Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Members Sue Allofmp3.com Over Infringement

Posted by Zonk on from the long-time-coming dept.

fair_n_hite_451 writes "To the surprise of no one, several members of the RIAA have filed suit against MediaServices, the operators of Allofmp3.com. The suit was filed for Wednesday, primarily by Arista Records LLC, Warner Bros. Records Inc., Capitol Records Inc. and UMG Recordings. The language of the litigation was very confrontational; The companies claim the site sells millions of songs without paying them 'a dime'. 'The defendant's entire business ... amounts to nothing more than a massive infringement of plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act and New York law.' AllofMp3 has always maintained that a Russian licensing group makes their business legitimate, while the RIAA here claims the organization has no authority to make such a deal."

5 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. Happily infringing... by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... because AllofMP3 does what Napster and Rhapsody and iTunes cannot: offer a comprehensive music catalog at reasonable rates. To wit: if you really like jazz, this is the only place to find nontrivial Art (or Chet!) Baker, Charlie Parker, Buddy Rich, Charles Mingus, or Dave Brubeck.

    Is it illegal according to US law? Sure. Do I care? No. This is the modern equivalent of civil disobedience. Call it corporate disobedience: the ad infinitum extensions of copyright protection for works of long-dead artists, as a benefit to corporate parents, says the balance of power is most assuredly in the hands of the sociopathic corporate citizenry and not the voting public. The weapons I have against Big Business are economic, and this is just the first of many conflicts to come, all along the same lines.

    Just mull it over. Corporate disobedience might be the only option now.

    -BA

    1. Re:Happily infringing... by DrEldarion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reasonable rates by whose definitions? Yours? I'd like a new Corvette for $10,000 - I think that's reasonable. That doesn't mean that I should be able to justify buying a stolen one for ten grand.

      Listen, I don't like the RIAA, either, but THEY get to decide how much they want to sell their product for, and your (moral) choices are "Do I pay this?" or "Do I not pay this?". "Do I pay 1/5th the amount to someone who gives nothing back to anyone who made an investment into this music" is not a valid moral option. Until more artists start selling their own stuff directly, this is going to be the way it is, and you can justify your actions any way you want, but that still doesn't make them right.

  2. Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Russia by TheRecklessWanderer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    My subject says it all.

    Why is the RIAA trying to sue someone in another country. The US has no jurisdiction.

    Does the site have a presence in the US? Well? If it doesn't then they can get bent. Now they can go after all the people who paid the site to download songs, but not the site in Russia.

    Please America, don't try to bring your horrible legal system to the rest of the world. We don't want it.

    --
    Mean what you say...say what you mean.
  3. Re:This is all I want for Christmas! by Gospodin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words, between the Hollywood mafia and the Russian mafia?

    --
    ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
  4. Re:...in the place VISA and MC have offices. by SQFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last time I checked, AllOfMP3.com only claimed to be legal inside Russia, and outside of Russia it was the buyer's responsibility to determine legality of the purchase. Which, of course, no one paid any attention to. Therefore, the response from VISA and MasterCard seems proper.

    Actually, it wouldn't, at least to me. VISA and MasterCard aren't just US companies; they're international alliances. So taking the action of yanking privileges for a service that's legal in Russia just because it's illegal in the United States (supposedly; there's still no court decision on that) would deny customers the opportunity to use their legally-obtained card to purchase legal goods in countries where the service is legal. Suppose Saudi Arabia demands that, because pornography is illegal in Saudi Arabia, nobody be allowed to purchase pornography using their VISA or MasterCard. VISA and MasterCard have to not give the opportunity to process their cards to pornography merchants in Saudi Arabia because they're conducting an illegal activity there, but they do not need to take away that permission from US pornography merchants, because pornography is legal in the US. Allofmp3 is currently legal in Russia. I can't see how an organization can say to Russians that they can't use their card to purchase legal goods. MasterCard is currently a non-profit org, at least in the US. It's hard to justify that action as a non-profit.