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...
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?
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!
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
Does this cover all the naked pictures of Hilary Rosen on my hard drive too?
F***. You.
That is all.
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
or is it copyrighted too?
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
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
<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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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."
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.
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.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.'
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.
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?
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!)
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?
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
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.
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
"Never under estimate the bandwidth of a stationwagon full of CDr's" Quote stolen and modified from said article.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because that's the monetary fine for copyright violation. They won't get thrown out of courts because it's in the lawbooks. If you don't like it, write your congressperson.
"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.
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.
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?
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?
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)