EFF Warns Against RIAA Amnesty Program 444
kpogoda writes "Check out the latest warnings from the Electronic Frontier Foundation regarding the recent actions from the RIAA. If you or anyone you know was contemplating handing over information to the RIAA, you may think twice."
Sure.... (Score:5, Funny)
word "amnesty" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:word "amnesty" (Score:4, Insightful)
Last time I checked, they were doing some decent things.
Re:word "amnesty" (Score:3, Funny)
Even worse, it won't get you invited to the good cocktail parties.
Re:word "amnesty" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:word "amnesty" (Score:5, Funny)
yeah, watch out for amnesty international, or they'll protect the hell out of your human rights.
Re:word "amnesty" (Score:4, Insightful)
No their not evil, just misguided and shortsighted.
On their homepage, for example, is a call to sign a petition to "Stop The Slaughter Now!" in the Congo. But rest assured if some western democracy decided to take the bull by the horns and do exactly that by sending in troops they would accuse that democracy of interfering with the locals right of self determination.
Re:word "amnesty" (Score:5, Interesting)
I was a target for the local Head of Amnesty International. Mark - Who was a teacher at Lewis Univercity back in the 1990's.
They decided that the execution of a rapist-Murderer that chopped up his victims was barbaric and held a cadle light vigil at stateville penitentiary in Joliet Illinois.
I wrote an op ed piece for the local paper explaining how we were eliminating a dangerous animal rather than a normal functioning member of society. Mark flew into a rage. He contacted the paper and demanded to run a rebuttel against my op ed piece - with a tag line stating that replies to replies would not be printed. He called me an animal, and was espicially vindictive when I had asked Amnesty International to come up with a better solution that would make sure that murderer-rapist-dismemberer never was a threat to society again.
What's more In his class I argued that the military did indeed provide a benefit outside of military actions, talking of jets, rocketry, navigation , MASH type emergency surgery, and dozens of other things that have spun out of military research and experience.
I went from an A averege on tests to a "D" in his class for my "Audacity".
Yeah, amnesty international is great. The people they get to head up their chapters are stellar. Boy, they sure have their heads on straight, and us folks living in the real world should STFU.
Yeah, I got karma to burn - but I had to get this off my chest.
Re:word "amnesty" (Score:5, Insightful)
To quote Top Dollar [imdb.com]:
Because you've had some bad experience with a (perhaps) misguided person who is part of the institution does not make the institution as a whole worthless. Nor does it make the ideas behind that institution bad. Because you disagree with their ideas that killing murderers is barbaric doesn't make either viewpoint invalid. See, there's this fun thing about philosophy, where two completely opposed opinions can be right at the same time! Life isn't boolean, true or false, black or white.
The fact is that Amnesty International's goal is to help others, and to improve living conditions for the human race. The success and steps to make that happen, you can disagree with, but to discredit the whole thing based on one bad experience with a teacher (hey, I got news for you: 90% of Humanities teachers are fucking assholes who'll flunk you if you don't act like a good brainwashed idiot) isn't very nice of you.
But then again, I guess forgiveness and giving second chances aren't your strong points, seeing as how you're pro death penalty and all.
Re:word "amnesty" (Score:3, Interesting)
I was going to reply to the whole thing, but decided against it: I think we agree on the fundamental part and you're nitpicking on semantics (or my bad communication skills). However, this part I must reply to:
I'm rather undecided on the death pe
Re:word "amnesty" (Score:4, Insightful)
So tell me this. What kind of a nutbar bases his opinion of an entire international organization on the basis of one unpleasant individual's actions?
Where's the logic? The murderer whose execution you were celebrating was male. Does that mean that all men are murdering animals? Why not?
You might want to entertain the notion that judging a large group of people by the actions of one is pretty much the definition of brainless bigotry.
No wonder the world is so screwed up.
Re:word "amnesty" (Score:4, Funny)
And you bring up france?
Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
What about the labels/artists they represent? Those people probably still have the rights to do so. And, hey, they've got your name and stuff...
I'm still a fan of only downloadings stuff you're allowed to, but whatever. I'm not too zealous about people downloading their music.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be dubious of giving anything to anyone who said they didn't have to honor the law.
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not 100% clear that's true. The Fourth Amendment says:
It doesn't say that the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated by the government, but that it shall not be violated. That at least suggests that private entities shouldn't be able engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, either.
Even if it applies only the government, you have to remember that the courts are also part of the government. That means that private entities should not be able to use government power in the form of court orders to perform searches that would be rejected were a government agency to try them. That may leave it open for private agencies to snoop in ways that the government isn't allowed to, so long as they don't use court orders to do so and they obey relevant laws against trespass, unauthorized computer access, etc.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't that tend to imply that they have no right to conduct a search in the first place?
I have signed no contracts granting the RIAA the right to conduct a search of myself, my property, my history, or even for my car keys that I keep misplacing.
Baring some official status, or a contract... Why should it matter that normal proceedural limitations do not apply to them? My neighbors don't need to observe due process in considering me annoying, but if they decide to search my house to prove it, the police will get a call right after the use of deadly force in self defense.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Ahhh....you must live in Texas too.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Funny)
Liberal Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
Conservative Answer:
BANG!
Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click... (sounds of clip being ejected and fresh clip installed)
Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: "Nice grouping Daddy!"
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)
The real problem is that the RIAA doesn't represent all labels, so some of the smaller independent lables could sue with the amnesty beign prima facia proof of guilt.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yeah, I was only borrowing the car to deliver pizza, but I'm sure the actual owner, his insurance company and bank won't sue you into oblivion if I hand all your documentation over with an admission of guilt.
Bessos.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Funny)
GARA - Geeks Against RIAA Amnesty (Score:5, Funny)
Anonymous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pseudononymous? (Score:5, Informative)
The reason that you're not anonymous (when trading files) is because you do actually have a name or persistent identifier attached to you. This is like the difference between being an Anonymous Coward on /. and being a regular poster. The AC is, as the name suggests, truly anonymous; /. has taken some steps to make it so that even they can't identify ACs some time after the fact. Regular posters, though, are pseudonymous- hiding behind a false name. You can track what an individual poster does, but you can't necessarily connect them to a particular flesh and blood person without help from /. Even if the poster deliberately puts identifying information on his user page, that information could be fraudulent, so you'd actually need to ask the /. staff to uncover the information in their records to have a good chance of proving who they are to a court.
What was that? (Score:5, Funny)
*woof* *woof*
Don't trust the RIAA?
*woof* *nods head* *woof*
They're only trying to destroy their customer base?
*woof* *nods head* *woof*
Good Lassie.. *pets Lassie*
I always thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I always thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
In essense, this amnesty would assemble the evidence list for the RIAA enabling them to go before a court (or congress via their lobbyists) with documented and notarized numb
Re:I always thought... (Score:2)
Re:I always thought... (Score:2)
not that i would believe for a second that such a mail in form would be worth shit in any higher court(who sensible person takes photocopies of his/her id and sends it to ANYONE through mail???). now here's a fun idea, make up some names and send them to riaa, or better yet, find out some lawyers names and executives names that are pushing this kind of sillyness and file some papers with thei
Re:I always thought... (Score:5, Informative)
You'll be hard pressed to find a lawyer anywhere that doesn't use form letters or form pleadings. Lawyers LOVE precedents and HATE drafting things from scratch. A precedent that you've already used a dozen times before (and won with) is a whole lot better than a newly drafted document never tested by the courts.
Similarly, no client wants you spending hundreds of dollars an hour drafting and redrafting a simple letter - if you have a form letter that your assistant can put the numbers and names into in five minutes, save your client some money and spend the time you save on strategy.
The trick is to make sure you do actually update the form and precedent to fit the situation. There've been a lot of lost deals and suits because people used precedents without understanding them or reading them carefully.
Just my opinion - I could be wrong, and probably am in your jurisdiction.
Re:I always thought... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually - there are all kinds of fair-use-oriented defences you might apply the first time around. Remember - they aren't going after Napster which profited off of copyright infrigement - they're going after individual users who are freely trading files at no profit to themselves (in fact, it is to some cost to themselves (electricity, bandwidth, etc.)). This could change the legal equation.
On the other hand, a signed affidavit saying that you concede that file trading is illegal would essentially be a guilty plea in a court. It potentially makes their job much easier. They can also trump out stats like x million people concede that file sharing is wrong and they've seen the error of their ways - which is good for convincing congress to pass DRM legislation (after all, most file sharers realize that it is needed to help them avoid returning to their old sins).
Note - I'm not arguing whether sharing of copyrighted files online should be legal or not - just that the case against file traders is not as airtight as the RIAA would like one to believe. Of course, they can force traders to run up legal tabs - which is their main goal.
Personally, I think there needs to be a balance between casual file swapping and an environment where a company can expect to sell exactly one copy of a CD before it is ripped and free to all. Content creators should not have to rely on charity, but on the other hand they should not be entitled to a free ride for life based on a single creative act.
to sum... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's pretty much the sum of it. That, and the fact that they're not promising to
Interesting Quote (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it interesting that he states that your not allowed or should be disregarded of being anonymous when you distribute music online. What if i want to distribute my OWN music online, anonymously. Sure theres probably little reason for me to.
I find it disturbing that they seem to be confusing distributing music online with copyright violations.
Re:Interesting Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting Quote (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, you haven't seen HR1911, defining "Music" as a trademark of the RIAA member corporations, and everything else as "pornography induced instrument torturing"? Tsktsktsk. Gotta keep on top of these things.
what bothers me. (Score:4, Interesting)
They dont know what to expect, or in most cases, what they may be doing is wrong (downloading music, videos etc).
Re:what bothers me. (Score:5, Funny)
Not just collage students! Papier mache students and bas-relief students too!
All the arts & craft students are at risk!
Horror Movie (Score:4, Funny)
It'll be like watching those horror movies, where you see some dumb guy walking into the deserted house, going "Dude? You in here?," then gets hacked to death. Or maybe like one of those poor redshirts from Star Trek, who wander off and get eaten by the Space Wedgie.
Point is, most of us know better. We shake our heads and laugh that somebody would be dumb enough to try this. But somebody will.
I'm reminded of that demotivational poster, which shows the wreckage of a ship in shallow water, and has a caption: "Mistakes: It may be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Then Metallica sues you.
It's a sucker deal. Not to mention that you're also agreeing to refrain from engaging in lawful behavior as well!
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying I agree with the RIAA position, however I think the contract would be legally binding from a consideration standpoint - your objection probably wouldn't hold up. You might try other lines of reasoning though (the RI
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
You would think that alone is embarassment enough.
Re:Makes sense (Score:3)
The label owns the rights.
what amazes me the most ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what amazes me the most ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would a drowning man clutch at a straw?
The RIAA is fighting a losing battle and they know it. They are desparate, stabbing around in the dark, hoping to find something, anything, that will stick. Why else would they attempt to link P2P to child pornography?
You'd almost think the RIAA and Gray Davis have the same advisors.
Re:what amazes me the most ... (Score:2, Insightful)
It has been well discussed that there is really no way to prevent CDs from being copied/ripped/shared/whatever without simultaneously preventing them from being listened to (this also applies to DVDs and other copyrighted stuff that gets shared on P2P apps). And yet the RIAA/MPAA/software publishers have tried to protect their stuff, for example with copy protection [slashdot.org]. Guess what, it hasn't worked, but it has caused some leg
Well no duh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, I stopped using P2P quite a bit ago. IRC works just as well, if not better, and you have access to better quality files, to boot. And the RIAA doesn't (yet) track it.
(-:Stephonovich:-)
Beyond Captain Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Only thing is I wish more non-techy people even know the EFF existed. I told my mom about this as she had heard all about the RIAA and this new amesty thing from the local news, she had no idea who the EFF was. Apparently the news is only running the RIAA's side of the story. No great suprise here but it kind of limits the impact of their statment now doesnt it?
Re:Beyond Captain Obvious (Score:2)
Re:Beyond Captain Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Follow the money.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the major media outlets are either RIAA and/or MPAA members, or subsidiaries of members. And even without that, whose side do you think they'd pick? The EFF?
Re:Beyond Captain Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Well who runs the news.. let's see here there's CNN (owned by AOL TW), ABC (owned by Disney), and probably several other companies that also own record labels.
Do you know anyone NOT on slashdot that heard of the price fixing scandal by the record labels? There aren't many, and that's because the conventional TV news sources didn't cover the story, even though it accounted for more than $60million in losses for the record companies that ye
Not trying to troll (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not trying to troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the way power groups remove one of your rights is by FIRST going after some scumbag who is using that right for some icky purpose that NOBODY approves of. Then, once they have the precedent set, they go after someone less scummy.
After a few steps they have the machine builit and greased. THEN they go after the people using the right for innocent purposes. (See the Martin Niemoller "First they came for the Communists
Classic example: Going after Kiddie Pornographers as the first step of shutting down free speech and the free press.
So the time to stop them is when the go after that first scumbag.
Re:Not trying to troll (Score:5, Interesting)
The indicted today are *NOT* "bigtime distributers of music" at all. The only people truly fitting this description are the folks churning out black-market counterfeit tapes and CDs and *selling them* on the street.
The RIAA still hasn't shown much interest in stopping those people, by comparison. They're too hung up in this "fight the P2P networks!" garbage.
The fact is, even the individuals with the biggest hard drives full of MP3 music to share are giving the stuff away - NOT selling it at a profit. The folks selling counterfeits are much more of a direct threat to music sales, because they're diverting money from customers who are actively trying to BUY music.
One of the big problems I see is the RIAA's seeming interest in the sheer number of files available for free downloading from a single source. What if the person is some teenager on a 33.6K modem connection? His/her vast collection of MP3s doesn't really mean much at all in the "big picture", because the bandwidth limits physically prevent too much music from getting shared around anyway. Theoretically, one guy sharing only one "hot new album" off a T3 could be a much bigger problem
I'll say it one time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Boycott [boycot-riaa.com].
And it needs to be directed not just towards the RIAA, which is a lobbying industry group meant to be considered separately in the mind of the public from the actual companies [riaa.com].
I think maybe a targetted boycott campaign against not the RIAA blanket company, but a particular member (chosen randomly) would wake them all up. Put some direct pressure on one pillar, somethign that will hurt, and maybe they'll start to get the message.
A month-long focused boycott of a single RIAA member company-- recording division only-- Internet-wide. Think of the media attention that would get! Then the next month, a new company...
Just a thought. Anyone wanna pick up the ball?
Re:I'll say it one time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Continuing to share files and getting caught could be construed by the RIAA to show that you don't really care about whats "right" and that you just want free stuff. This would kill all of the positive publicity and could taint the whole group in the eyes of the public at large (see Greenpeace and some of their more fringe actions.) For this to be effective, the participants will need to show that what they are doing is unquestionably "right". Just look at (a grossly oversimplified) history in the US. Cop punches protester unprovoked = public sympathy and outcry = laws get changed, constitution gets amendments. Cop beats the sh*t out of protester after getting hit with a bottle = no sympathy = public becomes entrenched AGAINST said cause.
I'd participate under those conditions.
Hand over your enemies... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hand over your enemies... (Score:5, Interesting)
Falsify the notarization (Score:4, Informative)
And now, Deep Thoughts, with the EFF.... (Score:3, Funny)
Public Service Announcement (Score:5, Funny)
...please try not to pass on your genetic map to offspring, and do us all a favor. Thank you for your cooperation.
RIAA's privacy policy (Score:5, Informative)
"The group said it would not use the information gathered for marketing purposes or share it with any other group of copyright holders. Critics such as the EFF's von Lohmann dismissed the assurances, saying that the RIAA's privacy policy allowed the information to be shared if "required by law," a clause which could allow groups such as music publishers or Hollywood studios to subpoena the information from the RIAA to use in their own lawsuits."
Re:RIAA's privacy policy (Score:2)
Who to hate more (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who to hate more (Score:3, Insightful)
The frustration of current "IP" stuff. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the right to exchange information is holy or somehow a human right which you're suggesting here. Consider slander, spam, or malicious information. Malicious information is for instance a virus, or even something as simple as telling a very gullible person that to cure his headache he merely needs to jump off that tower there...
Given the obvious advantages of free information flow (it is for instance the underpinning of a free market, and necessary also for a "democratic" society), I'ld say information should not be needlessly restricted unless there is a very good reason for it.
Supposedly, copyrights/patents are a required to encourage the production of new knowledge.
I would say it's clear that they do encourage some creation of knowledge. By their very nature, however, they also limit it's applicability and extension, therefore also discouraging the creation of such knowledge. Furthermore, I think a better system could be instituted.
Given that copyrights use market dynamics to encourage creation, whilst those dynamics work only in situations of scarcity, and that information itself (not the distribution thereof!) is not scarce, we can conclude that a system that tries to encourage new knowledge without enforcing scarcity would be optimal, as doing so would bring encouragement without destroying the actual point of the knowledge in the first place.
People regularly comment on the fact that communism (specifically in Russia) collapsed because it (it being the abstract administrative process that is communism) is a fundamentally bad match in the real world (in which resources are scarce). Generally it's not so widely noted that the same could be said of our current Intellectual Property mess.
Fortunately, we already have a mechanism to support non-scarce goods (aka social goods) in our society! Subsidizing knowledge production is a far superior solution... and we already do it to some extent with schools, art grants, universities, etc etc etc.
The question then becomes: how to divide such grants? I don't have an easy answer to that but a model ala de references by academic papers (or for that matter hyperlinks in the net) comes to mind.
To draw an analogy: in our current situation, knowledge is exclusively controlled by it's creator, which is comparable to how a completely "closed" internet portal would control its content and display information and news depending mostly on how much it can pay to create or buy that information from some news service or equivalent. The subsidized model which supports knowledge creation is more like the net at large with hyperlinks forming the votes for who's cool and who's not. Even without a framework specifically designed to support it, google seems capable to extract useful information from those votes
Re:The frustration of current "IP" stuff. (Score:2)
#1 Its not a power of Congress to do this.
I could go on, but #1 is enough for me.
Re:The frustration of current "IP" stuff. (Score:2)
First of all, the issue isn't what congress can or can't due; it's what should be done. I also don't believe that this really "can't" be done - generally, the interplay between te various government arms, the legal system, and the populace has been very sucessfull at doing this clearly beyond any initial boundaries - consider the closed military trials, and the various other crackdowns on civil liberties enacted and enforced after 9/11. The law isn't a religious text
Here is a copy of the form.. (Score:5, Funny)
The RIAA Clean Slate program (Score:3, Informative)
The Affidavit (pdf) [musicunited.org]
Music United [musicunited.org]
These links are provided for info purposes, but I agree with the EFF - Don't Sign!
Amnesty Application Form (Score:2, Funny)
How much do I owe (Score:5, Funny)
I'm starting to feel guilty about doing this, and want to fess up, How much do I owe?
MPAA (Score:5, Funny)
err... hang on there's a knock at my door...
@$#^% [NO CARRIER]
Final Quote (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee, it sure is nice to know that the individuals behind the recent destruction of our privacy rights at least understand the issue. Matt clearly point out here why privacy is not an issue: the RIAA has already decided that these individuals are indeed sharing files. No evidence,
Translation (Score:5, Funny)
What the RIAA says: We are just fair minded people protecting the artists.
What they mean: Our middle managers want a raise.
What the RIAA says: For every 50 bands that get signed only 1 "makes it"
What they mean: Hookers are expensive, and sometimes when we get drunk we sign people that aren't very good
What the RIAA says: If you promise to erase all the MP3's you were letting other people download we won't prosecute you
What they mean: yet
What the RIAA says: The illegal distribution of MP3's are hurting our CD sales
What they mean: We thought our near monopoly on music distribution would protect us in an economic downturn
What the RIAA says: No one wants to play the heavy
What they mean: We hired these god damn lawyers, it's about time we use them
What the RIAA wants you to think "It's about what is fair" what they don't want you to know is that in every single case brought against them by an artist for failure to pay royalties, they have lost. (Ok, maybe not that time michael jackson sued)
Sound familar? (Score:4, Funny)
Is file sharing over.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is file sharing over.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you or anyone else... (Score:5, Funny)
Remind me.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Label Execs: (Score:3, Funny)
My letter to the local TV station (Score:3, Interesting)
In your 'RIAA lawsuits' piece this evening, I thought it rather irresponsible of you to suggest that all songs downloaded via P2P were illegal and copyrighted by the RIAA.
Since WCCO is no doubt familiar with Minneapolis and its plethora of musicians, you might have taken a moment to interview a musician who uses P2P to distribute their own works, of which there are many. A trip to mp3.com, for instance, turns up hundreds of thousands of bands and artists that give their music away, with *no* connection to the RIAA.
I thought the suggestion at the end of your piece to 'apply for amnesty from the RIAA' was especially misleading, as this would probably open one up to multiple lawsuits from other sources; giving your personal information to an organization that has already proven itself 'lawsuit happy' and has attacked its own customers as liars and theives is not a good idea.
I am rather disappointed in your treatment of this issue, and I believe that one-sided reporting like this only adds to the misinformation that the RIAA 'owns' all music, that P2P applications are only used for piracy or (child) pornography (this is the next view that the RIAA is pushing), or that P2P is at the root of reduced CD sales.
I suggest either doing some research on this topic in the future and presenting a balanced view, or please mark your broadcast 'Sponsored by the RIAA' in the corner of the screen. You could probably get the MTV logo guys to do that, as MTV is owned by Viacom, your parent company.
Thanks for your time,
Might've already been suggested... (Score:3, Interesting)
Print up some bogus Notary stamps (make it an obvious forgery) and just flood them with paperwork.
Use their own names, Darl McBride, Heywood Jablowme, Mike Hunt, every character from The Matrix and Office Space, etc.
Anyone?
Re:EFF can butt out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ummmm... (Score:2)
Re:True colo(u)rs (Score:2)
Sounds like standard legal advice.
Among other things, you're likely to admit to something you didn't do.
Re:True colo(u)rs (Score:4, Interesting)
MOD PARENT DOWN! (Score:2, Troll)
Insightful? Come on...how about troll
You do realise that the RIAA will win this war, don't you? :-)
So by win do you mean never having a large majority of people listen to any of their prepackaged crap? This time I cant help but feed the troll...I share PLENTY of files online, and the plain fact is all of it is LEGAL. There is not ONE single piece of music I own, or listen to that will support that trade group or their member labels. Sure its a hard line position, but Im thankful that my standard for what
So in your logic.. (Score:3, Funny)
Car accident (Score:5, Insightful)
It's good advice, period. Illegal or not.
Ever been in a car accident? Doesn't matter if it's your fault or not, what's the last thing you say to the cop?
"It was my fault."
Because if you do, you've just thrown out any hopes of a successful defense. You WILL be reamed to the full extent of the law. NEVER admit to anything if the law is involved. Your fault or not. Illegal or not. Let the prosecuting attorney earn his keep.
Weaselmancer
Insightful thought for the day... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, won't work. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. Dubya can only sign such stuff for criminal cases, not civil.
And if he DID do something like that, the RIAA could then bill the GOVERNMENT, claiming they "took private property for a public purpose". Fifth Amendment.
Re:Sorry, won't work. (Score:3, Interesting)
The Supreme Court has recognized the concept of a "partial taking": government action that sucks part of the value out of something by limiting the owner's use.
Classic example was a church camp in the Monterey, CA area. A forest fire demolished the camp. The county decided they wanted the area returned to a more "natural" state and blocked the rebuilding of the camp by zo
Well... (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, OK. But you *are* sharing them. If you're a streetside peddler of pirated CDs it doesn't matter if you've sold zero of your 1000 CD inventory. You've still committed piracy and have offered pirated goods for sale. That's plenty to get busted and/or sued for. Only difference of sharing files online is no cash trade, no physical trade. But with the DCMA it doesn't really matter anyway.