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."

Comments

Re:Really Sherlock?

[janrinok]

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.