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.
Sure... "Amnesty"... Photo ID...
This is a like those stings where wanted criminals "win a prize" and when they go to collect it, get arrested.
They need to drop CD's a LOT further in price before anyone I know will buy them again.
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!
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.
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.
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
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?
If you "renege on the promise you will be subject to charges of willful copyright infringement." So basically you are giving up any possible defense you may have because you've entered into a contract where you agree to accept those charges.
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.
The less the BSA, Microsoft, RIAA, government, etc. know about me personally the better, even if I'm 100% legit.
I doubt it's a honeypot. I don't think many people would sign up for this and then continue sharing, and I don't think the RIAA would turn around and sue people who abided by their terms (it would be PR suicide). In fact, I don't think many people will sign up for this at all. Rather, this is just a PR stunt, so the RIAA can later say "We tried to be nice, we even gave you amnesty! What more do you want?" It'll look good in the news. They want to get public opinion back on their side.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
" doubt it's a honeypot. I don't think many people would sign up for this and then continue sharing, and I don't think the RIAA would turn around and sue people who abided by their terms (it would be PR suicide). "
Dude. RIAA. In PR terms they're beginning to stink up the crawlspace. The next thing would be that people are asked to audit their own systems from a form that would just skirt legality in terms of threats and mention the heavy fines that they're trying to buy from Congress. It'll then go into a database, and you'll probably receive junk mail from these people ad infinitum.
Personally I consider them less trustworthy than crackheads and half as competent.
For those interested in the ongoing debate;
David Munns (EMI) whines about the high cost of CD Production and recieves no sympathy.
The views that prompted the panicky music exec.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
They need to drop CD's a LOT further in price before anyone I know will buy them again.
A 12 song CD should be around $5.
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.
Space permitting, the CD could be in a DAM CD format -- mixed media CD's that will play on both audio CD Players and in Computers as either MP3 files or Audio Files.
Shipping and Handling should be 2.95 (non-priority) for up to 10 CDs.
Sure people would still share or burn extra copies, but since each CD would be more-or-less customized to an individual's personal taste, a lot of people would *want* a complete burned copy of the disc.
Peole may want a individual song, but for $5, it's easier to just go and order your own CD, with your own music.
There would be no more incentive to run all the P2P networks to get music. This proposed service would have filled the need with a better offering. iTunes is still too expensive, IMHO.
Software Wars
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)