how is this legal??

Yeah, it's BS.

If you're paying 50 cents per albumn, guaranteed royalties aren't going to the copyright holders or the band.

It mights be legal in Russia, I don't know their laws, but it wouldn't be elgal in the U.S.

In Canada, it's not exactly 'legal' in all senses to download music, but it has been held that the liability for copyright infringement lay with the provider of the pirated media. The RCMP (federal police) don't go after downloaders because it would be a waste of resources.

Also of note, any blank recording media (e.g., blank CDs, DVDs) sold in Canada has a small extra charge levied on it that goes to the recording industry.

The applicable laws in Canada are still developing through legislation and court cases, but up til now courts have ruled on the side of individual privacy when recording companies have tried to sue ISPs to get identifying information on downloaders so they could file civil suit.

I'm not aware of a case in which a private downloader in Canad ahas been identified and sued by the recording industry. I imagine that such a suit could be successfully pressed. That said, there may be cases in this that I'm not aware of.

So yeah, of questionable legality in Canada, but noone's coming after downloaders.

Whether downloading over the internet qualifies as 'private copying' under the Copyright Act exemption has yet to be tested in court, probably because the recording industry can't get identifying information on any specific downloader with which they can either prosecute a case or file suit (the latter being far more likely than a private prosecution).

That's why I used the term 'questionable'. In general, complete copying of a copyrighted work (a book, a movie, etc) is illegal. Songs can come under the 'private copying' exception if used only for personal use, but that's a law dating back to mix tapes and blank CDs- which are subject to a general levy given to the industry. The attempt to impose the 'blank media' levy on MP3 player memory was unsuccessful, so the private copying exception could not be applied based on a levy having already been made. There is not yet a court ruling specifically on the legality of downloading songs over the internet. Also, to my knowledge, whether an entire downloaded album (undoubtedly a 'copyrighted work') could be protected under the 'private copying' exception has not been tested yet.

You are right, strictly speaking, in the sense that something that has not yet been found specifically illegal in civil or criminal court is, de facto, legal. However, under current law, the possibility exists that such a determination may still be made because much of the law remains undefined. That's why I apply the term 'questionably'. Given that the laws are already in place, an ex post facto defense could not be made against a suit or charge for downloading music.

Had an individual gone to court specifically for downloaded music, and been found innocent or not liable, I would happily say it's legal. Or, if current law had been clearly enough defined to say with certainty that new law would have to be passed in order to pursue liability or a conviction, I would say the same. I just can't say either way with certainty.

Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and this is my non-legal opinion. Ben Grimm might be along shortly to slap me with an icepick.