Never Say Die The music industry has switched tactics in its war against Internet file sharing. Apparently, the RIAA has been sending Kaaza and Grokster users pop up messages that warn of potential legal penalties facing copyright infringers. Which just goes to prove that the RIAA still doesn't get it. The answer to the recording industry's woes is better customer service, not draconian tactics. I should be the recording industry's wet dream: I own well over 500 CDs, and am quite willing to drop $10 on a CD from an artist I've never heard, based merely on good word of mouth. Instead, the recording industry would probably consider me part of the problem. Why? Because 80% of the CDs I buy are either used or come from BMG, and in the past I have been known to download my fair share of songs off of Gnutella and the like. And it's not because I think music should be free, or because I don't value artists' copyrights. It's because the recording industry has consistently failed to live up to the promise made to the American public back in the early 1990s -- that the price of CDs would come down in line with tapes as the medium matured. Instead, new albums are still costing close to $20 (when not on sale). I can handle $10 for an artist that is completely unknown to me. I can even handle $15 for the newest album from one of my established favorites. But I'm not willing to spend $20 on an album that, if past experience is any predictor, will contain only 1-3 songs that I like. Six dollars per listenable song is just too high. So what should the recording industry do to bring me back into the fold? 1) Bring down the price of CDs. Fifteen dollars for a new album, $10 for an older album would certainly increase my consumption of non-used CDs. And I don't think I'm alone. 2) Encourage more services like Apple's iTunes, which allow you to download and "own" music for $.99 per pop. I'm willing to pay money to obtain music online. I've subscribed to LaunchCast Plus ($4.95/month), and listen to it often at work. But I won't pay $9.95 for Rhapsody's streaming audio, only to have to turn around and pay an additional $.99 for every song I want to burn onto a CD (although, I must say that Rhapsody is much more likely to get my business than services that make me pay a monthly subscription fee, only to have my downloaded songs expire as soon as I cancel the service). Give me the ability to buy music online; give me the flexibility to listen to it as streaming audio, burn it to a CD, or transfer it to my Lyra; and give it to me for a reasonable price, and I'm there. Tie me to my computer and an Internet connection to be able to listen to the music (yes, I still have a dial up connection since Earthlink can't seem to get my DSL up and running), or restrict what I can do with it after I've purchased it, and no deal. Maybe the recording industry will figure this out before it's too late. Maybe not.

I'm Back After a bit of a hiatus, I finally have some free time to start posting again.

When First Amendment Rights Collide Law.com has a write-up about the case Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, which is currently up for cert consideration by the Supreme Court. At issue is whether the sale of formerly public land to the Mormon Church via a deed that contained a covenant providing for a public easement for "pedestrian access and passage only" created a public forum. Should be the perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to further limit Marsh.

Grokster Suit Tossed I'm a bit late on this, but Law.com has an article about the Los Angeles federal district court's decision to grant the summary judgement in favor of the defendants in the copyright infringement case brought by the movie studios, record labels and music companies against Grokster, StreamCast Networks and Kaaza. No quote from Zittrain or Lessig in this write up, but it's only a matter of time until I find one. Reuters is reporting that the music industry has vowed to continue its battle against on-line file sharing despite the legal set back.

Supreme Court Declines to Clear Up Web Jurisdiction Confusion Boston.com is reporting that the Supreme Court has declined to grant cert in the Internet defamation case Healthgrades.com, Inc. v. Northwest Health Care Alliance Inc.. The case involves an appeal by Healthgrades.com from a 9th Circuit ruling holding that the company is subject to jurisdiction in Washington state based on the fact that it rated a Washington state healthcare provider, using information obtained from Washington state records.

Boucher is the Man Wired has an interview with Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va, about his proposed Media Consumer Rights Act (HR 107). Unfortunately, the interview is relatively short, but still worth a read.

The Left Hand Doesn't Know What the Right Hand is Doing... The Chronicle of Higher Education has a report on a recent letter from the Consortium of College and University Media Centers to the Copyright Office, in which the Consortium warns of potential conflicts between the Technology Education and Copyright Harmonization Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and seeks clarification of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions.

Boon for Personal Privacy? The New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled that an Internet data broker can be sued by the family of a stalking victim. The victim's stalker was able to purchase her home address, Social Security number, and work address from on-line data broker Docusearch.com. The court held that, given the prevalence of stalking and data theft, Docusearch.com had a duty to the victim to insure that her personal information was sought for a legitimate purpose.

For All You Star Trek Fans Cnet has a report on the libel case brought by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine cast member Christianne Carafano, a/k/a Chase Masterson, against the dating site Matchmaker.com. As the article notes, the district court's ruling, if allowed to stand on appeal, could potentially restrict the protections afforded to internet companies by the safe harbor provisions of the Communications Decency Act.

Follow Up on CIPA Oral Arguments Slate has this report. Link courtesy of How Appealing.

Priceless Donna points to this link in her column today. Of course, my headline may have just cost you $3.65.

He's Clearly a Glass Half Full Guy Reuters is reporting that Grokster president Wayne Rossco has described the recent lawsuit by the entertainment industry against his file sharing network as good for business. Who needs an advertising budget when you have the RIAA?

ACLU Argues Right to Chat Anonymously The AP is reporting on oral arguments before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in an appeal from a lower court's ruling that AOL must turn over the identity of an anonymous chat room participant.

Follow Up to Fed Domain Name Raids The AP has a follow up story about the recent seizures of certain domain names by the federal government.

High Court to Hear Arguments in Filtering Law Case The AP has a story on oral arguments scheduled for today in the Children's Internet Protection Act case. Reuters' take on the story, complete with references to on-line "smut."

Supreme Court Hands Down Ruling in Victoria's Secret Case MSNBC is reporting that the Supreme Court has sided with the owners of Victor's Little Secret, finding that the name of the Kentucky sex shop did not dilute the famous trademark Victoria's Secret. Justice Stevens, writing for the unanimous Court, held that the federal Trademark Dilution Act requires a showing of actual dilution, not merely the possibility of dilution. The Court's opinion can be found here, and Justice Kennedy's concurrence can be found here. Added Later You can read Marty's take on the opinion here.

Static Control Seeks DMCA Exception Law.com is reporting that Static Control has sought the Copyright Office's help in its ongoing litigation with Lexmark, asking the Copyright Office to exempt from the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions computer programs that are embedded in computer printers and toner cartridges.

Injunction Issued in DMCA Case Wired is reporting that the judge in the Lexmark case has entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting Static Control from continuing to sell replacement printer cartridges that contain computer chips engineered to work with Lexmark printers.

Who Knew There Were Such Barbed Wire Connoisseurs? The Trademark Blog has a write-up about a recent Central District of Illinois case in which the District Court found that a plaintiff had a "better than negligible chance" of establishing that use of any color on the top of barbed wire is likely to cause confusion with plaintiff's mark, for red top wire fencing. I would love to see the analysis on this one. Why can't we ever get a judge like this?

Violate the DMCA, Forfeit Your Domain Name CNet is reporting that the U.S. DOJ has taken over the domain name of a website owned by an individual who recently plead guilty to violation of the DMCA. Likewise, the DEA has begun redirecting the URLs of various websites accused of selling drug paraphernalia. So I guess it probably wouldn't be a good idea to start an on-line gallery of images of collectible bongs. Follow-up: Wired has an article about the same incident, noting that the DOJ's efforts to take over the website weren't entirely successful.

Even More Radical than Lessig? The Legal Theory Blog has an interesting post about the new book by economists Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, entitled The Case Against Intellectual Monopoly.