Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music News Your Rights Online

Russian Court Acquits allofmp3.com Owner 114

Posted by kdawson from the first-step-on-a-long-road dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Denis Kvasov, former owner of the music download website allofmp3.com, has been acquitted of violating intellectual property laws in a Moscow court. The court cited insufficient evidence of criminal activity — a question of fact — without touching the question of law of whether the site's activities (had they been proven by the prosecution) actually violated Russian copyright law. The trial's presiding judge said, 'I want to draw particular attention to the sloppy job done by prosecutors in collecting and analyzing the facts.' According to the Moscow Times, though, the allofmp3.com case is far from over. Two more criminal trials are scheduled to take place: one against Vladimir Mamotin, the media director of MediaServices, the parent company of allofmp3.com, and another against the company itself."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian Court Acquits allofmp3.com Owner More

Russian Court Acquits allofmp3.com Owner

Comments Filter:
  • Really, I had not expected this!

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Stanistani ( 808333 )
      Judge: "I want to draw particular attention to the sloppy job done by prosecutors in collecting and analyzing the facts."

      Owww!

      That will leave a mark.

    • I don't know if you are in it for a +5 Funny or not. But I truely didn't expect that.

      That is also a very big lesson on diplomacy from this judge. He dismissed an absurd claim while still not annoying the United States.

    • In soviet russia the RIAA ... sucks.
      In the US the RIAA ... sucks.

      Heh. Something isn't right.
  • I want to draw particular attention to the sloppy job done by prosecutors in collecting and analyzing the facts.

    Its not the prosecutor's fault- they were taught by RIAA lawyers.

  • As many have said (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mapkinase ( 958129 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @11:46AM (#20250999) Homepage Journal
    Russia needed this suit to proceed only because they did not want it to reflect badly on their chances to get to WTO. Court gave it a try, it was a formality. Case closed, road clear.

    • Re:As many have said (Score:5, Informative)

      by megaditto ( 982598 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:24PM (#20251531)
      I am not sure why Russia would want to join WTO at this point, anyway.

      It's not like the United States would lift the steel, lumber, and enriched uranim tariffs (check with Canada's softwood lumber producers about that).

      As to ending the American agriculture subsidies, a snowflake has a better chance in Florida...
      • I guess it is more to Russians in WTO than steel, lumber and enriched uranium.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by zig007 ( 1097227 )
          Like what?
          • I do not know the details, my friend, but Putin desperately needs recognition from the West in all forms (WTO being one of them) to get his hands free with internal opposition (not that there are much left of it).

            9/11 was a big relief for Russian leadership because nobody in US dares to say a single word for Chechens, for example, after 9/11.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by zig007 ( 1097227 )
              I disagree. Russia is one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the world.
              Putin, and Russia, is way past the point needing longer needing international recognition.
              On the contrary, i'd say that a new and very confident Russia has emerged over the last years.
              The most obvious sign of this is the way Putin has acted lately, hardly the way of someone yearning for international recognition.
              Russia is like the US in many ways. Acting out internal politics as foreign policies is one of those similarities.
              Ru
              • How do you measure power?

                Economically, Russia is on the rise, but it is still economically 3 world country. Look at the numbers.

                Politically, Russia has influence only on handful of countries. Compare with US.

                Confidence is BS. There is no such things in countries. This term is only used for people.

                Russia is like US only in bad ways: namely, imperialistic ambitions.

                "Russia will only join WTO if it benefits them" Isn't that what I said?

                UN. Right, especially if one of the other members ignores pretty much anyth

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by zig007 ( 1097227 )

                  How do you measure power?/Politically, Russia has influence only on handful of countries. Compare with US.

                  As in political influence. Russia has great influence in large parts of the world. US once did, but don't anymore. How do you measure US power?

                  Confidence is BS. There is no such things in countries. This term is only used for people.

                  BS?? Confidence >> national pride is extremely important factors. Economy is psychology.

                  Russia is like US only in bad ways: namely, imperialistic ambitions.

                  Yep. As i said. What i stated was a typical symptom of that.

                  UN. Right, especially if one of the other members ignores pretty much anything that UN says, especially when it concerns "Israel".

                  The UN is a bigger thing outside the US. But why care about that side? And there are some other matters than those that the US is involved in.

                  "Russia will only join WTO if it benefits them" Isn't that what I said?

                  I guess it is more to Russians in WTO than steel, lumber and enriched uranium.

                  What that what you meant by this? Or have i missed something?

                  • "Russia has great influence in large parts of the world. " Russia have on 0 countries the influence USA has on Afghanistan, Iraq, pretty much the whole Western Europe that is part of NATO, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Japan, Turkey, Kuwait, Georgia.

                    Russia have on 0 countries the influence USA has on Iraq, "Israel", Egypt, Afghanistan, Colombia, Jordan, Pakistan, Liberia, Peru, Ethiopia, Bolivia, Turkey, Uganda, Sudan, Indonesia, Kenya (top foreign aid recepients, year 2004). Russia's list like that is nowhere to be

                    • Re: (Score:1)

                      by zig007 ( 1097227 )
                      Yeah, that list is significant. However. You are talking about economical influence over 3rd world countries, which can be useful, especially when it comes to creating a "coalition of the willing". But what are YOU talking about?? Russia is one of the worlds largest oil and gas producers, and carries as such substantial weight in most of Europe and Asia. Russia is one of the worlds largest (if not the worlds largest) arms exporter in the world, and AK47 has killed the most people in the world. Russia was a
                    • "Russia is one of the worlds largest oil and gas producers" oil(10%), gas (~20%, but so is US, slightly less). It is an ambigious power, because Russia's economy is very much dependent on the sale of those resources (actually, people attribute recent Russian economic growth mostly to the high oil prices).

                      "Russia is one of the worlds largest (if not the worlds largest) arms exporter in the world" it is indeed largest according to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_con_arm_exp- military-conventional-arms- [nationmaster.com]

                    • Re: (Score:1)

                      by zig007 ( 1097227 )
                      Ok, I give up.
                      If you dismiss everything I say, what is there for me to say?

                      It is by far the largest, if you take in account for how much less money Russian weaponry cost.

                      You actually agree with me on those two extremely important points, and still you say Russia is not one of the most influential countries in the world?
                      And there are other points where they are important. Like space technology, for example.

                      Obviously Chinas influence is larger that Russia's in its region.
                      Obviously Australia influence is large
      • Agreed, only a few weeks ago Putin was badmouthing the WTO and the US seems to be (in public at least) sticking to it's guns on them dropping government subsidies for Tupelov (cos Boeing's never had gubment money...) plus the EU seems to be getting cold feet now, so perhaps Putin has changed his mind and decided he can go it alone now. Other events certainly seem to point that way (Litvenenko, the Arctic, Georgia).

        There is more chance of Congress giving Fidel the medal of honour than them dropping cotton

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by The-Bus ( 138060 )
        I think the common saying goes like this: "A snowflake's chance in hel--

        Nevermind. I see you got it right.

  • Misspelling (Score:2, Insightful)

    by neutralstone ( 121350 )

    [...]has been acquitted of violating intellectual property [sic] laws[...]
    You misspelt "copyright".

    • Re:Misspelling (Score:5, Informative)

      by RootsLINUX ( 854452 ) <[rootslinux] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:42PM (#20251727) Homepage
      Intellectual Property is a blanket term that covers laws of copyright, patents, trademarks/trade dress, and trade secrets. The use of the term here is not necessarily incorrect, it is just overly broad. But you are right, the summary should have used copyright.

      • The use of the term here is not necessarily incorrect

        Yes, it is necessarily incorrect.

        The letter and spirit of copyright law both indicate that copyrights cannot be owned. Rather, they can be held for a limited time, and in that time one may have an exclusive right to copy that is subject to certain restrictions (such as Fair Use).

        A copyright is not like a car or a piece of land or the knickknacks you keep in your closet: unlike a copyright, each of those things can be passed down to an unlimited number of generations, each of whom may reasonably keep those

        • That's why it's not "property": because one can "own" a copyright indefinitely or without limit.

          Spread the word.
          oops; :%s/because one can/because no one can/
        • The letter and spirit of copyright law both indicate that copyrights cannot be owned. Rather, they can be held for a limited time, and in that time one may have an exclusive right to copy that is subject to certain restrictions (such as Fair Use).

          All the same thing apply to Patents as well, yet patents are considered Intellectual Property.

          • All the same thing apply to Patents as well, yet patents are considered Intellectual Property.

            By some, yes, and quite incorrectly so. The phrase "intellectual property" is like something from a pidgin dialect: It's a blunt term and fails to reflect what actually happens (and what should happen) in law.

            Here's the problem: implicit in the term "property" is the notion that "this thing is mine; you cannot ever have it unless I say so, and when I die it will belong exclusively to someone appointed by me".

            With copyrights and patents, the notion you should have (and what's codified in law) is, "this t

        • Sorry, but you are wrong on this. There are plenty of types of property which can have a limited life and/or be subject to restrictions: take, for example, a 50 year lease over real estate, an option that has to be exercised within 20 years, a 1 year T-Bill. Neither the restrictions nor the limited life prevent these assets being "property" as a legal or economic matter.

          • There are plenty of types of property which can have a limited life and/or be subject to restrictions: take, for example, a 50 year lease over real estate, an option that has to be exercised within 20 years, a 1 year T-Bill. Neither the restrictions nor the limited life prevent these assets being "property" as a legal or economic matter.

            Thank you for citing those examples. I don't think I meant to suggest that those things cannot be regarded as property, but I can see how my comments came off that way.

            I think the problem is that when the term "intellectual property" is used by non-lawyers, the speaker often isn't referring to the kind of property you're thinking of. For example, when you hear the term "intellectual property" when copyrights are discussed, you probably think that the "property" is the copyright (which I think is probabl

          • To sum up and clarify: you seem to regard "intellectual property" as referring to rights that can be exclusively possessed and/or controlled (where the possession and control is subject to limits), but not owned, and inasmuch as the phrase is understood to mean exactly that, I don't think object to its use.

            But unfortunately the phrase "intellectual property" is too often thought to refer to either copyrights or to copyrightable works and carries with it a connotation that either of these things can or sh
            • That is correct: legal rights are a type of property interest, be they land rights, contract rights, patents, copyrights or anything else. Exclusive possession and/or control is not a requirement for such rights - if I own land with my wife, and rent it to you for 20 years then I have neither exclusive possession or control. Indeed it is possible to own property which you don't possess or control at all - for example if you have an interest in a discretionary trust that could be applied in your favour if th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 808140 ( 808140 )
        I believe he knows full well what "Intellectual Property" means -- he is (rightly, in my opinion) trying to point out that we should avoid using the term altogether. I know I may be alienating some of you who harbor ill feelings or feelings of suspicion towards RMS by linking to this, but even if you don't agree with RMS on other issues, I would suggest you read what he has to say about the term "Intellectual Property" [gnu.org] before you use the term too much yourself.

        The basic thesis of his article is that "intel
        • I tend to agree with RMS on a lot of things, but here he is just wrong. Copyright, patents, and trademarks are indeed linked; they are government granted monopolies over "ideas". Obviously, copyright protects your expression of an idea, patents protect a process, and trademarks protect a specific usage of a phrase with respect to a product. The framers knew that copyright and patents were linked since they put them side by side in Constitution.

          I agree that the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer a

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by 808140 ( 808140 )
            They are government granted monopolies, certainly. Over ideas -- no, not at all. Patents could possibly be construed as being a temporary government granted monopoly on the application of an idea, specifically, an idea for the construction of a machine.

            Copyrights have nothing to do with ideas. Copyright only applies to works you have already created, whether they be art or words on the printed page. If you describe to me your idea for a novel, and I later write a novel based on your idea, you have no le
            • I suppose I don't mind overgeneralizing because I do know the differences between the terms. But as you say, many others don't and are confused. I would suppose when speaking about copyrights, patents, and trademarks to someone who does understand the difference, I would refer to them collectively as IP. This is similar to the way I refer to GNU/Linux as "Linux" to those well versed enough to know the whole naming controversy. It all has to do with the cumbersomeness of the language. Really, I prefer t
  • Two more criminal trials are scheduled to take place

    For alleged copyright infringements? Here in the USA this is a civil court matter, not criminal court.

    Is the Russian criminal court the proper domain for copyright infringement?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by RingDev ( 879105 )
      I'm not familiar with Russian law, but this is probably why the case was dismissed. The Lawyers involved attempted to prosecute the case as if it were in a civil court, where burdens are much lighter. If they walked into a criminal court, where the Judge is used to seeing everything filed perfectly, solid basis for accusations, and paperwork, signatures, and warrants to back up anything that was being presented, with their dicks in their hands and a half-assed case.... No wonder why the just tossed 'em out.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Copywrite infringement can be criminal in the US.

      From the G-man [copyright.gov] himself. Here's the relevant bit of the US codes: Title 18, section 2319 [cornell.edu].
  • Sloppy case with badly collected evidence, based on the law that was enacted after alleged crime occurred...
    Gee, I am shocked at the verdict!

    Just wait for an appeal or for attempts to sue current owners.

  • First? (Score:1, Funny)

    by u0berdev ( 1038434 )
    In Soviet Russia, Allofmp3.com owner acquits YOU!
  • May I note that even Denis himself ain't quite out of hot water yet. Prosecutors indicated they are going to appeal the verdict.

    See, under US and most other countries with the adversarial court system (as opposed to inquisitorial, used by Russia and France among others) the prosecution may not appeal questions of fact (i.e. "did the guy do it" but only questions of law "does what the guy did constitute a crime", "does the law he is accused of breaking is constitutional", etc) as well as appeal of sentence.

    I
  • This was on CNN [cnn.com] yesterday..

  • Just like the US Supreme court! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Panickd ( 1143535 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @01:24PM (#20252287)
    It seems the Russian courts aren't any different than the US courts. The judges in the US courts (particularly the higher courts) routinely look for ways to dismiss cases on technicalities like this rather than actually having to decide something. Who would've thought?

  • russian courts (Score:3, Funny)

    by j00r0m4nc3r ( 959816 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @02:22PM (#20253011)
    It still so weird to read about the new Russian court system. I always just figured the Russian court system was a guy named Yuri with an AK-47.
  • Stealing music so the artists don't see a dime, and paying for the privilege.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by yuriyg ( 926419 )
      Nyet, I use Makarov [wikipedia.org].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DMNT ( 754837 )
      You're incorrect. They pay to ROMS for the privilege but IFPI doesn't want to negotiate with ROMS because "they're selling too cheap." So it's in line with the Russian legislation but the representative(s) of artists doesn't want that money, they want more. If they did the agreement then all would be nice, wouldn't it? This is all about greed, greed and control.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gsslay ( 807818 )

        If they did the agreement then all would be nice, wouldn't it?

        If they did an agreement they would be setting several precedences that would be detrimental to their business;

        1. You can sell our stuff without a licensing agreement and only then start to negotiate.
        2. You can negotiate with us, and if it doesn't turn out a way you like, you can ignore us and go back to selling our stuff anyway.
        3. You can use a loophole in a local law to sell our stuff at a price that undercuts the market back on our own doorstep, and screw all the other people we're already licensed with

  • In case anybody is wondering (and I was upon reading this), Russians do have strong double jeopardy protections [stanford.edu].

  • Allofmp3 is legal; the issue is about the price (Score:3, Informative)

    by Husgaard ( 858362 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @04:23PM (#20254427)
    TFA says:

    "Wednesday's decision sets a very bad precedent and demonstrates the need to strengthen Russian intellectual property rights laws," said Konstantin Zemchenkov, director of Russian Anti-piracy Organization. "I can say unequivocally that the activities of sites like AllofMP3.com are illegal in Russia, because our country has signed on to many international conventions that prohibit them."

    I think this quote sums up the problem getting a judgment against allofmp3. The argument seems to be something like "although we cannot show it is illegal according to russian law, we think it is wrong, and it has to be stopped."

    But allofmp3 is legal because of the compulsory license system in the russian copyright law. And such a compulsory copyright license system is legal according to all relevant international treaties, including all the WIPO and WTO treaties.

    In the US, a similar compulsory copyright license system is currently being abused by RIAA and SoundExchange to kill internet radio.

    • Best (and shortest) summary of this case yet.

      Note also that the judge in effect said that they had tried to pay royalties, but IFPI has refused to receive the money. I bet they never told "their" artists about that.

      As the BBC put it: "Mediaservices has always maintained it pays royalties to Roms, but many Western firms do not recognise this organisation and refuse to accept its offers of payments."
  • My money's on the Russian mafia any day.
  • Given so many people here have detailed knowledge of Russian law, can anyone tell me whether this ruling will pave the way for the site to re-open?

    From the article:
    AllofMP3.com was shut down earlier last month under pressure from the United States, which has made the protection of intellectual property rights a central issue in negotiations over Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization.


    Access to MP3Sparks.com, a mirror site used by MediaServices, remained blocked Wednesday.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close