Bootlegged Music in Russia 888
Guppy06 writes "MosNews.com has an interesting article on the thoughts and opinions of everyday Muscovites on the rampant music (et al) piracy in their country. It seems that some of them don't have much trouble justifying it to themselves, with quotes like 'Yes, I know that some of the sellers are here with burned CDs. But they have to earn a living too, I can understand them.' The article also mentions 'In a country where the average monthly salary is about $240, buying the latest album for $15 is a grotesque luxury, let alone spending $600 on Adobe Photoshop or a similar computer program.' Apparently, catchy slogans like 'Listen up, you pirate, I choose copyright!' just aren't working."
Re:15 bucks (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Maybe they need a new slogan (Score:1, Informative)
Is that the one that says that any country that doesn't respect copyright is going to get a visit from secret CIA super assassins?
Or perhaps you were referring to the Berne Convention...
Re:The price of music (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the article doesn't say... (Score:5, Informative)
Converted into US bucks - that's roughly 570 dollars a month.
You can't tell me that any attempt by copyright holders is going to 'Stamp out Piracy' with 15 dollar CDs - unless they match the 3.50 'Nice Price'.
Isn't there one person out of all the copyright holders who can wrap their head around that?
I rate this article 4 1/2 'duhs', and rate the clueless morans printing up 'For great justice, make your time Pirate!' posters a +5 Ner.
Re:Thanks Russia for cheap music downloads! (Score:2, Informative)
From what I understand though, it is only legal for you to use in the country with lax copyright laws. You cannot bring it into this country. Once you do, you are once again bound by our copyright laws.
Quit trying to rationalize unethical behavior. Either buy the CD or purchase the song online, or just go steal the damn thing like a good pirate.
Grey imports (Score:4, Informative)
Cos then you could buy the stuff cheap over there and ship it back home saving a bundle.
Course that practice has been made illegal in the UK, the free market is wonderful, no?
Guess what makes it illegal...
Copyright designs and patents act 1988 and the Trade Marks Act 1994. It is illegal to import/distribute into the UK without the opyright or trade mark owner's consent. There's a bunch of additional stuff which makes it even more illegal to import software.
Levi vs Tesco and Sony vs Tesco.
Re:The price of music (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thanks Russia for cheap music downloads! (Score:5, Informative)
It is NOT legal to download from them if you are in the US.
Basically how this goes is that:
1) It is infringing to reproduce the work in copies (17 USC 106(1)).
2) Downloading constitutes reproduction of the work in a new copy given the definitions of the pertinent terms in the law (17 USC 101; Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999) ("[A] copy of the [work] 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.")).
3) The downloader is the party that's responsible for the reproduction occuring (Marobie-FL v. NAFED, 983 F. Supp. 1167 (N.D. Ill. 1997)).
According to the copyright laws of the US, you can "import" things from outside the US, even if they violate US law if purchased here.
No, that's not true.
1) Importation is, per 17 USC 602(a), an aspect of the distribution right at 17 USC 106(3), and therefore, any exemptions to the distribution right don't apply to the reality of the infringement being unlawful reproduction as shown conclusively above.
2) Importation, being a form of distribution, requires a copy (which is defined in 17 USC 101 as a tangible object, such as a hard drive containing a work, as opposed to intangible bits all by themselves) to cross the border. This does not happen when you download, thus it's not importation.
3) You can't read, or you're remarkably stupid, because while there is an exemption for some importation in 17 USC 602(a), that exemption does NOT apply to 17 USC 602(b) which ALSO prohibits importation. Specifically, it is always illegal to import a work that was made in a manner where, had US law applied, it would've been illegal, regardless of the local law where it was made.
so far no one has shown how this is illegal.
Well, now you can retract that statement, I guess.
Enjoy.
Re:Thanks Russia for cheap music downloads! (Score:3, Informative)
Cite some of these interpretations, please. I would be amazed to see them.
The only one I've ever heard of came from Tech Law Advisor. However, I discussed the issue with him, and he ultimately agreed with me. It's not hard; the law is really really clear, and there are a number of cases directly on point. My favorite is Intellectual Reserve, cited previously, (where it was held that browsing a web page that was put up illegally was infringement on the part of the users who browsed it), but there are others.
The Napster case, for example, was premised entirely on the fact that both uploading and downloading are illegal. If they were not, Napster would've been fine.
Not just Russia (Score:5, Informative)
Been there (Score:5, Informative)
And regarding the possiblity of iTunes and company, Russia hasn't invented broadband yet. They're still using pulse-dialing for their phone lines, for crying out lound. (If you don't know what pulse-dialing is, go ask your dad. Or your grandpa.)
Re:The price of music (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Been there (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Thanks Russia for cheap music downloads! (Score:3, Informative)
I think that it would be more accurate to say that Australia's laws are being forced to become more similar to the US's.
What is telling to me is that in the article, the lawyer, like a good lawyer, hedges his bet.
This is different.
Here, if you infringe, and the copyright holder opts for statutory damages, the infringer is liable for $750 - $30,000 in the court's discretion, per work.
If the infringer can prove that he is an innocent infringer, i.e. didn't know that he was doing wrong, then he is only liable for $200 - $30,000 in the court's discretion, per work.
Of course, downloaders are rarely sued themselves, because it isn't strategically a good idea. However, since a lot of suits against middlemen have to be premised on the users breaking the law (Napster for example, was found liable for the infringement of its users) the questions are usually fairly settled.
I am not aware of any case in the US where it was found that a person who downloaded material that wasn't made available for that download by or at the direction of the copyright holder, was not liable for infringement.
I can think of several cases, however -- Marobie-FL, Intellectual Reserve, Napster, Religious Technology -- where individual users were liable, and this was used to attack others.
So I think that this is one of those spots where our respective laws differ notably.
My favorite case on this point (favorite in that it's notable, not that I like it) is Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [uh.edu].
I would like it if you'd read through it, or at the very least the part that begins "Do those who browse the websites infringe plaintiff's copyright?"
Re:Been where ? (Score:5, Informative)
Stores with legal copies sells music that is hard to find in bootlegs. They almost divided the market and coexist in peace (a sort of).
Broadband ? We do have broadband. Not so 'broad', but anyway... it's ADSL. Advertised everywhere, cost is $24 per month.
Pulse-dialing ? Yes, it is the default. Call the phone company and they'll change it to tone dialing.
There is only one sad thing - all this is in Moscow and St.Petersburg. The rest of the country is still unconnected.
Re:When I went to Russia... (Score:3, Informative)
An interesting example - here's a counter example. Here in the UK it's illegal to prepare "magic mushrooms" for consumption, but it's *legal* to grow, sell, buy and possess them. You can buy them from market stalls in certain parts of London, and the practice seems to be spreading.
It's a loophole, it exists, and despite a number of "get tough on drugs" initiatives in recent (~ last decade or so) years, it's still there.
On the other hand, as another comment has already pointed out, there is legal precedent here in the UK banning the importation of goods to sell at lower prices - eg Levi vs Tesco. (Tesco was importing Levi jeans in order to sell at a lower price, Levi sued and won, the consumer lost.)
Re:Cannot afford expensive programs... (Score:2, Informative)
Bootleg foreign music is huge here, too. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:15 bucks (Score:3, Informative)
The MP3 collections are kind of neat, you can buy oh, say, the Metallica CD, which is one disc, with every song Metallica ever published, plus cover art, liner and bootlegs from concerts. A pretty cool idea, really.
Prices are low. DVDs were 120 rubles, ~$4, CDs were 75 rubles, and most of the computer games were 150 rubles.
As you mentioned, the average russian would never be able to afford a legitimate music CD at the prices charged here in the states. Many of them can't even afford to eat in a restaurant, one of my co-workers took out one of the IT guys, who said he hadn't eaten in a restaurant in six years.
One of the IT guys I was working with there told me his monthly salary was $200. How the hell is he supposed to afford to license his software on $200 a month?
I did ask about legitimate discs, and was told that they are sold in some of the upscale American-style shopping malls, but that no one buys them, because they're $20 each for DVDs and $15 for CDs.
The industries simply need to learn to adjust their pricing for that market if they're going to combat piracy. Start selling their CDs there for $4 and DVDs for $6, and then make them as convenient to buy as the pirated discs, which are in the Metro terminals and in the underground walkways under the busy streets of Moscow, and they might have a fighting chance. But as it is now, they might as well not even bother importing their legitimate goods into the country, as only the rich will be able to afford them.
Re:15 bucks (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html [negativland.com]
Strat
Re:Thanks Russia for cheap music downloads! (Score:5, Informative)
Just as when we discussed this last time [slashdot.org], you are making a great number of substantial claims, but I've yet to see you cite case law that pertains. Citing IR v ULV doesn't make it more correct than the last time you tried to use that case to prove your point. In that case, the person seeling the material did not have license to do so. Not the case here. AllOfMP3 has license to sell the material. You should learn from previous arguments. That case bears no weight on this matter, but you knew that before you citing it this time since you've already been corrected.
Also, stop calling people stupid. I can't stress enough how much this kind of thing produces the opposite of the intended result.
Re:Geneva Conventions (Score:2, Informative)
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Re:Maybe they need a new slogan (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.genevaconventions.org/ [genevaconventions.org]
"The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)
Article 44
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.
2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war , except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
(a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed."
Re:Rampant Music! GASP! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:BS Argument (Score:3, Informative)
No, that would violate 17 USC 602(b), actually and still be illegal to bring into the country.
Not to mention, we have software "export" laws governing what crypto can go to other nations. By your argument, if I make that software available to someone in North Korea, I'm not exporting, I'm letting them reproduce.
No, my argument stands nicely. A large part of my argument is that often words in the law are defined in the law and have meanings other than that which you'd normally expect them to. If you care to poke around in the CFR's relevant to export controls, you'll find that they even define export to include transmission. If they didn't, then the ordinary meaning would more likely apply, and you'd have some basis for your claim.
I have no idea why you feel SO strongly on the subject
I discussed why here. [slashdot.org]
But to sum up, it's because I don't like people being misinformed as to what the law is. It's not because I dislike allofmp3, because I don't particularly.
Re:Thanks Russia for cheap music downloads! (Score:3, Informative)
No, that's only in Russia. That license doesn't have any weight in the US. We've been over that too.
This is why I avoid addressing whether allofmp3 is legal as to transactions entirely within Russia. I don't know, and I don't care. I merely discuss the matter as it pertains to US users, who are subject to US law, and don't get the benefits of Russian law.
Re:Thanks Russia for cheap music downloads! (Score:4, Informative)
This brings us to 17 USC 201(e). I grant that it might not apply in every case. But it applies a lot.
Thus, when the Russian government attempts to exercise the right of eligible copyright holders with regards to not excluding compulsory licensees in Russia, US law says that that compulsory license is void.
So whatever compulsory license allofmp3 might claim to have, we ignore it for purposes of looking for infringements under US law.
There is of course also a more general issue of contract interpretation and enforcibility, which I think will also result in the compulsory license failing due to duress, and depending on the precise terms of the Russian law, which I don't have before me.
But if this doesn't knock it out of the park, it's still a good counter to your rather specious arguments to date.
Incidentally, if you have an English translation of the relevant law, I'd like to see it.