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...
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.
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
Actually, three lefts make a right. Or, if you wish, the equation can be represented as 2w=xr, where x is equal to the number of wrongs necessary to equal a right. In this instance, x equals 1f, where f=finger. Which is what my response would be to such a request.
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.
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.
Just because you legally own the CD's does not make sharing them legal.
Yo mama so fake, she failed the Turing Test.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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
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.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
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.'
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.
How ya like dat?
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?
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?
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.
Wow - the RIAA has to be pretty damn desperate to pull this kind of Mickey Mouse BS. The RIAA's warped sense of reality rivals that of the Heaven's Gate cosmonauts. This one last chace to surrender tactic is pretty pathetic. I guess you cannot expect them to just throw in the towel, but I think that the use of these these desperate scare tactics are yet more evidence that the fight is over.
One has to kinda feel bad for the recording industry, poisoned by the P2P, we watch this dinosaur breath it's last few breaths. Sympathy aside; do we need record labels? What need or demand do they fulfill? They take artists - produce, advertise, then distribute their albums - their revenue is generated from record sales of which 1-8% ends up going to the artist. Artists make money by touring and endorsements.
Recording equipment used to be extremely expensive - thus making bands dependent on record labels to front the money needed to make an album. This is not the case anymore. One can make a professional recording studio for under 30,000 dollars, and this number keeps shrinking every year. Bands can produce/fund their own albums. Technology has brought 'Recording' to the individual - eliminating the 'Industry'.
Control of society's sources of information (radio/tv) is the foundation of the recording industry's business model. The RIAA's stranglehold of radio and TV is becoming more and more irrelevant as the masses are turning to the Internet for their info. The Internet is intrinsically decentralized - thus the RIAA cannot dictate what content is avalibe via the web. One's exposure to new music is no longer limited the 50 song playlists of their local radio stations or what they see on tv...
Distribution - I think it is evident the Internet is a pretty effective medium for distributing music.
So, where does all this leave the artists? Pretty much right where they are now - they can still make money by selling concert tickets/merchandise - as long as they do not suck. Offsetting lack of talent with marketing will become increasingly futile. No more mass marketed music? Sounds like a good idea to me. No more boy bands, brittany spears, lincon park, etc. What does marketing have to do with art anyways?
I think 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)