RIAA Announces Plan to End Lawsuits

After years of suing thousands of people for allegedly stealing music via the Internet, the recording industry is set to drop its legal assault as it searches for more effective ways to combat online music piracy.

The decision represents an abrupt shift of strategy for the industry, which has opened legal proceedings against about 35,000 people since 2003. Critics say the legal offensive ultimately did little to stem the tide of illegally downloaded music. And it created a public-relations disaster for the industry, whose lawsuits targeted, among others, several single mothers, a dead person and a 13-year-old girl.

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers. The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits 

I'm not sure if this is good news or not. While I'm glad to hear that they aren't planning on suing anyone besides heavy file sharers, I think it's bad for internet users in general. Having the RIAA team up with ISP's in an effort to stem copyright infringement opens the door for the RIAA to become even more heavy handed by circumventing the courts all together. Look how long it took for someone to actually take the RIAA to full trial. Only then did their tactics unravel and the holes in their plans become obvious. 

I think, as many others do, that letting the ISP's become content police is horrible. Should the US Postal Service be allowed to open the mail of people who have a high volume of mail? Should the postal service be inspecting every package to make sure people aren't sending anything illegal. Just because a package weighs 2.2 pounds, doesn't mean it's likely a kilo of cocaine or heroin. It certainly wouldn't be sufficient grounds for a search. 

Another question that comes to mind is why would the ISP's want this role? What's in it for them? Perhaps they envision enough of a drop in traffic (from throttling bit torrent etc) where they could further put off investing money into infrastructure that can handle the huge increase in traffic created by video, voip and file-sharing. 

The more likely scenario is that it's easier to play ball with the RIAA than it is to defend a huge lawsuit that challenges the "safe harbour" laws that protect them. One would think that the ISP's would want to remain neutral and not have the added expense of filtering and throttling. It seems like the RIAA is trying to put the ISP's directly in the crosshairs of consumer ire. Any way you look at it, this can't be a good deal for the ISP's bottom line.

Judge Hints at Mistrial in RIAA v. Jammie Thomas

The federal judge who presided over the nation's only peer-to-peer copyright-infringement trial announced from the bench here Monday that he is likely to declare a mistrial.

"Certainly, I have sent a signal to both sides of where I'm headed," U.S. District Judge Michael Davis said during a 70-minute hearing in which lawyers for the Recording Industry Association of America and defendant Jammie Thomas sparred over whether a jury verdict against Thomas should be overturned.
At issue is whether the RIAA needs to prove that copyrighted music offered by a defendant on a peer-to-peer network was actually downloaded by anyone. During Thomas' trial last October, Davis, on the RIAA's recommendation, instructed (.pdf) the jury that no such proof was necessary; if Thomas had the music in her Kazaa shared folder, where it could be downloaded, she could be found liable "regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."

But in May, long after Thomas had lost the trial and was dinged $222,000, Davis developed second thoughts. He wrote in an order that he may have committed a "manifest error" with that instruction. "I think I surprised everyone," Davis said at the outset of the Monday's hearing. As the hearing wrapped up, there was little evidence that the RIAA's lawyer had changed the judge's mind.

Judge Hints at Mistrial in RIAA v. Jammie Thomas

At this point I will pause to pat myself on the back. I was asking this very question about "availability" being the same as distribution about three years ago. As I've said before, it will be a painful lesson for the RIAA/MPAA goon squad to learn. There's no winning when one tries to pull the wool over the collective eyes of Judges accross the country. The manner in which they slid in the jury instructions regarding availability was underhanded and surely didn't go unnoticed.

Judge Says RIAA's "Making Available" Argument is Bullshit!

The act of making music available online may not be a copyright violation after all. And if that's the case, Jammie Thomas of Minnesota may not have to pay the $222,000 judgment won by record companies last year, an amount Thomas' attorneys argue is unconstitutionally excessive.

In his blog on Thursday, Google senior copyright counsel William Patry wrote, "Today, district judge Michael Davis issued an order indicating he may order a new trial based on an entirely different ground: concern that Jury Instruction N. 15, which permitted the jury to find infringement based on the RIAA's making available theory, may be contrary to the Eighth Circuit's binding precedent in National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Computer Associates Inc., requiring the distribution of actual copies."

RIAA Setback: Making Music Available May Not Be Copyright Infringement

I've never been able to get my little pea-brain around the "making available" argument. It simply goes against everything our system stands for. I mean, come on, we live in a country where "if the glove doesn't fit..then you must aquitt." pretty well sums up our judicial philosophy. If you can't prove that someone actually broke a law by a preponderence of the evidence you simply have no case. So, I could never understand how the "making available" theory passed the smell test.

As I've stated in previous posts, I think the RIAA's shady tactics are starting to unravel. You can be sure this won't be the last ruling that doesn't go the RIAA's way. My limited courtroom experience tells me that the Judiciary doesn't like to have the wool pulled over its eyes and like an elephant, it never forgets. The days of the RIAA lawyers sliding shoddy legal practices by Judges are numbered. It will be amusing to watch as they go down in flames right before our eyes. I'm pretty sure I won't be shedding any tears...unless they are accompanied by some serious belly laughs. As a wise man once said, "Fuck the RIAA!"

MPAA Using "Creative Math" To Calculate Losses

The MPAA has come up with a doozy of a way to calculate their losses in recent piracy investigations conducted in Hong Kong and Australia. The association said the Hong Kong haul was worth a "potential" $20 million. The Australian catch was worth "an estimated street value" of about $16.6 million. The manner in which these numbers were calculated is highly suspect. The MPAA estimate was based on the output capacity of the "burning labs" they uncovered. WHAT? They want to claim losses based on possible future events? I can't remember how long it's been since I've seen such a bone-headed legal claim...oh, wait it was earlier today when I read that the RIAA lawyers had filed a motion stating that the judge in the case had ruled erroneously in a case he sat on just months ago.

I think the MPAA/RIAA lawsuit machine is starting to unravel a bit. The bench is finally catching up to the shenanigans the lawyers have been pulling. Common sense is starting to close in on them quickly and I'd bet you'll see more rulings against them and more legal blunders as the pressure mounts. The next few months should be interesting to watch as more of these legal battles that have been festering all come to a head.

MPAA Talks Turkey; Pirating Costs Based on Futuristic Fantasy Threat Level from Wired.com

RIAA Suing Homeless man!

Our friends at the RIAA have been tossed out of court in case where the presiding judge described their lawyers as sloppy, but not intentionally misleading.

The dispute arose when they tried to serve a homeless man by attaching service in "a conspicuous place" at known bogus addresses. The freakin' guy was homeless! Of course this whole scenario shouldn't shock anyone who is familiar with the over the top behavior of the RIAA goon squad.

Recording Industry vs. The People

Amended Complaint Filed In RIAA/Media Sentry Lawsuit

Tanya Andersen has filed her amended complaint in her class action, Andersen v. Atlantic.The 109-page document provides a detailed description of some of the RIAA abuses, and contains 18 claims for relief, including Federal and State RICO claims, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and fraud.The suit targets the record companies, MediaSentry, Settlement Support Center LLC, and the RIAA.The complaint begins:

1.1 For nearly three years of her life, Tanya Andersen and her young daughter were subjected to an outrageous series of baseless accusations and unrelenting threats of financial ruin. The world’s four major recording studios had devised an illegal enterprise intent on maintaining their virtually complete monopoly over the distribution of recorded music. The enterprise is conducted with total disregard for innocent individuals. Dead people have been sued. Children have been sued. People without computers have been sued. As a senior RIAA spokeswoman explained: “When you fish with a net, you are going to catch a few dolphins”. By their own early admission, they were knowingly engaged in a “driftnet fishing” operation and “innocent dolphins” were the collateral damage in their “nets”.

Nationwide Conspiracy of Crime 1.2 -In 2003 and before, the Big 4 recording companies conspired with the enforcement/lobbying arm of the music cartel -- the RIAA -- and MediaSentry to devise an investigation scheme that was both illegal and seriously flawed. The scheme was based on secret private investigations by unlicensed, unregistered and uncertified private investigators. These private investigators claim to have illegally entered the hard drives of tens of thousands of private American citizens to look for music recordings stored there. This personal invasion is a crime in virtually every state in the country. If music was “discovered” through this illegal process, the private investigators would then sell the identity of the computers’ internet protocol address to the RIAA and the Big 4 record companies.

You can follow this story and more at the Recording Industry vs The People website. If you are into reading all the gory legal details of the RIAA lawsuit witch-hunt, this is the best place to do it. While it can be a bit dry at times, it will give you excellent insight into the legal arguments presented by both sides of the debate. If you pay close attention, you can gain some insight into how to stay out of the sights of the RIAA/Media Sentry folks.

For instance, one of the common themes I've seen is the majority of these cases involve Kazaa users. Does anyone even use this crappy client anymore? If you do, I suggest you find a better alternative and/or educate yourself on how other dumbass people are getting caught!

RIAA Screws Artists, Pockets Filesharing Settlement Money

None of the estimated $400 million that the RIAA received in settlements with Napster, KaZaA, and Bolt over allegations of copyright infringement has gone to the artists whose copyrights were allegedly infringed. Now the artists are considering suing the RIAA.

I think the RIAA's demise is inevitable and I've been advocating major artists to sue these jokers for quite a while now. Set aside this revelation (no surprise really) that they haven't shared a dime with the artists and consider the scenario where a major artist sues them for not doing enough to protect their royalties. Also, reverse the "made available" argument against the RIAA. Weren't these the same people who helped develop the digital format in the first place? 20+ years ago, the RIAA members were promising us audio nirvana in the form of CD's that were cheaper to produce and never wore out. They told the public and the artists that the cheaper production costs would translate into less expensive products for the consumer and higher returns for the artists.

In reality, the price of music went up, and the artists share of profits decreased. This is the business model the labels are trying to preserve in the "download age".

Just think of how much more profit we can make when we get rid of all this pesky packaging and disc pressing. We'll just tell the artists we need to keep screwing them because of the high cost of digitizing music and the prohibitive cost of digital distribution.....ummmmmm yeah, that's the ticket!

I thought the rant from the member of the Cocteau Twins in the posts from the story were very interesting. Anyone who doesn't understand how badly artists get screwed and how greedy the labels are should give this a look. There are thousands of stories from artists just like this...or worse.

read more / digg this

RIAA Secrets About To Be Revealed in Lawsuit

I can't wait until they get to the discovery phase of this trial. I'm sure the assholes at the RIAA are squirming and are quite uncomfortable as their game begins to unravel. The judge in this case has ruled that he won't take any more motions to dismiss this case. So, it seems that it will be moving forward. The only way that the RIAA can avoid this trial is to settle out of court. I sincerely hope that the lawyers for Ms. Andersen will pause for a moment, as if they were considering it, and laugh loudly and sarcasticly in their face.

This trial should bring many of the facts the RIAA has been holding close to the vest for many years to light. In past suits, when brought by the RIAA, where the defendants have decided to fight them, the RIAA lawyers have decided to drop the suits or make a "settlement offer" the defendant couldn't realisticly refuse. The reason they would do this is to avoid the discovery process that would reveal the shady way in which they operate. In this instance, the RIAA is the defendant. They aren't in control of how the trial proceeds. It is solely up to the plaintiffs attorneys and the judge. It sounds like the judge is a no nonsense type who feels like this trial should move forward and isn't likely to put up with any legal shenanigans from anybody.

I can't wait for all the juicy tidbits of this trial to become public. With the strong interest in this case from the internet community, I doubt the strongest of gag orders will keep this from happening. I'm sure that this case will be one of the more compelling "net stories" of the year and one that this blogger will certainly be blogging about for a while!

Andersen attorney on RIAA suit: "They can't run now"

Has MediaSentry Been Performing Illegal Investigations?

One of the more recent controversies dogging the RIAA's legal campaign against file-sharing is whether MediaSentry (now a division of SafeNet) needs state-issued private investigator licenses to operate lawfully. It's a question that has been raised in several contested RIAA lawsuits, and now the state of Michigan has told the company that it needs a license to operate there.

Michigan says MediaSentry lacks necessary PI license

This issue could have some serious implications for the investigative arm of the RIAA. If a court finds that Media Sentry has been performing investigations without the proper authority from the states where the investigations occurred, all evidence collected by them could be thrown out. You can be sure that the thousands of people that have written rather large checks to avoid a court trial could ask for the money back in a suit of their own. This would essentially leave the RIAA with no evidence to support their claims. People who have lost court cases, like Jamie Thomas, could have their convictions overturned. It's no suprise that neither the RIAA or Media Sentry officials want to comment on this issue or admit they should have been liscensed. You can be sure that we'll be watching this issue closely...

RIAA Bastards Suing to Impose ISP Filters

The international wing of the RIAA mafia is suing an Irish ISP to force them to place filters on their network...Will this be the next step in the US?

IFPI Takes ISP to Court to Impose Music Piracy Filter

This is yet another angle in the file sharing debate. Do we really want ISP's to be the gatekeeper of all information that travels over the internet? Doesn't this go against all the principles the web was founded on?

I think this case is interesting in that the IFPI (international RIAA organization) is using the "making available" argument just as was used to bring down Napster. In a weird sense, I hope that they get some traction on this case as it brings a lot of attention to this aspect of the debate. I think this "made available" could be a dangerously slippery slope for the RIAA folks to perch upon.

Consider this scenario. An artist, who feels that the RIAA has not done enough to protect them from losses due to internet file sharing, decides to sue their (RIAA member) record label for "making available" a digital format of their work. One might consider the CDA format from the retail cd or a digital version from iTunes "making it available" for illegal filesharing. After all, the record labels are the ones responsible for the original distribution into the public realm. As I've said repeatedly before, "No one was filesharing vinyl!"

As more artists perform their own marketing and distribution duties, they will become more and more annoyed by how much the labels have been gouging them all these years. The recent internet release from Trent Reznor and NiN should really make a lot of major artists stand up and take notice. Perhaps some more major artists, like Prince, who are fed up with the industry's inability to protect their profits, may just decide to bring such a suit. It's only a matter of time....

The RIAA Wants to Monitor Your PC!

Once again, RIAA President Cary Sherman shows us how scary his organization really can be. He now lends his support to filters installed on our PC's and cable/dsl modems to detect copyright infringement. Look how quickly they are trying to backpedal from this ridiculous position already.

These folks are bound and determined to alienate every potential consumer of their crappy products that they can. I hope that when the time comes to look back on this whole debate, after he has single-handedly burnt the recording industry to the ground, people will realize what a fucking idiot this guy is. Tell me who the hell would want any company or government monitoring what you do in the privacy of your own home? What's next, the porno industry making your monitor a two way screen so they could see who's whacking off to illegally downloaded porn? Would anyone accept a device installed in your car that would alert the police when you've broken the speed limit? The big brother implications here are really scary. As Mr. Bean would say, people should "be afraid, very afraid".

If the world doesn't wake up to the corporations and governments infringing on our rights to privacy and presumed innocence we will all be living in a place far worse than George Orwell could ever have imagined. If you really want a glimpse of where we are headed and what a slippery slope we are on, I suggest reading the book Farenheight 451.

Below you will see an edited version of a video taken at a recent conference where Cary Sherman is on the panel. The video was edited from the full hour and a half taken at the conference down to 6 minutes to point out some of the highlights of the draconian ideas the RIAA ass monkeys support. If you are interested in seeing it in it's entirety, I would certainly recommend you do so.

If we all educate ourselves as to what we are up against, perhaps enough people will scream as loudly as possible so that the morons in Washington, and politicians around the world, will stop listening to the intense lobbying efforts these jokers are making. They are completely within their rights to distribute and protect their copyrights as they see fit. Just as we are well within our rights to not buy their junk. But, if they are able to pursuede lawmakers into passing legislation that allows them to monitor us 24/7, it sets a very dangerous precedent. Once something is written into law, it is difficult or impossible to change. What the RIAA is now proposing is a right to monitor activities in our home. The police or FBI aren't even granted such a right. Why should a corporation be granted such access? I particularly don't buy Sherman's assertion that this all could be done "anonomously". How long would it be before the RIAA folks persuade lawmakers to give them the right to have access to this "anonomous" information in order to bring more lawsuits? I also found it amusing how quickly the woman at the end of the forum was cut off when she tried to point out that Sherman never said they wouldn't sue people for ripping legally purchased CD's to their mp3 player...

Again, I can't urge you enough to contact your representatives and demand that they not cave in to pressure from these groups. Keep in mind that most of our folks in Washington are too old to be "net savy", so they listen with great interest to lobbyists who represent these media dinosaurs. The problem is that they don't really understand the technology or the dangers of its misuse. If you doubt this, all you need to do is revisit the Ted Stevens "the internet is a series of tubes" speech. Lawmakers may not understand the "internets", but the two things they do understand is the power of money (from these lobbying organizations) and the power of votes (from the likes of you and me). This is where the battle will ultimately lie. Remember, the politicians don't bother to read my blog, or the millions of others like it, but they do read polls and they do count votes!

Whoops—Italy inadvertently legalizes some P2P music

The Italian parliament has passed a new copyright law that would decriminalize the sharing of "degraded" music on the Internet for educational and scientific purposes. Apparently, lawmakers didn't realize that 256kbps MP3s are degraded.

Read more from ARS Technica

Digg This Story

I thought the intent of this law was an interesting concept. What they are trying to say is that an mp3 is not the same as sharing the original quality commercial release. Therefore there is no infringement. Of course, here in the states, this concept would never get any legs as it is clearly in violation of the DMCA which covers reproduction of a copyrighted material in any form.

RIAA chief: We Would Rather Sue Individuals Than Use ISP Filters

Self-professed ass-monkey Cary Sherman rebutted U2 manger Paul McGuiness' claim that ISP's should be filtering copyrighted material. He went as far as to infer that since McGuiness is European he would naturally prefer a "regulatory approach" to the file-sharing problem plaguing the industry.

It never ceases to amaze me when this sort of beligerant drivel comes from a RIAA representative. In my mind this sort of off-handed stupidity is akin to poking a sleeping bear. Well established super-acts like Prince, U2, The Rolling Stones etc...don't really have any need for the traditional record companies. They could afford to do their own distribution and marketing and keep all of the profits for themselves.

Once again the RIAA is exposing themselves to a huge lawsuit from one of these artists for not doing enough to protect their share of the profits as well as their copyrights. If they are stupid enough to start a public pissing match with Bono and company, and they are also stupid enough to publicly announce that they don't support what might be a viable piece of a multi-pronged approach to the problem of file-sharing, they might just feel the wrath of not just one major artist, but a whole slew of them at once. Suing fans while not pursuing other reasonable alternatives is simply negligent behavior. If I were Bono, I'd be mobilizing my fellow artists against those who do nothing but alienate fans and hurt the artists bottom line. The RIAA is obviously more concerned about how they relate to their corporate buddies the telecos and cable providers than they are about actually protecting the artists. As for the fans....don't get me started...again.

RIAA chief: We don't see a need for mandatory ISP filtering

RIAA's sister organization has a different take on this issue:

http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-476.html

No way! The MPAA Wouldn't Lie to Anyone...

For two years, the film industry has relied on an erroneous figure to persuade the public that college students are thieves. The MPAA acknowledged Tuesday that a survey it released in 2005 overstated the damage caused by piracy at the nation's universities. The MPAA now says that instead of 44 percent, students account for 15 percent of domestic losses.


Why did colleges stay mum on MPAA stats? Tech news blog - CNET News.com

I must say that I am shocked (NOT!) that the folks from the MPAA would exagerrate their claims. I think this report is probably only the tip of the iceberg. I bet if one were to look at the tactics of the RIAA/MPAA more closely, you would find that exaggeration and exploitation of data and revenue losses are at the heart of most all the arguments they make. For example, they claim huge numbers when describing their "losses" because of file sharing. The reality is that a large number of people, when asked, wouldn't buy the narrow, crappy entertainment they offer. It's frequently overpriced and overvalued. While many might check out the junk they offer for free, they simply aren't willing to shell out their hard earned entertainment dollars on it. Again, if you ask the file sharing community, many of them are willing to purchase the content they find appealing to them or at least are willing to use ad supported content. The point to be made here is this:

Just because someone consumes content over a P2P network, it doesn't mean that they would be a paying consumer.

With this being said, all of the claims of huge losses by the industry are hogwash. This concept isn't hard to grasp. What's hard to believe is that the politicians in Washington are taking this crap hook, line and sinker. The reality is that the industry is dying a slow painful death due to their unwillingness to embrace the digital age they helped to create in the first place. The lobbyists are working hard to convince lawmakers that they are being victimized by file sharing. The only thing they are being victimized by is their own stupidity for clinging to an outdated business model.

Europe Embraces Decriminalizing File Sharing

The message put forward by the parties is pretty strong: “Whenever you rent a movie, the multinational media industry forces you to watch their propaganda. They claim that downloading movies is the same as snatching bags, stealing cars or shoplifting. That’s simply not true – making a copy is fundamentally different from stealing.”


European Politicians Launch Pro-Filesharing Campaign


I'm not sure that this movement is going to gain any traction in the US anytime soon. I like the fact that Europeans are open minded and recognize the flaws in the RIAA/MPAA approach to combating piracy. The "The Genie is Out of the Bottle" line of thinking makes a lot more sense than the "Let's Punish the End-User Approach". I've never seen an industry as a whole adopt an approach that believes alienating the consumer will improve the almighty bottom line. The closest analogy I can think of is the automobile industry. There was a time when, your car needed repair, you were required (By the Big 3) to bring it back to the dealership or void your warranty. This tactic was used to eliminate the little guy by forbidding the consumer to bring their vehicle to the repair shop of their choosing. You would hear these crazy stories of people who were denied legitimate warranty service because they had their tires or wipers changed elsewhere. When the imports became a serious challenge to the Big 3, they were forced to drop this ludicrous position.

Until the consumers revolt and some company comes along with a more reasonable policy, these chucleheads at the RIAA/MPAA will continue to alienate the very people to which they are trying to suck the entertainment dollar from....

P2P Hero Speaks Out at Last

In September 2007, anti-piracy company MediaDefender’s emails went public after a hacker gained access to their systems. The attacks cost the company a huge amount of money, not to mention acute embarrassment. Now the person behind the attacks speaks.
MediaDefender Hacker Speaks Out With TorrentFreak

Sleaze begets sleaze here. Media Defender were exposed as a RIAA/MPAA puppet. At the direction of these organizations, they were engaging in hacking of legal P2P networks and the corruption of files on these networks. As far as I can see they've lowered their ethical standards and severely weakened the credibility of the RIAA/MPAA's war with file sharers. I hope the Pirate Bay folks spank them hard with a lawsuit. My mother always told me that two wrongs don't make a right!

Sony and RIAA ripe for a lawsuit

RIAA lawyer states in legal brief that copying songs from CDs to computer for personal use is just as illegal as posting them online.You, too, could be sued for thousands of dollars by the major record companies — even if you've never once illegally downloaded music.That's because at least one lawyer for the Recording Industry Association of America, the Big Four record companies' lobbying arm and primary legal weapon, considers the copying of songs from your own CDs to your own computer, for your own personal use, to be just as illegal as posting them online for all to share, according to a federal lawsuit filed in Arizona.

Here's my beef with this whole RIAA crap......If I buy a CD from the Sony/BMG Record Club and pop it into the Sony manufactured CD drive of my Sony Vaio laptop, I might even make a duplicate copy onto some Sony made CD-Rs for good measure, I can't see how the RIAA (representing Sony)could then sue me.....according to them and the courts, merely "enabling" copyright violation is in itself a violation. Why hasn't anyone caught on to this concept? I would like to see an artist sue Sony and the RIAA for "enabling" copyright violations and for not protecting them from said violations.I would go one step further and say that Sony was in fact tantamount in the consortium of companies that developed digital file standards and mp3's themselves. Thus Sony is one example of a copyright violation enabler...Stop and think of how many violations Sony alone has enabled through software and hardware as well as blank media. You could apply this theory backwards into the Eighties when mix tapes were the rage. Who made the best blank tapes and tape recorders....Sony! Can you say Walkman? If you apply the same amounts that Jammie Thomas was slapped with...you get the picture. Bye Bye Sony.....

Read more about what these pinheads had to say...

digg this story

Students at Vermont Law School should join this fight...

A small university legal clinic in Maine is about to cause a revolution in the P2P filesharing war launched by Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG.

“In what’s probably a world’s first, not lawyers, but student attorneys at the University of Maine School of Law’s Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic have themselves taken up the fight on behalf of fellow students.

Maine law students vs the RIAA

This a great idea that may well thwart the draconian tactics of the RIAA folks. It would be great to see similar programs take root in other states as well. Like Vermont, many states have a multitude of programs with young, eager, net-savy law students looking to get their feet wet in real world cases. A program like this would tap into the youthful energy of a generation of kids who have grown up on the web. I would venture a bet that more kids have participated in file sharing than have smoked marijuana. This generation views the web as theirs, and they will be loathe to let outsiders ruin the free wheeling nature of the net as we now know it.

Of course in the end, the reality is that this rush to claim this fight as theirs, will end in a resolution somewhat short of what they might envision. But hey...that's all part of growing up.....