Slashdot Mirror


RIAA Goes for the Max Against AllofMP3

Spad writes "Zeropaid is reporting that as part of its ongoing lawsuit, the RIAA will be seeking the maximum of $150,000 per song for each of the 11 million MP3s downloaded from the Russian AllofMP3.com between June and October last year. This amounts to roughly $1.65 trillion, probably a tad more than AllofMP3 has made in its lifetime. A representative of AllofMP3 stated: 'AllofMP3 understands that several U.S. record label companies filed a lawsuit against Media Services in New York. This suit is unjustified as AllofMP3 does not operate in New York. Certainly the labels are free to file any suit they wish, despite knowing full well that AllofMP3 operates legally in Russia. In the mean time, AllofMP3 plans to continue to operate legally and comply with all Russian laws.'"

11 of 777 comments (clear)

  1. quadrouple dipped by mrshowtime · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm all for allofmymp3 and all of it's Russian counterparts. I lost my entire cd and record collection in Katrina and it was the only was to recover my collection instead of repurchasing all of the albums again.
    I am old enough to have bought my entire collection on records, tapes, cd's and for as much as I can SACD/HD audio. I am all for contributing to the machine if the records companies release NEW, higher quality recordings in the future, but I'm not repurchasing my cd collection. I've already paid my taxes to the RIAA Gods several times over.

    --
    "Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
  2. Want to bet by (H)elix1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That when all is said and done, one of the things the RIAA will walk away with a list of customers who used the service?

  3. Re:AllofMP3 should just settle... by Aeiedil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am curious how the RIAA reach the conclusion that each download causes $150,000 in losses, if you take the fact that you can download a track with unquestionable legality from iTunes for under a quid ( $2) then that leaves up to $149,998 unaccounted for. Do their lawyers really cost that much?

    --
    The geek that actually likes Windows. I got cookies.
  4. are you kidding? by anomaly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You *must* be trolling, right? If so, I guess I'm falling for it.

    He bought a legitimate license, lost his original copies in a natural disaster, and then downloaded replacements - and that's the moral equivalent of your download without purchasing any license? I don't see it.

    In his model, the money was paid to the copyright holder, and presumably some of that money made its way to the artist. When he downloaded replacements, he cost the copyright holder nothing, and only deprived them of the opportunity to charge him for an additional copy.

    I'm not saying what he did was morally right, but it's a darn close to acceptable in my book. I'm frankly uncertain of what I'd do in that situation. I keep an off site mp3 version of all of my legitimately purchased music, so I'm less exposed in the case of a natural disaster. It seems ridiculous to suggest that he should pay full price to have access to something he already paid full price for.

    I think it would be a good idea for you to pay for music. After all, if no one pays for music, there's no money to pay artists at all, regardless of the fairness of the contracts and the distribution mechanisms.

    Respectfully,
    Anomaly

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
  5. RIAA vs credit card companies? by heretic108 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone want to speculate that RIAA might start taking action against credit card companies who process payments to websites such as AllOfMP3.com?

    If AllOfMP3.com gets shut down permanently, another cheap MP3 site can just spring up in its place.

    But if credit card companies are ordered to block payments to such sites, and regularly updated about each new naughty 'infringing' site, that just might start to seriously disrupt the business models of such sites.

    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
  6. I put my trust in the Russian mafia by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's be blunt here, that biz makes money, so it's likely that those guys have their fingers in it. Now, when you've tried to shut down a Spammer or a trojan host based in Russia, you know that you're fighting windmills. Because ... well, guess whose they are?

    I've had my share of 'fights' with them, so I know they are a formidable enemy. And I can only hope that they are behind AAMP3, too. Because then, we'll see what happens when two criminal cartels clash.

    I'll bring the popcorn.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Re:Russia is still independent by JWW · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They may win this war, but its the wrong war. They may yet be retarded enough to lose the REAL war.

    I currently do not let my son download music illegally. He is allowed to buy off of iTunes with prepaid cards, and cannot use bittorrent, or any other p2p. Now I know someday, he'll be able to use these without my knowledge and thats fine. But what I'm doing is explaining to him why leagally obtaining music is the right thing to do. I also however expalain in detail that the RIAA is possibly the largest bunch of idiotic half wits on the entire planet. My eplaination basiclly goes "iTunes uses DRM at the behest of the music industry, but its not too invasive and can be removed simply by burning a CD and reimporting (lossy I know), but it doesn't bind the user too much and the price is reasonable (unlike Apples movies which we won't buy)". I also tell him that iTunes would lose every cent of our business if someone started selling unDRMed mp3s for the same (or lower price). Now allofmp3.com fits that bill but as this story shows, their legality is in question. But the RIAA is overplaying its hand!! (Sorry I'm going to yell and swear now, but can't help it). Those fucking bastards keep going after allofmp3, keep pressuring Apple to raise prices, and keep trying to get other sites with even worse DRM than fairplay fired up!! Dammit RIAA all you have to do to win the entire fucking market and make these same billions of dollars you sue everyone for is OFFER FUCKING DRM FREE MUSIC FROM YOUR OWN SITES AT THE PRICE APPLE HAS ALREADY DETERMINED WILL WORK!!!!! I mean I could steal everything for just a little bit more effort than buying from iTunes. I don't, I try to do whats right, but my patience is wearing thin, very thin.

    This is a warning to the RIAA, keep this shit up and you'll make it way to easy for everyone to justify stealing from you because you are just too fucking evil. And I'll tell my son stealing from you is ok too because an group of soulless, vile, repugnant, people like you don't deserve any of our money or our respect.

  8. Not w/ lobbying groups.... by Marnhinn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    BS (at least w/ the lobbying groups).

    Lobbying groups have far less influence than most people think. (I work on the Hill - I know.) Unless the group represents someone that is a constituent (or business that employs large numbers of constituents) of the politician or the politician is corrupt (roughly 1 in 50 is), the group will not get face time with a Senator. They might get to meet one of his legislative assistants (many who are law students), but the influence a LA will have on his / her Senator varies greatly.

    If you were to poll the Senators before they ran for office, you would find that their views are already in alignment with the RIAA and MPAA. That is why they get money donated to their campaign - not for influence when they are in office, but to get elected (pure and simple - cause when they are then elected the RIAA / MPAA does not need to worry about them). The American people at the moment do not care enough about the issues (that the RIAA and MPAA do) to vote based on them (and given our current problems - this may be a good thing).

    When the movie / music organizations throw receptions here (they did a special dinner and advance screening of Eragon 3 weeks ago), not a single Senator went (I know - I had nothing better to do, so I rsvp'ed and showed). Heck, I bet less than 10-15 legislative assistants were there also. Most of the people that go to their meetings are either interns, people that think they're important or rarely IT people that are tired of coding (me). Now many of those interns may be your future Senators - so you could say that they are buying influence in advance... but I doubt it - given most interns pirate music left and right (a few are dumb enough to do it at work).

    Anyhow - they (lobbying groups) don't buy influence, Americans simply elect people that support the lobbying groups views (i.e. an uninformed voting populace).

    --
    There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
  9. Re:Proof? Proof of what, exactly? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Specifically that making a copy is illegal, and a copy is defined as a tangible object, and downloading doesn't involve moving tangible objects like CDs, it involves using intangible information to create a new tangible copy within the US, where that's prohibited

    That's ridiculous. If you have a legal right to a file in another country, and posession of it in this country is not otherwise illegal (e.g., it's not kiddie porn or something), there's no sane reason you can't copy it across the (virtual, and therefore nonexistant) border.

    Let's use an analogy: imagine you're on vacation in Europe, and you buy a CD, burn it, put it on your iPod, and bring it back home with you. Is that illegal? Of course not, that would be absurd!

    Next, imagine you do the same thing, but you put it on a computer you happen to own, that you leave in Europe. You then transfer it to yourself after you get back home. Is that illegal? Of course not, that would be absurd!

    Now, finally, imagine exactly the same thing, except that AllOfMP3.com just happens to be storing the file for you instead of you doing it for yourself (note: it's still your file, because you bought it). How is that any different? It's not, therefore it would still be absurd for it to be illegal!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  10. Re:Bad Counterargument by Darth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    (i am not a lawyer either but...)

    b) just says that if the copy was made illegally at the point of origin, it is considered illegal when imported into the United States. (i.e. chinese bootlegs)

    a) clearly states an exception for importation for personal use. If it is legal in the country of origin and you are importing it for personal use, it is legal.

    In this case, the mp3s are legal under Russian law, so importing them for personal use is not illegal. I think the point of contention is whether they are being imported into the U.S., or distributed for sale in the U.S.

    In my opinion, since the sale occurs on a server in russia, it is sold in russia and then imported. that would make it legal for them to sell and legal for you to buy.

    And before anyone attacks me...I've never bought anything from allofmp3.com and have no interest in doing so. I like to own the cd.

    --
    Darth --
    Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
  11. Re:It's a gambit by RMH101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    in much the same way, UK businessmen (the NatWest 3, various online betting CEOs) have been extradited to the US for alleged financial crimes that are against US law. The fact the individuals haven't done anything *in the US* doesn't appear to matter...