Unfortunately, Coldplay is weathering yet another legal dispute. It seems that “either Coldplay is a magnet for litigious songwriters, or [has] a real plagiarism problem.^“2 This lawsuit comes from an unfamiliar singer-songwriter: Sammie Lee Smith. Smith recently filed against Coldplay in the Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging that the band stole his material to create hits such as “Yellow,” Clocks,” and “Trouble.”³

But why a lawsuit now, when songs such as ‘Yellow’ and ‘Trouble’ were released as early as the year 2000? According to DigitalMusicNews.com, the fact that Sammie Lee Smith is such an obscure name in the music business and that Smith is suing well after the named songs were released definitely works to Coldplay’s advantage.⁴ A critical component of Coldplay’s defense is the relative obscurity of the songwriter. The songs are similar, but did Coldplay even know the song or that the songwriter existed?”⁵

According to the U.S. copyright law, “in the absence of a confession, musicians who accuse others of stealing their work must prove ‘access’ – the alleged plagiarizer must have heard the song – a ‘similarity’ – the songs must share unique musical components.⁶

Sammie Lee Smith has recorded around 4,000 songs on some 100 tapes since 1976. At this point, it is unknown how Coldplay came into contact with Smith, but the lawsuit demands that the band cease playing “Yellow,” “Clocks,” and “Trouble,” and that Smith receives an “undisclosed but undoubtedly exuberant amount of money.”⁷

History has shown with artists such as Vanilla Ice that plagiarism can ruin reputations and end careers. Coldplay knows the potential damages of such charges better than most – having been sued by Joe Satriani, Cat Stevens, and an unknown singer-songwriter, all accusing Coldplay of ripping them off in one way or another.

At this point, there are no further details regarding the lawsuit. While the Satriani versus Coldplay allegations were quite obvious, Sammie Lee Smith will have a much harder time braving the cold.
__________________________________________________________________________
¹ David J. Prince, Coldplay, Satriani Copyright Lawsuit Dismissed, BILLBOARD, Sept. 15, 2009.
² Paul Resnikoff, Coldplay Weathers Another Copyright Lawsuit…, DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS, Jan. 18, 2010.
³ Id.
⁴ Id.
⁵ Id.
⁶ Adam Conner-Simons, Picking Up What They’re Laying Down. GELF MAGAZINE, July 24 2007.
⁷ http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/13 (follow “music” hyperlink; then follow “exclusives” hyperlink).

However, the first billion-dollar athlete saw his endorsement empire crash and burn in December, the aftermath of a scandalous car crash coupled with exposure of his (many) extramarital affairs. Accenture, the global consulting giant, and AT&T have already dropped Woods. Although not officially parting ways with Woods, Gilette has said it will start phasing out Woods from promotions for its Gillette razors and shaving foams.⁶ The reason? Following the flood of information regarding Wood’s infidelities,⁷ Woods no longer represents the athletic, clean-cut family-man such brands wish to be associated with.⁸ Or as in Accenture’s case, Woods “just wasn’t a metaphor for high performance anymore.”⁹

The relationship between Woods and his sponsors seems to have turned on his “immoral” or “bad behavior” and follows a whole string of celebrity deals gone bad in the recent years. Although the details of Woods’ contracts with the likes of Accenture are not known, it is presumed that the contracts were severed based up on a “morals clause” or “bad boy clause” given the size of Woods’ contracts and the prevalence of these clauses in celebrity endorsements.¹⁰ While a 1997 survey showed that less than half of the endorsement contracts had morals clauses in them, by 2003, seventy-five percent of the endorsement deals included these clauses.¹¹

Morals clauses “enable one party to unilaterally terminate the agreement if the individual engages in conduct that could have some sort of negative impact upon the particular company or organization.”¹² Thus, these clauses are used to “terminate a talent agreement when an actor’s conduct is detrimental to the buyer’s interests or otherwise devalues the performance due.”¹³ These clauses are especially frequent in sports and entertainment contracts because advertisers, endorsees, television networks and motion picture studios wish to “quickly eliminate the celebrity/product association in the mind of the consumer where the celebrity’s image has come into disrepute in the public’s view.”¹⁴ However, it is not always clear what constitutes an “immoral behavior” as envisioned by these clauses. Morals are usually defined by the society and the concepts that are prevailing in a particular period of time.¹⁵ Therefore, courts are usually required to interpret what parties intended to encompass within the concept of an “immoral behavior”.¹⁶

The history behind the morals clauses reveal their vagueness and how their meaning has become dependent on the society and the time period. The clauses were first used by Hollywood studios in early 1920s to protect themselves against erratic behavior of their contracted actors.¹⁷ The clauses became notorious during the McCarthyist era when they were used to terminate contracts of many writers, directors and producers who were accused of being having communist leanings by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.¹⁸ Thus, during this era morality clauses were used to attack political ideologies rather than actual immoral behavior.¹⁹

More recently, morals clauses have been used against likes of Michael Vick, Kobe Bryant and Kate Moss.²⁰ These celebrities’ “immoral conduct” differed across the board. While Vick was indicted on federal charges relating to a series of alleged dog-fighting incidents,²¹ Bryant was charged with sexually assaulting a 19-year old²² and Moss was photographed using cocaine.²³

What makes Woods’ situation unquestionably different than the aforementioned stars is that his extramarital affairs, however detestable or condemnable they may be, did not lead up to a criminal charge, or even a criminal investigation. He has issued a statement saying that he will take an “indefinite break” from golf, in order to focus on his personal life and to spend time with his family.²⁴ Athletically, he is still on top of his game. Despite the breakout of the scandal, he was voted as the PGA player of the year, as well as the Athlete of the Decade by the Associated Press.²⁵

So the question remains as to whether Woods will make a come-back to golf and his millions worth endorsement deals. History shows that it is possible. For example, in 2009, 5 years after charges against him were dropped, Bryant ranked as the 10th most powerful celebrity by Forbes magazine—having earned $45 million, $24 million of it from endorsement deals.²⁶ Woods’ biggest endorser, Nike, has publicly backed Woods—saying that “Tiger just had a blip.”²⁷ Therefore, it is not too far-fetched to assume that the world’s first billion-dollar athlete will be back and make a couple billion more—with morals clauses in tow.
__________________________________________________________________________
¹ Kurt Badenhausen. Forbes.com, The First Billion Dollar Athlete. September 28, 2009, available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25691350/
² Id.
³ See Andrew Farrell and Tom Van Riper. Billionaire Status is Tiger Woods’ Next Trophy. MSNBC. July 15 2009. Available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25691350/.
⁴ Id. It is reported that he has made $750 million from his endorsement deals alone. See also Erin Geiger Smith Will “Morals” Clauses Impact Tiger’s Endorsements? December 8 2009, The Business Insider available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/will-morals-clauses-impact-tigers-endorsements-2009-12
⁵ Badenhausen.
⁶ Matthew Lynn, Jan 4 1010, BusinessWeek, Tiger Woods’ Sponsors Should Forgive and Forget. Available at: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-04/tiger-woods-s-sponsors-should-forgive-and-forget-matthew-lynn.html
⁷ Larry Dorman, Woods Says He’ll Take ‘Indefinite Break’ from Golf, N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2009, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/sports/golf/12woods.html
⁸ Lynn, supra n. 6.
⁹ Brian Stelter, Accenture, as if Tiger Woods Were Never There, N.Y. Times, Dec. 16, 2009 (quoting Accenture spokesperson Fred Hawrysh), available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/business/media/17accenture.html.
¹⁰ See Dave Carpenter and Emily Fredrix, ‘Bad Boy’ Clauses Can Sink Woods, Other Endorsers, MSN MONEY, Dec. 17, 2009, http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=AP&Date=20091217&ID=10899054&Symbol=US:NKE
¹¹ Fernando Pinguelo. 2008 SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT LAW SYMPOSIUM: FROM THE ARENA TO THE STREETS — THE PRESSURES PLACED ON ATHLETES, ENTERTAINERS, AND MANAGEMENT. 19 Seton Hall J. of Ent. And Sports Law 381, 485 (speech)
¹² Id. at 482.
¹³ Noah B. Kressler, Using The Moral Clauses in Talent Agreements: A Historical, Legal and Practical Guide, 29 Columbia J. L. & Arts 235,
¹⁴ Fernando Pinguelo and Timothy D. Cedrone. Morals? Who Cares About Morals? An Examination of Morals Clauses in Talent Contracts and What Talent Needs to Know, 19 SETON HALL J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 347, 363 (2009).
¹⁵ Id. at 352.
¹⁶ Id.
¹⁷ Id. See also Pinguelo, supra n. 9, at 483.
¹⁸ Pinguelo and Cedrone, supra n. 12, at 355.
¹⁹ Id. at 356.
²⁰ Id. at 357 (internal citations omitted).
²¹ Mark Maske, Falcons’ Vick Indicted in Dog Fighting Case, WASH. POST, Jul. 18, 2007, available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701393.html.
²² Alex Markels, Decision to Charge Bryant Due Today, N.Y. TIMES, Jul. 18, 2003, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/18/sports/basketball-decision-to-charge-bryant-due-today.html?scp=264&sq=&st=nyt.
²³ Guy Trebay and Eric Wilson. Kate Moss is Dismissed by H&M after Furor over Cocaine, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 21, 2005, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/business/media/21moss.html.
²⁴ Dorman, supra n. 7.
²⁵ CNN.com, Tiger Woods Wins PGA Despite Personal Woes, Dec. 19, 2009, http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/19/tiger.woods.award/index.html.
²⁶ Forbes.com, The Celebrity 100. June 3, 2009, http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/53/celebrity-09_Kobe-Bryant_OKPF.html
²⁷ Lewis Dean, Nike Boss: ‘Tiger Just Had a Blip,’ SkyNews Online, Dec. 15, 2009, http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Tiger-Woods-Affairs-Nike-Boss-Phil-Knight-Says-Golfers-Revelations-Are-Just-A-Minor-Blip/Article/200912215500097?f=rss.

The 9th Circuit rejected Hallmark’s argument that the card is protected free speech under the First Amendment. The blond seeks $500,000 in damages and wishes to bar Hallmark from exploiting her name and likeness in the future.

To see the Ninth Circuit’s Opinion, click here.

Why do we indulge ourselves? We may have different motives. For some, it makes us feel better about ourselves, while others get satisfaction seeing the rich and famous go out without makeup or shop in sweats. And still, some of us just need mindless distraction. Whatever the reason, our culture’s insatiable appetite to know how the rich and famous are living has created some serious privacy issues.

There are times when the celebrity/paparazzi interaction creates more fodder for the tabloids. Now, surely these “fights” are not attempts to create good publicity – but, isn’t any publicity good publicity? Some of these images and stories elicit sympathy and can make even the most celebrity news hungry people question their moral integrity. This feeling quickly turns from blaming ourselves to blaming the paparazzi for having complete disregard for celebrities’ lives, while ignoring the undeniable fact that without our hunger for these pictures there would be no paparazzi. Then, there are those times where the images are so painful that we feel bad looking, but for some reason we just can’t look away (see Britney Spears shaving her head).

Then there are those images and stories that ask whether or not the famous person plans to be photographed in order to facilitate their “comeback“. It’s not a very well kept secret that some of these stories and photos are purposely generated to create publicity for the individual(s). There is even (at least one) guide to celebrity comebacks.

Of course, laws and restrictions are necessary, and the California laws are the most restrictive on the paparazzi. However, many celebrities advocate for harsher laws and more privacy protection. These laws must be in compliance with Constitutional protections, which seem to prevent harsher laws. First Amendment advocates are of course opposed to harsher laws that will, in their opinions, limit free speech. While this battle will continue to play out in the coming years, and most likely never be fully resolved, we must consider both sides interests.

How do we rationalize celebrity advocacy for these stricter laws when there seems to be an unspoken agreement, requiring the magazines to publish the meltdown and the comeback. Is it because the tabloid world is un-relentless and nothing is sacred? Or, maybe, the risks to the celebrity’s privacy outweigh the benefits to their public lives. Will it remain the vicious cycle it has become? The paparazzi take the pictures, the magazines publish them, and we buy the magazines, propelling the featured person into the hottest thing in Hollywood.

If I were say, Britney Spears, I would take full advantage of this system and create free publicity for myself (preferably the non-head-shaving kind, and more of the barefoot-in-public-bathrooms kind). It seems that is exactly what she did with her comeback, creating her own “paparazzi style” following to aid in her “rehab” plan, which actually seems to have worked.

The courts and law enforcement need to find a balance that allows the paparazzi and the starving public to exercise their First Amendment rights, while protecting people like Madonna from physical injury and Princess Diana from death, as well as invasions of privacy.

Is there a proper legal balance that will prevent such things as “stalkerazzi”, the use of a telephoto lens to get a picture inside of someone’s bedroom and parents being exploited after their son’s death, while allowing the exercise of First Amendment rights?

The issues underlying the tabloid world require attention and thought, especially as our hunger grows and evolving technology makes it easier for us to be satiated.

The 2008 Presidential Election utilized the breadth of the Internet in ways previously unseen. As a new public commons, the Internet was the medium through which many Americans gathered information in making decisions about who to vote for on Election Day. Politicians realized that the Internet was to have a significant role in persuading voters early in the cycle.

CNN teamed up with Youtube.com to host a debate among the candidates for the Republican and Democratic nominations where all the questions came from videos submitted by Youtube users.¹ After the debate, all the candidate’s answers were made available on Youtube’s website without restriction. A flurry of user generated content was posted on the Youtube website, including the memorable “Obama Girl” videos. Campaigns soon began posting television ads on the website, as well as creating ads specifically for their websites and the Youtube website.

On October 13, 2008, the McCain-Palin Presidential Campaign sent Youtube a letter requesting it change its policies regarding Digital Millennium Copyright Act² (“DMCA”) challenges to content hosted on its website.³ Specifically, Youtube’s policy is to automatically remove video content from its website for a period of 10-14 days upon the filing of a DMCA violation allegation.

Youtube removed multiple political ads which the McCain-Palin Campaign had posted on its website after media outlets filed complaints alleging the campaign violated the DMCA by using their footage without permission.⁴ McCain-Palin argued that their use of the footage, often footage of themselves appearing on news broadcasts, falls squarely within the fair use exemption of the DMCA,⁵ and that Youtube’s policy of automatically suspending content after a DMCA violation complaint chilled their Constitutionally protected speech. The letter argued that time is of the essence in a political campaign such that 10 days can have a substantial impact on the success of the candidates on Election Day.

On October 14, Youtube’s counsel responded to the McCain-Palin campaign stating that they simply did not have the ability to operate in any other manner.⁶ The letter states:

“Your suggestion that we limit our reviews and fair use analysis to ‘political candidates and campaigns” attempts to address our scale issue, but it does not address the information problem mentioned above. The fact remains that we do not know who owns what content included in user uploaded videos, who uploaded those videos or what authorization the uploader may or may not have to use the content. Moreover, while we agree with you that the U.S. Presidential election-related content is invaluable and worthy of the highest level of protection, there is a lot of other content on our global site that our users around the world find to be equally important, including, by way of example only, political campaigns from around the globe at all levels of government, human rights movements, and other important voices. We try to be careful not to favor one category of content on our site over others, and to treat all of our users fairly, regardless of whether they are an individual, a large corporation or a candidate for public office.”⁷

The letter then stated that “[t]he real problem here is individuals and entities that abuse the DMCA takedown process;” YouTube then requested that McCain work with the company to solve the problems the DMCA presents to content providers by “strengthening the fair use doctrine, so that intermediaries like us can rely on this important doctrine with a measure of business certainty.”⁸

While the DMCA provides standing to sue based on clearly false takedown notices, litigation takes time that political campaigns don’t have. Youtube users posting political content don’t have incentive to spend the money on litigation because whatever event has inspired them–be it an election or a congressional vote –will likely be concluded by the time litigation concludes.⁹

Another option is for political campaigns to form contracts with media outlets prior to appearing on film that make clear the campaign is allowed to use footage without restriction. This is indeed what CNN agreed to in hosting the Youtube debates.¹⁰ While this is possible for high profile campaigns, like those of politicians running for President or positions in the Senate, campaigns with less money or for politicians running for local office are at the mercy of the media outlets. It is unlikely a media outlet like NBC will bother with signing a contract with a congressional district candidate from Queens because the candidate needs NBC more than it needs an interview with him or her to score ratings. For these smaller, less popular campaigns, the fair use exemption is the only bargaining chip they have to rely on.

While Youtube’s goal of treating all users fairly by not favoring one form of content over another’s is admirable,¹¹ it cannot justify the disparate impact its policy has on uploaders of political content. While a 10-14 day takedown of a home video clip that contains a song owned by a large record company won’t affect that family in the long run, the 10-14 day suspension of a political ad that uses footage of a candidate on a local television program will delay the spread of that candidate’s message and could change the course of an election.

While Youtube maintains it would be a hardship to police all its hosted content, there are ways for it to minimize the potential harm to campaigns. Youtube already requires a person to create an account before uploading content onto its server. It would be easy for Youtube to create a specific class of account for uploaders of political content, which could be exempt from its current takedown policy. For these users, there could be a requirement that they provide some background on the political issues or situation they are addressing, which would help to solve Youtube’s claimed “information” problem.12 When a challenge is made to any content uploaded by these accounts, Youtube could prioritize settling that matter. Additionally, Youtube could impose penalties for anyone falsely signing up for any such special account, such as permanent suspension or any other number of options. None of these would require much more effort than Youtube already puts into policing its website, and it would not require waiting for Congress to strengthen the fair use exemption.

__________________________________________________________________
¹ See Lessig Blog, Free Debates: CNN Has Announced It Will Free the Debates, May 5, 2007.

² 112 Stat. 2860 (1998).

³ Letter to Youtube from McCain-Palin Campaign, October 13, 2008.

⁴ Id.

⁵ The fair use exemption is codified at 17 U.S.C. §§ 107. It states that fair uses of a copyrighted work, “including…purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”

⁶ See Youtube Response Letter to Senator McCain, October 14, 2008.

⁷ Id.

⁸ Id.

⁹ Of course, there are other benefits to litigation. E.g., MoveOn.org and Brave New Films, with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed a lawsuit against Viacom for making a false DMCA violation challenge resulting in the removal of their content from Youtube. (You can read the complaint here.) The lawsuit was dismissed when Viacom, in response, offered to change its company policy to require manual review of every video targeted as a potential DMCA violation, and setting up a website and email “hotline” as well as promising a review of any complaint within one business day and a reinstatement if the takedown was indeed in error. Electronic Frontier Foundation, “MoveOn, Brave New Films v. Viacom.” However, this does little to help when spreading one’s message is a time sensitive matter.

¹⁰ See supra, note 1.

¹¹ See supra, note 7, and accompanying text.

¹² Id.

This January the fight against online piracy got a little more difficult with a ruling from a district judge in Virginia that the Recording Industry Association of America’s (RIAA) reasoning in asking for restitution is “unsound.”  As such, the court’s ruling has torn apart the RIAA’s and the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) argument that the alleged ‘losses’ from online sharing amount to ‘theft’ and that the persons who share files with each others are criminals.

The case was United States v. Dove.¹ It marked the first time that a jury in the United States found a defendant guilty of felony file sharing.  But when the RIAA sought restitution, things went south.  Attempting to sound reasonable, the RIAA offered to seek restitution only for the twenty most downloaded albums from Dove’s computer.  They then took those 6,528 transfers and multiplied them by the average wholesale price in 2005 ($7.22) to reach a “reasonable” $47,132.16 in damages.  The problem with the way the RIAA calculated its losses simply comes down to supply and demand: the cheaper things are, the more people will buy them.  You can see this at your local supermarket on free sample day.  Most everyone will take a free sample, because it is free.  However, should the store start charging for these delectable morsels, many fewer people would take them.

In the same way, Judge Jones reasoned that just because people would download a song or album for free, doesn’t mean that these people would have otherwise bought the album.  Most of these people in fact only downloaded the albums from Dove because they had no intention of otherwise buying them.

The RIAA was able to seek restitution under the Mandatory Victim’s Restitution Act of 1996.  This allows the victim of a  “an offense against property under [title 18],” § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii), in which (2) ‘an identifiable victim or victims has suffered a . . . pecuniary loss,’ § 3663A(c)(1)(B), and (3) the court has not found that the number of identifiable victims or the complexity of determining causation or the amount of the victims’ losses would make restitution impracticable, § 3663A(c)(3).” In laying out its theory of restitution all the RIAA did was claim that their damages were equal to the number of shared copies multiplied by the wholesale price per copy.

To support its case, the RIAA and the government cited United States v. Martin,² United States v. Milstein,³ and United States v. Chay.⁴ Judge Jones recognized differences in each of the theories presented in those cases that kept them from being applied to Dove.  In Martin and Milstein, the issue was a counterfeit product that was sold at a profit by the offender.  In those cases there is a clear deferment of payment from the copyright holder to the offender, although Judge Jones noted that, in the case of United States v. Hudson,⁵ which involved the same activity as Martin, there is some question as to whether or not a customer who bought $86,000 of counterfeit product would have paid the full mark up of $321,000 for the authentic product; this issue was never reached on appeal, however.  Even in Milstein, which involved selling foreign pharmaceuticals as another brand, the court held the restitution amount was proper because it was the amount the offender would have paid for the actual product to re-sell.

Chay also fails the test because that case, like the others, involved an offender selling an illegal or counterfeit copy of an existing good for personal profit.  But, Judge Jones ruled, because Dove did not sell anything and no attempt was made to put a monetary value on any gain he did make, the same theory of restitution does not apply.

Jones does find that the restitution scheme offered by the RIAA in Dove is similar to the scheme proposed in United States v. Chalupnik,⁶ which was rejected.  Chalupnik noted that the customers had different, legal options, available to them other than purchasing the product at full retail price.  In Chalupnik, it was to buy used CDs from another source; in Dove, Judge Jones points out that the downloaders could buy individual songs online, rent movies, borrow CDs and DVDs from the library, or done without the album entirely.

Judge Jones points out the flaws in the RIAA’s case best:

“The government finds RIAA’s estimated losses reasonable because it calculates loss based on only 20 of the 183 albums in the Elite Torrents tracker database, but there is no suggested logical basis for making the calculation based on 20 albums as opposed to 1 or 100 albums. There is no allegation, for instance, that people who downloaded those first 20 albums would have been more likely to pay the full purchase price for those albums had they not been available on the Elite Torrents network. RIAA does not aver that 6,528 out of the 17,281 total downloads from Dove’s server accurately represents the number of lost sales to RIAA’s members.”

It is possible that RIAA requests $47,000 because Dove’s services are worth $77,768.82 to RIAA, the difference between the full amount of economic loss RIAA claims ($124,768.82) and the amount it is willing to accept if Dove agrees to participate in a public service announcement ($47,000). But RIAA does not offer this explanation. Nor does RIAA adequately prove that its members’ total actual losses were $124,768.82. RIAA only proves that the first 20 of the 183 total albums on Dove’s server are held by record labels that are RIAA members; there is no such proof as to the remaining 163 albums. Also, RIAA uses $7.22, the average wholesale price of a digital album in 2005, to calculate its loss, but it is unclear whether member copyright holders would receive the full $7.22 as profit or only a portion of that amount. Further, if the reason RIAA decreases its request from the alleged total economic losses of $124,768.82 to $47,000 is because Dove’s services are worth $77,768.82, RIAA’s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale. On the other hand, if the value of Dove’s services is not the basis for RIAA’s “conservative” $ 47,000 request, RIAA has essentially requested an arbitrary amount.”
Judge Jones’ ruling comes as another challenge to an organization whose courtroom bullying and steamrolling is no longer being quietly acquiesced to.  With the new requirement that the RIAA prove actual losses and not simply create fictitious numbers that represent the number of sales they wish they had, the fact that more evidentiary issues are appearing with the RIAA’s methods, and that more consumers are standing up for their own digital ownership and privacy rights, the RIAA’s legal battles are proving more costly than ever.
One wonders if the RIAA actually researches how many sales are actually being lost due to internet piracy, if they will realize their millions of dollars in restrictive-DRM research and relentless legal war against their consumers has cost them more in lost revenue and public perception than any piracy ever has.
_______________________________________________________
¹ 585 F. Supp. 2d 865 (W. Dist. VA. 2008).

² 64 F. App’x. 129 (10th Cir. 2003).

³ 481 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2007).

⁴ 281 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2002).

⁵ 483 F.3d 707 (10th Cir. 2007).

⁶ 514 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2008).