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
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?
Indeed. According to the RIAA's stats: http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2005yrEndS tats.pdf (warning: PDF), the total industry is something on the order of 12 billion $US per year. How can they claim with a straight face that the *damages* are about 100 times greater than the size of the industry being damaged?
As you said, I hope this gets publicized because it really demonstrates how ridiculous the dollar value associated with infringement really is.
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.
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.
AllOfMP3 gives their required amount as required by Russian law to the Russian equivalent of the RIAA, who then is supposed to distribute it to all the needy artists under their wing. While the method is considered a loophole as such, it's still perfectly legal under Russian law.
And I believe the Record Industry Association of America is just a little bit out of it's jurisdiction here. Hence the stupid filing in an American court. Try that kind of scare tactic in Russia and as people have already mentioned, AllOfMP3 would simply pay the local mafia a small sum to make the problem.... disappear.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Not a troll, you have a valid point, but I'm curious which of the two would you rather we support?
From the information on their website, it appears that they pay a fixed percentage of sales to royalties. Registered artists, I presume, get royaties - I haven't looked into their financials, so I can't verify that. I don't read Russian either, so I probably couldn't figure it out even if I had the paperwork. The RIAA doesn't like the terms, so they don't want to play. Artists don't enter into it - they don't own their work. IF they did, they could hire a lawyer to do the paperwork, and get their money.
On a personal, philosophical level...
I'm all for compulsory licensing of any published creative work. Don't want it available? Don't publish it.
This would "fix" the Disney vault problem, and allow works to be re-published for a fixed fee. Presumably, original content owners could still create premium content by republishing with value added features. Most of the movie houses already re-release a title several times to get people to re-buy.
As for starving artists, I say get off you lazy asses, out of the studio, and go entertain in person. If your contract forbids such work...well, you signed the contract, yo ulive with the consequences. If you don't like it, go work 9-5 like everyone else. You're not required to make music to live.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
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.
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.
Let me get this straight. When a company moves its manufacturing division from the U.S. to Malaysia to take advantage of the industry-friendly labour laws in that country, they're applauded for their ingenuity. On the other hand, when U.S. consumers take advantage of consumer-friendly copyright laws overseas, they're criminals.
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.
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.
They're not claiming that at all. $150,000 wasn't a random number, nor was the fact that it was called "the maximum" in the article summary just word choice. In fact, anybody at all familiar with copyright law--even just the little trickles that make it through on sites like this--will have their ears twitch in recognition at hearing the number.
$150,000 is the maximum allowed statutory damages according to US copyright law. It has nothing to do with how much their losses were.
Further, realize that damages come in two parts: compensatory (what you actually lost) and punitive (punishment for the act). Punitive damages are almost always substantially higher than compensatory damages in situations like this. Even if they only claimed $11 million punitive damages ($1/download, the iTunes price), the law says they're perfectly free to claim the other $1.649+ trillion.
Will they get that much (if they get anything)? Almost certainly not, but that doesn't stop them from asking for it.
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.
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
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
They've gone from regular villainy to cartoonish super-villainy.
I am not a crackpot.
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.
Well, the law says you are not allowed to copy it across the border, but you may be allowed to physically move a pre-existing copy across the border.
You might disagree with it, or find it silly, but that is actually what it says. I'd rather you disagree with it, knowing that, than to deny that it exists altogether. I'm a firm believer in the idea that we'll never get these laws fixed until people know what they really are, and what the policy goals for the laws are meant to be. Misinformation and erroneous 'common knowledge' don't help.
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!
Actually, it is possible that bringing in the CD itself would be illegal; it would depend on its origins. But in any event, your example is faulty. Allofmp3 involves making copies across a border; you're talking about making a copy and then bringing it over the border. That's not the same thing. There is a world of difference between moving a tangible medium over the border (e.g. a CD, a hard drive, an iPod), and moving intangible information over the border (e.g. reading from a server in Russia and writing to a hard drive in America). The former is importation (a form of distribution), the latter is reproduction. Different exceptions apply to each.
-- 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.
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.