RIAA Offers Amnesty to File Sharers 789
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.
Whytf bother (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Fair Use? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have stopped buying new CDs and stopped downloading new music. From here on out it's iTunes Music Store or nothing at all... though I do like how UMG is cutting MSRP to $13. That may help.
Right...amnesty...sure (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Opt-Out link included (Score:2, Interesting)
<sarcasm> Heck Yeah, after all, it worked so well for all that SPAM I received. </sarcasm>
How many of you have
- access to a lawyer on retainer
- the money to pay for a laywer
- the legal skills yourself
to verify with absolute certainty that filling in this form is any less self-destructive than emailing RIAA lawyersor
or
Re:What a deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is downloading music unethical? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe IANAL, maybe IAAL (Score:3, Interesting)
Welcome to democracy (Score:4, Interesting)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
MORE AMERICANS ENGAGE IN FILE-SHARING THAN VOTE IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
Anyone who disagrees with file-sharing is flying in the face of democracy. American copyright law is unjust, and ignores the beliefs of the American people. To continue enforcing it is raw fascism.
Re:At the end of the day (Score:4, Interesting)
If the RIAA members don't want people downloading their songs then they ought to start each song with a notice so we can tell which songs not to download. I think that everyone has the right to assume the artist is using their fundamental free speech right to be heard unless they tell us they are asserting their federal statutory copyright. Why should our basic right to free speech and freedom of association be compromized just because the evil RIAA monopolies have a problem?
Wow, What a Deal! (Score:2, Interesting)
The RIAA can't sue everyone and this seems like them running out of options. At the rate they are alienating customers and turning them into criminals in need of "Amnesty", they will be out of customers all-together.
You know, back when I was a kid ... (Score:3, Interesting)
That said I'm planning my return to law school to study Intellectual Property Law. Any suggestions? I hear GW has a good program but funny thing is that one of the top internship providers listed in their viewbook is this RIAA association
I'd prefer the EFF.
Re:What a deal (Score:2, Interesting)
Back to basics -- what's the law? (Score:3, Interesting)
I (used to) buy lots of CDs, and I store copies of tracks in MP3 and OGG to simplify transport of the music I purchased. These files happen to be accessible over a network; I am permitting some limited access to my personal resources.
to my personal resources
RIAA can suck my octet stream. Go innovate, you lazy bastards, instead of clinging to a failing business model and screaming in a hissy fit whenever someone transports data you didn't even create (artists created their songs, and most see very little money from CD sales). The recording industry as you know it is DEAD, because people like me get pissed off and stop buying CDs.
Guilty until proven innocent? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:At the end of the day (Score:2, Interesting)
These are not subpoenas, they are rather legal threats. It is perfectly legal. The same tactic is employed by all manner of company and institution - including even the EFF.
Don't speak on what you don't know. You only look ignorant.
History Repeating? (Score:2, Interesting)
photo ID copying requirement... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Did anyone notice the date of the article? (Score:1, Interesting)
Mmm...probably cause. (Score:3, Interesting)
BULLSHIT!!! (Score:1, Interesting)
This is absolute bullshit... in the digital age you are buying the RIGHT to listen to the music, not the medium. You should have the absolute right to transfer that to you MP3 player, you computer, your tivo, whatever the sam hell you want to do... but read the RIAA's on material and you will see that they want money for every COPY that you have, weither or not you bought the CD or NOT!
Re:At the end of the day (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:At the end of the day (Score:3, Interesting)
The Copyright Act [justice.gc.ca]
check out part VIII.
IANAL, but to me it sounds like I'm fine if I only share works that I have a right to distribute, I'm not breaking the law at all.
The answer to your questions (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:At the end of the day (Score:2, Interesting)
"I remember when I was a freshmen in college, many people here on Slashdot were begging the RIAA to attack the individuals that were guilty of copyright infringement, and not the parties that provided the software and networks to make it possible. Now the RIAA is doing exactly that, and the good people at Slashdot continue to cry foul."
But slashdot isn't a collective mind. It's lots of people all with different opinions.
So the ones saying "go after those that break the law" are probably different people frm those crying foul over that.
That's not even slightly surprising given the wide range of viewpoints represented in the slashdot audience. You'll find almost every viewpoint represented.
Why you state it at all, I've no idea.
Who downloads anyway?USPS is faster than Cable/DSL (Score:3, Interesting)
"Never under estimate the bandwidth of a stationwagon full of CDr's" Quote stolen and modified from said article.
Re:Welcome to democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The "mistake" might even be a legal download that can be legally shared, but it's still an MP3, and we here at the RIAA have no way of knowing it's legal til we drag it into court, capish?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless the tort was for willful infringement, it's unlikely they will be able to pursue your assets after personal bankruptcy. So, this so-called amnesty results in allowing yourself to get locked into a position much more serious than what you might be in for without it.
And, looking at it from another angle, this should not be called an amnesty. Compare this to a parking ticket amnesty or a political prisoner amnesty. They don't say, okay this amnesty means you capitulate totally to our demands. That's not what amnesty is. Amnesty means both parties agree to cease pursuing their goals. It doesn't mean one party retroactively concedes anything the other party wants.
The bottom line is this: the legislators and the courts refuse to acknowledge that "copy" is no longer a stable term in the digital age. Until that idea is addressed by the laws and upheld by the courts, our legal systems will be fighting technology.
Re:Back to basics -- what's the law? (Score:2, Interesting)
It would seem to me that if I have 3 or 4 of my friends over, and we watch a DVD, does that constitute a public showing????
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Dude. RIAA. In PR terms they're beginning to stink up the crawlspace. The next thing would be that people are asked to audit their own systems from a form that would just skirt legality in terms of threats and mention the heavy fines that they're trying to buy from Congress. It'll then go into a database, and you'll probably receive junk mail from these people ad infinitum.
Personally I consider them less trustworthy than crackheads and half as competent.
For those interested in the ongoing debate;
David Munns (EMI) whines about the high cost of CD Production and recieves no sympathy. [bbc.co.uk]
The views that prompted the panicky music exec. [bbc.co.uk]
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:5, Interesting)
A 12 song CD should be around $5.
I should be able to got to RIAA.com (or wherever) and pick 12 songs from their archive, paypal them $5, and then a couple days later, I get my cd in the mail, with jewel case, liner notes and lyrics for each song in the packaging.
Space permitting, the CD could be in a DAM CD format -- mixed media CD's that will play on both audio CD Players and in Computers as either MP3 files or Audio Files.
Shipping and Handling should be 2.95 (non-priority) for up to 10 CDs.
Sure people would still share or burn extra copies, but since each CD would be more-or-less customized to an individual's personal taste, a lot of people would *want* a complete burned copy of the disc.
Peole may want a individual song, but for $5, it's easier to just go and order your own CD, with your own music.
There would be no more incentive to run all the P2P networks to get music. This proposed service would have filled the need with a better offering. iTunes is still too expensive, IMHO.
Random + Illegal = Legal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Amnesty? More like a mugging (Score:2, Interesting)
That's partially true, but it's only PART of the equation. The decision as to the value of the product is also based on the comparisons of similar products. If the only thing they've ever been given to compare against is other ridiculously overpriced crap, they lose the ability, through no fault of their own, to make a fair comparison of the real value of the product.
If someone comes out with Widgets and you think they're a great thing, but you have no idea what the material value is and there's never really been anything you can compare them to*, you have to base your decision SOLELY on your emotional reaction to the product. If that reaction is strong, you buy the product. BUT, if you had known the real material value BEFORE making the decision, the fact that a Widget costs $2.50 to produce and promote may very well make you rethink the decision of shelling out $20.00 for that Widget on a logical level.
That's exactly what the music industry did to consumers: made them purchase the product on a strictly emotional level by actively denying them the necessary information to make a logical decision. You can argue that consumers should be left to their own devices when it comes to deciding this sort of thing, but it shouldn't be the consumer's job to always beat information out of crooked corporations. Hence the judgement. That's part of why courts are there, to protect people so they don't have to spend every waking moment protecting themselves. If you were always left to worry about how a corporate might be (and would be) abusing your trust instead of having someone else do some minimal oversight, your entire day would be spent trying to desperately avoid getting ripped off. You'd have to know every detail about every product you bought. Why? That's why the court decided against the industry - it's called "checks and balances" and it makes it POSSIBLE for you to make intelligent decisions.
* Bear in mind that the industry claimed when CDs came out that the medium was expensive to provide - hence the high prices. They claimed prices would drop as an economy of scale set in. They lied. Prices are exhorbitant for CDs. That has been the case now for well over a decade.
Parents (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is aimed at parents. I also think that many of them may fall into the trap for two reasons.
First, to avoid being sued themselves. I can see the questioning now. Who owned the computer? Who paid for the computer? Did you know that junior was downloading our copyrighted songs without permission? Really? Where did you think he got the 10,000 songs on his hard drive? Do you want to pay the $50,000 now, or in easy monthly installments secured by a trust deed on your home? Faced with that, parents may tell junior to say he is sorry, sign the damn release, and promise to never, never do it again.
Secondly, I think parents may pressure Missey to do this "because your whole life is ahead of you, and you don't want to ruin your future." This can be viewed as a "youthful indiscretion" that is best resolved quickly, quietly, painlessly, and then forgotten. Missy is 17 years old. Her parents want her (and themselves) to spend years in litigation? Blow the college fund? I don't think so.
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:1, Interesting)