# "What they're doing is illegal in the US"...and does an overzealous mod have a CITE?! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 30, 2005, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693 "2005-12-30T05:57:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/101 "2005-12-31T15:12:09Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > I wish **samclem** could also accept that the legal niceties of this situation are not clear. Therefore, it’s a valid topic for discussion, under the context of “is this legal?” I’m really pissed off by the condescending comment that we are ‘rehashing the topic’, because a quick search suggests that previous threads mentioning allofmp3 have received various treatments. Mind you, maybe this [inaccurate bitchslap](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=294771) is the model to be followed. :rolleyes: The “legal niceties” aren’t clear to you yet? You don’t understand that it is ILLEGAL under US law for you to download songs from that website? I don’t care what you name your website or in what country you base it. I decided, all by myself, that this was the case when I closed the original thread. I left the Russian website visible, rather than deleting it, just so people could go and read the information and make their own decision. I’m very glad that this thread got started because a lot of good information has been presented. I made the decision that the original thread wasn’t exactly geared to a general discussion of the issues involved(which ultimately are not much different from Napster). > [@liirogue](#): > > But can you answer my question? Is it against board rules to ask if something is illegal? Why could this discussion in this thread have not occurred in the GQ thread instead? See my response above. ---
**Author:** ![alterego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/102 "2005-12-31T18:47:09Z")
As a GQ mod, I guess it’s understandable that you don’t know a lively debate when you see one. Frankly, I don’t give a shit what your opinion is or what you figured out. This website has been in operation for six years and no american has been prosecuted for using it. All you’ve done is expect us to find comfort in you finding some hidden truth. I think it sucks that you don’t know a dangerous precedent when you see one. Two other posters in this thread have already pointed out that there are valid reasons for closing threads that most folks accept. Declaring something illegal without proof isn’t one of them. Your yellow-bellied posts in this thread have contained some of the most hand-wavy bullshit i’ve seen on this board to date. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/103 "2005-12-31T19:08:11Z")
> [@alterego](#): > > This website has been in operation for six years and no american has been prosecuted for using it. That doesn’t mean it’s legal for Americans to use. It’s not possible to prosecute somoene unless they’re caught with evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/104 "2005-12-31T19:50:45Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Perhaps he can, but I’d also like to note that Napster is fundamentally different than [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com). Napster is a P2P program so I may be downloading a portion of a song from 10 different users and assembling it into one file on my computer. That, I agree, is making a copy becuase my computer has a part in making the copy. In [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com)’s case all of the copying is done on their end and then they transmit that file to me. Napster - the original - did not function like that. You’re think more of a Bit Torrent model. The original Napster gave you a catalog of users that were hosting the song; you made ONE peer connection and downloaded the song. There was no part-by-part assembly. Napster functioned precisely the way [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com) does as far as downloading goes. And the court decision specifically, in black-letter terms, said that the action of downloading in that fashion constituted infringement. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/105 "2005-12-31T21:37:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Napster functioned precisely the way [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com) does as far as downloading goes. Well, not really, inasmuch as allofmp3 is equivalent to a Napster in which every single request is matched to one provider, namely [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com)’s own servers. This creates a fairly crucial distinction because as a specific entity, allofmp3 is legally entitled to distribute copies according to the law of the country in which it is based. The Napster court decision, if I understand correctly, is rather founded upon the assumption that neither the sharer nor the recipient possesses the right to create a reproduction of the track. I still think that common sense dictates (and potential case law would show) that usage of allofmp3 is illegal in the States, but I think it’s wrong, technologically and legally speaking, to equate it directly with Napster. They are quite substantially different beasts. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/106 "2005-12-31T21:48:19Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > The Napster court decision, if I understand correctly, is rather founded upon the assumption that neither the sharer nor the recipient possesses the right to create a reproduction of the track. No, your understanding is not correct. The Napster decision clearly states that the recipient’s conduct ALONE violates the reproduction rights of the copyright holder. > [@](#): > > I still think that common sense dictates (and potential case law would show) that usage of allofmp3 is illegal in the States, but I think it’s wrong, technologically and legally speaking, to equate it directly with Napster. They are quite substantially different beasts. It may not be precisely identical to Napster in all particulars, but it is identical in all _relevant_ particulars. In other words, if a court decision addresses the search of a Greyhound bus passenger’s luggage, we may safely apply the same principle to a Washington Flyer bus passenger, although the bus routes and type of busses used may well differ significantly. ---
**Author:** ![Brainiac4](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brainiac4/32/3534_2.png) [@Brainiac4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac4)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/107 "2005-12-31T21:54:22Z")
Two things. First, what if I am legally entitled to have copies of the music I download from [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com)? For example, I have a number of albums on vinyl. I am within my rights to make copies of the music on them for personal, non-commercial use. Converting them from the vinyl, however, involves some amount of work. Suppose that I go to [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com) and download digital copies of the music I already own? Insofar as I understand the arguments advanced thus far, this would constitute a perfectly legal use of the service. Or am I missing something? Second, if the original thread were in fact on an off-limits topic, why has this thread remained open? We’re pretty much doing exactly what would have happened in the original thread, with the addition of bashing **Czarcasm**. If this thread is allowed to remain open, I don’t see why the original one was closed. Generally speaking, I think our level of moderation is really good. This one feels like a bad call, though. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/108 "2005-12-31T22:58:57Z")
> [@Brainiac4](#): > > Two things. > > First, what if I am legally entitled to have copies of the music I download from [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com)? For example, I have a number of albums on vinyl. I am within my rights to make copies of the music on them for personal, non-commercial use. Converting them from the vinyl, however, involves some amount of work. > > Suppose that I go to [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com) and download digital copies of the music I already own? Insofar as I understand the arguments advanced thus far, this would constitute a perfectly legal use of the service. > > Or am I missing something? Well, let’s think it through. Start with this question: under what theory do you believe that the use you describe above would be legal? ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/109 "2005-12-31T23:22:48Z")
> [@alterego](#): > > As a GQ mod, I guess it’s understandable that you don’t know a lively debate when you see one. Debates don’t belong in GQ. > [@alterego](#): > > Frankly, I don’t give a shit what your opinion is or what you figured out. That would sum up my opinion of your opinion. > [@alterego](#): > > This website has been in operation for six years and no american has been prosecuted for using it. Meaningless. > [@alterego](#): > > All you’ve done is expect us to find comfort in you finding some hidden truth. I’m really not concerned about your comfort level. > [@alterego](#): > > Two other posters in this thread have already pointed out that there are valid reasons for closing threads that most folks accept. Declaring something illegal without proof isn’t one of them. Your yellow-bellied posts in this thread have contained some of the most hand-wavy bullshit i’ve seen on this board to date. That’s why I get paid the big bucks. For making these decisions instead of letting some pseudo message board experts make them. Sometimes I’m wrong. I wasn’t this time. ---
**Author:** ![alterego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/110 "2005-12-31T23:26:45Z")
You’re full of shit is what you are – EOM ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/111 "2006-01-01T00:24:47Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > I’m very glad that this thread got started because a lot of good information has been presented. I made the decision that the original thread wasn’t exactly geared to a general discussion of the issues involved(which ultimately are not much different from Napster). You’re joking. You are happy this thread was started but you closed the thread in GQ that would have resulted in the exact same discussion. > [@Bricker](#): > > Napster - the original - did not function like that. You’re think more of a Bit Torrent model. The original Napster gave you a catalog of users that were hosting the song; you made ONE peer connection and downloaded the song. There was no part-by-part assembly. Are you certain? I was under the impression that Napster was of the Kazaa type mold. > [@Bricker](#): > > Napster functioned precisely the way [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com) does as far as downloading goes. > > And the court decision specifically, in black-letter terms, said that the action of downloading in that fashion constituted infringement. Am I mistaken in the belief that it is legal for me to rip a CD onto my harddrive? ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/112 "2006-01-01T02:54:54Z")
Rip != download FWIW I think **Samclem** made the correct call. **Bricker** nailed it > [@](#): > > No, your understanding is not correct. The Napster decision clearly states that the recipient’s conduct ALONE violates the reproduction rights of the copyright holder. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/113 "2006-01-01T03:54:52Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Are you certain? I was under the impression that Napster was of the Kazaa type mold. I’m absolutely certain. Napster, as it existed at the time the court ruled, provided a list of peers offering the file you asked for, but when you chose to download, you connected to excatly one peer to download the file. > [@](#): > > Am I mistaken in the belief that it is legal for me to rip a CD onto my harddrive? No, you’re right. It’s legal. But the reasons that make it legal do not extend to downloading in the way you seem to be picturing. In other words, you’re right that it’s legal to rip a CD on to your harddrive, but if you believe the REASON it’s legal is simply because you own the CD, and that makes it legal, you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/114 "2006-01-01T04:23:36Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Am I mistaken in the belief that it is legal for me to rip a CD onto my harddrive? [Am I invisible](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6948325&postcount=90)? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/115 "2006-01-01T04:23:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, you’re right. It’s legal. > > But the reasons that make it legal do not extend to downloading in the way you seem to be picturing. > > In other words, you’re right that it’s legal to rip a CD on to your harddrive, but if you believe the REASON it’s legal is simply because you own the CD, and that makes it legal, you’re wrong. What is the difference? You have said that the court ruled explictily that downloading constitutes copying. Can you just quote where they said that? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/116 "2006-01-01T06:13:44Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What is the difference? > > You have said that the court ruled explictily that downloading constitutes copying. Can you just quote where they said that? I believe that question creates more confusion and red herring pusuit than is useful. Rather than focus on what the court said about copying, it’s simpler to make my argument by pointing out that the court said that downloading violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights. Here is the quote: > [@](#): > > Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights. Let’s stop worrying about how many copies are made. That has no bearing on the discussion. \*\*Users who download files containing copyrighted music violate the copyright holders’ reproduction rights. \*\* Do you see that section of the opinion? Click on the link to the opinion and search for that sentence. There it is. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/117 "2006-01-01T06:23:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I believe that question creates more confusion and red herring pusuit than is useful. > > Rather than focus on what the court said about copying, it’s simpler to make my argument by pointing out that the court said that downloading violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights. > > Here is the quote: > > Let’s stop worrying about how many copies are made. That has no bearing on the discussion. \*\*Users who download files containing copyrighted music violate the copyright holders’ reproduction rights. \*\* > > Do you see that section of the opinion? Click on the link to the opinion and search for that sentence. There it is. Yes I’ve read that but it doesn’t say how that downloading infringes on their copyright. Could it not be that I am violating the copyright by knowingly downloading an illegal copy? Take this scenario. I have legally purchased a CD that I ripped to a computer. Now, for whatever reason I use many computers so instead of ripping to a single computer I have ripped it to a computer that I have access to over a network. When I want to listen to a song I download it to whichever particular computer I am at and then delete it after I am finished listening. Have I violated the copyright associated with that song? ---
**Author:** ![alterego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/118 "2006-01-01T06:45:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights. Napster users did not purchase a legal copy of the music before they downloaded it. I first purchase a song from iTunes. Then I download it (and I belive I am able to download it for some time to come, although that could be wrong, it’s reasonable). The act of downloading did not violate the reproduction rights of the artist. So long as Allofmp3 is within their legal rights under Russian law, and no one has shown that they are not, then I can download a song from them just as I can with iTunes. **There is absolutely no difference**. Comparing Allofmp3 to P2P programs is being disingenuous. Allofmp3 is not offering gratis music. They are also not opening their computers to be raped and pillaged by anyone who comes along. You **cannot** download music from them without them enabling you to…without entering a legally binding contract with them. Under Russian law, artists are compensated differently, but they _are_ legally compensated by Allofmp3. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/119 "2006-01-01T07:10:33Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > [Am I invisible](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6948325&postcount=90)? Who said that? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2006, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/120 "2006-01-01T07:15:58Z")
> [@alterego](#): > > So long as Allofmp3 is within their legal rights under Russian law, and no one has shown that they are not, then I can download a song from them just as I can with iTunes. **There is absolutely no difference**. Sure there is. iTunes is licensed by record labels to distribute music while, according to the Register, allofmp3 is not. > [@](#): > > Under Russian law, artists are compensated differently, but they _are_ legally compensated by Allofmp3. The fact that they charge for downloads does not mean that artists are seeing any compensation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693.md?page=7)