this russian website donating money towards recording studio fees, do you?
Criticising the record biz is fine with me, its when people sue the lack of perfect competition in that industry to justify wholesale copyright theft, as a thin excuse to get cheap or free music, that it bugs people.
There is no law preventing unsigned artists releasing their music for free on the web. The fact that most choose not to shows that they *do* actually want to be paid for their work.
Parent
Re:Shut who down? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even in a situation where the artist's royalties havent paid back their advance and not made a dime, they still got flown around the world, went to wild parties and got fed and put up in great hotels at the record companies expense. I dont see this russian website donating money towards recording studio fees, do you?
Where the hell is this relevant? The artists chose those t
Re:Shut who down? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's hard to make money on the web, it's a very crowded place. Some musicians try to cut out the middle men by licensing legitimate copies of their own material, see Cerebral Sounds [cerebralsounds.com] for instance, but they're swamped by sites such as allofmp3 who simply pocket the cash.
Re:Visibility is key (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The real problem (Score:3, Insightful)