Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

RIAA Offers Amnesty to File Sharers

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:05 PM
from the turning-yourself-in dept.
Mister Dre writes "Apparently, the RIAA is planning to offer amnesty to file sharers who promise to delete copyrighted material from their computers. To take advantage, of course, you 'have to send a completed, notarized amnesty form to the RIAA, with a copy of a photo ID.'" Hey RIAA, how about I just stop sharing files, and we call it even? I know I own most of the CDs for the files I listen to, but I stopped buying those too so you'll know where I stand.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • first, they drop the price of CDs. now they're offering amnesty.

    somebody call satan to see if hell froze over.

    Mike
    • by Goldberg's Pants (139800) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:07PM (#6875826) Journal
      Sure... "Amnesty"... Photo ID...

      This is a like those stings where wanted criminals "win a prize" and when they go to collect it, get arrested.

      They need to drop CD's a LOT further in price before anyone I know will buy them again.
      • Homer: Up and away in my beautiful my beautiful motor boat! Da da da da!
        Bart: But we didn't enter any police raffle.
        Homer: That doesn't matter, the important thing is we won.
        [parks]
        Marge: I don't know, there's something very peculiar about
        this!
        Homer: Sheesh! You're the most paranoid family I've ever been
        affiliated with. [gets out]


        Later on, after Homer enters the Police Station, to Wiggum: I'd like a yellow boat please, with extra motors.
          • by kgbspy (696931) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:53PM (#6876224)
            There was also the episode of The Awful Truth with Michael Moore, in which he went to a county in California (forget which...) that had a particularly bad reputation for cutting out the courts as middleman between arrest and jail. The results of which leading to almost one thousand arrests in a year, of which only one person actually stood trial due to the completely lax attitude of the public defenders (ie, you're going to go to jail anyway, you might as well plead guilty).

            So what did Mike do? Went around town getting people to pre-sign their own plea bargains, and took them all to the D.A's office, dumped them on his desk so that if any of the local citizens were ever arrested, it'd be even easier than before to get them straight into jail...


      • by Spy Hunter (317220) on Friday September 05 2003, @12:06AM (#6876639) Journal
        Right. If you submit this, all the RIAA has is your word that you deleted the files. It even says in the article: "Those who renege on their promise will be subject to charges of willful copyright infringement". So basically, you give your identity to the RIAA and tell them you have committed infringement in the past, and you get what? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! You can't keep downloading music, you can't keep the music you already have, and you don't have immunity from being sued in the future. You only have a guarantee that if the RIAA already knew you were sharing, and were *just about* to file a lawsuit, they won't. The chances of that are slim to none.
        • by Reziac (43301) on Friday September 05 2003, @12:13AM (#6876678) Homepage Journal
          That was my take on this as well. It smells like a honeypot, aimed at collecting identities of hitherto-unidentified file sharers.

          And even if the RIAA doesn't sue any suckers who come forward, they'll sure have put themselves under the watchful eye for the rest of their online lives. Care to bet that the RIAA won't be using these IDs to coerce information from the suckers' ISPs??

          • by Spy Hunter (317220) on Friday September 05 2003, @12:35AM (#6876770) Journal
            I doubt it's a honeypot. I don't think many people would sign up for this and then continue sharing, and I don't think the RIAA would turn around and sue people who abided by their terms (it would be PR suicide). In fact, I don't think many people will sign up for this at all. Rather, this is just a PR stunt, so the RIAA can later say "We tried to be nice, we even gave you amnesty! What more do you want?" It'll look good in the news. They want to get public opinion back on their side.
        • by letxa2000 (215841) on Friday September 05 2003, @12:31AM (#6876751)
          Yup. Reminds me of the BSA.

          If you "renege on the promise you will be subject to charges of willful copyright infringement." So basically you are giving up any possible defense you may have because you've entered into a contract where you agree to accept those charges.

          Plus, how are they going to know if you renege? I'd rather not be the subject of a surprise search of my hard drive to verify that I'm complying with my side of the deal even if I am. I don't need that kind of aggrevation any more than a business wants to deal with a BSA audit even if they're 100% legit.

          The less the BSA, Microsoft, RIAA, government, etc. know about me personally the better, even if I'm 100% legit.

    • by dietz (553239) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:21PM (#6875948)
      Jack Valenti [mpaa.org] is actually the head of the MPAA [mpaa.org]. They are in charge of suing you when you download movies or distribute open source software to play DVDs.

      The RIAA [riaa.com], the subject of this story, is in charge of suing you when you download music or copy CDs. The head of the RIAA is Cary Sherman [riaa.com], after Hillary Rosen retired recently.
    • I've got so many people that I know personally that hate the RIAA. We're going to have a field day sending them all kinds of joke photo ID's.

      Hey, keeps us off the streets.
    • by macdaddy357 (582412) <macdaddy357@hotmail.com> on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:35PM (#6876074)
      They are beginning to understand that their practices have made countless former customers abandon them, and have led to the creation of organizations like dontbuycds.org. [dontbuycds.org]

      The recording industry must reform itself, or perish like the horse-and buggy industry did after the automobile was invented. If you don't like that comparison, try this one. If your head is in the basket, you were on the wrong side of the revolution. The RIAA are trying to avoid sharing the fate of Louis XVI.

  • by tcd004 (134130) * on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:06PM (#6875809) Homepage
    For your viewing pleasure: A copy of a subpoena from the RIAA. [lostbrain.com]

    Tcd004
  • What a deal (Score:5, Funny)

    by mpeg4codec (581587) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:07PM (#6875816) Homepage
    So, in order to buy amnesty from the RIAA, I have to sell them my identity? Sounds fair...
    • by rushiferu (595361) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:27PM (#6876005)
      "So, in order to buy amnesty from the RIAA, I have to sell them my identity? Sounds fair... "

      That's because you didn't read the part where you sign with your blood and mail the document back in an envelope made of the flesh of your first born. Remember, always read the fine print!
    • by Cpt_Kirks (37296) on Thursday September 04 2003, @11:23PM (#6876380)
      So, in order to buy amnesty from the RIAA, I have to sell them my identity? Sounds fair...

      I got an email from them. Except they wanted my credit card and bank account numbers. And they were in Nigeria.

  • by GoofyBoy (44399) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:09PM (#6875840) Journal

    I won't even get off my ass, go store and buy a CD so what makes them think that I will get something notarized?
  • Oh Good... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quaoar (614366) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:09PM (#6875843)
    So you mean I can sign a document that might guarantee me jail time if I ever download an mp3 again? Where do I sign?
  • No. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JAYOYAYOYAYO (700885) * on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:10PM (#6875845) Homepage
    Keep in mind the RIAA is not the only organization that owns copyrights on music. Whats stopping some other company from taking advantage of these admissions of guilt?
  • by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedy AT tpno-co DOT org> on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:10PM (#6875846) Homepage
    This is the same trick I use when I am trying to fire an employee. I make them reread the company policy, and sign that they did, so the next violation, I can boot them legally.

    Now extend this. You sign your soul to these folks, and they catch you sharing files again. Water tight case as far as they and the court systems are concerned.
  • by Locky (608008) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:10PM (#6875854) Homepage
    To NYCGirl

    We'll forgive you for your evil-doings. Just send us Photo ID, address details, mother's maiden name, breast size and we'll let you go free. We promise.

    Love,

    Your Friends, The RIAA.

    XOXOX
  • question. (Score:5, Funny)

    by holzp (87423) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:11PM (#6875859)
    Does this cover all the naked pictures of Hilary Rosen on my hard drive too?
  • by Wes Janson (606363) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:11PM (#6875866) Journal
    F***. You.

    That is all.
  • by retro128 (318602) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:12PM (#6875874)
    Dear Filesharer,
    We know we can't possibly track all you bastards down in order to put you (or your parents) into financial ruin just like you have done to our starving "artists". So instead, just give us your photo, name, and address and admit you are pirating music and we promise nothing will happen. Really.

    -The RIAA
  • by holzp (87423) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:13PM (#6875888)
    or is it copyrighted too?
  • New amnesty (Score:5, Funny)

    by secolactico (519805) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:14PM (#6875891) Journal
    I hereby offer amnesty to whoever it is that stole my car stereo two months ago.

    All you have to do is come (unarmed) with me to the nearest police station and sign a full confession. I will then proceed to "forgive" you. You won't even have to return my stereo (wich you probably sold inmediatly to support your crack habit).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:15PM (#6875895)
    Send in your notarized form with photo ID IQ: 50
    Send in your notarized form w/o photo ID IQ: 60
    Send in the form with only your first name IQ: 70
    Use the form to line the kitty box IQ: 80
    Ignore the whole thing IQ: 100
    Send in the notarized form with a local politician's name IQ: 130
  • by Quaoar (614366) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:23PM (#6875964)
    Catching you guys is HARD. Please just turn yourselves in...pretty please?
  • the state troopers offer amnesty to you for all the speeding you've done up until now that they didn't catch you doing. But if you speed from now on, they might ticket you.
  • by KU_Fletch (678324) <bthomas1@@@ku...edu> on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:43PM (#6876139)
    The RIAA today announced sudden gains in profit due to an undisclosed source of income. This comes on the heals of collecting names and photo id's of file traders during an amnesty period.

    In completely unrelated news, identity theft claims in the US jumped sharply. Officials are baffled as to the sudden influx.
  • by child_of_mercy (168861) <johnboy@nOspam.the-riotact.com> on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:50PM (#6876201) Homepage
    For Gods sake people,

    stop listening to the drek the record companies churn out as part of their protection racket.

    There are great artists in all but the smallest local communities, they are turning our good quality CD's in their garages (seriously).

    How all the Open Source Zealots (of which I am proudly one) justify refusing to use MS's products while they still propagate the popularity of the record compaines (who are far more exploitative than MS ever was, how many MS coding billionaires are there? a lot more than singing billionaires) is hard to credit.

    Illegal file trading is just the same as running cracked copies of proprietary software.

    And there's a bloody good local alternative thats going to get a lot better if you support it.

    Let them have their crap music (and even the good stuff they very rarely produce) and get on with building a better alternative.

    And you'd be mad to take part in this amnesty, it only applies if they don't know about you, in which case, why put your hand up?
  • by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Thursday September 04 2003, @11:17PM (#6876348)
    How 'bout we give you amnesty if you, collectively and individually, admit to illegal price fixing [forbes.com], and actually give us our money back?

    Did anyone sign up [musiccdsettlement.com] for that? And actually get any money?


    This is no better than a mugging.
    "Gimme all your stuff, and I won't kill you (financially). Oh, and we'll be watching you. Forever."

    Get caught stealing 1/2 billion dollars, and no one went to jail? And the fine is 1/3 of the take? And they want to screw us?
    WTF is that about?
  • by JimBobJoe (2758) <<swiftheart> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday September 04 2003, @11:26PM (#6876398)
    I got very irked once when a friend of mine mentioned that he was asked to copy his photo driver's license in order to get phone service (fortunately he lived in an area where you can choose another phone service provider, and he did.)

    I then realized the catch...in order for Ameritech/SBC to give phone service, you have to send in a copy of your own driver's license...which indicates what race you are. So as part of my troublemaking activities, I sent out a press release for my little privacy organization saying that Ameritech was illegally collecting racial information on its clients, as a condition for phone service. (And if they kept it on record, any Ameritech employee could find out what race you are simply by checking your file.)

    After a phone call or two (and a radio station claiming that Ameritech said that the photocopies didn't copy well enough to indicate race, but most photo driver's license will copy well enough to show the race of the individual, especially those licenses here in Ameritech's service region-(the east) I believe the've stopped the practice.

    Now...what's this about the RIAA collecting racial information?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05 2003, @12:00AM (#6876617)
    First, the RIAA doesn't own the copyrights. The record companies and/or the artists own the copyrights. You might just as well have the ASPCA give you amnesty for copyright violations.

    Second, (in the US, anyway) copyright violations are violations of a federal law. They can be prosecuted by the federal government - in theory even without the consent of the copyright holder.
    • by Wes Janson (606363) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:16PM (#6875905) Journal
      1." Do two wrongs make a right?"


      Actually, three lefts make a right. Or, if you wish, the equation can be represented as 2w=xr, where x is equal to the number of wrongs necessary to equal a right. In this instance, x equals 1f, where f=finger. Which is what my response would be to such a request.
    • by Anik315 (585913) <anik@alphaco r . n et> on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:18PM (#6875921)
      Couldn't it be that there is something fundamentally wrong with laws that are unenforcable and contrary to the norms of human psychology? The nature of intellectual property has changed on a massive scale. This means the laws have to change, not us.
      • by dsanfte (443781) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:58PM (#6876250) Journal
        The laws are also contrary to the nature of the universe. Information is easily copied. Attempting to (unenforcably) restrict the copying of information, and ignoring the benefits that mass-distribution of information can bring (especially in education and the arts) is counterproductive. Might as well try to legislate against gravity.
        • by austad (22163) on Friday September 05 2003, @12:32AM (#6876756) Homepage
          You bring up an interesting point. What if a bunch of independent artists who rely on things like Kazaa and other P2P apps got together and sued RIAA for anti-competitive practices?

          In effect, RIAA's only competition is the little guy who's not with a label, and destroying one of their major outlets of music distribution certainly sounds quite 800lb gorilla-like to me.
    • by Mark_MF-WN (678030) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:20PM (#6875943)
      At the end of the day, the manner in which the RIAA conducts business is legal, though obviously immoral. Willing copyright infringement is not.
      It has never been legal to issue subpoenas without due process. Why the RIAA was given that power is beyond comprehension. Actually, it's entirely within comprehension: they give the government lots of money.
    • by burgburgburg (574866) <splisken06.email@com> on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:37PM (#6876091)
      The RIAA has not determined that file sharing has negatively impacted their business. "Determined" implies that they have done the most minimal amount of examination of the facts. They have not. They have decided that file sharing has hurt their business. They have decided this despite the obvious evidence that the largest chunk of the decline in sales is associated with them putting out 25% less product. They've ignored all evidence that the collusion between record companies to artificially inflate the price of CDs (for which they have already had civil judgments made against them) is also a strong component. They've ignored video/computer games, cable/DVDs and the Internet have taken a great deal of the income that would have been spent previously on music. And they've ignored the basic fact that there has not been a great deal of compelling music put out in quite some time.

      Concurrently, they've also ignored the astonishing width and breadth of ill will that they've engendered with their supposed buying public. The majority of people involved with sharing still care about music. They are probably more inclined to purchase music they like then the average person (they just want to be sure it is music they actually like). And the RIAA has done everything it possibly can to build such a seething level of hatred towards them that they are probably losing an entire generation of potential customers.

      Calling them idiots would be deeply insulting to idiots.

    • by Anonvmous Coward (589068) on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:40PM (#6876119)
      "Whether you agree with them or not, the RIAA has determined that file "sharing"(stealing/copyright infringement) has negatively impacted their "industry"(ripping off artists and preventing others from competing, or even distributing, fairly). You have to admit, they have some compelling evidence that justifies their claim. "

      I see compelling evidence that the the RIAA's loss in sales are a direct result off their own actions.

      1.) They don't respond to supply and demand. Thus customers are no longer getting what they want.

      2.) By attacking Mp3s, they've made people start floating the word boycott around. Two early examples immediately pop into mind. "By downloading Mp3s, you're downloading communism". And Eisner's attack on Apple for their rip/mix/and burn campaign, claiming it was all about piracy, thus naming Apple customers as thieves.

      3.) Downloading music != loss in music sales. There's no accurate way to say that music sales were lost due to downloading, only anecdotal evidence at best. Yet, while people were downloading music, they were exploring new bands to get involved with. Since the RIAA attacked this so heavy-handedly causing people to boycott them, we'll never know if they would have ended up ahead or not.

      I won't ignore the idea that there are people who were downloading Mp3s so they didn't have to buy the albums. But consider this, though, what about the 56k days? It was not convenient to download a single album. A single MP3 could take anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour to download. A whole album? Oh my. No. Somebody doing that was either can't pay the rent broke, or they only wanted one song from that album. Thanks to the RIAA's oligopoly/monpoly/cartel, you can't go buy that one song. So, you get to pay $17.99 for that song you hear for free on the radio all the time.

      Yeah, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum from you. I can't imagine that with the what, 2 billion songs getting traded every month, that the RIAA would only see a few percentage points of a drop in sales. Frankly, I think most of that dip in sales has more to do with people saying 'screw you, its not worth it' than people saying 'oh I can save money by downloading these.' I believe that if the RIAA hadn't pulled these stunts, the music trading would have made the music scene far more active and interesting to people. There'd be some getting music without paying, but there'd be a lot more who were waiting in line for their favorite band's next release.

      A few months ago, there was an article on Slashdot about Magna comics in Japan. Lots of people were doing fan-fics that would technically qualify as trademark/copyright infringement. They'd have these conventions where they'd sell them to each other etc. Here in the USA, they'd be shot down in no time. But over in Japan, the comic book companies love this 'infringment' because it keeps rejuvinated interest in their content, compltely free of expense to them!

      So no, I cannot determine that file-sharing has had an impact on the RIAA. They drove people away when they could have attracted them.
    • by jeffasselin (566598) <cormacolinde&gmail,com> on Thursday September 04 2003, @10:48PM (#6876188) Journal
      What, pray tell, do you find an acceptable course of action for the RIAA?

      Fold up and die?

      I don't completely disagree with your opinion, but I think a lot of people on Slashdot understand one thing which the RIAA doesn't: This is the Digital Age, and Everything has Changed.

      Not ethics, not morality, but the rules have changed and are changing everyday, and trying to stick to the old rules will only prevent society from going forward. Laws are made to serve society, to enable it to exist, and grow, not to stifle the lives of people or to protect corporations. To protect our right to live free and in reasonable privacy, unless we have been already convicted of a crime, and our right to earn our living, not to protect the right of corporations to exploit the people, or to allow them to become vigilantes.

      We must go forward, and this requires us to re-evaluate our "morals" (which I don't like, I prefer ethics), and our laws, and our beliefs as a society. Ideas are free, and cannot be stopped once released, it is the same with art, once produced music can be reproduced or remembered. Any attempt to limit its propagation can only be temporary.

      I think we stand at a limit point, and the RIAA and MPAA are trying to keep us on this side, because once we really cross it it will be too late for them.

      On a purely ethical viewpoint, what's WRONG with file sharing? It is not theft, because I do not directly deprive the composer/performer of a good. Neither does the file sharer directly profit from it. No, what we do by these activities is to "deprive them of theoretical revenue". This is not in any way different from the BSA's line. Who would have kept the major share of that revenue? The RIAA's member organizations - not the artists, who get very little at the end.

      I agree that to profit from file sharing by selling the works for more than the cost of the media or misrepresenting a work as being from someone else than the original artist is unethical and should be illegal.

      But file sharing itself? No. The whole idea of "copyright infringement" has to be reviewed in this digital age, the Age of Information. Because information is running the risk of becoming a commodity in the control of the corporations.

    • by macdaddy357 (582412) <macdaddy357@hotmail.com> on Thursday September 04 2003, @11:02PM (#6876269)
      Why is such flamebait scored 5 insightful? You can say that file trading is copyright infringement. Others will say it's fair use, but when you call it theft, or call it immoral, "them's fightin' words." Morality is subjective. Many see nothing wrong with using napster-like services, as we saw nothing wrong with trading home tapes in the '80s.

      What would be an acceptable course of action for the RIAA? Here is an exerpt from dontbuycds.org: [dontbuycds.org]

      To sum it all up, the recording industry needs to reform itself. Our boycott will end when they meet these demands.

      * Stop using copy protection schemes. Using them denies us our fair use and personal property rights, and accuses us all of being thieves. If we buy discs, we have the right to play them in the player we choose. If that is the CD-Rom drive of a computer, so be it. We have the right to copy them to a personal MP3 player, or make a custom CD-R of favorite songs.

      * Leave file traders alone. File trading gives artists, and the recording industry free promotion. Radio used to be a great promotion, but now rarely deviates from limited play lists which labels must pay to get onto through independent promoters. While Napster was online, CD sales were up. File trading is a legitimate way to try before buying. Music fans need it, and so does the industry.

      * Stop selling music at such an obscene mark up. The cost to press and package a disc has continually gone down. It is currently less than one dollar. We realize that there are production costs beyond manufacturing, but that doesn't justify gouging. When CDs were new, they cost twice as much as LPs and cassettes. The industry claimed that the cost to produce this new format was high, and promised that as their costs came down, so would retail prices. This price drop never occurred. Instead, retail prices have gone up. In stores where vinyl records and cassettes are still sold, they are priced lower than CDs, even though they cost more to manufacture. A movie on DVD frequently sells for less than its soundtrack on CD. The industry has colluded to fix prices, and was forced to settle a class action law suit over this practice, yet CDs in suburban malls can retail for more than twenty dollars. In many countries, CDs cost more than that. In Iceland for example, a CD can cost 2500kr, equal to 29.50 in US dollars. This is unacceptable.