Best Site To Download Russian Music
Iris Lopez
From Russia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe and throughout the Orthodox world, we bring you the best CDs of Orthodox choral music, liturgical chant, and folk music, all expertly reviewed and rated. Learn More
"It's so reassuring to know that there is an absolutely consummate resource for exquisitely-produced, accessible and scholarly editions available to all who seek a deeper exposure to and involvement in Russian choral music."
California, the Golden State, is the state of sun, surf, glamor, and opportunity. Not only that, but when it comes to musicians singing about their state, it potentially has the best ones made about it. Here are the best songs about California of all time.
We can't see any legal or moral objection to using the site. We're using the material for private use, there is no restriction in this country on the parallel importing of recorded music and none of the artists seem to have been deprived of their rights. Parent SharetwitterfacebookRe:VERY LEGAL. (Score:4, Interesting)by Politburo ( 640618 ) writes: on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:06PM (#8997811) You're not looking at the argument correctly.
The internet is threatening to destroy the viability of creating entertainment because people like you seem to think that just because it's easy to do something that it should be legal too.
No. Most people in this thread are saying it should be legal due to the way copyright law and international trade is setup. If these songs are legally obtained and distributed under Russian law, then no law is broken if they are imported into the USA or other countries. It doesn't matter if that's done over the Internet, or if I walk to Russia during the next ice age.
Word. I'm also pissed off at the FDA for preventing the free flow of untested drugs, and the FBI for restricting the free flow of raw, uncut heroin. And I'm not a big fan of the "State Police" slowing down the free flow of my neighbour's high deifnition TV into my basement.
You appear to be sarcastic here, but many people consider these legitimate beefs with the government (although I don't quite understand what the last one is supposed to be.. your neighbors TV turned up too loud?). The idea that the government can regulate what we put in our bodies is appalling to many, including myself.Parent SharetwitterfacebookRe:Not legal (Score:4, Informative)by misterpies ( 632880 ) writes: on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @07:17AM (#8994984) This might be what the RIAA and equivalents want you to think, but it's not the law. The reason is the "first sale" doctrine of copyright law. Once a song has been legally marketed & sold, then the copyright owner loses most rights over resale/reimportation. E.g. If you go to a Russian music store and buy a bunch of cheap (legal) CDs, then you don't need the RIAA's permission to bring those CDs back into the US. The copyright in that CD, at least as far as the right to profit from its sale, has been exhausted. Similarly, if you go to Russia and legally download a lot of songs to your laptop from a Russian website, you can bring those songs back to the US.
Now the difference here is that you're actually buying the songs on a Russian website without leaving the US. But legally, that doesn't really matter - it's pretty clear that for long-distance transactions, the transaction takes place at the point where it is received, not where it is sent. E.g. if you order something by phone or fax, the transaction takes place where the call/fax is received. There seems to be no reason why this should be different on the internet though I can't pretend to have checked if there are any cases on it.
Of course, it's pretty clear what will happen. All the US record labels will change their licensing deals in Russia to prevent services like these being offered - i.e. it will be a breach of allofmp3.com's license for them to sell songs outside to people based outside Russia. In other words, exactly the same deal iTunes reached with the record labels that stops them selling songs outside the US. So better get your MP3s from Russia while you still can
Parent SharetwitterfacebookRe:Not legal (Score:5, Informative)by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) writes: on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @07:55AM (#8995165)Homepage This might be what the RIAA and equivalents want you to think, but it's not the law.
As it happens, in the US it is indeed the law.
Once a song has been legally marketed & sold, then the copyright owner loses most rights over resale/reimportation.
That's not quite right, actually.
First sale deals with specific copies. The copies need to have been made in a manner that would be legal if they were made in the US, regardless of the legality under foreign law.
So if Perry Como makes a punk rock record and sells it, anyone can then turn around and resell it. If he sold it in the UK, then you can import it into the US, no problem.
However, if you copy it and get a second record, assuming the copying isn't legal (per 17 USC 107 or 1008 or whatever) then you CAN'T resell the second record under the first sale provision (109).
Likewise, if Perry sold his rights in the UK to his close friend Sid Vicious, and Sid was the one making copies in the UK, you couldn't -- as a matter of first sale -- import those copies into the US. There is a good reason for that.
Imagine that there was a small country that bordered the US and could easily ship stuff here. We'll call it Moosylvania. Further, imagine that Moosylvania has no copyright laws at all. This means it's legal for the locals to copy anything they want. If they could freely export it to the US, they'd just do an end run around our copyright laws, and everyone would buy cheap, unauthorized Moosylvanian copies, basically leaving the US copyright holders screwed.
So, for first sale to apply, the copyright holder who made the copy has to be the US copyright holder. If that's not so, even though the copy was made legally over there, it won't qualify, because it would not have been made legally if it had been made over here.
Some degree of importation despite first sale is still allowed under 602. But importation is very clearly the bringing of things from one country into another country. It is, you'll agree, NOT the same as making new things in a country that are based on those in another country. For example, I could import a Scottish castle, but that would involve taking it apart brick by brick, mailing the bricks here, and putting it back together again. If I built an exact replica, and the original is still in Scotland, then I didn't import it, I reproduced it.
When you download from this site, there is a master copy in Russia. At the end of the process, there is a master copy in Russia AND a copy on your hard drive. That's two copies, and that already indicates that it's not an import. And the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce his work in the US per 106.
So it's not legal for Americans to use this site here. Ironically, it probably would be legal to use the site in Russia, provided that the provisions of 602 were complied with (as noted, first sale would likely not apply) when you brought the copies back in, but I expect few /.ers are going to be doing that.Parent SharetwitterfacebookRe:Not legal (Score:3, Interesting)by 10101001 10101001 ( 732688 ) writes: However, if you copy it and get a second record, assuming the copying isn't legal (per 17 USC 107 or 1008 or whatever) then you CAN'T resell the second record under the first sale provision (109).
Problem one, you assume the copying isn't legal. The fact is, there's the equivalent of two copying going on. Labels are selling music to allofmp3 and allofmp3 is selling songs to you. The slight difference is more than likely allofmp3 isn't actually getting source copies from the label each time but has someRe:Not legal (Score:5, Informative)by guiscard ( 712813 ) writes: on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @07:24AM (#8995021)
And from this [guardian.co.uk] Guardian article:
The problem is that, according to the recording industry, these sites are breaking the law. As Alan Dixon, general counsel of the London-based International Federation of the Phonograph Industry, says of Weblisten: "They have not less than six lawsuits pending against them, and two criminal proceedings. They are taking advantage of the way the Spanish legal system moves incredibly slowly: they have never been declared as legitimately distributing the plaintiff's recording."
The issue is that recorded music has three sets of rights to be argued over. The songwriter has the copyright to the song, the artist his own rights in it, and the record label and producers a third set. While these Russian and Spanish sites may be paying the songwriters, via a collection agency, they are acting without the permission of the other copyright holders.
The Russian sites claim that, under Russian law, foreign record labels releasing music in Russia give up their rights to prevent this. Not so, says Dixon. Such Soviet-era rules were rescinded under "article 47 paragraph 2 of the Russian Copyright Code" years ago. Downloading from such sites would be infringing both British and Russian copyright law, he says.
Parent SharetwitterfacebookMoral Legal (Score:3, Interesting)by Morgaine ( 4316 ) writes: Several people here have already addressed the issue of legality in their countries by pointing out that parallel imports are legal for them. Unfortunately, this would seem to leave everyone else doing something illegal under their local law, if that were the end of the story. But it is not.
What is "legal" is not necesssarily right or moral, and the actions of the RIAA and its cohorts definitely places them in the wrong. It is not the same world today as it was back in the days of vinyl, yet the cartelsStraight from the Terms and Conditions (Score:3, Informative)by q-the-impaler ( 708563 ) writes: You agree with the fact that you are not able to use and even to download audio and video materials from Allofmp3.com catalogue if it is in the conflict with legislation of your country. Allofmp3.com Administration is unable to control all Allofmp3.com users, therefore the users are responsible for usage of the materials represented on the Site.
So basically they leave it up to you to figure out if you are breaking the law or not. IANAL, but it sounds like the RIAA would definitely fine me for DLing musiRe: (Score:3, Insightful)by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes: Comment removed based on user account deletionRe:Not legal (Score:3, Insightful)by KDan ( 90353 ) writes: You may not, but I know people who will pay that much just for the service of having all the mp3s organised and easily downloaded and good quality without the incredible hassle that you'd have to go through with kazaa et al. Me, for a start. Regardless of whether it's legal or not, I'll pay 1 cent per megabyte for a quality mp3 serving service.
And that's what the muppets at the RIAA need to get into their heads. People will pay for service - though they'll only pay a fair price. "copyright legality" is anRe:Not legal (Score:3, Insightful)by dasmegabyte ( 267018 ) writes: So...what you're saying is that the black market makes it EASIER to steal music, and therefore it's a better solution? That a "fair price" is whatever you decide it is? That you're willing to pay for somebody to help you steal in a more organized fashion?
$.01 per megabyte is obscene. That's $.65 for an album on MP3. An artist makes more than that on a CD sale...what do you think their cut is of this?
My buddy's sunk about $10,000 into his demo so far. They'll be lucky to recoup that selling 1000 CDs ayou bastards (Score:5, Funny)by jaxon6 ( 104115 ) writes: on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @06:40AM (#8994817) Oh you rat bastards. I thought I had a good thing going. I was getting all the music I wanted for cheap, and the site was under the radar enough not to upset the sue-happy music bizfolk. Now my speeds are going to be shot, the company is going to be closed, and I'll have to go back to buying my four cds a year. So, once again slashdot screws me. To that I say fuck you very much.
Oh ya, I almost forgot. I found out about them from a slasdot post of somebodys. So, uhh, forget what I just said.SharetwitterfacebookIndeed (Score:4, Informative)by poptones ( 653660 ) writes: on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @09:25AM (#8995979)Journal I've posted about them several times. I also like to point out that I regularly buy Russian music CDs from an importer in NY, and each of those CDs costs me all of 6 bucks. So for those trolls saying "these aren't legal" then I offer you this: how is an importer able to get away with selling these physical goods in the US?The big RIAA labels all have a presence over there. My fave artist, Linda, has had a record contract with (I believe) BMG for quite some time. She regularly appears on Russian MTV and there was even an English language version of "Vorona" ("Crow") made for (always impending) US release. And remember TATU?