Tag Archive for 'Wired Magazine'

RIAA Wins A Victory In Court

Published on October 6, 2007 in Blog. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

Syndicated from: RandyGarcia.com

Jury_2

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

Free the Internet Airwaves!

Published on May 3, 2007 in Blog. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Spotted: Everywhere

You probably already know that the US Copyright Royalty Board is finalizing royalty rates for internet radio for the period 2006-2010. The premise seems noble: Raise royalty rates on the internet, so artists can make more money. The practical result of this royalty hike is most small internet radio broadcasters will be pushed to bankruptcy, leaving only the largest (and mostly consolidated) broadcasters left. Before we take a look at how this has gone down, here’s my take on this:

This is not about royalty money. Money is one of the most powerful tools of distraction in our society. The issue here is who will have the power to broadcast on the internet. Deregulation of media ownership is moving online, and by limiting who will have the legal right to broadcast music, the RIAA is attempting to control our tastes, and therefore protect their flopping sales.

According to the Copyright Royalty Board’s Final Determination – Docket No. 2005-1 CRB DTRA, Page 71, “SoundExchange was…an unincorporated division of the Recording Industry Association of America.” SoundExchange’s argument during these proceedings: “it would be inefficient for the Copyright Royalty Judges to select more than one agent to receive and distribute royalties.” “Only one party in this proceeding, SoundExchange, proposes that Noncommercial Webcasters should be subject to a rate structure incorporating a revenue-based metric… SoundExchange specifically proposes that Noncommercial Webcasters pay according to the same structure and rates applicable to Commercial Webcasters.”

SoundExchange has a summary of this ruling on their site. On page 4, it states, “Upon review of the evidence…the CRJs concluded that ‘selection of a single Collective represents the most economically and administratively efficient system for collecting royalties…’ The CRJs also found ‘no credible evidence that demonstrates that copyright owners and performers suffer increased costs from a system with a single Collective.’” (Check out this summary to see all the great reasons for establishing a monopoly).

In the songwriting realm, we have freedom of choice with Collection Societies, mainly ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. This competition allows artists to have leverage in how they are treated, and the rates they pay. So why would the CRB rule in favor of a single royalty collection entity for internet broadcasting? And why choose an entity that started as an extension of the RIAA?

Back in 2004, The Register reported that thousands of artists unclaimed royalties would be kept by the RIAA unless claimed by the end of the year. Here’s a couple of articles from Techdirt, Slashdot, and Daily Kos from late April ’07 dissecting the CRB ruling. it turns out that SoundExchange is actually the recipient of all internet royalty payments, whether RIAA members or not.

Here’s a quote from the SoundExchange Site:
“What about webcasting? The recent U.S. Copyright Office ruling regarding webcasting designated SoundExchange to collect and distribute to all nonmembers as well as its members. The Librarian of Congress issued his decision with rates and terms to govern the compulsory license for webcasters (Internet-only radio) and simulcastors (retransmissions).”

Let’s take the Polyvibe team as our example. We are not affiliated with the RIAA in any way. Our first priority is having the music heard, royalties or not. We are required to register with SoundExchange and pay their fees to get our royalties. We haven’t made their unpaid label list yet.

If they know who they are collecting money for, and they have a meticulously cataloged list of unpaid labels and artists, isn’t it easy to send out a form letter? Here’s a recent post from Wired’s blog, “SoundExchange Distributed Only 60% of Collected Royalties in Q1 2006” (SoundExchange is only required to keep records for three years, ain’t that a kicker).

The most recent ruling by the CRB is in the Federal Register on May 1 (The ruling was March 2). Our last hope is HR 2060, which will overrule the CRB ruling. The bill is sponsored by Don Manzullo and Jay Inslee.

Free the Airwaves!
Save Net Radio!

RIAA/MPAA – Holes

Published on April 7, 2007 in Article and Blog. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Spotted on: Passably News:

Have you ever heard of Pretexting? It’s a manipulation technique often used to fool organizations into disclosing private information. In December of 2006, a California Law was proposed: “…any person…obtaining or attempting to obtain…personal information about a customer or employee contained in the records of a business …by making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations…”. Although the bill was unanimously endorsed by members of the CA Senate, the MPAA stepped in and had the bill killed (see Wired Magazine, “MPAA Kills Anti-Pretexting Bill”, 12/1/06). To put it simply, the MPAA and RIAA demand the right to lie to us in the name of Copyright Protection.

It seems the RIAA and MPAA are willing to allow privacy laws to deteriorate for all of us to protect their profit margins. The question on my mind is: Why should the MPAA and RIAA get special freedoms to prosecute people for file sharing?

Back in 2003, the MPAA and RIAA filed for a permanent Antitrust exemption. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch. It contains a revision to The Copyright Laws of the US in Title 17 of the US Code. Here’s the revised copyright law of the US according this (thankfully non-passed) bill by Sen. Hatch (the revision is underlined):

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

These are the tactics of the MPAA and RIAA are using to transform entertainment. Creating exceptions to copyright laws and the having legal permissions to lie, cheat, and sue us into buying media for the prices they set, and in the forms they dictate.

21st century entertainment is not based on mafia style coercion by transnational media conglomerates. An outdated business model cannot survive by excusing themselves form laws the rest of us have to follow. Corporations are legally recognized as people. People cannot have laws rewritten for their personal benefit.

Polyvibe Records‘ response is our forward thinking business model. We do not take our artists’ copyrights. Our prices are set by the perceived value of our audience. Our digital albums are 100% MP3. And best of all, we make sure our artists’ are taken care of financially and personally. Taking copyrights from artists, then prosecuting others for sharing them is in the past. The future is ours.

Twitter!