Radiohead Probably Won't Testify Against the RIAA

In a move that will disappoint fanboys everywhere, Pitchfork is reporting that Radiohead is NOT actually set to testify against the RIAA. They point to some earlier, unconfirmed announcements of news that the Brit boys would be defending a Boston University student in his million dollar fight for seven mp3s.

The band's statement? "No member of Radiohead has any plans to testify in this trial, [but] there was an informal meeting between the defense attorney and one of the band's managers."

Now, I'm not an expert on Radiohead's personal views on the illegal downloading of their music, but what I do know for a fact is that many artists have endorsed the practice. Why shouldn't these artists come to the aid of their fans in the courtroom? Sure, they may not own the music in all cases (that'd be the labels) but it would be in good faith for them to at least show some solidarity with the people that control their livelihood.

Sure there are artists on the other side of the debate and of course they have a right to be paid for their services, but it's difficult not to come across as greedy, especially if you're the size of a band like, say, Radiohead. I'm obviously reminded of Lars Ulrich's embarrassing turn on Charlie Rose back in the Napster days in which he outed himself as a money hungry, out of touch bully. He debated Public Enemy's Chuck D and the clip can be seen here.

RIAA Resumes Lawsuits

A new piece up at Ars Technica entitled "Hypocrisy or necessity? RIAA continues filing lawsuits" has a very interesting take on the decision by the Recording Industry Association of America to restart its campaign of lawsuits against online copyright infringers even after a promise to end the litigation.

As it turns out, the issue is far more complex than it may intially appear but a new lawsuit against a Nebraska man accused of sharing nine songs seems pretty cut-and-dry. Though the mass lawsuits have stopped in part, lawsuit leftovers are still trickling in from almost two years ago and it seems to be the RIAA's policy to push forward with them as they do come in. It seems that if the case was initiated before the summer of 2008, it will move forward. RIAA spokesperson Jonathan Lamy had the following to say to Ars Technica:

"We're obviously pleased to transition to a new program going forward but that doesn't mean we can give a free pass to those who downloaded music illegally in the past. How fair would it be to the thousands of individuals who took responsibility for their actions and settled their case while others are let off the hook? We're still in the business of deterrence and it must be credible."

They can always sound like dicks, can't they? Nate Anderson has all of the details and it's certainly worth a read.

RIAA vs. Everyone

Ray Beckerman's fascinating blog Recording Industry vs. The People was recently brought to my attention and is a fabulous resource for those interested in the legal side of this whole debate. He tirelessly chronicles every bit of legal news regarding the RIAA and its customers and clearly knows his stuff. In his words, the site is about "the RIAA's attempt to monopolize digital music and redefine copyright law."

Definitely a must-read for anyone interested in the subject and I'm disappointed in myself for finding it only now.