Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Abandons Hacking Amendment
CJMClark writes "Looks like the RIAA has come to its senses (partially, at least). This update on Wired News apparently indicates that the RIAA has decided to back down from its earlier proposed amendment that would allow copyright owners to be absolved of responsibility for collateral damage due to hacking into an individual's PC to delete copyrighted files."
This has gotta be fictitious.
I'm glad they decided not to go forward. Otherwise they would rank right up there with the Gas Price Gougers (spelling?) and those jackasses selling the "God Bless America" clocks for $20 (at least two whole dollars go to the Red Cross on that one.)
~ now you know
From the Constitution of the United States of America:
---
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
---
In other words, under American law, people are not supposed to be punished for acts they have allegedly committed unless the state (not private bodies, including corporations) has shown in a court of law that a) they have actually committed those acts, and b) the proof of the act has been gathered and presented in accordance with the law.
There is a very good reason why almost half of the Bill of Rights deals with this issue.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
and it is way too cool
(from http://www.riaa.org/Protect-CDR.cfm)
If today belongs to the CD, tomorrow belongs to CD-Recordables (CD-R).
As more and more CD plants refuse to fill suspect orders, music pirates have been forced underground to burn their own CDs using CD-Recordables. Different technique--still illegal.
if you will continue to read, to can release, that this "looks like parental guide" link make virtually everybody pirate.
Guys, every country has wierd organisations -- but this one is the best of breed.
You have more than that!
You are allowed to copy music you bought, for personal use, as much as you want, onto any media you want!
The 'archival copy' stuff you are referring to is some common stated software ruling... has nothing to do with music.
You have the right to make copies of music you own however and whenever you want.
Distributing those copies may be illegal, however.
http://www.riaa.org/Music-Rules-2-FAQ.cfm
Boy, this is concise. What a bunch of c0ckbiters.
Q. Is it illegal to link to other sites that have unauthorized sound files, even if my own site doesn't offer any?
A. Liability for copyright infringement is not necessarily limited to the persons or entities who created (or encoded) the infringing sound file. In addition to being directly liable for infringing conduct occurring via the site, a linking site may be contributorily or vicariously liable for facilitating copyright infringement occurring at the sites to which it links. Contributory liability may be found where a person, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. A link site operator may be liable for contributory infringement by knowingly linking to infringing files. Vicarious liability may be imposed where an entity has the right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer and also receives a financial benefit from the infringing activities. Liability may be imposed even if the entity is unaware of the infringing activities. In the case of a linking site, providing direct access to infringing works may show a right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer and receiving revenue from banner ads may be evidence of a financial benefit.
"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."