That has nothing to do with it. For a work to be in the public domain means that the government is going to permit the copies to be made and distributed; not that the author himself is allowing it or even happy about it. Thus, they're unauthorized.
Well, then I certainly hope that you've never bought a copy of Shakespeare.
I don't think it's wrong. I don't think that they have a natural or inherent claim on their work.
OTOH, I do think that it can be a good idea to have a copyright system. Not because it is morally right, because it isn't. But for utilitarian purposes, which is to say, because it leaves the public better off than it would be otherwise. That it involves artists getting paid, however, is purely secondary. It isn't the point, any more than a particular kind of vehicle, or engine, or fuel is important to me when I merely want to get someplace with a minimum amount of fuss. Copyright law is largely amoral.
And to the small degree that there is morality, it is in fact in favor of not giving artists rights, because who are they to stand in the way of the progress of an entire culture? Given unencumbered works, we can create new works, disseminate the works widely, ensure that the works survive, and generally provide for the education and entertainment of the world. Those are all excellent things. Letting a work rot on a shelf because the artist is greedy doesn't strike me as a good thing at all, if it can be rationally avoided.
Copyright actually means a lot of different things. Distribution is one of them. Making a copy -- such as by recording one -- is also one of them. Read up on 17 USC 106 for the major rights involved. This particular case, however, dealt with 17 USC 1101.
Importation is ALSO prohibited under copyright law. No exceptions apply, and this is not importation anyway. Read the goddamned law. 17 USC 501, 106, 602(a) AND (b), and 101.
LL.B.'s are the same thing as J.D.'s. They got renamed to J.D.'s a few decades ago because it sounds sexier.
I have a J.D. and I'm currently pursuing a Master's in Law (LL.M.) and there are few Doctors of Law (LL.D.'s) floating around. But given that virtually all US lawyers have a J.D. or LL.B. (if they're older or went to a foreign law school), it's appropriate to think of it as a bachelor's of a sort.
That's incorrect. Trademarks are not functional equivalents for copyrights. Thus, it can't prevent you from creating derivatives. There was a case that dealt a little bit with this. You can read it here. It doesn't come up much, however, since the situation is rare.
Yes, I've seen that, it's wrong. In particular, I emailed the guy who does Tech Law Advisor with my analysis, and he agreed that liability would stand.
In any case, I believe that in no countries there are laws against buying, receiving or downloading copyrighted material, only selling, giving out or uploading. This would make any user of allofmp3 an innocent infringer if allofmp3 were illegal, which in Russia it's not.
In the United States, downloading has been repeatedly held to be reproduction. Reproduction is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder per 17 USC 106. It's illegal if it's unauthorized.
Since presumably you are not in Russia, why do you give a rat's ass about Russian law? It doesn't help you. Pot is somewhat legal in the Netherlands, but see how far that gets you when you're busted here.
You REALLY need to read that Intellectual Reserve case cited above. It's online. You just need to google for it. It's really not hard. And it discusses how you can get sued for looking at a website, because it involves downloading a copy to RAM. I'm not making this stuff up.
And by the way, if you are an innocent infringer, that only means that when you are sued, and you can still be sued, you're only liable for $200 per work infringed upon. You do not get off the hook. The relevant statute is 17 USC 504(c)(2).
Of course, you would not be an innocent infringer, because you have to convince the judge that you simply had no idea whatsoever. And this deal is too good to be true. Anyone using it should have known better. The judge would have to be a sap to go easy on you. This means you're more likely to face the regular statutory damages ($750-30,000 per work) or possibly the willful statutory damages if RIAA convinces the judge that you knew exactly what you were doing ($150,000 max per work)
A minor note: the 602(a)(2) exemption applies to bringing things in as luggage and importing them for personal use.
And the Bobbs-Merril case that set up the first sale doctrine now at 109 was quite similar to what you're saying with that notice. (there the publisher said that it could not be resold for less than $1, so as to impair a used book market)
Basically that kind of thing needs to be in a firmer contract, assent to which is part of the sale so that you can't get it unless you agree. (but n.b. the ProCD case) Just claiming it under copyright powers isn't good enough, at least under US law.
602 is not clearly set up, so don't worry if it's difficult to work with. It could be vastly improved merely in terms of readability.
Oh. Well, if the copy was lawfully made under US copyright law -- i.e. was lawfully made by the US copyright holder -- then parallel importation is indeed lawful. Not always economical, but lawful.
The Quality King case went into this. 602(b) covers copies not made in a manner that would be lawful had it occured in the US. But if it's the US copyright holder making them abroad, then that doesn't apply.
That leaves 602(a), but it is subject to the 109 exemption for first sale, as well as the 602(a)(1)-(3) exemptions. 109 is your baby -- but it also requires the US copyright holder to've been involved.
But when you're talking about a fuzzy book, well, it sounds like a shoddy knock off rather than an authorized reproduction.
Note of course that copies authorized by foreign copyright holders don't count for this. They can't act lawfully within the US.
If we want to provide an author with an incentive to create a work (this isn't the purpose of copyright, but it is part of the means) then that incentive has to be meaningful.
If someone can sit outside the border, print up pirate copies legally made in their place of origin, and get them into the US for legal sale here, it'll totally undercut the US copyright holder. It ruins their incentive, basically. The end effect is no different from allowing people to print up pirate copies locally, after all. (and given economic factors, it might be cheaper for pirates to print overseas period -- look at how chips are shipped all over the globe)
Import controls are pretty sensible. We might bicker about fine points, such as non commercial importation, but the general idea is not objectionable unless you don't like copyright in any respect at all.
First, downloading is ALWAYS reproduction and NEVER importation. You need to read that Intellectual Reserve case I cited earlier, dumbass.
Second, you misunderstand the law. There are TWO bans on importation. The exemption you cited applies to the ban in 602(a). There is ANOTHER, INDEPENDENT ban in 602(b). The 602(a)(2) exemption, by its own language (viz "this subsection") does not apply to 602(b).
So what are you gonna do to escape from 602(b)?
And how are you going to refute the many cases that clearly state that downloading is an infringement of the reproduction right, which is totally distinct from the distribution right, which is what importation is part of?
1) It is not an import. The statutes and the law are extremely clear that downloading is a reproduction, not a distribution.
Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1294 (D. Utah 1999) held that "[w]hen a person browses a website [which was illegal under US law], and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright."
The location of the server is irrelevant; what matters is the location of the downloader.
2) Imports for private purposes are NOT expressly legal. While there is an exemption for personal imports under 602(a), there is an independent ban on certain imports under 602(b) that has no such exemption. And this ban would apply here if there were importation, though there is not.
Mostly, you have no fucking clue how the copyright law works. I will briefly explain. I suggest you refer to 17 USC 101, 106, and 602 while following along.
A creative work is an intangible. It is typically embodied within a fixed tangible medium, which is called a copy. For example, a story is a work, but the paperback book the story is printed in is a copy. These are technical terms and cannot be exchanged.
It is possible to reproduce a work into a new copy. For example, if you xerox a book, you have created a new copy. There is still only one underlying work, however, now embodied in both copies. It is possible to import a copy; however it is not possible to import a work by itself, since a work is intangible.
As numerous cases hold, including the very explicit Intellectual Reserve case quoted above, downloading a work is ALWAYS a reproduction. This is because prior to the download, the server computer itself constitutes a copy of the work, being the tangible object the work is fixed in. After the download, there is a different tangible object which the work is also fixed in. Since a work cannot be transferred from one copy to another, reproduction must have occurred.
If that reproduction was of a copyrighted work, and was unauthorized by the copyright holder, and not otherwise exempted, it is illegal.
It is NOT importation, because no tangible object moved from point A to point B, and for copyright law purposes importation (an aspect of distribution) only occurs when a copy moves in space; not when a new copy is made.
I suggest you learn the law, since right now you don't know shit.
It's not that they have to be made in the US; it's that they have to be made lawfully pursuant to US law.
Imagine that there is a country, Strongbadia, which has 1 year copyright terms. The Cheat, acting within Strongbadia, makes some CDs of works that have fallen out of copyright there. This is perfectly legal in Strongbadia. But we don't let them into the US, because it would not have been legal had it occured in the US; if we let them in, it'd totally defeat the point of having copyright laws. It'd be a backdoor, and Congress is not quite that stupid as to leave it open.
Well, in the US, 17 USC 602(a) and (b) both prohibit unauthorized imports. There is a personal exemption in 602(a)(2), but that only lets people escape the ban in 602(a). The 602(b) ban is still in force, even for personal importation.
The difference is that 602(a) provides a remedy for the copyright holder, and bars importation where neither the exemptions of 602(a)(1)-(3) nor 109 apply. 602(b), OTOH, is enforced by the Customs Service, not the copyright holder, but is limited to copies that, had they been made in the US, would've been made illegally, regardless of the laws in the place they were made.
First, I'd like to see some confirmation on that, because it sounds extremely dubious; a lack of comment is more likely because it's not prejudicial.
Second, I can read the law, and it's pretty clear that it's illegal unless the US copyright holders are authorizing allofmp3 to do what they're doing. The authorization would have to be made under US law; a Russian compulsory licensing scheme would not suffice.
Given all the totally erroneous claims about allofmp3 being legal floating around out there, I'm pretty suspicious of anyone claiming RIAA has endorsed them.
there is no "breach of copyright", as everything is done legally.
That's total crap. It is blatantly illegal under US law. And if you're sitting at your computer in the US, guess what law applies to you?
But if you buy a legit VCD and bring it home it's totally legal, even if the VCD company has undercut US prices drastically.
This is more of a half truth, because it depends on what you mean by a "legit VCD."
If it was made by or authorized to be made by the US copyright holder, then it is legal to be imported into the US.
OTOH, if the US copyright holder did not make or authorize the making of the VCD, but merely some foreign copyright holder did, then it cannot be legally brought into the US, pursuant to 17 USC 602(b), and possibly (a).
In AllofMP3's situation, they have purchased a Russian broadcasting license of some sort. From what i understand it is basically a flat fee and not based on the number of items (songs). This lets them sell songs for just over bandwidth costs and still make money.
Which is great. But that does not make it legal for a person in America to download from them. You need to go to Russia in order to do so, and you couldn't bring the music back either. This is because Russian law cannot help you within the US.
It's not questionable legality at all. It's blatantly illegal under US law, which applies to allofmp3 (since they're actively doing business in America), downloaders located in America (see my brief post here), and per 17 USC 602(b) (which is not subject to the 602(a)(2) exemption) people outside America who download and then bring in their copies of what they downloaded.
It can be interpretted that you downloading a file over the Internet is only a special kind of broadcast or transmission, and that you happen to be "listening" to it with a device capable of recording it.
That argument cannot be made. There is a LOT of precedent that downloading a file is the reproduction of a work. MAI v. Peak holds this. Intellectual Reserve holds this. Mairobie-FL holds this. Napster holds this. The list goes on. You CANNOT win that argument. It is LOST. Has been for years.
What are you talking about, not being legal for USians?
It is not legal for Americans.
Copyrights are national. Thus, a Russian copyright is totally distinct from an American copyright. What Russian law might permit in Russia has no bearing whatsoever on what American law permits in America. What the Russian copyright holder authorizes has no impact on what the American copyright holder authorizes.
To download from allofmp3 results in the downloader infringing on the right to reproduce the work in phonorecords, because the downloader necessarily is creating a new phonorecord as a consequence of downloading. See Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1294 (D. Utah 1999) holding that "[w]hen a person browses a website [which was illegal under US law], and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright."
Since allofmp3 itself is illegal under US law, since it does not have permission of the US copyright holder, downloading from it is likewise illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, copyright infringement can be a crime. See 17 USC 506. So, I wouldn't necessarily consider them to be lying.
Oh please. OSS has a significant commercial impact. Lopez is not going to help you.
That has nothing to do with it. For a work to be in the public domain means that the government is going to permit the copies to be made and distributed; not that the author himself is allowing it or even happy about it. Thus, they're unauthorized.
Well, then I certainly hope that you've never bought a copy of Shakespeare.
I don't think it's wrong. I don't think that they have a natural or inherent claim on their work.
OTOH, I do think that it can be a good idea to have a copyright system. Not because it is morally right, because it isn't. But for utilitarian purposes, which is to say, because it leaves the public better off than it would be otherwise. That it involves artists getting paid, however, is purely secondary. It isn't the point, any more than a particular kind of vehicle, or engine, or fuel is important to me when I merely want to get someplace with a minimum amount of fuss. Copyright law is largely amoral.
And to the small degree that there is morality, it is in fact in favor of not giving artists rights, because who are they to stand in the way of the progress of an entire culture? Given unencumbered works, we can create new works, disseminate the works widely, ensure that the works survive, and generally provide for the education and entertainment of the world. Those are all excellent things. Letting a work rot on a shelf because the artist is greedy doesn't strike me as a good thing at all, if it can be rationally avoided.
Copyright actually means a lot of different things. Distribution is one of them. Making a copy -- such as by recording one -- is also one of them. Read up on 17 USC 106 for the major rights involved. This particular case, however, dealt with 17 USC 1101.
Really? What's wrong with it?
I mean, the bookstore in my neighborhood has copies of Shakespeare for sale every day. They're unauthorized, and he doesn't get a penny.
Are you saying that it's bad?
No, that's wrong.
Importation is ALSO prohibited under copyright law. No exceptions apply, and this is not importation anyway. Read the goddamned law. 17 USC 501, 106, 602(a) AND (b), and 101.
Come back when you learn something.
LL.B.'s are the same thing as J.D.'s. They got renamed to J.D.'s a few decades ago because it sounds sexier.
I have a J.D. and I'm currently pursuing a Master's in Law (LL.M.) and there are few Doctors of Law (LL.D.'s) floating around. But given that virtually all US lawyers have a J.D. or LL.B. (if they're older or went to a foreign law school), it's appropriate to think of it as a bachelor's of a sort.
I have a few professors who are LL.B.'s.
That's incorrect. Trademarks are not functional equivalents for copyrights. Thus, it can't prevent you from creating derivatives. There was a case that dealt a little bit with this. You can read it here. It doesn't come up much, however, since the situation is rare.
Yes, I've seen that, it's wrong. In particular, I emailed the guy who does Tech Law Advisor with my analysis, and he agreed that liability would stand.
In any case, I believe that in no countries there are laws against buying, receiving or downloading copyrighted material, only selling, giving out or uploading. This would make any user of allofmp3 an innocent infringer if allofmp3 were illegal, which in Russia it's not.
In the United States, downloading has been repeatedly held to be reproduction. Reproduction is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder per 17 USC 106. It's illegal if it's unauthorized.
Since presumably you are not in Russia, why do you give a rat's ass about Russian law? It doesn't help you. Pot is somewhat legal in the Netherlands, but see how far that gets you when you're busted here.
You REALLY need to read that Intellectual Reserve case cited above. It's online. You just need to google for it. It's really not hard. And it discusses how you can get sued for looking at a website, because it involves downloading a copy to RAM. I'm not making this stuff up.
And by the way, if you are an innocent infringer, that only means that when you are sued, and you can still be sued, you're only liable for $200 per work infringed upon. You do not get off the hook. The relevant statute is 17 USC 504(c)(2).
Of course, you would not be an innocent infringer, because you have to convince the judge that you simply had no idea whatsoever. And this deal is too good to be true. Anyone using it should have known better. The judge would have to be a sap to go easy on you. This means you're more likely to face the regular statutory damages ($750-30,000 per work) or possibly the willful statutory damages if RIAA convinces the judge that you knew exactly what you were doing ($150,000 max per work)
A minor note: the 602(a)(2) exemption applies to bringing things in as luggage and importing them for personal use.
And the Bobbs-Merril case that set up the first sale doctrine now at 109 was quite similar to what you're saying with that notice. (there the publisher said that it could not be resold for less than $1, so as to impair a used book market)
Basically that kind of thing needs to be in a firmer contract, assent to which is part of the sale so that you can't get it unless you agree. (but n.b. the ProCD case) Just claiming it under copyright powers isn't good enough, at least under US law.
602 is not clearly set up, so don't worry if it's difficult to work with. It could be vastly improved merely in terms of readability.
I don't think it's the same people that did "Silence! Silence of the Lambs: The Musical" either.
The recent Tron game was pretty good, so you might be on to something there.
Hm. How about The Last Starfighter: The Musical: The Game. Some levels might be like space combat, while others are like DDR or Parappa or something.
Oh yeah, DarthAnakin would never think to look there...
Well apparently he didn't. Luke grew up fine. Whiny as hell, but fine.
Oh. Well, if the copy was lawfully made under US copyright law -- i.e. was lawfully made by the US copyright holder -- then parallel importation is indeed lawful. Not always economical, but lawful.
The Quality King case went into this. 602(b) covers copies not made in a manner that would be lawful had it occured in the US. But if it's the US copyright holder making them abroad, then that doesn't apply.
That leaves 602(a), but it is subject to the 109 exemption for first sale, as well as the 602(a)(1)-(3) exemptions. 109 is your baby -- but it also requires the US copyright holder to've been involved.
But when you're talking about a fuzzy book, well, it sounds like a shoddy knock off rather than an authorized reproduction.
Note of course that copies authorized by foreign copyright holders don't count for this. They can't act lawfully within the US.
Why?
If we want to provide an author with an incentive to create a work (this isn't the purpose of copyright, but it is part of the means) then that incentive has to be meaningful.
If someone can sit outside the border, print up pirate copies legally made in their place of origin, and get them into the US for legal sale here, it'll totally undercut the US copyright holder. It ruins their incentive, basically. The end effect is no different from allowing people to print up pirate copies locally, after all. (and given economic factors, it might be cheaper for pirates to print overseas period -- look at how chips are shipped all over the globe)
Import controls are pretty sensible. We might bicker about fine points, such as non commercial importation, but the general idea is not objectionable unless you don't like copyright in any respect at all.
WRONG.
First, downloading is ALWAYS reproduction and NEVER importation. You need to read that Intellectual Reserve case I cited earlier, dumbass.
Second, you misunderstand the law. There are TWO bans on importation. The exemption you cited applies to the ban in 602(a). There is ANOTHER, INDEPENDENT ban in 602(b). The 602(a)(2) exemption, by its own language (viz "this subsection") does not apply to 602(b).
So what are you gonna do to escape from 602(b)?
And how are you going to refute the many cases that clearly state that downloading is an infringement of the reproduction right, which is totally distinct from the distribution right, which is what importation is part of?
You lose.
1) It is not an import. The statutes and the law are extremely clear that downloading is a reproduction, not a distribution.
Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1294 (D. Utah 1999) held that "[w]hen a person browses a website [which was illegal under US law], and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright."
The location of the server is irrelevant; what matters is the location of the downloader.
2) Imports for private purposes are NOT expressly legal. While there is an exemption for personal imports under 602(a), there is an independent ban on certain imports under 602(b) that has no such exemption. And this ban would apply here if there were importation, though there is not.
Mostly, you have no fucking clue how the copyright law works. I will briefly explain. I suggest you refer to 17 USC 101, 106, and 602 while following along.
A creative work is an intangible. It is typically embodied within a fixed tangible medium, which is called a copy. For example, a story is a work, but the paperback book the story is printed in is a copy. These are technical terms and cannot be exchanged.
It is possible to reproduce a work into a new copy. For example, if you xerox a book, you have created a new copy. There is still only one underlying work, however, now embodied in both copies. It is possible to import a copy; however it is not possible to import a work by itself, since a work is intangible.
As numerous cases hold, including the very explicit Intellectual Reserve case quoted above, downloading a work is ALWAYS a reproduction. This is because prior to the download, the server computer itself constitutes a copy of the work, being the tangible object the work is fixed in. After the download, there is a different tangible object which the work is also fixed in. Since a work cannot be transferred from one copy to another, reproduction must have occurred.
If that reproduction was of a copyrighted work, and was unauthorized by the copyright holder, and not otherwise exempted, it is illegal.
It is NOT importation, because no tangible object moved from point A to point B, and for copyright law purposes importation (an aspect of distribution) only occurs when a copy moves in space; not when a new copy is made.
I suggest you learn the law, since right now you don't know shit.
It's not that they have to be made in the US; it's that they have to be made lawfully pursuant to US law.
Imagine that there is a country, Strongbadia, which has 1 year copyright terms. The Cheat, acting within Strongbadia, makes some CDs of works that have fallen out of copyright there. This is perfectly legal in Strongbadia. But we don't let them into the US, because it would not have been legal had it occured in the US; if we let them in, it'd totally defeat the point of having copyright laws. It'd be a backdoor, and Congress is not quite that stupid as to leave it open.
Well, in the US, 17 USC 602(a) and (b) both prohibit unauthorized imports. There is a personal exemption in 602(a)(2), but that only lets people escape the ban in 602(a). The 602(b) ban is still in force, even for personal importation.
The difference is that 602(a) provides a remedy for the copyright holder, and bars importation where neither the exemptions of 602(a)(1)-(3) nor 109 apply. 602(b), OTOH, is enforced by the Customs Service, not the copyright holder, but is limited to copies that, had they been made in the US, would've been made illegally, regardless of the laws in the place they were made.
First, I'd like to see some confirmation on that, because it sounds extremely dubious; a lack of comment is more likely because it's not prejudicial.
Second, I can read the law, and it's pretty clear that it's illegal unless the US copyright holders are authorizing allofmp3 to do what they're doing. The authorization would have to be made under US law; a Russian compulsory licensing scheme would not suffice.
Given all the totally erroneous claims about allofmp3 being legal floating around out there, I'm pretty suspicious of anyone claiming RIAA has endorsed them.
Still not legal for Americans to download from 'em though.
there is no "breach of copyright", as everything is done legally.
That's total crap. It is blatantly illegal under US law. And if you're sitting at your computer in the US, guess what law applies to you?
But if you buy a legit VCD and bring it home it's totally legal, even if the VCD company has undercut US prices drastically.
This is more of a half truth, because it depends on what you mean by a "legit VCD."
If it was made by or authorized to be made by the US copyright holder, then it is legal to be imported into the US.
OTOH, if the US copyright holder did not make or authorize the making of the VCD, but merely some foreign copyright holder did, then it cannot be legally brought into the US, pursuant to 17 USC 602(b), and possibly (a).
In AllofMP3's situation, they have purchased a Russian broadcasting license of some sort. From what i understand it is basically a flat fee and not based on the number of items (songs). This lets them sell songs for just over bandwidth costs and still make money.
Which is great. But that does not make it legal for a person in America to download from them. You need to go to Russia in order to do so, and you couldn't bring the music back either. This is because Russian law cannot help you within the US.
It's not questionable legality at all. It's blatantly illegal under US law, which applies to allofmp3 (since they're actively doing business in America), downloaders located in America (see my brief post here), and per 17 USC 602(b) (which is not subject to the 602(a)(2) exemption) people outside America who download and then bring in their copies of what they downloaded.
It can be interpretted that you downloading a file over the Internet is only a special kind of broadcast or transmission, and that you happen to be "listening" to it with a device capable of recording it.
That argument cannot be made. There is a LOT of precedent that downloading a file is the reproduction of a work. MAI v. Peak holds this. Intellectual Reserve holds this. Mairobie-FL holds this. Napster holds this. The list goes on. You CANNOT win that argument. It is LOST. Has been for years.
What are you talking about, not being legal for USians?
It is not legal for Americans.
Copyrights are national. Thus, a Russian copyright is totally distinct from an American copyright. What Russian law might permit in Russia has no bearing whatsoever on what American law permits in America. What the Russian copyright holder authorizes has no impact on what the American copyright holder authorizes.
To download from allofmp3 results in the downloader infringing on the right to reproduce the work in phonorecords, because the downloader necessarily is creating a new phonorecord as a consequence of downloading. See Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1294 (D. Utah 1999) holding that "[w]hen a person browses a website [which was illegal under US law], and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright."
Since allofmp3 itself is illegal under US law, since it does not have permission of the US copyright holder, downloading from it is likewise illegal.