RIAA Members Sue Allofmp3.com Over Infringement 323
fair_n_hite_451 writes "To the surprise of no one, several members of the RIAA have filed suit against MediaServices, the operators of Allofmp3.com. The suit was filed for Wednesday, primarily by Arista Records LLC, Warner Bros. Records Inc., Capitol Records Inc. and UMG Recordings. The language of the litigation was very confrontational; The companies claim the site sells millions of songs without paying them 'a dime'. 'The defendant's entire business ... amounts to nothing more than a massive infringement of plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act and New York law.' AllofMp3 has always maintained that a Russian licensing group makes their business legitimate, while the RIAA here claims the organization has no authority to make such a deal."
Of course they haven't paid a dime (Score:5, Funny)
Russians pay in Rubles and kopeks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
filed lawsuit where? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. Good luck with that.
Re:filed lawsuit where? (Score:5, Interesting)
My sentiment exactly. I lived in Russia long enough to understand how this cookie crumbles. I cannot predict the outcome, for it depends on many things. I just want to note that, unfortunately for RIAA, it does not depend on the law. It mostly depends on two things:
1. How much a decision will piss off the USA (the more--the better).
2. The amount of a bribe. This seems to be in RIAA's favour, but I have a feeling that (1) might play a bigger role here.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a bit off-topic here. What I said concerns the decision made in Russia. Whether or not RIAA will win the NY case will have about as much impact as the case against De Beers. At worst, the company's operations will be declared illegal in US, but the consumer will shrug and resume downloading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a very convenient service for the price.
The price is a reasonable price and closer to what I feel a "fair" price for songs.
The service is excellent, very quick.
Legally- you are ONLY downloading (none of that p2p uploading while you download stuff) so you are not infringing copyright.
It has a great selection compared to p2p.
I can SELECT the quality level I want and the price I want to pay from a 3meg mp3 to a 27 meg wav file.
Why use this service? (Score:3, Informative)
Why? Because when you buy it, you have it legaly (as far as I understand Anglo-Saxon laws). RIAA can not sue you. They can sue AllOfMP3 (which they try), but it'll be hard, because they operate legaly in russia. Why it is legal? I give you brief explanatory how it work in my country (Czech Rep.), which have similar laws like Russian.
We had organization called OSA which stand in for all musicans (unless they opt out). And when you operate rad
Re:filed lawsuit where? (Score:4, Informative)
(I am not really discussing at this point, just chatting.)
It sounds like you are a fan of bigger names. It is problematic, of course, that the bigger names do not go everywhere, and I see how having recordings is important for you. As for me, I just stopped caring. Local punk and indie rock bands here in San Jose kick ass. There's not a night without a band or two playing in a downtown bar. Many of these people are live-performance-only, they don't even bother to record CDs, and they promote through the word of mouth and, recently, MySpace.
I by no means imply that everyone should enjoy this selection, but I firmly believe that everyone could. Most people just have their tastes tilted because they pay too much attention to the broadcast advertisement. The local bands may sound somewhat rough compared to the big hitters with their $100'000 studios and armies of sound wizards, but they are no worse musicians. The best music is the free flight of the human spirit, and it doesn't require much money to make.
Although some would say that the truly great music requires an uninterrupted supply of coke, which is rather costly.
Re:filed lawsuit where? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:filed lawsuit where? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:...in the place VISA and MC have offices. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it wouldn't, at least to me. VISA and MasterCard aren't just US companies; they're international alliances. So taking the action of yanking privileges for a service that's legal in Russia just because it's illegal in the United States (supposedly; there's still no court decision on that) would deny customers the opportunity to use their legally-obtained card to purchase legal goods in countries where the service is legal. Suppose Saudi Arabia demands that, because pornography is illegal in Saudi Arabia, nobody be allowed to purchase pornography using their VISA or MasterCard. VISA and MasterCard have to not give the opportunity to process their cards to pornography merchants in Saudi Arabia because they're conducting an illegal activity there, but they do not need to take away that permission from US pornography merchants, because pornography is legal in the US. Allofmp3 is currently legal in Russia. I can't see how an organization can say to Russians that they can't use their card to purchase legal goods. MasterCard is currently a non-profit org, at least in the US. It's hard to justify that action as a non-profit.
Should be simple to decide (Score:4, Insightful)
If the organization is not legitimate or doesn't have the proper paperwork, the RIAA wins.
Instead of litigating this to death, just show the damn paperwork and prove your point.
Re:Should be simple to decide (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure... but... (Score:5, Informative)
They damn well better!
AllOfMP3.com operates under a statutory license in Russian law.
Pandora.com operates under a statutory license in American law.
Russian law says that AllOfMP3.com is licensed to send music by any artist (including American artists) even if the copyright holder explicitly wants to forbid it.
American law says that Pandora.com is licensed to send music by any artist (including Russian artists) even if the copyright holder explicitly wants to forbid it.
Russian law says that AllOfMP3.com may send that music in any format they wish, obviously including MP3 format.
American law says that Pandora.com is may send music in any format they wish, obviously including MP3 format. (Note: You can find these MP3 files in your TEMP folder with no file extension.)
Russian law says that AllOfMP3.com must pay a government-set royalty rate to ROMS, a collection body that then distributes those payments to copyright holders.
American law says that Pandora.com must pay a government-set royalty rate to CARP, a collection body that then distributes those payments to copyright holders.
This Russian law is operating under the exact same legal principals as US law. The RIAA is lying out their ass when they bitch and scream that there is something wrong with sending stuff without permission from the copyright holder.... virtually every country on earth has statutory licensing in their law. RIAA is lying out their ass when they bitch and scream that there is something fundamentally wrong with Russian law.
Oh, by the way.... the statutory licensing fees imposed on AllOfMP3.com by Russian law are about 20 TIMES HIGHER than the licensing fees imposed on Pandora.com by US law.
But here's the really obnoxious part... the RIAA bullshit about AllOfMP3.com being evil Pirates Pirates Pirates because RIAA artists are "not getting paid a dime". It's true that American artists signed with the RIAA are not getting a singe dime out of AllOfMP3.com sales. AllOfMP3.com is paying the royalty fees to ROMS... so why aren't US RIAA signed artists getting paid? Because the RIAA refuses to accept the payments from ROMS. And the RIAA contracts require artists to sign over the copyrights to the RIAA member companies. The RIAA contracts say that only the RIAA companies can accept royalty payments for the work, and that the RIAA companies then pass on the artists share of teh payments to them. The RIAA contracts FORBID the artists to directly go and collect any payments themselves.
So teh RIAA is deliberately screwing over their own artists and is refusing to accept these payments and pass them on to their artists.... because that way they can manufacture this bullshit argument that AllOfMP3.com is evil and illegitimate and illegal and Pirates Pirates Pirates because RIAA-signed artists are not getting paid.
The RIAA's primary tactic is to simply chant the word "Pirate" over and over and over again until they get what they want... even if they have to LIE OUT THEIR ASS and SCREW OVER THEIR OWN ARTISTS in the process.
(Note that I am not yelling at you, I am yelling about the RIAA and at the RIAA.)
A US judge might rule on some of the complicated cross-national issues involved here, but I seriously doubt that any US judge would be stupid enough to rule that AllOfMP3.com was itself illegitmate or that Russian law was itself illegitmate. To do so would be a direct blow against US law operating on the exact same principals and a calamity for US radio stations and thousands of other US businesses operating under US law statutory licenses.
-
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does a transaction that goes across an International border take place in the place where the buyer is or the seller? For sales taxes it is the buyer's place. If someone from Oregon where there is no sales buys something from California, there is no tax due. If someone in California buys something in Oregon, the buyer is supposed to pay sales tax or use tax to California. In practice nobody pays either place except for things lik
Happily infringing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it illegal according to US law? Sure. Do I care? No. This is the modern equivalent of civil disobedience. Call it corporate disobedience: the ad infinitum extensions of copyright protection for works of long-dead artists, as a benefit to corporate parents, says the balance of power is most assuredly in the hands of the sociopathic corporate citizenry and not the voting public. The weapons I have against Big Business are economic, and this is just the first of many conflicts to come, all along the same lines.
Just mull it over. Corporate disobedience might be the only option now.
-BA
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the reason they can offer such 'reasonable' rates is that they are not paying the copyright holder for the rights. I fail to see how giving money to the Russian Maffia is sticking it to the man or Corporate disobedience. You seem to be very proud that you paid money for pirated music that you could have got from filesharing networks for free with the exact same legality.
Re:Happily infringing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Happily infringing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, (getting completely off topic now), I seem to recall (although I'm too lazy to try to find a link online) that you can actually be arrested for violating US law outside the country once you return. I think it's mostly used against people who visit Thailand to partake in certain "services" which are very very illegal here, but I would assume the same precedent could be ext
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No (Score:3, Insightful)
-peace
Re: (Score:2)
Another reason is that they don't offer customer support. I paid for three albums and downloaded them all only to find out that the second two albums were full of NULLs. Several emails to their customer support went unanswered.
Re:Happily infringing... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he would support the breaking of the DMCA and the like, though. Just IMHO. I think your justification is hollow because you profit personally from it, and your actions are the same as plain-jane music pirates.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If he wants to be "Civil Disobdient", he should try to download his music with his real name and write a letter to the RIAA saying "Come and get me!"
Re:Happily infringing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, and if he gets sued by the RIAA, he'll be the first one to cry foul.
If he wants to be "Civil Disobdient", he should try to download his music with his real name and write a letter to the RIAA saying "Come and get me!"
Just as those who drank during prohibition wanted to hide their activity, those who share music today want to hide theirs. Civil obedience or not, the result is the same...an ignorant law gets ignored.
How about mine then? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If it already is not a crime in America, just wait, it'll soon be
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Happily infringing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not always, and not always even in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_license [wikipedia.org]
Similarly, in Canada I can fill a CD with music copied from other CDs because the levy (C$0.21 per CD, built in to the price) goes to a copyright collective. More to the point -- if it's music on a CD, the owner CAN'T legally prevent me from making that copy. This is true even if I don't own the CD; I can borrow the original from a friend, make my copy, and return it.
There are many places under copyright strictures where the copyright holder doesn't get all the say they want or think they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copying that mp3 is just like walking into a record shop, opening up a product, burning a copy of that product and putting it back on the shelf re-shrink wrapped. Walking out without paying but having the "data" that was contained on that CD.
Who did you just deprive from something?
1) The retailer
2) The record label
3) The artist
Re:Happily infringing... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now you could argue you wouldn't have bought it any way and the
Re: (Score:2)
I am absolutely uninterested in the "plight" of the RIAA's members and their "financial woes". Cry me a fucking river you millionaire bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
If I download music that someone copied, the person I copied it from still has it. If I wasn't going to buy it anyway, no resource was consumed except electricity and bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
Reproducing another copy of a CD for network consumption: $.10 worth of bandwidth or so, tops.
Having a free market where goods are priced competitively from multiple suppliers: priceless
Too bad you can't buy allofmp3 songs with Mastercard (TM).
Re:Very Happily infringing... (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, any metaphors comparing made-up, fictional, so-called intellectual property to real, defendable, actual property will fail. Every time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What they don't mention is that the price is variable based on bandwidth, and the $1/album figure is basically impossible to find on the site.
I just randomly checked Taylor Hicks' album [allofmp3.com] (not a fan of his). It is 12 t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Happily infringing... (Score:4, Insightful)
bit torrent randomly has or doesn't have a song on a given day.
allofmp3 I'm only downloading- not uploading so I have greatly reduced legal risk.
there is no chance that allofmp3 product is being sent to me by riaa or a riaa stooge for the purpose of entrapping me.
This is all I want for Christmas! (Score:5, Funny)
Russian Mafia FTW!
Re:This is all I want for Christmas! (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, between the Hollywood mafia and the Russian mafia?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In other words, between the Hollywood mafia and the Russian mafia?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My nickel is on the *AA mafia because we have a government that will do ANYTHING for corporations.
Re:This is all I want for Christmas! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Too long. No matter the answer, it's Too. Fucking. Long.
--LordPixie
Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is the RIAA trying to sue someone in another country. The US has no jurisdiction.
Does the site have a presence in the US? Well? If it doesn't then they can get bent. Now they can go after all the people who paid the site to download songs, but not the site in Russia.
Please America, don't try to bring your horrible legal system to the rest of the world. We don't want it.
Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus (Score:3, Informative)
Since when does French law [com.com] apply in other countries?
I'm pretty sure I could come up with a few other things as well. Oh yes, in this particular case it might be since Russia started to join the WTO.
Re: (Score:2)
1. US law has nothing to do with "international law". International law consists of treaties. Only treaties signed by states is "binding" on that particular state. The WTO is not an organization based on US law.
2. In terms of international law, each body is a sovereign state, and is completely independent and free to do what it wants except as bound by the treaties that it is a signatore to. (Get it?)
3. Civil suits within the bound
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus (Score:4, Interesting)
And slightly off topic, our legal system does a pretty good job. The only change I would like to see done is to make plantiffs pay all court costs/legal fees if the defendant was proven to be non guilty in a civil matter. That would fix so many problems.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right, but AllOfMP3 won't show up or if they do will lose, so RIAA will win in court. With this victory, they will get the Bush administration to lean more heavily on Russia to "do something".
Please America, don't try to bring your horrible legal system to the rest of the world. We don't want it.
I'm American and I admit we are too litigious and everything here is always somebody else's fault. However, the more
Re: (Score:2)
Something else to think about... 29 years is a long time. People change a lot in 29 years. If someone is a serial rapist, gets caught when they're 29 (and is placed in a holding facility) and go
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Since when does US law have jurisdiction in Rus (Score:5, Informative)
It's called "international copyright law". In parciular, the Berne Convention [cornell.edu], was not developed in the US, but was an international effort. Russia is a member of the Berne Union. The RIAA, hate them as I may, clearly has grounds to file a suit here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the RIAA thinks their legal rights are being violated.
The US, as do most soveriegn nations, exercises jurisdiction over violations of its laws wherever in the universe they may occur. It may, by its own law, restrict the territorial applicability of its laws, and, of course, successful litigants may have trouble executing judgements against foreign actors, but that's a different issue.
Anyhow, Americans didn't start
Re: (Score:2)
You guys did that all by yourselves. :)
Obvious Solution? (Score:5, Funny)
You'd have thought that allofmp3.com would just hand over the dime.
RIAA hasn't been paid.... They need to ask ROMS (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA knows this and so do their member groups. The issue is that they do not want to request the payment because they think doing so will give legitimacy to places like AllofMP3.com who are following the Russian rules to copyright payments. The RIAA does not like the Russian rules and seeks to circumvent them. By not requesting for their payments they are trying to use that as a means for the lawsuit(s) you are now witness to over the last few months against different Russian sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to feel sorry for (arguably) a bunch of lawyers though?
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians with their hands out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"(Russian Organization for Multimedia and Digital Systems a.k.a. similar to the RIAA in Russia)."
Not really. A much closer analogy would be our BMI or ASCAP. Allofmp3 is working their magic by paying the licensing rate for broadcasts. Here in the US, it is BMI and ASCAP who collect money for broadcast licensing. BMI and ASCAP represent artists and are unaffiliated with the RIAA.
FWIW, despite the fact that ASCAP and BMI are run by and for artists, they are often just as hated by Slashdotters as is the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking US or Russian copyright law?
do not collect the proper royalty rate then it's illegal, period.
Incorrect, in parts of the world, it is perfectly legal (due to copyright expired after 50 years) to distribute (without paying any royalties) works still copyrighted in the US.
International copyright law is not simple, period.
The King is Dead! Long live the King! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Putin's Russia, you get whacked, mole or no.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Made NPR headlines... (Score:2)
I heard this on NPR this morning while I was driving to work—my first thought: "well duh". Must be a slownewsday for everyone...
Quick! Someone shoot someone!I want the same deal the *IAA has (Score:2)
Just because none of the entertainment companies I represent offer these forms of entertainment at a price the marker is willing to pay or in a format that the public desires does not mean I am not entitled to vast sums of money!
Middle-men of the world unite!
Unenforceable? (Score:2, Interesting)
Clearly untrue (Score:4, Funny)
bullshit i remember paying a dime for 10-100 songs from allfomp3
Maybe I misheard.. (Score:4, Insightful)
What I'd heard is that allofmp3 PAYS royalties, but the American firms refuse them, as they're "not enough". So when they accuse them of not paying a dime, it's because they won't accept the payments, more than anything else... Can anyone confirm/deny this?
Re:Maybe I misheard.. (Score:4, Informative)
"What I'd heard is that allofmp3 PAYS royalties, but the American firms refuse them, as they're "not enough"."
Well, one issue is that by law, composers and songwriters must be payed "mechanical royalties" which are typically $0.08 per track. That is, of course, much less than ROMS is getting per track -- if allofmp3 is paying ROMS 10%, then that's about a sixth of a cent per track. I sure the hell ain't no lawyer, but if the record companies start taking that sixth of a cent per track, the publishing companies (which collect the mechanicals on behalf of the composers and songwriters) might sue to collect their $0.08. When you make a sixth of a cent per track and must pay $0.08 per track in royalties, there is absolutely no way to make that back in volume. You will lose money on every track sold.
The ironic thing here is that a common sentiment around here is that the record companies should take a cue (and/or clue) from allofmp3 and sell tracks for around $0.10 a song. Yet the current law, which dictates $0.08 for mechanicals, would not allow that to happen. And when a few weeks ago it made the news that the record companies were trying to lower mechanicals, the news was not well received by the Slashbots.
My guess is that the "the artists are needy" crowd are OK with the statutory rates staying as they are -- but they'll still download from allofmp3 anyway, with the logic that if composers and songwriters are only making $0.08 a track, there's not much difference between $0.08 and zero. The "the artists are greedy" crowd are probably hoping for the day that the record companies can get that statutory rate lowered. That might open up the possibility of record companies recognizing ROMS or other third-party licensing organizations that pay at less than the US statutory rate.
Re:Maybe I misheard.. (Score:4, Informative)
This is where most of the money for a track should be going--to the creative talent. If you look at the breakdown for the $1 that gets spent on an iTunes track, about $0.70 goes to the RIAA member [cite: Fox [foxnews.com]]. They have to give $0.08 - $0.16 out for mechanicals (by law you say). That means, at worst they get to keep $0.54 per track for producing nothing (especially true in the case of digital distribution). They want to lower mechanicals so that they can increase their profit margin, not so that consumers get reduced prices. That is why Slashdot readers (nice Ad Hominem with the 'Slashbots' by the way) did not receive the news well.
If they did manage to get mechanicals reduced to $0.001, they still wouldn't offer a service like AllOfMp3; they still wouldn't accept payment from AllOfMp3. I agree with your argument that they can't under the current conditions, but my argument is that they never would under any circumstances.
I feel like a compromise can still be reached. I think the labels--at least the major labels--are looking at this the wrong way. The true creative talent can still receive their "high" mechanicals, the label can take their fair share of profits, and the final distributor can make a nice profit too. What if you offered songs at $0.55, with a breakdown of $0.16 for mechanicals, $0.14 for the label and $0.25 for distribution (I made this last number up because it seems to be the amount needs for Apple to break even)? Especially if you offered non-DRM, variable bit-rate files (like eMusic)--I have to imagine a service like this would crush Apple and be highly profitable for the recording industry. I also imagine that if the RIAA itself was the digital distributor that they could offer distribution at much less than $0.25 / track, and could make even more profit there.
I firmly believe that the reason this doesn't happen is because all of the labels are run by old-time executives that fear change and want to maximize their profits while minimizing their efforts. They don't even see that with a little bit of effort they could double their profits.
A quick overview of Jurisdiction issue. (Score:5, Informative)
A: U.S. courts have juridiction in cases where the party to be sued has "such miminal contacts" that allowing the suit would not violate traditional notions of fairness and justice. The US courts have allowed jurisdiction when it is clear that the offending company has intentionally directed buisiness into, and solicited buisiness from, the United States and her citizens.
Here allofmp3 has all the hallmarks of past cases which have succeeded - site is in english, offers prices in U.S. dollars, advertises on U.S. websites and media.
Since their acts take effect here, laws which govern the effect will rule.
Q: How will they enforce the ruling?
There are several ways - the RIAA companies could freeze allofmp3's funds with a court order, and call upon Russia (through the effect of U.S. - Russia treaties) to supply the amount demanded by the judgement. They can asses the value of AllofMp3's domain name and seek to have it sold off to cover the damages. U.S. credit cards and pay-pal could be ordered to cease making payments to allofmp.
Q: How will they get these guys in custody? Russia won't hand them over.
This is a civil case - jail time is not on the table.
-GiH
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Jurisdiction is a very loose point of law.
-GiH
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a gross oversimplification of a very complex and technical area of law called choice of law or conflict of laws. The phrase "their acts take effect here" is meaningless; you could just as easily argue that their acts took effect in Russia since that's where payment is received.
Yes, you're right. I did say "Quick," which I intended to denote that it was not thorough. I think that recent case law indicates that the S.D.N.Y. will rule that internet purchases take place at both the point of origin, and the point of sale - but I don't want to get technical to the point where I'm speaking only to people who already understand the issue, and I didn't want to spend too much time writing a forum post.
Good points though.
-GiH
Importation Laws? (Score:4, Insightful)
But, I also thought that it is illegal for people to import into the United States products that are illegal here, even if said products are legal in the originating country (like bringing weed back from Amsterdam with you... they won't let it in the country, and you'll probably be arrested for possession). If that's the case, then wouldn't the US customers of AllofMP3.com be in violation of these importation laws by buying the songs in Russia (where it's legal) and then importing them to the United States (where it's illegal)? Why would the RIAA not use this vector for attack on AllofMP3, and bring down Capone on tax evasion?
Re:Importation Laws? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because possession of a .mp3 is not, in of itself, a crime. If you've legally purchased the mp3 according to the laws of that country, it's very hard for the RIAA to say, 'but they didn't pay us the money' particularly since the RIAA is the "Recording Industry Association of America" and not the "Recording Industry Association of Russia" or whichever country it may be. Now if there were a law passed saying that no mp3s may be 'imported' from another country if the RIAA hasn't been paid off, then there might be an issue with the 'importing' of the mp3 track to your computer.
IANAL, and if someone else has any thoughts or corrections who is, I'd love to hear them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because possession of a .mp3 is not, in of itself, a crime. If you've legally purchased the mp3 according to the laws of that country, it's very hard for the RIAA to say, 'but they didn't pay us the money' particularly since the RIAA is the "Recording Industry Association of America" and not the "Recording Industry Association of Russia" or whichever country it may be. Now if there were a law passed saying that no mp3s may be 'imported' from another country if the RIAA hasn't been paid off, then there might be an issue with the 'importing' of the mp3 track to your computer.
As I understand this issue - internet sales occour both at the point of origin (russia) and the point of sale (in the U.S.). This means that your sale has to be legal there and here.
I haven't studied internet or international law much yet though.
-GiH
but the music is legal to "own" (Score:2)
You are purchasing something that was apparently acquired legally in Russia, and is legal to own in the US. Similar to bringing back alcohol from Canada into the US. You have to pay an import tax if the value is above a certain amount (I think, been a long time). Nobody arrests you for having your case of Canadian Mist once you get back to your home in the US.
The two things that s
FAQs (Score:3, Informative)
Link to FAQ [allofmp3.com]
If I'm not mistaken... (Score:3, Informative)
Other Countries and the law. (Score:2)
They instructed US to send a cheque for 27,000 British Pounds (around 80,000 New Zealand dollars at the time) to pay for her hospital treatments (which were provided free by the New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation unde
"Today RIAA [Corporate]Robots Demand Legal Rights" (Score:3, Interesting)
These corporations have an unlimited lifespan, and the legal purpose of a Corporation is solely to make money.
But in our wisdom, our courts decided more than a century ago, that this Corporate Entity is a legal person: with all the legal benefits of person, but apparently little punishment for wrongdoings.
This eternal entity obviously wants to "own" "copyrights" forever, for profit (its legal mandate). So the behavior of the RIAA and MPAA is not surprising.
If you had robots with rights that could outlive humans, you may have some of the same ownership problems as those created with this artificial corporation person creation.
When a corporation is made of of all robot employees
RIAA sues because they won't ask for payment (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of what one things about anything else they do, suing a company that is not in violation of any law because of annoyance over a government's policies is just wrong.
Re: (Score:2)