Posts Tagged ‘riaa news’

RIAA-style copyright extortion at UGA

// February 8th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view Crime | RIAA:- RIAA-style extortion has reached a university in Georgia, USA. The Recording Industry Association of America, owned by Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, but controlled by a Canadian), operates along Mafia lines. Its enforcers routinely demand payments from alleged at copyright infringers, threatening them with dire consequences unless they come through with ’settlements’ usually starting at around $3,000. In Britain, this type of scam is now big business ,  one of its practitioners, ACS:Law, even having caught the attention of the House of Lords. Now, “A security analyst at the University of Georgia is charged with extortion after he allegedly tried to shakedown a student who illegally downloaded music using the UGA computer network,” says WSB News , going on > > > 37-year-old Dorin Lucian Dehelean of Atlanta is accused of contacting the student last month to notify her she’d been caught downloading copyrighted material.  UGA Police Chief Jimmy Williamson told the Athens Banner-Herald he offered to “make the situation go away in exchange for money.”  The student notified her academic advisor, who then called campus police. Dehelean was arrested after a plainclothes officer, pretending to be the student, gave the suspect an undisclosed amount of money.  If convicted, the former employee of UGA’s Enterprise Information Technology Services could go to prison for up to ten years. Dehelean’s job at the university “required him to check the weekly report from the Recording Industry Association of America that showed UGA which IP addresses on the campus network were used for illegal downloads of music, movies and other copyrighted material”, adds the story. UGA police believe “other members of the university community may have fallen victim under similar circumstances,” says the Oconee  Enterprise . “They have requested contact from any individuals who may have received similar offers or have been involved in actual transactions involving Dehelean or others”, it says. ” The University of Georgia Police Department said that victims could be assured that they were not in danger of prosecution.” Will RIAA boss Mitch Bainwol (right) be indicted on similar charges? Stay tuned. - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi big business – ACS:Law-type scams ‘big business’, January 28, 2009 WSB News – Student Shakedown at UGA, February 3, 2010 Oconee  Enterprise – UGA police arrest Watkinsville man, February 5, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

RIAA demands 3rd trial for Jammie

// January 29th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view P2P | RIAA:- The RIAA is reportedly now demanding a third trial for Jammie Thomas-Rasset. The Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music extortion unit “made the decision after attorneys for Jammie Thomas-Rasset rejected an offer from RIAA attorneys to settle,” says NewsChannel 8 . “Having seen their award against Jammie Rasset-Thomas slashed from a staggering $1.92 million dollars to $54,000 , the RIAA now wants to settle for half even that amount,” said p2pnet on Wednesday, continuing > > > But Jammie is having none of it. “They want me to take a settlement of $25,000 without me knowing what I’m agreeing to,” she told p2pnet. “The offer has been made without any kind of explanation what the settlement would involve. “But I’m still not caving in. If they want to settle, they can do it on my terms.” Michael Davis, the judge who’s presided since the first trial, reduced the amount from $1.92 million to $54,000, giving the RIAA until February 8 to accept or reject the new amount. But, says NewsChannel 8, in the face of Jammie’s refusal to accept  a final settlement offer of $25,000, they now want to put her through a third trial. But she won’t “agree to pay any amount of money to them”, Joe Sibley, one of Jammie’s pro bono lawyers, is quoted as saying. Confirming what Jammie told p2pnet on Wednesday, “For her, it’s all the same”, Sibley has her declaring. “She just doesn’t have the money to pay any of those, and it would be financially ruinous,” Sibley said. He said his client will “continue fighting on principle, saying the statutes that allow for such hefty damages in these types of cases are wrong,” says the story, adding: “Once damages are finalized, he said, he intends to take the constitutionality of the damages to the appellate level.” - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi p2pnet – ‘We’ll settle for $25,000′ RIAA tells Jammie, January 27, 2010 $1.92 million dollars to $54,000 – Jammie Thomas-Rasset award reduced …, January 22, 2010 NewsChannel 8 – Minnesota song-sharing case heads for 3rd trial, January 28, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

RIAA wants more time with Jammie and Joel

// January 29th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view P2P | RIAA:- There seems to be a bit of confusion in RIAA-land these days, says Recording Industry vs The People ’s Ray Beckerman. There is ? Now, what could have caused it? Well, despite having aimed thousands of sue ‘em all notices at innocent American families the length and breadth of the country, only  two cases have actually born fruit. And they’ve both become huge embarrassments for the Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music extortion unit. One centres on Jammie Thomas-Rasset, initially ordered to pay almost two million dollars to cover 24 digital music files she was alleged to have downloaded. However, Michael Davis, the judge who’d heard the case from the beginning, ultimately drastically reduced that amount to $54,000. The labels themselves and then cut it back even further, asking for $25,000. However, Jammie is standing on her principles, refusing to pay . And in the other case Boston student Joel Tenenbaum, told to find $675,000 for supposedly sharing 30 songs online, is asking for a new trial . Now, “In both cases, the RIAA has recently asked for extensions of time,” says Beckerman, going on: “In Thomas-Rasset they’ve asked for more time to make up their mind as to whether to accept the reduced verdict of $54,000 the judge has offered them, and in Tenenbaum they’ve twice asked for more time to prepare their papers opposing Tenenbaum’s motion for ‘remittitur’.” Once, it was easy for the RIAA. All they had to do was to get someone like the RIAA’s most (in)famous spokesman Cary ‘Sue’ Sherman to allege some innocent person — usually a mother with absolutely no ability to pay for an adequate legal defence –  was a ‘massive illegal distributor’ of copyrighted music, and the mainstream media did the rest, publicly dragging the victim through the mud on behalf of Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music. Not any more, however. SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum second RIAA request for extension of time to answer remittitur motion Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset RIAA request for extension of time in which to make up its mind about accepting or challenging reduced verdict Stay tuned. - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi Recording Industry vs The People – RIAA asks for extensions of time in Tenenbaum & in Thomas-Rasset cases, January 28, 2010 refusing to pay – ‘We’ll settle for $25,000′ RIAA tells Jammie, January 27, 2010 new trial – DoJ opposes Tenenbaum bid for new trial, January 20, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

RIAA: Artist friend or artist foe?

// January 28th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view Music | RIAA:- After Live! Music Review closed, editor Bill Glahn wrote a series of articles for Counterpunch called RIAA Watch. Now, “For purposes of relevance, I’ll defer to one of those articles for this edition of The Best of Live! Music Review,” he says in a bigOzine special. “Many updates follow which should be of interest to any in the p2p community who value fair use and developing artists who value the freedom to establish their audience without industry interference,” he says, going on > > > RIAA Watch [July 1, 2003] No, No Bono When Hilary Rosen announced in January that she would be stepping down as head honcho of the RIAA at the end of the year, the spin was that she wanted to spend more time with her children. Since then she has announced a new career with CNBC in which she will appear on no less than three political talk shows and provide coverage of the 2004 elections. That’s a taxing schedule by any measure. So much for the kids. Ah, but let’s be fair. Rosen’s recent profile has been low key by her normal standards, leaving a bevy of underlings to handle the press’ questions regarding the RIAA’s recent announcements that they intend to alienate music fans on a massive scale. Maybe she is easing into the role of proud papa, at least until she gets her TV gig going. The speculation over Rosen’s replacement at the RIAA got a fresh injection recently when a spokeswoman for Republican Congresswoman Mary Bono told the Associated Press that the CEO job at the RIAA would be the “perfect job” for Bono. No doubt. A couple of years ago the Human Rights Campaign gave Bono a dismal nine percent positive vote rating. Nothing about her voting record has changed since. Rosen’s assessment of Bono? “I think she’s great.” Judging by Rosen’s attempts to stifle culture, not only in the U.S. arena, but throughout the globe, that assessment is not surprising. On another level, however, it is. Part of Mary Bono’s voting record includes a vote against same sex partnerships and a vote against gay adoptions. Rosen’s family incorporates both. Rosen has earned a reputation as a team player, but apparently that doesn’t include the “home” team. Bono has since denied any serious pursuit of the RIAA job. Not that they would hire her anyway. She’s too valuable to them right where she is. She’s already bought. The entertainment industry is her single largest campaign contributor. It’s already paying dividends. Bono has a reputation as being a follower, not a leader. While she frequently votes as a staunch conservative, she rarely initiates legislation. That could be changing. She has recently formed a Congressional caucus on intellectual property rights which, considering her close ties to the industry (her personal income is largely dependent on royalties from late husband Sonny Bono’s compositions and recordings) will probably end up introducing legislation giving the death penalty for unauthorized downloads. Or maybe extending copyrights to 5 millenniums before they enter the public domain. Considering the RIAA’s top priority, Internet “piracy”, a more logical candidate for the job of CEO might be Frank Creighton, the head of the organization’s anti-piracy division and a loyal policeman for that organization since 1985. But Creighton has shown little in the way of political savvy and mainly serves as the organization’s media face (a handsome and accomplished speaker when the cameras are on). My money is on lobbyist Mitch Glazier, who has experience at getting the RIAA’s agenda turned into law under cover of darkness. He comes from the same cesspool that launched Rosen’s career. He’s an accomplished bagman. But for now, the RIAA aren’t giving any clues. [2010 update] Mitch Glazier did, in fact, inherit Hilary Rosen’s seat at the RIAA where he remains to this day and oversaw the disastrous “sue ‘em all” campaign. Mary Bono has headed the Congressional Caucus on Intellectual Property for the last six-plus years and a supporter of far right conservative policies. Hilary Rosen is currently an editor at The Huffington Post and a CNN commentator and a supporter of status quo liberal politics. On issues like intellectual property, they march in lockstep. When the Whip Comes Down With CEO Glazier and RIAA president Cary “Sue” Sherman’s alienation of music fans proving to be something far less than a productive strategy, they came up with another one. If the whip isn’t working, get a bigger whip. In 2007, under lobbying from the RIAA and the MPAA, Mary Bono announced negotiations for a new trade agreement called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). From a Bono press release; “…”I am encouraged by this agreement because it indicates the countries involved in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement acknowledge the importance of strong intellectual property rights protections. “Hopefully the days of turning a blind eye to the criminal interests involved in piracy and counterfeiting are becoming less acceptable. If this agreement is able to strengthen property rights, it will be seen as an important turning point in the global struggle for stronger intellectual property rights protections.” President Bush kept the negotiations secret under the cloak of “national security.” President Obama has chosen to follow Bush’s lead. So now we have the head of the Congressional Caucus on Intellectual Property, a person who refers to the Fair Use Doctrine as “unfair takings,” a person who also benefits economically from extended copyright, steering an international agreement that for all intents and purposes is self-serving. Bono uses the same “protect the creator” strategies as the RIAA in her quest to protect her largest contributors and an important income source. Says Bono, “Everyone who knows me understands that I am a strong supporter of technological innovation, but I believe that the only way an electronic marketplace can continue to sustain growth is if copyrights are protected. After all, the latest and greatest High-Definition television sets and endless amounts of bandwidth are useless if no one is creating content.” This begs a couple of questions. “Were there no creators before copyright existed?” And “How many songs has Mary Bono been induced to write as a result of her IP holdings?” But it’s not only Fair Use that Bono is willing to sacrifice in her quest to protect the money streams for her corporate clients. Next up? Due process. The Whipping Post Despite the secret nature of the ACTA negotiations, there have been leaks. On November 30, 2009, Dr. Michael Geist posted the following on his blog . “The European Commission analysis of ACTA’s Internet chapter has leaked , indicating that the U.S. is seeking to push laws that extend beyond the WIPO [the United Nation’s World Intellectual Property Organization] Internet treaties and beyond current European Union law. “The document contains detailed comments on the U.S. proposal, confirming the U.S. desire to promote a three-strikes and you’re out policy, a Global DMCA [the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act which went a long way in stripping Fair Use Doctrine], harmonized contributory copyright infringement rules, and the establishment of an international notice-and-takedown policy.” Dr. Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. Speaking in this capacity, he goes on… “ACTA would render current Canadian copyright law virtually unrecognizable as the required changes go far beyond our current rules (and even those contemplated in prior reform bills).” Under Big Music pressure the governments of Great Britain and France (so far) have proposed three-strikes legislation… Say good-bye to YouTube as we now know it. Watch out for the disappearing blog. Don’t dare e-mail that song lyric to your sweetie that best exemplifies your affection for her/him. Say hello to mandated snooping by your ISP… It is not only in ACTA negotiations where the MAFIAA, in its various international configurations, is actively pursuing three-strikes legislation – the removal of Internet service to anyone deemed guilty of transporting, uploading, or downloading copyrighted content. Under Big Music pressure the governments of Great Britain and France (so far) have proposed three-strikes legislation. Say good-bye to YouTube as we now know it. Watch out for the disappearing blog. Don’t dare e-mail that song lyric to your sweetie that best exemplifies your affection for her/him. Say hello to mandated snooping by your ISP – the proposed policeman in this draconian scheme. Say good-bye to privacy. Say good-bye to due process. And don’t think for a minute that because you have already been handed down a punishment (loss of Internet service), that you cannot be sued in civil court or criminally charged. Say hello to double jeopardy. Tell It to the Judge on Sunday “How could such a plan pass Constitutional muster?” an American basking in the notion of guaranteed liberties might ask. Well it could if there was a Supreme Court that is stacked with judges pre-disposed to protecting corporate interests rather than individual liberties. The 1985 version of the Supremes clearly stated that copyright infringement is not theft. The 2010 version, however, seems more sided with Mary Bono’s interpretation. And then here’s the Department of Justice. As reported by p2pnet … Thomas Perrelli , nominated as Associate Attorney General on January 5, confirmed March 12. Perrelli’s position is second-in-command in the DoJ, behind Attorney General Eric Holder. He was one of the leading RIAA lawyers on file-sharing DMCA cases. In one case, he argued for the release of ISP customer information without a subpoena. Donald Verrilli , nominated as Associated Deputy Attorney General on Feburary 4. Verrilli’s position is third-in-command in the DoJ, behind Perrelli. He was the chief RIAA attorney in Jammie Thomas case of last year, which was won by the RIAA before being declared a mistrial. Brian Hauck , appointed as Counsel to the AAG in February 4. Hauck’s position is to serve as Perrelli’s lawyer. He represented the RIAA in the historic Supreme Court case MGM Studios v. Grokster in 2005, won by the industry. He also donated a combined US$1,500 to the Obama campaign in 2007 and 2008. Ginger Anders , appointed as Assistant to Solicitor General Elena Kagan in March. The Solicitor General represents the government in Supreme Court cases. Anders was one of the litigators in last year’s Cablevision case, which the content industry intended to block the cable company from allowing it to store customers’ recorded programs on its servers. Ian Gershengorn , appointed Deputy Assistant Attorney of the Civil Division of the DoJ on April 13. Gershengorn’s position entails overseeing the Federal Programs Branch, which recently announced support for $150,000 monetary damages for pirated files during a copyright case. He also represented the RIAA in the MGM Studios v. Grokster case. The Public Knowledge website states “Either Jenner and Block lawyers are looking for something to do in this economic downturn, or the RIAA has a direct pipeline to the Justice Department” when reporting the Gershengorn hiring. The New York Law Journal adds another Jenner and Block name to the mix, Samual Hirsh , “who joined as deputy associate attorney general.” Don’t be looking for the Department of Justice to pursue price-fixing charges against the MAFIAA with any type of vigor. Do look for them to go after file-sharers and ISPs. Joseph Goebbels, Step Forward Any campaign designed to take away human rights needs a clever minister of propaganda. Big Music has apparently found one in a Bono of a different gender. Paul O’Neil’s buddy, in a Jan. 2, 2010 guest editorial column for the New York Times, claims, “A decade’s worth of music file-sharing and swiping has made clear that the people it hurts are the creators.” [U2’s] Bono uses a false premise to criminalize vast segments of the population. And to give the green light for snooping… “it’s perfectly possible to track content.” OK – so it’s possible. But is it moral? Perhaps Bono is looking to keep the music industry as “sexy” as he finds Africa – where intellectual property agreements continue to keep the price of AIDS medicine artificially high and the people dependent on the mercy of Bono and his IP cronies. Apparently, the man who believes Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in the morning has as little grasp on Irish history as he does on American history. From wikipedia’s biography on Turlough Carolan – “the last great Irish harper-composer and is considered by many to be Ireland’s national composer”: “At the age of twenty-one, being given a horse and a guide, he set out to travel Ireland and compose songs for patrons. For almost fifty years, Carolan journeyed from one end of the country to the other, composing and performing his tunes.” Imagine that – a fifty-year career pre-copyright. But Jesus Bono isn’t the only label-affiliated musician looking to preserve copyright privilege. In Great Britain, FAC (Featured Artists Coalition) was formed in March 2009 stating a desire to “give artists a collective voice to campaign for effective laws and regulations, as well as transparent and equitable business practices.” That is label-affiliated artists. In this Billboard magazine article they also stated “concern about any legal body taking action against fans who were involved in file-sharing and preventing them getting broadband access to be informed about the activities of their favorite acts.” Then FAC did a turnaround and overwhelmingly supported measures in Britain’s proposed Digital Economy bill to include three-strikes measures and a 20-year copyright extension. P2p proponents felt betrayed. P2pnet’s Jon Newton summarizes the situation in an open letter to FAC board member Ed O’Brien (of Radiohead). States Newton, “Well, Ed, it’s not only the recording industry that’s dragging its feet. You and your fellow FAC board members are doing the same thing and while you prevaricate, the corporate music industry is driving its wedge ever more deeply between you and the fans you admit you can’t do without. You, (Billy) Bragg, (Blur drummer Dave) Rowntree, (Pink Floyd’s Nick) Mason, and anyone else on the FAC board (Soul II Soul’s Jazzie B, Kate Nash, Marillion’s Mark Kelly and rapper Master Shortie) MUST convince it and other members to revert to the coalition’s original position.” In October 2009, Billy Bragg, a member of FAC’s board of directors, and Newton initiated a2f2a.com, a website intended to connect artists with fans. In his initial posting to artists Bragg stated “My participation in this initiative is based on my understanding of two principles that are central to the beliefs of the p2p community. Firstly, that there is no technological solution to the problems that artists face as a result of the digitisation of music and, secondly, that p2p users are willing to pay for music if they can be sure that the money is going to the artists whose work they enjoy.” In Newton’s initial posting referring to fans: “On a2f2a, they’ll be able to do something that’s never been possible before, on- or offline. They’ll talk directly with artists to cut through the lies and disinformation perpetuated by the corporate music industry.” While encouraging, things didn’t work out as originally envisioned. Bragg stood steadfastly that a 20-year copyright extension (beyond the 50 years past death privilege now granted in British law) was needed. FAC continues to support three-strikes. Bragg has disappeared from the discussion after issuing an “either or” ultimatum. Indiana Gregg, an artist without label affiliation, has been the most active artist participant in recent months. Gregg seems to have shifting and seemingly contradictory alliances. Gregg initiated Kerchoonz in 2008, a social networking site that shares advertising revenue with artists that contribute free downloads. Probably the most beneficial aspect of a2f2a has been the highlighting of new artists who’s careers have been advanced by exploring new business models not dependent on copyright or for-pay downloads. It is these artists that consistently disprove the dire predictions of Mary Bono, the other Bono, the RIAA, the MPAA, and Billy Bragg. Creators will continue to create. Fans will continue to support them. Three-strikes will fail when the results become apparent to those even outside of the artist and fan contingencies. The only question is how much damage will be done to both emerging artists and their fans before that failure is complete. + + + + + Download of the Week Free – compliments of the Drive-by Truckers: This Fucking Job Official release date for their new album, The Big To-Do , is March 16, 2010. [Note: Bill Glahn wrote, edited and published Live! Music Review, a magazine devoted to bootleg recordings when bootlegs were not so common. And they are still not so common today.] (Cheers, Bill) - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi bigOzine – The Best of Live! Music Review: RIAA – Artists Friend or Artist Foe? (Part 2), January 28, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

a2f2a ‘consensus’ straw poll: results

// January 28th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view Music | P2P:- Half-way through the month I asked you for help by completing an extended poll run by David Lessard on a2f2a.com . “If you’re reading this, it’s a pretty sure bet you’re among those who believe musicians should be paid for their work, and fans actively want to help make that happen,” I said, because with the UK as the focal point … … “Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures are at the end of the line, betting everything they have they can regain control of ‘consumers’ through ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.” If it’s ever formulated as law around the world,  “every man, woman and child on the planet will in one stroke lose their freedom of speech to fall under the thrall of companies and politicians who answer only to one small feral group,  corporate shareholders,” I said here . On top of that, musicians will continue to be totally dominated by the corporate music industry, as they’ve been for decades. At the moment, all the running is being made by the cartels and musicians who side with them. But for the first time in history, thanks to the net, the people now have a voice and we want to get them into the discussion. Now it’s time to show the entertainment cartels, and their bought-and-paid-for politicians, we, and not they, are in charge. A consensus statement is vital and data from across the board is needed to create it. Now the results are in and surprisingly, more than half of the people who responded are professional musicians. [JN] __________________________________________ “Thanks to everyone who participated in the poll,” says David, going on > > > We had 176 total responses and 500+ views. Before I present the results, I wanted to discuss the poll itself a little bit to assuage some concerns that commenters had. I’m not a professional survey writer. Before some of the comments, I didn’t even know what a push poll was (it’s a poll meant to change opinion, e.g. “What would you think if unfavored Politician X was really an alien?”). This poll wasn’t meant to sway opinion, just to see where people stand at the moment; it’s a straw poll to get a general assessment for people’s opinions. That being said, many of the statements were deliberately one-sided and opinionated, but that is because almost all of the statements were taken from actual discussion threads on a2f2a.com. They were the opinions (or not) of the respective authors and nothing more. In these discussion threads, most of the opinions and ideas were on one side of issues and were represented more often. They were taken word-for-word from other authors, so word choice in the statements reflected their word choice. Because of the way the poll was set up, a respondent could click to agree with a statement or pass it by. While both sides of an issue were not explicated equitably, passing by a statement and not supporting it can be thought of as representing “the other side.” I’m taking suggestions for the next version of the survey, so if you want a statement represented, feel free to leave it in the comments. Some people commented that they were unfamiliar with some of the terminology used (e.g. ACTA, Three Strikes). Wikipedia and p2pnet are great resources to find out more about these issues. This poll is not statistically valid. I will make no claims as to statistical validity and will make my conclusions very carefully. The results are presented below in two versions. The abridged version has a list of all the questions, the number of positive responses, the total responses for that question, and the positive responses/ total responses for a rough percentage agreement with each statement. The full version has all of the comments and each individual response (randomized order). Fair warning, the full version is somewhat messy and difficult to read. Abridged Full I will be providing some limited comments on interesting results. There’s a lot of data here, so pick it apart in the comments. For those who just want the results and don’t want to wade through the thick of it, here is a list of the questions with percent agreement for each. % agreement was calculated by taking the number of positive respondents and dividing it by the total number of respondents. It gives us an estimate of what proportion of respondents agreed with a statement. My commentary follows below. Question text % agreement Are you a professional musician? 54.3% If yes, is that how you make your living? If not, what else do you do? See full results If you are a professional musician, do you belong to a professional body? 59.4% of musicians If so, what? See full results Do you belong to or use any commercial download site such as iTunes? 58.5 If so, which one(s)? See full results How much would you estimate you spend on downloads per week, month, year? Range $0-$1000/year What would you estimate is the total amount you’ve spent on downloads? Range $0 to thousands Do you belong to or use a non-commercial music download site? 30 If so, which one(s)? See full results Do you share music online? 36.8 If so, for how long have you been doing so? Range 2-15+years How old are you? M=40.7 What sex are you? 88% male What is your income level? See full results Are you a student? 14.5 If so, what are you studying? See full results Do you have a college degree? 67.3 Are you employed? 75.6 If so, in what capacity? See full results Where do you live? See full results Are you married? 52 Do you have children? 41.9 If you have children, what are their ages? See full results If you have children, do you know if they share music online? *EDIT for clarification* This question is for people who have children. Do you your children share music online? 28.6 If you have children and you know they share music online, do you approve/disapprove? *EDIT for clarification* This question is for people who have children and who know their children share music online. Do you approve or disapprove of your children sharing music online? 31% approve, 41% disapprove, 27% don’t care File-sharing should remain illegal, though copyright might need some reform and more appropriate enforcement to address it. 28.4 File-sharing should be permitted, so it would be best to compensate publishers from an Internet tax (aka compulsory license fee). 18.8 P2P in every form will exist forever. There is no available power to stop or control this phenomenon. I agree that any legislation that tries to forbid this inevitable cultural exchange is technically impossible and likewise ridiculous. 57.4 Individuals who file-share for no gain or profit should not be persecuted 59.1 Decentralised P2P (with or without specific software applications) by private individuals where no money is made, should be entirely exempt [from persecution], and not divided into downloader/uploader distinction. 47.7 Decentralised P2P (with or without specific software applications) by ANYONE where no money is made, should be entirely exempt [from persecution], and not divided into downloader/uploader distinction 32.4 File-sharing should be permitted without reservation. 20.5 File-sharing should not be permitted in any form. It is illegal and should remain illegal. 10.8 I think that file-sharing should remain illegal for COMMERCIAL infringements, with a distinction made for amateur/private uses (i.e. differentiate between for-profit sharing versus fans sharing) 47.2 One shared copy DOES NOT equate to one lost sale. 63.6 If file-sharers don’t stop after several warnings (3-strikes), they should be kicked off the internet. 19.3 Monopolies such as copyright shouldn’t apply to the Internet, nor should a tax – a free market will be fine. Sharing and building upon published music is natural. 29.5 If music has an opportunity to be free and liberated whereby fans could be able to use and consume music to their hearts extent yet provide a means of compensation to the artists/ songwriters and even ’shareholders’ with minimal or nearly no economic effect upon ‘fans’ I would support such a scenario. 47.7 I support an internet tax for all users that would be used to compensate rights holders for illegal downloads. 18.2 I do not support an “internet tax” to compensate for file-sharing under any circumstances. 43.8 I could support an internet tax to compensate rights holders IF it meant file-sharers were otherwise no longer persecuted or prosecuted. 25.0 A completely ‘free market’ scenario is more than likely unachievable in the face of the current legislation being proposed, not to mention super-powered economic forces within various media-oriented industries. Although sharing and building upon artistic works may be considered natural, I agree that we live on planet earth where laws and regulations set precedence. 14.2 I agree that perhaps the only way to influence laws [pertaining to copyright and file-sharing] would be to form a solid consensus and work to create a persuasive counter-proposal to the likes of ACTA and 3-strikes. 30.1 I agree to an assertive position from [the file-sharing/music fan community] against legislation that is currently being imposed which supports the squandering of tax-payers money in order to enforce an impossible control-driven agenda (e.g. 3-strikes, digital Britain?). 40.3 Net neutrality must be defended and maintained for the benefit of all 55.7 Corporate interference can only be addressed by activities like Net Neutrality legislation, enforcement of Fair Competition and Fair Consumer Practices, and massive public exposure to the corporate deception that brought it all on. 35.8 I support a Three Strikes policy/law. 19.3 I DENOUNCE a Three Strikes policy/law. 48.9 I support the ACTA. 10.8 I DENOUNCE the ACTA. 43.8 I denounce the secrecy behind the ACTA. 55.1 Secrecy is necessary for the ACTA, like any other international agreement. 2.3 Artists need to be paid by the people who enjoy and exploit their work. 50.6 Artists SHOULD be paid by the people who enjoy and exploit their work. 63.6 If anyone’s going to get paid for singing my song then they should either be prosecuted or forced to pay me a royalty. 27.3 Some form of compensation should go the person that created the piece of work, but not some person that their child sold the rights too. 33.5 Artists need to be paid, and fans want to pay them. 57.9 I would prefer to pay an artist directly rather than through a record label or middleman. 69.9 A “use it or lose it” limitation should apply to royalties. 17.0 Artists need to find revenue sources other than selling music files/CDs. File-sharing is here to stay and selling music files is on the way out. 40.3 Granting a limited commercial monopoly, (Internet or not), may be a valid trade-off for us to make as a society, and can encourage the production of more creative work than would otherwise be the case, to be shared freely and developed further within a reasonable time (i.e. less than a generation, certainly not 100+ years as at present). 22.7 I support copyright in its current incarnation. 26.1 I DENOUNCE copyright in any incarnation. 13.7 I could support copyright, but with changes for the current economic, cultural, and technological situation. 43.8 I could support copyright, but the length needs to be shortened. 33.5 A “use it or lose it” limitation should apply to copyright. 18.8 Copyright law does NOT work anymore. It was never designed to work with the world we live in today. It needs a serious overhaul. I also am extremely angered when I see some single parent being sued millions for downloading a few songs, when someone could go into a record store and steal a couple of CDs and get nothing but a fine. 43.8 One shared copy DOES NOT equate to one lost sale. 58.5 Copyright is dead, the rights holders should just give up. 13.1 There should be explicit exceptions in copyright law for fair use. 45.5 Copyright should not be transferrable to anyone except for the creator of the work. 38.6 More than half of the respondents were professional musicians. Any consideration of the results must take this unusual representation into account. Mean age was 40 years old. Most respondents were male. Of respondents who admitted to sharing music online, the mode was 10 years. People who share music have been doing it for a long time. Half of the respondents were married. Less than 20% of respondents were in favor of an Internet tax to compensate publishers. Close to 45% of respondents were against an Internet tax under any circumstances, but 25% would be okay with one if it meant an end to file-sharing persecution and prosecution. Almost 60% of respondents agreed that individuals who file-shared for no profit should not be prosecuted. Only 10% were in favor of outlawing any form of file-sharing. Less than 20% of respondents were in favor of kicking file-sharers off the Internet after “three strikes.” 30% of respondents were in favor of forming a consensus and counter-proposal to legislation like the ACTA and Three Strikes. Only 56% of respondents were in favor of maintaining net neutrality. About 20% of respondents were in favor of Three Strikes, with about 20% against. About 11% of respondents were in favor the ACTA while 44% were against it. 55% were against the secrecy behind it. 2% supported the secrecy. 70% of respondents would prefer to pay an artist directly rather than through a middle-man. Only 26% of respondents supported copyright in its current incarnation, and only ~14% were against it in any incarnation. 44% could support copyright with changes, and 34% thought the length should be shortened. About 60% of respondents agreed that one shared copy does not equate to one lost sale. Less than half of respondents thought there should be exceptions in copyright law for fair use. About 40% of respondents thought copyright should not be transferable to anyone other than the creator of the work. I’ll leave the discussion and debate up to you in the comments. Thanks for reading this far, I know it’s a lot. Thanks for all your effort, David. - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi January, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

‘We’ll settle for $25,000′ RIAA tells Jammie

// January 27th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

p2pnet view P2P | RIAA:- Having seen their award against Jammie Rasset-Thomas slashed from a staggering $1.92 million dollars to $54,000 , the RIAA now wants to settle for half even that amount. But Jammie is having none of it. “They want me to take a settlement of $25,000 without me knowing what I’m agreeing to,” she told p2pnet. “The offer has been made without any kind of explanation what the settlement would involve. “But I’m still not caving in. If they want to settle, they can do it on my terms.” $2,250 instead of $80,000 per song The “need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music,” wrote judge Michael J. Davis in a decision saying she now owes Big Music $2,250 instead of $80,000 for each of 24 songs she’s said to have downloaded without permission. “Moreover, although Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages,” he said. “The Judge did not reach the constitutional due process issue raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s counsel, instead deciding the motion based upon standard principles of ‘remittitur’,” said Ray Beckerman on Recording Industry vs The People , going on > > > The judge described the standard for remittitur as follows: so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience of the court. A verdict is not considered excessive unless there is plain injustice or a monstrous or shocking result Now, “Here’s what I’m telling them,” says Jammie. “You guys can settle this on my terms or take it to trial and try to prove the damages. “You’re going to be lucky to prove more than $24 … ” Stay tuned. Jon Newton – p2pnet - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi $1.92 million dollars to $54,000 – Jammie Thomas-Rasset award reduced …, January 22, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

RIAA, MPAA, DoD, target US military personnel

// January 19th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

- MPAA | RIAA:- Some US military personnel serving abroad are finding it impossible to get their legitimate movie and music fixes. “An insider at a US base in Japan has been in touch with TorrentFreak to tell us of a new initiative underway which is being operated by the Department of Defense,” it says. “The campaign is running in overseas bases and is targeting members of the military currently using BitTorrent and other P2P software to obtain media.” In direct response, personnel have “stepped up” a campaign to “download as much content as they can using BitTorrent”, says the story. And at the bottom of their troubles are the RIAA and MPAA, it states. “For years many of us have spent time and money, hand over fist, looking for ways to work around IP blocks placed by companies operating from the states to access services such as NetFlix, Amazon, and others, to enjoy the same level of access as anyone living in the US does,” TorrentFreak has a military contact in Japan saying, also declaring: “We have sent letters to the RIAA and the MPAA repeatedly letting them know that our downloads are a direct representation of their failure to allow us to be good consumers as others in the US can be.” The two entertainment cartel enforcers send copyright notices daily to military personnel via their base ISPs, says the story, going on, “In turn, the personnel are threatened with account suspension and in serious cases, disconnection. “Sucks, but all of us have kept doing it [file-sharing] as we have made every reasonable attempt to gain access to the content legally as any person living on US sovereign ground can,” complains the source. “We have offered money to the companies in exchange for lifting the blocks and have offered up information as to how to allow military members into their content while strictly enforcing the contract.” But, the post continues, “the pleas to the various media companies appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Our contact believes that the content providers must have no interest in the business available from overseas military personnel, as they continue to block them from accessing content legitimately.” It adds: “While there is an apparent crackdown on online file-sharing, there is an interesting footnote to this story. TorrentFreak is informed that when personnel are deployed, they have access to sanctioned ‘Morale’ hard drives which are allegedly filled with copyright materials acquired by “nefarious” means, and available for anyone to download and keep.” - … .. … and identi.ca More p2pnet music downloads – and stuff TorrentFreak – US Military BitTorrent Users Targeted By MPAA/RIAA, January 18, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

RIAA fears net neutrality

// January 15th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

- | RIAA:- Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US) believe they have a special case when it comes to net neutrality. While they once again deal with charges of price fixing, their US extortion unit, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), “wants to make sure that when regulations on Net neutrality are adopted, they don’t impede antipiracy efforts,” says CNet News , going on: “That’s why the Recording Industry Association of America on Thursday asked the Federal Communications Commission to ‘adopt flexible rules’ that free Internet service providers to fight copyright theft. “This week is the deadline for submitting comments to the FCC as it considers proposed regulations for Net neutrality, the term coined by those who want the Web to be open to all forms of content, Web sites, and platforms and also want to prevent ISPs from charging users higher rates to access different sites or content.” As p2pnet pointed out yesterday, the RIAA was used to launch the Three Strikes element of the entertainment cartel ACTA scheme in the US. When it was announced, according to the RIAA, American ISPs were hot to trot as Big 4 copyright enforcers against their own customers. However, the providers didn’t see it quite like that and instead of being the spearhead for the Three Strike and your Off The Net campaign, the US waits in the wings while all the running — lurching, might be a better word — is done in Europe. Stay tuned. - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi once again – Big Music in price fixing lawsuit. Again., January 14, 2010 CNet News – RIAA: Net neutrality shouldn’t inhibit antipiracy, January 14, 2010 ACTA scheme – ACTA: epic fail, December 31, 2009 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -

OiNK trial farce ends. Alan Ellis cleared.

// January 15th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p

- Freedom | P2P:- OiNK trial farce begins, p2pnet posted on January 6. Now, OiNK trial farce ends, we can say, with OiNK creator Alan Ellis (right) a free man having been found innocent of conspiracy to defraud the corporate music industry. Ellis, 26, had around $300,000 in his Paypal account when UK police staged a dramatic raid on his house in 2007. He was running a music site with some 200,000 site members. So the money must have belonged to the labels. Right? Goes without saying. It was “invite-only, with users having to pay a donation in order to be able to ask their friends to join,” says the Guardian . “This is a hugely disappointing verdict,” it has Geoff Taylor, mouthperson for Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s,  BPI (British Phornographic Industry), saying. But why should he worry? The two-year investigation into Ellis covered the Netherlands and Britain. But it didn’t cost the labels a penny. Instead, local taxpayers footed the bill for police and other agencies involved. They’re also paying through the nose for the entertainment cartel’s Three Strikes debate being staged (word used advisedly) in Britain and other countries around the world. Meanwhile, in the US the labels are facing price fixing charges . Again. - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi p2pnet – OiNK trial farce begins, January 6, 2010 Guardian – Jury clears British ‘Pirate Bay’ operator of fraud charge, January 15, 2010 price fixing charges – Big Music in price fixing lawsuit. Again., January 14, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? -



eXTReMe Tracker