AllofMP3 declared Legal..

[SirFozzie]

And lo, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth :D (from the RIAA-types, anyway)

Moscow prosecutor lets low-cost MP3 site off the hook
By Tony Smith
Published Monday 7th March 2005 14:52 GMT

Russian prosecutors have decided they are unable to take legal action against controversial online music provider Allofmp3.com - despite the music service's lack of sufficient licences to offer the content it does.

Last week, the Moscow Southwest regional prosecutor's office said no criminal indictment could be brought against the music seller because it has not violated Russia's copyright law, a local blogger has reported.

Yes, AllofMP3.com offers copyright music. No, it does not always have the prior permission of the copyright holder to do so. But Russian law was written to prevent CD and DVD piracy - copyright infringement through a physical medium. Its online manifestation was not something taken into account by legislators.

AllofMP3.com has won the support of many music buyers by offering songs very, very cheaply. It charges not on a per-track basis, as other services do, but on a per-megabyte scheme. Tracks are available in a broad array of formats, from AIFF to MP3, AAC, Ogg, WMA etc, encoded on the fly at any bitrate the user chooses. The higher the level of compression, the lower the audio quality, but ipso facto, the more you can download for the same amount of money.

And silly amounts of money at that: $5 for 500MB of music.

AllofMP3.com maintains what it's doing is legal, under the terms of a licence granted to it by the Russian copyright licensing authorities. Essentially, it can transmit CD content without first gaining the authorisation of the copyright owner, provided it makes a nominal payment for the privilege, which it claims it does. It says its distribution of tracks across the Internet of digital audio files is equivalent to a broadcaster or a cable company transmitting songs as part of their programming.

Last month, the computer crime division of the Moscow City Police began an investigation into AllofMP3.com's activities after receiving a complaint from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). The police referred the case to the Prosecutor's Office with the request that the Internet site be brought to book.

However, because the site is not involved in the physical distribution of unauthorised copies of the songs it offers, it can't be put on trial for breaking Russia's copyright law, the Prosecutor's Office said last week.

The IFPI has already admitted that AllofMP3.com is operating within a loophole in Russian law, and that a successful prosecution would be unlikely.

[Chubby]

so when will someone else start up a company ala Napster based in Russia to REALLY piss off the RIAA?

[Ksyrup]

Interesting that even back when this site first got noticed, the RIAA remained strangely silent.

EDIT - Well, duh, that would be because the RIAA's international counterpart is the IFPI:


"IFPI represents the recording industry worldwide with over 1450 members in 75 countries and affiliated industry associations in 48 countries."


I wonder how long until the legislative loophole is closed.

[SirFozzie]

Thank god for russian beuarcracy :D (damn, spelled that word so bad not even a spell check could fix it)

[Ksyrup]

I decided to check the site out to see if they offer some of the stuff I watn (they've failed so far), but I'm getting a bunch of "server busy" errors. Is this normal, or is this just because of the news?

[sovereignstar]

Could I get a link, Fozzie? Want to send this to my dad.

[Pumpy Tudors]

This still doesn't necessarily make it legal in the United States, though, does it?

[SirFozzie]

Could I get a link, Fozzie? Want to send this to my dad.

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/07/allofmp3-com_let_off/

[SirFozzie]

This still doesn't necessarily make it legal in the United States, though, does it?

It is no more or less legal then buying a game from another country and having it shipped to the states. It's just digital bits over the net rather then a physical copy.

Music is still legal here in the states ;)

[oliegirl]

Whew, I guess this means I don't have to worry about the FBI or KGB knocking at my door to arrest me for downloading off this site :)

[SirFozzie]

Oliegirl, you haven't seen the RIAA Swat Team then, have you?

(It's real, they do exist!.. here's an article from last year about the Swat Team in action..)

Though no guns were brandished, the bust from a distance looked like classic LAPD, DEA or FBI work, right down to the black "raid" vests the unit members wore. The fact that their yellow stenciled lettering read "RIAA" instead of something from an official law-enforcement agency was lost on 55-year-old parking-lot attendant Ceasar Borrayo.

The Recording Industry Association of America is taking it to the streets.

Even as it suffers setbacks in the courtroom, the RIAA has over the last 18 months built up a national staff of ex-cops to crack down on people making and selling illegal CDs in the hood.

The result has been a growing number of scenes like the one played out in Silver Lake just before Christmas, during an industry blitz to combat music piracy.

Borrayo attends to a parking lot next to the landmark El 7 Mares fish-taco stand on Sunset Boulevard. To supplement his buck-a-car income, he began, in 2003, selling records and videos from a makeshift stand in front of the lot.

In a good week, Borrayo said, he might unload five or 10 albums and a couple DVDs at $5 apiece. Paying a distributor about half that up-front, he thought he’d lucked into a nice side business.

The RIAA saw it differently. Figuring the discs were bootlegs, a four-man RIAA squad descended on his stand a few days before Christmas and persuaded the 4-foot-11 Borrayo to hand over voluntarily a total of 78 discs. It wasn’t a tough sell.

"They said they were police from the recording industry or something, and next time they’d take me away in handcuffs," he said through an interpreter. Borrayo says he has no way of knowing if the records, with titles like Como Te Extraño Vol. IV — Musica de los 70’s y 80’s, are illegal, but he thought better of arguing the point.

The RIAA acknowledges it all — except the notion that its staff presents itself as police. Yes, they may all be ex-P.D. Yes, they wear cop-style clothes and carry official-looking IDs. But if they leave people like Borrayo with the impression that they’re actual law enforcement, that’s a mistake.

"We want to be very clear who we are and what we’re doing," says John Langley, Western regional coordinator for the RIAA Anti-Piracy Unit. "First and foremost, we’re professionals."

Langley, based in Los Alamitos, California, oversees five staff investigators and around 20 contractors who sniff out bootleg discs west of the Rockies. The former Royal Canadian Mountie said his unit’s on-the-streets approach has been a big success, netting more than 100,000 pieces of unauthorized merchandise during the recent Christmas retail blitz.

With all the trappings of a police team, including pink incident reports that, among other things, record a vendor’s height, weight, hair and eye color, the RIAA squad can give those busted the distinct impression they’re tangling with minions of Johnny Law instead of David Geffen. And that raises some potential legal questions.

Contacted for this article, the Southern California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union said it needed more information on the practices to know if specific civil liberties were at risk.

But if an anti-piracy team crossed the line between looking like cops and implying or telling vendors that they are cops, the Los Angeles Police Department would take a pretty dim view, said LAPD spokesman Jason Lee.

"I will not say it’s okay to be [selling] illegal stuff," Lee said. "That’s a violation of penal codes.

"But it doesn’t really matter what your status is. If that person feels he was wrongly interrogated or under the false pretense that these people were cops, they should contact their local police station as a victim. We’ll sort it all out."

For its part, the RIAA maintains that the up-close-and-personal techniques are nothing new. RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy says its investigators do not represent themselves as police, and that the incident reports vendors are asked to sign, in which they agree to hand over their discs, explicitly state that the forfeiture is voluntary.

Lamy and the RIAA are unapologetic about taking the fight against music piracy to the streets. Though the association has suffered a few high-profile legal setbacks in recent months — most notably when a three-judge panel ruled that Internet service providers do not have to squeal on their file-swapping customers — community action is extremely effective.

Langley says the anti-piracy teams have about an 80 percent success rate in persuading vendors to hand over their merchandise voluntarily for destruction.

"We notify them that continued sale would be a violation of civil and criminal codes. If they’d like to voluntarily turn the product over to us, we’ll destroy it, and we agree we won’t sue," he explained.

The pink incident sheets and photos that Langley’s teams take of vendors are meant to establish a paper trail, particularly for repeat offenders.

"A large percentage [of the vendors] are of a Hispanic nature," Langley said. "Today he’s Jose Rodriguez, tomorrow he’s Raul something or other, and tomorrow after that he’s something else. These people change their identity all the time. A picture’s worth a thousand words."

Though Langley says he doesn’t know what tack his new boss will take, the recent hiring of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Director Bradley Buckles to head the anti-piracy unit has some RIAA watchers holding their breath.

On its face, the move looks like a shift toward even more in-your-face enforcement. But don’t expect all RIAA critics to rally to the side of Borrayo and other sellers.

"The process of confiscating bootleg CDs from street vendors is exactly what the RIAA should be doing," said Jason Schultz, a staff attorney for the San Francisco–based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

The EFF has frequently crossed swords with the record industry over its strategy of suing ISPs and individual listeners accused of downloading tunes from the Internet. A champion of copyright "fair use," the EFF says Buckles could bring a more balanced approach to the RIAA’s anti-piracy efforts. The more time the association spends rousting vendors, the thinking goes, the less it will spend subpoenaing KaZaa and BearShare aficionados.

Meanwhile, Borrayo will have to keep his eyes open for another source of income. Though he says he still sees nothing wrong with what he did, the guy who once supplied him records hasn’t been around in a couple months.

"They tried to scare me," Borrayo said. "They told me, ‘You’re a pirate!’ I said, ‘C’mon, guys, pirates are all at sea. I just work in a parking lot.’ "

[oliegirl]

Oliegirl, you haven't seen the RIAA Swat Team then, have you?

(It's real, they do exist!)

Nope...haven't seen them...yet! :)

[Draft Dodger]

It is no more or less legal then buying a game from another country and having it shipped to the states. It's just digital bits over the net rather then a physical copy.

Music is still legal here in the states ;)

it doesn't really have anything to do with buying a game from another country. the fact that it's still legal in Russia doesn't change much - at some point, the RIAA will throw enough money at someone to get this kind of thing shut down.

allofMP3 is no more or less legal in the US than it was yesterday

[SirFozzie]

On the first part, I disagree.

It's legal to own music here in the states. It's legal to own music in Russia. It's not illegal in either nation (like some other things you can quite possibly buy in other nations). You can therefore own the music that allofmp3 offers. They are not offering an illegal product per their government, so it's legal to buy here.

Look at Sony who (briefly) tried to stop people from buying US Region encoded PS2's in the EU (the europeans were tired of waiting 6 months-year for stuff to come out there, IF they deigned to release them over there). They got told that there's nothing the can do about it.

the 2nd part I agree, the pigopolists can't afford to have people going to "officially unapproved" channels (ie one that they can't control and price-rape the customer). Might give the consumers ideas.

[Ksyrup]

it doesn't really have anything to do with buying a game from another country. the fact that it's still legal in Russia doesn't change much - at some point, the RIAA will throw enough money at someone to get this kind of thing shut down.

allofMP3 is no more or less legal in the US than it was yesterday
I haven't really thought through the legal ramifications fully, but I'm not so sure about this, if only for the fact that the RIAA hasn't even tried to do anything about it. The individual companies are part of the IPFI, and they've been stymied. If the RIAA thought it could do something, wouldn't it? Given their past actions, I would at least expect some kind of promo campaign where they vaguely warn people about d/l'ing from this type of site. But so far, nothing.

[Glengoyne]

I thought this "loophole" of sorts was going to be closed last week when NPR reported that the Moscow police had investigated AllofMP3, and recommended that the "State Attorney" prosecute the company to prevent them from making oversea sales. Since I heard that they referred the case just last week, and now on Monday of the following week the Prosecutor's office has announced that they will not be pursuing it, I gather that corruption is still alive and well in the Russian Government. I mean they took a whole week to make their determination, after reviewing a Police Investigation carried out over months.

I don't have a problem with AllofMP3, if(maybe since?) the industry has made a deal with them at those prices in this day and age of internet commerce, then they deserve what they get. It is just the open and shut nature of this case, that leads me to believe that some wheel somewhere was "greased".

[SirFozzie]

Maybe because the police investigation was bought and paid for by the IFPI, and they looked at it and said.. "Great job.. you've described what they're doing perfectly, unfortunately for the IFPI, what they are doing is not illegal."

[Ksyrup]

I read elsewhere that they had until March 7 to decide whether to pursue the case - not sure if that was an internal time line, or something set by law.

[Ksyrup]

Yes, I had the (mis)fortune of dealing with similar issues as an attorney for the Department of Insurance. We'd receive files alleging violations of the law, with the facts laid out perfectly. Unfortunately, applying those facts to the law was not the investigators' strong suit. And really, in this case it is totally driven by the law. The facts almost don't matter beyond electronic vs. physical medium.

[Draft Dodger]

I haven't really thought through the legal ramifications fully, but I'm not so sure about this, if only for the fact that the RIAA hasn't even tried to do anything about it. The individual companies are part of the IPFI, and they've been stymied. If the RIAA thought it could do something, wouldn't it? Given their past actions, I would at least expect some kind of promo campaign where they vaguely warn people about d/l'ing from this type of site. But so far, nothing.

for that matter, the RIAA isn't going after people who download songs, just people who share songs. that doesn't mean the RIAA thinks it's legal for you to download songs, just that it is easier at this point to focus on the sharers. but don't be surprised if someday they go after downloaders too. and, by a similar token, don't be surprised if they get aggressive with allofmp3 down the road - right now, I think they would rather focus on the p2p stuff, but, eventually, I think they will try to build up the legal and political clout to go after them (well, more likely to go after consumers who use them...)

no matter which side of the arguement you fall on, you have to agree that the russian music downloads is still a very grey legal area...I just don't think this news today is anywhere near the end of it.

[Ksyrup]

I agree. I haven't tried it, and looking at their selection, I'm not sure I would want to.

[Ksyrup]

On a related note:



Gigs & Bytes:
MGM vs Grokster
Updated 03:27 PST Fri, Mar 04 2005
The Michael Jackson trial may be the big reality/legal thriller these days, but a case before the Supreme Court (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/) has already sparked plenty of heated controversy even though it won't be heard until March 29th.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif It's called MGM Studios (http://www.mgm.com/) vs Grokster (http://www.grokster.com/), for short, and it's the appeal by the entertainment industry to reverse lower court decisions that sided with peer-to-peer file-sharing companies Grokster and StreamCast Networks (http://www.streamcastnetworks.com/)(makers of Morpheus), saying neither company was liable for the actions of its users.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif On the MGM side you'll find representatives of most of the major entertainment food groups, including film, TV and the recording industry. And their argument pretty much hasn't changed since the RIAA (http://www.riaa.com/) went after the original Napster five years ago - that file-sharing is evil and any company that provides technology that allows one user to swap a copyrighted work with another should be smitten from the face of this earth.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif Meanwhile, on the P2P side, both Grokster and StreamCast are sticking by the argument that got them this far - that P2P file-sharing has legitimate, non-infringing uses and should not be exiled to the Phantom Zone just because a few people decide to take advantage of the technology to grab a few tunes and/or flicks for free.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif Of course, the rotten apples threatening to spoil the file-sharing bunch pretty much make up the majority of P2P usership. Most of the millions of users Grokster and StreamCast count as customers are hardly swapping photographs from their last summer vacations or distributing original songs cooked up in the garage. In fact, one of the entertainment industry's arguments against P2P companies goes along the lines that if P2P users weren't storing copyrighted material in their "shared" directories, file-sharing would hardly be the phenomena it is today.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif Meanwhile, as the clock ticks down to a Supreme decision, you can expect both sides to file briefs and issue statements claiming they're right and their opposition wrong.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif Like, for instance, the brief favoring the P2Ps recently filed by 17 computer science and engineering professors representing nine universities. The professors expressed concern the court might reinterpret the landmark 1984 Sony Betamax case that ruled Sony could not be held liable for any copyright infringing activities committed by users of the company's video cassette recorders, mainly because the Betamax had many non-infringing uses.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif Sound familiar?
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif The brief also said a decision favoring the entertainment industry might hamper future technological development.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif "If this court should announce a more restrictive rule, those who create the latest advances in technology will halt or significantly scale back their work, for fear of massive copyright infringement damages," the professors stated.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif The nut of several of the technological companies' stance is that, before developing a new product, a company would have to examine any and all possible copyright infringing activities that might arise due to the existence of the product.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif In other words, the tech side of the argument fears the copyright liability burden will be placed squarely on their shoulders - a heavy weight, for sure.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif But the professors weren't the only ones filing briefs on the Grokster/StreamCast side. Several recording artists, including Chuck D, Heart and Sananda Maitreya (the artist formerly known as Terence Trent D'Arby), filed their own brief supporting the P2P companies.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif However, if there's anybody who knows how to shape opinion, it's the entertainment biz, and both the movie and recording industries answered the various P2P supporting briefs with a few of their own.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif In response to certain artists siding with Grokster and StreamCast, the Recording Artists' Coalition (http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/) issued a statement saying that although the P2P-friendly artists were within their rights to express their opinions, "it is unfortunate when artists are seduced into believing that unauthorized P2P systems benefit our society and artists' careers."
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif The RAC's statement, which was backed by a veritable who's who list of artists, also address claims made by what it calls "partisan advocates of P2P services" and disagrees with allegations that many artists are against new technologies, saying "nothing could be further from the truth."
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif "The vast majority of recording artists welcome the day when P2P systems and other technologies offer uninhibited and direct distribution of their work to the public, while at the same time respecting artists' demands for fair remuneration for their work and respect for their rights." RAC's statement said.
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif "We look forward to the upcoming debate, and are confident that once exposed to the facts, these artists will realize they have been used in an unseemly way to promote the interests of those who care the least about the well being of artists and our culture,"
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif Despite all the rhetoric from both sides, the issue before the Supreme Court is liability. If a person allows other people to download a copy of Million Dollar Baby from his or her hard drive, should the user be held liable, or should the blame be put on the company that manufactured and distributed the software that made such an infringement possible?
http://images.pollstar.com/icons/dotclear.gif That is what the Supreme Court will have to address come March 29th.

[SirFozzie]

And if the Music industry steals a verdict, expect the horse and buggy makers to sue the inventors of the automobile.

Can't compete? Litigate.

[Brillig]

And if the Music industry steals a verdict, expect the horse and buggy makers to sue the inventors of the automobile.

Can't compete? Litigate.
So theft is "competition" now? Here's hoping someone breaks into your house to compete with you.

[SirFozzie]

Here's hoping that people don't have to stop inventing things because someone else might not make as obscene a profit.

[Glengoyne]

Here's hoping that people don't have to stop inventing things because someone else might not make as obscene a profit.
Does someone really need to explain to you the why the "Buggy Manufacturers and Automobile Inventors" thing is a bad allegory to Grokster and the music Industry.


Here is a hint:
It isn't like Grokster invented something that made a piece of music obsolete, just something that makes copyright violation more accessible.

[KWhit]

Does someone really need to explain to you the why the "Buggy Manufacturers and Automobile Inventors" thing is a bad allegory to Grokster and the music Industry.


Here is a hint:
It isn't like Grokster invented something that made a piece of music obsolete, just something that makes copyright violation more accessible.
True. But so do the makers of CD-R drives. And blank CD and DVD media. And companies that make mp3 players. Technically, my CANON printer should be made illegal. I can download a picture and print it it seconds, violating the copyright faster than you can say lawsuit.

There are legal reasons to use p2p software. Just as there are legal reasons to use everything else I listed.

The question: should the company who provides the tool be held responsible if someone uses that tool to commit a crime???

I think not.

[sterlingice]

I've been down this thread before at least a couple of times. I'm pretty sure I don't want to get involved this time.

Thank god for russian beuarcracy :D (damn, spelled that word so bad not even a spell check could fix it)
You mean that old Russian tradition called the "mafia bribe" ;)

SI

[clintl]

Instead of wasting their time and money with litigation, I don't know why the RIAA doesn't just do this (http://www.sfwa.org/epiracy/shades-of-gray.html). Writers are so much smarter than music industry executives.

[sterlingice]

Instead of wasting their time and money with litigation, I don't know why the RIAA doesn't just do this (http://www.sfwa.org/epiracy/shades-of-gray.html). Writers are so much smarter than music industry executives.
From what I've read, they already do this. The last couple of times I've read about "hot albums stolen off the net", it's mentioned the fake copies the RIAA floods file sharing networks with.

SI

[stkelly52]

True. But so do the makers of CD-R drives. And blank CD and DVD media. And companies that make mp3 players. Technically, my CANON printer should be made illegal. I can download a picture and print it it seconds, violating the copyright faster than you can say lawsuit.

There are legal reasons to use p2p software. Just as there are legal reasons to use everything else I listed.

The question: should the company who provides the tool be held responsible if someone uses that tool to commit a crime???

I think not.
There is a difference though. With printers I would be willing to bet that over 90% of the time that people use printers they use it without violating any copyright laws. CD/DVD burners are used to violate copyrights much more often, but I would still guess that at least half of the time they are used for leagal reason.

P2P on the other hand really is rarly used for anything other than stealing copyrighted material.

[Glengoyne]

....
P2P on the other hand really is rarly used for anything other than stealing copyrighted material.
This is the gist of the argument. I don't think you can quantify the "percentage" of infringing activities carried out on copiers, printers, and DvD burners, but I do believe it is safe to say that the P2P networks are about two things, namely Porn and Copyright Infringement. Now Porn has a perfectly legitimate purpose, but these providers should be responsible for monitoring the use of their software. If for no other reason than to prevent theft of Intellectual Property.

[Ksyrup]

"...I do believe it is safe to say that the P2P networks are about two things, namely Porn and Copyright Infringement."


Porn can't be copyrighted?

[Blackadar]

This is the gist of the argument. I don't think you can quantify the "percentage" of infringing activities carried out on copiers, printers, and DvD burners, but I do believe it is safe to say that the P2P networks are about two things, namely Porn and Copyright Infringement. Now Porn has a perfectly legitimate purpose, but these providers should be responsible for monitoring the use of their software. If for no other reason than to prevent theft of Intellectual Property.

1. You're making an assumption regarding how much copyright infringement is done via P2P. Porn doesn't come into the equasion...it's a legitimate purpose (hehe).

Now I would tend to think that you're correct regarding the majority of use - but there would have to be a lot of traffic studies (independent studies!) to determine that. I believe there may be some out there, but they tend to be funded by sources with a dog in the fight and are questionable. But there are many legitimate uses. FYI, Blizzard uses P2P to distribute patches for WoW.

2. Besides, I'm not sure #1 matters. P2P is nothing more than an information conduit...much like the World Wide Web. I don't believe P2P providers shouldn't be held responsible for traffic - that by design - they shouldn't or can't see. Look at Bittorrent - how do you stop that? It's not even a network - just a program, and a free one at that. How do you monitor that? Do you require the maker of a free program to put in monitoring software so the RIAA can monitor what passes from computer to computer?

[Blackadar]

And I love how the discussion has moved from AllofMP3 to file-sharing networks.

It looks like until the RIAA can buy off the Russians, we are free to use AllofMP3 to pay for our digital music. Woot!

Of course, I've been using them for 6 months...