Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Government Politics Your Rights Online

Russia Agrees To Shut Down AllOfMP3.com 550

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia Agrees To Shut Down AllOfMP3.com

Comments Filter:
  • Damn that WTO (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @04:50AM (#17030382)
    Well, AoMP3 was nice while it lasted. But mostly I care about http://www.lib.ru/ [www.lib.ru] - it's the best Internet library in Russia.

    But we still have a hope, there's a Russian proverb: "Drastic Russian laws are softened by their loose observance". So I hope that lib.ru will continue to work 'underground'.
  • by sylvainsf ( 1020527 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @05:02AM (#17030442)
    TFA also mentions that pharmaceutical companies can't apply to sell generics of a drug in Russia without doing all their own clinical trials and submitting that documentation. I'm guessing that previously they could just use common sense and say IT'S THE SAME MOLECULE.
  • Re:Asshats (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Helix150 ( 177049 ) * on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @05:07AM (#17030454)
    no, why would they? they have been blissfully disconnected from reality for years, chances are they will be too busy declaring victory to notice any change in sales or lack thereof.

    It's a sad fact of human nature- we naturally see things from our own POV and don't look at it from any other perspective. That's why the music industry sucks so much- they (the ones in charge) see things from their own POV. From their POV things are nice and cozy, they are ass raping the artists, and the consumers, and just about everybody else; and congress is on their side.
    They don't think of it like this though, they see business as usual, and the internet threatens that.
    For better or worse they (collectively) are a monopoly. People NEED music. And most people don't invest the energy to go looking for music they like- they absorb it via exposure, which comes from friends CDs, radio, etc. So most of the time, nobody with a clue can get big enough to actively change anything. As long as teens will buy ten million copies of "Grind That Ass Bitch" by 'D. Gangsta and da Thugz', they are all set.
    Their only threats come from two sources- 1. that people will stop buying major label music (unlikely and if it happens they will just buy all the smaller labels), and 2. that the music scene as a whole will change into something they cannot control or profit from.
    It's that which scares them- change. But the fact is people still like their music. So they react with the only weapon they have- their music. They increase their ownership of it to the point that artists are getting ripped off way worse than consumers, and then use this as a weapon, demanding that people stop 'pirating' and 'stealing' 'their music'.

    Looking at the future- in 10-20 years none of this will matter. It's already cheap enough to record your own music at decent enough quality that anybody can do it, and there are a gazillion companies that will happily press CDs for a few hundred bucks. Suddenly the total cost of making a CD is down to under a grand and anybody can afford it.
    The only things that the labels can add to this are sorting (only backing artists that don't suck), branding (creating a promotable brand for the artist) and marketing (pouring tons of $$ into getting ppl to buy the thing).
    Currently we often see this applied as wholesale creation- label or producer will take somebody with *some* talent, give them a few catchy songs to sing, market them to death and reap the reward when ten million 14 year olds buy the album because the dude is good looking.

    However many of these things can be done by other groups- websites and music store sites already provide ratings and let people discuss music to an extent that the separation may not be required. Promoting online is dirt cheap and Internet radio has already exposed a ton of new artists.

    Where this leaves the concept of a record label is where it should be- helping an artist deal with the business end of music when they don't have to.

    So I expect that over the next 10 or 20 years, this whole argument will become moot. Megacorp record labels will continue to produce trash but people will stop listening to it. Don't get me wrong, things will get worse before they get better. But as everybody gets more informed people will start to see what is actually going on and it will be routed around.
    Satellite radio will help with this, because they cater to their listeners (who cancel their account if it sucks) not advertisers. Also, useful 3.5-4g wireless broadband will help with this... you will be able to listen to online radio in the car or from a cell phone, further opening up artist discovery.

    And besides, there is (today) already a growing backlash against DRM and the labels lawsuits. I expect the MS Zune will move this along when everybody that bought music from walmart / napster / etc realizes they have to buy it AGAIN to make it work with the zune. This will educate a lot of people to what DRM actually is, and if they get pissed off enough to act then DRM will very shortly be a thing of the past.
  • Democracy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sub Zero 992 ( 947972 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @05:14AM (#17030490) Homepage
    I was going to write a post critizing the Russian government's ability to mug [bbc.co.uk], steal [guardian.co.uk], kill [hrw.org] and rob [businessweek.com] at will.

    But really, Russia is no worse than the USA, thanks to global hegemony induced TRIPS [state.gov].
  • by Soloact ( 805735 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @05:21AM (#17030522) Homepage Journal
    ,... also, what's with these "agencies" of the RIAA and MPAA? They don't want to allow fair-use copying of digital media, yet, when a movie comes out on DVD, or an advertised CD is released, all of the commercials say, "Own it today". This should be considered false advertising, because one doesn't actually "own" the movie or music one buys, despite the commercials. I continue to be disgusted by their tactics.
  • New name? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xenobyte ( 446878 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @05:45AM (#17030668)
    If the allegations about not paying for the music are correct, the people behind AllOfMP3 must have made a profit beyond belief. Sure some fund have gone to pay for servers, hosting and staff, plus some bribes I'm sure, but there must still be an enormous profit that must have made the owners incredibly rich. And if you are rich in Russia (and not on the Polonium 210 recipient waiting list) you can get away with everything, including simply moving the entire business elsewhere. So it must be just a matter of finding out what the new name will be and start shopping again.

    The real troublesome issue here is that we again have seen the US bullying another nation into line, closely aided by (MP/RI)AA. We saw it with the highly illegal raid on The Pirate Bay in Sweden which was the result of government level pressure and thus a conflict between the separated powers (trias politica). We see the same here because there has been no trial against AllOfMP3 and thus their legality has not been questioned the proper way. That is the real thing that must be stopped.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @05:55AM (#17030734)
    I guess the best alternative for now is probably emusic.com. Their catalog is a bit smaller (about 1,000,000 songs), but I find it has good quality music and a lot less junk than allofmp3. Of course they don't offer the same choice of formats (nothing free as in OGG), but at least they use LAME/APS encoded mp3's which are of course DRM-free. And they don't transcode mp3's like allofmp3 was reported to have done. No DRM means no big artists like Britney Spears, but I could care less when you've got Sonic Youth, Yo La Tengo, Cat Power, Johnny Cash, and the likes.

    Their base plan (in Europe, at least) works out to 0.23 cents per song, and the more you buy, the cheaper it gets. I've signed up for a free trial a few times now, and every time I cancel they come back a few months later inviting me for another free trial. It's not our good 'ole friend allofmp3, but it beats iTunes hands down. So, there's at least one legal site which is getting closer to something worth using...
  • by Narcogen ( 666692 ) <narcogen@@@rampancy...net> on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @06:40AM (#17030952) Homepage
    AllOfMP3, whether the RIAA like it or not, operated within Russian law (or at least, they did so until this past September). Whether or not the new law closes the "loophole" (if you can call strong fair-use rights and lax copyright enforcement by-design a "loophole") will have to wait for the Russian authorities to make a case against someone.

    People can repeat that site's FUD ad infinitum if they like, but it cannot make falsehood into the truth.

    AllofMP3's rights derived from a Soviet government asserted right to any and all intellectual property being broadcast within the Soviet Union. That the Soviet government had no such rights to distribute intellectual properties from the holders of those properties was irrelevant to the Soviet government. The only intellectual property rights they were interested in were those of the state's. Anything the state produced or condoned was fine, and rights to those were distributed (if needed) by the state. Intellectual property that was not condoned was forbidden, and rights to those were irrelevant.

    Any western films and music that were not officially allowed were prohibited, and any copies of them that might exist were contraband.

    With the opening of Russia to the West and the collapse of the Soviet Union, western media were not so tightly controlled. However, the state still had agencies within it granted sweeping rights to control intellectual property anywhere within the Russian Federation, regardless of the fact that the government was no longer the sole source of all those rights.

    When you watch a movie, the warning says that the intellectual property is protected by local laws and international agreements. The only way that companies who deal in intellectual property are willing to set up shop overseas and officially distribute their wares is if they know there are not just local laws, but international agreements in place so their rights can be protected.

    Allofmp3 can have whatever rights it wants given to them by the Russian government, but the fact of the matter is, the Russian government did not have the authority to give the site those rights because it didn't have them. You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties.

    Or, rather, you can, but as Russia has finally come to grips with, you cannot have a situation like this and enter into trade organizations like WTO.

    Either way, to announce the closing of AllOfMP3 as practically the basis of an international trade agreement strikes me as the most capricious undermining of the concept of modern jurisprudence imagineable. This announcement effectively says "The rule of law does not apply to the king's friends, and its protections do not extend to the king's friends' enemies".

    You have grossly misunderstood the situation.

    The only concept that is being underscored here is the universal concept that international agreements supersede local laws. If the duly designated representative or representatives of a government of a country have entered into international agreements that state that the producers of intellectual properties from outside that country's borders will be respected within that country's borders, then other elements of that government, such as the legislature, cannot supersede that arrangement.

    Rights granted to AllofMP3 were null an void because the government agency granting them did not have the authority to; and now, Russia has signed an international agreement that does nothing more than recognize that fact.

    Buildings do not remain standing very long if you undermine their foundations. This should chill us all for a much, MUCH deeper reason than merely the loss of a way to get cheap music. I personally never even used AllOfMP3, and this scares the hell out of me. Imagine the same pr
  • by slaida1 ( 412260 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @07:00AM (#17031054)

    And, how can you go anywhere in a city without being bombarded with new hit music constantly and with replays? Forced advertising?

    If you hear something good, you likely want to hear it again, don't you? How could one prevent himself from hearing music ads without crippling his ability to interact with rest of the world severely with earmuffs.

    Music is so essential part of our being that it's screaming travesty to let only people who do it for money to cover magazines and show on tv and play in radio. They have nothing new to say, they don't make art, they make money. Music awards aren't about music, they are about good looking idols patting each others' backs.

    Is it surprise that people strange to each other often inquire others' favorite music? Shouldn't the fact that so many big gatherings have music give a hint that music is not just any commodity and it can't be advertized, sold, pushed like soap or cars? Music is special because it's a from of communication, it's a common language and music industry has muddied the waters with constant push of meaningless garbage that doesn't communicate.

    Look some parts of world where music still is everyones' right and language to make new friends and tell stories. Not this sick convoluted money grabbing scheme where music is no longer born, it's produced. /morpheus:off

  • by Dr_Barnowl ( 709838 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @07:02AM (#17031062)
    Whoever modded this offtopic, shame on you. I've seen diversions in topic thread far more meandering and less relevant over the past few days.

    It's an interesting opportunity to discuss the differences and similarities of the Pharmaceutical / Music business models.

    Both of them provide

      * something of perceived high value
      * something where the bulk of cost in in the R&D phase
      * something with a low per-unit production cost
      * something where if the product is copied, it can be just as good as the original

    Arguably, both also

      * Advertise products excessively heavily given their actual value
      * Exploit the producers of their intellectual property

    The major difference is that the music industry has a consumer base where a significant fraction can copy the product themselves, whereas the pharamceutical industry only has to worry about industrial competitors in markets where their pricing levels cannot be supported.

    The agreement that Russia has entered is ostensibly about clincal trial data, but given that clinical trials represent the most time consuming and costly part of the development of any drug, it is essentially about prohibiting the marketing of that drug product by a competitor. This protection appears to be distinct and seperate from the protection that may (or may not) be afforded by patents, and is liable to be imposed upon other countries seeking WTO agreements. It is in effect, using the regulatory framework of the country against them.

    It could of course, be trivially circumvented by any country willing to make their certification process as simple as "the FDA approves of it, thus so shall we all".
  • Oh please (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @07:28AM (#17031148) Journal
    One of the most significant contributions to human rights in all of human history came from Hammurabi - The concept of a written code of laws, which everyone could know and which applied equally to all people, thus making "justice" less subject to the biases of the king / emperor / caliph / whatever. He may not have quite lived up to that ideal, but as a basis for all modern reasonably-fair legal systems, it forms a cornerstone on which we've built everything since.

    AllOfMP3, whether the RIAA like it or not, operated within Russian law (or at least, they did so until this past September).


    Bingo. So as of September, a Russian law _does_ exist, under which offering such downloads is illegal. And it applies to everyone, not only to AllOfMP3.

    It's not even new. According to the very article you've linked to: " Luckily Russia passed just such a law a couple years ago... though it didn't go into effect until just last week." I took the liberty of highlighting a crucial point there. It's not some law passed over-night right now, but something that had been voted years ago.

    So a law does exist, and it does apply to everyone. Exactly like in all modern legal systems. And there were a couple of years given to everyone to clean up their act, before it goes in effect. Which is actually a lot more than most other modern legal systems give you.

    At best all that the new aggreement with the USA says is, "yep, we're actually going to enforce that law." Which, again, is perfectly normal in any modern legal system. And it seems to be what you ask for anyway: a law should apply to everyone equally, even if they're the emperor's friends or favourite purveyors of stolen goods. So, yes, it should equally apply to AllOfMP3 too.

    So basically please spare me the bullshit. If you have something against copyright, fine by me. But you can find better stuff to support it with than bogus "oh, there goes western civilization and rule of the law" arguments.
  • Move it to Sudan (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rev_karol ( 735616 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @07:37AM (#17031200)
    And Palestine and anywhere else that needs the money bady. Screw the legality. I want cheap music. They need the money.
  • Re:Asshats (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Shawn is an Asshole ( 845769 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @07:52AM (#17031340)
    If you don't sign the contract (which always screws the artist over) with the parasites, you don't get on the radio. Fucking Clear Channel. Indie labels get ignored.

    Anything less than bankruptcy for RIAA members is too good for them.

    NOFX put's it well in Dinosaurs Will Die:

    Kick back watch it crumble
    See the drowning, watch the fall
    I feel just terrible about it
    That's sarcasm, let it burn

    I'm gonna make a toast when it falls apart
    I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart
    Then someone shouts "That's what they get!"

    For all the years of hit and run
    For all the piss broke bands on VH1
    Where did all, their money go?
    Don't we all know

    Parasitic music industry
    As it destroys itself
    We'll show them how it's supposed to be

    Music written from devotion
    Not ambition, not for fame
    Zero people are exploited
    There are no tricks, up our sleeve

    Gonna fight against the mass appeal
    We're gonna kill the 7 record deal
    Make records that have more than one good song
    The dinosaurs will slowly die
    And I do believe no one will cry
    I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be
    There to watch the fall

    Prehistoric music industry
    Three feet in la brea tar
    Extinction never felt so good

    If you think anyone would feel badly
    You are sadly, mistaken
    The time has come for evolution
    Fuck collusion, kill the five

    Whatever happened to the handshake?
    Whatever happened to deals no-one would break?
    What happened to integrity?
    It's still there it always was
    For playing music just because
    A million reasons why

    (All) dinosaurs will die
    (All) dinosaurs will die
    (All) dinosaurs will die
  • Re:Asshats (Score:2, Interesting)

    by FST777 ( 913657 ) <frans-janNO@SPAMvan-steenbeek.net> on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @08:08AM (#17031466) Homepage
    Totally agreed.

    This reasoning goes for the bunch of the flock: I download songs to try something out, or to "just have it" when it's moderately good, but not great. I spent a large deal of my money to buy CD's, since I really would like to see more of the same stuff around, thus willing to support the artists and the label. Besides, some CD's are a "must have". I take great pride in owning some of my collection, or in owning all records of one particular artist.

    Simillary, my sister (who is too young to have large amounts of money available to buy legal content) downloads her content most of the time. But when she has some bucks to spent, she does. Recently she really, really wanted a copy of Pirates of the Carribean II, but she didn't have the money to buy it. She wanted to download it to watch the movie while she was saving her pennies to buy it once she could. Then some of her friends gave her a legal copy as a thank you for something. She was extremely happy with it, and proud that she could add it to her small (but legal) collection.

    On the other hand, there are some out there who really don't give a damn. They download everything they can get their hands on, and sometimes resell it whenever they can (mostly DVD's) to those who don't value the content enough to buy it legally. Those are the once that can pose a real threat to the artists and the labels. But they form a very small portion of the downloaders. It's time that the RIAA realizes this.
  • by demallien2 ( 991621 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @09:09AM (#17032006)
    what would happen if someone set up a site, a bit like The Pirate Bay, or AllOfMP3, but with the big difference that they took the trouble to track down the artists who's work they sold, and gave them half the profits. What would the artists do? Reject the money? Ditch their RIAA contract?
  • by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @09:18AM (#17032100)
    What do you mean, 'no RIAA argument please'? The RIAA is the one making sure allofmp3 COULDN'T pay the artists. Allofmp3 DID pay the Russian agency in charge of compensating the artists. And that agency DID try to pay them.

    Don't blame Allofmp3 for the RIAA's bullshit.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2006 @12:26PM (#17035012)
    Yes AOMP3 was not a charity, and I'm sure they made plenty of money. It's easy to do when you pay almost NO royalties on any music you sell! Sure the MPAA didn't get anything from them but neither did the artists.

    If you like giving the same people money that are basically behind the massive Zombienets you see today, then buying from AOMP3 was an awesome choice for music. Basically it was more ethical to steal it outright!

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Working...