Posted 11/19/08 at 04:09:55 PM by Andy Salisbury

Just last week the RIAA commemorated the signing of an absurd new law in Tennessee that states:
"Each public and private institution of higher education in the state that has student residential computer networks shall:
[...]
[R]easonably attempt to prevent the infringement of copyrighted works over the institution's computer and network resources, if such institution receives fifty (50) or more legally valid notices of infringement as prescribed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 within the preceding year."
In short, if you’re going to school in Tennessee you’re boned. Since the entertainment industry was unable to get a solid framework for universities in the Higher Education Act passed by Congress just earlier this year, the RIAA has decided to attack universities by using infringement notices.
What’s worse is that the law will cost the fine folks of Tennessee a whopping $9.5 million in new software, hardware and personnel, with an annual cost of $1.5 million for the personnel and maintenance. None of this money will go towards artists or record labels represented by the RIAA.
Posted 10/17/08 at 03:05:06 PM by Alex Castle

Everyone’s favorite trade group, the RIAA, is up to more of its usual, mustache-twirling antics as it appeals the decision to declare a mistrial in its case against Jammie Thomas. For the uninformed, the 30-year-old Thomas is being sued for $220,000 by the RIAA for file sharing. As the first person to take the music industry to court, rather than settle, her case will set a very significant precedent and could have a strong impact on the future of file sharing and the internet.
The suit was originally decided in the RIAA’s favor in October, however Judge Michael Davis threw out the ruling and declared a mistrial, declaring that “he originally misguided the jury by indicating that simply the act of making a copyrighted song available for sharing amounts to infringement,” CNET reports.
The RIAA is appealing the decision, hoping the original ruling will stick and they won’t have to conduct a whole new trial.
Posted 09/24/08 at 06:15:37 PM by Andy Salisbury

The online music industry has always been a touchy one, but today the world came a step closer to ending online royalty disputes. An agreement that’s being called a “breakthrough that will facilitate new ways to offer music to consumers online,” songwriters, music publishers, record labels and digital music websites have concluded a seven year dispute over mechanical royalties and limited music downloads.
Mechanical royalties are the fees paid to songwriters, composers and publishers of music, not the person that only preformed it or the record company that produced the recording. Limited music downloads are downloads with restrictions attached, such as the model used by Napster To Go. iTunes, however isn’t considered limited use because you can listen to your songs as often as you want, without a monthly fee.
As landmark as this settlement is, it still leaves a big hole on the controversial topic of Internet radio. Sites such as Pandora and Live365 remain in a high-stakes standoff with SoundExchange, the company in charge of collecting the fees for artists and record companies. The reason that sites such as these were left out from the normal Internet radio agreement is because they allow users to select the music that they want to listen to, as opposed to simply listening to a pre-determined stream of songs.
Posted 08/30/08 at 06:23:25 PM by Justin Kerr
In a shocking turn of events in the Atlantic v. Howell case, the RIAA has scored a major victory and set a stern precedent against those accused of P2P copyright violations. Jeffrey Howell now finds himself on the hook for damages as a result of evidence proving that he wiped his hard drive after learning of the impending legal action against him. RIAA examiners were able to demonstrate that not only did Howell delete his shared folder, but he then formatted his drive and used a file-wiping program to destroy every last trace of the evidence .Evidence, which according to the RIAA, could have backed up his claims that he was innocent. According to the judge “Howell’s brazen destruction of evidence has wholly undermined the integrity of these judicial proceedings. The evidence that Howell destroyed could have been used to determine the origin of the music files, their locations on the hard drive, the settings and integrity of the KaZaA software, and many other relevant facts.” The guilty ruling comes in sharp contrast to the victory Howell scored this past April when a judge rejected the RIAA’s cornerstone legal theory that simply sharing a file on a P2P network was an act of copyright infringement. The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has suggested that Howell may have fared better had he been able to secure legal counsel which Howell claims was priced out of reach. The damages at this point are still unknown but one would imagine the RIAA isn’t going to get rich off a man who can’t even afford to hire a lawyer.
So is another victory for the RIAA enough to send the pirates running for iTunes? Hit the jump and let us know.

Posted 07/29/08 at 08:50:03 AM by Chris Moody
You have to love the spin doctors. No not the band, the group of people that are try to put a certain angle on a viewpoint. Specifically the MPAA’s latest claim that The Dark Knight had such a smash opening weekend was because of their efforts against piracy. It couldn’t possibly be because the movie was actually good, could it?
TechDirt.com points out that the MPAA would have us ignore the awesome reviews, that the movie was available in IMAX (which you can't replicate at home), or that the movie was available online right after it was released in their claims.
In the LA Times article that spawned this debate, the MPAA’s argument cites the original Hulk movie. They argue that a rough, early version of the movie by Ang Lee made its way to the internet about two weeks before the film's scheduled premiere which provoked negative reactions from the comic-book’s devoted fans.
Make the jump to see what else the article had to say.

Posted 07/09/08 at 06:57:38 PM by Pulkit Chandna
(Ed Note:We're currently investigating the RIAA's alleged involvement with the audio problems users are facing on Dell laptops. An official Dell representative has stated that the omission of the Stereo Mix option is most likely an issue with Windows XP, and a driver has been released to fix the problem. We've contacted the RIAA and are awaiting their response. We'll follow up with this story when we have more information.)
Details of Dell’s surreptitious collusion with RIAA (Record Industry Association of America) have emerged. Apparently, the computer manufacturer disabled the Stereo Mix/Mono Mix/Wave Out sound recording function in certain computers to assuage the RIAA. The hardware functionality is being disabled without any prior notice and one blogger even alleges that he was asked by Dell’s customer support staff to shell out $99 if he desired the stereo mix option.
Gateway and Pac Bell are the other two manufacturers to have bowed to the RIAA at the expense of their customers’ satisfaction and disabled the stereo mix feature without warning.
The trade group, which comprises leading record labels, has a very controversial past. Although RIAA doesn’t favor home audio recording and file sharing in an effort to prevent piracy, this same, ostensibly prudish organization was all for depriving several musicians of their own musical works by supporting a controversial “work made for hire” clause in 1999 legislation, which unfairly transferred copyrights of musical works to record labels.
Posted 06/30/08 at 02:13:24 PM by Chris Moody
Ars Technica points out that the RIAA’s wish list for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been posted online. This is handy because the ACTA has been drafted in secret, and we aren’t allowed to see the work being done on it, but this gives us a good idea about what is going into it.
There are some pretty broad ideas being floated in there, and like floaters, they really need to be flushed. Items like mandatory ISP filtering or ISPs being required to restrict or terminate access for repeat offenders. Liability for “deeplinks” is also mentioned, which should make the search engines very happy too. The RIAA also has a wish for establishing liability against internet service providers who don’t remove or block content quickly enough. ars technica points our that “the RIAA's points, taken in together, seem aimed at gutting the best part of the DMCA” (if there was such a thing) which gave ISPs immunity from materials passing through their networks.
Online activities aren’t the RIAA’s only target. CDs are in its sights too, with the RIAA suggesting that countries "with high rates of production of pirated optical discs", “provide for a system of licensing”, and "maintain complete and accurate records". Imagine codes stamped onto CDs to allow for their tracking.
There is little doubt that right holders are entitled to profit from their work, but it is very concerning that the RIAA seems to have the policy maker’s ear, but that others are not going to be be heard. This is going to result in some very RIAA slanted rules with little rights left for consumers.
Posted 06/26/08 at 05:08:51 PM by Paul Lilly
Score one for the little guy, or more specifically, score $108K for Tanya Anderson. That's how much a federal judge is awarding Anderson, who successfully defended herself against allegations of copyright infringement, prompting the RIAA to drop its suit against her. Though few would scoff at a six figure verdict, Anderson doesn't appear to be finished dipping into the RIAA's pockets.
To find out how much is Anderson seeking, and if the tables are finally turning, click through the jump.
6 NEW COMMENT(S) | 6 TOTAL COMMENTS
4 NEW COMMENT(S) | 4 TOTAL COMMENTS





