RIAA Goes for the Max Against AllofMP3 777
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.'"
How excessive. (Score:5, Informative)
How fucking ludicrous and excessive. Jesus.
Meanwhile AllofMp3 offers 20% bonus (Score:5, Informative)
AllofMp3 offers 20% bonus untill January 14, 2007 [allofmp3.com]
It is ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
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.
trillion (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_music_market [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:2, Informative)
That's a bit of a jump to make. The USA isn't nearly as dependent on Russian oil and gas as Europe is, and if Russia collapses, the USA can launch satellites on their own just fine. Besides, the Russian economy is too heavily based on natural resources. And even though they're sitting on massive natural gas reserves, they can't deliver enough of the product for their own citizens, because their industry is geared towards export. In the industrial sector, one of Russia's areas of strength in the Soviet era, practically none of its products can compete on the international market. The birth rate has been sharply declining, creating a rapidly increasing median age, which will place an even greater burden on their economy. They've never quite recovered from years of communist stagnation. Overall, the Russian economy is very weak, especially compared to the booming economic growth in China, another massive country that had to make a systemic change from communism to capitalism. And from a diplomatic standpoint, the United States is the world's foremost military and economic power, while Russia's influence has drastically declined since the Soviet Union broke apart. Russia most certainly need the USA more than the USA needs Russia.
Re:quadrouple dipped (Score:4, Informative)
mrshowtime was accused by the esteemed Anonymous Coward (which I referred to as astroturfer) to be stealing, as if depriving someone of belongings.
However, mrshowtime purchased MP3s through a corporate entity which is operating totally in compliance with Russian law. This is aside from mrshowtime's Fair Use right to simply retain backup copies made in accordance with Fair Use.
So, how is the esteemed Anonymous Coward NOT astroturfing for the RIAA, since mrshowtime is going out of his way to replace his music collection without even taking advantage of Fair Use?
I'd argue that mrshowtime may be better off avoiding RIAA materials altogether and buy independent, or listen to classical or talk radio instead, but unfortunately that solution does not work for everyone, due to musical tastes, programming availability, and so forth.
Equating mrshowtime's LEGAL purchases from a corporate entity which is operating LEGALLY to theft of physical goods is not even close to a fair comparison.
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.
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.
Re:Not stolen (Score:2, Informative)
Keep in mind that you are talking about the RIAA. It is generally understood that the RIAA and those record companies it represents are capable of almost anything, possibly excluding anything that appears sensible. I should know: I have kept close watch on the activities of an especially eccentric RIAA label for fifteen years...
So, if I were an RIAA record label, I would probably say this:
You the consumer buy only the media; you only license the music; but your license is valid only if you still possess the media.
Evidence for this interpretation: The RIAA requests that if you sell a piece of media that contains RIAA-licensed music, then you must give the back-ups to the person you sold the media to or else destroy the back-ups.
Disclaimers:
I am not an RIAA astroturfer. I came by my interest in their ways of thinking naturally.
I do not approve of everything the RIAA does. I have done things with RIAA material that it would not approve of.
Re:Hmm? (Score:4, Informative)
Dollar's been falling steadily against rouble for the last four (4) years and currently is at the lowest level in seven years [yahoo.com]:
$1 = 26.28
Re:Screw them both. (Score:3, Informative)
A ton of Slashdotters use it because they think it's a good business model and they feel like they're doing something legal
And many ignore that even if pirate CD's (physical ones) are legal in some country, importing them into the US is not legal. Even if All of MP3 is legal in russis, Importing the MP3's into the US is not legal. There are import restrictions on imported pirated materials.
The question is, "Is the lawsuit proper against the AllofMP3?". I think the real lawsuit should be against the illegal importers of the MP3's (US consumers of AllofMP3). Lawyers are involved, so the target right or wrong is the big pot with possible deep pockets even though they are out of the USA.
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Screw them both. (Score:3, Informative)
Importing your own property is legal.
Re:Screw them both. (Score:3, Informative)
"Is it legal to use the AllOfMP3 pay service in the United States (US)?
Although to our knowledge there is no direct precedent on the legality of accessing a service like ours from the US (i.e., using a legal music download service located outside of the US), we, however, do believe that there are at least several statutes, each of which, should allow users to access our service in the US; such as 17 U.S.C. 602(a) (the "Importation for Private Use Exception"); 1008, 1001 (the "iPod Exception"); 109 (the "First-Sale Doctrine/Anti-'Double-Dip' Exception"); 107, 117 (the "Fair-Use/Backup Exception"); among others."
What they are saying is that it's legal to buy it in Russia, and you're allowed to legally import paid-for music from other countries for private use only, which brings us straight back to "Is it legal in Russia?", none of which (as far as I know; IANAL) a civil American court has no jurisdiction in deciding.
Re:Hmm? (Score:3, Informative)
In 1921, they had rubles - just, plain, rubles. But there was terrible inflation, and in 1922, they gave 1 "new" ruble for 10,000 of the original rubles. In 1923, they gave out another "new" ruble, at a rate of 100 to 1. In 1924, they had yet another ruble, the "gold" ruble, which was worth 50,000 of the 1923 rubles -- or, if I'm running this calculation right, 50,000,000,000 (50 billion) of the original Rubles for the new rubles.
There were two later revaluations at a 10:1 ratio, in 1947 and 1961, but nothing quite so impressive as 50 billion times in just three years. And the dollar is at little risk of that, in any event; the Federal Reserve isn't quite so loose with our currency.
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Idiot (Score:2, Informative)
I like the attitude, and I wish more would have it, but it seems like more of a utopian desire than than reality. For the number of people out there saying 'i wish i could support the artists directly', well, we're out there and there are ways to do it (and I'm sure it's not just me, I'm just the easiest example from my perspective).
Sorry for the Slashvertisement, but I had to get my point across.
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.
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.
Nulla poena sine lege (Score:4, Informative)
It would be like if the US made recycling of lightbulbs mandatory (giving the lightbulb-makers the right to sue you if you didn't bring broken lightbulbs) and then the lightbulbmakers try to sue you because you threw away a lightbulb ten years ago (instead of recycling it). You cannot break laws retroactively. Even if the lightbulbmakers ran big campaigns and threatened to sue you if you don't recycle those lightbulbs, they cannot sue you for doing something in the past that now would break the law.
Re:It's a gambit (Score:3, Informative)
Distributing is giving copies of the song to other people.
Downloading is getting a copy of the song for yourself.
The way p2p is designed, when you get a copy, you also give all or part of the song to 20 to 50 other people. (Riaa then invalidly sues you for giving copes to everyone they give copies to also. However, that's double dipping- probably even 100tuble dipping).
Allofmp3 "performs" a unique copy of the song to you. They paid royalties to the russian copyright association. Those royalties are a pittance of what RIAA wants. It's currently legal however.
If it literally was legal then making it illegal later probably doesn't bind you to get rid of things you bought legally.
Re:Meanwhile AllofMp3 offers 20% bonus (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:3, Informative)
May I suggest you find some better music to listen to? There's plenty of good music from the last 10 years.
Re:It's a gambit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:quadrouple dipped (Score:3, Informative)
no. it means you built a factory and showroom in Russia for the production and distribution of the counterfeit. which you are now offering to buyers in the U.S. for shipment at a cut-rate price.
the intangible property right of exclusive distribution is something that can be stolen.
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.
Re:Not w/ lobbying groups.... (Score:4, Informative)
If the lobbying groups don't buy influence, what exactly is it they are spending money on?
They don't have to buy much influence. When 533 people are controlling $2 trillion, you only have to steer a very small amount power to be worth spending a good-sized pile of money. Or you keep a lobbying firm on retainer for years, just to have them available to put in your side of the story on the once-in-a-century moment when it can make a difference. It's sorta like patents, they're usually not good for anything, but the megacorps cultivate piles as a form of insurance.
Re:For the good of the planet ... (Score:3, Informative)
"The CEO of the RIAA isn't a lawyer. Neither, I presume, are a lot of the members and officers."
The CEO, Mitch Bainwol, doesn't have a JD, but he does have an MBA, which I believe makes him just as hated by Slashdotters. However, the RIAA"s president, one Cary Sherman, is Harvard Law '71, and was an IP lawyer for several years. FWIW, he's also dabbled in software copyright; he wrote this book [amazon.com] which I'm sure is a thrilling page-turner.
By the way, I ran into Cary Sherman a few years back at CES. He's about 5'8". I could probably take him in a fight.
Re:It's a gambit (Score:2, Informative)
When you download from AllOfMp3, you pay for a song and download it. AllOfMp3 pays their royalties.
Mind you, AllOfMp3 is NOT free.
The RIAA only cares because AllOfMp3 doesn't put that stupid digital rights crap that prevents you from sharing the song again or transferring it from iTunes to someone else. AllOfMp3 just gives it to you in the nice, simple, easy to deal with
Re:Proof? Proof of what, exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
I just have to point out that, though it is indeed absurd, MP3.com back in the good old days got legally smacked down for doing *exactly that*. And the precedent stood.
You put in a CD in your computer, MP3.com verified it was legit, and gave you access to an MP3 copy they had previously made. Court ruled that format shifting is only legal if you do it yourself, and even though the end result was *exactly the same*, just saving the consumer some time and effort, they were ordered to stop.
Re:Proof? Proof of what, exactly? (Score:3, Informative)
17 USC 101 defines a copy as a material object in which a work is fixed. Although computer users have a habit of calling a sequence of information a copy (e.g. I have two copies of file foo on this hard drive), this is incorrect usage when discussing copyright (which would say that there is one copy -- the hard drive itself, so long as it contains file foo, no matter what else it contains, or how many times it contains it).
If you download information, no tangible object is sent to your computer; only information is sent. But the computer writes that information onto tangible objects, such as its RAM, cache, hard drives, etc. Because it does this, it makes at least one copy, possibly more, just as a normal part of its operation. If the computer and the objects are located within the US, then US law alone governs the creation of those copies; that some foreign law would allow it is irrelevant, because the copying is not occurring there. This is an example of reproduction, the first type of infringement listed in 17 USC 106.
Another distinct type of infringement, also listed in section 106, is distribution. While the canonical case of distribution is that of physically handing out copies (which, as you now know, are tangible copies), courts have also interpreted it to include providing files on a server; while only the information goes over the wire, the downloader creates and ends up with a new copy as if the uploader had simply distributed one in the first place. Disagree with this if you like, but the courts have been unanimous in this.
Importation is not listed as infringing behavior per se, in the Copyright Act. But the law does say that importation is an infringement of the distribution right. That is, importation is a subset of distribution. Specifically, the law talks about the importation of copies, rather than importation of anything. In fact, all of section 602 is very copy-centric, in that copies might be in luggage, they might be susceptable to being intercepted by customs, that things depend on the laws of the place where the copies being imported were made, etc. So a court is likely to interpret importation in this context as being the movement of tangible objects across the border into the US. Since copies are tangible objects and downloading does not involve tangible objects being moved from place to place, downloading cannot be importation. It is, OTOH, reproduction, which is a different kind of infringing behavior. That in some cases importation might be allowed is no longer relevant to this discussion, since we're not looking at importation to begin with.
While I'm not aware of any court cases where someone actually tried to use 602 as a defense to downloading, the statutes are pretty clear that such a defense would fail pretty readily. Plus of course, courts simply don't like people who are perceived as wrong-doers. While they will still faithfully apply the law, and protect the person they dislike if the law commands, they won't do that person any favors either when they have some discretion. Hoping that a court would side with a downloader if it had a chance to interpret laws either way is a hell of a long shot.
Hopping back to reproduction for a moment, you might think that pretty much any downloading can be infringing now, especially since it doesn't matter whether you knew or even could have known, that it was illegal at the time you did it. You'd be right, and in fact, there have been cases along these lines. My favorite to cite, since it is so clearly written, is
Re:It's a gambit (Score:3, Informative)
The US iTunes store is licensed by the US copyright holders for the music it sells -- which is why they don't have everything, and the US store is limited to buyers in the US. Their license also covers its customers, at least for downloads from the iTMS.
I think the argument here is that customers of allofmp3 believe they are purchasing from a legitimate store
No, that isn't a valid argument. US copyright law is strict liability; it doesn't matter whether a person thinks they acting legally or not. Strict liability laws are uncommon, but another good example would be statutory consent laws -- even if you thought the 15 year old was 18, and had no reason to think otherwise, and there was nothing more you could have done to verify her age, you're still on the hook.
This store does pay royalties to the russian version of the RIAA, however this Russian RIAA does not pass them on.
And that would be great if the downloader was in Russia, where Russian law applies, but you are not. ROMS has no legal authority in the US, and cannot protect someone who is located in the US, nor can they license such a person to do things in the US that are contrary to US law. If you're in the US, and you download, US copyright law is what applies to you, and it does not permit this sort of thing. Honestly, your argument is closely akin to saying that if marijuana is more or less legal in the Netherlands that it's okay for someone to have some here, if the Dutch say it's okay. It's a plainly stupid argument and it has zero chance of success.
I don't really care if you want to break the law, but I do care that you know what the law is, so that you can make an informed decision into whether or not you want to break it.