Comments on: Big 4 labels sue AllofMP3.com http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10811 p2pnet.net offers not-your-lamescream news on movies music digital media P2P peer-to-peer TV television file sharing freedom of speech open source product news Wifi mobiles company Tue, 02 Dec 2008 06:11:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10811#comment-131603 Reader's Write Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:36:27 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10811#comment-131603 "Allofmp3.com, however, says its activities are perfectly legal and that it pays royalties to a Russian licensing body." Admittedly I do not have all the facts as to wether it is true that Allofmp3.com does have a license that allows them to sell all the songs they sell. But what if they have a so called blanket license? This is the type of license the performance rights organizations (PRO) issue to radio and television stations throughout the world. Tipically (maybe always) blanket licenses isued by the PROs are not accompanied by a printed catalog of the licensed songs, meaning they are BLIND, meaning the licensee has no way of really knowing (have no visibility) what they can perform. What if Allofmp3.com has a blanked license to sell songs, like the PRO licenses, to perform unknown (equivalent to all songs). Then Allofmp3.com can argue they can sell all and any songs beause what their blanket license allows is precisely that. Most big RIAA member record companies are also song publishers that authorize their PRO to issue blanket licenses, knowing that these type of licenses are blind (and fraudulent) and in effect allow the perfomance of all songs in the world. Then how can they not like the results when the blind blanket licence concept their PRO's invented is used elsewhere, but not for performance, but for selling song tracks? Maybe what they do is coming back to haunt them. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com “Allofmp3.com, however, says its activities are perfectly legal and that it pays royalties to a Russian licensing body.”

Admittedly I do not have all the facts as to wether it is true that Allofmp3.com does have a license that allows them to sell all the songs they sell.

But what if they have a so called blanket license? This is the type of license the performance rights organizations (PRO) issue to radio and television stations throughout the world. Tipically (maybe always) blanket licenses isued by the PROs are not accompanied by a printed catalog of the licensed songs, meaning they are BLIND, meaning the licensee has no way of really knowing (have no visibility) what they can perform.

What if Allofmp3.com has a blanked license to sell songs, like the PRO licenses, to perform unknown (equivalent to all songs). Then Allofmp3.com can argue they can sell all and any songs beause what their blanket license allows is precisely that.

Most big RIAA member record companies are also song publishers that authorize their PRO to issue blanket licenses, knowing that these type of licenses are blind (and fraudulent) and in effect allow the perfomance of all songs in the world. Then how can they not like the results when the blind blanket licence concept their PRO’s invented is used elsewhere, but not for performance, but for selling song tracks?

Maybe what they do is coming back to haunt them.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10811#comment-131602 Reader's Write Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:28:11 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10811#comment-131602 "Allofmp3.com, however, says its activities are perfectly legal and that it pays royalties to a Russian licensing body." Admittedly I do not have all the facts as to wether it is true that Allofmp3.com does have a license that allows them to sell all the songs they sell. But what if they have a so called blanket license? This is the type of license the performance rights organizations (PRO) issue to radio and television stations throughout the world. Tipically (maybe lways) blanket licenses isued by the are no accompanied by a printed catalog of the licensed songs, meaning they are BLIND, meaning the licensee has no way of really knowing (have no visibility) what they can perform. What if Allofmp3.com has a blanked license to sell songs, like the PRO licenses to perform unknown (equivalent to all songs). Then Allofmp3.com can argue they can sell all songs all songs beause their blanket license what allows is precisely that. Most big RIAA member record companies are also publisher that authorize thier PRO to issue blanket licenses, knowing that these ae blind and in effet alw the perfomance of all songs in the world. Then how can they not like the results when the blind blanket licence concept their PRO's invented is used elsewhere, but not for performance, but for selling song tracks? Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com “Allofmp3.com, however, says its activities are perfectly legal and that it pays royalties to a Russian licensing body.”

Admittedly I do not have all the facts as to wether it is true that Allofmp3.com does have a license that allows them to sell all the songs they sell.

But what if they have a so called blanket license? This is the type of license the performance rights organizations (PRO) issue to radio and television stations throughout the world. Tipically (maybe lways) blanket licenses isued by the are no accompanied by a printed catalog of the licensed songs, meaning they are BLIND, meaning the licensee has no way of really knowing (have no visibility) what they can perform.

What if Allofmp3.com has a blanked license to sell songs, like the PRO licenses to perform unknown (equivalent to all songs). Then Allofmp3.com can argue they can sell all songs all songs beause their blanket license what allows is precisely that.

Most big RIAA member record companies are also publisher that authorize thier PRO to issue blanket licenses, knowing that these ae blind and in effet alw the perfomance of all songs in the world. Then how can they not like the results when the blind blanket licence concept their PRO’s invented is used elsewhere, but not for performance, but for selling song tracks?

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10811#comment-131601 Reader's Write Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:45:30 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10811#comment-131601 An AP story says: "The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in federal court in New York against Moscow-based Mediaservices, which owns AllofMP3..." Is there not a jurisdiction problem here? Can a Russian entity or person be sued in New York for copyright infringement? If the answer were to be yes, then there is a huge danger that anyone can be sued in a far away jusrisdiction for the alleged violation an unknown local laws (of the far away jurisdiction)? Just imagine, an American gets sued in China for violating a Chineses law the american did not know existed. Would anyone expect the American to go to China to hire a Chinese defense lawyer? Just how far fetched can the legal system be? Or I am missing something? Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com An AP story says:
“The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in federal court in New York against Moscow-based Mediaservices, which owns AllofMP3…”

Is there not a jurisdiction problem here?

Can a Russian entity or person be sued in New York for copyright infringement? If the answer were to be yes, then there is a huge danger that anyone can be sued in a far away jusrisdiction for the alleged violation an unknown local laws (of the far away jurisdiction)?

Just imagine, an American gets sued in China for violating a Chineses law the american did not know existed. Would anyone expect the American to go to China to hire a Chinese defense lawyer?

Just how far fetched can the legal system be? Or I am missing something?

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]>