Slashdot Mirror
Music Site AllofMP3 Under Investigation
Nick Irelan writes "AllofMP3.com, a Russian music site that is famous due to its low prices, has been accused of copyright infringment. Although the site said it bought licenses, some record companies are claiming that the documents it purchased aren't valid. The Moscow Police Computer Crimes Division has investigated AllofMP3 and the Moscow Prosecuter's office must decide what it will do by March 7th."
So... what's preventing them from opening AllofMp4.com days after the first site is shut down?
Is there a way how an online bussiness revenue can be *fully* tracked?
all the information about the customers (logs, purchase profiles, IP addresses, credit card numbers (if they keep those on file), ...) doesn't eventually end up in the hands of the Moscow police. It's not the most trustworthy police organization. </understatement>
Seriously, I've been using the site for a year or so. Their catalogue covers stuff that is not found in iTunes or other US-based media industry's services. They have even rare stuff that is not on P2P services! This little russian shop enriches culture.
Allofmp3 gives you noncompressed downloads, ogg downloads, mp3 in any bitrate you want. No DRM at all. Quick downloads. Now that's something I call customer choice and quality service. Compare that to the louse bitrate of iTunes - 128.
Why is this innovative shop against the "law?" Is this something analogous to the Sklyarov case where US media laws were extended to russia? Why the hell should we be locked into iTunes et al? Whose law was it anyway?
Whether it's legal or not they are offering a great service, they charge based on the amount downloaded and you can choose what format / bitrate to use.
Personally this means I am happy to pay more money for good quality tracks which I like and less for lower quality ones which I am just checking out.
Is anyone even remotely surprised? They had stuff there months before it was released officially. The clues were there, people!
No, the real question is: Why are you afraid? Downloading music is never illegal.
Sharing copyrighted music is copyright infringement. Downloading music is not.
In addition, they are only investigating allofmp3.com. That does not mean that a judge will actually convict them of a crime.
I will continue to buy from them.
Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
Interestingly the only reference to a Russian Multimedia and Internet Society, the orginizaton from which they licence the music, is on thier site or sites that have pages about thier site. Can anyone verifiy that such an orginization exists? Or if this so called loophole exists?
Its like the bogus act that warez sites cite in defense of thier activities.
Reguardless of legality in Russia, its unlikely they are permited to sell to anyone outside of russia. Though for anyone outside of russia who has purchased from this site, the enforment agencies would have to prove that you knew it was illegal and participated anyway.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
Whether or not they are operating legally in Russia is irrelevant to you, assuming that you are not in Russia. They may or may not have a licence to distribute music in the Russian market, but you are not in the Russian market, so they have no licence to distribute to you, so you were participating in copyright violation. The very fact that you are on Slashdot wipes away any claim of ignorance that you could make, especially with a fairly respectable
Allofmp3 is really run the way it should be. A minimal fee to cover bandwidth charges and the rest for the songs. There is no media, booklet and so on involved so the cost for those are not there.
But as long as the big labels insist on blowing millions on boosting a few artist and neglecting others it's not going to change.
The music industry is shagged.
pay for mp3s? what kind of loser does that?
The kind of "loser" who actually cares about consistant, quality audio, encoded in the format of their choice (which, in the case of this "loser", is generally not MP3).
Likewise, the kind of "loser" who has better things to do with their time than sift through P2P networks trying to weed out the quality from the crap, or searching and re-searching to find a complete album; or the kind of "loser" who would like to have at least some kind of respect for copyright law.
Here's what I've never figured out: why anyone from any copyright alignment would use allofmp3.com.
If you either don't care about copyright or do not believe in the current copyright regime, your most important goal is just to download music. In that case, why would you use allofmp3.com when you could get the same music off filesharing networks for free?
If you believe that, regardless of the pleasantness of the current system, the artists (or the company the artists have chosen to represent them) should still be compensated for their work, then allofmp3.com should not be compatible with your stance. You know that they exist because of a quirk in copyright law and that they are not paying anybody anything, except perhaps some Russian licensing board.
So the way I see it, either you are wasting money by not downloading the mp3 yourself, or you are wasting money by paying allofmp3.com instead of the record company. The only audience who should be ok with this, therefore, are those for whom legality is more important than convenience or morality. Am I missing something big here?
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Hi Phil, /.id like that.
you wrote:[...] so you were participating in copyright violation. The very fact that you are on Slashdot wipes away any claim of ignorance that you could make, especially with a fairly respectable
It seems to me that you're talking about two different things here.
1. Law (copyright violation)
2. Morals (ignorance)
1. You are right, I'm not from Russia. I'm from Germany. I did not violate any laws. I can't violate Russian laws in Germany, so they don't matter to me. I also didn't violate German law, because it says that I can copy music "soweit nicht zur Vervielfältigung eine offensichtlich rechtswidrig hergestellte Vorlage verwendet wird", which roughly means "if one does not use an obviously illegal copy for duplication". If I buy music from one of the biggest commercial internet music sellers worldwide, I don't use an obviously illegal copy.
In the USA, on the other hand, IIRC nobody has been accused for downloading music, only for sharing (i.e. distributing). So all the US users should be safe, too. IANAL, but if there is no sentential judgment that says otherwise, I'm taking all other statements as spreading FUD.
2. I'm buying CDs all the time. I use allofmp3.com, internet radios and tracks copied from friends for evaluating music and finding new bands that I like. If I like a band, I will then buy their album (new if they are not signed by a RIAA label, used on ebay or amazon marketplace if they are with the RIAA). It's also possible that I didn't get you right and you didn't try to talk about morals at all - if so, please ignore my reasoning #2.
Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
Will there be a price to pay for us? The legality is quite confusing (and yes, ignorance of the law, no matter how stupid, is no defence) and who knows what will happen to us...
I don't think so... If you acted in "good faith" and the law was actively broken by a thirdy party which sold it as an regular service, you've done nothing wrong...
But maybe they don't think like this...
"The important thing to me and many others is that the music was high quality and at a much more reasonable rate than iTunes."
So it doesn't bother you that you are supporting a business model that is MORE exploitative than the existing record industry? Strange that people wonder why corporations act the way they do, considering individuals are no better...
" No, the real question is: Why are you afraid? Downloading music is never illegal.
Sharing copyrighted music is copyright infringement. Downloading music is not."
THAT my friend depends on where you live.
How does the above get modded to insightful? It's a tirade, nothing more.
--
burning karma is fun
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
So as IFPI Russia's legal adviser, Vladimir Dragunov, concedes: "Because of these loopholes we don't have much chance of succeeding if we attack these companies who are using music files on the Internet under current Russian laws."
'Nothing is illegal if one hundred businessmen decide to do it. -- Andrew Young'
Thank you slashdot, that's a gorgoeus quote to put at the bottom of the page.
The law in this area is broken - copyright was created to provide an incentive to create, but the law has been twisted by the rich to rob the poor.
Until the law is fixed to protect the comman man, those of us who attempt to adhere to the law can protest the corruption by using this legal download service which does not support the rich and corrupt. Without it, there is no way to protest except to boycott or break the law.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
1a. It is clear that it is obviously illegal the minute you find out that it is. As you now have found out that the site has no license to operate outside of Russia, then the action is obviously illegal to you. Note: Russian law clearly does apply to you! Try mailing a letter bomb to yeltsin and see if anybody minds.
1b. That nobody has been accused of downloading music doesn't make it right or legal. The fact of the matter, as you well know, is that going after the sharers has been the first priority.
2. I eat food all the time. I don't steal from the supermarket. (Ok.. ok.. stealing 'not the same as copyright infringement'.. but basic principle here the same).
You must have the soul of a lawyer, the way you squirm to make reality try to fit your desires.
Huh? Are we talking about laws or ethics/morals? If the former, of course I must examine the law, if the latter, see my explanation #2, above. Law != justice.
As you now have found out that the site has no license to operate outside of Russia
Actually, I haven't found that out. There has been no legal judgment yet. Not in Germany, not in Russia, not in the USA AFAIK. Please quote a relevant declaration of a judge or attorney.
That nobody has been accused of downloading music doesn't make it right or legal.
Doesn't make it right: see my explanation #2, above. Also: law != justice.
Doesn't make it legal: true. But it doesn't make it illegal either. If you cannot cite a law that actually states the illegality of buying from allofmp3.com, I call it spreading FUD.
Concerning your point #2, as you already said yourself, copyright infringement != stealing. We really don't need to talk about that again.
Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
Actually, downloading copyrighted music without permission or an applicable exception is always illegal in the US.
Downloading is a form of reproduction, and reproduction is an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Uploading is a form of distribution, and distribution is another exclusive right of the copyright holder. So really, you can't do either.
This is all well-settled. For example, Napster was sued on the basis that it helped users download and upload, both being illegal, and that suit was successful, remember.
Current lawsuits have been concentrating on uploaders purely for tactical reasons: they're easier to find, and since they are closer to the head of the snake, as it were, taking down one uploader can take out several leeching downloaders as a bonus, or at least make life more difficult for downloaders as there are fewer sources to download from.
This is exactly why the industry's original attacks were against the people involved in the networks themselves; taking out the network was easier than tracking down users, and it had been hoped that without a network, the users would've been unable to infringe. Only the rise of alternative networks has kept this strategy from working very well, and the upcoming Grokster case may yet result in the remaining networks being taken down.
-- 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 don't see how downloading music from allofml3.com would be illegal in the UK, the site states that they have a licence to distribute music and so I can legally download from here. Just like iTunes. UK law is like German law, it's legal unless the site in known to be distributing illegally. I read the claims that they distributed legally and belived them (just like iTunes), the only thing that is different is the country the download is comming from! I would guess that at the very worst I could be asked to remove the downloaded files from my possesion.
NO ONE CARES
Someone cares. The same someone who's suing grandmas and 12 year olds. Just because any person with a decent grip on reality wouldn't care doesn't mean there aren't teams of lawyers salivating at the thought.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
There were some interesting music industry facts in the NewYorker. The RIAA labels make money on about 300 album of to 10000 or so they put out a year. Almost all bands major label albums are money loosing investments, and the money fronted to artist to make an album is lost.(pro recording / mixing isn't cheap, although we'll see the first apple/garageband recorded album this year)
Like most "interesting facts" in the world, those are wrong. If it wasn't profitable to make an album, then those albums wouldn't be made. Simple as that. They make money on the vast majority of albums and then screw the artist by use of creative accounting practices.
My suggestion if you really want artists to make money:
1. Go find the artist's webpage and look for some kind of mailing address. Might be a fan club, might be the address of their webmaster, but it'll very likely be someone that can forward your letter to them. Email them to make sure if you're uncertain.
2. Write a letter explaining that you downloaded their music online because you felt that paying whatever the hell the price was for it when you knew they'd only see a few cents from that price was unfair. Wrap the letter around a $10 bill, or whatever you feel the album is worth.
3. Mail it.
4. The artists profit.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I reasonably expect is SHOULD be legal. Lets look at a (serious) review of the facts:
1) The site claimed they paid the appropriate fees for the copyrighted material in Russia.
2) People who are downloading are downloading for personal use, and not redistributing in the U.S. (or at least I am)
3) U.S. copyright law has a section about imports. This section (in rough terms) says that if you bought it legally in a foreign country, that it is legal for you to use it in the U.S. for personal use, and without further redistribution.
I found (1) to be plausible, and I know (2) is true (because I know my own actions), and I went to read the law on (3). In fact, the only one I didn't have direct knowledge of was (1), although the site itself claimed that it was in compliance, which is a reasonable enough for most people (including me).
So, I'm failing to see how I should "reasonably suspect" this should be illegal. I know if AllofMP3 were in the US it would be illegal (the RIAA would never license the music for so little), but in Russia the laws are different. I'm paying money for a product I can use (Vorbis format music) that is download-only. I don't see how it *should* be illegal. I'm not breaking copyright law, and I don't use P2P to "share" my collection. I just listen at home (and in my car).
I guess maybe the difference is that everyone here expects that they should be routinely screwed by big labels. I believe that "fair use" includes music I can actually use (i.e. copy to different computers and listen on whatever device I happen to buy), as well as be available for a decent price. I'd be happy to pay more than $0.02/MB, but right now, there are no sites that support Linux, offer Vorbis, and have a big selection other than AllofMP3. I use Magnatune, actually, but they are kind of a small operation right now.
Anyway, I ramble. Bottom line: the underground piracy scene for music doesn NOT exist because there isn't sufficient DRM in place. It exists because the price point is simply too high. If we had a site that offered DRM free downloads for $0.10-$0.20 / MB (offering encode-on-the-fly so you could pick your format), a lot of the incentive people have to pirate would simply disappear. Primarily, I think inconvenience drives piracy. This isn't always true, but there would be a profitable market for what I describe. Especially if they kept up their campaign to put a stop to "big distributers" online; if they make it obvious that it is wrong (and punished a few people as they're doing now), and ALSO provide a decent alternative with all the benefits for a reasonable price (whatever, $0.10 - $0.20 a MB seems fine), people will buy. This would be close to $8 at the low end for a 14 track album with tracks averaging 4 MB, and twice that much at the high end.
With other things, I will try to get for free what I can't afford. I'll borrow a book from a library, or buy it secondhand, if I want a book and have spent all I can on books for the month. If I want a coat and have spent what I can on clothes, I'll look for one in a charity shop or something. If I need a new graphics card and can't afford one I'll put a note in my /. sig asking for one. (Well, I did this once anyway). My "I can afford it" list is what I really like, and I do make an effort to buy what I downloaded last month if I have money spare this month. I take your point about me getting value from it, but the way I see it, if it has no effect on me whether or not you have something, why should I want you not to have it?
I don't think it should be illegal to copy things. Your plasma TV analogy is a perfect example really - provided he lets you, I think you should be able to make a copy. The way I see it that's likely to lead to a better lifestyle for most of humanity than artificial scarcity of things. I know when reading science fiction, the societies where you can get anything you want just by asking for it seem like a better one to live in - I'm thinking of Peter Hamilton's The Naked God mainly here, where it is seen as self-evident that a free matter replicator will solve most of humanity's problems as exemplified by the other society which has such a thing, also perhaps to a lesser extent the Culture.
One last argument: the great artists did not live by having control over the reproduction of their works. Michaelangelo, Beethoven, Shakespeare didn't make a living getting royalties of the copies sold - Shakespeare sold copies of his scripts for a few pence on the way out. They made their money through commissioned works, and selling them to people who wanted to see them first. Some owners would then keep an original painting secret and their own - but most would sell copies of it to others, at far lower prices than they had paid, and not give the original artist any of it. It's the original which costs the money, the copying is peanuts - which was reflected in the pricing. It's only in the past few centuries that a business model based on restricting copying and selling every copy for the same price has existed. I think a return to the old model is the most likely result of the ease of digital copying, and see this as no bad thing. The wealthy or truly fanatic will pay bands to produce a song for them, and probably perform it for them at some event - royal birthdays spring to mind. Therafter it will be released to the public for all to enjoy - but the person who paid holds the original, and everyone knows it, and purists insist you haven't heard it until you've heard the original. It doesn't matter that they're the same.
I am trolling
Gee, maybe people don't give a shit about copyright, but don't want to get busted? This, then, is the outcome of the RIAA's barrage of suits---they've created the climate of fear they wanted and intimidated a lot of people against scoring music from p2p. But, ah, it seems that this hasn't caused people to flock to throw $10 or $20 an album at them. Rather, they went overseas to import cheap, Russian, MP3s.
The choices, then, were (prior to any lawsuit) (a) buy expensive tunes, legally, at iTMS or the like. (b) Buy cheap tunes, which may not be legal, but don't involve uploading, which means no getting gouged out of your life savings by the RIAA. (c) Download off p2p, which is cheap, but runs the risk of financial ruin if the industry makes an example of you.
Make more sense now?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca