![Music Music](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/music_64.png)
![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
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.
jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:5, Funny)
somebody call satan to see if hell froze over.
Mike
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.
The Simpsons apply everywhere! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:The Simpsons apply everywhere! (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Guilty (Score:4, Informative)
Its happened before!
Doh!
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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??
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 downlo
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]
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:3, Funny)
So, just another day at RIAA HQ, right?
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.
And even worse.... (Score:3, Informative)
While I understand that ignorance is not an excuse, the argument that "I didn't know it was illegal" if believable, sure helps take the wilful out of the argument, and may aid in a defense. Now, not only does the average citizen know, but they chose not to atone and are now wilfully "stealing" (according to the RIAA) music. This may bias more politicians and judges to their side.
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:4, Informative)
You're method would cost even more, because you can't mass produce individule selections. You have to burn them, which is a HELL of a lot more expensive then stamping them.
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:4, Funny)
...blah blah blah $5...$2.95 up to 10 CD's...yadda yadda yadda...
--Dave BarryRe:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Can't WAIT to get the address to send my "info" (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, keeps us off the streets.
Re:Can't WAIT to get the address to send my "info" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't WAIT to get the address to send my "info" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
RIAA subpoena (Score:5, Funny)
Tcd004
Re:RIAA subpoena (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RIAA subpoena (Score:3, Funny)
You must be new here.
What a deal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What a deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What a deal (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re:What a deal (Score:5, Funny)
I got an email from them. Except they wanted my credit card and bank account numbers. And they were in Nigeria.
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.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:4, Informative)
Just because you legally own the CD's does not make sharing them legal.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Informative)
The RIAA is trying to undue all that pre-school programming we got where they taught us it is good to share ;)
Guilty until proven innocent? (Score:5, Interesting)
Boggles the mind. (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Re:Oh Good... (Score:5, Funny)
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Right...amnesty...sure (Score:3, Insightful)
Trust is frail (Score:5, Funny)
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)
My Only Response: (Score:5, Funny)
That is all.
South Park allusion (Score:4, Informative)
In an episode of Comedy Central's South Park animated series, "Fuck you; that is all" was a TV network executive's response to the mob of angry parents who wanted a show pulled from the air.
Yes...Trust us, we are the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
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
can I download the form? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:can I download the form? (Score:5, Funny)
New amnesty (Score:5, Funny)
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).
This is really a new intelligence test. (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re:This is really a new intelligence test. (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe IANAL, maybe IAAL (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Maybe IANAL, maybe IAAL (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe IANAL, maybe IAAL (Score:3, Informative)
One group sued by DirectTV, counter-sued alleging extortion. The judge dismissed their case (Blanchard vs. DirectTV) [hackhu.com]. The judge's reasoning was, in part:
Dear Filesharers: (Score:5, Funny)
And in related news ... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
In completely unrelated news, identity theft claims in the US jumped sharply. Officials are baffled as to the sudden influx.
Stop listening to the crap (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Amnesty? More like a mugging (Score:5, Informative)
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?
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?
Mmm...probably cause. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm asking for amnesty (Score:4, Funny)
What about students who were sued? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/09
IANAL, but I'm sure these guys are p****ed about this news. Sure, most (if not all) the money was recovered through donations and Paypal but I'm sure they would rather have instead signed a document w/ their photo id instead. Beats the hell out of forfeiting life savings, having your credit ruined and risk dropping out of school for lack of funds.
In light of this news, I will remember the RIAA when I next go shopping for CD. I'm sure all my choices will be artists who aren't with the big labels. I'd encourage everyone to shop for CD's from smaller labels as well.
RIAA Can't Give You Amnesty (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here's what I'll send them... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you post a picture of Mickey Mouse, you will be sued to hell. If you post a picture of Mickey Mouse, with "Facist" written across it, it's legally protected speech.
It's the fact that the first is illegial that REALLY bothers me.
Here's what I am going to do (Score:4, Funny)
I am going to get the nicest, glossiest printer paper I can find and print the goatse picture on it. Those of you familiar with it already know why, those of you who don't should consider yourselves very lucky. Underneath it, I will print add the words...
"Want your copyrighted material back? Reach on up there and get it!"
How dumberer do they think we are? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Hi Rogerborg! Please return the enclosed confession, detailing the extent of your copy right violations. In return, we agree to record your confession, but will probably postpone suing you over it until such time as you piss us off or we change our management or strategy."
Further spooky prediction: you'll receive regular queries about how much you've spent on CDs.
"Gee, Rogerborg, we know that you like music, because you told us that you had 10,000 mp3s. Now you say you didn't buy any CDs this year. We find that awfully strange. Isn't the balance of probability* that you've gone back to your wicked ways? Shouldn't you consider buying some CDs? Alternatively, just send us a check direct."
Complete one of these forms, and you'll be the RIAA's bitch for life.
* Note: balance of probability is the criteria in a civil suit. They don't have to prove that you're still filesharing, they just have to convince a court that it's probable, using your own confession against you. In fact, given that their "amnesty" will simply be a statement that they might might not sue you over your confession, they could just sue you over your past actions without having to demonstrate a damn thing. Bitch for life.
Writing on the wall (Score:4, Insightful)
One has to kinda feel bad for the recording industry, poisoned by the P2P, we watch this dinosaur breath it's last few breaths. Sympathy aside; do we need record labels? What need or demand do they fulfill? They take artists - produce, advertise, then distribute their albums - their revenue is generated from record sales of which 1-8% ends up going to the artist. Artists make money by touring and endorsements.
Recording equipment used to be extremely expensive - thus making bands dependent on record labels to front the money needed to make an album. This is not the case anymore. One can make a professional recording studio for under 30,000 dollars, and this number keeps shrinking every year. Bands can produce/fund their own albums. Technology has brought 'Recording' to the individual - eliminating the 'Industry'.
Control of society's sources of information (radio/tv) is the foundation of the recording industry's business model. The RIAA's stranglehold of radio and TV is becoming more and more irrelevant as the masses are turning to the Internet for their info. The Internet is intrinsically decentralized - thus the RIAA cannot dictate what content is avalibe via the web. One's exposure to new music is no longer limited the 50 song playlists of their local radio stations or what they see on tv...
Distribution - I think it is evident the Internet is a pretty effective medium for distributing music.
So, where does all this leave the artists? Pretty much right where they are now - they can still make money by selling concert tickets/merchandise - as long as they do not suck. Offsetting lack of talent with marketing will become increasingly futile. No more mass marketed music? Sounds like a good idea to me. No more boy bands, brittany spears, lincon park, etc. What does marketing have to do with art anyways?
Re:At the end of the day (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:At the end of the day (Score:4, Insightful)
Oooh, ooh! I know this one!
First, RIAA should not go after P2P services. They should go after the actual infringers. But not in a cruel way--these are fad-following college kids, after all. How about they tell them that it's wrong, and then find out who does it anyway, and go after the worst of them--and offer amnesty for anyone who is willing to give it up?
Oh, and they have to have a few ways to get digital music legally...
Hey, wait, they're doing that! What's up with that! How can we rail about how evil the RIAA is if they do what's morally and legally right for them to do!
Re:At the end of the day (Score:4, Insightful)
Recall that there was a successful defence where the user claims that he didn't mean to share the files or install an unlicensed program - it was done automatically either 'by default' or by another malicious program. I smell a loophole here.
What if someone writes a 'benign virus' that will generate behaviour such that will help us exploit this? The 'virus' will, in addition to spreading itself wide, randomly download files and share files such that it is indistinguishable from normal filesharing behaviour of real users. This way we can always blame the virus for our filesharing activity.
Even better, if you get sued by the RIAA/MPAA, retroactively 'activate' the virus (make it in such a way that it seems like it got in your computer b4 the filesharing activity is made public) to protect yourself and frustrate the RIAA/MPAA in court!
Do you think it will work?
Re:At the end of the day (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of a virus, just blame usability. Here [hp.com] is a paper talking about a usability problem with Kazaa. It seems like you could always blame usability. "I didn't mean to share that directory!" You'd be playing on the technophobia that the judge is likely to have anyway.
Re:At the end of the day (Score:3, Insightful)
Before you get too excited, what you're thinking about is almost certainly criminal convictions for kiddie porn peddling. The standard of proof required in a criminal case is "beyond all reasonable doubt". If you can introduce any doubt, you get off.
The standard of proof in a civil case is simply "balance of probabilty". There's no assumption of innocence. Now, is it more likely that the 10,000 mp3 taking up 75% of your hard drive and shared over Kazaa got there because you put them there, or because
Why is downloading music unethical? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why is downloading music unethical? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who do you think ought to have to make it clear whether or not you may download their music; the people who are using their fundamental free speech right to be heard, or the people who are asserting their federal statutory copyright?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why is downloading music unethical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Respecting Copyright Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, copyright law was never meant to apply to the individual. It was aimed squarely at buisnesses to prevent them from making a profit by blatantly copying someone else's work and selling it themselves. The founding fathers never intended for the RIA
Re:At the end of the day (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree... (Score:3, Insightful)
a) Sharing RIAA music is helping spread RIAA music, and we don't want that.
b) Suing your own customers is the short path to bankruptcy. Knowing how the record companies treat their own customers, Mom may think twice about spending twenty bucks on that Britney CD little Tammy wants...
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?
No determination at all (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No determination at all (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF?
Re:No determination at all (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Microsoft? Software isn't essential either!
Off topic, way off. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:At the end of the day (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:At the end of the day (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:At the end of the day (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:At the end of the day (Score:3, Insightful)
That is such a tired old argument. If these musicians didn't want the contract, they need not sign it. Nobody is forcing them to. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring payback of advances.
Your placement of the phrase "pay back the loan" in quotes does not make it any less true. It is a loan, and it deserves to be paid back. That's the way it works. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract!
Re:At the end of the day (Score:3, Interesting)
The Copyright Act [justice.gc.ca]
check out part VIII.
More Questions (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, the music conglomerates turned the corner when two things happened: the digitization of music and the merging of hardware and software companies. They chose an insecure, universal and easily transferable media to sell their wares and then demanded, bought and actually got corporate rights (!) to bypass normal judicial procedure to chase individuals who file share. A democratic republic is a balance of rights between individuals, should:
Record companies be granted rights above individuals to protect a poor choice of distribution media?
Should one industry demand the imposition of universal DRM on all individuals to protect that business model?
Should electronic manufacturers and media manufacturers merge and, acting through their respective industry associations, be allowed to act a single, indominable oligarchy to impose their wills on the market?
Could be that the price of the RIAA member industries solvency is too high for a society to pay (in which case I expect them to die off, as have innumerable industries before them). Or, they could adapt, maybe give you more for $20 than a $0.10 silver disc, two pieces of plastic, a sheet of colour paper, three level of middleman profits and one or two palatable songs. Direct market? Coupons for discounted promotional or concert tickets? Discounts on the next release? Put in the tiniest effort beyond shipping discs in a box?
As alluded above, they had more sales when Napster was at its peak. Radio, for well more than half a century free music, also pushed record company profits to ever-higher peaks. It could just be that free sharing helps the industry by getting their artists heard. They could even seed Kazaa and track trading as a form of market research. But they're stuck in a silver-disc version of a fifties industry and expecting either that the world stands still or that government grant them extrodinary protection to preserve an outdated production model. Yes, I expect that if they don't adapt they'll naturally fight, but reasonable expectation and reasonable are worlds apart. The RIAA's actions - political, civil and corporately - aren't reasonable.
Re:At the end of the day (Score:3, Insightful)
>The only plausible answer, for me, is to neither purchase RIAA goods, nor participate in copyright infringement. I wonder why this state of mind is so hard to grasp?
While I'm substantially in agreement, I'll answer this question as though it's not rhetorical.
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:Welcome to democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Welcome to democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
So why, when someone has spent time and money on a certain project do they have to give it away for free? It is their project (be it software or music),
Re:Whytf bother (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Random + Illegal = Legal? (Score:3)
That's ridiculous. You can't null a copyright by just doing some hokey-pokey. That song, or movie, or ebook still has the same copyright no matter what you try to manipulate the bits into along the way.
-Brent