The RIAA Armageddon has begun

true. I've been expecting all of these blogs to be snuffed ever since they first appeared, but they ended up running for a long time. The rest of them will likely also fall soon.

RIP

shit

Posted by Ned on the n01z3 board MS thread: http://mutant-sounds.blogspot.com/2013/03/mutant-sounds-reborn.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/18/174642060/supreme-court-lets-222-000-verdict-in-file-sharing-case-stand

The first person to challenge a file-sharing lawsuit brought by the Recording Industry Association of America has reached the end of the line.
Without comment, the Supreme Court refused to hear Jammie Thomas-Rasset's appeal, which means the $222,000 verdict against her stands.
Thomas-Rasset was convicted of sharing 24 songs on the peer-to-peer service Kazaa. She was arguing that the amount in question was excessive.

Songs shared include "The Beatles - Black Hole Sun.mp3"

can't believe they mistagged my favorite Savage Garden song

The Beatles - Black Hole Sun (Savage Garden cover)live.mp3

god, i miss audiogalaxy

what the hell kind of jury thought $200,000 was a fair payment for this

you could DUI-murder someone for that kind of cash!!

As long as you aren't listening to pirated music while you do it.

what a travesty

the one car accident i've ever been at the wheel for, the song playing on the radio was "black hole sun" ... by the beatles.

http://www.studiotv.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/john-lennon-peace640_360.jpg
Black Hole Sun....
Won't ya come....
....And wash away the rain...

;_; ;_; ;_;

American justice is the fairest in the world.

I could be wrong, but I think she got slammed because she originally refused to settle for a couple of grand, no? And unfortunately the law as written is pretty black and white, even though downloading is full of grays.

Anyway, good to know the industry is finally on this after decades of irreparably fucking itself over. Hot tip to the RIAA: you might want to keep an eye on China and the rest of Asia, but good luck on the enforcement front.

so if you really hate someone it's more economical to murder them with intent than to infringe their copyright

"YOU KILLED HER"
"yes but at least I paid $1.69 for her hit single"

some late night show wag quipped that you could get more jail time for illegally downloading michael jackson albums than for actually killing michael jackson

actually, almost nothing is going to happen to you for illegally downloading michael jackson albums, it's sharing/uploading that usually gets targeted

there's nothing wrong with eating michael jackson's remains, but there are harsh penalties for cooking a meal with his remains and sharing it with others

Confused by something. Sometimes at work, it's convenient for me to listen to a full album off YouTube. Like right now--freezing-rain day, no kids. I went to listen to Blonde on Blonde, and it's been taken down because of copyright. Tried the Byrds, and there are a number of albums still up. I'm listening to Mr. Tambourine Man right now.

Same company, same vintage. Is the only difference that Dylan (or his lawyers) are more aggresive in monitoring this kind of thing?

why not use spotify which has all of blonde on blonde on it and is legal?

I'm in Canada, and we don't have it. It's just a spur of the moment thing with me anyway, and if YouTube doesn't have one thing, they'll always have something else I'm just as happy to listen to. When I'm at home, I just use the funny-looking machine that goes round and round.

i've been thinking about getting one of those

Any thoughts on the question? I always thought it was companies who policed copyright--is it the artists themselves?

i doubt Bob Dylan is policing youtube

someone's doing it! dylan seems to be extra vigilant on youtube -- it must be something the artist polices, rather than the label? or something the artist requests of the label.
you can find a bunch of dylan bootleggy stuff on youtube by searching for blind boy grunt or elston gunn...

Dylan has always been vigilant about copyright. Obviously he's delegating that, Bob is not behind his laptop sending compliance requests, but his wishes are clearly "I give permission when and where my stuff is to be used"

I think short of Prince it's total whack-a-mole. For all you know, the Byrds were taken down before you looked for them, then put up again by the time you went to Dylan. And the opposite may be true tomorrow.

Dylan - or say Springsteen - has never put the full kibosh on everything like Prince has. They know the bootlegs and whatnot ultimately benefit them. Prince is just being capricious.

That's what I figured--Bob in pajamas monitoring YouTube didn't compute, but I do believe some people probably get paid very well to do it on his behalf. The Byrds seem a little less interested these days.

Missed Josh's post. Maybe I just got lucky today.

(Except the link says "Published on July 1, 2012," so it's been up there for almost a year.)

Bob always monitors YouTube in a cravat and a jaunty hat

yeah I think a lot of this is up to individual artists giving direction to the labels/lawyers. Dylan is clearly super-anal about this stuff to an irritating degree, as is Prince. The Byrds - being a band, and one with a long history of legal tangles (doesn't Crosby own the name now?) - are more likely to be a little looser about stuff. This is one thing I appreciate about the Beach Boys, fwiw, absolutely everything is online somewhere.

I think it's the same everywhere, really - there must be actual complaints or eyeballs on the infraction for something to be taken down, but I doubt anyone has the dollars (loonies?) to sit around scouring for specific copyright violations. Save Prince, who is a loon. I imagine in most instances it's actually the label, not the artist, through various strongarm tactics. but labels are in no position to be absolutely thorough.

Beach Boys, fwiw, absolutely everything is online somewhere.

Probably because no one in the group even knows how to use email.

The really good news is, I see at least three links that will teach me how to play "Mr. Tambourine Man" on a guitar, so who needs Blonde on Blonde?

I bet with Dylan it's less direction than some proxy operating independently. Like, he hires a lawyer and tells him to do whatever he sees fit, and then the lawyer makes the call. And then 10 years later Dylan sues the lawyer for wasting his money.

xpost Folk music, for the folks!

Probably because no one in the group even knows how to use email.

surely there is a Mike Love song about e-mail and the internet just waiting to be written

"Spirit of America Online"

lol

Had to Text Ya

I bet with Dylan it's less direction than some proxy operating independently. Like, he hires a lawyer and tells him to do whatever he sees fit, and then the lawyer makes the call.

yeah I strongly doubt any of this has crossed Dylan's desk in at least thirty years

I wouldn't be surprised if Bob's never seen YouTube.

Not to go all A.J. Weberman, but that's something I'd like to see: Bob Dylan's desk. I'd like to think something like this, but he probably just picked it up from Walmart.

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/4/7/0/8/9/7/webimg/638025486_o.jpg

Bob Dylan's 115th Desk.

Bet he stole his desk from Dave Van Ronk.

I know he had a very folky looking desk in 1964, then he bought one of those fancy Carnaby St. desks in 1965. Got booed and heckled by his housekeeper.