RIAA vs Microsoft?

Two stories from the Google news links today:
First, this poor woman gets a US$222,000 judgment against her for sharing music:

Vivendi, Music Industry Win First Downloading Trial (Update2)By Susan Decker and Tom Wilkowske Oct. 4 (Bloomberg)

A jury in Duluth, Minnesota, said today that Jammie Thomas, a 30-year-old environmental coordinator with the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians, improperly distributed songs over the Internet. She was told to pay $9,250 for each of 24 songs downloaded, for a total of $222,000.

More than 26,000 lawsuits have been filed by record companies, and about 8,000 have been settled, usually with the individual paying about $3,000. Some cases have been dismissed because the individuals were dead, children or people who didn't own computers, or because of other hardship reasons.

And this part of the case was more than a little disconcerting (dis-concert-ing):

Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing" By Eric Bangeman

Testimony today in Capitol Records, et al v. Jammie Thomas quickly and inadvertently turned to the topic of fair use when Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG, was called to the stand to testify. In doing so, she advocated a view of copyright that would turn many honest people into thieves.

Pariser has a very broad definition of "stealing." When questioned by Richard Gabriel, lead counsel for the record labels, Pariser suggested that what millions of music fans do is actually theft. The dirty deed? Ripping your own CDs or downloading songs you already own.

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

There's more detail to this story, but Guambat is sure that you will see much more from other sources before much more time passes.

The second story: Microsoft wants to take a piece of the music sharing market:

Microsoft next month will take another crack at blending social networking with digital music by Gregg Keizer, Computerworld

Microsoft Corp. will take another crack at blending social networking with digital music next month with the release of new Zune music players and a renewed campaign to promote song sharing.

It also removed one restriction on Zune-to-Zune wireless sharing in the hope of fostering the feature that debuted last year with the first-generation player. Although tracks received from another Zune owner can still be played only three times, the three-day time limit has been dropped. Another limitation, that a song can be passed once -- in other words, a shared tune cannot be shared by the recipient with yet another Zune owner -- remains in place.

Any bets RIAA will take on someone its own size?



Another day, another view: Declan McCullagh blogs:

After decades of special-interest lobbying by large holders of intellectual property rights, U.S. copyright law has spiraled out of control. It's been transformed from limited protections of authors' rights for 14 years to a juggernaut with criminal enforcement, sky-high penalties, and up to 120 years of legal protection.

Copyright no longer abides by the fundamental principle of law, which is that the damages awarded should be related to any harm committed.

"It doesn't strike a regular person that by passing a CD around the neighborhood, they should have their house taken away," says Lew Rockwell, president of the free-market Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. "And by electronic means it shouldn't be any different."