Talk:AllOfMP3

I edited the article to note that the downloaded files are transcoded from 384 kbps MP3 files. Another user deleted that edit, saying that the MP3 spec only supports up to 320 kpbs.

That's going to be news to AllOfMP3.com, which includes 384 kpbs as one of the options on the download dialog box.

--Alaska Jack 20:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Does AllOfMP3 offer video? If so, I haven't seen it anywhere. If not, the article should be edited to reflect that. Since I can't prove that it's not there and that I haven't just overlooked it, I'll leave it to discussion be those who are watching this article.

Kinda off-topic, since its not directly related editing the article, but what do people think about the legality of this service in the UK? I use it and find it to be excellent, but I am concerned about the legal side? I am not concerened about the threat of prosecution or the opinions of the RIAA/BPI etc but I don't want to break the law (as a christian I believe we should follow the laws of our country). Anyone have any opinions? Feel free to boost this comment to my user page if you feel it won't help the article! akaDruid 12:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't the official name be ALLOFMP3 (all in caps, "f" included)? --Theaterfreak64 02:34, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

New development in legality issue

Slashdot has a story (slashdot.org) about this story (gizmodo.com), which reports that the Russian judiciary cannot procecute AllOfMP3.com. Please read the articles and tell me what you think about it. In this light, we might have to rewrite or edit some of the article.

OK, I see that Paranoid has already taken care of this. Thanks a lot!--capnez 22:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't understand!

I really don't understand this bit:

"In the United States, while many supporters of AllOfMP3 have seized upon limited exceptions in US copyright law, most notably one half of an importation exception (importation is prima facie infringing under US law) at 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2), they typically do not follow through with their analysis, and fail to find a necessary matching exception in § 602(b) (exceptions in subsection (a) are limited to that subsection, and do not solve the problem of the prohibition in subsection (b)). More significantly, they also typically fail to find support for their underlying assumption that downloading can be construed as importation, despite importation being defined as a form of distribution of copies and phonorecords (17 U.S.C. § 602(a)), which are defined as tangible objects (17 U.S.C. § 101), which of course can no more be downloaded than a brick can be. Likewise, copyright in the United States is a matter of strict liability in civil cases (17 U.S.C. § 501), and so it is largely irrelevant whether or not a downloader thought he was acting lawfully. Federal courts in the United States have settled the question of whether unpaid downloading can constitute infringement on the part of the downloader in cases as diverse as Napster, Grokster, Marobie-FL, and Intellectual Reserve: it is infringing on the part of the downloader. However, there have been no rulings in U.S. courts to date regarding the specific legality of purchasing music from allofmp3.com."

Could someone who does perhaps break it up a little - it seems needlessly impenetrable. Tompagenet 00:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, reading that is painful. Someone who understands this stuff should summarize the legal minutia into something more accessible to the general public. --Bk0 (Talk) 01:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Innocent Infringer

The statement that one can claim "innocent infringer immunity" is not true for those subject to US law. US copyright law is strict liability, which means that you can be liable even if you claim to have been unaware that you were breaking the law. (unsigned?)

from this link "If they don't have legitimate distribution licenses then they obviously have no right to distribute at any price. If they claim to have the licenses the end user might be seen as an innocent infringer" This is with regard to US law, and the RIAA's claim that there are "3 parts" to legitimate music licenses, and that allofmp3 is only paying one of them. So yes, this does apparently apply to US users too. Gigs 07:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is incorrect. The relevant section of US law is 17 U.S.C. § 501. It does not make allowances for mental state, and is a strict liability statute. Whether an infringer knows he is breaking the law or not is irrelevant as to liability. It may be relevant as to statutory damages under § 504, however, even the most innocent of ordinary infringers still is at least liable for $200 per work infringed, if statutory damages are sought. Compare with the criminal infringement provisions in US law, at § 506, which does have a mental state element. The source cited above is wrong. For a discussion of this in the context of whether a person who downloaded a web page could be liable for infringement as a result, see the Intellectal Reserve case: "When a person browses a website, and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright. ... Although this seems harsh, the Copyright Act has provided a safeguard for innocent infringers. Where the infringer 'was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages. . . .'"

DRM

I don't think it is a valid argument to say the "support for DRM-free files...suggest that the service is not legal." CD shops such as HMV and Amazon.com mostly offer DRM-free CDs, and iTunes, the biggest provider of DRM-encrypted files, allow users to burn songs into a DRM-free CD Audio format.--Tokek 14:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)