December 5, 2006

His kids did it, why can't I?

The Warner Music CEO just admitted that his children have illegally downloaded music. When asked how he dealt with this issue, it was painfully obvious that no lawsuits would be pending. How could a father sue his poor children?

[The CEO] admitted that he was "fairly certain" that one or more of his seven children had downloaded music without the permission of the copyright owner, which Reuters referred to as stealing.

Despite the alleged infringers' proximity to the major label head and his direct awareness of it without the use of ISP subpoenas, somehow no lawsuits were deemed necessary, although Bronfman said that his kids had "suffered the consequences."

I think the victims need to sue. The CEO just confessed, and something tells me that those so-called "consequences" just don't add up to the millions Warner's sues its other targets.

December 9, 2005

An arm and a leg for 30 songs

Downloading songs to sample them is not fair use. Download 30 songs and pay $22,500.

After reading the opinion it's rather obvious that the judge is punishing Gonzalez for the 1300 songs on her harddrive, many of which consisted of songs she already owned. He looks at the 4th requirement for fair use which states, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Under his analysis, the 30 songs is sufficient evidence coupled with the Grokster decision to show that Gonzalez did not intend fair use. Earlier the Court points out that Gonzalez had purchased music after she had downloaded the songs from Grokster and Aimster.

So, out of 1300 plus songs with some discrepancies only 30 songs were illegal. The rest were all songs Gonzalez owned because she had the cd, or she downloaded the song, sampled it, and decided to buy it. There's definately a market there. Unfortunately for Gonzalez she just spent $750 for each of those songs.

Via How Appealing

update: Fixed the link to the case.

November 21, 2005

Sony + rootkit =

This just in via Boing Boing. The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) is bringing a class action lawsuit against Sony because of their DRM schemes. According to BB, this is the seventh lawsuit. Chances are more are on the way, and probably from a few other states.

Only in Texas #98568

For once my state is doing something decent. Texas believes that Sony BMG violated the state's anti-spyware law when it included technology on cds meant to prevent consumers from ripping their music into mp3s or transfering the files onto their iPOD.

Without asking users, the CD automatically installed the copy-protection program when discs were loaded into a PC — a necessary step for transferring music to iPods and other portable music players.

Attorney General Greg Abbott accused Sony BMG of surreptitiously installing "spyware" in the form of files that mask other files Sony installed as part of XCP.

This "cloaking" component can leave computers vulnerable to viruses and other security problems, Abbott said, echoing the findings of computer security researchers.

"People buy these CDs to listen to music," Abbott said. "What they don't bargain for is the consumer invasion that is unleashed by Sony BMG."

Security researchers say XCP is spyware because it secretly transmits details about what music the PC is playing. Manual attempts to remove the software, which works only on Windows PCs, can disable the PC's optical drive.

Sony executives have rejected the description of their technology as spyware. A spokesman for the New York-based label did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment on Abbott's lawsuit.

Sony BMG initially rejected the uproar over XCP as technobabble.

But after security experts discovered that XCP opened gaping security holes in users' computers — as did the method Sony BMG offered for removing XCP — Sony BMG agreed last week to recall the discs.

Some 4.7 million had been made and 2.1 million sold. CDs that had XCP included releases by Van Zant, The Bad Plus, Neil Diamond and Celine Dion.

Honestly, I expected a class action lawsuit brought by consumers. Now that a state is involved, well this brings more exposure to the whole fiasco. Hopfully consumers will realize that they do not have to buy into DRM (digital rights management) schemes.