In addition, the artists are unhappy with the fact that the labels, represented by lobby groups such as the RIAA and IFPI, are pushing for anti-piracy legislation without consulting the artists they claim to represent. Fans are unnecessarily portrayed as criminals according to some.

Now, in the case of Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum versus the RIAA, Radiohead has indicated that they will testify against the RIAA. Tenenbaum’s troubles started in 2003 when he rejected an offer to settle with the RIAA for $500. After a few more settlement attempts and legal quibbles, the case eventually went to court.

In court Joel is assisted by ‘hippy head‘ Professor Charles Nesson, and his law students. TorrentFreak contacted Tenenbaum’s legal team, who confirmed that they indeed spoke to Radiohead. “We met with Radiohead’s manager two weeks ago here at Harvard Law School. Professor Nesson walked away with the impression that their manager agreed to do so,” we were told.
Despite the criticism of Professor Charles Nesson’s work ethics and handling on the case thus far, it would be good to see well respected musicians such as Radiohead testify in favor of an accused file-sharer. Most of the time we don’t hear from the artists directly, only from their representatives, so their views are very welcome.

Recently, the effects of ‘illegal’ file-sharing on music sales were discussed during the Pirate Bay trial. Here, Professor and media researcher Roger Wallis told the court that his research has shown that there is no relationship between the decline of album sales and file-sharing. After his testimony, Wallis’ wife was overwhelmed with flowers as the public warmed to her husband and the opinion he expressed in court.

We can’t rule out the possibility that Radiohead might be after some floral tributes of its own, but even more than that they’d love to put one in the eye of the money obsessed record labels.

Zabriskie, himself an avid BitTorrent user, said he has leaked all of his albums on torrent sites ahead of their official release date. And he’s not the only one doing this. “I can tell you from numerous conversations and firsthand experience that there are few artists left, even in the big leagues, that do not. You wonder where the early leaks come from? Don’t be so surprised.” he writes.

People are not going to buy any albums before they’ve had a chance to listen to them, or before they’ve seen the artist perform live, Zabriskie reasons. Indeed, the top 1% of all artists might still be able to sell an album based on their previous performances, but the average artist has to be heard first. Much to the dislike of the RIAA, file-sharing networks are the preferred way for many people to sample music.

Zabriskie doesn’t see file-sharing networks as a threat to musicians though, quite the opposite in fact. “No one should ever be upset that people are downloading their record for free. They’re listening to it. And chances are they will buy it someday if they like it. Someone who doesn’t buy it still wouldn’t have bought it if they didn’t download it, so what’s the worry?”

In fact, much like radio, file-sharing networks are a great way to promote music. Zabriskie discovered this himself, as one of his tracks appeared on the famous Indie/Rock Playlist torrent in February 2008. Many artists have seen an increase in their fanbase after one of their tracks appeared in these playlists, since they were downloaded by tens of thousands of people.

“It’s really cool, just one person’s mixtape, but a great way for people all around the world to see what’s going on in music that month. So, very suddenly, tens of thousands of people from around Portland to Poland had that song on their computer. How did Criznittle find it? I don’t know, exactly. But he did, and he liked it, and he shared it, and I found a lot of fans because of it’,” Chris points out.

So what does this mean for the music industry, one might ask. It is hard to predict the future of course, but it’s clear that consumer to consumer promotion will be much more important than the marketing budgets of the major record labels. Music is being freed from the corporate stranglehold, and although it’s a challenge to find the right distribution method for the future, the artists and fans will come out as the winners.

Zabriskie’s final words sum it up nicely.

“Bottom line: if you like something you listen to, support the artist however you can. If that means buying something, great. If that means going to a live show, great. If that means sharing it with a friend, great. If that means blogging about it, great. If that means requesting it on your local college radio station, great. If that means just scrobbling it to Last.fm so people can see that you’re enjoying it, great.”

“That’s the future of music. It’s completely in your hands, not mine, not anyone else’s who makes music. Yours. Don’t let anyone judge you for how you choose to find and experience music. The soundtrack to your life is up to you. All music is free, everywhere. Don’t take that for granted. Share it, disappear into it. It’s yours.”

Eminem’s publishing company, FBT Productions, is suing Universal Music Group for $1.6m (£800,000) in alleged unpaid royalties. But what’s at stake is not just an unpaid bill – it’s the definition of digital royalties.

When a song or ringtone is bought online, at the iTunes Music Store or anywhere else, the artist receives a royalty. The amount of this royalty is governed by a contract between labels and artists. For many artists, however, that digital royalty is not explicitly stated – millions of contracts, after all, predate iTunes and did not anticipate the boom in digital music sales.

Eminem’s lawyers argue that downloads should fall under the “licensing” agreements that cover physical releases such as CDs and vinyl records, but Universal Music Group says they are governed by “distribution” arrangements, which have lower royalty rates. Whereas an artist might split licensing royalties 50-50 with their label, under distribution rates they often earn less than 30%.

“If you give the music to a third party without cost to you, like manufacturing or packaging, that’s the same as a licensing agreement,” a member of Eminem’s legal team explained to The Wrap magazine. “[Universal] are characterising it as something else.”

FBT Productions’s court papers cite numerous instances of the words “licence” and “licensing” in comments by Universal executives and their digital distribution partners.

“Steve Jobs … discussed his company’s relationship with UMG as that of a ‘license’ in an essay titled ‘Thoughts on Music’ dated February 6, 2007,” the papers read. “Although he consistently referred to Apple ‘licensing’ music from ‘the big four music companies’, when deposed in this case he claimed not to know whether his company’s relationship with Universal was, in fact, a licence.”

The trial is the first major legal test for these issues and the witness list is appropriately star-studded. Although Eminem will not likely attend, UMG founder Jimmy Iovine will probably take the stand and Steve Jobs, CEO at Apple Computers, is scheduled to testify by video.

Relapse, Eminem’s first album in five years, is expected early this year.

Some are showing support by getting up in the middle of the night and translating the case for others. Some have been outside the court in the cold, while others have released a documentary. Many millions have been following every development online and posting words of support feverishly to blog and forum.

A few individuals took more direct action yesterday, much to the dislike of The Pirate Bay. They attacked the website of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) in Sweden yesterday, defacing it, and leaving a message there for the trial prosecutor;

Stop lying HÅKAN ROSWALL!:

The ruthless hunt conducted by the IFPI, Anti-Piracy Office, Warner Bros., and all the other companies with a pawn in the game has now resulted in a trial in which four innocent men are accused of copyright infringement. This is a declaration of war against anti-piracy outfits and the industry players behind them, and we urge the public to boycott and lynch those responsible. IFPI is just the beginning. To be Continued.

The New Generation

When the RIAA website was hacked last year, the news was met with glee by thousands. No doubt this news will be well received too but one person who isn’t particularly happy about it – at least in the context of the court case – is Peter Sunde, aka brokep.

“Our case is going quite well as most of you have noticed. In the light of that it feels very bad that people are hacking web sites which actually puts us in a worse light than we need to be in,” he said.

The defacement included a note saying “To be Continued..” and Peter reports that he has heard rumors that there could be further attacks against the international page of the IFPI and the domain previously owned by Peter, IFPI.com.

Indeed, at the time of writing, both sites are unavailable, in addition to the Swedish site. There are no messages (possibly indicating a DDoS) but they are both down.

While all this might be a great distraction for those who believe the music industry only gets what it deserves and deserves what it gets, Peter is calling for calm;

“If anyone involved in the acts going on is reading this – please stop, for our sake. We don’t need that kind of support.”

The IFPI site currently carries this message; “Welcome to the IFPI Svenska group. This page is temporarily taken out of service.”