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.

Comments

At the end of the day

[mao che minh]

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?

Re:At the end of the day

[Planesdragon]

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

Oooh, ooh! I know this one!

First, RIAA should not go after P2P services. They should go after the actual infringers. But not in a cruel way--these are fad-following college kids, after all. How about they tell them that it's wrong, and then find out who does it anyway, and go after the worst of them--and offer amnesty for anyone who is willing to give it up?

Oh, and they have to have a few ways to get digital music legally...

Hey, wait, they're doing that! What's up with that! How can we rail about how evil the RIAA is if they do what's morally and legally right for them to do! :)

Re:At the end of the day

[Mark_MF-WN]

At the end of the day, the manner in which the RIAA conducts business is legal, though obviously immoral. Willing copyright infringement is not.

It has never been legal to issue subpoenas without due process. Why the RIAA was given that power is beyond comprehension. Actually, it's entirely within comprehension: they give the government lots of money.

Re:At the end of the day

[Red Pointy Tail]

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

Recall that there was a successful defence where the user claims that he didn't mean to share the files or install an unlicensed program - it was done automatically either 'by default' or by another malicious program. I smell a loophole here.

What if someone writes a 'benign virus' that will generate behaviour such that will help us exploit this? The 'virus' will, in addition to spreading itself wide, randomly download files and share files such that it is indistinguishable from normal filesharing behaviour of real users. This way we can always blame the virus for our filesharing activity.

Even better, if you get sued by the RIAA/MPAA, retroactively 'activate' the virus (make it in such a way that it seems like it got in your computer b4 the filesharing activity is made public) to protect yourself and frustrate the RIAA/MPAA in court!

Do you think it will work?

Re:At the end of the day

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Whether you agree with them or not, the RIAA has determined that file "sharing"(stealing/copyright infringement) has negatively impacted their "industry"(ripping off artists and preventing others from competing, or even distributing, fairly). You have to admit, they have some compelling evidence that justifies their claim. "

I see compelling evidence that the the RIAA's loss in sales are a direct result off their own actions.

1.) They don't respond to supply and demand. Thus customers are no longer getting what they want.

2.) By attacking Mp3s, they've made people start floating the word boycott around. Two early examples immediately pop into mind. "By downloading Mp3s, you're downloading communism". And Eisner's attack on Apple for their rip/mix/and burn campaign, claiming it was all about piracy, thus naming Apple customers as thieves.

3.) Downloading music != loss in music sales. There's no accurate way to say that music sales were lost due to downloading, only anecdotal evidence at best. Yet, while people were downloading music, they were exploring new bands to get involved with. Since the RIAA attacked this so heavy-handedly causing people to boycott them, we'll never know if they would have ended up ahead or not.

I won't ignore the idea that there are people who were downloading Mp3s so they didn't have to buy the albums. But consider this, though, what about the 56k days? It was not convenient to download a single album. A single MP3 could take anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour to download. A whole album? Oh my. No. Somebody doing that was either can't pay the rent broke, or they only wanted one song from that album. Thanks to the RIAA's oligopoly/monpoly/cartel, you can't go buy that one song. So, you get to pay $17.99 for that song you hear for free on the radio all the time.

Yeah, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum from you. I can't imagine that with the what, 2 billion songs getting traded every month, that the RIAA would only see a few percentage points of a drop in sales. Frankly, I think most of that dip in sales has more to do with people saying 'screw you, its not worth it' than people saying 'oh I can save money by downloading these.' I believe that if the RIAA hadn't pulled these stunts, the music trading would have made the music scene far more active and interesting to people. There'd be some getting music without paying, but there'd be a lot more who were waiting in line for their favorite band's next release.

A few months ago, there was an article on Slashdot about Magna comics in Japan. Lots of people were doing fan-fics that would technically qualify as trademark/copyright infringement. They'd have these conventions where they'd sell them to each other etc. Here in the USA, they'd be shot down in no time. But over in Japan, the comic book companies love this 'infringment' because it keeps rejuvinated interest in their content, compltely free of expense to them!

So no, I cannot determine that file-sharing has had an impact on the RIAA. They drove people away when they could have attracted them.

Re:At the end of the day

[jeffasselin]

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

Fold up and die?

I don't completely disagree with your opinion, but I think a lot of people on Slashdot understand one thing which the RIAA doesn't: This is the Digital Age, and Everything has Changed.

Not ethics, not morality, but the rules have changed and are changing everyday, and trying to stick to the old rules will only prevent society from going forward. Laws are made to serve society, to enable it to exist, and grow, not to stifle the lives of people or to protect corporations. To protect our right to live free and in reasonable privacy, unless we have been already convicted of a crime, and our right to earn our living, not to protect the right of corporations to exploit the people, or to allow them to become vigilantes.

We must go forward, and this requires us to re-evaluate our "morals" (which I don't like, I prefer ethics), and our laws, and our beliefs as a society. Ideas are free, and cannot be stopped once released, it is the same with art, once produced music can be reproduced or remembered. Any attempt to limit its propagation can only be temporary.

I think we stand at a limit point, and the RIAA and MPAA are trying to keep us on this side, because once we really cross it it will be too late for them.

On a purely ethical viewpoint, what's WRONG with file sharing? It is not theft, because I do not directly deprive the composer/performer of a good. Neither does the file sharer directly profit from it. No, what we do by these activities is to "deprive them of theoretical revenue". This is not in any way different from the BSA's line. Who would have kept the major share of that revenue? The RIAA's member organizations - not the artists, who get very little at the end.

I agree that to profit from file sharing by selling the works for more than the cost of the media or misrepresenting a work as being from someone else than the original artist is unethical and should be illegal.

But file sharing itself? No. The whole idea of "copyright infringement" has to be reviewed in this digital age, the Age of Information. Because information is running the risk of becoming a commodity in the control of the corporations.

Re:At the end of the day

[Sphere1952]

I haven't been begging for lower prices. I've been begging for their death. I don't like the society they're creating. I want a society where people can be heard -- not greedy corporations.

Re:At the end of the day

[macdaddy357]

Why is such flamebait scored 5 insightful? You can say that file trading is copyright infringement. Others will say it's fair use, but when you call it theft, or call it immoral, "them's fightin' words." Morality is subjective. Many see nothing wrong with using napster-like services, as we saw nothing wrong with trading home tapes in the '80s.

What would be an acceptable course of action for the RIAA? Here is an exerpt from dontbuycds.org:

To sum it all up, the recording industry needs to reform itself. Our boycott will end when they meet these demands.

* Stop using copy protection schemes. Using them denies us our fair use and personal property rights, and accuses us all of being thieves. If we buy discs, we have the right to play them in the player we choose. If that is the CD-Rom drive of a computer, so be it. We have the right to copy them to a personal MP3 player, or make a custom CD-R of favorite songs.

* Leave file traders alone. File trading gives artists, and the recording industry free promotion. Radio used to be a great promotion, but now rarely deviates from limited play lists which labels must pay to get onto through independent promoters. While Napster was online, CD sales were up. File trading is a legitimate way to try before buying. Music fans need it, and so does the industry.

* Stop selling music at such an obscene mark up. The cost to press and package a disc has continually gone down. It is currently less than one dollar. We realize that there are production costs beyond manufacturing, but that doesn't justify gouging. When CDs were new, they cost twice as much as LPs and cassettes. The industry claimed that the cost to produce this new format was high, and promised that as their costs came down, so would retail prices. This price drop never occurred. Instead, retail prices have gone up. In stores where vinyl records and cassettes are still sold, they are priced lower than CDs, even though they cost more to manufacture. A movie on DVD frequently sells for less than its soundtrack on CD. The industry has colluded to fix prices, and was forced to settle a class action law suit over this practice, yet CDs in suburban malls can retail for more than twenty dollars. In many countries, CDs cost more than that. In Iceland for example, a CD can cost 2500kr, equal to 29.50 in US dollars. This is unacceptable.

Re:At the end of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

He's advocating the release of a virus/worm, and this is moderated as insightful?

A "benign" virus is still a virus. It's pretty black and white, IMHO.

Sorry kid, but the above post was just stupid.

Re:At the end of the day

[good-n-nappy]

I doubt the virus idea is going to fly with most people. However, I made the "I didn't mean to do it" argument the other day too.

Instead of a virus, just blame usability. Here is a paper talking about a usability problem with Kazaa. It seems like you could always blame usability. "I didn't mean to share that directory!" You'd be playing on the technophobia that the judge is likely to have anyway.

Re:At the end of the day

[Rogerborg]

>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?

While I'm substantially in agreement, I'll answer this question as though it's not rhetorical.

• Listen to a song on the radio: OK
• Be forced to listen to a song in a mall or supermarket: OK
• Tape a song from the radio: OK
• Borrow a CD from a friend: OK
• Watch a music video on TV: OK
• Tape a music video from TV: OK
• Receive a mix tape from your cousin: OK
• Listen to a digitally streamed song whenever you like: OK
• Make a digital recording of a song in any form: BURN IN HELL.

Kids today (bless 'em) are growing up in a world where the RIAA pays to ensure that they can watch, listen to and stream music pretty much whenever they like. The RIAA assumes that they'll understand the implicit deal whereby buying music on CD pays for the other eleventy ways that they can listen to it. Well, good luck to 'em. They'll need it.

Re:At the end of the day

[Rogerborg]

Before you get too excited, what you're thinking about is almost certainly criminal convictions for kiddie porn peddling. The standard of proof required in a criminal case is "beyond all reasonable doubt". If you can introduce any doubt, you get off.

The standard of proof in a civil case is simply "balance of probabilty". There's no assumption of innocence. Now, is it more likely that the 10,000 mp3 taking up 75% of your hard drive and shared over Kazaa got there because you put them there, or because you go wormed?

For bonus points, given that you're posting this idea on a site with a good overlap with the people that are going to get hit with suits, are you making it more or less likely that any claim about being wormed is going to be viewed as probably bogus?

Re:At the end of the day

[AhNewBis]

> Oh, and they have to have a few ways to get digital music legally...

How about the RIAA actually provides the music that I'm infringing upon? Point me where I can purchase every CD or tape that the RIAA has produced between 1995 and 1985. Some of that material is just plain lost, isn't being produced, and they refuse to spend a dollar to make me a CD that I'd probably be willing to spend $20 on just because of the nostalgia value alone. Say I have a song stuck in my head, and I really want to listen to it, but it's not played on the radio anymore. Ok, well bugger, guess I'll buy it. Hmm, that's odd, Amazon doesn't have it. Woah, and it's not on eBay? Crap! Maybe I'll send a letter to the artist and see if he'll be willing to sell me a copy! I love that song, and I'd love to show him a 'thank you' with $20 just for that one song. What's that, he sold the rights of the song when he signed his contract? Oh. I'll write the RIAA a letter asking to buy the song/CD/tape for $20. Would you think that I would actually get a response? A month later, I hop on Kazaa or whatever filesharing app is OMG so good. Now that my hands are out of my pants long enough to switch from 'movie' to 'song' in my search, I look for that song on a whim.

30 people are sharing it.

There's my beef with the RIAA/MPAA/Video Game/distribution industry. If you provided the song, CD, video game cartridge (or licensed ROM), or movie that I would be more than willing to pay for, I would. Music, movies, video games and television have become part of a shared experience that every man and woman, no matter how different, can use to 95% certainty as a common ground. Find a random person around your age group and ask them about the big band at the time. Odds are they've heard of em and know something about em, and they might even be a big fan. Those three things are, in my opinion, the biggest cultural revolutions that we've seen in the last century. The advent of recorded music has allowed a distant memory of song to be remembered vividly with the press of a button. The invention of VHS tapes and DVD's, allowing for the same thing - a distant memory of a kid seeing Luke and a wookie, or of hearing Kirk complain about some Khan guy, can be experienced perfectly - with the press of a button. Video Games allow for a common challenge to be experienced by millions. Nothing else does that, which is why I'm calling it a cultural revolution. Society is changing because of the availability of mankind to remember and experience things perfectly, and to have the exact same experiences without even knowing eachother. All information and the ability to retrieve it upon a whim - this is the new 'industrial revolution.'

---

Back on topic: Let them do what they can legally do and sue infringers, and give amnesty to others. I will still be able to do what I can legally do - refuse to purchase their product, and attempt to get others to understand that if you're not getting a product in a way that you want to use it and be able to use it, DON'T BUY IT.

Re:At the end of the day

[Zigg]

That is such a tired old argument. If these musicians didn't want the contract, they need not sign it. Nobody is forcing them to. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring payback of advances.

Your placement of the phrase "pay back the loan" in quotes does not make it any less true. It is a loan, and it deserves to be paid back. That's the way it works. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract!

Call the bluff

[bouis]

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.

Oh Good...

[Quaoar]

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?

No.

[JAYOYAYOYAYO]

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?

Dumb idea

[r_glen]

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?!

They don't, and never have sued someone for MP3's

[Machina70]

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)

Re:Right...amnesty...sure

[El]

Not the same. Somebody that wants to keep working for you is pretty much forced to sign the paper. But I don't see any reason why anybody that intends to share files in the future would feel that indentfying themselves to the RIAA is in their self interest.

Re:how about we offer amnesty?

[Planesdragon]

Note to smd4985 -- we've had years of local bands, indie artists, and classical music to indulge in if RIAA doesn't suit us. We can always go somewhere else for our music--but if we take what they're selling, we should still pay for it.

I disagree...

[poptones]

I agree. said it long ago - the end will only come when the RIAA is forced to act against its own consumers. I've been welcoming this turn of events for years - not because I think people should be sued, but because...

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...

Read this for what it is, a trap.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to sources, the RIAA will not pursue legal action if infringers delete all unauthorized music files from their computers, destroy all copies (including CD-Rs) and promise not to upload such material in the future. Each infringing household member will have to send a completed, notarized amnesty form to the RIAA, with a copy of a photo ID. Those who renege on their promise will be subject to charges of willful copyright infringement.

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;

Main Entry: computer
Pronunciation: k&m-'pyu-t&r
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 1646
: one that computes; specifically : a programmable electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data

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.

Re:Ya, right!

[bladernr]

If it's crap, why would you ever download it?

The RIAA is defending their own property. You may not think it should be their property, but it is. You may not like the way they are enforcing it, but it is legel.

If someone steals something of mine, I will do everything I can to enforce my property rights. In other words, someone steals from me, I'm going to fight. Does that make me wrong or evil?

The RIAA is doing that on a large scale.

I, for one, hate the RIAA and most of the industry. I express my distaste the best way: I refuse to buy their products or listen to their music, free or no.

Re:Why is downloading music unethical?

[Sphere1952]

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

Who do you think ought to have to make it clear whether or not you may download their music; the people who are using their fundamental free speech right to be heard, or the people who are asserting their federal statutory copyright?

No determination at all

[burgburgburg]

The RIAA has not determined that file sharing has negatively impacted their business. "Determined" implies that they have done the most minimal amount of examination of the facts. They have not. They have decided that file sharing has hurt their business. They have decided this despite the obvious evidence that the largest chunk of the decline in sales is associated with them putting out 25% less product. They've ignored all evidence that the collusion between record companies to artificially inflate the price of CDs (for which they have already had civil judgments made against them) is also a strong component. They've ignored video/computer games, cable/DVDs and the Internet have taken a great deal of the income that would have been spent previously on music. And they've ignored the basic fact that there has not been a great deal of compelling music put out in quite some time.

Concurrently, they've also ignored the astonishing width and breadth of ill will that they've engendered with their supposed buying public. The majority of people involved with sharing still care about music. They are probably more inclined to purchase music they like then the average person (they just want to be sure it is music they actually like). And the RIAA has done everything it possibly can to build such a seething level of hatred towards them that they are probably losing an entire generation of potential customers.

Calling them idiots would be deeply insulting to idiots.

Re:No determination at all

[be-fan]

No one gets dragged into court on anti-trust grounds for establishing a monopoly on non-essential commodity items
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Microsoft? Software isn't essential either!

Re:No determination at all

[nalfeshnee]

Calling this Insightful is deeply insulting to insight.

Re:No determination at all

[roman_mir]

Can you explain one thing to us please?: Why is it that a legal copyright holder has to 'determine' that their business is hurting before they try to stop illegal sharing of their copyrighted materials?

WTF?

Re:Fair Use?

[evil carrot]

But is it bad for me to provide a way (with or without authentication) to access said music from work or from another location?

While they are not on a P2P system, much of my music is online and available to me and to anyone who guesses my IP address and the magical mystery port number of the day. No authentication in place. If someone is going to "steal" music simply because I have made it easy for myself to access my music from a friend's house or work, is it any different than leaving a binder of CDs (copies or originals) on my car seat with a door unlocked?

Allow me to be redundant

[StewedSquirrel]

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

Stop listening to the crap

[child_of_mercy]

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?

Re:Welcome to democracy

[MP3Chuck]

Go foot the bill for a band's studio session, then come talk to me about the "free exchange of art."

Re:Why is downloading music unethical?

[dsanfte]

The laws are also contrary to the nature of the universe. Information is easily copied. Attempting to (unenforcably) restrict the copying of information, and ignoring the benefits that mass-distribution of information can bring (especially in education and the arts) is counterproductive. Might as well try to legislate against gravity.

Re:Why is downloading music unethical?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not dealing with an individual's philosophical definition of humanity, we are dealing with a civilization's precise law.

It is still illegal, no matter how you shake your self righteous stick at it.

The major problem with RIAA is...

[arthurh3535]

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

Re:Why is downloading music unethical?

[andrew_mike]

What civilization are you referring to that possesses precise laws? Because last time I checked, it wasn't ours. Laws are made, followed, and enforced by human beings. Humans can and do make mistakes. If the law was as precise as you claim, there would not be such things as test cases in our system of jurisprudence. Indeed, sometimes lawmakers are intentionally vague about the details of laws.

In the end, though, laws are stipulations in the social contract that is government; the only thing keeping it valid is the people's compliance with it and the government's attempts at enforcing it.

What about students who were sued?

[failedlogic]

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

IANAL, but I'm sure these guys are p****ed about this news. Sure, most (if not all) the money was recovered through donations and Paypal but I'm sure they would rather have instead signed a document w/ their photo id instead. Beats the hell out of forfeiting life savings, having your credit ruined and risk dropping out of school for lack of funds.

In light of this news, I will remember the RIAA when I next go shopping for CD. I'm sure all my choices will be artists who aren't with the big labels. I'd encourage everyone to shop for CD's from smaller labels as well.

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

[Spy Hunter]

Right. If you submit this, all the RIAA has is your word that you deleted the files. It even says in the article: "Those who renege on their promise will be subject to charges of willful copyright infringement". So basically, you give your identity to the RIAA and tell them you have committed infringement in the past, and you get what? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! You can't keep downloading music, you can't keep the music you already have, and you don't have immunity from being sued in the future. You only have a guarantee that if the RIAA already knew you were sharing, and were *just about* to file a lawsuit, they won't. The chances of that are slim to none.

My say on the matter

[luckyguesser]

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.

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

[Reziac]

That was my take on this as well. It smells like a honeypot, aimed at collecting identities of hitherto-unidentified file sharers.

And even if the RIAA doesn't sue any suckers who come forward, they'll sure have put themselves under the watchful eye for the rest of their online lives. Care to bet that the RIAA won't be using these IDs to coerce information from the suckers' ISPs??

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

[TheCarp]

Silly silly silly.... no thats not exactly it. The fact is that people still buy CDs. The Capitalist pigs have always benefitted from one fact: The people don't care.

This is them making a very clever move actually. Not exactly backpeddling.... more a move of misdirection.

Its been said that people get exactly the government that they deserve, and the princible extends well past government. Those of us who decide to buy or not buy a CD based on our view of the record industry, that is, those of us who decide to engage in boycotts, are always far and few between. The average person wants a CD, and is going to buy it.

Everyone who has shitty internet access and wants music, still has to buy CDs. Everyone who wants to listen to music on the road and has no idea how to work a cdburner (or doesn't own one) guess what... they will continue to buy CDs.

Now being the slashdot crowd of mostly geeks and students, we probably know very few people who don't have souped up computers and whatnot. Sure even the most technically illeterate usually get a burned CD here and there from friends, but thats not the norm...most people that I know still buy CDs....and will buy CDs.

This is something much more insidious. Basically they stand to gain NOTHING from suing piddly file sharers. If you sign the paper, and get it noterized and send it in...thats a pain in your ass, will cost you a few bucks, and gives them a peice of paper saying you are guilty and will reform.

What would they get from sueing you? Seriously... for the vast majority of casses... the "5 nines" it will end up costing them more in lawyer time to sue you than its worth. Whats more they may not even win... so far the ONLY successfull prosecutions have been for file sharing, and then only for the big players, people who shared ALOT of files and helped others share (like the kazzaa "supernodes").

Youve undoubtedly seen the claims that they are sueing for thousands upon thousands per "infringement" and that would translate into MILLIONS just on the average file sharers computer.

Now do out the math... how many of those people seriously will EVER be able to pay that? More likely it would just ruin these people financially, with NO real benefit to the RIAA...in fact it would just give the anti-riaa people more ammo to go after them. If popular opinion chanhges against them, the nice congressment they purchased will forget their ties faster than Reagan forgot about the Contras.

So all in all, since it stands to profit them not at all, and the risk is high, how can they strengthen their position, anbd put this file sharing in check to hopefully rescue their business model?

Simple... Offer amnesty. It lets them bow out gracefully from their strong arm tactics. They don't WANT to have to sue all the people they are threatening to sue. However, they can't just back down either. So... they give the other side a chance to surrender.

Face it...they will sue a few people and try to make big examples of them, but they certainly don't want to do it accross the board. Anyone they do get, assuming the RIAA wins the cases (face it, they are going to cherrypick a few cases they are sure they can win... a loss for them would be catastrophic... as people would latch onto whatever technicallity or legal interpretation that allowed that one to pass, and it would be the basis for all future file sharing) and whoever they do make an example of is fucked.

All in all its just an outmoded buisness model trying to defend itself and getting nasty in its death throws. All in all, id say fuck them. Anyone who answers this call is just given them something to use in their PR.

-Steve

Re:Welcome to democracy

[Snoopy77]

As this is /. I'm going to assume that you are a fan of the GPL. I don't blame you. For people who want to allow others to freely benenfit from your work, and who want to benefit from others freely adding to your work, it is great. Such people have the right to release their code under the GPL and it is something we here on /. hold close to our hearts.

So why, when someone has spent time and money on a certain project do they have to give it away for free? It is their project (be it software or music), they should be able to have a certain amount of control over it. What gives you any rights to it? You certainly have no right to force me to offer you the results of my hard work for free.

Copyright laws only seem facist to you cause you are so far left of communism that you'd make Lenin look center right.

Off topic, way off.

[bninja_penguin]

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.
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.h tml)
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...........

More Questions

[antiMStroll]

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

That said, the music conglomerates turned the corner when two things happened: the digitization of music and the merging of hardware and software companies. They chose an insecure, universal and easily transferable media to sell their wares and then demanded, bought and actually got corporate rights (!) to bypass normal judicial procedure to chase individuals who file share. A democratic republic is a balance of rights between individuals, should:

Record companies be granted rights above individuals to protect a poor choice of distribution media?

Should one industry demand the imposition of universal DRM on all individuals to protect that business model?

Should electronic manufacturers and media manufacturers merge and, acting through their respective industry associations, be allowed to act a single, indominable oligarchy to impose their wills on the market?

Could be that the price of the RIAA member industries solvency is too high for a society to pay (in which case I expect them to die off, as have innumerable industries before them). Or, they could adapt, maybe give you more for $20 than a $0.10 silver disc, two pieces of plastic, a sheet of colour paper, three level of middleman profits and one or two palatable songs. Direct market? Coupons for discounted promotional or concert tickets? Discounts on the next release? Put in the tiniest effort beyond shipping discs in a box?

As alluded above, they had more sales when Napster was at its peak. Radio, for well more than half a century free music, also pushed record company profits to ever-higher peaks. It could just be that free sharing helps the industry by getting their artists heard. They could even seed Kazaa and track trading as a form of market research. But they're stuck in a silver-disc version of a fifties industry and expecting either that the world stands still or that government grant them extrodinary protection to preserve an outdated production model. Yes, I expect that if they don't adapt they'll naturally fight, but reasonable expectation and reasonable are worlds apart. The RIAA's actions - political, civil and corporately - aren't reasonable.

Respecting Copyright Law

[Raul654]

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

Forget ID. It's pro-RIAA argument!

[rastos1]

RIAA to Congress:
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.

My Advice To The RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

How dumberer do they think we are?

[Rogerborg]

"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.

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

[Danse]

Plus, how are they going to know if you renege? I'd rather not be the subject of a surprise search of my hard drive to verify that I'm complying with my side of the deal even if I am. I don't need that kind of aggrevation any more than a business wants to deal with a BSA audit even if they're 100% legit.

You'll have to submit to searches by a UN inspection team. Don't worry though, they'll just check under your keyboard and peer into your floppy drive to make sure there's no illegal music in there.

morality of free music: radio?

[Allison Geode]

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.

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. :-p

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

[evilviper]

Satire, and political speech are both 100% protected.

If you post a picture of Mickey Mouse, you will be sued to hell. If you post a picture of Mickey Mouse, with "Facist" written across it, it's legally protected speech.

It's the fact that the first is illegial that REALLY bothers me.

Writing on the wall

[TitanBL]

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?

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

[kelnos]

I should be able to got to RIAA.com (or wherever) and pick 12 songs from their archive, paypal them $5, and then a couple days later, I get my cd in the mail, with jewel case, liner notes and lyrics for each song in the packaging.

Shipping and Handling should be 2.95 (non-priority) for up to 10 CDs.

There would be no more incentive to run all the P2P networks to get music.

no more incentive? what are you smoking?
12 songs, liner notes, lyrics:

• RIAA: $5.00 + $2.95s+h
• P2P service, band info/lyrics websites: $0.00 + a little effort

do you see it too?

snide comments aside, i _do_ agree with you on this for the most part. this is a service i would probably pay for.