I covered it.



Also, if you want a source, Ray is the best there is.  http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

Something is not right.



"When a Judge agreed with the RIAA's claim that 'making available' was actionable under the Copyright Act, in Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA was quick to bring this 'authority' to the attention of the judges in Elektra v. Barker and Warner v. Cassin. Those judges were considering the same issue. When the that decision was overturned successfully, however, they were not so quick to inform those same judges of this new development. When the defendants' lawyers found out — a week after the RIAA's lawyers learned of it — they had to notify the judges themselves . At this moment we can only speculate as to what legal authorities they cited to the judge in Duluth, Minnesota, to get him to instruct the jurors that just 'making available' was good enough.



http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/10/06/228202.shtml

Squashed, I suggest you start taking up a collection for that poor woman.

In today's New York Times, Rachel Aviv profiles the Free Culture movement emerging on campuses of students and young people. These activists are fighting the good fight for the copyleft. And they are pissed off. (Article includes special bonus quote from our own Cory Doctorow!) From the New York Times: Cory Doctorow, co-editor of the popular technology blog Boing Boing, said the recording industry lawsuits were not “scaring students away from file-sharing, but scaring them into political consciousness.” Last year, Mr. Doctorow was an adviser to the Students for Free Culture chapter at the University of Southern California while teaching a course on the history of copyright law.



Opposition to the music industry and its efforts to protect copyrights often dominates discussions on campuses. Chapters have organized demonstrations in front of major record stores and held “iPod liberation” parties where students have downloaded software together that makes it possible to swap songs.



http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/10/nyt-on-free-culture.html

First Radiohead...now Nine Inch Nails bids adieu to music label

Less than a month after publicly calling executives at his music label unprintable names, rocker Trent Reznor has signaled that his days of working for a record company are over.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9793541-7.html







Since 2001, Einstürzende Neubauten [neubauten.org] has been exploring new ways to produce records and interact with their public while producing the album. Their last 3 albums were produced by a subscription. As supporters, we could attend the recording sessions via webcam, chat online with the band members, or use the forums to discuss about the directions taken by the band ; we obtained early versions of the songs, and attended private concerts. Unanimously agreed as a great experience!



They've been fairly successful so far, though they still want to polish their formula. There is

a nice interview about their latest album and the issues they face in going "label-free" [neubauten.org].



http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=323299&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20924105

 

I was being sarcastic about the collection, Chris ;-)

Welcome to idiotville. The other morons will presided on contentious techy issues and shaping the future of yet to be formed technology.

Next, should stem cell cloning be decided by jury. It will be presided by your highschool janitors and dumbest christian pastos one can find.

film at 11.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9795095-7.html?tag=nefd.pulse

In the interview with Wired's David Kravets, Hegg, a steelworker, said that during deliberations, the jury concluded after only five minutes that Thomas was guilty. He said that they spent five hours trying to decide what to award the recording industry. Hegg, 38, said the jurors did not believe her story that someone spoofed her IP address.

"She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars," Hegg told Wired. "Spoofing? We're thinking, 'Oh my God, you got to be kidding.' She's a liar."

Thomas, 30, has announced that she intends to appeal the case brought against her by the RIAA, She said she is seeking to argue her case before someone who is more tech-savvy.

But if Thomas can produce experts that can at least prove its possible her IP was spoofed, why didn't she present them in court?

"We didn't have the money to put those experts on the stand," Thomas said. "(Hegg) can say my story is not true, but at the same time you're talking about a person with no technology background whatsoever. He said his wife is an Internet guru, but his wife wasn't on the jury."

Thomas also was disappointed that the jury may have been punishing her for crimes committed by others.

this is a test case, and one that succeeded on behalf of the industry for one reason: the jury went after her because she appeared to by lying during her testimony.  her credibility as a witness destroyed her own case, and that was that.  



i mean, i still think it's fucked up, but that's the clear and logical explanation for this whole mess.