The AI boom is here, and so are the lawsuits; Vox, February 1, 2023

 Peter Kafka, Vox; The AI boom is here, and so are the lawsuits

What can Napster tell us about the future?

"Briefly: “File-sharing” services blew up the music industry almost overnight because they gave anyone with a broadband connection the ability to download any music they wanted, for free, instead of paying $15 for a CD. The music industry responded by suing the owners of services like Napster, as well as ordinary users like a 66-year-old grandmother. Over time, the labels won their battles against Napster and its ilk, and, in some cases, their investors. They also generated tons of opprobrium from music listeners, who continued to not buy much music, and the value of music labels plummeted. 

But after a decade of trying to will CD sales to come back, the music labels eventually made peace with the likes of Spotify, which offered users the ability to subscribe to all-you-can-listen-to service for a monthly fee. Those fees ended up eclipsing what the average listener would spend a year on CDs, and now music rights and the people who own them are worth a lot of money.

So you can imagine one outcome here: Eventually, groups of people who put things on the internet will collectively bargain with tech entities over the value of their data, and everyone wins. Of course, that scenario could also mean that individuals who put things on the internet discover that their individual photo or tweet or sketch means very little to an AI engine that uses billions of inputs for training."

In Sweden, Taking File Sharing to Heart. And to Church; New York Times, 7/25/12

John Tagliabue, New York Times; In Sweden, Taking File Sharing to Heart. And to Church:

"People almost everywhere are file sharing these days, using computers to download music, films, books or other materials, often ignoring copyrights. In Sweden, however, it is a religion. Really.

Even as this Scandinavian country, like other nations across Europe, bows to pressure from big media concerns to stop file sharing, a Swedish government agency this year registered as a bona fide religion a church whose central dogma is that file sharing is sacred.

“For me it is a kind of believing in deeper values than worldly values,” said Isak Gerson, a philosophy student at Uppsala University who helped found the church in 2010 and bears the title chief missionary. “You have it in your backbone.”

Kopimism — the name comes from a Swedish spelling of the words “copy me” — claims more than 8,000 faithful who have signed up on the church’s Web site. It has applied for the right to perform marriages and to receive subsidies awarded to religious organizations by the state, and it has bid, thus far unsuccessfully, to buy a church building, even though most church activities are conducted online...

“I think we see it as a theological remix,” Mr. Gerson said. “Christianity took from Judaism and turned it into something new, and the Muslims did the same. We are part of a tradition.”"

Court Reduces ‘Shocking’ File Sharing Award; Wired.com, 1/22/10

David Kravets, Wired.com; Court Reduces ‘Shocking’ File Sharing Award:

"A federal judge on Friday reduced a $1.92 million file sharing verdict to $54,000 after concluding the award for infringing 24 songs was “shocking.”

A federal jury in June found Jammie Thomas-Rasset liable in what at the time was the nation’s only Recording Industry Association of America file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. The Minnesota federal jury dinged her $1.92 million for infringing 24 songs. She asked the judge to set aside or reduce that $80,000 per song in damages.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis agreed on Friday, and said the RIAA may have a retrial if it does not accept his ruling.

“The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music,” Davis wrote. “Moreover, although plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must bear some relation to actual damages.”

The decision came days after the Obama administration supported $675,000 in damages a jury levied against a Boston file sharer in the nation’s second and only other file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. Among other things, the administration said the large July award would “deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe they will go unnoticed.”

Davis added that $1.92 million in damages “for stealing 24 songs for personal use is simply shocking.”

The new damages amount to three times the minimum of $750 damages the Copyright Act allows. The maximum is $150,000 per infringement, at a judge or jury’s discretion.

Thomas-Rasset, now 32, said she doesn’t have the money to pay even that reduced judgment, and that her house in Brainerd, Minnesota is homesteaded and protected from a judgment. The mother of four said she is a “very low- to middle-income” earner who works for a local Native American tribe.

“It’s not like I have a money tree in the backyard,” she said during a brief telephone interview.

The RIAA said it was reviewing the decision and was not prepared to comment.

Here’s Thomas-Rasset’s original $1.92 million playlist.

The decision, if it survives, may not have much weight in the file sharing world.

More than a year ago, the record labels announced they were winding down their nearly 6-year-old litigation campaign against individuals and instead were lobbying internet service providers to adopt a program to disconnect music file sharers.

One case in Boston still on the books concerns Joel Tenenbaum, the nation’s only other individual to go to trial against the RIAA. Most of the 30,000 cases the RIAA brought against individuals were settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.

Among other things, he is urging the federal judge in his case to reduce the $675,000 July jury verdict to $22,500, the minimum of $750 for 30 tracks.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, who is presiding over Tenenbaum’s case, is not obligated to follow Judge Davis’ decision."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/judge-reduces-shocking-file-sharing-award/#ixzz0rXeYuqXF"

[OpEd] An opportunity missed to apply 'fair use' to file sharing; LA Times, 12/7/09

[OpEd] LA Times; An opportunity missed to apply 'fair use' to file sharing:

"Joel Tenenbaum set out to become the standard-bearer for people who fight back against Recording Industry Assn. of America lawsuits, but he has come to symbolize fighting back the wrong way. After he admitted on the stand to downloading and sharing 30 songs -- contrary to what he'd claimed in a deposition -- a federal jury found the Boston University graduate liable in August for copyright infringement and ordered him to pay the labels $675,000. Today, the U.S. District Court judge who presided over the case, Nancy Gertner, issued a formal ruling explaining why she had rejected Tenenbaum's "fair use" defense. In a crisp indictment of Tenenbaum's legal team (which was led by notable copyright expert Charles Nesson from Harvard Law School), Gertner said she was prepared to consider a more expansive fair-use defense than other courts had entertained, but the defense blew it."

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/12/an-opportunity-missed-to-apply-fair-use-to-file-sharing.html

Book Review: 'Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars' by William Patry; LA Times, 10/23/09

Book Review: 'Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars' by William Patry; Reviewed by Jonathan Handel; LA Times:

"Into this copyright war walks William Patry. Extraordinarily well-credentialed, Patry has been a copyright lawyer for 27 years as a professor, practitioner and government attorney. Currently, he's Google's senior copyright counsel. Though Patry says he's in favor of "effective" copyright protection, he writes that "bad business models, failed economic ideologies, and acceptance of inapposite metaphors have led to an unjustified expansion" of those laws.

Patry's stature makes "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars" an "important" book. Unfortunately, what the book delivers is a choppy and directionless narrative, sometimes illuminating but too often scattershot, unoriginal and strident. Unsupported claims abound...

This presentation is informative, but it's marred by Patry's habit of presenting arguments as though he were the first to devise them. An example is his claim that entertainment companies attack file sharing instead of innovating: Books by Lawrence Lessig, Tarleton Gillespie and others have made similar arguments more effectively. Patry discusses few of these works and adds little.

In fact, Patry has nothing good to say about copyright law. What do "effective" copyright laws look like? Read his book and you still won't know. The Constitution offers a hint: Copyright is intended to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Various scholars interpret that to mean a delicate balance of rights. Of course, the devil is in the details, but Patry offers none...

The author all but celebrates illegal file sharing, but would he be so sanguine if his own company's intellectual property -- its computer source code -- were shared in this fashion? One might imagine that what's good for the goose is good for the Google, but it's more likely the company would sue. Indeed, the entire technology industry is built on copyrights, patents and trade secrets, backed up by tough contracts and tougher lawyers. (By the way, Patry advocated copyright reform years before joining Google and says the book should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of his current employer.)

Certainly it's untenable for entertainment companies and copyright law itself to remain at war with millions of citizens. For better and worse, technology has unleashed new norms, and some accommodation must be found. Unfortunately, this book sheds little light on how that should happen."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-book23-2009oct23,0,6896339.story

Japanese Prosecutors Still Want To Blame Developer Of File Sharing Program For Copyright Infringement By Users; TechDirt, 10/28/09

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Japanese Prosecutors Still Want To Blame Developer Of File Sharing Program For Copyright Infringement By Users:

"We were happy earlier this month to learn that the Osaka High Court had overturned a lower court ruling, against the creator of the popular Japanese file sharing service, Winny...Unfortunately, Japanese prosecutors didn't recognize the common sense and basic logic of such a ruling and are now appealing the case to the Supreme Court in Japan."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/1302086698.shtml

Medical Researchers Resort To File Sharing To Get Access To Journal Research; TechDirt, 10/27/09

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Medical Researchers Resort to File Sharing to Get Access to Journal Research:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0044576687.shtml

AT&T Learns From Mom in Fighting File Sharing, The New York Times, 3/26/09

Via The New York Times: AT&T Learns From Mom in Fighting File Sharing:

"For customers who continue to share files, the e-mail messages became tougher. Eventually, repeat offenders received certified letters. This repeated nagging did get most of the people who continued to share files after the first notice to stop.

“Then you are down to a handful of people who don’t care, who are 24/7 engaged in copyright theft,” he said. “At that point it is up to the copyright owner to determine the next steps.”

AT&T, however, did not and does not plan to take any action on its own against those customers, like canceling their service, even though they ignored repeated warnings.

“We are not under any circumstances going to suspend or terminate any customer’s service as a result of a third-party allegation unless they have a court order,” Mr. Cicconi said. “The copyright owner has legal rights, and we are not going to be the agent to enforce their rights.”"

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/att-learns-from-mom-in-fighting-file-sharing/

Changing Tack, RIAA Ditches MediaSentry, Wall Street Journal, 1/5/09

Via Wall Street Journal: Changing Tack, RIAA Ditches MediaSentry:

"In another sign of the music industry's recently announced retreat from a five-year-old antipiracy strategy, the Recording Industry Association of America has dumped the company it used to help it gather evidence for mass lawsuits it filed against people it claimed were illegally uploading copyrighted music...

Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who maintains the Recording Industry vs. the People blog and who has represented more than a dozen clients fighting the RIAA, said he considered the decision to drop MediaSentry a "victory" for his clients...

Mr. Beckerman cites MediaSentry's practice of looking for available songs in people's file-sharing folders, downloading them, and using those downloads in court as evidence of copyright violations. He says MediaSentry couldn't prove defendants had shared their files with anyone other than MediaSentry investigators."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123109364085551895.html

Trial transcript of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas now available online, Ray Beckerman's Recording Industry vs. The People Blog, 12/28/08

Via Ray Beckerman's Recording Industry vs. The People Blog: Trial transcript of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas now available online:

"We are pleased to announce that the complete transcript of the Duluth, Minnesota, jury trial, which took place October 2, 2007, to October 4, 2007, in Capitol Records v. Thomas, is now available online:

Transcript, October 2, 2007, pp. 1-278

Transcript, October 3, 2007, pp. 280-543

Transcript, October 4, 2007, pp. 544-643"

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html#259200380767823862

Harvard Team Asks Court To Allow Live Broadcast Of Tenenbaum Case Against RIAA, TechDirt.com, 12/29/08

Via TechDirt.com: Harvard Team Asks Court To Allow Live Broadcast Of Tenenbaum Case Against RIAA:

"A bunch of folks have sent in the story that Charles Nesson of Harvard, who is challenging the constitutionality of the RIAA's lawsuits against file sharers, has filed a motion asking that the trial be broadcast live over the internet, amusingly using the RIAA's own words to support his request. From the beginning, the RIAA has always insisted that its lawsuits were part of a broad "educational campaign" to teach people about the evils of file sharing."

http://techdirt.com/articles/20081229/0144443229.shtml

Legal Jujitsu in a File-Sharing Copyright Case, New York Times, 11/18/08

Via New York Times: Legal Jujitsu in a File-Sharing Copyright Case:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/legal-jujitsu-in-a-file-sharing-copyright-case/?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse

Tennessee Adopts $9.5 Million University Piracy Measure Despite School Layoffs, Wired.com, 11/18/08

Via Wired.com: Tennessee Adopts $9.5 Million University Piracy Measure Despite School Layoffs:

"Just-signed legislation requires the 222,000-student system to spend an estimated $9.5 million (.pdf) for file sharing "monitoring software," "monitoring hardware" and an additional "recurring cost of $1,575,000 for 21 staff positions and benefits (@75,000 each) to monitor network traffic" of its students.
Tennessee's measure, (.pdf) approved Wednesday by Gov. Phil Bredesen, was the nation's first in a bid to combat online file sharing within state-funded universities. The law, similar versions of which the Recording Industry Association of America wants throughout the United States, comes as the Tennessee public university system is increasing tuition, laying off teachers and leaving unfilled vacant instructor positions to battle a $43.7 million shortfall."

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/tennessee-adopt.html

Beckerman: RIAA's 'Vexatious' Charge Reeks with 'Falsehood and Fallacy', Wired.com, 11/07/08

Via Wired.com: Beckerman: RIAA's 'Vexatious' Charge Reeks with 'Falsehood and Fallacy'

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/beckerman-riaas.html

Judge Rejects 'Making Available' Defense, Orders Teen File Sharer to Pay RIAA $7,400 - Wired.com, 10/24/08

Via Wired.com:

Judge Rejects 'Making Available' Defense, Orders Teen File Sharer to Pay RIAA $7,400:

"The decision contradicts last month's mistrial ruling in the nation's only file sharing case to go to trial. The split outcomes underscore that, after five years of RIAA file sharing litigation and some 30,000 lawsuits, the level of proof necessary to demonstrate copyright infringement in the peer-to-peer context varies from judge to judge."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/judge-rejects-m.html

RIAA Decries Texas Woman as 'Vexatious' for Demanding File Sharing Trial - Wired.com, 10/17/08

RIAA Decries Texas Woman as 'Vexatious' for Demanding File Sharing Trial:

"The RIAA has agreed to accept $200 per track instead of the usual base of $750 under the Copyright Act because the woman is claiming an innocent infringement defense. The Copyright Act, which carries penalties of up to $150,000 per track, allows penalties as low as $200 for innocent infringement defenses — in this case a teenager claiming she was clueless about what she was doing."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/riaa-decries-te.html

RIAA Appeals Jammie Thomas Mistrial - Wired.com, 10/15/08

RIAA Appeals Jammie Thomas Mistrial:

"The Recording Industry Association of America is appealing last month's decision in the Jammie Thomas case in which a judge declared a mistrial in the nation's only RIAA file sharing case to go to trial.

On Sept. 24, a Minnesota federal judge overturned a $222,000 judgment levied against the mother of three after concluding he erroneously told jurors that they could ding Thomas for copyright infringement solely for making copyrighted music available on the Kazaa file sharing network."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/riaa-appealing.html

Thomas Mistrial Decision Bolsters RIAA Litigation - Wired.com, 9/25/08

Thomas Mistrial Decision Bolsters RIAA Litigation:
"At first glance, the decision appeared to have deflated the RIAA's legal position, (.pdf) which has helped it prevail in almost every one of its 30,000 cases –- most all of which have settled out of court.
But almost in passing, Judge Davis said that the music files the RIAA investigators allegedly downloaded from Thomas' share folder on Kazaa "can form the basis of an infringement claim."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/despite-thomas.html

Free Music Downloads Without the Legal Peril - New York Times, 9/3/08

Free Music Downloads Without the Legal Peril : "It’s simple to get free music from online services like LimeWire, but it could also bring an unfriendly letter from a lawyer.

Dave Dederer feels your pain. As a songwriter and former guitarist for the Presidents of the United States of America, the owner of a record label and an Internet music entrepreneur, he is especially suited to assess the rights of artists, fans and distributors. After a close study of the laws that regulate his business, one thing is clear, he says: “It’s a swirling cesspool.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/technology/personaltech/04basics.html?ex=1378267200&en=5941bed8165f9d07&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink