ALLOFMP3 is Legal - And Cheap to Boot

The question that comes up most often regarding ALLOFMP3 is an obvious one: Is it really legal? Can this site really sell songs at such a cheaper rate that its American counterparts and still be legit?

It is a complicated question with an equally complicated answer. But the short answer is: YES. It is legal both for ALLOFMP3 to sell mp3s and for American and International consumers to purchase those songs without any fear of repercussions.

Support this site: Sign up for the cheapest MP3s, from $0.03 to $0.05, at ALLOFMP3.
Sign up Today and Get 10MB FREE!

Let me explain. I have analyzed this question on three levels: the legality of ALLOFMP3 in Russia; the legality of ALLOFMP3 in the U.S.; and the International legality of the site.

I'll start with my most definitive proof of the site's legality: the RIAA itself. For those who do not know, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) does not like file sharing. As was splayed on the front page of The New York Post , this is the organization that sued a 12-year-old girl living in public housing in New York City. Yet, when the RIAA cracked down on Spanish site PureTunes.com, which was also offering very discounted price for songs, they themselves acknowledged the legality of ALLOFMP3. PureTunes was targeted because they were reselling songs from ALLOFMP3, which was legally selling them for personal use.

According to a Guardian UK article:

However, some customers began to notice odd things. Many of the files downloaded from the site had ID tags from the Russian legal music service www.allofmp3.com. The German site Heise Online counted at least 16 of those files, suggesting they may have been copied. Mediaservices, the Russian company behind Allofmp3.com, today confirmed in an e-mail that “we do not contribute to Puretunes and do not allow for content redistribution.”

Forums have been alive with this discussion for ages. Let me present some of the arguments from I discussion I participated in on FatWallet.

“Actually, in terms of the law in the U.S., this is rather interesting. You are, in this case, importing legal songs (importing since it's Russian based). Now, just because this service is illegal in the USA, that does not mean that using it is illegal. Why? MP3's, OGG's, etc are not illegal in the USA and therefore can be imported. There is also no law against importing music from other countries (including Russia). And because you are buying this legally in Russia and then importing to the USA, this should be 100% legit. For example, assuming that Russian Vodka is illegal to buy in the USA on Sunday, but you buy the Russian Vodka in Moscow on Sunday, then you import it into the USA, you have done nothing wrong. Again, this assumes that 1) it is illegal to buy Russian Vodka on Sunday in the USA 2) it is legal in Moscow and 3) it is legal to import Russian Vodka.”

“Hey I'll chime in on this one. Allofmp3 is great! Why? Because you get maximum speed downloads every time and with as many as 5 files going all at once. Also it's very reasonable. I put in 10 bux a while back and I am still using the credits. It's reliable, cheap, fast and is legal in Russia. If I remember correctly I have seen numerous conversations about the legality of allofmp3. It's quasi-legal as opposed to just plain illegal but don't take my word for consult your local attorney. You pick but for me it's ease of use and the fact that I can go directly to the site and have a whole album downloaded in about 5 minutes. Now they don't have every album but they have lots of brand new stuff, lots of the classics like 40 Pink Floyd albums and they also cater to Russian and European folks who have very diverse musical tastes. You can pay by paypal and the site works flawlessly. You can also find quite a few free downloads but they tend to be a little slower. As for the Russians, hey when it comes to religious extremists the Russians and us have a lot in common that we should take stock in. We all know now that the Cold War was half fabricated by arms manufacturers anyway. They sold arms to both sides and now we get to deal with the blowback.”

“Currently there is no set minimum of international intellectual property standards. The WTO in the 1988 round of the GATT decided to introduce intellectual property as a topic (mainly the U.S. and EU do the strategizing before a trade talk). Out of these talks came the formation of the WTO in 1995 and the TRIPs agreement (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). These two in combination have attempted to establish a minimum standard worldwide (of course only those that reflect the stringent standards of the US and EU). However, countries have not met the timetable as of yet in meeting these standards for cultural and economic reasons. Understand that the current system of intellectual property in the US and EU has been transformed by transnational corporations (don't lose me here. I am not representing green peace here). For example, in the US the Disney Co. alone has been responsible for pumping money into Congress to keep their livelihood alive (i.e. extend the copyright period to allow them to keep extensive control over Mickey Mouse). Originally, copyright was set up by the early framers as lasting 14 years after creation. (This is a dumbed down, but true representation). Currently after half a century of lobbying, Disney has managed to push the number of years above 100 years! Now do you know what I mean by Corporations transforming and re-shaping our intellectual property standards?

Well, the point is that these intellectual property standards are not set in stone. In fact, they can change their definition at the drop of a few soft money donations to Congress in this country. Abroad, they are even more uncertain. US Bilateralism since 1984 has effectively used trade sanctions in order to raise other countries' intellectual property standards. For example, Brazil had no laws concerning patentability of pharmaceutical drugs for a very long time, much longer than they've had laws governing them. However, the US got off their butts and threatened sanctions in order to fix that, not coincidentally following heavy lobbying ($$$) by US firms to improve intellectual property rights in Brazil (since it is a large potential market).

I apologize for my long-windedness. However, my point is that authority concerning intellectual property stems from individual countries. The WTO has been really ineffective in its vision of a multilateral framework for intellectual property rights anyway (I won't discuss it's other policies). The US and EU and Japan have used bilateral talks to handle inappropriate intellectual property standards abroad (I am assuming that some of you view Russia's copyright laws to be so). Therefore, if you claim that you downloaded the files from a Russian site, then you will be covered under their copyright laws. The courts have not invaded cyberspace in Russia, and they will not for awhile in the US either. It has been up to Clinton and now Bush to set regulations concerning commerce and the internet but such regulation really has not been implemented yet. (The US shares the same fears as Russia that any interference will stifle growth). And since you cannot be convicted for acts done prior to the passing of a statute criminalizing it, any new laws concerning these downloads will not affect the already downloaded mp3's.

Therefore, you are completely home free by downloading from this website.”

That last quote might be somewhat too legalese for some, so I'll use that as a jumping point into the discussion of U.S. law, the country with the strictest copyright laws.

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 6 > Sec. 602.

Sec. 602. - Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords

(a)

Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. This subsection does not apply to -

(1)

importation of copies or phonorecords under the authority or for the use of the Government of the United States or of any State or political subdivision of a State, but not including copies or phonorecords for use in schools, or copies of any audiovisual work imported for purposes other than archival use;

(2)

importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage; or

(3)

importation by or for an organization operated for scholarly, educational, or religious purposes and not for private gain, with respect to no more than one copy of an audiovisual work solely for its archival purposes, and no more than five copies or phonorecords of any other work for its library lending or archival purposes, unless the importation of such copies or phonorecords is part of an activity consisting of systematic reproduction or distribution, engaged in by such organization in violation of the provisions of section 108(g)(2).

(b)

In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited. In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable. In either case, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe, by regulation, a procedure under which any person claiming an interest in the copyright in a particular work may, upon payment of a specified fee, be entitled to notification by the Customs Service of the importation of articles that appear to be copies or phonorecords of the work

This bit of law works in our favor in two ways. Provided the MP3s were legally obtained in Russia, then…

The site MuseSeeker also addresses this issue:

“Russian copyright legislation allows phonograms to be performed publicly without the authorization of the copyright owner for broadcasting and cable transmission. (Article 39) The Internet could be deemed to fall under this exemption. The copyrights involved have to be paid to a collecting society.

Allofmp3 has signed agreements for this with Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems (ROMS). According to license ? ??-??-02-36 the Internet-project www.allofmp3.com, has the right to use musical compositions by providing downloads. Under the license agreement Allofmp3 pays out fees to ROMS for downloaded materials that are subject to the Russian Federation Copyright And Related Rights Law.

ROMS is a member of CISAC (www.cisac.org) - the International confederation of authors and composers societies. ROMS manages intellectual rights in the Russian Federation. All third party distributors licensed by ROMS are required to pay a portion of the revenue to the ROMS. ROMS in turn, is obligated to pay most of that money (aside from small portion it needs for operating expenses) to artists. Both Russian and foreign.

We have received this confirmation from ROMS:

I can confirm the legality of allofmp3.com You can legally buy/download mp3-songs from this site if it does not breaks the law the national legislation of the country in which you will be during that moment Sorry for my english.

Yours faithfully, the assistant to the lawyer of the Russian society on multimedia and to digital networks (ROMS) www.roms.ru,