Talk:AllOfMP3.com legality

This article should be expanded with information that AllOfMp3 has provided in their new legality FAQ. They specifically state that they have studied the situation with regard to importation into the US and they believe it is legal.

They also explain why labels may be having trouble withdrawing works from ROMS, etc... apparently in Russia the right to distribute online is a separate right, and most labels never got that permission from the artist, therefore the artist is the only one that can rightfully withdraw in some cases.

AllofMp3 is also providing payments directly to artists, something that they say is not required by law. I guess they idea is that if indeed the artist is the one with the right to withdraw, it might be good to butter them up by giving them better payments than they ever would get after it filtered through collective license and then the label. Gigs 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

article says "In March 2005, the Moscow City Prosecutor's office ruled that Russian copyright laws do not cover online distribution of creative works".

Cited compulenta article is slightly incorrect (and may be intentionally, but this is another story). Prosecutor only say that, according a current law, they cannot bring the criminal prosecution against allifmp3, because a criminal prosecution explicitly reqired distribution of counterfeited goods. Prosecutor office spokesman especially noted that denying of criminal prosecution do not prevent rightholders from bringing civil lawsuit. Lqp 19:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but do you think that AllOfMp3 would present neutral and accurate information when it is in their interests to claim that it is legal for people in the US to download from their site, regardless of whether that is actually true or not?

Their FAQ (located here) is inaccurate, as it turns out: They discuss 17 U.S.C. § 602, but conveniently ignore 1) that it does not protect downloaders from infringement related to their downloading, which is a separate issue from the transmission of information across the border; 2) that it only applies to the movement of tangible objects across the US border, and not transmitted information, and; 3) that the oft-cited, oft-misunderstood exception in § 602(a)(2) has no bearing on an independent prohibition at § 602(b), which also makes importation illegal and has no personal importation exception. They discuss the AHRA (§§ 1001 et seq.), and yet even though they cite the Diamond case, they forget that the outcome of that case was that typical personal music players do not fall under the protection of the AHRA (or the limitations that accompany it, which was and remains important; AHRA compliant devices must have significant DRM and royalty payments) because they can't rip or download music directly, but must instead use a computer as an intermediary. It's impossible to, as they suggest, download directly from them to an iPod, since there's got to be a computer in between. Computers don't fall under AHRA, and so break the chain, preventing their peripherals from falling under the AHRA as well. They discuss § 109, but ignore that it only applies to copies lawfully made within the US; a copy made in Russia, whether lawfully made there or not, does not fall within the ambit of the first sale doctrine. They list part of § 107, but don't analyze it at all; an actual analysis would indicate that a download from AllOfMp3 is very likely not a fair use because, in short, the download is a substitute for buying an authorized copy of an entire creative work which is not used transformatively. They discuss § 117, but that section applies only to computer software, and not to music, even if that music is on a computer. Their argument that a song is a program pretty obviously fails the laugh test, not to mention the regular canons of legislative interpretation. As for 'direct precedent,' US courts operate generally by looking for similarities and dissimilarities between the case at bar and precedents. That there has been no identical case before isn't going to matter, so long as this case can be analogized with others. As a practical matter, since AllOfMp3 and their users have an air of wrongdoing about them, it is likely that in situations where a court could give them some slack, they won't. C.f. the way Napster, Grokster, Mp3.com, and others have been treated. I'm not saying that a court will always find against a party they initially perceive to be a wrongdoer, but I am saying that they won't do any favors for that party, which makes things harder and makes the 'creative' arguments put forth at an even more severe disadvantage than they would usually be at.

Rather than use information provided by a party with an obvious conflict of interest, I would suggest looking for sources that are more neutral in the dispute. I caution you, however, to not confuse a neutral analysis of the legal issues with an analysis that may be what you want to hear. For example, I don't have any stake in this, and I generally don't care whether people infringe copyrights or not, so long as they are making informed decisions. But having looked at the statutes and the relevant caselaw, and having some experience and understanding about what sorts of arguments a court will be receptive to and what sorts they won't be (courts aren't like computers that can be readily spoofed), I have little doubt that people in the US who download from AllOfMp3 are breaking US law, and that AllOfMp3's actions directed at Americans are probably illegal as well, with their only thin hope being an argument based on the lack of extraterritorial effect of US copyright law.

Of course, the current analysis of US law in this article reads weirdly, and doesn't really seem to deal with a number of important issues. It will need to be worked on.--24.62.27.103 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)