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."
Really, I had not expected this!
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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?
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.]
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.
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
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.
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.
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
ISR jokes are old. By now (even more so given this story) everyone should have upgraded to "In RIAA America" jokes.
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
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?
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)).