Fudgiepoos

RIAA spends thousands to obtain $300

They were aiming for $529,500. Tihi.

Recording Industry vs The People

Earlier, RIAA has used their own experts to find incriminating evidence on hard-drives.

Debbie Foster to RIAA : Dude, where’s my legal fees? - The Digital Music Weblog

> Debbie Foster, the woman in Oklahoma sued by the RIAA who asked for and won a motion for summary judgment, has finally filed her motion asking the court to force the RIAA to reimburse her attorney’s fees.

> The filing is pretty harshly worded and calls into question the RIAA’s motives on rather serious grounds. Citing “Improper motivation” and “other bad faith conduct”, the motion asks the court to rule that the RIAA was predatory in its execution of the case against Ms. Foster. The filing stops slightly short of accusing the RIAA of extortion, and in doing so is about as close to “yo momma… ” snaps as you can get in a legal document.

Maybe ignoring her will make her stop? I’m hoping some judge will give the RIAA a big smack for behaving like they do.

Woman forces US record industry to drop file-sharing case | The Register

> A group of US record labels agreed to drop a music piracy case in the US after the alleged file-sharer argued that it could not be proved that she downloaded any illegal music. The case may set a precedent that undermines scores of other music piracy cases.

> Tammie Marson of Palm Desert, California refused to pay the initial $3,500 demanded by a group of record labels and opted to fight the case in court. Marson and her lawyer Seyamack Kouretchian of Coast Law Group argued that the fact that Marson’s computer contained illegal music files downloaded over her internet connection was not proof that she had committed a crime.

Hopefully, this will spread and the RIAA will either have to come up with some real evidence, or stop trowing around lawsuits.

BBC NEWS | Technology | Kazaa site becomes legal service

> File-sharing site Kazaa will become a legal music download service following a series of high profile legal battles.

> The peer-to-peer network has also agreed to pay $100m (�£53m) in damages to the record industry.

I remember trying Kazaa aaaages ago, and found it to be a hugely bloated and horrible piece of software which bundled loads of spyware. I think they’ll have to do a massive PR campaign to change the view people have of them, if they’re going to go legit and actually make money.

Slyck News - RIAA�s Grand Total: 10,037 - What are Your Odds?

> The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) began their lawsuit campaign against alleged music pirates in June of 2003. When the first RIAA lawsuits began rolling off the assembly line, an enormous media frenzy accompanied this event. Since that time the lawsuits have become second-rate news, as the chances of becoming another RIAA statistic is relatively low � very low.

The article plays a bit with estimated number of users versus the amount of people sued by the RIAA. If you stay away from the FastTrack network, you have a better chance of dying due to traffic than being sued by the RIAA. If you do use the FastTrack network, you have a better chance of dying from any external cause than being sued by the RIAA.

Scandinavia pressures Apple’s iTunes - Yahoo! News

> STOCKHOLM (AFP) - Denmark, Norway and Sweden plan to force Apple Computers Inc to break the exclusive link between its iPod music players and online iTunes store.

> The three Scandinavian countries have decided to take iTunes to their respective government mediators, or ombudsmen.

> At present, the only portable players able to play files downloaded form iTunes are Apple’s own iPods.

> “iTunes’ terms and conditions are illegal in all three countries,” Swedish Consumer Agency spokeswoman Marianne Aabyhammar told AFP Friday.

France tried doing the same thing and failed, so we’ll see how this pans out. Apple has quite a few lawyers, and I’m sure they’ve checked that what they’re doing in each country iTunes is available is legal.

broadband Ã�» News Ã�» RIAA Targets YouTube - Best not hum that ABBA song on video…

> The RIAA & MPAA are taking a strong interest in YouTube videos of copyrighted content the past few months, judging from activity in our forums. Users are increasingly receiving the same DMCA takedown request letters frequently dished out to ISPs, who forward them on to p2p users on their networks. Project Opus claims the warnings are even being applied to videos of amateur dancers who are getting their groove on to copyrighted music.

As filesharing is “contained”, no wonder they’re looking for other targets. Remember not to post any videos containing copyrighted music.

USATODAY.com - RIAA chief says illegal song-sharing ‘contained’

> LOS ANGELES ââ�¬â�� Nearly a year after the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling against online music file-sharing services, the CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America says unauthorized song swapping has been “contained.”

> “The problem has not been eliminated,” says association CEO Mitch Bainwol. “But we believe digital downloads have emerged into a growing, thriving business, and file-trading is flat.”

Calling the problem of file-sharing contained is a bit naive. Just about all music released is available for those who go looking for it on the internet. Maybe more and more people don’t bother searching, and just shop what they want from iTunes? If so, it’s a development that’s good if the labels give the artists a bigger share of the profit from online distribution of music. I would like to see the artists get behind online distribution full force, and really show the big lables and the RIAA that online distribution of music is the way to go, not just some fun experiment.

I am extremely grateful for your support, no matter which format you choose to legally obtain my music in, so you should do whatever makes the most sense for you personally. But since you ASKED� I actually do get significantly more money from CD sales, as opposed to downloads. This is the one thing about my renegotiated record contract that never made much sense to me. It costs the label NOTHING for somebody to download an album (no manufacturing costs, shipping, or really any overhead of any kind) and yet the artist (me) winds up making less from it. Go figure.

“Weird Al” Yankovic: Ask Al

I find this pretty strange too, as the label has no costs at all after making the initial mp3/aac/wma versions. Maybe it’s because the labels are greedy buggers? Naaaah, can’t be.

technorati tags:music, mp3