Slashdot Mirror
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.
first, they drop the price of CDs. now they're offering amnesty.
somebody call satan to see if hell froze over.
Mike
For your viewing pleasure: A copy of a subpoena from the RIAA.
Tcd004
So, in order to buy amnesty from the RIAA, I have to sell them my identity? Sounds fair...
Legal extorsion. It's ridiculous what they're doing. $7500 per song? If a CD costs... $15... then they're just paying their bills with that $7500. I don't understand how they dont just get thrown out of courts. Blame it on media and an ignorant general public... blegh
..that they can finally have an even bigger list of people to sue in the end when they somehow find a way to say the amnesty was not a legally binding agreement. Ooooh I am rushing to sign up...
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.
I am not who I say you are.
At the end of the day, the manner in which the RIAA conducts business is legal, though obviously immoral. Willing copyright infringement is not. The RIAA has the funds, will, and know-how to pursue litigation against those that illegally obtains their goods. Those that have to defend themselves usually do not. What one has to ask themselves is:
1." Do two wrongs make a right?"
2. "Am I willing to participate in illegal and immoral activities?"
3. "If I am willing to engage in copyright infringement/theft, am I prepared to accept the possible consequences?"
4. "Is it all worth it?"
I remember when I was a freshmen in college, many people here on Slashdot were begging the RIAA to attack the individuals that were guilty of copyright infringement, and not the parties that provided the software and networks to make it possible. Now the RIAA is doing exactly that, and the good people at Slashdot continue to cry foul. What, pray tell, do you find an acceptable course of action for the RIAA? They are, at the end of the day, merely doing everything in their power to protect their property, their business, and their livelihood. This embrace of amnesty is an obvious last resort measure before they embark on a truly horrific campaign of litigation, a campaign that may ruin them - and they surely know it.
I must sound like a broken record by now, but I have to say what needs to be said (at the price of sounding pretentious and "holier than thou"). I don't infringe on the copyrights of others. I don't agree with how the RIAA conducts business, in fact, I find it appalling and believe that it does the art of music harm. However, my moral compass points away from acts of theft. The only plausible answer, for me, is to neither purchase RIAA goods, nor participate in copyright infringement. I wonder why this state of mind is so hard to grasp?
'have to send a completed, notarized amnesty form to the RIAA, with a copy of a photo ID.'
What? Didn't the "anonymous" subpeonas get anywhere?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The RIAA can't file and prosecute hundreds of thousands of lawsuits, but it sure as hell can send hundreds of thousands of threatening letters.
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?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
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?
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
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?
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.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
How about I keep doing what I want and the RIAA and its over priced crap can go to hell!
They can't sue everyone.
Someone had to say it.
Just because you can "share" copywritten materials doesn't mean that you are legally permitted to. The RIAA is completely right about this.
Disregarding whether filesharing leads to lower sales or whether the RIAA could support better artists or whether or not the RIAA is approaching this thing like total jackasses, the main thing to remember is that filesharers are violating the law.
It is foolhardy to think that you could flagrantly break a law and suffer no retribution.
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
It's a trick.
Get an axe.
My genitals, I mean surely you'll be devouring them soon, so why wait? If anyone knows a person thinking of signing up, slap them stupider and prevent them from doing so. As if the *AA would have any compunction about following up future indescretions and using the 'amnesty' as proof in court of previous illegal activities undertaken.
Does this cover all the naked pictures of Hilary Rosen on my hard drive too?
this is crazy - they should send us an amnesty form for the YEARS of overpriced CDs, heavily marketed lolliPOP junk, and their refusal to embrace technology in the fear of losing their oligopoly.
smd4985
F***. You.
That is all.
Maybe the costs of suing millions of people and the bad press finally hit them? Not to mention the ultra scary thought that a generation would grow up, become voters, and change the law.
they ask you to send them your computer along with your ID
Just because the RIAA promises not to sue you doesn't mean others (like the actual copyright holder?) can't.
Besides, where's the motivation for those who have stopped sharing and haven't been subpoenaed?
What's next? Who needs police with this new crime honor-system?!
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
-R
...how 'bout I give you the finger, and you give me my MP3s?
Hey RIAA, how about I offer you amnesty for being a historic scourge on civilization? Yeild now and we'll write the history books "The RIAA saw that technology had the potential to let anyone in the world listen to any audio that was ever recorded... They conceeded that this major boon to humanity far outweighed the convoluted legalism and propoganda they spewed in order to reap in unearned cash..."
or is it copyrighted too?
...bearing paperwork requiring your sig.
Isn't the point of this obvious?
They're building a database of known but "repented" filesharers, so they can "check up" on them later. Basically takes the busy work out of hunting down Kazaa users. (How many people will actually never pirate another song after this? Exactly. Now you've just made your copyright-infringing ass known to the RIAA. Nice one).
chdir("c:\\con\\con");
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).
No sig
Why must you pervert my mind with such horrific visuals!
to send a completed, notarized amnesty form to the RIAA, with a copy of a photo ID...
...Along with your social security number, credit card numbers, expiration date, checkbook, cell phone (not number, the physical phone), mother's maiden name, Slashdot username/password, and a copy of your SAT scores.
would you admit to something as bad as filesharing? i bet they just want to laugh when your files include scat porn (i swear, a friend was playing a joke on me!)
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
I think that even though this is a major step for the RIAA it does not completely solve the problem. Unless the RIAA finds some way to decide whether or not a certain music file is pirated or not they will have a hard time distinguishing your "legal" music from its illegal addons.
i dont think anyone is prepared to give up their complete collection of music, however large it may be, because of a few files that the RIAA suspect are pirated.
they crack me up sometimes.
Sorta like when the Colonists refused to pay insanely high taxes on tea and then threw it all into the Boston harbor?
<sarcasm> Heck Yeah, after all, it worked so well for all that SPAM I received. </sarcasm>
How many of you have
- access to a lawyer on retainer
- the money to pay for a laywer
- the legal skills yourself
to verify with absolute certainty that filling in this form is any less self-destructive than emailing RIAA lawyersor
or
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
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.
Ha. I'm not. Not because I think it isn't copyright infringement, or because I think its not stealing but copyright infringement, or even because I think stealing from a major corperation somehow doesn't violate any principles I should have, or because music is bad, or because record companies abusing musicians, or anything else:
I just don't feel like actually buying the stuff.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
Why do I share music? Because I want these networks to stay useful for other people, like myselves, who don't give a shit.
I don't think it's right. It isn't right. Any of the more reasonable above reasons are only be reasons why I don't care.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
the RIAA will not pursue legal action if infringers delete all unauthorized music files from their computers
How does the RIAA intend the verify this? It appears by giving them your name and address, you're giving them permission to come knocking on your door with a warrant?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
All I can say is "hilarious." I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Scared the cat...
The Recording Industry Assn. of America
There's a whole herd of assen cluttering up my boxen, that's for sure.
On a slightly less topical note, has anyone recently received a spam/troll email en titled "Legal Reminder from the RIAA", claiming to be from "D. Gephardt", and containing information supposedly written to an evil MP3 file sharer? I've seen several copies of this irksome post making the rounds, and can't decide whether it's legitimate RIAA FUD or trollish double-FUD. Mm, fear-uncertainty-doubt.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
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.
Whats this going to do? I'd rather wait until I get cought and say I was just about to delete everything, and that my Amnesty form is in the mail.
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
At least not for JUST having them. They sue people who make them available publically/widescale. Since I have never shared my MP3 files(and since I own the albums) I have zero fear of a letter from the RIAA. I'm only saying this because of the many responses by people who legally buy music, but prefer an MP3 format that seem to indicate they feel threatened by the actions of the RIAA. I'm offended that multi-national corporations are banding together to shape U.S. law, and to the U.S. civil courts as their personal criminal punishment system.(if you're not aware,the standards for proff in civil court are MUCH lower than for criminal court. That's why you're hearing about lawsuits, not criminal proscecution)
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.
RIAA: Sign this amnesty form certifying you will delete all unauthorized music files from your computer.
File sharer: How about instead I give you the finger and you sell CD's at reasonable prices.
Or how about when the fronteirsmen gave the smallpox infested blankets to the Native Americans? They got away with that one too.
Oh, and BTW, You're a cock.
I don't see anyone burning down HMVs or doing donuts in Columbia's parking lots.
a) Sharing RIAA music is helping spread RIAA music, and we don't want that.
b) Suing your own customers is the short path to bankruptcy. Knowing how the record companies treat their own customers, Mom may think twice about spending twenty bucks on that Britney CD little Tammy wants...
This is absolute proof that the record/music industry has the best drugs out there...and the RIAA people take them liberally! Seriously, they can't be serious about this can they? You send a notarized statement and a photo id? I don't think so! There's no way in hell I'm going to give the RIAA gestapo anything with my picture on it!
...but we all know that is just a legal innuendo for dropping your pants so they can notarize your butt with the big boot of "justice".
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. Their critics evidence is rather compelling as well. In light of this, they are approaching this issue as any large conglomerate would: fierce defense of their successful business model.
At the end of the day, the manner in which the RIAA conducts business is legal, though obviously immoral. Willing copyright infringement is not. The RIAA has the funds, will, and know-how to pursue litigation against those that illegally obtains their goods. Those that have to defend themselves usually do not. What one has to ask themselves is:
1." Do two wrongs make a right?"
2. "Am I willing to participate in illegal and immoral activities?"
3. "If I am willing to engage in copyright infringement/theft, am I prepared to accept the possible consequences?"
4. "Is it all worth it?"
I remember when I was a freshmen in college, many people here on Slashdot were begging the RIAA to attack the individuals that were guilty of copyright infringement, and not the parties that provided the software and networks to make it possible. Now the RIAA is doing exactly that, and the good people at Slashdot continue to cry foul. What, pray tell, do you find an acceptable course of action for the RIAA? They are, at the end of the day, merely doing everything in their power to protect their property, their business, and their livelihood. This embrace of amnesty is an obvious last resort measure before they embark on a truly horrific campaign of litigation, a campaign that may ruin them - and they surely know it.
I must sound like a broken record by now, but I have to say what needs to be said (at the price of sounding pretentious and "holier than thou"). I don't infringe on the copyrights of others. I don't agree with how the RIAA conducts business, in fact, I find it appalling and believe that it does the art of music harm. However, my moral compass points away from acts of theft. The only plausible answer, for me, is to neither purchase RIAA goods, nor participate in copyright infringement. I wonder why this state of mind is so hard to grasp?
Now, did I just steal your comment? Somebody tell me, what have I just done? Thank you.
Can you spell megalomania?
After all, they're just a corporation. It's the responsibility of the government to decide, if someone should be punished. There are courts for that.
Catching you guys is HARD. Please just turn yourselves in...pretty please?
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
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.
Who's to say that this isn't the RIAA's way of saying "Repent and yee shall be saved"... This in some twisted way makes sense for them. They are close to the straw that breaks the **AA back and instead of going the legal way about things and having to spend cash on lawyers to make cash on Joe Geek, they figure that a confession would both stop said file sharer from distributing more of their content and simultaneouslygive them a bargaining chip against Joe in-case he ever wanted to share content again to make him think twice.
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
other people, like myselves, who don't
above reasons are only be reasons why And so on.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
I truly hope not. Record companies serve a purpose: an organized and well funded entitiy that can find good talent, and advertise and distribute said talent, in order to benefit both the artist and the public. Not all record companies have to be as draconion and vile as those that the RIAA represent. There are record companies out there that are quite fair and moral, and there might even be more should the RIAA ever perish.
my fat hairy ass? I'll even get it notarized.
From the article: "The RIAA will not pursue legal action if infringers delete all unauthorized music files from their computers."
So their new plan is to make people "promise" to delete all of their questionable files voluntarily?
God, where was this tactic when my mom discovered my 7th-grade porn stash, huh?!
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.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
As opposed to 'unwilful' copyright infringment?
Let's look closer. You agree to remove all 'unauthorised' music files from all computers.
Firstly, I've never seen a music company 'authorise' a music file, except for Apple iTunes with its crappy DRM.
Secondly, according to Merriam Webster;
That's pretty broad. Just about anything that can play an mp3 or ogg qualifies.
By signing this, you are signing away your rights to possess _any_ mp3 or ogg files. Even if you own the CD.
You want to play that mp3 CDROM in your car stereo? Tough.
Wanna rip that new CD to mp3 so that you can play it on your {empeg | PC | iPod} ? No can do.
Wake up everybody - this is little more than a trap. I'm not totally sure whether they're after lawsuit revenue, or whether it's a scheme to ram DRM down our throats. But I am sure that those RIAA sum are up to no good. Again.
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.
The terms are used hand-in-hand and interchangeably because there is much debate over what exactly the unlawful aqcuisition of copyrighted material is. This is an old subject, read up, oh tiny minded one.
Can no one tell this is a spoof. Tomnorrow we'll all find out it originated on The Onion
[Notarization stamp of KISS MY ASS]
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
What a deal, you get "Amnesty" (as it is no doubt defined in 13 pages of double-incrinimating lawyerese) and they get a list of the first people to go after the next time something like P2P comes along.
The RIAA can't sue everyone and this seems like them running out of options. At the rate they are alienating customers and turning them into criminals in need of "Amnesty", they will be out of customers all-together.
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.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Is this for people that just plain feel guilty because of all the huffing and puffing the RIAA has done?
So you go ahead and do this, and you end up basically just like me except now the RIAA knows what you look like and where you live.
I haven't heard of anything more ridiculous since Mao's request for 100 flowers to bloom forth.
ôó
Yet lables do every day and nothing is done hhhmmm... I don't download music and have not purchased cd's all year but I'm an artist & I still say screw them!!!
I give you the finger,
_|_,
and you give me my Fair Use rights?
Today I was in Times Square. Went into the MTV store, and I decided I'd buy an MTV shot glass so I can symbolically drink to the death of crap culture...
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
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.
Let's see... we have you at a disadvantage in the following ways...
1. Our numbers are greater than yours
2. We have quickly-adapting sharing technology to thwart you (freenet is poised to become mainstream by 2004)
3. We have business needs that can be met by RIAA alternatives (from sharers, alt music sites)
4. An adhoc wifi network garden is being seeded as we speak that will allow us to share away from the global internet
And you are now delivering an ultimatum to us? You want me to report more of my private info to you to scrutinize?
You are on the edge of a cliff with your 2 big toes hanging onto the rock. Why should I not place a fan in your direction?
And furthermore, I hereby do solemly swear to never buy any CD legally or illegally produced by any artist sponsored by any RIAA member firm. I also swear to tell all and sundry of the arrogance and greed of the RIAA and prevent as many of my age group (18-32) from buying CD's from RIAA member companies.
P.S. Ill just copy songs onto tape from the radio.
At the bottom of this page you'll see:
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Great. That was informative.
Never look a gift horse in the mouth, that's what I always say. So here we go:
I officially admit to downloading music via Napster and KaZaA. Please don't prosecute me. Except, um, I kindly need you to make the exact same request to every one before me who has copied music in other formats, such as cassette tape, like Metallica did when they were in their formative years. Yes, that includes Lars. You see, if you target a select group of people for prosecution or investigation, as in digital downloaders, I'll have no choice but to file a discrimination complaint against you in federal court. Why you yourself, in past litigation, draw no lines between copyright infringement on different media. My pending suit can, of course, be forgiven if you'll send me a notarized letter admitting your guilt. Kisses, Johnny File Sharer.
Man, I just signed up for DSL!
The RIAA: The same people that told you Milli Vanilli deserved Grammy awards.
-=-This sig brought to you by The Cheat; and by Viewers Like You.-=-
Perceived weakness *is* weakness. Time to go for the jugular. Anybody thought about using www.riaa.com as an MP3 server and getting them to subpoena themselves?
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I think the best way to teach these money mongers a lesson is to boycott cds for a while. Well atleast that's what I am going to do. I am listning more and more to radios and Yahoo! launch. If more and more people do this the sale of CDS would go down. I am thinking of starting a movement for this. Anyone else with me?
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.
RIAA runs BSD =/
You know the RIAA's refusal to embrace new technology reminds me of the scene in blazing saddles with the toll booth..... only they actually expect everyone to line up and pay the toll when they have the option to ride around.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Ok, so the RIAA offers amnesty to these people after they issue the subpeonas, so they already know who the are so what's with the photo id thing.
The name on the subpeona could be grandma who pays the cable bill but never used a computer anyways, so how would her saying she won't do it anymore help the situation.. wouldn't they have to get the grandson in the family who actually does it?(ok, assume he's over 18 for arguments sake) ei, there's the rub.
Finally, what good does amnesty from RIAA do anyways, considering it's the individual labels doing the suing. It says nothing in the article about the members individually offering amnesty, although one could say it's implied, it's not specific and i would seriously be questioning such offers.
thank you, that is all.
Show your hate for SCO. Get a cool t-shirt and donate to the Open Source Now Fund.
Anybody got a photo of Jack Valenti that I can send in with my notarized letter?
Thanks in advance!
Shhh. Be quiet, or you'll spoil the surprise! Why ruin the RIAA's best joke on the American people yet!
and this one just BEGS for a copy of a license with goatse.cx in the photo square...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
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.
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.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
Dear RIAA, I kindly ask you to view my photoID here.
(Warning: Goatse.cx link)
Sorry... it was stronger than me >:(
The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
Which means we now have a full confession (which btw is notarized too) AND a photo id. Ouch. We gotcha.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
Why do I have to prove that I own my music? It is their responsability to prove that I don't own it. WTF?
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
Not even a mention of the amnesty...
Couldn't weave that into this troll so easily?
That's exactly what the British said (more or less) when Americans didn't want to pay taxes to them. Democracy is more important than petty little property laws.
Also, if I could suck my own cock, do you really think I'd be wasting my time at this keyboard? :P
As long as you provide them with all the information needed for criminal charges to be filed against you.
I'd laugh at the stupidity of this attempt, but then again I've been in IRC chat rooms and various message boards. So I realize they're bound to get some responses.
so the RIAA can just FUCK off.
If anyone actually has the the total absence of gray matter necessary to go through with this, boy have I got a deal for you! I just aquired some beachfront property on mars that begs consideration... LS
but that has GOT to be the supidest thing I've ever heard.
The problem with the RIAA is that nobody respects them anymore because they're always so rediculously out of touch with reality and culture.
Scary for an organization that is in control of modern music, which is at the core of our culture.
Stewey
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
then have fun with it. I'm looking for a nice picture of Santa right now. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are next on my list.
Assuming they go low-budget for the drones to do the data-entry, I want to find that list when it eventually gets posted, and see Santa Claus on there.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Oh yeah, I got it: the Culture Revolution in China. Look it up...
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Maybe we should offer them amnesty. Then again...
Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
There's no point in suing a poor kid, especially if he's not making a buck by sharing music (selfless act). It doesn't deter copying/sharing.
... whose occupation is to sue (or prevent suits that their peers concocted). They don't care if RIAA is getting a worse and worse reputation. They don't care if kids lives are ruined disproportionally due to the minor violation of filesharing (as opposed to the lack of attention devoted to the much more damaging white collar criminals that have destroyed countless lives, careers, and families). Heck, lawyers love it when file sharing goes on (more work for them and students tend to give in much more easily without putting up a fight). Simply put, lawyers earn money which ever way it goes in a lawsuit. They just have to start one.
... and believe me they are friends ... all cahoots with each other). Study up on the the dirty game called "the law" but don't rely on their lawyer's dirty services. Turn the law against them. If that doesn't work ... become an extremist. Remember, the lawyers actions are damning your life (lawyers know it but don't care) ... why not give them a taste of their own medicine ... send them to hell.
And ultimately, kids do it because it's exciting to have the latest music immediately and especially if they're poor and would not be normally able to afford it. Repeat, it does not discourage copying as college students have been sharing/copying digital products for almost 20 years.
The only reason, the RIAA is pushing so hard is because of the advice of lawyers. More specifically, the ever increasing greed of lawyers
This is only going to stop when citizens and students realize it's the damn lawyers are the ones pushing for (and telling their client, RIAA, to go ahead with) these suits. It took the citizens a while to figure out that rising medical and insurance costs was due to lawyers and their wild lawsuits. It took the citizens a while to figure out that goods and services cost more and are worth less because of the cost of lawsuits (well, actually nothing is being done about this).
This is only going to stop when we deminish the financial gain to lawyers for enacting lawsuits. We got to stop lawyers' much more damaging parasitic behavior NOW!
Fight those subpoenas. Fight them tooth and nail. Sue the lawyers for frivalous lawsuits. Represent yourself (no need to help their defendant lawyers friends earn money
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?
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Would be to send in someone else's name, address, photo id, etc., etc., to the RIAA, and then watch as the RIAA goes after that person relentlessly because he's "revealed" himself to them via the Amnesty form.
Sound like a great way to get back at someone you really dislike. Ex-Girlfriends beware!
It's kinda like the old days ane being labeled a communist by McCarthy, or being "outed" in the 70's...
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
How many forms they are going to get containing a very long list of pirated files, and a rather offensive picture of a man bending over...
Brilliant!
This sounds similar to the Salem Witch Trials and the House On American Activities acting against so-called communists in Hollywood. Perhaps the people who send in photos and personal information will be let off the hook... as long as they give the RIAA names of other file traders.
This guy. This $#!%^ guy.
At least read the post.
If this is true, I find it difficult to see how you can argue
The liver is evil and must be punished.
In some states criminal charges must be pursued by the victim, and the victim can choose not to press charges.
But in other states, the courts pursue ALL crimes, and any crime you have knowledge of must be reported.
"
Dear File Sharer,
We promised not to sue you for copyright violations, but in accordance with the laws of "where-ever" we turned in your name, ID, and notarized statement to the local athorities.
Good luck, and while we wish WE could have personally violated you, we're sure someone in prison will take care of that.
RIAA
"
Go live in China, and then tell me that it's okay when the will of the people is ignored.
I live in argentina, why should I pay for distribution costs. why i should pay the cd, cd case if i want music for my computer.
i dont have trouble paying direct to the artist for their work without the superflous costs.
i think thats the whole question.
PS1, in the 56k times i download a single, if i like the song, i download a seccond one, if i enjoy the seccond too, i get the album.
ps2, sorry for my english
\n.\n
Good luck getting that notarized.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
"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"
"most" being the damning word. So you've decided to officially announce to the world that you have MP3 files that you don't own the CD for?
(I guess you could claim to have bought them from a site, but those sites probably keep sales records to which the RIAA has full access)
Be sure to copyright them and attach an EULA for them to consider (or maybe you could license the confessions appropriately and say that they cant use them without agreeing to the license).
Ah, such potential...
Hurry up and die already, we're getting tired of hearing your crap. Thx
puhleeze
there's no place like ~
How would you like to suck my balls!
Seriously, come to my home, suck my balls on national TV and i'll delete all my mp3s from my machine.
No jokes, i'm serious, even the ones i already own on CDs, so you guys can feel safe and secure.
Next i'll pay you guys 50$ if you can get up a woman's uterus for more than 6 hours. I'm absolutely being serious as hell.
If your band sucks so much ass that between the four of you losers you can't scrape together 5 grand for a recording session, you shouldn't be recording at all.
Why is my penis brown you may ask? Well because I *finally* managed to bend my stiff one around to the back side and slid it up my own ass!!
Talk about cumbubble farts.....
at least not for anyone with the p2p nickname "RedPonyTail" :)
...
So lemme get this straight...you've never heard of me, but I'm supposed to send you my identity and believe you won't find some way to screw me? Suuuuuure. Kind of like the old opt-out email list. We won't sell your name now that you've proven this email address is live...nooooo.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Alright, why does that fact that you encode your songs in a format such as ogg vorbis make it important enough to mention? Let me guess, MP3 is the evil creator like Windows and ogg vorbis is the free and open clone savior, like Linux. This shit makes me sick. Who gives a rat's ass?Obviously enough, you do.
Here's a little suggestion for a little mind: Don't assume.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
....when the time comes. You're a willing theif with no honor, and I hope that the RIAA makes an example of you. Your fluent comprehension of ignorance is what makes the RIAA's case stronger. You are hurting the cause, not helping, you dumb tea-bagging fuck.
Sadly, I think that this may be on-topic... somehow.
I could see SCO offering an "amnesty" program: Delete all copies of Linux that you have and promise that you won't ever violate SCO's copyright again, and they won't sue you.
Now I understand the real reason why Microsoft is supporting SCO by buying their licenses.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
Does this cover all the naked pictures of Hilary Rosen on my hard drive too?
You have been punished enough already.
Civil rights for minorities happened because lots of people supported. Democracy at its best -- the black civil rights movement convinced so many people of the justness of their cause that the laws were changed. Democracy supported civil rights movement.
The RIAA, on the other hand, is only supported by a small minority of rich businessman and the fascists who support their anti-democratic enforcement of a copyright system that most Americans don't believe in. Democracy does not support the RIAA.
As for Nazi Germany, it was a dictatorship by the time Germany started making bad trouble. As a democracy, Germany was quite benign.
If everyone stopped buying their overpriced CDs, stopped fileswapping and started listening to digital radio what would happen to the RIAA?
Would they still moan and groan?
At this stage in the game I haven't bought a new CD in years and I listen to the stuff I currently have. I get digital cable and the music through that is excellent quality. Digital radio is catching on and will soon replace radio. Why do we need CDs?
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
How 'bout we give you amnesty if you, collectively and individually, admit to illegal price fixing, and actually give us our money back?
Did anyone sign up 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?
I'm sending a notarized photocopy of a picture of my oversized white whale to the RIAA right now!
That they do want they cake and to eat it too. They want grossly high profit margins with little (to them) work.
File sharing attacks the basic premise that music should be *expensive*. And that you really do need to buy "their" music. I typically do not download most music.
Why does the RIAA actually think that I should spend the *same* amount of money for CD or *more* for something that is incredibly cheaper for them?
They are not the ones that made the MP3s (even though I rip my personal CDs to Vorbis Ogg.) They aren't paying for the infrastructure to distribute it, the consumers are. They are not paying for my media, if I decide to mix a compilation of music.
Until I can buy, online, music for about a dollar or two for a CD of music, I won't be buying anything online. That's not just to listen to it for a "day" or even a "week" but for however long I want to. I don't listen to a lot of the music that I have on my computer as is. There's too many albums.
I read an article the other day. *Rent* a movie over the internet (and download it) for about the same price as you can from your local store. And it "self-destructs" after just twenty-four hours. Why the heck would I want to download something when I can go to a local store and keep it for five days and it's more consumer friendly?
What a bunch of morons. Provide a *better* service for *cheaper*, and you'll be drowning in customers.
But they are too stuck on their monopolistic practices. Right now, DVDs and CDs are mostly too high for me to buy regularly (though I did buy a used copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.)
I don't think I'm the only one with liquid cash issues. That might be why people are into arguably-illegal downloading. If they could get their fix of the internet *and* buy their items, most people would.
It causes much less stress.
But they'd rather sue (and alienate) their customers. Real smart! Pretty soon, people will find alternate, legal downloads *just* to spite you.
Arthur Hansen
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
They want everyone on some sick file database so they can target them for future annihilation.
Anyone who falls for this is stupid. It's a trick. You'll wind up on some forgotten orbital platform mining dilithium!
The acceptable course of action for the RIAA and their constituency is to adapt or die and to do either one quietly. That's all I've ever wanted from them.
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!
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
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?
And bury them in the paperwork. Especially if all 170 million files traders participate.
Okay, you know it's getting scary when an association has so much power that they can do something like this. Since when did they become a branch of the US government. I don't know about everyone else here, but to me, some of RIAA's practices are looking illegal. Whatever happened to the good ol' American judicial infrastructure?
It was Friday, 5 Sept - 8:30 AM. It's not 8:30 AM anywhere that the RIAA has "jurisdiction."
...I send a photocopy of my butt?
RIAA
/.ers like more.
M$
SCO
I don't know who
freenet is built to allow plausible deniability some i think
wtf?
Are you trying to say that giving away someone else's property is WRONG? What about the hundreds of zillions of people who don't think it is????
I have an MP3 player, and I VOTE! (or will when I'm old enough to).
:)
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
"... who have not been sued by the music industry trade group .."
Sounds to me like this isn't a get-out-of-jail free thing, its a punish-yourself-before-we-sue-you thing. So in reality, doesn't this have no point? No need to send RIAA your personal info if you stopped filesharing. Only case it would help in is if RIAA had infomation they were gonna sue you with, but hadn't yet.
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.
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - G.B. Shaw
Oh yeah, that's still factored into the balance sheets governing the RIAA sanctioned distribution channels.
I figure that covers whatever potential losses I incur them when I pirate a song or two from one of their representative labels that I don't already own.
So they can go suck my fucking nuts.
OTH, if it was a song from a band struggling on CDBaby.com or some shit, I'd feel pretty bad about it unless they gave express permission to distribute.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
Just download it from formster.
Or FormZAA, FormTrack, GNUForm, FreeForm, Forcleus or Form Donkey.
Each infringing household member will have to send a completed, notarized amnesty form to the RIAA, with a copy of a photo ID
Given that my kids (under 18's) d/l far more music than I might (and I expect it is that way in a LOT of households), let me just say:
Are you nuts? Stark raving mad? Several fries short of a Happy Meal?
Even if I was buying into this completely, and was ready to send in my notarized form, there is no possible way these criminals would get my kids info. No way, no how.
The only possible explanation is, these people are psychotic. Or maybe pod people. They sure aren't human anymore.
The RIAA wants to pay for each copy of music that you own!!!!
This is absolute bullshit... in the digital age you are buying the RIGHT to listen to the music, not the medium. You should have the absolute right to transfer that to you MP3 player, you computer, your tivo, whatever the sam hell you want to do... but read the RIAA's on material and you will see that they want money for every COPY that you have, weither or not you bought the CD or NOT!
I must say, it's a sad day when the FUNNY comments outweight the intelligent and insightfull ones, especially on an issue of this importance. But I guess that's how the RIAA ended up in the position it now holds. People continue to laugh and joke about situations and don't really do anything to stop it. Yes, I'm sure it will be really amusing when the RIAA raids your squalor. Then everyone will know that you really do listen to Madonna.
Can't they treat file sharing like Radio (maybe Radio on demand)?
Afterall, mp3 audio quality is about there as FM modulated audio, plus before they started crackign down on Napster, i rememebr their sales went up sharply because people could better sample music...
Plus, isn't burning CD about the same as sticking a tape into a radio and recording off the airwaves?
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Here's my picture. My name is John Smith, and I live on Main St. in Smallville, USA.
Most Slashdot readers should remember about the college students being sued only a few months ago by the RIAA/ 131125 5&tid=123; linked here is one for Jesse Jordan.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/09
IANAL, but I'm sure these guys are p****ed about this news. Sure, most (if not all) the money was recovered through donations and Paypal but I'm sure they would rather have instead signed a document w/ their photo id instead. Beats the hell out of forfeiting life savings, having your credit ruined and risk dropping out of school for lack of funds.
In light of this news, I will remember the RIAA when I next go shopping for CD. I'm sure all my choices will be artists who aren't with the big labels. I'd encourage everyone to shop for CD's from smaller labels as well.
This is yet another example of the new "economy of fear". Let's scare the populace into paying us or giving us the ammunition we need to shoot them.
Even if I wa sstupid enought to share files I am not stupid enough to send in a copy of my identification to anyone as security challenged as the RIAA. More bad iedas from bad people.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
There is a big difference between theft and trading music. First, theft involves the taking of physical media, denying another person the use of it. Contrarily, in the trading of music, no one is denied access to any physical object. Further, you cannot even argue that the music industry is hurt directly as there is no way to tell whether someone would have paid money, or if they were just trying it because it was free. Second, trading music is different from piracy. Piracy involves getting money for selling copyrighted work you do not have permission to. Once again, this involves the exchange of physical media, and illegal profiting on account of the pirates. However, file sharing involves no such profiting. No money exchanges hands.
Quite frankly, there is legal precident for piracy not being the same as "stealing." I think it was posted on slashdot a while back that there was a case involving a person selling Elvis albums, and the judge determined that it was not stealing, but merely "infringement." File sharing is even more so, as there is no profit.
Finally, I consider file sharing to be part of academic perusal. For the most part, songs are not shared, but only "quotes" from songs. Note that lossy compression is in principle the same as quotation -- sharing only the important parts.
I think a jury would side with me. Remember, in the US the jury has the right to ignore the law if they feel the defendent is justified in what they did. I think it is much more likely that jurors will be freindly towards file sharing. I think I could handle the trial without so much as a lawyer.
Maybe we can get the law to charge them with pedophile charges. There has to be a law against collecting millions of photo ID's of teenagers and under age individuals.
that's all I have to say on the subject.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
great, cd's are down to 13 bucks. That's funny cuz i remember when Best Buy came out about 10 years ago they were selling cd's for 11 dollars. I'm sure manufacturing techniques for CD's have declined since then, so 15 bucks for a CD is perfectly fair, right?
:))
And what, it's 4 years after Napster went down now? And they've given us.........nothing. Nothing online at all that is worth a damn that I've heard of, anyway. ITunes? A buck for a freakin mp3!? Lol. That comes out after some advanced math to average more per CD than if you just buy it.
From where i'm sitting the RIAA is a bunch of antiquated, lazy, greedy, litigous old men who'd rather reap the profits of the status quo than get with modern times. And they can fsck themselves and die, as far as I'm concerned. If it takes some piracy on my part to get that done, well, I'll sacrifice for the cause
Fuck them. The RIAA represents the absolute antithesis of everything that the hacker philosophy stands for. I believe in an internet of no laws. I do not respect security through legislation. I do not respect profit through litigation. I do not respect anyone's "right" to tell me how my computer may behave. If you want a secure system, you had better write one. If you want a profitable distribution mechanism you'd better create it without relying on the federal government to enforce it for you. I have seen the internet slide from a jungle of pure information anarchy into a playground for MTV execs and their pretty little manufactured popup ads. I don't want their music videos. I don't want their merchandise. I don't want to know what Brittney Spears thinks of politics. I don't want their goddamn commercials. The only true justice that the internet needs is freedom of association. If you don't want to interact with someone, you should firewall them out. The internet is where speech lives....where words grow into more than mere syllables, into action. I believe in the right of any autonomous human being to produce any combination of 1's and 0's they goddamn please. If that information happens to be your "trade secrets" or "intellectual property," then too fucking bad. You shouldn't have put them in a situation such that they could get onto the internet. The internet, the world of information exists outside of all boundaries and laws. Here governments and laws only serve to protect the stupid ones who have more informational wealth than they can protect. On the internet, laws are irrelevant: if you're not smart enough to protect yourself you don't deserve protection. On the internet, governments are irrelevant: the only security and authority I need is my own mind. On the internet, the largest and most efficient information sharing network in the history of humanity, a hoarde of dim-witted barbarians who want the rest of the world to pay them for their shitty, manufactured pop and monopolistic, monolithic hard copy music cartel so some of them can enjoy a life of priviledge is not just irrelevant....it is dangerous. I don't give a fuck about the law. I don't give a fuck about the governmeent. I don't give a fuck about what the RIAA THINKS it owns. On the internet, it's the law of the jungle. No one will ever control it. Information anarchy will strangle the opponents of absolute liberty. Movies, music and software will be pirated. Trade secrets will be ripped open for the whole world to see. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how it's going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and I'm going to show these people what you don't want the to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries, a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave up to you.
So what are you saying? That we should just ditch copyright and have a literal free-for-all? Personally, I think that creative people deserve to be paid for their work, which is exactly why downloading copyrighted music is unethical. Free IP is fine and dandy, so long as it's given voluntarily by the copyright owner.
The speed limit is mostly unenforceable and "contrary to the norms of human psychology" too. But as someone who travels daily in very heavy, fast-moving traffic, I can assure you that repealing the speed limit laws (at least in populated areas) would be a very bad idea. On a highway where the limit is 65mph, many people drive 75 and a few do 85.
You don't have to prosecute every instance, or even most instances, of an infraction to moderate the general public's behavior. Evidence of this is that almost nobody does 100 or 120, and I get home each night in one piece.
The RIAA does indeed suck, but it's mainly because they're greedy bastards trying to hand out punishments that don't fit the crime. Their fundamental point is legitimate, and I'd support them more if they were looking for $50/violation instead of $50,000 or $150,000.
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.
Before I begin, would like to encourage discussion on this post as long as it is constructive. That means no bashing from either side of the debate. I have seen a lot of attacks on persons instead of facts. This is not the way to actually morally resolve an issue.
I say 'morally resolve', because I believe that the public is rather undecided about this matter. We all want our free music, but we know that taking something for free that is supposed to be for sale is called stealing.
So, I am going to present my thoughts about both sides, since I am one of those undecided members of the public community.
First, for the RIAA:
1. What they are selling is the right to listen to the music, not the actual data that defines the music.
Therefore, if you have not bought the right to listen to it, having the data on your personal computer is a pretty good clue that you are acting illegaly.
2. The artists who write / perform and ultimately sell their music depend on it for a living (duh). Their music is (mostly) sold via CD.
The CD is a container for their data, which we have bought _the right to listen to_.
So... if you haven't bought the CD personally, you do not have the legal right to own the mp3 ripped from that CD.
Now, for the public:
(Number 1 is the most convincing point in my mind, as I tend to lean on the side of the people)
1. If I don't have the right to hear the music, why can I legally listen to it when I go to a friend's house, or when I borrow their CD, etc.? How is hearing it on a friend's borrowed CD different from hearing it from my computer's speakers via mp3?
2. Some songs I download and listen to will convince me to buy the CD, even if I wasn't going to before. (This is why I think the sales of CDs have not been inversely proportional to the amount of file-sharing traffic on a whole).
Again, please... I would like to hear some rational, calm, intelligent discussion on this topic.
The power of Christ compiles you.
A Random Blog
I'm sorry, but I just don't care. If you are sharing or unlawfully receiving music manufactured by RIAA member companies, you are breaking the law and their "terms of service". If you want the latest Britney Spears or Linkin Park songs, they sell them to you on a shiny disc for $16-$20. If you don't accept that transaction offered to you by those merchants, then you don't get to have those songs. What is so hard to understand about that?
You can justify your actions all you like, but at the end of the day, you are in possession of a merchant's product for which you did not pay. It doesn't matter if you think the price is too high, that the merchant is unethical, or that you should be able to download this product. That's not how this product is offered. If you do not like the RIAA and its component companies, go without the latest manufactured pop. If you steal^h^h^h^h^h "copyright infringe" 12 Madonna songs, you deserve the punishment you will receive if you are caught. I don't think the RIAA should even bother with this bogus amnesty. People who break the law should be punished.
For the record, I am not being a hypocrit here. I haven't bought an RIAA controlled CD since 1996. Rather than steal^h^h^h^h^hinfringe what I refuse to buy, I purchase music from artists who appreciate their fans. For my most recent purchase, the website of the artist has this to say about the sale:
I would appreciate it if you'd copy it and share with your friends. High quality MP3s will be included on the CD if you'd like to send them around.
Now that's an artist who understands his customers, and who deserves your music dollars.
So if you are soaking your cable modem line by letting people download the new Nelly album, I hope you go to jail. These thieves^h^h^h^h^h^h^hinfringers don't deserve any pity from me or the RIAA.
"Never under estimate the bandwidth of a stationwagon full of CDr's" Quote stolen and modified from said article.
I can't cite you any laws, but I'm thinking that most judges are going to rule that putting files up on a network so that other people can copy them is distribution. Those files may be your personal resources but you do not have the right to distribute them. Isn't that precisely the point of copyright?
Oh, don't get me wrong, I hate the RIAA members as much as the next guy, and I've been boycotting CD's for at least 2 years now mostly because I feel they are ripping off the artists and abusing a distribution monopoly, but I'm pretty sure that sharing your files is a violation of copyright. I can't think of any non-infringing use for shareing copyrighted work over a P2P system without the permission of the copyright holder.
The one arguement that I would like to make, but I'm sure a judge would laugh at it too, is that when I buy blank CD-Rs, I have to pay a fee that goes to the RIAA to compensate them for losses due to infringement. If I'm paying them for infringement, shouldn't I get something for it?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Would this have anything to do with the lawsuit that is pending against the RIAA by an anonymous college student who was said to be a trader? Link to Slashdot Storey
What's the current statistics on their subpoena frequency? I think it's 75 a day. What is the RIAA going to gain? Sue users 7,500$ which they don't obviously have (were talking mostly college students here) who will file bankruptcy and RIAA won't collect a dime... but have to pay their lawyers 250$ an hour. Oh, and the bad puclicity to boot.
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
But if they're going to do screwy things, then so am I.
I can imagine an accountant, at some time, had figured trading of digital media could probably be modeled/accounted for in one of their old variable expenses they dropped when the industry switched practices. I know a few, and it's common sense.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
was that as part of the agreement, you have to hang this poster on your wall.
First of all, why does someone with such a wit as this not have a persistent account on Slashdot? Oh wait ... that question almost answers itself, doesn't it?
/. enjoyment factor tremendously.
(Take Two:)
First of all, please set up a persistent account. Tracking users of obvious wit increases my
Secondly, I can't help but feel that the "line the kitty box" option has been shortchanged here. Insofar as pattern recognition factors heavily into any modern IQ test, it seems to me that anyone identifing this "RIAA Amnesty" bit as being vaguely similar---in smell and appearance---to animal excrement ought to be awarded a slightly higher score than someone who failed to bubble in a response by simply ignoring the whole thing. (Such an individual should also be commended, by the way, for essentially recycling their garbage.)
Finally, I would also like to propose an option resulting in a score of 55: "Send in your notarized form with photo ID. Include, also, a photo of a short bus with a caption reading, 'This is how I get to school in the mornings'."
/* Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux, et fondez vous en eau! La moitie de ma vie a mis l'autre au tombeau. - Corneille */
Let them compete, price wise, in a fair and open market for such things.
The RIAA can always offer a similar licence for freedom from prosecution for using Linux.
Just imagine the marketting possibilities - A whole range of licences that promise to protect you from such things as
You could flog off each licence for $699, or sign people up for the Mega-Bundle for $3000 - a saving of nearly $500 !!
... which dumb ass is going to take the blame for Kazaa@kazaalite.com & get the rest of us of the hook?
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
This is not meant to be an attack, just a random thought crossing my mind on noticing your slashdot "handle" or name or whatever, e.g "LazloToth", while reading this thread. Lazlo Toth is a fictional character created by Don Novello many years ago: http://www.chiprowe.com/bookrev/lazlo.html. Lazlo Toth is therefore copyrighted by Don Novello, who would probably be flattered that you are using his copyrighted work. However, unless you are really named Lazlo Toth, or are, in fact, Don Novello himself or have written permission by him to use that copyrighted work, you could possibly be accused or copyright infringement.h tml)
This leads me to wonder when the big media conglomerates will start sueing over online names, sigs, etc. I know Disney always has some sort of lawsuit going about, trying to "protect" one of their numerous characters, but what about the publisher of Don Novello books, or the local newspaper, or television stations?
Is a fan's adoration of a character the next target of the Big Media? I wonder, did Larry Niven need to get permission from Marvel Comics (or whoever) when he wrote the short story "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex"? And Kleenex is a brand name also....(link:http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.
Is this type of corporate aggression the tip of the iceberg? These are the things that make me fear the US government and corporations a Hell of a lot more than some terrorist. I know the terrorist wants me dead. I can deal with that. That is straight forward and honest. Governments and corporations want to control every aspect of my life.
I don't like comparing these things to movies, but The Matrix just about had it right, with the "humans as batteries" schtick. Only it wasn't aliens who set it up...........
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
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.
First of all, the law isn't made in heaven. It's an ugly, ugly process (remember the Bismark quote about those who love sauseges and the law should not watch how either is made?), which typically today involves monied interets getting an unfair advantage.
Second, copyright law was never meant to apply to the individual. It was aimed squarely at buisnesses to prevent them from making a profit by blatantly copying someone else's work and selling it themselves. The founding fathers never intended for the RIAA police to be breaking down grandma's door to see if she owns all of her MP3s (ok, so that hasn't happened... yet)
Third of all, the law *isn't* precise. In fact, every single decision made by a judge that isn't on-point means the law needs clarification.
PS: I think my sig says it all
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I'm not against copyright in general. I'm against the part where freely sharing art is illegal. I don't want to be able to sell someone else's art, or charge for access to it, or say it's mine, or alter it, or use it for self-promotion. THOSE are what copyright law should be stopping. Those are the things that 60 million Americans AREN'T doing.
If you think 60 million Americans are wrong, then your so far right of freedom that you'd make Lenin look like center left.
On the other hand, every time I see a day where Slashdot is filled with links to pro-piracy propaganda sites, I got out and buy some major label CDs.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Wasn't vigilanteism and anarchy how the American Rrevolution started? Americans said "laws be damned, no more taxes to the British"? Those aren't necessarily bad things. In fact, they're usually the only way of getting your voice heard once the government is corrupted (in this case by the RIAA's bribes... I mean, campaign contributions ;) ).
Here! See?! We told you that every 2nd citizen is a thief and has deprived us from huge money. Would you be so kind to sign this draconian new law, please?
I'd not care about them having my ID this time. I'd be afraid them beeing able to *prove* that milions of ilegal filesharers are out there and need to be stopped by any means.
It's like a petition. Just the signatures do not represent people's opinion, but represent arguments in favor of RIAA bullshit.
What Al-Ayyeri sees now is a "clean battlefield" in which Islam faces a new form of unbelief. This, he labels "secularist democracy." This threat is "far more dangerous to Islam" than all its predecessors combined. The reasons, he explains in a whole chapter, must be sought in democracy's "seductive capacities."
This form of "unbelief" persuades the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit. That leads them into ignoring the "unalterable laws" promulgated by God for the whole of mankind, and codified in the Islamic shariah (jurisprudence) until the end of time.
The goal of democracy, according to Al-Ayyeri, is to "make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad." If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims "reluctant to die in martyrdom" in defense of their faith.
He says that it is vital to prevent any normalization and stabilization in Iraq. Muslim militants should make sure that the United States does not succeed in holding elections in Iraq and creating a democratic government. "If democracy comes to Iraq, the next target [for democratization] would be the whole of the Muslim world," Al-Ayyeri writes.
"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."
Bollox, bollox, bollox.
Fact #1: we like getting music for free since it gives us money to spend on other things.
Fact #2: the RIAA likes high CD prices since it gives them money to spend on other things.
-- Despair is an operating system that ANY human being can run, sort of a psychological JAVA --
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?
This space available.
If Windows were "free," Microsoft could sell support, documentation, etc. They might not end up with billions in the bank, but they'd do just fine.
Let's say I got all my mp3's from broadcast radio, music channels, and internet radio/streaming music sites like launch.yahoo.com. Am I violating any laws?
And even worse....if you don't accept this may form some sort of future legal argument.
While I understand that ignorance is not an excuse, the argument that "I didn't know it was illegal" if believable, sure helps take the wilful out of the argument, and may aid in a defense. Now, not only does the average citizen know, but they chose not to atone and are now wilfully "stealing" (according to the RIAA) music. This may bias more politicians and judges to their side.
So slavery's ok too, eh, because a majority of people at the time wanted it? That makes it right, right? Because that's democracy! Or the Holocaust. Or whatever other oppression-of-the-minority incident you want to name. Give me a fucking break.
This is why we don't have democracy. We have Constitutional democracy. This means that there are certain rights that you cannot take away, even if a majority wants to. That is the entire point of the Constitution. By your logic, if a high school's senior class votes to kill one student, that should be just fine. Anything else would be fascism, right? I think you need to have a long, serious thinking session about the implications of your "majority dictates everything" beliefs.
Simple, unconstitutional democracy is a monstrous system. Democracy is only as good as the rights you respect. Whether or not there is a right to the protection of intellectual property is another topic altogether.
you don't want the keys for my flat when you're at it ?
Okay........and Kazaa's anti-virus won't destroy this virus because?
I also have a feeling that if this virus did break out, and caused the RIAA headaches in court, they'd just call in the FBI and say this was a malicious virus spreading across the Internet. It'd be great to have the FBI after the 18 year old kid who wrote this virus. But hey, at least we'll have a martyr. I'm sure we the media could make it a public relations nightmare for the RIAA.............. er, more so than usual.
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix
What a brilliant publicity stunt this is! What the RIAA is saying is: "See, we gave them all a chance to come clean. Now we're going to prosecute." Why give them any satisfaction? Make them work to reveal your identity and battle you in court to *prove* you did anything wrong. This whole "prosecute your customer" thing is going nowhere fast. No one with any brains would play ball with these bozos anymore than a bootlegger would tell the revenue agents where he hides his still (and yes, there are still bootleggers where I come from), or pot smokers telling the (insert drug war agency acronym here) where they cultivate their homegrown. Maybe RIAA is just desperate--they can't figure out who abadafsvbasdf@nowhere.com really is!
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!"
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
And then they'll scan your IDs and put them on Kazaa.
I dunno about you, but I have a suped up computer, not a souped up one.
..... .... .... Private, how many is that? You don't know?!?! Keep pushing...."
The difference?
Suped up = Gigabyte 7NNXP + SATA RAID
Souped up (as in "soup sandwich") = Tandy HX1000
"Souped up" is a pretty common phrase in basic training, favored by Drill SGTs.
For example: "Private, your boots are all souped up. You *did* use Kiwi to shine them and not a chocolate bar, didn't you? In fact, you're still in Red Phase. Where the hell would you get a chocolate bar?! Get down and beat your face! (*) Don't bother counting. You'll be down there until I'm tired.....
(*)Pushups
If I had to guess, this is their way of getting you to , in a sense, sign a legal binding contract and that if you break it...they have your ass. No to mention you just gave them all the info they needed to now exactly who you are and can watch your every move online. I may be a little off, but for the most part I feel there is some truth to this.
Anyone who admits guilt to something that is not illegal anyhow, you deserve what you get!
"Amnesty". That's laughable. I wonder if they are aware that they are putting their own abuses of power up for direct comparison with one of the most conscientious organisations in the world.
Does it actually have to be one of your face? I was think a little lower and on the other side. Moon shot yeah.. right, that's it.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
If you're concerned about others violating your privacy or intruding via your favorite P2P program, check this out:
If you run Windows only, check out PeerGuardian. Be warned that the application hogs a lot of CPU.
If you have a Linux firewall like iptables, then you're in luck. Simply download PeerGuardian's list of known IPs to block and convert it using ipblacklist_convert perl script.
And please keep in mind that music and software piracy will only give companies like RIAA an excuse to limit our freedoms. Stop stealing.
---
Did you know that Halliburton (who reportedly still pays VP Cheney around $160,000 in deferred compensation) will gain more than $1.7 billion from Iraq's reconstruction with a sizable portion of that in NO-BID contracts where other companies didn't even get a chance to bid?
Did you know Halliburton has sizable litigation against it for asbestos-related injuries and could benefit from worker's compensation reform which is coincidentally being promoted by the Bush/Cheney administration in the name of economic recovery?
Get informed and understand the smart--not public & seemingly irrational--reasons behind political decisions so that you too can profit from the real genius of politicians. Then donate your profits gained by this in your investment decisions to organizations that push for campaign finance reform instead of bitching about politicians in general or the right-wing or the left-wing. How can you lose if campaign finance reform causes politicians to represent the vast majority of Americans rather than the few special interests who contribute to campaigns? :)
Oh, wait.
The RIAA only thinks they're a sovereign nation.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
File sharing, according to current law, is illegal. Whether you agree or not, that is the law, however flawed.
On the other hand, the RIAA is alienating customers with its heavy handed ways.
What they should do, is sue the people who are illegally sharing the files. Instead of fining them however many thousands of dollars in a settlement, they should offer this:
Sign up for, lets say, five years to an RIAA approved online music store (iTunes, BuyMusic.com, etc.). This way they can get people used to the legal way of downloading music and cause less of a backlash against their policies.
The online services will get the critical mass they need to become profitable and the influx of so many users will bring about better service and content options.
PS As an aside, I've tried to sign up for legal services, but since I live in Japan, I can't. I'm actually the perfect audience for legal services but they won't let me join.
The RIAA has just announced it's new plan:
Confuse the hell out of the country to the point that it's painful...then claim the pain is just an aftershock of Napster.
"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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
With all those lawsuits, there is a reasonable chance that any given defendant will die before being prosecuted! If everyone stays in for the duration, most people probably won't ever see court!
Look, I'm not a fan of the RIAA and their Draconian methods any more than the next /.er, but just go read the goddamned law yourself, will ya? And stop yammering on like some AM radio tool asking us to debate your position with or for you. Your rights and the rights of the copyright holder are clearly fucking spelled out in the law and said laws are freely available to you and anyone else who wishes to see them.
Why you gotta whinge and cry and play high school debate with us, of all people, about your displeasure with your 'perceived vs actual' rights? You wanna change things? You think that spending $20 on a CD should give you free and unfettered use of the material therein and the copyright holder can go fuck himself? Well, then get active and use the process your predecessors (and betters -- they actually did something) gave you. The process, it should be noted, does not include pissing and moaning on Slashdot.
As far as the article goes, this is the stupidest thing the RIAA has ever done and god knows they've done some stupid shit.
Now go fuck off, the lot of you. You know who you are.
- I am made of meat.
everyone is always talking about great independent bands....i probably own 4 cds by independent bands, and would not care if every independent band member decided to fuck himself with a stick. as i see it there are two kinds of independent musicians:
- good musicians trying to make a statement by maintaining sovereignty over their careers.
- losers who pass off their un-marketable nature as being too hardcore or cool for the big 5(think of a poor recording of 40 cats being raped in a subway: the album).
I have a response to both these groups respectively:
- only glue sniffers like those PETA-freaks hold on to profitless ideals, and only so that they can rub their "moral" self discipline in everyone's face. if you are so good then why not submit to the sickening mtv fame machine?
- you suck, punk sucks
the only files that are shared with any volume are RIAA files...true their stuff sucks ass as bad as anyones, but they do have a few dozen excellent bands. there has never been another shakespeare, there will never be another beatles. expecting a wave of kick ass music to envelop the nation when the RIAA goes down is absurd. Good bands, i.e. true musical artists, are and have always been few and far between.
on a side note: IP laws suck ass! Fix'em america so i can get my corporate slop for free.
something that has not yet been adeqautely described to me is the fact that radio gives away free music all the time, broadcast over the air, all you need is a radio to pick it up. ok, so the radio gives out free music, yes, but mp3, I have it ON DEMAND! well, I last I checked, my radio works on demand, too: I turn it on, I get music. "ooh, ooh, but you may argue that the radio doesn't play the songs I want to hear when I want to hear them!" well, lots of radio stations have call in shows that play what the listeners request... and besides, I would always just put on the radio station that plays the music that I enjoy most. "ooh, but radio isn't as good quality as cd's!" no, maybe not, but neither is mp3.
:-p
so, all that said, I still fail to see how, ultimately, mp3 is IMMORAL. I understand that it is illegal, and I understand why it is illegal, but lots of activities that ARE legal are immoral, as well. by pirating music, one may be breaking the law, but are they really doing anything wrong?
one more thing, and then I'm done: the record companies DO pay radio companies to play certain music, even though that is both illegal AND immoral. now, I have a proposal to the RIAA: I'd certainly be willing to listen to whatever your record companies want me to listen to, if they gave me free copies and payed me to play it like they do the radio companies. so, please, start sending me free music, record companies, and I'll play them, so long as you include fat checks with the discs.
To continue to rate postings like the above a 5 is, well...Damn American!
...the US and UK governments each promising not to spy on their citizens... and then quietly spying on each other's and swapping info.
It's a really great idea, anonymity, plausible deniability and all the rest. Unfortunately it's written in Java, eats resources like there's no tomorrow (which is a big problem, at least on machines that aren't brand new), and also has to delay information randomly for some of the anonymity features to work.
It's also quite a small community at the moment. What it really needs is more users, which will happen when someone writes a nicer implementation, which will happen when it gets more users, which... oh, fsck.
This is what I can't stand about the picture the RIAA and others continually try to paint. They assume that (1) people who download music would pay for it if they couldn't download, (2) they would do so at current prices, i.e. a ridiculous mark-up even with the latest reductions, (3) they can dupe Joe Public into believing that a sizeable proportion of the money actually goes to the artists and not higher-ups in the RIAA, for whom nobody has any sympathy.
I hate the way they strangle artists with ridiculous mark-ups and unfair division of revenue, then when sales drop they keep the proportions the same and point to the "starving artists". Take a pay cut yourselves, you [...] hypocritical [...]-[...] bunch of [...]s. End Of Flame.
They do nothing!
...who would be stupid enough to fall for something like this, just remember the famous words of George Carlin:
"Think about how stupid the average person is, then realize that half of them are stupider than that."
So, you've been busy downloading half the Internet, and are now feeling a little guilty about it, or just worried about the RIAA. Forget this Amnesty lark, just delete the files. Do make sure you get all of them, though, it's important. Oh, and I'd delete that copy of Kazaa while you're at it.
Thing is, their evidence is probably going to boil down to computer-based logs. Which is a good start, but if you find an even half-good lawyer, they'll point out that such things can readily be faked, and without any real evidence (like MP3s of copyrighted songs), their case is going to be pretty weak.
In any other country in the world, an amnesty would mean guns, ammo, explosives, knives etc. But those things are all perfectly legal in the US.
;)
I think its about time you took up this right to bare arms thing and did something useful with it - storm the RIAA HQ and do some serious fragging
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Me (to RIAA): How about I give you the finger, and you give away this stupid windmill-tilting exercise?
Seriously, how do I go about finding them? I only have one local "college station" that plays less-mainstream music, and it only comes in through half of my 45-minute commute. I want to be able to sample some new, catchy music in a free form (i.e. radio) and then have a convenient (i.e. I'm lazy) way to purchase said music for a reasonable price.
I just don't know how to do that since I've only really ever been exposed to the RIAA's revenue-machine.
What of all the file sharers who are underage? Is this even legal to ask kids to send photo-id and such to a complete f'ing stranger?
:-)
This reaks of lawsuit all over it
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
If they'd like British public opinion on their side, they'd be better off considering a long walk off a short pier.
We're not all blonde and living in Essex you know.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
we mail them back all of our cds (scratched up so they can't try selling them) and say we will keep our mp3s instead. Maybe they might get the point
Maybe to get nycfashiongirl to take the path of least resistance?
What's next? Demanding protection money from people so that they _don't_ get arrested?
:)
Mafia style
I used Napster as a covenient preview system. I wanted to own the CDs. In the early days, I did buy them (when I could find them, the RIAA's distribution network makes it diffcult-to-impossible to find anything even slightly non-mainstream). Sure they were expensive, but to me, it was worth it. Now, however, I've learned a lot more about how the music industry works, particularly where the money goes, and my opinions have changed dramatically. I listen to the music I already own, and I've mostly stopped looking for new music. When I do, I make a concerted effort to identify and support non-RIAA labels.
The RIAA brought this upon themselves, and I can't imagine I'm alone in this...
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
they never had to prove their obtaining your activity legally in court. If someone would fight it they might have to stop all together. Now they have you, if you send in the form then break the form/contract they have a much better legal case against you.
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 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?
I think you had a typo ... it should've been "Now extend this. You sign your soul to these fucks ".
The very existence of music was denied under the Taliban. Was the RIAA behind the invasion of Afghanistan?
Conspiracy theories for the masses.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
i can get to back to mine in 4 lefts.
There is no god
Requests like this are ones you make from positions of strength. The RIAA is blustering, trying to scare us that little bit more. Who'd give them her name at this point? The same people who, during the cultural revolution, would've admitted to sometimes having doubts about the party:
"All you have to do, comrade, is submit a complete confession in order to redeem yourself. Now sit down with this pen and make a clear conscience of it."
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Every body just needs to band together and boycot the music industry... you know... not buy CD's... and well everything else... I am sure this will work in our culture where everything is centered around materials!
The AHRA doesn't actually say that it's ok (by which I mean legal/non-infringing) to get a mix tape from your cousin... it in fact specifically avoids saying that. What it actually says is that you can't be prosocuted under the act for that behavior, which isn't quite the same thing.
... chance to give in to us.
No really...
I dare you to cross this line... again.
"I'm not ashamed I can't function in society like I'm supposed to." - Paul Westerberg
You won't be missed.
No doubt the RIAA will have a nice blank spot for you to put your Kazaa user id in. Heh, sorry RIAA, I use Kazaa Lite K++ and my username is kazaaliteuser.
How does the RIAA prove any of this? Let's say I get subpoenaed, so I delete all the files on my machine. On court day isn't it just a case of, "Yes you did. No I didn't. You did. I didn't. Did. Didn't." Better yet, if I could get an IP address for an RIAA machine (that can't be too hard) couldn't I claim that I found all of my Slashdot postings on one of their machines but, gee, they must have deleted them...
Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
Just found an article with a different approach to filesharing in general and bittorrent in particular. The author suggests to encrypt (simply XOR) the file to be shared with another file larger than the original. By doing this, you are essentially sharing a random file, which can't be subject to copyright legislation. Depending on the keyfile, you could reconstruct a blockbuster movie as well as your personal photo album. What do you think?
When is the RIAA going to come after DJs and bands that play copyrighted music in public without paying royalties?
-- Boycott Shell
Those fools at the RIAA still owe me money!
I'm gonna hold these songs hostage till they pay me.
Typical crackheads,cant trust em with money.
Of course I'm charging interest and will continue to download songs to match my 33% DPR.
Maybe they should consider pimpin each other till they pay me.No, Screw it,IM GONNA START PIMPIN EM!
(that means hillary too,you aint gettin off cheap biatch!)
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Perhaps coordinatd through one of the boycott sites and with the text donated by a friendly lawyer type so as to protect the sender.
Basically saying:
I am not admitting to past file swapping, I am not file swapping now and will not file swap in the future.
I also have stopped purchasing new CDs and will not purchase again until:
-- retail prices for new CDs are below $10
-- there is a legal down load service that lets
singles be downloaded with unrestricted use
for a reasonable price (may wish to specify)
I also pledge to ask that friends and relatives not buy me CDs as gifts and try to pursuade them not to buy them for anyone.
--
You may or may not like the items above, modify to suit your preferences
Remember, we are heading into to Christmas season and this is the biggest selling period for the industry. It is the perfect time to make it clear to the RIAA that the public can do without their product, but they can't do without the public.
If file swapping drops to very low levels (probably can't eliminate it) and retail sales fall to the same levels, it should help drive the point home.
Especially, if media attention can be drawn to the web site to see the number protests go up and up.
Jokes are fun but action is better.
RIAA offers amnesty, the one music publisher lowering prices, and they will claim victory
when people return to buying music.
On the other hand, every time I see a day where Slashdot is filled with links to pro-piracy propaganda sites, I got out and buy some major label CDs.
You aren't very bright, are you? Or maybe you just like being bufu'd by major corporations. *Shrug.* Sucks to be you.
You know, the $150k/song figure is really just a cap. That's right, it's an upper bound on the amount that can be awarded by a judge for that particular kind of civil suit. It means that they can't seek more than that in "actual damages".
If this were a sane legal system, attempts to penalize Vanessa the N'sync fan with the same kind of penalties that Julius the mass-producer of pirated CDs would get would be laughed out of the courtroom. But then again, it's not a sane legal system. Fooey.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Just as soon as I finish removing my email address from these spam lists with their handy 'remove your email' links.
http://xkcd.com/386/
That's like trusting DirecTV or SCO. Why would you enter into a business relationship with any organization or company using thermonuclear litigation as a business tool? If they'd do it to other people, they'd do it you. I think consumers have a responsibility to stand up for what is right by not doing business with companies doing business that way. Just my 0.02.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Thank you for your submission to our new recording system for filesharing anmesty system. Judging from your picture, it appears that you enjoy Britney Spears' music very much. We will add you to any relevant mailing lists that may interest you.
Sincerely,
Your friends at the RIAA.
--Chag
"Wow, that sounds like a really good deal... How about I just give you the finger *birdie flies* and you get me my goddamed lawyer."
Okay so the quote isn't exact, but you get the point.
"file sharers who promise to delete copyrighted material from their computers."
Would that include Windows as every other piece of software as well? How about having to delete copyrighted material owned by the companies that the RIAA represents that was obtained illegally?
SIGFAULT
I will not send you my photo ID. Stick that form up your ass. I've downloaded all of the music I could ever need and you haven't caught me. I win. You lose. Have fun flailing into irrelevancy. Signed, Me.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Look. The RIAA needs to understand that it is not (or at least should not be) a law enforcement agency. It is an industry association. It should act that way. Sue all you want, but if there really is a greivance with file sharers, then let's take it to court. The RIAA is building its own little court system, so that eventually Congress can just hand off the jurisdiction for music related lawsuits to them.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Send them tubgirl while you're at it. That'll make them rip their eyes out.
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
The RIAA needs to fail and crumble.
If I recall correctly, during the 2 peak years of Napster, the recording industry posted its best sales ever.
They prices they charge for a CD is insane. I'm wondering why the price of cassette tapes were only around $7-8, and yet CD prices have never fallen? I wonder which costs more to produce? Hmmm... you know a cassette tape has a LOT more moving parts and the assembly process has to be more involved than that of a CD.
The RIAA has come down really heavy-handed and are trying to make people sweat. I wonder how much they'd sweat if word could effectively spread to everyone to stop buying CD's. Yeah, we wouldn't have any new music for a short while, but it would be worth it!
STOP BUYING CD's and TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO STOP BUYING THEM TOO!
Thay says it all, for me.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
However, I can think of one other item that could be added to the list. How about untraceable copies of pirated music stating.
It turns out that the last part is enormously difficult. Pot smokers are an absolutely massive group in the US, and yet their voice is never heard is mainstream politics. The equal rights amendment has yet to be ratified, and it's one of the most strongly supported changes to the US constitution ever.
Mobilizing people is very difficult. And speaking out in support of something illegal is nigh-impossible outside of a liberal forum such as slashdot.
Superman is ther Goatse.cx guy!!!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They had student sign a paper saying they promised to 'no longer take drugs'.
I advise my friend to tell his Son not to sign it, and talk to a lawyer.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
... and stop whinning. While I totally oppose the RIAA for scaring the hell out of a mother by suing her for a song her 14yo kid had in his Kazaa directory, and likewise the many others of ordinary filesharers, I think it is reasonable to suggest that filesharing is not a legitimate right. After all, such music was not released under a GPL license. And it doesn't matter how much it costs or is priced at. It is, after all, a product; If you don't like its value proposition, don't buy it. Music files downloaded from the web are no different from using Warez. Now linux and OSS is is good, but cracked commercial software isn't. There's no moral right to use cracked commercial software. Music after all, is not all that essential. It's not water or fuel. The RIAA can charge whatever they want. Either buy it or leave it, but don't "steal" it. Respecting copyright is good. After all, had it not been for copyright we wouldn't have had linux and OSS. There would've been no incentive for GNU/GPL.
They go to bed each night and they LICK EACH OTHER'S PUSSIES.
Is that the collection you have on your hard drive?
from all over the world. you can find driver license images all over the place. great, just print two out, send it in. now get two friends to do it. rinse wash repeat.
"Music Biz to Give File Sharers Amnesty"
rough translation required.
"GOOD NEWS FOR GULLIBLE BASTARDS!!"
There,
thats better.
--Mods giveth, Mods taketh away--
LOL. You have teh gh3y music collection. If you had any friends, you wouldn't be able to send them any of your music files. "Oh no you need to download x y z to hear this song. But its great cuz its free! And I mean free as in ankle tracking device. And the guy who makes it is great too! He comes on Slashdot all the time to talk about how poor he his, and how people must donate. Just like those ads for starving kids in Etheropia. SUPPORT OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPERS! GIVE THEM MONEY SO IT CAN STILL BE FREE!!!!"
She isn't the head of the RIAA anymore, remember?
it says you have to agree not to upload anything, it says nothing about downloading... loophole maybe?
Basically, they have a CD folder containing a few hundred music CDs left outside their counter. If you like a CD, just take it with you and bring it back when you can.
And what's interesting, they have people dropping off more CDs so the collection keeps growing - think of it as Netflix on steroids without the fees. The 'Amnesty' deal doesnt come into play 'cause it's like borrowing a CD from a friend...
Consider a loose nationwide network of free libraries run by the honor system - combines the P2P paradigm with the 'bandwidth of a USPS truck' idea.
Now what should I burn for them...
If everybody stops buying CDs from major labels then the RIAA will shrivel up and blow away. We'll still have plenty of musicians and plenty of music, just no record companies. CD sales have dropped 30% in about the last three years, so it looks like we're getting there.
I think that one of the greatest horrors in all of this is that the RIAA is using piracy in colleges as an excuse to extract "usage fees" from every student that has an internet connection so that they will have access to downloadable music. I for one think that the colleges and universities should not bend to these issues. It is not their job to subsidize the music industry. College students are mostly poor but when they get money they are likely to support their favorite artists... prosecuting them is incomprehensible. Additionally, once this path is taken, what is next? Because I have an internet connection, will I be forced to pay a media tax to check my email? RIAA and music industry at large: GET REAL. ADAPT YOUR BUSINESS MODEL. STOP PAYING ARTISTS AND YOURSELVES UMP-TEEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR GARBAGE. - Martin
True, the RIAA doesn't OWN the copyrights, but it has been appointed by the copyright holders to represent them. It's the same with the MPAA or any IP lawyer.
Seems that the RIAA is trying to spread their message using fear. It seems that the RIAA is using a terrorist tactic. I am not the type to be accusing like that, but its the RIAA, going after high school students like myself is just wrong. Offering amnisty along with allowing you to report people is like blacklisting.
-Seriv
How about I give you the finger [displays "the finger"] and you give me my phone call?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
He has been known to lie far more than any of the politicians he so loudly speaks out against. Watch out, he's not as nice as you may think.
since the riaa (and mpaa) claims that file sharing is hurting their (inflated) profits.. their figures of course are skewed beyond belief.. but anyways.. how about this in the usage agreement for the file sharing software / service:
"In order to assure the RIAA, MPAA, and their various counterparts around the world that this service is in no way depriving them of their profits; this service may only be used by users who (prior to downloading a particular file) have no intention of purchasing a CD, DVD, or other media that contains that downloaded work of art (e.g. song, movie, image, etc). User also agrees that no monetary gain may be received as a result of the use of this service."
I think the RIAA is 100% right in what they are doing to protect their interests. Pretty much all the arguments against them are weak, childish, and not supportable. If music costs too much, then "vote with your feet" - stop buying it. In time, prices will either fall or the industry will dry up. Not liking the price of a product isn't justification for theft no matter how you look at it. All the arguments in the world for "fair use", "information wants to be free", etc, etc... don't change the underlying fact that material - whether music, video, software, or whatever - created by an entity is copywrited and owned by them to grant use as they see fit - ease of theft != a license to steal
Elmer Fudd: "Give me the BIRD!"
Wakko: "I can't; This is a childrens show."
hah! what if you turn in your neighbor, like the federal tax program works? maybe you can get a percentage of the take! anyway, i (and my kids) probably own 400 CDs, and i have not purchased one since all the RIAA petitions to ISPs and attacks on privacy started to be filed. just adding my frustrated 2 cents with the overbloated litigious industry that used to be entertaining.
YOU LOVE NIGGARS
Go away forever. I mean: Go. away. forever. NIGGAR.
Get the fuck out of here you goddamn faggot. Please leave for EVAR!
Captain Picard is on the bridge.
"Where the devil is that Wesley? He was due in my briefing room a half
an hour ago."
Riker replies, "I don't know, sir. Computer, where is Ensign Crusher?"
"Ensign Crusher is in Sickbay receiving fellatio from his mother."
"Oh no, not again," groans the Captain.
"He is not a true warrior!" exclaims Worf.
Riker turns and replies, "Mr. Worf, aren't you supposed to be on DS9?"
"Never mind that Number 1, get down to Sickbay and hose down those two."
Riker moves to and enters the turbolift.
"Damned Crushers," mutters Picard as camera closes in on his face and
picture fades to black for commercial break.
The western nations are hogging all the wealth, using their advanced armies to prevent the poor starving masses in the Third World from bettering themselves out of poverty and gaining any kind of weak position in the world economy.
Seizing a few of the shipping vessels of the wealthy nations, as they transit through the southeastern Asian shipping lanes, is a small blow for human rights, and against the hoarding of wealth.
Piracy for Human Rights !
Seize a few ships !
(This pro-piracy propanda was brought to you by the League for Modern Piracy and High Seas Seizure)
Rememember, when you need to stop a good thing dead, call for People who don't get jokes.
It's a trap!
Crimey
Civil disobedience is when a very large number of people purposely break a law because they view it as unjust.
Now, millions of people share music illegally. Isn't this civil disobedience? Doesn't this mean that the copyright laws should be changed?
C L E A N S L A V E P R O G R A M A F F I D A V I T
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Full Name:
Address of Primary Manor (United States of America only):
Cotton, Sugar, or Tobacco:
I, the individual whose name appears above, am executing this
Clean Slave Program Affidavit in order to obtain amnesty from
civil war supported or assisted by the Federal Government of the
United States of America ("Union") with respect to my commercial
ownership, flogging, or "sharing" as of this date in slave markets.
I represent that I am eligible for this Clean Slave Program and
meet all the conditions herein and in the Clean Slave Proclamation.
I have removed from my fields and buildings all slaves
illegally bought, born, or "shared" using slave markets. I agree
from today forward to stop any and all illegal buying, breeding, or
"sharing" of slaves in slave markets.
Provided that I have in fact removed from my fields and
buildings all slaves illegally gained from slave markets, and do
not engage in illegal buying, breeding, or "sharing" of slaves in
slave markets in the future, I understand that the Union agrees not
to destroy my mansion and burn my fields to the ground in civil
warfare based on these past activities.
I understand that if I am found in the future to have done any
illegal buying, breeding, or "sharing" of slaves in slave markets
on or after today's date or if I am found to have not met the
conditions of the Clean Slave Proclamation, the Union may declare
war against myself and any of my confederates.
I acknowledge that I have signed this Clean Slave Program
Affidavit voluntarily and that nothing herein prevents me from
consulting with counsel of my own choosing.
Signature: