My first thought? The RIAA will sue Radiohead or prohibit playing their album on the air in the States because there would be no royalties to collect.

You know, that was a specific question I put to an Ontario Provincial Police officer (roughly equal to a state trooper) when I was in driver ed. I asked if I obeyed the limit when everyone else was speeding, I risked getting cited for obstructing traffic. If I went over the limit, I risked getting cited for speeding. Which should I do? He kinda hemmed and hawed a bit, then admitted that it was a tough call. Bottom line, though, was a third option: taking an alternate route!

Thank God the world is not only confined to U.S.

I have all of Radioheads other albums, copied from friends. I would not have paid for them but they're worth having for free. I'm not a big Radiohead fan, but I just paid for and downloaded their latest album. I've heard some of it on the local public radio station, and it ain't half bad, but their attitude made it worth paying for. F***k the RIAA.

i dont have any music from Radiohead, always meant to get "Ok Computer", just never got around to it. i think i'll give the new one a go, but only only because of the principle.

All right!!!

Pop Geek Jonathan Coulton Succeeds by Giving Music Away :
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/n...2007/10/coulton

"Internet killed the Recording Industry"


Charlatans to give away new album as free download

http://arts.independent.co.uk/music/news/article3015279.ece

"Alan McGee commented, "Why would you volunteer to join the army for ten years unless you had no choice? Record companies are a kind of army; very regulated. We were really excited when Xfm got behind us and were as enthusiastic about the download as we are - they are the first people to embrace music for the people."

Whilst live music and merchandise sales are booming, physical sales are steadily decreasing with more and more fans simply burning tracks from friends or free download sites. McGee continued, "The band will get paid more by more people coming to the gigs, buying merchandise, publishing and synch fees. I believe it's the future business model."

The Charlatans - who've already played alongside The Who and The Rolling Stones this year - recently announced new tour dates in London, Glasgow and Manchester which unsurprisingly sold out immediately."

Quote from XFM.


Prince to launch new album as free newspaper giveaway

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2114076,00.html

Nine Inch Nails Gives Away Another Album Online: No Payments Accepted.


Nine Inch Nails is back at it again by throwing more free music towards the masses with its latest album entitled "the slip." This time around the free download is working a bit different- the band isn't even allowing for donations.

The new album can be downloaded in a few different formats including high-quality MP3, the CD-quality FLAC lossless, M4A Apple lossless and the high definition WAVE 24/96 for very high-end audio equipment. The MP3 options comes as a direct download from the NIN site, but the other three options come as torrents that can be downloaded using client software BitTorrent, uTorrent, and Vuze.

http://www.nin.com/


If anything is left to say it's thank you to Trent Reznor and NIN. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a new CD to give a thorough listening to.

Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music

http://afrojacks.com/music/2-music/2941-st...ly-to-buy-music

Wow. Jammie Thomas should have gotten herself a better lawyer.

She originally was fined $220,000 for sharing 24 songs.
She got a new trial.
She was found guilty. Again. And this time she has to pay$1.92 MILLION!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/166971/jury...92_million.html

$80,000.00 per song, wow, I wonder what that jury was thinking?

Well, I know what I'm thinking (without any background info): jury tampering. It's obvious to me that the RIAA's lawyers only got sympathetic jurors.
I wonder how much of the settlement each juror will receive in kickbacks...

the judgment is ridiculous. the only positive is that she lacks the means to allow for any potential of payment.

Is it a second trial for the first count? I thought that I heard it was for a second offense after the first time of having been prosecuted.

Jim

it was my understanding that it was a re-trial because the judge gave incomplete or incorrect instructions to the jury the first time around.