The fight against illegal music downloading is a decade old, and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is now pushing for anti-virus technology services to include a scan that checks for files that have not been obtained legally. In the news piece I read on this development, the writer mentioned that the major issue this idea has is whether tracks have the Digital Rights Management tags that identify "legal" tracks. That means every CD in your collection that you ripped into a music player on your computer would be deemed illegal and the RIAA might take action against you. Additionally, some record labels have stopped using DRM technology, meaning this prospect faces another problem since that tag won't be present in tracks.

Having anti-virus scans, or any program search your computer for illegal files is terrifying and breaks privacy barriers. In fact, the description of the idea sounds illegal in my limited knowledge of privacy laws and the Constitution. I've continually questioned positions like this, either with the RIAA, the record labels, or whoever actually owns the music that consumers buy. Obviously it is a very delicate discussion and not one that has a simple answer, despite general assumptions that the record labels or the artists own the music.

Grappling with ideas like this and positions that trade groups like the RIAA takes against its own consumers is often confusing for me as well. This might not be as obvious, but as a consumer ideas like this, or rumors about ideas such as this, really force me to think about what kind of future this trade groups have if true motives eventually lead to having no faith in the public. An anti-piracy scan that does not differentiate between legal or "illegal", no DRM and ripped files, and various other legal differences that do exist, indicates that the RIAA is grasping at straws. Although this idea will likely be balked at and never see the light of day (I hope), the very idea makes you wonder what real ideas are on the horizon beyond the continuous lawsuits the RIAA will undoubtedly file.

A Reuters article this morning reports that British-based music company EMI "wants to cut its funding to the industry's trade bodies... which could deal a blow to the fight against music piracy." Trade groups are the entities that "represent music companies and the fight against illegal piracy." Between the four major label groups: EMI, Warner Music Group Corp. (NYSE: WMG), Universal Music Group, and Sony BMG; the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry told Reuters that over $130 million each year goes to funding companies like it and the Recording Industry Association of America.

Groups like the RIAA have an important mission of course, and this plan would severely limit the fight against piracy, but one music industry giant dropping out certainly would not add too much of a burden. We should not be surprised that EMI is the company to come out with this plan, even before Terra Firma took over in September the music giant had dropped the digital protection against piracy (Digital Rights Management technology) encoded into its media files.

File sharing and piracy costs the recording industry loads of money every year (Reuters estimates that value in the billions) but it seems clear that the music industry cannot fight piracy while undergoing a major shift away from the "traditional" markets it has utilized for over 50 years. CD sales are plummeting while digital sales steadily grow. One label may not be able to change how piracy is tackled, but the current DRM-free approach coupled with new resources to market those products might make a difference. What difference, if any, is still to be seen. Just apply the Radiohead approach to everything and let consumers name the price of music. Many surely have some conscience...

There's an old saying about getting into a fight with a lady: "If you lose you lose, and if you win you lose."

Well, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has won a battle with a 30-year old single mother from Minnesota. A federal jury ordered the woman the woman to pay $222,000 in damages for sharing 24 songs on online file-sharing platform Kazaa -- That's $9,250 per song.

"She was in tears. She's devastated," the woman's attorney attorney, Brian Toder, told The Associated Press. "This is a girl that lives from paycheck to paycheck, and now all of a sudden she could get a quarter of her paycheck garnished for the rest of her life."

The actual judgment could come in closer to half a million dollars, because she will also have to pay the RIAA's attorney's fees.

While this is an important symbolic victory for the industry, you have to hope that they will let this poor woman off the hook. In addition to its financial struggles, the industry is also reeling from angry consumers and upset artists. Demonstrating some compassion toward a single mother could go a long way towards building some goodwill.

But if the industry does decide to play hardball with this woman, they may find out that, in the long run, this victory is actually a major loss.

According to Billboard, the Recording Industry Association of America is pushing the major labels to "discuss whether a new physical format is needed as an alternative to the CD." Although the RIAA is attempting to make sure that any new format is shared among the labels, I can't help but wonder what the point is.

I've repeatedly noted the demise of the CD and the growth of digital sales in the three months I have blogged here. Frankly, I don't think the RIAA has the labels' best interest in mind by pursuing a new format to replace the CD. That format clearly already exists in digital downloads. Why not seriously re-invest in the CD as a marketable format, rather than seeking yet another competing format?

Remember when the CD came out? People cried out about the death of vinyl. They've been crying about the death of the CD for a while now (I'm in that group), but let's face it: Digital formats are here to stay. The MP3 and other media files that can be played on pocket devices like Apple Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) iPod and cell phones are easy to access, and though the transition from CD to digital file is slower than the switch from vinyl to CD was, it is still occurring (imagine what the iPhone may do to this situation). None of this counts to satellite radio subscribers who need neither a CD nor a portable player because their radio receiver is portable (this may be a generalization -- the few people I know that have XM or Sirius have stopped purchasing CDs and don't own MP3 players).

If the RIAA is worried about the compact disc, a new physical format is not the answer. Any new format will face the same competition with digital files that the CD is facing now. Either re-invest and change the CD or make the transition to digital files smoother.

It never ceases to amaze me how some antiquated business models employ extreme protectionism over the control they have over long-established industries and consumer goods segments of the economy.

Resistance to change rums rampant, but in the age of the Internet where information and data -- all kinds of data -- can be freely interchanged in an instant, the days are numbered for some industries unless change occurs, even if it means being dragged into a "new digital world."

The struggles of satellite radio companies like XM Satellite Radio (NASDAQ:XMSR) and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (NASDAQ:SIRI) are overshadowed a bit when these companies attempt to give their customers innovative products. Alas, XM Radio just can't seem to get a break for introducing innovative features for its consumers like portable radio receivers that can -- gasp with me -- store content for later viewing. Think of it as a TiVo for radio in a sense as you view this product.

As Michael Fowlkes wrote about earlier, the Recording Industry Cartel Association of America -- the RIAA -- has again flipped its lid and wants to sue XM Radio for allowing customers to "time shift" XM satellite radio programming on certain recording devices. We can argue analog versus digital forever, but since fair-use analog VCRs haven't been illegal for over 20 years, nor should these devices.

Just read the comments over at this blog post on TechDirt -- some of them are so well-written and convincing that you'd bet there is some partial truth to them. Is there?

If any company should be more interested in the fierce net neutrality debate that continues to heat up on Capitol Hill than Google, will it please stand up? I didn't think so -- in fact, Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently published an open letter to Google users on the subject.

After reading what Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf  had to say on the subject as well, Google probably has the most to lose should the money-grubbing big telecom firms win in their wishes to control Internet access with tiered services and such. Cerf is widely considered as the "father of the Internet" and is now in the employ of Google. Read Cerf's letter to the U.S. Senate here (PDF).

Should big telecom just give customers big and tall a "data pipe" in which to do anything and everything they need? Well, this is what's been great about Internet access until now -- it's open to everyone and anyone with just a slow or fast data connection. What you do over that connection is nobody's business but your own.

According to the HRRC, a new lawsuit brought by the recording industry's bulldog, the RIAA, is treating law-abiding consumers as "pirates" and violating the implied promise that they would not go after consumers who rip their own recordings for personal use. At the heart of the lawsuit is a new device released by XM Satellite Radio, the Inno, which allows consumers to record the programming broadcast over its network.

The RIAA seeks $150,000 in damages for every song copied by consumers onto the Inno. The suit is roundly being attacked as a desperate and evil move by an industry association that has already placed itself on everyone's most-hated list. The most succinct analysis, though, comes from Mike at Techdirt: "this is about the recording industry looking to squeeze more money out of a dying business model rather than recognizing these new services help make the recording industry's product much more valuable."

Either way, this could be very critical for XMSR (and similar products that Sirius might have in development) if it's taken at all seriously by the courts. The stock is down $0.12 in intraday trading, which saw the stock dip to its 52-week low, to $16.50, after a relatively huge drop yesterday.