RIAA Offers Amnesty to File Sharers

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....

first, they drop the price of CDs. now they're offering amnesty.

somebody call satan to see if hell froze over.

Mike

Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1....

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.

The Simpsons apply everywhere!

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.

Re:The Simpsons apply everywhere!

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...

Guilty

Its like admiting your guilt. And who knows if they get a new CEO or new lawyers or profits are down or its a blue moon they might come after you. They will simply tear up their "amnesty" deal.

Its happened before!

Doh!

Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1....

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.

Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1....

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??

Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1....

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.

Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1....

" 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). "

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

I don't think many people will sign up for this at all.

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....

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.

Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1....

They need to drop CD's a LOT further in price before anyone I know will buy them again.

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....

5 bucks is too thin. Contrary to popular belief, CDs do cast more then a nickle to get from production to the store shelves. however 8 bucks would be reasonable.

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....

...blah blah blah $5...$2.95 up to 10 CD's...yadda yadda yadda...

GASOLINE PRICES: I think gasoline should cost 49 cents a gallon. No, darn it, make that 29 cents a gallon! Also the gas-station attendants should pump it for you. And when you get home, you should be able to watch Milton Berle on your Philco TV.

--Dave Barry

Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1....

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.

Can't WAIT to get the address to send my "info"

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.

Re:Can't WAIT to get the address to send my "info"

Forget joke IDs, send them a whole bunch AOL CDs.

Re:Can't WAIT to get the address to send my "info"

Better yet... Burn the AOL CDs to a blank, and then send the copied version. :)

Re:jack valenti, call for you on line 1....

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.

RIAA subpoena

For your viewing pleasure: A copy of a subpoena from the RIAA. [lostbrain.com]

Tcd004

Re:RIAA subpoena

The moderation system is way broken. Has been for a long time.

What a deal

So, in order to buy amnesty from the RIAA, I have to sell them my identity? Sounds fair...

Re:What a deal

"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!

Re:What a deal

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.

Fair Use?

Tell you what, RIAA... if and when you attempt to charge me for all of the MP3 files I have, then I will send you a notarized letter of contempt along with pictures of my CD collection. In fact, I'll even include a list of all 1478 CDs that I legally own.

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?

If you're not sharing these files, then you have nothing to worry about, since they are only (as I understand it) going after those who are sharing copyrighted files. If you are, then you are offering copyrighted material up for grabs for people who may or may not own the CD.

Just because you legally own the CD's does not make sharing them legal.

Guilty until proven innocent?

Why do I have to prove that I own my music? It is their responsability to prove that I don't own it. WTF?

Re:At the end of the day

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.

Re:At the end of the day

What, pray tell, do you find an acceptable course of action for the RIAA?

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

Here's an idea on how to possibly protect yourself from being found guilty of filesharing by the RIAA/MPAA (I've raised this before in a previous post didn't get much notice).

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?

Why is downloading music unethical?

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.

Re:Why is downloading music unethical?

It isn't unethical. There are lots of people out there who want you to download their music, and lots of other people who don't care if you download their music. The problem is that there are also people out there who don't want you to download their music -- and there isn't any way to tell which music is which.

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?

Re:Why is downloading music unethical?

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.

Re:Why is downloading music unethical?

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.

Re:At the end of the day

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.

Re:At the end of the day

The independents are having a banner year. Only RIAA members are hurting.

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

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.

Re:At the end of the day

"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.

Re:At the end of the day

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.

Re:At the end of the day

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.

More Questions

There was no outcry begging for individuals to be prosecuted. The argument was "legal action against the developers of P2P software is unwarranted because they broke no standing laws". A few did call for the focus to shift towards those who share, but no more than a few. Nor do I see any compelling evidence, looked at dispassionately CD sales appear to be inversely proportional to anti-piracy efforts.

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.

Boggles the mind.

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...

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?

Re:Oh Good...

Chief Wiggum: See ya in court, Simpson. Oh, and bring that evidence with ya; otherwise, I got no case and you'll go scot-free.

No.

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?

Right...amnesty...sure

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.

Trust is frail

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.

Does this cover all the naked pictures of Hilary Rosen on my hard drive too?

My Only Response:

F***. You.

That is all.

South Park allusion

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

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

can I download the form?

or is it copyrighted too?

Re:can I download the form?

Just download it from formster.

New amnesty

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).

This is really a new intelligence test.

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

Re:This is really a new intelligence test.

Send in the notarized form with Jack Velenti's name and picture on it: Priceless.

Maybe IANAL, maybe IAAL

This is dangerously close to extortion. On the face of it, obtaining identity by means of threats is probably not extortion because it is not "money or [an]other valuable thing." However, if these identities are later used to persue court cases which result in monetary settlement, this could be considered extortion.

Dear Filesharers:

Catching you guys is HARD. Please just turn yourselves in...pretty please?

And in related news ...

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.

You know, back when I was a kid ...

it was a joke that everyone would have to be a lawyer "when we grew up" because that would be the only way we could survive. Its kinda sad that its almost to that point now (if not a lawyer then a healthy knowledge of the law is required to do just about anything).

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?

Can someone remind me of the law that makes it illegal for other people to access files I own over a network?

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

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.

Stop listening to the crap

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?

Amnesty? More like a mugging

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?

photo ID copying requirement...

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?

Mmm...probably cause.

I don't like this one bit. Sure, the RIAA promises not to sue the users for sharing music files, but what's to stop them from quietly slipping your name to proper authorities and tell them that since you admitted to having illegal files on your computer, there's a good chance you might have software in addition to music. Ehh...I don't know.

I'm asking for amnesty

Here's my picture [goatse.cx]. My name is John Smith, and I live on Main St. in Smallville, USA.

What about students who were sued?

Most Slashdot readers should remember about the college students being sued only a few months ago by the RIAA
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/09/ 131125 5&tid=123; linked here is one for Jesse Jordan.

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

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.

Who downloads anyway?USPS is faster than Cable/DSL

Really people don't you read the articles. There was one not to long ago that stated, and accurately I might add that sending it by mail is alot faster than uploading/downloading by way of high speed interenet connections. Send that portable harddrive priority and you can "upload" 120gb of media in three days to just about anywhere in the US. Not only is it fast, it is the one place where the RIAA will never be able to go no matter how much above the law they think they are.

"Never under estimate the bandwidth of a stationwagon full of CDr's" Quote stolen and modified from said article.

Here's what I'll send them...

How about boycotters come up with a knock-off of their form, but instead of promising to delete MP3s, we promise never to buy another CD from a major label? (no incriminating language on it about file-sharing) Then we attach out ID (money-where-mouth-is) get it notorized and send them THAT? I think that's what I'll be doing. I wonder if they will sue me for copyright infringement if I take their pdf file and modify it for mine?

Here's what I am going to do

Karma be damned, this has to be said.

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?

"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

Wow - the RIAA has to be pretty damn desperate to pull this kind of Mickey Mouse BS. The RIAA's warped sense of reality rivals that of the Heaven's Gate cosmonauts. This one last chace to surrender [theonion.com] tactic is pretty pathetic. I guess you cannot expect them to just throw in the towel, but I think that the use of these these desperate scare tactics are yet more evidence that the fight is over.

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?

Welcome to democracy

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.