What is Digg?99 Comments
- Michalson, on 10/12/2007, -15/+47Excellent use of long winded confusing names and numbers by AllofMP3 to state that they are "legal" without giving away their line of reasoning. For all those wondering, here is how it works:
Russia has copyright laws like most countries. You can't buy a CD, make 10 thousand copies, and sell them from the trunk of your car. However Russian copyright law has not caught up to defining how the internet and various computer based music formats fit into it's existing copyright law. AllofMP3 has taken advantage of that to interpret those laws in a way that lets them sell an infinite number of copies of music without paying for them.
Here is AllofMP3s logic:
In Russia and America, you can pay a flat fee to obtain a radio licence. Once you have a licence, you are allowed to "broadcast" music performances, even if you don't own the rights to them. AllOfMP3 owns one such radio licence, and has decided that simultaneously selling individual songs on demand, in an infinitely replayable format, over the internet, is a fair definition of "broadcasting".
So basically picture that same guy selling pirated CDs out of his trunk, only now he claims he is a "radio station" and that each time he sells a CD (even if he's selling multiple CDs per second) its simply a "broadcast".
This is how AllofMP3 is "legal" in Russia. - killerofkiller, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23From All of mp3 website:
Is the ALLOFMP3 pay service legal
Yes; we believe it is legal in Russia under Articles 44 and 45 of the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5351-1 "On Copyright and Related Rights" dated July 9, 1993, as amended, (the "Copyright Law"), which authorizes Russian non-profit Russian organizations for collective management of copyrights ("Russian Licensing Societies") to grant licenses to entities such as ALLOFMP3. ALLOFMP3 has up-to-date licenses from the Russian Licensing Societies, which includes license no. 006/3M-05 from the Federation of Rights Holders for Collective Management of Copyright with Respect to the Use of Musical Works in Interactive Regime ("FAIR") and license no. LS-3M-05-03 from the Russian Organization on Collective Management of Rights of Authors and Other Right Holders in Multimedia, Digital Networks & Visual Arts ("ROMS"). - sirdaz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25I have to give AllofMP3 credit. They are heading mainstream, keeping there heads up and constantly pushing forward to allow decent priced, DRM-free music. I honestly cannot see them backing down any time soon.
If I was religious, I'd pray to you AllofMP3. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Fancy a grammar?
- Menel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13You should have posted the rest of their argument, with excerpts from each of those "long winded confusing names and numbers" to justify their position. The last paragraph after Example 3 is probably their strongest argument.
http://www.allofmp3.com/press/centre.shtml?s=993&d=18191974
602. Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords (the "Importation for Private Use Exception")
(a) Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. This subsection does not apply to- ...
(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person’s personal baggage ... (emphasis added).
Viewed one way, § 602(a)(2) says if you obtain a copy of music legally in a foreign country, there is a personal exemption to bring that copy into the US. So you should be OK if you buy a legal CD in Russia or some other country, and bring it back to the US. We think three examples may be helpful in understanding our view as to how this statute applies to the ALLOFMP3 service:
Example 1. If you were in Russia and used ALLOFMP3 to make a CD, which is legal for you to do in Russia (see the answer to Question 1, above), and you then bring that legally procured CD back to the US for your own personal use, we see that as being within the scope and spirit of what is allowable under §602.
Example 2. If you were in Russia and used ALLOFMP3 to download music to your iPod, which is legal for you to do in Russia, and you then bring that legally procured music back to the US for your own personal use, we see that as being within the scope and spirit of what is allowable under §602.
Example 3. If you owned an apartment in Moscow and another in New York, and if you downloaded music to your Moscow home computer from ALLOFMP3, which is legal to do in Russia, and then you later connect to your Moscow home computer from your home computer in New York so that you can move your legally obtained music to New York, we see that as being within the scope and spirit of what is allowable under §602.
As such, our view is that § 602 allows for the importing of a legally purchased music selection from a user's ALLOFMP3 space into their private music library. As part of the ALLOFMP3 service, with every download item you purchase, you also obtain personal space (for up to two weeks) from which you can download your selected items. As this is a user's personal space located on servers in Russia, the user's downloaded items are legally procured and held in that space under Russian Law. When a user selects to retrieve music from ALLOFMP3, it is not merely streamed, but it is downloaded by the user as the file is ultimately dislocated from the user's personal storage space in Russia and moved to the user's storage space in their personal library. It is important to note that when a user downloads music from ALLOFMP3, the music in their personal space on the ALLOFMP3 server in Russia is simultaneously deleted as soon as the download completes into the user's private music library; as such, there is only one copy of the work that exists.
AND that is just their argument using the U.S.C. 602 legistlation, they have several other good examples at that top link as well. - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18So say we all
- trylleklovn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Not just banned, CENSORED!
IFPI made ISP's block allofmp3.com..
No matter how controversal this site is, censoring it should never be an option!!
What's next? - drboggs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17@BurtCokain
Take it easy, buddy, on doling out the "idiot"s. Michalson was trying to sort through a complicated issue. Attacking his logic without fundamentally clarifying the underlying issue makes *you* look, if not like an idiot, like an a**hole. - TheWriteGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Well that clears things up! (Or not.)
- Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14I have to say, im in awe of the RIAA's campaign to instill in everyones minds the illegalness of a legal company, without anyone realising they have done it
and people still insisting on saying they are illegal even when presented with proof they arent - digitalrift, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11we're likely legal. maybe. possibly. okay, we're not.
- jacksim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I did. I just emptied my balance yesterday by downloading like 4-5 full albums.
- Menel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@Matt2k
That's seriously laughable. You'd pay real money for DRM laden, non-standard music tracks that you can only load to a selection of players Yahoo lets you? Sounds like you've been had. - malachidigg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Seems to me there are two types of comments here:
1. I hate Russians mafia types rippings off our artists and probably being very dodgy in other ways
2. Go for it and break the DRM idiocy and pricing piracy that currently prevails.
I'm in the latter camp. Come of Allofmp3.com - take on the big boys and win! let's have our music DRM free and at reasonable prices!
And as for 'Likely legal' this refers to the fact that is has not been tested in court. This actually goes for ANY country worldwide. No country has as yet successfully prosecuted allofmp3.com in court. Are they worried that allofmp3.com may beat them? seems possible. - cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Show me that any part of that 15 cents a song gets anywhere near the original artist who created it, and you might be closer to a valid argument.
Someone I met with working experience in music distribution would have said it is closer to 25 to 30 cents a song, if the original artist is getting a fair cut, for internet distribution.
(that's with cutting out the extra costs for distribution and promotion that are less needed with an internet distribution). - BurtCokain, on 10/12/2007, -15/+20@Michalson,
Away with your flawed logic.
AllOfMP3 "transmits" the encoded information over a medium (in this case the internet). The guy selling CDs is selling physical copies of the information. You could not argue he is transmitting information over the CDs as each CD is burnt with 1 copy of the music and is not reused for anything else. It is a physical copy.
AllOfMP3 are not selling physical copies of the information, they are "transmitting" copies of the information over the internet. The definition of "transmission" may be hazy, but the situation is different. The guy selling a physical copy of the data on a CD is "transmitting" nothing, so cannot claim he is a radio station.
idiot. - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Dear Cbiz
C/O the InterNets
From: The music industry
Cbiz, while this might come as a surprise, we have no interest in selling our products to consumers who have no interest in purchasing them. While we do realize it is hard to live a normal happy American life without the latest hits from Justin Timberlake or P-Diddy rocking in your earbuds from day to day, we do ask that you find inner strength until hopefully some day we may find a cure for this horrible addiction. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8it reminds me of Fox News's use of the Question Mark...
"AllofMP3, we are likely legal?" - mgajda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8If allofmp3 is legal, then why don't they indemnify their consumers?
What they put on the website is just a contrived lawyer argumentation that may not stand in court. - octurian, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11So which law school in RUSSIA are you attending. Because ultimately this isn't a question of US law, its a question of Russian Law. America can pound its chest and growl about this all it wants, but in the end, jsut as with SO many other nations, if the right people start making profits, this will slide by the wayside. If there is one thing Russians know how to do, its work arounds.
- shark72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"What they put on the website is just a contrived lawyer argumentation that may not stand in court."
The red flag is their repeated use of "viewed one way...".
On forums where actual legal people discuss the issue (and no, I don't mean digg and Slashdot, where artists are greedy and need to be taken down a notch), the ***** detectors work a little better.
Look, I know that most people here WANT sites like this to be legal because the music industry has it coming to them (as ricefarmer put it quite well in another post here, "i mean come on now the music industry is over paid they live in mansions drive multiple rich cars.... and thats just the singers.. they dont need to be that rich just cuz they made a song about shakin ass... they should get 500,000 a year tops"). But, sadly, that's often not enough.
I used to get a lot of chain letters in email. They all assured me that they were "100% legal" because I was "subscribing to a mailing list" or something. The same could be said about each individual chain letter that I got that people around here say about allofmp3: "they haven't been proven to be illegal in a court of law." That , however, did not make them any less illegal. - TheUngod, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@Matt2k
So...you don't want to give your money to those "fine upstanding Russians"...but you have no trouble stripping DRM yourself? Hypocrite. In essence all you're doing is renting music and copying it anyway. Like taking all your netflix rentals and just ripping them.
AllOfMP3 should fight tooth and nail here. Not only for themselves, but for the entire concept of what purchasing music is. When I buy a song, I don't RENT a song...I don't want to be able to listen until my subscription is up or until I move computers X number of times...I want to own that song. That's what PURCHASING is all about. Not only that, but the pricing structure is much more sensical than an iTunes or the like. 99 cents a song no matter how long, what quality, how old, etc.? Why would I pay 99 cents for a 2 minute song and then pay the same for in-a-gadda-da-vida at around 20 minutes? The ability to pay based on size and choose your quality is what being a consumer is all about.
Even if AllOfMP3 gets shut down, I'd gladly pay more for a legit company using the same methods. Shopping there isn't all about saving money, it's about having a better experience and actually getting what I pay for. - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8> Because ultimately this isn't a question of US law, its a question of Russian Law
No, it's a question of western laws everywhere else *but* Russia. Whether it is legal to own illicit products in this country simply because they *might* be dubiously legal elsewhere. Just because I can buy a fully automatic firearm in Nigeria, or a 8 year old bride in Somalia, or an ounce of angel white cocaine in Bogota, doesn't mean I can bring that ***** home with me - LuckyNYC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So basically, they think they're legal...uh, because they're not illegal, yet? Quick everyone jump on the bandwagon before they get shut down.
I don't know what I just said...but I said it. And you can't stop me. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Personally I prefer "Barely Legal" to "Likely Legal".
- Snakedal337, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The core of AllofMP3's argument is that it indeed a legal service in the Russian Federation. Because of this, the company feels there is a stipulation in US copyright law (under an exportation clause) that allows citizens to download music from a foreign site, providing it is not for distribution or profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It really comes down to where do byte begin to follow a different countries laws, and the truth is, they don't. The internet is international and already problems are developing with it, and I foresee a great amount of cases like this in the future (where laws clash for different countries) and the only fix would be to sit down, and come up with a set of international governing laws.
But that final idea I support in no way, shape or form, mainly because I know the RIAA would have its ***** so far up the other countries asses during the "discussions" that we would end up getting the ***** end of the stick (no pun intended).
I could see that one now:
US: "Russia where do you stand on being allowed to sell copy written material"
Russia: "Our forefathers said **legal jabber**"
RIAA: "Well thats not what we think"
Russia: "So?"
RIAA: "So your infringing on my rights! Leave this room!" --- few moments later -- "Ya call the WTO, tell them to boycott all trade with Russia and digg up something about terrorists in moskau or something, thanks dick" - gamerzworld, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8RIAA: All your music belong to us!
- bdbr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Michalson: "Here is AllofMP3s logic:
In Russia and America, you can pay a flat fee to obtain a radio licence. Once you have a licence, you are allowed to 'broadcast' music performances, even if you don't own the rights to them."
No, this is not allofmp3's logic at all, and its not what they said in their statement. Its just a popular misconception. The definition of "broadcast" is actually one of the most thorough definitions in Russian copyright law, and specifically states that it covers TV, radio, or cable/satellite retransmission of those signals "to the public, independently of their actual reception by the said public".
Here's the key phrase in allofmp3's statement: "in Russia it is legal to sell downloads without permission from the copyright owner". Strange, but true:
Article 39 of Rospatent*'s "Law on Copyright and Related Rights" is termed "Use of a Published Phonogram for Commercial Purposes Without Consent from the Phonogram Producer and the Performer". 39.3 states that if the user and producer/performer (or their representatives) can't agree on a price, a state-appointed agency (e.g. ROMS) can set one.
So basically ROMS DOESN'T NEED THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS' PERMISSION and can set ANY PRICE THEY want. Its kind of a messed up law that they can do this, and the fact that they've set the price at about 1/50th of market value means that ROMS is really exploiting the law rather than performing due diligence to ensure fairness.
* Rospatent is the Russian "Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents AND Trademarks". The Copyright laws are available in English. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Purchasing music from allofmp3.com is unethical, regardless of the legality.
- archer75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is legal because it is legal to import music from Russia into the US. You could fly to russia, buy a ton of CD's for pennies and then takes them all back to the US. Same difference.
Allofmp3.com pays royalties to ROMS. The artists have to go to ROMS to request payment. I have never heard of any artist being denied.
I have however heard of artists asking allofmp3.com to take thier music down and the site did so. - jcapogna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're talking ethics, not legality.
- SedulouSyntax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For those who read the US Trade Representative's briefing paper on WTO accession issues, this shouldn't come as a surprise. (I think it made the front page within the last twelve hours)
Whilst singling out allofmp3.com by name, she also made sure to ask Russia to stop "collection societies acting without rightholder consent".
In essence, she knows allofmp3.com is legal because they pay the collection societies (in this case ROMS) 15% of revenue, so the only way she can put them out of play is by shutting down the collection societies too.
It is difficult to see how radio stations, etc, will be able to operate if the collection fees reach western levels given an average income of less than $1000 per month - and as long as they stay low, someone will find a way to arbitrage. God bless entrepreneurs. - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5> So...you don't want to give your money to those "fine upstanding Russians"...but you have no trouble stripping DRM yourself? Hypocrite.
Do you have an alternate definition for hypocritical than the rest of the English speaking population? Did I say one was legal where one was not? Jesus, It's like arguing with my 12 year old neighbor around here.
Let me spell it out for you: Both are illegal. But if you're going to steal your music, why pay more than you have to. And don't pat yourself on the back and pretend you figured out some sly loophole. Because you didn't.
FWIW, I personally support DRM. I also support the consumer's right to strip DRM. However what *I want* does not make legal policy. - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6> You are horribly confused. We have age of consent laws, and laws against the possession of cocain and other illegal substances which would govern your examples. But the last time I checked we have no laws banning the possession of digital media.
Why would you say I'm horribly confused? Because I disagree with you?
Exactly right, *we* have laws that prevent those things. Just like *WE* have laws that protect an artist's copyright. Which you go on to mention in your second paragraph. Did you actually have something to say, or were you just thinking out loud? - pabster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7AllOfMP3 is not legal.
If you're going to steal and deprive both artists and distributors of revenue, why on earth would you give your money to some Russian instead, who pockets it? - MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's an honest question with regards to using the definition of "broadcasting" as a basis for legality, and I'm hoping someone can clarify this:
We have compulsory licensing of music broadcast over a radio station here in the US too. I'm not sure how strictly that term broadcasting is defined, and whether it limits it to actual real-time audio broadcasts or whether transmission of the data can count as well.
Additionally, as much as the RIAA would hate to admit it, recording a broadcast off the radio that has been paid for by a compulsory license fee falls under fair use (as far as I know).
Why can't someone create a P2P network or a music store that pays the compulsory license to "broadcast" the music that someone purchases, which is then recorded on the other side. That's basically what AllofMP3 is doing, I know, but I don't see why the legality of it would be hazy either in Russia or here, according to how our licensing and fair use laws are defined. - shark72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Menel:
You lead with "You are horribly confused." But then you admit that " But I am no lawyer, that is a large part of the defense I have seen posted for AllofMP3."
Trouble is that many real lawyers disagree with you. Naturally, allofmp3 is free to post their defense (and notice that their defense is full of phrases like "viewed one way" -- not even they are sure ), and allofmp3 fans are free to parrot that defense. But disinterested parties who actually have expertise in the subject disagree. - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9> Sounds like you've been had.
Are you people ***** morons? Yes, you're right. There is absolutely no way to remove the DRM from Yahoo's music. You wise net-pioneers go right ahead and give your money to the fine upstanding folks from Russia. - cosmotron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Too bad Russia is going to try to shut them down...
http://digg.com/tech_news/Allofmp3_to_be_closed - aggies11, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The long and short of it:
Allofmp3.com is using "creative" interpretation of the laws to produce a sort of "loophole". Is this a bad thing? Hell no! Large corporations often use these exact sort of things to make themselves even more money, and to stick it to the consumer. This is finally a case of the consumer being able to use the law to stick it to the companies!
What is the solution to the allofmp3 "problem"? The RIAA and music companies should adopt this model, that way the money will make it back to "the artists". Of course, rather than do what the market wants, they will use collusion and their monopolistic ways to pressure the government into changing laws ina foreign country. Business as usual :/
Aggies - myszka716, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Is it really that expensive to purchase songs that are definately legal?
- axox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would use the site if they ever allow me to put money in my balance.
I suppose those of you using the page are using the XROST service? - Atomike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It's not legitimate at all. It's completely illegal in the US, and certainly immoral.
Look, if you hate DRM, don't buy music - period. But don't steal it either. Being a cyber shoplifter hurts you more than the RIAA. YOU will have to answer for your actions when you die. If you hate the RIAA, don't buy music. Send a message. But being a thief? Please. Just listen to nothing. Punks who try to defend Allofmp3 really show how incredibly stupid their generation has become. It's pure rationalization. It can all be boiled down to rationalization. - IanRReardon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I've only been in law school for like 5 months, but I can tell you none of these arguments would hold up in court. AllofMP3 is just interpreting the language of the statutes to make it say what they want. A big part of interpreting a statute is identifying the legislatures intent. I can't see congress wanting to allow giant loop holes like this for an illegal Russian website. You can't tell me that bringing music home in a suitcase is analogous to buying music on line. Suitcase = small, HD = nearly infinite.
- Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To be fair, it's only the top performers who live that lifestyle. (Much like the top athletes.)
I'd rather talk about how the RIAA controls the radio, the retail distribution, etc. A monopoly situation that definitely hurts the consumer.
And then let's talk about how ideas and artistic expression is property of the public, not some corporate body -- and that copyright is (or was) a TEMPORARY, LIMITED monopoly on distribution WE grant to ARTISTS to encourage them to produce more art; in order to enrich our culture. - orp2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2WHO CARES...if it's legal or not!!! Who cares if through some technicality of international law they can claim that it "might" be legal. The litmus test is, are the artists who created the music getting any portion of the purchase price? The answer is a resounding "no." C'mon folks, if you like the art, support the artists. It's as simple as that. Period. Don't buy/steal music from someone if you like the artist. Have a little integrity. Otherwise you're just a little panty-waste f-head.
Respectfully?
Dave - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Uh... Sure, why not.
- sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"AllofMP3 is significantly less expensive than iTunes, has no portability issues, and is DRM free."
I have never used the allofMP3.com site, but those three factors pretty much sum it up why the RIAA wants this site neutered. - Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Tell it to our "we can torture them, and screw the treaties!" government.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"dollar a song that's encoded worse than FM radio"
What an amazingly ignorant person you are. -
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is