Downloading an illegally made copy.
It never ceases to amaze me the mental gymnastics and willful blindness some people will go through to try and justify their behavior.
Bam and we’re back to square one.
Allofmp3 does not, under Russian law, make or posess illegal copies. At least, nobody seems to have claimed otherwise in this thread.
The process of downloading from allofmp3 is also the process of creating a copy. This is the point which hasn’t been tested in the courts, therefore the point none of us can claim to be definitive about - is the creating of that copy of a legal Russia-based file an illegal act?
Perhaps. But the legality of the copy is irrelevant here. The decision does not address this issue. In fact, some of them–conceivably even all of them, though that’s farfetched–could very well be considered legal copies, under Fair Use. But, it’s immaterial. The 9th Circuit Court’s decision clearly says that the people downloading from Napster–NOT Napster themselves and NOT the people supplying the copies (legal or illegal)–had infringed the right of reproduction of the works’ copyright holders. I cannot state this any more clearly. Maybe Bricker can.
The legal nicety that allofmp3.com uses is that the music is broadcast. Hands up who has recorded a radio or TV program - either public broadcast or subscriber - for later listening or viewing. 'nuff said, really.
Yes, and Napster users were using a service that began with the letter ‘N’, while allofmp3.com users are using a service that begins with the letter ‘A’.
How is either distinction relevant?
Read the Napster case. Show me where in the Napster case it says that Napster’s copies were illegal. It doesn’t.
The legality or illegality of Napster’s copy of the music HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION, just as the legality or illegality of allofmp3’s collection is irrelevant. The offense occurs when you download the music to your computer. If anyone is hung up on “making a copy,” then forget that phrase.
Since the point we’re trying to show here is that downloaded music violates reproduction rights, I don’t care if it’s “a copy” or not. The court clearly held that Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights. That’s true REGARDLESS of whether Napster’s copy was legal or not, and true regardless of whether allofmp3’s copy is legal or not.
Problem with your statement: broadacst licenses do not permit the indivdual user to request specific songs in specific order for a broadcast tailored only to them. See the license model at www.pandora.com for details on the difference.
What? Of course its relevant. If the copy has been legally made how could there possibly be illegal copying going on?
Of course it doesn’t becuase even Napster conceded that what was going on was copyright infringement.
Perhaps he can, but I’d also like to note that Napster is fundamentally different than 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’s case all of the copying is done on their end and then they transmit that file to me.
Easily. Example: Video stores carry copies of movies and videos for rental. These copies are legally licensed, and the store has paid for this license. You can rent these movies and legally play them at home for your own entertainment because there is an implicit license for you to do so. However, if you copy it, this becomes infringement because you have no license for the copy. There. An illegal copy made from a legal one.
Yes, and when you’re done receiving the file, you have an exact replica of said file on your hard drive. This is not fundamentally different than the Napster case. The end result is identical to and indistinguishable from the original. It is a copy in every sense of the word.
This is something for the courts to decide. In the UK, downloading a file has been included, by case law, into the definition of copying or reproducing said file.
Slight hijack:
About 4-5 years ago, I bought a Russian MP3 CD (factory-made, not a CD-R) featuring all the albums of the Electric Light Orchestra (as well as ELO Part II, Jeff Lynne, and the Travelling Wilburys) from a seller in England off eBay. I already had these albums, so I bought it as a curiosity. Supposedly (at the time), you could buy these in music stores in Russia. If anyone reads Russian, a translation would be appreciated.
I found this article (note the date) which mentions this type of CD. Also, while Googling this CD, I found that AllofMP3 is not the only Russian site where you can get music at severely low prices (so low, they’re INSANE!). In fact, most of the places were cheaper that AllofMP3!
On one site, I found this:
Well samclem I was going to blast you for closing the thread, and in a way that didn’t show much effort on your part, but at least you had the onions 
to resopnd here.
If I buy a copy of a song, no matter which media, that I know has been illegally copied do I not violate the owner’s copyright?
It doesn’t address the issue of whether these violated copyright laws or not. Napster conceded that these were violations but tried to agrue various fair use exceptions.
Can you show me where it says that the reason this was infringement was merely the act of downloading the songs not downloading them from an illegal source.
Am I mistaken in my believe that it is legal for me to rip my CDs to my computer for my own use?
Can you show me the court’s reasoning on why downloading from Napster was illegal?
My argument is that I am not copying the music at all so this scenario doesn’t speak to my objection becuase it involves making a copy.
Exactly, I have a exact replica of the file that allofmp3.com has legally copied and sent to me. If allofmp3.com instead sent me a CD of files would that be any different to you? Napster is different becuase my computer is participating in the actual copying of a song by compiling the files together into a useful format. If I do that under U.S. jurisdiction I have violated the copyright laws.
No chance of making this one stand up in court. By clicking on the various links, you make specific requests for data. It’s not ‘copied and sent to you’, it’s provided to you on request.
But, how can they send you the data if you don’t request it?
Would you say, “Man, I sure do love them Beatles. I wish somone would just up and send me all their albums in the handy MP3 format.”?
This is where the courts decide that the ‘request’ is an active part of creating the copy, because the copy is created solely to fulfil that one request. AFAIK.
Isn’t it a matter of which border you’re looking at, rather than which person? Import/export isn’t like a buyer/seller relationship, where the existence of one implies the existence of a separate other; with respect to any one act of transport across a border, I can act as both exporter and importer; I am exporting the good from its country of origin, and importing it into its destination country. If I go to a foreign country, buy a CD and bring it back, I’m the importer (and exporter). If I go to my local indie record shop and buy something that they have shipped in, then they are both exporter and importer. Perhaps the trouble with a foreign website is in defining where the point of sale is, and thus who is performing the import/export role (or whether we create a special case, and allocate roles as you describe). To me, this is not obvious, and I suspect it’s a point of law that’s still in its formative stages. If I get bored I’ll go and have a poke around for some examples, because I’m sure I remember some of these point-of-sale questions coming up somewhere. Maybe in some of those US online gambling cases? Anyway.
No, I’m not, although I can see how my phrasing could be read that way. I believe that someone is importing the data, be it the user or vendor (thanks for the traceroute, by the way; as a Comp Sci PhD I’m generally unfamiliar with the functioning of the internet), and that the user is undoubtedly creating a copy, as it is their equipment which transcribes the data to hard drive for later use. Regarding your point about the real-time generation of the various encodings downloadable, this is not in fact the common case with allofmp3. Most of the albums they offer come pre-ripped to a specific codec and bitrate (generally 192Kbps MP3, which is indicated when you browse specific albums). One can request alternative rips, which are performed either automatically or by allofmp3 staff, I know not which. This is not the same as constant real-time encoding from source, however, which would require a prohibitive amount of server time to provide.
I have to disagree; it positively is not. There are such things as web broadcasts (webcasts, if you will :)), but allofmp3 is not one of them. Webcasts are distinguished by being akin to radio, wherein one tunes in to a specific webcast, which occurs in real time, is transmitted to a multitude of listeners (hence “broadcast”), and when it is over, it is over. The majority of what is available on allofmp3 is pre-encoded media, which are transferred to and transcribed onto the recipient’s hard drive, which is in almost no way equivalent to a broadcast. There is only one recipient, it does not occur in real time, and can be accessed whenever the hell you like. The legal nicety that allofmp3 has exploited is that Russia’s courts have ruled that their laws do not apply to digital media. Although whether you could call this a mere “nicety” is debatable. 
Ow! That sentence made my brain hurt.
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 is the model to be followed. :rolleyes: