Slashdot Mirror
Bootlegged Music in Russia
Guppy06 writes "MosNews.com has an interesting article on the thoughts and opinions of everyday Muscovites on the rampant music (et al) piracy in their country. It seems that some of them don't have much trouble justifying it to themselves, with quotes like 'Yes, I know that some of the sellers are here with burned CDs. But they have to earn a living too, I can understand them.' The article also mentions 'In a country where the average monthly salary is about $240, buying the latest album for $15 is a grotesque luxury, let alone spending $600 on Adobe Photoshop or a similar computer program.' Apparently, catchy slogans like 'Listen up, you pirate, I choose copyright!' just aren't working."
Something like this already exists...www.allofmp3.com. Sure, the target audience may be more foreigners than Russians, but the prices at which they sell music equal out to about the same as iTunes, on a Russian salary.
because they are heartless, soul-sucking, brain-numbing Bastards.
Converted into US bucks - that's roughly 570 dollars a month.
You can't tell me that any attempt by copyright holders is going to 'Stamp out Piracy' with 15 dollar CDs - unless they match the 3.50 'Nice Price'.
Isn't there one person out of all the copyright holders who can wrap their head around that?
I rate this article 4 1/2 'duhs', and rate the clueless morans printing up 'For great justice, make your time Pirate!' posters a +5 Ner.
"Why don't the music publishers price music a little more closely to a country's economy?"
Cos then you could buy the stuff cheap over there and ship it back home saving a bundle.
Course that practice has been made illegal in the UK, the free market is wonderful, no?
Guess what makes it illegal...
Copyright designs and patents act 1988 and the Trade Marks Act 1994. It is illegal to import/distribute into the UK without the opyright or trade mark owner's consent. There's a bunch of additional stuff which makes it even more illegal to import software.
Levi vs Tesco and Sony vs Tesco.
Deleted
I went to Indonesia a few years ago, and you could pick up pirated movies for around $1 each. In order to compete, the studios offered licenced movies for about $5 each.
My research indicates that it's legit, and has been online for awhile.
It is NOT legal to download from them if you are in the US.
Basically how this goes is that:
1) It is infringing to reproduce the work in copies (17 USC 106(1)).
2) Downloading constitutes reproduction of the work in a new copy given the definitions of the pertinent terms in the law (17 USC 101; Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999) ("[A] copy of the [work] is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright.")).
3) The downloader is the party that's responsible for the reproduction occuring (Marobie-FL v. NAFED, 983 F. Supp. 1167 (N.D. Ill. 1997)).
According to the copyright laws of the US, you can "import" things from outside the US, even if they violate US law if purchased here.
No, that's not true.
1) Importation is, per 17 USC 602(a), an aspect of the distribution right at 17 USC 106(3), and therefore, any exemptions to the distribution right don't apply to the reality of the infringement being unlawful reproduction as shown conclusively above.
2) Importation, being a form of distribution, requires a copy (which is defined in 17 USC 101 as a tangible object, such as a hard drive containing a work, as opposed to intangible bits all by themselves) to cross the border. This does not happen when you download, thus it's not importation.
3) You can't read, or you're remarkably stupid, because while there is an exemption for some importation in 17 USC 602(a), that exemption does NOT apply to 17 USC 602(b) which ALSO prohibits importation. Specifically, it is always illegal to import a work that was made in a manner where, had US law applied, it would've been illegal, regardless of the local law where it was made.
so far no one has shown how this is illegal.
Well, now you can retract that statement, I guess.
Enjoy.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'm originally from Brazil, and go back every once in a while to visit family. The minimum salary there is on the order of $100/month, and piracy is also an everyday fact of life. My cousin tells me that when you buy a PS2 there, it comes pre-modded and with software to play DVDs from any region as part of the bundle; you actually can't buy a PS2 without it. Of course, the reason for this is because Sony never officially released the PS2 in Brazil (according to my cousin, this is because they knew that piracy was so prevalent as to make legitimate sales there unprofitable). For comparison, whereas a pirated game is roughly $10, an unpirated one is nearly $100.
Don't wrestle with pigs; you'll both get muddy, but the pig likes it.
And regarding the possiblity of iTunes and company, Russia hasn't invented broadband yet. They're still using pulse-dialing for their phone lines, for crying out lound. (If you don't know what pulse-dialing is, go ask your dad. Or your grandpa.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized!
Wrong. I tell you, the sufficient part, about 15% of my own music collection are perfectly legal CDs. Yes, some of them were purchased with BIG discounts, some are from 'cheap classic music' series, but the fact is : it is possible to buy licensed music in Russia.
Stores with legal copies sells music that is hard to find in bootlegs. They almost divided the market and coexist in peace (a sort of).
Broadband ? We do have broadband. Not so 'broad', but anyway... it's ADSL. Advertised everywhere, cost is $24 per month.
Pulse-dialing ? Yes, it is the default. Call the phone company and they'll change it to tone dialing.
There is only one sad thing - all this is in Moscow and St.Petersburg. The rest of the country is still unconnected.
I've posted this URL several times in various threads where music industry-artist relations come up. I'm a semi-pro (not sure what may formally qualify one to be called "pro"..I've made a living at it for significant periods, but not exclusively, so I include the "semi" tag) musician myself, and can attest to some of the facts in this excellent piece. Worth a read.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Well, I have to point out that you are still not providing proof for your claim, Cpt Kangarooski.
Just as when we discussed this last time, you are making a great number of substantial claims, but I've yet to see you cite case law that pertains. Citing IR v ULV doesn't make it more correct than the last time you tried to use that case to prove your point. In that case, the person seeling the material did not have license to do so. Not the case here. AllOfMP3 has license to sell the material. You should learn from previous arguments. That case bears no weight on this matter, but you knew that before you citing it this time since you've already been corrected.
Also, stop calling people stupid. I can't stress enough how much this kind of thing produces the opposite of the intended result.
-Tom
This brings us to 17 USC 201(e). I grant that it might not apply in every case. But it applies a lot.
Thus, when the Russian government attempts to exercise the right of eligible copyright holders with regards to not excluding compulsory licensees in Russia, US law says that that compulsory license is void.
So whatever compulsory license allofmp3 might claim to have, we ignore it for purposes of looking for infringements under US law.
There is of course also a more general issue of contract interpretation and enforcibility, which I think will also result in the compulsory license failing due to duress, and depending on the precise terms of the Russian law, which I don't have before me.
But if this doesn't knock it out of the park, it's still a good counter to your rather specious arguments to date.
Incidentally, if you have an English translation of the relevant law, I'd like to see it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.