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."
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?
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.
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.
Be careful with your words.
You don't live in Russia (I do). And from my point of view its America who is becoming a fascist country.
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.
Its a psychological crutch. By paying the small amount of money to allofmp3.com they assuage their conscience. They have paid something so therefore they are not doing anything illegal, merely exploiting an apparent loophole.
How people can believe that paying a small amount of money to the composers/writers of the music allows them rights to any performance of that music is beyond my comprehension.
Me. I did briefly use Napster but got fed up with the variable quality and availability of music that went back to buying more CDs. I've even ripped from vinyl and tape. I have bought a few songs from iTMS but nothing like the number on CDs.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
" 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.
'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)
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 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.