Slashdot Mirror


Russian Court Acquits allofmp3.com Owner

An anonymous reader writes "Denis Kvasov, former owner of the music download website allofmp3.com, has been acquitted of violating intellectual property laws in a Moscow court. The court cited insufficient evidence of criminal activity — a question of fact — without touching the question of law of whether the site's activities (had they been proven by the prosecution) actually violated Russian copyright law. The trial's presiding judge said, 'I want to draw particular attention to the sloppy job done by prosecutors in collecting and analyzing the facts.' According to the Moscow Times, though, the allofmp3.com case is far from over. Two more criminal trials are scheduled to take place: one against Vladimir Mamotin, the media director of MediaServices, the parent company of allofmp3.com, and another against the company itself."

114 comments

  1. What a shocking development! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really, I had not expected this!

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    1. Re:What a shocking development! by Stanistani · · Score: 1, Funny

      Judge: "I want to draw particular attention to the sloppy job done by prosecutors in collecting and analyzing the facts."

      Owww!

      That will leave a mark.

    2. Re:What a shocking development! by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know if you are in it for a +5 Funny or not. But I truely didn't expect that.

      That is also a very big lesson on diplomacy from this judge. He dismissed an absurd claim while still not annoying the United States.

    3. Re:What a shocking development! by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Russian inquisition expects NOBODY!

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    4. Re:What a shocking development! by Aokubidaikon · · Score: 1

      He dismissed an absurd claim

      Ehm, however how you may feel about international copyright laws, this guy way clearly violating them.
      So no, I wouldn't call the claims "absurd".

    5. Re:What a shocking development! by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      Ehm, however you may feel about allofmp3.com, AFAIK, I don't think "international laws" (as opposed to treaties) means what you think it means. As a result of the notion of sovereignty, the value and authority of international law is dependent upon the voluntary participation of states in its formulation, observance, and enforcement.

      I wonder if that makes you right or wrong when you claim "this guy way clearly violating them" (see the Wikipedia article on Definite description if you're into philosophy).

      It's up to the Russian courts to decide the issue (which I agree is not necessarily "absurd"), not your seemingly knee-jerk reaction to a discrepancy between your local copyright laws and Russia's.

    6. Re:What a shocking development! by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      Ehm, however how you may feel about international copyright laws, this guy way clearly violating them. Really? Which ones?
      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    7. Re:What a shocking development! by russian_casey · · Score: 1

      Spot on...AllofMP3 submitted its royalty payments to the proper Russian authority. Just because their organizations aren't insane (like our RIAA) or ridiculously greedy (like our RIAA) doesn't mean they weren't paid. Now whether RIAA got paid by this body or not (and apparently they didn't) is another matter entirely.

      When I lived in Moscow I could buy pirate CDs and DVDs all day long from vendors and full-on shops on the street and only *once* in the entire year I lived there did "busting a pirate kiosk" make the news. And even then, I think that was entirely due to US/RIAA pressure on the Russian government to shut down a single website in exchange for WTO membership (why Russia actually wants to join the WTO is up for discussion, but that's another matter).

      Pirate CDs usually cost between $1 and $3 and pirate DVDs usually went for $3+ (R100) from the street traders. The cops would come by, take a few movies or their cut, and move on. On the other hand, you could buy legit CDs for $3-$10. The artists got paid, the labels got paid, and no one was suing 12yr old girls. So tell me again why we don't have a similar situation here?

      And before anyone thinks that Russian entertainers eke out a living in crumbling Soviet-era apartments (I lived in a crumbling Soviet block and it wasn't half bad, frankly), a good number of them (except the band Leningrad :P) are living in very nice remodeled apartments in Moscow and Petersburg -- some of the most expensive real estate anywhere in the world. Besides, and this is what I *love* about Russia, who's going to enforce it? ;)

      --
      .:: ::.
    8. Re:What a shocking development! by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      First, as other people already pointed, there are no such things as "international laws".

      Now, there is no chance that AllofMp3 owned damages greater than Russian GDP, that is a simple matter if logics. Also, their position were already found legal several times, and the RIAA was claimming that they broke a law that didn't even exist by the time they "broke" it.

  2. Career opportunities... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Funny
    I want to draw particular attention to the sloppy job done by prosecutors in collecting and analyzing the facts.

    Its not the prosecutor's fault- they were taught by RIAA lawyers.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Career opportunities... by pimpimpim · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would mod this insightful, but, as with so many things, it is funny because it is true.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  3. Not really.... by BuhDuh · · Score: 0, Redundant

    In Soviet Russia all your mp3's are belong us.

    --
    Enlightenment? It's just a flush in the pan.
    1. Re:Not really.... by un1xl0ser · · Score: 1, Funny

      im in ur soviet russia
      belonging all of your mp3s

      --
      v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
    2. Re:Not really.... by LordEd · · Score: 1

      Do it right or not at all. In Soviet Russia, [noun] [verbs] you.

      In Soviet Russia, MP3 violates you!

  4. Re:In soviet Russia... by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but this is music, therefore the RIAA. And that last "A" stands for America, so they have no (legitimate) influence outside of the US

    --
    "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
  5. Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems to have less to do with Our Rights Online, and more on Judge's View Of Sloppy Prosecutors. Doesn't really touch the issue at hand.

    1. Re:Your Rights Online? by janrinok · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well it does in a way. Under common understanding in Russia of existing IP laws it is not at all clear that AllOfMP3 is breaking current law. There are changes planned which will close some loopholes and perhaps bring Russia more into line with some other countries, including America, but currently those changes are not yet in force. However, to obtain a prosecution under existing law the evidence needs to be collected and analysed under the law that is extant, and not the law that some might wish was in place, and which will be from next year. That is where the prosecution seems to have fallen down, according to a radio broadcast that I have listened to. The prosecution is quoting international agreements but the defence is using existing Russian law. As you are probably aware from the Litvinenko case, Russia is keen not to have its own laws be dictated by international agreements (although the Litvinenko is considerably more complicated and not simply a conflict of internal and international law). The judge wished to have the prosecution clearly show that, in this instance, international agreements should take precedence over national law. They failed to do so. This also explains the different claims that are made in the FA.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    2. Re:Your Rights Online? by janrinok · · Score: 1

      I should perhaps have used 'copyright' rather than 'IP' - I'm getting my paperwork confused!

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    3. Re:Your Rights Online? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      You forget too that not everyone that visits /. is from the US. This may mean more to readers from Eastern Europe.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
  6. Re:In soviet Russia... by Morgon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, but this is music, therefore the RIAA.

    Whoah, whoah.. careful now.
    It's bad enough the organization thinks that music == RIAA, don't tell me you've been infected, too!

    --
    [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
  7. As many have said by mapkinase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Russia needed this suit to proceed only because they did not want it to reflect badly on their chances to get to WTO. Court gave it a try, it was a formality. Case closed, road clear.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:As many have said by megaditto · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am not sure why Russia would want to join WTO at this point, anyway.

      It's not like the United States would lift the steel, lumber, and enriched uranim tariffs (check with Canada's softwood lumber producers about that).

      As to ending the American agriculture subsidies, a snowflake has a better chance in Florida...

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    2. Re:As many have said by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I guess it is more to Russians in WTO than steel, lumber and enriched uranium.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:As many have said by nicklott · · Score: 1
      Agreed, only a few weeks ago Putin was badmouthing the WTO and the US seems to be (in public at least) sticking to it's guns on them dropping government subsidies for Tupelov (cos Boeing's never had gubment money...) plus the EU seems to be getting cold feet now, so perhaps Putin has changed his mind and decided he can go it alone now. Other events certainly seem to point that way (Litvenenko, the Arctic, Georgia).

      There is more chance of Congress giving Fidel the medal of honour than them dropping cotton subsidies.

    4. Re:As many have said by The-Bus · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the common saying goes like this: "A snowflake's chance in hel--

      Nevermind. I see you got it right.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    5. Re:As many have said by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Like what?

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    6. Re:As many have said by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I do not know the details, my friend, but Putin desperately needs recognition from the West in all forms (WTO being one of them) to get his hands free with internal opposition (not that there are much left of it).

      9/11 was a big relief for Russian leadership because nobody in US dares to say a single word for Chechens, for example, after 9/11.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    7. Re:As many have said by zig007 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Russia is one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the world.
      Putin, and Russia, is way past the point needing longer needing international recognition.
      On the contrary, i'd say that a new and very confident Russia has emerged over the last years.
      The most obvious sign of this is the way Putin has acted lately, hardly the way of someone yearning for international recognition.
      Russia is like the US in many ways. Acting out internal politics as foreign policies is one of those similarities.
      Russia will only join WTO if is benefits them.
      It's not like it's way cool and beats being one of the few members of the UN security counsel that can veto stuff.

      They would have gone after the Chechens anyway. Remember, this is Russia we are talking about. Political correctness has never been an issue.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    8. Re:As many have said by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      How do you measure power?

      Economically, Russia is on the rise, but it is still economically 3 world country. Look at the numbers.

      Politically, Russia has influence only on handful of countries. Compare with US.

      Confidence is BS. There is no such things in countries. This term is only used for people.

      Russia is like US only in bad ways: namely, imperialistic ambitions.

      "Russia will only join WTO if it benefits them" Isn't that what I said?

      UN. Right, especially if one of the other members ignores pretty much anything that UN says, especially when it concerns "Israel".

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    9. Re:As many have said by zig007 · · Score: 1

      How do you measure power?/Politically, Russia has influence only on handful of countries. Compare with US. As in political influence. Russia has great influence in large parts of the world. US once did, but don't anymore. How do you measure US power?

      Confidence is BS. There is no such things in countries. This term is only used for people. BS?? Confidence >> national pride is extremely important factors. Economy is psychology.

      Russia is like US only in bad ways: namely, imperialistic ambitions. Yep. As i said. What i stated was a typical symptom of that.

      UN. Right, especially if one of the other members ignores pretty much anything that UN says, especially when it concerns "Israel". The UN is a bigger thing outside the US. But why care about that side? And there are some other matters than those that the US is involved in.

      "Russia will only join WTO if it benefits them" Isn't that what I said?

      I guess it is more to Russians in WTO than steel, lumber and enriched uranium. What that what you meant by this? Or have i missed something?
      --
      Baboons are cute.
    10. Re:As many have said by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "Russia has great influence in large parts of the world. " Russia have on 0 countries the influence USA has on Afghanistan, Iraq, pretty much the whole Western Europe that is part of NATO, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Japan, Turkey, Kuwait, Georgia.

      Russia have on 0 countries the influence USA has on Iraq, "Israel", Egypt, Afghanistan, Colombia, Jordan, Pakistan, Liberia, Peru, Ethiopia, Bolivia, Turkey, Uganda, Sudan, Indonesia, Kenya (top foreign aid recepients, year 2004). Russia's list like that is nowhere to be found by google.

      What the heck are you talking about? Russia have negligible influence in Serbia and may be Greece as well as Belorussia and Armenia. That is it.

      "Economy is psychology." That is just bull talk.

      "The UN is a bigger thing outside the US. " That is irrelevant. We are comparing US and Russia. "But why care about that side? " Exactly.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    11. Re:As many have said by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that list is significant. However. You are talking about economical influence over 3rd world countries, which can be useful, especially when it comes to creating a "coalition of the willing". But what are YOU talking about?? Russia is one of the worlds largest oil and gas producers, and carries as such substantial weight in most of Europe and Asia. Russia is one of the worlds largest (if not the worlds largest) arms exporter in the world, and AK47 has killed the most people in the world. Russia was a superpower, and old habits die hard. How well economies develop is not only about the fed setting just the right interest rate(a weaker weapon than one might think, actually), but also about peoples perception of the future. Why do you think it was so important that Greenspan expressed himself so cautiously? It was not that people themselves would get scared, but that they would think that _others_ would get scared! To say that markets aren't affected by psychological factors is plain ignorant. Hell, technical analysis using such factors has been a part of trading forever now. If politicians wouldn't consider the psychological impact of their decisions there would be chaos. "The UN is a bigger thing outside the US. " That is irrelevant. We are comparing US and Russia. "But why care about that side? " Exactly. I wasn't comparing, that was you.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    12. Re:As many have said by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "Russia is one of the worlds largest oil and gas producers" oil(10%), gas (~20%, but so is US, slightly less). It is an ambigious power, because Russia's economy is very much dependent on the sale of those resources (actually, people attribute recent Russian economic growth mostly to the high oil prices).

      "Russia is one of the worlds largest (if not the worlds largest) arms exporter in the world" it is indeed largest according to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_con_arm_exp- military-conventional-arms-exports, but only slightly ahead of United States. Oil comment, ibid.

      "Russia was a superpower" that is just general words and I do not care about habits. Can you seriously imagine Russia invading ANY of the neighbors, like it did before and like US is doing now?

      "How well economies develop is ... also about peoples perception of the future." I just dismiss that as empty words. Tell that to a 3rd country leadership if it means anything to them.

      The position of Russia in Security council is a joke. That is one. And security council is a joke by itself, because of the veto. US can do anything it wants to do regardless of vetoes of China, France and Russia.

      Australia's influence in its region is larger than Russia's influence in its region.

      China's influence in its region is much larger than Russia's influence in its region.

      You can here from time to time about attempts of Russia to squeeze its small neighbors, but they are successfully fended. The trend is that most of the former satellites of USSR are running towards alternative blocs and unions (NATO, EU). India, former bhai-bhai of rusis, is now biggest US friend. Georgia, Azerbaidjan, Baltics, almost of of Central Asia.

      Russia lost its commie positions in Cuba and Middle East (the commies like Arafat and Hussein are gone, Asad is on the way). Former Russian African friends like Egypt (long gone), Somali, Yemen, Mozambik, Angola and other former colonies are no longer following Russian line.

      Yes, I am talking about thirl world, because in other worlds Russia have zero influence. All Western Europe and Asian tigers are much more closely connected and dependent on US than on Russia.

      Open your eyes, the Russian position of superpower is long gone (like 15 years, thank you, Gorby). Recent economic surge is circumstantial and highly dependent on oil. OPEC had more power in 1970's than Russia has now. All of Middle East producers of oil and all but one (Iran, that is why all this antiiranian crap) Middle East producers of gas are in the American pocket now. This is kind of common place and if you need to convince somebody otherwise you have to try like magnitudes harder with the numbers in the hand, not some general words.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    13. Re:As many have said by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I give up.
      If you dismiss everything I say, what is there for me to say?

      It is by far the largest, if you take in account for how much less money Russian weaponry cost.

      You actually agree with me on those two extremely important points, and still you say Russia is not one of the most influential countries in the world?
      And there are other points where they are important. Like space technology, for example.

      Obviously Chinas influence is larger that Russia's in its region.
      Obviously Australia influence is larger that Russia's in its region.

      Talk about bullshit comments. Would i say something that stupid? Of, course, you wouldn't know that but i wouldn't.

      India is the USs biggest friend? That's a laughable assumption.

      Sad thing, really, that the countries that got the veto couldn't handle the responsibility. In particular the US, of course.
      Sorry, but no. The time has come when the US can't do what it wants anymore.

      It is you who should open your eyes. The great influence the US once had is gone. For good, I think.
      Is is not only about money, it is about trust. The rest of the world lost all faith in "America".
      The American dream/way is not interesting anymore. Instead of interested in, people are now scared of. And that's important.

      But if you want to talk money, remember that the US is practically owned by the Chinese. Remember paying for goods using government bonds all those years?

      Because politics is about psychology, pride, trust, greed and, yeah money. But never only money. Lot's like economy, come to think of it.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
  8. Misspelling by neutralstone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [...]has been acquitted of violating intellectual property [sic] laws[...] You misspelt "copyright".
    1. Re:Misspelling by RootsLINUX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Intellectual Property is a blanket term that covers laws of copyright, patents, trademarks/trade dress, and trade secrets. The use of the term here is not necessarily incorrect, it is just overly broad. But you are right, the summary should have used copyright.

      --
      Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
    2. Re:Misspelling by neutralstone · · Score: 1

      The use of the term here is not necessarily incorrect Yes, it is necessarily incorrect.

      The letter and spirit of copyright law both indicate that copyrights cannot be owned. Rather, they can be held for a limited time, and in that time one may have an exclusive right to copy that is subject to certain restrictions (such as Fair Use).

      A copyright is not like a car or a piece of land or the knickknacks you keep in your closet: unlike a copyright, each of those things can be passed down to an unlimited number of generations, each of whom may reasonably keep those tangible objects from the world. In contrast, copyrighted materials are expected to enter the Public Domain after the creator has been given a fair opportunity to profit from his or her act of creation. It's that act that should be (and what was meant to be) rewarded---not the non-act of indefinitely keeping things from the rest of the world.

      The whole point of copyright is to encourage people to contribute works to society so that everyone ultimately profits---not to restrict whole generations from accessing and re-distributing works that are (a) by long-dead creators and (b) often derived from materials that are already in the Public Domain.

      That's why it's not "property": because one can "own" a copyright indefinitely or without limit.

      Spread the word.
    3. Re:Misspelling by neutralstone · · Score: 1

      That's why it's not "property": because one can "own" a copyright indefinitely or without limit.

      Spread the word. oops; :%s/because one can/because no one can/
    4. Re:Misspelling by 808140 · · Score: 1

      I believe he knows full well what "Intellectual Property" means -- he is (rightly, in my opinion) trying to point out that we should avoid using the term altogether. I know I may be alienating some of you who harbor ill feelings or feelings of suspicion towards RMS by linking to this, but even if you don't agree with RMS on other issues, I would suggest you read what he has to say about the term "Intellectual Property" before you use the term too much yourself.

      The basic thesis of his article is that "intellectual property" lumps three completely different legal constructs (copyright, patents, and trademarks) together even though in reality, they have essentially nothing in common. This suits people who profit from these assets, because by getting people to use the term "intellectual property" they encourage people to think of them as real property, despite the fundamental differences between these concepts. By cultivating this sort of intuitive (but incorrect) understanding, the long term effect is that so-called "IP" laws are tightened and morphed to increase their similarities to real property laws.

      RMS is anti-copyright, or at the very least pro-copyright reform (of the extreme, extreme variety). This view is controversial at best, and I know many Slashdotters take a much more conservative position on these issues. However, I doubt very much that any of you would be in favor of eternal copyright, for example -- we all want copyrighted works to fall back into the public domain at some point, even if we differ on the details of when exactly that should be.

      But consider, if copyrights were treated like real property -- something people who profit tremendously from copyrights would like -- copyrights would never revert to the public domain.

      In China, property rights (real ones) are like copyright in the US today. That is, property belongs to the state, and you only "own" it for some renewable period (70 years, I think). Since Deng Xiao Ping's economic reforms were enacted, this is really just a formality, something left over from old school socialism -- unless you're unlucky enough to have property that's worth an awful lot and unwilling to sell it, "extension" on your "ownership" is pretty much automatic. Of course, this isn't de facto all that different from the US what with eminent domain and all, but I want you to see something sinister here: the idea that property reverting to the commons is "socialist". Europeans may not see the big deal here, but in the USA, "socialist" is synonymous with "evil" and calling something socialist is a very effective political weapon.

      Now, there's a very good reason that copyright and real property are different: the former is not truly scarce, in the sense that any perceived scarcity is enforced by a government granted monopoly (not necessarily a bad thing). Real property, for example land, is truly scarce. If the land your house is built on "reverts" to the state, well, surely you can see how unfair that would be -- because you'd have to move out of your house. But with copyright, say a program you wrote, your work entering the public domain does not take the program away from you. You still have it.

      As long as people don't think of copyright as property -- I'm singling out copyright here because I know the most about it, others can comment on trademarks and patents, which are very different animals and cannot be treated the same way -- it's fairly easy to make them understand that having a temporary copyright term with eventual reversion to the public domain is not socialist at all. But if they think of it as property -- which they will, if they don't care much about the issues, are ignorant of the legal distinctions, and are constantly hearing the term "intellectual property" bandied about -- a politician saying that having limited copyright terms is a socialist notion will seem reasonable to them.

      With recent copyright term extensions in the US

    5. Re:Misspelling by quanticle · · Score: 1

      The letter and spirit of copyright law both indicate that copyrights cannot be owned. Rather, they can be held for a limited time, and in that time one may have an exclusive right to copy that is subject to certain restrictions (such as Fair Use).

      All the same thing apply to Patents as well, yet patents are considered Intellectual Property.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    6. Re:Misspelling by neutralstone · · Score: 1

      All the same thing apply to Patents as well, yet patents are considered Intellectual Property. By some, yes, and quite incorrectly so. The phrase "intellectual property" is like something from a pidgin dialect: It's a blunt term and fails to reflect what actually happens (and what should happen) in law.

      Here's the problem: implicit in the term "property" is the notion that "this thing is mine; you cannot ever have it unless I say so, and when I die it will belong exclusively to someone appointed by me".

      With copyrights and patents, the notion you should have (and what's codified in law) is, "this thing belongs to everyone, but for the next few years I need (for the most part) to be the only one who has authority over distribution and use so that I can collect some well-earned money for my creative efforts."

      When people use the phrase "intellectual property", they're expressing a kind of wish fulfillment: they're trying to spread the meme that ideas can or should be held from Public Domain indefinitely and without reasonable limitations on exclusivity. That stance is antithetical to copyright and patent law, whose ultimate goals are not the mere financial rewarding of holders, but instead the "{promotion of] the progress of science and the useful arts", which is helped immensely by fairly-timed releases of copyrights and patents into the Public Domain.
    7. Re:Misspelling by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree with RMS on a lot of things, but here he is just wrong. Copyright, patents, and trademarks are indeed linked; they are government granted monopolies over "ideas". Obviously, copyright protects your expression of an idea, patents protect a process, and trademarks protect a specific usage of a phrase with respect to a product. The framers knew that copyright and patents were linked since they put them side by side in Constitution.

      I agree that the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer as there is actually no property involved in the strictest sense. Since copyright is now automatic, it does seem like a property right. "Intellectual monopoly rights" seems to be a more apt way to talk about those concepts. It does pay to not lump them all together all the time, but when talking in general about IP law being too strict or too loose, etc. one can avoid unnecessary wordiness.

    8. Re:Misspelling by 808140 · · Score: 1

      They are government granted monopolies, certainly. Over ideas -- no, not at all. Patents could possibly be construed as being a temporary government granted monopoly on the application of an idea, specifically, an idea for the construction of a machine.

      Copyrights have nothing to do with ideas. Copyright only applies to works you have already created, whether they be art or words on the printed page. If you describe to me your idea for a novel, and I later write a novel based on your idea, you have no legal claim, despite my capitalization on your idea. Copyrights do not protect ideas. They protect information, and only in certain forms.

      Trademarks, likewise, have nothing whatever to do with ideas. As you said yourself, they protect a specific usage of a phrase (or image) with respect to a product. I fail to see how this relates to ideas at all.

      You clearly know what copyrights, patents, and trademarks are, that much is clear from your post, but your assertion that they all have to do with ideas is silly, unless you concede that everything begins with an idea; if you do that, I think you've made your argument so broad as to be meaningless.

      Mentioning the framers of the constitution and how they placed copyright and patent law next to each other is not only an appeal to authority, but it also assumes that the reason for this was because they saw a connection (no proof of that), and that that connection had to do with ideas (likewise no evidence). While I could see seeing the two as related -- both involve temporary, government sanctioned and enforced monopolies -- your addition of the term "idea" (presumably to help justify the use of the term intellectual property) doesn't really seem relevant at all.

      Listen to yourself: "... they are government granted monopolies over 'ideas'. Obviously, copyright protects your expression of an idea, patents protect a process, and trademarks protect a specific usage of a phrase with respect to a product." Well... "your expression of an idea", "a process", "a specific usage of a phrase with respect to a product"? Even your own explanation fails to make the similarities clear.

      If any term is going to be used to cover all three concepts, it should be "Government Sanctioned Temporary Monopolies". This is accurate, and doesn't tempt the listener to think of something fundamentally unlike property as if it were property. It's rather cumbersome though. Heck, even you, in your post, suggest "Intellectual monopoly rights" as being "more apt". But both of these are quite a mouthful, and still tempt people into thinking of the three concepts as if they were similar. How often do you hear Slashdotters claim that a patent must be defended or be invalidated? Or that if the Linux kernel violates MS's software patents, that MS should tell them which lines of code are infringing so that they can be "changed", as if there is some way to change the NTFS driver (for example) to not violate MS's patents? These mistakes are made by people because they're used to hearing these three completely different legal constructs lumped together, and so they have a hard time keeping them separate.

      The whole point of my post, and of his article, was that using the term "property" is counter-productive and worse misleading, and that the disparate nature of the three monopolies makes making generalizations about one from what you know about another dangerous and error-prone.

    9. Re:Misspelling by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I suppose I don't mind overgeneralizing because I do know the differences between the terms. But as you say, many others don't and are confused. I would suppose when speaking about copyrights, patents, and trademarks to someone who does understand the difference, I would refer to them collectively as IP. This is similar to the way I refer to GNU/Linux as "Linux" to those well versed enough to know the whole naming controversy. It all has to do with the cumbersomeness of the language. Really, I prefer to speak of the actual distro when possible, rather than GNU/Linux as a generic term, but I digress.

      All in all, point taken.

    10. Re:Misspelling by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you are wrong on this. There are plenty of types of property which can have a limited life and/or be subject to restrictions: take, for example, a 50 year lease over real estate, an option that has to be exercised within 20 years, a 1 year T-Bill. Neither the restrictions nor the limited life prevent these assets being "property" as a legal or economic matter.

    11. Re:Misspelling by neutralstone · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of types of property which can have a limited life and/or be subject to restrictions: take, for example, a 50 year lease over real estate, an option that has to be exercised within 20 years, a 1 year T-Bill. Neither the restrictions nor the limited life prevent these assets being "property" as a legal or economic matter. Thank you for citing those examples. I don't think I meant to suggest that those things cannot be regarded as property, but I can see how my comments came off that way.

      I think the problem is that when the term "intellectual property" is used by non-lawyers, the speaker often isn't referring to the kind of property you're thinking of. For example, when you hear the term "intellectual property" when copyrights are discussed, you probably think that the "property" is the copyright (which I think is probably correct), whereas most laypeople will think that the "property" is the work that is under copyright (which I think is incorrect).

      In other words, most people seem to think of a copyrightable work as something that can be owned exclusively by a single person. And it seems to me that they're misinformed in that regard. I suspect that a suitable way to think of copyrights is more along these lines: (1) each copyrightable work belongs to no one (or everyone); (2) the right to copy and redistribute each copyrightable work is owned (but perhaps not initially possessed) by everyone; however, (3) each said right may be exclusively possessed for a limited time.

      I.e., copyright is more like a lease over real estate than outright ownership of real estate.

      I think that's the basic understanding that most people should probably have about copyrights, but it becomes harder for that understanding to be the norm when, for example, Apple makes the meaningless statement, "don't steal music" (as if the music itself could be stolen). If they'd simply said, "do not infringe copyrights", I think we'd all be off on a better foot.

    12. Re:Misspelling by neutralstone · · Score: 1

      To sum up and clarify: you seem to regard "intellectual property" as referring to rights that can be exclusively possessed and/or controlled (where the possession and control is subject to limits), but not owned, and inasmuch as the phrase is understood to mean exactly that, I don't think object to its use.

      But unfortunately the phrase "intellectual property" is too often thought to refer to either copyrights or to copyrightable works and carries with it a connotation that either of these things can or should be owned.

    13. Re:Misspelling by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      That is correct: legal rights are a type of property interest, be they land rights, contract rights, patents, copyrights or anything else. Exclusive possession and/or control is not a requirement for such rights - if I own land with my wife, and rent it to you for 20 years then I have neither exclusive possession or control. Indeed it is possible to own property which you don't possess or control at all - for example if you have an interest in a discretionary trust that could be applied in your favour if the trustee so decides.

      You are correct that Madonna doesn't own any right in the property that is my Greatest Hits CD. But she does own the copyright in the recording on it (and, to be pedantic, that itself is composed of several rights: the performance right, the composition, samples owned by other people and licensed to her, etc etc) and she can therefore sue me if I breach her copyright in any dealings with the CD (e.g. copying it without her consent). This copyright is property, which she can sell to someone else and deal in a similar way to how she could as it was any other type of property.

  9. Criminal Trials? by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 0
    Two more criminal trials are scheduled to take place

    For alleged copyright infringements? Here in the USA this is a civil court matter, not criminal court.

    Is the Russian criminal court the proper domain for copyright infringement?

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    1. Re:Criminal Trials? by RingDev · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm not familiar with Russian law, but this is probably why the case was dismissed. The Lawyers involved attempted to prosecute the case as if it were in a civil court, where burdens are much lighter. If they walked into a criminal court, where the Judge is used to seeing everything filed perfectly, solid basis for accusations, and paperwork, signatures, and warrants to back up anything that was being presented, with their dicks in their hands and a half-assed case.... No wonder why the just tossed 'em out.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:Criminal Trials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Copywrite infringement can be criminal in the US.

      From the G-man himself. Here's the relevant bit of the US codes: Title 18, section 2319.

  10. well duh by saikou · · Score: 1

    Sloppy case with badly collected evidence, based on the law that was enacted after alleged crime occurred...
    Gee, I am shocked at the verdict!

    Just wait for an appeal or for attempts to sue current owners.

  11. Re:Big surprise? by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's Russia we're talking about here. More corrupt than a NBA Basketball game. The last line of the article should also say "two more criminal trial dismissals are scheduled..."

    It's Russia we're talking about here. A country that doesn't have the same rules and regulations that the United States' has and just because the government here (because of pressure from the industry here) is pressuring Russia to go against its own laws, doesn't mean it will happen.

    Whether or not what allofmp3 broke American rules does not necessarily mean that it broke Russian rules. As long as those people stay out of the US, they'll be fine. Now, whether Americans broke the rules of the United States by using allofmp3 (and they probably did regardless of the reasons allofmp3 alluded to on their site) is another story.

  12. That's the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russian prosecution was shoddy because the trial was a sop thrown out to show that Russia wasn't totally ignoring its obligations to enforce international copyright under treaty. Secretly, the Russian government is on the outs with the West and loves that AllofMP3 is a thumb in the eye mainly for the RIAA and American copyright holders. In other words, they're not going to be passionate about prosecuting this case unless it has economic consequences for Russia.

  13. Re:In soviet Russia... by Bud+Dickman · · Score: 1

    The RIAA is made up of multi-national corporations. You're naive if you don't think RIAA members have their hooks in politicians around the world.

  14. Re:Big surprise? by xtracto · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It's Russia we're talking about here. More corrupt than a NBA Basketball game. The last line of the article should also say "two more criminal trial dismissals are scheduled..."

    You are assuming that they the guy is guilty, it seems the USA government has brainwashed you with the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality.

    It is funny (ironic?) that it is in Russia where this "innocent until proven guilty" has a stand whereas in the USA RIAA and friends keep extorting innocent people when the fact is that it allofmp3 is legal or was legal until the RIAA used their power to extort the Russian government to change their laws (if it was a loophole or whatever else does not matter, it was /the law/).

    Of course I understand you might find it amusing that there are some countries where people have the opportunity to defend themselves from Corporations; sadly this is changing slowly as such Corporations keep corrupting such countries.

    To finish this post, thing for a moment, if the Judicial system in Russia is . More corrupt than a NBA Basketball game. then, I would suppose that Sony-BMG, Universal Music, EMI and Warner have CRAPLOADS of more money than the guy running allofmp3 and therefore could pay more to such corrupt people to win such lawsuits and whatnot...

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  15. Re:In soviet Russia... by nomadic · · Score: 2, Informative

    And that last "A" stands for America, so they have no (legitimate) influence outside of the US

    Huh? That doesn't make sense, it's just part of the name. You can call your organization the American Association for the Advancement of Americans if you wanted, but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to operate your organization elsewhere in the world.

  16. Re:In soviet Russia... by russ1337 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, but this is music, therefore the RIAA. And that last "A" stands for America, so they have no (legitimate) influence outside of the US

    The RIAA are a Trade Group and so have no real 'jurisdiction' ANYWHERE in the context of law enforcement, they only have the ability to legally represent their 'customers' (labels and paying members within the trade), as agreed by their customers. (Jurisdiction being the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters within a defined area of responsibility.)

    I don't see anything stopping this organisation conducting business outside the USA though they're are other trade organizations who have taken on that task such as the IFPI to do their bidding internationally. Also many countries appear to have their own Recording Label industry group which appear to have similar roles.

    But don't mistake their name implying they only operate inside the USA, and its certainly recognized they influence the IFPI, AND the US Govt who were kind enough to put conditions on the entry of Russia into the WTO with regards to allofmp3.com. That IS international Influence.

    Oh, and before I go, I must mention I think the RIAA are a bunch of scum sucking bottom feeders. Trade industry groups should be to the benefit of the people they represent, not their detriment.
  17. Re:Redundant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was far from the first ISR post in the thread. This one came at 12:27pm, a full 16 minutes earlier.

    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=271453&cid =20250743

    No less than four other ISR posts were also made before the one you're replying to, making it the sixth (and by that point, extremely redundant).

  18. Re:Big surprise? by janrinok · · Score: 1

    And that will be the correct verdict if no Russian law has been broken.

    --
    Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  19. Re:More corrupt than a NBA Basketball game by twmcneil · · Score: 0

    I've been in a Russian court and in my case, there was no corruption, it was all very straight. The judge seemed to be a very regular guy. I remember thinking he'd be a great guy to toss back some brewskies with.

    Now other public officials OTOH. They reminded me of the Ferengy Minister of Finance with the tip jar on the counter.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  20. Re:Big surprise? by Cemu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as those people stay out of the US, they'll be fine. Yeah, just tell that to Hew Raymond Griffiths.
  21. Re:Redundant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's ironic that "that's the (first/second/third/...) comment, how could it possibly be redundant" has become one of the most thoroughly redundant comments on Slashdot.

    Something does not need to have been mentioned before in the same story to be moderated redundant. If it has been so many times before that we can assume that everyone has already heard it(say, "Soviet Russia" jokes without any novel twist), moderate it "redundant" right off the bat.

  22. Re:More corrupt than a NBA Basketball game by Pojut · · Score: 1

    Brewskie...Ruskie...I see what you did there.

  23. Really Sherlock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >Russia is keen not to have its own laws be dictated by international agreements (

    Most countries are too.
    Well, most countries of the G8, the others ones can be bullied, bought and pressured into accepting.
    You know, just like the US has been doing to get a get-out-of-International-Court card by having small countries sign on the dotted line .... or else.
    Will the US ever allow its citizen to be tried in an international court? No.
    So please let me defecate over any and all international agreements excuses you bring up.

    International law is totatlly meaningless since it is subjective, political and randomly enforced.

    Under our system of justice, if someone is under duress when they are signing an agreement, it can be rendered void.
    International agreements are often signed under threats, blackmail and pressure, I dont see why the same logic doesnt apply.

    1. Re:Really Sherlock? by janrinok · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its not as clear cut as that.

      Many countries do honour their international agreements, but they do so by making sure that their national law stipulates that it will act in the same way as the international agreement, thus ensuring that the law can be enforced nationally. Russia is doing this with regard to both IP and copyright but the changes have not yet come into force. If this trial had taken place next year there might well have been a different outcome. But, today, the prosecution could not show that national law has been broken, but only that an international agreement that has not yet come into force has been. Any other reasonable legal system would have reached a similar verdict in a similar situation.

      So please let me defecate over any and all international agreements excuses you bring up.

      Why should I try to bring up excuses? I'm not Russian, I'm British. I don't live in Russia, although I have worked there in the past for an extended period. The fact that I listen to a radio station in another country does not make me a supporter of that country or of its legal system. However, I do not believe that international law is meaningless, but I do agree that the USA is one country in particular that wants every other country to follow international law when it suits America, but doesn't want to follow international law itself. Nevertheless, that is an discussion for another day and it is irrelevant to this particular thread. I simply raised the points that I had heard to enable others to understand what has taken place, why this particular case was not proven and to counter some of the other comments that seem to believe that the outcome is a result of corruption or simply political bias. In fact, it is neither; it is as the judge said, the result of a poorly presented case.

      Yes, really Sherlock.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    2. Re:Really Sherlock? by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Welcome to national sovereignty - a nation is sovereign if it can do whatever it wants to do. A nation can achieve this to the degree that it can push its weight around. International law is basically nothing more than a gentleman's agreement among the more powerful nations that they will act in a certain way.

      The only way it will ever be systematically enforced is if a sovereign government forms on a global scale. That won't happen as long as individual nations have individual armies that report to individual national leaders.

      On the international scale it basically all boils down to right makes right - diplomacy only exists insofar is it is backed by the threat of force. No nation is powerful enough to completely dictate terms on any issue, but many nations can have their way on less important issues (like the ICC - nobody cares about it enough to start a major conflict (whether economic or military)).

    3. Re:Really Sherlock? by mike2R · · Score: 1

      Welcome to national sovereignty - a nation is sovereign if it can do whatever it wants to do. A nation can achieve this to the degree that it can push its weight around. International law is basically nothing more than a gentleman's agreement among the more powerful nations that they will act in a certain way.

      I think that's a little simplistic; it's kind of true but it's not the whole story. It's a bit like saying that the internal laws of a state are dictated by the cooercive power of the government; true, but it ignores many of the forces, influences and philosophy that actually determine how a nation organises itself.

      If international diplomacy was really just pure nineteenth-century-style nation states fighting for position you wouldn't have the genuine supranational organisations that we do have. The EU for example simply can't be explained in these terms. Nor can the UN, although that may seem strange to an American... but if you look at how the UN is respected in a nation that is not the global superpower you would see what I mean: UN authority (or the lack of it) for going into Iraq was a very big deal in Britain before the war; much of the parlimentary opposition to it was from MPs who simply considered an offensive war without UN authorisation to be illegal.

      At the end of the day politics, both national and international is about people. And people are complex little buggers; if you model them as simple units that just serve their state you end with a very over simplified view of the world IMO.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    4. Re:Really Sherlock? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The EU for example simply can't be explained in these terms. Nor can the UN, although that may seem strange to an American... but if you look at how the UN is respected in a nation that is not the global superpower you would see what I mean: UN authority (or the lack of it) for going into Iraq was a very big deal in Britain before the war; much of the parlimentary opposition to it was from MPs who simply considered an offensive war without UN authorisation to be illegal.

      Look at it another way. It is in the interest of many of the EU states to promote the authority of the UN security council. Individually the nations of the EU don't really have much power to push an agenda (especially military power, but also economic power), but together they have a fair amount (and their combined economic power will help secure additional military power from states that possess it). Both France and the UK have veto power on the UNSC so that gives them quite a bit of power there. In a forum where your official vote carries a lot of weight you're going to emphasize the outcome of votes.

      On the other hand, the US has the economic and military power to pretty-much go it alone against any 3rd-world nation such as Iraq. They can't afford to tick off the whole world, but they can easily afford minor sanctions from the odd EU member. So the US cares about the UN insofar as they want to avoid a huge backlash, but they don't really care about the outcome of votes beyond what they indicate about the attitude of the nation casting the vote. It is in the US's interests for the UN to be a diplomatic forum without much formal power.

      Even the EU works in a similar way. EU members are treated as equals for the most part, but not everybody is welcome to join the party. As an approximate equal the US would probably treat the EU differently than it would treat a random 3rd world nation making demands. From what I've observed the EU acts in the same way, just on a slightly different scale.

      At the end of the day politics, both national and international is about people. And people are complex little buggers; if you model them as simple units that just serve their state you end with a very over simplified view of the world IMO.

      Now that I can agree with!

    5. Re:Really Sherlock? by mike2R · · Score: 1

      It is in the interest of many of the EU states to promote the authority of the UN security council. Individually the nations of the EU don't really have much power to push an agenda (especially military power, but also economic power), but together they have a fair amount (and their combined economic power will help secure additional military power from states that possess it). Both France and the UK have veto power on the UNSC so that gives them quite a bit of power there. In a forum where your official vote carries a lot of weight you're going to emphasize the outcome of votes.

      Absolutely no argument with that, and no doubt if Britain was the world superpower we would have a similar attitude to the UN that Americans do. But despite that I would maintain that there is a genuine element of goodwill towards the UN and it's purpose which cannot be adequately explained as simply a consequence of the balance of power - which is probably masked in the US by decades of frustration with the body. In Britain you see it most on the traditional Left of politics - probably the remnant of the old Marxist ethos of international worker solidarity, but it is a genuine force in UK politics.

      While you can certainly see the national politics at work within the EU (best quote I know on it here):

      Jim Hacker: "Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal."
      Sir Humphrey: "Oh, ha ha ha."
      Jim Hacker: "May we share the joke, Humphrey?"
      Sir Humphrey: "Oh Minister, let's look at this objectively. It's a game played for national interests, it always was. Why do you suppose we went into it?"
      Jim Hacker: "To strengthen the brotherhood of Free Western nations."
      Sir Humphrey: "Oh really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans."
      Jim Hacker: "So why did the French go into it then?"
      Sir Humphrey: "Well, to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition."
      Jim Hacker: "That certainly doesn't apply to the Germans."
      Sir Humphrey: "No no, they went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission to the human race."

      You still have to see the large numbers of people (by no means a majority, but tens of millions at least) who genuinely do believe in the "European Ideal", and see the end point of the EU as replacing the existing nation states.

      The big ideologies; Liberalism, Marxism, Fascism etc. have united and divided people across and within national borders in a way that simply can't be explained just in terms of nation-state power politics, and let's not even get into religion.. While I certainly don't discount nation-state politics' massive effect on the state of the world, I honestly don't think you can consider this as the only major driving force behind international politics. Ideas are at least as powerful, and long-term I would say much more powerful.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
  24. First? by u0berdev · · Score: 1, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, Allofmp3.com owner acquits YOU!

    1. Re:First? by G0rAk · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, illegal MP3s share you!

      --

      Nothing to see here. Move along.
  25. Re:Another example of Russia bowing to Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you appear to be operating off major pot reserves...

    Do you honestly believe a man such as Putin (former KGB, longs for the days of the Cold War) would bend for anyone, let alone the U.S.?

  26. Re:In soviet Russia... by cooley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Heck no, I like his logic!

    I'm gonna try it out, as a matter of fact. See, I'm in the USA and there's this BP (British Petroleum) filling station down the street.... =P

    Incidentally, I'd like to respond to what the GP said about the RIAA having "no (legitimate) influence outside of the US":
    Yeah, "legitimate" is the operative word there. They don't have "legitimate" influence inside the US either, but they still have influence.

    --
    Just then the floating disembodied head of Colonel Sanders started yelling Everything You Know Is Wrong!-Weird Al
  27. Re:Redundant? by Ant+P. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ISR jokes are old. By now (even more so given this story) everyone should have upgraded to "In RIAA America" jokes.

  28. Not over yet by SamP2 · · Score: 1

    May I note that even Denis himself ain't quite out of hot water yet. Prosecutors indicated they are going to appeal the verdict.

    See, under US and most other countries with the adversarial court system (as opposed to inquisitorial, used by Russia and France among others) the prosecution may not appeal questions of fact (i.e. "did the guy do it" but only questions of law "does what the guy did constitute a crime", "does the law he is accused of breaking is constitutional", etc) as well as appeal of sentence.

    In Russian criminal law, however, prosecution may in fact appeal fact questions. Which is almost like double jeopardy to me, but at least I'm pretty sure no new evidence may be introduced to a prosecution-initiated appeal, which means that if prosecutors had sloppy proof to begin with, it won't get any better.

  29. Old news by johnm_10 · · Score: 1

    This was on CNN yesterday..

  30. Just like the US Supreme court! by Panickd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems the Russian courts aren't any different than the US courts. The judges in the US courts (particularly the higher courts) routinely look for ways to dismiss cases on technicalities like this rather than actually having to decide something. Who would've thought?

  31. Re:In soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Trade industry groups should be to the benefit of the people they represent, not their detriment.
    Who do you think those "Trade industry groups" represent ?

    I'll give you a hint : its not the civilians of the country such an organisation comes from : any benefit to those civilians is only a side-effect.

    Allso : civilians are not mentioned in that TIG another group however is ..
  32. Cash handout gone wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds to me as: "The RIAA failed to effectively hand enougt cash to presure the judges".

    Sorry.

  33. russian courts by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 2, Funny

    It still so weird to read about the new Russian court system. I always just figured the Russian court system was a guy named Yuri with an AK-47.

    1. Re:russian courts by yuriyg · · Score: 1

      Nyet, I use Makarov.

  34. me neither by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    In soviet russia the RIAA ... sucks.
    In the US the RIAA ... sucks.

    Heh. Something isn't right.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  35. Allofmp3, the worst of both worlds... by Myrkridian42 · · Score: 1

    Stealing music so the artists don't see a dime, and paying for the privilege.

    1. Re:Allofmp3, the worst of both worlds... by yuriyg · · Score: 1

      Nyet, I use Makarov.

    2. Re:Allofmp3, the worst of both worlds... by yuriyg · · Score: 1

      oops, wrong thread

    3. Re:Allofmp3, the worst of both worlds... by DMNT · · Score: 1

      You're incorrect. They pay to ROMS for the privilege but IFPI doesn't want to negotiate with ROMS because "they're selling too cheap." So it's in line with the Russian legislation but the representative(s) of artists doesn't want that money, they want more. If they did the agreement then all would be nice, wouldn't it? This is all about greed, greed and control.

      --
      ?SYNTAX ERROR
    4. Re:Allofmp3, the worst of both worlds... by gsslay · · Score: 1

      If they did the agreement then all would be nice, wouldn't it? If they did an agreement they would be setting several precedences that would be detrimental to their business;

      1. You can sell our stuff without a licensing agreement and only then start to negotiate.
      2. You can negotiate with us, and if it doesn't turn out a way you like, you can ignore us and go back to selling our stuff anyway.
      3. You can use a loophole in a local law to sell our stuff at a price that undercuts the market back on our own doorstep, and screw all the other people we're already licensed with.
      4. All other licensed traders will have no problem with this. They won't wish to 'renegotiate' along similar lines.

      So if all this was established as being ok, do you honestly think that "all would be nice" for future trade? Can you honestly imagine any industry that would enter into such an agreement?
  36. Double Jeopardy by tm2b · · Score: 1

    In case anybody is wondering (and I was upon reading this), Russians do have strong double jeopardy protections.

    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  37. Allofmp3 is legal; the issue is about the price by Husgaard · · Score: 2, Informative
    TFA says:

    "Wednesday's decision sets a very bad precedent and demonstrates the need to strengthen Russian intellectual property rights laws," said Konstantin Zemchenkov, director of Russian Anti-piracy Organization. "I can say unequivocally that the activities of sites like AllofMP3.com are illegal in Russia, because our country has signed on to many international conventions that prohibit them."

    I think this quote sums up the problem getting a judgment against allofmp3. The argument seems to be something like "although we cannot show it is illegal according to russian law, we think it is wrong, and it has to be stopped."

    But allofmp3 is legal because of the compulsory license system in the russian copyright law. And such a compulsory copyright license system is legal according to all relevant international treaties, including all the WIPO and WTO treaties.

    In the US, a similar compulsory copyright license system is currently being abused by RIAA and SoundExchange to kill internet radio.

    1. Re:Allofmp3 is legal; the issue is about the price by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      Best (and shortest) summary of this case yet.

      Note also that the judge in effect said that they had tried to pay royalties, but IFPI has refused to receive the money. I bet they never told "their" artists about that.

      As the BBC put it: "Mediaservices has always maintained it pays royalties to Roms, but many Western firms do not recognise this organisation and refuse to accept its offers of payments."

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  38. Re:Big surprise? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Except in this case, there is no extradition treaty between the US and the Russian Federation. Although he could be screwed if he ever enters a country which does.

  39. In this contest . . . by lord_nimula · · Score: 1

    My money's on the Russian mafia any day.

  40. Re:In soviet Russia... by ThePengwin · · Score: 1

    You should only have one equal sign there, because two is testing equality :)

  41. Can the site now re-open by NewsWatcher · · Score: 1
    Given so many people here have detailed knowledge of Russian law, can anyone tell me whether this ruling will pave the way for the site to re-open?

    From the article:
    AllofMP3.com was shut down earlier last month under pressure from the United States, which has made the protection of intellectual property rights a central issue in negotiations over Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization.


    Access to MP3Sparks.com, a mirror site used by MediaServices, remained blocked Wednesday.



    --
    If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
    1. Re:Can the site now re-open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Access to MP3Sparks.com, a mirror site used by MediaServices, remained blocked Wednesday.

      Mp3Sparks.com is currently accessible. For how long is another question...

  42. Re:In soviet Russia... by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

    RIAR? heh...

  43. Re:Big surprise? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    You are assuming that they the guy is guilty, it seems the USA government has brainwashed you with the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality.
    That's a bit of a leap. He was asserting that the Russian courts are corrupt, and therefore, in the case of copyright infringement (at least), it's not so much innocent until proven guilty, rather just plain innocent. He's not implying that the guy is guilty, rather that we will never know whether he was truly guilty or not (whatever that means), because the Russian courts aren't reliable enough to provide an answer.

    I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to Slashdot flames.
    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  44. Simple math: AlloMP3 XOR WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russian Court Acquits allofmp3.com Owner = Russia cannot join WTO any soon = russian economy loses billions of dollars in trade every year --> Putin soon realizes IP violators are better off into remotest Siberia and does so, which luckily does not require a court sentence in Russia --> Russia can join WTO then and earn extra billions every year -> Putin will spend that extra on the military to counter the yankee and the chinese army.

  45. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the whole case and hysteria it's surrounded by - summed up and dismissed in three paragraphs.

  46. Re:In soviet Russia... by russ1337 · · Score: 1
    Thank you for replying to my post and asking the question:

    Who do you think those "Trade industry groups" represent ?
    I clearly recognize who their customers are, in that I stated:

    [the RIAA] only have the ability to legally represent their 'customers' (labels and paying members within the trade),
    What I'm getting at with that last statement (Trade industry groups should be to the benefit of the people they represent, not their detriment.) Is that I believe the RIAA are negatively impacting the Recording Industry and Major Labels giving them a bad name and a bad rep. While I think this is GREAT for inde' labels, the RIAA are having a negative effect on the overall recording industry. e.g The RIAA are hindering the labels (their customers) by not embracing new business models that work with new distribution technologies. [caution: Metaphors ahead] They are the farrier union trying to stop rail tracks being laid, when they should be encouraging the farriers to change their skill set and make rail. [end of metaphor zone]. Look at the opportunities they've lost because they've shut down online distribution mediums, rather than working with them. e.g Napster: The RIAA could have worked with Napster for a paying service instead of shutting them down. They already had the customer base and the marketing and a captive audience.

    But to answer your question, yes. I clearly understand who the RIAA's customers are, and I stated that In my original post.
  47. Re:In soviet Russia... by sco08y · · Score: 1

    No, he said music => RIAA, that is !music || RIAA.

  48. Re:In soviet Russia... by Morgon · · Score: 1

    It was intentional, at least in the way I meant it. In this particular case, it could go either way. :)

    --
    [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
  49. Roms should bypass the IFPI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Roms should bypass the IFPI and let any artists that wants their money collect it direct from Roms.

    IFPI has had its day, it's computerized system reduces its overheads, but those savings don't get passed to the artists and musicians.

    1. Re:Roms should bypass the IFPI by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      Roms should bypass the IFPI and let any artists that wants their money collect it direct from Roms. I agree, but I'm not sure that's even legal in Russia. And how could they check which artist should get paid when the record companies hold all the copyrights?
      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  50. Re:In soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Sorry, but this is music, therefore the RIAA. And that last "A" stands for America, so they have no (legitimate) influence outside of the US

    A moron says what?!?