Editor note- submitted by PhantomGhost first...and by CodeWarrior
and compmore independently within minutes as well :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By TED BRIDIS
AP Technology Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The recording industry on Wednesday sued 532 computer users it said were illegally distributing songs over the Internet, the first lawsuits since a federal appeals court blocked the use of special copyright subpoenas to identify those being targeted.

The action represents the largest number of lawsuits filed at one time since the trade group for the largest music labels, the Recording Industry Association of America, launched its controversial legal campaign last summer to cripple Internet music piracy.

Music lawyers filed the newest cases against "John Doe" defendants - identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses - and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live.

The recording association said each person was illegally distributing an average of more than 800 songs online. Each defendant faces potential civil penalties or settlements that could cost them thousands of dollars.

The resumed legal campaign was intended to discourage music fans emboldened by last month's federal appeals court decision, which dramatically increased the cost and effort to track computer users swapping songs online and sue them.

"Our campaign against illegal file sharers is not missing a beat," said Cary Sherman, president of the recording association. "The message to illegal file sharers should be as clear as ever."

All 532 lawsuits were filed in Washington and New York - home to Verizon Internet Services Inc. and Time Warner Inc. and a few other prominent Internet providers - although the recording association said it expects to discover through traditional subpoenas that these defendants live across the United States.

The RIAA said that after its lawyers discover the identity of each defendant, they will contact each person to negotiate a financial settlement before amending the lawsuit to formally name the defendant and, if necessary, transfer the case to the proper courthouse.


MORE HERE

"Our campaign against illegal file sharers is not missing a beat," said Cary Sherman, president of the recording association. "The message to illegal file sharers should be as clear as ever."

Yeah Cary, and consumers in general are seeing what you are...your primary care physician must be a proctologist ....

They will sue ppl forever, and still only sue less that 1 percent of the ppl who file share. This is a joke

Not that i advocate filesharing of there music, but you can't sue your customers forever.

the RIAA has said that they will continue suing til they cover every jurisdiction in the USA....TechTV reported this some time ago.

filesharing of music is legal...ask George Z...
it's copyright infringement that the law frowns upon

Whats interesting (I could be wrong) is that the RIAA has to prove to a judge that each of the 532 John Does has broken the law in order to get their names. don't they have to show cause in each case?? that's a lot of work, money and time. it'll be fun to see who's uncovered with this since they can't screen potential victims ahead of time

*sighs* Well, at least Cary-Sue and his cronies have to go through the same legal process that we must go through to file lawsuits. A step in the right direction, I suppose, concerning lawsuits. Still, that doesn't forgive a faltering industry for suing customers into oblivion just because they think it'll boost sales.

I submitted this article.

Disappointing that the RIAA takes this course of action, but completely expected.

:-:~ Phantom

People need to sue the RIAA in return.

Every time someone drives through a neighborhood blasting RIAA music, the RIAA (and it's member record companies) should be sued for selling a product that can damage hearing and disturbs the peace. A product that can assist teenagers in committing suicide. A product that destroys the social fabric by demeaning women and encouraging racial violence. I think the RIAA should be held accountable on par with the cigarette companies.

If any of the proposed lawsuits above sound ridiculous, compare them with suing 12 year old girls, senior citizens and people without computers at home.

Phantom...you did beat me...I apologize that I was in a hurry to get the article online and didn't see you had submitted it 11 minutes before me...
so...credit for first posting to PhantomGhost...great work to the site for getting the word out quickly !
~CW

That's 532 people that should join the boycott-RIAA!

They should have put all their songs onto CDs as data then bought an MP3 Cd player

The article I read on yahoo quotes the Pew study and says these lawsuits are working

The way the RIAA has carried out what seems to me as an extortion campaign (Using the Hobbs definiton of extortion..2404 Hobbs Act -- Under Color of Official Right )...why don't they just put together a list of several million IP addresses, and file millions of John Does at once...I bet the majority would settle out of court for 3-4 grand....

I think it should be called the "Pew study" because its methodolgy and flawed results STINK as in "P U"

for those interested in the Pew study...
http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_File_Swapping_Memo_0104.pdf

for those interested in the Pew study...
http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_File_Swapping_Memo_0104.pdf

Code, didn't Carey sue say that the settlements will be larger to cover the costs of actually using the court system? the next old lady or kid who is sued for 15 thousand or more will generate more sympathy than a 2 thousand dollar settlement

< sorry for accidental double post >

"The RIAA said that after its lawyers discover the identity of each defendant, they will contact each person to negotiate a financial settlement before amending the lawsuit to formally name the defendant and, if necessary, transfer the case to the proper courthouse."

I don't like the sound of that, what that means, is that they will once again, pick and choose who they go after fully. If they find someone to close to home, they will just drop the lawsuit before the name is officially added onto the law suit, and most likely we won't ever know about it.

Is there a perticular number of songs they are filing these new law suits over?
BTW, Cant this be beaten by simply turning off the sharing ability?
I'm new at this stuff, just curious.

I think that you're right comp...I think he did...but, again...why don't they just list a million IPs...and non-suit those who won't settle...you know most will..and if they get 5 grand a pop...that's not chump change

They're gonna pick who they want regardless.

belleblack2004...WELCOME !
They are "saying" 800 files at least per person sued...they used to say 1000...but that was untrue in some cases as well...

Months ago, I would have said, yeah...just turn file sharing off...but, I have some questions about the current methodology that toadies like BayTSP are using to come up with the IP addresses of these "john does"

...

I think that there might be only one more wave after this one before they realize that they can't do it anymore. You said yourself that the services are picking up speed and you've gotten your point out, so why not quit all this nonsense?

If one person I know is targeted, there's going to be hell to pay.

They will never stop the downloading effort...
Technology always wins.
I wish they would wise up and get creative not law suit happy.

"Not that i advocate filesharing of there music, but you can't sue your customers forever."

Yes you can.

"Code, didn't Carey sue say that the settlements will be larger to cover the costs of actually using the court system?"

I don't know what Cary said, but I said it. While I was in favor of the Verizon decision, it will be detrimental to the defendants due to the increased settlement amounts that the RIAA will demand. Beware file sharers!

I agree that they wont be able to keep this forever, but in the mean time we just gotta deal with it.
I'm on board.
g2g
Keep fighting the good fight guys.

"I think that there might be only one more wave after this one before they realize that they can't do it anymore."

Why will they not be able to do it anymore? Again I will point to Cablevision, who has been suing people who steal their signal for years and years. It's part of the landscape now, get used to it.

The people decide what is right that is the basis of a democracy/republic. If people decide something illegal is right, then that law is invalid not the people.

That was said by Darkened03 on another thread. I agree with that 100 percent.

they will continue this crap until the big 5 tell them to stop....

I believe the RIAA has a big war chest to pursue litigation, and they are committed to this act of lunacy...

it's a slash and burn tactic...and, as with other slash and burn tactics...
when you destroy the resources you may have to depend on yourself ...you have sealed your own fate by gaining the eternal hatred of the people who have sustained the people who pay your salary...

Hitler didn't learn...and in the end...had his own planes bombing Germany itself (per the History Channel)....destroying the good will of the people you depend on for income (i.e. the labels depend on music concsumers)...will end in disaster...it may take years...but it will end thusly.

Will they going to ID those people. How long would it take them to ID those file swappers? ISPs inst cooperating, how can they have their names?

" Music lawyers filed the newest cases against "John Doe" defendants - identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses - and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live."

"...after its lawyers discover the identity of each defendant..."

So they have filed the cases, but apparently haven't been before a judge yet. This means that a judge has yet to agree with the RIAA that it is appropriate to sue consumers.

"So they have filed the cases, but apparently haven't been before a judge yet. This means that a judge has yet to agree with the RIAA that it is appropriate to sue consumers."

It's not a question of whether it is appropriate, it's a question of whether it is legal. I, of course, don't see how it can't be not legal. The defendants can file a motion to dismiss if they believe there is no good cause to proceed. What will they say? "An mp3 is inferior quality so it's not infringement." LOL I would love to see someone try that one.

agreed george. Question, how can they settle with the person and still keep the name out of the public eye if the lawsuit is filed?? Once the judge oks the seapoena to get the individuals name isn't that name entered into the suit weather it goes to court or not??

Aren't they only suing those who are uploading or sharing copyrighted material? Those who simply download the material are not those being targeted, correct?

"Those who simply download the material are not those being targeted, correct?"

Correct. Leech away! : )

The riaa has deep pockets indeed and could keep this up forever, if it weren't for the enemies they are making along the way.

I fear one day they are going to target the wrong person and perhaps pay dearly, even moreso than they could prepare for. I think they are playing with fire. People will start to get really, really angered by all this crap.

There are true psychos in this world. As much as John Lennon was LOVED, even he got done in!

~pepe~

A word of caution....about a year ago...I would have seconded mroop's comment...and I thought that there was no way that they can monitor downloaders...I'm not discussing my source(s), but, I believe now that they can, and may be monitoring downloaders as well, and can ID you as you are downloading...so...I have changed my official position, and feel that it would be unwise for me to encourage people to think they are safe if they are just downloading...

I would say NOW, just be aware that if you are uploading OR downloading, you may be contacted by your ISP about a letter they received pursuant to DMCA provisions...

"A word to the wise is sufficient"

(by ID you, I meant grab your IP address)

Mroop,

It's fairly common knowledge that an mp3 file itself is 90% (or more in some cases) different from the original waveform; Doesn't this then qualify as a legal deriative of the original works?

While it sounds similiar still, over 90% of the "copyrighted" work has been lost in the process. How is it still legal to sue for 10% of the same information?!?

Seriously. How can they do this?

P2P has changed since Napster. At the moment they can only "ID" you (get your IP Address) if you're connected to them. For downloading, you would have to download from an RIAA User, and even then they would only know you downloaded (not distributed) that one song.

Now they can go and browse your shared folder like on Kazaa and see what you have available to upload, but if you don't have anything shared or have blocked browsing, they can't get an accurate count.

They're suing people that are have tagged for distributing (uploading) an average of 800 songs in their folder. Simply downloading won't net you their extortion.

"While it sounds similiar still, over 90% of the "copyrighted" work has been lost in the process. How is it still legal to sue for 10% of the same information?!?"

An mp3 is only 10% of the cd it is recorded from? That sounds specious to me. But either way, who cares? Can you hear the song? Yes! It's like saying copying a book is not infringement if you are using a crappy copying machine. I don't claim to be a copyright expert, but the "poor quality" defense sounds ridiculous to me.

again....although the RIAA is not targetting downloaders, the best info I have from people who know much better than I...is if you are on a P2P...don't believe your IP is safe just because you are only downloading....

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who avoids major-label music as much as I possibly can.

"An mp3 is only 10% of the cd it is recorded from?"

yeah, an MP3 is a reccording of an entire CD on one file playable with all the major media players

Formerlurker, I haven't bought a CD in a long time. however I do have a weak spot for the older songs and groups of my youth. mainly because of the memories it brings back

"work through the courts"....is that the same process as when meatloaf
"works through your colon"?
Inquiring minds demand to know...lol....

I just ate a meatloaf on rye sandwich so I'll let you know. : )

Compmore, I have a weak spot for 60's music, so I understand. It's mainly the new stuff, ala Britney Spears, that I can't stand.

Ok.. multiple responses. First off.. poor quality was used as a defense and what allowed cassette decks and vcrs to be legal.

Also, that pew report is a laugh. only 36 million? you have to be kidding me.. that is only a little more than the population of new york city. I heard it was gathered with that gator data miner crap that makes computers stop working properly once installed. i would say conservatively that 60% of kazaa users alone know how to remove that garbage. I emailed msnbc and cnn regarding quoting "valid" studies rather than those that think they can declare adware irrefusable.

mroop...i'm sure the products of both processes will remind me of Cary Sue and Company

oh man code this's getting gross. lol

One harddrive shred later, & people claiming their IP addresses were hijacked by hackers & the RIAA has SQUAT!

"Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who avoids major-label music as much as I possibly can."

Absolutely not.

As for the suing downloaders issue -- Sorry, but it can't happen until the downloaders have a way to tell the authorized from the unauthorized, a step the RIAA has not attempted to make.

BTW what's stopping someone from installing duel hard drives and use only one for the file sharing.. and if they get sued they just remove the other hard drive so if the computer is checked the authorities and court can see it wasn't freshly installed. Then you could claim they got the wrong IP address.

Isn't the burdon of proof in this case for the RIAA

The RIAA is only in it for themselves. Artists can make a lot of money through file-sharing. Here's how:
The Grateful Dead, among other things, were famous for their encouragement of bootlegging their music.

The result: Concert sales went thorough the roof.

The average artist makes a few pennies off each album sale. But they can make 35% of their ticket sales at concerts.

The big money is made at the concerts. RIAA only makes money for record sales - they're in it for themselves... not the artist.

I could have 100's of files that LOOK like copyrighted mp3's on my HD, but until they were downloaded and played, you wouldn't know what they were. The filename alone is not proof of anything.

I could have 100's of files that LOOK like copyrighted mp3's on my HD, but until they were downloaded and played, you wouldn't know what they were. The filename alone is not proof of anything.

I could have 100's of files that LOOK like copyrighted mp3's on my HD, but until they were downloaded and played, you wouldn't know what they were. The filename alone is not proof of anything.

omg sorry, browser trouble

Come and get me!
I spent last weekend making copies of my Beatles cd's and downloading the songs I didn't already have. I made the copies using wav files. I know (and can hear) the mp3's are inferior quality. But I want to introduce my 16 year old niece to the early Beatles stuff, not just the hits on One (which they own). If the cd's cost $3-4 each, I would have bought them. JPG&R should be happy they live on.

Wait a minute, wait a minute.

The headline of this story is wrong. The real story is even better.

They only filed 4 lawsuits. The 532 people named are grouped together into four lawsuits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35281-2004Jan21.html?nav=hptop_tb

If you want to give the riaa the finger and still download their music try some of the overseas equivalents of I-Tunes. They are only a few cents a download and are legal. Remember all copyright laws worldwide are not the same.

Code, it would be interesting to see how the riaa monitors downloads without acceptance of cookies, or the cooporation of the isp or the p2p programmers. Could you have somone elaborate.

How can the riaa pick and choose their targets? Once it is in the courts it becomes public knowledge. The reporters will be all over the riaa if they "skip a few targets".

Not that I endorse this but remember, it may be easy to win in court but they still have to collect. The police do not enforce civil judgements, so it is up to the riaa to get their money on their own. Ask anyone who has won in civil court.

From the Washington Post...

The recording industry today reignited its legal campaign against online piracy, filing four lawsuits that target 532 people accused of illegally swapping copyrighted music on the Internet.

Three of the lawsuits were filed in federal court in New York City, while the fourth was filed in the Washington, D.C., federal court.

George if that's the case then that makes about 133 people for each lawsuit.

How can they sue people individually like that?

Are they trying to circumvent the law to avoid filing seperate lawsuits and increasing their costs?

doesn't the judge have to approve each of the 133 before any names can be given??

sounds like an end run to me

Here we go again!

Shmoo

Well it is nice to see they can't bypass a judicial decision this time. Although I'm sure the judge will not be a random bypartisan partty.

"First off.. poor quality was used as a defense and what allowed cassette decks and vcrs to be legal."

Wrong, sorry.

What about the burden of proof? Wouldn't they have to prove that a user is ACTUALLY sharing 800+ files? I could list 800+ mp3's, but they could actually be any type of file.
Logical thinking says they would have to download all the files to find out, otherwise they would have no idea what those files really are. And I think anyone would notice someone downloading files from them like that and can them. Even if they did get all those files, how would they be able to prove that they got them from you?
According to their rules, they would be breaking the law to prove their cases against us.

Mroop,

No; I was talking about the fact that 90% or so of the original copyrighted work is not present in the mp3 file. It's lost in the encoding algorithm. Mp3 is a lossy codec; data is ivverocably (sp?) lost during the process.

How can you then actually have a legal case to sue when only 10% of your "copyrighted" work is even present in the file? Isn't there something on the copyright laws in the states that says a certain amount of the content or idea, etc has to be present in the so called copy for it to be an infringement?

"Also, that pew report is a laugh. only 36 million? you have to be kidding me.. that is only a little more than the population of new york city. "

You are only off by 28 million.

Metro: 21,199,865 ('00 census)
City: 8,008,278 ('00 census)

http://www.aviewoncities.com/nyc/nycfacts.htm

"As for the suing downloaders issue -- Sorry, but it can't happen until the downloaders have a way to tell the authorized from the unauthorized, a step the RIAA has not attempted to make."

Nope, intent of the downloader is irrelevant - it is a strict liability tort.

The "Music Industry" still don't get it. Their sales went down not because of file-sharing, but because there's hardly any good music out these days!

"BTW what's stopping someone from installing duel hard drives and use only one for the file sharing.. and if they get sued they just remove the other hard drive so if the computer is checked the authorities and court can see it wasn't freshly installed. Then you could claim they got the wrong IP address.

Isn't the burdon of proof in this case for the RIAA "

It doesn't matter. They are not using the hard drive as proof. Burden is on the RIAA - they must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. The question is - is the data they collect from the distributor online sufficient proof? We might find out soon.

"If you want to give the riaa the finger and still download their music try some of the overseas equivalents of I-Tunes. They are only a few cents a download and are legal. Remember all copyright laws worldwide are not the same."

The Russian sites charging a few cents a download ARE NOT LEGAL!

hopefully it's not. they've made many mistakes already

In Russia it might be. I don't know their laws.

"In Russia it might be. I don't know their laws."

Nope. I already found a web site in Russia that was a Russian copyright center in some law school in St. Petersburg I think. Those sites are not legal. Sorry - I didn't save the link and don't feel like finding it again. But it is posted on this site somewhere.

Downloads can be tracked, but unless they somehow got direct access access to the server, then all they would know is that a file was downloaded, not specifically what it was.

The RIAA isn't anywhere near that tech savvy. They'd never try anything like that, or hacking, etc. All they do is realease bots onto P2P networks that search for and download particular songs.

The entire point of this lawsuit business is to scare people into leeching. Even with all of their lawyers, at the current rate, it would take more than 80,000 years to sue every P2P user in the US. The labels know that they can't sue enough people to make any kind of a difference.

Just like anything else, it's a scare tactic.

You have more chance of winning the lottery twice in the same month than you do of being sued by the RIAA.

I'll set a trap for the fuckers and put out no bait at all, then watch they try to sue me, when they try I'll get toes fuckers.

Here is a new twist to the story, the ISPs refused to give the names of the people who were using the IP addresses, so the RIAA just handed the courts a bunch of IP addresses. no names at all. The RIAA is just waisting our tax dollars, thoes mo fos

mtekk wow do you have a link to that? I'd like to read that story. BTW I wonder how many people have set that kind of a trap and hope beyond hope they get sued

Mroop, relax, many of the russian sites are legal. They even use paypal to pay for the downloads. Try http://club.mp3search.ru
http://www.allofmp3.com
Mediaservices is the company behind allofmp3.com.
I saw the article in p2pnet.net that talks of them. Anyone got the link?
And it is discussed at length at the following link: http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/messageview.php?start=0&catid=18&threadid=259565

This is allofmp3's legal statement:

All the materials in the MediaServices projects are available for distribution through Internet according to license # LS-3Ì-03-79 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society. Under the license terms, MediaServices pays license fees for all the materials subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All the materials are available solely for personal use and must not be used for further distribution, resale or broadcasting.

Users are held liable for the use and distribution of the MediaServices site information materials according to local legislation.

Quote from cnn "The music industry has been suffering from declining sales of album and singles, according to figures from research firm Nielsen SoundScan, and the RIAA says a big reason for the decline is the proliferation of free and illegal music downloads on the Web through sites such as Kazaa, Grokster, and Gnutella."

Yea, it couldnt be the fact that unemployment and the economy is in a devastated state. Im sure its pirates who are causing all of the RIAA's woes. All the soccer moms and teenagers....pathetic.

spike@spikes:~> dd if=/dev/zero of="Metallica - One.mp3" bs=1k count=7216
7216+0 records in
7216+0 records out
spike@spikes:~> ll Metallica\ -\ One.mp3
-rw-r--r-- 1 spike users 7389184 Jan 21 19:58 Metallica - One.mp3

Oh look, I commited an infringement.

Code, could you be more specific about the RIAA tracking and suing downloads? I mean, I assume you are talking about P2P networks here. You're not talking about downloading a file from a private server, are you? Or two people sharing files over an instant messaging service? I don't see how RIAA would be able to track those, but I'm not on the inside. Just what do you mean?

To the RIAA, I can only say, Have you NO decency, Mr. Sherman?!"

Re the russian sites, on the largest one, I did some quick calculations. If there are about 1000 people on the server at any one time, which is probably about right, and each user downloads 4 files in an hour (this is a guess, but some people obviously download much more, some less because of slow dialup connections), they must be putting out anywhere in the ballpark of 10-25 million files annually. surely the RIAA is aware of this.

If it was truly illegal to use this service, I believe they would be able to shut off their means of payment, via MasterCard or Visa, or PayPal, by threatening to sue those folks for being involved in an illegal activity. Would that work?

I think that this area of copyright law probably has not been defined. Perhaps mroop can find lots of opinions saying it is illegal. No doubt there are experts who say it is. Where are the court rulings, mroop?

I think that Dampier of the Fatwallet forum summed up the Russian sites:

" have been a customer of Allofmp3.com since last October. I have spent perhaps $150 there since then (I download music to listen to while exercising, and I get bored easily). At the beginning, I wondered about a lot of the same things some of you have been asking, but was able to get some definitive answers.

First, people need to stop taking whatever the RIAA is claiming as the gospel truth. They are an industry trade group. Their statements reflect their position, and is not a journalistic piece filled with fact checking. The RIAA uses scare tactics precisely because it generates a buzz which people use to get scared of anything that does not have the major label seal of approval (at a dollar a holler to boot.)

Allofmp3 is a completely legitimate operation based in Moscow. They use cyberplat.ru as their payment processor, and they are also completely legitimate. Many Russians use cyberplat services for electronic bill payments. They are internationally recognized accordingly. Russian copyright law with respect to music works much differently than in this country. Every nation can have its own laws and regulations, with different copyright agencies to deal with payment collection and distribution. The most evil copyright agencies are actually in the Netherlands and Germany, and they can be a total pain to deal with. ASCAP and BMI fall in the middle, and then there are agencies in countries like Spain and the Russian Federation/Commonwealth of Independent States (excepting Belarus and the Baltics) which are very easy to deal with. Credit card companies are free and clear to process these transactions without any fear of entanglement with the RIAA or the feds.

A blanket license is available to music services in Russia which permits a single payment for unlimited use of music. Buy the license, the artists get their pay on a percentage basis, the copyright agencies get their cut, and the record companies which usually want to largest cut are themselves cut. They receive either token payments or none at all. Under Russian law, this is completely legal. Record companies may not be thrilled, but there is no legal issue with it.

Most of the income earned by Allofmp3 comes from subscribers using the online encoding option, which requires a few pennies per song in payment for customized format and bitrate. Money goes to their copyright license, but most of it is going to pay for the servers and administration.

The RIAA is fully aware of Allofmp3 and approached Russian officials to try and shut it down a few years ago. The RIAA lawyers initially would not even get the time of day out of the Russian authorities - they were just tossing their letters in the trash. Eventually, the RIAA was told Russian copyright business is the business of Russia, and the RIAA should worry about their own affairs. The RIAA inquired of Russian legal experts about pursuing a case, and they were told it would be thrown out of court immediately, so forget it. As long as all of their servers are outside the USA, they cannot be taken to court domestically either.

That was the end of the RIAA's involvement in Allofmp3. They have no authority, domestic or international, to affect Allofmp3's operations. Unlike Puretunes, the Spanish company that got sued by the RIAA (they had servers in suburban Washington), Allofmp3 maintains no servers in the United States. All of these legal matters were so two years ago!

Now if the Bush Administration wants to get involved in trade negotiations over the matter to get Russian laws changed, that's another matter.

So you have zero risk in becoming an Allofmp3 customer. Cyberplat uses secure servers and is not run out of someone's basement in Minsk, so your credit card is safe. Some credit card companies will call you to verify the transaction was legit, because the assume online purchases made from Russia are often fraudulent, but this happened to me only once using a Chase credit card.

Can you download music in the United States legally from Allofmp3? The RIAA does not want you to think so, but they aren't the law, at least not yet anyway. You are absolutely within your rights to download anything from Allofmp3, just as you would be buying a CD from a Russian music store. Product is licensed for particular regions, but nothing prevents you from visiting or finding access to a product in that region. A music release meant only for the European Community is not going to stay there - importers will be bringing it in.

You do not have the right to share that music with others, however.

People comparing Kazaa to Allofmp3 have forgotten that Kazaa licenses nothing - it's a hot swap meet where everything is free. Allofmp3 has its paperwork in order and has been permitted under that license to sell internationally. There is no way for the RIAA to track you - you are downloading music, you are not sharing it on a distribution system open to everyone.

The FBI is not going to come after you. The RIAA is not going to come after you. Neither will ever be granted subpoena rights for a Moscow-based company, so customer lists and other traffic of that type is off limits to both. The company has been around for more than two years now. How many people have been sued, harassed, or chased off the service? Zero.

At most times, at least 1,000 users are online. The majority of their subscribers are in Russia, followed closely by the United States. They all sleep well at night.

As to the service itself, it's not perfect. The owners are almost certainly young men, because the catalog is disproportionately hard rock and bucketloads of metal. I guess Russians love their Slayer. New releases on store shelves typically take weeks, if not months to appear online. At least 60% of their music catalog comes from European artists, so if you love Europop artists with big hair, fun fun party dance, and lyrics in English easy enough for speakers of 15 other Eurolanguages to follow, you'll love Allofmp3!

Their instrumental selection (easy listening and classical) is a token effort. They have the Paul Mauriat catalog well filled, but Ray Conniff or Lawrence Welk mostly result in "who?" during search results. Even the basic classical pieces are incomplete. Movie soundtracks are a bit better, and anime/game music seems to get extra attention.

Allofmp3 cannot compete with any of the domestic music services in depth of offerings, but they aren't charging you an outrageous dollar a song. I can't understand why anyone would spend that much on a song off any major label release, almost all of which wallow in their own mediocrity.

If the RIAA was concerned about Allofmp3, there are two other music services that launched operation recently from Russia to keep them busy biting their nails:

Club MP3 Search has a much smaller catalog, but has a similar payment model. They are not as sophisticated as Allofmp3, but they also have a copyright license.

RIN.RU/MP3 Free Download is very new to the scene and is probably the one that could be questionable. It relies on customers uploading music to their servers and then getting free license to download whatever for a period of one-two weeks, until they upload something else. This one sounds more like it is flying under the radar for the moment, and I have no information about their compliance to Russian laws.

There are not less than a dozen new services based throughout the CIS (former Soviet Republics + Russia) that are planning to launch in 2004. I know I'd be amused if I was downloading Pet Shop Boys from a company based in Turkmenistan, whose president Saparmurat Niyazov has been setting about changing the names of months and days of the week to better reflect Turkmen culture and pride. Regardless of what the big music labels think, they are not going to be able to control a new international marketplace of MP3's all priced competitively. It looks like iTunes and Rhapsody are either going to have to cut their prices and stop restricting its use, or face annihilation from the competition"

great post!

autodidact - until about 3 or 4 months ago, I was of the opinion that if you are logged onto Kazaa Lite, and disabled sharing (uploads) you could download, unless you happen to download from the RIAA/MPAA/etc., in some sort of entrapment scam...and could download without being tracked....

I became aware of people who had received notices from their ISP on behalf of the MPAA, that identified them as having downloaded certain movies...none were sharing in the sense of uploading...I said surely this was not true...many people had read about it....

I thus did a little research and talked with someone who is fairly technical..
they told me yes....on a P2P...the bad guys could monitor who is downloading a certain file...and snag a list of IPs of downloaders....because your machine sends a request for the file, and sends out it's IP address...and I believe that it is possible to do the same thing with song files ...but, I am relying on other people and not direct knowledge..however; check this....
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031205/laf069_1.html
The highly anticipated movie of holiday season 2003 is "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King," set to debut in theatres around the world on December 17th. According to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), this third installment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, was available for illegal download in March 2001, 9-months prior to the theatrical release of the first film "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring."

ADVERTISEMENT


MPAA representatives confirmed that the entire film was available for illegal download on InternetMovies.com, via their Ranger program, and thus issued a cease and desist order to the Internet Service Provider (ISP) to shut down the web site citing that InternetMovies.com was in copyright violation and the ISP must comply under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Hollywood movie studios have been fighting the online war against piracy for many years, but in this case they could not have been more wrong. InternetMovies.com, literally a one-man operation is suing to prevent future victimization himself and other individuals. MPAA admitted that the illegal download of "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King," without actually trying to download or conduct a reasonable investigation, stating they had just cause and "good faith belief."

AMY WEISS of the RIAA, and Cindy Cohn of the EFF were interviewed on TechTV

When are these 532 usernames gonna appear in the EFF site? Or are they

I really could care less if those poor slobs are going all pissy on the loss of their money and just going to the same process again. Quite ironic that they still haven't gotten a clue on what they did to cause the decline of CD sales and they still continue to sue the innocent for no reason, yet they hypocritically speak that they us people downloading is ruining their business yet they abuse their business with their annoying tactics to sue computer users for no reason. What is with this? Pricks are supposed to be in charge of record companies.

"great post! "

Sorry Code, but that is not a great post. It is a bunch of bullshit! Don't believe everything you read from some anonymous tool on the internet. I'll prove it very simply.

From the St. Petersburg Civil Law Center:

http://www.balfort.com/discussions/napster.shtml

"According to the Russian Law copyright protects published works, musical compositions in this case, as well as non-published if they exist in objective form. Musical compositions published on the Web exist, without any doubt, in objective form. That's why they are objects of copyright laws including the Russian Copyright Law. The author has exclusive rights of use of his (her) compositions in any form and by any method (Article 16 of the Law of Copyright and Intellectual Property). These rights include rights of reproduction, distribution, public exhibition (rendering), broadcasting by radio or by cable etc. Performers (owners of allied rights) have similar rights. Therefore, distribution of somebody else's compositions, objects of copyright laws, on the Web contradicts those laws. The problem is who should be considered as the infringer.
Without doubt, those who distribute musical files with copyright belonging to somebody else on the Web infringe copyright of the owner. Such distributors have no right to reproduce, distribute, broadcast by radio, especially as the authors have no appropriate reward."

Now check this page of Beatles titles at allofmp3.com:

http://search.allofmp3.com/search.shtml?currpage=2&searchid=1041786704&range=all

What do you see? Beatles bootlegs! Do you think The Beatles have authorized distribution of unreleased tracks to this website?! Of course not!

As far as these places accepting Paypal and credit cards - that means nothing. Read the newspapers - they bust child porn distributors who accept credit cards all the time. They just did another bust of sites based in Russia last week. They got the credit card numbers of US subscribers and busted US citizens. I personally have purchased bootleg music cd's with a credit card.

The Russian sites are not legal. I can back this up with further research, but I will have to start charging for my services. : )

.. don't care. BOYCOTT THE RIAA.. do NOT download riaa-crack music.. or upload either.. use your hard drive for the indie stuff!!

and get a couple of friends/family to register to vote. The time is nigh..

BOYCOTT. EDUCATE. REGISTER. VOTE.
ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

And by the way, The Beatles have not authorized distribution of ANY of their music to online sites. So all of The Beatles music on this site is illegal. Heh heh. : )

I've been downloading music from these Russian sites for about 2 months now. Without one single problem. Works like a charm. I get d/l speeds between 125kbs-150kbs. I downloaded complete albums from the following artists. I've spent a total of $40.


Beach Boys
Beatles
Bee Gees
Black Label Society
Blink 182
Blue Oyster Cult
Bob Dylan
Cold
Gary Moore
Henry Mancini
Iron Maiden
Jeff Lynne
Jimi Hendrix
Keb Mo
Korn
Linkin Park
Little Caesar
Machine Head
Mary J. Bilge
Miles Davis
MTV Headbanger's Ball
Mudvayne
Nickelback
No Doubt
P.O.D
Pink
Puddle of Mudd
Queen
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Roy Orbison
Scorpions
Shadows Fall
Shania Twain
Ten Years After
Brian Setzer Orchestra
Traveling Wilburys
Warren Zevon
Willie Nelson
ZZ Top


Now if only U.S. companies could get a clue. We will spend our money, if we get value. But 99c for one mp3, forget it.

All of the Beatles music was recorded prior to 1971. The original releases to not have a sound recording copyright.

Downloading is not illegal.

mrpoop,

Beatles live concert bootlegs are not illegal.

"Beatles live concert bootlegs are not illegal."

Stay off the drugs son. : )

"All of the Beatles music was recorded prior to 1971. The original releases to not have a sound recording copyright."

Sounds like US law to me. In regard to US law, are you saying that Itunes can sell Beatles music? I don't think so.

In addition to the artists listed above, many of which are riaa artists (Sorry, George) I've also been downloading quite a bit from DMusic and other indie sites.

I am building my mp3 collection to suit my tastes. I decided that I was not going to let anyone dictate to me what I like to listen to. I support the boycott by not purchasing riaa artists CDs. If the riaa gives me value for my money, I'll reconsider.

This my go against the beliefs and opinions of many here, but I feel music is for enjoyment and enrichment of your life.

I had lost the desire to even listen to music for several months last year. I found that to be unacceptable. This is my own personal solution to the times we are currently are in. I hope it doesn't have to be that way always.

Peace all.

kyodylee, and EVERYBODY

you do NOT have to start hating the muisic you love/grew up with just because it happens to be RIAA music. Until just a couple of years ago, musicians had no CHOICE on getting their tune recorded other than joining the RIAA by signing a record deal.

Technology was not available to do it "indie" then. (And, as a side note, the RIAA saw it comming... they slowed CD-R and digital technology from being available to the general public by 15 yrs in advance!)

what you should HATE is the fact that the only music you know is RIAA

Much more than a lot of great music is lost forever because of the RIAA (and all that conspired over the years to make the RIAA.)

All that went before already happened...

nothing to fix the past

but USE the lessons of the past to SAVE
the future.

We are ALL ABOUT THAT here.

Shmoo

As I've said before, it is possible to track downloads, but the RIAA would never do any thing that tech savvy. All they'll do is release bots onto P2P programs that are programmed to search for and download certain songs.

They are only going to go after uploaders. It would be entirely too much trouble for them to go after downloaders. A lot of people download things that they already own. While that is still technically illegal, it's a real possibility that the person could argue fair use as a defense and have the case thrown out.

Even if the person didn't own it, there are still other defenses, such as 'I could have just taped it off of the radio/tv so what's the difference?'

You also have to take into mind that they'd have a harder time proving damages from downloading, and even if they were somehow able to, the civil penalties wouldn't be anywhere near as harsh as they are for uploading, hence a downloader would be more likely to fight the case out in court.

And most importantly, as George has said, there is no law that says you can't download a song or receive a copyrighted file/work.

Once you see or hear it, you've already received it.

The entire point of their campaign is to scare people into leeching. The easiest way to sue people is to go after uploaders via the redistribution angle.

mroop, the page you linked to was an old opinion on Napster! As far as I could see it had no relation to these businesses -- there are several of them -- who are selling MP3s out of Russia, and paying for the privelege to the Russian government. Or at least they claim they are.

Anyway, I live in USA. Am I really supposed to be over-concerned with Russian law? A more pertinent question is whether downloading a file would be considered importation. And if so, what kind of controls are there on imports? If I buy a bootleg movie in Beijing, are you telling me that they won't let me bring it into the country? I doubt very much that travellers returning from those shores have their DVDs seized.

If downloading is conceptually or legally similar, then what's the diff?

"Sorry Code, but that is not a great post. It is a bunch of bullshit! "

Opinions vary

"mroop, the page you linked to was an old opinion on Napster! As far as I could see it had no relation to these businesses -- there are several of them -- who are selling MP3s out of Russia, and paying for the privelege to the Russian government. Or at least they claim they are."

Read it again - it speaks to the issue of these companies very clearly. Whether or not you should care is a different issue. I wouldn't sweat it - I am only responding to the people who think these sites are legal - they are not.

"Opinions vary "

Yeah, opinions vary. Let's see, on the one hand you have the opinion of Alexander Sergeev. On the other hand you have the opinion of "Dampier" of Fatwallet. Here is Sergeev's resume, I wonder what "Dampier's" resume looks like?

Alexander Sergeev:

"Alexander Sergeev is a professor at the Law faculty of St. Petersburg University. He had graduated from the Law Faculty and began his work as a lecturer in early 1980s. Since then he has been working at the Faculty. He holds a Doctor degree in Civil Law and is currently the Chief of the Civil Law Department. Alexander is one of the best specialists in intellectual property rights. He has written a lot of books and articles on these problems. His most famous work is Intellectual Property Rights in Russain Federation.
A.Sergeev serves as editor for many scientific journals. Along with his scientific activities he provides sufficient practical work. He has served as a legal expert in dozens of court cases and develops expert decisions on different complicated legal problems for courts."

http://www.balfort.com/biographies/

Sergeev versus Dampier? Hmmm. : )

You know, mroop, it seems like all you say to people is "nope. that's just a bunch of bullshit."

Why do you have to act so mean to people? If you disagree, you don't need to call their opinion "bullshit".

mroop, you can preach your legal gospel all you want, but I've tuned you out. It's not worth reading your opinions when you directly refute people and harshly criticize their views.

You have some work to do.

:-:~ Phantom

I didn't call anyone's opinion on this site bullshit. I was referring to "Dampier". Maybe you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. But since you have tuned me out I guess you are not reading this post. : )

"Opinions vary "

"Yeah, opinions vary. Let's see, on the one hand you have the opinion of Alexander Sergeev. On the other hand you have the opinion of "Dampier" of Fatwallet. Here is Sergeev's resume, I wonder what "Dampier's" resume looks like?"

"Alexander Sergeev is a professor at the Law faculty of St. Petersburg University. He had graduated from the Law Faculty and began his work as a lecturer in early 1980s. Since then he has been working at the Faculty. He holds a Doctor degree in Civil Law and is currently the Chief of the Civil Law Department."

Well, if you put it THAT way... Dampier would be the obvious choice for me to go with...the lack of association with a Russian Law School is enough to give him bonus points with me....

Being known for expertise in intellectual property law, and/or having scholastic credentials...really doesn't carry much weight with me, because it is the validity of the opinion and reasonableness that is more important to me...

For example...here is the bio of someone...
Mr. X was a senior partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm of Arnold & Porter, where he was the head of the firm's Intellectual Property and Technology Practice Group. One of his areas of expertise during his 26 years at Arnold & Porter was reconciling developing technologies and intellectual property laws.

Mr. X graduated from Cornell University in 1968 and Harvard Law School in 1971. An accomplished musician and songwriter, Sherman is an officer of the board of the Levine School of Music in Washington, D.C. He also serves on the boards of the Copyright Society and BNA's Patent, Trademark and Copyright Journal, and has served on numerous other boards, including the Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts, the Computer Law Association, and The Computer Lawyer. Mr. X is also co-author of a two-volume treatise, Computer Software Protection Law, published by BNA Books.

BTW. Mr. X is Cary Sherman, and his opinion means less to me than that of Mitch Bainwol, or Mark I. of BayTSP...

If it smells like shyte, looks like shyte...
contains indole compounds like shyte...
maybe it is shyte!

~CoDeWaRrIoR

"And by the way, The Beatles have not authorized distribution of ANY of their music to online sites."

So all of The Beatles music on this site is illegal. Heh heh. : ) "

Actually, if one refers to the "Beatles" as the Fab Four from Liverpool, the moptops that changed music....the Beatles...actually, as a group, no longer exist...since Lennon died..then the "Beatles" as a group, can not authorize anything....

And, how can "Beatles music" be illegal...unauthoized copying may be illegal...but I am not aware that any group's music in the US has been declared illegal en masse..for if it has, what are the sine qua non that must exist to make a group's music illegal as a work of art (assuming you are not referring to plagiarized works, copyright infringement, or songs which urge listeners to commit acts of violence ) ?

I asked this once already yesterday, but it would seem MrOop couldn't be bothered to answer. So I'm pasting it again...


Date: January 21, 2004 @ 4:49 PM
Mroop,

No; I was talking about the fact that 90% or so of the original copyrighted work is not present in the mp3 file. It's lost in the encoding algorithm. Mp3 is a lossy codec; data is ivverocably (sp?) lost during the process.

How can you then actually have a legal case to sue when only 10% of your "copyrighted" work is even present in the file? Isn't there something on the copyright laws in the states that says a certain amount of the content or idea, etc has to be present in the so called copy for it to be an infringement ?

Sorry I thought I answered you already. I think it's like using a crappy copying machine to copy a book and claiming it's not infringement because the quality is poor. You would be laughed out of court. The mp3 copy is clearly high quality enough for people to listen to it. The copyright law regarding a "certain amount" covers snippets - for example the snippets of songs you can listen to on Amazon or quoting a portion of a book in a book review.

You know i saw a lot of flaming on other message boards when it came to the russian sites.

Flame away...

Ëîæü ñêàçàëà, äîñòàòî÷íî ÷àñòî ñòàíîâèòñÿ ïðàâäîé. ~ Lenin