AllofMp3.com Breaks Silence

An anonymous reader writes "The controversial Russian music site AllofMp3.com has fired back a return salvo on legality, royalties, and the WTO." From the article: "The entertainment industry however claims the service is flat out illegal. According to the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), AllofMp3.com fails to pay artist royalties - contrary to AllofMp3.com's assertions."

The British BPI say its illegal

and you will be breaking the law by downloading from there

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5051826.s tm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:The British BPI say its illegal

Next up, the British BPI announces a royalty on having a song stuck in your head. Freedom isn't free, chaps!

Re:The British BPI say its illegal

I am not disputing whether anything is legal or illegal. However, it does a disservice to allow a private organization unilaterally classify behavior as illegal. Things are illegal when the government establishes a law making it so. In most democracies, this involves a legislature passing a law. In situation where there is gray area, which is the vast majority of day-to-day situations, there are courts to interpret and apply the specific law. You should be rather suspicious when organizations like the BPI, MPAA, RIAA, or IAPI claim behavior is illegal. Usually, they are a bit biased and often claim things as illegal when, in fact, the behavior is not illegal. Some US examples are the claims: 1) Recording television shows for private use is a copyright violation. It was and is not. 2) Ripping CDs is a copyright violation. No court has ever been asked to establish that. 3) Recording songs off the radio, making a mixed tape, and sharing it with friends. Legal and even agreed to by the RIAA when creating the Home Audio Recording Act. Only now the RIAA wants to make a distinction whether it is digital or analog content. You surely should never quote anything such organizations say as being an establishment of what is legal or illegal.

Re:The British BPI say its illegal

Remember you don't "buy" copyrighted material (and you never could). Instead, you license it from the copyright holder.

Rubbish. You've been able to "buy" copyrighted material for as long as the idea existed. I have thousands of items of "copyrighted material" that I most certainly have paid for and own. Note: I own the ITEM; not the copyright. If you want to publish copyrighted material, you need to make arrangements with the copyright owner. Not if you want to read, view or listen to it yourself; or even make exerpts from it in certain cases.

Re:The British BPI say its illegal

>In the United States, copyright law gives the
>holder of the copyright great powers to say how
>their work is distributed, how you may use that
>work, and in what formats.

Not true, the copyright law gives a few specific rights as exclusive (but with exceptions) to the copyright holder. Ordinaru use is NOT one of those, nor is format decision. Please feel free to read the US copyright law below and if you find any reference to any exclusive rights that support what you say, feel free to quote or point it out.

>Can a company claim that recording their TV show
>is breaking their copyright? Yes, if you
>recorded it on a DVD. No, if you record it on a
>VHS tape.

I believe this has allready been mentioned, but this is a complete lie and not at all supported or even touched on in the copyright law.

>Now, companies like Sony owns the content, the
>distribution and the manufacturing sides.

Now, they don't own the content, they hold the copyright to it, which is a HUGE difference. Copyright only gives a few specific rights, and those are the ones given by copyright laws, in addition there is often exceptions to the exclusivness, one such being the fair use, but there are MANY others, see 107-122! Holding the copyright is quite different from owning something.

As for manufacturing, they hold control over creation of copies only as much as the copyright law gives and although it is a quite exclusive right, there are many exceptions when others can "manufacture" or create copies of a work that is not infringement, fair use is one such common exception.

As for distribution, they only control or "own" the initial distribution, after that, they have MUCH less control, I believe that in the US it goes under the "first sale doctrine". but basically after the initial distribution, that right is consumed for a particular copy of a work. That is why you can resell a book for example or borrow it from a friend and so on.

>Remember you don't "buy" copyrighted material (and you never could). Instead, you license it
>from the copyright holder.

This is not at all true. Most copies of copyrighted works are sold, there is nothing wrong with buying, selling or owning copies of a copyrighted work and such ownership and transfer of ownership has nothing to do with and is distinct from ownership and transfer of the copyright itself. See the link below and specifically 202 which tells about this in detail.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sup_01_17.html [cornell.edu]

law-abiding? Not always!

"We might not like the law, but we still have to obey it."

This remembers me about the book 'Bush: president of good and evil', in which the moral and ethical sense of Bush is analysed, and found it is stuck at the level of a 13-year old. (which, in fact, is not as uncommon as one would believe, for many adults are). The sociological and psychological roots of this behaviour would lead me too far, but I'll simplify by saying that there are several levels of 'ethical priciples' which are quite universal (thus, apparant through all times and cultures).

The ethic behaviour of a teenager between 10-15 years is often very stringent; the law is the law, and rules are rules. He does not yet possess the ability to understand thatrules for the sake of rules are useless, and that exeptions can and should be made on personal evaluation of the rules, not merely because society has put them there. To the surprise of the reseachers, many adults continue to live in that mindset, and never evolve to a more nuanced ethical view in which to look at the world. Your argument above hints at the same kind of mentality.

Thus, let me be clear: no, it's not because something is a law, that we should obey it. And while 'not liking it' is on itself not sufficent case to break a law, it DOES give a first indication and a ground to look closer at that law, and see if it is in harmony with itself (are there internal contradictions?), with other laws (which supercedes which?) and your own basic values (is it acceptable within my own ethical value-system?).

If you do not do that, and merely accept you have to follow a law, because the law is there, then one would sooner or later be confronted with unethical behaviour (even from oneself), even though one is following the law. If a law is passed that would put all niggers apart from white people, would you agree to it? If you're argument is that the law is the law, and you should obey it, then the answer would be yes. If you take the principles I just mentionned, then the answer could well be; no - EVEN if the law says something else. And mind you, a democracy is not immune to such unjust laws; it's just a matter of 'the dictatorship of the majority'.

In my own country, for instance - a most democratic one, more so then the rather doubtful two-party system - there has been talk lately about creating a law which not only criminalyzes immigrants, but also ALL people who help them (for instance, by taking them in their homes, giving them food, etc.). Without wanting to invoke the nazi's, that's rather a disturbing trend. If people offer that help freely, out of empathy, are they being wrong? According to the law (if it gets passed), they are, but I say: bullocks to that law. One should not follow unjust laws, whether they are created by due democratic processes or not.

One could even say that laws, which are generally just, still have to be measured by a persons own value. At least, that's what I do. For instance, I can agree, that stealing is, in general, a 'wrong' thing. When some rich western bloke would steal a television, I would agree with the law: punish him. And yet, if a kid stole food because he was starving, I would not think the same, and would not cooperate with 'the law'. Certainly, these cases are not always easy to spot and to know what is the best thing to do, but it does not absolve you from doing it, and making that personal evaluation.

Following laws just because they have been made is the ultimate stupidity.

Re:The British BPI say its illegal

allofmp3 does plainly not have the right to licence copyright to the BPI's artists in the UK...

They don't claim to have rights in the UK. They don't have a presence in the UK. The credit cards are run through Holland. Are they obliged to check your location before completing a sale? It's the customer's obligation to ensure what he buys or imports (if this can be counted as an import, which is not clear) is legal where he lives. allofmp3 is acting unlawfully...

If they're acting unlawfully, how is it that Amazon and hundreds of other online dealers who cheerfully sell across international borders, regardless of market segmentation, are not? Corporations are all in favour of globalisation when it cuts costs for them, but demonise it when it cuts their profits.

Re:This is scary.

I can almost imagine that there are fat purple elephants flying around in the sky, but it doesn't mean that it's true.

Ease up on the hyperbole.

Re:This is scary.

Actually, it is not simply an hyperbole.
There are many kinds of war, including political and economical wars.
Not all wars are military ones.

If you consider those other kinds of war, the possibility doesn't sound so far fetched anymore, does it ?

Re:This is scary.

The United States has gone to war over business before. Oil is the obvious example, but there are others as well. Or here's an example involving fruit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_fruit_company [wikipedia.org] Food for thought.

Re:This is scary.

I can almost imagine that there are fat purple elephants flying around in the sky, but it doesn't mean that it's true.

Ease up on the hyperbole.

Yeah, 'cause the United States has never gone to war to protect its business interests.

Re:It's Hardly Scary

On your lines of logic, I could ask what reason does a Law grad have to work at a public defenders all of his life? What reason does an MBA have for helping run a goodwill? But assuming "music is different" (which I'm sure you'll say), to answer your question about what incentive an artist would have to create: artistic passion (some of our greatist artists, not just in music, live and worked in squalor just to do what they loved. Even in science! Albert Einstien worked as a patent office employee, checking patents for chump change), and concerts. Artists make a shitload of money on concerts, and without widely distributed music they won't have enough buzz to put on a concert. As far as the war comment, we woudln't go to war specifically and instantly over such a debate, however a situation like this will breakdown communication (which inevitably leads to war as neither party knows how to think of anything other than themselves).

Re:It's Hardly Scary

if you think the United states wouldn't go to war to protect its economic interests you are fooling yourself.

Re:It's Hardly Scary

f you think the United states wouldn't go to war to protect its economic interests you are fooling yourself.

If you dom't realize that the United States went to war to protect its economic interests several times in the last century and has already done so once in the young current century you are fooling yourself.

Re:It's Hardly Scary (for an Imperialist)

Let's see,

• Hawaii
• Mexico
• Nicaragua
• Dominican Republic
• Iraq
• Spain for Cuba, Puerto Rico, Phillipines
• Cuba
• Native Americans (so many times it's too hard to itemize)

These all were commercial motivated to some degree or another.
Russia is way too big and has too many things that go boom to risk a war with and the copyright thing is probably too minor, but if this were a smaller nation with few friends who knows. Of course it would be over terrorism or for "liberation".
The major record labels are representations of capitalism at it's worse. Their demise might actually bring about a more efficient industry that meets the needs of consumers and artists better.
AllOfMP3 is what these companies deserve after their manipulation of copyright laws and buying congress for the DMCA.

Re:It's Hardly Scary

Britney Spears and every other no-talent hack being forced on the consumers out of a job?

I can live with that.

Re:It's Hardly Scary

with the availability of cheap music artists lose their incentive to create.

Yeah, right. Like with the availability of cheap (free) software programmers lose their incentive to create, too. The only trouble with your argument is that it's not true, and never was.

So, which "multi-billion dollar industry" company do you work for, hmm?

Re:This is scary.

It's scary how far the US is willing to go to pressure other countries into changing their laws to suit US interests. I can almost imagine the US going to war with other countries that "don't have the same copyright laws as us".

Somewhere, this thought is giving an **AA exec a hard-on that even Viagra couldn't achieve...

You are almost correct

I am not really disturbed at how far the US is willing to go to pressure other countries to change their laws to protect US interests, that's what sovereign states do. What disturbs me is that our current government thinks that *this* interest is worth so much diplomatic capital.

The global music market is only worth $32 billion [ifpi.org]. That's chicken feed really. Even assuming that US companies were making 100% of that revenue (they aren't) and that AllOfMP3.com could eliminate 100% of that revenue, it *still* isn't worth playing this kind of hardball. I'll bet EU restrictions on GM food cost US companies more money than that (please note, I am not advocating hard ball tactics over EU GM food restrictions).

The RIAA's response

We don't care who you're paying..... it's not us.

Re:The RIAA's response

Because the Russian law states they can pay the Russian government who disburses the money to the artists? :D

Time to Change Tactics

Well crap. Now I'll have to make a photocopy of a $20 and send it to the RIAA for every copy of an mp3 I make. A copy for a copy, neither being denied anything, it's only fair, right?

Re:Time to Change Tactics

It depends - do you mind being paid by your employer in the same photocopied bills? No? Why?

Because when I produce a creative work, my employer gets the rights to it, and I may or may not have a right to license it for my own use. So I want my paycheck, and the employer might get some of it if I decide to invest in them.

But when I buy music online, I get a copy of the music, and the only right I have is to listen to it on that device and make a backup copy. Even if I buy on a CD, I only get those rights. So why shouldn't I send them a copy of my money that they can look at and feel rich, but not give to anyonle else?

Quid pro quo.

Re:Time to Change Tactics

This argument is just absurd. That's like saying if you rent a dvd, you should be able to give them money, but when you return the dvd, they should also return your money...

Re:Time to Change Tactics

Well crap. Now I'll have to make a photocopy of a $20 and send it to the RIAA for every copy of an mp3 I make. A copy for a copy, neither being denied anything, it's only fair, right?

That's selfish. Make the copy of the $20 bill available as a torrent, and send the RIAA a link to it.

Pay attention record labels

While allofmp3 is probably undercharging what would be profitable in the US, its popularity does exemplify the fact that people are willing to buy alot more music if the price is more reasonable. I for one would probably buy x10 the music I do now if I could download it (sans DRM) for 25 cents a song. When are the record companies going to wake up and smell the profits?

Re:Pay attention record labels

When are the record companies going to wake up and smell the profits?

Probably when they stop smelling ass due to the location of their heads.

When will the *AAs learn...

It is time to phase out your old business model. It is obvious from online services like iTunes and Allofmp3 that people are willing to pay reasonable prices to obtain their music online. They also need to learn that CDs are no longer the preferred format people want to listen to their music in. Of the few people I know who do go buy cds the first thing they do is stick it into their PC, rip it to MP3, and toss it either on an MP3 CD or their iPod. I know I'm just talking crazy. It makes way more sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars greasing politicians hands and suing everyone instead of spending a few million to just design and implement a download system.

Re:When will the *AAs learn...

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on a couple of points. The breakage being the main one -- record companies make extra profit due to this, not less. Which also leads directly in to their main reason for wanting the most obtuse DRM possible. Right now, record companies make money hand over fist on reprints of old music, both on new formats, and on replacements. Digital copies have neither of these problems, and present a problem that they're not equipped to deal with: Not being able to resell the same old shit. Given time, say 10 or 20 years, eventually everyone will have all the old music they want -- and in a format that they never need to replace. This is bad news bears, coupled with the fact that as you mentioned, only a few tracks per album are worth buying, seriously reduces how much actual product they will have in the future.