Then, a little later, Lynton hit back at his critics. He pointed to the leak of an unfinished copy of Wolverine, which appeared on the Internet (from a movie studio source who has never been identified) a month before its official release. As Techdirt pointed out, none of this hurt the movie.

Despite terrible reviews and this “devastating” leak, Wolverine still did very well at the box office, taking $35 million on its first day, beating both X:Men ($20.8m) and X2: X-Men United ($31.2m).

In a guest piece in The Times today, Lynton is complaining again. “Internet piracy means less money to make movies,” warns the headline.

Lynton begins by plugging Sony’s launch tomorrow of Michael Jackson’s This Is It, noting the importance of releasing it simultaneously worldwide.

“If Sony released it only in the US on Wednesday, by late Thursday it would be camcorded, uploaded on to the internet and available free to anyone with a broadband connection,” he said.

While absolutely correct, everyone also knows that the following is also true. The quality would be absolutely dire, Jackson’s singing would be punctuated by the rattling of candy packets and accompanied by a myriad of noisy cinema-goers singing their own version of his songs, probably all in D-Minor. The video would undoubtedly bring a whole new dimension to Black or White. People download this garbage but no-one enjoys it, and for good movies sales are not affected – but I digress.

“Online theft siphons billions of dollars out of the marketplace. That means less money to make movies. Projects get scaled back and others dropped. Some potential blockbusters won’t get made. Some new writers, actors and film-makers won’t get discovered,” writes Lynton, adding;

“Last year the leading Hollywood studios made 162 films — more than 40 fewer than in 2006, and the lowest number in a decade.”

But of course, just counting the “leading” studios doesn’t give the full picture. Even the MPAA’s own stats reveal a slightly different picture;

“The total number of films released domestically in 2008 was up 1.8%, to 610 films.”

So, if one casts the net slightly wider (yes, there is a world outside Universal, Warner, Paramount, Sony and Twentieth Century Fox), things look slightly different.

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1177 Total Combined Gross: $7,596,626,766
(2009 figures incomplete, total movies scheduled to be released, gross to date)

Admittedly less money seems to be being made per movie, but that hasn’t resulted in less being made – movie releases are set to almost double from 2004 to 2009.

But in the end, Lynton is arguing that more piracy means that less money goes into the studios’ pockets. But in an Ars Technica piece ‘What piracy crisis? MPAA touts record box office for 2007‘, the stats speak for themselves;

“..data that shows the US box office doing its biggest year of business ever in 2007, growing 5.4 percent over 2006 and bringing in $9.63 billion.”

So maybe 2008 was a disaster? Not quite. In another Ars piece ‘What piracy? Movie biz sees record box office in 2008‘, the stats also speak loud and clear;

“Domestic film box offices broke multiple records this year [2008], grossing an estimated $9.78 billion.”

Even the MPAA’s own stats reveal that the “Worldwide box office reached another all-time high in 2008 at $28.1 billion, an increase of 5.2% over 2007.”

I’m absolutely no statistician, but I simply find Lynton’s claims confusing. I can’t imagine that I’m on my own.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

PRS recently demanded an £80 annual fee from a corner shop to allow it to keep its radio, but a cunning plan was hatched by one of the employees that enabled it to avoid the charges.

Sandra Burt, a 56-year-old grandmother shop assistant at A & T Food Store in Clackmannan, turned off the radio and began to personally serenade her customers instead. Ha! Take that PRS!

But it wasn’t to be. The PRS got in touch and said that Mrs Burt’s singing constituted a live performance and was subject to a “four figure” annual fee. The PRS said that Mrs Burt was “getting up to mischief” to avoid paying the fine.

Nevertheless, Mrs Burt was told her activities are illegal and she had to pay.

“She could be fined for not having a live performance licence,” said a PRS spokesman at the time, “and if the fine isn’t paid, then she could potentially be taken to court.”

But now the PRS is having to eat its words, along with a large helping of humble pie and a nice groveling apology dessert. They have suddenly realized, strangely, that everything has just been one big mistake all along and have taken all the threats back. How nice.

But in reality, although she tried Mrs Burt simply couldn’t comply and has been compulsively infringing copyright all along.

“I couldn’t stop myself singing,” she told the BBC.

“They would need to put a plaster over my mouth to get me to stop, I can’t help it,” she said.

“We’re very sorry we made a big mistake,” said a note attached to a big bunch of flowers from the PRS to Mrs Burt. “We hear you have a lovely singing voice and we wish you good luck.”

I guess that makes it all ok then. How ridiculous.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Harry Maloney has over 30 years experience in the industry and was previously employed as a chairman of Apex Entertanment Group and commercial director for BMG Records representing the likes of Annie Lennox, Take That and Elvis Presley. He is currently a director and council member of the BPI, the outfit which currently controls around 90% of recorded music in Britain and is currently campaigning for the disconnection of alleged file-sharers from the Internet. He previously owned his own label, Mazur.

Goran Andersson also has 30 years experience in the entertainment industries. He is currently the VP Content and European Region at Catch Media which he co-owns and where Harry Maloney (above) is a director and advisor. Andersson also works in business affairs at X5 Music AB and serves on the Board of Trustees at the New York-based ARChive of Contemporary Music, which is claimed to be the world’s largest music archive covering 20 million songs. He has also owned Modern World Music for the last 26 years.

The third person being put forward is Janne Lundqvist. GGF previously took on Lundqvist as Music Business Relations Manager. He began his music industry career with CBS back in 1975. In 1983 he became Head of Marketing at Virgin Music and in 1987 became CEO of Greatest Hits Entertainment in 1997. Lundqvist was CEO at Vitaminic between 2000-2002 before setting us his own company.

The three new board members will be needed to help GGF with legalizing The Pirate Bay through licensing deals. Earlier, GGF CEO Hans Pandeya told TorrentFreak that his company had started discussions with several of the major entertainment industry companies, and told us that the responses have been very positive. First things first though. The most urgent matter for GGF is to actually transfer the money to the owners of The Pirate Bay, so they actually become owners of the domain.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

These are the words of singer songwriter James Blunt in The Times today, in response to the opinions of Lily Allen published and republished a thousand times last week. Allen had taken a swipe at Radiohead’s Ed O’Brien and Nick Mason, the Pink Floyd drummer, after they came out and said that file-sharing is beneficial for artists.

Both O’Brien and Mason are members of the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), which opposes plans by Peter Mandelson to disconnect persistent file-sharers, but they are becoming quite a problem for the rest of the industry.

The major labels, who hold the opposite opinion on the issue of unauthorized downloading, have been in intensive talks with FAC over the last week, trying to reach some sort of consensus on the way ahead. Somehow the music industry needs to show a united front to the government, but at the moment that seems very unlikely. Yesterday FAC said that so far they have failed to find a way forward with the rest of the industry.

“[The] power to demand suspensions of accounts is only achievable through a wide-scale invasion of personal privacy which we believe would result in a dangerous reduction in the rights to protection of the individual. Putting this power in place would reduce the civil liberties of every one of us in the country in order to afford a disincentive threat to a small minority of ‘egregious offenders’. We believe this would be both disproportionate and unenforceable,” said FAC in a statement.

FAC said that while it negotiated with the labels all last week, they cannot be moved from their insistence that file-sharers should be disconnected from the Internet. FAC says it is steadfast in its opposition to this route.

In an attempt to soften their edges and appear less aggressive, UK Music, yet another music industry umbrella organization, has removed the actual word “disconnection” from its press releases and statements. However, even a cursory glance at their current wording shows that this omission is purely cosmetic, instead stating: “…..Ofcom should be granted appropriate and proportionate powers as directed by the secretary of state.” Of course, Ofcom are the people that are being proposed to have the power to disconnect file-sharers.

So as FAC and the British public stand on one side, Peter Mandelson, the record labels and the likes of Lily Allen and now James Blunt stand on the other.

“At long last the Government is looking to legislate to protect the industry,” writes Blunt, while completely forgetting that the UK has some perfectly good copyright laws to deal with, surprisingly, copyright infringement.

“Peter Mandelson is looking to engage the internet service providers who, in my opinion, handle stolen goods, and should take much more responsibility,” Blunt continues, while forgetting that as a carrier, under the law ISPs have no responsibility for the traffic they carry or the actions of their subscribers.

“How this legislation pans out, and if it goes through at all, is critical to the survival of the British music business; critical to thousands of jobs; and critical to our ability to nurture and develop great musicians and the songs and albums that we would hope to listen to in the future,” Blunt concludes.

Bringing in draconian laws to scare the public into buying music is not the answer. Taking away people’s Internet is definitely not the solution. The labels need to realize this and instead provide some high quality all-you-can-eat music services at a price that everyone can afford.

And as UK ISP Virgin Media sends its message to the government that a “heavy-handed, punitive regime will simply alienate consumers” and that “persuasion not coercion” is the key to solving this illicit file-sharing ‘problem’, I’ll end with a few lines from martial artist and best-selling author Geoff Thompson’s book Watch My Back, as he writes about a gang trying to impose their will on others;

This crew had gained respect in the city, but it was respect born through fear; stolen not given. Respect is worthless unless it’s earned. Any half-wit can point a loaded gun and demand respect but it brings hate with it. Real respect encourages co-operation and understanding

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

One band embracing file-sharing are Toronto-based melodic folk rock group Great Lake Swimmers.

In an interview earlier this year, the band’s lead vocalist Tony Dekker said that although he doesn’t share files himself and would prefer it if fans got music from legitimate sources, he’s OK with it since people are “spreading the word about a band they love through file sharing.”

Now, in a recent interview, Dekker recalls their performance at an Ontario music festival in 2008, after which Robert Plant said he liked the band’s songs. Getting noticed by a big name was a boost for them but it was the band’s transformation from playing small venues to becoming more widely known that he says demonstrates the power of a new type of marketing.

Dekker says that this development of the band’s wider exposure is down to the modern equivalent of word-of-mouth promotion. We know it as “file-sharing” and it is this technology that Dekker says has allowed the band to move far beyond its Canadian roots.

“It’s not just something that’s specific to a region anymore. It’s global. It’s global word-of-mouth,” he says.

“People can share ideas, share music files and stuff, and I think it’s good. It’s good for music because you don’t have to scratch far below the surface to find interesting music that doesn’t have the machinery of a big record label behind it,” he concludes.

Indeed, as the anti-filesharing antics of the big labels continues to further alienate them from their artists’ fans, finding good music that they have nothing to do with is becoming more important than ever.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

From the start it was clear that the only thing that the jury had to decide on would be the the size of the fine. The fair use defense was thrown out a few hours before the trial started, which shut down the only escape route left.

Tenenbaum’s defense team, headed by Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his law students, were left powerless. “Undoubtedly, we were a creative and nontraditional legal team. But going into trial, we were stripped of all our attempts to mitigate Joel’s liability, so today’s outcome has been in the cards all week,” student Debbie Rosenbaum wrote.

This is the second win in little over a month for the RIAA. In June, Jammie Thomas-Rasset lost her retrial against the RIAA and was ordered to pay $1.92 million for the 24 songs she shared via Kazaa.

RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy told TorrentFreak that the ‘damages’ will not go to any of the artists, but to more anti-piracy campaigns. “Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs,” he said.

In total, the RIAA has spent over a million dollars on this case alone, to set an example to the millions of people who share files every day. Time will tell whether or not the verdict will have any impact at all, aside from ruining a student’s life and alienating a few million music fans.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Interpret, a market research firm focused on entertainment, media and technology has just published the results of a massive survey on illegal music downloads, covering 64 million people. Of this group 24 million respondents (36%) admitted that they had downloaded music illegally in the past three months.

An impressive figure to say the least, indicating that the RIAA, BPI and IFPI will seriously have to reconsider their current handling of the ‘piracy’ problem. Spending millions of dollars on developing new business models instead of paying lawyers might be a good start. Interpret’s findings may be helpful in this.

The goal of the report was to find out if people who download from BitTorrent and other file-sharing networks are also paying to download music. And indeed, it turns out that some ‘pirates’ are also paying for downloads through iTunes or other web stores.

The results show that 9 percent of music pirates have bought a full album online in the past three months. Downloading individual songs is even more popular in this group, with 16 percent indicating that they paid to download an individual song recently.

What struck us at TorrentFreak was that nearly half (49%) of all music pirates said that downloading music should be cheaper than buying a disc. This means that 51% are fine with the current price point of legal downloads. This is an odd finding to say the least.

Unfortunately, Interpret’s report doesn’t provide any comparative data, so we can’t say anything about how the group of music pirates does compared to the rest of the public. However, it wouldn’t surprise us if on average this group is spending more on music than the average customer.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

A video mixtape is a collection of bootleg clips from movies, tv shows, home grown videos or just about any other source. These tapes grew in popularity along with the advent of home VHS and Betamax videos – the masses now had the equipment to make their own shows and compilations. Of course, nowadays while they are still called ‘mixtapes’, they are more likely to exist in digital form on the Internet or on DVD.

Mixtapes are also known for the strange and unusual material they can contain. From weird B-movies to sporting accidents and dramatic news footage, through to unintelligible TV shows and rare pilots from countries far and wide, they contain all types of mind boggling clips that most people never knew existed. The heavy doses of porn and various stomach-churning activities and curiosities turn some of these tapes into controversial items, even on the underground.

Anyone Googling “Video mixtape” will be immediately exposed to links and references to the Retard-O-Tron (ROT (NSFW)) mixtapes – possibly the most controversial and popular mixtapes around. Already banned in the US, Canada and Ireland, we caught up with ZXQL3000, the creator of the ROT mixtapes, to find out why the hell he does it.

“Before the Internet was available in every household, many people around the world used to trade music with each other by taping stuff from their collections onto audio cassettes, and sending them to each other by snail mail,” ZXQL told TorrentFreak.

“These things were called mixtapes, and were a great source for discovering music. Getting new and unknown songs from all kinds of obscure sources was only part of the fun — MAKING your own mixtape was even better.”

Projects like ROT are the natural progression from purely audio based output to video, with the emphasis on fun. “They’re made for lazy Saturday nights after (or before!) going out, for having a drink and having a no-brainer laugh with your buddies,” says ZXQL.

As Internet availability became widespread, mixtapes traded by standard mail pretty much died out, taking the mixtape phenomenon with it. “And then P2P came along,” said ZXQL, “and like it did for commercial music and movies, it changed the rules — if you wanted it to or not.”

This new found ability for individuals to take control of their own distribution coupled with the availability of cheap and even free audio and video editing packages, gave mixtapes a new lease of life. But P2P wasn’t just used for the distribution of completed projects, it was to became a prime source of raw material.

“P2P offers you a nearly unlimited library of digital media: there’s no song obscure enough for you not to find it,” says ZXQL enthusiastically. “Even better: there is SO much stuff out there that still needs to be discovered, the chase is as much fun as the catch. Mixtapes help you show what’s out there.”

Finding the source material can be entertaining in itself, ZXQL explained. “There’s so much about today’s availability of media that makes this so much fun: hunting for that perfect clip to end your sequence, exploring new music by just typing in keywords and seeing what comes up.”

“Say you start your mixtape with one single video clip of Bill Gates getting a pie thrown in his face, but it needs some music in the background. So you start looking for a song that fits the clip. Maybe you just type in “pie” in Emule or Limewire, or Google for lyrics that contain the phrase “in your face”. Maybe that song makes for an excellent link to the next clip. You’ll be amazed with where your search can take you.”

Having laughed, cried, been bemused, shocked and sickened all within the space of a few minutes at Retard-O-Tron 2 – I can see what ZXQL meant by “be amazed” at the kind of footage available. While a lot of the footage is suitable for everyone (and some of the B-movies and obscure footage is amazing), overall it is definitely one for the over 18’s. Actually, better make that 25, with a very broad mind too.

To be honest I would have preferred fewer sex scenes, as I think I would’ve watched more of it. We understand ROT1 is more of an easy ride. “ROT3 is in the making, and it will feature less porn,” ZXQL reassured me. “Or at least easier to view with a group of people, so it won’t be as explicit. ROT2 kinda went overboard with the porn, I think so myself,” he added.

Of course, porn aside, many of these mixtapes can hardly be considered legal. Who knows how many instances of copyright infringement there are in each one – dozens would seem conservative – but since the mixtape scene is still fairly focused and most of the source material so obscure, the creators seem to be largely left alone.

For those wanting ROT1 or ROT2 on DVD, one is available from the site, but there are other ways to watch. ROT1 was already ripped and released by a group specializing in releasing cult and b-movies called PiMPRiPPaZ. ROT2 was ripped by a similar group called ViDEOCULT who ZXQL says did a much better job and delivered a high quality, scene-standard compliant rip. He’s happy for people to grab these rips of course, adding;

“In the end, I just want the ultimate thing I can create. Not held back by copyright, censorship, good taste, a commercial drive or other barriers. I wanted a DVD for when my buddies and I chill on the couch with a beer and a bong. I love making my mixtapes, and I love watching them. It’s a hobby, it’s underground and it might even be considered art – but it isn’t about money.”

Just in case you didn’t get the message – the ROT mixtapes are NOT for kids or anyone easily offended. Absolutely, categorically NSFW – you have been warned. And don’t forget, July is unofficial video mixtape month on The Pirate Bay – who knows what it will turn up.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Back in early March 2009, Michael Jackson biographer Ian Halperin said he had proof that the ‘King of Pop’ had recorded as many as 100 unreleased tracks but was keeping them locked away. He claimed that upon Jackson’s death, the tracks would be made available to his children – Prince aged 11, Paris Katherine aged 10, and five year old Prince Michael II. The speculation was that despite Jackson’s turbulent financial situation in life, after his death these tracks would secure an inheritance for his kids.

Halperin’s credibility had already been called into doubt after he claimed variously that Jackson could barely speak, suffered from emphysema and had lost 95% of the vision in his left eye, which prompted the Jackson camp to issue a scathing denial. “Concerning this author’s allegations, we would hope in the future that legitimate media will not continue to be exploited by such an obvious attempt to promote this unauthorized ‘biography,’” it said.

Although it denied Halperin’s claims regarding the ‘Thriller’ star’s health, Jackson’s camp never denied the existence of the plan behind the unreleased songs. Now, unless Jackson really has died (which we very much doubt) that plan appears to have suffered quite a setback. Just a few hours ago, dozens of previously unreleased tracks leaked to BitTorrent prompting a swift reaction by Jackson’s legal team and anti-piracy partners who struggled to plug the leak.

At the time of writing, only one tracker appeared to be still tracking the torrent (a 645mb RAR archive), which could be a risky business indeed. Sources told TorrentFreak that the leak is believed to have occurred when Jackson’s Neverland Ranch was undergoing “financial reorganization” earlier in 2009. Indeed, that same “re-organization” resulted in Jackson losing control of his famous sequin glove and the robotic head from his movie, Moonwalker. The auctioning of these items is scheduled to take place April 22nd and is the subject of a Jackson lawsuit.

Nearly 2000 people have downloaded the torrent already, and the comments on Mininova suggest that it is indeed the real deal. Michael Jackson’s management was contacted for a comment, but thus far we haven’t received a reply.

More updates as we get them.

Update: The torrent contains only 74 tracks, not 100 as previously reported. Many tracks are simply numbered rather than named, but others have titles including Past Friends, Tears Don’t Change A Thing, Next Time Like the Last and Growing With the Truth.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

These results are not unique to Canada either. A few weeks ago a Spanish survey found pretty much the same results (pdf). Of the thousands of Internet users questioned, more than half admitted using file-sharing software regularly. In fact, 28% said they use it every day. Only 1% of the respondents saw downloading copyrighted files as criminal behavior, while 43% said that the development of P2P networks should be promoted.

The results of these two reports clearly show that public opinion is changing in favor of P2P users. So how did this happen? Could it be that the Internet has changed the way we interact with digital media? Unlike 10 years ago, people are now used to unlimited access to all kinds of information, much of it thanks to Google. The Internet allows people to access an unlimited library of information, and at an increasing rate people demand the same experience for TV, music and other forms of digital information, as the studies show.

Meanwhile, entertainment industry lobbyists do all they can to get tougher copyright laws in place, and to get repeated copyright infringers disconnected by their ISPs. They argue that filesharing is hurting content creators, even though research indicates that the opposite might actually be true. So what’s going on here? Could it be that the bosses at the record labels and movie companies are trying to slow down innovation simply because they want to preserve their old business models?

The people who actually create the movies and music want their content to be shared, only the large corporations behind it are too afraid to move on. Lobby groups such as the MPAA and the RIAA represent the distributors of movies and music, NOT the creators. They even pay politicians to support their cause by voting for or against laws so that legislation is made with their interests in mind. Is that moral? When some of the most successful musicians start their own lobby group to take on the record labels for their alleged extortion practices, there’s clearly something wrong.

So should sharing copyrighted material be legalized? Not per se, but the entertainment industry should focus on monetizing filesharing networks instead of bringing them down. The Internet has drastically changed the way people consume music and other forms of entertainment. Every piece of information is only a few clicks away, and people demand the same for their music and other types of media. There are no boundaries anymore. 15 years ago it was unthinkable that someone could have access to millions of songs, on demand. Now, this has become reality, but the music industry is still hesitant to offer such a service.

The answer really is to compete with piracy. Right now most of the online music services don’t offer a very good experience or are simply too expensive. Most of them still include some form of DRM, no unlimited access, or a limited library. “All you can eat” plans are the future though, either for a small fee or ad supported. If it’s done right, the motivation to download something illegally will simply disappear, at least for the majority of the people. This aside, it is likely to generate more revenue for the artist and labels. Everybody wins.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

In an attempt to have their voices heard, a group of leading musicians have started their own lobby group, the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC). The group includes members such as Robbie Williams, Radiohead and Travis and aims to end the extortion-like practices of the record labels and allow artist to gain more control over their own work.

Last year, Travis experienced the aggressiveness of the labels first hand. When the band encouraged fans to share one of their songs with friends, IFPI went after a fan who posted the song on his website. The IFPI realized that it made a mistake and backed off, but it clearly shows that the labels are out of touch with reality.

Unfortunately, the example above is just the tip of the iceberg. In Europe, music industry lobbyists have managed to strike deals with Internet service providers to go after those people who download music illegally. The artists were never involved in these negotiations though, and many of them oppose the aggressive stance of the labels which turns fans into criminals.

“The digital landscape is changing fast and new deals are being struck all the time, but all too often without reference to the people who actually make the music. Just look at the recent MoU on file-sharing between labels, government and the ISPs. Artists were not involved,” Brian Message, co-manager of Radiohead said.

Similarly, Europe is currently planning to extend copyright on audio recordings from 50 to 95 years, gently pushed by music industry lobbyists of course. Again, the musicians prefer a lowering of the current copyright term to 35 years instead.

The artists feel that the record labels are using copyright on the artists’ work to their advantage, restricting free access. “It’s like taking out a mortgage on a house, paying off the mortgage and you still don’t end up owning the house,” Radiohead guitarist Ed O’Brien said.

Another worry for the artist is the revenue on digital sales. Quite often, the deals record labels make for selling music online are vague and the artists don’t get paid at all. Last year we already reported on one such artist who found his music on iTunes, but never received a penny. Frustrated, he decided to upload his music onto BitTorrent sites so people could download it for free.

According to Radiohead’s Ed O’Brien, who’s also a member of the newly formed lobby group, this is not an isolated incident. “The music companies did a deal with Nokia recently, so they could launch phones with access to all sorts of music. We think they all received advances from Nokia, but nobody is saying who got what – and we think some of that money should go to the artists,” he said.

The newly formed lobby of top musicians hopes to set the record straight, and is demanding fair compensation for all artists. They believe musicians should have control over their own work instead of being the puppets of record label bosses. We can’t say that we blame them.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

It must have felt like an attack from behind when the RIAA heard that they lost its only major court victory, with a mistrial being declared in Capitol V Thomas. Making things worse, the Department of Justice, viewed by some to be the bully’s trusted lieutenant, turned on the content industries by soundly criticizing a bill aiming to increase copyright and patent enforcement powers.

The Thomas case is now a proverbial millstone around the neck of the RIAA. At first it looks impressive, and gives a frightening impression to anyone that thinks to challenge them, but now it’s starting to drag them down. Not only was the decision in the case thrown out, the statement by the judge in support of the mistrial reads like a critique of the legal arguments put forward by the RIAA over the last 5 years.

Yet, the millstone around the neck is not just in the refuting of legal arguments. It also extends to the excessive damages that were awarded in the first trial. The $9250 per infringement has been argued to be so far past constitutional restrictions on excessive punishments, that it has brought it into public attention. Because of this, it may end up reducing the maximum amount of damages and fines that can be awarded, which may also undermine the settlement encouragement (or ‘pay instead of fight’) strategy. The end of the judge’s order says it all:

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs – the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000 – more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent.

While 24 songs is more like two CDs (than the three the court states), that damages should go from 4000x losses (assuming 3CDs) to 100x, means that the $222,000 would be more like $5,550. That’s quite a difference. The same could be applied to amounts demanded in pre-trial settlements, where the RIAA has often asked too much. The court’s math is far more reasonable, despite being calculated using retail CD prices, which have all manner of mark-ups and distribution costs that are not relevant to digital music included. A digital download doesn’t have to pay for the CD blank and doesn’t have to pay for transportation to the store. There are no printing costs or middlemen profit. The court gives an estimated cost of $2.25 per track, the actual cost for a download is more than seven times less than that.

Of course, other arguments, ranging from definition semantics, to trying to use criminal law as precedent, were denied as well. Some of these arguments were novel, others seemed like desperation.

The other news from Wednesday didn’t help either, especially in the muddling of civil and criminal enforcement of copyright. The Department of Justice sent a letter to Senators Leahy and Specter over the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act (EIPRA) of 2008, which passed through the Senate judiciary committee last week. It stated that the Departments of Justice and Commerce had ’strong and significant concerns’ with portions of the act. In short, they said they didn’t want to be used as free lawyers for the entertainment industry, and also felt that the position of an ‘Anti-Piracy Czar’ would be, surprisingly, unconstitutional. When even the US Justice department, which has seemed indifferent to the US Constitution in recent years, uses it as an excuse to oppose new powers, it could be likened to rats leaving a sinking ship.

Of course, the past week hasn’t been only bad news for the RIAA and its members, it’s been bad press for them too. On Monday, they elected to proceed to a jury trial in Maverick V Harper, with a date set for November. The RIAA were unwilling to accept a $200/infringement settlement offered by the judge. In taking the offer, they would have had a win, but at a lower amount, and left the potential for innocent infringement defenses. However, with the Thomas mistrial ruling two days later, negating any precedent they hoped to point to, and undermining some of the possible defenses, it may seem they have gambled on a treble-or-nothing bet.

The case in question centers around 38 songs, although only 6 were downloaded by MediaSentry. What can make this case interesting is that MediaSentry may be in violation of the law, regarding Texas based investigators, and that the age of the defendant – Whitney Harper was 16 when the infringements allegedly occurred – make an innocent infringement defence possible. Attacking a young girl for actions in her teens may not play well with a jury.

All in all, a bad week for the RIAA, and it may only be the first of many. We may never know if the article written by New York based attorney Ray Backerman did anything to to bring about a closer examination of the RIAA’s cases. Nor can it be overlooked that Wednesdays are not the RIAA’s best days – exactly a week before the Thomas and DOJ setbacks, they set themselves up as targets of ridicule by suing Beckerman. They accused him of allegedly doing what they have been repeatedly accused of doing – irony indeed. Many people are doubtless wondering what excitement October 1st will bring.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

This time, Metallica’s Lars Ulrich shocked everyone by saying: “If this thing leaks all over the world today or tomorrow, happy days. It’s 2008 and it’s part of how it is these days.”

Despite this effort, it hasn’t taken long for people to start a dispute over piracy. According to a report, Metallica’s label, Universal Music, canceled an interview the band had planned with the Swedish newspaper Sydsvenskan last week, after a writer there, Jonn Jeppsson, sparked off an anti-piracy row featuring him and The Pirate Bay.

Instead of reviewing the official version of the album, Jeppsson used an unauthorized cut called “Death Magnetic: Better, Shorter, Cut”, which contains the same songs as the original, but shortened. If reviewing an unofficial copy wasn’t enough, Mr Jeppson clearly enraged Universal when he admitted in his review that he downloaded his copy off The Pirate Bay.

Metallica’s label Universal was not pleased, to say the least. Talking with Dagens Media, Universal Sweden’s Per Sundin said: “The reviewer is referring to a torrent where someone has altered the original songs. The reviewer explains exactly where one should go in order to download the file that is totally infringing copyright. It’s not only an illegal file, but an altered file. The reviewer also writes that this is how the album should have sounded.”

Showing that Universal isn’t happy about piracy, even if Lars seems to have undergone a road-to-Damascus-style recovery, Sundin went on stating: “File-sharing of music is illegal. Period. There’s nothing to discuss. That fact that Sydsvenskan has a writer that has downloaded this music illegally and then makes mention of an illegal site in his review is totally unacceptable to us.”

Hinting that Universal may stop sending promo material for Sydsvenskan to review he ends: “We live in symbiosis with each other and we send them our artists’ record for free for review. But if they download the albums illegally instead, then there’s no point in doing that.”

Meanwhile, ‘Death Magnetic’ entered the UK chart at #1.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Earlier this year, the company opened their official music store, which they have expanded ever since. Today LimeWire takes another step forward, as they announce the largest distribution deal since the store launched. They teamed up with “The Orchard“, which distributes more than 1.2 million songs, mostly from Indie labels.

Greg Scholl, President and CEO of The Orchard, said in a response to the announcement: “We’re pleased to support the LimeWire store, a retail offering that protects copyrights while fairly compensating artists and labels. This exciting entrant to digital retail offers us a unique opportunity to connect our clients with an online audience of potentially millions of new customers.”

Tracks from the Limewire store are 256kbps DRM-free MP3s and cost $0.99 each. However, there are significant savings to be had with some of the subscription plans. The ‘Platinum’ plan offers the best price, offering 75 ‘Download Credits’ for $19.99 a month, which works out to $0.27 per track. ‘Download Credits’, which is more reasonable that most other stores.

The LimeWire store is linked to the filesharing client (hmmm), meaning that LimeWire users will see “buy now” offer in the search results. This does of course drive a lot of new customers to the store, but it’s also an interesting marketing opportunity for record labels. Still, most of the big labels are hesitant to partner with the store.

The LimeWire team has also added some new features such as radio playlist integration. Users can browse the playlists of radio stations in their area, with direct links to buy the songs. “We’re focused on features that will allow people to discover new music as well as interact on a different level with their existing favorites,” Jason Pelzer, the LimeWire store Technical Director told TorrentFreak.

Playlist integration.

“LimeWire Store development has been running at full speed to provide a number of exciting new features, and we are enjoying the opportunity to improve our user community’s experience via the feedback they’ve provided,” he added.

One of the major downsides of the Limewire store is that it’s only available to US customers, due to licensing issues. In a way it’s also strange that the download store named after and developed by a P2P company, doesn’t use P2P to distribute their content. Other than that, the service looks like a good alternative to most of the music stores that are currently out there.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Leaks of pre-release material onto the Internet are pretty normal events these days. Even the mainstream media are happy to cover the big leaks, usually while portraying file-sharers as the son of the devil. In the past many file-sharing news sites have covered such leaks of movies and music as a matter of course, but as they become more prevalent, less people report on them.

Normally the approaches of the mainstream (and the bands, artist and labels) and that of the file-sharing community are pretty much opposite. On the one hand piracy is killing everything it touches. On the other hand, the file-sharing hand, it’s something totally different – free promotion and all-important publicity for the artists.

Our regular readers will know that the relatively unknown Indiana Gregg did rather well from her recent experiences with piracy, thanks largely to The Pirate Bay, TorrentFreak and dozens of other sites. And she’s not on her own, many other artists have benefited from piracy.

Some of these people are openly happy with their ‘piracy’ successes, others complain like crazy. Interestingly (and this is an opinion piece so feel free to disagree) we now appear to have a third type of piracy complainer – the complain-like-crazy-but-secretly-love-it type.

Enter ‘BuckCherry‘. I haven’t been (un)fortunate enough to hear anything from them but according to Wikipedia they are a hard/alternative rock band. They claim to be pretty mad that a track entitled “Too Drunk…” from their latest album “Black Butterfly” has started cropping up on BitTorrent sites, way in advance of its September 15th release date. This is what the band has to say:

“Too Drunk…,” a featured track from “BLACK BUTTERFLY,” recently appeared online at a number of BitTorrent sites. Buckcherry has released an official statement regarding the song’s unscheduled arrival, declaring, “Honestly, we hate it when this s*** happens, because we want our FANS to have any new songs first.”

There is an old saying, “Least said, soonest mended“, but clearly BuckCherry have never heard of this saying or the concept, since they didn’t just comment casually on the leak, but shouted it from the rooftops in a fully-blown Atlantic Records press release. They mention the leak in the opening paragraph:

Buckcherry Reveals “BLACK BUTTERFLY”; Platinum-Certified Hard Rockers Announce New Album as “Too Drunk…” Appears Online;

…and then go on to mention the actual network (BitTorrent) in the second paragraph detailed above, which is not a particularly smart move if you’re trying to dissuade file-sharers from the inevitable free download. Adding further fuel to the already smoldering pile of suspicion is the fact that it’s possible for fans who preorder to get the “Too Drunk…” track for free.

I may be completely wrong in coming to the conclusion that BuckCherry has (cleverly?) manipulated 30 million world-wide file sharers into sampling their work through their faux displeasure in this press release. I may be wrong that Indiana Gregg is quietly enjoying all the extra publicity afforded to her by piracy.

But of course, the BitTorrent community wouldn’t fall for such a cynical publicity attempt and the file-sharing press wouldn’t fall for it either, we’re not that stupid.

Hmmmm….

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Luckily, there are still some politicians who know what’s right and what’s not. Charles Angus, a Canadian MP, is not a fan of the ‘3 strikes and you’re out’ proposals, which have also been discussed in Canada. Indeed, it seems that nobody, except the lobby groups pushing it, are for it. Cory Doctrow, in a piece for the Guardian the other day, proposed a similar 3-strikes measure for the anti-piracy officials. Send 3 false accusations and you’re off the net. Angus is similarly opposed in a recent interview:

Well, i think the outset the three strike law as admissible is idiotic. It’s idiotic because as we see with the DMCA those that get accused of infringements lack the legal power that the corporations that are threatening them have. So it’s always going to be a completely one-sided argument and if ISP’s are legally bound to cut you off after three claims of infringement, I think there are certainly problems.

Charles Angus, MP, is not your typical politician. Unlike most, he’s not a lawyer, and having worked first hand with those who have been forgotten by those in government , the homeless , has a good appreciation for cause and effect. Also, through clashes with his church over gay marriage in the past, he has also proven himself a man of morals, not easily swayed by peer pressure or lobbying.

It is welcome then, to hear that he is also in strong opposition to Canada’s bill C61, dubbed “the Canadian DMCA”. Back in early May, in a statement from his office he warned of lobby actions:

The DMCA lobby will be working closely with the government to create a false impression that there’s an international crisis of confidence in Canada’s copyright regime. They will attempt to portray copyright as a black and white battle against pirates, thieves and criminals. In doing so, they will tar the efforts of educators, consumer groups and artist’s organization who recognize that the DMCA is the wrong model for Canada.

DMCA advocates have attempted to portray Canada as a pirate haven for failing to ratify the WIPO agreement. Angus points out that many of Canada’s competitors are in exactly the same position, and that Canada could easily ratify WIPO without agreeing to the onerous restrictions included in the DMCA legislation. He says politicians need to wake up to the problems with the DMCA.

The DMCA is a failed model. It doesn’t work in the United States and it won’t address the needs of a 21st century innovation agenda in Canada. However, U.S. trade lobbyists are intent on bringing Canada to heel. They will try to choreograph a sense of fear that Canada is somehow failing internationally if we don’t go the DMCA route.

Many didn’t heed that warning, however, and bill C-61 was the result, introduced last month. Like a lot of consumers (including some 85,000 – up from 40,000 last month – on Michael Geist’s facebook group) Angus isn’t happy about the bill, as he states:

Bill 61 is a piece of legislation that is taking us down the wrong road. We really need to update our copyright legislation for the 21st century. It’s Something that has been dragging on much too long. But bill c-61 is premised on a number of very faulty assumptions. It’s also predicated on, well it’s been based on a complete lack of consultation with the key people who need to be at the table to make good copyright legislation.

When it comes to copyright, he is the one that had the advantage over politicians. A former musician, he also earns money from book sales as well as music. His views seem to be quite different from another artist, Indiana Gregg, the difference is, he has studied the facts, she hasn’t.

It is the punishments that come up for greatest scorn however, and he is firmly on the side of ‘proving your case’ something the industry hates to do, for studies, and now lawsuits.

If you look at how the lawsuits happen in the U.S, you will get a bill for 15-20,000 and be told to pay it. If you try to challenge it, they will bring a massive legal team against you, and we saw the woman in the U.S who basically lost her house and savings for the fact she uploaded 12-24 songs. Thats completely irrational. If there are damages, if someone has massivly infringed copyright, there has to be a limit. There has to be clear limits, and it has to be proven what those damages are.

For the full low-down on his thoughts, check out the full interview. For more information about the European “three strikes” legislation, visit the Open Rights Group.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

TorrentFreak heard that Indiana had a message for The Pirate Bay, the BitTorrent community and file-sharers in general, so we caught up with her to find out exactly what. She told us that although she agrees with the concept of file sharing, she believes that musicians and writers need to make a living or at least enough money to enable them to re-invest into their creation. She also gave us her opinions about how file-sharing will be ‘policed’ in the future and notes that the methods may not be 100% fair. “With all forms of change, there are always the up-sides and down-sides,” she told us.

It’s not very often an artist will speak as openly or at such length on this subject as Indiana has. Some people are going to like what she has to say. Thousands, maybe millions are going to hate it, but there isn’t a debate when only one side speaks – so here it is – uncensored, controversial, outrageous and thought provoking.

Something tells us this debate is far from over…..

I felt misrepresented in the first article and obviously, my attempt at humor by stating I’m a ‘millionaire’ wasn’t appropriately quantified. Am I a millionaire because I have millions of ants in my garden? Is it because I have had millions of people listen to my music on sites like MySpace or YouTube? Is it because I’m grateful to be healthy? How people quantify ‘richness’ in their lives depends on how people perceive value. And, yes, I’m guilty of fueling Peter Sunde’s fire and animosity. I can image it’s not easy in his position just now considering the amount of angry artistic people who are fronting against his cause. I’m sure he has his core values that he wants to defend… I have mine… and I’m not afraid to speak about them… for the sake of music.. and the common good.

The Pirate Bay: The Sinking Ship…..My Response

The Wild West of the Internet seems to be getting seriously out of hand and i’ve been wondering if and when the Internet Police will come and sort it all out. I mean… this is the new Wild West…

We’ve all heard and read every form of complaint about the Internet. From cyber-bullying, to child pornography sites, to copyright theft in the form of ‘file-sharing’.

Imagine….What if the Internet had ‘frontiers’. Why can we go all over the world on the Internet without a passport? Why are cybernauts allowed to steal goods from the store ’shelves’ and ’shop windows’ and justify it as ’sharing’? Since the birth of the Internet, people have been hacking software, stealing music, books, films, television shows, credit card numbers, eBay accounts, IP addresses… you name it, if it’s out there and can be downloaded, it’s being virtually stolen from under your nose.

So, why is this Wild West so hard to monitor? Why are people up in arms and waiving their guns wildly… … Are these new pirate ships sharing other people’s goods for gold? Of course they are… yes, I’m speaking about the torrent sites… and all the other sites who are making money on other people’s back…

Is the Internet really that much ‘bigger’ than the ‘real’ world? I think not. I believe that in the near future, we will all be using our Internet passports. If the government can do it in the real world, what’s stopping them from monitoring this new ‘Wild West’ phenomenon of the Internet in every town, city, state and country. I mean… Don’t we have just as much right as citizens to be protected on the Internet as we would be anywhere else? And really, the only people who would disagree with this idea are people who either are engaging in illegal activity or people who claim ‘civil liberty and freedom of speech’ on the Internet, but remember guys, those freedoms are only good until you begin to harm other people.

You don’t have freedom to shout from the rooftops at 3am outside your neighbor’s house…. and it’s certainly not your civil right to steal from your local baker and share his cream puffs outside his shop window…either, is it? Allow me to explain.

Let’s take one of the major forces on the Internet for example. Let’s look at all of the big music content sites (such as MySpace, Yahoo Music, etc) who seem to be huge driving swarms of traffic on the Internet. When you see the amount of advertisements per page and click, you know you can almost hear the ‘kerching’. These sites are like interstate junctions at rush hour (24 hours a day) so to speak. Torrents are no different…. Kerching kerching… They are giving away things like films, music, tv programs, software…. If it can be downloaded, it can be found… for free…

Thousands upon thousands of websites, sharing sites, and torrent sites exist. These websites are making a constant steady flow of income by using other people’s goods…they are pointing people to the goods (music) for free and selling masses of advertisement because people come to ‘leech’ the goods…these sites are basically allowing people to steal and destroy the music industry (which is in fact like shooting themselves in their own foot). The sites themselves claim to be ‘legal’. It is the user’s responsibility not to share copyrighted files.

So, you’d be silly to think that the Internet police are not planning on coming. How easy would it be to simply find all these people who are illegally ’sharing’ and slap a lawsuit on them. They can do that with a virtual push of a button. How hard do you think it will be for the ISP’s to hand over your Internet passport over to the new frontier police? They can see how much you’ve ’shared’ and potentially fine every single torrent user. I bet the torrent sites wouldn’t like that very much. Suddenly all their users would disappear.

Last year, in an article on Sky News, I read that a woman received a massive fine for file sharing on the KaZaA network. I thought, great! The police are coming.Then my husband sent me a link to another article titled “Should You Pay For Music?” I instantly thought….eh? Has the world gone mad? It’s like saying “Should you pay for petrol?” or “Should you pay for bread?” Hey, maybe I was being too ‘traditional’? I guess you could compare it to you, yourself, working all week long. You go to the bank and cash your check, and the banker takes your money without putting it into your account.

But, it’s much deeper than this. Whether or not the public is offered music for free or at a cost is not the real issue. The real problem lies in the fact that ’share’ sites are making money by pointing to other people’s copyrighted content… The end user gets it for free… the torrents make money…. And the musicians and artists?? Well, they get to live off of ‘fresh air’. Put simply, musicians will not be able to exist financially in order to create music if income streams are cut off (whether or not a record label comes to play).

And this is exactly what is happening.

As a musician and an independent record-label, I see my livelihood being sucked away every day through file-sharing and torrent sites which are allowing copyright material to flow in and out of their sites. All they have to do is claim that it’s the responsibility of the user to make sure the content they are sharing is not copyright protected material. Last year, in a period of two weeks, we tracked and found over 100,000 leechers of my album alone. Since then, we’ve found about 150,000 more, of which I, the artist, who put my heart and soul, time and sweat into an album and raising money to market that album, haven’t received a dime, not one red cent. Full torrent files of a complete album! Since it’s so easy to ’share’ the music….

In the real world, if everyone walked into HMV and took as many albums as they like… and said they were ’sharing’…errr… shoplifting? I really don’t see how people think they can give music or any other form of media for ‘free’ without it hurting the livelihoods of musicians. Sharing of copyright protected material is 100% illegal. However, since it’s not being regulated, it’s as if all of us musicians have just left the shop door open so that anybody can lift our guitars and gear out on the street and drive off with it. Isn’t that what’s happening? If you can’t make a dime from that album you just spent all your money, time and effort on because everyone is ’sharing’ it, then how are you going to buy your guitar strings, pay your landlord, or eat? You’ll be selling your gear soon and asking the boss for overtime. Right?

Torrent sites are claiming that they are creating ‘free promotion’ for musicians…. that’s right.. they claim that by giving all these people the opportunity to “share” the music, they are doing all of us musicians a big huge favor. In fact, they think that musician’s, songwriters, sound engineers, mastering companies, etc… should all live on ‘pure fresh air’. They blatantly state that they think it should be enough for a musician to make music out of their ‘passion’ for music… and well, since it’s ‘art’ it shouldn’t have a price….. er, ok….. maybe we should go and see if Fender will start giving away free guitars? Free gear for everybody!!! Yipppeee…. Free strings, free amplifiers, free microphones and drum kits……awww… how novel.

Here’s another funny one…the torrent site’s answer to how musicians are supposed to earn a living is: .. well, musician’s will just need to go out and gig some more in order to make a living. Maybe the band can sell a few more T-shirts, etc. etc. They rationalize stealing by stating that they go to gigs and buy tickets…(or that they plan to do so if ever their favorite band can finally afford to come and do a tour in their country). They claim that by allowing sharing, they are ‘leveling the playing field’.

Well, torrent sites are absolutely NOT leveling the playing field. They are just moving the field and reaping the benefits due to a temporary loophole in the law. I’ll bet that when all their users get slapped a fine for ’sharing’ in their respective countries the torrent sites won’t be there to support them. I doubt that they are planning to send all their users a bunch of ‘gold’ off of their pirate ship. So far, there have only been a few ‘examples’ made with users being slapped heavy fines. I have a hunch that this will CHANGE.

Aww, now there’s a word “CHANGE”.

Well, let’s talk about CHANGE for a moment. The torrent people even go as far as to quote Charles Darwin in an effort to justify theft:

“In nature, it’s not the strongest nor the most intelligent who survives. It’s the most adaptable to change.” (a quote from a torrent fanatic referring to Darwins theory).

Hmmm………..well, I assume that the torrent sites are planning to be adaptable pretty soon then, considering the number of pending lawsuits from pretty strong and intelligent companies who have not only proven their adaptability to change, but have changed the world as we know it (companies like Microsoft, for example).

Please.. spare us this kind of rhetoric guys. With the likes of Microsoft, Prince, and the IFPI going after you, any outsider might begin to wonder when YOU plan to adapt to ‘change’. It’s becoming evident that your business model is a sinking ship. Pretty soon, your users will be slapped with fines and more big companies will be slapping on lawsuits. Why not just sink your ship yourselves..eh? That’s really what you’re doing.. Your resistance to ‘change’ is in complete conflict with your very survival… Oh the irony. “Let’s have all our users quote Darwin”.

“Sharing is caring”, so they say. Torrent sites are promoting the idea that if people are taking the time to ’share’ other peoples copyright material it means they care. So, what’s stopping the torrent pirates from ’sharing’ the revenue from the advertising on their sites? Funny how it’s ok for musicians to live off of ‘fresh air’ but these pirates are meanwhile filling their boat with loot on the backs of other people’s hard work. Let’s see how adaptable to ‘change’ they decide to become… and put their Darwin theory where their mouth is….

Free promotion? Basically, torrents are promoting music that has ‘already been promoted’, so it’s not ‘free promotion’. There will be a small percentage of people who go through the millions of songs that are being seeded and perhaps discover something new because they searched for something they had already heard about. So, torrents are not only ‘moving’ the playing field, they are, in reality, making the playing field so un-even that bands are going to be the new “Sysiphus’s” trying to roll a ball uphill for eternity – although the sites would like to fool us all into believing otherwise.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

After the show a reporter asked her what she thinks of piracy, and people who download her songs off the Internet. Her response baffled the reporter, as she simply told him: “I think it’s great…” There was an awkward silence for a few seconds, the reporter probably expected to hear something else from her. “Great?,” he said.

“Yeah, I love it. I think it’s brilliant and I’ll tell you why,” Stone continued. “Music should be shared. [...] The only part about music that I dislike is the business that is attached to it. Now, if music is free, then there is no business, there is just music. So, I like it, I think that we should share.”

“It’s ok, if one person buys it, it’s totally cool, burn it up, share it with your friends, I don’t care. I don’t care how you hear it as long as you hear it. As long as you come to my show, and have a great time listening to the live show it’s totally cool. I don’t mind. I’m happy that they hear it.”

Stone went on to say that most artists have probably been “brainwashed” by the record labels, when they discourage their fans from downloading music. Of course, Stone is not the only artist who actually wants people to share their work. Last year rapper 50 Cent made some positive remarks about filesharing, and Nine Inch Nails takes it even further, as they upload their music onto BitTorrent sites themselves.

These artists are spot on, in fact, several studies have shown that artists actually benefit from filesharing. The more music people share, the more CDs they buy and the more concerts they visit.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

It all began last year when, having released his album “Guidelines For An Emerging Century”, Mr.Suitcase received a payment from Stim, the Swedish Performing Rights Society. Included in it was a refund from the tax that is put on all recordable media in Sweden. Whenever CDRs, mp3-players or similar items are sold, an extra fee of 0,04 crowns/megabyte is added and later paid back to the artists.

“First, I got a bit put off by receiving the money because to me, that kind of arbitrary hand-out of alms is a ridiculous system,” Mr.Suitcase said. “Then I thought, why not see it as an opportunity and earmark the money for something creative. And since the money came from piracy, I had to use it for more piracy, right?”

With the money, Mr.Suitcase bought old used effect boxes and began experimenting. Without knowing where it would take him, he started sending fragments and loops from other people’s songs through the effects.

“I’ve always been fascinated by cut-and-paste aesthetics. I grew up with artists like The Future Sound of London and Saint Etienne who layered samples and combined the bits and pieces to create something brand new, something that became more than just the sum of the elements.”

He says the project “got completely out of control” when friends started to drop by the studio to record new instruments and vocals over the samples. In the end, he had an album’s worth of new songs, although they all were rooted in someone else’s work.

“As the project grew, I lost count of how many original songs that were used in it. Nearly a hundred, I’d guess. It’s very diverse, from Prince to The Rice Twins, from Ashanti to Zongamin. In the end, I realized it wasn’t a mixtape or mash-up but it wasn’t an album either. I decided the tracks were all frauds, called it a wrap and posted it on The Pirate Bay.”

Mr.Suitcase thinks artists should be more relaxed about non-commercial use of their work. Since the world went digital, he feels the availability is a natural consequence that should be embraced rather than hopelessly opposed.

“The way Internet works, there’s no reason to argue for or against file sharing. We can just conclude here and now that file sharing ‘is’. For me, I’m very attached to the idea that the top-down structure of producers and consumers has turned into a blur, and that anything created isn’t only there to be experienced but can also be a building-block for new creations. It’s fantastic! I was absolutely thrilled when techno producer The Field used one of my recordings for his brilliant track ‘Istedgade’.”

“To me, ‘Frauds’ is a statement. There’s so much negativity in the debate. ‘File sharing means artists can’t…’, ‘File sharing means nobody will ever…’ I think it’s the opposite, I think the beautiful aspect of the digital era is that anything recorded can be remixed, tweaked and modified.”

Mr.Suitcase’s album “Frauds” can be downloaded via BitTorrent at mrsuitcase.se.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Before the shutdown, AllOfMP3 had around 6 million users who were able to download songs and albums for a tiny fraction of the price of authorized alternatives such as iTunes. The RIAA said it could not live with this situation.

In December 2006, the RIAA filed a complaint against the site, stating that AllofMP3 sold millions of tracks to the public yet gave no money back to their artists.

According to a report, on May 20th 2008 the RIAA filed papers in federal court, Manhattan, dropping its copyright infringement lawsuit against AllofMP3.

“The site is now defunct and out of business, the result of a successful anti-piracy initiative,” Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman told Bloomberg.

Notably, Lamy did not mention a fully operational site set up by the same people as AllofMP3, called Mp3Sparks. Different name, same tunes, no lawsuit.

AllofMP3 was blocked by a Swedish ISP back in 2006 when it got caught up in the anti-AllofMP3 hysteria but later retracted its stance.

In August 2007, AllofMP3 was acquitted in Russia of all charges that had been put forward by IFPI and on October 24th 2007, a district court in Moscow confirmed the innocent verdict.

“They [RIAA] never correctly commenced the proceeding in the first place,” said John Crossman, who represented the site’s owner, MediaServices LLC.

“Maybe it was a rare triumph of good sense.”

In the meantime, dozens of similar sites operate in Russia, delivering super-cheap music to the masses in much the same way as AllofMP3 did.

Victory for the RIAA? Not quite.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.