riaa
Latest
RIAA finds its soul, will stop suing individuals downloading music
When you retard fair use with pointless DRM and then sue anonymous children for illegally downloading music while ignoring those of the execs at the top of the music industry, well, you're asking for a public relations nightmare. Now, with more than 35,000 lawsuits to its credit, the RIAA says it will finally end the legal assault against consumers that began back in 2003. The Recording Industry Association of America will instead, focus its anti-piracy efforts with ISPs. Under the new plan, the RIAA will contact ISPs when illegal uploading is detected. The ISP will then contact the customer with a notice that would ultimately be followed by a reduction or cessation of service. As you'd expect, the RIAA is not commenting on which ISPs they are in cahoots with. The RIAA also says that it won't require ISPs to reveal the identities of individuals but could, of course, go after individuals who are heavy uploaders or repeat offenders. For the moment though, it appears that single-mothers are in the clear.
Digital sales overtake CDs at Atlantic Records, music pie in general shrinks
Yep, it finally happened. One label has come forward and admitted that, for the first time, digital sales of its music has surpassed CDs. While many pundits asserted that loosing tunes via tiny downloadable files would instantaneously cause the deep-pocketed record labels to crumble as piracy ran rampant, the numbers tell a different story. In fact, music sales overall have declined from $14.6 billion in 1999 to $10.1 billion this year, and it's expected to shrink further. But for Atlantic, moving tracks on the information superhighway has proven quite successful; last quarter, digital sales accounted for 51% of its revenue, while CD sales still make up over two-thirds of all music sales industry-wide. There's no real indication as to why Atlantic seems to have that digital charm while everyone else is still clinging tight to old world business models, but it's sure nice to see this side of the equation thriving. Now, about those DRM-free downloads across the board...[Image courtesy of Dexondaz]
Walmart has a change of heart, decides to maintain DRM servers
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 shutting off DRM servers, turning over a new leaf
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.
Judge declares mistrial in RIAA filesharing case, sets aside $222,000 verdict
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]
Pandora may pull the plug on itself
The Washington Post is reporting that Pandora, the Internet radio station available on Mac, iPhone, and iPod touch, may be shutting down service soon.The reason is that Sound Exchange, the money-grubbing blackmailers royalties collection arm affiliated with the Recording Industry Association of America, has imposed restrictive administrative fees ($500 per year per channel) and ridiculous royalty fees (2.91 cents per hour per listener) on Internet radio stations. While many companies that provide Internet radio services have been lobbying Congress for relief, there doesn't seem to be much of hope that happening in the near future. What this means for all Internet radio stations is that either Congress steps in and attempts to resolve the royalty issues (not likely, considering their record on resolving any issue...), or the stations will need to start charging a subscription fee for their services. Of course, Pandora could start advertising on their site and on the iPhone app to generate some revenues, but as TechCrunch.com's Michael Arrington says, "Perhaps Pandora must be our sacrificial lamb" to focus attention on the entire issue of the recording industry, digital rights, and internet radio stations.What's your opinion on the intenet radio royalty issue? Leave us a comment.
Yahoo! offers up coupons and refunds to DRM server-shutdown victims
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]
Yahoo! to compensate DRM-protected Music Store customers
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.
El Tunes gives Linux users iTMS playback capabilities
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.
Blizzard wins lawsuit against bot makers
You may recall the long running Blizzard vs. MDY battle from various reports here on WoW Insider. In short, Blizzard sued MDY, the makers of the MMOGlider bot (formerly the WOWGlider bot), claiming that the bot violated Blizzard copyright by writing portions of the game to RAM in order to work (since you only have a license to run the game files, and do not actually own them, unauthorized copies are against the EULA). They also claimed that the bot tortiously interfered with Blizzard's customer base. MDY sued them right back, claiming they had every right to sell and distribute their bots. MDY received a crushing blow yesterday as the court ruled against them, Virtually Blind reports, declaring them guilty of copyright infringement and tortious interference (Apparently, bots stealing your kills is now a legal issue, which is sort of cool). The ramifications of this decision are still being discussed in various corners of the net and legal world.
How much is an iTunes download worth?
How much is an iTunes download worth? About 70 cents, if conventional wisdom is correct. That's the commonly quoted number for the iTunes money that gets passed back to the record labels. And according to the New York Times today, the record labels are angling for more. They argue that broadband music sales through the mobile iTunes store somehow should bring them a greater profit than sales through the standard iTS, pointing to industry practice for ringtone and ringback sales. I don't quite understand their reasoning. I think most phone-based ringtone sales are outrageously overpriced. Increased sales volumes will benefit the labels even at the current wholesale prices. Ah well, another example of Underwear Gnome economics in action. %Poll-14432%
RIAA chief says ripping okay, Sony BMG lawyer "misspoke" during Jammie Thomas trial
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.
RIAA not suing over CD ripping, still kinda being jerks about it
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?
RIAA suing citizen for copying legally purchased CDs to PC
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]
Player vs Radio: the volume is fading
DJ Krelo is one of the owners of Player vs Radio, and she handles both the administrative end and personnel support. Even though NCsoft's CoX Meet & Greet was fairly high-energy, she was kind enough to take some time out of her event coverage to give us an interview about PvR, its history, and what it's looking forward to in the future.PvR is a cross-MMO station -- meaning that they don't limit themselves to the City of Heroes and City of Villains properties, but broadcast within a wide range of MMO titles such as Vanguard, World of Warcraft, and Second Life -- and their music rotation is based on player requests. DJ Krelo herself is focused on Gothic, Industrial, Trance, Techno, and Synth-Pop, but every DJ has their own range of music they play. DJ Krelo has been broadcasting for almost two years -- starting with a former station, and moving to PvR after they opened a little over a year ago -- while PvR itself has been broadcasting continuously since they started, save for a brief hiatus during the RIAA royalties debacle.
Edgar Bronfman admits to "inadvertently" going to war with music consumers
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]
Jammie Thomas to appeal $222,000 RIAA file-sharing suit
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: Why is copyright law so screwed up?
Know Your Rights is Engadget's new technology law series, written by our own totally punk copyright attorney Nilay Patel. 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.
RIAA wins first-ever file-sharing case to go to trial, awarded $222,000
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.
Sony BMG's head lawyer says ripping CDs is "stealing"
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.
