Slashdot Mirror

"Or it would, if the labels didn't hog the copyrights so the artists can't apply for their own money."

I don't follow. The record company typically owns the copyright on the recording; the composer and lyricist own the copyright on the words and music. Tons of artists make pretty good money via BMI and ASCAP through radio play and other public performances; it's a revenue stream that's wholly unrelated to CD sales, and -- more importantly -- money that the record company never sees.

Any rightsholder can try to get the money they believe that is owed to them by ROMS, provided that they can understand this page, provided ROMS answers their email (they've never answered mine), and provided AllofMP3 were to help out by reporting sales data (I've not heard of anybody who's been able to get it out of them). You certainly don't need a record company's permission, and the record label can't stop you. The issue is, as somebody has already pointed out, in that nobody has reported receiving a royalty check from AllofMP3 sales. This is not the fault of the record companies; it's the fault of AllofMP3 and ROMS not providing data, not responding to emails, and not mailing checks when asked.

Yes, ROMS's English site sucks.

I can read Russian, so I've read their contract: http://www.roms.ru/download/authors/1.doc It says that you can collect fees retroactively.

A typical CD costs about $5 in Russia (including licensed CDs from Western artists). Generally, CD contains about 10 songs, so it's 50 cents per song (notice, it's less expensive than AoMP3). One usually gets less than 10% from actual CD price, so artists in Russia can get more from ROMS than from actual CD sales.

"Actually, any artist can collect fees from Russian music collecting agency. And Russian collecting agency is also a non-profit organization."

Okay, pretend you're a moderately successful artist. You sold 1,000 copies of your album on iTunes last month for which you netted about $1K. You suspect that allofmp3 also sold about 1,000 copies of your album last month (you have no way of knowing... artists have asked allofmp3 to release sales data, but they refuse). They sold them for $0.60 each, to which the collecting society perhaps got about $0.06, of which you might see $0.04. So, somewhere out there, somebody has $40.00 for you.

After finding ROMS' site and the English version thereof, you get to this page before you hit a wall. If says that if you had "concluded an agreement" with ROMS (which you most likely have not), you are entitled to compensation, but ROMS does not tell you how you can go about this. You might note that by comparison, the corresponding page on ASCAP is much more useful. This is because ASCAP is run by and for artists, and is looking out for your best interests. Unlike ROMS, they're not a front for a pirate site.

At what point do you give up, and admit that the Russians effectively get to keep your $40?

No, the payments go to a legal entity -- specifically, ROMS, "the national Russian organization providing professional collective management of authors' property rights and protection of interests of rightsholders in cases of use of their works in digital interactive networks, including the Internet."

It is unclear whether you are asking about my statements in the post you replied to, or if you are asking about my statements in my other post elsewhere. If the former, you should have noticed that I put a link in my post and you should have checked it. If the latter, it would have been more clear had you replied to the post that you were questioning... and to breifly answer you you can directly confirm the existance and operation of Pandora.com under US law or check the Wikipedia page on Pandora.com, if you want to verify the US law I discussed you can go directly to the official US government copyright webpage on CARP law, if you were asking about Russian law and ROMS here is the official ROMS website but I would have to Google for an "authoratative" english reference on ROMS, and if you were questioning the RIAA contracts for their artists... that would be odd... but I'm sure I could Google several artist websites explaining and ranting about the evil contracts the RIAA members impose.

Is that adaquate? If not, could you be more specific about what points you are questioning?

-

First off, at the end of the day AllofMP3 was not giving artists and production / media companies their required due, so what they were doing was immoral, if technically legal at the time.
Allof MP3 offered to pay royalties. All anyone had to do was fill out a form. The **AAs refused to deal with them,

The Russian Organization on Collective Management of Rights of Authors and Other Rightholders in Multimedia, Digital Networks & Visual Arts (ROMS) is the Russian equivalent to RIAA. Until September 1st 2006 the fact that Allofmp3 site payed the requird fees for the distribution of the intellectual property to this organization made the AllOfMp3 distribution legal. It did not made the "reception" of such intellectual property legal on your country but what they were doing was completely legal and moral in their country.

It is as simple as selling mariguana in the Netherlands. It is legal and moral to do it there, and in contrast it is illegal and immoral to sell it on the USA. It is legal to publish DIY methods for mariguana production while in other countries might not be the case.

Now, I do not know if *after* the amendment (see the link) the allofmp3 current practices became illegal, that would need to be tested in A RUSSIAN COURT. I hope it is tried there, and I hope Allofmp3 win. However, we will have to see that int he following months.

Hope this helps.

Me, I'm not the one arguing for anything short of abolition of copyright. But I can understand why people support allofmp3 and such websites, and it is really simple: they put a pressure on "legal" distribution channels to drop the price to more reasonable levels. Piracy is also good for the same reason. Morally, I don't have problem with either. Legally, allompf3 is okay. What else matters?

ROMS was set up by just a few Russian copyright holders, but rather than managing them, it now dubiously claims that, contrary to my reading of the statute, (I Am Not A Russian Lawyer: IANARL) it now has the rights for all copyright holders period. But even if they can make claim to all music, there's an "opt-out" clause which totally destroys their claim:

2. The owners of copyrights and neighboring rights who have not assigned powers to the organization with respect to the collection of royalties, as specified in Clause 4 of Article 46 of the present Act, shall be entitled to claim payment by the organization of the royalties due to them, according to the apportionment, and also to exclude their works and objects of neighboring rights from licenses issued to users by this organization.

The organization which has issued that opt-out to ROMS is the International Federation of Phonograhic Industries (IFPI), which represents legitimate worldwide rights-holders. As such, IFPI bluntly states that AllofMP3 has received no license to distribute music in Russia or internationally. Neither! Here's the press release.

Now here's the crucial item. IFPI lost their lawsuit against ROMS in Russia, but not for the reason you think. The Russian government did not claim that ROMS had any rights at all -- because they don't -- but instead claimed that the problem stems from a total lack of digital distribution laws in Russia at all. Russia thinks its copyright laws only apply to analog.

That may be fine, but it completely deligitimizes any claims of US buyers of AllofMP3's crap. Because the US does have such laws, and people purchasing from AllofMP3 are doing so illegally in violation of IFPI's rights. Imagine if someone set up a space station on Mars, with no laws at all, and started distributing illegal CDs. It doesn't matter if Mars has no laws: the US does, and purchase of thse CDs is illegal.

ROMS was set up by just a few Russian copyright holders, but rather than managing them, it now dubiously claims that, contrary to my reading of the statute, (I Am Not A Russian Lawyer: IANARL) it now has the rights for all copyright holders period. But even if they can make claim to all music, there's an "opt-out" clause which totally destroys their claim:

2. The owners of copyrights and neighboring rights who have not assigned powers to the organization with respect to the collection of royalties, as specified in Clause 4 of Article 46 of the present Act, shall be entitled to claim payment by the organization of the royalties due to them, according to the apportionment, and also to exclude their works and objects of neighboring rights from licenses issued to users by this organization.

The organization which has issued that opt-out to ROMS is the International Federation of Phonograhic Industries (IFPI), which represents legitimate worldwide rights-holders. As such, IFPI bluntly states that AllofMP3 has received no license to distribute music in Russia or internationally. Neither! Here's the press release.

Now here's the crucial item. IFPI lost their lawsuit against ROMS in Russia, but not for the reason you think. The Russian government did not claim that ROMS had any rights at all -- because they don't -- but instead claimed that the problem stems from a total lack of digital distribution laws in Russia at all. Russia thinks its copyright laws only apply to analog.

That may be fine, but it completely deligitimizes any claims of US buyers of AllofMP3's crap. Because the US does have such laws, and people purchasing from AllofMP3 are doing so illegally in violation of IFPI's rights. Imagine if someone set up a space station on Mars, with no laws at all, and started distributing illegal CDs. It doesn't matter if Mars has no laws: the US does, and purchase of thse CDs is illegal.

They pay to the Russian Organization for Multimedia and Digital Systems in a way radio stations pay for the rights to broadcast the music. This, they claim, is legal and it very well might be. The artists can get paid from ROMS via their labels if those are represented in Russia.

Yes, there is a such loophole in Russian laws.

Where is a 'broadcast license' in Russia: radio stations pay a small fee to ROMS (noncommercial organisation) every time a song is broadcasted, ROMS then distributes money to the performers. There was a court decision in Russia that each song download is equal to its broadcasting. Ringtones for cell phones may also be covered by this license.

If they want to sell in Russia (they could abstain, of course) then they must abide by the rules presented to then in Russia.

But a law that says, 'to do business in Russia, you have to permit Russians to generally ignore your copyrights in the US, and permit others to do the same' isn't worth the paper it's printed on in the US.

This is because activities in Russia occur only under the 'hat' of a Russian copyright holder. They don't influence what happens when wearing the hat of a US copyright holder. There's no agreement that's enforcable in the US.

You appear to have made that idea up, whole-cloth.

I wish. It seems that every idiot that comes along saying that downloading from allofmp3 is legal cites a discussion located here indicating that allofmp3 operates under a license from some group called ROMS.

ROMS seems to have issued a press release here which states: ROMS is authorized by the Russian law on copyright and related rights as well as by its members and other copyright managers, including foreign, to issue user licenses on behalf of all Russian and foreign rightsholders.

So when I see an entity authorized by Russian law to issue licenses, where that entity is NOT the copyright holder, I see a compulsory license.

We enforce compulsory licensing in the U.S. in other cases. Is there some reasons we would disregard it here?

We enforce US compulsory licensing laws here. However, we do not, as a rule of thumb, enforce foreign law within the US. So that's why we disregard it. It isn't our law. It has no effect within our borders.

If they don't want to experience the downside to Russian sales, they can choose not to sell in Russia at all.

Sure -- but since the US won't enforce that against them, it doesn't much matter. It's a downside that only applies within Russian jurisdiction.

we've already covered that those bans apply to illegally-gotten music.

Yes, but illegally, where the law in question is that of the US. Since the US has no provision allowing for compulsory licensing of sound recordings, they're per se illegal, regardless of Russian law.

If I legally buy a CD in Russia, there exists no legal precedent of which I am aware to make that CD suddenly illegal in the U.S.

Only the US copyright holder can authorize the making of a copy that is legal for import into the US. So if you legally buy a CD in Russia that was not made with the authorization of that entity, where such authorization is valid under US law, it's illegal for import.

our own USPTO has conjoined with to set international policy on recorded works

You're saying that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has set policy on copyrights? Isn't that a bit outside their mandate? I would think that the United States Copyright Office would be more involved with that. (And also Congress, the President, the US Trade Representative, various international lobbyists, etc.)

The Russian recording contracts are vetted by WIPO for compliance.

Where the fuck are you coming up with this crap? WIPO does no such thing. They're a trade treaty organization. They don't deign to to look at individual contracts.

Ok. The most recent version (July 20, 2004) of Law of the Russian Federation on Authors' Rights and Related Rights reads:

Article 39: Use of a recording, published for commercial purposes, without the agreement of the manufacturer of the recording or the performer

1. As an exception to the provisions of articles 37 and 38 of this Law, it is permitted, without the agreement of the manufacturer of the recording that was published for commercial purposes, or of the performer whose performance was recorded in the recording, but with the payment of royalty:
1. to play the recording publically
2. to broadcast the recording
3. to transmit the recording over cable for general access

1.1 [liberal translation] Starting on September 1, 2006, the "play the recording publically" part no longer applies.

2. The collection, distribution, and payment of royalties from part 1 of the current article is done by one of the organizations which governs the rights of recording manufacturers and performers on a collective basis (see article 44 of the current law) in accordance with the agreement between these organizations. If this agreement does not provide otherwise, the royalty is split equally between the recording manufacturer and the performer.

3. The size of the royalty and conditions for its payment are determined by the agreement between the user of the recording or the union (association) of such users, on the one hand, and the organizations that govern the rights of manufacturers of phonograms and performers, on the other hand; in the case where no such agreement is made, the size of the royalty and conditions for its payment are determined by a special organ of the Russian Federation.

The size of the royalty is to be determined for each type of use of the recording.

4. Users of recordings must provide to the organization mentioned in part 2 of the current article the data containing precise information about the number of uses of the recording, and also other information and documents necessary for the collection and distribution of royalties.

Here is what ROMS (Russian Society for Multimedia and Digital Networks) has to say about this matter:

ROMS gives you [the content provider] the opportunity to make a single licensing agreement with ROMS instead of innumerable agreements with each of the copyright holders. According to this agreement, the user must pay a royalty that will be distributed to the copyright holders, and to provide information about the recordings used, while ROMS guarantees (as long as the user fulfills all of the contract obligations) to settle any possible monetary claims against the user from the holder of copyrights and related rights.

As far as I can tell, ROMS only distributes royalties to its members. Thus, if you are really losing a lot of money from Russian sites, I suggest you look into ROMS membership.

Links: http://www.roms.ru/, http://www.copyrighter.ru/full/apispnew.htm

Ok. The most recent version (July 20, 2004) of Law of the Russian Federation on Authors' Rights and Related Rights reads:

Article 39: Use of a recording, published for commercial purposes, without the agreement of the manufacturer of the recording or the performer

1. As an exception to the provisions of articles 37 and 38 of this Law, it is permitted, without the agreement of the manufacturer of the recording that was published for commercial purposes, or of the performer whose performance was recorded in the recording, but with the payment of royalty:
1. to play the recording publically
2. to broadcast the recording
3. to transmit the recording over cable for general access

1.1 [liberal translation] Starting on September 1, 2006, the "play the recording publically" part no longer applies.

2. The collection, distribution, and payment of royalties from part 1 of the current article is done by one of the organizations which governs the rights of recording manufacturers and performers on a collective basis (see article 44 of the current law) in accordance with the agreement between these organizations. If this agreement does not provide otherwise, the royalty is split equally between the recording manufacturer and the performer.

3. The size of the royalty and conditions for its payment are determined by the agreement between the user of the recording or the union (association) of such users, on the one hand, and the organizations that govern the rights of manufacturers of phonograms and performers, on the other hand; in the case where no such agreement is made, the size of the royalty and conditions for its payment are determined by a special organ of the Russian Federation.

The size of the royalty is to be determined for each type of use of the recording.

4. Users of recordings must provide to the organization mentioned in part 2 of the current article the data containing precise information about the number of uses of the recording, and also other information and documents necessary for the collection and distribution of royalties.

Here is what ROMS (Russian Society for Multimedia and Digital Networks) has to say about this matter:

ROMS gives you [the content provider] the opportunity to make a single licensing agreement with ROMS instead of innumerable agreements with each of the copyright holders. According to this agreement, the user must pay a royalty that will be distributed to the copyright holders, and to provide information about the recordings used, while ROMS guarantees (as long as the user fulfills all of the contract obligations) to settle any possible monetary claims against the user from the holder of copyrights and related rights.

As far as I can tell, ROMS only distributes royalties to its members. Thus, if you are really losing a lot of money from Russian sites, I suggest you look into ROMS membership.

Links: http://www.roms.ru/, http://www.copyrighter.ru/full/apispnew.htm

I could not get to allofmp3.com, but found some intersting info on mp3search.ru.
They claim that they have a blanket license from RUSSIAN ORGANIZATION FOR MULTIMEDIA & DIGITAL SYSTEMS (ROMS)
That organization is not the Russian equivalent of RIAA, it is the equivalent of ASCAP - organization of authors and composers.

The copyrights for the tracks on mp3search.ru may have been cleared with songwriters, but not with publishers. So this is half-legal (which means illegal).

Yes, I use them. I'm not involved with them, but I live in Russia and saw their ads on a Russian site.

You're right, legal side of their business is unclear. They refer to Russian Multimedia and Internet Society lincense. Quote from ROMS site: "ROMS is authorized by the Russian law on copyright and related rights as well as by its members and other copyright managers, including foreign, to issue user licenses on behalf of all Russian and foreign rightsholders."

I have seen ROMS label on inexpensive CDs and video cassets with Western music and films in Russia but right after the label there was always a writing: "To be distributed only in Russia". So I'm not sure how they distribute digital music on Internet. The price difference is also suspiciously big: average song price in AllOfmp3 is $0.01*5-10Mb=$0.05-$0.10. Whereas average ROMS labeled video cassete is $6. Compare it to Western prices. BTW, DVDs are still $20 in Russia.

Anyway I buy music there occasionally. I bought a lot of Jethro Tull music (UK band, I'm a fan of them) in that store a year ago. On the saved money :) I bought $120 worth of J-Tull stuff (t-shirts, posters), I heard artists get much more money on merchandise.

I've used allofmp3.com for a couple months now, it's absolutely fantastic... music without DRM in just about any format you want. However, the legality is a bit sketchy. Any "IANAL" types want to speculate about this? According to the disclaimer from their site:

All the materials in the MediaServices projects are available for distribution through Internet according to license # LS-3-02-36 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society. Under the license terms, MediaServices pays license fees for all the materials subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All the materials are available solely for personal use and must not be used for further distribution, resale or broadcasting.

Now, I can't even figure out if the "Russian Multimedia and Internet Society" even exists as a legitimate organization (or as legitimate as any Russian organization is). Two links i've found are www.roms.ru and www.copyright.ru.

So, anyone want to speculate whether downloaded files are legal in Russia, USA, both, or neither?

Also, besides the issue of strict legality, is any of the money getting back to the actual artists?