It has come to my attention that the music industry now wants royalties for those 30-second clips of music you hear in iTunes. That, I think you’ll agree, is bullshit. Seeing as though we’re a solution-oriented blog here at CrunchGear, I want to offer a completely fool-proof way to save the music industry and put an end to the years and years of nonsense we’ve seen since Napster first was first released: let’s ban music. That’s right, let’s pass a law that says “the creation or performance of music, in any form, is hereby banned. Any violation of this law will be punishable by death.” Problem solved, let’s all play Hungry Hungry Hippos.

And now, the 900th note on Internet piracy written in the past week. It would appear that the UK is inching closer to a law that would require ISPs to disconnect people who download music, movies, etc. illegally. The proposal, currently making its way through the back rooms of the British Government, could well be placed before the Parliament during its next session.

For years you’ve been using the well-supported, ubiquitous file format called MP3. It’s an international standard, it works just fine in every media player, and other universally-accepted formats are in place for the album artwork, lyrics, and what have you.

Sounds like you’re ready for a new, unified format that no one has ever heard of and, if introduced five or six years ago, might have been revolutionary!

Universal, Sony, Warner, and EMI are all throwing their weight behind the CMX format, soon to be the laughing stock of the internet. Oh, did I mention that Apple, who makes like 200% of the MP3 players in the USA, is making their own competing format, which pretty much guarantees that CMX will only be usable by things like Windows Media Player?

Another day, another RIAA trial victory. Joel Tenenbaum was ordered to cough up $675,000 to the record labels. It works out to $22,500 per song he downloaded off Kazaa years ago.

Remember yesterday when I noted, by way of TorrentFreak, that the RIAA had all but considered DRM to be dead? Not true! Not true at all.

The chief spokesman for the RIAA, one Jonathan Lamy, has gone on record to say what any normal, not-on-the-RIAA-payroll person has been saying for some time now: “DRM is dead, isn’t it?” Yes. Yes it it.

It’s safe to say that I shed no tears yesterday when, for all intents and purposes, The Pirate Bay ceased to be. Suffice it to say that if Usenet comes under attack next I will not be a happy camper. (I know, I know: The first rule of Usenet is not to talk about Usenet, but bear with the story for a minute.) The RIAA just won a lawsuit against usenet.com, which, as you might guess, is a premium Usenet provider.

Stan Lee couldn’t have created a more hated super-villain than the Recording Industry Association of America. It’s the ultimate heel stable. Get this: a woman in Minneapolis, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, has been ordered to pay $1.92 million in damages for downloading and sharing 24 songs. That works out to about $80,000 per song. Clearly the RIAA deserves props. Mad props.

Let’s talk hypothetically for a moment. Let’s say you’re the average American (or wherever you’re from), going to school or working for The Man. Let’s say that you occasionally download an MP3 or FLAC from wherever you get such things. Now, do you have $150,000 to give to the RIAA for every song you’ve downloaded? I sure as heck don’t! (I’d need a government bailout, lol!) More importantly, why is $150,000 an appropriate amount to ask for, as Sony seems to suggest? If I can buy a song off iTunes for $1.30, how is it that “finding” that same song could cost me $150,000?

The RIAA received some rare “good press” a few months ago when it announced that it would no longer go after individual file sharers. But then, approximately 27 seconds later, we began hating it again when it emerged that, instead of going after individual file shares, it would work with ISPs to weed out file sharers. A distinction without meaning, I say. Anyhow, AT&T is the first big ISP to announce that it’s working with the organization, so now we transfer our angst that-a-way.

Ars Technica is usually one of the better sites to read if you’re looking for a “serious” take on technology, but its profile of the Harvard Law students working on the RIAA v. Joel Tenenbaum case is in a league of its own. It’s a little on the long side, in this age of Twitter, but well worth the time invested if you’re interested in any of the following topics: the RIAA; music piracy; justice; or a good, old fashioned David v. Goliath story.

Not too long ago it looked like British music pirates—a fine name for a band—were facing expulsion from the Internet. Not anymore. Despite “serious legislative intent,” the British Government will not pursue the plan. Hooray, I guess.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, sort of an international version of the beloved RIAA, has released its 2008 annual report. As you might guess, one of the main themes of the report (you can download the 30-page PDF here; a smaller 6-page summary is here) is piracy. How to combat it, how to educate the public that it’s ruining the business, etc. Let’s look at some of the claims, shall we?

We applauded, in a non-literaly sense, the RIAA's decision to stop with its willy nilly John Doe lawsuits. We applaud today, also in a non-literal sense, the RIAA’s decision to drop MediaSentry, the busybody firm that caught music pirates “red handed.”

The RIAA’s new scheme to fight music piracy doesn’t sit well with small ISPs. Under the plan, rather than file lawsuit after lawsuit against John and Jane Doe, who may or may not even exist, the RIAA wants ISPs to cooperate with it by, ultimately, cutting people off from the Internet. That’s not going to happen easily

The RIAA has decided to stop filing pointless lawsuits against John and Jane Doe for alleged copyright infringement. Rather, the bullying cartel will work with ISPs to get you kids to stop downloading Fallout Boy, the All American Rejects and other self-described popular music.