Is it legal to download and use Russian .mp3s from outside of Russia?

May 5, 2004 3:18 AM

There are several Russian mp3 download companies selling tracks for silly cheap prices. It looks like they are acting legally due to a loopholein Russian law. Does anyone know if this makes it legal to download and use their tracks outside of Russia?
posted by twine42 to computers & internet (20 comments total)

Innumberable discussions all over the net.

Start with this one, browse at +4/+5 and make up your mind.
posted by Gyan at 4:28 AM on May 5, 2004

Some choice comments/threads from Slashdot: 1,2,3,4,5.
posted by Gyan at 4:40 AM on May 5, 2004

Given past tactics, we can expect the music industry to attack all links in the "music piracy" chain. If your overseas MP3 service is sued, or even pressured, it will most likely give up its client list as part of a settlement, exposing you to possible legal action domestically. There have been cases where dealers in satellite piracy equipment have had their servers and/or URLs stolen by satellite companies (particularly Directv) after pressure was applied to the dealers' hosting company. The Russian company's legal protestations will certainly not indemnify you against a RIAA lawsuit here.

So, my advice is that the usual piracy channels, such as cloaked P2P and USENET, are more safe legally.
posted by tranquileye at 4:50 AM on May 5, 2004

marijuana is sold openly in Holland. That doesn't mean that it's legal here in the US.
posted by crunchland at 4:51 AM on May 5, 2004

Neither is it de jure legal in Holland, only de facto. By that standard, any unenforced law is practically void (depending on circumstances).
posted by Gyan at 4:56 AM on May 5, 2004

I'm guessing, given that Allofmp3 has been operating, not underground as such, for 3 years, the reason RIAA/proper authorities haven't sued is because if they do, it will make its way in the media. Should they lose the suit, it will only flame allofmp3's spread. Hence, having assessed their legal probabilities, the RIAA is banking that obscurity, "anti-piracy" advertising & legal US music services will keep the scourge of allofmp3 contained but tolerable. My 0.02c.
posted by Gyan at 5:03 AM on May 5, 2004

As I have commented previously, AllOfMP3 is not licensed - in fact I know someone representing a little known band on a tiny indie label who has tried without fail to get their music taken off AllOfMP3, which is selling the record with no payment to the artist.

This article at the Register should tell you all you need to know about the site's legality. You're probably fine to download from it but you should keep quiet and not publicise the site too much.
posted by skylar at 5:17 AM on May 5, 2004

Erm, skylar - that's the link I gave in my post. ;)

It looks to me like it's in a strange no-man's land.

The site itself is legal (as far as I can see) because it's operating using a loophole in Russian law "allowing phonograms to be performed publicly without the authorisation of the copyright owner for broadcasting and cable transmission."

If you buy something that does not breach copyright rules, you have bought it in good faith, surely? The people you bought it from didn't pirate it, so why does it become piracy when it crosses a border? I'm thinking aloud I guess.

Still, I guess the whole thing maybe proves a point - people will buy music if it's cheap enough. But that's OT.
posted by twine42 at 6:20 AM on May 5, 2004

Sorry for the boo boo!

I reckon from your point of view the question should be this: when you spend money on music, do you want some of the money to go to the artists, songwriters and copyright owners behind the music?

If so, don't buy from AllOfMP3 - because they're not paying the artists and no-one's given permission for the music to be there. But if you just want music for free, Kazaa is still a pretty good option.
posted by skylar at 8:10 AM on May 5, 2004

skylar hit the relevant point here- the legality of AllofMP3.com is less of an issue than that of royalties. The legality of it is a very gray issue, since existing copyright law doesn't seem to apply directly. On the other hand, the lack of payment to artists is very cut-and-dry.

So, if all you care about is avoiding prosecution, you're probably fine until someone says otherwise. If you care about an artist getting paid for his/her work (and please, let's not get into debates about how the record companies screw artists- for the sake of this argument, it's more than $0), then don't use it.
posted by mkultra at 8:27 AM on May 5, 2004

I do agree that there is a problem with the royalties to artists.

That said, from your average CD sale, what does your average artist get on a track by track basis?

Personally I'd love to use these Russian guys and drop 50c a go into Unknown Band's paypal account.


Going back nearer to the point - if this is of dubious legality, surely that has to make it better than P2P, no?
posted by twine42 at 9:06 AM on May 5, 2004

That said, from your average CD sale, what does your average artist get on a track by track basis?

I can't remember off the top of my head, but I think it's around $1-$2/album. People have done breakdowns online.

if this is of dubious legality, surely that has to make it better than P2P, no?

It all depends on your definition of "better", which brings you back to my first response. What do you care about- saving your ass, or funding a musician's career?
posted by mkultra at 9:16 AM on May 5, 2004

Wasn't there a site set up by some bright young thing specifically for people who wanted to voluntarily provide micropayments to (participating) artists?

Re: AllofMP3, it's always been my impression that the RIAA was going after sharers, not downloaders, because their case was much more tenuous against downloaders, due to fair use provisions that allow single copies for personal use. AllofMP3 is the sharer here, and they're not covered by U.S. law, so that's why they're still operating. Maybe someone who knows more can fill in details.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 9:28 AM on May 5, 2004

Google Answers tackled the question of royalties and costs pretty well. Upshot? About $2 per album.
posted by jessamyn at 9:47 AM on May 5, 2004

do you want some of the money to go to the artists, songwriters and copyright owners behind the music?

Yes, yes, no, and definitely not a penny to those sleazey Mafia bastards at RIAA and SLOCAN and such.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:05 AM on May 5, 2004

So, if it is legal to download music from Russia because you obtained it from a country where it was legal, by the same token, it must be legal to buy pirated copies of software in the same way? As long as the country you bought it in had no laws against the practice, you could apply this to any product. The example of marijuana is exactly what I am talking about - just because it is (more or less) legal in one country doesn't mean that it is legal once you bring it to another.

Business Plan #5768655:

1. Find country with no copyright laws and arrange web hosting there;
2. Set up web site selling pirated copies of commercial software;
3. ???;
4. Profit.
posted by dg at 3:21 PM on May 5, 2004

The example of marijuana is exactly what I am talking about - just because it is (more or less) legal in one country doesn't mean that it is legal once you bring it to another.

Ah, but unlike marijuana, it is not illegal to possess mp3s in the US.
posted by epimorph at 6:00 PM on May 5, 2004

I thought it was illegal to possess mp3s of other people's work that had not been paid for through the "approved" channels?
posted by dg at 8:53 PM on May 5, 2004

If there were such a law, then it would be completely unenforceable, because it's not like you can tell how an mp3 was obtained just by looking at it. In any case, my point is simply that the analogy between marijuana and mp3s is not a good one, since possessing marijuana is illegal, period. With mp3s it's much more complicated.
posted by epimorph at 10:19 PM on May 5, 2004

Wrong, dg. It's illegal to distribute them.
posted by NortonDC at 10:44 PM on May 5, 2004