Barry Willis

Federal judges have issued somewhat conflicting rulings in the ongoing legal battle over illegitimate file sharing. As the situation stands at the end of April, individuals may be held responsible for copyright violation, but the services they use in the process may not.

US lawmakers have honored their promise to address a languishing small-webcaster royalty bill that was put on hold prior to the fall elections.

The slippery slope established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 could soon get much slipperier. Three major media conglomerates have teamed up to pressure the Federal Communications Commission to drop the remaining restrictions on the ownership of broadcasting stations.

The last week of July was a busy one for music-industry attorneys—and, by some measures, a successful one. As almost everyone in the world is aware, on Wednesday, July 26, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) won a round in its fight against Napster, a San Mateo, California–based software company that enables the sharing of MP3 music files over the Internet. On that day, in a US Federal court in San Francisco, Judge Marilyn Patel decreed that the widespread sharing of music using Napster was a form of wholesale copyright violation, and ordered the service shut down effective midnight on Friday, July 28. Napster, in turn, appealed and won a stay of execution two days after Judge Patel's ruling that will enable it to remain online and in business until at least mid-September.