Slashdot Log In
RIAA Goes for the Max Against AllofMP3
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Jan 01, 2007 06:37 PM
from the go-for-the-gold dept.
from the go-for-the-gold dept.
Spad writes "Zeropaid is reporting that as part of its ongoing lawsuit, the RIAA will be seeking the maximum of $150,000 per song for each of the 11 million MP3s downloaded from the Russian AllofMP3.com between June and October last year. This amounts to roughly $1.65 trillion, probably a tad more than AllofMP3 has made in its lifetime. A representative of AllofMP3 stated: 'AllofMP3 understands that several U.S. record label companies filed a lawsuit against Media Services in New York. This suit is unjustified as AllofMP3 does not operate in New York. Certainly the labels are free to file any suit they wish, despite knowing full well that AllofMP3 operates legally in Russia. In the mean time, AllofMP3 plans to continue to operate legally and comply with all Russian laws.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Visa Cuts Off AllOfMp3.com 394 comments
denebian devil writes "On the heals of allofmp3.com's press conference trying to clean up its image, Visa has suspended its credit card service to allofmp3.com. From the article "[Allofmp3 is] no longer permitted to accept Visa cards," said Simon Barker, a Visa International spokesman. "The action we've taken is in line with legislation passed in Russia and international copyright law."
Almost simultaneously, allofmp3.com has announced that it is shifting over to an ad-supported model. For those who don't want to (or can't) buy allofmp3's DRM-free music, they are providing DRM-laden music that can be played only within a restricted player provided by the website."
[+]
Slashback: SCO, COPA, AllofMP3, Navier-Stokes, and More 144 comments
Slashback tonight brings some clarifications and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including: IBM speaks about the SCO suit, another angle on COPA, AllofMP3 followups, Navier-Stokes solution withdrawn, a librarian's guided tour of Wikipedia, and the iPod's 5th anniversary. Read on for details.
[+]
Russia Agrees To Shut Down AllOfMP3.com 550 comments
Pro-SEO writes, "An official document (PDF), dated November 19, summarizes an agreement between the U.S. and Russia in which Russia has agreed to close down AllofMP3.com, and any sites that 'permit illegal distribution of music and other copyright works.' The agreement is posted to the Web site for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. It summarizes the joint efforts of the two countries to fight content piracy, an issue in which Russia and Eastern Europe figure prominently." From the document: "This agreement sets the stage for further progress on IPR issues in Russia through the next phase of multilateral negotiations, during which the United States and other WTO members will examine Russia's IPR regime."
[+]
Your Rights Online: RIAA Members Sue Allofmp3.com Over Infringement 323 comments
fair_n_hite_451 writes "To the surprise of no one, several members of the RIAA have filed suit against MediaServices, the operators of Allofmp3.com. The suit was filed for Wednesday, primarily by Arista Records LLC, Warner Bros. Records Inc., Capitol Records Inc. and UMG Recordings. The language of the litigation was very confrontational; The companies claim the site sells millions of songs without paying them 'a dime'. 'The defendant's entire business ... amounts to nothing more than a massive infringement of plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act and New York law.' AllofMp3 has always maintained that a Russian licensing group makes their business legitimate, while the RIAA here claims the organization has no authority to make such a deal."
[+]
Technology: Russia's War on Piracy/Malicious Software 150 comments
tmk writes "Russian minister Leonid Reiman has announced new legislation to fight software piracy. According to official information the share of pirated software in the Russian Federation decreased in the last years from 90 to 60 percent. Reiman dismissed as a myth the impression that many viruses originate in his country: 'Viruses are written all over the world. Russia is waging a consistent and successful war on malicious software.' Reiman calls for an international organization to fight Internet crime. Last year Russia agreed to take down Allofmp3 after the United States intervened."
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.
Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Because a trillion rubles is roughly 10 bucks.
Parent
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but Verizon would claim it was only supposed to be 0.02 cents!
Parent
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to pick nits, but if in fact current trends do continue, exactly one thing can happen, that which current trends point to. Anything can happen if current trends don't continue, which if you look at enough trends, is always the case.
Parent
ObSimpsons (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Proof? Proof of what, exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's ridiculous. If you have a legal right to a file in another country, and posession of it in this country is not otherwise illegal (e.g., it's not kiddie porn or something), there's no sane reason you can't copy it across the (virtual, and therefore nonexistant) border.
Let's use an analogy: imagine you're on vacation in Europe, and you buy a CD, burn it, put it on your iPod, and bring it back home with you. Is that illegal? Of course not, that would be absurd!
Next, imagine you do the same thing, but you put it on a computer you happen to own, that you leave in Europe. You then transfer it to yourself after you get back home. Is that illegal? Of course not, that would be absurd!
Now, finally, imagine exactly the same thing, except that AllOfMP3.com just happens to be storing the file for you instead of you doing it for yourself (note: it's still your file, because you bought it). How is that any different? It's not, therefore it would still be absurd for it to be illegal!
Parent
Re:Proof? Proof of what, exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the law says you are not allowed to copy it across the border, but you may be allowed to physically move a pre-existing copy across the border.
You might disagree with it, or find it silly, but that is actually what it says. I'd rather you disagree with it, knowing that, than to deny that it exists altogether. I'm a firm believer in the idea that we'll never get these laws fixed until people know what they really are, and what the policy goals for the laws are meant to be. Misinformation and erroneous 'common knowledge' don't help.
Let's use an analogy: imagine you're on vacation in Europe, and you buy a CD, burn it, put it on your iPod, and bring it back home with you. Is that illegal? Of course not, that would be absurd!
Actually, it is possible that bringing in the CD itself would be illegal; it would depend on its origins. But in any event, your example is faulty. Allofmp3 involves making copies across a border; you're talking about making a copy and then bringing it over the border. That's not the same thing. There is a world of difference between moving a tangible medium over the border (e.g. a CD, a hard drive, an iPod), and moving intangible information over the border (e.g. reading from a server in Russia and writing to a hard drive in America). The former is importation (a form of distribution), the latter is reproduction. Different exceptions apply to each.
Parent
Re:It's a gambit (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:It's a gambit (Score:5, Insightful)
so iTunes is illegal then?
I think the argument here is that customers of allofmp3 believe they are purchasing from a legitimate store. This store does pay royalties to the russian version of the RIAA, however this Russian RIAA does not pass them on. Downloading songs that you've paid for from a legitimate store is not illegal - there are many on-line stores where you can legally purchase music. THe issues is: 'is Allofmp3 a legal store?'. The RIAA believe it is not, the Ruskies believe it is. One is a government with oil and some legacy nukes, the other is a bunch of lawyers with deep ties into a government with shiney well maintained nukes.
Parent
Russia is still independent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:5, Informative)
11/29/2006 http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061129-831
The short version:
The U.S. wants Russia to join the World Trade Organization.
One condition is that Russia changes its copyright laws.
Russia agreed.
Whether or not AllOfMP3 is going to get shut down by the Russian Gov't is seemingly still up in the air, but the RIAA got what they wanted: IP reform in Russia.
Parent
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:5, Interesting)
I currently do not let my son download music illegally. He is allowed to buy off of iTunes with prepaid cards, and cannot use bittorrent, or any other p2p. Now I know someday, he'll be able to use these without my knowledge and thats fine. But what I'm doing is explaining to him why leagally obtaining music is the right thing to do. I also however expalain in detail that the RIAA is possibly the largest bunch of idiotic half wits on the entire planet. My eplaination basiclly goes "iTunes uses DRM at the behest of the music industry, but its not too invasive and can be removed simply by burning a CD and reimporting (lossy I know), but it doesn't bind the user too much and the price is reasonable (unlike Apples movies which we won't buy)". I also tell him that iTunes would lose every cent of our business if someone started selling unDRMed mp3s for the same (or lower price). Now allofmp3.com fits that bill but as this story shows, their legality is in question. But the RIAA is overplaying its hand!! (Sorry I'm going to yell and swear now, but can't help it). Those fucking bastards keep going after allofmp3, keep pressuring Apple to raise prices, and keep trying to get other sites with even worse DRM than fairplay fired up!! Dammit RIAA all you have to do to win the entire fucking market and make these same billions of dollars you sue everyone for is OFFER FUCKING DRM FREE MUSIC FROM YOUR OWN SITES AT THE PRICE APPLE HAS ALREADY DETERMINED WILL WORK!!!!! I mean I could steal everything for just a little bit more effort than buying from iTunes. I don't, I try to do whats right, but my patience is wearing thin, very thin.
This is a warning to the RIAA, keep this shit up and you'll make it way to easy for everyone to justify stealing from you because you are just too fucking evil. And I'll tell my son stealing from you is ok too because an group of soulless, vile, repugnant, people like you don't deserve any of our money or our respect.
Parent
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
This should be industry... (Score:5, Funny)
How excessive. (Score:5, Informative)
How fucking ludicrous and excessive. Jesus.
Re:How excessive. (Score:5, Funny)
You can get crucified for swearing on this site. Pilate.
Parent
Meanwhile AllofMp3 offers 20% bonus (Score:5, Informative)
AllofMp3 offers 20% bonus untill January 14, 2007 [allofmp3.com]
It is ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
quadrouple dipped (Score:5, Interesting)
I am old enough to have bought my entire collection on records, tapes, cd's and for as much as I can SACD/HD audio. I am all for contributing to the machine if the records companies release NEW, higher quality recordings in the future, but I'm not repurchasing my cd collection. I've already paid my taxes to the RIAA Gods several times over.
are you kidding? (Score:5, Interesting)
He bought a legitimate license, lost his original copies in a natural disaster, and then downloaded replacements - and that's the moral equivalent of your download without purchasing any license? I don't see it.
In his model, the money was paid to the copyright holder, and presumably some of that money made its way to the artist. When he downloaded replacements, he cost the copyright holder nothing, and only deprived them of the opportunity to charge him for an additional copy.
I'm not saying what he did was morally right, but it's a darn close to acceptable in my book. I'm frankly uncertain of what I'd do in that situation. I keep an off site mp3 version of all of my legitimately purchased music, so I'm less exposed in the case of a natural disaster. It seems ridiculous to suggest that he should pay full price to have access to something he already paid full price for.
I think it would be a good idea for you to pay for music. After all, if no one pays for music, there's no money to pay artists at all, regardless of the fairness of the contracts and the distribution mechanisms.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Parent
Re:quadrouple dipped (Score:5, Insightful)
Theft implies that you took something from someone else resulting in their loss of the use of the item.
For example, if you steal my car, you have deprived me of the use of that car.
Parent
Re:quadrouple dipped (Score:5, Insightful)
a) has a viewpoint that may be in favor of a corporation/organization that some people don't like (Microsoft, RIAA, Sony, US Government, etc)
or
b) likes a product that's from a corporation that some people don't like (Zune, PS3, etc)
is referred to as an "astroturfer" or "shill". That's quite honestly the worst argument since nazi comparisons, and I say we create a corollary to Godwin's Law just to cover it.
Because, you know, people can't have opposing viewpoints and think for themselves any longer. If they disagree with you, they obviously are being paid to promote that point. (It's especially ironic since so many people get caught up in the Slashdot groupthink.)
Parent
Re:Idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
Because artists make SO MUCH on sales in this country...
(Don't particularly like using this as a reference, it's not exactly CNN or BBC, but it's the first reference I saw that looked decent...)
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1
Rather than paying artists approximately 30 cents of the 70 cents it receives for digital downloads (after deducting payments to music publishers), the suit alleges that Sony Music treats each download as a sale of a physical CD or cassette tape, only paying on 85 per cent of such "sales" (due to a fiction that there is breakage of product), deducting a further 20 per cent fee for container/packaging charges associated with the digital downloads (although there are none), and reducing its payments by a further 50 per cent "audiofile" deduction, yielding a payment to the Sony Music recording artists of approximately 4 1/2 cents per digital download
I'd rather pirate the track and give the artist the buck directly. If only there were a way to do that...
Parent
Re:quadrouple dipped (Score:5, Funny)
And where did royalties go?
Bad things happen to royalties in Russia. Just ask Anastasia.
Parent
THERE ARE NO LICENSES. FUCKING CHRIST. (Score:5, Informative)
Works are fixed in media (see 17 USC 101). These media are called copies. So music and software are fixed on CDs and DVDs (and harddrives and RAM), and novels are fixed in hardcover books, etc.
When you buy a CD, you buy a CD. Period.
When you buy a book, you buy a book. Period.
You can lend your book, your CD, to someone. You can rent it. You can sell it. You can burn it. Etc.
You do not buy, and do not need, a license for the work on the media unless you plan to do something with that work that would violate the copyright holder's exclusive rights (see 17 USC 106).
THERE ARE NO EULAs FOR CDs OR DVDs.
You are buying media. Period.
You have to understand that. You can do anything with the media you want. That doesn't entitle you to the "work." The work is an intangible thing. It is unownable and unpossessable and therefore nobody owns nor possesses it.
Copyright grants copyright holders certain rights assoicated with the work -- FROM WHATEVER SOURCE -- but this is separate from the work fixed in a medium: which is a physical thing, just like any other physical thing.
The reason you can't do whatever you want (eg, make copies) is because the copyright statute says you can't. It's not because a license says you can't. You need a license in order to make copies*, sure, but you're not buying one when you buy a CD.
* you can also make copies if you have one of the few exceptions under the law, etc.
If you're allowed to make backups, btw (about which there is no brightline rule, only the fair use test), you're allowed to keep them when you resell your CD, etc. But since there's no general exception to make backups generally (software is an exception IIRC), the whole circumstances have to fit the four factors of the fair use test. So, e.g., if you intended to sell your CD, and made a backup so you could keep the music knowing you planned to sell it tomorrow, that's probably not a fair use.
Parent
Shows the Absurdity (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, I don't think anyone, except apparently the RIAA lawers, could possibly believe that in a few months- or even in a year or two, one single (not all that well known) russian website caused the RIAA to lose over a trillion dollars in revenue.
Re:Shows the Absurdity (Score:5, Informative)
As you said, I hope this gets publicized because it really demonstrates how ridiculous the dollar value associated with infringement really is.
Parent
Re:Shows the Absurdity (Score:5, Informative)
They're not claiming that at all. $150,000 wasn't a random number, nor was the fact that it was called "the maximum" in the article summary just word choice. In fact, anybody at all familiar with copyright law--even just the little trickles that make it through on sites like this--will have their ears twitch in recognition at hearing the number.
$150,000 is the maximum allowed statutory damages according to US copyright law. It has nothing to do with how much their losses were.
Further, realize that damages come in two parts: compensatory (what you actually lost) and punitive (punishment for the act). Punitive damages are almost always substantially higher than compensatory damages in situations like this. Even if they only claimed $11 million punitive damages ($1/download, the iTunes price), the law says they're perfectly free to claim the other $1.649+ trillion.
Will they get that much (if they get anything)? Almost certainly not, but that doesn't stop them from asking for it.
Parent
trillion (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_music_market [wikipedia.org]
Want to bet (Score:5, Interesting)
AllofMP3 should just settle... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the Russian government would be willing to make an official valuation of the complete works of Joseph Stalin as worth $1.65 trillion.
Then AllofMP3 could repay the RIAA by licensing them to the RIAA.
Problem solved.
Imagine downloading the audiobook version from the iTunes Music Store.
RIAA leadership (Score:5, Funny)
Proof once again that the RIAA is run by Dr. Evil.
Hmm. (Score:5, Funny)
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
RIAA stands for *what*? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Racketeering Industry Association of America. Thats more like it.
suing the wrong people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:suing the wrong people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, from the RIAA's perspective this would be bad -- since then they wouldn't have a case against Allofmp3.com. They stand to (at least they think they stand to) make more money by suing.
Like all gambling though -- they might end up with nothing instead of just less than they wanted...
Parent
I put my trust in the Russian mafia (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had my share of 'fights' with them, so I know they are a formidable enemy. And I can only hope that they are behind AAMP3, too. Because then, we'll see what happens when two criminal cartels clash.
I'll bring the popcorn.
Follow the bouncing ball... (Score:5, Insightful)
American corporations also like to do business in countries where organized dissent to their activities is suppressed by "friendly" governments (friendly to their interests, that is). They do so because organized dissent is legal in the United States and has on more than one occasion 1) aired the corp's dirty laundry, 2) stopped them from performing harmful (but profitable) acts, and 3) called for the corp's to strike a balance between shareholder value and respect for the laws of the country in which they live.
What does all of this have to do with AllOfMP3? Well, American corporations have a long record of doing business (and making bundles of money) by going to places where they aren't restrained by such trite formalities as "laws". American corporations love to extol the virtues of the "global economy", just as long as they're the ones who benefit from it; after all, transnational capital alone should benefit from international business.
But for some reason, the average Joe using the internet to do THE EXACT SAME THING that American corporations have been doing for years is deemed wrong, illegal, unethical, and Lord knows how many other bad things. The average Joe who buys a song from AllOfMP3 is engaging in exactly the same type of transaction that corp's have done for years: gain financial advantage by offshoring their transactions.
Am I oversimplifying? Maybe. But chew on this: Either we have a global market (as we are told that we have as our jobs are outsourced), or we don't. And if we do have a global market, the rules were written long ago by the same people that are trying to stop us from following them.
$1.65 trillion (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Screw them both. (Score:5, Informative)
And I believe the Record Industry Association of America is just a little bit out of it's jurisdiction here. Hence the stupid filing in an American court. Try that kind of scare tactic in Russia and as people have already mentioned, AllOfMP3 would simply pay the local mafia a small sum to make the problem.... disappear.
Parent
Re:Screw them both. (Score:5, Insightful)
From the information on their website, it appears that they pay a fixed percentage of sales to royalties. Registered artists, I presume, get royaties - I haven't looked into their financials, so I can't verify that. I don't read Russian either, so I probably couldn't figure it out even if I had the paperwork. The RIAA doesn't like the terms, so they don't want to play. Artists don't enter into it - they don't own their work. IF they did, they could hire a lawyer to do the paperwork, and get their money.
On a personal, philosophical level...
I'm all for compulsory licensing of any published creative work. Don't want it available? Don't publish it.
This would "fix" the Disney vault problem, and allow works to be re-published for a fixed fee. Presumably, original content owners could still create premium content by republishing with value added features. Most of the movie houses already re-release a title several times to get people to re-buy.
As for starving artists, I say get off you lazy asses, out of the studio, and go entertain in person. If your contract forbids such work...well, you signed the contract, yo ulive with the consequences. If you don't like it, go work 9-5 like everyone else. You're not required to make music to live.
Parent
Re:Screw them both. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight. When a company moves its manufacturing division from the U.S. to Malaysia to take advantage of the industry-friendly labour laws in that country, they're applauded for their ingenuity. On the other hand, when U.S. consumers take advantage of consumer-friendly copyright laws overseas, they're criminals.
Parent
Re:"Laws" in russia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Not w/ lobbying groups.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lobbying groups have far less influence than most people think. (I work on the Hill - I know.) Unless the group represents someone that is a constituent (or business that employs large numbers of constituents) of the politician or the politician is corrupt (roughly 1 in 50 is), the group will not get face time with a Senator. They might get to meet one of his legislative assistants (many who are law students), but the influence a LA will have on his / her Senator varies greatly.
If you were to poll the Senators before they ran for office, you would find that their views are already in alignment with the RIAA and MPAA. That is why they get money donated to their campaign - not for influence when they are in office, but to get elected (pure and simple - cause when they are then elected the RIAA / MPAA does not need to worry about them). The American people at the moment do not care enough about the issues (that the RIAA and MPAA do) to vote based on them (and given our current problems - this may be a good thing).
When the movie / music organizations throw receptions here (they did a special dinner and advance screening of Eragon 3 weeks ago), not a single Senator went (I know - I had nothing better to do, so I rsvp'ed and showed). Heck, I bet less than 10-15 legislative assistants were there also. Most of the people that go to their meetings are either interns, people that think they're important or rarely IT people that are tired of coding (me). Now many of those interns may be your future Senators - so you could say that they are buying influence in advance... but I doubt it - given most interns pirate music left and right (a few are dumb enough to do it at work).
Anyhow - they (lobbying groups) don't buy influence, Americans simply elect people that support the lobbying groups views (i.e. an uninformed voting populace).
Parent