Allofmp3.com Wins Court Case

remove writes "Gizmodo is running a story from a reader tip that claims that the russian site Allofmp3.com, popular with slashdotters for their user selectable format which had been reported as being under investigation recently has been let off the hook by the Russian DA, becuase of a loophole in russian law which allows users create copies of songs by request. Basically, even though the courts have found their site operator's behavior to be illegal- they can't prosecute because the user dynamically creates copies of songs to be downloaded themselves."

Comments

Text from Gizmodo:

[mikeage]

Since I don't read Russian and wouldn't know exactly where to look for up-the-minute Russian news, I can't really confirm this, but Kirill writes:

Since I saw a couple of features about Allofmp3 on Gizmodo, and used them myself a few times, I just wanted to update you on the Allofmp3.com legal voes - today, the DA for Moscow's South-West district, denied IPFI's request to open a criminal case against Allofmp3.com.

The DA's office determined that while Allofmp3's action are in fact theoretically illigal - they do not have the permission of all the artists they feature on the website to distribute their music - in the Russian copyright law there is no specific prohibition of digital distribution over the internet, thus the law couldn't be applied against them.

Basically the catch is in the definition of "distribution" under that law implies actual physical sale of pirated cassetes and disks, in case of downloads the DA office said that "Allofmp3 does not distribute copies of CD's, but creates conditions for its users to use the content themselves", and they don't have an article against that. I think its their online encoding feature that 'saved' them - with it, the user supposedly makes a copy of the song himself, and this is not something that was assumed under the anti-piracy law.

Eventually they will update the law I'm sure, but that will take a while (especially in Russia) so I figure we're ok to use Allofmp3 for a couple more years).

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[LiquidCoooled]

In soviet russia, the news finds YOU.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[akadruid]

I don't understand how it is possible for them to be 'theoretically illegal' AND 'the law can't be applied against them'. Surely if the law is not applicable, then they are legal (both theoretically and in practice)?

I will be interested to follow this case since I do not see any reason so far not to use this service from the UK. IANAL, but this does look legal so far, despite the apparent low cost. Is it possible that the RIAA and BPI (as representatives of The Big Four) have no power over this company?

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[nametaken]

Wait, so that means the downloaders are breaking the law? Last I understood, it was legal to purchase your music from allofmp3.com because they had licenced the music, and you can lawfully import anything that you obtained legally. Well, if we didn't obtain it legally now (?), its not legal for import. Does this mean RIAA could sue downloaders here? This has gotten way too confusing.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[swv3752]

Simple, from the DA's point of view, they are violating the spirit of the law. As they have not violated the actual letter of the law, they are ok.

At least until a new law is made.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[akadruid]

Gizmodo have now added a link to a blog that details the result further:

http://moskalyuk.com/blog/allofmp3com-escapes-cr im inal-lawsuit-for-now/475

This implies that currently the only recourse of the RIAA/BPI/Big Four is to initiate a civil lawsuit against allomp3.com for failing to acquire a suitable license. It also says that this may be difficult, since they are probably covered by their license from ROMS.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Drakin]

It's a spiritual vs letter of the law issue.

It trounces all over the spirit, but, it abides by the letter of the law.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you have a point, but you probably just lost it or something, because I can't see it.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Have Blue]

This defense doesn't make any sense. There is always a copying process involved in a download, because the song data is being copied in RAM by the HTTP server in order to transmit it to you. The process of deriving the copy from the original media takes place on AllOfMp3's servers, so they could still be held responsible for it if it was illegal.

It just sounds like the article summary is incorrect- the loophole has more to do with the fact that the Russian law in question specifically enumerates the types of media it applies to, and "mp3" is not on the list.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[shutdown -p now]

I will repeat that again and again:

The "apparent" low cost is low because prices are in general much lower in Russia than they are in Europe or US (but so are the salaries). You can legally buy an audio CD for about $5. If you consider that, the "cheap" price might no longer seem that cheap. Yes, it does allow foreign users to exploit the price difference - but doing so is not illegal.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[BobTheLawyer]

The import laws are irrelevant. When you download a MP3 from the site you are making a copy of the MP3 on your computer in the States. This is a breach of US copyright law - only the copyright holder has the right to make copies and licence the making of copies. There is no grey area - it's clearly illegal.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to precise that it only (eventually) applies in the USA

In most european countries, as well as Canada, this is perfectly legal to download copyrighted material :)

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Tony Hoyle]

It trounces all over the spirit, but, it abides by the letter of the law.

Ahh, so the russians have learnt western-style capitlism then :)

It's not 'theoretically illegal'. It's legal, until they change the law.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with spirit... *hic*

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[AviLazar]

Hmm when you say "I figure we're ok to use Allofmp3 for a couple more years" you do mean people who live in Russia? Because from my understanding, if you are here on the US side and you somehow get caught d/l'ing Brittney Spears from a Russian server, you are still bound by US laws...and will get prosecuted for d/ling Brittney Spears.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[JeffTL]

On the other hand it could also be viewed as requesting a copy and having it sent to you by the sharer -- which is what happens at a technical level (GET, not cp, so it's someone else's program on someone else's computer making the copy). But on the other hand, I use Amazon and iTunes. Musicians who deserve to be listened to also generally deserve their nickel. Same goes for audio engineers, producers, and anyone else involved....yes, including the executives at the record company. They have a mortgage to pay and food to buy. Record companies lose a lot of money on flops; they owe it to their investors to break even.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[thenextpresident]

In the US, yes. In Canada, no. =)

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

RIAA can sue downloaders in the US.

17 USC 501 says that infringement is the violation of any of the exclusive rights of the US copyright holder listed in 106. One of the 106 rights is reproduction; another is distribution.

Copies are defined in 101. They are material objects in which the intangible copyrighted works are fixed. For example, a novel is a kind of copyrightable work; each specific hardcover book with the story printed in it is a copy of that work. If you xeroxed the hardcover, you would be reproducing the work, even if the hardcover was destroyed in the process or something, because you are putting the work into a tangible object.

Files are not tangible objects. But RAM is a tangible object. Hard drives are tangible objects. Thus, when you download, you necessarily reproduce works. It's unavoidable, and happens all the time even if it is slightly behind the scenes. In fact, in the course of a download, many many reproductions may occur. Courts have settled this for a long time; I suggest reading MAI v. Peak (for the proposition that RAM can be a copy), Napster (which was found liable for the infringements of its users, including its downloaders), and Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry (finding that people who look at web pages may, in the process, infringe by virtue of the copies that must be made in the course of the viewing process).

And the courts will look to the person who directed the reproduction to occur, regardless of who's computers were involved, when assigning liability. For downloading, this is the downloader; it's not as though the uploader is forcing stuff to come down the pipe. That would require malware or something, and is so unlikely, and the burden of proof is so low (only a 51% likelihood is required in civil copyright cases), that it's trivial to hold the downloader responsible for his own actions. For more on this, google for the Marobie-FL v. NAFED case.

While allofmp3 might have a right to reproduce or distribute in Russia, that does not have any affect on persons in the US. In particular, recall that they don't have a license per se, but a compulsory license. This isn't an agreement or contract; it's the Russian government saying that some actions are simply not infringing in Russia, provided that the persons engaging in them pay an amount set by the Russian government. As would be expected, it has no bearing outside of Russia since it's a law peculiar to them.

What's very important to bear in mind is that this is not a case of importation. Importation is a subset of distribution; therefore any exception in US law (the only law that matters for people in the US) regarding importation does not help in a case of reproduction. Furthermore, reproduction requires the moving across national borders of a tangible object. Mailing a CD from Russia to the US would be importation. Downloads are not importation. Providing them is distribution, and receiving them is reproduction, but importation is a red herring.

Plus, you're wrong in claiming that you can lawfully import anything you obtain legally according to the law of the place it was acquired. Surely you understand that, for example, you can't import marijuana into the US just because you legally bought it in Holland or something.

With copyright law, 602 prohibits importation in both subsections (a) and (b). People frequently look to the exception in 602(a)(2), but they are jumping the gun. That exception only applies to subsection (a). Subsection (b) still bans imports, unless the copies sought to be imported (i.e. tangible objects being brought into the country) were made in a way that was lawful had the laws of the US applied to the place they were made. Since allofmp3 can't operate lawfully under US law, even if they were providing imports, it'd still be illegal. Alternatively, 109 might apply, but then only to copies made in the US, exported, and reimported.

But again, importation is just a total wrong avenue. Nothing of the kind is going on here, and the real legal issues involve reproduction.

Sorry if it's confusing. You're expected to follow it anyway though. And you can be held liable for infringements even if you had no reason to think you were doing anything wrong.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[gl4ss]

*I will be interested to follow this case since I do not see any reason so far not to use this service from the UK. IANAL, but this does look legal so far, despite the apparent low cost. Is it possible that the RIAA and BPI (as representatives of The Big Four) have no power over this company?*

they might have over it's actions in UK. it might very well be illegal for you to use their services from uk, like it is illegal for people from usa to use it(i think, there's some clauses about it being illegal to import music that's already licensed for someone in usa in this way.. that's just to show how badly RIAA owns american music scene).

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[richie2000]

ou are still bound by US laws...and will get prosecuted for d/ling Brittney Spears.

Could you show me the exact text of US law that says it's illegal to download a Britney Spears MP3?

Hint: Copyright law only applies to making an copy and then distributing it. It does not cover buying or otherwise obtaining an infringing copy.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Vo0k]

Not quite...

telnet warez.host.ru

cp /share/mp3/shakira-forever.mp3 ~
ftp MyHomeHost.for.us
put shakira-forever.mp3
bye

Who performs the piracy? Did it happen at the moment the guy saved the data on his own drive? Or the moment when he sold me the shell account? Or the moment I performed "cp"? Or the moment I sent the data from the remote host to my own?

The bet is at the moment of "cp" when I create a copy "I own", and technically it's me pirating the song. Same as picking my roommate's CD and ripping it to my harddrive. Still, RIAA can't forbid my roommate to have CDs and letting me live with him, and the only "fishy" thing is my mp3 copy. So RIAA could try to sue russian users who downloaded the songs, but not the service.
Although it seems Russian lav doesn't consider performing the "cp" a crime. Duplicating data for personal use, even in remote location isn't a crime. It's not some admin that makes the copy. It's me, running some php procedure or something like that.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Gramaton Cleric]

I would prosecute you JUST for d/l'ing Britney Spears!! Listening to her in itself is a crime!

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[AviLazar]

You didn't know it was specifically illegal to d/l a Britney Spears song? Sheesh, that law came out right after the words "Hit me baby one more time" were uttered from her mouth....

The law states that an owner of the copyright has the right to copy, distribute etc (according to your link)....last I heard, allofmp3.com is not a copyright owner and neither are the people who d/l the music.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[makomk]

Yes, it does allow foreign users to exploit the price difference - but doing so is not illegal.

You want to bet on that? I think at least one website got stopped from selling cheaper foreign import CDs in the EU - CDWow.com?

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

Mm. Don't get confused -- there's no importing going on with regards to the net -- but yeah, it's certainly illegal for people in the US to download from these guys, and I would be surprised if it's not illegal most places.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

No, the law defines a copy as a tangible object. A hard drive is a copy. RAM is a copy. A CD is a copy. Files all by themselves are not. Check out 17 USC 101.

And thus, at a technical level, what happens is that there is a copy on a server hard drive. Even a GET request then results in the information being reproduced to RAM (another copy), then reproduced to the downloader's RAM via the NIC and the wire (another copy), and probably finally the downloader's hard drive (yet another copy).

Even if the server's RAM copy is purged, it was still made, and it's the making that's the problem.

You might want to google for MAI v. Peak, and also for Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry.

As for who's responsible, it's the downloader -- he initiated the process of the download. No one else's initiative was responsible. The Marobie-FL v. NAFED case looks at this.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Kick the Donkey]

"...it's certainly illegal for people in the US to download from these guys..."

Care to cite your source on that statement? I really am curious. I see people making this claim all the time, however no one cites a source, they just provide conjecture.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

Check out my earlier post on the subject. I don't feel like typing it again so soon, though I'm happy to discuss it further.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[hyphz]

> There is always a copying process involved in
> a download, because the song data is being
> copied in RAM by the HTTP server in order to
> transmit it to you.

Considering this type of transient copy to be infringing is an oddity of US and European copyright law with respect to computers. It is by no means a standard principle.

By the same logic, you make a copy of a book when you read it (on the back of your retina, and in your brain's parsing neurones), you make a copy of a song when you play it off an old-style record player (in the soundwaves in the air and in the pattern of pulses in the cochlea), you make a copy of a CD when you play it (in the decoding firmware), you make a derivative work of an outfit when you wear it (by adding your body to it) etc. etc. etc.

The application of it to computers only was just a hack, paid for in law by big companies who wanted regional lockouts.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Anonymous Coward]

Since all of the laws were sold to the public to stop the mass producers of counterfeit copies of digital works, the requirement for physical media to be transferred would suit that stated goal quite nicely. It is the *lack* of such requirement that allows the law to go where it was not "intended" ("intended" here used to denote what we were told the laws were for).

If that is deemed too big a loophole (how?), then you could just require that money needs to change hands. Very few big-business counterfeiters will last long if they give away their product..!

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[jkabbe]

Sure, the RIAA can sue. But that does not mean they would win.

Your analysis seems to result in this conclusion:

If a Russian person bought songs at AllOfMp3 and carried them into this country on a laptop - the next time they played those songs (thereby making a copy in RAM) they would be violating US copyright law.

Here's the problem: often the company that has the right to distribute something in the US is not the company that has the right to distribute that work overseas. So does that mean no one can bring any copyrighted works into the US unless they pay the US copyright holders? Or do they only need to have a "valid" copyright from overseas? If so, WHO decides whether that overseas copyright is valid? If the other government decides whether it is valid, then why am I breaking the law if I pay for a license overseas but don't pay the US license-holder.

Now, of course, this probably won't apply to AllOfMp3.com because you're not actually purchasing a license under Russian law. It's worth thinking about, though.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[pizzaman100]

A similar example in US law might be Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition , where the SCOTUS ruled that child porn is illegal, but virtual child porn is not.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Derling Whirvish]

They could go the way of the Russian movie sharing sites Kinokabra and Kinoshara and limit downloads to Russian-only IP addresses.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

Could you show me the exact text of US law that says it's illegal to download a Britney Spears MP3?

Odd request, but okay.

17 USC 501(a):

Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.

17 USC 106:

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize [the reproduction of] the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords....

17 USC 101:

"Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

"Phonorecords" are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Distribution is another one of the rights in 106, but reproducing a work into a copy is infringing regardless of whether or not you distribute it later.

You're right that it is not infringement to buy a copy (though some forms of obtaining a copy may be infringing), but that only covers buying. Reproduction that occurs in the process is still potentially infringing.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

Sure, the RIAA can sue. But that does not mean they would win.

I think they would win. Copyright cases are generally very clear cut in favor of the plaintiff. Certainly there's nothing about the typical downloader that's going to help him. The Napster cases are good to look at for this. Napster was sued basically for having helped its users infringe. Thus one of its defenses was to claim that the users didn't infringe. Napster tried every argument they could think of, and lost every time. Individual users are not going to have much of a chance, given that they'd just be retreading the same ground.

If a Russian person bought songs at AllOfMp3 and carried them into this country on a laptop - the next time they played those songs (thereby making a copy in RAM) they would be violating US copyright law.

Actually, just bringing them into the US would infringe copyright law. The customs service would be able to lawfully seize the laptop at the border and it might ultimately be destroyed.

So does that mean no one can bring any copyrighted works into the US unless they pay the US copyright holders?

There's a bit more detail to it than that, but basically, yes. The US does not want copyright holders to get undercut by foreign competitors that make copies of the same thing. Of course, where US and international rights are divvied up, it may be under an agreement whereby the requirements of 602(b) are satisfied, and therefore the 602(a) exception might be useful. Plus there's the 109 exception for reimports.

It's very difficult to say precisely which copies of which works can be imported and which can't, without being privy to a lot of details about them and the agreements under which they were made. It would be nice to have a simpler system.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[_Hiro_]

I don't mean to solicit further advice, but where does that leave those of us who enjoy foreign music that doesn't have a US distributor? (Puffy Ami Yumi, B'z, other J-Pop, to name a few of mine.) Or does that only apply to copyrighted materials that has a legal distribution contract/contact in both countries involved?

(So basically how does it differ if I go to Japan and buy a bunch of J Pop for my own listening vs. picking up a copy of AC/DC's newest while I'm there just because it's handy.)

And how does that affect me if I import a B'z album now, and later it gets US distribuiton? Are my MP3's then illegal because I make new copies from a CD that, while legal to buy when I did, would then be illegal?

TOO MUCH CIRCLE ILLOGIC!

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[grahamm]

You want to bet on that? I think at least one website got stopped from selling cheaper foreign import CDs in the EU - CDWow.com?

This is one area of IP law which I think is in urgent need of revision. IMHO Once a copyright owner has authorised the creation of a (physical) copy (eg a CD or DVD) and it has been shipped to a retailer, then the copyright owner should have no further control of the disposition of that physical copy. If it is cheaper for a consumer (in whatever country) to pay the retail price in another country plus pay the international shipping charges and any customs duty/taxes than to buy it from a local retailer then this should be a hint to the local distribution chain that it should lower its charges. Corporations outsource their manufacture and (increasingly now also) their support to countries with cheaper labour costs, so why should the consumer not be also allowed to minimise costs by buying from cheaper sources?

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Cerv]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/341 6437.stm They couldn't afford to fight the BPI, so the legality of importing CDs was never tested in the courts.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Overzeetop]

Wish I had mod points for you. As much as we want to believe that legal at the source = legal at the destination, the law was written by and for the recording industry. No other works, save computer programs, have such strong protections.

I personally hope that they do well, primarily because they provide a service I can't get in the US - pick-your-own codec, pay more for higher quality, choose the tracks you want. For domestic suppliers, you only get the last one. I archive my CDs in FLAC, and look for stuff I want to keep in the same format. If I just want to see if I like it, I can stomach 128kb for a listening or two - especially if it means I can sample a CD on my own time / in my own equipment for less than a dollar.

I want them to succeed because I like the options, but I don't like the selection. I want it all - is that too much to ask? The fact that it's wildly popular speaks to it's desirability (even without mainstream marketing). I just want someone over here to say, "damnit, with our resources, we could do that - and drive those Russian rat-bastards off the net." By the time they're done, there might be enough legal players to keep the idea going.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Daniel Boisvert]

17 USC 602 explicitly excepts:

(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time

I've been hesitant to buy from allofmp3.com for legal reasons, but it looks like purchasing in the US is okay as long as you don't download two copies of the same album at the same time. You meet the requirements of purchasing from an authorised distributor, etc since allofmp3.com has the appropriate licences in Russia. Have I missed something?

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Anonymous Coward]

IRTA SCROTUM.

Seems appropriate.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

You've missed something.

First, importation is a red herring. Importation refers to the moving across national boundaries of copies, where copies are defined as tangible objects.

If allofmp3 sent you a CD via FedEx, that would fall under the import regulations. But downloading would not. And downloading absolutely touches upon reproduction, which 602 has no bearing on (since importation is a subset of distribution, not reproduction).

Second, even if it did apply, you have -- like so many others that fail to read the whole law they cite -- found an exception to the prohibition on imports in 17 USC 602(a). The prohibition in 602(b) still applies, and you haven't cited an exception for it!

But that's all academic. Like I said, there is no importing when you download.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Kick the Donkey]

The United States Code... Well, that certainly is a source ;). Thank for the info, I'll give it a read...

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[nametaken]

Plus, you're wrong in claiming that you can lawfully import anything you obtain legally according to the law of the place it was acquired. Surely you understand that, for example, you can't import marijuana into the US just because you legally bought it in Holland or something.

It wasn't an assertion, it was just my understanding. As I said, it is all very confusing to me. I would have assumed that illegal substances were exceptions anyway. See, I thought I remembered hearing that allofmp3 dealt with some sort of proper licensing authority in Russia. Anyway, I guess thats both wrong and otherwise irrelevant. While I couldn't follow all of what you said since I'm not familiar with most of your references (and am probably too lazy to track them down), I think I get the picture. I can't buy from allofmp3 anymore in an effort to go legal. Oh well, I'm still not buying CDs.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

What if person A owns the copyright in country A, and person B owns the copyright in country B? Still okay for B to undercut A?

What if the copyright expires or otherwise doesn't apply for our purposes in country C, and ordinary person C starts making copies there, lawfully. Okay for him to undercut A and B?

If you're treating them differently, why? Remember that in each case, only person A can lawfully make copies in A, only person B can lawfully make copies in B, and anyone can make copies in C.

It's certainly an issue worth considering carefully, but I don't think the answer is necessarily as clear cut as you'd like.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[mqx]

This defense doesn't make any sense. There is always a copying process involved in a download, because the song data is being copied in RAM by the HTTP server in order to transmit it to you. The process of deriving the copy from the original media takes place on AllOfMp3's servers, so they could still be held responsible for it if it was illegal.

You need to hit the law books: I can't speak about Russia or the US, but in the EU and UK, there are specific exceptions in the copyright law (in fact, the exceptions were introduced at the same time the DMCA style provisions were) that prevent any inconsequential and intermediate copying being an infringement of copyright law. What this means is that if you have a license to "make a copy" of a song by downloading it, then that licensing implicitly allows intermediate copying (network buffers, etc), even if the licensee doesn't specify it in the license conditions. Equally, it means that if you are "fair dealing" in a work, then intermediate copies in the process of that "fair dealing" are not an issue (e.g. if you have to copy the entire song to a buffer, just to take out a 1 second part of it).

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Anonym1ty]

I don't understand how it is possible for them to be 'theoretically illegal' AND 'the law can't be applied against them'. Surely if the law is not applicable, then they are legal (both theoretically and in practice)?

Ah now you see the differences in the precepts of Russian common law verses English or French common law we are more used to.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Anonymous Coward]

Cram it, comrade.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand how it is possible for them to be 'theoretically illegal' AND 'the law can't be applied against them'

That's pretty much what a legal 'loophole' is.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[danila]

Digital music and possibly digital content in general is not on the list. So it is irrelevant, whether the song is copied on Allofmp3's servers or elsewhere - it is not distribution if no CDs, DVDs or VHSs are distributed.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[SkipRosebaugh]

Note that, at least in the segments of the law you pasted, copyright law only applies to "material objects". I don't think a collection of numbers (which is what a mp3 file is) counts as a material object.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't mean to solicit further advice, but where does that leave those of us who enjoy foreign music that doesn't have a US distributor?

Just to make something clear, I'm not providing advice to you, and we're not in an attorney client relationship.

This said, US copyrights vest in the US copyright holder -- who can easily be a foreigner. (Or the band Foreigner) So if a Japanese musician who writes and records a performance of a song, holding the US copyright all the while, authorizes a Japanese company to make a CD of it, then that CD satisfies the requirements of 602(b), and 602(a) is up to you.

It's just safer to try to get copies released lawfully in your own country due to the possibility that the rights might have been assigned to another, as opposed to merely licensed.

Does that help you?

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Daniel Boisvert]

Oops--sorry. I was attempting to address 602(b) in my comment about the copy being legally made.

(b) In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited. In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable.

Since they were lawfully made in Russia, I thought 602(b) was satisfied. I wasn't aware that downloading touched upon reproduction but not importation. Thank you!

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyright law applies to people -- it tells people what actions they are not allowed to perform, with regards to intangible creative works.

It's just that one of those prohibited actions is the fixation of intangible creative works (such as musical works or sound recordings, in mp3 format) into material objects.

So while an mp3 is not a material object, the RAM, or hard drive, or CD, etc. in which it is fixed is a material object. Putting it into such an object is typically illegal.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

Wish I had mod points for you. As much as we want to believe that legal at the source = legal at the destination, the law was written by and for the recording industry. No other works, save computer programs, have such strong protections.


The law was written by the various industry groups hashing it out, true. (Read Prof. Litman's book for more on that)

But I'm surprised at the odd statement re: computer programs. Are you thinking of 109? Because the stuff I cited applies to basically everything, and really music and computer software both have their significant exceptions.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

Yeah, 602(b) could be more clear. But it requires the copies to have been made lawfully according to US laws, not whatever the laws of the place actually are. This avoids allowing imports where, e.g. the work is not copyrighted in some foreign country at all.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[tedhiltonhead]

Surely if the law is not applicable, then they are legal (both theoretically and in practice)?

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[shark72]

"Note that, at least in the segments of the law you pasted, copyright law only applies to "material objects". I don't think a collection of numbers (which is what a mp3 file is) counts as a material object."

That is the best rationalization for piracy ever. No, really. You should put that on a t-shirt or something.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Yartrebo]

Big difference there.

If real child porn could be made without harming kids, then it would have to be legal because of the first amendment.

There's no way virtual child porn can hurt kids, so it's legal.

Wise decision if you ask me, since a lot of Anime could easily be considered child porn by US standards.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[_Hiro_]

I don't mean to solicit further advice, but where does that leave those of us who enjoy foreign music that doesn't have a US distributor?

Just to make something clear, I'm not providing advice to you, and we're not in an attorney client relationship.

Hence why I don't want to solicit advice. The free, unofficial enlightenment is much appreciated.

This said, US copyrights vest in the US copyright holder -- who can easily be a foreigner. (Or the band Foreigner) So if a Japanese musician who writes and records a performance of a song, holding the US copyright all the while, authorizes a Japanese company to make a CD of it, then that CD satisfies the requirements of 602(b), and 602(a) is up to you.

It's just safer to try to get copies released lawfully in your own country due to the possibility that the rights might have been assigned to another, as opposed to merely licensed.

Does this help you?

It does to a point.

I was referring more to the import/export restrictions placed on copyrighted works. Currently it seems there is a stranglehold on importing any CDs that are also published domestically due to "undercutting" concerns. If the CD is not available in a domestic release, then what changes? (I.E., Foreign Band "A" releases on Sony Japan. Sony specifically refuses to release "A" in the US, but has US Distribution rights. The law currently allows me to import "A", but if Sony sells US rights to Bob's CDs, then what happens to my copy? It was legal when I imported it, so it's protected, but the next time I copy it to my MP3 player?

Also, does the law give any leniency to unpublished works? I.E., two years later, Bob's CDs has no production runs of "A" planned, but is the sole holder of the rights for the US. Does that mean that Bob's basically has the rights to say that US citizens can't own it, import or otherwise?

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[_Hiro_]

Okay, I mis-read part of that. You answered my question and I missed it.

Disregard the questions posed prior to the rights being sold to Bob's.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[burnsy]

Excellent posts! Thanks for the information.

So why can those in the US buy a book or CD from http://amazon.co.uk.

I must also say, in my international travels, I have purchased many books overseas for reading on the return trip and US customs has never said anything.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

The law currently allows me to import "A", but if Sony sells US rights to Bob's CDs, then what happens to my copy? It was legal when I imported it, so it's protected, but the next time I copy it to my MP3 player?

Who the rightsholder is is irrelevant for ripping purposes. Reproduction is illegal in either event unless there's authorization or an applicable exception. It might fall under 107, but it might not. 107's a case by case thing; it always is.

Also, does the law give any leniency to unpublished works? I.E., two years later, Bob's CDs has no production runs of "A" planned, but is the sole holder of the rights for the US. Does that mean that Bob's basically has the rights to say that US citizens can't own it, import or otherwise?

Remember, copies aren't illegal. The law deals with actions by people. Importing is an action. Reproduction is an action. Just owning a copy doesn't infringe on anything.

If Bob owns the US rights, then yes, he can generally preclude imports, even if he just sits on his rights. Copyright holders have no obligation to publish, unfortunately. This should probably be fixed in some way.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Maestro4k]

hat if person A owns the copyright in country A, and person B owns the copyright in country B? Still okay for B to undercut A?

• Sure, that's what capitalism is all about after all. The problem here is that up till the dawn of the Internet, A never had to worry about B since B can only sell to the country it has the copyright in and vice versa.

What if the copyright expires or otherwise doesn't apply for our purposes in country C, and ordinary person C starts making copies there, lawfully. Okay for him to undercut A and B?

• Again, yes. It's capitialism after alll, and if you can/want to undercut others that's your right. You may make less profit, or worse none or negative, but sure you can undercut A and B.

It's certainly an issue worth considering carefully, but I don't think the answer is necessarily as clear cut as you'd like.

• True, but the thing is we've always had this problem, just on a vastly smaller scale. If I take a trip to Japan and buy up a bunch of DVDs/CDs and bring them home, the USA company with the rights to those DVDs/CDs can't do a thing. I have to declare them, pay customs fees on them if necessary, but I own them and the US company is just SOL.

• Add the Internet into the mix and now I don't even have to go to Japan to buy the goodies. I can got to multiple sites, all based in Japan, and order what I want and have it shipped. Again I have to pay any customs fees but I own them and the US company is again SOL.

  Actually the _real_ problem is media companies trying to create artificial limits on things. Not only do they not want us to buy DVDs/CDs/etc. from other countries and import them, they want to make sure we can't use them if we do. (Hello region coding. :P) If you think about it like that you can narrow the scope of the real question quite significantly, it boils down to:

  • "Should Media Companies be allowed to control where I buy my media and where/when I want to play it?"

  Now that's pretty clear cut to me, if I buy a CD, I'll play it wherever I want (within reason, no breaking into the neighbor's house to play it). If I want to purchase media from companies in other countries I will. Their being online just makes it more convenient for me, the customer, to get what I want and a price I want.

  Frankly this is very much the same as online music and it being shared on P2P networks. The RIAA and the companies it represents don't want to adapt. Their business model is sorely outdated (and out of touch with reality) but they stubbornly cling to it, making threatening noises, suing anyone that moves and basically acting like a 2yo having a tantrum, only with lost more money and lawyers to throw around.

  The RIAA and MPAA companies are going to have to change their business model to accomidate the important of DVDs from other countries. Perhaps work out terms so that the price will be close to the same in every country, release movies in other countries sooner to cut down on piracy of them, perhaps, well, I don't know, but they're going to have to find _something_ or they'll go the way of the Dodo.

  Sadly given their past and current actions what will really happen is they'll get laws passed making the importation of media illegal, or they'll get a heavy tariff put on it. In the end the consumers will lose until these bloated, out of date and out of touch media companies go under.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

The problem here is that up till the dawn of the Internet, A never had to worry about B since B can only sell to the country it has the copyright in and vice versa.

Except of course that you assume import restrictions. If person B can sell to people in A, then the undercutting is possible. If person B can sell to person D, who sells to people in A, it's still a problem and now can't really be solved by any means other than import controls.

In the past, this actually has been known to be a problem.

True, but the thing is we've always had this problem, just on a vastly smaller scale. If I take a trip to Japan and buy up a bunch of DVDs/CDs and bring them home, the USA company with the rights to those DVDs/CDs can't do a thing. I have to declare them, pay customs fees on them if necessary, but I own them and the US company is just SOL.

No, depending on the precise circumstances, the US rightsholder may be able to have the customs service confiscate them when you attempt to enter the country.

Sadly given their past and current actions what will really happen is they'll get laws passed making the importation of media illegal

Which they did, a long long time ago. It allows for importation where you're just buying the copies they sold elsewhere, and it's not as strictly enforced as it could be, but they have closed off a lot of importation.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

Lax enforcement, mostly. Plus, 602(b) doesn't kick in unless the person who made the copy sought to be imported was not the same person, or authorized by the same person, who can do so in the US. This makes it a pain in the ass to know what can and can't be imported. Customs is known to seize stuff from time to time, but I think they mostly concentrate on things like drugs.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Eccles]

You sure you're a lawyer? Let's test this: list a few hearsay exceptions.

What if person A owns the copyright in country A, and person B owns the copyright in country B?

Multiple groups can't "own" the same copyright. There's the original holder, who can then license party A and party B to redistribute. The holder can impose conditions on A and B, such as no international sales. However, at least in the U.S., first sale doctrine would mean that anyone who bought from A (assuming A has U.S. distribution rights) could then legally resell to anyone just about anywhere, and individual purchasers could take their copies home to B's country (again, assuming U.S.-like laws.)

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[xstonedogx]

Wait, so that means the downloaders are breaking the law?

I doubt it. Russian courts don't set precedence for US courts. So even if the Russian court concluded allofmp3.com is a copying service rather than a distribution service, a US court might disagree. I imagine it would be easier for the RIAA to go after domestic downloaders from obviously illegal sources.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

You sure you're a lawyer? Let's test this: list a few hearsay exceptions.

Dying declarations and spontaneous statements, assuming of course that they're being offered as hearsay, which isn't inevitable. You should probably know that probably most lawyers never give a rat's ass about this stuff after they pass the bar. Ask about Hadley v. Baxendale next, why don't you?

Multiple groups can't "own" the same copyright.

Sure they can. Joint authors are probably the best example since the copyright vests in all of them initially, each having an equal and undivided interest. Something similar happens with renewals and terminations.

17 USC 201(d), however, allows copyrights to be transferred, in whole or in part, by any means of conveyance. It's treated just like any other property, and we all know that A can convey Blackacre to B and C as joint tenants or tenants in common. The same holds true for copyright.

However, what I'm talking about is the fact that copyrights are national. If I write a book, then I don't technically hold a copyright on it. I hold copyrights on it in virtually every nation. I can sell off the rights in each country to different people as I see fit, as a rule. (YMMV in different countries)

Also note that the first sale doctrine in the US applies only to copies lawfully made in the US. If the copies are made abroad, it may not apply.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Eccles]

I can sell off the rights in each country to different people as I see fit, as a rule. (YMMV in different countries)

But isn't that essentially the same as individual licensing, where the rights you transfer to the different people are subject to whatever conditions you specify?

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[steve_bryan]

"If Bob owns the US rights, then yes, he can generally preclude imports, even if he just sits on his rights. Copyright holders have no obligation to publish ..."

If that statement is actually true (and I don't mean to imply I have reason to believe it is inaccurate) then it illustrates how completely corrupted copyright law has become. The primary motivation for opponents of the copyright provision in the US Constitution (e.g. Jefferson) to accept such a clause was to encourage publication. It is for reasons like this that I hope that proponents of the Creative Commons like Lawrence Lessig are successful in changing the debate. You hate to think about starting from scratch but maybe advancements in technology have changed the terrain enough that it may no longer be useful to eek out some more years from the old framework.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[dynamo]

Exactly. "Theoretically", when applied in this context, really means "not".

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[bbc]

"last I heard, allofmp3.com is not a copyright owner"

I seriously doubt allofmp3.com is not a copyright owner.

(I use the word "owner" in the convoluted American sense here; strictly speaking, the people are the owners.)

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Andrew Cady]

The bet is at the moment of "cp" when I create a copy "I own", and technically it's me pirating the song.

Better use "ln" next time then -- that'll make it legal.

The tracking of incidental copies in RAM, etc., is of course absurd. Merely playing a song on a stereo creates a copy in the form of sound waves, not to mention the copies in the DAC circuitry and the speaker wire, or in the eardrum and the brain. There is a substantial difference between the eardrum copy and a CDR copy, which is that the CDR copy can continue to exist indepedently of the eardrum, but not vice-versa. RAM copies can have this property, or not (tmpfs &c), but the ones created through everyday use of the filesystem will not.

Continuing the absurdity, a single copy in RAM involves millions of electrons redundantly representing the same information. Does this count as millions of copies for the purpose of law? By all reason, if RAM constitutes a single copy, it must surely constitute these millions as well.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[orgelspieler]

could individuals use this to their advantage?

1. set up a website with a list of song titles to lure RIAA henchmen
2. copyright it (one can copyright lists, right?)
3. wait for said henchmen to visit site, thereby engaging in the type of illegal copying you mention
4. sue*!!!

*I do not support frivolous lawsuits

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cduffy]

Where did he specify anything about attached conditions?

Sharing the US copyright with a 3rd party gives that party the ability to do anything they could do were they the sole owner of said copyright; likewise for any other copyrights which may apply.

(I'm /not/ a lawyer, but I've studied a bit of law, and find copyright law particularly interesting).

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Eccles]

Sharing the US copyright with a 3rd party gives that party the ability to do anything they could do were they the sole owner of said copyright

But that's not the hypothetical. We started with "What if person A owns the copyright in country A, and person B owns the copyright in country B?" They don't both own the U.S. copyright. Usually you get group ownership if you have a group of creators, like a musical group. Are the music companies really selling national copyrights outright? I thought licensing agreements would be the standard system.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[TX297]

The U.S. Code (read a2) allows importation of phonorecords for personal and private use, not for distribution and the retail environment. The Code says that CDs in your bag intented for personal use are completely legal (paraphrasing here) but as soon as you have intent to sell, or you do sell without prior permission of the copyright owner, you're breaking the law.

-TX297

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[richie2000]

Reproduction that occurs in the process is still potentially infringing.

Not if I reproduce, for my own personal use, a copyrighted item that I have purchased. Doctrine of fair use, and all that. I totally agree that allofmp3.com is possibly infringing (or would be if they operated under US law, which they don't), but the downloader is not.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[richie2000]

allofmp3.com is not a copyright owner and neither are the people who d/l the music.

They claim to have purchased a license to make copies. The donwloaders act in good faith when purchasing a copy and if they make further copies for personal use, that's allowed under the doctrine of fair use. If anyone's infringing, it's allofmp3.com and that seems to be a matter of debate. The downloaders are totally in the clear unless they make the songs available on Kazaa, which in the case of Britney Spears should be judged as crimes against humanity.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard its only illegal to upload copyright material, not download.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

Not if I reproduce, for my own personal use, a copyrighted item that I have purchased. Doctrine of fair use, and all that.

Fair use does not necessarily protect reproduction for personal use even if you own a copy of the work. You'd need to go through a fair use analysis (see 17 USC 107 for the four factor test) and I find it unlikely that courts would find that downloading from allofmp3 qualifies.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[AviLazar]

in the context of our conversation my statement was valid. Your nit-pick was invalid.

The the term "owner" is used aptly and correctly - it is not convoluted. The "people" do not own Brtiney Spears' songs - she does (or her music label, however her contract is made).

Even public domain songs are not, generally, owned by the people - it is made free for people to use within certain guidelines (i.e. you do not make an assertion that you created the music).

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[AviLazar]

They claim to have purchased a license. With regards to the music they licensed they can make it available (within the guidelines of the license agreement). Apparantly, however, there were songs they were making available that they did not have a license for and this is what they were getting sued over.

Now the d/l'ers were looking at the website and saw that these guys were "Licensed" and it looked like a legitimate operation - so the d/l'ers are blameless (generally we do not see the contracts, so we have no way of verifying).

I do understand that people who legitmately acquire music can make copies - where did I say that this wasn't the case?

Making anything of Britney Spears available, except her nice breasesists is a crime ;)

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[richie2000]

I find it unlikely that courts would find that downloading from allofmp3 qualifies.

Since the copy would be required for the initial purchase (remember that this is all done in good faith by the purchaser since allofmp3.com claims to have a license to distribute, apparently not completely without merit) I do believe it would be ruled that the copy falls under fair use, if it even should be defined as a copy since you are downloading the, from your viewpoint, original, purchased song. You are, in fact, taking possession of the song you have purchased.

If you should claim that the violation occurs when importing rather than copying, I direct you to 602 a2 ("personal use") and 601 b7D: "the transferee or the licensee of the right of reproduction was not a national or domiciliary of the United States or a domestic corporation or enterprise".

I remain convinced that it is perfectly legal to purchase a song, album, CD or plaster cast of Britney Spears' tits in Russia and import it for personal use into the United States. If allofmp3.com does not in fact have a license to sell these items, it's their problem, not their patron's. The analogy could be made that if you purchase a CD in a Moscow department store, would it be illegal to bring it back with you to the US? No, of course not. Not even if the department store did not have a license to sell it to you. Why is this different?

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[cpt kangarooski]

You haven't run through the four factor analysis in 17 USC 107. Do it, rather than just deciding arbitrarily, and then we'll talk about fair use.

If you should claim that the violation occurs when importing rather than copying

I don't. Importation in this scenario is a myth. It doesn't actually happen, and I've been trying to get people to realize that it is impossible for a download to be an importation.

Also, you are proving yourself to be just as dumb as every other person I have ever seen that had the temerity to cite to 602. Every time, people cite to 602(a)(2), don't actually read it carefully, and forget that 602(a)(2) has no affect on the still-standing prohibition on importation in 602(b). You cannot pretend that 602(b) does not exist. It applies, and you're stuck with it, not that any part of 602 is relevant at all anyway.

As for your citation to 601, now you really take the cake. 601(a) clearly states that it expired in 1986. It hasn't had legal weight for nearly 20 years. Why the fuck are you citing to it?

I remain convinced that it is perfectly legal to purchase a song, album, CD or plaster cast of Britney Spears' tits in Russia and import it for personal use into the United States.

This places you in good company. There are people like you who remain convinced that the Earth is flat.

If allofmp3.com does not in fact have a license to sell these items, it's their problem, not their patron's.

Actually, it is a problem for both. In fact, for patrons in the US, it's a problem even if allofmp3 is complying with Russian law. Russian law is obviously not the same as American law, and people in the US must comply with American law, no matter what Russian law says.

The analogy could be made that if you purchase a CD in a Moscow department store, would it be illegal to bring it back with you to the US?

Yes, there is a very real possibility that it would be illegal to bring it back into the US. We generally prohibit imports of copyrighted works into the US (bringing a CD in is an import; downloading a file is not) and the exceptions to the ban on imports are quite narrow and you have failed -- like everyone else -- to find a workable exception. All you've got is half of one.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[bbc]

"The the term "owner" is used aptly and correctly - it is not convoluted. The "people" do not own Brtiney Spears' songs - she does (or her music label, however her contract is made).

Even public domain songs are not, generally, owned by the people - it is made free for people to use within certain guidelines (i.e. you do not make an assertion that you created the music)."

Are you sure you are not a RIAA shill? You say the darndest things, without having actual recourse to facts to back them up.

If you would take a peek at the US Constitution, you will see that Section 8, Clause 8 reads "[The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

In other words: the default, according to the founding fathers, is that authors and inventors do not have an exclusive right to their writings and discoveries. Ownership, if anything, is such an exclusive right. Without an exclusive right, there is no ownership. Although there are exclusive rights imaginable that would not amount to ownership (not every animal is a dog), ownership always requires an exclusive right (a dog is an animal).

The public domain, unlike what you are suggesting, is not some kind of reservation where works and inventions end their lives by the grace of congress. It is the whole area of works not or no longer covered by law. Just like the possession of daylight is generally not covered by the law, and thus can be considered "of the people", so is the possession of public domain works not covered by the law: they are of the people, to do with as you like.

In other words: I can make any assertion I want that I wrote the music. I would likely be exposed as a liar, but lying is not against the law. The law has better things to do than to concern itself with plagiarists.

If you want some examples: the Disney corporation is well-known for appropriating (and "copyrighting") public stories. Although I haven't studied these works closely, I seriously doubt that anywhere on a Pocahontas or Little Mermaid print you will find a statement that Disney, in fact, has not written these stories. Which is perfectly fine.

Re:Text from Gizmodo:

[laughingcoyote]

If the distribution of data does not count as an "import" or "export", is it no longer illegal to, say, upload strong crypto to Cuba, since that (by your reasoning) does not count as an "export"?

I'd be interested to see a case that stated/ruled that distributing data to/receiving data from computers in a foreign country did NOT count as an export/import. I think this issue might be a little more grey then you make it out to be, I don't know of any rulings in the US that specifically address the issue of downloading from a foreign source. Now, of course, such import may be illegal anyway, rendering the question of whether it is an import or export moot, in this case. However, it was my understanding from the crypto cases and bans that data may absolutely be considered an import or export, even if it didn't involve any transfer of physical media.

Not trying to argue with you, just wishing for a little clarification on the point...

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we have the same loophole in the US law ?

Re:Question

[Arbin]

No. *insert RIAA stomping foot sound here*

Is this considered "Fair Use" ?

[SirGeek]

To bad the RIAA would NEVER allow the fact that it isn't illegal to stop them from prosecution...

Re:Is this considered "Fair Use" ?

[squiggleslash]

Well, I don't think that's what the article says. In any case, it would be fair turnabout if that were the case - most downloaders have NEVER allowed the fact it's illegal to stop them from downloading... ;-)

woohoo

[skinnedmink]

back to downloading...

RIAA Dream Team Lawyers Fail?

[tabkey12]

Is this only the second time an international foray by the RIAA/MPAA groups has failed (the first being the failed prosecution of DVD Jon)?

Still, very real questions about the legality of this service have to remain...

Re:RIAA Dream Team Lawyers Fail?

[reifchen]

Whilst (like most /.'rs) I haven't done a full investigation, I don't think that the RIAA was directly behind this.

Instead, try the IIPA, (which the RIAA is a member of), which has requested that the US govt place trade restrictions on certain countries due to copyright infringement issues.

This is, unfortunately, one of those times where the sheer size of the US of A economy can, through the careful applications of trade sanctions, have dramatic effects on the economys of other countries.

Hence, it is not surprising that if trade sanctions are insinuated, countries may well roll over and go after entities that aren't abiding by US (copyright) law (but are abiding by that country's laws), or alter their (copyright) laws to be more closely conforming with US (copyright) law.

Re:RIAA Dream Team Lawyers Fail?

[Anonymous Coward]

It goes the other way as well. There are rules in the US that would outlaw and ban the methods of business that the oil cartels operate under but yet it happens and we have no choice but to support it.

Re:RIAA Dream Team Lawyers Fail?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, very real questions about the legality of this service have to remain...

Why, because it's so cheap? If it were $0.50 per song would you think the same way?

So basically instead of thinking that maybe the U.S. places like ITMS charge too much, you're automatically saying that the Russian site must be doing something wrong?

Re:RIAA Dream Team Lawyers Fail?

[hyphz]

Still, very real questions about the legality of this service have to remain...
--
Visit http://www.freebiemp3.co.uk/ [freebiemp3.co.uk] for Free iPods in the UK

You're wondering about the legality of the service while hyping a matrix purchase (aka, chain letter) site?

Pot? Kettle? Black?

Re:RIAA Dream Team Lawyers Fail?

[Yartrebo]

I'm sure the US would love to have it's oil supply cut off when gasoline prices are already at record highs.

In this case, the US stands to lose more than the Russians in a trade war.

Redundant & Overrated

[Laurentiu]

... but in Soviet Russia, MP3s listen to YOU!

Re:Redundant & Overrated

[tabkey12]

when people give their own mod scores in the title, it take all the fun out of knocking them down :(

Re:Redundant & Overrated

[Laurentiu]

I know, I know... but I had to get that out of my system. Still new to the whole /. thing, you know ;)

That was a "nice" loophole in the russian legislation; I wonder how long it will take before other such services will get some cheap webspace with a russian ISP. I bet the Kazaa folks regret not thinking about moving to Moskow instead of down under.

Re:Redundant & Overrated

[advancedhair]

Not to nit-pick, but Kazaa didn't _move_ "down under". It was sold to Sharman Networks which is an Australian company (incorporated in Vanautu). I don't think it's clear that the original owners have any interests in Kazaa any more.

Next week on Slashdot:

[Soat]

KDE team develops their own music service, called KMart. Martha Stewart sues, but goes back to jail when a background check reveals she's been pirating music for years.

If it's illegal...

[shamilton]

Then why are people paying to download songs? You can get high quality album rips off ed2k for free, and it's just as legit.

Re:If it's illegal...

[tabkey12]

2 reasons:
Because the RIAA cannot easily monitor who is downloading what from AllofMP3, whereas ed2k is much easier to monitor & pollute
Because not everyone wants FLAC or MP3 - It is handy to be able to download songs in AAC for instance for iPods but without the annoying Apple DRM

Re:If it's illegal...

[_Hiro_]

Theoretically, if you are unaware that the content is illegitimate, have no way of possibly knowing same (which is no longer the case), and pay for the service, they're legally liable, not you.

Plus apparently there is SOME content on allofmp3 that is legal, since it's stated only some is not.

Re:If it's illegal...

[BigDumbAnimal]

Why not use MP3 on an iPod? It works just fine. There isn't much of a reason to pick AAC over MP3 assuming no difference in the original source.

Re:If it's illegal...

[shutdown -p now]

You can get high quality album rips off ed2k for free, and it's just as legit.

Yes, but on ED2K, you don't get them nicely categorized by artist/album/genre/whatever, with all tags properly filled in, and album cover art provided.

You might also waste more traffic (in $) on ED2K overall because of people uploading from you while you download the mp3s.

Besides, it's pretty hard to find music in lossless formats (e.g. FLAC) on P2P networks, and that's what some people want to get (and what Allofmp3 provides).

Re:If it's illegal...

[shamilton]

I agree that FLAC would be nice, and especially in the case of moderately obscure music, it's hard to find anything better than 192kbps MP3, which I consider acceptable. But what evidence do you have that allofmp3 isn't just downloading mp3s off of ed2k and enFLACing those, as opposed to proper master material?

Re:If it's illegal...

[strider44]

Service. You get relatively high speeds, a broad selection of songs, choise of format, choise of quality, general anonymity from the bad guys, and a nice thank you for using their service. Don't you think it's worth US$10 for that?

Besides, it hasn't been proven by Russian law to be illegal. All they are saying is that they think that it might be illegal, but they can't do anything about it anyway.

Re:If it's illegal...

[geoffspear]

Unless, of course, you want your music to sound better and/or take up less space.

Re:If it's illegal...

[XMyth]

Sound quality. If they were doing that then the artifacts would be pretty obvious. The only problems I've ever had with AllOfMp3 (I've gotten a lot of music from them) is some downloads chop off at the end.

Re:If it's illegal...

[Tassach]

Because not everyone wants FLAC or MP3

So download the FLAC file and re-encode to AAC. What's the big deal?

A lossless format like FLAC is perfect for long-term archivial storage. A lossy encoding is great for putting on a portable device. A modern CPU can encode a song in a few seconds, so it makes sense to store the lossless file and re-encode when you transfer it to a portable device.

I use Aeroplayer to listen to oggs on my Palm, and burn mp3-cds to listen to on the player in my car. For me, it makes a lot more sense to re-encode at burn/copy time than it does to store both .mp3 and .ogg files on my hard drive.

Re:If it's illegal...

[cpt kangarooski]

No, for civil copyright infringement, it doesn't matter what you know, or reasonably could have known. Doing an infringing act is sufficient for liability to stand. The best you can hope for is minimal damages. Copyright is a strict liability statute. You may want to look at 17 USC 501 and 504, in particular 504(c)(2). However, if willfulness can be shown, there could be higher damages.

Re:If it's illegal...

[XMyth]

I should note, it's very rare when a download chops off at the end. Probably 4 out of 1500+ downloads I have seen this with.

Re:If it's illegal...

[hackstraw]

The only problems I've ever had with AllOfMp3 (I've gotten a lot of music from them) is some downloads chop off at the end.

That and mislabeled files as well.

I found that just as unacceptable as downloading the stuff elsewhere, and I quit using them after getting something like $20 worth of music. All in all I was disappointed with the service. I guess I'm in the minority, but I didn't think it was that great.

Re:If it's illegal...

[_Hiro_]

Thank you very much for the correction. IANAL, and apparently assume too much logic when deriving what I know for what should theoretically follow. I keep forgetting that Laws != Logical.

Re:If it's illegal...

[Jugalator]

Then why are people paying to download songs?

So far, RIAA hasn't sued a single Allofmp3.com user?

You can get high quality album rips off ed2k for free, and it's just as legit.

Yes, but they're sometimes harder to find. With Allofmp3.com you can pick not only your favorite DRM-free format, but a lossless one too, if you really feel like it. FLAC? On many of their offered songs -- no problem. Ogg? Basically on all of their songs, no problem, regardless requested bitrate. How easy is that to do on e.g. an ed2k network where some guys packaged their own rips in a RAR archive and spread it?

Re:If it's illegal...

[FuzzzyLogik]

Err.. CHOICE of format, CHOICE> of quality.. otherwise you nailed it.

Re:If it's illegal...

[NeoSkandranon]

Paying a low cost to someone probably gives the users a warm fuzzy feeling and lets them partially justify that they have paid for legit music. Nevermind the fact that it's been out in the open for a while now that artists don't get a cent from allofmp3.com due to their claiming to have purchase a "license" from a russian organization that doesn't have the authority to grant one

Re:If it's illegal...

[XMyth]

Never had that problem. Was it the VIP (free music once you've paid for other music) section or was it the regular stuff? The "VIP" stuff is music others have sent them and I generally don't download that stuff since I expect it to be only slightly better than P2P quality (as far as source, tagging, etc goes).

I've never gotten a problem with mis-tagged stuff that I had to pay for.

Re:If it's illegal...

[rsborg]

So download the FLAC file and re-encode to AAC. What's the big deal?

Well, if

• don't want to go through the extra steps of converting FLAC to AAC , and
• don't want to pay 5x the bandwidth charge (hey, it adds up if you're DLing several dozen albums) then it makes sense to go AAC directly.

Re:If it's illegal...

[SpecBear]

Although this flies in the face of my generally held theory that most people are idiots and assholes, I think that in this case it's that there are a large numebr of people who want to do the right thing in terms of acquiring music legitimately, and they will do so as long as they don't get thoroughly punished for following the rules.

Copyright laws give the labels near complete control, and so far they've shown no inclination to make any concessions to the market. They've used every opportunity to extend the right to copy to encompass the right to use. We're now in a situation where the legitimate customers often get reamed by oppressive DRM if we follow the rules, while the pirates get to listen to their music whenever, wherever, and however they want. The labels argue that these behaviors are connected and that nobody will pay if you give them the freedom to space/time/format shift, but clearly this isn't the case.

Re:If it's illegal...

[hackstraw]

It was the regular stuff. This was about a year ago, but hearing about the truncated downloads or just truncated files that is still going on is enough for me to not bother with them. Also, at the time you could only download 2 to 4 or so files at a time and you got emails when the encoding was done. I had to write a perl script to parse the emails and parallel download the files within their concurrent limit.

For me the whole experience wasn't significantly better than a normal p2p download. The only music I download is the really free stuff from bands that allow you to trade their music. The other stuff is simply too random to be worth my time, including allofmp3.com .

Re:If it's illegal...

[shutdown -p now]

You should try a similar but different (and slightly less known): MClub. That one is Ukrainian, and they use the same scheme, only prices are a bit higher ($1.50/100Mb). However, they seem to have more rarities in their collection, and I've yet to encounter a corrupted MP3 or bad tags there. The downside is that they only offer MP3s, no option to choose a different format, and no lossless codecs.

Loophole?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a loophole, it's the law.

Re:Loophole?

[AviLazar]

It's a loophole. The spirit of the law intended to protect this music - but the makers of the law didn't think about online distribution and it's wording...had they thought about it at the time they drafted the law - they would have included it. It is a loophole.

Re:Loophole?

[bbc]

"The spirit of the law intended to protect this music"

In that case it is serving its purpose well. Music is best protected when disseminated as widely as possible.

Perhaps you meant some other word than "protect"? Perhaps. I am afraid I know too little about Russian law to be of help there.

Funny, though; when the law works against the RIAA shills trolling these forums, the law suddenly contains "loopholes". I never hear about the pretty big "loopholes" that the US copyright law has with regards to the intention of the founding fathers.

Re:Loophole?

[AviLazar]

Yes because i love the RIAA. The only troll here is you.

Protection of the music (or any copyright material) does not require it to be hidden under lock and key so people can't enjoy it. Protection means that if you want to posses the music in some format you will go out and pay for it (assuming the artist charges). Protection means that you can't lay claim to the work (unless you created it).

The spirit of the russian law - as evidented by their DA, is to ensure that those caught of giving it out (i.e. P2P) get prosecuted and shut down.

Re:Loophole?

[bbc]

"Protection of the music (or any copyright material) does not require it to be hidden under lock and key so people can't enjoy it. Protection means that if you want to posses the music in some format you will go out and pay for it (assuming the artist charges). Protection means that you can't lay claim to the work (unless you created it)."

Thank you for explaining the English language to me, and redefining it at the same time to serve your purpose.

Protection of a work means none of these things you mention. If you don't want to engage in discussion, or are only interested in sabotaging it, then shut up or go play somewhere else.

Re:Loophole?

[AviLazar]

i like playing here - it is so much fun to play with trolls - kind of cute in a perverse sort of way. So how would you define it?

Re:Loophole?

[bbc]

"So how would you define it?"

Protection of a work is that which keeps a work safe from harm. One could argue what sort of harm can befall a work; the only argument that I think would hold up always is that a work can be lost.

Now which do you think is most harmful in that sense to a work: copyright, or lack of copyright? Sure, the latter can prevent a work coming into existence. But a work that never existed can not be lost.

All evidence points to the fact that copyright is harmful to works. The basic tenet of copyright is that it is better to have many works that are harmed, than few that are safe. Unfortunately, there is not much research (if any) that supports this tenet.

So is there nothing or no-one that copyright protects? Sure there is! Copyright protects interests and people. It protects the interests of publishers, and by extension it protects the publishers. And in some instances, copyright protects the interests of authors, and by extension it protects these authors.

However, copyright does not protect works. At least not in the US, with its lax regime of moral rights. (And that moral rights protect works is at least arguable.)

Re:Loophole?

[AviLazar]

The other harm is that to the copyright owner. And guess what, you do not get to define it. Your notion of a work needing to be free for anyones use does not supersede the owner of the material and their desires.

All evidence does not point to the fact that copyright is harmfull to works. Maybe not everyone obeys the laws - but many people do. I have a friend who refuses to download dungeons and dragons pdf files because it is again the law...so at least in one person that i know of, it does work.

Re:Loophole?

[bbc]

"The other harm is that to the copyright owner."

I am not contesting that. (I could, but I won't.)

"All evidence does not point to the fact that copyright is harmfull to works. Maybe not everyone obeys the laws - but many people do. I have a friend who refuses to download dungeons and dragons pdf files because it is again the law...so at least in one person that i know of, it does work."

I think you misunderstand me. You seem to conflate the good of the author with the good of the work. I don't know why you would assume that. If you do, please enlighten me.

Here's a simple example of what I mean, though. Say I own a rare copy of a rare record. I would like to be able to play it more often, but realize that every time I put it on the player, the needle will slightly damage the record.

I could make a digital copy which would never be damaged, but copying is exactly the thing that is prohibited by copyright law. However, I could argue that such a copy is fair use (please note that many record companies argue the opposite!, though not too loudly), so I go ahead and make a FLAC file of the record.

To be sure the record survives, I would like to share it with a couple of friends. However, that definitely is prohibited by copyright law, and even a fair use defense seems unlikely to hold up here.

Then I get killed in an accident. My heirs wipe my hard disk, and put my old and musty records with the garbage, where they get destroyed, including the rare one. The work is lost: copyright law did its job.

Re:Loophole?

[AviLazar]

The actual material in question is an inanimate object that can have millions of copies made. We are not worried about the physical destruction of it - cause hell we got more...we are concerned with the right of the copyright owner.

Under the fair use laws you are allowed to make a copy of your work for backing up purposes - and I would never argue that...I am discussing the downloading of copyright material when the copyright owners gave no such permission. In the case of allofMP3, they were letting people download this stuff without the proper licenses (in certain instances)...this is wrong.

I do not know where the issue with making your own backups came into play - and I appologize if I made such an inferrance.

To reiterate-- my stance:

Giving/selling away copies of copyright material without permission from the copyright holders is wrong

Backing up copyright material so you can keep it protected (lets assume the person is actually copying for this purpose) is just perfectly fine.

This is only round one...

[WIAKywbfatw]

Expect a round two after that particular loophole in Russian copyright law has been closed. I don't see Allofmp3.com winning after that's happened, do you?

Re:This is only round one...

[GigsVT]

Come on, you all can't be that naive. Allofmp3 just paid off the right people. If, someday in the future, they no longer pay off the right people, then it will become illegal and able to be prosecuted.

This is the normal way russian law works.

Re:This is only round one...

[swv3752]

I don't see tham staying online after the new law, but nothing happening to them as most countries legal principles exempt past behavior from new laws.

Re:This is only round one...

[castlec]

i think it's a general slavic thing. corruption is rampant here in the czech republic where i live and you hear people say the same things about other slavic countries. it's probably remnants of USSR corruption as the cause but it's still pretty visible.

Re:This is only round one...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying it's just like American law, then?

Re:This is only round one...

[squiggleslash]

If that's true, that might be something worth bearing in mind by anyone tempted to trust AllOfMP3 with their credit card details.

Re:This is only round one...

[GigsVT]

Yes.

Re:This is only round one...

[Vicsun]

This is the normal way russian law works.
Strike 'Russian' from the above and you'll have an accurate description of the Western legal system.

[/bitter]

Re:This is only round one...

[ifwm]

No, you wouldn't. I realize you were trying to make a (very bad) joke, or seem cynical, but you're just being silly.

In Russia, it really does work that way. As in "here's some money Mr. Judge, decide my way." Corruption in other places is rarely as open and obvious as in Russia.

While you may have reason to dislike the "Western" legal system (what does that mean anyway?) overstating the point isn't necessary.

The process

[FirienFirien]

Fwict, a clarification of the legality is that 'if you make a copy, it's ok'. ie if you take the original (ie download the file) and DON'T leave a copy behind on the server (!), it's illegal. If you leave the copy on the server, it's legal. Which crazy drunk wrote that law?

Re:The process

[Skye16]

I donno, but I'd like to buy him another beer.

Re:The process

[justforaday]

Which crazy drunk wrote that law?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the law was written well before the innerweb existed -- back in the days when content was distributed only via physical media...

Re:The process

[FirienFirien]

Magnetic tape (music, presumably data too) was duplicatable by a dual tape deck. I'm fairly sure that would be illegal, since it'd only take one person with a dual tape deck (and a lot of blank tapes) to undercut all the music vendors.

Unless that's what music vendors were.

good publicity...

[dhbiker]

thank god for the loophole!

But I'm even more grateful for the publicity that Allofmp3 has got, perhaps RIAA and other online music stores will sit up and take note that it is popular because of the freedom it offers and the fair price - its time to give the consumer their freedom back and realise the way to takle the piracy problem is to offer a good service at a resonable cost (and NO $0.99 IS NOT REASONABLE COST, that is the same per track as a CD!)

Re:good publicity...

[Xyl3ne]

I've been saying that since the pay-per-*audio_format_here* business started getting big. If I am going to buy music I'll be a CD and rip it to whatever format I please (and use it on whatever audio player (as well as it supports the format)), and have something physical like inserts and cover art.

Anyways, I think it was posted recently that music download prices may be INCREASING.

Re:good publicity...

[Xyl3ne]

I feel stupid. I meant "(as long as it supports the format)".

Re:good publicity...

[janaagaard]

Allofmp3's prices might seem fair to the users, but I'm pretty sure that the artists don't agree on that. I don't know how many royalties pay (my understanding is that they do pay some royalties), but it seems obvious to me that their pricing scheme is solely based on their bandwith cost. My guess is that they just buy one original cd and then makes any number of copies of that cd. Apple has said that at 99 cent per song they don't make any money on selling music, so I don't really see how you can lower that cost.

Do not consider music from Allofmp3 as legal! You're stealing from the artist.

Re:good publicity...

[AKnightCowboy]

Do not consider music from Allofmp3 as legal! You're stealing from the artist.

Slight correction... you're stealing from the record companies. The artist only sees a tiny percentage of that 99 cent iTunes download while the record company gets the vast majority of it to pocket for taking such a risk on publishing and promoting the artist.

Re:good publicity...

[doofusclam]

You're right, buying from allofmp3.com is probably not paying much to the artist. You could however say the same for the 99c tracks you download from iTunes et al. Paying the RIAA != paying the artists.

The only different from my point of view is that at least allofmp3.com aren't gouging their customers.

Re:good publicity...

[Laurentiu]

Dear Mr. Flamebait,
We walked down that "stealing from the artist" path before, haven't we? Hear this:

You definitely can record songs off the radio or TV (whether to a cassette or any other medium) for your personal use. This was settled aages ago by a legal case that defined such personal use of broadcast material as being ok under (U.S.) copyright law. This is not considered stealing. Furthermore, this is, as far as I can tell, the famous "loophole".

As far as I know, Internet is a broadcast medium. The question is not wheter I, as the "downloader", am "stealing" from whoever. It's the "broadcaster" - in our case AllOfMP3 - that should take care of the royalties (if any). And that only if they're applicable under russian law, because that's where the company and their ISP is located.

That being said, it should also be noted that the operation cost in Russia is bound to be lower than in U.S. Don't believe bandwidth is expensive just because you pay an overpriced bill at home.

Sincerely etc etc.

Re:good publicity...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The anti-iTunes site I've seen says that "artists" get about twelve to fifteen cents a track from each sale on iTunes. That's actually pretty good if you compare it with how much of the final sale price a build-to-order manufacturer gets for electronics and auto parts.

Re:good publicity...

[shark72]

"The only different from my point of view is that at least allofmp3.com aren't gouging their customers."

This is a suitable position to take in an ideal world where artists are all well off and don't really need your money.

iTunes may pay the artist only $0.10 or $0.20 per track, but a thousand of those tracks buys groceries for the month. Ten thousand pays the rent. Many artists do rely on royalty payments, as small as they are, to survive.

" iTunes doesn't pay the artists much, and 'a little' is practically the same as 'none at all' " is not a valid rationalization for using AllOfMP3 in lieu of iTunes.

However, if you are trying to find musicians who don't want royalty payments (because they already have enough money, or because they have a day job, or whatever) there are plenty of resources for permission-based free music downloads. There's no need to violate somebody's rights to get free music. Why not support them, instead?

Re:good publicity...

[jkabbe]

The thing is though, that you could DOUBLE the price paid on AllOfMp3.com and give the rest to the artist. That would result in the artist getting paid about as much as they do now and the price would still be a tiny fraction of what you pay for the song on any US service.

Re:good publicity...

[_Hiro_]

Doing the Math:

Average payout: $2/CD
12 Songs * $0.12 = 1.44

RIAA: $11/CD - $2.50 (Artist+Publication) = $8.50/CD (Same source as above)
12 Songs * ($0.64-$0.12) = $6.24/CD

BUT, for iTunes distribution, they don't have to pay Shipping & Recieving personnel, warehouses, purchasing managers... All those are replaced with 1-2 accountants per download company. Obviously I didn't figure in marketing and such, but I would assume costs would be similar for online and physical distribution.

Re:good publicity...

[cpt kangarooski]

You definitely can record songs off the radio or TV (whether to a cassette or any other medium) for your personal use. This was settled aages ago by a legal case that defined such personal use of broadcast material as being ok under (U.S.) copyright law.

No, not definitely. Just sometimes definitely, and sometimes maybe. Some recording of radio to some media or via certain devices (n.b. that computers are not included) may be okay per 17 USC 1008. Anything else has to fall within a different exception, such as fair use. But not everything is a fair use; you have to check on a case-by-case basis.

Also not all activities on the net would be broadcasts even if any are.

Finally, there is a big issue with people in the US downloading from allofmp3: it's illegal here, even if they're following their law there.

Re:good publicity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

Just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for explaining the subtleties of law to us so that we can operate from a position of knowledge instead of ignorance and hearsay.

Especially that you take the time to cite the law instead of bitchslapping everyone with a "No, you're wrong"; you explain why.

Anyway, thank you.

Re:good publicity...

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, hearsay is good too. I will leave it to others to explain what hearsay actually is, when you can and can't use it, etc. I don't want to get into it.

Re:good publicity...

[9Nails]

I see too many artists that can't produce live what they produced in studio. They sound more like a cover band. And I've heard other artists that can produce their recordings live. This tells me that some producers are working their butts off to make some artists sound better then they actually are. And paying the artists would put these good guys out of work. In a case like that, paying the studio and hoping they evenly disburse the finds is the logical path to compensation. I can't say how many artists are like that, but I can say that there is more than the vocals and instruments that are in the chain of recording.

Any way, I agree with the OP - I think this is good exposure for AllofMP3, and I look forward to others lowering their prices to match.

Re:good publicity...

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel that 99 cents is a very reasonable cost for a single song that I want in lame --preset standard mp3 format. Actually, a 192kbps or higher mp3 of any form would be acceptable for me. The problem I have with itunes (and the reason I use allofmp3) is that the songs are not really mine. If I download to itunes, I will lose the songs I paid for the next time my hard disc crashes or is upgraded.

If I get a mp3, I get to keep that mp3 forever, and can upgrade my computer, os, etc. without problem.

Re:good publicity...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like itunes' copy protection. I am willing to pay $1 to $2 per song for a format without copy protection (and with reasonable quality and a format my portable player understands: In other words mp3 at 192 kbps/lame --preset standard or higher). I am not willing to pay for a copy protected format, since such a song will no longer be playable next time I upgrade my computer or hard disk. This is also why I don't use Windows XP.

Re:becuase ;-) ???

[Dr.Opveter]

becuase of a loophole in russian law which allows users create copies of songs by request.

Also, i think it's supposted to be: which allows users to create copies...

oh well

Payment methods

[IncredibleDunc]

Setting aside the question of whether it's legal or morally acceptable, something dodgy is going on.

You can pay by Dinners Club or JSB. I've never heard of those.

Re:Payment methods

[doofusclam]

I've bought loads of albums from allofmp3 without a problem. Don't think they're dodgy just because English isn't their mother tongue.

And as stated before, if only the *other* legal services had their level of service - they allow you to download unencrypted files in any format/bitrate you like, from mp3 to mpc. That makes them worth using in my opinion.

Re:Payment methods

[sboss]

Dinners Club is an older Credit Card service that is not very popular in the US anymore. JSB is overseas (I think Europe but not sure).

Re:Payment methods

[jmcneill]

I've got a corporate Diners card. Diners Club cards are now accepted anywhere that Mastercard is accepted. Diners is not huge, but it's certainly not (as the parent poster said) dodgy.

Re:Payment methods

[grandmofftarkin]

You have never heard of Diners Club!? Diners club is a charge card (similar to American Express). In fact it was the first of its kind accepted in a small number of resturants as far back as 1950. Granted it is not the presence it once was but it is still accepted in just about every major hotel and restaurant in the world (in addition to numerous shops, both on and off line). I don't think that it is dodgy that they accept Diners Club cards. (Oh and if I recall correctly Diners are now owned by Citibank, who certainly aren't a small banking group).

Here read this for a quick background:
http://www.dinersclubnewsroom.com/anniversary.cfm

Re:Payment methods

[grandmofftarkin]

He means JCB. A popular credit card in Asia. Whilst they can be used in Europe I don't know any bank that actually issues them here in the UK at least. Here is there US website.

P.S. Dinners Club is a charge card. Not a credit card (google if you don't know the difference).

Re:Payment methods

[swv3752]

They meant Diners Club. http://www.dinersclub.com/en/index.html

It is not that popular in the US anymore, but if you have never heard of it, then you need to get out more.

JSB is probably a reference to JSB UniversalBank.

Re:Payment methods

[grandmofftarkin]

Damn, forgot to actually include the link to the US Website! ;-)

Re:Payment methods

[grandmofftarkin]

JSB is probably a reference to JSB UniversalBank.

Are you sure he doesn't mean JCB (a popular credit card in Asia)?

JCB cards are also accepted in Europe (and maybe even the US, I didn't pay attention for the logo when I was last out there) for the benefit of tourists (though no European bank that I know of actually issues them).

Re:Payment methods

[grandmofftarkin]

Then you have a US Diner's club card I bet?

In the US Diner's have moved to using the MasterCard network for their cards and hance are not really any different then any other MasterCard.
http://www.dinersclubnorthamerica.com/alliance/

In other countries such as the UK Diner's are still (at least for now) really Diner's Club cards.
http://www.dinersclub.co.uk/dce_content/content.do ?selectedContent=uk\generic

Re:Payment methods

[squiggleslash]

I think the GP's point was that they accept "Dinners Club" rather than Diners Club. It's a somewhat semi-legitimate point about the credibility of the website. Why would he complain about cards he hadn't heard of being there? You'd expect "obscure" brands to feature on a foreign website.

Re:Payment methods

[grandmofftarkin]

Well that is good because it simply means I am an idiot for bothering to reply to this thread so many times without understanding his original suggestion! Ah well, another few minutes of my life wasted. ;-)

Re:Payment methods

[justdigi]

It's JCB - Japanese Credit Bureau. Probably the 4th biggest credit card company in the world. Here in Australia they accept it everywhere, probably due to all the Japanese tourists...

Re:Payment methods

[Anonymous Coward]

You can pay by Dinners Club or JSB. I've never heard of those.

Not well traveled? Seventeen years old? You too can make a fool of yourself! Just open your mouth!

Looking for bribes

[ameline]

The officials involved and the legislators too, probably, are looking and seeing a wealthy foriegn organization that wants them to take action which will result in money flowing out of the motherland. That will take some serious bribes to bring about that outcome.

And this is good because?

[turnstyle]

And this is good beacuse a Russian business is making money by selling copies of US (and Euro, etc.) musicians' work, but paying them nothing in return? Is that about right?

Re:And this is good because?

[cflorio]

No, it's good because the downloads cost $0.02 per Mb...

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

And they actually have good music in their catalog

Re:And this is good because?

[AviLazar]

Or .554 Rouble per mb, eh comrade?

Re:And this is good because?

[anonicon]

"And this is good beacuse a Russian business is making money by selling copies of US (and Euro, etc.) musicians' work, but paying them nothing in return? Is that about right?"

Yep, they're operating a lot like the American and European record labels have done for years.

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it IS good because it demonstrates to the riaa that users are willing to pay for downloads and it puts pressure on them to provide a similar service for similar cost... or else lose out completely.

I personally think we should boycott all movie and music purchases until they realize that p2p distribution is something the PEOPLE want and the laws are supposed to reflect the PEOPLE's desires, not corporations (which are supposed to be accountable to the people).

Re:And this is good because?

[Angry Black Man]

And this is good beacuse a Russian business is making money by selling copies of US (and Euro, etc.) musicians' work, but paying them nothing in return? Is that about right?

As opposed to an American business making money by selling copies of US musicians' work, but paying them nothing in return. Sounds about right.

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

And Napster is free, with a couple well placed programs all the wma's are converted to MP3 easiyl.

I got about 9gigs of musics this weekend and converted it all to mp3.

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

so it is better to pay someone, anyone, something to relieve the guilt of stealign music?

Re:And this is good because?

[turnstyle]

"Yep, they're operating a lot like the American and European record labels have done for years."

Actually, no.

Musicians make deals and voluntarily sign contracts with the record labels.

Futhermore, musicians have plenty of alternatives to going the label route, such as self-publishing via services like CD Baby, etc.

A Russian site that sells music and pays the musicians nothing is far worse than crappy deals with record labels.

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard, if you pay someone for something, it isn't stealing.

Re:And this is good because?

[Jugalator]

so it is better to pay someone, anyone, something to relieve the guilt of stealign music?

Nah, no guilt is relieved. However, those "stealing" (wtf?) music probably never felt any guilt in the first place. When they pay small amounts of money to Allofmp3.com it's most likely to ensure e.g. RIAA won't catch you with a cease & desist letter.

Re:And this is good because?

[Overzeetop]

No, you pay for good, clean rips in the format of your choice, from an easily searchable catalog on servers with a fat pipe. FWIW, a .wav may cost you as much as the original CD in many cases.

As I understand it, they are required to pay a fee to the artist/label for each download, but most (labels/artists) are too lazy/stubburn/poor to register with the Russians. (Hint: when dealing with Russia, hire a Russian lawyer).

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you daft man,

The artist is too lazy?

So if I all the sudden start selling software to others for pennies then tell people that if they just register with me I will give them a small cut it is their fault they are not getting paid?

Is this really what you said? I hope I misunderstood your post.

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the site is operating within the law, just as the RIAA and their contracts are also within the law.

So where's the beef?

Artist sees bugger all from either.

Consumer sees more value for their money.

RIAA members have signed a contract with the russian counterpart of the RIAA that allows this to go ahead, so the only hyrt party (RIAA) have only themselves to blame.

Re:And this is good because?

[Overzeetop]

Yes, the artist is too lazy. I mean that in a businss sense, not a personal one. The last time AllofMP3 came up here, someone from a small label posted about how difficult is was to get registered with the Russian law firm which distributed the payments for the songs. Their complaint was that over half the documents were in Russian, and their US phone calls were not returned.

Why didn't they retain a Russian lawyer? Calling them stuipid seems a bit harsh, so I'll settle for lazy.

See my other posts (grossly incorrect about US organizations and pay schemes, as I'm not inthe business) for my thoughts on why this is no different that the US system, save ease-of-use for natives.

As for your question...let's make it closer to the topic: If I start broadcasting your songs on my new FM station and pay my ASCAP (or whoever) fees, and you don't sign up to receive your share - or you don't pick up your check or provide a current address, I'd say you were too lazy to get paid.

Re:And this is good because?

[NanoGator]

"so it is better to pay someone, anyone, something to relieve the guilt of stealign music?"

It's hard to feel guilty when I've purchased music I didn't like. (i.e. An album with only 1 song I enjoy, but there are no returns.) Two wrongs don't make a right, yadda yadda yadda, but we're simply talking guilt here.

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who exactly does allofmp3.com have a contract with?

Not the RIAA as they are trying to sue and they are THE authority when it comes to distribution of music they own (control, whatever, no distinction in this case)

Your argument is completely moot. AllofMP3.com has no legal authority to distribute the content they do. By saying they will gladly pay the artists they are not really doing anything to alleviate the illegality of their actions.

How can the artist be considered lazy? Sign up for the illegal service and get your cut? It just doesn't make any sense man.

As for the high quality etc.. What is the difference between allofmp3.com and say me (Assuming I has access to the fat pipe and music library they do) other then allofmp3.com is located in Russia when American copyright is not applicable.

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA only has authority over "their" music where it is granted them. In the US, it is granted them by the government. In other countries, that authority has to be recognized by treaty to exist at all. In Russia, therefore, the RIAA has only as much control the the Russian government chooses to give it. The Russian government has decided that *it*, not the RIAA, will license works for distribution, collect payment, and pass some along to the artist (songwriter, in this case).

Now, if you are one who thinks that ideas can be property, this probably offends you. Those Russians are just stealing the RIAA's property, right? Well, contrary to popular belief and law, nobody has ever treated ideas as property. IP law in America is utterly conventional - a societal fancy. We realize that we have no legitimate complaint against a country that doesn't recognize it.

Re:And this is good because?

[swillden]

A Russian site that sells music and pays the musicians nothing is far worse than crappy deals with record labels.

For the vast majority of artists, who never see a dime in royalty payments, the distinction is academic.

Re:And this is good because?

[HTH NE1]

As opposed to an American business making money by selling copies of US musicians' work, but paying them nothing in return. Sounds about right.

Well, the artists do get something. It's just not much.

So it comes to a choice: do you give the authors a pittance and the RIAA the lion's share, or give both of them nothing? For many, that it hurts the RIAA more than it does the artists makes it the more appealing option.

Re:And this is good because?

[Shawn Parr]

And luckily musicians are mystical beasts that require no food to survive, or homes to survive in.

I am very much anti-RIAA politics, however there are very easy ways for totally independant artists to publish music via legit online services, and actually get paid for it.

Things like this are totally a slap in the face to real musicians who try to publish music independantly and give as good a product as possible in an affordable way.

I hear many complaints on /. about why should the RIAA get so much money when the artists are screwed. Then something like this comes along and much of the community is happy aboutit even though the artists are still being screwed.

I guess we really just want to take the middle man out of screwing artists when it comes down to it...

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are living in the new economy brother.

There are beginning to be fewer and fewer international boundaries in term of commerce and things like allofmp3.com are a slap in the face to companies trying to profit from online music distribution. How can a service like ITunes (great app and service in my opinion) compete when they are charged more for the distribution rights then sites like allofmp3.com charge for the whole song?

The only thing these semi-legal sites do is provide people and easy out when they are confronted with moral dilemma of stealing music.

Well, they are paying someone so it is not stealing. It is no different then the pirate software distributors, whom will, according to the spam, give me the absolute best prices on software.

Sites like allofmp3.com should be shut down for no other reason then to force people to make the moral decision of "Do I fuck the artist out of his pay or do I fuck myself out of my pay"

Re:And this is good because?

[danila]

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.

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are beginning to be fewer and fewer international boundaries in term of commerce and things like allofmp3.com are a slap in the face to companies trying to profit from online music distribution.

allofmp3.com IS a company trying to profit from online music distribution.

How can a service like ITunes (great app and service in my opinion) compete when they are charged more for the distribution rights then sites like allofmp3.com charge for the whole song?

They can move their operations to a more competitive jurisidction.

The only thing these semi-legal sites do is provide people and easy out when they are confronted with moral dilemma of stealing music.

WTF does "semi-legal" mean?

Re:And this is good because?

[AK Marc]

Who exactly does allofmp3.com have a contract with?

No one. Why? If I wanted to do a cover of a song, I can do it without having a contract with anyone. That's how the law is written in the US. The same is true in Russia with the style of distribution. There is a nearly identical system set up in the US for it with no contracts, so why would you assume contracts would be necessary?

How can the artist be considered lazy? Sign up for the illegal service and get your cut? It just doesn't make any sense man.

Well, they aren't working within the local laws. That's lazy. They appear to be pressuring the US to enforce US law in other areas. That's not only lazy, that's stupid. The only way to shut down the site would be to find anyone from the US that "bought" a song from there and sue them in the US. They are obviously too lazy to exercise their only legal recourse within the US, and they aren't playing by the rules in the foreign country. If that isn't lazy, what would you call it?

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

Allofmp3.com makes huge profits because they pay nothing to the artist and have no "rights" to the music they distribute.

Move the company to a country where there to can fuck the artist. Great idea.

Semi-legal means violation of the spirit of the law but obtaining legality due to poor wording of the law or some other technicality.

Re:And this is good because?

[asscore]

shutup loser.... thats right and good. screw big music however you can.

Re:And this is good because?

[Don'tTreadOnMe]

(Hint: when dealing with Russia, hire a Russian lawyer)

But what occupation of Russian do I hire to make sure my Russian lawyer isn't messing with me?

And then what occupation of Russian do I hire to protect me from the one who is protecting me from the lawyer?

This is starting to sound expensive...

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.
-----
Yep and if they do, they'll get a cut of every legally sold CD, which contains their music, in russia.

Only issue is, legal cd sales make up .00002% of Russian cd sales ROFLMAO.

Even funnier yet, all of these pirated cd's are sold right out in public, in markets, where anti-piracy police are on "vigilant" lookout for pirated media; often the cases housing the warez are directly under anti-piracy propaganda posters.

My guess is that the copyright police are on the take too, like every other type of official.

The music cds are right next to the horked windows xp, adobe photoshop, and [insert game title here] cds

Maybe if legal cd's didn't cost a week's salary, they might sell them instead of them simply being used as masters to make copies which are much cheaper, and sell for a lot less.

Hooray for kapitalism!

Some of the kopies being produced certainly give the consumers great value for their money.

l8,
AC

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I paid this guy for the Brooklyn Bridge once, but when I got there the cops said it was stealing for me to take it." Modify this analogy to fit your circumstance. Points: 30

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

Allofmp3.com makes huge profits because they pay nothing to the artist and have no "rights" to the music they distribute.


The RIAA makes huge profits because they pay nothing to the artist and have no "rights" to the music they distribute.


Believe me, those artists are already getting fucked perfectly well in the good ole USA. I wonder whether you're an RIAA mole spreading the FUD, or just an innocent who's gradually come to believe it.

Assuming the latter, I recommend you take a few minutes to read The Problem With Music by Steve Albini. Back in the 80s Albini was a respected engineer/producer in the alternative rock scene. I think you'll find his article very informative...

peace, cya

Re:And this is good because?

[ifwm]

For thousands of years musicians survived without the ability to sell physical copies of their music.

The idea that musicians are entitled, or worse yet, NEED this money is ludicrous. Pay your way by performing, it was good enough for Beethoven.

Re:And this is good because?

[d34thm0nk3y]

So if I all the sudden start selling software to others for pennies then tell people that if they just register with me I will give them a small cut it is their fault they are not getting paid?

Replace selling software with playing music and you have just described how radio works.

Re:And this is good because?

[Anonymous Coward]

BZZZT -5 wrong.

With radio, broadcasters are given permission to play music (yes it really does work like that). It is then the responsibility of the radio station to pay the parties responsible. If at any time the party who is to be paid (who own the music so to speak) decides to rescind the license, they may request FCA fines are imposed on the infringing station.

At least have a clue before posting misinformation.

Re:And this is good because?

[ray-auch]

RIAA members may not have signed a deal in this case, because it is a compulsory licensing scheme so they are in it whether they like it or not. They probably have to sign up if they want to collect anything from the pot - whether they do or not depends on how much legal russian sales are and if it is enough money for them to care about.

Re:And this is good because?

[zonker]

damn, i saw ROM's and thought it was a russian rom download site. turns out it's a little different. heheh ;p

Re:And this is good because?

[iminplaya]

You, sir, are really full of it. I haven't seen one single post that says artists shouldn't get paid. Mine and many others' complaint is with the methods. All of you people keep throwing up that strawmwn like it should be believable or something. Well, it's NOT! It's bogus. The methods of paying artists without copyright has been mentioned many times before. Quit looking for special treatment. And yes, this IS good. It helps to let the entertainment industry know that they can't bully the whole world. We have the weapons industry for that. If only American/European policians would throw their bribe money back at them and stand up to them also.

Re:And this is good because?

[Shawn Parr]

Sorry, it is kind of hard to find Royalty who will pay you to simply sit around and compose for them.

FYI, that is how Beethoven did it, and Mozart, and any of the other great names in music.

Music subsidies don't work today like then did then. Also not everyone with a family can just pick up and tour.

Re:And this is good because?

[Ohreally_factor]

If you look beyond the people that make it big, you'd find that the majority of artists that get recording contracts end up deeply in debt to their label for that first CD and unable to record anything else anywhere else, because it would violate the contract.

So what they get is actually worse than nothing. They end up owing money.

You can blame the artists for having poor business sense all you want, but the fact is that the deck is stacked against the artist. This is the "standard contract", and unless you have major pull, you aren't allowed to modify it. You're considered lucky to be offered it to begin with, since there are so many that would sign it in a heartbeat.

If the recording industry wasn't a de facto monopoly, they wouldn't be able to get away with such predatory practices.

Re:And this is good because?

[HardJeans]

In Soviet Russia, the contract signs YOU!

Re:And this is good because?

[bbc]

" Sorry, it is kind of hard to find Royalty who will pay you to simply sit around and compose for them.

Music subsidies don't work today like then did then. Also not everyone with a family can just pick up and tour."

Isn't it odd, then, that both in the US and Europe musicians earn their keep (and pay off their huge debts to the recording companies) through performing and teaching?

Producer Steve Albini: "The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month."

Professor of Information Jurisprudence Martin Kretschmer: "Only a small minority of artists reaches ordinary living standards from copyright income. [...] Earnings from non-copyright, and even non-artistic activities, are an important source of income for most creators."

Re:And this is good because?

[bbc]

"So if I all the sudden start selling software to others for pennies then tell people that if they just register with me I will give them a small cut it is their fault they are not getting paid?"

This is how radio works in your country. Either deal with it or change the law.

Re:And this is good because?

[FreezerJam]

This is, in some strange sense, exactly like CD copying in Canada. Instead of US$0.02/MB, I pay a levy of C$0.21/CD, and I can copy music from an original CD onto this "levied media". The monies goto the Canadian Private Copying Collective. Note that with the per CD payment, I can copy any original audio music recording, not just Canadian artists. So every artist in the world is part of this compulsory licensing system. (See http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml for the best summary.)

The story goes that some U.S. licensing agencies went to CPCC and demanded their cut. CPCC was prepared to negotiate, but the U.S. groups had no leverage; CPCC wanted the Canadian artists cut from the equivalent U.S. program. Although there is a media levy system in the U.S., it doesn't cover CDs (yet? ever?), so there was no 'equivalent program' in the U.S.

Re:And this is good because?

[d34thm0nk3y]

It is called ASCAP, look it up. They handle all of the royalties involed in radio broadcast (in teh ststes). If your music is on pretty much any label in the states (even the indies) you are already a member. I guess it would be possible to get yourself removed from the list but you would do so through the organization (in this case the Russian version of ASCAP) instead of with the broadcaster.

I love russian copyright laws

[st_allis]

I love russian copyright laws!

Re:I love russian copyright laws

[Anonymous Coward]

In soviet russia the copyright laws love you

Re:I love russian copyright laws

[st_allis]

Russia is not soviet anymore. :) It could be anything you want but not soviet. ($$$)

*Insider information* :)

Btw: Any software costs no more 3-5$

So what happens if...

[markmcb]

...I go beat down some old lady in Russia, break into her house, and then rip all of her CD's onto my laptop? I mean, it's illegal, but I'm protected by that loophole... right?

Re:So what happens if...

[that IT girl]

Apparently you could only get in trouble for the beating and breaking in. Are you sure some old Russian lady would have your taste in music?

Re:So what happens if...

[markmcb]

I'm always open to new music... even if it's old. Anyone know of any good deals on Russia-bound plane tickets? :-)

Re:So what happens if...

[CaptainZapp]

...I go beat down some old lady in Russia, break into her house, and then rip all of her CD's onto my laptop?

You probably get to listen to a lot of Barry Manilow.

Re:So what happens if...

[Firethorn]

Not to mention that Russian prisons are not nice...

And their police don't have all the rules against beating prisoners that ours have.

Re:So what happens if...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more worried about the drug resistant strains of tuberculosis that are common in those prisons.

Re:So what happens if...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must work for the RIAA if this is all you can think of.

woohoo!

[that IT girl]

A friend of mine have been keeping an eye on this whole court case thing. Good to know we'll have our favorite download spot for at least another year or so. Even if they had been shut down, though, there are plenty other little places out there if you look hard enough. ;)

Re:woohoo!

[Tony Hoyle]

Even if they went 100% legit (and they may well do as staying afloat is worth it to them) their prices wouldn't go up much - CDs in russia just don't cost that much.

They'll probably never reach iTunes levels.

Re:woohoo!

[NulDevice]

CDs in russia don't cost that much because 90% of them are bootlegs. A legit import CD costs about $30US.

I know, I'm trying to sell CDs in russia. I make about $1 a CD on CDs after mastering, mfg, promotion, etc. Yet they still cost a fortune after import, and they're immediately bootlegged and sold for a few rubles.

Oh the irony

[Anita Coney]

Citizens in Russia have more rights than we do!

Re:Oh the irony

[njfuzzy]

Unless you mean the right to control the distribution of our creative output, so we can make a living without making something physical.

Re:Oh the irony

[pardasaniman]

In Soviet Russia, Citizens have RIGHTS!!

Re:Oh the irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the irony?

I guess the US really did have the upper hand in brain washing techniques.

Re:Oh the irony

[JavaLord]

Citizens in Russia have more rights than we do!

Sure they do, if you consider stealing a 'right'.

Re:Oh the irony

[SpongeBobLinuxPants]

In soviet Russia we're allowed to download MP3's!

wait... that's not right...

Re:Oh the irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I want the right not to pay people for their work nor let them have control over it.

Re:Oh the irony

[LetterJ]

What's hilarious is that, if you go back 150 years or so, the United States were the ones flaunting the world's copyright laws. Sheet music was being flagrantly copied in the US and British and other European countries were outraged that this upstart country was regarding the theft of sheet music as some sort of 'right'.

An awful lot of the financial build-up of the US was based on disregarding intellectual property law (from the rest of the world) early on.

Re:Oh the irony

[anonicon]

"Unless you mean the right to control the distribution of our creative output, so we can make a living without making something physical."

As long as you're not signed to a label, that's true. However, once you sign that label contract, make no mistake - your ass and ALL distribution rights to your music belong to the label, not you.

As for making a living, that's funny. 90-95% of all acts signed one year are dumped by their label within two years - but your music still belongs to the label.

Re:Oh the irony

[anonicon]

"Sure they do, if you consider stealing a 'right'."

Why as a matter of fact I do.

Edgar Brofman
President, BMG

Re:Oh the irony

[Reality Master 101]

An awful lot of the financial build-up of the US was based on disregarding intellectual property law

Yep, the mighty economic machnine that is now the US was built on a bedrock of... sheet music.

(rolls eyes)

Re:Oh the irony

[njfuzzy]

My right to control the distribution of my creations always includes my right to sell that right to someone else. Even someone you don't think I should, or someone it is a bad idea for me to sell that right to.

Re:Oh the irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheet music, piracy (real pirates, like eye patches and parrots), slavery, theft, rape, and genocide. It is amazing how much money you can make if you pay $0 a year in salaries to your employees, or if you just steal a million acres of land, and proclaim it "yours". Funny that, profits are high when your production/procurment costs are 0. Oh, and if anyone complains, just hit them with small pox, that will shut them up.

Re:Oh the irony

[hyphz]

> My right to control the distribution of my
> creations always includes my right to sell
> that right to someone else. Even someone you
> don't think I should, or someone it is a bad
> idea for me to sell that right to.

This is a "nature of freedom" argument really. The argument is that you are not free to control distribution because in reality you have only two choices: a) have your work NOT distributed (in which case you get no protection from copyright law, since any copy of your work that does emerge will have been parallel developed), or b) have it distributed - or not - based on someone else's terms (thus, you're no longer in control).

So yes, you have the choice to refuse to sign the contracts (and never have anyone hear your music), but does having that choice make you "free" to control distribution? I don't think so; after all, you have the choice to go and kill someone and then get executed or go to jail, but that doesn't mean you're considered to be "free" to commit murder. Freedom doesn't just require that you can choose an action; the action has to have a reasonable chance of being a good idea too.

Re:Oh the irony

[LetterJ]

Sorry, I forgot I was on Slashdot. I'll explain more slowly. Sheet music is 1, as in a singular, example of early American disregard of international standards of intellectual property laws. That 1 example sits inside a trend that took place of things like turning a blind eye toward patent infringement (if the patent was elsewhere), etc.

I used sheet music as my example, because (get this), it was actually relevant to the discussion at hand. Before the advent of recorded music, sheet music and player piano rolls were BIG business and the businesses involved were the RIAA of their time. There was a great uproar about the US just flaunting the rules.

Today (I'm drawing a parallel and wanted to warn you), countries like China, Russia and others that aren't recognizing US and other major IP holding countries' patents, trademarks and copyright are growing very quickly, unfettered by the legal constraints that those systems put in place, *much like the US did*. History is repeating.

At some point, it's likely that, in those countries, the protections will start showing up as one Russian wants protection from another Russian "stealing" his work. Then, eventually, some other countries will step into the "abuser" role.

Re:Oh the irony

[hyfe]

Citizens in Russia have more rights than we do!

The citizens of Russia always had more rights than you do, just as you always have had more rights than them.

Did you have a right to a state-sponsored 2 week paid vacation to the sunny south every second year in the US in the 80's? Russian citizens had.

Did they have the right to express their own political opinions whenever they wanted without fear of reprecussions? No, they most certainly didn't, and by large, us in the west have.

Re:Oh the irony

[njfuzzy]

Atleast of my five favorite bands have 100% control of the digital distribution of their music. All of the artists I listen to regularly have changed labels at least once to receive better rights. (These are all bands who have been somewhat successful, but never huge.)

You have stopped discussing actual rights, and moved on to discussing how you feel someone should use their rights. Someone who signs to a label made a choice. Someone whose music is distributed without their consent (such as on allofMP3.com or Kazaa) has not.

Your dislike of other peoples' choices with respect for their rights is a different argument than why it is wrong for AllofMP3 to sell things they don't have the rights to.

Re:Oh the irony

[hyphz]

> Atleast of my five favorite bands have 100%
> control of the digital distribution of their
> music.

How do you know? Have they just said they have? Do they have the right to sell their song, for money, off their own homepage without the involvement of the label?

> All of the artists I listen to regularly have
> changed labels at least once to receive better
> rights.

Irrelevant: if having the rights is dependant on the label giving them to you, you're not free. (For instance, citizens of a corrupt government that clamps down on speech are not considered to have "free" speech just because they can bribe government officials to ignore them.)

> Someone who signs to a label made a choice.

Just having a choice isn't enough for freedom, because of the problem I cited before: you can choose to commit murder and go to jail, but that doesn't mean you're considered free to murder.

> Your dislike of other peoples' choices with
> respect for their rights is a different
> argument than why it is wrong for AllofMP3 to
> sell things they don't have the rights to.

I'm not disagreeing that AllOfMP3 shouldn't sell the songs. I'm only disagreeing with the view that existing copyright law protects the freedom of artists.

Re:Oh the irony

[cpt kangarooski]

I absolutely agree. However, as a consequence of this position, don't you think that 17 USC 203 et al ought to be repealed?

Re:Oh the irony

[Reality Master 101]

Sorry, I forgot I was on Slashdot. I'll explain more slowly. Sheet music is 1, as in a singular, example of early American disregard of international standards of intellectual property laws.

And I was illustrating how ridiculous your whole point was. Jeez, people like to rewrite the history of the US, but this is totally ridiculous.

You seem to be implying that the US was built by stealing all the innovation that was going on in other countries during the 19th century, and that is completely absurd. People came to the US BECAUSE Europe and other countries were so stagnant. Does the cotton gin ring any bells? (killed the linen industry in Europe). Steamships? Mass production?

Re:Oh the irony

[LetterJ]

Just because you want to read "An awful lot" as "the bedrock of" doesn't mean that's what I said. An awful lot of money is spent on crappy exercise gadgets. Are they the "bedrock" of the modern economy? Of course not.

I'm not sure where you're reading me as "rewriting the history of the US", but I was citing a singular relevant example in history, explaining it in context and drawing the parallels: all within a few paragraphs.

I was unaware that for my point to be valid, I also needed to place it within the entirety of the socioeconomic context of 19th century, the Industrial Revolution, slavery and intercontinental transportation. Apparently, rather than taking 2 minutes to make a post, I was supposed to do full research and cite numbers, including percentages of GDP. I used the term "an awful lot" as a loose, abstract term. I'm sorry we're assigning different values to that amount, but don't paint me as some idiot out to rewrite history for my own political agenda.

I'm not writing my thesis; I'm posting in a discussion of music copyright and other countries "stealing" on a website. And, in that context, the fact that something similar has happened before, where a lot of money was at stake, where the roles were reversed, and where the stuff in question was *also* music was relevant.

You're apparently seeing an entirely different "whole point" than I was actually making or stating. I'm not here to stand on a soapbox with my propaganda in my hand, redfaced. I've been on this site for a long time, and have a history of posting pretty carefully, without trying to distort anything to fit my decidedly moderate approach to life.

Re:Oh the irony

[Reality Master 101]

Just because you want to read "An awful lot" as "the bedrock of" doesn't mean that's what I said. An awful lot of money is spent on crappy exercise gadgets. Are they the "bedrock" of the modern economy? Of course not.

You didn't say, "an awful lot of money", you said, "An awful lot of the financial build-up of the US". That implies that you believe that a statistically significant portion of the "financial build-up" was due to intellectual property theft.

Apparently, rather than taking 2 minutes to make a post, I was supposed to do full research and cite numbers, including percentages of GDP.

No, that was not necessary, but you chose the context to put your point in (i.e., the growth of the US). If you had just said, "A lot of money was made" or "there is a precedent that was set in the early years of the US", then I wouldn't have commented. If it was just a poor choice of words, then fine, we'll move on.

Re:Oh the irony

[wse7k]

Did they have the right to express their own political opinions whenever they wanted without fear of reprecussions? No, they most certainly didn't, and by large, us in the west have.

Two things:

1. Rights exist independently of whether they are recognized.
2. I would not call "and by large" recognition.

Re:Oh the irony

[AK Marc]

My right to control the distribution of my creations always includes my right to sell that right to someone else.

You don't know what a "right" is. Can I sell my "right" to vote? Can I sell my "right" to travel? Can I sell my "right" to free speech? A "right" is not something that can be bought and sold. If it can be bought and sold, it isn't a "right."

You have the right to create. In order to encourage that right to be exercise, artificial (non-right) laws were passed in order to put some limited protections on creation. There is no "right" to profit.

Re:Oh the irony

[Anonymous Coward]

> Atleast of my five favorite bands have 100%
> control of the digital distribution of their
> music.

How do you know? Have they just said they have? Do they have the right to sell their song, for money, off their own homepage without the involvement of the label?

Let me take this opportunity to plug the Brian Jonestown Massacre. I met the singer outside a gig at the Mercury Lounge in NYC, he was talking about how he refuses to sell the rights to his songs to anyone (and they've put out an album or two on a major label), he controls all his copyrights. BTW, they give away all of their music for free on their homepage.

Re:Oh the irony

[_Hiro_]

I've always thought that was rather backwards, personally...

As a non-lawyer, non-politician, I would think copyright law changes should go like:

Copyright is licensable, but non-transferable. (Encourages people to make their own, rather than just buy someone else's.)

Copyright/Trademark is renewable indefinitely, but once it has lapsed, it's gone forever. 5-10 year increments. Thus Disney can keep Mickey, works that have been forgotten about by their creators will lapse into Public Domain, and the US Govt gets lotsa nice $20 bills for paperwork charges.

hmm

[ywwg]

sounds like someone did their research before putting up this service.

Sure...

[Anita Coney]

You get to download great music in lossless formats at low prices... BUT... you also have to give your credit information to someone in Russia.

Is ANY song worth that?!

Re:Sure...

[iceteep]

They take paypal. No problem.

Re:Sure...

[Anita Coney]

Heck, I'd give out my credit information to someone in Russia rather than to deal with Paypal. Those guys are REAL criminals!!!

www.paypalsucks.com

Re:Sure...

[Gunson]

http://www.simon.com/giftcard/

Its prepaid. If they really wanna steal the 3 dollars i have left on my card thats no problem.

Damn 3 bucks is like 150 songs!!!

Re:Sure...

[Anita Coney]

Thanks for the info! I have to admit, I'm interested.

Re:Sure...

[geniusj]

My transaction count stands at 1000+ with no issues thus far. I think it is way overblown.

Re:Sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would certainly prevent me from using thier service. Perhaps you could use a prepaid credit card, that way the most they could take you for is the stored value on the card.

Re:Sure...

[Anita Coney]

The problem I have with paypal is that it is not regulated. If I leave 50 bucks with my bank, they HAVE to give it back. There are laws which have been on the books for centuries saying just that.

But with paypal, they can take your money and do whatever they want with it. Your only recourse is to sue them in civil court. It'd cost several thousands of dollars just to get a lawyer on board. That's why Paypal gets away with so much. There is no system in place to keep it in check.

I'm sure eventually paypal will evolve into a trusted system. But until then I'll stay away.

Re:Sure...

[cpghost]

The problem I have with paypal is that it is not regulated.

IIRC, the problem with paypal was with merchant accounts, not with regular buyers accounts. On the slightest complaint against a merchant (wether justified or not) paypal would freeze their account, probably longer than required.

But I may be wrong here.

Re:Sure...

[NitroWolf]

You get to download great music in lossless formats at low prices... BUT... you also have to give your credit information to someone in Russia.

No you don't. Just transfer money via PayPal... so now the only thing those "Evil Russian Mafia people" have is your Paypal address, and I already get enough PayPal Phishing scams that one more isn't going to make a difference.

Re:Sure...

[rograndom]

That's what those cash cards at the bank are for. Load it up with $10 or so and use that. If the number is stolen it's no good since all the money is already used up.

Re:Sure...

[Mant]

You don't give you card to allofmp3 you give it to a 3rd party. I've never had any problems, I've never heard of anyone having any problems and I was worried so I researched it quite a bit.

Re:Sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

My transaction count was over 30,000.. let me tell you, none of the lowered rates, personal account managers, and long, clean transaction histories mean they won't close your account and confiscate all your money over something trivial at some arbitary point in the future. Funnily enough, they become a lot less communicable after they lock your account without warning.

Sure, won't happen to you... probably. I'd still be wary of putting anything through them I can't afford to lose.

Re:Sure...

[Anita Coney]

And besides they don't sell ANY Puffy Amiyumi!!! In other words, they suck!

Re:Sure...

[geniusj]

In my case, when I get a chargeback or complaint (I sell a subscription service so I get a couple of these a year), they freeze the funds from that transaction (between $5 and $20). No big deal, I would have ended up refunding the person anyway if they had asked. I can see how it would be a problem when selling physical merchandise though.

Regards,
-JD-

Re:Sure...

[gotroot801]

Ever since I drained my initial $10 investment, I've tried using Paypal, but it always tells me "Sorry. Service temporarily unavailable." It's been "temporarily unavailable" for at least 9 months...

Maybe I'm the only one?

Re:Sure...

[Lord_Dweomer]

"You get to download great music in lossless formats at low prices... BUT... you also have to give your credit information to someone in Russia. Is ANY song worth that?!"

Get one of those prepaid credit cards, problem solved.

The real use of Allofmp3.com

[neoviky]

As the website has all the music imaginable, much more than the corporate stuff, I am using the site to sample entire albums in a low quality stream that they provide, which is pretty cool. There is always some music, that you want to check out, like for example an obscure Pearl Jam CD, but I'm lazy enough that I cannot really go thru the pain of downloading it, either from kazaa/bittorrent or if at all possible, legally thru itunes!(as if!). Latelly I was able to search and stream the really obscure but amazing albums of Candlebox, Chicane, and Dracula... in less than 10 seconds. I just started streaming in Winamp at 24kbps. I find all of my old worn out tapes suddenly so much accessible, like in the old days when we did listen to entire albums!! Vicki

Re:The real use of Allofmp3.com

[Natchswing]

> the website has all the music imaginable

If "all the music imaginable" means a small sampling of currently over-played pop music, why, then yes!

There is no obscure Pearl Jam CD, they're all available at your local Walmart.

Re:The real use of Allofmp3.com

[XMyth]

Yes, that is a great feature that I am suprised doesn't get mentioned more. Truly can listen before you buy.

Re:The real use of Allofmp3.com

[neoviky]

Well, its great for me because I stay in New Delhi, India, where all CDs of Pearl Jam or Placebo are rare! Vicki

Re:The real use of Allofmp3.com

[Natchswing]

Fair enough! I retract my comment. :)

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!

[Dantelope]

"Basically, even though the courts have found their site operator's behavior to be illegal- they can't prosecute because the user dynamically creates copies of songs to be downloaded themselves."

I think what you mean is this:

Basically, even though the music industry wants the site operator's behavior to be illegal, it isn't because...

According to your statements, the loophole makes the behavior legal, which is why they can't prosecute.

Quite simply, if it's illegal and there is evidence, then the case can be prosecuted. In this case, it's not illegal (loophole), ergo, no prosecution.

Re:If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!

[deimtee]

I think what they may be saying is that the user is creating the copy and thus the site is not breaking the law, the user is. That means that there is a distinct possibility that the ??AA will start going after their customers if they can find them.

Re:If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!

[91degrees]

That could be complicated. They'd have to get the purchaser's information. We'll have to see whether this is easy or not in Russia. Then they'd have to be sure this was legally valid as evidence in the downloaders jurisdiction. Then they'll have to prove damages.

The RIAA haa a good legal team though. They might find a quicker way to do this.

Mmm, Justice in Action

[jandrese]

It sounds to me like the site operators of Allofmp3 did a pretty good job of bribing whoever they needed to get the case thrown out of court.

But how long can it last?

[mr_RR]

Even though allofmp3.com may be operating in an underhanded fashion, it is ironic that they are continuing their operation based on legal loopholes, given that the American recording has done the same thing in its attack on fair use, invasion of privacy, and filing of John Doe lawsuits.

Looks like the recording industry isn't too happy about the use of loopholes when its directed against them.

In the grand scheme of things, though, allofmp3.com won't last, since it holds condiderably less political influence than the Russian recording industry, and I'm sure they'll have to change their business model within not too long if they wish to stay in business. While allofmp3.com has been a great force in driving online music sales, and being a measure of quality, convenience, and ease that all other pay services are compared to, their current business model is just not sustainable.

It's an easy choice..

[Mage66]

I simply won't buy music from this website.

I want to support inexpensive and LEGAL channels to buy the music I want.

Like ITMS (even though I dislike the DRM), MP3Tunes, WalMart, MusicMatch (ditto for the DRM) and other sources...

Re:It's an easy choice..

[doofusclam]

I simply won't buy music from this website.

I want to support inexpensive and LEGAL channels to buy the music I want.

Like ITMS (even though I dislike the DRM), MP3Tunes, WalMart, MusicMatch (ditto for the DRM) and other sources...

Yup, you go right ahead and pay more for a crippled and lower quality download than you'd pay for a real CD...

I'm not saying allofmp3 are doing something good, but they are putting one in the eye of those who claim $.99 is the minimum a company can provide downloadable tracks for.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[dago]

It is legal*.

* Depending on your location. Do not apply in the USA. It is legal to download copyrighted material in most european countries & Canada.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[OhPlz]

Of course they're putting one in the eye.. they're not paying for what they're selling! That's truly absurd.

iTunes and the like have to pay for the right to sell the music. allof doesn't. The fact that allof can sell for far less shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

Heck, burglars can sell stuff cheap too.. same principle.

This is just another case of American entitlement. People should know that the continued use of allof is wrong. They'll continue doing it though because it's alright for them, and they'll never get caught or get in trouble because of it. We're an online society of anarchy.

Sure the RIAA sucks and Apple is maximizing their profit. Buying tunes from an overseas source that isn't authorized to sell them doesn't help solve anything.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[Anonymous Coward]

I simply won't buy music from this website.

I want to support inexpensive and LEGAL channels to buy the music I want.

Has the RIAA propaganda of "Downloading music is stealing" actually worked so well that you think think this site is illegal despite what the actual legal authorities say?

Re:It's an easy choice..

[squiggleslash]

I'm not saying allofmp3 are doing something good, but they are putting one in the eye of those who claim $.99 is the minimum a company can provide downloadable tracks for.

Well, in fairness, that's because allofmp3 isn't paying anything (that'd make a difference) to the artist, anything to offset the costs of recording the music, producing it, mastering it, etc. It's essentially a CD ripping, storage, and download service.

A legitimate operation has real costs to cover. Artists need to eat. Equipment costs money. Sound engineers need to eat. Producers need to eat. The people overseeing all of this need to eat. Anyone can reduce the prices to close to zero if they just "forget" about paying for all of these overheads. But the long term consequences of doing so is that the amount of new works will be drastically reduced, or that models none of us like in practice will come into force - every song funded by product placement, or enforced taxation, or sponsored by some opinionated millionaire whose idea of music is far from your's.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[Mage66]

Yup, you go right ahead and pay more for a crippled and lower quality download than you'd pay for a real CD...

I'm not saying allofmp3 are doing something good, but they are putting one in the eye of those who claim $.99 is the minimum a company can provide downloadable tracks for.

But, I'm not. A full CD costs something like $15.00 at Best Buy. $9.99 at iTunes, $8.88 at MP3Tunes, or a physical CD is $5.99 (with a limited selection) from www.mymusic.com.

I prefer the physical CD when I can, because I can rip it at any format and any quality at will.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[Mage66]

I'm not talking about whether it's legal or not.

Because that's splitting hairs.

It's not "legal" or right if the owner of the song isn't being compensated for it.

When I produce saleable product, I want to be paid for it. I want the artists to be paid for their work, so they'll make more.

I want to be paid for my work, so I stand for that.

I don't have a problem with .99/.88 a tune and 9.99/8.88 an album. As long as the artist gets a cut of it that's fair.

When possible, I go to the artist's site and buy the music from them directly so they make the most money.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[anonicon]

"I want to support inexpensive and LEGAL channels to buy the music I want."

You know, the labels behind the RIAA couldn't have said it any better in a well-prepared press release. Soooo, scoot up and pay 5x more for the privilege of downloading music with DRM. Them's good eatings! Yummy yummy yummy!!!

Re:It's an easy choice..

[bStrom]

I've been using eMusic lately. They don't have a lot of "Top 40" or whatever, but there's a lot of good music. It's also helped me to expand my music tastes.

eMusic

They have a free 50-MP3 trial, and there's no DRM. Their subscription programs range $0.22-$0.25 per song. They use VBR encoding averaging 192kbps (using LAME version 3.92). They also have Linux, Mac, and Windows versions of their download manager software (but you don't have to have the download manager to download songs).

They also compensate artists, and are completely legal!

Re:It's an easy choice..

[hyphz]

> It's not "legal" or right if the owner of the
> song isn't being compensated for it.

No, thanks to this ruling, it's legal.

It's arguably unethical, you're right. But if you want to argue ethics, you then have to compare it to the ethics - not the legality - of the traditional methods of buying music. And because of the industry's treatment of artists, that isn't necessary ethical either.

I'm not going to be downloading from Allofmp3.com anytime soon, because I agree with you in principle, but this case will hopefully have the effect of forcing the ethics of music distribution overall to be considered, the legal/illegal paper stool having been kicked out.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[poptones]

Sure the RIAA sucks and Apple is maximizing their profit. Buying tunes from an overseas source that isn't authorized to sell them doesn't help solve anything.

Neither does handing over money to the parasites who will use that money to lobby washington to erode the liberties of the citizens of this country.

You are allowing unethical laws to define your expectations of morality. That sure as hell isn't going to "help solve the problem."

Re:It's an easy choice..

[Mage66]

When you steal something you get it for free...

It doesn't make me stupid that I'm willing to pay 5x more for something legal. That you can get an illegal copy for 5x less doesn't mean the legal copy is overpriced.

I won't say I've never pirated. Or copied a friends album or cassette...

But as I get older and my income expands, I buy the stuff I want, rather than pirate it.

Stealing is cheaper, but paying a fair price is better.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[Mage66]

Yes, thank you...

I've used eMusic too...

I probably need to rejoin their service and support it.

The problem with the less expensive music services is their selections are limited.

While Michael Robertson may be touting MP3Tunes to the heavens, I find little I want to buy in its selection of music.

I've mostly exhausted what I want from mymusic.com, so my hope is they add more titles I'd want to buy when the 6 CD's in my queue run out in 6 months ($5.99 a CD, INCLUDING S/H).

Re:It's an easy choice..

[Overzeetop]

So.....your local FM station is also "skirting the laws," eh? You see, it's a similar provision which All of MP3 has gotten. They pay their fee (kind of like an ASCAP fee) and they're done. If the musicians want their money, they have to sign up. In Russia.

Let's sya you're a Russian Artist, and have never been to the States, or even want to go. Some young DJ finds your CD on his vacation to Minsk, and starts playing it in rotation on HotRock98 back in Bumfark, ID. Will you get a check for your part of the royalties mailed to you? HELL NO! Will you get to apply to (whoever does that stuff in he US...sorry, not an artist - only have friends who are) get your money by reading all the appropriate documentation in Russian, and get to speak to someone fluent in Russian to help you fill in the forms? HELL NO.

See, you have to play ball, and you have to play ball they way they play it "over there." If you don't like it, get a Russian Lawyer to apply for your share of he pie. If you don't like that, go buy key Russian politicians and ge the system changed. That's the way it's done - the labels just don't want to spend the money.

Don't think that's the way it is in he US? Why do you think it's a violation of copyright to rent music CDs and cassettes, but not DVDs and Videotapes? That's right - politics. It's a pay-to-play system.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[Anonymous Coward]

and those people are eating now?
on iTunes. they are getting some real money, a few pennies a song.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[Mant]

They pay money to the Russian equivilent of the RIAA. Under current Russia law that seems to give them the right without needing explicit permission, like a radio broadcaster.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[Anonymous Coward]

Radio station DJs... selecting which music they will play?! That's about as likely as taking a vacation in Minsk.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[Beardo the Bearded]

In Canada, we pay a fee on blank media.

I don't care if 99% or more of the money goes to line the CCPC pockets. I've paid my levy; the rest is bookkeeping semantics.

So it's perfectly ethical to download music. I pay money to do so.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[glenstar]

I don't have a problem with .99/.88 a tune and 9.99/8.88 an album. As long as the artist gets a cut of it that's fair.

It doesn't matter if you spent $99.99 for the album... what the artist receives is 100% up to the label. A label is like a bank in that they essentially loan an artist money to create an album. Every time the album is sold the label takes its cut. The artist usually doesn't make anything until the label has been repaid. After that they might make royalties anywhere in the 0-25% range (it varies wildly depending on the complexity of the contracts and the status of the artist). This may not be the "best" deal for the artists but the labels do (in many cases) perform services that many artists are in desperate need of: marketing, packaging, distribution, and tour support. FYI: not all labels are "evil"... even those who are members of the RIAA. It's really a matter of perspective.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[Mage66]

It doesn't matter if you spent $99.99 for the album... what the artist receives is 100% up to the label. A label is like a bank in that they essentially loan an artist money to create an album. Every time the album is sold the label takes its cut. The artist usually doesn't make anything until the label has been repaid. After that they might make royalties anywhere in the 0-25% range (it varies wildly depending on the complexity of the contracts and the status of the artist). This may not be the "best" deal for the artists but the labels do (in many cases) perform services that many artists are in desperate need of: marketing, packaging, distribution, and tour support. FYI: not all labels are "evil"... even those who are members of the RIAA. It's really a matter of perspective.

That's non-sequitor. An artist with a contract with a record label is the normal, legal, moral way to do it.

The way "AllofMP3.com" does it, doesn't pass the "smell test".

I won't patronize a service like that.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[glenstar]

I think either I didn't explain myself correctly or you misunderstood me. I am in no way, shape or form advocating a service like AllOfMp3.com. What I was trying to say is that a DMS is in no way responsible for how an artist is paid.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[Mage66]

What I was trying to say is that a DMS is in no way responsible for how an artist is paid.

That's not true.

If I run a store and I sell unauthorized copies of copyrighted books, I am doing something illegal.

Especially... If I *KNOW* the copies I'm selling, I'm printing in my back room and no money is going to the copyright holder.

Even if I claim to be holding money aside to sent to the copyright holder, the absence of an advanced agreement (contract) still makes what I'm doing illegal.

It's would be like someone selling my house, and then preseting me with the fait accompli and a check. What if I didn't want to sell my house?

Or didn't want them selling my house?

It's the absence of a contract with the copyright holder or their authorized representative (record label or agent), that makes this wrong.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[NulDevice]

My label makes about $60 a year, after paying for manufacturing, promotion and royalties for our small stable of artists.

All our stuff ended up on jetgroove, and now allofmp3. Incluidng stuf that was released free to the public on our artists and label sites.

You think we can afford to hire a russian lawyer? No. You think Allofmp3 is taking advantage of the fact that the majority of the artists they sell can't get access to or don't have access to russian lawyers? Hell yes. That's why they set up in Russia.

Basically, a little artist like me is getting screwed because these guys found a way to skirt the system. I've called in as many favors as I could from my russian connections, so far none of them has found a lawyer who's even willing to do business with these guys, and the one who pretended to be a lawyer never got his calls returned (and he's in Moscow).

You tell me why these guys are such great heroes.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[djlowe]

Actually, YOU couldn't have personified the attitude of many Slashdot members any better, which basically seems to stem from the "free as in beer" idea... but gets twisted and extended beyond that to encompass things that go beyond what has been offered under those terms.

Once you get a taste of "free as in beer", you will settle for nothing less, everywhere... mostly because you're greedy, selfish, cheap, clueless, unskilled, noncreative and ignorant.

You want all the things that you lack, so that you can be entertained, diverted, assisted; to benefit, without having to pay, nor think of giving anything back... and, you think that you're entitled to that, simply because you exist.

In short, you're a parasite.

Or, worse: If you CAN create, and offer such up for free, you think that in so doing, you should automatically get EVERYONE else's works for free, the warped logic being: "Hey, I'm as good as anyone else, and I'm giving away all my creations, which, because I'm as good as anyone else, are as good as anyone else's, for free, so I should get everyone else's stuff for free too!"

Sorry, Sparky, it doesn't work that way, either.

Here's the reality: Don't like the terms under which someone offers their copyrighted materials to you? That's fine, you don't have to buy it: Nobody's standing next to you with a pistol to your head.

The thing is: YOU are free to do whatever you want with the things that you create and copyright... and SO IS EVERYONE ELSE.

Which ALSO includes placing restrictions upon it, as they see fit.You may not like it, and probably don't, but that's OK - they aren't you (surprise!).

And, regardless of whether you like it or not, whether you think it's "right" (whatever the fuck THAT means) or not.. they have the RIGHT to do that.. because they own the copyrights to their works, and YOU do not.

And people like you, posting drivel such as you did, only end up looking cheap,selfish,ignorant and greedy.

How's that for "yummy"?

Re:It's an easy choice..

[RedDyeNo5]

I MUST reply to this, but this reply goes to all of these comments. I have heard for many years now, that military personel are required Not to follow orders they are given that are unlawful. This crosses over to similar rules in the non-military world. If I understand this nonsense about RAM, if I go to the store and buy a new CD, and only play it on my computer, I am violating the law because it has to copy in RAM to play. The very concept of this is insane and logic screams that we must not obey. The same goes for the idea that visiting a web page, and having it copied by my RAM is a violation of the law. These laws are about as stupid as the one a legislator in California tried to pass years ago, that required SEAT BELTS on motorcycles.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[OhPlz]

If you want to make a statement then don't listen to popular music. Find some indie groups that aren't affiliated with the machine.

If your favorite artist is in league with the RIAA and their cohorts then you should do the right thing and not listen to them. Right?

Downloading their music anyway is being an anti-patriot to the cause. Sure, by downloading you haven't funded them.. but you're still an element of the artist's popularity.

Re:It's an easy choice..

[poptones]

I got my first copy of Seargent Pepper's in like 1970. That money was spent a loooong time ago and I actually bought it a couple times again after that. Listening to it now doesn't mean a damn thing to Lennon and McCartney.

Paying for it, however, would mean something to them and their distributor.

Not Ilegal != Ethical

[jcromartie]

I was hoping that the ruling would come back and say that this was legal and not just not quite illegal. A loophole in Russian law still doesn't make the site or downloading from it ethical.

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[CashCarSTAR]

Who cares if it's ethical? Seriously. That's not the standard most people go by, to be honest.

People buy used CDs all the time, even though that's not ethical. It's accepted practice. Yet downloading samples of music to see if you like it, so you can then go out and buy new music is illegal, yet way more ethical.

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[renderhead]

Buying and selling used CDs isn't unethical. When you buy a new CD, you are purchasing a recording of the music along with a license to listen to that recording under a specific set of circumstances (which happens to be quite broad). When you sell your CD to someone else, you are transferring both the recording and the license to a new buyer, which is both legal and ethical because the ratio of people with recordings and people with licenses is maintained.

The only way this would be unethical would be if the seller made copies of the CD to keep before selling the original recording. Once the original recording was transferred to the buyer, the seller would be legally and ethically required to destroy or transfer to the buyer any "backup" copies they had made.

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[NarrMaster]

I'm curious. Can you explain to me why buying a used CD is un-ethical? Serious question, because I'm curious (I always thought it was OK).

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[jcromartie]

But when buying a used CD, you are buying the license to that particular record for your personal use. That's the way it works. When you sell (or give away) a CD to someone else you transfer your license to listen to them too. As far as money for the artist goes, there are only so many CDs out there. If a record is good enough, then people will be keeping theirs and nobody will be buying it used, so it's not going to impact the artist, and in fact they are getting what they deserve for making a good album. If an artist puts out a piece of garbage that has had one song pushed on MTV or the top-40 radio stations, then people are going to pass it around like an ugly stripper at a frat party. The artist doesn't see any money after the first sale... but do they really deserve to? Probably not. I can care less if 50 Cent is only selling 100000 new CDs this year instead of 300000 because of used CD sales.

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "unethical" because the artist gets $0 from the resale of the item. OTOH, it could be "ethical" because it helps keep your local indie record store afloat. Your ethics may vary.

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[Anonymous Coward]

Used CDs is also nice and green, which is ethical IMO.
Far better that someone buys an unwanted CD than it goes to landfill, incinerator etc. Every little bit of recycling helps.
Its also a good way for cash poor folk to get hold of music, as used CDs are a lot cheaper than new. In the UK with ripoff high new CD prices (compared to US and some other places), I get a lot of stuff used or from "bargain bins" (stock sell offs when the album has been out for a while and sales have essentially stopped) as I find it hard to justify full retail price for many albums: I'll buy new and "full price" those that I know I will listen to a lot, if its something I know I will only dip into occasionally I wait for a cheap copy (or go without if I don't find a cheap one).

I can see the attraction of cheap downloads for stuff I would listen to occasionally, a bit of truncation, not world beating qulaity would be accepatable for "occasional" albums.

I certainly find the "mainstream" download sites way too expensive (and after download I still have the hassle of needing to burn tracks to CD to listen to them away from PC as in my case that means (non MP3 capable) CD player) - they should be loads cheaper than CD track equivalent IMHO.

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[Curious Yellow 82]

No, but the artist seeks to make a profit off every single copy he/she/they sell right? So once he/she/they sell you a copy then they've made their cut and they disappear from the product cycle. You don't hurt them if you resell it, you just make back a little bit of your cash. Even if you buy some obscure beatles album from ages ago, keep it till it's worth hundreds of thousands and then auction it leaving you a lot richer because the artist is now out of the product cycle, you made the artist rich with your purchase, they shouldn't expect you to do anymore than what was projected, i.e: you go out and buy their record!

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[anonicon]

"People buy used CDs all the time, even though that's not ethical. It's accepted practice."

Oh brooooooooooother. Let's try this same sentence with some other commodities, eh?

"People buy used cars all the time, even though that's not ethical."

"People buy used clothes all the time, even though that's not ethical."

"People buy used computers all the time, even though that's not ethical."

Reselling and buying used products is both fair and wise.

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[DLWormwood]

People buy used CDs all the time, even though that's not ethical.

While I agree with your intended point that legality and morality being orthogonal to each other, your viewpoint that the sale of used goods, like CDs, strikes me as out of left field. Pawn shops, garage sales, secondhand book stores, eBay, and libraries aren't subject to major criticism for being "stains on society," even when people complain about the occasional huckster that exploits such institutions. If nothing else, resale rights are an important part of a healthy economy as well as being an ecologically prudent, yet popular, form of recycling.

What's your basis for considering used goods exchange unethical?

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[Overzeetop]

Most of the accounting practices of corporations in America are based on this premise.

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[Anonymous Coward]

the record labels.

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no license that goes along with a CD purchase. You don't need a license to listen to a CD, just as you don't need a license to run software that you have purchased. There is a specific exemption in copyright law for this. You only need a license for copying or reproduction that is NOT incidental to the mere use of the material.

Re:Not Ilegal != Ethical

[Mawen]

Well, I use AllOfMp3.com from Canada, because it offers a pretty good catalog (maybe 75% of what I'm looking for), and awesome encoding selection options, good bandwidth, and a low cost. It's a lot easier and nicer than wandering the slums that are P2P networks.

Is it ethical? Well, first of all, the last time I heard, downloading is legal in Canada (while uploading is illegal albeit unenforcable), and secondly, my oh so helpful Canadian Government has taken care of the artist compensation mechanism by charging me extra on the CD-R's I use to backup my data. (Insert note of sarcasm here.) They take my money, and I'm sure they figure out which artists I downloaded music from and give them their share, because I always phone in to my local top40 radio station and request all my favorite psytrance and progressive ambient and movie soundtracks etc, which they are always so kind to play for me, all the way through the album.

I want good artists to be compensated. Not $0.99 per track (which is about the same as a physical copy -- utterly ridiculous), and not the $0.10-0.20 per track that the Russians get for a 5 minute song at high quality lossy encoding, but maybe somewhere in between.

The system is horribly broken, corrupted by corporate greed, and muddied by copyright crime, and in Canada, confused further by half-baked measures that give moral grounds to make it ok to be a downloader, while not solving the money chain problem (reminds me of communist style governmental brain damage), and even making it worse for small-time artists, who are handicapped by levies.

RIAA has never sued downloaders

[jxyama]

...RIAA has only sued uploaders.

offering copies of copyrighted material for others when you don't have the distribution right is copyright infringement. downloading what's offered isn't. (yet?)

Re:RIAA has never sued downloaders

[Anonymous Coward]

While the RIAA has not sued "mere" downloaders, it is, in fact, copyright infringement. How wrong it is, and whether or not it should be illegal or punished as harshly as it is are separate questions, but at least for the time being, I should think that any reasonable person will tell you that downloading it is illegal.

Well, at least in the USA and probably almost anywhere else that has adopted the Berne convention (almost everywhere is a signitory these days). The odd loophole in this case would seem unique to Russia.

Re:RIAA has never sued downloaders

[MrNovember]

Might this be because it's not cost effective?

IANAL, but I think you can only be sued for "actual damages" which means if you only download, you can only be sued for the total retail price of the albums you download.

So unless you've got some kind of compulsive album download behavior, you can only be sued for what you'd normally have purchased at the record store anyway. So what, like they'll sue you for $450? They're going to fly lawyers to Podunk, Wyoming to litigate in small-claims court for your $450? I think not.

Re:RIAA has never sued downloaders

[anethema]

Downloading is definately legal in canada. Without a doubt. So is copying your friends cds for personal use.

Re:RIAA has never sued downloaders

[cpt kangarooski]

This is not how it works in the US.

Per 17 USC 504, infringers may be sued for -- among other things -- the plaintiff's choice of either actual damages and profits or statutory damages.

Statutory damages are in the range of $750 - $30,000 per work. The ceiling can rise to $150,000 per work if the plaintiff can prove that the infringement was willful. The floor can drop to $200 per work if the defendant can prove that he was unaware of the infringement and had no reason to believe his acts were infringing.

Also federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright suits, so infringement actions can never take place in small claims court. The US District Court for the District of Wyoming sits in Cheyenne and Casper.

Given that 505 permits for the recovery of attorney's fees and costs by the prevailing party should the court allow it, it's not outside the realm of imagination for RIAA to hire some lawyers conveniently already located in Wyoming to sue the shit out of you. (If you're in Wyoming, natch)

Re:RIAA has never sued downloaders

[HTH NE1]

...RIAA has only sued uploaders.

Having files on an accessible server is not uploading just as having product on shelves in a store is not shoplifting. Putting a pie on a windowsill is not an invitation to take the pie.

The technical meanings of the verbs upload and download do not provide for parity. Only one actor is required, and uploading to a machine doesn't make the owner of that machine a downloader, nor vice versa.

The RIAA is not suing uploaders; they are suing people who offer files for download. (Unfortunately this is a distinction too subtle for even the authors of the software used to comprehend.)

The RIAA has not yet established that anyone but themselves have actually downloaded anything from the people running these servers.

Re:RIAA has never sued downloaders

[bbc]

"I should think that any reasonable person will tell you that downloading it is illegal.

Well, at least in the USA and probably almost anywhere else that has adopted the Berne convention"

I would be very much surprised if Germany, The Netherlands and Canada had not signed the Berne Convention, yet in these countries (and probably more) making copies for personal use is legal.

(The exceptions in the Netherlands to this rule are software, buildings and a third thing I forget.)

higher quality at same bitrate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there is - MP4 (AAC) is higher quality than MP3 at the same bitrate.

Re: higher quality at same bitrate

[gidds]

Technically, yes, but there's practically nothing in it if you use a decent MP3 encoder like lame.

The greater portability of MP3, combined with the range of tools available for it (encoders, decoders, splitter/joiners, repair tools, wrappers, level adjusters &c) mean that many folks might consider the negligible quality loss worthwhile.

Re: higher quality at same bitrate

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a big if; 99+% of iTunes/iPod folks use the iTunes MP3 encoder to rip rather than some other better encoder (and never use any of those other tools), so AAC is probably the right default for them.

Virtual Bootlegs

[darkgray]

Would someone mind explaining to me how this is different from bootlegging? I haven't followed the allofmp3.com story too closely.

Re:Virtual Bootlegs

[teksno]

what happens is Allofmp3 pays the Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems (roms the russian version of the US RIAA) for licenses of what ever music they sell. then through a legal loophole they can offer them for down load. what ROMS does with the money is after recovering any costs, they pay what ever is left to the original copyright holders. it doesnt seem like alot of money, keep in mind the exchange rate.....

Re:Virtual Bootlegs

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in Russia so it's (kinda) legal. That's more or less it!

Re:Virtual Bootlegs

[MacWiz]

Bootlegging involves making your own recording of a live show, with or without permission from the artist. Many artists actually have provisions in their contract riders to accommodate and encourage this behavior.

Mostly because their studio doesn't own it.

Service Cost

[keno1929]

How much does this service actually cost? The web site doesn't seem to come out and say clearly.

Re:Service Cost

[macdude22]

.02 Per MB, dime a song on average.

Re:Service Cost

[Velocity44]

It costs around $.02c per megabyte Essentially, 50c albums. no no, albums that cost 50c!

Re:Service Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Big deal.
50 Cent albums

Re:Service Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

I signed up last month and have d/l'ed about 110mb of 128k Mp3s, and I've only gone thru half of the $5 I PP'ed to them. Since it's a traffic charge, if you d/l whole albums at better than 128k, your mileage will vary...

I wonder

[guru42101]

If this is basically the same loophole in a sense that makes it more or less legal to borrow a CD and burn a copy, but illegal to recieve a burned copy from the same source.

Britney Spears needs to eat too!

[yutt]

Britney Spears is starving to death because of these damned immoral Russians!

I can't believe Slashdotters support this. How many amazing talents (Michael Jackson, John Lennon, Eminem; to name a few) do we have to lose to malnutrition before Americans wake up and realize piracy is not right, and it hurts real people?

Re:Britney Spears needs to eat too!

[redivider]

Yeah, because every artist is as rich as Britney Spears and Michael Jackson.

Re:Britney Spears needs to eat too!

[yutt]

True, but are we really that concerned about Paul McCartney and Flock of Seagulls? Obviously, they were in the wrong line of work to begin with.

Re:Britney Spears needs to eat too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm. Interesting point that poster has made, I thought as I read Slashdot. Still, I could give a fuck, I thought, as I downloaded another album for 40c.

Re:Britney Spears needs to eat too!

[SomeOtherGuy]

No...She and the others are just proof that it is possible to sell millions of CD's in an age where (supposedly) nobody is buying any CD's, but only downloading them for free.

Looking at the top 50 sellers every week, and the number of units moved, saying that "everyone" is stilling music is about as convincing as walking into a weight watchers prospect seminar and convincing me that they are all starving to death.

Re:Britney Spears needs to eat too!

[danila]

BTW, John Lennon's music is public domain in Russia, as is every other work made before 1973. Does that mean John Lennon risks starving to death too?

Re:Britney Spears needs to eat too!

[DylanQuixote]

Is Lenin's music in the public domain in Russia, too?

Ahem...

[neo]

Basically, even though the courts have found their site operator's behavior to be illegal- they can't prosecute because the user dynamically creates copies of songs to be downloaded themselves.

[cough]Bribes.[/cough]

These guys are just lucky they made enough money to convince the courts that their "users cynamically create" their copies.

"Wins" Court Case?

[TheDawgLives]

It seems to me that allofmp3.com didn't win anything. The district attorney simply decided not to prosecute because he didn't think the law covered digital copies. Now at any time a new district attorney could interpret the law differently and decide to prosecute. So until allofmp3.com actually does win a court case, they aren't really safe.

Re:"Wins" Court Case?

[skingers6894]

Ahh, guilty until PROVEN innocent...

Re:"Wins" Court Case?

[Anita Coney]

And even more importantly, downloading from allofmp3.com from the US is still illegal!

It doesn't matter if you paid for them, as some morons paid Kazaa too!

The only thing that matters is whether you're downloading copyrighted music without permission and without any fair use rights.

I'm not saying you WILL get caught. I have no idea whether the RIAA would ever get your information. I'm just saying it's still illegal in the US.

Re:"Wins" Court Case?

[TheDawgLives]

It seems to me that the reason the RIAA sued the Kazaa users was technically for _sharing_ the mp3s after they downloaded them. IANAL, but in my understanding of copyright law, it is illegal to distribute copyrighted material, but not illegal to receive it. For example, it wouldn't be illegal to listen to a song on the radio if the station didn't pay for distribution rights, it would however be illegal for the station to broadcast the song. I always thought the RIAA's suites would fall apart if China set up a bunch of mp3 sites and the people in the US just leached them.

Re:"Wins" Court Case?

[Anita Coney]

We had a discussion about that a while back. Under US Copyright law it's illegal to make a copy of a copyrighted work, without authorization, and without any fair use right.

Since downloading a song makes an unauthorized copy, that too is illegal. (Ignoring any fair use rights a court could create.)

There are two, as far as I can tell, very good reasons for the RIAA only currently to only go after sharers and not mere downloaders.

First, if you go after sharers you're killing to birds with one stone. In other words, when you stop a sharer, you're stopping people from sharing from him. Thus you're actually stopping MORE than just that one person.

Second, from a public relation point of view, it makes since to go after sharers. You'll notice that in nearly all press releases from the RIAA are sure to point out they are only going after big-time sharers. In the public mind that makes sense because they are the one's making the songs available.

Even so, if Allofmp3.com ever because really popular in the US, and if the RIAA is unable to shut it down, you can be sure that the RIAA will eventually go after users.

Re:"Wins" Court Case?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair use right:

(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage

In other words, I can download it, just not distribute it.

Nuff said.

Re:"Wins" Court Case?

[ray-auch]

Or you could if you downloaded it in russia, burned it and flew back with it.

"forming part of such person's personal baggage"

going to be interesting to see if you can stretch that to electronic transfer...

Re:"Wins" Court Case?

[TheDawgLives]

But isn't the person "sharing" the song the one actually making the copy? That person is taking the original and putting a copy on the network, all I'm doing is taking what's on the network and filing it away for posterity.

Re:"Wins" Court Case?

[Anita Coney]

Interesting. VERY interesting. 17 u.s.c. s 602(a) "is part of the legislative scheme for dealing with pirated and "gray market" goods." Disenos Artisticos E Industriales, S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. 97 F.3d 377 C.A.9 (Cal.),1996

To put it in the context of music, this law was to stop bootlegs from being imported. It was also intended to stop nearly any imports which the music industry wants out. For example, you might be able to buy legitimate CDs much cheaper in Turkey than in the US. But the music industry does not want people importing those CDs and selling them here, undercutting their prices.

Subsection (2) is to keep innocent consumers from being drug in to court. In other words, you go down to your local music store and buy a CD. Even if it turns out to be an import which is here without permission, you cannot be sued or prosecuted.

It sure does seem that (2) could be a loophole. Unfortunately I can find no case interpreting it. But I strongly suggest that if you do download music from the internet, ALWAYS make sure you're downloading from outside the US, just to be safe!

Re:"Wins" Court Case?

[Anita Coney]

The person's computer has one copy of each file, I'm presuming. By taking a copy of one, you're making a copy. You could always argue, "I didn't make a copy." But how did you end up with a copy of the song on your computer.

You're confusing the first copy from the CD to transferring a copy to your hard drive. In both instances you're making a copy which is not authorized. (You can make copies of your CDs for non-commerical uses and for sharing with friends and family, but no court has held that sharing with millions of people online is legal under the Home Recording Act.)

Re:"Wins" Court Case?

[MacWiz]

There is no law against downloading and if you can find one that even mentions the word, please let us all see it.

Distribution is another thing. That is what the sharers are doing.

ID3 Tags?

[ponds]

Does AllOfMP3 give correct ID3 tags? I use mp3search.ru , which has a similar business model, but I get no ID3 tags on the mp3s that I download from them, which really is a hassle.

I want to switch to AllOfMP3 if they give you proper ID3 tags, but I don't want to drop $30 just to find out.

Re:ID3 Tags?

[Horrortaxi]

Yes, the tags are complete and accurate. No artwork, but that's not such a hassle. Why would you have to "drop" $30 to find out if they have tags? You can pre-pay any amount you want and they even give you 20 cents credit when you sign up. Don't laugh--at 2 cents per MB 20 cents actually goes pretty far.

Re:ID3 Tags?

[ponds]

Oh wow, at mp3search you have to pay a $30MB minimum, I figured AllOfMP3 had something like that. Great, thanks.

Re:ID3 Tags?

[vorpal22]

The other poster is incorrect. I find that the ID3 tags on AllOfMp3.com are not entirely accurate; firstly, instead of using apostrophes in artist names, song titles, etc., they use backquotes. Secondly, song names, album names, etc. are truncated. Thirdly, while tracks may be numbered by filenames, they are not numbered in the ID3 tags. While I love AllOfMp3.com and highly recommend it, I'd point out that this is definitely one of the big annoyances of dealing with them.

Re:ID3 Tags?

[eljasbo]

If you use the allofmp3 explorer software you can tell it exactly how you want the title and id3 information. The software even works just fine under WINE.

Re:ID3 Tags?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. That's enough to download one, maybe two short songs at my preferred format (lame --preset standard). Which is what I did--I got a sing I really like that is in a genere that I normally don't enjoy (making it so I basically have to buy an entire CD of music I don't like to get one song I like if I play by the RIAA's rules), and a song that I even once bought as a 45RPM single (why the RIAA doesn't sell single songs at a reasonable price any more is a mystery to me).

I was very happy with allofmp3.com's service (heck, I didn't even have to pay for this one song), but don't have a need to download anything else (I can usually get what I want via compilation CDs).

Re:ID3 Tags?

[vorpal22]

Unfortunately, there's no version for OS X.

BZZT!

[abb3w]

offering copies of copyrighted material for others when you don't have the distribution right is copyright infringement. downloading what's offered isn't.

Don't kid yourself; both the offering and downloading are copyright infringement under US law. (In Canada and other jurisdictions, of course, the law may permit the latter for personal use, but I wouldn't know. I am neither lawyer nor Canadian, ay?) The latter is mainly more difficult to track down and prosecute. So, even while allofmp3.com may be unprosecutable until the loophole gets plugged, US end users may still be prosecutable.

The reason the RIAA has been going after the uploaders first is partly that it's an easier way to kill the filesharing ecology with the present legal tools they have, and partly that suing your potential customers is a business model of last resort before bankruptcy.

Re:BZZT!

[gstoddart]

Canada and other jurisdictions, of course, the law may permit the latter for personal use, but I wouldn't know. I am neither lawyer nor Canadian, ay?

First of all, it's eh, hosehead. =)

Downloading for personal use in Canada is legal, as well as making a backup of your or a friends CD. You can't burn one for your friend and give it to him, that would be naughty.

To cover the ahem costs of piracy to the poison bastards, we pay a levy on all recordable media (including hard-drives) which is purportedly paid to someone to pay to the artists whose work we must be stealing.

Basically the recording industry managed to impose a tax on recordable media.

The attitude that they already got paid when you bought the disks seems to make people care a whole lot less about downloading stuff. Unfortunately, the small cool artists probably won't see a dime.

Re:BZZT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Although most don't realize, the U.S. has the same tax on blank tape media. Established for the same purpose.

Re:BZZT!

[Vantage13]

nor Canadian, ay?

That's obvious, eh?

Re:BZZT!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am neither lawyer nor Canadian, ay? The latter is mainly more difficult to track down and prosecute.
-----

Funny, I'd have thought that the lawyers would be more difficult to prosecute than the Canadians... but what do I know? ;-)

Re:BZZT!

[FreezerJam]

> we pay a levy on all recordable media

Yes.

> (including hard-drives)

No.

See http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#what_amount

Re:BZZT!

[gstoddart]

> (including hard-drives)

No.

Thanks for the correction -- yes, hard-drive based players are covered, not vanilla hard-drives in computers.

Re:And this is good because? Hogwash!

[turnstyle]

"Actually, it IS good because it demonstrates to the riaa that users are willing to pay for downloads and it puts pressure on them to provide a similar service for similar cost... or else lose out completely."

Totally off-whack. The Russian site is not paying the musicians. How is a licensed service that *also* pays musicians a reasonable amount supposed provide a similar service at a similar cost? Hint: 1 + 1 <> 3

"I personally think we should boycott all movie and music purchases until they realize that p2p distribution is something the PEOPLE want and the laws are supposed to reflect the PEOPLE's desires, not corporations (which are supposed to be accountable to the people)."

Boycott is a great and reasonable reaction, provided that isn't "boycott + still download whatever I want."

Additionally, it's useless to say that you would prefer to legalize what is now unauthorized filesharing *without* also saying something about how it should work.

Do you actually want the government to install monitoring software at ISPs, which would then collect your Internet usage data, and pass it on to the entertainment industry? Because that's what it'll be like.

Does that really sound better to you?

Score one

[DrWho520]

Score one for...the...bad guys? Huh?

don't do it!

[Anaphiel]

My buddy Raskolnikov did something like that a while ago, and the guilt drove him nuts.

Carrot or stick

[Anonymous Coward]

That will take some serious bribes to bring about that outcome.

Credible threats of trade sanctions by the US govt might work, too.

'illegal' AND 'the law can't be applied'

[Morosoph]

Here's how in a different country and context:

The appeals panel now has to decide whether consumer groups which are criticising the rule should have the right to contest the FCC's requirements.

The case could be thrown out of the appeals court if it decides they do not have the right to lawfully challenge the FCC decision. A decision by the court is expected within months.

LIcenses? What licenses?

[Inhibit]

Seriously, I don't remember signing any forms or agreeing to anything by opening the package. iirc you need some form of agreement to constitute a license. I'm buying a small piece of pressed plastic/metal with a recording on it.

I think you're referring to copyright law in general. It's not a license. By buying a CD in America, I'm agreeing to be bound by the copyright laws of America as long as that CD's still here. IANAL, but is that about right?

Your sig.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?

For C++: you are deleting the current object pointer, so assuming "me" is the object you're working with "this == me" so you're saying "I'm done, erase myself now."

Better not do any accesses on the object after calling delete this. :-D

Re:And this is good because? Hogwash!

[compro01]

How is a licensed service that *also* pays musicians a reasonable amount supposed provide a similar service at a similar cost?

i've got a few ideas on that.

1. use P2P for the music download. it would work like bittorrent. extremely cheap, as there would be little in the way of bandwidth costs.

2. get people in charge that don't demand millions a year. cut that to maybe a few hundred grand a year.

Copying by installing

[Anonymous Coward]

What gets me about this copying by installing is that I am NOT the one copying. The writer of the program is doing the copy. How do I work that out?

1) I cannot use the product without copying, solely due to the manner in which the product is given to me. PS2 games don't need installing.

2) If I were the one copying, if it said "you haven't the room", I would select less to copy. However, the program decides what gets copied, and that program was written (or authorised to copy) by the quthor of the copyright works.

Ergo, I did not copy, the copyright owner, or contracted third party did the copy. So no need to have a license to allow copying.

Why not?

NB: asked the OFT about this. I'll pass on to Roblimo et al any result.

Re:Copying by installing

[cpt kangarooski]

What gets me about this copying by installing is that I am NOT the one copying. The writer of the program is doing the copy. How do I work that out?


No, it's you. The program didn't jump up, pop itself into your CD drive and start itself up. You set it in motion.

For programs, you might want to check out 17 USC 117. Then you might want to think about "the owner of a copy" means in light of EULAs.

And this covers copies into RAM for the sake of running it, so yeah, many console games require 117 or else some manner of licensing, implicit or explicit.

Re:Copying by installing

[HTH NE1]

What gets me about this copying by installing is that I am NOT the one copying. The writer of the program is doing the copy. How do I work that out?

That's the question of who is responsible for automated events. One can safely presume that whosoever set up the automated event to occur that they have the authority to allow it to occur. However, through the click-through license, they make restrictions on who can trigger the event. If you're not authorized through its terms to trigger the event, then you are liable for the events by falsely triggering the events. Similar to calling in a false report to law enforcement, fire, or other emergency services. Or if someone other than the one authorized pulls or presses the switch to execute someone facing the death penalty at the appointed time, that person would be guilty of murder.

Of course, if the one setting up the events is not authorized after all, then they're liable in either case. But in the case of software illegally supplied to you, you will probably have to give up any retained copies. And depending on your supposed level of involvement, face a conspiracy charge. So then "safely" may have been an incorrect choice of word above.

Hurray! for allofmp3

[xtracto]

Sincerely, I have bought some albums from allofmp3, I downloaded iTunes but, well, they do not have the music i like (stratovarius, symphony x, children of boddom, etc etc) and he music is really expensive.

But I would like to make an experiment, what do you do when you buy a CD and you do not like it?? I usually sell it, dont you?

Is it possible to make the same thing with a music from iTunes? it must be, because I am paying for the right of the song no? after I pay for them, they are my bytes! and only mine! does anyone know anything behind this?

well, I posted another other interesint thoughts here but well, i guess my karma is not good so people does not hear me in this soup opera called slashdot...

Re:Hurray! for allofmp3

[superpulpsicle]

I recently experimented with Rhapsody service at $9 a month, you can stream-record anything at CD quality with ID3tags using the software "Replay Music 2.0". This was recommended by someone on slashdot, and there are no laws against how you use your soundcard.

Re:Hurray! for allofmp3

[teksno]

well when you re-sell the CD you are technically not authorized to re distribute. so you wouldnt really be able to sell your itunes tracks.....but even if you were, you would most likley want to remove the DRM so people cold play them easily.

but if apple ever got stricter on the authorizations, the digital watermarking could screw it all to hell. read this....its an interview with the person behind JHymn (the program used to strip the DRM for the AAC+ files) http://osdir.com/Article3823.phtml

Re:Hurray! for allofmp3

[xtracto]

Ok, I read it. It is really interesting but I think it wont be possible to use that software if I am to sell it "the right way". Because I think there are some uses with breaking the DRM lock (or whatever that means)of a file and that is in itself ilegal (i remember a story in /. about someone who downloaded a song from iTunes with only silence and break the DRM and published it on the internet).

I think I did not understood your post, you are telling me that by law *i am not allowed to sell my own CD*?? (I ask it sincerely) now, I know that depends in the country I am. Here is when I would like to know some law...

Anyway, thanks for the link

You know what....

[Brained Child]

Hall-e-freakin-lujah
Ok, nobody complain, just download while it's legal.

Basic problem of media cost vs content cost.

[Maxo-Texas]

Content cost was related to media cost. A cassette tape or vinyl record factory and materials cost a certain amount of money and held a small amount of content. But consider the new BluRay/HD-DVD dvd's coming out in terms of cost and capacity. They will start at or above $20 per disk but after a couple years will cost 10 cents a piece. But in terms of capacity they will be able to hold huge amounts of material. They could sell a disk with ALL of the music of the 50's in lossless format for $10 bucks. But they want to charge the same price they have always charged (or even more seeing the recent push to raise prices above .99 per song). There is no technical reason we haven't been able to purchase a DVD with 4.6 gigabytes of mp3's which would pretty much cover any entire genre. Every version of every song the beatles or rolling stones ever recorded would easily fit on a dvd. The problem is they would want to charge $110 for a dvd like that and people are not going to pay that much for one disk which won't be replaced when they go bad. There is so much content out there that the value of content is dropping. When you add things like magnatune.com (some darn good music there by the way and ALL legal) into the mix, I cannot see how they will be able to sustain their prices. In my view, allofmp3.com is charging a fair price for the content. I hope they stay up as long as possible.

Re:Basic problem of media cost vs content cost.

[shark72]

"There is no technical reason we haven't been able to purchase a DVD with 4.6 gigabytes of mp3's which would pretty much cover any entire genre."

You can probably find these in China.

"The problem is they would want to charge $110 for a dvd like that and people are not going to pay that much for one disk which won't be replaced when they go bad."

Boxed sets do a steady but consistent business. Once consumer acceptance of DVD Audio has hit that point, I think we'll see collections released on one DVD, along with the requisite booklets and other goodies that come with such sets. You raise a good point about consumer fears of buying one piece of media with a lot of data.

"When you add things like magnatune.com (some darn good music there by the way and ALL legal) into the mix, I cannot see how they will be able to sustain their prices."

You raise another great point. Magnatune is a perfect example of what many Slashdotters would consider to be how music should be produced and sold -- yet it's flailing, while Apple has solds tens of millions of songs. Selling music online, rather than giving it away and relying on the honor system, still appears to be viable.

"In my view, allofmp3.com is charging a fair price for the content."

I disagree. I believe that rightsholders should be compensated for their efforts, and that we should respect their rights. That is fair. iTunes may pay $0.15 to the artist per track, but 1,000 of those tracks will pay for groceries for a month, and 10,000 will pay the rent.

Re:Basic problem of media cost vs content cost.

[Maxo-Texas]

But we are not talking about thousands or tens of thousands. we are talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of copies being sold. At .10 per track and just one million people buying it, ONE song would be 100,000 dollars. I do not think that is fair compensation for time spent compared to doctors, scientists, teachers, etc. I think it is gross overcompensation. Likewise at .99 per track, to try and legally collect even a tiny fraction of songs is impossible for most people on the planet. You are limited to buying maybe 50 to 75 cd's worth of music. This drives people to get their music illegally.

JCB = Japanese credit card company

[ThreeDayMonk]

JSB is probably meant to be JCB, one of the biggest CC operators in Japan. It's easy for a Russian to confuse C and S, as Russian "C" is Roman "S" (CCCP = SSSR etc.).

Re:LIcenses? What licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL either, but yes I agree. There is no license that goes along with a music CD. In fact there is not even a license that goes along with software, unless you willingly agree to the EULA. There is a specific exemption in copyright law for copying/reproduction that is incidental to the use of a legitimate copy of the material. So copying the CD into anti-skip memory, or copying the software into RAM, for example. As far as I am concerned, this would also cover ripping the MP3 and leaving it on your hard drive... it's an intermediate state that is incidental to playing the music. I doubt the RIAA would grant me that last bit, though.

Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying a low cost to someone probably gives the users a warm fuzzy feeling and lets them partially justify that they have paid for legit music. Nevermind the fact that it's been out in the open for a while now that artists don't get a cent from allofmp3.com due to their claiming to have purchase a "license" from a russian organization that doesn't have the authority to grant one

Last I checked, Russia was a sovereign nation. They don't participate in the treaties that would make it "legal", by your definition, to provide such licenses. Therefore, they are free to do exactly as they wish in these matters.

Re:Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia is indeed free to do as they please. However, international trade is about the lowest common denominator. Any international commercial transaction has to obey the laws of all countries involved.

Therefore, regardless of whether allofmp3 is legal in russia (and it does seem that it is), it is very much illegal to buy from them if you're in the US or EU.

its slashdotted- thank you for the free publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

just tried to look at the site, got a message that the server is too busy now,try again later- ROFL at the RIAA, this site and others like it will kill them and nobody deserves it more

Crime and Punishment

[katharsis83]

No. If you break into an oldy lady's house in Russia, steal her stuff, and murder her you'll be filled with enough self-loathing and guilt to cover ~300 pages in a Russian novel. The preceding 100 pages of you whining about how poor and hungry you are don't help either.

Your story will traumatize high school students' senior years in AP English for centuries afterwards...

Re:Crime and Punishment

[Digz]

Hey, I love that book.. :)

Of course, that's only since I re-read it a few months ago (10 years after it was assigned in AP English). I hated it back then.

Re:And this is good because? Hogwash!

[EEBaum]

How is a licensed service that *also* pays musicians a reasonable amount supposed provide a similar service at a similar cost?

If "similar" was something along the lines of "more expensive than allofmp3 but significantly cheaper than iTunes," I think people would go for it.

nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

+1, Dostoevsky. First thing that occured to me, too. Don't mods read anymore?

Creative Commons is the answer !

[sla291]

Don't bother with semi-legal websites like allofmp3.com

Check out jamendo for Creative Commons music you can download via P2P without fearing to be caught by the RIAA.....

Re:Creative Commons is the answer !

[shark72]

Absolutely. There are plenty of absolutely legal places to get free or low-cost music with the permission of the artist.

Slashdotters often like to proclaim that free distribution by self-produced artists is the future of the music industry, but in order for that future to happen, we have to make it happen. Support those brave souls who choose to make their work available for free. If somebody would rather sell their work, then don't buy it... but don't pirate it, either.

Re:Creative Commons is the answer !

[sla291]

I think there will always be space for "label"-produced artists.

self-produced is okay too, but self-distribution would be dump. Getting publishers like jamendo, magnatune or archive.org plus self-produced artists would be a nice alternative.

Re:Creative Commons is the answer !

[sapgau]

At first sight the web site doesn't look very sophisticated but after checking a few songs I can appreciate the quality of some of the bands there.

Thanks.

Wow

[Lord_Dweomer]

Only in Soviet Russia...

If the Russians were interested in prosecuting

[wk633]

They'd be going after the thousands of kiosks all over every Russian city, selling movies, software, and yes, music, for 2$ per CD.

RIAA strategy is all wrong

[exmonius]

Whether or not AllofMP3.com is in the right, the RIAA strategy is clearly all wrong. http://link.shumans.com/?music

Re:And this is good because? Hogwash!

[bbc]

"The Russian site is not paying the musicians."

Do you have any proof for this? I seriously doubt that "the Russian site" can operate without a license from a levy collection organisation.

Not a problem

[tangent3]

Use foobar2000.
Learn to use the auto-freedb lookup feature.
Foobar2000 automatically searches for the album for you from freedb (looking up either the tagged discid, the tagged album name or the name of the first track, whichever is available), or you can manually search for the album yourself and enter the discid, and then automatically tags all the tracks for you with the information from freedb.

The FEAR!

[Grendel Drago]

Remember, the main liability one has in using P2P services is in uploading them. Distributing the media is what makes you liable for criminal copyright infringement, financial ruin, and possible jail time.

My choices are, (a) pay a relatively high price to iTMS. The recording industry grows fat, the artists get paid, I don't get sued. (b) Pay a very low price to AllOfMP3. The industry and the artists get pretty much nothing, and my liability is pretty much nonexistent. (They don't arrest people for buying bootleg DVD, they arrest people for selling them.) (c) Pay nothing and use ed2k or the like. The industry and the artists get exactly nothing, and my liability is... who knows? The possibility always exists that I'll get sued into bankruptcy.

Clearly, the logical choice for the user who doesn't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock for the RIAA is (b). Which, really, is where their suing-people tactics have led.

People don't use AllOfMP3 because it's the best. (Though it looks pretty nice to me.) People use it out of fear of the RIAA's lawyer-thugs.

--grendel drago

Not to worry...

[GimliGloin]

I thought you were only liable (under federal law) for $50 of fraudulant charges on your credit card. Thats a pretty small risk... Check this link out: this GSG

alldvd.ru - movies, too!

[funtime]

Although this place is currently just doing home delivery, it would be interesting to see what the reaction of the film industry would be if it started selling movie downloads.

USA vs UK - USA disregarding intl. copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

haha - so wrong can you be. UK artists are now in conflict with US authorities because US radio stations do not pay what they should ... http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/6743

Composers fight to claim $25m in lost US royalties.
British composers are calling on the government to help them claim millions of pounds in royalties from the USA for the public performance of their music, as America continues to flout international copyright regulations.

We are supposed to break some rules

[RedDyeNo5]

I have heard for many years now, that military personel are required Not to follow orders they are given that are unlawful. This crosses over to similar rules in the non-military world. If I understand this nonsense about RAM, if I go to the store and buy a new CD, and only play it on my computer, I am violating the law because it has to copy in RAM to play. The very concept of this is insane and logic screams that we must not obey. The same goes for the idea that visiting a web page, and having it copied by my RAM is a violation of the law. These laws are about as stupid as the one a legislator in California tried to pass years ago, that required SEAT BELTS on motorcycles.