RIAA Goes for the Max Against AllofMP3 777
Spad writes "Zeropaid is reporting that as part of its ongoing lawsuit, the RIAA will be seeking the maximum of $150,000 per song for each of the 11 million MP3s downloaded from the Russian AllofMP3.com between June and October last year. This amounts to roughly $1.65 trillion, probably a tad more than AllofMP3 has made in its lifetime. A representative of AllofMP3 stated: 'AllofMP3 understands that several U.S. record label companies filed a lawsuit against Media Services in New York. This suit is unjustified as AllofMP3 does not operate in New York. Certainly the labels are free to file any suit they wish, despite knowing full well that AllofMP3 operates legally in Russia. In the mean time, AllofMP3 plans to continue to operate legally and comply with all Russian laws.'"
Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Execs: Really? Okay then... we will sue for 1... thousand... BILLION dollars!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Because a trillion rubles is roughly 10 bucks.
Re:Hmm? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm? (Score:4, Informative)
Dollar's been falling steadily against rouble for the last four (4) years and currently is at the lowest level in seven years [yahoo.com]:
$1 = 26.28
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anything can happen "if current trends continue" forever. Are they likely to continue? If so, for how long? Well... You need the number on this graph [yahoo.com] to hit 100,000,000 for a trillion dollars to be 10 rubles. Right now it's .03801. So, is the dollar down against the ruble? Sure, but its plight is nothing like the ruble's.
In 1921, they had rubles - just, plain, rubles. But there was terr
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to pick nits, but if in fact current trends do continue, exactly one thing can happen, that which current trends point to. Anything can happen if current trends don't continue, which if you look at enough trends, is always the case.
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but Verizon would claim it was only supposed to be 0.02 cents!
Re:Hmm? (Score:4, Funny)
Because a trillion rubles is roughly 10 bucks.
But yeah, that's close enough for government work.
ObSimpsons (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again I guess China beat us to the punch, only we're on the wrong end of it. Perhaps can assign our judgement against Russia over to China and they'll sign over the deed on America back to us? "China currently hold [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But this case is different. They have visa card numbers. These are adults and these are tied to one person. They have IP addres
Proof? Proof of what, exactly? (Score:3)
What, proof that people bought music legally in Russia and then imported it?
This is ridiculous -- people are so caught up with the RIAA, apparently, that they've forgotten that none of it makes sense: not only is AllOfMP3 operating within Russian law, the RIAA isn't even suing in a jurisdiction that has any power whatsoever to enforce a judgement! The RIAA is on a witch hunt, and that's the nicest thing that can be said about it!
Re:Proof? Proof of what, exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's ridiculous. If you have a legal right to a file in another country, and posession of it in this country is not otherwise illegal (e.g., it's not kiddie porn or something), there's no sane reason you can't copy it across the (virtual, and therefore nonexistant) border.
Let's use an analogy: imagine you're on vacation in Europe, and you buy a CD, burn it, put it on your iPod, and bring it back home with you. Is that illegal? Of course not, that would be absurd!
Next, imagine you do the same thing, but you put it on a computer you happen to own, that you leave in Europe. You then transfer it to yourself after you get back home. Is that illegal? Of course not, that would be absurd!
Now, finally, imagine exactly the same thing, except that AllOfMP3.com just happens to be storing the file for you instead of you doing it for yourself (note: it's still your file, because you bought it). How is that any different? It's not, therefore it would still be absurd for it to be illegal!
Re:Proof? Proof of what, exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the law says you are not allowed to copy it across the border, but you may be allowed to physically move a pre-existing copy across the border.
You might disagree with it, or find it silly, but that is actually what it says. I'd rather you disagree with it, knowing that, than to deny that it exists altogether. I'm a firm believer in the idea that we'll never get these laws fixed until people know what they really are, and what the policy goals for the laws are meant to be. Misinformation and erroneous 'common knowledge' don't help.
Let's use an analogy: imagine you're on vacation in Europe, and you buy a CD, burn it, put it on your iPod, and bring it back home with you. Is that illegal? Of course not, that would be absurd!
Actually, it is possible that bringing in the CD itself would be illegal; it would depend on its origins. But in any event, your example is faulty. Allofmp3 involves making copies across a border; you're talking about making a copy and then bringing it over the border. That's not the same thing. There is a world of difference between moving a tangible medium over the border (e.g. a CD, a hard drive, an iPod), and moving intangible information over the border (e.g. reading from a server in Russia and writing to a hard drive in America). The former is importation (a form of distribution), the latter is reproduction. Different exceptions apply to each.
Re:Proof? Proof of what, exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
I just have to point out that, though it is indeed absurd, MP3.com back in the good old days got legally smacked down for doing *exactly that*. And the precedent stood.
You put in a CD in your computer, MP3.com verified it was legit, and gave you access to an MP3 copy they had previously made. Court ruled that format shifting is only legal if you do it yourself, and even though the end result was *exactly the same*, just saving the consumer some time and effort, they were ordered to stop.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's a gambit (Score:5, Insightful)
so iTunes is illegal then?
I think the argument here is that customers of allofmp3 believe they are purchasing from a legitimate store. This store does pay royalties to the russian version of the RIAA, however this Russian RIAA does not pass them on. Downloading songs that you've paid for from a legitimate store is not illegal - there are many on-line stores where you can legally purchase music. THe issues is: 'is Allofmp3 a legal store?'. The RIAA believe it is not, the Ruskies believe it is. One is a government with oil and some legacy nukes, the other is a bunch of lawyers with deep ties into a government with shiney well maintained nukes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Distributing is giving copies of the song to other people.
Downloading is getting a copy of the song for yourself.
The way p2p is designed, when you get a copy, you also give all or part of the song to 20 to 50 other people. (Riaa then invalidly sues you for giving copes to everyone they give copies to also. However, that's double dipping- probably even 100tuble dipping).
Allofmp3 "performs" a unique copy of the song to you. They paid royalties to the russian copyright associ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a gambit (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia is still independent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:5, Informative)
11/29/2006 http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061129-831
The short version:
The U.S. wants Russia to join the World Trade Organization.
One condition is that Russia changes its copyright laws.
Russia agreed.
Whether or not AllOfMP3 is going to get shut down by the Russian Gov't is seemingly still up in the air, but the RIAA got what they wanted: IP reform in Russia.
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:5, Interesting)
I currently do not let my son download music illegally. He is allowed to buy off of iTunes with prepaid cards, and cannot use bittorrent, or any other p2p. Now I know someday, he'll be able to use these without my knowledge and thats fine. But what I'm doing is explaining to him why leagally obtaining music is the right thing to do. I also however expalain in detail that the RIAA is possibly the largest bunch of idiotic half wits on the entire planet. My eplaination basiclly goes "iTunes uses DRM at the behest of the music industry, but its not too invasive and can be removed simply by burning a CD and reimporting (lossy I know), but it doesn't bind the user too much and the price is reasonable (unlike Apples movies which we won't buy)". I also tell him that iTunes would lose every cent of our business if someone started selling unDRMed mp3s for the same (or lower price). Now allofmp3.com fits that bill but as this story shows, their legality is in question. But the RIAA is overplaying its hand!! (Sorry I'm going to yell and swear now, but can't help it). Those fucking bastards keep going after allofmp3, keep pressuring Apple to raise prices, and keep trying to get other sites with even worse DRM than fairplay fired up!! Dammit RIAA all you have to do to win the entire fucking market and make these same billions of dollars you sue everyone for is OFFER FUCKING DRM FREE MUSIC FROM YOUR OWN SITES AT THE PRICE APPLE HAS ALREADY DETERMINED WILL WORK!!!!! I mean I could steal everything for just a little bit more effort than buying from iTunes. I don't, I try to do whats right, but my patience is wearing thin, very thin.
This is a warning to the RIAA, keep this shit up and you'll make it way to easy for everyone to justify stealing from you because you are just too fucking evil. And I'll tell my son stealing from you is ok too because an group of soulless, vile, repugnant, people like you don't deserve any of our money or our respect.
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you pay for RIAA represented talent, you're paying for a bunch of entitled drug addicted leeches with degrees from party schools, lawsuits against grandmothers for downloading music they couldn't possibly want to listen to, and an entire industry built around the artist paying for everything and receiving a glorified loan in return, while being paid a pittiance for anything any sales outside the top
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I prefer the term "Compatible music".
My daughter has a Nano. My son has an RCA Lyra and a Creative Zen. I have a Panasonic and a Coby. The only format that works in a mixed environment and works on all my PC's including the Linux box is MP3, the format they won't sell.
What ever happened to meeting consumer demand?
The consumer is always right and votes with his wallet. I am not an I-tunes customer. I can't play their product anywhere except on my wife's PC.
In other words, "Sh
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
May I suggest you find some better music to listen to? There's plenty of good music from the last 10 years.
Re:Russia is still independent (Score:5, Informative)
This should be industry... (Score:5, Funny)
How excessive. (Score:5, Informative)
How fucking ludicrous and excessive. Jesus.
Re:How excessive. (Score:5, Funny)
You can get crucified for swearing on this site. Pilate.
Meanwhile AllofMp3 offers 20% bonus (Score:5, Informative)
AllofMp3 offers 20% bonus untill January 14, 2007 [allofmp3.com]
It is ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
quadrouple dipped (Score:5, Interesting)
I am old enough to have bought my entire collection on records, tapes, cd's and for as much as I can SACD/HD audio. I am all for contributing to the machine if the records companies release NEW, higher quality recordings in the future, but I'm not repurchasing my cd collection. I've already paid my taxes to the RIAA Gods several times over.
are you kidding? (Score:5, Interesting)
He bought a legitimate license, lost his original copies in a natural disaster, and then downloaded replacements - and that's the moral equivalent of your download without purchasing any license? I don't see it.
In his model, the money was paid to the copyright holder, and presumably some of that money made its way to the artist. When he downloaded replacements, he cost the copyright holder nothing, and only deprived them of the opportunity to charge him for an additional copy.
I'm not saying what he did was morally right, but it's a darn close to acceptable in my book. I'm frankly uncertain of what I'd do in that situation. I keep an off site mp3 version of all of my legitimately purchased music, so I'm less exposed in the case of a natural disaster. It seems ridiculous to suggest that he should pay full price to have access to something he already paid full price for.
I think it would be a good idea for you to pay for music. After all, if no one pays for music, there's no money to pay artists at all, regardless of the fairness of the contracts and the distribution mechanisms.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
My Book (Score:3, Insightful)
While you are correct that the courts determine the outcome, the parent poster was attempting to justify behavior which is clearly in conflict with the laws of the US.
Also, I'd suggest that opinions about moral behavior are quite relevant. Legal systems are a societal attempt to codify moral behavior.
Re:quadrouple dipped (Score:5, Insightful)
Theft implies that you took something from someone else resulting in their loss of the use of the item.
For example, if you steal my car, you have deprived me of the use of that car.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA wants 150,000 * retail_cost for the songs. That means that if you bought a $10,000 Neon, and I made a copy of it, that I would owe Dodge... 1.5 billion.
The moral of the story is don't buy a Neon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
no. it means you built a factory and showroom in Russia for the production and distribution of the counterfeit. which you are now offering to buyers in the U.S. for shipment at a cut-rate price.
the intangible property right of exclusive distribution is something that can be stolen.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:quadrouple dipped (Score:4, Informative)
mrshowtime was accused by the esteemed Anonymous Coward (which I referred to as astroturfer) to be stealing, as if depriving someone of belongings.
However, mrshowtime purchased MP3s through a corporate entity which is operating totally in compliance with Russian law. This is aside from mrshowtime's Fair Use right to simply retain backup copies made in accordance with Fair Use.
So, how is the esteemed Anonymous Coward NOT astroturfing for the RIAA, since mrshowtime is going out of his way to replace his music collection without even taking advantage of Fair Use?
I'd argue that mrshowtime may be better off avoiding RIAA materials altogether and buy independent, or listen to classical or talk radio instead, but unfortunately that solution does not work for everyone, due to musical tastes, programming availability, and so forth.
Equating mrshowtime's LEGAL purchases from a corporate entity which is operating LEGALLY to theft of physical goods is not even close to a fair comparison.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Showtime said, "spin it how you want- you are BREAKING THE LAW"
I've made this point here before. Feel free to break laws you feel are immoral- but do not fool yourself. Fooling yourself is the EASIEST way to getting caught. You start to believe your own bullshit and then you try to use it in court and they nail your ass to the wall.
Argue the semantics however you want but any kind of sharing outside of a fair use copy of your own music or that captured from a source like a radio is breaking the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"OK, RIAA astroturfer, what Russian law is allofmp3.com breaking?"
When allofmp3 made that "we are operating in accordance with Russian law" they were using a little clever wordplay of their own. They probably are operating within Russian law, but that's not the issue. They're trying to change the goalposts on you. The issue is that they are selling their product to US citizens. How far they're going to encourage business from the USA is something that I'm sure will be a key factor if this goes to trial.
Re:Idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
Because artists make SO MUCH on sales in this country...
(Don't particularly like using this as a reference, it's not exactly CNN or BBC, but it's the first reference I saw that looked decent...)
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1
Rather than paying artists approximately 30 cents of the 70 cents it receives for digital downloads (after deducting payments to music publishers), the suit alleges that Sony Music treats each download as a sale of a physical CD or cassette tape, only paying on 85 per cent of such "sales" (due to a fiction that there is breakage of product), deducting a further 20 per cent fee for container/packaging charges associated with the digital downloads (although there are none), and reducing its payments by a further 50 per cent "audiofile" deduction, yielding a payment to the Sony Music recording artists of approximately 4 1/2 cents per digital download
I'd rather pirate the track and give the artist the buck directly. If only there were a way to do that...
Re:quadrouple dipped (Score:5, Funny)
And where did royalties go?
Bad things happen to royalties in Russia. Just ask Anastasia.
THERE ARE NO LICENSES. FUCKING CHRIST. (Score:5, Informative)
Works are fixed in media (see 17 USC 101). These media are called copies. So music and software are fixed on CDs and DVDs (and harddrives and RAM), and novels are fixed in hardcover books, etc.
When you buy a CD, you buy a CD. Period.
When you buy a book, you buy a book. Period.
You can lend your book, your CD, to someone. You can rent it. You can sell it. You can burn it. Etc.
You do not buy, and do not need, a license for the work on the media unless you plan to do something with that work that would violate the copyright holder's exclusive rights (see 17 USC 106).
THERE ARE NO EULAs FOR CDs OR DVDs.
You are buying media. Period.
You have to understand that. You can do anything with the media you want. That doesn't entitle you to the "work." The work is an intangible thing. It is unownable and unpossessable and therefore nobody owns nor possesses it.
Copyright grants copyright holders certain rights assoicated with the work -- FROM WHATEVER SOURCE -- but this is separate from the work fixed in a medium: which is a physical thing, just like any other physical thing.
The reason you can't do whatever you want (eg, make copies) is because the copyright statute says you can't. It's not because a license says you can't. You need a license in order to make copies*, sure, but you're not buying one when you buy a CD.
* you can also make copies if you have one of the few exceptions under the law, etc.
If you're allowed to make backups, btw (about which there is no brightline rule, only the fair use test), you're allowed to keep them when you resell your CD, etc. But since there's no general exception to make backups generally (software is an exception IIRC), the whole circumstances have to fit the four factors of the fair use test. So, e.g., if you intended to sell your CD, and made a backup so you could keep the music knowing you planned to sell it tomorrow, that's probably not a fair use.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the big problems with Katrina losses is that so frequently all evidence of
ownership and purchase was also washed away.
Shows the Absurdity (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, I don't think anyone, except apparently the RIAA lawers, could possibly believe that in a few months- or even in a year or two, one single (not all that well known) russian website caused the RIAA to lose over a trillion dollars in revenue.
Re:Shows the Absurdity (Score:5, Informative)
As you said, I hope this gets publicized because it really demonstrates how ridiculous the dollar value associated with infringement really is.
Re:Shows the Absurdity (Score:5, Informative)
They're not claiming that at all. $150,000 wasn't a random number, nor was the fact that it was called "the maximum" in the article summary just word choice. In fact, anybody at all familiar with copyright law--even just the little trickles that make it through on sites like this--will have their ears twitch in recognition at hearing the number.
$150,000 is the maximum allowed statutory damages according to US copyright law. It has nothing to do with how much their losses were.
Further, realize that damages come in two parts: compensatory (what you actually lost) and punitive (punishment for the act). Punitive damages are almost always substantially higher than compensatory damages in situations like this. Even if they only claimed $11 million punitive damages ($1/download, the iTunes price), the law says they're perfectly free to claim the other $1.649+ trillion.
Will they get that much (if they get anything)? Almost certainly not, but that doesn't stop them from asking for it.
trillion (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_music_market [wikipedia.org]
Re:trillion (Score:4, Insightful)
They pull them out of their ass. $150k/song is complete BS. I just don't understand how a judge would look at that and be like, "Hmmm yeah that seems perfectly logical. Go with it!" AllOfMP3 should just send them 1500 Russian dog poos with a note that says something like, "We arbitrarily value each of these pieces of crap at US$1000000. We're square."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, they won't GET this -- the minimum damage award is $750 per work, or about $8B. (It drops to $200 if allofmp3.com proves
Want to bet (Score:5, Interesting)
AllofMP3 should just settle... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the Russian government would be willing to make an official valuation of the complete works of Joseph Stalin as worth $1.65 trillion.
Then AllofMP3 could repay the RIAA by licensing them to the RIAA.
Problem solved.
Imagine downloading the audiobook version from the iTunes Music Store.
Re:AllofMP3 should just settle... (Score:4, Interesting)
RIAA leadership (Score:5, Funny)
Proof once again that the RIAA is run by Dr. Evil.
Hmm. (Score:5, Funny)
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
One possible hilarious response (Score:3, Interesting)
Screw them both. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a big fan of the RIAA, but I'm also not a big fan of AllofMP3. Yes, it's legal in Russia (through a loophole in radio licensing they're trying to close), but not here in the US.
A ton of Slashdotters use it because they think it's a good business model and they feel like they're doing something legal because they're paying for music. Sure it's a nice business model- the way they calculate the price you pay by measuring the amount you're downloading in MBs, but they money that goes to AllofMP3 doesn't end up in the artist's hands any more than it does when you pay money to a record label by buying music on a CD here in the USA (in fact less: none to be exact). Sure, you can complain all you want about the evil RIAA and how they don't give enough money to artists, and boycott them all you like. But the truth is artists get NO money from AllofMP3 (instead of an unfair tiny amount from the RIAA). They're just profiting off of other people's work. Like the RIAA but worse. Instead of a tiny amount of money going to the artists, the moeny goes instead entirely to the proprietors of AllofMP3 (who are rumored to be connected to the Russian mafia, by the way).
Re:Screw them both. (Score:5, Informative)
And I believe the Record Industry Association of America is just a little bit out of it's jurisdiction here. Hence the stupid filing in an American court. Try that kind of scare tactic in Russia and as people have already mentioned, AllOfMP3 would simply pay the local mafia a small sum to make the problem.... disappear.
Re:Screw them both. (Score:5, Insightful)
From the information on their website, it appears that they pay a fixed percentage of sales to royalties. Registered artists, I presume, get royaties - I haven't looked into their financials, so I can't verify that. I don't read Russian either, so I probably couldn't figure it out even if I had the paperwork. The RIAA doesn't like the terms, so they don't want to play. Artists don't enter into it - they don't own their work. IF they did, they could hire a lawyer to do the paperwork, and get their money.
On a personal, philosophical level...
I'm all for compulsory licensing of any published creative work. Don't want it available? Don't publish it.
This would "fix" the Disney vault problem, and allow works to be re-published for a fixed fee. Presumably, original content owners could still create premium content by republishing with value added features. Most of the movie houses already re-release a title several times to get people to re-buy.
As for starving artists, I say get off you lazy asses, out of the studio, and go entertain in person. If your contract forbids such work...well, you signed the contract, yo ulive with the consequences. If you don't like it, go work 9-5 like everyone else. You're not required to make music to live.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A ton of Slashdotters use it because they think it's a good business model and they feel like they're doing something legal
And many ignore that even if pirate CD's (physical ones) are legal in some country, importing them into the US is not legal. Even if All of MP3 is legal in russis, Importing the MP3's into the US is not legal. There are import restrictions on imported pirated materials.
The question is, "Is the lawsuit proper against the AllofMP3?". I think the real lawsuit should be against the ille
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Importing your own property is legal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Is it legal to use the AllOfMP3 pay service in the United States (US)?
Although to our knowledge there is no direct precedent on the legality of accessing a service like ours from the US (i.e., using a legal music download service located outside of the US), we, however, do believe that there are at least several statutes, each of which, should allow users to access our service in the US; such as 17 U.S.C. 602(a) (the "Importation for Private Use Exception"); 1008, 1001 (the "iPod Ex
Re:Screw them both. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight. When a company moves its manufacturing division from the U.S. to Malaysia to take advantage of the industry-friendly labour laws in that country, they're applauded for their ingenuity. On the other hand, when U.S. consumers take advantage of consumer-friendly copyright laws overseas, they're criminals.
Re:Bad Counterargument (Score:4, Interesting)
b) just says that if the copy was made illegally at the point of origin, it is considered illegal when imported into the United States. (i.e. chinese bootlegs)
a) clearly states an exception for importation for personal use. If it is legal in the country of origin and you are importing it for personal use, it is legal.
In this case, the mp3s are legal under Russian law, so importing them for personal use is not illegal. I think the point of contention is whether they are being imported into the U.S., or distributed for sale in the U.S.
In my opinion, since the sale occurs on a server in russia, it is sold in russia and then imported. that would make it legal for them to sell and legal for you to buy.
And before anyone attacks me...I've never bought anything from allofmp3.com and have no interest in doing so. I like to own the cd.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
RIAA stands for *what*? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Racketeering Industry Association of America. Thats more like it.
RIAA vs credit card companies? (Score:3, Interesting)
If AllOfMP3.com gets shut down permanently, another cheap MP3 site can just spring up in its place.
But if credit card companies are ordered to block payments to such sites, and regularly updated about each new naughty 'infringing' site, that just might start to seriously disrupt the business models of such sites.
suing the wrong people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:suing the wrong people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, from the RIAA's perspective this would be bad -- since then they wouldn't have a case against Allofmp3.com. They stand to (at least they think they stand to) make more money by suing.
Like all gambling though -- they might end up with nothing instead of just less than they wanted...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They'll just ignore it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell you what I'll sue you in DudsLand. I win, you owe me $5billion.
When can I expect the check?
I put my trust in the Russian mafia (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had my share of 'fights' with them, so I know they are a formidable enemy. And I can only hope that they are behind AAMP3, too. Because then, we'll see what happens when two criminal cartels clash.
I'll bring the popcorn.
Jurisdiction? (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens when someone, prone to mischief and with re$ources, sues these monkeys for say $2T at the 3rd Circuit Court in Mogadishu.
Fantasy, yes, but imagine a court seizing Disneyland in Japan and France to pay for some judgment, as funky as the one that we will see here.
I Believe... (Score:3, Funny)
Xa,Xa,Xa,Xa,Xa,Xa....!!!!
Artists should be reimbursed (Score:3, Insightful)
Follow the bouncing ball... (Score:5, Insightful)
American corporations also like to do business in countries where organized dissent to their activities is suppressed by "friendly" governments (friendly to their interests, that is). They do so because organized dissent is legal in the United States and has on more than one occasion 1) aired the corp's dirty laundry, 2) stopped them from performing harmful (but profitable) acts, and 3) called for the corp's to strike a balance between shareholder value and respect for the laws of the country in which they live.
What does all of this have to do with AllOfMP3? Well, American corporations have a long record of doing business (and making bundles of money) by going to places where they aren't restrained by such trite formalities as "laws". American corporations love to extol the virtues of the "global economy", just as long as they're the ones who benefit from it; after all, transnational capital alone should benefit from international business.
But for some reason, the average Joe using the internet to do THE EXACT SAME THING that American corporations have been doing for years is deemed wrong, illegal, unethical, and Lord knows how many other bad things. The average Joe who buys a song from AllOfMP3 is engaging in exactly the same type of transaction that corp's have done for years: gain financial advantage by offshoring their transactions.
Am I oversimplifying? Maybe. But chew on this: Either we have a global market (as we are told that we have as our jobs are outsourced), or we don't. And if we do have a global market, the rules were written long ago by the same people that are trying to stop us from following them.
Nulla poena sine lege (Score:4, Informative)
It would be like if the US made recycling of lightbulbs mandatory (giving the lightbulb-makers the right to sue you if you didn't bring broken lightbulbs) and then the lightbulbmakers try to sue you because you threw away a lightbulb ten years ago (instead of recycling it). You cannot break laws retroactively. Even if the lightbulbmakers ran big campaigns and threatened to sue you if you don't recycle those lightbulbs, they cannot sue you for doing something in the past that now would break the law.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall (Score:3, Interesting)
This points out one of the problems with an economy based on brain share products. Valuation. You may be able to get a dollar for it in the US but only a penny in Russia. How are you ever going to enforce valuation in another economy when the product doesn't have intrinsic value based on hard assets? It's insane to even try, but insanity doesn't stop the recording industry.
Companies can get away with it here because our Congress is corrupt and we're wealthy. It doesn't bother us to spend 10 bucks on a CD, but that's a week's pay in some places. Same principle applies to movies, software and most entertainment products.
The day will come when one of these countries we're into for a couple hundred billion in trade deficit, maybe a country that provides most of our manufacturing is going to call bullshit.
$1.65 trillion (Score:5, Funny)
Proving copyright damage amounts are illegitimate (Score:4, Insightful)
The law is completely absurd, and this case proves it. Who in their right mind could support this?
This is absurd on the level of sentencing someone to death for stealing a candy bar from a convenience store.
Just societies are founded on the principle of proportionality of punishment: the punishment must fit the crime.
The RIAA doesn't dare sue for the full amount against U.S. citizens, because they know that the day a college student is fined a billion dollars for sharing mp3s, is the day that this law is overturned.
No sane person would tolerate this, one hopes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Laws" in russia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not w/ lobbying groups.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lobbying groups have far less influence than most people think. (I work on the Hill - I know.) Unless the group represents someone that is a constituent (or business that employs large numbers of constituents) of the politician or the politician is corrupt (roughly 1 in 50 is), the group will not get face time with a Senator. They might get to meet one of his legislative assistants (many who are law students), but the influence a LA will have on his / her Senator varies greatly.
If you were to poll the Senators before they ran for office, you would find that their views are already in alignment with the RIAA and MPAA. That is why they get money donated to their campaign - not for influence when they are in office, but to get elected (pure and simple - cause when they are then elected the RIAA / MPAA does not need to worry about them). The American people at the moment do not care enough about the issues (that the RIAA and MPAA do) to vote based on them (and given our current problems - this may be a good thing).
When the movie / music organizations throw receptions here (they did a special dinner and advance screening of Eragon 3 weeks ago), not a single Senator went (I know - I had nothing better to do, so I rsvp'ed and showed). Heck, I bet less than 10-15 legislative assistants were there also. Most of the people that go to their meetings are either interns, people that think they're important or rarely IT people that are tired of coding (me). Now many of those interns may be your future Senators - so you could say that they are buying influence in advance... but I doubt it - given most interns pirate music left and right (a few are dumb enough to do it at work).
Anyhow - they (lobbying groups) don't buy influence, Americans simply elect people that support the lobbying groups views (i.e. an uninformed voting populace).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well of course you'd say that -- you're one of them!
Re:Not w/ lobbying groups.... (Score:4, Informative)
If the lobbying groups don't buy influence, what exactly is it they are spending money on?
They don't have to buy much influence. When 533 people are controlling $2 trillion, you only have to steer a very small amount power to be worth spending a good-sized pile of money. Or you keep a lobbying firm on retainer for years, just to have them available to put in your side of the story on the once-in-a-century moment when it can make a difference. It's sorta like patents, they're usually not good for anything, but the megacorps cultivate piles as a form of insurance.
Re:"Laws" in russia? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of the RIAA's opinon, they can't do diddlysquat about it short of paying off Congress to change the law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The CEO of the RIAA isn't a lawyer. Neither, I presume, are a lot of the members and officers."
The CEO, Mitch Bainwol, doesn't have a JD, but he does have an MBA, which I believe makes him just as hated by Slashdotters. However, the RIAA"s president, one Cary Sherman, is Harvard Law '71, and was an IP lawyer for several years. FWIW, he's also dabbled in software copyright; he wrote this book [amazon.com] which I'm sure is a thrilling page-turner.
By the way, I ran into Cary Sherman a few years back at CES. He's ab