>No, you're wrong. You are not importing at all when you download.
What makes you think that moving files over the net can not be an import (or export for that matter)?
>You are making a new copy. And making new copies is illegal.
No, making copies can in SOME case be infrigning, and in other cases not be infringing.
>So no, people in the US cannot legally use AllOfMP3 >unless you can find a law that allows you to make more copies.
No, you can do copies unless there is a law that forbids that specific copying. Copyright law forbids some copying, but not all. That is why there exists this whole business and concept of online shoping of music (and movies, books, software and so on). Examples are iTunes and allofmp3.
So? Just as when you buy from iTunes or visit websites. No difference.
>As many courts in many cases (e.g. Napster, Grokster, Netcom) >have pointed out, downloading copyrighted works without >permission or an applicable exception in the law is infringing.
No, those court cases was against the uploader (or actually the company making the software itself), not downloaders. The one making the work available is doing so without a license. allofmp3 HAS a license to sell their music. For the downloader, the usual requirement is that the original is made available in a non infringing way. Hence, downloading from a s ource made availabel in a non infringing way is legal (or in some countries, personal/private copies is legal no mater what). Here we have a case were you buy music from allofmp3 who has a license to sell to you, just as for example iTunes. The buyer doens't need a licens any more than if you go to a shop and buy or buys anything else over the net, that is downloaded to you. You don't need to get special permission from the copyright holder as a buyer. If you want to claim allofmp3 as illegal, you must claim iTunes and anyone else selling over then net as illegal too, they are the same. Similary, it owuld be illegal for any transfer over the net (even not buying) were you don't get a seperate permission from the copyright holder.
>The law doesn't care about the disposition of >copies in Russia; what's illegal is making a >new copy, regardless of whether another copy >ends up getting deleted in the process. The actual >numerical count doesn't matter.
Not true, since there are many cases were you can make a copy that that is non infringing. Of course, living by your own "rules" I assume you never move music files from, say, your computer to an mp3 player in a country other than were you originally bought your music. You seem to claim that only physically being in the country of the purchase allows you to make such a copy, right? Since you write:
>If you want to use the site, you had better actually travel to Russia.
Of course since you also claim:
>The law doesn't care that the overall conduct crosses the border.
It must mean that even inside the USA, you claim that no copy of music is ever allowed to be made by anyone (even if originally bought from a legal source) awithout geting a specific permission to make a copy. Since the original post I replied to was about US only, it is pointless to point out that in several, if not most countries in the world, but you claim that it is not allowed in USA, right? No copying of music is allowed, period, without specific permission, right? Do remember that your source in question IS legal (as oposed to your irellevant examples of Napster and such).
>Merely posessing copyright infringing material is an offense in itself.
No it is not, find any relevant copyright law that has "possession" as an exclusive right of the copyright holder?
Besides, it is not an infringing copy (I assume you mean a copy made in an infringing way). It is a highly legal copy made since allofmp3 has a license to sell the music.
>And if you live in the US, US laws apply to everything you have and do. Simple.
No, the copyright law (which would be the one you claim is applicable here) applies to everything you do in the US. Simple.
>Section 602, at most, reduces the scope of the distribution right of copyright. It does not >protect people who infringe in a different way, e.g. by making a new copy.
Have I calimed so? I was replying to someone commenting on IMPORT, nothing else. Read all relevant posts in a thread before replying.
>So 602 is totally inapplicable. This is copying. It's just like when you download from >Napster, which the courts found to be illegal. This is illegal too, for just the same >reason.
By your reasoning it would be IMPOSSIBLE to ever buy music over the net. Take iTunes, it is no different, you would need to go to the copyright holder to get a license to make a copy (this excludes all countries anc cases were such a copy would be allowed to be done without a license, such as permited copying for personal/private use, fair use and so on.
>It's just like when you download from Napster, which the courts found to be illegal.
No, they have as far as I know found the "uploading" and the act done by the uploader, making the song available to the public is infringement. Perhaps there is some case with a downloader, I am not aware of it. This is no problem here since allofmp3 has a license to sell their music in Russia, which is were they are selling it. >It's just like when you download from Napster, which the courts found to be illegal.
>Also you screwed it up, because even if this were importation, which it is not, 602(a)(2) >does not protect you against 602(b), which would still be in play.
Which again is not a problem either since the copy is not made in an infringing way since allofmp3 has a license. So there is not a problem with 602(b) either.
Thanks for the points on 602. I was basically trying to point out that what the original poster wrote about import was not correct. And I still stand by the fact that the "import" (yes, the correct wording is that it is still an import just not dissallowed, sorry if as non english speaker I was not to precise in the language). In the case at hadn 602(b) would not apply either, since the copy was not an infringin one to start with, since allofmp3 has a licnese to sell the music to start with.
>Still, this is a purely academic discussion since downloading from AllOfMP3 is not >importation to begin with
So what is the definition of "import" since it isn't defined in the copyright law. In this case, you bought music in Russia and takes it to your home country? Still, even if it WAS considered as import, it would not be illegal since it was not an infirnging copy since allofmp3 does have a license for were they sell. If it is not an import, it is of course not a problem to start with.
>Actually, international trade is usually pretty heavily regulated.
Actually it is the opposite, it is quite unregulated, at least on a consumer level which is what we are talking about here. It is not about import and export between countries. It is about a consumer buying something from another country and bringing that product home. Not much mroe different from you buying something on your holliday trip abroad. Doing so over the net is awlays more risky than actually going there physically since you can't apply your own countires law, you are doing the purchase under the other countries law. In this case, Russian law.
>This scenario is no exception, and it's further >complicated because of the precise events that >go on and how copyright law treats them.
Copyright law doesn't treat such much at all, it is not about trading, purchasing or selling, there are other laws for that. allofmp3 has the required (at least they say so and since they have come out clean from investigations in Russia it seems likely) license to sell the works (the only relevat copyright related issue) in Russia and since they are selling in Russia and operating in Russia, that is what matters.
>It's not actually a case of importation at all; it's >downloading, no different than if you had gotten it from Napster.
The difference is that with Napster the "uploader", the one distributing and making the work available to the public, did not have any license to do so (which is required by copyright law), allofmp3com has it. The downloaded and the purchaser is not required to have any such license. In some countries, the one making a copy might need it if the source of the copy was made availabel in an infringing way (which was the case with Napster). That is not the case with allofmp3, since they are making the music available with a license.
>It is a UK offence to cause an electronic copy to be made of >an mp3 unless you are licensed to do so. Allofmp3.com does not >have any UK licencing rights,
They don't need any since they are operating in Russia. The purchase is done in Russia. They don't need any license to sell their song in any other country since they sell it in Russia. In the same way, a mujsic store in London doesn't need to have a license for Russia to sell to someone from Russia.
>and it follows that when you download from allofmp3.com, >you and allofmp3.com are both breaking UK law.
They can't possibly break the law since they are not located in UK, nor are they selling in the UK. The person is buying in Russia, UK laws doesn't apply, Russian laws apply. At most, you would have to look at how the law handle taking a copy INTO UK. Typically, most countries doesn't regulate it as long as it is single copies for private use. That is, you can buy a CD or an mp3 file in Japan and bring it back to UK without any problems.
Or are you sugesting that a store is bound by the laws of the country of the purchaser? So if Russian goes to a store in London (or anywere on the UK) and buy something, the store suddenly has to follow Russian law and can do something illegal because the purchaser was Russian? Interesting idea and concept, it just isn't how laws works. Laws applies to their own county only.
>You may think it humourous that a country can apply its laws outside its borders,
They can't. Or rather, they can calim they want, but nothing can really be done about it. Next you want to claim that you, going to your local shop can violate the law of basically any other country in the world. Again, interesting but not how it works.
>but the director of sportingbet.com and a trio of British bankers will disagree with you.
I really have no idea who those are. What good is it to toss out something without any information. I assume your example includes the British bankers doing something in the UK, breaking the law of another country and that the other countries laws applied? Or something similar, otherwise it is pointless. And what does bankers have to do with copyright?
>Similarly, AllofMP3 is legit in Russia, but does that mean it's legal if you are outside Russia?
allofmp3 is legal in russia and doesn't exist nor do sell in any other country, hence they can't be either illegal or legal somewere else as they are not in any other country. The customer, the one buying music could possibly do something illegal in their own country. They would be the one doing something illegal. SO lets see, do, USA, has any law that makes it illegal to buy music in another country? I highly dount so. Is there any law making it illegal for a private person, for personal use to bring sinlge copies of music into the country? No, it is specifically mentioned in the copyright law to not be considered as import and thus can never be illegal. So what other illegal activity do you propose a buyer do in either Russia or USA (or any other country for that matter)?
>That's why it's term of use refers to the laws in your own country, right?
No, their terms of use does not refer to any other counties law. Have you actually read them? You might think of some FAQ on their page which simply says that, of course, the buyer is responsible to follow any law of their country. As said, there is no US law violated when someone in USA buys music aborad or when taking such music into USA.
>It's more appropriate to compare buying stolen goods from shady businesses using a VISA card and VISA knowingly provides the >support to those businesses.
A completely pointless comparison since it is about completely different laws. Stolen goods has to do about ownership of goods while copyright is not at all about ownership and in fact, there is NEVER in the case of buing music someone not owning the specific copies that handles them.
>If AllofMP3 is found to violate copyright infringement in the US,
For them to violate a law in the US, they must be in the US and they must do something in US. That is the only way to violate the law in US. They are located in Russia, they sell music in Russia and hence can't break the law in USA doing so.
By your reasoning, someone from a country comming to USA, or buying something form the USA (for example from a US store that has a web page for selling stuff) would make that store to commit an illegal act if it would have been illegal in the country were that person comes from. What a bizzare idea.
>Doesn't this basically say, if the copy you made would have been illegal to make in the U.S., you can't import it, period?
Yes, IF you import. However, as is mentioned in other part, it is not considered as import if a private person brings in single copies of works for personal use and so on. For such a case there is thus no import. Basically, the import is aimed at comercial type of import were someone bring multiple copies for reselling (for example), not for a private person bring a copy of music with him in and out of the country.
Well, the allofmp3 claims to indeed be licensed to sell the music in Russia which is what they do. Regarding the legal situation in Russia for a buyer of music were the seller was not licensed, well, I must say I don't know the law. The brittish law is of course completely irellevant.
The "illegal in UK" can only be an issue of bringing in a copy of music you have bought abroad. There is no copying or selling or buying in UK (or anywere except Russia) so if you want to claim it is illegal in the UK, it has to be illegal to bring such music into UK, that is the only thing that takes place in UK. The articles claim of suing them in the UK is quite humnorous since allofmp3 is not doing anything in the UK nor are they present there so how can they possibly violate any UK law?
>As far as I know, allofmp3 does not have license >to distribute its songs in the US. Therefore, >selling songs in the US is an act of copyright >infringement in the US.
You do know they are in Russia and sell their songs there, right? Just as if I (living in Sweden) goes to the website of an American store buying something, doesn't magically move them to Sweden and having to comply with Swedish laws.
>Riddle me this, If what allofmp3 is doing is so legal in the US,
They are not doing anything in US, hence there is not an issue of it being legal or not in US.
>why isn't there a US company trying to compete with them for US sales?
Perhaps no US company wants to set up business in Russia selling songs there?
Re:I'm not sure a US court would agree with the la
on
Visa Cuts Off AllOfMp3.com
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
>Once you bring your purchase into the US, US law applies.
Yes, but please tell what specific law you have in mind, there really is none.
>The fact that you bought the item in Russia doesn't necessarily >mean that Russian law applies.
The purchase is done under Russian law if done in Russia. That is allofmp3's responsability. If a person then wants to use what they buy there to break the law in another country is that persons responsability. In the case in question, there is no such law violation though since it is perfectly legal to brgin a copy of a song or music into USA from other countries.
>I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the AllOfMp3 site violates >the spirit, if not the letter, of international copyright law.
What spirit? Are you claiming that there is a spirit that says any product with a work protected by copyright can not be moved from one country to another? I suppose someone should tell that to all the stores on international airports selling music CDs. For the record, no, there is no such restriction or anything at all about such restrictions in copyright laws, treaties or that like.
>That being the case, you're correct that the user isn't breaking the law. It's just a >convenient way for AllOfMp3 to shift the blame:
So allofmp3 is not breaking the law and the buyer is not breaking the law, who is and what law?
>We can't be responsible if US or EU users are downloading content that they shouldn't.
What do you mean "shouldn't"? Either there is some law making it illegal or there is not. It happens to exist no such law.
>Just because part of the crime is committed in another country, >where US police cannot go, and which may or may not respect US >law, does not mean that it is legal, or that US citizens >are not committing US crimes.
However, in the case of allofmp3 there is no crime going on either in Russia, nor in any other country when a person buys a song from them. Or perhaps you could point out more specifically which law in Russia and which law (in for example USA) that is being broken?
>2) Import laws (goes something like "copies that couldn't >legally have been made in the US, can't be imported to the >US". Since the Russian law doesn't apply in the US, you >can't import copies made under that law.
Why do people who don't know the law, insists on making up their own version of it? Here is a link to the relevant law you probably think you are telling about:
Note the exceptions (2), which would be applicable to anyone buying music over the net in single quantities of each work. Thus, it doesn't count as importation and the restrictions you refer to are not applicable and irrellevant.
>So if you live in Russia and have a VISA card can you still not use your VISA card at >allofmp3 even though it is legal for you to use that site?
What does were you live have to do with it? What law makes it illegal for you to buy the music from Russia if you live in another country? Or are you claiming that USE, Turkey, Japan, South Africa (or whatever other non Russian country you might prefer) have some law forbiding you to purchase from another country? And what would that have to do with copyright who for sure doesn't have such limitations (we are talking of purchase of single number of copies of each song and for personal use, just like if you have bought the CD while in Russia and bring it home with it, just mentioning it so that you don't have to claim anything about import and I have to reply to tell about what is covered by the import part in copyright law and what is not).
>Read that last paragraph, if you've been in the United States & using AllOfMp3.com, they've >been shifting legality issues to you.
What responsability? There is no responsability for a purchaser of music that is applicable. A buyer is for example not distributing the material. Use in it self is not a copyright issue. So what specifically are you thinking of?
>Visa has now chosen to recognize this issue and not be party to breaking the law.
What law are you as a buyer breaking? None.
>However, this is not true in many other countries.
So? You are buying the music in Russia. Russian law applies. You are following them. There is no additional law applicable or of relevance to you in this case.
Ehh, yes, why not? If you are going to actually download any of the updates to start with, that information will be negletible in ammount compared to the actual updates anyway. Of course, you only need to send info on NEW updates (or removed updates) when someone connects.
Who they go after? No idea, ask them... Seriously, I would assume like in all other cases that it is someone that they have donwloaded directly from. Now, for the question of how much of a work you have to make available for it to be an infringement? Probably depends a bit with the country and its copyright law. What would be "best" for them to do, would be to find a seeder, who has the full work available and go for him instead of someone who just has a fragment of the work.
Another question to raise is, that if they want to downlaod through bittorrent, they usually have to also upload. That would make the available work suddenly be completely legal to download since it is made available in a legal way by someone authorized by the copyright holder. Of course, they can make it so that their client never upload, only download, but that might restrict their ability to download.
It is the making it available to the public that is the infringement. If anyone actually buys, copies or otherwise gets his hands on it is not the issue (but can be a separate infringement in case of P2P netowrk were the downloader would be maing a copy.
>Pardon me, but in some countries it just might be legal to download for your own use.
Pardon me, but the article says they targeted uploaders, not downloaders. That is, people that is sharing the music for others. Wether it is legal or not to download is completely irellevant.
>Yep. Just like they thing that for some reason you signing >the line on an end of a contract implies consent. I mean, >it's not like anyone READS all of those.
Which actually is a specific act you do to show concent that has no other purpose. Offering a contract claiming that if a person do some sort of action, like taking a bath tomorrow, or leaving the house the next few days, shows acceptance doesn't work and is not a valid agreement. Simialry, using a program you have bought, got as a gift or whatever way you got it, as a sign to agree to a contract is not the same as signing a line on a paper.
Slashdot Mirror
>No, you're wrong. You are not importing at all when you download.
What makes you think that moving files over the net can not be an import (or export for that matter)?
>You are making a new copy. And making new copies is illegal.
No, making copies can in SOME case be infrigning, and in other cases not be infringing.
>So no, people in the US cannot legally use AllOfMP3
>unless you can find a law that allows you to make more copies.
No, you can do copies unless there is a law that forbids that specific copying. Copyright law forbids some copying, but not all. That is why there exists this whole business and concept of online shoping of music (and movies, books, software and so on). Examples are iTunes and allofmp3.
>Making a new copy.
So? Just as when you buy from iTunes or visit websites. No difference.
>As many courts in many cases (e.g. Napster, Grokster, Netcom)
>have pointed out, downloading copyrighted works without
>permission or an applicable exception in the law is infringing.
No, those court cases was against the uploader (or actually the company making the software itself), not downloaders. The one making the work available is doing so without a license. allofmp3 HAS a license to sell their music. For the downloader, the usual requirement is that the original is made available in a non infringing way. Hence, downloading from a s ource made availabel in a non infringing way is legal (or in some countries, personal/private copies is legal no mater what). Here we have a case were you buy music from allofmp3 who has a license to sell to you, just as for example iTunes. The buyer doens't need a licens any more than if you go to a shop and buy or buys anything else over the net, that is downloaded to you. You don't need to get special permission from the copyright holder as a buyer. If you want to claim allofmp3 as illegal, you must claim iTunes and anyone else selling over then net as illegal too, they are the same. Similary, it owuld be illegal for any transfer over the net (even not buying) were you don't get a seperate permission from the copyright holder.
>The law doesn't care about the disposition of
>copies in Russia; what's illegal is making a
>new copy, regardless of whether another copy
>ends up getting deleted in the process. The actual
>numerical count doesn't matter.
Not true, since there are many cases were you can make a copy that that is non infringing. Of course, living by your own "rules" I assume you never move music files from, say, your computer to an mp3 player in a country other than were you originally bought your music. You seem to claim that only physically being in the country of the purchase allows you to make such a copy, right? Since you write:
>If you want to use the site, you had better actually travel to Russia.
Of course since you also claim:
>The law doesn't care that the overall conduct crosses the border.
It must mean that even inside the USA, you claim that no copy of music is ever allowed to be made by anyone (even if originally bought from a legal source) awithout geting a specific permission to make a copy. Since the original post I replied to was about US only, it is pointless to point out that in several, if not most countries in the world, but you claim that it is not allowed in USA, right? No copying of music is allowed, period, without specific permission, right? Do remember that your source in question IS legal (as oposed to your irellevant examples of Napster and such).
>Merely posessing copyright infringing material is an offense in itself.
No it is not, find any relevant copyright law that has "possession" as an exclusive right of the copyright holder?
Besides, it is not an infringing copy (I assume you mean a copy made in an infringing way). It is a highly legal copy made since allofmp3 has a license to sell the music.
>And if you live in the US, US laws apply to everything you have and do. Simple.
No, the copyright law (which would be the one you claim is applicable here) applies to everything you do in the US. Simple.
>Section 602, at most, reduces the scope of the distribution right of copyright. It does not
>protect people who infringe in a different way, e.g. by making a new copy.
Have I calimed so? I was replying to someone commenting on IMPORT, nothing else. Read all relevant posts in a thread before replying.
>So 602 is totally inapplicable. This is copying. It's just like when you download from
>Napster, which the courts found to be illegal. This is illegal too, for just the same
>reason.
By your reasoning it would be IMPOSSIBLE to ever buy music over the net. Take iTunes, it is no different, you would need to go to the copyright holder to get a license to make a copy (this excludes all countries anc cases were such a copy would be allowed to be done without a license, such as permited copying for personal/private use, fair use and so on.
>It's just like when you download from Napster, which the courts found to be illegal.
No, they have as far as I know found the "uploading" and the act done by the uploader, making the song available to the public is infringement. Perhaps there is some case with a downloader, I am not aware of it. This is no problem here since allofmp3 has a license to sell their music in Russia, which is were they are selling it.
>It's just like when you download from Napster, which the courts found to be illegal.
>Also you screwed it up, because even if this were importation, which it is not, 602(a)(2)
>does not protect you against 602(b), which would still be in play.
Which again is not a problem either since the copy is not made in an infringing way since allofmp3 has a license. So there is not a problem with 602(b) either.
Thanks for the points on 602. I was basically trying to point out that what the original poster wrote about import was not correct. And I still stand by the fact that the "import" (yes, the correct wording is that it is still an import just not dissallowed, sorry if as non english speaker I was not to precise in the language). In the case at hadn 602(b) would not apply either, since the copy was not an infringin one to start with, since allofmp3 has a licnese to sell the music to start with.
>Still, this is a purely academic discussion since downloading from AllOfMP3 is not
>importation to begin with
So what is the definition of "import" since it isn't defined in the copyright law. In this case, you bought music in Russia and takes it to your home country? Still, even if it WAS considered as import, it would not be illegal since it was not an infirnging copy since allofmp3 does have a license for were they sell. If it is not an import, it is of course not a problem to start with.
>Actually, international trade is usually pretty heavily regulated.
Actually it is the opposite, it is quite unregulated, at least on a consumer level which is what we are talking about here. It is not about import and export between countries. It is about a consumer buying something from another country and bringing that product home. Not much mroe different from you buying something on your holliday trip abroad. Doing so over the net is awlays more risky than actually going there physically since you can't apply your own countires law, you are doing the purchase under the other countries law. In this case, Russian law.
>This scenario is no exception, and it's further
>complicated because of the precise events that
>go on and how copyright law treats them.
Copyright law doesn't treat such much at all, it is not about trading, purchasing or selling, there are other laws for that. allofmp3 has the required (at least they say so and since they have come out clean from investigations in Russia it seems likely) license to sell the works (the only relevat copyright related issue) in Russia and since they are selling in Russia and operating in Russia, that is what matters.
>It's not actually a case of importation at all; it's
>downloading, no different than if you had gotten it from Napster.
The difference is that with Napster the "uploader", the one distributing and making the work available to the public, did not have any license to do so (which is required by copyright law), allofmp3com has it. The downloaded and the purchaser is not required to have any such license. In some countries, the one making a copy might need it if the source of the copy was made availabel in an infringing way (which was the case with Napster). That is not the case with allofmp3, since they are making the music available with a license.
>It is a UK offence to cause an electronic copy to be made of
>an mp3 unless you are licensed to do so. Allofmp3.com does not
>have any UK licencing rights,
They don't need any since they are operating in Russia. The purchase is done in Russia. They don't need any license to sell their song in any other country since they sell it in Russia. In the same way, a mujsic store in London doesn't need to have a license for Russia to sell to someone from Russia.
>and it follows that when you download from allofmp3.com,
>you and allofmp3.com are both breaking UK law.
They can't possibly break the law since they are not located in UK, nor are they selling in the UK. The person is buying in Russia, UK laws doesn't apply, Russian laws apply. At most, you would have to look at how the law handle taking a copy INTO UK. Typically, most countries doesn't regulate it as long as it is single copies for private use. That is, you can buy a CD or an mp3 file in Japan and bring it back to UK without any problems.
Or are you sugesting that a store is bound by the laws of the country of the purchaser? So if Russian goes to a store in London (or anywere on the UK) and buy something, the store suddenly has to follow Russian law and can do something illegal because the purchaser was Russian? Interesting idea and concept, it just isn't how laws works. Laws applies to their own county only.
>You may think it humourous that a country can apply its laws outside its borders,
They can't. Or rather, they can calim they want, but nothing can really be done about it. Next you want to claim that you, going to your local shop can violate the law of basically any other country in the world. Again, interesting but not how it works.
>but the director of sportingbet.com and a trio of British bankers will disagree with you.
I really have no idea who those are. What good is it to toss out something without any information. I assume your example includes the British bankers doing something in the UK, breaking the law of another country and that the other countries laws applied? Or something similar, otherwise it is pointless. And what does bankers have to do with copyright?
>Similarly, AllofMP3 is legit in Russia, but does that mean it's legal if you are outside Russia?
allofmp3 is legal in russia and doesn't exist nor do sell in any other country, hence they can't be either illegal or legal somewere else as they are not in any other country. The customer, the one buying music could possibly do something illegal in their own country. They would be the one doing something illegal. SO lets see, do, USA, has any law that makes it illegal to buy music in another country? I highly dount so. Is there any law making it illegal for a private person, for personal use to bring sinlge copies of music into the country? No, it is specifically mentioned in the copyright law to not be considered as import and thus can never be illegal. So what other illegal activity do you propose a buyer do in either Russia or USA (or any other country for that matter)?
>That's why it's term of use refers to the laws in your own country, right?
No, their terms of use does not refer to any other counties law. Have you actually read them? You might think of some FAQ on their page which simply says that, of course, the buyer is responsible to follow any law of their country. As said, there is no US law violated when someone in USA buys music aborad or when taking such music into USA.
>It's more appropriate to compare buying stolen goods from shady businesses using a VISA card and VISA knowingly provides the
>support to those businesses.
A completely pointless comparison since it is about completely different laws. Stolen goods has to do about ownership of goods while copyright is not at all about ownership and in fact, there is NEVER in the case of buing music someone not owning the specific copies that handles them.
>If AllofMP3 is found to violate copyright infringement in the US,
For them to violate a law in the US, they must be in the US and they must do something in US. That is the only way to violate the law in US. They are located in Russia, they sell music in Russia and hence can't break the law in USA doing so.
By your reasoning, someone from a country comming to USA, or buying something form the USA (for example from a US store that has a web page for selling stuff) would make that store to commit an illegal act if it would have been illegal in the country were that person comes from. What a bizzare idea.
>Doesn't this basically say, if the copy you made would have been illegal to make in the U.S., you can't import it, period?
Yes, IF you import. However, as is mentioned in other part, it is not considered as import if a private person brings in single copies of works for personal use and so on. For such a case there is thus no import. Basically, the import is aimed at comercial type of import were someone bring multiple copies for reselling (for example), not for a private person bring a copy of music with him in and out of the country.
Well, the allofmp3 claims to indeed be licensed to sell the music in Russia which is what they do. Regarding the legal situation in Russia for a buyer of music were the seller was not licensed, well, I must say I don't know the law. The brittish law is of course completely irellevant.
The "illegal in UK" can only be an issue of bringing in a copy of music you have bought abroad. There is no copying or selling or buying in UK (or anywere except Russia) so if you want to claim it is illegal in the UK, it has to be illegal to bring such music into UK, that is the only thing that takes place in UK. The articles claim of suing them in the UK is quite humnorous since allofmp3 is not doing anything in the UK nor are they present there so how can they possibly violate any UK law?
>As far as I know, allofmp3 does not have license
>to distribute its songs in the US. Therefore,
>selling songs in the US is an act of copyright
>infringement in the US.
You do know they are in Russia and sell their songs there, right? Just as if I (living in Sweden) goes to the website of an American store buying something, doesn't magically move them to Sweden and having to comply with Swedish laws.
>Riddle me this, If what allofmp3 is doing is so legal in the US,
They are not doing anything in US, hence there is not an issue of it being legal or not in US.
>why isn't there a US company trying to compete with them for US sales?
Perhaps no US company wants to set up business in Russia selling songs there?
>And from those that knew it existed and used it,
>how many knew it wasn't legal even though they
>were paying for the songs?
What was illegal about it? What law was being broken? How? And by whom?
>Or are you claiming that USE,
Sigh, I meant USA of course.
>Once you bring your purchase into the US, US law applies.
Yes, but please tell what specific law you have in mind, there really is none.
>The fact that you bought the item in Russia doesn't necessarily
>mean that Russian law applies.
The purchase is done under Russian law if done in Russia. That is allofmp3's responsability. If a person then wants to use what they buy there to break the law in another country is that persons responsability. In the case in question, there is no such law violation though since it is perfectly legal to brgin a copy of a song or music into USA from other countries.
>I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the AllOfMp3 site violates
>the spirit, if not the letter, of international copyright law.
What spirit? Are you claiming that there is a spirit that says any product with a work protected by copyright can not be moved from one country to another? I suppose someone should tell that to all the stores on international airports selling music CDs. For the record, no, there is no such restriction or anything at all about such restrictions in copyright laws, treaties or that like.
>That being the case, you're correct that the user isn't breaking the law. It's just a
>convenient way for AllOfMp3 to shift the blame:
So allofmp3 is not breaking the law and the buyer is not breaking the law, who is and what law?
>We can't be responsible if US or EU users are downloading content that they shouldn't.
What do you mean "shouldn't"? Either there is some law making it illegal or there is not. It happens to exist no such law.
>Just because part of the crime is committed in another country,
>where US police cannot go, and which may or may not respect US
>law, does not mean that it is legal, or that US citizens
>are not committing US crimes.
However, in the case of allofmp3 there is no crime going on either in Russia, nor in any other country when a person buys a song from them. Or perhaps you could point out more specifically which law in Russia and which law (in for example USA) that is being broken?
>2) Import laws (goes something like "copies that couldn't
s c_sec_17_00000602----000-.html
>legally have been made in the US, can't be imported to the
>US". Since the Russian law doesn't apply in the US, you
>can't import copies made under that law.
Why do people who don't know the law, insists on making up their own version of it? Here is a link to the relevant law you probably think you are telling about:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
Note the exceptions (2), which would be applicable to anyone buying music over the net in single quantities of each work. Thus, it doesn't count as importation and the restrictions you refer to are not applicable and irrellevant.
>So if you live in Russia and have a VISA card can you still not use your VISA card at
>allofmp3 even though it is legal for you to use that site?
What does were you live have to do with it? What law makes it illegal for you to buy the music from Russia if you live in another country? Or are you claiming that USE, Turkey, Japan, South Africa (or whatever other non Russian country you might prefer) have some law forbiding you to purchase from another country? And what would that have to do with copyright who for sure doesn't have such limitations (we are talking of purchase of single number of copies of each song and for personal use, just like if you have bought the CD while in Russia and bring it home with it, just mentioning it so that you don't have to claim anything about import and I have to reply to tell about what is covered by the import part in copyright law and what is not).
>Read that last paragraph, if you've been in the United States & using AllOfMp3.com, they've
>been shifting legality issues to you.
What responsability? There is no responsability for a purchaser of music that is applicable. A buyer is for example not distributing the material. Use in it self is not a copyright issue. So what specifically are you thinking of?
>Visa has now chosen to recognize this issue and not be party to breaking the law.
What law are you as a buyer breaking? None.
>However, this is not true in many other countries.
So? You are buying the music in Russia. Russian law applies. You are following them. There is no additional law applicable or of relevance to you in this case.
>And you do this over a 56k dialup line?
Ehh, yes, why not? If you are going to actually download any of the updates to start with, that information will be negletible in ammount compared to the actual updates anyway. Of course, you only need to send info on NEW updates (or removed updates) when someone connects.
Who they go after? No idea, ask them... Seriously, I would assume like in all other cases that it is someone that they have donwloaded directly from. Now, for the question of how much of a work you have to make available for it to be an infringement? Probably depends a bit with the country and its copyright law. What would be "best" for them to do, would be to find a seeder, who has the full work available and go for him instead of someone who just has a fragment of the work.
Another question to raise is, that if they want to downlaod through bittorrent, they usually have to also upload. That would make the available work suddenly be completely legal to download since it is made available in a legal way by someone authorized by the copyright holder. Of course, they can make it so that their client never upload, only download, but that might restrict their ability to download.
It is the making it available to the public that is the infringement. If anyone actually buys, copies or otherwise gets his hands on it is not the issue (but can be a separate infringement in case of P2P netowrk were the downloader would be maing a copy.
>Pardon me, but in some countries it just might be legal to download for your own use.
Pardon me, but the article says they targeted uploaders, not downloaders. That is, people that is sharing the music for others. Wether it is legal or not to download is completely irellevant.
>Take a look at the EULA for Microsoft Flight Simulator 9 if you own it. You can only
>transfer license to someone else once.
Sounds reasonable since after a transfer you no longer have it any more. The new person similary have not transfered it at all (yet) at that time.
>You don't have a license (and thus can't use Vista at all)
From a legal point of view this is incorrect, you don't need a license to use software. This includes installing the software.
>Yep. Just like they thing that for some reason you signing
>the line on an end of a contract implies consent. I mean,
>it's not like anyone READS all of those.
Which actually is a specific act you do to show concent that has no other purpose. Offering a contract claiming that if a person do some sort of action, like taking a bath tomorrow, or leaving the house the next few days, shows acceptance doesn't work and is not a valid agreement. Simialry, using a program you have bought, got as a gift or whatever way you got it, as a sign to agree to a contract is not the same as signing a line on a paper.