Saw this item on slashdot.org and thought this forum might be interested.

This is a Russian Site which apparently has licensed fairly large number of music files. what's interesting - they offer downloads in multiple formats, and -- they specifically emphasize this fact - MP4/AAC format.

Unfortunately, you probably need to know a bit of Russian to navigate through this site. yet it is a good sign that the MP4/AAC format is taking off (thanks to Apple). A site says it is 'iTunes' compatible.

Free registration. The downloads are NOT free, but apparently less expensive than from Apple. Probably you'll find more information on Slashdot thread.

That site is illegal nearly everywhere outside Russia.

And its pretty old news around here. Thanks for posting anyway, though .

Bullshit. It may be illegal only in USA. but who cares?!

OMG! A saucy lad!

In case you didn't notice, mr. very smart boy, they "licensed" (well, they claim they did) the music they sell through russian authorities. This DOES NOT give them rights for worldwide distribution, no matter what your obviously laughable knowledge of legalese tells you.

people from that site download shit off p2p network like dc++ soulseek, kazaa and they just sell it online haha very illegal

but who cares?

OMG , what is this? its should be OMFG

I'm amazed that people are willing to pay for illegal downloads...

It's just because the laws are far behind the age of the internet virtual space

PoisonDan your signature looks very familiar...

I agree with you. It's your freedom of communication. Although not recognized by many governments, you're entitled to exercise it from a human rights perspective.

After DMCA was passed unanimously one has to bring out that the King is naked. And discussing this issue and bringing out the flaws of the current laws is not infringing them.

Well, I' fairly disinterested party, to start with, because I don't donwload anything. I have fairly large CD collection, and it keeps growing, thanks.

The only reason I've posted that message was because of MP4/AAC.

But since we are talking what's legal and what's not: according to the site, they comply with all Russian applicable laws.

Now, say, I took a trip to Russia, and purchased CD. A perfectly legal, not pirated CD, but once again, because of the applicable laws, the cost of the CD is lower, say by 50%. So I've saved some big money. On my arrival back home, I haven't been arrested or otherwise accused in doing somthing illegal, because apparently it's not. I think it's known as 'grey market'. (well, may be not exactly).

Now let me ask you the question: how does the above situation differ from purchasing the file at remote site and then downloading it? 'just to save you a trip'

IANAL, so I'm just asking ...

Thanks.

If you go to Russia and buy the CD there, it's local distribution. That is legal.

If you buy the tracks through the internet, it's worldwide distribution. That is illegal, since the site didn't buy the rights for worldwide distribution.

That's probably the main reason why the iTMS doesn't sell tracks outside the USA. They only have local distribution rights, not worldwide distribution rights.

So, someone who buys music from allofmp3.com is doing something ilegal? Or being a victim of fraud, if they aren't legitimate? If I'm a US citizen and I have an american credit card [edit: ie: registered with a US adress] can I buy from iMTS, even if I live in another country?

How about the spanish WebListen service? AFAIK they were sued by the record companies but they still operate (at least, it appears so).

cya

Roberto is right from my perspective.
The distribution rights could be local and worldwide and local rights sometimes are much less expensive.
But I 'm not a lawyer, I can not say how it is illegal, when you by it online.
BTW, I 've tried investigate, if they are really legal, but it is much harder, that I thought
At least, local police have no problems with them

EDIT: grammar. I should really check it before posting...

The internet shouldn't make a difference, for example if I buy a car from Russia (using a phone) I would say the car was sold FROM Russia - I am importing it into my country, now if I was to buy the car using the web some how I have bought it from my country, no it still originates in Russia, I am still importing it.

The RIAA might not be able to stop it, but your local customs might want you to pay some import tax.

So, if kiddy-porn was legal in Russia and u downloaded pictures from a russian site while in Europe, that makes it legal according to your philosophy. ya right

Regarding the legality of allofmp3.com, I recently posted in this thread.

I don't think local/worldwide distribution is the main problem here. The first question is whether allofmp3's contracts with the collecting societies actually allow them to sell music (as opposed to performing it, for example). The IFPI (International Foundation of the Phonographic Industry, the "international branch" of the RIAA) argues that a license from the collecting society does not suffice for achieving the right to distribute the music (which is because of the weirdness of copyright law; there's not actually "the" copyright but a number of rights, which are owned and licensed by different persons/companies). If I understood the stuff I read about copyrights correctly, the collecting societies can, for example, give you a license to perform a piece of music. The collecting societies usually have contracts with their counterparts in other countries, which makes it possible to pay the local collecting society for performing a piece of music by a composer from a different country. So if allofmp3's service is legal in Russia, there might be a chance it's legal elsewhere, too.
But whether it's legal in Russia (which many people here seem to regard as a given), is just as questionable.

From what I've read about all this, I'd say that without a definite court decision, any statement about the legality of allofmp3 (one way or the other) is wild speculation. And keep in mind that the music industry has been trying to achieve a definite court decision in the case of weblisten for six years, so don't hold your breath.

I had lunch recently with someone working for an international rights management agency.

He made it clear that from a legal point of view, rights are to be considered from the downloader country ... regardeless of where it is downloaded from.

That shoud speak by itself.

What if the downloaded tracks are songs that someone already owns? For instance, if a person has a pile of old vinyl, and instead of ripping, splitting tracks and encoding just downloads the same tracks. I would think that since the user already owns the music, or license to play it, that this can't be wrong. There is no copyright infringement in this place since the user already owns a right to the music, fair use allows media shifting and the RIAA is not losing money since they wouldn't get paid under the first scenario either.

Is the copy he downloaded from the same company, the same media, the same pressing, distrubition, country etc... There is an individual copyright for each portion of the process. Just because you bought a record from say Sun you aren't entitled to a copy of the same song released by Time Warner

...hence the issue with the supposedly cliché grey album.

From what I understand, if "DJ Danger Mouse" used the original pressings of the white album (on which there is no copyright?) then its 100% legal. However, this is admittedly unlikely, and the companies holding the rights to the CD pressing and remastered versions of the white album are assuming this isn't the case.

Without a lengthy and costly trial, I guess no one would be able to tell, so to avoid this, Danger Mouse pulled the CD from the shelves.

Innocent until proven guilty?... doesn't really seem to apply anymore, especially with the RIAA settling nearly all of its recent lawsuits out of court.