If the BPI were to get an injunction requiring ISPs to block allofmp3.com then they'd have to comply. Whether such an injunction would be granted is a difficult question, and I'm not aware of any precedents, but my bet is that it would.
If (as I'd expect) they obtain a favourable judgment in the UK courts then, yes, enforcement in Russia is surely out of the question. This much is obvious: they question is why they're proceeding with an expensive court application when they'll have to bear the legal costs themselves. I can think of three possibilities: (1) it is political - they want a judgment and will then pressure the Russian authorities to act; (2) the owners of allofmp3.com have assets in the UK, and the BPI can therefore enforce in the UK; (3) after obtaining the judgment, the BPI will require UK ISPs to block access to allofmp3.com
I'm not aware of anyone having tried (3) before, but it's legally possible. Am I right to assume it would be technically straightforward?
There is no rule of law in China: if you are doing something the state considers subversive then you can expect unpleasant consequences. Whether it's technically "illegal" or not is besides the point.
Most UK food retailers have an internet shopping arm, and most of them are profitable. I guess it's the greater population density that makes it economically viable in the UK, but not the US (outside the major cities, anyhow).
Gosh - you really want a cite that intellectual property is treated differently from physical property? I'm not sure where to start. Cornish's "Intellectual Property: Omnipresent, Distracting, Irrelevant?" has a good introduction to the law, but is more concerned with policy arguments. MacQueen, Waelde and Laurie is a solid introductory undergraduate text.
Some legal points are grey areas. Some are not. I'm afraid that your suggestion that the law treats an electronic download in the same way as the import of a physical good was just nonsense. You are "not even wrong". You don't need a cite, you need an introductory copyright textbook.
Agreed - transient copying of broadcast material is legal in the UK; copying/ripping of CDs is not. The BPI wouldn't dare to sue anyone, as there would be an uproar and the law would be changed, either by a court bending over backwards to rule against the BPI (perhaps using the doctrine of implied licence) or by legislation.
A physicist once said that the universe doesn't care whether or not you believe it works the way it does. Law's much the same. I'm real sorry you don't like IP law, but that's not going to change the facts.
The treatment of physical property is completely from electronic downloads - that's why we have IP laws in the first place. Normal internet use doesn't generally result in copyright breaches because of the doctrines of implied licence in the UK and (I believe, though I'm no expert) fair use in the US.
When you download from allofmp3.com, your computer is making a copy and you are causing it to do so. This is a clear copyright violation, and it's a criminal offence if the user knows this.
I have no idea what rights the Russian outfit has under Russian law, but it doesn't matter - as a matter of UK law it doesn't have the right to licence downloads in the UK. The Russian courts may ignore this, but the UK courts certainly won't.
It's not the location of the download that's important (whatever that may mean), it's the fact that the UK person's computer is copying the MP3 files. This is a violation of UK copyright law, it's occurring in the UK and both allofmp3 and the user are potentially liable. Allofmp3 might have a defence if it could show that it didn't know UK persons were downloading, or that it had taken reasonable steps to prevent this. But my understanding is that they don't do this.
You are correct that extra-territorial legislation is irrelevant unless it can be enforced. But given that many companies will have business connections with the US and the UK, it's difficult for people to ignore the effect of US and UK law. The more significant a country is in international business terms, the more attention companies people in other countries will pay to its laws. So European companies worry about accidentally breaching US securities laws; they don't worry about breaching Cuban securities law.
Individuals generally don't need to worry about the laws of other jurisidictions, unless the offence in question is extradictable (which copyright offences often aren't) or the individuals are sufficiently high profile that they risk being arrested if they set foot in the US or the UK (e.g. Pinochet). You have no legal or commercial means of putting pressure on me, so I shan't be wearing pink suspenders. Sorry.
So your "biggest stick" point is dead right when it comes to practical questions of enforcement, but wrong when it comes to the theoretical question of where laws apply - and you always have to answer the second question before you can work out the answer to the first.
There is a fundamental legal difference between purchasing a CD (for which you don't need a copyright licence) and downloading a CD for which you do. The difference is that, when you download a file, you are copying it. If material is copyrighted then you need a licence to copy it.
The Russian rights organisation owns licensing and related rights in Russia and not elsewhere (this is how the various copyright licensing agencies work). It follows that the Russian rights organisation does not have the right under UK law to copy music to persons in the UK, so when it does so it is in breach of UK law. Nothing in Russian law can change this, although it may make it impossible for the BPI to take enforcement proceedings in Russia.
The actions of allofmp3 are illegal because music publishing companies grant rights geographically: the Russian rights organisation has the rights to distribute artists' songs in Russia but nowhere else. Allofmp3 claims that it gets its rights from the Russian rights organisation - however those rights don't include the right to sell into the UK. You can't sell what you don't own, yet allofmp3 is purporting to grant UK copyright licences when it has no right to do so. There is not the slightest doubt allofmp3 is in breach of UK copyright law.
The legal position for mail order is different from electronic downloading (at least in the UK - I don't know about other jurisdictions).
Someone in the UK who imports a CD from Russia (or anywhere else) for personal use is entirely within the law. The Russian company that supplied the CDs is not in breach of UK law. However it may be in breach of contract if it bought the CDs from a publishing company on condition it only supplies the CDs to people in Russia. This is a Russian question.
Someone in the UK who download mp3s from a Russian company that does not have the licence to sell into the UK, and knows this is the case, is breaking UK law. The Russian company is also in breach of UK copyright law.
The distinction between the two cases is because you need a licence from the copyright holder to make electronic copies of a track; you don't need a licence to buy or sell a CD.
When a UK user downloads from allofmp3 then allofmp3 is operating in the UK, and in breach of UK copyright law.
But your assumption that a jurisdiction cannot make laws applying to people in other countries is incorrect. For example, many countries have war crimes laws that can apply to someone on the other side of the world. The US has a multitude of other laws which can have this effect: US securities laws and sanctions laws are the most obvious examples.
There may be practical problems with a country enforcing its laws against someone in another country, but that doesn't change the fact that a country can enact "extra-territorial" laws. There is a principle of international law that one country will not enforce another country's tax, but otherwise international law does not affect the position.
Incidentally, it's a bit sad that I get moderated down for stating trivially correct legal principles. I think some people are in denial...
This is not correct: whether copying a DVD is illegal depends upon whether you own or have a licence to the copyright. If I duplicate your work DVDs without your permission then I am potentially breaking the law, whether or not they are encrypted.
There is no grey area here. Whatever the (murky) position in Russia may be, allofmp3 does plainly not have the right to licence copyright to the BPI's artists in the UK. Anyone in the UK who downloads from allofmp3 is therefore doing so unlawfully, and allofmp3 is acting unlawfully in facilitating that.
That said, provided a downloader does not realise copyright is being infringed, he will be liable under civil law for damages, but will not commit a criminal offence. Establishing the state of mind of a downloader is difficult, and any civil claims in the UK would be limited to relatively small amounts of money: this is presumably why the BPI says it won't pursue individuals in the UK.
On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that allofmp3 is committing a criminal offence in the UK. Whether it's possible to do anything about it is a different question: there can't be much chance of enforcing a judgment against allofmp3 in Russia, or extradicting its owners.
So you reckon 10,000 tonnes of gold could be moved in an hour, even though it took 200 railway cars to stock Fort Knox with a similar amount of gold. Hmmm.
And you think banks would keep a heist quiet in order to claim on insurance... do you have the slightest idea how insurance companies work? Do you think they hand over billions of dollars quietly behind closed doors? Any significant insurance claim involves dozens, or more likely hundreds, of insurance underwriters, and all will be required to disclose the claim to shareholders and regulators. Large insurance claims invariably end up in litigation that goes on for years. The idea there could be a multi-million (let alone multi-billion) insurance claim which nobody knows about is completely batty.
1. that any private gold depositary is on anything like the scale of Fort Knox. This is neither physically nor commercially possible. $160bn is unbelievable. I would be surprised if there was as much as $1bn of gold there.
2. that the figures on an unsourced conspiracy theory site are correct.
You are also missing obvious questions: how long would it take to remove 10,000 tonnes of gold? How many trucks? You may want to check how long it took to stock the gold in Fort Knox, and how many railway cars were required.
Also, why would the owners of the gold not have complained at losing $160bn?
This is really dumb, even for a conspiracy theory.
The point is that it is completely implausible that anywhere near that amount of gold was stored. Gold was approx $275 per ounce at the time, so $100bn of gold = approx 10,000 metric tonnes.
The conspiracy loons would know this if they'd done five minutes research, but of course they don't bother. Anybody who trusts anything they say is an idiot.
How much force would be required to push the tower to one side as it fell? Where would this force come from?
Given the inertia of the lower floors compared to the mass of the upper floors, by how many m/s/s would you expect the acceleration of the upper floors to be retarded compared with free fall? Is it practicable to measure this from videos of the collapse?
If you can't do the math, all you have is wild speculation.
Since the whole of the US's gold reserves add up to less than $160bn, how plausible do you think it is that $160bn was in the WTC? Bonus question: what does this say about the plausibility of the sources you are relying on?
Slashdot Mirror
If the BPI were to get an injunction requiring ISPs to block allofmp3.com then they'd have to comply. Whether such an injunction would be granted is a difficult question, and I'm not aware of any precedents, but my bet is that it would.
If (as I'd expect) they obtain a favourable judgment in the UK courts then, yes, enforcement in Russia is surely out of the question. This much is obvious: they question is why they're proceeding with an expensive court application when they'll have to bear the legal costs themselves. I can think of three possibilities: (1) it is political - they want a judgment and will then pressure the Russian authorities to act; (2) the owners of allofmp3.com have assets in the UK, and the BPI can therefore enforce in the UK; (3) after obtaining the judgment, the BPI will require UK ISPs to block access to allofmp3.com
I'm not aware of anyone having tried (3) before, but it's legally possible. Am I right to assume it would be technically straightforward?
There is no rule of law in China: if you are doing something the state considers subversive then you can expect unpleasant consequences. Whether it's technically "illegal" or not is besides the point.
Most UK food retailers have an internet shopping arm, and most of them are profitable. I guess it's the greater population density that makes it economically viable in the UK, but not the US (outside the major cities, anyhow).
Actually the opposite is true: it's the weak party system in the US that means that individual legislators are in the pockets of lobbyists.
Gosh - you really want a cite that intellectual property is treated differently from physical property? I'm not sure where to start. Cornish's "Intellectual Property: Omnipresent, Distracting, Irrelevant?" has a good introduction to the law, but is more concerned with policy arguments. MacQueen, Waelde and Laurie is a solid introductory undergraduate text.
Some legal points are grey areas. Some are not. I'm afraid that your suggestion that the law treats an electronic download in the same way as the import of a physical good was just nonsense. You are "not even wrong". You don't need a cite, you need an introductory copyright textbook.
Agreed - transient copying of broadcast material is legal in the UK; copying/ripping of CDs is not. The BPI wouldn't dare to sue anyone, as there would be an uproar and the law would be changed, either by a court bending over backwards to rule against the BPI (perhaps using the doctrine of implied licence) or by legislation.
A physicist once said that the universe doesn't care whether or not you believe it works the way it does. Law's much the same. I'm real sorry you don't like IP law, but that's not going to change the facts.
The treatment of physical property is completely from electronic downloads - that's why we have IP laws in the first place. Normal internet use doesn't generally result in copyright breaches because of the doctrines of implied licence in the UK and (I believe, though I'm no expert) fair use in the US.
There is no grey area.
When you download from allofmp3.com, your computer is making a copy and you are causing it to do so. This is a clear copyright violation, and it's a criminal offence if the user knows this.
I have no idea what rights the Russian outfit has under Russian law, but it doesn't matter - as a matter of UK law it doesn't have the right to licence downloads in the UK. The Russian courts may ignore this, but the UK courts certainly won't.
It's not the location of the download that's important (whatever that may mean), it's the fact that the UK person's computer is copying the MP3 files. This is a violation of UK copyright law, it's occurring in the UK and both allofmp3 and the user are potentially liable. Allofmp3 might have a defence if it could show that it didn't know UK persons were downloading, or that it had taken reasonable steps to prevent this. But my understanding is that they don't do this.
You are correct that extra-territorial legislation is irrelevant unless it can be enforced. But given that many companies will have business connections with the US and the UK, it's difficult for people to ignore the effect of US and UK law. The more significant a country is in international business terms, the more attention companies people in other countries will pay to its laws. So European companies worry about accidentally breaching US securities laws; they don't worry about breaching Cuban securities law.
Individuals generally don't need to worry about the laws of other jurisidictions, unless the offence in question is extradictable (which copyright offences often aren't) or the individuals are sufficiently high profile that they risk being arrested if they set foot in the US or the UK (e.g. Pinochet). You have no legal or commercial means of putting pressure on me, so I shan't be wearing pink suspenders. Sorry.
So your "biggest stick" point is dead right when it comes to practical questions of enforcement, but wrong when it comes to the theoretical question of where laws apply - and you always have to answer the second question before you can work out the answer to the first.
There is a fundamental legal difference between purchasing a CD (for which you don't need a copyright licence) and downloading a CD for which you do. The difference is that, when you download a file, you are copying it. If material is copyrighted then you need a licence to copy it.
The Russian rights organisation owns licensing and related rights in Russia and not elsewhere (this is how the various copyright licensing agencies work). It follows that the Russian rights organisation does not have the right under UK law to copy music to persons in the UK, so when it does so it is in breach of UK law. Nothing in Russian law can change this, although it may make it impossible for the BPI to take enforcement proceedings in Russia.
The actions of allofmp3 are illegal because music publishing companies grant rights geographically: the Russian rights organisation has the rights to distribute artists' songs in Russia but nowhere else. Allofmp3 claims that it gets its rights from the Russian rights organisation - however those rights don't include the right to sell into the UK. You can't sell what you don't own, yet allofmp3 is purporting to grant UK copyright licences when it has no right to do so. There is not the slightest doubt allofmp3 is in breach of UK copyright law.
The legal position for mail order is different from electronic downloading (at least in the UK - I don't know about other jurisdictions).
Someone in the UK who imports a CD from Russia (or anywhere else) for personal use is entirely within the law. The Russian company that supplied the CDs is not in breach of UK law. However it may be in breach of contract if it bought the CDs from a publishing company on condition it only supplies the CDs to people in Russia. This is a Russian question.
Someone in the UK who download mp3s from a Russian company that does not have the licence to sell into the UK, and knows this is the case, is breaking UK law. The Russian company is also in breach of UK copyright law.
The distinction between the two cases is because you need a licence from the copyright holder to make electronic copies of a track; you don't need a licence to buy or sell a CD.
When a UK user downloads from allofmp3 then allofmp3 is operating in the UK, and in breach of UK copyright law.
But your assumption that a jurisdiction cannot make laws applying to people in other countries is incorrect. For example, many countries have war crimes laws that can apply to someone on the other side of the world. The US has a multitude of other laws which can have this effect: US securities laws and sanctions laws are the most obvious examples.
There may be practical problems with a country enforcing its laws against someone in another country, but that doesn't change the fact that a country can enact "extra-territorial" laws. There is a principle of international law that one country will not enforce another country's tax, but otherwise international law does not affect the position.
Incidentally, it's a bit sad that I get moderated down for stating trivially correct legal principles. I think some people are in denial...
This is not correct: whether copying a DVD is illegal depends upon whether you own or have a licence to the copyright. If I duplicate your work DVDs without your permission then I am potentially breaking the law, whether or not they are encrypted.
There is no grey area here. Whatever the (murky) position in Russia may be, allofmp3 does plainly not have the right to licence copyright to the BPI's artists in the UK. Anyone in the UK who downloads from allofmp3 is therefore doing so unlawfully, and allofmp3 is acting unlawfully in facilitating that.
That said, provided a downloader does not realise copyright is being infringed, he will be liable under civil law for damages, but will not commit a criminal offence. Establishing the state of mind of a downloader is difficult, and any civil claims in the UK would be limited to relatively small amounts of money: this is presumably why the BPI says it won't pursue individuals in the UK.
On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that allofmp3 is committing a criminal offence in the UK. Whether it's possible to do anything about it is a different question: there can't be much chance of enforcing a judgment against allofmp3 in Russia, or extradicting its owners.
Trust me, I'm a lawyer.
Free trade harms the local economy and increases unemployment? Which economist have you been reading?
Brilliant post - thank you.
Absolutely idiotic.
So you reckon 10,000 tonnes of gold could be moved in an hour, even though it took 200 railway cars to stock Fort Knox with a similar amount of gold. Hmmm.
And you think banks would keep a heist quiet in order to claim on insurance... do you have the slightest idea how insurance companies work? Do you think they hand over billions of dollars quietly behind closed doors? Any significant insurance claim involves dozens, or more likely hundreds, of insurance underwriters, and all will be required to disclose the claim to shareholders and regulators. Large insurance claims invariably end up in litigation that goes on for years. The idea there could be a multi-million (let alone multi-billion) insurance claim which nobody knows about is completely batty.
Poppycock - it does neither of those things.
You are making two daft assumptions:
1. that any private gold depositary is on anything like the scale of Fort Knox. This is neither physically nor commercially possible. $160bn is unbelievable. I would be surprised if there was as much as $1bn of gold there.
2. that the figures on an unsourced conspiracy theory site are correct.
You are also missing obvious questions: how long would it take to remove 10,000 tonnes of gold? How many trucks? You may want to check how long it took to stock the gold in Fort Knox, and how many railway cars were required.
Also, why would the owners of the gold not have complained at losing $160bn?
This is really dumb, even for a conspiracy theory.
The point is that it is completely implausible that anywhere near that amount of gold was stored. Gold was approx $275 per ounce at the time, so $100bn of gold = approx 10,000 metric tonnes.
The conspiracy loons would know this if they'd done five minutes research, but of course they don't bother. Anybody who trusts anything they say is an idiot.
Please show your working.
How much force would be required to push the tower to one side as it fell? Where would this force come from?
Given the inertia of the lower floors compared to the mass of the upper floors, by how many m/s/s would you expect the acceleration of the upper floors to be retarded compared with free fall? Is it practicable to measure this from videos of the collapse?
If you can't do the math, all you have is wild speculation.
Since the whole of the US's gold reserves add up to less than $160bn, how plausible do you think it is that $160bn was in the WTC? Bonus question: what does this say about the plausibility of the sources you are relying on?
No, it's the difference between Prague in 1968 and Prague in 1989.