Publishers currently receive 9.1 cents per 99-cent download, which is as arbitrary a figure as lawyers could come up with. (All of the 9s do look rather nice together.) Publishers are trying to raise it to the much-better-sounding 15 cents per 99 cent download, in part because the ease of digital distribution doesn't incur costs to retailers the way physical distro does. Although on the flip side, it could be argued that digital downloads are also relatively cheap (certainly as far as whole album prices go) in comparison to CDs. Regardless, Apple has said that it's sticking with its 99 cent price structure, even rattling a saber here and there. This is from a BusinessWeek article on the subject:

During a 10-month trial that concluded earlier this year, Apple executive Eddy Cue claimed that a rate increase could narrow already thin margins and that the company "would not continue to operate [the iTunes Music Store] if it were no longer possible to do so profitably." The testimony fueled worry that iTunes, whose downloads have helped drive sales of iPods and iPhones, would shut down or drastically change its business model if a royalty increase comes down the pike.

Does anybody actually believe that this would happen? And can you believe the RIAA, wanting to lower the royalty rate to 4 cents? Have they no hearts? Wait. Don't answer that.

Ultimately, Apple is probably locked into its pricing structure no matter what happens:

"If the price is too high, everyone is going to go the other way, which is free," says Daniel Ernst, an analyst at Soleil-Hudson Square Research.

At least somebody gets it!

The Copyright Royalty Board will announce its decision later today.

Music Downloads: Is the Price Right? [Businessweek]

In May I had my first meeting with a major label, Universal Music Group. I went alone and prepared myself for the worst, having spent the last decade toeing the indie party line that the big labels were hopelessly obstinate luddites with no idea what was good for them. I’m here to tell you now that the labels understand their business a lot better than most people suspect, although they each have their own surprisingly distinct personality when it comes to how they approach the future. The gentlemen I met at Universal were incredibly receptive and tactful; I didn’t have to sell them on why Muxtape was good for them, they knew it was cool and just wanted to get paid. I sympathized with that. I told them I needed some time to get a proposal together and we left things in limbo.

A few weeks later I had a meeting with EMI, the character of which was much different. I walked into a conference room and shook eight or nine hands, sitting down at a conference table with a phonebook-thick file labeled “Muxtape” laying on it. The people I met formed a semi-circle around me like a split brain, legal on one side and business development on the other. The meeting alternated between an intense grilling from the legal side (“you are a willful infringer and we are mere hours from shutting you down”) and an awkward discussion with the business side (“assuming we don’t shut you down, how do you see us working together?”). I asked for two weeks to make a proposal, they gave me two days.

I had to make a decision. As I saw it I had three options. The first was to just shut everything down, which I never really considered. The second was to ban major label content entirely, which might have solved the immediate crisis, but had two strong points against it. The first, most visibly, was that it would prevent people from using the majority of available music in their mixes. The second was that it did nothing to address the deeper questions surrounding ownership and usage for everyone else who wasn’t a major label: mid-size labels and independent artists who have just as fundamental a right to address how their content is used as a large corporation, even if they don’t carry quite as big a stick.

The third option was to approach a fully licensed model, which I had been edging toward since I met with Universal. I knew other licensed services so far had met with mixed success, but I also knew Muxtape was different and that it was at least worth exploring. The question about whether or not the labels saw value in it had been answered, the new question was how much it was going to cost.

It was June. I approached a Fifth Ave law firm about representing me in licensing negotiations with the major labels, and they took me on. Two weeks later I met with all four, flanked by lawyers this time, and started the slow process of working out a deal. The first round of terms were stiff and complex, but not nearly as bad as I’d imagined, and I managed to convince them that allowing Muxtape to continue to operate was in everyone’s best interest. Things were going well. I spent the next two months talking with investors, designing the next phases of the site itself, and supervising the negotiations. A big concern was getting a deal that took into consideration the fact that Muxtape wasn’t a straightforward on-demand service, and should pay accordingly less than a service that was. Another reason I liked the licensing option from the outset was that it seemed like a uncommon win-win; I didn’t want the ability to search and stream any song at any given notice, and they were reluctant to offer it (for the price, anyway). Muxtape’s unusual limitations were its strength in more ways than one.

The first red flag came in August. Up until then all the discussion had been about numbers, but as we closed in on an agreement the talk shifted to things like guaranteed placement and “marketing opportunities.” I was denied the possibility of releasing a mobile version of Muxtape. My flexibility was being constricted. I had been worried about Muxtape getting a fair deal, but my biggest concern all along was maintaing the integrity and experience of the site (one of the reasons I wanted to license in the first place). Now it wasn’t so simple; I had agreed to a variety of encroachments into Muxtape’s financials because I wanted to play ball, but giving up any kind of editorial or creative control was something I had a much harder time swallowing.

Ah, mandated "marketing opportunities." This, dear readers, is how you become unable to escape from the Pussycat Dolls.

I was wrestling with this when, on August 15th, I received notice from Amazon Web Services (the platform that hosts Muxtape’s servers and files) that they had received a complaint from the RIAA. Per Amazon’s terms, I had one business day to remove an incredibly long list of songs or face having my servers shut down and data deleted. This came as a big surprise to me, as I’d been thinking that I hadn’t heard from the RIAA in a long time because I had an understanding with the labels. I had a panicked exchange of emails with Amazon, trying to explain that I was in the middle of a licensing deal, that I suspected it was a clerical error, and that I was doing everything I could to get someone to vouch for me on a summer Friday afternoon. My one business day extended over the weekend, and on Monday when I wasn’t able to produce the documentation Amazon wanted (or even get someone from the RIAA on the phone), the servers were shut down and I was locked out of the account. I moved the domain name to a new server with a short message and the very real expectation that I could get it sorted out. I still thought it was all just a big mistake. I was wrong.

Over the next week I learned a little more, mainly that the RIAA moves quite autonomously from their label parents and that the understanding I had with them didn’t necessarily carry over. I also learned that none of the labels were especially interested in helping me out, and from their perspective it had no bearing on the negotiations. I disagreed. The deals were still weeks or months away (an eternity on the internet) meaning that at best, Muxtape was going to be down until the end of year. There was also still the matter of how to pay for it; getting investment is hard enough in this volatile space even with a wildly successful and growing web site, it became an entirely different proposition with no web site at all.

And so I made one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever faced: I walked away from the licensing deals. They had become too complex for a site founded on simplicity, too restrictive and hostile to continue to innovate the way I wanted to.

Walking away, to me, is something of a brave decision, and it's one that will probably prove to be more personally rewarding for him (if not for the people who really, really miss his site) in the long run. A preview of sorts of the artist-centric Muxtape can be found here; it's kind of like the antithesis of a MySpace page, with clean lines and—naturally—lots of Helvetica.

Muxtape [Official site]

So far, the meat of the news boils down to this: "Who knows, especially since the initial announcement left out quite a few details." The biggest news to come out of today's agreement: For the first time, royalty prices have been set specifically for digital distribution methods of music. In the past, those numbers were either hashed out via a legal settlement or party-to-party negotiation, or they were indexed to sales of physical product. Today's agreement ushers in, at the very least, a new era of digital-specific rights.

When (and if) the agreement is agreed to on by the Copyright Royalty Board, there will be specific, clear numbers for both full downloads (iTunes, Amazon MP3, etc.) and subscription services (Rhapsody, whatever's left of Napster). "Revenue-producing streams" will have guidelines as well, but right now, it's hard to say what will and won't fall into that grouping, especially since applications and sites that stream music seem to pop up every day and define their role in the biz a different way. Eventually, this framework may provide a solution for the Pandoras of the world—but whether it'll prevent the next brand-new music business model predicated on giving people what they want (music, now) at a price they'd like to pay (nothing, ever) from popping up is up in the air.

Still, the good news: The heavy-hitters of the back-end of the music business—including the much-maligned RIAA—managed to get together in the name of progress. That's not something that can be said often.

MAJOR MUSIC INDUSTRY GROUPS ANNOUNCE BREAKTHROUGH AGREEMENT [Digital Media Association]

The trade organization has filed a petition asking the courts to punish Ray Beckerman, the lawyer who runs the blog Recording Industry Vs. The People, for being "vexatious" ("causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry," in case you, like me, need to look up that word). Beckerman has acted as an attorney for several defendants being targeted by the RIAA, and the labels aren't looking kindly upon his decision to blog about the litigation.

Finally, as this Court is aware, Defendant's counsel has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass Plaintiffs. Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions.

How dare he! Posting public court information in an easily accessible medium! The scoundrel! This seems to be another one of those RIAA moves that hurts their public image more than it helps, but perhaps they're operating under the impression that someone out there enjoys nothing more than watching a good old-fashioned attempt to drown people in legal fees.

RIAA Goes After Ray Beckerman, Demands Monetary Sanctions [Techdirt]

Sharing your musical tastes should be fun and easy. We believe there is no reason it has to end with the shutdown of a single site, so we've created a free tool to make this possible.

Opentape's creation and design are proudly inspired by Muxtape's success and sleek interface. We were sad with it's untimely shutdown and wanted to let the web mixtape movement continue.

But wait! Are these gramatically challenged coders' motives all that altrustic? Jackson West at Valleywag wonders if this isn't a way for Muxtape fans to "get back" at the RIAA by forcing their lawyers to play the old whack-a-mole game:

The first clue is that the site is powered by the favored online publishing platform of millennial hipsters, Tumblr. Another clue is that the domain registration information points to 152 W. 57th Street in Manhattan, which just happens to be IAC CEO Barry Diller's address (Justin Ouellette, Muxtape's founder, worked at IAC site Vimeo). Then there are two small hints in the code:

The site uses a package of Javascript, Mootools, which was also used by Muxtape. And in the source code, an HTML comment reading "Liberating taste" appears where an ASCII graphic appears in the Muxtape source code.

If this is a way for Muxtape fans to get revenge, it sure does seem blockheaded. But then again, clueless hubris on the part of Internet-drunk script kiddies seems more likely than the idea—floated in the post's comments—that Opentape is actually a "honeypot," and the RIAA hopes to catch potential song-streamers by seeing who will install it on their servesr. The fact that it only took Muxtape five months to get shut down over copyright issues is a sign that the trade organization is slowly catching up with technology, but they can't be that savvy... can they?

Opentape [Official site]
Is Opentape a jab at the RIAA? [Valleywag]

For decades, record labels have mailed out millions of promotional records and CDs to radio stations, music reviewers, DJs, and music industry insiders. Troy Augusto, an eBay seller, finds these "promos" at used record stores, where he buys those that have value as collectibles and resells them on eBay. After an abortive attempt to use DMCA takedowns to block Augusto's eBay auctions, UMG ultimately sued him in federal court, claiming that the "promotional use only" labels on the CDs mean that UMG owns them forever and that any resale infringes copyright.



EFF and the San Francisco law firm of Keker & Van Nest took Augusto's case to fight for the proposition that a copyright owner can't take away a consumer's first sale rights just by putting a "promotional use only, not for resale, remains the property of UMG" label on a CD. After all, the first sale doctrine had its origin in a Supreme Court case involving book publisher's effort to enforce a "may not be sold for less than one dollar" label on a book.



In its ruling, the district court found that the initial recipients of "promo CDs" own them, notwithstanding "not for resale" labels. The court rejected the notion that these labels create a "license," concluding that the CDs are gifts. According to the opinion, "UMG gives the Promo CDs to music industry insiders, never to be returned. ... Nor does the licensing label require the recipient to provide UMG with any benefit to retain possession." (The court also found that federal postal laws relating to "unordered merchandise" establish that promo CDs are gifts to their recipients.)

So, how you do plan to celebrate "Promo CD Liberation Day?"

Liberation Day for Promo CDs: Victory in UMG v. Augusto [EFF]

Sales vs. Spins, is based on data from Nielsen, which tracks music sales via SoundScan and monitors airplay through Nielsen BDS; and Pollstar, a Fresno-Calif.-based company that tracks concert sales. In a series of line graphs, the data shows that the when music airs on the radio, record sales go up. Music airplay and sales were analyzed for 17 artists covering all genres and varying levels of success such as Velvet Revolver, U2, Rascal Flatts, Linkin Park, Green Day, Bruce Springsteen, The White Stripes, Taylor Swift and Josh Groban.

"There is a direct correlation between the number of 'spins' (plays on free, local radio) and the sales of albums or singles," the report concluded. "It is this promotion - free advertising - that drives record sales and represents just one of the many ways local radio provides value to artists and contributes to their financial and commercial success."

While it seems like there's a pretty obvious connection between airplay and sales, as in someone hears a song and then feels like purchasing it, picking acts like the White Stripes and Green Day to prove that hypothesis seems dodgy, at best. When people hear a new Green Day song, there are also sales of their album? You don't say!

Then again, maybe it's not worth arguing about royalties right now, given that both organizations' business models might not hold up after the next decade or so.

Study: Radio Airplay Increases Record Sales [Mediabase]

Several weeks ago, a US District Court judge denied a quick decision in Atlantic v. Howell, questioning the validity of the making available argument. The husband-and-wife Howells moved against the RIAA, arguing that outside investigator MediaSentry had forced an upload from their hard drive, but failed to observe a P2P upload to another third party.

On Thursday, another court also reconsidered things. The situation emerged in a request for a retrial by Jammie Thomas, a defendant that suffered a decisive and expensive defeat at the hands of the RIAA. Thomas wants that decision retried, though the judge considering the request focused on the validity of the making available principle.

District Court judge Michael J. Davis noted that the original decision "may have been contrary to binding Eighth Circuit precedent," specifically a case that found that "infringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords". Davis considered that the court may have "committed a manifest error of law," and called for oral arguments to begin July 1st.

Hee hee! And don't forget this.

A federal magistrate is recommending that Tanya Andersen, who defeated the Recording Industry Association of America's file sharing lawsuit, be awarded $108,000 in legal fees.

The recommendation by Magistrate John Acosta, if upheld by an Oregon federal judge, would mark the second time that a target of the RIAA who beat a lawsuit was awarded attorney's fees. In August, a federal judge ordered the RIAA to pay $68,685 in litigation costs to two Oklahoma women whose case was dismissed.

The RIAA dropped the case against Andersen last year after concluding her hard drive didn't contain purloined music tracks. The RIAA initially claimed a Kazaa shared directory that linked to her internet-protocol address was unlawfully distributing thousands of songs.

I know they don't want to sound weak, but I think it's time for a withdrawal timetable.

...And Fresh Challenges Emerge on "Making Available" [Digital Music News]
Judge Recommending Legal Fees in RIAA v. Andersen [Wired]

Cara, oh, Cara... why didn't you share this sensitive side with us earlier? Why did it take the big finish to a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review to show us the music of your collective hearts?

The Trib's article "Recording industry wants a bigger share of the pie" by Rege Behe (Jan. 20 and PghTrib.com) was a misinformed, outdated critique that merits a response...

During the past decade, the music industry has dramatically reinvented itself. Fans today enjoy access to an unprecedented array of high-value, enhanced physical products and industry-licensed distribution platforms that include satellite radio, multiple Internet radio models, download sites and a variety of existing and emerging mobile phone models.

No one cares about multiple distribution platforms for music enterprises, Cara. I'm not even sure Doug Morris knows what that means. Also, you might not want to mention multiple Internet radio models. That might lead people to believe the record industry is going to do something about those licensing rates for stations streaming online. Maybe it's best if you just talk about how awesome-sounding legally purchased ringtones are instead.

And finally, one part of a much larger strategy to make the marketplace work for all is making clear that breaking the law and stealing music has consequences.

That's not always easy or popular, but it's necessary. And because of our efforts, the music community, the legal marketplace and fans are all better off than they otherwise would be if stealing music was an accepted practice.

Well, let's be fair here... are the fans really better off? I know I usually spend a fair amount of time worrying about the "legal marketplace", and its general well-being, and I'm glad to hear they're doing well, but the fans? But let's not get caught up in the semantics of who does and doesn't benefit from draconian fines and seemingly random targets of prosecution.

It's easy to take uninformed shots from the sidelines. It's less easy to watch thousands of your friends and colleagues get laid off because of rampant theft despite making every attempt to educate and offering innovative, legal ways to get music.

ZING, go the strings of my heart, Cara! All you and your corporate backers have done is provide venue after venue where legal downloads can be obtained, and yet, somewhere in New York or L.A., one of your friends is packing their stack of promo discs, autographed matchbox twenty posters, and Better Than Ezra coffee mugs into a box while two security guards hover close by. Some might choose to blame corporate incompetence, A&R guys spending money like Powerball winners with a meth problem, or any number of well-documented music biz missteps over the last four decades or so, but you and I both know, Cara Duckworth, that it's those pesky pirates, stealing jobs from your friends, and stealing their dreams of a plus one into music immortality (or at least their own corporate credit card). Cara, why didn't you say something sooner? You let us all believe the RIAA were a bunch of soulless creeps, when in fact, you all were suffering from the sins of everyone who ever visited a Rapidshare blog.

I won't let another cross word cross my lips or my keyboard, Cara—at least until it's mid-afternoon and I need something to post about and your cohorts having done something ridiculous again. But, Cara Duckworth, we'll always have the pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. That has to count for something.

Music industry spin [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review]

While we know that the RIAA is constantly pushing to extend both the meaning and scope of copyright law, in this case the details were pretty clear that they were not going after Howell for just ripping his CDs, but for putting those ripped files into a shared Kazaa folder. Now you can (and we do!) disagree that simply putting files into a shared folder are infringement, but that's different than just claiming that ripping the CDs is illegal or that he was being targeted just for ripping the CDs.

And wait, there's even more legalese afoot:

The filing points out that when Howell ripped his CDs and put them into a shared folder, those files were no longer "authorized." It's important to note that there's a difference between unauthorized and illegal. Beckerman seems to be saying that by saying "unauthorized" the RIAA means illegal — but that need not be the case. It's perfectly legal to rip your CDs, even if it's not authorized. It's well established that ripping a CD for personal backup purposes is perfectly legal, even if it's not authorized. What the RIAA appears to be saying is that by putting those backup files into a shared folder, the rips no longer were made for personal use, thus pushing them over the line to illegal.

So by this estimation, "unauthorized" doesn't necessarily mean "illegal," which should open up some new doors for the transgression-happy types among you out there. And by my estimation, all of this means that we need a new Idolawyer because even though I love to edit, splitting words like this is making my head hurt. (Interested? E-mail me at mauraATidolatorDOTcom.)

Washington Post Flubs Story On RIAA — RIAA Still Not Going After Personal Copies (Yet) [TechDirt]

RIAA Fake News! [LiveLeak via Ars Technica]

"Usenet.com has promoted and advanced an illegal business model on the backs of the music community," Duckworth said in a statement. "It may be theft in a slightly different online form, but the illicit business model of usenet.com is little different than the Groksters of the world.... This business should not be allowed to remain a brazen outlaw that actively shirks its legal obligations."

Now, if the RIAA had teamed up with, say, Vivid Video for its copyright suit, I might be rolling my eyes a little less at this allegation; surely the pornography peddlers of the world are losing boatloads more money than the music industry, especially given that Usenet is such an arcane platform. How Sendspace et al have escaped litigation threats up to this point is beyond me, although I'm guessing it's just a sign of the RIAA's chronic behind-the-timesism. Which clearly means that there's only one target that the majors can try to take out next: Gopher.

RIAA Sues Usenet, Decries it as 'Brazen Outlaw' [Wired]

What have our antipiracy efforts yielded? A legal marketplace that is far better because of what we've done: Digital revenues doubled as a percentage of the market in 2006, from 8 percent in 2005 to more than 16 percent. An illegal marketplace which, prior to the initiation of our deterrence program, experienced exponential illicit P2P use has now mostly stabilized—the average number of households downloading music illegally on a monthly basis was roughly 7 million in 2003 and is now 7.8 million. Compare that with the growth in broadband access to the Internet, which grew from 38 million home users in 2003 to at least 80 million today.

Can there be any doubt that a whole lot more of those broadband subscribers would be illegally downloading but for the lawsuits? Surveys confirm that fact: People who have stopped illegal downloading cite the fear of being sued as the first or second reason for changing their behavior. And, lastly, there is a fundamentally different understanding of what you can and can't do on the Internet—37 percent of those surveyed in 2003 thought it was illegal to distribute music for free over the Internet; now that number has grown to 73 percent.

Think about it. What would the online music world look like had we done nothing? It's not a pretty picture: skyrocketing illegal peer-to-peer downloading without even a second thought about its legality or morality, and a small handful of legitimate businesses struggling to gain traction in a marketplace overwhelmingly dominated by piracy.

Yes, that's so much better than those same "legitimate businesses" having an ever-growing reputation for being hostile to their customers! Especially when you go crowing in print about how you've instilled fear in said consumers. And a question about those scaredy-cats who have run away from Kazaa: Have those people who have "stopped illegal downloading" started buying music again at all, or have they just decided to put their time into other pursuits like Halo 3 and/or knitting? Ah, that's the problem with statistics—even when you want to cite them triumphantly, there's always some detail or other that gets left out.

Rights and wrongs in the antipiracy struggle [ZDNet]

• Guns N' Roses: "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
• Vanessa Williams: "Save the Best for Last"
• Janet Jackson: "Let's Wait Awhile"
• Gloria Estefan: "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Dark"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
• Goo Goo Dolls: "Iris"
• Journey: "Faithfully"; "Don't Stop Believin'"
• Sarah McLachlan: "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
• Aerosmith: "Cryin'"
• Linkin Park: "One Step Closer"
• Def Leppard: "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
• Reba McEntire: "One Honest Heart"
• Bryan Adams: "Somebody"
• No Doubt: "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
• Sheryl Crow: "Run Baby Run"
• Richard Marx: "Now and Forever"
• Destiny's Child: "Bills, Bills, Bills"
• Green Day: "Basket Case"

Note the inclusion of "Bills, Bills, Bills" on that list. Someone on the majors' legal team has quite the sense of humor!

RIAA Trial Produces Playlist of the Century [Threat Level]

First, the labels were able to match a username and IP address with Thomas; who used the same username ("tereastarr") on her Hotmail account and her Kazaa account; second, presiding judge Michael Davis instructed the jury that simply making the files available was, in fact, copyright infringement, so any songs that were in her Kazaa folder were in fact songs that were being infringed upon. And as far as the amount of the damages, this instruction to the jury came into play:

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 22: In this case, each plaintiff has elected to recover "statutory damages" instead of its actual damages and profits. Under the Copyright Act, each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording downloaded or distributed without license), as you consider just. If, however, you find that the defendant's conduct was willful, then each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of up to $150,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording downloaded or distributed without license), as you consider just.

In determining the just amount of statutory damages for an infringing defendant, you may consider the willfulness of the defendant's conduct, the defendant's innocence, the defendant's continuation of infringement after notice or knowledge of the copyright or in reckless disregard of the copyright, effect of the defendant's prior or concurrent copyright infringement activity, and whether profit or gain was established.

The jury decided on a fine of $9,250 per song (the case focused on 24 songs), which totaled $222,000—a much higher sum than the $4,000 that people who are targeted by the RIAA eventually settle for. Which means that we should probably expect more and more litigation to come down the pike, as people figure out what BigChampagne head Eric Garland calls "new and innovative tools for infringement online" while labels run for the biggish paydays afforded by these suits and put off figuring out revenue streams that don't involve paying squads of lawyers hundreds of dollars per hour for another few years or so.

Four reasons why the RIAA won a jury verdict of $220,000 [news.com]

If the labels do lose this case—and that instruction is making a loss for them seem likely—they might want to hire some "experts" who are actually well-versed in how long it takes to rip a song from a CD to a hard drive:

Earlier in the day, Thomas set up her computer in court to show the jury how quickly CDs could be copied onto it. The demonstration was aimed at countering testimony by an expert who testified that the songs on one of Thomas' computer drives were created just 15 seconds apart, suggesting piracy. But each song Thomas copied in court over Gabriel's objection took less than 10 seconds to land on the computer.

Jacobson said the comparison might not be valid because the version of Windows Media Player that Thomas used to copy, or "rip," the CDs in court was different from what was available in February 2005, when the files in contention landed on her hard drive.

Of course, in the eyes of Sony BMG's legal team, doing that is stealing, too, news which surely thrilled the makers of all the portable media players whose businesses are sort of dependent on consumers doing exactly that. We'll have updates on the case once the jury comes back with a verdict.

Download Case Should Go To Jury Today [AP]

"Record Breaker": Instead of pressing CD's, the Archies decide to sell downloadable files of their songs on the internet... which doesn't translate to much profit once the 3 purchased files are shared over and over again!

Awww, poor kids. But wait, couldn't Sabrina the Teenage Witch have put some sort of spell on the shared files? It would be kind of like the Zune's "three plays, three days" thing, only, you know, more supernatural.

Archie becomes tool for the RIAA [Boing Boing]