...after proposing "no more disproportionate litigation (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/153079/harvard_professor_challenges_riaa.html), instead let's just go for 'net service termination" solution to privacy problem
http://www.pcworld.com/article/155820/riaas_new_piracy_plan_poses_a_new_set_of_problems.html
Quote
A report released this past September by the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that music sharing is "more popular than ever, despite the widespread public awareness of lawsuits." Furthermore, the report points out, "the lawsuit campaign has not resulted in any royalties to artists."
"This means more music fans are going to be harassed by the music industry," says Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The problem is the lack of due process for those accused," von Lohmann continues. "In a world where hundreds of thousands, or millions, of copyright infringement allegations are automatically generated and delivered to ISPs, mistakes are going to be made. ... Anyone who has ever had to fight to correct an error on their credit reports will be able to imagine the trouble we're in for."
In essence, the music industry is trading one questionable practice for another. Striking a deal to deem itself the judge and your ISP the regulator ... When almost every voice in earshot is crying out against the way you operate, you have to start wondering if maybe -- just maybe -- you're going about things the wrong way. The world is crying out, RIAA. It's time to start listening.
Hey ISPs, stop co-operating with illegitimate power-hungry powerless organizations that are stuck in the 1970s! And then maybe the RIAA will finally wake up -- 80% of people surveyed are okay with paying a flat rate for, essentially, the original "Napster". Might be a statistic to be paid attention to...
http://www.reuters.com/article/musicNews/idUSTRE55K07E20090621
Quote
A Minneapolis jury awarded the four major labels $1.92 million in damages after unanimously finding that a 32-year-old mother had willfully infringed on their copyrights by downloading and sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa peer-to-peer network.
No one expects that the labels will collect the entire amount from Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old Brainerd, Minn., mother of four who testified during the retrial that her ex-boyfriend or sons, then 8 and 10, were most likely responsible for downloading and distributing the songs. Thomas-Rasset lost her previous trial in 2007 and was ordered to pay $222,000, only to achieve a now-pyrrhic victory when the court tossed the verdict because of a faulty jury instruction.
Even for law-abiding citizens who believe that labels have every right to protect their copyrights, a verdict of almost $2 million could be hard to swallow. Indeed, the Recording Industry Assn. of America said it was willing to reach a settlement with Thomas-Rasset, as it had been all along.
The Copyright Act provides for awards of statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work, in the case of willful infringement. A number of copyright scholars on the "copyleft," led by Harvard Law School's Charles Nesson, have argued that such damages awards for personal use of file-sharing networks are excessive. Though no court has yet adopted that theory, the Thomas-Rasset verdict provides a very human face to the argument, which she will likely pursue on appeal if the case isn't settled.
While the recording industry claims strong support in Congress, with powerful champions including House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and his Senate counterpart Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Minneapolis verdict could well lead to a legislative move to reduce the damages awards available against individual infringers like Thomas-Rasset.
Thomas-Rasset's attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was "very surprised" by the size of the verdict and signaled a willingness to talk about a possible settlement with the labels. But Camara also listed a number of potential issues to appeal should the parties be unable to resolve the case, including a challenge to the labels' ownership of the copyrights at issue based on the argument that they were improperly classified as "works made for hire" in contravention of the Copyright Act of 1976.
probable future news headline: "32 year old mother leaves boyfriend, disowns sons"
In response to this asshattian court case, one Hazard-risking singer who was quite Satisfied with a lot of popularity At The Beginning of the 80s and 90s is apparently not going to Take This to Heart and instead is Right There wailing against the stupid RIAA...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/richard-marx-attacks-riaa-after-19m-thomas-verdict.ars
PS: wow, great comment (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/richard-marx-attacks-riaa-after-19m-thomas-verdict.ars?comments=2&comment_id=440002020041) by "Taju" (after a lengthy debate about what exactly is "distribution", etc.)
Quote
Here's a good way to piss off the RIAA and show them that the public has a way to cause substantial backlash for stunningly inappropriate verdicts such as this-- I have a few of the tracks named in this case. I own them legally in either MP3 format, or on CD. What if I were to put a bunch of these tracks on one "back-up" CD and just forget it in a public place, say a coffee shop, for someone else to eventually pick up and take possession of? Would that be illegal? Now, what if hundreds of us did the same thing - create one CD and lose it? If we own the music, and can put them on CD if we wish, but then lose the CD, and someone else finds (and keeps it) have we broken any laws? I don't think so. But imagine the domino effect... I think a clear message would be sent eventually.
@%&#. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/pirate-bay-sold-going-legit-music-biz-cautiously-optimistic.ars)
(note: and I don't even use bitTorrent... just to me this is a blow against dissent :P )
Piracy is a battle the MAFIAA can't win through litigation, but I guess if they didn't try they wouldn't exist eh?