Back by popular demand, it's the Walmart DRM servers! You heard right -- just days after Wally World announced its plans to turn the screw on its digital rights management servers, we're now being shown a big "just kidding." According to an e-mail (posted in full after the break) sent out to previous downloaders, the mega-corp be leaving things as-is for the foreseeable future, and it's all because of "feedback from the customers." In other words, those actions it urged you to take late last month are no longer required, though we'd still back those tracks up on CD just in case. Can't be too careful, you know.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

Walmart began selling DRM-free tracks in its music store in August of last year. 13 months later, the mega-corp has decided to follow the footsteps of so many others and hit the kill switch on its DRM management servers. As noted in an e-mail to customers, Wally World will be making the final transition into a fully DRM-free MP3 store on October 9th, and in order to keep those DRM-laden files playable on anything, it's recommended that you burn protected files on a CD on the double. If you choose to ignore this message, you'll be unable to "transfer your songs to other computers or access your songs after changing or reinstalling your operating system or in the event of a system crash." Heed the warning, kids.

We always thought that the RIAA's first-ever filesharing trial victory against Jammie Thomas was a little suspect since the labels weren't required to prove that Thomas even had Kazaa installed on her machine or was the person using the account in question, and it looks like the court agrees -- it's just declared a mistrial and set aside the $222,000 judgment on the grounds that simply making copyrighted works available for download does not constitute copyright infringement. That's a huge decision -- the "making available" theory is the basis for most of the RIAA's legal arguments -- and it means that the RIAA will now have to prove the unauthorized transfer of each song it wants to collect damages on at the new trial. We'll see what effect this has in the broader sense -- we've got a feeling we're in for a slew of appellate decisions on both sides of the "making available" debate -- but for now it looks like the good guys are finally starting to score some points.

[Via ZDNet, thanks JagsLive]

Read - Wired article
Read - Decision [PDF]

If you woke up this morning worried about what Yahoo! is planning to do for its Music Store customers who are about to be left in the lurch with its DRM server shut-down, have no fear. Yahoo! has announced that it will offer customers coupons or refunds for those songs you bought. Basically, you'll get a coupon that you can use at RealNetworks Inc.'s Rhapsody download service. Their songs, of course, are DRM-free. For those of you who have "serious problems with this arrangement" (their words, not ours), refunds will be available. The servers go down on September 30, so start combing your collections, kids.

[Thanks, JC]

Hey, both of you Yahoo! Music Store customers, listen up. Just hours after Yahoo! affirmed that it would be powering down its DRM servers, along comes a spokesperson to alleviate any worries that you two will get screwed in all of this. According to Carrie Davis, customers "will be compensated for whatever they paid for the music," and she continued on to state that Yahoo "had not yet decided what exactly it would do, but it would take care of its customers." Some of the possible options include getting cash back for the money spent on tracks or receiving MP3 versions of the jams sans DRM (we'd take the former, thanks). Depressingly, there doesn't seem to be a definitive time table laid out just yet for the restitution process.

It has been a solid tick since we've seen a good FairPlay hack, so it's with great pleasure that we pass along El Tunes for Ubuntu 8.04 users everywhere. Tested to work on Hardy Heron using RhythmBox (but assumed to work on any modern Linux Distro with GStreamer and a media player that utilizes GStreamer), said plug-in enables open-source aficionados to play songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store. As for limitations, the current version has no Pause / Seek support and cannot de-authorize a machine for playback, but a future version should hopefully cure those two quirks and add support for purchased video content and audio streaming to an AirTunes device. Give it a shot and let us know how it treats ya.

Now that the furor has died down over the Washington Post's questionable piece about the RIAA supposedly suing Jeffrey Howell for ripping CDs, it's time to hear what the RIAA actually has to say -- and it's surprisingly sensible. Speaking to NPR, RIAA president Cary Sherman flatly said "the story is just wrong." Sherman went on to say that the RIAA hasn't ever prosecuted anyone for ripping or copying for personal use, and that the only issue in the Jeffrey Howell case was -- as always -- sharing files on Kazaa. Perhaps most interestingly, Sherman directly addressed the "ripping is just a nice way of saying 'steals one copy'" comment made by Sony BMG's anti-piracy counsel in the Jammie Thomas case, saying that the attorney "misspoke," and that neither Sony BMG or the RIAA agreed with that position.

Of course, it wasn't all sunshine and cupcakes -- Sherman refused to straight-up answer the question of whether or not ripping was legal, saying instead that "there are 100 hypotheticals" and that "copyright law is very complicated." Of course, what he's really saying is that courts haven't made an clear determination of fair use regarding ripping and that he's covering the industry's collective ass -- which explains his hilariously out-of-touch explanation that making copies onto "analog cassettes, special audio CD-Rs, minidiscs, and digital tapes" is legal, because those are all expressly allowed by law. On the other hand, Sherman also said that RIAA's interpretation of the law "doesn't really matter," because "not a single claim has ever been brought over personal use -- [the Washington Post story is] really unfortunate, it's misleading consumers, and it's simply not true." It's a fascinating interview, and it's more than worth a listen if you've got any interest at all in copyright issues -- regardless of what side you're on.

Okay, so we've done some digging into the RIAA's lawsuit against Jeffery Howell, in which the industry is claiming that ripped MP3s are "unauthorized copies," and it turns out that Jeffery isn't actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal downloading. As we're all unfortunately aware, that's pretty standard stuff; the big change from previous downloading cases is the RIAA's newfound aggressiveness in calling MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs "unauthorized copies" -- something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?

Sure, we've heard RIAA-admiring lawyers affirm that ripping your own CDs is in fact "stealing," but it seems the aforementioned entity is putting its money where its mouth is in a case against Jeffrey Howell. Reportedly, the Scottsdale, Arizona resident is being sued by the RIAA, and rather than Mr. Howell just writing a check and calling it a day, he's fighting back in court. Interestingly, it seems that the industry is maintaining that "it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into their computer." Ira Schwartz, the industry's lawyer in the case, is arguing that MP3 files created on his computer from legally purchased CDs are indeed "unauthorized copies," and while we've no idea what will become of all this, we suppose you should go on and wipe those personal copies before you too end up in handcuffs.

Update: We got some more info on the case -- it looks like Jeffrey's actually being sued for illegal downloading, not ripping, but this whole "ripping is illegal" tactic is still pretty distasteful. Check out this post for the full story.

[Via BlogRunner]

By now, we're pretty certain you know how Warner Music's head honcho feels about DRM and its necessity in the digital download space, but apparently, the man behind not one, but two CE-Oh Noes has experienced some form of epiphany. MacUser has it that Edgar Bronfman admitted that the music industry "used to fool itself" by thinking that its content was "perfect just exactly as it was" while speaking at the GSMA Mobile Asia Congress in Macau. He went on to say that it was widely believed that the business would "remain blissfully unaffected even as the world of interactivity, constant connection and file sharing was exploding." He also noted that it essentially went to war "inadvertently" with consumers by "denying them what they wanted and could otherwise find." The conversation was used in part to urge mobile operators to not make the same mistakes again, and while we applaud such a figure for coming forward with a bit of hard truth, it remains to be seen if these sentiments will reverberate further or simply fall on deaf ears.

[Via mocoNews]

Nothing's been filed yet, but Jammie Thomas and her lawyer were on CNN today discussing that ridiculous $222,000 damage award for sharing songs on Kazaa and confirmed that they will, in fact, appeal. The exact nature of the appeal is still up in the air, but Thomas' lawyer says it'll have to do with whether or not Thomas actually transferred a song to another Kazaa user or just made it available on the network. That's a pretty unsettled part of the law and a fairly weak part of the RIAA's case, but we'll have to wait and see what the actual appeal says before we'll have an idea of how this will play out. Peep the full interview on CNN at the read link.

[Via TG Daily]

Know Your Rights is Engadget's new technology law series, written by our own totally punk copyright attorney Nilay Patel, of the Chicago firm Agency 68. In it we'll try to answer some fundamental tech-law questions to help you stay out of trouble in this brave new world. Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.

What on earth is going on with that $222,000 RIAA judgment against that poor woman in Minnesota? Is the system really that broken?

Why do you always ask questions that you know will have answers that you don't like?

Come on -- almost a quarter-million dollars for sharing 24 songs on Kazaa? No one even uses that anymore.

Well, the truth is that the system isn't broken at all, really -- it's working exactly as it was designed. Under the rules in place now, anyone who willfully infringes a copyright is on the hook for at least $750 and a max of $150,000 per infringement. Since each song you share is a unique copyrighted work, that means you get hit with that penalty for every track in your shared folder. This obviously lead to some strange hypothetical results -- sharing that copy of "Wave of Mutilation" triggers the exact same legal mechanisms as sharing all of, say, OS X or Vista, since those are considered single copyrighted works, but that's how we determine damages in our system.

Well, so why were the damages so ridiculous in this case?

A range from $750 to $150,000 is pretty huge, and we may never know exactly why the jury in the Jammie Thomas case settled on $9,250 per infringement as their number -- and most observers seem to agree that it's a figure that is out of proportion with whatever harm she may have caused the labels. There is also no conclusive evidence that damages of this size have done anything to halt the growth of P2P file-sharing.

The real problem that's being brought to light is that our system doesn't always keep pace with the rapid changes in technology. Every system has flaws, and it's incredibly unlikely that lawmakers, of all people, will be able to draft legislation forward-looking enough to avoid similar breakdowns in the future.

So why even bother? If we can't get it right, why even try to impose all these limitations? It just seems to lead to things like DRM.

The first RIAA file-sharing case to go to trial just wrapped, and sadly, the outcome isn't a positive one. Regardless of the incredibly asinine and consumer-hostile comments made by Sony BMG's head of litigation the other day, the jury found Jammie Thomas, a single mother from Minnesota, liable for willful copyright infringement and awarded the RIAA plaintiffs $222,000 -- that's $9,250 for each of the 24 songs she was alleged to have made available on Kazaa, for those of you keeping track at home, and probably something like, oh, say, $222,000 more than she should have had to pay, since the RIAA plaintiffs weren't required to show that Thomas had a file-sharing program installed on her machine or that she was even the person using the Kazaa account in question. Of course, this is just one case and there's always the possibility of appeal, but anything that emboldens the RIAA's litigation team is never good for the general public.

Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.

There's one of them RIAA lawsuits going down in Duluth this week, and Jammie Thomas, the single mother charged with sharing 26 songs on Kazaa, isn't going down without a fight. Yesterday her attorneys called Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's head of litigation, to testify before the jury and got her to say some incredibly incendiary things -- not least of which was her opinion that making copies of purchased music is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy.'" That viewpoint, of course, implicates pretty much every single thing consumers do with music and computers, including transferring songs to iPods and Zunes. We're betting there might be a couple jurors on the panel who aren't too fond of Ms. Pariser right now. Might want to check yo'self before you wreck yo'self, counselor.

Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.

Know Your Rights is Engadget's new technology law series, written by our own totally punk copyright attorney Nilay Patel, of the Chicago firm Agency 68. In it we'll try to answer some fundamental tech-law questions to help you stay out of trouble in this brave new world. Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.

Preface: There's been a lot of discussion about the RIAA's, shall we say "controversial" (and we're being generous here) tactics in suing P2P users who download copyrighted content; especially this week, what with the EFF releasing its "RIAA v. The People: Four Years Later" report. But it's never been easy to find information about the nuts-and-bolts of what happens when you get that first letter from the RIAA. We're not going to get into our feelings about the RIAA and MPAA (you probably already know what we think), but since we've (read: Nilay) been involved in a couple successful defenses -- and a lot of unhappy settlements -- we thought we'd try and break down the process for you. We're not telling you how to avoid or get out of trouble with the RIAA, just how it is that trouble usually operates.

Help! I'm being sued by the RIAA!

Wow, bad luck for you. The RIAA really only sues about 6,000 people a year, mostly those who use FastTrack clients like Kazaa. Users of other networks have been sued, of course, but it's by far Kazaa users who get sued the most often, and generally those who have been unknowingly sharing files. That's a drop in the bucket compared the to estimated nine million people who use P2P software every month.