An interview with the Flashbulb about his recent calamity with iTunes, and putting his album up on BitTorrent. It turns out iTunes is selling his albums without permission, and not paying royalties.

The Flashbulb (Benn Jordan) has been releasing albums for 14 years, the last 5 have included various commercial endeavors. The label deal he has is a 50/50 split, but he hasn’t been seeing the money. Benn says he has no agreement with iTunes to sell his music, and many of his fans have told him they bought his music there. When he investigated the issue further, his label asked him to drop it, and his calls went unreturned.

Here’s a great quote from Benn: “Who’s the pirate I should go after? A kid who downloads my album because it isn’t available in non-DRM format and costs $30 on Amazon? Or a huge multi-billion dollar corporation that has been selling thousands of dollars worth of my music and not even acknowledging it?”

Benn is being labeled in the press as pro-piracy, but his true stand is that people buy what they like. “What I’m promoting is the artist’s freedom to choose what can and can’t be done with his/her music, and more importantly, the listener’s freedom to do what he/she wants with their own computer, MP3 player, or internet connection.”

Benn makes a poignant case that the RIAA has spent so long dictating people’s taste and choices that they are now threatened by the opportunity for people to choose the music they want. He suggests that “music will be judged by it’s content again and will be subjected to it’s own Darwinism.”

Bottom Line: Where are all those billions in album sales really going?

The RIAA’s head, Cary Sherman, wants to put encryption on our computer that will force us to decrypt music before listening to it. In other words, the filter will scan all your incoming data and then either allow or deny your ability to listen to it. since this idea likely won’t be popular (who’s going to willingly put a filter on their computer that blocks the files they are downloading?), the next suggestion is to put the filters in our modems.

Despite the predictable public backlash against these tactics (in an environment where the RIAA already has public approval that rivals the US Congress), some ISPs are moving ahead with these filters. The technical specifics are a bit thick, suffice it to say that various file encryptions can bypass these filters unless entire protocols are blocked.

Here’s a video of Mr. Sherman lauding the glories of filtering:

Bottom Line: Being out of touch with your consumers’ needs does not improve your financial picture, or your credibility.

The RIAA wants to expand copyright law, with the apparent intention of having more technicalities to prosecute.? The new law on the table is for album compilations.? Specifically, having each track count as separate count of infringement.

Goggle’s top copyright lawyer was quoted saying the parties pushing this bill have an “unslakable lust for more and more rights, longer terms of protection, draconian criminal provisions, and civil damages that bear no resemblance to the damages suffered”.

Bottom Line: Fining someone upward of $9,000 for a track with a value of a dollar may not be fair, but lawmakers still seem to align themselves with this kind of enforcement.

The record industry is at it again, seeking to further limit our use of our catalogs of recorded music. In a current Arizona case, Atlantic vs. Howell, RIAA is now claiming that ripping our own CDs onto our computers for our own use is copyright infringement.

We already have DRM, which limits our enjoyment of music to a platform (iTunes and Windows Media Player are the prime examples of this). This new motion would force us to buy the same song over and over again, to listen to it in our car, on our stereo, on our computer, and on our portable MP3 player.

Is it any wonder that record sales are crashing and burning? Music is not a necessity, and people buy it because they want to enjoy it. The more we are backed into a corner, told that we cannot copy or back up our own music, the greater the backlash toward the record business and the faster album sales slump.

Maybe there’s a totally different angle we’re missing. If the RIAA and the big labels see that their model has failed perhaps all of this litigation is an attempt to squeeze every last penny they can out of us before they collapse under their own weight. All the claims of protecting copyrights and artists may be a sham. The more ridiculous the legal environment about copyright infringement becomes, the more damage is done to artists.

Within five to seven years, there won’t be major labels like there are now, and we will be free to buy the music we want one time and convert it to any format we choose.
However, the resentment that the RIAA is generating toward buying music may be around far longer. Mainstream media outlets tend to only trumpet the loudest voices (in this case the RIAA), and most of the alternative opinions and methods of distributing music are relatively unheard.

Without all of the DRM, root kits, and legal controls of our music catalogs, music will continue to be made and bought. The more restricted our music catalogs become, the less willing we will be to buy it. And who loses is the artist. Musicians make a living off their music. If people are unwilling to buy it, musician will not be viable career. And this backlash hits independent artists even harder. As music loses its value at the mainstream level, it loses it on the underground as well. Artists and labels that do not believe in DRM or controlling the use of their music suffer from the same public opinion that people have toward major labels. The only difference is the major labels positions are available on the newsstand, and to lobby for laws. In fact, indie labels are the second largest entity selling music, and are left with the same restrictions and laws set by the RIAA and the Big Four.

Bottom Line: The continued attempts to regulate music is the biggest source of the current collapse we see in music sales, and the devaluation of music as a commodity.

As if throttling Bit Torrent, blocking access to sites like AllofMP3.com and PirateBay, and endless industry litigation aren’t eroding net neutrality enough, the IFPI is taking it a step further.? The IFPI is an international version of the RIAA, and the recently sent a memo to the European Union about file sharing.

The IFPI wants to see Europe’s internet monitored, managed, and controlled.? They are presenting a “complete solution to piracy”.? This three step process looks something like this:

1.? Scan the entire internet for audio files, and block files that don’t match up to a database of music.? This practice is called content filtering.? Although it seems benign, the practice of monitoring the entire internet is a slippery slope toward full scale surveillance.? Aside from harming commerce and academic research, having a huge government database of people’s web activity can be used for more malicious purposes then chasing down people who are illegally downloading music.

2.? Blocking peer to peer protocols.? A protocol is a standard for connecting and sharing data, and p2p networks have their own protocol.? If ISPs systematically ferret out and block these protocols, academics and businesses won’t be able to share large files, either.

3.? Blocking websites that offer illegal content.? Although the practice of blocking sites that offer pirated music is a method of controlling the practice, it is a legal precedent that governments can block web sites.? The power of the internet is its freedom, and blocking sites is a step toward censoring that freedom.? Once governments are free to block one kind of website, where will they draw the line?
Consider that a corporation is lobbying a government to restrict and monitor the internet airwaves.? If the IFPA has their way, they are setting the stage for full scale internet controls and censorship. While the intention of protecting their corporate interests isn’t truly malicious, the methods they suggest pave the way for an internet that is no longer open and free.
Bottom Line:? Setting a precedent for government control of the internet is a precursor to full scale internet censorship.? Considering the human tendency to use any means at our disposal, creating this kind of monitoring and control apparatus is a disturbing action for personal liberty.

This fantastic editorial by Tony Long is a powerful and accurate assessment of the fallout of the lawsuit against Jammie Thomas.? His analysis is so good that I have little to add.

Peep it for yourself.

Good show, Tony!

Folks, this has gone too far! $222,000 for 24 songs? Please read this article:

*****

By David Kravets | October 04, 2007
(Repost from WIRED Magazine)

DULUTH, Minnesota — Jammie Thomas, a single mother of two, was found liable Thursday for copyright infringement in the nation’s first file-sharing case to go before a jury.

Twelve jurors here said the Minnesota woman must pay $9,250 for each of 24 shared songs that were the subject of the lawsuit, amounting to $222,000 in penalties.

They could have dinged her for up to $3.6 million in damages, or awarded as little as $18,000. She was found liable for infringing songs from bands such as Journey, Green Day, Aerosmith and others.

After the verdict was read, Thomas and her attorney left the courthouse without comment. The jurors also declined to talk to reporters.

The verdict, coming after two days of testimony and about five hours of deliberations, was a mixed victory for the RIAA, which has brought more than 20,000 lawsuits in the last four years as part of its zero-tolerance policy against pirating. The outcome is likely to embolden the RIAA, which began targeting individuals in lawsuits after concluding the legal system could not keep pace with the ever growing number of file-sharing sites and services.

“This is what can happen if you don’t settle,” RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel told reporters outside the courthouse. “I think we have sent a message we are willing to go to trial.”

Still, it’s unlikely the RIAA’s courtroom victory will translate into a financial windfall or stop piracy, which the industry claims costs it billions in lost sales. Despite the thousands of lawsuits — the majority of them settling while others have been dismissed or are pending — the RIAA’s litigation war on internet piracy has neither dented illegal, peer-to-peer file sharing or put much fear in the hearts of music swappers.

According to BigChampagne, an online measuring service, the number of peer-to-peer users unlawfully trading goods has nearly tripled since 2003, when the RIAA began legal onslaught targeting individuals.

At the time, BigChampagne says, there were about 3.8 million file sharers trading over the internet at a given moment. Now, the group has measured a record 9 million users trading at the same time. Roughly 70 percent of trading involves digital music, according to BigChampagne.

The case, however, did set legal precedents favoring the industry.

In proving liability, the industry did not have to demonstrate that the defendant’s computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive. And the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomas’ share folder.

Also, the judge in the case ruled that jurors may find copyright infringement liability against somebody solely for sharing files on the internet. The RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded the files. That was a big bone of contention that U.S. District Judge Michael Davis settled in favor of the industry.

Thomas, 30, maintained that she was not the Kazaa user “Tereastarr,” whose files were detected by RIAA’s investigators. Her attorney speculated to jurors that she could have been the victim of a spoof, cracker, zombie, drone and other attacks.

The jury found her liable after receiving evidence her internet protocol address and cable modem identifier were used to share some 1,700 files. The hard drive linked to Kazaa on Feb. 21, 2005 — the evening in question — did not become evidence in the case.

According to testimony, Thomas replaced her hard drive weeks after RIAA investigators accessed her share file and discovered 1,702 files. The industry sued on just 24 of those files.

(Courtroom sketch: Wired News/ Cate Whittemore)

*****
Ok, now lets be honest. Songs have always been “free” on the radio. This is because you are forced to listen to advertisements which undoubtedly sway a percentage of the captive audience to go buy the products represented in said advertising.

The idea that downloading hurts CD sales has been disproven. In Fact, there have even been several cases where a song breaks on the internet and causes a landslide of physical sales. Shitty music is hurting physical sales. Ask anyone on the street, Mr. RIAA. What we are witnessing here is a truly EVIL organization that is not operating in the best interests of the people it was designed to protect.

Let’s go back to this quote: “This is what can happen if you don’t settle.” That is a direct threat from the RIAA, telling us to conform to their standard, or else be disciplined by their heavily funded hand. I have a response for you, Mr. RIAA Lawyer Prick…

…This is what happens when you don’t Settle:

The revolution, the birth of a free nation, the creation of epic works of art, the birth of new technologies and the absolute free and unfettered exchange of information.

RIAA, your #1 client base is who you are attacking. Everyone is watching you, and thinks you are stupid. You will NEVER stop the free trading of music on the internet. You do not control the flow of information, nor are you operating in the best interests of those you claim to represent

Black markets flourish when consumer demands arent met by governments or corporations (look at prostitution or the war on drugs). We will always share music! We used to do it with cassette tapes, we used to do it with burned CD’s, We will do it by singing at each other if we have to.

This is for everyone:
STEAL MY MUSIC.
SHARE IT.
ENJOY IT.

After all, I wrote it for you.
-r

The RIAA finally got their first case in court over people who serve MP3s on file sharing platforms. So all bland arguments aside, here’s the bottom line.:

The new argument is that if we rip or download songs we already own, we’re stealing.
Let’s cut through all the fancy arguments and cogent dissections and get right to the nitty gritty of it all.

Major media companies complain people aren’t buying music (as if over 500 million album slaes is some kind of small number), so they try to force us to buy music by restricting our access to it. The general public (that’s us) then gets indignant that we are being limited in our ability to enjoy music, and we download everything we can. The major labels then raise the prices of CDs, and add malware to their products (with some benign name so we don’t make the connection that a rootkit is a kind of virus).

We are told that when we buy music online, it will include some form of control, so that we can only enjoy it on proprietary software or hardware (think about how cellphone companies have 400 different adaptors to their chargers). Now they want us to believe we have no right to backup our data.

Now they are finally in court with us for downloading and sharing content, and they accuse us of stealing from them if we rip music we already own. There are now record players that will turn your albums into MP3s as you play them. I own lots of vinyl, and some of it is hard or impossible to find, even as an MP3. Am I criminal if I want to preserve my record collection? Most of these albums can only be obtained second hand at this point, anyways.

Where does it stop? At what point will they sue for the right to audit every harddrive on the planet, or require us to carry some sort of permit to listen to the music we have? Are we all to be fined for singing Happy Birthday?

Let’s look at it another way. People still pay for HBO. People still buy CDs, and digital downloads are a robust market (just not robust enough to support the behemoth of major record labels). It’s possible that if people weren’t forced to buy music, and told that everything we did with our music was a crime, we would be more inclined to buy more. What would happen if everyone stopped using DRM, and file sharing was accepted as part of society? What if intellectual property wasn’t treated like another flavor of soda?

If major labels want to revive their fiscal bottom lines, perhaps they could invest in developing talent, instead of suing us into buying music. Perhaps the answer to selling music lies inside of the music itself (this might explain why artists like Jimi Hendrix and Pink Floyd never stop connecting with younger generations).

How does this give the RIAA a way to use pre-texting to go after file sharers… can you explain the process to me?

Here’s the reply:

This part is US Code Title 17 sentence two:

“For purposes of this chapter … any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a)”

And here’s the proposed amendment: “except that the court in its discretion may determine that such parts are separate works if the court concludes that they are distinct works having independent economic value.”

This ambiguously termed and open ended amendment is not accidentally constructed. It allows sterilization of any argument against the proposition, because any use is speculative, and cannot be proved.? The only place this exception will show itself is in a courtroom, where the RIAA and MPAA are lobbying for stronger tactics in chasing file sharers.

If musical works and movies get deemed patents, intellectual property, or trade secrets instead of being covered under Copyright Law, then the RIAA and MPAA will push for the strongest possible protection of their intellectual property.? In an environment like this, they will be using any tactics (including pretexting) to pursue anyone who shares media.? Courts are becoming more concerned about invasion of privacy inside of copyrights.? They don’t have those concerns around giving Microsoft the right to protect source code, or Coca Cola’s formula.

My interpretation is that if a court finds a distinct (singular) musical work to have “independent economic value”, then the work is not necessarily covered by Copyright Law.? Major media companies would have a loophole to argue in court that the albums they own are not applicable to the particular rights of US Copyright Law.? They would then be able to argue for the legal protections that exist for other types of intellectual property.

Between positioning themselves as black box royalty collection for internet media and dismantling our right to share music, these major media companies are trying to to transform entertainment and art into a product.? As their catalogs of media are viewed as products instead of self expression, the right to pursue theft of their property grows.? It’s the same downward trend we see in freedom of speech.

The moral high ground stands with the public in a conversation about copyrights.? Once the conversation shifts into a more patent based or product based context, the legal arguments on how far companies can go to protect themselves shifts.? Altering the context of music and movies changes their legal existence.

Thanks for tuning in!