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.'"
Why sue for a trillion, when you can sue for... a million?
got sig?
last time I checked and considering that they cornered 45% of the space launch business and is the world's largest exporter of oil and gas, the USA needs Russia more than Russia needs the USA, so good luck to the RIAA and their money wasting tactics.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Let's see how many RIAA people come down with an acute case of radiation sickness. In Russia, the competition comes after you!
$1.65trillion is a fair bit more than the GDP of Russia as a whole.
How fucking ludicrous and excessive. Jesus.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
AllofMp3 offers 20% bonus untill January 14, 2007
Russia's yearly gross domestic product is $1.576 trillion. RIAA's claim is little more than that, $1.65 trillion.
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
I know that most of us on slashdot realize how absurd the RIAA and MPAA's claims are about the losses caused by piracy, but if this is publicized I think that it could go a long way toward aptly demonstrating the absurdity of their claims.
I mean, I don't think anyone, except apparently the RIAA lawers, could possibly believe that in a few months- or even in a year or two, one single (not all that well known) russian website caused the RIAA to lose over a trillion dollars in revenue.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Where do they get these numbers? This is over 10% of the GDP of the USA, and 333 times the amount gross retail music sales in 2005. I wonder if the US court will take this companies .com domains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_music_market
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?
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
...by repaying them with $1.65 trillion worth of Russian intellectual property.
I'm sure the Russian government would be willing to make an official valuation of the complete works of Joseph Stalin as worth $1.65 trillion.
Then AllofMP3 could repay the RIAA by licensing them to the RIAA.
Problem solved.
Imagine downloading the audiobook version from the iTunes Music Store.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
This amounts to roughly $1.65 trillion
Proof once again that the RIAA is run by Dr. Evil.
[Insert pithy quote here]
THEIR SUING POWER IS OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
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?
A hilarious response would be if the Russian government would now confirm that Allofmp3 operated within the country's laws.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Okay, it's gonna be unpopular and I'll get modded as a troll probably, but I've got to say it.
I'm not a big fan of the RIAA, but I'm also not a big fan of AllofMP3. Yes, it's legal in Russia (through a loophole in radio licensing they're trying to close), but not here in the US.
A ton of Slashdotters use it because they think it's a good business model and they feel like they're doing something legal because they're paying for music. Sure it's a nice business model- the way they calculate the price you pay by measuring the amount you're downloading in MBs, but they money that goes to AllofMP3 doesn't end up in the artist's hands any more than it does when you pay money to a record label by buying music on a CD here in the USA (in fact less: none to be exact). Sure, you can complain all you want about the evil RIAA and how they don't give enough money to artists, and boycott them all you like. But the truth is artists get NO money from AllofMP3 (instead of an unfair tiny amount from the RIAA). They're just profiting off of other people's work. Like the RIAA but worse. Instead of a tiny amount of money going to the artists, the moeny goes instead entirely to the proprietors of AllofMP3 (who are rumored to be connected to the Russian mafia, by the way).
I've seen a handfull of people wondering how they would pay such a fine if ruled against, simple, they wouldn't.
Suits of this nature are filed knowing full well there's no way the entity could possibly fullfill the terms, which cripples the entity & ensures they can not recover & continue business as usual.
Funny thing is, if ruled against, I could see allofmp3 flipflopping & silently going bankrupt through their US counterpart somehow, then starting all over again.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Well I for one hope Putin uses AllOfMP3 because this means there may be an radioactive solution to all of my RIAA issues and if anyone deserves some 3rd world evil empire justice it's the RIAA. ;)
Surely the "R" doesn't stand for "Recording". Must be for "Racketeering"
The Racketeering Industry Association of America. Thats more like it.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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...
So why isn't the RIAA suing the RIAA equivalent body that AllofMP3 paid fees to, you know, the ones who are supposed to be taking care of all of the copyright stuff? Russian law dictates that AllofMP3 go through that body, which they did. If RIAA has a problem, they need to address it there.
Ah, but what are the terms of the licenses the RIAA issues?
Keep in mind that you are talking about the RIAA. It is generally understood that the RIAA and those record companies it represents are capable of almost anything, possibly excluding anything that appears sensible. I should know: I have kept close watch on the activities of an especially eccentric RIAA label for fifteen years...
So, if I were an RIAA record label, I would probably say this:
You the consumer buy only the media; you only license the music; but your license is valid only if you still possess the media.
Evidence for this interpretation: The RIAA requests that if you sell a piece of media that contains RIAA-licensed music, then you must give the back-ups to the person you sold the media to or else destroy the back-ups.
Disclaimers:
I am not an RIAA astroturfer. I came by my interest in their ways of thinking naturally.
I do not approve of everything the RIAA does. I have done things with RIAA material that it would not approve of.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
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.
What happens when someone, prone to mischief and with re$ources, sues these monkeys for say $2T at the 3rd Circuit Court in Mogadishu.
Fantasy, yes, but imagine a court seizing Disneyland in Japan and France to pay for some judgment, as funky as the one that we will see here.
...that the Russian response was something along the lines of:
Xa,Xa,Xa,Xa,Xa,Xa....!!!!
More importantly, U.S. Copyright law explicitly permit public libraries to do what they are doing.
Regardless of the RIAA's opinon, they can't do diddlysquat about it short of paying off Congress to change the law.
Yet I think that not even the deffest of jams merits compensation sufficient for an interstellar platinum plated Hummer-- which I can get you, for $1.65 trillion, I promise. Heck, I'll to it for half that. But I need it up front.
When you buy a CD or a DVD you are not paying for a license to do anything, you are buying media. Nobody, not even the RIAA, is claiming otherwise. You still can't do whatever you want with your media, because there are laws that restrict certain uses (such as copying, distribution, public performance, etc.)
/. bring it up because they conflate software with other copyrightable works. EULAs are very extraordinary. There are no EULAs for books, CDs, DVDs, etc.
This licensing thing is getting really fucking tiresome. People on
They are also unnecessary.Yyou don't need an EULA to use software (note, this is separate from whether EULAs are enforceable), because any infringing acts you commit in order to use your software are actually exempted in the Copyright Act itself. Consumer level licensing exists for virtually no other copyrightable works, and they wouldn't need to exist for software either. The fact that they do is insane, really.
So, please stop it with this licensing bullshit. It makes you look like a fucking idiot and just instigates other fools into repeating you thinking you have a clue.
but the artists dont get *shit* when you buy your music there.
4 495
Because artists make SO MUCH on sales in this country...
(Don't particularly like using this as a reference, it's not exactly CNN or BBC, but it's the first reference I saw that looked decent...)
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1
Rather than paying artists approximately 30 cents of the 70 cents it receives for digital downloads (after deducting payments to music publishers), the suit alleges that Sony Music treats each download as a sale of a physical CD or cassette tape, only paying on 85 per cent of such "sales" (due to a fiction that there is breakage of product), deducting a further 20 per cent fee for container/packaging charges associated with the digital downloads (although there are none), and reducing its payments by a further 50 per cent "audiofile" deduction, yielding a payment to the Sony Music recording artists of approximately 4 1/2 cents per digital download
I'd rather pirate the track and give the artist the buck directly. If only there were a way to do that...
As opposed to the US, where being on the correct side of the law means investing millions in lobby groups and election funds.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
American corporations love doing business in countries where labor laws are lax. They do business where labor laws are lax because they can work people there in ways that would be illegal to do so in the United States. The corporations would call this "globalization" and point the great benefits of the "global economy" at work.
American corporations also like to do business in countries where organized dissent to their activities is suppressed by "friendly" governments (friendly to their interests, that is). They do so because organized dissent is legal in the United States and has on more than one occasion 1) aired the corp's dirty laundry, 2) stopped them from performing harmful (but profitable) acts, and 3) called for the corp's to strike a balance between shareholder value and respect for the laws of the country in which they live.
What does all of this have to do with AllOfMP3? Well, American corporations have a long record of doing business (and making bundles of money) by going to places where they aren't restrained by such trite formalities as "laws". American corporations love to extol the virtues of the "global economy", just as long as they're the ones who benefit from it; after all, transnational capital alone should benefit from international business.
But for some reason, the average Joe using the internet to do THE EXACT SAME THING that American corporations have been doing for years is deemed wrong, illegal, unethical, and Lord knows how many other bad things. The average Joe who buys a song from AllOfMP3 is engaging in exactly the same type of transaction that corp's have done for years: gain financial advantage by offshoring their transactions.
Am I oversimplifying? Maybe. But chew on this: Either we have a global market (as we are told that we have as our jobs are outsourced), or we don't. And if we do have a global market, the rules were written long ago by the same people that are trying to stop us from following them.
Governments are not necessary.
Yeah, because the RIAA has a long history of using the courts to go after music downloaders.
Dumbass.
I like the attitude, and I wish more would have it, but it seems like more of a utopian desire than than reality. For the number of people out there saying 'i wish i could support the artists directly', well, we're out there and there are ways to do it (and I'm sure it's not just me, I'm just the easiest example from my perspective).
Sorry for the Slashvertisement, but I had to get my point across.
Listen to my music.
America was founded not long after the 100+ year publishing monopolies in Europe were dissolved, and the US allowed only a 14 year copyright monopoly.
Now, here we are again. If you want to find a place where you can freely exchange ideas for the sake of advancing science or art, well, the US is not currently that place. If you have a new composition based on Bach, great, but anything based on any work from the last century would be illegal to even give away without paying the owning corporation whatever they demand. And the software that you created is also illegal to give away, because the trivial algorithm you used was patented last year by another information holding company.
Fuck, you fucking people are giving me a brain haemorrhage with this shit.
Works are fixed in media (see 17 USC 101). These media are called copies. So music and software are fixed on CDs and DVDs (and harddrives and RAM), and novels are fixed in hardcover books, etc.
When you buy a CD, you buy a CD. Period.
When you buy a book, you buy a book. Period.
You can lend your book, your CD, to someone. You can rent it. You can sell it. You can burn it. Etc.
You do not buy, and do not need, a license for the work on the media unless you plan to do something with that work that would violate the copyright holder's exclusive rights (see 17 USC 106).
THERE ARE NO EULAs FOR CDs OR DVDs.
You are buying media. Period.
You have to understand that. You can do anything with the media you want. That doesn't entitle you to the "work." The work is an intangible thing. It is unownable and unpossessable and therefore nobody owns nor possesses it.
Copyright grants copyright holders certain rights assoicated with the work -- FROM WHATEVER SOURCE -- but this is separate from the work fixed in a medium: which is a physical thing, just like any other physical thing.
The reason you can't do whatever you want (eg, make copies) is because the copyright statute says you can't. It's not because a license says you can't. You need a license in order to make copies*, sure, but you're not buying one when you buy a CD.
* you can also make copies if you have one of the few exceptions under the law, etc.
If you're allowed to make backups, btw (about which there is no brightline rule, only the fair use test), you're allowed to keep them when you resell your CD, etc. But since there's no general exception to make backups generally (software is an exception IIRC), the whole circumstances have to fit the four factors of the fair use test. So, e.g., if you intended to sell your CD, and made a backup so you could keep the music knowing you planned to sell it tomorrow, that's probably not a fair use.
I, for one, welcome our new Trillionaire overlords.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Normally the RIAA lacks any sort of documentary proof of a download. The have to get ISP to give them info, they have to get hard drives, and then they have to show that the person downloaded something and maybe it was the cousin who was visiting or the retarded sister. THey can't prove who it was, and there are so many pathetic poster children they end up suing and looking bad.
But this case is different. They have visa card numbers. These are adults and these are tied to one person. They have IP addresses and they have the list of song transactions. This is hard proof. And they can pick and choose who to make an example of with such a rich treasure trove. There's going to be plenty of people in the grand-theft category and that means siginificant jail time not just damages.
This is the RIAA's opportunity to make the court work for them.
Dumbass back at you.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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
Well, if Russia changes its laws so that AllOfMP3's service becomes illegal... the RIAA can't sue for alleged moetary losses before it became illegal, as there was no law to make it illegal before.
It would be like if the US made recycling of lightbulbs mandatory (giving the lightbulb-makers the right to sue you if you didn't bring broken lightbulbs) and then the lightbulbmakers try to sue you because you threw away a lightbulb ten years ago (instead of recycling it). You cannot break laws retroactively. Even if the lightbulbmakers ran big campaigns and threatened to sue you if you don't recycle those lightbulbs, they cannot sue you for doing something in the past that now would break the law.
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
A couple of points:
While you are correct that the courts determine the outcome, the parent poster was attempting to justify behavior which is clearly in conflict with the laws of the US.
Also, I'd suggest that opinions about moral behavior are quite relevant. Legal systems are a societal attempt to codify moral behavior.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
What, proof that people bought music legally in Russia and then imported it?
This is ridiculous -- people are so caught up with the RIAA, apparently, that they've forgotten that none of it makes sense: not only is AllOfMP3 operating within Russian law, the RIAA isn't even suing in a jurisdiction that has any power whatsoever to enforce a judgement! The RIAA is on a witch hunt, and that's the nicest thing that can be said about it!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Hi i am from paraguay,
and know this is of toppic.
But some coins are falling now.
I did know the americans bought a big piece of property here in the chaco,
But did not know it was mr bush himself behind it.
You want to know why he/the americans bought that ranche.
It is ontop of one of the biggest clean water reserves in the world.
Greets John van der Pol
There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
There is no imagined difference.
Distributing is giving copies of the song to other people.
Downloading is getting a copy of the song for yourself.
The way p2p is designed, when you get a copy, you also give all or part of the song to 20 to 50 other people. (Riaa then invalidly sues you for giving copes to everyone they give copies to also. However, that's double dipping- probably even 100tuble dipping).
Allofmp3 "performs" a unique copy of the song to you. They paid royalties to the russian copyright association. Those royalties are a pittance of what RIAA wants. It's currently legal however.
If it literally was legal then making it illegal later probably doesn't bind you to get rid of things you bought legally.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Uh, more like if you steal billions of dollars, murder a few people here and there, evade taxes for several years, and piss off the president you might go to jail. It's a bit lenient, no?
This points out one of the problems with an economy based on brain share products. Valuation. You may be able to get a dollar for it in the US but only a penny in Russia. How are you ever going to enforce valuation in another economy when the product doesn't have intrinsic value based on hard assets? It's insane to even try, but insanity doesn't stop the recording industry.
Companies can get away with it here because our Congress is corrupt and we're wealthy. It doesn't bother us to spend 10 bucks on a CD, but that's a week's pay in some places. Same principle applies to movies, software and most entertainment products.
The day will come when one of these countries we're into for a couple hundred billion in trade deficit, maybe a country that provides most of our manufacturing is going to call bullshit.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Neither pirate nor purchase RIAA music.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
No, they are both equally illegal. Downloading is a form of reproduction, and is illegal per 17 USC 106(1). Uploading is a form of distribution, and is illegal per 17 USC 106(3). The reason that RIAA, MPAA, et al tend to pursue more uploaders than downloaders is because it is easier to find uploaders, and because they think that as the number of uploaders decreases, downloaders who don't upload will simply lack the opportunity to break the law (since there'll be no one to download from), resulting in a two birds with one stone sort of thing. From a legal perspective, there's no significant difference. It's entirely tactical. Kind of like how, if you are injured by multiple parties, you concentrate on the one that has the most money.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
They've gone from regular villainy to cartoonish super-villainy.
I am not a crackpot.
In America, you can always find the lunacy of the RIAA! In Soviet Russia, the lunacy of the RIAA can find YOU!
I regret spilling a glass of ginger ale on an achritect!
"The CEO of the RIAA isn't a lawyer. Neither, I presume, are a lot of the members and officers."
The CEO, Mitch Bainwol, doesn't have a JD, but he does have an MBA, which I believe makes him just as hated by Slashdotters. However, the RIAA"s president, one Cary Sherman, is Harvard Law '71, and was an IP lawyer for several years. FWIW, he's also dabbled in software copyright; he wrote this book which I'm sure is a thrilling page-turner.
By the way, I ran into Cary Sherman a few years back at CES. He's about 5'8". I could probably take him in a fight.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
(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
Huh? Why would you get sued for using AllofMp3? Why is it hard proof?
.mp3 format, which RIAA hates right now.
When you download from AllOfMp3, you pay for a song and download it. AllOfMp3 pays their royalties.
Mind you, AllOfMp3 is NOT free.
The RIAA only cares because AllOfMp3 doesn't put that stupid digital rights crap that prevents you from sharing the song again or transferring it from iTunes to someone else. AllOfMp3 just gives it to you in the nice, simple, easy to deal with
They are, as explicitly stated by law, NOT limited to actual damages, NOT limited to actual number of infringing copies, NOT even a function of actual damages.
The law is completely absurd, and this case proves it. Who in their right mind could support this?
This is absurd on the level of sentencing someone to death for stealing a candy bar from a convenience store.
Just societies are founded on the principle of proportionality of punishment: the punishment must fit the crime.
The RIAA doesn't dare sue for the full amount against U.S. citizens, because they know that the day a college student is fined a billion dollars for sharing mp3s, is the day that this law is overturned.
No sane person would tolerate this, one hopes.
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...
>>>"Downloading is a form of reproduction, and is illegal per 17 USC 106(1)"
so iTunes is illegal then?
I think the argument here is that customers of allofmp3 believe they are purchasing from a legitimate store. This store does pay royalties to the russian version of the RIAA, however this Russian RIAA does not pass them on. Downloading songs that you've paid for from a legitimate store is not illegal - there are many on-line stores where you can legally purchase music. THe issues is: 'is Allofmp3 a legal store?'. The RIAA believe it is not, the Ruskies believe it is. One is a government with oil and some legacy nukes, the other is a bunch of lawyers with deep ties into a government with shiney well maintained nukes.
Umm... have you ever heard of emusic? They don't use DRM, either. They pay royalties to the indie labels; however, some lesser known artists from larger labels are part of their catalog. The difference is that AllOfMp3 pays an amount settled upon by the Russian copyright group (org? association? I'm not sure), not one dictated by the American cartel.
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
OK, with Bush/Putin... maybe it is likely; I'll shut up.
im in ur
so iTunes is illegal then?
The US iTunes store is licensed by the US copyright holders for the music it sells -- which is why they don't have everything, and the US store is limited to buyers in the US. Their license also covers its customers, at least for downloads from the iTMS.
I think the argument here is that customers of allofmp3 believe they are purchasing from a legitimate store
No, that isn't a valid argument. US copyright law is strict liability; it doesn't matter whether a person thinks they acting legally or not. Strict liability laws are uncommon, but another good example would be statutory consent laws -- even if you thought the 15 year old was 18, and had no reason to think otherwise, and there was nothing more you could have done to verify her age, you're still on the hook.
This store does pay royalties to the russian version of the RIAA, however this Russian RIAA does not pass them on.
And that would be great if the downloader was in Russia, where Russian law applies, but you are not. ROMS has no legal authority in the US, and cannot protect someone who is located in the US, nor can they license such a person to do things in the US that are contrary to US law. If you're in the US, and you download, US copyright law is what applies to you, and it does not permit this sort of thing. Honestly, your argument is closely akin to saying that if marijuana is more or less legal in the Netherlands that it's okay for someone to have some here, if the Dutch say it's okay. It's a plainly stupid argument and it has zero chance of success.
I don't really care if you want to break the law, but I do care that you know what the law is, so that you can make an informed decision into whether or not you want to break it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
American criminals vs Russian criminals. Both, unsurprisingly, are legal :(