Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Russian Court Acquits allofmp3.com Owner

Posted by kdawson on Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:24 AM
from the first-step-on-a-long-road dept.
Government The Courts Media Music News
An anonymous reader writes "Denis Kvasov, former owner of the music download website allofmp3.com, has been acquitted of violating intellectual property laws in a Moscow court. The court cited insufficient evidence of criminal activity — a question of fact — without touching the question of law of whether the site's activities (had they been proven by the prosecution) actually violated Russian copyright law. The trial's presiding judge said, 'I want to draw particular attention to the sloppy job done by prosecutors in collecting and analyzing the facts.' According to the Moscow Times, though, the allofmp3.com case is far from over. Two more criminal trials are scheduled to take place: one against Vladimir Mamotin, the media director of MediaServices, the parent company of allofmp3.com, and another against the company itself."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Russian court aquits former owner of allofmp3.com by Anonymous Coward
[+] Allofmp3 Restarts Business 226 comments
An anonymous reader writes "With a pretty short message on their blog, Allofmp3 announced that they will resume their music store soon. According to a Russian court, their music store did not violate any copyright law in Russia, so there was no reason for them to keep it closed."
This discussion has been archived.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.

Russian Court Acquits allofmp3.com Owner 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Really, I had not expected this!
    • Judge: "I want to draw particular attention to the sloppy job done by prosecutors in collecting and analyzing the facts."

      Owww!

      That will leave a mark.

    • I don't know if you are in it for a +5 Funny or not. But I truely didn't expect that.

      That is also a very big lesson on diplomacy from this judge. He dismissed an absurd claim while still not annoying the United States.

    • In soviet russia the RIAA ... sucks.
      In the US the RIAA ... sucks.

      Heh. Something isn't right.
      • Sorry, but this is music, therefore the RIAA. And that last "A" stands for America, so they have no (legitimate) influence outside of the US

        • Re:In soviet Russia... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Morgon (27979) <{moc.hcetnogrom} {ta} {ymj}> on Thursday August 16 2007, @11:46AM (#20250993) Homepage
          Sorry, but this is music, therefore the RIAA.

          Whoah, whoah.. careful now.
          It's bad enough the organization thinks that music == RIAA, don't tell me you've been infected, too!

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by nomadic (141991)
          And that last "A" stands for America, so they have no (legitimate) influence outside of the US

          Huh? That doesn't make sense, it's just part of the name. You can call your organization the American Association for the Advancement of Americans if you wanted, but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to operate your organization elsewhere in the world.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by cooley (261024)
            Heck no, I like his logic!

            I'm gonna try it out, as a matter of fact. See, I'm in the USA and there's this BP (British Petroleum) filling station down the street.... =P

            Incidentally, I'd like to respond to what the GP said about the RIAA having "no (legitimate) influence outside of the US":
            Yeah, "legitimate" is the operative word there. They don't have "legitimate" influence inside the US either, but they still have influence.

        • Re:In soviet Russia... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by russ1337 (938915) on Thursday August 16 2007, @12:03PM (#20251259)

          Sorry, but this is music, therefore the RIAA. And that last "A" stands for America, so they have no (legitimate) influence outside of the US

          The RIAA are a Trade Group [wikipedia.org] and so have no real 'jurisdiction' ANYWHERE in the context of law enforcement, they only have the ability to legally represent their 'customers' (labels and paying members within the trade), as agreed by their customers. (Jurisdiction being the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters within a defined area of responsibility.)

          I don't see anything stopping this organisation conducting business outside the USA though they're are other trade organizations who have taken on that task such as the IFPI [wikipedia.org] to do their bidding internationally. Also many countries appear to have their own Recording Label industry group which appear to have similar roles.

          But don't mistake their name implying they only operate inside the USA, and its certainly recognized they influence the IFPI, AND the US Govt who were kind enough to put conditions on the entry of Russia into the WTO with regards to allofmp3.com. That IS international Influence.

          Oh, and before I go, I must mention I think the RIAA are a bunch of scum sucking bottom feeders. Trade industry groups should be to the benefit of the people they represent, not their detriment.
        • RIAR? heh...
  • I want to draw particular attention to the sloppy job done by prosecutors in collecting and analyzing the facts.

    Its not the prosecutor's fault- they were taught by RIAA lawyers.

  • As many have said (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mapkinase (958129) on Thursday August 16 2007, @11:46AM (#20250999) Homepage Journal
    Russia needed this suit to proceed only because they did not want it to reflect badly on their chances to get to WTO. Court gave it a try, it was a formality. Case closed, road clear.

    • Re:As many have said (Score:5, Informative)

      by megaditto (982598) on Thursday August 16 2007, @12:24PM (#20251531)
      I am not sure why Russia would want to join WTO at this point, anyway.

      It's not like the United States would lift the steel, lumber, and enriched uranim tariffs (check with Canada's softwood lumber producers about that).

      As to ending the American agriculture subsidies, a snowflake has a better chance in Florida...
      • I guess it is more to Russians in WTO than steel, lumber and enriched uranium.
      • Agreed, only a few weeks ago Putin was badmouthing the WTO and the US seems to be (in public at least) sticking to it's guns on them dropping government subsidies for Tupelov (cos Boeing's never had gubment money...) plus the EU seems to be getting cold feet now, so perhaps Putin has changed his mind and decided he can go it alone now. Other events certainly seem to point that way (Litvenenko, the Arctic, Georgia).

        There is more chance of Congress giving Fidel the medal of honour than them dropping cotton

      • I think the common saying goes like this: "A snowflake's chance in hel--

        Nevermind. I see you got it right.

  • [...]has been acquitted of violating intellectual property [sic] laws[...]
    You misspelt "copyright".

    • Re:Misspelling (Score:5, Informative)

      by RootsLINUX (854452) <rootslinux@gmail.COLAcom minus caffeine> on Thursday August 16 2007, @12:42PM (#20251727) Homepage
      Intellectual Property is a blanket term that covers laws of copyright, patents, trademarks/trade dress, and trade secrets. The use of the term here is not necessarily incorrect, it is just overly broad. But you are right, the summary should have used copyright.

      • The use of the term here is not necessarily incorrect

        Yes, it is necessarily incorrect.

        The letter and spirit of copyright law both indicate that copyrights cannot be owned. Rather, they can be held for a limited time, and in that time one may have an exclusive right to copy that is subject to certain restrictions (such as Fair Use).

        A copyright is not like a car or a piece of land or the knickknacks you keep in your closet: unlike a copyright, each of those things can be passed down to an unlimited number of generations, each of whom may reasonably keep those

        • That's why it's not "property": because one can "own" a copyright indefinitely or without limit.

          Spread the word.
          oops; :%s/because one can/because no one can/
        • The letter and spirit of copyright law both indicate that copyrights cannot be owned. Rather, they can be held for a limited time, and in that time one may have an exclusive right to copy that is subject to certain restrictions (such as Fair Use).

          All the same thing apply to Patents as well, yet patents are considered Intellectual Property.

          • All the same thing apply to Patents as well, yet patents are considered Intellectual Property.

            By some, yes, and quite incorrectly so. The phrase "intellectual property" is like something from a pidgin dialect: It's a blunt term and fails to reflect what actually happens (and what should happen) in law.

            Here's the problem: implicit in the term "property" is the notion that "this thing is mine; you cannot ever have it unless I say so, and when I die it will belong exclusively to someone appointed by me".

            With copyrights and patents, the notion you should have (and what's codified in law) is, "this t

      • I believe he knows full well what "Intellectual Property" means -- he is (rightly, in my opinion) trying to point out that we should avoid using the term altogether. I know I may be alienating some of you who harbor ill feelings or feelings of suspicion towards RMS by linking to this, but even if you don't agree with RMS on other issues, I would suggest you read what he has to say about the term "Intellectual Property" [gnu.org] before you use the term too much yourself.

        The basic thesis of his article is that "intel
        • I tend to agree with RMS on a lot of things, but here he is just wrong. Copyright, patents, and trademarks are indeed linked; they are government granted monopolies over "ideas". Obviously, copyright protects your expression of an idea, patents protect a process, and trademarks protect a specific usage of a phrase with respect to a product. The framers knew that copyright and patents were linked since they put them side by side in Constitution.

          I agree that the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer a
          • They are government granted monopolies, certainly. Over ideas -- no, not at all. Patents could possibly be construed as being a temporary government granted monopoly on the application of an idea, specifically, an idea for the construction of a machine.

            Copyrights have nothing to do with ideas. Copyright only applies to works you have already created, whether they be art or words on the printed page. If you describe to me your idea for a novel, and I later write a novel based on your idea, you have no le
  • Sloppy case with badly collected evidence, based on the law that was enacted after alleged crime occurred...
    Gee, I am shocked at the verdict!

    Just wait for an appeal or for attempts to sue current owners.
  • May I note that even Denis himself ain't quite out of hot water yet. Prosecutors indicated they are going to appeal the verdict.

    See, under US and most other countries with the adversarial court system (as opposed to inquisitorial, used by Russia and France among others) the prosecution may not appeal questions of fact (i.e. "did the guy do it" but only questions of law "does what the guy did constitute a crime", "does the law he is accused of breaking is constitutional", etc) as well as appeal of sentence.

    I

  • Just like the US Supreme court! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Panickd (1143535) on Thursday August 16 2007, @01:24PM (#20252287)
    It seems the Russian courts aren't any different than the US courts. The judges in the US courts (particularly the higher courts) routinely look for ways to dismiss cases on technicalities like this rather than actually having to decide something. Who would've thought?

  • russian courts (Score:3, Funny)

    by j00r0m4nc3r (959816) on Thursday August 16 2007, @02:22PM (#20253011)
    It still so weird to read about the new Russian court system. I always just figured the Russian court system was a guy named Yuri with an AK-47.
  • In case anybody is wondering (and I was upon reading this), Russians do have strong double jeopardy protections [stanford.edu].

  • Allofmp3 is legal; the issue is about the price (Score:3, Informative)

    by Husgaard (858362) on Thursday August 16 2007, @04:23PM (#20254427)
    TFA says:

    "Wednesday's decision sets a very bad precedent and demonstrates the need to strengthen Russian intellectual property rights laws," said Konstantin Zemchenkov, director of Russian Anti-piracy Organization. "I can say unequivocally that the activities of sites like AllofMP3.com are illegal in Russia, because our country has signed on to many international conventions that prohibit them."

    I think this quote sums up the problem getting a judgment against allofmp3. The argument seems to be something like "although we cannot show it is illegal according to russian law, we think it is wrong, and it has to be stopped."

    But allofmp3 is legal because of the compulsory license system in the russian copyright law. And such a compulsory copyright license system is legal according to all relevant international treaties, including all the WIPO and WTO treaties.

    In the US, a similar compulsory copyright license system is currently being abused by RIAA and SoundExchange to kill internet radio.

  • Given so many people here have detailed knowledge of Russian law, can anyone tell me whether this ruling will pave the way for the site to re-open?

    From the article:
    AllofMP3.com was shut down earlier last month under pressure from the United States, which has made the protection of intellectual property rights a central issue in negotiations over Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization.


    Access to MP3Sparks.com, a mirror site used by MediaServices, remained blocked Wednesday.

    • Re:Your Rights Online? (Score:5, Informative)

      by janrinok (846318) on Thursday August 16 2007, @11:51AM (#20251073)
      Well it does in a way. Under common understanding in Russia of existing IP laws it is not at all clear that AllOfMP3 is breaking current law. There are changes planned which will close some loopholes and perhaps bring Russia more into line with some other countries, including America, but currently those changes are not yet in force. However, to obtain a prosecution under existing law the evidence needs to be collected and analysed under the law that is extant, and not the law that some might wish was in place, and which will be from next year. That is where the prosecution seems to have fallen down, according to a radio broadcast that I have listened to. The prosecution is quoting international agreements but the defence is using existing Russian law. As you are probably aware from the Litvinenko case, Russia is keen not to have its own laws be dictated by international agreements (although the Litvinenko is considerably more complicated and not simply a conflict of internal and international law). The judge wished to have the prosecution clearly show that, in this instance, international agreements should take precedence over national law. They failed to do so. This also explains the different claims that are made in the FA.
      • I should perhaps have used 'copyright' rather than 'IP' - I'm getting my paperwork confused!

      • Really Sherlock? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        >Russia is keen not to have its own laws be dictated by international agreements (

        Most countries are too.
        Well, most countries of the G8, the others ones can be bullied, bought and pressured into accepting.
        You know, just like the US has been doing to get a get-out-of-International-Court card by having small countries sign on the dotted line .... or else.
        Will the US ever allow its citizen to be tried in an international court? No.
        So please let me defecate over any and all international agreements excuses y

        • Re:Really Sherlock? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by janrinok (846318) on Thursday August 16 2007, @01:15PM (#20252143)

          Its not as clear cut as that.

          Many countries do honour their international agreements, but they do so by making sure that their national law stipulates that it will act in the same way as the international agreement, thus ensuring that the law can be enforced nationally. Russia is doing this with regard to both IP and copyright but the changes have not yet come into force. If this trial had taken place next year there might well have been a different outcome. But, today, the prosecution could not show that national law has been broken, but only that an international agreement that has not yet come into force has been. Any other reasonable legal system would have reached a similar verdict in a similar situation.

          So please let me defecate over any and all international agreements excuses you bring up.

          Why should I try to bring up excuses? I'm not Russian, I'm British. I don't live in Russia, although I have worked there in the past for an extended period. The fact that I listen to a radio station in another country does not make me a supporter of that country or of its legal system. However, I do not believe that international law is meaningless, but I do agree that the USA is one country in particular that wants every other country to follow international law when it suits America, but doesn't want to follow international law itself. Nevertheless, that is an discussion for another day and it is irrelevant to this particular thread. I simply raised the points that I had heard to enable others to understand what has taken place, why this particular case was not proven and to counter some of the other comments that seem to believe that the outcome is a result of corruption or simply political bias. In fact, it is neither; it is as the judge said, the result of a poorly presented case.

          Yes, really Sherlock.

          • Re:Really Sherlock? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Rich0 (548339) on Thursday August 16 2007, @01:30PM (#20252367) Homepage
            Welcome to national sovereignty - a nation is sovereign if it can do whatever it wants to do. A nation can achieve this to the degree that it can push its weight around. International law is basically nothing more than a gentleman's agreement among the more powerful nations that they will act in a certain way.

            The only way it will ever be systematically enforced is if a sovereign government forms on a global scale. That won't happen as long as individual nations have individual armies that report to individual national leaders.

            On the international scale it basically all boils down to right makes right - diplomacy only exists insofar is it is backed by the threat of force. No nation is powerful enough to completely dictate terms on any issue, but many nations can have their way on less important issues (like the ICC - nobody cares about it enough to start a major conflict (whether economic or military)).
    • You forget too that not everyone that visits /. is from the US. This may mean more to readers from Eastern Europe.

    • Re:Big surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) on Thursday August 16 2007, @11:54AM (#20251149) Homepage
      It's Russia we're talking about here. More corrupt than a NBA Basketball game. The last line of the article should also say "two more criminal trial dismissals are scheduled..."

      It's Russia we're talking about here. A country that doesn't have the same rules and regulations that the United States' has and just because the government here (because of pressure from the industry here) is pressuring Russia to go against its own laws, doesn't mean it will happen.

      Whether or not what allofmp3 broke American rules does not necessarily mean that it broke Russian rules. As long as those people stay out of the US, they'll be fine. Now, whether Americans broke the rules of the United States by using allofmp3 (and they probably did regardless of the reasons allofmp3 alluded to on their site) is another story.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Cemu (968469)

        As long as those people stay out of the US, they'll be fine.
        Yeah, just tell that to Hew Raymond Griffiths [wikipedia.org].
        • Except in this case, there is no extradition treaty between the US and the Russian Federation. Although he could be screwed if he ever enters a country which does.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by xtracto (837672)
      It's Russia we're talking about here. More corrupt than a NBA Basketball game. The last line of the article should also say "two more criminal trial dismissals are scheduled..."

      You are assuming that they the guy is guilty, it seems the USA government has brainwashed you with the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality.

      It is funny (ironic?) that it is in Russia where this "innocent until proven guilty" has a stand whereas in the USA RIAA and friends keep extorting innocent people when the fact is that it al
    • And that will be the correct verdict if no Russian law has been broken.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by RingDev (879105)
      I'm not familiar with Russian law, but this is probably why the case was dismissed. The Lawyers involved attempted to prosecute the case as if it were in a civil court, where burdens are much lighter. If they walked into a criminal court, where the Judge is used to seeing everything filed perfectly, solid basis for accusations, and paperwork, signatures, and warrants to back up anything that was being presented, with their dicks in their hands and a half-assed case.... No wonder why the just tossed 'em out.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.