Allofmp3.com Wins Court Case 437
remove writes "Gizmodo is running a story from a reader tip that claims that the russian site Allofmp3.com, popular with slashdotters for their user selectable format which had been reported as being under investigation recently has been let off the hook by the Russian DA, becuase of a loophole in russian law which allows users create copies of songs by request. Basically, even though the courts have found their site operator's behavior to be illegal- they can't prosecute because the user dynamically creates copies of songs to be downloaded themselves."
RIAA Dream Team Lawyers Fail? (Score:4, Interesting)
Still, very real questions about the legality of this service have to remain...
If it's illegal... (Score:5, Interesting)
The process (Score:4, Interesting)
good publicity... (Score:4, Interesting)
But I'm even more grateful for the publicity that Allofmp3 has got, perhaps RIAA and other online music stores will sit up and take note that it is popular because of the freedom it offers and the fair price - its time to give the consumer their freedom back and realise the way to takle the piracy problem is to offer a good service at a resonable cost (and NO $0.99 IS NOT REASONABLE COST, that is the same per track as a CD!)
Re:If it's illegal... (Score:2, Interesting)
Because the RIAA cannot easily monitor who is downloading what from AllofMP3, whereas ed2k is much easier to monitor & pollute
Because not everyone wants FLAC or MP3 - It is handy to be able to download songs in AAC for instance for iPods but without the annoying Apple DRM
Re:This is only round one... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the normal way russian law works.
And this is good because? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Text from Gizmodo: (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh the irony (Score:4, Interesting)
hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Text from Gizmodo: (Score:5, Interesting)
It just sounds like the article summary is incorrect- the loophole has more to do with the fact that the Russian law in question specifically enumerates the types of media it applies to, and "mp3" is not on the list.
Re:good publicity... (Score:2, Interesting)
Do not consider music from Allofmp3 as legal! You're stealing from the artist.
Re:Text from Gizmodo: (Score:2, Interesting)
The "apparent" low cost is low because prices are in general much lower in Russia than they are in Europe or US (but so are the salaries). You can legally buy an audio CD for about $5. If you consider that, the "cheap" price might no longer seem that cheap. Yes, it does allow foreign users to exploit the price difference - but doing so is not illegal.
Not Ilegal != Ethical (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Payment methods (Score:3, Interesting)
Here read this for a quick background:
http://www.dinersclubnewsroom.com/anniversary.cfm [dinersclubnewsroom.com]
I wonder (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:good publicity... (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh the irony (Score:3, Interesting)
An awful lot of the financial build-up of the US was based on disregarding intellectual property law (from the rest of the world) early on.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh the irony (Score:3, Interesting)
I used sheet music as my example, because (get this), it was actually relevant to the discussion at hand. Before the advent of recorded music, sheet music and player piano rolls were BIG business and the businesses involved were the RIAA of their time. There was a great uproar about the US just flaunting the rules.
Today (I'm drawing a parallel and wanted to warn you), countries like China, Russia and others that aren't recognizing US and other major IP holding countries' patents, trademarks and copyright are growing very quickly, unfettered by the legal constraints that those systems put in place, *much like the US did*. History is repeating.
At some point, it's likely that, in those countries, the protections will start showing up as one Russian wants protection from another Russian "stealing" his work. Then, eventually, some other countries will step into the "abuser" role.
Re:Text from Gizmodo: (Score:4, Interesting)
Your analysis seems to result in this conclusion:
If a Russian person bought songs at AllOfMp3 and carried them into this country on a laptop - the next time they played those songs (thereby making a copy in RAM) they would be violating US copyright law.
Here's the problem: often the company that has the right to distribute something in the US is not the company that has the right to distribute that work overseas. So does that mean no one can bring any copyrighted works into the US unless they pay the US copyright holders? Or do they only need to have a "valid" copyright from overseas? If so, WHO decides whether that overseas copyright is valid? If the other government decides whether it is valid, then why am I breaking the law if I pay for a license overseas but don't pay the US license-holder.
Now, of course, this probably won't apply to AllOfMp3.com because you're not actually purchasing a license under Russian law. It's worth thinking about, though.
Re:RIAA has never sued downloaders (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but I think you can only be sued for "actual damages" which means if you only download, you can only be sued for the total retail price of the albums you download.
So unless you've got some kind of compulsive album download behavior, you can only be sued for what you'd normally have purchased at the record store anyway. So what, like they'll sue you for $450? They're going to fly lawyers to Podunk, Wyoming to litigate in small-claims court for your $450? I think not.
Re:And this is good because? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why didn't they retain a Russian lawyer? Calling them stuipid seems a bit harsh, so I'll settle for lazy.
See my other posts (grossly incorrect about US organizations and pay schemes, as I'm not inthe business) for my thoughts on why this is no different that the US system, save ease-of-use for natives.
As for your question...let's make it closer to the topic: If I start broadcasting your songs on my new FM station and pay my ASCAP (or whoever) fees, and you don't sign up to receive your share - or you don't pick up your check or provide a current address, I'd say you were too lazy to get paid.
Hurray! for allofmp3 (Score:2, Interesting)
But I would like to make an experiment, what do you do when you buy a CD and you do not like it?? I usually sell it, dont you?
Is it possible to make the same thing with a music from iTunes? it must be, because I am paying for the right of the song no? after I pay for them, they are my bytes! and only mine! does anyone know anything behind this?
well, I posted another other interesint thoughts here [slashdot.org] but well, i guess my karma is not good so people does not hear me in this soup opera called slashdot...
Re:RIAA has never sued downloaders (Score:4, Interesting)
Basic problem of media cost vs content cost. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Text from Gizmodo: (Score:4, Interesting)
What if the copyright expires or otherwise doesn't apply for our purposes in country C, and ordinary person C starts making copies there, lawfully. Okay for him to undercut A and B?
If you're treating them differently, why? Remember that in each case, only person A can lawfully make copies in A, only person B can lawfully make copies in B, and anyone can make copies in C.
It's certainly an issue worth considering carefully, but I don't think the answer is necessarily as clear cut as you'd like.
Re:Oh the irony (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure where you're reading me as "rewriting the history of the US", but I was citing a singular relevant example in history, explaining it in context and drawing the parallels: all within a few paragraphs.
I was unaware that for my point to be valid, I also needed to place it within the entirety of the socioeconomic context of 19th century, the Industrial Revolution, slavery and intercontinental transportation. Apparently, rather than taking 2 minutes to make a post, I was supposed to do full research and cite numbers, including percentages of GDP. I used the term "an awful lot" as a loose, abstract term. I'm sorry we're assigning different values to that amount, but don't paint me as some idiot out to rewrite history for my own political agenda.
I'm not writing my thesis; I'm posting in a discussion of music copyright and other countries "stealing" on a website. And, in that context, the fact that something similar has happened before, where a lot of money was at stake, where the roles were reversed, and where the stuff in question was *also* music was relevant.
You're apparently seeing an entirely different "whole point" than I was actually making or stating. I'm not here to stand on a soapbox with my propaganda in my hand, redfaced. I've been on this site for a long time, and have a history of posting pretty carefully, without trying to distort anything to fit my decidedly moderate approach to life.
Re:Text from Gizmodo: (Score:4, Interesting)
If real child porn could be made without harming kids, then it would have to be legal because of the first amendment.
There's no way virtual child porn can hurt kids, so it's legal.
Wise decision if you ask me, since a lot of Anime could easily be considered child porn by US standards.