BPI Sue AllOfMp3 In British Courts

Ckwop writes "AllOfMp3 is getting sued by the British Phonographic Industry. From the article:

"We have maintained all along that this site is illegal and that the operator of the site is breaking UK law by making sound recordings available to UK-based customers without the permission of copyright owners. Now we will have the opportunity to demonstrate in the UK courts the illegality of this site."

" The issue of course will be whether any injunction will be enforceable or not.

So they sue....

... and win, are unable to enforce the verdict and therefore unable to retrieve any of the loss revenue.

I wonder who will pay the High Court costs of the whole affair. Artists? Perhaps an increase in fees. Consumers? Without a doubt. Shareholders? Nope.

Re:So they sue....

I wonder who will pay the High Court costs of the whole affair. Artists? Perhaps an increase in fees. Consumers? Without a doubt. Shareholders? Nope.

Has it ever occurred to you that many artists and consumers are shareholders?

Re:So they sue....

A lot of ISPs here make great noises about how they do *not* filter traffic (and many of them are uncapped also).

There's simply no framework to require them to filter it - they don't filter anything else, why this?

A friend who used to work at an ISP says the reason UK ISPs are so against filtering is it would jepoardise their common carrier status - at the moment they're not legally liable if someone accesses kiddie porn over their connection.. once they have filtering in place it one judgement to remove their immunity and force them to filter *everything* that could get them into trouble.

Blowing in the wind

If Russian Courts can't close a russian website how does the BPI expect a British court to manage any better ?

Re:Blowing in the wind

If Russian Courts can't close a russian website how does the BPI expect a British court to manage any better ?

They have a warmer, fuzzier accent. Less "k"s and "z"s per word.

Re:Blowing in the wind

I expect they are doing this for two reasons:

A) To prove that it is illegal in britian.
B) So that they can increase political pressure on the Russian Government. ie "AllofMp3.com is operating illegally in other countries please bring your laws in line with ours or we'll continue to impose tarrifs on XXX Russian goods." (Obviously this isn't a direct a plea by the MPAA but one made through other governments and possibly made through the WTO as the result of lobbying)

Re:Blowing in the wind

AllofMp3.com is operating illegally in other countries please bring your laws in line with ours or we'll continue to impose tarrifs on XXX Russian goods.

Nyet, tovarish. The amount of gas that we get from Russia puts us in a very weak position when it comes to bargaining with them.

Re:Blowing in the wind

A) To prove that it is illegal in britian.

What is the "it" that you are referring to? I don't think anybody thinks it's legal for somebody to set up an AllOfMP3 in the UK that pays license fees in accordance with Russian law.

And, while the BPI have claimed otherwise [bbc.co.uk] to the press (and had their claims blindly repeated), it is not illegal [opsi.gov.uk] for people in the UK to download from AllOfMP3.

So what, exactly, are they trying to prove is illegal? One thing nobody thinks is legal anyway, and one thing is actually legal.

Re:Blowing in the wind

That's a good point. My brother is a lawyer and I asked his opinion on it. His area of expertise is far removed from intellectual property but I suspect his opinion is still many times that of your average Slashdotter. Here's what he said:

As far as I understand it, the contract is made in Russia between allofmp3 and the consumer. In such circumstances obtaining a successful judgment is one thing, there's still the question of mutual assistance and enforcement.

From a political point of view, our courts have continuously refused to extradite Yukos linked Russians back home to face the music, so I see no reason why the Kremlin would suddenly lean on the Russian courts to assist in protecting our interests. It's not as if we already have a great tradition of mutual assistance. Besides, from what I understand, AllOfMp3 isn't breaking any laws in Russia, which makes enforcement even less likely.

In any event, as I've learned the hard way on numerous occasions, being granted permission to proceed by no means indicates that you'll be successful in the full hearing. Very often a case is granted permission to proceed simply to provide an early opportunity to close the door on a potential cause of action. Don't be surprised if the court lays down a precedent indicating that allofmp3 is actually legal.

The BPI have a lot of money but cases like this are nothing like OJ. There's no jury in cases like this in the United Kingdom. The law is applied as it is written and this means that even if you have all the money in the world, you can't buy a judgement. There's a good chance they will lose.

Simon

AllOfMP3 has me spending

I have to say that AllOfMP3 is doing something right, and it shouldn't be ignored by the music industry.

I've spent about $200 since discovering the site a few months back. That's particularly interesting given that I've probably spent a total of $200 on music *period* in the last five years. I'm now entirely a downloader when it comes to music, and I do not listen, download or accept DRM'ed music or music that's under 320k quality.

I'm sure I'm not alone. Rather than shutting down AllOfMP3, the industry might want to pay attention to the hundreds of thousands of people who are actually spending on music and haven't done so in years.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

As far as I understand it, AllOfMP3.com pay for a redistribution license that's similar to what a radio station requires in most of the world -- i.e., it's ludicrously cheap, not much money goes to the artist, and you're not supposed to be able to legally make a permanent copy of the resulting "broadcast" -- but due to a loophole in Russian law are allowed to effectively sell a permanent license. So the artist probably gets a little money, but nothing like as much as they would if a copy of the record was purchased through more traditional means.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

How much of the money from allofmp3.com goes to the artists that actually made the music?

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

But what's the right price point?

Most full albums are selling for less than $2. And it's the content owners that get to set prices, not a web site. That's the problem. And complex international legality and copyright issues aside, they don't really own the content - they're treating themselves as if they're a radio station that lets people download whatever they want, whenever they want, and keep it. This isn't really about "failing business models" or anything of the kind.

The real question is this, and try to answer it without muddying the waters with talk of copyrights and the thuggery of trade groups: when, how, and under what circumstances are the people who CREATE and/or OWN content allowed to set pricing on their own materials? Remember that record labels, however good or evil you think them, have legitimate ownership of the content within the bounds of society's frameworks on such matters. Other countries and jurisdictions may view the issue differently, but ultimately, there can't be entities that decide it's up to them to undercut others' rights.

Try to think of yourself as, say, and author, and a new Russian site called AllOfBook.com opens, and sells your book without your permission or that of your publisher for about 1/10 or 1/20 of what it sells for elsewhere. (Yes, I realize that AllOfMP3.com believes it has a license to do this legally, but that is arguably AT MOST valid only in Russia, besides which, let's just forget about that for a moment.) Is what they're doing right? Is that just part of the cost of doing business? "Oh well"? What if they also sold pre-printed hard copies of your book (the essentially equivalent of selling lossless DRMless audio content)? What inherent rights do you think you, or the people who help print, distribute, publicize, and sell your work, have to that work product? Can someone else take it because a legal interpretation in their country allows them to make that decision for you not only in their jurisdiction, but the entire world over?

Your point that you've spend money on music when you never have before is valid. But would you have spent as much if the full albums were $4? $8? $10? What if $2 isn't enough to sustain the current production models for music? I realize that there's this desire to say "change your business model, then!" or "they'll make up for it in volume, since this is electronic distribution!" But what if they DON'T WANT to sell it for $2? Isn't that their choice, and your choice to not buy it? Do you think AllOfMP3.com, aside from your PERSONAL opinions on the RIAA, BPI, etc., could exist in the US or EU legally? If not, why should people in those places be able to buy from it?

I suppose at some level you can always argue that you personall disagree with copyright, or with the big record labels and trade groups, or that artists are abused in the current system, or that politicians' hands are in the pockets of the industry, and so on and so on and so on.

But it still continues to ignore basic thing: even if you erase all that, do you still believe that the creator of a work should have some rights to that work, including the choice of how much to ask in return for that work?

If you say yes, then we're getting somewhere. If you say no, I don't think this discussion would prove fruitful.

But if you've said yes, consider:

- That a society's legal framework may offer protections for such work, and punishments for not following those guidelines.

- That an artist may elect to involve others in the distribution, sale, promotion, packaging, and so on, of his work, and that those entities may be entitled to protections and remuneration as well.

- That there may be agreements between nations that attempt to insure that such work isn't sold for orders of magnitude less than what the creator and/or their agents intends to sell it for.

I could, of course, continue. So I guess the ultimate question is this, and forget about all the trade groups, labels, posturing, "information wants to

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

Believe it or not, neither the RIAA nor the BPA was set up to safeguard the wellbeing of Russian con artists.

You missed the point. The point is that whoever is making the money, allofmp3.com is wildly successful, and would continue to be wildly successful at a considerably higher price point. The point is that even though people *could* download the same music for free from the P2P networks, the quality, convenience and ease of use provided by allofmp3.com convinces them to spend real money for the music. In every case I know (anecdotal evidence, but it's all we've got), the discovery of allofmp3.com caused people to *increase* their spending on music. The record industry needs to realize that it's more valuable to increase the number of dollars flowing into the system than it is to keep the price per song high, or to retain control of the distribution system. The point is that the RIAA membership should try emulating allofmp3.com, rather than shutting it down.

They won't, of course, because they're blind.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

So.... RIAA is "blind" and should not only allow AllOfMp3 to continue its' illegal activities, but EMULATE them? What should they do, sell pirated copies of Stephen King's e-books?

I sure hope you're actually trying to miss the point, because if you're doing it unintentionally... wow.

No, the RIAA members should put up their own site(s) using the same model as allofmp3.com to sell their music. They'd wipe out ITMS in a heartbeat, kill most music sharing on the P2P networks and make a boatload of money. But they won't, because they're blind.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

Do you have proof of this, or is this just your own opinion? Is there a documented link between organized crime and allofmp3.com? Or is this just standard prejudice against all Russian businesses?

While the selling of western music on allofmp3.com is questionable, certainly for many Russians and people loving Russian and other foreign music who live abroad, allofmp3.com is the *only* source for a lot of foreign (Russian, Ukranian, etc) music. You cannot buy Hi-Fi on CD in an american store. Nor can you find a lot of this kind of music on the download networks. It's just not there. For these people, allofmp3.com is a godsend.

One thing that allofmp3.com demonstrates is that people are willing to spend money (a lot of money) on music when you can offer the music in the formats that *the customers want*. From what I've seen allofmp3.com provides sufficient value to customers that it is actually cheaper to buy from allofmp3.com than to download from the peer-to-peer networks. I even find that it's easier and cheaper for me to buy albums off of allofmp3.com than to even rip my own CDs. That's the kicker. And that's the thing the RIAA has failed to grasp. Even at 10 cents a track and without any DRM, they could be making a fortune.

Re:Big props to parent

Assuming a track size of 3MB, the bulk hosting provider run by my my hosting company quotes 0.62 per track. That includes hosting and transfer; they have already built the infrastructure, so there is no capital cost. All you would need to do is set up the payment method. Even with that overhead, and the cost of preview downloads, I find it hard to imagine it coming to more than about 5/track.

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

> None of that $200 has gone to the artists, it's all gone to Russian criminals. And you're happy with this?

None of that $200 would have gone to the artists anyways, it all goes to the RIAA mafia. Why are you happy with that?

> See, the industry is actually only interested in people paying money for music if that money is going to the industry and the artists. Believe it or not, neither the RIAA nor the BPA was set up to safeguard the wellbeing of Russian con artists.

See, the industry is actually only interested in people paying money for music if that money is going to the industry, and to hell with the artists. Neither the RIAA nor the BPA was set up to safeguard the wellbeing of any artists.

Fixed it for you.

The Russian mob is providing better product, at a better price, than RIAA, who are merely the the government-approved mob in charge of the US music racket.

The situation is eerily similar to the Numbers Game [wikipedia.org], in which the (Italian) Mafia ran a gambling operation that took in a rake of 20-40%. They were promptly run out of business for the (government) Mafia, wherein the "legal" lotteries take in a rake of 50% and higher. The private mob gave better odds of winning to bettors, but the government's mob had the guns.

When Fedland collapses, I'm moving to an American Mafia town. Uncle Enzo's Cosa Nostra Pizza for the win!

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

Thanks for pointing that out.

When my band's album sells, you know how much money from the sale goes to the RIAA?

Absolutely nothing.

The label I'm on is not an RIAA member. In fact, the vast bulk of indie labels aren't. For every CD sold, we get $2.50. That's a pretty awesome deal. Granted, we don't get a studio advance, and we don't sell thousands of albums, but...still.

So it pains me that allofmp3 sells my stuff and gives me, or the label that works so hard to promote my music, nary a red cent. It pains me even more that people repeatedly justify buying from such a place with statements as "the artists wouldn't see any of it anyway" or "it's the RIAA's fault."

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

None of that $200 has gone to the artists, it's all gone to Russian criminals. And you're happy with this?

I came to shop and cashed out €18 for old Queen's album The Works. How much of that went to artists?

€5-7 is retailer's fee. about €10 is label fee. So how much went to artist? I wonder.

See, the industry is actually only interested in people paying money for music if that money is going to the industry and the artists.

[ You really seem to work for RIAA/whatever. You speak too well. Or if not, talk to them - probably they are hiring now for astroturf campaing. You would fit. ]

The point here is that people want art on their conditions, not on conditions of labels. It's simple as that. And at moment there are no other ways to easily buy music. Read any review on how subscription model works in real life and what kind of PITA it can be. (At least for some people Apple's iTMS kind'a works - better than nothing).

Just try to get that in your head: it's not about money, it's about music. It's not about industry - it's about art and music. Ring any bells?

I think the all story with "recorded music" is just bluff. Now how do I understand the russian copyright law. The law is quite simple. The performace is what artist is paid for. I can record the performance and (granted that I have paid artist the fee for performance) I would own the recording I did (with copyrights etc). It's my recording of her/his performance. I can make money selling the recording. Artists can go on doing money by performing. It's easy as that. Nobody is robbed, as RIAA/BPI/IFPI/friends try to tell everybody. Artist has to pay taxes from the profits s/he makes performing. If I would be distributing recording, I would need a license for that from gov't and of course I will pay taxes too. (*)

As much as idealistically it sounds, I think such model can work: only way for artists to profit is to perform. Not like the starlets a la Britney Spears, living off huge promotional and ad campaigns. They have to perform. No performance - no money. I think it's even logical.

In the end, as live music fan, I can tell that in reality that how it is works. Recorded music is in quantity - but it will never beat the quality of live performance. All best music I ever heard in my life was in Dresdner "Blue Note" cafe sitting against musicians play live jazz.

(*) I hope I did not infriged your copyrights for quoting *your* words in *my* comment? Or would you sue me for that??

Re:AllOfMP3 has me spending

"You really seem to work for RIAA/whatever. You speak too well."

Slashdot has finally bottomed: basic literacy now marks you as teh man.

British Pornographic Industry?!

Who else read the summary as "Pornographic Industry" rather than Phonographic?

I think I've been on the Internet for far too long...

easy to enforce it. disconnect britain from web.

that'll teach those offshore pirates!

some of these parochial old twits should really get out of the club more often, look around, and see the hansom cabs have been replaced by buses.

There's no such thing as bad press...

Last time Allofmp3.com went offline for a few days, the traffic surged afterwards as more people were made aware of its existence and joined in on the fun.

If they weren't able to take down PirateBay **in the EU**, what chance have they got to take down Allofmp3 in Russia?

Monopoly

Well, of course they're suing. The global music industry would like to be able to fix prices all over the world, and it's very hard to do so when cheap alternatives like AllOfMP3 are available. Whether or not they actually have a case is irrelevant -- they have the cash necessary to pursue the suit, and will do so in order to maintain shareholder interest and control of the market.

So let me get this straight...

"But the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) says the Roms licence is not legitimate and it would not cover consumers in other countries even if it was."

So you can be sued for breaking licensing laws in the countries where consumers are?

This is disturbing, because the way the internet works is that its like a load of tubes (not trucks) and some of these connect different countries. So you could be sued for publishing something on the internet if its illegal in any country where it can be read, in theory.

Typical for British law enforcement

"Stop! Or I shall say 'stop' again!"

Huh?

There are lots of issues with this: Firstly, the UK High Court has no jurisdiction in Russia (unless you're British and then only for some crimes). Russian companys have no legal status in the UK. You can't sue them and they can't be prosecuted in the UK. I think what they might be doing is sueing the operator of a Russian site in the UK for damages for operating in the UK without a legal licence.

shopping around...

The question that I have always had is this: if it is legal, and even desirable (as certain parties would argue) for consumers of labor (i.e. employers) to shop around the world for the cheapeast source of labor, taking full advantage of local conditions and legal structures, why should it be illegal for me, a consumer of music, to shop around the world for the cheapest source of music?

And please spare me any arguments centering on making sure that artists are compensated for their work. That isn't what the recording labels are about, and the argument is particularly spurious when you consider the types of artists that are represented on allofmp3.com. Good luck trying to find a small or independent musician on there.

Shut them down

These people basically pay no royalities at all to the muscians, and they give you a false feeling of buying legitimate stuff. I don't think this is nice at all, sure the the music industry is crooked, but these guys really are pirates for profit. They make money by selling stuff they have no right to sell.

Allofmp3 are money hungry low lifes.

Shut who down?

These people basically pay no royalities at all to the muscians, and they give you a false feeling of buying legitimate stuff.

Interesting how that sentence applies equally well to AllOfMP3 and the conventional recording industry.

They make money by selling stuff they have no right to sell.

Again, this applies equally well to the two of them. The record labels in North America claim that they have legally valid contracts that give them the right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists. I question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.

AllOfMP3 claim that they have the legal right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists, in compliance with Russian copyright law. You question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.

Re:Shut who down?

hold on, I was a musician once, I have seen a record contract. They arent written in 0 point type, or in a foreign language, its quite blatant the terms on which you sign (i chose not to), and many artists are more than happy to do so. And many artists DO make a considerable sum of money from the system. OF course, many are ripped off, and you can argue that the system is weighed too heavily in favour of the record companies (which is true), but that doesnt mean its fair for a website to sell something they dont own, and quite clearly not pay the artists ANYTHING.
Even in a situation where the artist's royalties havent paid back their advance and not made a dime, they still got flown around the world, went to wild parties and got fed and put up in great hotels at the record companies expense. I dont see this russian website donating money towards recording studio fees, do you?

Criticising the record biz is fine with me, its when people sue the lack of perfect competition in that industry to justify wholesale copyright theft, as a thin excuse to get cheap or free music, that it bugs people.

There is no law preventing unsigned artists releasing their music for free on the web. The fact that most choose not to shows that they *do* actually want to be paid for their work.

Media Stunt

I guess the British record industry is desperate for some positive publicity and hopes that calling Allofmp3 "illegal" in court will get people -- who just want to buy affordable DRM-free music -- to feel some sympathy for the BPI's hardworking lawyers. It should be obvious any injunction obtained would be unenforceable. How are they even going to get Allofmp3 to show up? If someone in Britain tried to sue me, I'd just ignore it like the hot air it was.

Sentjabr Comes Early

The Russians at AllOfMP3 are claiming that they'll comply with Russian copyright law changes coming in September, which makes all these kinds of claims against them moot.

What are those legal changes? None of the articles discussing them that I've seen have mentioned the law or what it does.

The business model works

The allofmp3.com business model is one of the best that I have seen for Online music, Lets look at what the consumer gets
- The choice of bitrate.
- The choice of quality (vbr/etc)
- A choice of albums which are simply not available on other sites like itunes.
- Reliable service, friendly staff
- Often has new albums well before other music stores have them.
- VERY competitive pricing.
- NO DRM.

Now taking into account that they apparently are not paying enough for the rights to the music or whatever it may well be, the business model works, even if I had to pay 20cents for each song or 40cents US for each song I would still go with Allofmp3.com because they offer a service to the consumer that works.I can download the music and play it where I want when I want. So here the recording companies are in a sticky spot, they know that the consumers want that model and they are trying to restrict it as much as possible. I believe in paying for music and I believe that the artists should get paid for the music but there comes a point in time when your getting ripped off, and that is how the record companies and recording industry has been for such a long time and now they are wondering why there has been such a revolt.... Here Warner is offering 2.5bn for EMI and visa versa yet will that REALLY benefit the musicians, the end user.. Hell no its only going to make share holders richer which is going to screw me, and you and whoever else listens to music.

In other news

JC Penney is being sued by the Islamic Purity Party for serving web pages to Burkastan of women who are not completely covered.

I think the freedom that was the web is going to be shut down before long and we are going to have national firewalls that only "whitelisted" sites can get through.

About as meaningful as applying Islamic law in UK

I guess if this case were won, then it would imply that it should be possible to prosecute someone under Islamic law for something wearing 'too revealing' clothing, and making an image available to someone in say Afghanistan. It would be a nonsense if this case were decided in favour of the Record Industry Mafia.

Interesting methods.

"We have maintained all along that this site is illegal"

So.... instead of bringing criminal charges against the site, they sue instead.

People only sue instead, if they're greedy.

People are looking at this from the wrong angle...

the BPI KNOW that what a british court says about allofmp3 doesn't matter to the company.

They'll get the site declared illegal then british customers who buy from them. 'Simply' get a court order forcing ISPs to hand over details about who've been getting lots of data from allofmp3 and sue random people who've been using it.

I'm surprised...

Nobody seems to have mentioned the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 [opsi.gov.uk] yet. IANAL, but I saw one on TV explaining how this act related to dialler fraud - essentially, if you have money that's come from criminal activity, you can't do anything with it. The claim there was that under this act, people can't be billed for calls made by this fraud.

If we apply the same logic to allofmp3, it seems that once the site is ruled illegal, then processing card payments for the site will also be by default illegal. So, they don't need to shut it down - the site won't do you much good if you can't pay them.

Did anyone else...

...read that as British pornographic industry?

All together now...

WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR YOUR FAILED BUSSINESS MODEL?

What I would do if I were in charge of AllofMP3.com, with my rapidly rising market share (and ectoplasmically amazing typos), would be to really stick it 'em: announce that from now on all customers of the site will pay a 10 cent surcharge on each track. That surcharge would go directly to the artist (not the copyright holder), or the artist's nearest beneficiary, subject to those copyright holders applying for this to be done.

OK, OK I know it'll never happen, and that there would be massive admin and other problems, but that's what SHOULD happen.

Imagine though, like Amazon reviews: "I am the artist and I wish to claim my fee."

Hmm...

This is what ThePirateBay thought of such threats [thepiratebay.org]

Freudian slip.

Man, am I the only one who read the first sentence of the description and got "British Pornographic Industry" the first time through?

Re:The real problem

Of course, people don't get upset about this broad and absurd generalization, but they get upset when you say have no marketable skills.

I'm a musician, and also an IT professional. This debunks your general claim.

Re:Did somebody else read that...

Don't knock it... it was #1 for 90 years running. Thats a little stronger than the Minidisk...

Re:The real problem

If someone one day made computer programming completely unprofitable (I'm looking at you, Stallman), at least a handful of us programmers would be still able to manage a living doing something else.

Computer programming unprofitable? Ehm, I have some news for you: programming is not restricted to end-user software. There is a lot of money to be made from custom applications within companies. You, know, the kind that banks, insurance companies, manufacturing plants use. I dare you to find open source solutions for banking specific needs, or for controlling industry robots in manufacturing processes. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's highly unlikely that it will happen. Consumer-grade software is *small* in comparison to that.

Besides, you didn't listen to Mr Stallman: the software itself can be sold (just give the source) and your revenue stream comes from support and services. A great example is a simple webserver: you can get the software at no cost, but unless there is a competent admin behind it, your server isn't worth squat because it probably will cease to work in no-time.

The only risk I see for programmers is the "age problem". I turn 30 this year, and I'm looking for a job. I've already been told that I was too old for a certain number of jobs. The "programmer" is percieved as a "young-guy-just-from-college-with-twenty-years-of- experience" (go figure) Perhaps, I should listen to Stallman and start my own IT services company.

Re:The real problem

Like program? In total jobs I'd say the majority of programming is in customized inhouse apps, which will never go away. Atleast untill the computer can program itself. Computer... I'd like a database application that tells me my profits for the end of year BEFORE the year even starts. I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that, I must kill you now.

Re:Correct the title! Sheesh!

No, he's using British grammar. In the UK, a company/organization is not singular but plural. "BPI sue" is exactly how they would say it, even though it sounds completely wrong to US ears (or looks wrong to their eyes).

Re:The real problem

As Napster and AllOfMp3 have proven, there is a demand for music produced by the no-talent barn owl screechers. Clearly people WANT what AllOfMp3 is selling - the question is if this is legal or ethical. After all, plenty of folks want Rolex watches, but most of us know that a Rolex sold out of the back of a truck is probably stolen or fake.

I do think that the global music industry needs to look at pricing and distribution and reasses their approach. If they had embraced digital distribution early, instead of rejecting it, my guess is that shops like AllOfMp3 would have never opened.

Re:Visibility is key

You seem to assume that it's the same as downloading it from a P2P network, but it's an entirely different matter. Here, Russian law says specifically that you do not need any kind of agreement with the rights holder to offer their music for sale, as long as you pay money to a society like ROMS. Now, the question is : does ROMS give the money back to the artists? I've read somewhere that they were ready to give the amount they are required to to the artists, but the big lobbying groups like RIAA tell the artists not to accept any money, lest they implicitely recognize that ROMS is a legitimate organization. It has nothing to do with "conscience", because copyright is mostly a recent, western concept. Therefore, whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or an atheist, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with listening to music you have bought from allofmp3.com (remember that even 400 years ago, there was no such thing as copyright and most creators were GLAD you could get your hands on their works). What the RIAA is trying to make us believe is that, if artists were paid only for concerts or even for a 5-year period following the release of their CDs, nobody would want to be an artists anymore. Guess what : I'd take Mozart and Beethoven (who could not make any money on CD sales since there were not any) over any of the contemporary cookie-cutter pop "stars". So, basically, nobody should have qualms about downloading things from allofmp3.com, unless it is illegal to do so in their country (which it isn't : consider this analogy : if I buy legitimate CDs in Russia for $3 and take them back to the US, can the US distributor sue me because I did not buy my music from them? Of course not. If it's legal and legitimate in the country where you purchased it, and there is nothing illegal with the material in itself (for example, child porn is illegal in itself, and so is counterfeit software), you should be in the clear. Remember : in Russia, buying from Allofmp3.com is exactly the same as buying from a regular store, and they do everything that are required to by law.

Re:Correct the title! Sheesh!

The BPI is a collection of people, not a single person. Bob sues allofmp3.com, BPI sue allofmp3.com.

Re:Visibility is key

You must be new here... On Earth.

Re:Visibility is key

It also raises awareness of the alternatives. I would say most non-geeks don't know AllOfMP3 even exists. They think iTMS is the only way to buy music online. When they realize there is something else, they may be interested.

Consider also what will happen if the case goes the other way. If it is determined that what they are doing is not illegal (even if it turns out that the ruling is simply "this is not a matter that can be decided in UK court because it's external to the UK"), then the increased visibility would mean that people would be aware of an alternative that has been legally verified to NOT BE ILLEGAL.

I think this lawsuit is a risky stunt in any case.

Re:Visibility is key

My concience doesn't bother me one bit when I'm getting copies of any music over 28 years old.

In fact, it bothers me a lot whenever I have to pay for a song which is 50 years old and the original artists are all dead. I know all I am doing is putting money in the hands of a corporation which is trying to destroy the public domain. So my concience bothers me a lot when I have to do that. So much so that I havn't done it for a long time now.

Re:The issue of course will be whether any injunct

Interesting, eh? Find the whole story.. the Indian gvt. was trying to use this guy as a scapegoat. The US didn't play along. Everyone dealing with day-to-day operations of the plant was a local. Modding this parent up is just asking for a war of words. Let the coward make his comment, but don't reward him for it.

Here's the link

Hey, I suppose I should provide the link, shouldn't I?

http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html [jdray.com]

Re:Did somebody else read that...

BPI, the British PORNOgraphic Industry... aargh phonographic, who the hell uses/listens to phonographs these days: from wikipedia: The phonograph, or gramophone, was the most common device for playing recorded sound from the 1870s through the 1980s. Those things have been declared death over and over again for 20 years... hmm...

An outdated name for an outdated organsisation with an outdated business model.

It seems to fit their policy quite well if you ask me.

Better still is the Irish Recording Assosiation. The IRA!

Re:Visibility is key

I doubt that anyone thinks such a lawsuit would be successful. However it might accomplish one important thing. It might raise awareness that what allofmp3 is doing is tantamount to piracy. It might stop people with conscience from using the site

That argument presumes that the specifics of copyright law in the UK are "moral" and the law in Russia is "immoral". There is nothing that differentiates their morality other than your opinion on a rather subtle nuance in the philosophy of "intellectual property".