RIAA Sued For Amnesty Offer 533
wo1verin3 writes "CNET News is reporting that the RIAA is being sued because of 'Clean Slate' filesharing amnesty program that was announced on Monday. 'Clean Slate' allows people to (supposedly) avoid legal action by stepping forward and forfeiting any illegally traded songs. The suit, filed in the Marin Superior Court of California, charges that the RIAA's program is deceptive and fraudulent business practice." The suit claims that the amnesty is "designed to induce members of the general public... to incriminate themselves... while (receiving)... no legally binding release of claims", a statement the EFF also agrees with.
Not to mention (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not to mention (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not to mention (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not to mention (Score:5, Interesting)
Not completely true in Europe. We have two "different" rights: moral rights (author's right, derechos de autor, droit d'auteur) and economis rights (exploitation rights).
Moral rights belongs to the author, they are inalienable, they cannot be sold or waived. BTW, they are recognised by the Berne Convention.
Have moral rights any impact on this RIAA issue. Have no idea.
Re:Not to mention (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope. The american copyright tradition is actually opposed to the idea of moral rights. There were a couple supreme court decisions making this clear. We recognize copyright as being different than the so-called natural rights. As for the berne convention, we rejected that as well. The DCMA was a reaction to the reaction to that attempt. The convention had been rejected but for political and economic reasons (basically to buddy up to europe) Clinton wanted a close duplicate to it and hence the DCMA came about. Read Lessig's books and Saidvyathan (sic? - no idea, read the books last semester) for a better description of it. Copyrights and copywrongs is probably the one you'll want to pick up.
Factual errors about the "DCMA" [sic] (Score:4, Informative)
B) The DMCA's alternate title the WIPO Treaty Implementing Legislation. It was passed to fulfill the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treatry which we both pushed for as part of an economic strategy to strengthen IP. It was our diplomats who behind closed doors helped force this upon the world, and it's our diplomats who are continuing to campaign for even stronger treaties as an end-run around the democratic process in our own nation.
C) It wasn't written to "buddy up to Europe." The EU didn't even pass their own implementation of the treaty until 2001 whereas the DMCA was passed via unaccountable voice vote in 1998 (along with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act the next day) to avoid media attention. EU member states are still in the process of ratifying it and implementing their own local versions of it.
D) Finally, tt's the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998, or DMCA, for crying out loud. Spelling it wrong twice is a clear warning flag that you haven't researched it at all and are just regurgitating half-truths and misinformation that you've heard elsewhere.
Re:Not to mention (Score:5, Interesting)
If Majel Roddenberry produced documented evidence that Gene had signed over all moral rights to Star Trek to her, and she tried to sue Brannon and Braga for violating the moral rights of Gene Roddenberry for the utter perversion of Trek that they've created, a US court would not find in her favor.
Re:Not to mention (Score:5, Funny)
1. CitizenX downloads a song by Pop Musician.
2. Pop Musician have sold their sold their soul to Satan in return for fame and fortune.
3. Pop Musician puts their heart and "soul" into every song they create.
4. The RIAA are a licensed agent of Satan.
5. Therefore the RIAA do in fact own the copyright of most Pop music.
At least that is how the RIAA plan on defending themselves in court.
Re:Not to mention (Score:5, Funny)
You mean just like a priest?
Re:Not to mention (Score:3)
Re:Not to mention (Score:5, Informative)
Who are the member companies of RIAA and how do I stop supporting them?
The page was down, but this is Google's cache of the RIAA members page [216.239.37.104]. I was surprised there were so many. I was further surprised that Sanctuary was one of them. Now I wish I hadn't have bought the new Anthrax CD. Gonna have to stop buying Anthrax, now. :(
Boycott RIAA [boycott-riaa.com] is a website that talks about boycotting them. I haven't read through the website myself, I've just been doing my own independent thing.
RIAA Radar [magnetbox.com] is a searchable database to see if an artist is on an RIAA label. They also have a javascript bookmarklet that will tell you when an artist is RIAA while you're on Amazon.
Re:LEAVE DOWNLOADERS ALONE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. That is why I only shoplift at stores that do not have that pesky 'Shoplifters will be prosecuted' sign.
Re:LEAVE DOWNLOADERS ALONE! (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, class. Say it with me:
"Copyright infringement is not property theft."
"Copyright infringement is not property theft."
"Copyright infringement is not property theft."
Say it enough and maybe it will sink in.
Re:Just steal the sign (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just steal the sign (Score:4, Funny)
That's the most irresponsible thing I've ever heard of. I wonder how many books were stolen because you thought you had the right to steal signs in opposition of the very sign you stole. How are people supposed to know it is wrong if there is no sign? This is why murder is such a big problem. We have NO fucking anti-murder signs. Wake up people!
Re:Just steal the sign (Score:3, Funny)
Re:LEAVE DOWNLOADERS ALONE! (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think about it, the cost of good customer service to the recording industry would be almost nothing. Why don't they make an ironclad guarantee that anyone who presented at least 51% of a damaged CD or DVD--no matter how old--would be given a new copy? Wouldn't that help to reduce the need for backup copies?
Re:LEAVE DOWNLOADERS ALONE! (Score:5, Interesting)
When I bought my Nintendo 64, I paid $30 for a warranty like that. They said I could drive over it and still get a replacement heh. In retrospect, the warranty was a waste of money. The motivating factor in getting it was the analog controls, had no idea how long those would last.
The reason I picked on Valenti on this one was because his choice of rebuttals. The main problem with it is that when somebody burns a copy of a CD or downloads Mp3s, the RIAA suffers absolutely no direct expense from it. You're not using their media, you're not using their internet bits, you're not even using their electricity. So, in Mr. Valenti's case, he's saying I'm not allowed to buy a lawn mower and then, using this one as reference, build a duplicate one with my own resources. If it were being asked of the RIAA to make backups available for the consumer, well that'd be a different story.
Which leads to this point:
"Why don't they make an ironclad guarantee that anyone who presented at least 51% of a damaged CD or DVD--no matter how old--would be given a new copy? "
They should be doing that. They absolutely should be doing that. But since they don't do that, it makes one wonder how they're supposed to know they're buying a license to listen to music, not a pretty CD with music on it. Grr.
It seems that the Record Industry has forgotten that sales are dependent on both product and service. Customers'll come buy your stuff, but you still need to treat them good. Soft drink companies come to mind. They produce a consumable. You can get them anywhere, often times without any sort of human interaction what soever. Yet, they still make you glad to be a customer. Sometimes they give away prizes. Sometimes they entertain you with amusing commercials. (well, Coke moreso than Pepsi) Sometimes they even respond to supply and demand. Buy 12 cans of Coke, pay less per oz. than you'd pay for one can of Coke. I don't think softdrink companies could get away with demanding that customers only buy 24 packs at a time. No single can for you.
Re:LEAVE DOWNLOADERS ALONE! (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, no. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Distributing copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright owner, whether you know you are doing it or not, is certainly copyright infringement (civil) and if certain thresholds are met it is also criminal. Ignorance may play a part in penalty or settlement.
The issue with P2P is not whether or not it is legal to download or redistribute the (copyrighted) files. That's simple, it isn't. There's a variety of issues, including the fact that the laws are unjust and counter-productive, the despicable RIAA tactics, the business model of RIAA and member companies, monopolies, and how the RIAA and music industry treat artists and consumers, to name but a few.
But there is a useful point hidden in your message. I've always wondered whether downloading a song is in fact illegal. Certainly making it available (distributing) is illegal, and that's about the only way the RIAA can catch you, by finding copyrighted songs available on your computer. I know the copyright laws talk about distribution, but I'm not clear on what they say about accepting illegally distributed copyrighted materials (consuming). Can they even really catch you downloading?
As far as I know, with P2P you can't see who is downloading unless they are downloading from you. So the only way the RIAA can see you downloading is if you download from one of their computers, which would either be legal (if they have the copyright to distribute the songs) or they'd be breaking the law themselves (distributing the songs without proper copyright authorization).
Re:LEAVE DOWNLOADERS ALONE! (Score:5, Interesting)
This conclusion doesn't follow. For example, if they identified a server, they could plop a court order on the ISP to set up observation, and collect all the "downloaders" that way.
C//
Re:LEAVE DOWNLOADERS ALONE! (Score:4, Insightful)
I never said that I, as a downloader, ignore the law. I said that the law must not be applicable to my actions in circumstances I mentioned previously and bellow.
It's like arresting me for possessing the money I found on the street, which was left by rubbers there when they were running away from cops. The court may insist I return money, but they cannot arrest me for the fact I picked them up.
Distributing copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright owner, whether you know you are doing it or not, is certainly copyright infringement (civil)
The content I found on the web has not been marked as copyrighted. Therefore i am not the person who broke the law. Whoever ORIGINALLY published the copyrighted materials is the one who broke the law.
If the court (or even RIAA) will notify me that I poses LEAKED copyrighted materials then of course I agree to remove such materials. But I did not do anything that should be punished.
Another practical point that is yet highlighted is that if RIAA wants me aware about copyrighteness of any content I download from Internet they have to make publicly and freely available some mechanism where I can check the content for legitimateness of being copied.
It can be a web site where I can upload the whole file (well, the bandwidth is not free anyway) or it's checksum.
Without such mechanism RIAA has no way to prove that I downloaded a copyrighted material knowing that it is copyrighted. And it THEIR job to prove it, not mine. Otherwise the whole constitution is just screwed up.
Re:LEAVE DOWNLOADERS ALONE! (Score:4, Interesting)
The content I found on the web has not been marked as copyrighted. Therefore i am not the person who broke the law. Whoever ORIGINALLY published the copyrighted materials is the one who broke the law.
It doesn't matter.
Distributing copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright owner, whether you know you are doing it or not, is certainly copyright infringement (civil)
It doesn't matter that there was no sign telling you that it was copyrighted, it still is. It doesn't matter that you don't know, you are still infringing on th copyright. Both you and whoever originally copied the work, are infringing on the copyright.
There is no such thing as "leaked" copyrighted materials. There is just plain copyright with no mitigating factors.
Don't believe you have the right to distribute any copyrighted material (i.e., any material that is not trivial) without the consent of the copyright holder, preferably in writing. (Usual disclaimers for fair use)
Frivolous... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Frivolous... (Score:5, Funny)
To better SERVE you???
possibility (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:possibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:possibility (Score:3, Insightful)
but it will kill some of the no-longed-needed players in the music industry
That's it exactly. Distributing audio on CD is archaic these days. Technology is making the world smaller and these guys are no longer needed and they know it. Thats why they have been fighting mp3 rather than embracing it. If mp3 or whatever codec (ogg :-) becomes the main legitimate way of distributing music they won't need 20% of the people that are currently in the industry and there won't be massive companies making obscene p
Re:possibility (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:possibility (Score:3, Interesting)
My letter to the local TV news (Score:5, Interesting)
Dear WCCO,
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,
Re:My letter to the local TV news (Score:5, Interesting)
There's nobody in media with clean hands in this mess...
RIAA Says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow what a good deed. They did a good deed by having that 12 year old's mom pay $2,000.00 too...why are they so mis-understood??!
I say we just give them what they want. Stop downloading...stop buying and find other sources of music. I buy CDs from cdbaby.com (I'm not affiliated in any way) from artists that are unsigned and have found a lot of good music. I also listen to a lot of local stuff and some of the smaller record companies that actually promote bootlegs and similar things. Like skunk records.
Simple tactic... (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't do it.
And even if I did do it, you couldn't prove it.
And even if you could prove it, I wouldn't admit it.
If you never confess, they'll never "know for sure" that you were guilty.
Re:Simple tactic... (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't do it
Nobody saw me do it
You can't prove anything.
So is 2k the going rate now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Couldn't you just argue that 2k is the going rate?
IANAL, so I don't know, but it sounds funs
The suit... (Score:3, Funny)
Wait a second, doesn't the RIAA assume everyone is guilty to begin with? I suppose you wouldn't really be incriminating yourself in the RIAA's eyes, just incriminating your self even more than you already were.
Still I agree, it's a bum deal anyway you look at at.
Re:The suit... (Score:3, Insightful)
And on another note, when they said "destroy hard copies" did they mean of your mp3s or your cds too? If it's the latter, sounds like a deliciously evil way to get MORE of your cash-money.
Long shot. (Score:3, Insightful)
Although it's quite obvious that RIAA's "offer" is full of shit, remind yourself that the burden will be on the plaintiff to prove their case. The only realistic chance of winning this case would be to come up with someone who did sign on RIAA's dotted line, but then got sued anyway. Has this happen to anyone, yet? Unless this happens, everything is mere speculation and hypothesis.
And what exactly are the plaintiffs' damages in this case anyway, to date? I can't figure this out.
The only way to hit RIAA where it hurts is to do absolutely nothing. They gotta be pulling these kinds of stunts out of desperation. Music sales are falling, and falling, and falling, and you're witnessing the last dying gasps of an obsolete dinosaur. You could argue whether or not the music sales are down because of piracy, or because contemporary mainstream music is shit that nobody wants to listen to, anyway. It doesn't matter. Whatever the reason is, so be it. Don't do anything that you're not doing already. And if you're not doing anything, keep on not doing anything. Whatever. Keep on going, keep on seeing music sales nosediving, until RIAA, and their ilk, are starved into non-existence.
Re:Long shot. (Score:3, Interesting)
Somebody in the earlier story (Tuesday I believe) about the RIAA settling for $2000 with the mother of the 12 year-old mentioned that perhaps the RIAA is suing these people not because they're major downloaders or share metric ass-loads of files, but because they are the only people they can track down. This lends some credibility to the "desperation" angle... perhaps they want people to step forward so they can go "AH HA! See, you were next o
RIAA summed up in a cartoon (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RIAA summed up in a cartoon (Score:3)
http://cosmo7.com/safety/safetyriaa.jpg
caus
Links to Legal Downloads at Kuro5hin (Score:5, Informative)
Thank you for your attention.
Re:Links to Legal Downloads at Kuro5hin (Score:5, Informative)
To quote the kuro5hin article:There are some screenshots [sourceforge.net] for you all to look at.
Re:Links to Legal Downloads at Kuro5hin (Score:4, Interesting)
iRATE is an interesting idea, but it needs a lot of work. It has a poor UI. You can't even jump to the middle of a song.
And most of the music sucks. I've found a few songs I've rated 10/10, but I rate most songs 0/10 or 2/10. And their playlist shuffle algorithm sucks. If you rate a song better than average, it will be repeated VERY often. It's played some songs that I rated 10/10 three times IN A ROW.
I would be curious to learn more about their server-side "matchmaker" algorithms. I looked at their Java code in Sourceforge and it is poorly organized. They don't use a SQL database backend. The entire catalog (tens of thousands of songs) are stored in XML and require O(n^2) algorithms for comparing each song.
Violation of law in Canada (Score:5, Informative)
I am rather surprised that this is allowed in the U.S., assuming the RIAA really isn't committing a criminal act there.
Re:Violation of law in Canada (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Violation of law in Canada (Score:3, Funny)
What, the RIAA thinks it's part of the government now?
Re:Violation of law in Canada (Score:5, Informative)
None of the suits involve Canadians and the Canadian Recording Industry Association, CRIA, says it has no plans to launch similar legal action here. [globeandmail.com]
Another quote to ease the minds of Canadians;
Canadian legal experts say similar suits would be harder to win here mainly because Canada's copyright law permits people to make copies of music for personal use. A levy is included in the price of CDs which is supposed to cover royalties for copying.
Plus your new $20 looks pretty damned ugly!
Re:Violation of law in Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
US case law says it is legal to make copies of music for personal use. The DMCA says it is illegal if there is any sort of copy protection. However, I am inclined to believe that case law preempts the DMCA in th
Re:Violation of law in Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that just highlights how stupid the whole idea is.
RICO defense? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which brings us one step closer to my idea. If there are any real lawyers here, could you please tell me why no one has bothered to attack the RIAA's charges using the Federal RICO Act? The RIAA and member organizations have engaged in a pattern of corrupt business practices for over 50 years, and are now using the law to intimidate individuals, companies, and universities to further their interests.
From my (admittedly limited) understanding of RICO, you must prove that the organization has engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, and is using illegal means, especially under cover of authority (court actions, copyright law, etc) to further their interests. Now, the ongoing illegal activity is really two-fold. That being, the RIAA's member companies have illegally maintained an effective distribution monopoly by engaging in anti-competitive acts, and have conspired to defraud consumers with a massive price-fixing scheme which caused consumers to be overcharged by more than $480 million (USD) since 1997 alone, according to the former head of the FTC. This scheme was labled "Minimum-Advertised Pricing", or MAP by the Attorneys General who investigated and eventually brought about a settlement. With regard to the anti-competitive acts, the RIAA and member companies have engaged in such practices as "payola", in which radio stations were paid money in order to ensure that music not controlled by the RIAA's members was never played, and therefore never heard by the public at large. Thus, their only competition, the independent artist/label, continues to struggle to get by, while the RIAA monopoly takes in billions each year.
So I ask again, why is it that no one has attacked the RIAA on RICO grounds. A corrupt organization cannot use the legal system to facilitate its illegal activities. The lack of legal online modes of music distribution is but more evidence of the RIAA's desperate struggle to maintain its distribution monopoly with an iron fist. It would seem to me that showing these lawsuits to be nothing more than tactics designed to further the interests of a corrupt organization is a far better defense than, "my client didn't know it was illegal".
Re:RICO defense? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RICO defense? (Score:4, Informative)
How about this [forbes.com] instead?
Do the artists pay attention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do the artists pay attention? (Score:5, Interesting)
As this "RIAA vs. Its Customers" drama plays out, expect to see more artists fall on either side of the "Do I really care about the music?" fence. It has been somewhat heart-wrenching for some fans (including myself) of Madonna, Metallica, and others, to see thier musical heroes betray them in such a way.
Zappa (Score:3, Interesting)
To answer your question of who might be willing... I don't know if anyone is willing today. For someone to have the "oomph" required, they would have to be a child of the RIAA and peo
"Amnesty" is essentially IMPOSSIBLE to enforce (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Amnesty" is essentially IMPOSSIBLE to enforce (Score:5, Informative)
What's impossible is for the RIAA to grant immunity from a criminal prosecution, only the government can do that. Just like a rape victim that tries to pull out of testifying at the trial, the government can still go forward with a prosecution even if the victim of the crime doesn't want to press the charges.
Right to sue (Score:4, Informative)
However that's telling me I can't sue them. The RIAA is (possibly pretending) to have you sign something so THEY won't sue you. Basically it's a legal document to restrain themselves under specific guidlines. Not for you to restain yourself other than by stopping your illegal activity.
It's perfectly reasonable for me to remove my own right to sue. That's my choice. I can deny myself free speech as well and censor everything I say. I can also deny myself a gun or any other number of things.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of what they're doing as far as "right to sue" but how they've worded their agreement and how they're selling their agreement appear to be the hot issue. And that's far more relavent anyway.
Ben
Holy Shit! (Score:4, Funny)
Cleanslate Links (not slashdotted yet) (Score:4, Informative)
Open letter to the RIAA (thoughts & points) (Score:5, Insightful)
What I cannot figure out is how they simply ignore what they are doing to their (ex)customers. Not only are they alienating their long time customers but they are also alienating the next generation of customers. Even if this entire p2p quagmire is eventually solved they will still have to deal with the monkey wrench they threw into their business dealings.
I think it's safe to say that they are past the point of no return. They feel that they are losing too much to give a damn so they are rolling the dice on their scare tactics. The music industry as it was has ceast to exist. It's just an old horse that refuses to die but will eventually meet it's fate whether it wants to or not.
I think the music industry will survive but in another form and in a much smaller way. No longer will they be able to push certain artists on a consistent basis while ignoring the majority. If they actually listened to what their (ex)customers are saying then they would be completely enlightened to what's wanted in this day and age.
1)9.99 and under pricing
2)Under
3)The ability to transfer whatever you download to any device at anytime without fear of being called a criminal and sued to financial ruin
4)The ability to pay a fair fee for unlimited downloads of different music catalogs
5)To have the RIAA and the companies it represents actually listen to consumers and what they want instead of trying to sue them into being customers.
6)A written guarantee and promise to keep cd pricing low with no future collusion/price fixing. Cd's and their future derivatives must stay below $9.99 unless it is independently studied and verified that a newer standard costs more.
7)A Major FUCKING apology to those who were made an example of and possibly some form of restitution to those who's lives were seriously impacted.
That's fair and that's not a mountain to overcome.
To sum it up....
If the RIAA is to stay in business then they can either listen and come to the table and work with the consumer or the RIAA can continue to thumb their nose at all of us and ignore what we want. If they choose to ignore then they will never be able to recoup their loses and we are the ones who can control that.
So RIAA whatcha gonna do?
Obligtory AYBABTU Reference (Score:5, Funny)
War was beginning
Teenager1: What happen?
Teenager2: Somebody set up us the P2P sniffer.
Teenager3: We get e-mail.
Teenager1: What!
Teenager3: Main mail client turn on.
RIAA: How are you gentlemen!
RIAA: All your MP3 are belong to us.
RIAA: You are on the way to bankruptcy.
Teenager1: What you say!
RIAA: You have no chance to pay us make your time.
RIAA: HA HA HA HA
Teenager1: Take off every share!
Teenager2: You know what you doing.
Teenager1: Move share.
Teenager1: For great lawsuit.
Music and the music industry... (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember MP3.Com (Score:4, Informative)
Back in the old Days ! (Score:4, Funny)
Why steal MP3's? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps a stupid question... (Score:5, Interesting)
OK. So I download an album from the internet that I Do Not Own. It is horrible and illegal and for this I will burn in hell, etc. etc. etc. Now, the argument behind this, supposedly, is that I have not paid for and asserted ownership over the material, and (presumably) the RIAA/Artist/ASCAP hasn't received any money. And they're not happy. And thus I am infringing and rightly in the Wrong.
Say I acquire the CD. I buy it used, even (heaven forbid) at a garage sale. I pay $1.99 for it.
I realize that now I am "allowed" to have these MP3s, and to do with them whatever I please...perhaps I will rub them all over myself gleefully. But *why* exactly? I understand the first sale doctrine and how it works, but I still haven't enriched anybody. My owning the CD certainly hasn't contributed to the flow of royalties. Presumably the original owner no longer has a copy, so this is all kosher, but it's still an odd way to thing about conferring "rights to have." No royalties have entered the chain, but suddenly I'm immune and (more importantly) an Honest, Moral Being.
As at least 70% of my CD collection is secondhand at this point, it's fascinating to think that while I certainly don't contribute to anybody's revenue flow by downloading albums, I *still* don't tend to profit the artist/record co/etc. if I do indeed deem something worthy of my all-purchasing eye.
Again, just a thought/musing/whathaveya.
Re:Perhaps a stupid question... (Score:4, Funny)
You might catch something!
Support the EFF (or RIAA victims) and look good (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just as sick of this RIAA nonsense as the rest of you. Here's what I'm doing about it. I had this idea for a t-shirt, and I decided it would be coolest to just put it up on Cafepress and donate the profits to the EFF. So that's what I did. [cafepress.com]
The shirt is based on the real pirate Bartholomew Roberts' -- aka Black Bart -- flag (one of them), which originally had the letters ABH (a Barbadian's head) and AMH (a Martinican's head) on it. He didn't like those places much, since he was wanted for piracy there, much more aggressively than anywhere else.
I should make it clear that I'm not affiliated with the EFF in any way. I'll just be donating ALL the profits ($5 per item, except for the stickers and mousepad, which generate $2.50 profit) to the EFF as I get checks from Cafepress (in $50 increments, is what they say). No, there's no accountability -- you'll simply have to trust me. I'm just a geek trying to do something good.
In the case of someone getting sued that I feel really got screwed (like Brianna LaHara [slashdot.org]), I'll be donating the money directly to their paypal recovery fund (assuming they have one) instead of the EFF. As soon as my Cafepress account shows some sales, I'll post the progress on my website [rootrecords.org], with full disclosure (# of sales, total profits, where they went).
Feel free to post your opinion if you think I'm being too naive -- I'll get screwed by taxes for not filling out some form or something -- but I trust you'll do that anyway
Genuine? Ha... (Score:5, Insightful)
If that doesn't flag their intentions clearly, I don't know what will.
Re:Genuine? Ha... (Score:3, Interesting)
1) It could be a trap. I can't underestimate the incredibly bad PR that follow, should the RIAA promise amnesty to someone, and then a member company turns around and sues them, or the government prosecutes them.
2) It could be a genuine offer, only poorly thought out. This is what I wondered about in my parent post, for which I certainly didn't expect to get a "flamebait" mod.
3) It could be a purposely half-assed effort to garner good PR, with n
Re:Genuine? Ha... (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty much all the mainsteam press I've read (CNN was the latest) seems to be reporting that, yes, the lawsuits are going to rub consumers the wrong way. But they also said that the image of the recording industry is so low they almost can't do themselves any more damage even by alienating peop
Re:Tough call (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it's being cynical to think it was a trap. What has the RIAA done, either for its customers, or for its artists, that would earn them the benefit of the doubt?
Re:Tough call (Score:5, Funny)
I hope this and other similar suits bring the RIAA down. I don't support bootlegging software or content, but neither do I support terrorism.
Re:Tough call (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish people would stop throwing the word around. You used to be a Nazi or a Communist if somebody didn't like you. Now you are a Terrorist.
Re:Tough call (Score:3, Informative)
This wont bring the RIAA down (though I'm sure it will help). What will bring the RIAA down is consumers switching to new distribution channels, such as collaborative filtering [sourceforge.net], that cut out the RIAA on all levels.
People shouldn't download stuff that was produced by RIAA artists, that just means they are still listening to RIAA music (yes I know that there are some
Re:Tough call (Score:3, Insightful)
So which is it going to be? Is it a crank suit or not? Is the wording of the "amnesty" indeed a trick?
Re:Tough call (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was genuine, then it must have been unbelievably badly thought-through.
A reasonably smart lawyer, instructed by a client who genuinely wants to make a straightforward deal, should not have difficulty finding a way to draft a fairly simple document with enforceable and useful promises by the alleged copier for not copying, and for amnesty by the RIAA coupled with assurance that the RIAA is acting as
Re:Tough call (Score:3, Interesting)
It's easy to be cynical and think that the RIAA's offer was just a trap, but what if it were genuine ?
The RIAA's offer does not even preclude it's own members from suing the people who apply for the so-called amnesty. C'mon, this is an organization that is shaking down a 12-year-old girl in the projects for $2,000 because she is a *major* dealer in *illicit* music. Don't give them any more credit than they are due -- which is none.
Disclaimer: I don't do p2p. I don't have any illegal or possibly infr
Re:Tough call (Score:3, Informative)
Off the top of my head (and I am a guy that doesn't often deal with evidence and civil procedure. So, your mileage may differ)
1)
It isn't a settlement contract. You are not giving any consideration (one of the 3 main elements of a contract). You are just promising to refrain from an illegal action. Refraining from illegal acts isn't consideration, it is a pre-existing duty. So, no contract.
2)
It is an admission against interest (
Re:Tough call (Score:3, Interesting)
Worse yet, they're the one giving no consideration. It's a settlement with somebody to whom you owe nothing to. It's impossible to share a music file that the RIAA owns the copyright to, the orginazation
Re:Screw amnesty. (Score:3, Funny)
..and Railroad Tycoon, and Civilization and..
Re:Screw amnesty. (Score:4, Funny)
The bartender say, "Sir, did you know you have a steering wheel down the front of your pants?"
And the pirate says, "Yarr, it's driving me nuts!"
Re: Try Again (Score:4, Informative)
> Merely free of procescution from the RIAA.
From the article:
"The RIAA's legal document does not even prevent RIAA members from suing."
Re: Try Again (Score:3, Insightful)
If their amnesty program doesn't include their own members, how is that not deceptive?
Re:Try again (Score:3, Informative)
It is against the law to decieve people for your own gain. It's fraud at worst and false advertisement at least.
The plaintiffs contend that the RIAA is not providing legal amnesty, and thus saying something and doing something legally different. Lying.
Re:Try again (Score:5, Informative)
You've never heard of "lying by omision" or a "lie of omission"?
In many, many, circumstances omitting important information is a crime.
At any rate, the plaintiff does have a valid argument, if they go in the direction that the RIAA's intent was to mislead. The strength or validity of this argument is up to the courts to decide.
Re:Try again (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Try again (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a legal term for this sort of deceptive practice, but beings how IANAL I can't remember what it is.
Re:Try again (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to anybody prosecuted for false advertising. Or any manner of con artists.
"The RIAA isn't lying. They won't press charges."
Sez them. However, I don't see that in writing, at least not without a signature with some weight behind it.
"In this case they simply don't spell out that other owners of the IP can press charges."
The RIAA members are the people who own the IP. If they are dues-paying members of the orgainziation, then it is reasonable to assume that the organization they are a part of speaks for them, especially when they are obliged to follow other membership regulations.
Or are the US steel tariff's magicly OK because, while the WTO has ruled against them, the US (a member of the organization) is free to ignore them at its liesure without fear of recrimination?
"Law enforcment does this type of thing all the time."
No, they do it once. And then they find that all of the local defense attorneys stonewall them, and suddenly it's much more difficult to prosecute just about any crime as plea bargaining becomes a thing of the past.
"It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It's perfectly legal and there's no reason it shouldn't be."
No, in many states it would be considered breach of contract, which is (and should) be illegal.
Try California Civil Code secs. 1709, 1710, 1711 (Score:5, Interesting)
Omission of information may or may not be a "crime" (which is not the issue here, but may be an issue for another day). However, ommission of information (i.e., the willful suppression or failure to disclose a relevant fact) can give rise to civil action for fraud or willful misrepresentation.
California Civil Code sec. 1709 provides:
See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1709 [ca.gov].
Most importantly, section 1710 of the California Civil Code provides:
See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1710 [ca.gov]. (emphasis added)
Finally, section 1711 of the California Civil Code provides:
See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1711 [ca.gov]
Without reading the compalint (which to my knowledge is not yet available), my guess is the plaintiff alleges that the RIAA amnesty program amounts to a deceptive and fraudulent business practice because it suppresses or fails to disclose certain relevant facts (e.g., that the person seeking amnesty can still be sued by others and is still subject to criminal prosecution) while giving "information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact." See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1710(3). The complaint may cite more specific unfair business practices statutes, which are found in the Business and Professions Code, but the basic principal is the same.
Re:Try again (Score:5, Informative)
You're right, and this is why in general you should never reveal any information that incriminates yourself without advice from a lawyer. If anyone ever presses you into admitting guilt, something is awry.
Reminds me of a recent experience one of my friends had. Police had found some pot in his dorm room, and a cop asked my friend, "off the record, why is a good guy like you involved in drugs? just between you and me buddy". My friend revealed too much information (i.e. admission of ownership) at this point, and he got in trouble for it. (Note: he's in Canada so he didn't get in any real trouble).
Admit nothing. With P2P I really don't even think sharing music files I own is illegal in the first place. The RIAA is pressing hard to impress on people a sense of guilt for wrongdoing; people are not necessarily guilty of breaking the law by using P2P apps.
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would blame your downturn, more on the decline of family values, than on music piracy. Music like that just isn't popular these days. If you want to be successful in the music business, you have to sell whatever obscenity filled, sex-charged, carbon-copy music the record execs are currently pimping.
Plus, there is considerable evidence to support Piracy helps music sales. After all, John and Jane Fileswapper usually don't
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As a record store owner. (Score:5, Funny)
I bought the store about 12 years ago. It was one of those boutique carriage stores that sell obscure, independent carriage models that no-one rides, not even the people that buy them. I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market. My store specialised in family carriages - stuff that the whole family could ride in.
GoAT (Score:4, Funny)
For those of you reading along, check this guy's info [slashdot.org]. Giant troll. If that's not enough to convince you, look at the home page: "http://slashdot.org/~trollback/".
Re:Assurances... (Score:5, Insightful)
A fair amount, actually. Especially if they're public (like this one) and include documentation (i.e. a signed declaration). Any competent lawyer could probably get the charges dismissed by showing that there was an implied contract between the RIAA and the repenter.
What if you have nothing to confess? (Score:4, Interesting)