Comments on: Zookz: Unlimited downloads, one price

How can Zookz get away with offering unlimited music and movie downloads for a single monthly fee? Simple--it's based in Antigua.

[jessiethe3rd]

Seriously... you left out Zune which offers the same "type" of service but is of course DRM. While it does not offer movies at a discounted price it certainly offers unlimited music downloads for $14 or so a month and the library is absolutely astounding.

[NSILMike]

and, you get to keep 10 tracks per month...since late last year or so.

[MattRosoff]

There's one big difference with the Zune Pass (and other subscription services like Rhapsody): if you cancel your subscription, you lose access to all but the 10 "permanent" downloads per month. This service promises unlimited PERMANENT downloads.

[musicfanatic1985]

but 10 tracks per month vs. unlimited? if they really get a good library going (like they say they are going to) and if it proves to be safe, then i would totally use this over anything else....

[paulej]

This sounds a lot like the site in Russia called "AllOfMp3", which appears now as "MP3Sparks." The RIAA and others went nuts of that site, too. They claimed to be operating within the law in Russia and, given that they've been operating for several years now, I can only assume that, indeed they are.

I, too, am curious as to whether they have the legal right to distribute content as they are. It makes me wonder: could companies bypass the US laws that make software rentals illegal by basing themselves there? Could companies provide DVR kinds of services? Just exactly what are the constraints placed on them?

We've seen something similar with on-line gambling. You might recall that some legit gambling companies (listed on the stock exchange in London, even) were based just south of the US. Senior leaders of at least one such on-line gambling operation were arrested while transiting through the US! Their crimes? I guess they were charged with violating US gambling laws, though the company and its leaders were not subject to US laws. (The US does go a bit overboard as it asserts its authority beyond its borders.)

So, when doing business with an entity outside one's own country, what laws apply? In the case of the US, if one buys music that might be considered counterfeit in the US, but perfectly legal abroad, is that legal or illegal? More specific, if Zookz is legal where it is, does that make it legal for US citizens to buy and keep that content?

[tzs108]

Antigua is a party to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and is also a party to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. That means Antigua has agreed to provide copyright rights similar to what the other 163 Berne parties provide, and enforce them in their courts, without prejudice against foreign rights holders.

AllOfMP3.com claimed that they had a license for the music their were distributing, through the Russian equivalent of a rights licensing group, similar to ASCAP or BMI or Harry Fox.

[deancollins]

Berne Convention doesn't apply here. The WTO has granted Antigua the rights to reclaim damages implemented by the illegal actions of the USA

I wrote about this back in 2007 http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/wto-rules-usa-gambling-ban-illegal.html

Now we will start to see the war of the 'lobbyists' in the USA - who will win the Gambling Lobbyists or the Film and Music Lobbyists?

I guess we'll see how the USA reacts to playing to global rules now.

(btw they could have done this to any industry, cars, software, computer designs etc .... it's just that Music and Films being digital are the easiest to do so).

[shinji257]

Matt: According to the Fair Use Act you have to make YOUR OWN backups. You can't download someone else's copy. I still question the legality of this site.

[musicfanatic1985]

the site is not p2p so you couldn't download anyone else's content anyway...

[qwerty72qwerty]

googled some articles on the subject

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/business/worldbusiness/22gambling.html

and here is the one from the WTO

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds285_e.htm

[hmj45]

WTO gives Antigua right to violate U.S. copyrights in gambling dispute

Published: Friday, December 21, 2007
PARIS ? In an unusual ruling Friday at the World Trade Organization, the tiny Caribbean nation of Antigua won the right to violate copyright protections on goods like films and music from the United States - worth up to $21 million - as part of a dispute between the two countries over online gambling.

The award comes after a WTO decision that Washington had wrongly blocked online gaming operators on the island from the American market at the same time it permitted online wagering on horse racing.

Antigua and Barbuda had claimed annual damages of $3.44 billion. That makes the relatively small amount awarded Friday, $21 million, something of a setback for Antigua, which had been struggling to preserve its booming gambling industry. The United States had claimed that its behavior had caused only $500,000 damage to the Antiguan economy.

Yet the ruling is significant in that it grants a rare form of compensation: the right of one country, in this case, Antigua, to violate intellectual property laws of another - the United States - by allowing them to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, among other items.

"That has only been done once before and is, I believe, a very potent weapon," said Mark Mendel, a lawyer representing Antigua, after the ruling. "I hope that the United States government will now see the wisdom in reaching some accommodation with Antigua over this dispute."

Though Antigua is best known for its pristine beaches and tourist attractions, the dozens of online casinos now based there are vital to the island's economy, serving as its second-largest employer.

By pressing its claim, trade lawyers said, Antigua could set a precedent for other countries to sue the United States for unfair trade practices, potentially opening the door to electronic piracy and other dubious practices around the world.

Still, implementation will prove difficult, the lawyers say.

"Even if Antigua goes ahead with an act of piracy or the refusal to allow the registration of a trademark, the question still remains of how much that act is worth," said Brendan McGivern, a trade lawyer with White & Case in Geneva. "The Antiguans could say that's worth $50,000, and then the U.S. might say that's worth $5 million - and I can tell you that the U.S. is going to dog them on every step of the way."

The United States has aggressively fought Antigua's claims at every step.

A WTO panel first ruled against the United States in 2004, and its appellate body upheld that decision one year later. In April 2005, the trade body gave the United States one year to comply with its ruling, but that deadline passed with little more than a statement from Washington that it had reviewed its laws and decided it has been in compliance all along.

From the start of the case, the United States has claimed that it never intended to allow free, cross-border trade in gambling or betting services. Those activities are restricted in the United States, though some form of gambling is legal in 48 of the country's 50 states.

In May, the United States announced that it was rewriting its trade rules to remove gambling services from the jurisdiction of the WTO. Washington has already agreed on deals with the European Union, Canada and Japan to change the treaty but it has yet to reach agreements with a number of other nations, including Antigua.

On Friday, the U.S. trade representative issued a stern warning to Antigua to avoid acts of piracy, counterfeiting or violations of intellectual property while negotiations were under way, saying such behavior would "undermine Antigua's claimed intentions of becoming a leader in legitimate electronic commerce, and would severely discourage foreign investment in the Antiguan economy."