] "I'm delighted to take on this role," Bainwol said in a
] statement. "What could be more rewarding than helping to
] promote two great American traditions: music and property
] rights?"

Mitch Bainwol, new head of the RIAA.

Quote of the day

This bill would make it illegal to distribute p2p file trading software to a minor without obtaining parent's permission. Of course, the people who are writing this law can't figure out how to define p2p software, so they skip it by saying that another law has to be passed within a year that defines the term, but that the term ought to include software that allows a user to send and receive files. Then they go on to say:

enable the user of one such computer to designate files or data available for transmission to another such computer, but which definition excludes, to the extent otherwise included, software products legitimately marketed and distributed primarily for the operation of business of home networks, the networks of Internet access providers, or the Internet itself.

Obviously they are trying to say that NBT is ok but Kazaa is not. They are going to have a real hard time crafting that definition, if you ask me.

I wonder what happens if you pass a law that bans X, but doesn't define it. Then X is later found to be impossible to define?

P2P companies may face new scrutiny | CNET News.com

] Concerned that information about your file-sharing
] username may have been subpoenaed by the RIAA? Check here
] to see if your username is on one of the subpoenas filed
] with the D.C. District Court.

EFF: RIAA Subpoena Database

] When I mentioned in last week's column that I would this
] week be writing about a legal way to do a successful
] music downloading business -- a business that would
] threaten the Recording Industry Association of America
] and its hegemony -- dozens of readers wrote to me trying
] to predict what I would write. Some readers came at the
] problem from a purely technical perspective, ignoring the
] fact that the real issues here aren't technical but
] legal. Some readers took a legal approach, but they
] tended to ignore the business model. Some were looking
] solely for the business model. Interestingly, nobody
] even came close to my idea, which makes me either a total
] loon or a diabolical genius. Truth be told, I'm probably
] more of a diabolical loon.
]
]
] The reason I am even writing this column is two-fold.
] The biggest reason is simply because I would like people
] to consider lateral solutions to problems. I am pushing
] the concept of problem solving in a new way. There is no
] particular methodology here, just the underlying concept
] that if things aren't working the way you like, think of
] something different. Too often, people restrict their
] thinking or they somehow expect the world to change just
] for them, which it won't. But taking a lateral approach
] often yields interesting results. And once you've found
] an approach, maybe it can be applied to a different
] problem. What I am abo

Cringely's crazy idea

] In reviewing your question, and many that follow, it
] appears that some Slashdot readers feel that the
] Department of Justice only protects the IP rights of big
] corporations. That simply isn t the case. There is no
] doubt that large multi-national corporations are often
] victimized by piracy due in some measure to the
] popularity and pervasiveness of their products. But at
] the same time, there are also many others who are
] victimized, such as small mom and pop operations, and
] young developers trying to break into a crowded and
] competitive market.

Very interesting...

Slashdot | Questions for DoJ IP Attorneys Asked and Answered

] "MIT recently received a subpoena from the Recording
] Industry Association of America that was issued under the
] terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The
] subpoena requests the name and address of the individual
] whose computer was, according to the RIAA, sending out
] copyrighted songs on the Internet.
]
] "A different federal law, the Family Education Rights and
] Privacy Act, prohibits colleges and universities from
] disclosing information about students except in certain
] situations.

MIT responds to RIAA subpoena

] This model predicted the CD sales of RIAA members to
] within thirty million dollars (less than one-quarter of
] one percent) given the performance of the economy in
] 2002, as a function of nineteen other similarly-sized
] corporate sales, and the performance of the RIAA three
] previous years.

In other words, piracy is not impacting sales. (Note: This is extremely unlikely to be a conspiracy theory. The people that run these companies do NOT get this.)

Analysis of RIAA revenue figures versus overall economy

] The idea is a simple one: Fifty years after a work has
] been published, the copyright owner must pay a $1
] maintanence fee. If the copyright owner pays the fee,
] then the copyright continues. If the owner fails to pay
] the fee, the work passes into the public domain. Based on
] historical precedent, we expect 98% of copyrighted works
] would pass into the public domain after just 50 years.
] They could keep Mickey for as long as Congress lets them.
] But we would get a public domain.

Help Lawrence Lessig save the public domain

] The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) strongly opposes
] these state "super-DMCA" bills as unnecessary and
] overbroad. The proposed bills represent the worst kind of
] special interest legislation, sacrificing the public
] interest in favor of the self-serving interests of one
] industry.

EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney, Fred von Lohmann, on the "Super-DMCA" bills.

Sections:

* Resources
* Background
* These Bills are Unnecessary
* All Things Not Expressly Permitted are Forbidden
* Bolting on the "Intent to Defraud"
* Attacking Anonymity
* A Chill on Computer Security Research
* A Threat to Innovation and Competition
* Transferring law enforcement from public to private hands
* Dangerous Remedies
* * Remote Downgrades
* * One-Sided Attorneys' Fees
* * Automatic Injunctions
* * Abusive damages
* What You Can Do

EFF: State 'Super-DMCA' Legislation: MPAA's Stealth Attack on Your Living Room

] It has been stated by your office that this is "a bump in
] the road" between the RIAA and Michigan Tech, and that we
] will move on from here. It is unfortunate that you choose
] to trivialize the problem in this manner. It is not a
] bump in the road for Joe Nievelt or Michigan
] Technological University.
]
] Taking all of this into consideration, we realize the
] seriousness of the allegations against Mr. Nievelt and
] will cooperate fully in resolving this matter.

This is from a day ago, but I think its really important.

1. The RIAA must be laughing its ass off about this letter. He says "this is not a bump in the road" and then he agrees to cooperate fully. Obviously MTU is either unable or unwilling to create any real pain for the RIAA. I would have provided my legal department for the defense and stopped all the measures that I had taken on their behest.

2. The RIAA has no moral character. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. (People seem have forgotten much of this in the past few years, but trust is the basis of business, and strong moral character is a pre-requisite for trust.) These are not good people, do not trust them.

3. What the RIAA is sueing here are campus SEARCH ENGINES. They are not just for MP3s. They weren't built with MP3s in mind. These are for anyfile. There are lots and lots of non-infringing uses. With the proper legal defense, the RIAA will loose these cases. Much like Felton, they may have stepped on another grenade. (Without proper legal defense it will be ILLEGAL to run a search engine on a campus, which is an intolerable result, frankly.)

Michigan Tech Media Relations Story#95 - President Responds to RIAA Suit