Russian Music Site Offering Legal Songs By The MB 614
An anonymous reader writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting on a Russian Music site that is offering legal digital music by the MB. The site apparently has a license from the Russian Music authorities to legally distribute songs for a fraction of the price of what is being offered by iTunes and others. The report from SMH is here. Amazingly, the site offers files in any format and encoding you choose and rips it on the fly. Notifications by email follow when the songs are ready for download. Sounds a little to good to be true :)"
Dunno why no link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dunno why no link (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Dunno why no link (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe the RIAA submitted the story to Slashdot to bring down the server?
Re:Dunno why no link (Score:5, Funny)
Allofmp3.com (Score:5, Informative)
Been using their services for half a year now without any problems. They're licenced with the Russian equivalent of the RIAA, so I don't see where the problem is.
This is a great example of the free market combined with the internet. I'm able to buy goods and services from wherever it suits me.
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly the same argument that can be used for outsourcing IT jobs. You can't have it both ways people! You can't have your cheap consumer economy in the US, and still want your jobs protected. Why not complain about the poor music industry jobs that are being "outsourced" to Russia?
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:5, Interesting)
As has been said many times before, not all of slashdot speaks with one voice. When you see those topics with 800-2000 comments, it's because there is significant disagreement. If everyone agreed, there wouldn't be much to say.
You are right that there can be a certain hypocricy in saying that consumers should be able to get cheap wares from Russian markets, yet that our jobs should not be outsourced there. However, the charitable thing to do is to assume that no one holds both those positions until seeing someone that does. What makes you think otherwise?
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:3, Insightful)
So... c-ya! (after I graduate
What makes you think . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:4, Insightful)
But most of the jobs related to the song that's being downloaded have little or nothing to do with where in the world the song is being sold.
This is no different than buying a record while on vacation, buying a record from another country over the net or buying something from iTunes while not being a US citizen.
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:4, Insightful)
Nearly every successful person I know has gotten there by knowing people with money and selling things to them. One guy I know quit GE and started his own company doing exactly what he did at GE, hired his former co-workers, and outsourced himself to GE for more money (twice as much, but GE loved it since they weren't "in that field," despite dropping several mil a year into it).
While it's true that trickle down economics don't work, pumping water from upstream generally does.
Anyhow, the Grandfather's assertion that the average wage in the US will be no higher than the average wage in urban China is true, for the most part, but only because the average wage in urban China will go up at the same time ours goes down. That's one easy way to acheive global equality.
wealth is leaving US (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:5, Insightful)
NO, this is not like outsourcing.
What this is doing is using the industry's geographical price discrimitation against them.
They might charge $10 for a widget in the US and only $4 in Cambodia, so what's happening here it that the same goods are still being purchased from the same company, it's just the geographic price discrimination is being avoided.
Incidentally price controls like this are illegal in the US, it's just that nobody exists to deal with them on an internaional level. Thus, you can ship a DVD that won't play in Korea, but not one which won't play in Kentucky.
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly the same argument that can be used for outsourcing IT jobs. You can't have it both ways people! You can't have your cheap consumer economy in the US, and still want your jobs protected. Why not complain about the poor music industry jobs that are being "outsourced" to Russia?
At some point you might want to read something about the concept of Comparative Adva
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:5, Insightful)
A company can move, source, produce and sell pretty much wherever it wants. However, as a consumer my possibilities to buy goods and services where I see fit is severely hampered.
Ever tried to buy something from an Amazon affiliate not in your part of the world? Heck, I'm in Luxembourg, and there's many articles within amazon.de that they refuse to ship to anywhere but Germany.
A Toyota Prius is 20000 USD in the US, and 25000 EUR over here. Can I import one from the US? Sure. Will Toyota US sell me one? Sure not.
Of course, I could jump through hoops and get my stuff (I sometimes do). But we're far away from having consumers being able to use globalization to his advantage...
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:5, Interesting)
This is nothing to do with minor exchange rate differences either. Standard retail prices of cars are regularly 20-60% higher in the UK.
As geograpical price-fixing goes, 'Ripoff Britain' has USA and continental Europe beaten hands-down.
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:3, Informative)
The EU is all about opening up markets within Europe. As far as they're concerned the rest of the world can go hang itself. In fact, the whole point of the EU is to eliminate barriers to trade between EU countries while keeping barriers to non-EU countries.
However, it is the national governments that hinder this.
Yes, but the EU court manages to keep a leash on this behavior through zealous enforcement of articles 25-28 of the EU treaty.
Not licenced by Russian equivalent of RIAA... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:4, Insightful)
If they get too much power and abuse it (and let's face it, too much power always leads to abuse), then that can be bad. But ideally they're representing artists rights, put to that position by artists, just as good or bad as for example EFF can be.
On this planet, the RIAA does have too much power, and they do abuse it, and they don't really represent artists - they represent the labels, which just want to make money. If they could do it without artists, they would.
Re:*RI* represents artists... not. Think RA* (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not correct. The *RI* organizations represent the recording industry, not artists. Recording artists are represented by organizations like the Recording Acadamy [grammy.com] and the Recording Artists Coalition [recordinga...lition.com] --organizations which are often at odds with the RIAA.
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Besides, in post-Soviet Russia, the songs MegaByte You!
Er....
Re:So I guess that means that in America... (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously not rip... (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, has anybody tried this? I found it many months ago, but I am loath to send my credit card data to a semi-shady Russian site, and I am worried that credit card records could be used to go after people who used the site when it (inevitably) gets shut down eventually. What do people think?
Re:Obviously not rip... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Obviously not rip... (Score:3, Informative)
It's almost certainly illegal.
..... you can't be held to an agreement not to reverse-engineer or disassemble the software {which the law gives you a specific right to do, as long as it's for the purpose of satisfying your own morbid curiosity and you aren't trying to run a business based on it}.
In most countries, if the law of the land gives you a right, nobody can take that right away from you. Which is why EULAs are on such shaky ground
Re:Credit Card? (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of people, apparently. Including me. I've been very happy with it.
I don't think they even accept credit cards directly; at least, I don't recall seeing that option when I signed up.
I signed up using PayPal. That's one reason I took the plunge: a (more or less) reputable American intermediary for the financial end. I have a balance, that's deducted from for each download. When it's near empty, I go to PayPal and fill 'er up again. It's pretty painless.
Yes, rip-on-the-fly as well - hard disk is a cache (Score:3, Interesting)
Their hard disk storage is probably configured as an intermediate cache (well that's how I'd do it anyway), with cache-load requests coming up on the monitors of a bunch of unskilled temp employees who have the task of loading newly requested CDs into the racks of CDROM drives, ejecting the LRU CD as instructed.
And even this group of people probably f
Re:Yes, rip-on-the-fly as well - hard disk is a ca (Score:4, Funny)
They prob'ly just hit Kazaa for those.
Re:Obviously not rip... (Score:5, Interesting)
The funny thing is, after we put the first amount on our credit card, Citibank called up to make sure that the charge was legit. Then when we put more money on a few months later, they called again! I guess Citibank just can't believe people might purchase stuff from a Russian company
Doug
Re:Obviously not rip... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure Citibank isn't skeptical of the company itself per se, more that you've changed your buying habits to purchase something internationally.
BTW, this can be bad from a precedent setting perspective. Citibank will (eventually) adjust its fraud-detection settings for your account, so the next time a questionable internet-based Russian purchase happens it might not trigger a flag.
Re:Obviously not rip... (Score:4, Informative)
Use the "one-time disposable credit card number generation" service provided by your bank. Citi has it, MBNA has it, Discover has it, AmEx has it, almost everyone these days has it.
The way it works, you log in, specify the maximum amount to charge and set your own expiration date per your wish. A credit card number from a static pool is given to you and associated with the amount and your billing information for the period of time until expiration. After that, the number is useless. The number also becomes useless once you use it to charge up to the amount that you specified (i.e. exhaust your "quota" on that number). They typically even generate the CVV code for you, should you ever need it, so it works pretty well.
Bandwidth testing (Score:4, Funny)
Tom.
The price is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The price is right (Score:4, Funny)
We knew it was going to come down to this... (Score:3, Interesting)
seems legal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:seems legal (Score:5, Interesting)
every street corner has CD shops loaded with the latest games, apps and music.
they also package MP3 CD's which is loaded with albums, lyrics and CD art. each CD is 65 roubles, which is about $2
very strange to see this story; i am currently working on getting credit card functionality for my mp3 distribution engine. my site is at least a month before seeing production, but the site will be 100 percent in english, has a beyond amazing collection (just under a terrabyte) and offers each song for a penny.
the thing slowing me down is getting a merchant account here in Russia that will allow me to do credit card transfers.
Shady spelling (Score:5, Informative)
We proud to announce a new encoding function called Online Encoding Exclusive, which is a part of the "Online Encoding" service and became available at AllOFMP3.com in the test mode. Online Encoding Exclusive enables you to:
1. Encode music with LossLess encoding algorithms (Monkey's Audio, FLAC and OptimFrog) using the data of original audio CD as a source.
2. Encode music with our usual encoders (MP3, Ogg, etc.) using the data of original audio CD as a source.
Albums, that available for ordering through Online Encoding Exclusive service are marked with a special label . The amount of such albums will grow from day to day. We hope that you'll enjoy our new service.
More details about Online Encoding Exclusive service.
AllOFMP3.com team.
And who are you to judge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not legal (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a matter of pricing being lower in Russia; the site is pretty obviously illegal. Many of the artists whose work is being sold (e.g. The Beatles, Led Zeppelin) have never agreed to have their work sold digitally, which is why you can't find their music on any legitimate music download service. And of course, if they're selling music for a few cents a track, they're not paying the artists and composers for the recordings.
Even if it were legal in Russia (which it clearly isn't) they clearly wouldn't have the right to sell that music anywhere else, since the companies that have the Russian rights to the music aren't the same as the companies that have the US rights, and those rights are exclusive. So even if the Russian company decided to sell music for almost nothing, they couldn't sell it to US customers, etc. This legal issue is why iTunes only sells to US customers, etc. -- to do things legally, you have to negotiate the rights to sell the music country by country.
Or just the opposite (Score:5, Informative)
I believe this has been tested in court over here, and it's still legal to "grey-market" CDs and other products.
Re:Not legal (Score:3, Informative)
Except it's actually illegal to import drugs - even for personal use. If you take the bus to canada and buy your drugs over there because it's cheaper, you've broken the law. The US government has just chosen not to go after individuals at this time.
Re:Not legal (Score:3, Informative)
it can be argued that the internet is basically a world market, with a bit of a laise faire attitude. so long as it's legal in the country of origin, import restrictions don't really apply.
now, if their liscense to distribute music prohibits them from selling for foreigners, then the RIAA has a
Re:Not legal (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not legal (Score:5, Insightful)
But the Berne Convention (and others) covers copyright between nations (ie: protect ours this, that, and the other-way and we'll protect yours the same). If I buy from Russia -- and its legal in russia -- than I can import it into my own country. Nothing is the matter.
Here is the real problem: Copyright is an outdated and broken concept, with all manner of issues involved now that physical scarcity of music has ended. Outside of oppressive cabals rigging the market (Koda/RIAA etc), how do you expect this all to work? It costs nothing to move $intellectual-property, so geography is irrelevant. It costs nothing to manufacture (cp mysong.wav yoursong.wav;wget http://allmusicisfree.com/yoursong.wav).
This hodge-podge of nonsense is collapsing under its own stupidity... and I say good. Its high time The People got to enjoy the benefits of our technological advances.
Re:Not legal (Score:4, Insightful)
(a) the Berne Convention does provide for national treatment, but typically the owner of the copyright is the first marketer _in the respective territory_, which means that although the song Russia is technically the same as the copy original provided from the parent company in the US, it is actually (in legal terms) an entirely different one because two separate legal personalities in the US and Russia own the copyright in the respective songs: so the US owner cannot ligitate against someone who copies the Russian version (capice?), nor can the Russian owner litigate against someone who copies the US version. Remember that in the case of copyright infringement, you have to _prove_ an act of copying, and thus a _chain of copies_ leading back to the original version that was infringed.
The Berne Convention does offer a "thirty-day" window in which if you publish in several countries during that period, then the owner of the work _is_ the single owner. This means that if the US owner had also published in Russia within 30 days of the release of the song, then they would own the copyright in the work, and could litigate against the Russian copyists.
(b) Copyright is not outdated: firstly, it costs time, effort and money to make these musical works: so the creators deserve to own rights in those works. This fundamental concept is never going to change. You say "it costs nothing to manufacture" - umm, how do you account for the costs of studios, equipment, people's time and effort, etc ? Sure it costs nothing to make _a copy_ of the first original copy of the work recorded in the studio, but it still costs a lot to make that first copy.
VERY LEGAL. (Score:5, Informative)
If you live in Australia, where the article is written, then it is legal The parallel importing of music is legal in Australia. The parallel importing of music helps keep the price down and is evidence of a free market economy working well, unlike the USA with the BSA and MPAA and RIAA and other IP outfits where these gestapo like organisations control the free flow of information.
Re:VERY LEGAL. (Score:4, Interesting)
The internet is threatening to destroy the viability of creating entertainment because people like you seem to think that just because it's easy to do something that it should be legal too.
No. Most people in this thread are saying it should be legal due to the way copyright law and international trade is setup. If these songs are legally obtained and distributed under Russian law, then no law is broken if they are imported into the USA or other countries. It doesn't matter if that's done over the Internet, or if I walk to Russia during the next ice age.
Word. I'm also pissed off at the FDA for preventing the free flow of untested drugs, and the FBI for restricting the free flow of raw, uncut heroin. And I'm not a big fan of the "State Police" slowing down the free flow of my neighbour's high deifnition TV into my basement.
You appear to be sarcastic here, but many people consider these legitimate beefs with the government (although I don't quite understand what the last one is supposed to be.. your neighbors TV turned up too loud?). The idea that the government can regulate what we put in our bodies is appalling to many, including myself.
Re:Not legal (Score:4, Informative)
Now the difference here is that you're actually buying the songs on a Russian website without leaving the US. But legally, that doesn't really matter - it's pretty clear that for long-distance transactions, the transaction takes place at the point where it is received, not where it is sent. E.g. if you order something by phone or fax, the transaction takes place where the call/fax is received. There seems to be no reason why this should be different on the internet though I can't pretend to have checked if there are any cases on it.
Of course, it's pretty clear what will happen. All the US record labels will change their licensing deals in Russia to prevent services like these being offered - i.e. it will be a breach of allofmp3.com's license for them to sell songs outside to people based outside Russia. In other words, exactly the same deal iTunes reached with the record labels that stops them selling songs outside the US. So better get your MP3s from Russia while you still can
Re:Not legal (Score:5, Informative)
As it happens, in the US it is indeed the law.
Once a song has been legally marketed & sold, then the copyright owner loses most rights over resale/reimportation.
That's not quite right, actually.
First sale deals with specific copies. The copies need to have been made in a manner that would be legal if they were made in the US, regardless of the legality under foreign law.
So if Perry Como makes a punk rock record and sells it, anyone can then turn around and resell it. If he sold it in the UK, then you can import it into the US, no problem.
However, if you copy it and get a second record, assuming the copying isn't legal (per 17 USC 107 or 1008 or whatever) then you CAN'T resell the second record under the first sale provision (109).
Likewise, if Perry sold his rights in the UK to his close friend Sid Vicious, and Sid was the one making copies in the UK, you couldn't -- as a matter of first sale -- import those copies into the US. There is a good reason for that.
Imagine that there was a small country that bordered the US and could easily ship stuff here. We'll call it Moosylvania. Further, imagine that Moosylvania has no copyright laws at all. This means it's legal for the locals to copy anything they want. If they could freely export it to the US, they'd just do an end run around our copyright laws, and everyone would buy cheap, unauthorized Moosylvanian copies, basically leaving the US copyright holders screwed.
So, for first sale to apply, the copyright holder who made the copy has to be the US copyright holder. If that's not so, even though the copy was made legally over there, it won't qualify, because it would not have been made legally if it had been made over here.
Some degree of importation despite first sale is still allowed under 602. But importation is very clearly the bringing of things from one country into another country. It is, you'll agree, NOT the same as making new things in a country that are based on those in another country. For example, I could import a Scottish castle, but that would involve taking it apart brick by brick, mailing the bricks here, and putting it back together again. If I built an exact replica, and the original is still in Scotland, then I didn't import it, I reproduced it.
When you download from this site, there is a master copy in Russia. At the end of the process, there is a master copy in Russia AND a copy on your hard drive. That's two copies, and that already indicates that it's not an import. And the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce his work in the US per 106.
So it's not legal for Americans to use this site here. Ironically, it probably would be legal to use the site in Russia, provided that the provisions of 602 were complied with (as noted, first sale would likely not apply) when you brought the copies back in, but I expect few
Re:Not legal (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem one, you assume the copying isn't legal. The fact is, there's the equivalent of two copying going on. Labels are selling music to allofmp3 and allofmp3 is selling songs to you. The slight difference is more than likely allofmp3 isn't actually getting source copies from the label each time but has some
Re:Not legal (Score:5, Informative)
And from this [guardian.co.uk] Guardian article:
The problem is that, according to the recording industry, these sites are breaking the law. As Alan Dixon, general counsel of the London-based International Federation of the Phonograph Industry, says of Weblisten: "They have not less than six lawsuits pending against them, and two criminal proceedings. They are taking advantage of the way the Spanish legal system moves incredibly slowly: they have never been declared as legitimately distributing the plaintiff's recording."
The issue is that recorded music has three sets of rights to be argued over. The songwriter has the copyright to the song, the artist his own rights in it, and the record label and producers a third set. While these Russian and Spanish sites may be paying the songwriters, via a collection agency, they are acting without the permission of the other copyright holders.
The Russian sites claim that, under Russian law, foreign record labels releasing music in Russia give up their rights to prevent this. Not so, says Dixon. Such Soviet-era rules were rescinded under "article 47 paragraph 2 of the Russian Copyright Code" years ago. Downloading from such sites would be infringing both British and Russian copyright law, he says.
Moral Legal (Score:3, Interesting)
What is "legal" is not necesssarily right or moral, and the actions of the RIAA and its cohorts definitely places them in the wrong. It is not the same world today as it was back in the days of vinyl, yet the cartels
Straight from the Terms and Conditions (Score:3, Informative)
So basically they leave it up to you to figure out if you are breaking the law or not. IANAL, but it sounds like the RIAA would definitely fine me for DLing musi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not legal (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's what the muppets at the RIAA need to get into their heads. People will pay for service - though they'll only pay a fair price. "copyright legality" is an
Re:Not legal (Score:3, Insightful)
$.01 per megabyte is obscene. That's $.65 for an album on MP3. An artist makes more than that on a CD sale...what do you think their cut is of this?
My buddy's sunk about $10,000 into his demo so far. They'll be lucky to recoup that selling 1000 CDs a
you bastards (Score:5, Funny)
Oh ya, I almost forgot. I found out about them from a slasdot post of somebodys. So, uhh, forget what I just said.
Indeed (Score:4, Informative)
The big RIAA labels all have a presence over there. My fave artist, Linda, has had a record contract with (I believe) BMG for quite some time. She regularly appears on Russian MTV and there was even an English language version of "Vorona" ("Crow") made for (always impending) US release. And remember TATU?
So, if these labels are so insistent that there is no money to be made in a country where lax copyright controls exist, why (and how) have they retained a presence in a country where nearly two thirds of all content sold in stores is "pirated?"
From Tatu's own website, these figures:
February 2002 - Universal Music Russia releases an enlarged edition of the album "200 in the opposite direction" with a new design and with a new track "Clowns". The song "Clowns" appears regularly on the "Russian Radio", "Dynamite FM", "Hit-FM" and "Europe +".
March 2002 - re-release of the album "200kph in the wrong lane" beats all the records during the first week of sales: 60,000 of legal copies sold!
Now the number of sold copies of the TATU albums is about 1,100,000!
60,000 "lega" copies out of more than a Million are sold, and Universal seems to have no problem with betting on this horse... meanwhile, here in the US, laws keep getting passed...
Russia is not the problem here. The US is the problem. and I hope sites like this continue to prosper, and it demolishes the US entertainment industry. After all, "constructive destruction" is what capitalism is all about. How ironic these "capitalists" seem only able to realize this lesson at the hands of a formerly soviet socialist state.
Sounds a little to good to be true :) ..Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who'd have thought it... Russia..the home of the brave and the free.
Re:Sounds a little to good to be true :) ..Why? (Score:3)
I seem to recall a raging black market and powerful mafia in Russia back in the soviet days. It's good to know that pioneering spirit is still alive.
Nothing new here... (Score:5, Informative)
Who are "The MB" (Score:5, Funny)
Reason this is legal... (Score:5, Informative)
The best part about the site? After getting your account upgraded, you are able to rip and upload music to them and recieve DOUBLE your size credit in downloads
Re:Reason this is legal... (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is that if it costs a radio station a small fraction of a cent per listener per song, why does the licence component of a CD that I'm going to listen to $1?? It's one price for the radio (cheap) and another for the consumer(gets screwed)
Re:Reason this is legal... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a lot of reasons for this, though most of them may be too mired in "what things actually cost" for you to understand them. Needless to say, a consumer isn't "screwed" because a major label gives a radio station volume pricing any more than a consumer is screwed when he pays $2 for a small jar of a spice, when on the commodities market a pound of it would only cost him $5. There's less work involved with selling a massive volume of something at wholesale, and so it costs dramatically less.
The Russian Mobsic Industry (Score:3, Interesting)
Two observations:
1st - Do any of you see the hypocrisy in buying from the Russian site? Are you the same people complaining about the outsourcing of American jobs/economy?
2nd - Has it occurred to anyone that the music industry is now mob run? Look at the tactics they employ compared to past mob practices. And no the mob doesn't kill everyone since then they don't pay, only when they need to make an example or you steal directly from them. However, the recent pay or we'll sue definitely follow their intimidation tactics. The mob goes where the money is; right now, that's media (music and movies).
Just my two-cents, think about it!
Let us streamline your world [roncadesign.com]
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does it sound too good to be true? There's no such technology? They can't possibly have all the CD titles that you're interested in?
This could have been done at least three years ago. The USian companies missed out not because of technological factors, but their stupid laws and of course, the paranoid state of mind of the RIAA.
This could have been "the" way to listen to music in this age and time... but noooo, somehow you MUST stick DRM in the files and whatnot. When will the relevant bodies realize that the more you restrict the consumers, the more they will look for an easier (and not necessarily legal) alternative.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree with your prejudicial statement.
The article says that the Russians are paying to license this music, and your payment to the site funds that payment. That license fee goes to the artists' association, specifically to fund artists, engineers etc. in the same way that radio airtime fees are supposed to fund those involved in making the music.
Because of the price differential between countries, perhaps only a very sm
About time (Score:3, Informative)
How is it that ITMS got so much more publicity, even on a site like Slashdot that typically doesn't blindly play along with the major corporations?
RIAA != ASCAP (Score:4, Informative)
Well, it is too good to be true (Score:5, Interesting)
Our laws prohibit most unauthorized distribution and reproduction of copyrighted works in the US per 17 USC 106. The party that can authorize it is the US copyright holder -- this is prone to be a different entity than rights holders abroad.
While some degree of importation is allowed per 602 and 109, this doesn't qualify. A copy isn't merely being brought into the country, but rather due to the way computers work (see the infamous MAI v. Peak case, which while wrong is commonly relied upon), a new copy is being made on the downloader's end that did not originate in Russia, and thus wasn't imported as 602 requires. (Though what it was copied _from_ did -- it's the difference betweeen a CD that can be brought from place to place, and making a tape of what you hear on the phone)
Even the ability to legally import unauthorizedly is somewhat limited; the idea is that if we have copyright laws domestically, to allow people to do an end run around it by operating in a country with less or no copyright, then importing works here en masse would result in things being, well, fucked up, basically. This site basically demonstrates how such a thing might happen.
The Russians are probably fine -- if they're careful, RIAA won't be able to shut them down. OTOH, Americans using the service could get into significant trouble if they're caught.
All that having been said, I'd like to see the law changed to better suit the desires of the public, but for now there are problems for this.
Re:Well, it is too good to be true (Score:4, Interesting)
I.e. if you are legally buying something in another country (as allofmp3 claim) and you are shipping it to your computer (via an internet, just as software etc is distributed), then how can this suddenly become magically illegal?
Re:Well, it is too good to be true (Score:4, Insightful)
Because that involves a copy made (legally, we assume) in Russia. The selfsame copy is then brought here. When you listen to it, you're listening to a copy of foreign origin.
This involves a copy made HERE, itself based on a copy in Russia. When you download something, the bits on the server aren't magically sent to you -- instead a new copy is made. Since, in the end, there is a copy on your computer, and a copy on their computer, it is pretty obvious that this involved an act of copying, not an act of importation (where only one copy exists, and it's moved physically).
Do you see the difference?
Re:Well, it is too good to be true (Score:5, Insightful)
Q.
Wrong again (Score:3, Insightful)
And, since that would require all sorts of invasive precendents, it would surely take multiple SCOTUS cases to settle the issue - an issue, as you know, the SCOTUS has a long record of siding with "users" and not corporate holders. Just as they sided wi
Re:Well, it ISN'T too good to be true (Score:4, Informative)
Let's go to the code, shall we?
US Code Title 17, Chapter 6, Sec. 602 [house.gov] Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords
(a) Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. This subsection does not apply to -
(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage;
MAI SYSTEMS CORP. v. PEAK COMPUTER [cornell.edu] didn't involve importing for personal use, so hardly applicable here.
And, as we learned from RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia [findlaw.com] (regarding the Diamond RIO MP3 player), facilitation of personal use gets broad protection under fair use.
So, is downloading MP3's from Russia importation or not? If it is importation, then personal use is covered under section 602. If it is not importation, then the duplication in the U.S. should still be covered under personal use; i.e., you legally bought the right in Russia to duplicate the copyrighted work to your Diamond RIO MP3 player for your personal use in the U.S.
While legal in Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a thing to bear in mind, if you want to keep a clean path.
If something seems too good to be true.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they claim they're legal because "we're licensed as if we were broadcasting the material", then as far as I understand you have no right to make or keep a recording of anything they might broadcast. Broadcasting is "we broadcast it and you listen", and there's no automatic right to tape records off the radio.
It's highly possible that the reason they haven't been closed down is that taking legal action against shady Russian entities is extremely difficult at the best of times.
If they're interested in people uploading stuff *to* them in exchange for download rights, then the legitimacy of their source material seems doubtful.
Ultimately, applying Occam's razor to this story makes me wonder that if it's so spotlessly legal, why isn't everyone setting up stores like this on Russian territory?
Anyway, something here smells sufficiently fishy for me to be extremely sceptical of the wisdom of giving them money.
in unrelated news - MPAA: brainwashing children (Score:3, Informative)
I will go to a music shop and buy more CD's [infoshop.org]
that is the scariest bit of news i've heard lately
(mpaa has a new program that teaches children they should buy more , 'if you don't pay for it - you've stolen it' , by giving , get this, the teachers yearly free movie passes,... there's more , worth your time
originally here [boston.com] , a couple of days ago, and making waves
Good site. (Score:4, Insightful)
Best part?
It's legal.
AllOfMP3 Top Ten (Score:5, Funny)
10. Boris - Boris Sings the Blues
9. Svetlana - Oops, Svetlana did it again
8. Katerina Jones - Feels like Moscow
7. Natalya - Toxic
6. Igor - Looking For You
5. Leonid - Damita Leonid
4. Yuri - Yuri, Unplugged
3. Karina - 99 Bottles of Vodka
2. Sonya - The Red Album
1. 50 Rubles - Get Warm or Die Tryin
Sigh. Here we go again. (Score:5, Interesting)
The primary interest in this to me is how it points out the growing gap between the major content conglomerates' business models and the reality of what they're producing. We all know the prices on CDs are ridiculously high compared to their production costs - one or two dollars versus ten or twenty, very very roughly. With online it has become even more ridiculous - pennies to deliver the data versus a dollar or more to buy a song. Yet Apple tells us it can't make money.
The lesson I wish was being learned here is that we have entered the age where a recording contract with a major label is like a huge freaking albatross around your neck. The reason Apple can't make money on iTunes is because between the cumbersome necessity of verification and the enormous skim the labels are demanding there's nothing left over - bringing the ridiculous situation where they can't make money selling data transfers of say 3-10 MB for a buck.
The labels are indeed to blame but I personally don't want to rectify the situation by finding a way to get their stuff for free or extra cheap. I'd much rather see artists realize that they don't need the labels anymore, they just need some technical help and better organized consumers. Just as anyone can now go and pay someone a pretty nominal amount to burn CDs in bulk with whatever data they want on them, anyone can now go and pay an even more nominal fee per bit to have someone serve whatever data they want on demand. Screw Russia, go hit http://www.bitpass.com and check the music offerings - songs for pennies. That's a real revolution, my friends.
Re:Seems legit on the surface. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Seems legit on the surface. (Score:3, Funny)
Record Company Pays YOU (Score:5, Funny)
Better yet, the record company should pay YOU (yes, in Soviet Russia, etc. etc.) to listen.
Example:
You download the latest hit from Britney Spears. (I'll repeat: "you download", not me.)
About halfway through the song, there's an ad for Pepsi
Pepsi pays you a nickel (or whatever) for actually listening to the damned thing.
"4. PROFIT -- !!!"
-kgj
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One of these days, Alice (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm...."Back in the Day"....this was the way bands DID make their money. Unfortunately, it seems all you get today is a good looking lip-syncher...produced by the corporation, that cannot perfom live (or at least with out a LOT of electronic help).
Re:One of these days, Alice (Score:5, Funny)
They'll make it up in volume.
Re:TANSTAAFL. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why shouldn't these artists get paid for the time and effort? We pay bankers to handle our money, cooks to make our dinner, maids to clean our houses, but we can't pay artists who actually make our lives enjoyable?"
I do go to concerts. I spend about $1000 per year on: concerts, musical theatre, movies, and sports. That is more than I pay to maids (4 visits per year, $100 per visit).
When I do something, I don't get pai
Re:TANSTAAFL. (Score:4, Interesting)