I actually thought the best article on the subject was over at Ars, but below are a few other synopsis.

Via The Daily Swarm:

CNET:

The court decision could represent the biggest threat to online file sharing in years. According to a survey by the NPD Group, LimeWire users account for 58 percent of the people who said they downloaded music from a peer-to-peer service last year. AtCNET‘s Download.com, the LimeWire software has been downloaded more than 200 million times. In the last week alone, the software was downloaded nearly 340,000 times….Wood’s ruling could at the very least mean a shift in the downloading habits of millions.

Mediamemo:

A big victory for Big Music: A federal court has ruled in favor of the music labels in their fight against LimeWire, one of the most prominent file-sharing services on the Web….What does this mean for the music industry? Assuming Wood’s ruling stands, this one will definitely feel good for the labels, and it would have been a very big deal had they lost. But it certainly won’t help them in fighting less formally organized P2P services or those set up outside the U.S.

TechDirt:

As you can see from the ruling, LimeWire never really had a chance….Of course that doesn’t mean this isn’t troubling in many ways. In fact, it reiterates many of the problems with the original Grokster ruling. For example, it mentions things like the fact that LimeWire folks knew that LimeWire could be used to transfer copyrighted works. But that’s meaningless. Email can be used for transferring copyrighted works.FTP too. The web as well.

Either way, I’m still wondering if…it’s possible to create a system for more efficiently sharing files that doesn’t violate the inducement standard…The law should not be set up in a way to outright ban a technology that has a wide variety of useful applications, and is used for plenty of legitimate purposes, even if it’s also used (even if regularly used) for infringing purposes.

RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol’s Statement/Victory Lap:

“This definitive ruling is an extraordinary victory for the entire creative community. The court made clear that LimeWire was liable for inducing widespread copyright theft….“LimeWire is one of the largest remaining commercial peer-to-peer services. Unlike other P2P services that negotiated licenses, imposed filters or otherwise chose to discontinue their illegal conduct following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Grokster case, LimeWire instead thumbed its nose at the law and creators. The court’s decision is an important milestone in the creative community’s fight to reclaim the Internet as a platform for legitimate commerce. By finding LimeWire’s CEOpersonally liable, in addition to his company, the court has sent a clear signal to those who think they can devise and profit from a piracy scheme that will escape accountability….We are gratified by the court’s careful and thorough analysis of the facts and applicable law.”

RIAA Victory Over LimeWire – The Implications is a post from: wax&wires

Just minutes ago the verdict in the case of The Pirate Bay Four was announced. All four defendants were accused of ‘assisting in making copyright content available’. Peter Sunde: Guilty. Fredrik Neij: Guilty. Gottfrid Svartholm: Guilty. Carl Lundström: Guilty. The four receive 1 year in jail each and fines totaling $3,620,000.

While only a few weeks ago, it seems like an eternity since the trial of The Pirate Bay Four ended and the court retired to consider its verdict. The prosecution claimed that the four defendants were ‘assisting in making copyright content available’ and demanded millions of dollars in damages. The defense did not agree, and all pleaded not guilty – backed up by the inimitable King Kong defense.

Today, Friday April 17, the court issued its decision:

“The court has found that by using Pirate Bay’s services there has been file-sharing of music, films and computer games to the extent the prosecutor has stated in his case,” said the district court. “This file-sharing constitutes an unlawful transfer to the public of copyrighted performances.”

read the full story.

The Pirate Bay Trial: The Official Verdict – Guilty is a post from: wax&wires

During The Pirate Bay trial, the music industry placed the blame for the decline in their revenues squarely on the shoulders of file-sharers. Their logic is clearly flawed, but it could sway the verdict if no alternative explanation is presented. So, if piracy isn’t to blame, then what is *actually* killing the music industry?

According to Per Sundin, CEO of Universal Music, the decline in music revenues in the past 8 years can be fully attributed to (read: blamed on) illegal file sharing. If this were actually true, many of us might even respect his decision to go after pirates as fiercely as the music industry is doing right now. However, the past 8 years have seen a lot more changes in the landscape of home entertainment than Per Sundin would like to admit, and some of those changes have had a massive impact on music profitability — much more so than any amount of piracy.

Read the full story.

I’ll add a caveat to his eighth point,

“the music industry itself has embraced the opportunities of digital media, at last letting consumers buy *single* tracks at a time rather than forcing entire albums full of ‘fillers’ on them. Looking at the RIAA’s own sales figures for the past 10 years, there is a *direct* correlation between the break-off in album sales and the introduction and increase in single track digital sales.”

I wrote back in the beginning of the year that 2009 would see certain artists abandon the album altogether in favor of only releasing single tracks that have potential of becoming hits. I still stand by my convictions there. As I stated before, however, I don’t think that will be a lasting trend. Our ADD culture will burn out on jumping from one thing to the next. Rather than inspiring a new music sales model, I think the singles-only (that sounds funny…) artist release will spark a return to the full album. Consumers will regain an appreciation for a well constructed album that is complete from beginning to end.

Anyway, Jens offers some very valid points, but not a lot of solutions. We can all try to speculate as to why the music industry is in the shape that it’s in. That’s fine and good to the extent that we don’t want to repeat past shortcomings, but let’s let the past be the past and try to find solutions to the problem rather than describing the problems further.

How To Kill The Music Industry is a post from: wax&wires

Law professor Charles Nesson and John Palfrey, director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society (which Nesson co-founded), made their position clear. “Recently, the president of the Recording Industry Association of America, Cary Sherman, wrote to Harvard to challenge the university administration to stop acting as a ‘passive conduit’ for students downloading music,” they wrote in 2007. “We agree. Harvard and the 22 universities to which the RIAA has sent ‘pre-litigation notices’ ought to take strong, direct action… and tell the RIAA to take a hike.”

Read the full story here.

How Harvard Law Threw Down The Gauntlet To The RIAA is a post from: wax&wires

The IFPI, considered by some to be the global version of the RIAA, says that 40 billion songs were illegally downloaded in 2008. Those songs don’t necessarily translate into lost sales, as we’ve seen recently, but the IFPI estimates that 10% of illegal downloads are equivalent to lost sales. Where they got that number, I’m not quite sure, but let’s trust them at that and say that there were 4 billion lost sales worldwide this past year. That’s a serious amount of revenue!

We’ve now seen the EU, France, and even the RIAA here in the states consider a “three strikes” rule with regards to copyright infringement. That would mean 3 offenses and your internet would be disconnected by your ISP. The measures were shot down in the European Parliament, and I’m glad. It’s too tough to prove that any one individual was the one responsible for the file sharing. People have a right to have an open wireless network, and shouldn’t necessarily be held responsible for the actions of others on thier network. I’ve always been in favor of offering up a solution to the problem, rather than simply punishment for misdeeds.

Here’s some stats from the report [via hothardware]

• Seven out of ten (72%) UK music consumers would stop illegally downloading if told to do so by their ISP (Entertainment Media Research, 2008)

• Seven out of ten (74%) French consumers agree internet account disconnection is a better approach than fines and criminal sanctions (IPSOS, France, May 2008)

• Eight out of ten (82%) American teenagers familiar with the law think sanctions for illegal downloading are appropriate; 57 per cent of those unfamiliar with the law agree (KRC US, January 2008)

• 90 per cent of consumers would stop illegally file-sharing after two warnings from their ISP (IPSOS, France, May 2008)

Those stats might be a bit misconstrued though, as not all internet users engage in any file swapping at all. According to the IFPI, only 18 percent of Europeans admit to engaging in file-swapping. 64% of internet users in the UK, US, and France said that they would stop swapping if their ISP sent them a warning letter. So the question is not how the general public (that 64% for example) would respond to a warning letter from their ISP, but rather how P2P users would respond. According to a study by The Leading Question and Music Ally, only 41% of file sharers said that a warning would get them to stop. That means that 6 out of 10 file sharers would completely disregard a warning from their ISP that their internet use was being monitored. Once the stakes were raised to an internet disconnection warning from their ISP, 63 percent of file sharers said that they would stop sharing. That’s the real astonishing number for me because it means that nearly 4 out of every 10 file sharers would absolutely not stop file sharing even when threatened with disconnection.

All those numbers further my point that the solution to the piracy debacle is not litigation or reprimanding abusers, but it needs to come in an alternative option for content acquisition; a legal process of downloading content that provides a better user experience than P2P clients, at minimal to no cost. If the IFPI’s numbers are accurate with regards to how many songs are shared per year, even a small decline in file sharing will yield a significant gain in revenue for the ever ailing industry.

95% of Music Downloads are Illegal: IFPI is a post from: wax&wires

1) Don’t share copywritten files.

OR

2) When the RIAA drops a lawsuit in your lap, just don’t show up and wait for them to give it up… like this.

How To Keep The RIAA Off Your Back is a post from: wax&wires

The 2008 holiday ecard from the RIAA, modeling the proper way to cite a song licensed for use.

Merry Christmas From The RIAA is a post from: wax&wires

A quick look at album sales in the U.S. shows that they have been dropping consistently since 2004.It looks like the RIAA is abandoning mass lawsuits in favor of a new structure for combating illegal file sharing. I think that it’s a good call since the current practice of suing individuals was clearly not working on a large scale. The chances of getting sued were too slim for people to be scared out of sharing, and there was still never a way to say difinitively that the person being sued was the person who was file sharing anyway. Consider open wireless networks. The RIAA would have to seize computers to prove that the shared files were even taken by the person in question, and to my knowledge, that never happened. The anonymity of the internet must be combated before people think that their actions need to change. Offloading a lot of that hunting workload to the ISPs, which the RIAA plans to do in this new plan, will help bring more file sharers to the RIAA’s attention. What they do with that huge influx of new culprits has yet to be seen, as there will still be no way to prove that the holder of the ISP plan was the one file sharing. Do the ISPs then pin responsibility for network security on the customer? The RIAA plan is to issue several warnings to copyright violators provided to them by ISPs, as well as throttle their net speed as punishment. The RIAA is also reserving the right to sue, but expressing a desire not to progress that far down the line of punishment. I’m not a fan of throttling, but until another solution is found, it might be a viable deterrent. I’m just thinking that if my net speed is having enough trouble handling my email and basic browsing, the first thing I would cut is any P2P software hogging my personal bandwidth. If it’s not me that’s sharing, but I have an open network, I’m going to close my network to keep the bandwidth for myself.

I also thought it was a good move by the RIAA to not release the names of the ISPs they’re working with. That would very easily lead to an unfair market for the ISPs since customers would simply elect to use the ISPs not cooperating with the RIAA.

Both this article and my previous article, Major Labels in Favor of P2P, suggest that any solution to massive file sharing is going to involve the cooperation of ISPs. I think Jim Griffin’s plan to roll in a fee with ISP service to pay copyright holders might be more alluring to the ISPs themselves, as it’s a fee that they collect rather than a new department that they need to spend revenue on. I can’t imagine that cooperating with the RIAA is going to be any ISPs top priority either, so we’ll see how this plan works in practice rather than theory.

Here’s the article.

RIAA to Abandon Mass Lawsuits is a post from: wax&wires