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.'"
quadrouple dipped (Score:5, Interesting)
I am old enough to have bought my entire collection on records, tapes, cd's and for as much as I can SACD/HD audio. I am all for contributing to the machine if the records companies release NEW, higher quality recordings in the future, but I'm not repurchasing my cd collection. I've already paid my taxes to the RIAA Gods several times over.
Want to bet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:AllofMP3 should just settle... (Score:4, Interesting)
are you kidding? (Score:5, Interesting)
He bought a legitimate license, lost his original copies in a natural disaster, and then downloaded replacements - and that's the moral equivalent of your download without purchasing any license? I don't see it.
In his model, the money was paid to the copyright holder, and presumably some of that money made its way to the artist. When he downloaded replacements, he cost the copyright holder nothing, and only deprived them of the opportunity to charge him for an additional copy.
I'm not saying what he did was morally right, but it's a darn close to acceptable in my book. I'm frankly uncertain of what I'd do in that situation. I keep an off site mp3 version of all of my legitimately purchased music, so I'm less exposed in the case of a natural disaster. It seems ridiculous to suggest that he should pay full price to have access to something he already paid full price for.
I think it would be a good idea for you to pay for music. After all, if no one pays for music, there's no money to pay artists at all, regardless of the fairness of the contracts and the distribution mechanisms.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
One possible hilarious response (Score:3, Interesting)
How do they pay it ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Suits of this nature are filed knowing full well there's no way the entity could possibly fullfill the terms, which cripples the entity & ensures they can not recover & continue business as usual.
Funny thing is, if ruled against, I could see allofmp3 flipflopping & silently going bankrupt through their US counterpart somehow, then starting all over again.
RIAA vs credit card companies? (Score:3, Interesting)
If AllOfMP3.com gets shut down permanently, another cheap MP3 site can just spring up in its place.
But if credit card companies are ordered to block payments to such sites, and regularly updated about each new naughty 'infringing' site, that just might start to seriously disrupt the business models of such sites.
Re:trillion (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, they won't GET this -- the minimum damage award is $750 per work, or about $8B. (It drops to $200 if allofmp3.com proves that it had to reason to know it was infringing.) Even more, though, "all the parts of a compilation . . . constitute one work." This could be interpreted to mean that the per-infringement damages are *per album*, not *per track*.
The interesting thing in the case is whether a US court can acquire personal jurisdiction over the company that would allow them to even HEAR the suit.
I put my trust in the Russian mafia (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had my share of 'fights' with them, so I know they are a formidable enemy. And I can only hope that they are behind AAMP3, too. Because then, we'll see what happens when two criminal cartels clash.
I'll bring the popcorn.
Only people on /. take that position. (Score:2, Interesting)
This licensing thing is getting really fucking tiresome. People on
They are also unnecessary.Yyou don't need an EULA to use software (note, this is separate from whether EULAs are enforceable), because any infringing acts you commit in order to use your software are actually exempted in the Copyright Act itself. Consumer level licensing exists for virtually no other copyrightable works, and they wouldn't need to exist for software either. The fact that they do is insane, really.
So, please stop it with this licensing bullshit. It makes you look like a fucking idiot and just instigates other fools into repeating you thinking you have a clue.
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:5, Interesting)
I currently do not let my son download music illegally. He is allowed to buy off of iTunes with prepaid cards, and cannot use bittorrent, or any other p2p. Now I know someday, he'll be able to use these without my knowledge and thats fine. But what I'm doing is explaining to him why leagally obtaining music is the right thing to do. I also however expalain in detail that the RIAA is possibly the largest bunch of idiotic half wits on the entire planet. My eplaination basiclly goes "iTunes uses DRM at the behest of the music industry, but its not too invasive and can be removed simply by burning a CD and reimporting (lossy I know), but it doesn't bind the user too much and the price is reasonable (unlike Apples movies which we won't buy)". I also tell him that iTunes would lose every cent of our business if someone started selling unDRMed mp3s for the same (or lower price). Now allofmp3.com fits that bill but as this story shows, their legality is in question. But the RIAA is overplaying its hand!! (Sorry I'm going to yell and swear now, but can't help it). Those fucking bastards keep going after allofmp3, keep pressuring Apple to raise prices, and keep trying to get other sites with even worse DRM than fairplay fired up!! Dammit RIAA all you have to do to win the entire fucking market and make these same billions of dollars you sue everyone for is OFFER FUCKING DRM FREE MUSIC FROM YOUR OWN SITES AT THE PRICE APPLE HAS ALREADY DETERMINED WILL WORK!!!!! I mean I could steal everything for just a little bit more effort than buying from iTunes. I don't, I try to do whats right, but my patience is wearing thin, very thin.
This is a warning to the RIAA, keep this shit up and you'll make it way to easy for everyone to justify stealing from you because you are just too fucking evil. And I'll tell my son stealing from you is ok too because an group of soulless, vile, repugnant, people like you don't deserve any of our money or our respect.
For freedom, go to Russia? or China? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, here we are again. If you want to find a place where you can freely exchange ideas for the sake of advancing science or art, well, the US is not currently that place. If you have a new composition based on Bach, great, but anything based on any work from the last century would be illegal to even give away without paying the owning corporation whatever they demand. And the software that you created is also illegal to give away, because the trivial algorithm you used was patented last year by another information holding company.
Re:It's a gambit (Score:3, Interesting)
But this case is different. They have visa card numbers. These are adults and these are tied to one person. They have IP addresses and they have the list of song transactions. This is hard proof. And they can pick and choose who to make an example of with such a rich treasure trove. There's going to be plenty of people in the grand-theft category and that means siginificant jail time not just damages.
This is the RIAA's opportunity to make the court work for them.
Dumbass back at you.
Not w/ lobbying groups.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lobbying groups have far less influence than most people think. (I work on the Hill - I know.) Unless the group represents someone that is a constituent (or business that employs large numbers of constituents) of the politician or the politician is corrupt (roughly 1 in 50 is), the group will not get face time with a Senator. They might get to meet one of his legislative assistants (many who are law students), but the influence a LA will have on his / her Senator varies greatly.
If you were to poll the Senators before they ran for office, you would find that their views are already in alignment with the RIAA and MPAA. That is why they get money donated to their campaign - not for influence when they are in office, but to get elected (pure and simple - cause when they are then elected the RIAA / MPAA does not need to worry about them). The American people at the moment do not care enough about the issues (that the RIAA and MPAA do) to vote based on them (and given our current problems - this may be a good thing).
When the movie / music organizations throw receptions here (they did a special dinner and advance screening of Eragon 3 weeks ago), not a single Senator went (I know - I had nothing better to do, so I rsvp'ed and showed). Heck, I bet less than 10-15 legislative assistants were there also. Most of the people that go to their meetings are either interns, people that think they're important or rarely IT people that are tired of coding (me). Now many of those interns may be your future Senators - so you could say that they are buying influence in advance... but I doubt it - given most interns pirate music left and right (a few are dumb enough to do it at work).
Anyhow - they (lobbying groups) don't buy influence, Americans simply elect people that support the lobbying groups views (i.e. an uninformed voting populace).
Re:Given that... (Score:2, Interesting)
and know this is of toppic.
But some coins are falling now.
I did know the americans bought a big piece of property here in the chaco,
But did not know it was mr bush himself behind it.
You want to know why he/the americans bought that ranche.
It is ontop of one of the biggest clean water reserves in the world.
Greets John van der Pol
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall (Score:3, Interesting)
This points out one of the problems with an economy based on brain share products. Valuation. You may be able to get a dollar for it in the US but only a penny in Russia. How are you ever going to enforce valuation in another economy when the product doesn't have intrinsic value based on hard assets? It's insane to even try, but insanity doesn't stop the recording industry.
Companies can get away with it here because our Congress is corrupt and we're wealthy. It doesn't bother us to spend 10 bucks on a CD, but that's a week's pay in some places. Same principle applies to movies, software and most entertainment products.
The day will come when one of these countries we're into for a couple hundred billion in trade deficit, maybe a country that provides most of our manufacturing is going to call bullshit.
Re:Proof? Proof of what, exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's ridiculous. If you have a legal right to a file in another country, and posession of it in this country is not otherwise illegal (e.g., it's not kiddie porn or something), there's no sane reason you can't copy it across the (virtual, and therefore nonexistant) border.
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!
Next, imagine you do the same thing, but you put it on a computer you happen to own, that you leave in Europe. You then transfer it to yourself after you get back home. Is that illegal? Of course not, that would be absurd!
Now, finally, imagine exactly the same thing, except that AllOfMP3.com just happens to be storing the file for you instead of you doing it for yourself (note: it's still your file, because you bought it). How is that any different? It's not, therefore it would still be absurd for it to be illegal!
Re:Bad Counterargument (Score:4, Interesting)
b) just says that if the copy was made illegally at the point of origin, it is considered illegal when imported into the United States. (i.e. chinese bootlegs)
a) clearly states an exception for importation for personal use. If it is legal in the country of origin and you are importing it for personal use, it is legal.
In this case, the mp3s are legal under Russian law, so importing them for personal use is not illegal. I think the point of contention is whether they are being imported into the U.S., or distributed for sale in the U.S.
In my opinion, since the sale occurs on a server in russia, it is sold in russia and then imported. that would make it legal for them to sell and legal for you to buy.
And before anyone attacks me...I've never bought anything from allofmp3.com and have no interest in doing so. I like to own the cd.
Re:Hmm? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again I guess China beat us to the punch, only we're on the wrong end of it. Perhaps can assign our judgement against Russia over to China and they'll sign over the deed on America back to us? "China currently holds over $1 trillion in dollar denominated assets" [wikipedia.org]. Coincidence? I think not.
Re:suing the wrong people? (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell you what I'll sue you in DudsLand. I win, you owe me $5billion.
When can I expect the check?
Re:It's a gambit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Screw them both. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the smartest women I know is a single parent. She taught her child, who is a budding geek (actually he calls himself a "nerd" and is carrying on a campaign of deprecation of the word "geek" but I'll set him straight eventually) that he could swear at home, but if he started swearing in inappropriate situations she wouldn't let him swear at home any more. He's still not allowed to swear at her, of course, but he can swear near her.
Well, she taught him this when he was around kindergarten age, and now he's about 13 (IIRC) and he still understands the difference.
Perhaps treating your children like adults is the best way to get them to act like adults?
I doubt you are actually doing this based on your attitude about children potentially dropping the f-bomb, but then I don't have enough information to really make that call so I will try to reserve judgement.
Deathmatch (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Scenarios to show you are wrong for the 100,001 (Score:1, Interesting)
b) Go to France, buy a track from iTunes. Go back to the USA. Legal copy.
c) Go to India, buy a track from iTunes. Go back to the USA. Transfer to another computer. Legal copy.
d) Go to Brazil, buy a track from iTunes. Burn to CD. Go back to the USA. Legal copy.
How is this different from
y) Go to Russia, buy a track from allofmp3. Go back to USA. Legal copy.
It's irrelevant if you think these are stupid definitions of copies, etc. They are the statutory definitions and they courts apply them.
When you download from allofmp3, and make a copy, this happens in the US, at your direction, and you're liable.
Note "unauthorized." A Russian law or a Russian copyright holder cannot authorize you. Only the US copyright holder under US copyright law can authorize you.
All of this "go to Russia" crap is beside the point. You're not going to Russia. The infringing act happens in the US.