Allofmp3.com Owners Could Face Jailtime For Demonstrating Better Business Model To RIAA

from the how-dare-they! dept

Wed, Jul 25th 2007 11:03pm — Mike Masnick

The saga of Allofmp3 is quite well known at this point. The company that was apparently following the laws of Russia for licensing music made a name for itself selling DRM-free music at very reasonable points. Rather than recognizing that this was proof of a very viable business model for the recording industry, the recording industry turned to US gov't officials to pressure Russia into shutting down the site by threatening to block Russia's entrance into the WTO. Eventually, Russia caved. And, while the site was eventually shut down, an almost identical site quickly popped up in its place. That, of course, can't be good for Russian politicians looking to get into the WTO, so now they're threatening jailtime for Allofmp3's owner. If you step back and look at the big picture, a struggling U.S. industry has had its gov't pressure a foreign gov't to throw a foreign entrepreneur in jail for demonstrating a better business model to them. This is the world we live in.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, russia
Companies: allofmp3, riaa

58 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Known Coward, 25 Jul 2007 @ 11:18pm

Fuck the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zanezerozero, 25 Jul 2007 @ 11:24pm

RE: Known Coward
Fuck the RIAA

Win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kuroneko akira, 25 Jul 2007 @ 11:37pm
  
  Re: RE: Known Coward
  yes... struggling industry my ass... sell some more useless rap... with prefab beats. billboard 200 is full of shit anyway.. wont even download any of their top albums. make better music or get bands that are actually good. and its not about taste... its about having talent. svartmetal!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 26 Jul 2007 @ 6:37am
  
  Re: RE: Known Coward
  the futuristic sex robots have a song called "fuck the mpaa". part of the chorus is "fuck the R I double A".
  
  it's track 5 on this album which you can download for free (creative commons for the win!!)
  
  seriously, it's completely free.
  
  they're not my favorite nerdcore act, but their hearts are in the right place.
  
  so fuck the RIAA twice: 1) support an independent artist that release under the creative commons with no DRM, and 2) spread the message and speak out against the MAFIAA by calling attention to this song.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AngrOaf, 25 Jul 2007 @ 11:25pm

.....
Wow... just wow... not only do corporate powers in the US have the US govt by the balls... They can also extend a friendly reach around to governments in other countries.

This is only the beginning folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2007 @ 2:23am
  
  Re: .....
  The Beginning!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrGreebthumb, 25 Jul 2007 @ 11:36pm

Call to arms
To all those with fantastically devious ways to undermine, disturb and destroy the RIAA: now is the time to plan their demise.
There has to be something we can do to show our displeasure with the industry. Music should not be made subject to the perversion the RIAA has vomited all over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kyros, 26 Jul 2007 @ 12:14am

I agree with that "Fuck that the Riaa" and the following "Win" to the uttermost. Someone needs to go on a killing spree, and it needs to start with the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MadJo (profile), 26 Jul 2007 @ 12:33am

It's about control
It's not about the business model, it's about control. And the labels could not control allofmp3, so they were a threat. Large enough that they enlisted WIPO and other organizations to put pressure on Russia to take the site down and start litigating, even though AOMp3 was following the letter of the law in Russia.
And paid their dues to ROMS.

That the RIAA doesn't have agreements with ROMS regarding royalties, should NOT be AOMP3s problem.
But clearly the labels (Sony, Warner et al) made it AOMP3s problem.

You see the same issue with internet radio. The labels can't control what the internet radio stations play, so they have to be put under, with outrageous royalty fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lost in Americana, 26 Jul 2007 @ 1:38am
  
  Re: It's about control
  Yes, its about control. So, I wonder why somebody hasn't come up with the grand idea of doing something similar to AOMp3 in a country that could give less of a shit about America. Say, Colombia? Brazil? South Africa? Sri Lanka? I am just saying, even though AOMP3 was in Russia, the fact is Russia is an ALLY of U.S.A. Which means, as far as the **aa is concerned, they've got clout there too.
  
  Anybody notice the pattern?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kostas J. (zatorg), 26 Jul 2007 @ 2:54am
    
    Re: Re: It's about control
    Yeah, agree. The thing is, USA can more or less make huge influence to practically *any* country - either by threatening concerning organisations etc. or by other methods.
    
    I wish there was a country that didn't give a shit about USA and had normal laws. Cause all I see is USA whores (let's take Sweden: in 2006, ThePirateBay.org went down for three days because MPAA told Sweden's police to commit a raid although Sweden's laws allowed ThePirateBay to publish torrents.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2007 @ 4:32am
    
    Re: Re: It's about control
    Those other countries are probalby afraid the RIAA will pull some strings with the Govt and have them bombed if they don't stop allowing DRM free music across the internet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dorpus, 26 Jul 2007 @ 3:05am

Sounds good to me.
It's not as if Russia never uses its oil to bully other countries or something, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SailorRipley, 26 Jul 2007 @ 7:35am
  
  Re: Sounds good to me.
  That's always a sign of strength...using someone else's possible transgressions to justify your own...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jared, 26 Jul 2007 @ 3:16am

Fuck RIAA
it's like the mobster asking the mafias to gun them down.

fuck the RIAA and the WTO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2007 @ 4:31am

I think this sort of thing really hightlights just how much corporations run the world. It's not just in America but just about everywhere.

Oh, well that's just life rather than oppose them I'd rather figure out just what I can do to join them.

After all better be the shit ripping everyone else off than the fool being ripped off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanguine Dream, 26 Jul 2007 @ 5:40am

C.R.E.A.M.
Cash Rules Everything Around Me.

Any country that does offer a home to allof3pm.com or any site like it will just become the victim of pressure from the US government.

Antigua comes to mind. But if they did offer a home to torrent sites then of course Antigua will somehow become a threat to national security, a haven for terrorists, violators of American IP laws, and just for good measure something about child porn.

I just wish other countries would get together and start calling the US government on all the nonsense it commits in an effort to please its corporate sponsors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SP, 26 Jul 2007 @ 6:13am

This is BULLSHIT.... IT'S TIME TO TAKE ACTION!
This is BS. How much longer are we going to let the **AA pull $hit like this? It's time to stand up for what's right. There needs to be a WORLD WIDE BOYCOTT where NO ONE BUYS OR SUPPORTS ANY MUSIC THAT THE RIAA HAS CONTROL OVER. I've been a part of this boycott for five years now. Ever since they shut down the origional Napster, I vowed to never again support any RIAA products.

I just love how the a$$holes at the RIAA whine and moan about laws being broken (even though AllofMP3 WAS NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS) and will go as far as THREATENING OTHER COUNTRIES... when they themselves have broken, and continue to break, MANY LAWS. What about all the artists they are RIPPING OFF AND STEALING FROM? WHY is the RIAA allowed to be the corportate CRIMINAL they are and WHY is our damn government bending over backwards for these asses?!?!

This IS the beginning of the END...of the world as we know it. It's a sad, sad day for America and beyond.

FUCK THE RIAA!!! FUCK YOU CHEATING, HYPOCRITICAL GREEDY BASTARDS TO HELL! YOU WILL *ALL* BURN IN HELL!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
brwyatt, 26 Jul 2007 @ 6:13am

related?
since when did the US become the world's police? Vietnam, Iraq, Iran..... now Russia.... Who's next?

What the hell has happened to this country? Freedom and rights my ass.... maybe a long time ago thats what this country stood for, but not so much any more :-(. Guess only US businesses rights are protected anymore...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric, 26 Jul 2007 @ 6:52am

Allofmp3
I am in no way a fan of how the RIAA does business. It must be known however, Allofmp3.com never paid the recording industry royalties they were entitled to. This web site was selling a product they didn't have a right to sell.

Sorry Mike Masnick, you were under-informed therefore your position on the subject needs rethinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SailorRipley, 26 Jul 2007 @ 7:40am
  
  Re: Allofmp3
  nice try, the first sentence almost sounds convincing, shill
  
  Allofmp3 paid the Russian Organization for Multimedia and Digital Systems, just like all Russian radio stations.
  
  the only person (pretending to be) under-(or rather conveniently quite selectively)informed is you.
  
  You're not fooling anyone: AllOfMP3 operated legally in Russia. Whether or not you or the MAFIAA agree with that is not relevant, AllOfMP3 did not break Russian law
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse James, 26 Jul 2007 @ 6:55am

X-mas
Let me see...what should I send the RIAA for Xmas as a present? I know, a box with a rock in it. Support encrypted file-sharing: http://www.gigatribe.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kostas J. (zatorg), 26 Jul 2007 @ 7:21am
  
  Re: X-mas
  Thanks for the link, looks like a good thing...
  
  Although it scares shit out of me that there were thoughts of passing a law with which encrypted traffic would become illegal in USA... I think it was in 2001 that MPAA wanted this law to be passed so they could blame you for "hiding stuff from your ISP". Thanks bits of sanity that are left, the law was never passed...
  
  Anyway, thanks :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kostas J. (zatorg), 26 Jul 2007 @ 7:24am
    
    Re: Re: X-mas
    Hmm another thought: if we all started to use ENCRYPTED traffic while using torrents and other P2P stuff, it'd be safer for us and we could sleep worrying less...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 26 Jul 2007 @ 7:06am

Anyone opposing the all-powerful RIAA in anyway - speech, thought, activity is looking at jail time.

ALL HAIL THE RIAA!!!

Racketeers In Action Always

lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nate, 26 Jul 2007 @ 7:07am

This isn't the whole truth
Allofmp3.com isn't just another victim of RIAA. They sold music that they didn't own and didn't have copyrights to.

For example, it's well known by King Crimson fans that much of their music isn't available on ITunes and other MP3 sites because the band (which managed at great cost to get back a lot of their copyrights from their early record labels) wanted to have more control how their music was sold. Usually a band is stuck with whatever crappy deal their label made with them regarding digital distribution, but this band wanted to make a better deal, which is completely their right. As for AllofMP3.com, it's one thing to take a CD and rip it and share it with others without permission. It's another to rip someone else's work without their permission and SELL IT. And this is what AllofMP3.com was doing in some cases.

From Robert Fripp's diary discussing an article about the Russian site:

"'We can't see any legal or moral objection to using the site,' Charles Wright writes in the Sydney Morning Herald. 'We're using the material for private use, there is no restriction in this country on the parallel importing of recorded music and none of the artists seem to have been deprived of their rights. While we suspect the recorded music industry would like to earn more from their music, we're in no position to judge the arrangements they might have made with Russia.'

Well, as regards King Crimson, I am in a position to judge the arrangements they might have made in Russian: there is no arrangement. Legal or moral objection? This is theft.

There is a significant & qualitative distinction between fan file-swapping & piracy: the difference is in aim. The site above undermines itself by being based on a lie: 'this material is licensed.' From this follows a remorseless & inevitable series of repercussions, many of which are not immediately obvious."

http://dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?entry=367

So it seems pretty clear that AllofMP3.com was involved in some very shady business practices. They continued to sell music that they didn't have any rights to at all. Companies like this SHOULD be shut down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- NoName, 26 Jul 2007 @ 7:39am
  
  Re: This isn't the whole truth
  "This is theft."
  Robert Fripp needs to educate himself and learn the difference between "theft" and "infringement".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nate, 26 Jul 2007 @ 8:00am
    
    Re: Re: This isn't the whole truth
    How is taking someone's music without their permission, ripping it, and selling it (and refusing to take it down when asked by the owner of the music), NOT theft?
    
    As far as I can tell, if you take something that isn't yours without any sort of agreement and then selling it without giving any royalties or any other form of payment to the owner, that's called stealing. Copyright infringement has nothing to do with it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2007 @ 8:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This isn't the whole truth
      How is taking someone's music without their permission, ripping it, and selling it (and refusing to take it down when asked by the owner of the music), NOT theft?
      
      maybe you should ask the Supreme Court that, dumbass...
      
      As far as I can tell, if you take something that isn't yours without any sort of agreement and then selling it without giving any royalties or any other form of payment to the owner, that's called stealing. Copyright infringement has nothing to do with it.
      
      first off, wouldn't the taking something that isn't yours without any sort of agreement part be enough to constitute theft? Why do you feel the need to drag the selling it part into it?
      
      anyway, it's clear you can't tell far, you should really read up on theft and copyright infringement
      
      geez, does this shill technique of playing the ignorant one and rehashing the same old argument that has been (extremely easily) struck down every single it has been uttered even remotely work???
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Nate, 26 Jul 2007 @ 4:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the whole truth
        To your comment: "wouldn't the taking something that isn't yours without any sort of agreement part be enough to constitute theft? Why do you feel the need to drag the selling it part into it?"
        
        I agree that theft is theft. But intent does factor into the degree with which it is a moral crime. If I steal something for my own enjoyment, it is theft. But if I steal something and then repeatedly sell it and make a bunch of money, it is still theft, but it is of a greater magnitude. (This is why "larsony" laws are defined as a matter of financial degree. There is a distinction between stealing something worth $10 and stealing something worth $1000, for instance.)
        
        I find it interesting that you acknowledge that "taking something that isn't yours without any sort of agreeement" does constitute theft. That is a tacit admission on your part that what AllofMP3.com's business model is based on theft. So it sounds like we agree on that point.
        
        And you are the second person to call me a "shill." Can a man not argue something based on principle without being tied to people he doesn't know, doesn't like, and has no connection to? As I was telling your other friend, Mr. Coward (are the two of you related, by the way?), I'm just a fan of a band who were fighting on an individual basis with this site, and it pissed me off to see a story almost glorifying this internet site as if they stood for some greater principles and not lining their pockets.
        
        As for the distinction between copyright "theft" and "infringement," I was speaking broadly (as I'm sure Mr. Fripp was). After all, you can't literally "steal" a copyright. He was just saying that what this site was doing amounted to a form of "theft." You and others can parse the word if you wish and get stuck on the distinction if you like, but it was besides my main point, which was that what this site was doing to some artists was fundamentally unfair on plain terms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - NoName, 26 Jul 2007 @ 1:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This isn't the whole truth
      How is taking someone's music without their permission, ripping it, and selling it (and refusing to take it down when asked by the owner of the music), NOT theft?
      I looks like you also need some education but your education is not my responsibility. Try doing some actual research on the subject before spouting off ridiculous statements that only make you look foolish or worse, like a shill. This very site would be a good place to start as there have been many posts on the subject already.
      
      Copyright infringement has nothing to do with it.
      Well, if there was not even infringement then there is probably no case to be made at all.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Nate, 26 Jul 2007 @ 4:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the whole truth
        Is this what people do on this site? Take words out of context and spend time shooting down individual sentences when it's clear from the wider statement that those sentences were not meant in the way that you portray them?
        
        As I've said in other replies, I wasn't trying to parse words about what constitutes "copyright theft" versus "copyright infringement." I was trying to make a layperson statement about how what this company was doing was fundamentally wrong because they were taking something that wasn't theirs--against the wishes of the person who owned it--and then selling it anyway. In common sense terms, that is stealing.
        
        But I suppose it's easier to argue against my statement by pretending my point was very narrow and limited to a foolish debate about Russian statutes.
        
        And you are the third person who called me a "shill" within just a few minutes. Seriously, it's like you all share one mind or something.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        NoName, 26 Jul 2007 @ 6:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the whole truth
        Is this what people do on this site? Take words out of context and spend time shooting down individual sentences when it's clear from the wider statement that those sentences were not meant in the way that you portray them?
        
        Anyone can look right up above that comment to get the full context. Just like with this one, nothing is being hidden. If you expect to have your whole post repeated for every point that is rebutted then you are going to be sadly disappointed.
        
        In common sense terms, that is stealing.
        Theft is the taking away of someone else's property, not making a copy of it. The statement you made was untrue. In common sense terms, that's fibbing.
        
        But I suppose it's easier to argue against my statement by pretending my point was very narrow and limited to a foolish debate about Russian statutes.
        What's foolish about the law? I suppose you would have us ignore it?
        
        And you are the third person who called me a "shill" within just a few minutes. Seriously, it's like you all share one mind or something.
        You didn't disclose up front your loyalty to a party involved in the story before you started commenting on it. That, by definition, makes you a shill. So why shouldn't you be called that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nate, 27 Jul 2007 @ 12:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the whole truth
        That last comment is rubbish.
        
        "A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer."
        
        I am a music fan. I have no formal or informal business connection to any music groups; I am merely a consumer, and a person with an opinion (such as yourself). And I've made it clear that I am a King Crimson fan, so I don't see what your problem is. We all have biases. By your definition, if someone on a message board doesn't start a conversation by listing all of their previous related opinions and philosophical ideas on a topic, they are a shill, and by that definition, who isn't?
        
        Not everyone who argues against an MP3 distribution scheme is some lackey for the RIAA. Jesus you guys are paranoid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        NoName, 27 Jul 2007 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the whole t
        That last comment is rubbish.
        
        "A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer."
        Let's see. If one looks a little deeper:
        
        shill /ʃɪl/[shil]
        Slang.
        –noun 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
        2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
        
        Looks like you pretty much meet the second part of that definition to me. And no, you did not originally reveal your loyalty to a member of the record industry (which, by the way, is NOT the same as the music industry as you industry shills seem to like to imply). So keep it up, shill. You're just digging your hole deeper.
        
        Jesus you guys are paranoid.
        Mr. Fripp isn't a lawyer and you aren't a doctor. Maybe you should both quit playing like you're things you aren't and just admit to what you are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        NoName, 28 Jul 2007 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the who
        OK, I admit the "doctor" part was pretty lame.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Felix, 29 Jul 2007 @ 9:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the
        Ummm, it's not the only thing that's lame about this thread. I'm all for sharing, but selling other peoples music for your own profit without their permission is just lame. Call it whatever you want, quote anything you like, apply whatever laws you can come up with, it's just a lame ass thing to do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2007 @ 8:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't
        Nah, selling music is lame whoever is doing it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nate, 27 Jul 2007 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the whole truth
        And again, you are allowing this to descend into a narrow semantic debate that misrepresents my original point.
        
        Yes, you are correct in a legal sense that "Theft is the taking away of someone else's property, not making a copy of it." But I would argue that if you were to, say, make a bunch of stuffed Mickey Mouse dolls and sell them on ebay, that is a form of stealing. Is it legally more accurately known as copyright infringement? Yes, definitely. But speaking plainly, that person would be "stealing" an image that somebody else created rather than making an original. The same thing with music. Someone who makes a living taking someone else's recorded songs and selling them as a product from their own shop is, plainly speaking, "stealing" their music. If you want to dismiss me as an uneducated moron for seeing a fundamental unfairness in this, go ahead. But I would like to think that most people would understand what I'm saying and would probably agree with me in moral terms if not in legal ones.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        NoName, 27 Jul 2007 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the whole t
        Yes, you are correct in a legal sense that "Theft is the taking away of someone else's property, not making a copy of it."
        Try to remember that.
        
        But I would argue that if you were to, say, make a bunch of stuffed Mickey Mouse dolls and sell them on ebay, that is a form of stealing.
        No, it isn't. But saying it is is a form of fibbing, speaking plainly.
        
        Is it legally more accurately known as copyright infringement? Yes, definitely.
        It is more truthfully called copyright infringement. Deliberately telling untruths or making inaccurate statements is known as lying.
        
        If you want to dismiss me as an uneducated moron for seeing a fundamental unfairness in this, go ahead.
        I have no idea how much education you have. I dismiss you as being not credible for reasons I have already stated. If you really people to consider your point of view you should remain truthful. Once you are caught being untruthful it becomes much harder to convince people. Indeed, it probably has the opposite effect.
        
        But I would like to think that most people would understand what I'm saying and would probably agree with me in moral terms if not in legal ones.
        I think most people understand that that's not the way business works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2007 @ 8:43am
  
  Re: This isn't the whole truth
  first off, you just look pathetic quoting something from (1) "a guy" (2) from his diary/blog (3) more than 3 years ago and then religiously using it as being "the truth"...
  
  Not to mention the fact that "the guy" in question, even just in the part you quoted, clearly proves repeatedly that he is talking out of his ass...
  
  as already pointed out, if anything, it would be copyright infringement, not theft...anybody planning on appearing knowledgeable and wanting to be taken seriously should at least get that right.
  
  As for the lie about licensing: here's a quote from a legal article:
  
  "Russian law in principle allows collective right-management organizations to issue licenses for musical works without having the respective right holders’ permission."
  
  As long as AllOfMP3 paid for a license, AllOfMP3 is not doing anything wrong/illegal.
  
  Now you can bitch like a little girl about whether or not right-management organizations like ROMS should have that right, but this in no way reflects on the legality of AllOfMP3.
  
  And while we're on the subject, you (in your capacity of shill for/defender of the record industry) can't even justifiably bitch about that, since what's SoundExchange doing? Collecting money for music from artists they don't have the copyright of and on behalf of artists not belonging to their organizations, in short, for artists they effectively do not represent...
  
  So it seems pretty clear that SoundExchange is involved in some very shady business practices. They continue to collect money that they didn't have any rights to at all. Companies like this SHOULD be shut down.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nate, 26 Jul 2007 @ 4:35pm
    
    Re: Re: This isn't the whole truth
    There is something delightfully ironic about someone posting as "Anonymous Coward" complaining about someone else quoting something from "a guy." This is doubly ironic given that the "guy" I quoted happens to be well qualified to speak on this particular subject. Robert Fripp has not only been a professional musician from about 40 years, but he also runs his own music label and distribution company and completely shattered many of the music industry's working assumptions about copyright ownership in particular. (For example, his company is somewhat unique in that it doesn't take copyrights from the artists even though this is "standard practice" by the music industry.) Some day, you should read his lengthy accounts of spending decades in courts fighting a record company for the money they admittedly still owed him but "couldn't account for" due to acknowledged bad bookkeeping on their part.
    
    So before you spend too much time questioning why I quoted just "a guy," how about doing your own research into who it was I was quoting.
    
    I must also remark that I certainly didn't expect this much vitriole and hostility in response to a pretty straightforward commentary.
    
    As for the article you posted, Mr. Coward, perhaps you would do well to read it more closely. In the second page of the article, it states quite clearly that "While the validity of such compulsory licenses remains uncertain, the Moscow City Prosecutor's Office is reluctant to initiate criminal prosecution against the web-site operators." In fact, the overriding premise of the article isn't that there is some legal basis for sites like this, but rather that IN SPITE OF their dubious legality, they aren't being prosecuted by the government. So, that article doesn't really support your notion that the company is on the up-and-up, but rather it undermines the very core of that argument.
    
    As for Mr. Fripp's statement that what this site does amounts to "theft," it's pretty clear that he doesn't mean literal "copyright theft" but theft in the broader sense.
    
    I do take offense at your characterizations of me being a "shill" for the "record industry." I'm simply a guy who likes King Crimson and who saw TechDirt write what I considered to be a love letter to this company that my favorite band had a dispute with. I just wanted to note that the TechDirt article was rather one-sided and that there are other reasons why the company is being prosecuted that don't have to do with the RIAA. In fact, I am probably as much an opponent of the RIAA as most of the people here. I just hate to see an artist whom I respect get screwed by a shady Russian web site.
    
    But all of this can be reduced to a very concise, common sense argument. King Crimson/Robert Fripp made some music--music that they themselves hold the copyrights to. AllofMP3.com then took that music without their knowledge or permission and ripped it and started selling it without giving them a chance to negotiate a deal. King Crimson/Robert Fripp never granted them a license. The copyright holder never negotiated any sort of deal. According to Russian courts, it's OK for the company to operate as long as it pays a stipend into some pool which a Russian "management organization" then operates. And apparently this is permissible even if the copyright holder refuses to deal with the company. (They are in effect saying if you don't deal with AllofMP3.com, we will grant them a local license in absentia and they only have to pay you whatever they want to.) To me, that is remarkable. What other companies can claim that kind of power? They don't even need to negotiate with artists in good faith because they know that they can just pay the artist a stipend and be done with it. In most places in the rest of the world, if you own something and someone wants to make money off of it, that person has to negotiate with you, and if you don't like their "final offer," you can walk away. But apparently not in Russia, at least according to AllofMP3.com defenders.
    
    And excuse me for being cynical about these Russian "management organizations." The American and British record industries are corrupt enough in the way they pay their artists; I suspect that a Russian management organization that accepts licensing fees on behalf of unwilling artists probably isn't the most honest of institutions.
    
    As for your notion that "As long as AllofMP3 paid for a license, AllofMP3 is not doing anything wrong/illegal," I would take strong exception to the "wrong" part. What possible connection does the management organization have to the artists whose works they are purporting to defend? (Hmm, that sounds a little like a certain music industry group we have on this side of the pond, doesn't it?) So, according to your reasoning, there is nothing "wrong" with the company selling MP3s from a band who finds the deal unfair--as long as they pay SOMEONE SOMETHING for the license. It shouldn't take very deep thought before realizing that there is indeed something wrong with that concept.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - NoName, 26 Jul 2007 @ 6:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This isn't the whole truth
      There is something delightfully ironic about someone posting as "Anonymous Coward" complaining about someone else quoting something from "a guy."
      Would you have been happier if they had made up some silly name like you and I did? That seems like a pretty insignificant thing to try to make a point with.
      
      This is doubly ironic given that the "guy" I quoted happens to be well qualified to speak on this particular subject. Robert Fripp has not only been a professional musician from about 40 years, but he also runs his own music label and distribution company and completely shattered many of the music industry's working assumptions about copyright ownership in particular.
      Copyright is more of a legal than musical concept. When and where did Mr. Fripp obtain his law degree? If he didn't then I would disagree with your characterization of him as "well qualified" to issue legal opinions on the subject. As has already been pointed out to you, the courts have ruled that copyright infringement is not theft.
      
      As for Mr. Fripp's statement that what this site does amounts to "theft," it's pretty clear that he doesn't mean literal "copyright theft" but theft in the broader sense.
      I don't think that's at all clear. In fact, as much you or Mr. Fripp might like to disavow it, I think the statement pretty much stands on its own and paints anyone who would assert it as somewhat less than credible.
      
      I do take offense at your characterizations of me being a "shill" for the "record industry." I'm simply a guy who likes King Crimson and who saw TechDirt write what I considered to be a love letter to this company that my favorite band had a dispute with.
      OK, so you claim to be only shilling for only one record company instead of the whole industry. You still meet the definition.
      
      I just wanted to note that the TechDirt article was rather one-sided and that there are other reasons why the company is being prosecuted that don't have to do with the RIAA.
      Then why didn't you? Just exactly what are these other so-called reasons that you didn't note?
      
      King Crimson/Robert Fripp never granted them a license. The copyright holder never negotiated any sort of deal.
      But were they required to do so? If not, then under what concepts of capitalism should they? Remember, Russia is moving away from socialism.
      
      According to Russian courts, it's OK for the company to operate as long as it pays a stipend into some pool which a Russian "management organization" then operates. And apparently this is permissible even if the copyright holder refuses to deal with the company.
      OK then, try to keep that in mind.
      
      To me, that is remarkable. What other companies can claim that kind of power?
      I would guess other companies in Russia to begin with.
      
      In most places in the rest of the world, if you own something and someone wants to make money off of it, that person has to negotiate with you, and if you don't like their "final offer," you can walk away.
      Even the US, the world's most enthusiastic copyright supporting country, has compulsory licensing. Again, you need to learn more about the subject if you really believe that it doesn't (which I doubt).
      
      As for your notion that "As long as AllofMP3 paid for a license, AllofMP3 is not doing anything wrong/illegal," I would take strong exception to the "wrong" part.
      One of the differences between capitalism and socialism is that in a capitalistic system profits generally come before social concerns.
      
      It shouldn't take very deep thought before realizing that there is indeed something wrong with that concept.
      Now you're getting off into what is essentially an moralistic discussion of the concepts of capitalism versus socialism. I'm not interested in getting into that and just note that it looks like the Russian courts will be deciding the legal issues in this case.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - N, 27 Jul 2007 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the whole truth
        Oh I give up. There are so many holes in your argument, and you clearly aren't trying to discuss this construtively but rather mock and insult someone whose opinion doesn't match your own.
        
        You start by saying that Mr. Fripp's opinion is invalid because copyright is a legal concept rather than a musical concept. The fact that Mr. Fripp's company operates copyrights for his clients apparently isn't relevant?
        
        And unless YOU have a law degree, then you are being a profound hypocrite harping on Mr. Fripp and throwing aside his opinions.
        
        However, if you are correct in that US law allows for compulsory licensing with artists unwilling to negotiate a license with a music seller, then I learned something new today. If that's true, it seems to go against our capitalist system (i.e., governmental interference with the ability of individuals and businesses to negotiate a fair and profitable deal to sell a product).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2007 @ 3:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the whole truth
        And unless YOU have a law degree, then you are being a profound hypocrite harping on Mr. Fripp and throwing aside his opinions.
        No, I leave that up to the real lawyers and the courts and just follow what they say. That seems to be quite different from you and Mr. Fripp.
        
        However, if you are correct in that US law allows for compulsory licensing with artists unwilling to negotiate a license with a music seller, then I learned something new today.
        Ask someone who runs a radio station or live music entertainment venue about compulsory ASCAP licensing.
        
        If that's true, it seems to go against our capitalist system (i.e., governmental interference with the ability of individuals and businesses to negotiate a fair and profitable deal to sell a product).
        You know, I just can't figure if you're for or against capitalism. So you're for it in the US but against it in Russia? I'm starting to think that you're just for it when it suits your purposes and against it otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2007 @ 7:29am

You guys act like the RIAA is the only corporation whose had any influence on the United States Government's policies and agenda. Like this is something new. Who cares about the rest of the bargaining countries do for money and power, because when it comes to music: "F THIS AND F THAT AND F THE RIAA". Please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2007 @ 9:00am
  
  Re:
  what's your point?
  
  I vaguely sense you don't want us/Techdirt to talk about what your evil masters get up to and focus on other things, but your post even fails to get that message across.
  
  btw, yous talkie badly english
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dav, 26 Jul 2007 @ 8:01am

Oh no we are losing TO THE COURTS
Unfortunately the way co operations work makes this kind of thing unsurprising. When all is done the only people that lose are us, the consumer.

Its a sad world we live in where a multinational is able to influence world laws to the point where it can destroy its competitors and scaremonger many people into handing over their hard earned money so that some chief executive may enjoy a 50% pay rise, a $1bn bonus and a new private jet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tin Ear, 26 Jul 2007 @ 8:26am

Comparison?
What if... a website hosted rips of music without DRM, and set it up so that the 'charges' for downloading a song were specifically designated as 'Delivery Charges'? The file would be free, but the charge would cover bandwidth for the download. If this were written into the user agreement there should not be any issue with 'selling the music' without a license or royalty.

Sort of like an eBay auction where you spend $8 shipping on a $1 item...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2007 @ 8:27am

Nate, he never violated Russian law. American law isnt the only law in the world. Even if it seems wrong in America, it dosn't mean it is illegal in the country where it was hosted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 26 Jul 2007 @ 10:07am

As said, in this case, the person did not violate the law of his country. Saying he should be arrested because his site seemed illegal to American law is like saying Americans should be responsible for the laws that China creates. Now if this was illegal in his country, then this would be completly different, however this is not the case. Regardless of what it appears to Americans, the only question as to if he gets legal penalties is did he do something illegal in Russia, not did he do things that would be illegal to do other in other countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2007 @ 11:03am

I hope the RIAA wins. I hope they sue the radio so it dies. Sue XM/sirrus so it dies. Sue bands for playing cover songs so they quit and get a day job. Sue any file sharer who has the apps installed. Then when you can only get music by going to an authorized RIAA store and music dies I wonder what the RIAA's excuse will be ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul, 26 Jul 2007 @ 3:27pm

Allofmp3
The RIAA didn't learn the lessons of the domestic auto industry. In the face of evidence that they were doing it all wrong, Detroit buried its' collective heads in the sand and continued to do it all wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 26 Jul 2007 @ 6:55pm

The question of was this fair or not to the industry is different then should this guy face legal penalties. I do think there were some problems with the Russian law, and I do think this guy had a shady business by the worlds standard, however at the same time he was following russian law. The fact is this guy was legally allowed to do what he was doing, and thus should not face legal penalties such as a fine or jail. As I said earlier, he was outside the reach of American law, thus we can not say he should go to jail because he violated American law. Afterall, we do not follow laws from other nations here in America, so it would be double standards to say the rest of the world is bound by American law.

Now the companies did also have the right to put pressure on Russia to change its law, but there is no reason a change in the law should apply to the past, and he should not be put in jail because something that was legal when he was doing it became illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2007 @ 12:13pm

I like the Title of this Article
RIAA should provide a better solution so that users will not use services like AllofMP3. Obviously, RIAA is not so smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mormolocea, 1 Aug 2007 @ 3:13pm

Fuck RIAA. RIAA can suck my dick. RIAA suge pula rau de tot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechDirtSux, 2 Aug 2007 @ 11:23am

"Demonstrating Better Business Model..."
...RIGHT!

Selling stuff that's not legally yours and not paying appropriate royalty to the owners is a better business model.

I guess a really good business model is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Yeah, we like to hate the big guys, but they do have the rules and laws on their side. Don't like it, get them changed, but please don't applaud those that break the laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
alex, 5 Aug 2007 @ 2:14pm

Russian mp3 site
Since Allofmp3 has been shut down by russian authorities, it's time to take a look around and see where else legal mp3s can be purchased at a fair price.For the people who want to find other services like allofmp3, here are the top 10 allofmp3 alternatives http://hubpages.com/hub/russianmp3site...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]