Non A list musicians have been complaining long and loud about the fact they rarely reap the rewards from recording and publishing done by the big labels, RIAA, ASCAP, BMI and the alphabet soup of crooks that control their works. Big music has found a bogeyman to blame in digital file sharing. While a problem, the fact remains that the industry has rarely been generous with artists, and always blames someone else for non payment going all the way back to the early days of radio.

A new coalition formed by quite a few A list performers may signal the end of the status quo.

It wants artists to keep the rights to the music they create and to have a greater say in how their songs are sold - and a bigger slice of the takings.

It is a sign of a shift in power in the music industry in the digital age.

In the last 12 months, big names have seen their options multiply after a string of stars shunned traditional record contracts and found new ways of releasing music.

At the same time, many acts have felt they have been ignored when their record labels and music publishers have struck new digital deals.

A spokesperson from the BPI - the body that represents the UK’s recorded music business - said it was “looking forward” to working with the coalition.

“The UK music business is a complex community that binds performers, songwriters, promoters, managers, agents, record labels, publishers, distributors, manufactures and retailers.

“No one part of the business can function without the other. This is a business under huge external pressure, and we are stronger united.

“The creators themselves - featured artists, session musicians and songwriters lie right at the heart of this business, and we look forward to working closely with FAC in the future.”

The Featured Artists’ Coalition’s main demands include allowing musicians to keep the copyright to their own music, which could then be leased to record companies. (BBC News)

That’s right! The RIAA was dragged into an appeal on the Jammy Thomas case and lost. At this point they have to feel like Hamilton Burger of the old Perry Mason series. Always forceful but never wins against his nemsis.

The $222,000 verdict against Jammy Thomas for copyright infringement by P2P is no more. U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis dismissed the verdict (PDF), saying it was based on the faulty “making available” theory of distribution. Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution.

The decision means the RIAA now has zero wins at trial, Wired notes.

RIAA’s “making available” theory would hold that someone has distributed copyright material merely by creating the potential for distribution. Under the RIAA’s theory, it need not show actual distribution. The judge soundly denied this legal reasoning:

If simply making a copyrighted work available to the public constituted a distribution, even if no member of the public ever accessed that work, copyright owners would be able to make an end run around the standards for assessing contributor copyright infringement.

Not to say the RIAA hasn’t gotten wins. They have against those who just ponied up the green mail to them rather than fight. But fighting seems to be a winning proposition now. Not only that but with this appeal the claim of mere presence in a share file does not constitute distribution. It also appears that the judge in the appeal agrees that the penalty was disproportionate to the anticipated loss.

Linky
HT: saschameinrath.com

If you get one of those nasty RIAA letters for paying up for infringement and you decide to fight it you have some work to do. Nor is it legal work I am talking about either. You have a technical task as well. Here’s what you need to do in a nutshell —

• Buy yourself another hard drive immediately.
• Clone the original HD to the new drive.
• In the presence of a third party or notary or alternately somebody like Geeks. You need someone who will certify that they observed you removing the HD and placing it under seal.
• Place the hard drive under seal and give it to your lawyer.
• Install the new HD as your new boot drive.

What you WILL NOT DO is reformat the drive in question. That could be construed as evidence tampering. An offense in its own right. For more on this go here.

Take heed.

Yes Dear Reader, another round of RIAA vs The People. This time with a twist. Usual routine has been admit no guilt by the defendant. But challenge on the basis or proof of distribution. Well this time, in Elektra v. Barker, the defendant is admitting guilt. The defendant is also willing to pay the fine at $3.50 per song!! –

1. Plaintiffs’ damages theory, which argues for statutory damages of from 2,142 to 428,571 times the actual damages, would lead to an unconstitutional result (Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co.,331 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2003); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Lindor, 2006 WL 3335048 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); In re Napster Inc., 2005 WL 1287611 (N.D. California 2005)), so that the complaint should be construed as alleging that the use of an “online media distribution system” to infringe plaintiffs’ copyrights constituted a single act of infringement, warranting a total recovery of $750 if defendant is liable.

2. In the alternative, the statute should be considered unconstitutional to the extent it could be construed as authorizing more than ten time the actual damages, and recovery should be limited to $3.50 per recording as against a single noncommercial user for a single upload or download of an MP3 file for personal use.

Why would this tact be worth a hoot? Well first, it appears that federal courts have held that any penalty beyond 9x the actual damages is unconstitutional under the ‘cruel and unusal’ provisions. yeah I know so what?

Well think a minute. Can you think of anytime in your life where you could get 4 lawyers in a room for less than a $1000? The RIAA watchdog group is selffunding. They use the proceeds of one successful pay off to fund the next round of suits. Well if the best they can get is $3.50 per and have to prove number of copies distributed, they are toast from a financial perspective. Watch the judge in this one! He in a preliminary reading of the briefs suggested the alteration and amended response. This one could go appellate on the constitutionality of it.

Linky

The RIAA keeps claiming that artists are being kept in poverty by greedy radio stations who don’t pay for play, even though radio play is the industry’s top promotional tool, and bittorrent thieves. Outside of the “A” listers, very few artists have been paid much of anything by the big music companies who distribute their work.  Lyle Lovette provides a fine example of how even a top selling artist can come up short when dealing with the labels. Most would consider a 4.6 million album seller and “A” list performer who is treated well by big music, but even “A” listers come out empty handed in many cases.

 Lyle Lovett says he has “never made a dime” from album sales during his two-decade career, and hopes to rectify that situation when his contract expires. The eclectic country singer has two more albums on his deal with Curb/Universal, his home since 1985, and figures the horizons are wide open.

“The possibilities are very exciting, I think,” Lovett told Billboard.com. “I’ve never made a dime from a record sale in the history of my record deal. I’ve been very happy with my sales, and certainly my audience has been very supportive. I make a living going out and playing shows.”

Lovett, 50, has sold 4.6 million albums in the United States since 1991, the year when SoundScan sales data were introduced. His most recent release, “It’s Not Big It’s Large,” has sold about 145,000 copies since debuting at a career-best No. 18 on the Billboard 200 last September, according to Nielsen SoundScan. (Yahoo)

Lyle Lovette’s case is not new or unique. The RIAA’s public parading of indigent artists in their golden years to push ever more draconian copyright laws is a ruse to keep attention away from its members business practices. By in large, big music, not the consumer is most to blame for the lack of payment to artists for recordings. This has been case since the industry began.

Since the invention of magnetic tape, a small number of individuals have copied and exchanged music, and the music industry has blamed them for artist’s poverty. Do you have an obligation to pay for music you hold a copy of? Yes, unless the artist freely offers it without payment. However, if you paid for a copy of the artists work, you should be able to move it to and play it on any device you like without the need to buy a new copy for each device.

The music industry needs to start paying artists fairly before blaming piracy for their plight. Unfortunately, an unchecked parasite will kill its own host before curbing it’s appetite. If big music continues operates like a parasite, it will be responsible for its own demise.