Thursday, February 8, 2007

Big Win for Innocent RIAA Defendant. Big Win for Innocent RIAA Defendant. Good news today from the great state of Oklahoma. Debbie Foster, a single mom who was improperly sued by the RIAA back in 2004 for file sharing, has won back her attorneys' fees. The decision today is one of the first in the country to award attorneys fees to a defendant in an RIAA case over music sharing on the Internet. Last year, Judge Lee R. West dismissed the case against her with prejudice after it became clear that Ms. Foster was simply the Internet access account holder in her home and had no knowledge or experience with file sharing software. EFF, Public Citizen, the ACLU, and the American Association of Law Libraries filed an amicus brief in the case, supporting Ms. Foster's motion for fees. In his ruling, Judge West found that the RIAA had asserted an untested and marginal theory that veered toward "frivolous and unreasonable" by suing Foster for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement when the only evidence against her was her name on the household Internet account. Much like the judge in Elektra v. Santangelo, West expressed skepticism that "an Internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from a kazoo" could be held liable for children in her home downloading music illegally unless the parent had knowledge of the conduct or had giver her permission to do so. West also hinted that the RIAA might have pursued the secondary liability claims "to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they ceased to believe she was a direct or 'primary' infringer." Finding that in the face of these claims, "her only alternative to litigating ... was to capitulate to a settlement for a violation she insists she did not commit" and that "[s]uch capitulation would not advance the aims of the Copyright Act," the Court awarded Ms. Foster her attorneys fees and costs. We applaud Judge West for standing up to the RIAA and recognizing the importance of helping people like Debbie Foster push back against their overzealous litigation campaign. [EFF: Deep Links] 1:24:17 PM

EFF - Steve Jobs: DRM Is Bad for Consumers, Innovators, *And* Artists. Steve Jobs: DRM Is Bad for Consumers, Innovators, *And* Artists. Today, Apple's Steve Jobs publicly threw down this gauntlet: "If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store... Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly." Why should the labels listen? DRM is bad for consumers: "[A] world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats ... is clearly the best alternative for consumers." DRM is bad for innovation: "If [DRM] requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players." DRM is bad for artists: "So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free [as audio CDs], what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none.... [More innovation in stores and players spurred by DRM-free downloads] can only be seen as a positive by the music companies." Jobs isn't the only music service provider to invite an end to music download DRM -- Yahoo!'s Dave Goldberg has long urged the labels to remove the restrictions, and Real's Rob Glaser said last month that "DRM-free purchases is an idea in ascendance and whose time has come." We agree wholeheartedly with Jobs, since EFF has been making exactly the same points for several years now. As a first step in putting his music store where his mouth is, we urge him to take immediate steps to remove the DRM on the independent label content in the iTunes Store. Why wait for the major record labels? Many independent labels and artists already recognize that DRM is a dumb idea for digital music, as demonstrated by the availability of their music on eMusic. Apple should let them make that music available without DRM in the iTunes Store now. There are also bigger lessons here for policymakers. The harm done by DRM could be reduced by reforming the DMCA to allow the evasion of DRM for lawful purposes. Moreover, Jobs' remarks are another reason for policymakers to reject proposed government DRM mandates, which would only serve to further harm innovation, consumers, and artists. Clearly what's needed in the digital music world is less, not more, DRM. Make your voice heard in Congress now by opposing mandatory digital and satellite radio restrictions. [EFF: Deep Links] 1:22:06 PM

RIAA urges Apple to spread DRM far and wide. RIAA urges Apple to spread DRM far and wide. Steve, you're so smart The RIAA has seized on the weakest part of Steve Jobs' anti-DRM manifesto by banging on Apple to license its FairPlay technology to other companies. [The Register - Music and Media] 12:22:06 PM

© Copyright 2007 Paul Hardwick. Last update: 3/4/07; 3:40:09 AM.