Slashdot Mirror


RIAA Members Sue Allofmp3.com Over Infringement

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."

79 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. Of course they haven't paid a dime by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its obvious why they haven't paid a dime:

    Russians pay in Rubles and kopeks.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Of course they haven't paid a dime by Ngarrang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So....shouldn't RIAA being suing the licensing organization, instead? Oh, right, the American philosophy is to file a suit shotgun style and see how many people to whom you can get it to stick.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    2. Re:Of course they haven't paid a dime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's ok, tho. They were counterfeit women, mostly.

  2. filed lawsuit where? by RelliK · · Score: 5, Funny
    The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in federal court in New York

    Yeah. Good luck with that.

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    1. Re:filed lawsuit where? by melikamp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My sentiment exactly. I lived in Russia long enough to understand how this cookie crumbles. I cannot predict the outcome, for it depends on many things. I just want to note that, unfortunately for RIAA, it does not depend on the law. It mostly depends on two things:

      1. How much a decision will piss off the USA (the more--the better).

      2. The amount of a bribe. This seems to be in RIAA's favour, but I have a feeling that (1) might play a bigger role here.

    2. Re:filed lawsuit where? by recursiv · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because it's convenient and requires no specialized software. I can use it at work.

      --
      I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
    3. Re:filed lawsuit where? by melikamp · · Score: 3, Informative

      (I am not really discussing at this point, just chatting.)

      It sounds like you are a fan of bigger names. It is problematic, of course, that the bigger names do not go everywhere, and I see how having recordings is important for you. As for me, I just stopped caring. Local punk and indie rock bands here in San Jose kick ass. There's not a night without a band or two playing in a downtown bar. Many of these people are live-performance-only, they don't even bother to record CDs, and they promote through the word of mouth and, recently, MySpace.

      I by no means imply that everyone should enjoy this selection, but I firmly believe that everyone could. Most people just have their tastes tilted because they pay too much attention to the broadcast advertisement. The local bands may sound somewhat rough compared to the big hitters with their $100'000 studios and armies of sound wizards, but they are no worse musicians. The best music is the free flight of the human spirit, and it doesn't require much money to make.

      Although some would say that the truly great music requires an uninterrupted supply of coke, which is rather costly.

    4. Re:filed lawsuit where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Will this excellent live music (which I'm sure is debatable if I'd find it excellent, or even music) follow me to my car and play during my commute to work? I have a small car.

    5. Re:filed lawsuit where? by iamacat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Care to explain how companies like Apple get away with violating US labor laws?. If companies can outsource my job to China, taking advantage of lax labor laws, I can import their products from Russia, under Russian copyright laws.

    6. Re:filed lawsuit where? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because Apple is an incredibly wealthy corporation which will probably never be called to account and you are just a consumer who can easily be threatened with expensive legal action.

    7. Re:filed lawsuit where? by madcow_bg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Getting sued for P2P only costs a screenshot of an IP address. Getting sued for buying from allofmp3.com likely requires probably cause and a subpoena of financial transaction records.

      Even better, the prosecution has to proove that you bought them, and knew that was illegal! I mean, it is not that easy to be sued for buying something illegaly, without proving you did it on purpose.

    8. Re:filed lawsuit where? by phaggood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > What I never understood is why anybody would use this service. I mean you can find high quality songs in multiple formats and of questionable legality for free on p2p.

      Hypothetically, maybe you already have a pretty large collection of iTunes-purchased songs, then your ipod breaks, and you have replace it, then all your purchased songs don't play on the new iPod, then you spend hours on the phone with Apple trying to get retarded iTunes to work, and you get tired of their crap and DRM in general so you figure you can get a pre-paid Visa and simply pay AllofMp3 a "burning" fee to get all the stuff YOU ALREADY OWN in a DRM-free format so you can start playing your tunes again, w/o wasting anymore HOURS using some p2p site trying to find all your songs.

      Hypothetically, of course.

    9. Re:filed lawsuit where? by arniebuteft · · Score: 2, Informative
      Those are criminal cases, not civil cases. Someone who knows bluebook citation should also know that these sorts of copyright cases that the RIAA is pursuing are all civil cases, not criminal ones (obviously - criminal cases are prosecuted by the government!). When the feds knock on your door, then you can start worrying about doctrines like "willful blindness".

      Not to say that such concepts wouldn't necessarily be argued in a civil copyright infringement case, but there's really no law on the subject. It's tough to say how a fair use analysis would be affected if the user believed they were not making any infringing copies (but in fact were). Current fair use law doesn't really care whether or not you thought you were infringing when you made your 'illegal' copy. I'm not sure that there's much legal difference between downloading a song from a P2P network, or Allofmp3, when neither download is sanctioned by the RIAA. It'll be interesting to see if the RIAA tries to go after Allofmp3's customers in the U.S....

    10. Re:filed lawsuit where? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful


      It's a very convenient service for the price.
      The price is a reasonable price and closer to what I feel a "fair" price for songs.
      The service is excellent, very quick.

      Legally- you are ONLY downloading (none of that p2p uploading while you download stuff) so you are not infringing copyright.

      It has a great selection compared to p2p.

      I can SELECT the quality level I want and the price I want to pay from a 3meg mp3 to a 27 meg wav file.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  3. Should be simple to decide by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Check the organization that allofmp3.com claims has given them the right to do what they are doing. If the organization is legitimate, and has doucmented everything correctly, then the RIAA hasn't a leg to stand on.

    If the organization is not legitimate or doesn't have the proper paperwork, the RIAA wins.

    Instead of litigating this to death, just show the damn paperwork and prove your point.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Should be simple to decide by novus+ordo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Allofmp3 was legal until this legislation passed by Putin. Also with the recent spy scandals and Putin's dissolution of democratic institutions one has to be concerned. All Putin wants to do is join the WTO and RIAA is waving the USA stick with the help of their big pockets. Gotta love capitalism and free markets...

      --
      "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
  4. 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 The_Spud · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ... because AllofMP3 does what Napster and Rhapsody and iTunes cannot: offer a comprehensive music catalog at reasonable rates
      And the reason they can offer such 'reasonable' rates is that they are not paying the copyright holder for the rights. I fail to see how giving money to the Russian Maffia is sticking it to the man or Corporate disobedience. You seem to be very proud that you paid money for pirated music that you could have got from filesharing networks for free with the exact same legality.
    2. Re:Happily infringing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, and if he gets sued by the RIAA, he'll be the first one to cry foul.

      If he wants to be "Civil Disobdient", he should try to download his music with his real name and write a letter to the RIAA saying "Come and get me!"

    3. Re:Happily infringing... by NiceGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually they do pay the money to ROMS - all the RIAA has to do is prove ownership and ROMS will hand them the cash. The RIAA would rather sue it appears.

    4. 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.

    5. Re:Happily infringing... by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Copyright is artificial scarcity and thus economic manipulation by the gov't for the promotion of one sector over another. (Think min wage laws, rent control, farm subsidies, taxes for various industries) Ironically, the Russian government does not interfere with the free market in this sector as much as other nations. It isn't "pirated" music in the same way that going to Amsterdam to smoke pot isn't a violation FDA rules on restricted drugs. What they are doing is importing music that was copied in a region with lower production costs. The RIAA calls it piracy because the Russian government values other industries more than music companies.

    6. Re:Happily infringing... by FreezerJam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "... THEY get to decide how much they want to sell their product for..."

      Not always, and not always even in the U.S.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_license

      Similarly, in Canada I can fill a CD with music copied from other CDs because the levy (C$0.21 per CD, built in to the price) goes to a copyright collective. More to the point -- if it's music on a CD, the owner CAN'T legally prevent me from making that copy. This is true even if I don't own the CD; I can borrow the original from a friend, make my copy, and return it.

      There are many places under copyright strictures where the copyright holder doesn't get all the say they want or think they have.

    7. Re:Happily infringing... by computational+super · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It isn't "pirated" music in the same way that going to Amsterdam to smoke pot isn't a violation FDA rules on restricted drugs.

      Actually, (getting completely off topic now), I seem to recall (although I'm too lazy to try to find a link online) that you can actually be arrested for violating US law outside the country once you return. I think it's mostly used against people who visit Thailand to partake in certain "services" which are very very illegal here, but I would assume the same precedent could be extended to people who visit Amsterdam to smoke pot, too.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    8. Re:Happily infringing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't knock the Russian Mafia, they've got more ethical business practices than most US based multinationals.

    9. Re:Happily infringing... by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Yeah, and if he gets sued by the RIAA, he'll be the first one to cry foul.

      If he wants to be "Civil Disobdient", he should try to download his music with his real name and write a letter to the RIAA saying "Come and get me!"


      Just as those who drank during prohibition wanted to hide their activity, those who share music today want to hide theirs. Civil obedience or not, the result is the same...an ignorant law gets ignored.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    10. Re:Happily infringing... by IflyRC · · Score: 3, Funny

      As a musician, I don't agree with you. Sorry and I will continue to argue. Do I agree with RIAA suing everyone? No. However I do see the illegal copying of copyrighted material unethical and criminal.

    11. Re:Happily infringing... by dasunt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I thought that US law states that it is illegal to leave the country for the purpose of participating in sexual activity with a minor. So the crime isn't sex with a minor (that's outside US jurisdiction) but leaving the country for that purpose. Disclaimer: IANAL.

    12. Re:Happily infringing... by IflyRC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the loss of money is due to the fact there is no need to purchase the product. I know its confusing but if you think *really* hard you'll see the relationship here. The consumer removes the need to buy the product by copying product illegally. The illegally copied files are then given out to 3 friends through some method of delivery also reducing the need for purchasing the product. So, 4 lost sales due to 1 act of illegally copying.

      Now you could argue you wouldn't have bought it any way and the only reason you have it is because it was free. I honestly think that most artists would prefer that that you not buy instead of listening to a free copy.

    13. Re:Happily infringing... by ben+there... · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The article also grossly exaggerates the savings buying from allofmp3.com:
      AllofMP3 typically charges under $1 for an entire album and just cents per track. By contrast, an album at Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes Music Store and other licensed services typically costs about $10 and a song 99 cents.

      What they don't mention is that the price is variable based on bandwidth, and the $1/album figure is basically impossible to find on the site.

      I just randomly checked Taylor Hicks' album (not a fan of his). It is 12 tracks long, so it's slightly below average length. Default 192 kbps is $1.81. The cheapest you can get it for is 128 kbps for $1.33. CD-equivalent lossless is $7.15. WAV, the format of an actual CD, is $11.23.

      All of those figures are "typically" slightly more for an average ~14 track album. Everyone I've heard of buying songs from allofmp3.com usually buys ~320 kbps or lossless, for 3-6 times as much as the article states is the "typical" cost.

      For the longest albums, lossless ends up costing more than the CD. But allofmp3.com gives the customer the chance to decide how much they're willing to spend in relation to the quality they want. Meanwhile iTunes charges more than the fraction of an album that a particular track is for a fixed 128 kbps version. Only when buying whole albums at once is iTunes a better deal than CD, albeit at reduced quality.
    14. Re:Happily infringing... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      allofmp3 has better selection than bit torrent.

      bit torrent randomly has or doesn't have a song on a given day.

      allofmp3 I'm only downloading- not uploading so I have greatly reduced legal risk.

      there is no chance that allofmp3 product is being sent to me by riaa or a riaa stooge for the purpose of entrapping me.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    15. Re:Happily infringing... by trentblase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dispute the charge. That'll get their attention.

    16. Re:Happily infringing... by Alsee · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is unclear whether you are asking about my statements in the post you replied to, or if you are asking about my statements in my other post elsewhere. If the former, you should have noticed that I put a link in my post and you should have checked it. If the latter, it would have been more clear had you replied to the post that you were questioning... and to breifly answer you you can directly confirm the existance and operation of Pandora.com under US law or check the Wikipedia page on Pandora.com, if you want to verify the US law I discussed you can go directly to the official US government copyright webpage on CARP law, if you were asking about Russian law and ROMS here is the official ROMS website but I would have to Google for an "authoratative" english reference on ROMS, and if you were questioning the RIAA contracts for their artists... that would be odd... but I'm sure I could Google several artist websites explaining and ranting about the evil contracts the RIAA members impose.

      Is that adaquate? If not, could you be more specific about what points you are questioning?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  5. This is all I want for Christmas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    PLEASE DEAR GOD let this become a fight between the RIAA and the Russian Mafia.

    Russian Mafia FTW!

    1. 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...
    2. Re:This is all I want for Christmas! by Ngarrang · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      My ruble is on the Russuan mafia.
      --
      Bearded Dragon
    3. Re:This is all I want for Christmas! by rajafarian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My ruble is on the Russuan mafia.

      My nickel is on the *AA mafia because we have a government that will do ANYTHING for corporations.

    4. Re:This is all I want for Christmas! by jandrese · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wonder how long until some RIAA exec is found dead with massive radiation poisoning or something of that effect?

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:This is all I want for Christmas! by LordPixie · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder how long until some RIAA exec is found dead with massive radiation poisoning or something of that effect?

      Too long. No matter the answer, it's Too. Fucking. Long.


      --LordPixie

  6. 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.
  7. Obvious Solution? by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 5, Funny
    The companies claim the site sells millions of songs without paying them 'a dime'.

    You'd have thought that allofmp3.com would just hand over the dime.
    --
    "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
  8. RIAA hasn't been paid.... They need to ask ROMS by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 5, Informative

    AllofMP3.com pays the correct proceeds under Russian law to ROMS (Russian Organization for Multimedia and Digital Systems a.k.a. similar to the RIAA in Russia). ROMS is a non-for-profit organization that handles all copyright payment transactions in Russia, including collecting for foreign interests. All the money is held until it is requested by the appropriate parties with proof that they are the correct owners of the copyrighted material. All requests can also be retro-active requests for payment, (i.e. if you have been the owner of the work, and have not received your cut for the last 4 years, you simply request that you receive your payments for the entire time that you have been the copyright owner).

    The RIAA knows this and so do their member groups. The issue is that they do not want to request the payment because they think doing so will give legitimacy to places like AllofMP3.com who are following the Russian rules to copyright payments. The RIAA does not like the Russian rules and seeks to circumvent them. By not requesting for their payments they are trying to use that as a means for the lawsuit(s) you are now witness to over the last few months against different Russian sites.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:RIAA hasn't been paid.... They need to ask ROMS by shark72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "(Russian Organization for Multimedia and Digital Systems a.k.a. similar to the RIAA in Russia)."

      Not really. A much closer analogy would be our BMI or ASCAP. Allofmp3 is working their magic by paying the licensing rate for broadcasts. Here in the US, it is BMI and ASCAP who collect money for broadcast licensing. BMI and ASCAP represent artists and are unaffiliated with the RIAA.

      FWIW, despite the fact that ASCAP and BMI are run by and for artists, they are often just as hated by Slashdotters as is the RIAA; particularly when it makes the news that they are suing a business owner for unlicensed public performance. It seems that around here we love and respect the artists, except when they get a little too uppity about being paid.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  9. The King is Dead! Long live the King! by slobber · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even if they manage to shut allofmp3.com down, they'll be playing a Russian version of whack-'em-all for a while. Check out its sister site alltunes.com - you should even be able to transfer your credits from allofmp3 there.

    --
    "You mortals are so obtuse." -Q
    1. Re:The King is Dead! Long live the King! by ben+there... · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can "transfer" (spend) them over there now. AllTunes is the software for browsing AllOfMp3.com's catalog. It is the same company. Same catalog. Different browsing/download method.

    2. Re:The King is Dead! Long live the King! by gfreeman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, but last time I checked they only take Discover. Kinda sucks, but anyone know how else to add credit, short of mailing in a wad of ruble bills??

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  10. Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since when does German law apply in other countries?
    Since when does French law apply in other countries?

    I'm pretty sure I could come up with a few other things as well. Oh yes, in this particular case it might be since Russia started to join the WTO.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  11. Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It matters when US citizens are members of this service. I have one friend who is a member and even she thought it was a bit fishy... but she was paying $10 or $15/month for unlimited downloading. I assume this is how they are going after the company, because they provide their service in the United States.

    And slightly off topic, our legal system does a pretty good job. The only change I would like to see done is to make plantiffs pay all court costs/legal fees if the defendant was proven to be non guilty in a civil matter. That would fix so many problems.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  12. Unenforceable? by Ruvim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And how does RIAA expect to enforce New York's court order (if such would be obtained) on Russian soil?

  13. Clearly untrue by Harlockjds · · Score: 3, Funny

    ~he companies claim the site sells millions of songs without paying them 'a dime'

    bullshit i remember paying a dime for 10-100 songs from allfomp3 ;)

  14. Maybe I misheard.. by ChowRiit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now this is, admittedly, hearsay, and I've not gone to look for collaboration:

    What I'd heard is that allofmp3 PAYS royalties, but the American firms refuse them, as they're "not enough". So when they accuse them of not paying a dime, it's because they won't accept the payments, more than anything else... Can anyone confirm/deny this?

    1. Re:Maybe I misheard.. by shark72 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "What I'd heard is that allofmp3 PAYS royalties, but the American firms refuse them, as they're "not enough"."

      Well, one issue is that by law, composers and songwriters must be payed "mechanical royalties" which are typically $0.08 per track. That is, of course, much less than ROMS is getting per track -- if allofmp3 is paying ROMS 10%, then that's about a sixth of a cent per track. I sure the hell ain't no lawyer, but if the record companies start taking that sixth of a cent per track, the publishing companies (which collect the mechanicals on behalf of the composers and songwriters) might sue to collect their $0.08. When you make a sixth of a cent per track and must pay $0.08 per track in royalties, there is absolutely no way to make that back in volume. You will lose money on every track sold.

      The ironic thing here is that a common sentiment around here is that the record companies should take a cue (and/or clue) from allofmp3 and sell tracks for around $0.10 a song. Yet the current law, which dictates $0.08 for mechanicals, would not allow that to happen. And when a few weeks ago it made the news that the record companies were trying to lower mechanicals, the news was not well received by the Slashbots.

      My guess is that the "the artists are needy" crowd are OK with the statutory rates staying as they are -- but they'll still download from allofmp3 anyway, with the logic that if composers and songwriters are only making $0.08 a track, there's not much difference between $0.08 and zero. The "the artists are greedy" crowd are probably hoping for the day that the record companies can get that statutory rate lowered. That might open up the possibility of record companies recognizing ROMS or other third-party licensing organizations that pay at less than the US statutory rate.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:Maybe I misheard.. by 31415926535897 · · Score: 3, Informative
      The ironic thing here is that a common sentiment around here is that the record companies should take a cue (and/or clue) from allofmp3 and sell tracks for around $0.10 a song. Yet the current law, which dictates $0.08 for mechanicals, would not allow that to happen. And when a few weeks ago it made the news that the record companies were trying to lower mechanicals, the news was not well received by the Slashbots.

      This is where most of the money for a track should be going--to the creative talent. If you look at the breakdown for the $1 that gets spent on an iTunes track, about $0.70 goes to the RIAA member [cite: Fox]. They have to give $0.08 - $0.16 out for mechanicals (by law you say). That means, at worst they get to keep $0.54 per track for producing nothing (especially true in the case of digital distribution). They want to lower mechanicals so that they can increase their profit margin, not so that consumers get reduced prices. That is why Slashdot readers (nice Ad Hominem with the 'Slashbots' by the way) did not receive the news well.

      If they did manage to get mechanicals reduced to $0.001, they still wouldn't offer a service like AllOfMp3; they still wouldn't accept payment from AllOfMp3. I agree with your argument that they can't under the current conditions, but my argument is that they never would under any circumstances.

      I feel like a compromise can still be reached. I think the labels--at least the major labels--are looking at this the wrong way. The true creative talent can still receive their "high" mechanicals, the label can take their fair share of profits, and the final distributor can make a nice profit too. What if you offered songs at $0.55, with a breakdown of $0.16 for mechanicals, $0.14 for the label and $0.25 for distribution (I made this last number up because it seems to be the amount needs for Apple to break even)? Especially if you offered non-DRM, variable bit-rate files (like eMusic)--I have to imagine a service like this would crush Apple and be highly profitable for the recording industry. I also imagine that if the RIAA itself was the digital distributor that they could offer distribution at much less than $0.25 / track, and could make even more profit there.

      I firmly believe that the reason this doesn't happen is because all of the labels are run by old-time executives that fear change and want to maximize their profits while minimizing their efforts. They don't even see that with a little bit of effort they could double their profits.

  15. Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    You're right, but AllOfMP3 won't show up or if they do will lose, so RIAA will win in court. With this victory, they will get the Bush administration to lean more heavily on Russia to "do something".

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

    I'm American and I admit we are too litigious and everything here is always somebody else's fault. However, the more I pay attention, the less convinced I am that overall the American legal system is the worst. One the negative side, yes, you can sue over anything and maybe win. On the positive side, if you do something bad (ie. kill someone), you may actually pay a high price for it. Consider the following:
    1) A few years ago Japan tried and convicted some US Marines for raping a schoolgirl. The ringleader got a "very long sentence" (those are the exact words of the account I read) of 7 years. In the US he could have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime. I'm sorry, but 7 years is not a "long time".
    2) Did you know that according to the Brazilian constitution you can't be sentenced to more 30 years in jail for anything? Serial killers rejoice. In fact, Brazilian sentences are never more than 29 years because to give someone 30 involves an automatic appeal. There's no death penalty in Brazil either, although strangely enough the cops have an awful lot of leeway to shoot you and kill you prior to you getting arrested should you flee or resist.
    3) Italians in particular (although the majority of the EU has the same problem) actually feel sorry for criminals. One of the Achille Lauro hijackers got a 30 year sentence and was put on work release from which he ran away. He was eventually recaptured, but it says a lot about Italian "justice" that the guy got on work release to begin with. The weak Italian justice system is why when the follow-up bombers failed in London a few years ago that one of them fled to Italy and fought vigorously to be tried there because he knew the Italians would feel sorry for him and he'd get out of jail eventually.

    The one positive thing about the American legal system is that if you do something bad and you get convicted, you'll pay for it. It may be the death penalty, it may be life in prison without parole, or a truly long sentence, but we won't feel sorry for you and put you on work release while you're doing your time.

  16. A quick overview of Jurisdiction issue. by GodInHell · · Score: 5, Informative
    Q: What does New York / U.S. law have to do with a Russian company.

    A: U.S. courts have juridiction in cases where the party to be sued has "such miminal contacts" that allowing the suit would not violate traditional notions of fairness and justice. The US courts have allowed jurisdiction when it is clear that the offending company has intentionally directed buisiness into, and solicited buisiness from, the United States and her citizens.


    Here allofmp3 has all the hallmarks of past cases which have succeeded - site is in english, offers prices in U.S. dollars, advertises on U.S. websites and media.


    Since their acts take effect here, laws which govern the effect will rule.


    Q: How will they enforce the ruling?

    There are several ways - the RIAA companies could freeze allofmp3's funds with a court order, and call upon Russia (through the effect of U.S. - Russia treaties) to supply the amount demanded by the judgement. They can asses the value of AllofMp3's domain name and seek to have it sold off to cover the damages. U.S. credit cards and pay-pal could be ordered to cease making payments to allofmp.


    Q: How will they get these guys in custody? Russia won't hand them over.


    This is a civil case - jail time is not on the table.

    -GiH

    1. Re:A quick overview of Jurisdiction issue. by GodInHell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, past sites that have forced companies into U.S. courts had multiple languages - the important point is that English is one of them (in a country that is not predominatly English speaking). The US$ system may be ubiquitous, but the courts have held that using US dollars means attrcting US customers.

      Jurisdiction is a very loose point of law.

      -GiH

    2. Re:A quick overview of Jurisdiction issue. by GodInHell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a gross oversimplification of a very complex and technical area of law called choice of law or conflict of laws. The phrase "their acts take effect here" is meaningless; you could just as easily argue that their acts took effect in Russia since that's where payment is received. Yes, you're right. I did say "Quick," which I intended to denote that it was not thorough. I think that recent case law indicates that the S.D.N.Y. will rule that internet purchases take place at both the point of origin, and the point of sale - but I don't want to get technical to the point where I'm speaking only to people who already understand the issue, and I didn't want to spend too much time writing a forum post.


      Good points though.

      -GiH

  17. How about mine then? by TheAxeMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    I buy there because its DRM free and I can get it in any file format I want. If they charged 50 cents a track, I'd still buy there ($1 is ridiculous for lossy audio, I'd pay it for FLAC files, but not for OGGs or MP3s). Its about the DRM for me.

  18. Importation Laws? by AeroIllini · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I understood the AllofMP3.com situation correctly, they are paying the Russian equivalent of the RIAA licensing and royalty fees for the songs they sell, under some obscure loophole of Russian law that allows them to classify their website alongside radio stations and use the much cheaper fees for broadcast licenses. If this is true, then they are violating no Russian law.

    But, I also thought that it is illegal for people to import into the United States products that are illegal here, even if said products are legal in the originating country (like bringing weed back from Amsterdam with you... they won't let it in the country, and you'll probably be arrested for possession). If that's the case, then wouldn't the US customers of AllofMP3.com be in violation of these importation laws by buying the songs in Russia (where it's legal) and then importing them to the United States (where it's illegal)? Why would the RIAA not use this vector for attack on AllofMP3, and bring down Capone on tax evasion?

    --
    For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    1. Re:Importation Laws? by bloodstar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because possession of a .mp3 is not, in of itself, a crime. If you've legally purchased the mp3 according to the laws of that country, it's very hard for the RIAA to say, 'but they didn't pay us the money' particularly since the RIAA is the "Recording Industry Association of America" and not the "Recording Industry Association of Russia" or whichever country it may be. Now if there were a law passed saying that no mp3s may be 'imported' from another country if the RIAA hasn't been paid off, then there might be an issue with the 'importing' of the mp3 track to your computer.

      IANAL, and if someone else has any thoughts or corrections who is, I'd love to hear them.

      --
      "The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
    2. Re:Importation Laws? by GodInHell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because possession of a .mp3 is not, in of itself, a crime. If you've legally purchased the mp3 according to the laws of that country, it's very hard for the RIAA to say, 'but they didn't pay us the money' particularly since the RIAA is the "Recording Industry Association of America" and not the "Recording Industry Association of Russia" or whichever country it may be. Now if there were a law passed saying that no mp3s may be 'imported' from another country if the RIAA hasn't been paid off, then there might be an issue with the 'importing' of the mp3 track to your computer. As I understand this issue - internet sales occour both at the point of origin (russia) and the point of sale (in the U.S.). This means that your sale has to be legal there and here.

      I haven't studied internet or international law much yet though.

      -GiH

  19. FAQs by jubalj · · Score: 3, Informative

    The faqs at allofmp3 seem to detail and debate the various laws involved..

    Link to FAQ

  20. Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus by TheRecklessWanderer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can be sure that the contract (if there is one) is under the jurisdiction of russian law, not US law. Like I said in my post, if US citizens are involved, then they are liable, perhaps, but the russian entity is not. As to the slightly off topic... There is no good legal system. The US system is so backlogged and so top heavy its insane. Remember that case where the women spilled hot coffee on herself and sued (I think it was mcdonalds), so now they have to put warnings on their coffee cups that say hot. How stupid are you if you don't know that coffee is hot. Come on. I think that the criminal system is reasonable, however, your civil system is so out of wack. Everybody is looking for a free lunch at the expense of Corporate America. Geeze, look at all those guys who sit on patents, and then wait for somebody to invent something similar and then take them to court. Reality is, it's often cheaper to settle rather than go through the courts and hold up business. I agree with the plaintiff paying all court and legal costs, that would help a lot. Better yet, make the law firms pay for it. That would solve the problems for sure.

    --
    Mean what you say...say what you mean.
  21. If I'm not mistaken... by baudbarf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Didn't this story already seal AllOfMP3.com's fate? Russia agreed to shut them down by mid 2007. So, is this just about squeezing a few bucks out of them before they die?

    --
    You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
  22. Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus by jahudabudy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, all three of your arguments fall under "Sovereign states get to determine their own internal affairs. They don't have to do what any other state tells them if they don't want." Technically, true. Realistically, not so much. Sure, independent states can do what they want. But if you piss off the powers that be, you don't get to play in the global economy, import goods, export goods, etc., depending on how pissed they get. That's what Russia joining the WTO has to do with this: the WTO (which is pretty much an economic stick swung about by the wealthy nations) is likely to tell Russia they must crack down on "intellectual property infringement" if they want to play ball with the big boys. Russia wants to join the WTO, b/c then they get to be one of the big boys manipulating the world economy for their own advantage, rather than being one of the ones manipulated. I believe the term is realpolitik.

    --
    ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
  23. Re:Very Happily infringing... by Xebikr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reasonable rates by whose definitions? How about reasonable compared to cost/effort needed to duplicate?

    BTW, any metaphors comparing made-up, fictional, so-called intellectual property to real, defendable, actual property will fail. Every time.
  24. Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus by tshak · · Score: 4, Informative

    Does the site have a presence in the US? Well? If it doesn't then they can get bent.

    It's called "international copyright law". In parciular, the Berne Convention, was not developed in the US, but was an international effort. Russia is a member of the Berne Union. The RIAA, hate them as I may, clearly has grounds to file a suit here.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  25. Re:...in the place VISA and MC have offices. by pembo13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope you at least see how wrong that is.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  26. No by xeno-cat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your example is like me mail ordering an ounce from Amsterdam and the US government busting the guy in Amsterdam.

    -peace

    --
    "A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
  27. Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus by Poruchik · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't bring McDonalds suit into this discussion. It actually had a lot more merit than this one does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_Hot_Coffee

    --
    $signature =~ s/$signature//;
  28. Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Why is the RIAA trying to sue someone in another country.


    Because the RIAA thinks their legal rights are being violated.

    The US has no jurisdiction.


    The US, as do most soveriegn nations, exercises jurisdiction over violations of its laws wherever in the universe they may occur. It may, by its own law, restrict the territorial applicability of its laws, and, of course, successful litigants may have trouble executing judgements against foreign actors, but that's a different issue.

    Anyhow, Americans didn't start this, we're just copying the British (not the last paragraph of the article.)
  29. 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.
  30. "Today RIAA [Corporate]Robots Demand Legal Rights" by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The RIAA is for the most part an association of Corporations.
    These corporations have an unlimited lifespan, and the legal purpose of a Corporation is solely to make money.
    But in our wisdom, our courts decided more than a century ago, that this Corporate Entity is a legal person: with all the legal benefits of person, but apparently little punishment for wrongdoings.

    This eternal entity obviously wants to "own" "copyrights" forever, for profit (its legal mandate). So the behavior of the RIAA and MPAA is not surprising.

    If you had robots with rights that could outlive humans, you may have some of the same ownership problems as those created with this artificial corporation person creation.

    When a corporation is made of of all robot employees ... nevermind, you have probably seen that movie.

  31. RIAA sues because they won't ask for payment by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    allofmp3 pays royalties. The RIAA will receive royalties from the organization that allofmp3 pays if they ask. They refuse to ask because they do not like the compulsory licensing laws in Russia. To ask for the money will imply consent, so they sue the law abiding citizens (allofmp3) because they do not like the Russian laws. There is nothing wrong with compulsory licensing. There is compulsory licensing in the US as well, but the terms are favorable to the RIAA so they accept it and take their money when it is paid. So the problem isn't that they object to how things are handled. They object to the level of payment they receive. And they are suing a lawfully operating company because of a complaint about a government's actions.

    Regardless of what one things about anything else they do, suing a company that is not in violation of any law because of annoyance over a government's policies is just wrong.

  32. Re:Sure... but... by Alsee · · Score: 5, Informative

    if the RIAA companies never ceded the right to contract their copyrights to this orginization, will U.S. courts respect the establishment of a foreign orginization given that power by law?

    They damn well better!

    AllOfMP3.com operates under a statutory license in Russian law.
    Pandora.com operates under a statutory license in American law.

    Russian law says that AllOfMP3.com is licensed to send music by any artist (including American artists) even if the copyright holder explicitly wants to forbid it.
    American law says that Pandora.com is licensed to send music by any artist (including Russian artists) even if the copyright holder explicitly wants to forbid it.

    Russian law says that AllOfMP3.com may send that music in any format they wish, obviously including MP3 format.
    American law says that Pandora.com is may send music in any format they wish, obviously including MP3 format. (Note: You can find these MP3 files in your TEMP folder with no file extension.)

    Russian law says that AllOfMP3.com must pay a government-set royalty rate to ROMS, a collection body that then distributes those payments to copyright holders.
    American law says that Pandora.com must pay a government-set royalty rate to CARP, a collection body that then distributes those payments to copyright holders.

    This Russian law is operating under the exact same legal principals as US law. The RIAA is lying out their ass when they bitch and scream that there is something wrong with sending stuff without permission from the copyright holder.... virtually every country on earth has statutory licensing in their law. RIAA is lying out their ass when they bitch and scream that there is something fundamentally wrong with Russian law.

    Oh, by the way.... the statutory licensing fees imposed on AllOfMP3.com by Russian law are about 20 TIMES HIGHER than the licensing fees imposed on Pandora.com by US law.

    But here's the really obnoxious part... the RIAA bullshit about AllOfMP3.com being evil Pirates Pirates Pirates because RIAA artists are "not getting paid a dime". It's true that American artists signed with the RIAA are not getting a singe dime out of AllOfMP3.com sales. AllOfMP3.com is paying the royalty fees to ROMS... so why aren't US RIAA signed artists getting paid? Because the RIAA refuses to accept the payments from ROMS. And the RIAA contracts require artists to sign over the copyrights to the RIAA member companies. The RIAA contracts say that only the RIAA companies can accept royalty payments for the work, and that the RIAA companies then pass on the artists share of teh payments to them. The RIAA contracts FORBID the artists to directly go and collect any payments themselves.

    So teh RIAA is deliberately screwing over their own artists and is refusing to accept these payments and pass them on to their artists.... because that way they can manufacture this bullshit argument that AllOfMP3.com is evil and illegitimate and illegal and Pirates Pirates Pirates because RIAA-signed artists are not getting paid.

    The RIAA's primary tactic is to simply chant the word "Pirate" over and over and over again until they get what they want... even if they have to LIE OUT THEIR ASS and SCREW OVER THEIR OWN ARTISTS in the process.

    (Note that I am not yelling at you, I am yelling about the RIAA and at the RIAA.)

    A US judge might rule on some of the complicated cross-national issues involved here, but I seriously doubt that any US judge would be stupid enough to rule that AllOfMP3.com was itself illegitmate or that Russian law was itself illegitmate. To do so would be a direct blow against US law operating on the exact same principals and a calamity for US radio stations and thousands of other US businesses operating under US law statutory licenses.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  33. Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus by Duds · · Score: 2, Informative

    She wasn't a member of allofmp3 then, they don't do unlimited downloading for a set fee any more than itunes does.

  34. Re:Meddlin Americans stay out of Russia or its WAR by jamar0303 · · Score: 2

    I actually agree with this. America would be lots better if Bush and the movie/recording industry execs were forced into Russia (certainly a better use for them than they're doing now). One tip, though- I write like that when I'm up at 2AM in the morning after a busy day. Maybe it would help to wait until you're more refreshed (a cup of coffee/tea/caffiene drink would work too) to post here. Your opinion is appreciated, though.

    --
    OSx86 FTW
  35. Why use this service? by xsuchy · · Score: 3, Informative

    > What I never understood is why anybody would use this service.

    Why? Because when you buy it, you have it legaly (as far as I understand Anglo-Saxon laws). RIAA can not sue you. They can sue AllOfMP3 (which they try), but it'll be hard, because they operate legaly in russia. Why it is legal? I give you brief explanatory how it work in my country (Czech Rep.), which have similar laws like Russian.

    We had organization called OSA which stand in for all musicans (unless they opt out). And when you operate radio you give them list of songs you play and money according to their price list and OSA distribute money (do not ask me how and to who). You pay OSA for playing radio on public place like your market, pub... You pay them for each blank CD you sell (owner of the blank CD can record there some music, so you should pay in advance). You pay for selling copy machine, printer (new owner can make copy of some copyrighted text). You pay for lots of things. And it is not penny - for blank CD it can be 30% of its price. In exchange our law do not criminalize you from downloading, copiing CD, books, movies. If somebody publish it (even on P2P) you can downloaded. But you have to have right to publish it (or you-the publisher are criminalized). Often you have no right to publish it (P2P), but you can make agreement and pay OSA whatever you and they agree (like 0.000000000001$ per song) and it is OK according to law. Well OSA then should pay to holder of rights. But it is blackbox. Nobody knows what they do with that money. And similar situation is in Russian with AllOfMP3. Owner of right (or RIAA) should care. They should sue organization which allow it (like OSA in Czech). Or they should sue country for bad law. But they rather sue seller like AllOfMP3 becouse it is easier.

  36. Re:Sure... but... by arminw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ....To what degree does AllofMp3 conduct business within the United States.....

    Does a transaction that goes across an International border take place in the place where the buyer is or the seller? For sales taxes it is the buyer's place. If someone from Oregon where there is no sales buys something from California, there is no tax due. If someone in California buys something in Oregon, the buyer is supposed to pay sales tax or use tax to California. In practice nobody pays either place except for things like cars that must be registered.

    Is the Allofmp3 situation not pretty much the same? Does the RIAA have a right to collect a "tax" on buyers of material from Allofmp3? Is it illegal to buy such material and have it shipped (by wire) to the US? If the material were a physical good, would US Customs confiscate it, like the did some German sausage my parents tried to bring us?

    --
    All theory is gray