Russia agrees to shut down

Russia agrees to shut down
But the music download site that U.S. says is guilty of piracy continues to operate.
By Greg Sandoval
Staff Writer, CNET

update Russia has agreed to shut down and other music sites based in that country that the U.S. government says are offering downloads illegally.

The nation has struck the agreement with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative as it seeks entry to the World Trade Organization. The U.S. has suggested that it would hold up Russia’s acceptance in the WTO unless leaders there took action against digital piracy.

“Russia will take enforcement actions against the operation of Russia-based websites,” according to a press release issued November 19 by the U.S. Trade Representative. “(Russia will) investigate and prosecute companies that illegally distribute copyright works on the Internet.”

On Wednesday, was still operating. Gretchen Hamel, a spokeswoman for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said that she didn’t know when the deal requires the Russian government to begin taking action.

Now that really sucks, if they actually do it. They may only pay it lip service, but you never know. I personally don’t use, but there are a few choice Russian sites I use for similar purposes that may now be shut down. Friggin’ US policymakers are always trying to dictate what goes on in the rest of the world…

Well, hopefully they’ll just move to Ukrane or something and continue to operate.

I dunno - it seems that they should not be able to sell any music products without the permission of the artists in the first place.

I may not like a lot of this Globalization and WTO stuff, but respect for the accomplishments and creations of others, including copyrights, does seem important.

I’m not even sure that Copyrights should expire at all. Should works created by an individual not always be the property of that individual, or whomever they choose to be their right-holders?

You do realize that copyrights nowadays expire a set number of decades after the death of the original author, if it is a physical person?

Quite the contrary, I believe it would be better if the duration of copyright was greatly reduced, even to a set number of years regardless of whether the authors have died or not.

Long-term copyright in some cases simply allows for an interesting form of parasitism. TV (at least where I leave) is already filled with “artists” who have produced, like, one (1) popular song in their lifetime and now simply infest talk shows and reality shows, and when requested a performance, sing always the same one (1) song - we don’t need any more of that. If copyright lasted no more than x years (where x could even be adjusted to the kind of work), perhaps such artists would have an incentive to keep at it and produce more. :stuck_out_tongue: (not that it would necessarily be good for quality, but since I don’t see good quality even with the current system anyway… g)

When authors eventually die, people who had nothing to do with the copyrighted work, and as such didn’t necessarily contribute to either progress or culture, end up gaining profits without hardly doing any work, if at all. These can be artists’ heirs or, in too many cases, the record industry itself when labels manage to just buy off “property” of copyrighted work (think the notorious “happy birthday to you” example). Also, I would not forget that copyright can in some cases be exploited as a form of censorship.

Unexpiring copyright would take consequences of this kind to the extreme. To me, that heirs be allowed to profit without doing any work, already sounds like a new form of middle ages “nobility” now; I don’t really want to think about what could happen if it was allowed to last for several generations.

As for the topic, the WTO is yet another example of a world-wide body of decision-makers, unelected by the people, that pushes supposedly sovereign national governments to adopt policies according to their own interests, rather than that of the country or its people. Shouldn’t this kind of thing be enough to disturb anyone?

Intellectual property has an incalculable value…copyright is essential.
I would also support a longer period.

You would suggest then, property owners should give up their assets after a certain period?

Don’t change the subject. Property on material things and copyrights simply aren’t comparable. Information can be relayed, whereas matter (or land) can’t be “duplicated”; should you hold a copyright and choose to release your work to the public domain, it would still be also yours - just no more exclusively yours; etc.

Also, I do believe that if anything, what has incalculable value is culture and progress (social, scientific and technical). If it is called “intellectual property” it has a definite, economical value.

I would say that copyrights should not expire at all while the artist is still alive. The copyright should be something you can write into a will, so you can pass it on to who you want. I don’t see any problem with that. Or maybe after death or a set timeframe it becomes publicly available; as in, no copyright at all.

As far as the original point goes, I agree with eregil’s last point about the WTO. From where I stand it seems like nothing more than the USA imposing it’s vision of the world on the rest of us, purely for it’s own benefit.

what has incalculable value is culture and progress (social, scientific and technical). If it is called “intellectual property” it has a definite, economical value.

Well, music copyrights are basically copyrighting art, and although there is an economic value that can be assigned to it, it is at the same time adding to our culture (as all great art does), thereby being incalculable as well. Mind you, I don’t consider music by, for example, 50cent to be great art, but that’s only an opinion that others may disagree with.

AllOfMP3 released a statement on 30 November that is on thier web-site saying thier demise is greatly exagerated and do not plan on closing down at anytime.

Makes for interesting reading if nothing else.


As of 5 minutes ago, everything is up and still working.


I know this. If I write what I consider to be a heartfelt novel, I would not ever, every want anybody to be able to goof with it because it entered the public domain.

I understand the need for education, and how some works become socially relevant, but what does that have to do with forcing the creator to give up the rights to the thing THEY made in the first place?

There’s no benefit to the social consciousness by putting the original Beatles music in the public domain. People should ALWAYS have to purchase those products and be prevented from altering from and profiting by the use of those products.

How can anyone argue otherwise? To do so flies in the very face of individual rights of ownership. What incentive would people have to create if they knew their work could be taken from them, altered and used by others to gain profit?

I am a FIRM believer in Fair Use Rights. If you BUY a song, you should be able to copy that song to any device that you own. You should be able to make custom mixes of your favorite songs, etc.

By default, you should NOT be able to just give that song away and you should NOT be able to sell that song to others, altered or not. If the artist grants purchasers the right to use it for educational purposes, or share it with members of their family living in the same home, that is different. But there is no way I should be able to gather up all the old Frank Sinatra songs, make an album of my own and start selling it to people.

The thread is at risk of getting off-topic…

…the point is the international community deemed that copyright laws are to be respected. The fact that the Office of US Trade has decided to confront this issue is neither here nor there.


I hope they shut it down ASAP.