Despite the success in the Kazzaa case earlier this week for the RIAA it seems they have actually suffered a massive set back in their quest to stifle the internet’s illegal download community.

 

In the recent case in California of Virgin vs. Marson, where Mrs. Marson had a claim being made against her on the basis that she owned the computer and paid for the internet through which the illegal file sharing was taking place, the RIAA has decided to discontinue the case. The assumption being made is that the use of an IP address as evidence against file sharers is not enough to prove that the person being charged committed copyright infringement.

 

Others, as in this report, are now suggesting that the best way to defend yourself against the RIAA is to open up your WiFi network to your neighbours. Essentially, the more people who are using the internet through a shared IP address the weaker the evidence the RIAA can summon against you.

 

For the RIAA this situation couldn’t really get much worse. Despite the pyrrhic victory of having Kazzaa legitimised earlier in the week Ray Beckerman, leading RIAA attorney, made this comment regarding the recent landmark case:

 

"Faced with evidence that numerous other people had access to the Internet connection and/or the computer and that any of those people could have engaged in the allegedly infringing conduct."

 

The RIAA and MPAA now appear desperate in their quest to prevent illegal downloading. The inquirer is even reporting that they are starting to slip subliminal messages about the ‘badness’ of internet piracy into modern films – Charlie Demerjian described the effort in the Hollywood blockbuster as thus:

 

“Now, they are slipping the message in through 'blowoff' lines, trying to infect modern culture. There was a scene in Miami Vice where they were discussing the big bad drug dealers, and how international they were. The good guys listed all the thing the bad guys were capable of bringing into the US, Cocaine, Heroin, etc, etc. They listed it as coke from Colombia, heroin from Afganistan, X from Y and A from B. Pretty normal stuff. At the end, they added 'pirated software from China'. Blink.�

 

So what next for the RIAA? Is the case as monumental as it is being made out to be, or will the RIAA lawyers find some way round it? Let us know your views in the forum.

Source

Juanky your a really good poster but I cant for the life of me understand your crusade in favor of ILLEGAL downloading.

 

 

What would society be like if everyone worked for FREE?

 

That is essentially what you are asking of the every musician who makes anywhere from $1 to $1,000,000.00 every year.

 

 

 

Its mind boggling.

when a major artist signs a $15 million dollar contract to produce a cd... they're still getting their money. the cd's still going to sell. but i'll be damned if i'm going to support a major record corporation.

when a major artist signs a $15 million dollar contract to produce a cd... they're still getting their money. the cd's still going to sell. but i'll be damned if i'm going to support a major record corporation.

 

 

 

 

That argument doesnt work because not every recording artist signs a deal for $15 million.

 

In fact very few get that type of lucrative deal.

 

 

 

What about the guy who's signs a standard licensing agreement on a compilation CD and gets 18% pro-rated?

Juanky your a really good poster but I cant for the life of me understand your crusade in favor of ILLEGAL downloading.

 

 

What would society be like if everyone worked for FREE?

 

That is essentially what you are asking of the every musician who makes anywhere from $1 to $1,000,000.00 every year.

 

 

 

Its mind boggling.

The fact of the matter is artists make more money of tours and t shirt sales then they do off album sales.

 

Proof of that is underground artists such as DJ's in the electronica biz make jack sh*t off of vinyl and cd sales and make most of there money off touring. I know its hard to compare underground artists with people like Jay-Z but you get my drift.

 

The other problem is most mainstream artists fill there albums with 75% filler these days. Of course people are going to download the tracks they find good, thus the success of itunes and other digital download services.

Juanky your a really good poster but I cant for the life of me understand your crusade in favor of ILLEGAL downloading.

 

 

What would society be like if everyone worked for FREE?

 

That is essentially what you are asking of the every musician who makes anywhere from $1 to $1,000,000.00 every year.

 

 

 

Its mind boggling.

The fact of the matter is artists make more money of tours and t shirt sales then they do off album sales.

 

Proof of that is underground artists such as DJ's in the electronica biz make jack sh*t off of vinyl and cd sales and make most of there money off touring. I know its hard to compare underground artists with people like Jay-Z but you get my drift.

 

The other problem is most mainstream artists fill there albums with 75% filler these days. Of course people are going to download the tracks they find good, thus the success of itunes and other digital download services.

 

 

 

 

 

JDig you make a good point in terms of the touring and merchandise. This is correct.

 

 

But what about the bedroom electronic artist who spends hours on his Mac/Logic working on a track. He doesnt tour due to booking issues/financial backing. Doesnt he have the right to have the track PURCHASED on Itunes (etc) as oppossed to it being handed about like free Tic Tacs?

 

 

 

 

On a side note, let me dispell the myth of "album filler". Artists dont just decide to put "filler" on a CD. Writing hits is a lot of trial and error . Its very time consuming (ever notice that the great bands usually take about 4 years in between CD's?).

 

So essentially not all songs that are written are very good or even just good. Typically a year of writing will yield about 2-3 really good tracks. All the other songs are included because they exist and diehard fans will often listen to any new material the band releases.

 

Very rarely does a release have several standout tracks (Joshua Tree, Hot Fuss, Thriller to name a few) and often times these are debut releases from artists that are several years in the making.

 

 

Whats my point you ask? "CD filler" is almost always unavoidable because its just to painstaking to have a full length CD with 12 killer tracks on it.

 

 

 

Thats the great thing about purchasing sites such as ITunes. You dont have to buy the mediocre tracks. You can just purchase the ones you like! :thumbup

 

But thats not good enough for some people unfortunately. Free is the only option that is acceptable.

 

 

:plain

Juanky your a really good poster but I cant for the life of me understand your crusade in favor of ILLEGAL downloading.

I'm just the messenger.

 

The RIAA is the one fighting the losing battle.

Those you talk about TheDon are not under the influence of the RIAA from all that I know.

 

 

Those artists under the big labels and thus under the tentaciles of the RIAA see pennies on the dollar from album sales unless they are a big artist. The big money is in touring and merchandise.

 

 

For a lot of artists, music sharing is actually a beneficial thing, if we are assuming the big money is in touring and merchandise.

 

 

As far as the garage bands...it is what it is...you cant have everything all the time....Most garage bands though have some type of shows still, hell I dont know if any bands that simply record and dont do anything else.