EFF Warns Against RIAA Amnesty Program

kpogoda writes "Check out the latest warnings from the Electronic Frontier Foundation regarding the recent actions from the RIAA. If you or anyone you know was contemplating handing over information to the RIAA, you may think twice."

Comments

Sure....

[feyhunde]

We promise nothing bad will happen if you admit guilt and give us all your contact information.

Re:Sure....

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a revised version of their Amnesty form, courtesy of userfriendly.org:

click here.

Re:Sure....

[Robaticus]

We should all send the RIAA a notarized affadavit that we "are not now, and never have been, a member of the Communist party."

This is McCarthyism at its finest.

R

word "amnesty"

[stonebeat.org]

Any thing with word "amnesty" in it, should be a warning by itself.

Re:word "amnesty"

[bersl2]

Amnesty International?

Last time I checked, they were doing some decent things.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Absurd Being]

Like Amnesty International? It sure has some ugly pictures on it, like of human rights abuses. So I guess it does deserve a warning.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

Any thing with word "amnesty" in it, should be a warning by itself.

yeah, watch out for amnesty international, or they'll protect the hell out of your human rights.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, well speaking out against the US makes you a liberal hero. Speaking out against some third world dictator means is a one-way ticket to a death squad or prison camp if you ever set foot in the country.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but does your hypothesis extend to include Amnesty International?

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our Amnesty International overlords.

Re:word "amnesty"

[EzInKy]

Hmm, are you saying that Amnesty International is evil or something?

No their not evil, just misguided and shortsighted.

On their homepage, for example, is a call to sign a petition to "Stop The Slaughter Now!" in the Congo. But rest assured if some western democracy decided to take the bull by the horns and do exactly that by sending in troops they would accuse that democracy of interfering with the locals right of self determination.

Re:word "amnesty"

[CausticWindow]

Torture, imprisonment without trial, secret trials, military trials for civilians...

It's ok, because China is even worse.

Re:word "amnesty"

[cicho]

France has troops in the Congo. (Article's from May, at which time they were planning to deploy; by now thay already have.)

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking out against some third world dictator means is a one-way ticket to a death squad or prison camp if you ever set foot in the country.

Even worse, it won't get you invited to the good cocktail parties.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Valar]

I just want you to know, I laughed for a good like time about this. Bravo.

Re:word "amnesty"

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Ok - I'll bite.

I was a target for the local Head of Amnesty International. Mark - Who was a teacher at Lewis Univercity back in the 1990's.

They decided that the execution of a rapist-Murderer that chopped up his victims was barbaric and held a cadle light vigil at stateville penitentiary in Joliet Illinois.

I wrote an op ed piece for the local paper explaining how we were eliminating a dangerous animal rather than a normal functioning member of society. Mark flew into a rage. He contacted the paper and demanded to run a rebuttel against my op ed piece - with a tag line stating that replies to replies would not be printed. He called me an animal, and was espicially vindictive when I had asked Amnesty International to come up with a better solution that would make sure that murderer-rapist-dismemberer never was a threat to society again.

What's more In his class I argued that the military did indeed provide a benefit outside of military actions, talking of jets, rocketry, navigation , MASH type emergency surgery, and dozens of other things that have spun out of military research and experience.

I went from an A averege on tests to a "D" in his class for my "Audacity".

Yeah, amnesty international is great. The people they get to head up their chapters are stellar. Boy, they sure have their heads on straight, and us folks living in the real world should STFU.

Yeah, I got karma to burn - but I had to get this off my chest.

Re:word "amnesty"

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Crap - I hit "reply" instead of "preview"

(braces for the spelling shark attack)

Re:word "amnesty"

[Red Warrior]

Parent said: if some western democracy decided

And you bring up france?

Re:word "amnesty"

[3terrabyte]

Nice post, thanks for sharing!

Guess you learned a sad lesson: Why @#$@in bother, eh? One thing that chaps me is that the professors forget that *we* are paying *their* salaries. I guess after a while living inside a glass bubble, they think they're getting paid to listen to themselves talk.

Re:word "amnesty"

[critter_hunter]

To quote Top Dollar:

A man has an idea. The idea attracts others like-minded. The idea expands. The idea becomes an institution. What was the idea?

Because you've had some bad experience with a (perhaps) misguided person who is part of the institution does not make the institution as a whole worthless. Nor does it make the ideas behind that institution bad. Because you disagree with their ideas that killing murderers is barbaric doesn't make either viewpoint invalid. See, there's this fun thing about philosophy, where two completely opposed opinions can be right at the same time! Life isn't boolean, true or false, black or white.

The fact is that Amnesty International's goal is to help others, and to improve living conditions for the human race. The success and steps to make that happen, you can disagree with, but to discredit the whole thing based on one bad experience with a teacher (hey, I got news for you: 90% of Humanities teachers are fucking assholes who'll flunk you if you don't act like a good brainwashed idiot) isn't very nice of you.

But then again, I guess forgiveness and giving second chances aren't your strong points, seeing as how you're pro death penalty and all.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

What about, uh... Amnesty International?

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

1. amnesty international
2. ???
3. profit!

Re:word "amnesty"

[EzInKy]

Dude, you're suffering from some sort of neo-conservative delusion, brought on by listening too much to great pundits like Ollie and Rush.

Dude, I'm a liberal who supports and has even marched for civil rights in the 70's, gay rights in the 90's, and am constantly writing my representatives to support issues like a national health care system.

Where this idea come from that a person must support some fanatical fundamentalist movements right to segregrate the world by sex and religion to be a liberal I'll never understand.

You know, if that was the attitude we had 40 years ago African-Americans would still be riding on the back of the bus because that was just the way they did things down there so who were we to interfere with south's culture.

Re:word "amnesty"

[knobmaker]

So tell me this. What kind of a nutbar bases his opinion of an entire international organization on the basis of one unpleasant individual's actions?

Where's the logic? The murderer whose execution you were celebrating was male. Does that mean that all men are murdering animals? Why not?

You might want to entertain the notion that judging a large group of people by the actions of one is pretty much the definition of brainless bigotry.

No wonder the world is so screwed up.

Re:word "amnesty"

[CommieOverlord]

Amnesty International is indeed an admirable organization, which has over the years done much to increase the welfare of humans across the globe. However sometimes it engages in rather silly attack-the-pig-dog-capitalist campaigns which only serve to tarnish it's image and undermine it's credibility.

Unfortunately it's much the same way with Greenpeace. I used to have tremendous respect for them, but thanks to their recent stunts wrt to WTO/globlization issues they now rank only somewhere slightly above PETA. And it's a shame that good causes are undermined like that.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding, you stupid shit?!?! Take a look at their webpage at amnesty.org. Congo, Brazil, Liberia, Russia, Timor, Nepal, etc. No criticism of the US or Europe.
Fuck off and die.

Re:word "amnesty"

[charon_on_acheron]

Not that you'll care, but basing an opinion of an organization on the actions of the head of a local chapter is a good idea. If the organization has megalomaniac assholes for chapter heads, what does that say for the Regional and National leaders? If the Regional and National leadership doesn't keep their local leaders in line, then it seems they condone the activity.

Does Amnesty International believe that giving lower college marks to people who hold differing viewpoints is a fair system? If not, then they should replace the officer of their organization that is violating people's right of free speech. Since they most likely haven't, they should be judged accordingly.

As for judging men by the actions of the executed murder/rapist -- did we elect him or appoint him to the position of Representative Of All Males? No. Rather than give him a position of honor, he was punished for his actions.

Re:word "amnesty"

[knobmaker]

Dude, I'm a conservative liberal gun-toting hippie who thinks that systematic crimes against humanity are a Bad Thing. Where did you get these strange ideas about Amnesty International? Amnesty International supports your views re segregation. Amnesty International certainly does not support the status quo if that status quo involves the systematic and egregious brutalization of people.

You seem to know absolutely nothing about the organization. Maybe you think it's criticized certain sacred cows who inhabit your pasture, but you're probably wrong about that. I think you must have AI confused with some other organization. But if you check out the organization, you'll find that it is against all manner of barbaric practices, not just the ones you happen to think are okay. You really have to stop getting all your news from Fox.

If you can't bring yourself to do anything else, at least read their front page. On it you'll find criticism of many governments.

Look at the page! They complain about Israel, Russia, Congo, Liberia, Serbia, Brazil, Vietnam, and many others. They even criticize Canada, for heaven's sake. And it has absolutely nothing to do with some nefarious plan to "segregrate the world by sex and religion." Where the hell did that come from? Check out the site. They want Mexico to do something about all the women who've been murdered in Juarez in late years. They're concerned about 100 pro-democracy organizers in Myanmar who've disappeared recently, many of them into unmarked graves, no doubt. They want the prisons in Afghanistan to be rebuilt-- the prisons are in such bad shape that violent prisoners can't be kept in custody, which is contributing to the current Afghan lawlessness. Some of those bandits are perfectly willing to kill U.S. soldiers. You're really against this? Really? You and all the Young Republicans who've weighed in on this issue are speaking from embarassing ignorance.

Unless you find the torture and murder of political prisoners to be acceptable, then you ought to get behind Amnesty International, at least to the extent of not spouting nonsense about them in a public forum.

You know, what I really think this all reflects is the appalling inflexibility of both the liberal and conservative mind. Conservatives dislike AI because it attracts so many liberals. And some liberals dislike AI because it takes a principled stand against brutal reprisals, even against folks liberals think deserve brutalization, such as certain deposed fascist dictators and their storm troopers.

You would think, if there were any rationality in the world, that all decent people could agree that torture was generally a Bad Thing, and making an effort to stop it a Good Thing.

But apparently not.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

Be sure to stay clear of this site. It's got amnesty and terrorism in it.

Re:word "amnesty"

[EzInKy]

You would think, if there were any rationality in the world, that all decent people could agree that torture was generally a Bad Thing, and making an effort to stop it a Good Thing.

So let's send the troops in, round up the perpatrators, throw them in prison and stop the torture in these brutal regimes. Oh wait, we can't do that because it will torture the torturors.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

"See, there's this fun thing about philosophy, where two completely opposed opinions can be right at the same time!"

This is hardly an axiom from philosophy, (except maybe of the coffee-shop flavor) but, perhaps, the most debated point not only in philosophy but in our culture at large.

"The fact is that Amnesty International's goal is to help others, and to improve living conditions for the human race...but to discredit the whole thing based on one bad experience with a teacher...isn't very nice of you"

But on what grounds can you claim this as a current goal? If their effective actions are merely an extreme leftist political group using the poor living conditions of the underprivileged to cover their ass, (for example :) then either their not achieving their goal in which case the resources going into the organization be directed elsewhere or they are achieving their goal and should be exposed as such.

"But then again, I guess forgiveness and giving second chances aren't your strong points, seeing as how you're pro death penalty and all."

I'd imagine he's more interested in giving a first chance to the innocent women who this guy might go after (Somebody's wife, mother, sister, daughter) then a second chance to a serial killer/rapist. I'll bet his death is far less painfull than any of his victims.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

How about using an example of something that Amnesty International has, in your opinion, actually done wrong?

While I may not agree with individual representatives of AI, I've never seen them fight for any cause that I don't agree with (yes, I agree with them that the death penalty and torture are human rights abuses).

Re:word "amnesty"

[critter_hunter]

I was going to reply to the whole thing, but decided against it: I think we agree on the fundamental part and you're nitpicking on semantics (or my bad communication skills). However, this part I must reply to:

I'd imagine he's more interested in giving a first chance to the innocent women who this guy might go after (Somebody's wife, mother, sister, daughter) then a second chance to a serial killer/rapist. I'll bet his death is far less painfull than any of his victims.

I'm rather undecided on the death penalty thing. Part of me is an humanist and wants to believe in redemption. Most of me is a cynical bastard who believes in natural selection and personal responsibility. See, I think if you can't avoid (or at least make the best of) the bad situations you are faced with, then you deserve whatever happens to you. You knew the odds, played against them or decided not to play, then paid the price.

You deserve what you get

Re:word "amnesty"

[Morosoph]

Re: "Stop The Slaughter Now!"
It's not hypocritical if it's a request to the Congoese Government. On a similar basis "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is not a commandment to kill killers.

Re:word "amnesty"

[EzInKy]

It's not hypocritical if it's a request to the Congoese Government. On a similar basis "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is not a commandment to kill killers.

From the same book:

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

and...

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Really now, religion and hypocrisy go hand in hand and both have caused much of the ills in the world today...plus discussing it would take us even farther off topic than we have already wandered.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Morosoph]

Well, okay, The Bible's inconsistent, but "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is not self-contradictory, even if the bible as a whole is.
The Sceptics Annotated Bible is a great place to look for more of the same!

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of a quotation:

"When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint.
When I asked why the poor had no food, they called me a communist."

Re:word "amnesty"

[Zonekeeper]

Protecting human rights is about the last thing Amnesty International does. They find plenty of things wrong with the way the US does things, but find no problem with third world countries who lock people up for years at a time, cut their hands and feet off, and drop their people in shredder. But goodness, let the US execute a serial killer, and AI just loses it and calls us mean and backwards.

Re:word "amnesty"

[miskatonic alumnus]

One thing that chaps me is that the professors forget that *we* are paying *their* salaries. I guess that means that college students should get to choose their own grade. As a college instructor, I've heard this B.S. argument before. My reply was, "So what?" When you watch your favorite (football, basketball, etc.) team play, and purchase the merchandise, you pay their salaries too. That doesn't mean you get decide who the winning team is.

Re:word "amnesty"

[3terrabyte]

Go ahead and put words in my mouth, to make YOUR B.s. comment. A teacher should never make personal, political, religious feelings over the students' right to a fair education that they paid for.

Re:word "amnesty"

[miskatonic alumnus]

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I interpreted the meaning of what you said.

Let me put it another way: How does the fact that YOU pay your teacher's salary have any bearing whatsoever on whether they should be fair and objective in their dealings with you? I mean, they should be fair and objective REGARDLESS of whether you pay, or your parents pay, or the government (through grants) pays, or Santa Claus pays, right? Who pays is irrelevant.

Re:word "amnesty"

[bhsurfer]

yeah, but we got a crack team of experts in washington working on that...

Re:word "amnesty"

[skarmor]

The fact is that Amnesty International's goal is to help others, and to improve living conditions for the human race.

Actually there are many reasons to discredit the whole organization. While I'm sure that most people who donate to Amnesty International really do believe that they are "making a difference" by "improving living conditions for the human race", the reality is quite different. Like any non-governmental organization the prime goal of AI is to raise money in order to pay the salaries of the numerous bureaucrats who work for them. Self-preservation is the number one goal.

The "socially concious" among us will donate to AI in a fit of altruism (political science students who are part of the "anti-globalization" movement are particularly bad for this) or out of guilt (people who see the starving children/mistreated political prisoners on the TV and are compelled to give). AI will use a large percentage of this money for administration (salaries, rent, phone bills, etc) and whatever is left will be used to "take action".

The truth is that AI is not and cannot be very effective. The injustices, the violations of human rights, will continue as long as there is inequality among societies. Unfortuneately there are not enough resources in the world for everyone to live the "western lifestyle". In order to make things equal citizens of western countries would need to accept a siginificant decrease in quality of life. I am not willing to accept this (and I'm sure many others are with me). The inequalities in the world are bound to continue to exist as long as people are struggling to increase their quality of life. They will exist despite the candlelight vigils, "formal complaints" and "political action" of AI.

I cannot justify donating to an organization so they can pay large salaries to a bloated bureaucracy that is fighting a losing battle against the inevitable injustices in the world.

Re:word "amnesty"

[b-baggins]

The thou shalt not kill commandment is better translated as: Thou shalt not shed innocent blood.

But of course, actual research might upset your carefully crafted anti-Christian bigotry.

Re:word "amnesty"

[b-baggins]

So what? It means that I expect to get what I paid for, which is an actual education and not some propagandistic indoctrination.

And "fair and balanced" from a college professor is code for: The liberal crap I'm going to shove down your throat because I run a little dictatorship in my classroom. I just wish I coul be dictator of the United States, too and get rid of all the stupid decisions the great unwashed make.

Re:word "amnesty"

[b-baggins]

Injustices exist because of the actions of evil men, not because some people are poor and other people are rich.

Until you identify the problem correctly, you will never be able to see the solution.

Re:word "amnesty"

[monkeydo]

But it isn't, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." It's "Thou shalt not commit murder." Killing is not always murder. Leagally sanctioned execution is by definition not murder.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, International Amnesties YOU!

Re:word "amnesty"

[skarmor]

Injustices exist because of the actions of evil men, not because some people are poor and other people are rich.

Nope, you are incorrect. That wasn't much of an argument but I will still respond. Injustice is inherent in society where some people have wealth and power while others do not. Those who do not have power will do whatever is necessary to obtain wealth and power. This can result in the torture and murder of political dissidents, "human rights" abuses and so on. Those who have power and wealth will do what is necessary to maintain it. Leaders of wealthy, powerful societies may need to exercise capital punishment, "illegal imprisonment" and so on in order to control their own society. Those same people might conduct warfare against countires who do not have as much wealth in order to keep them in their place...Some people might say that such people are "Evil Men" but that is over simplifying the situation.

The point is that amnesty international has no effect on this situation. They dupe the gullible into handing over truckloads of money which is largely wasted ion "administration"...

Until you identify the problem correctly, you will never be able to see the solution.

There is not a "problem" that can be "solved" by a bunch of wealthy folks with good intentions. This is how the world works and it is unlikely to change.

Re:word "amnesty"

[drakaan]

Umm...do you have any idea what amnesty international does (okay, tries to do)? True, they make noise about executions, but they have very little to do with things in the US, and most of their efforts focus on human rights abuses in third-world countries...pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said. That wasn't a troll, was it?

Re:word "amnesty"

[Morosoph]

But it isn't, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." It's "Thou shalt not commit murder." Killing is not always murder. Leagally sanctioned execution is by definition not murder.

"Thou shalt not murder" is still not a commandment to kill killers, although it may allow it.
But you're right, The Bible is a strange and contradictory document; EzInKy's reply points this out rather well, although Jesus's later pronouncements to turn the other cheek, do unto others..., and not to judge others do tend to suggest that revenge is not Christian.
More to the point, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" still wouldn't be a command to kill killers, whoever said it!
It's also so much more poetic, don't you think?

Re:word "amnesty"

[Morosoph]

The thou shalt not kill commandment is better translated as: Thou shalt not shed innocent blood.
But of course, actual research might upset your carefully crafted anti-Christian bigotry.

I know that this wasn't directed towards me, but I feel impelled to point out that this Commandment in in the Old Testament, and has been in any case superceeded for Christians by "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you", "Do not judge, lest you be judged", and "Turn the other cheek".
This makes the other comments anti-Jewish bigotry, rather than anti-Christian bigotry!

Re:word "amnesty"

[critter_hunter]

But humans are egoists who donate because it makes them feel good. The kind of people who donate to Amnesty International do it for themselves, and care little what happens with their money once their "good deed" is done. People who really care donate *time*, not money.

I wouldn't donate to Amnesty International. But, if some good comes out of people's donation, no matter how much of the donations are squandered on bloated administration, I think we're better off than if no good had been done at all.

Re:word "amnesty"

[EinarH]

But rest assured if some western democracy decided to take the bull by the horns and do exactly that by sending in troops they would accuse that democracy of interfering with the locals right of self determination.

Your whole post is based about the wrong assumption that the Congo conflict/war is a internal conflict inside Congo. It's not.

A large and substantial part of the problem is governmental funded guerilla groups from Rwanda and other countries that fight inside Congo for control of mineral/trade.
So sending troops to Congo would NOT have been interfering with internal affairs as the main task for such a force would have been cutting of these guerilla groups.

Read up on the conflict; the Economist had some exceellent coverage of the region some weeks ago.

Re:word "amnesty"

[3terrabyte]

awesome, it's been a while since playing 3rd grade logic games!

OBVIOUSLY I meant that teachers should treat the government, Santa Claus and my parents like shit also to make up for their own inadequacies!

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop torturoring me with your bad English.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because you've had some bad experience with a (perhaps) misguided person who is part of the institution does not make the institution as a whole worthless."

Blah blah blah.

Enough anecdotal discussion and evidence over the years have convinced myself, and others, that Amnesty International implementations over the past decade SUCKS.

How about the fact that they are INEFFECTIVE?

That's really why no one really listens to them. If an organization does not have the frame of mind and rules to right wrongs within it's own organization, it is bound to have enemies, as well as be ineffective in it's real world goals.

Just as an employee or worker or white-collar is a reflection of a company or group, so it goes with charity and volunteer organizations, particularly so if it is a KNOWN, REPETITIVE condition.

Re:word "amnesty"

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people. It's call life.

If I walk into a store and am treated like shit by one employee, I don't shop there anymore, at least at that branch.

If I do a web search and find other like abuses elsewhere, I write a letter to the local branches and stop shopping at that chain for at time. For me, that was 3 years from Walmart.

If the organization has vindictive, asinine people and cannot police it's members, it's a reflection of the organization. As small as he might have been, that prof or whoever was a head of a local chapter. Not simply an unpleasant member.

I know for myself, at my University, the Amnesty members were near rabid asses. I looked up similar anecdotal accounts online as well as talked to other folks that I consider trustworthy and of sane mind at the University, and they too had issues. So avoided them.

Do they do good things? Perhaps. But they lose people. There is a large world out there, and it's insane to think anyone is going to bash their brains trying to work with people who don't want constructive and effectual help.

Re:word "amnesty"

[deanj]

That's pretty easy to say when professors can sit back in their tenured jobs and screw over people that disagree with them, knowing full well that no one can touch them for doing it. That "So What" attitude you have is exactly the problem.

Re:word "amnesty"

[miskatonic alumnus]

So what?

Re:word "amnesty"

[deanj]

Good comeback.

Never trust them

[osme]

I'd never give any information to them, or sign their papers. But, then again, I also don't use P2P.

Re:Never trust them

[CrazyGringo]

I wasn't going to give them information, but I was going to give them a mailbox full of dog poop.

Re:Never trust them

[fenix down]

Does their amnesty extend to people who sent them dog poop? I'm woried they might find out that one last month was me.

Re:Never trust them

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends, was it Snoop Doggy Poop? If it was and you illegally acquired it then you might be in trouble, better fess up

Re:Never trust them

[Channard]

Does their amnesty extend to people who sent them dog poop? I'm woried they might find out that one last month was me.

I guess it's true - on the internet no-one knows you're a dog.

Hmm

[cultobill]

Ok, the RIAA says they won't come after you if you fill out the form and destroy your copies. That's great.

What about the labels/artists they represent? Those people probably still have the rights to do so. And, hey, they've got your name and stuff...

I'm still a fan of only downloadings stuff you're allowed to, but whatever. I'm not too zealous about people downloading their music.

Re:Hmm

[Ieshan]

What about that last quote, where they said that because they weren't a legal organization, they weren't bound by the limits of search?

I'd be dubious of giving anything to anyone who said they didn't have to honor the law.

Re:Hmm

[OMEGA Power]

And does anyone think they won't give (or sell) all the admitted filesharers info to other groups that can sue them (MPAA, BSA, etc)

Re:Hmm

[Aadain2001]

Only the copyright holders can go after people downloading their work illegally, and last time I checked the RIAA's contract practices, the artists give up all rights to their works to whatever label just signed them. Someone about their songs being concidered "work for hire" or something. The artists are little more than line workers to the RIAA.

Re:Hmm

[goodship11]

about 3 months before RIAA sued the two students at rpi, they invited the student population to come down for some "focus group" question and answer sessions. coincidence?

Re:Hmm

[LostCluster]

That's exactly the problem here. You're handing over a notarized confession complete with your home address as verified by ID to the RIAA, while it's the individual members of the RIAA whose content you've stolen. The RIAA doesn't have the authority to legal agreements binding upon each individual label... so even though the RIAA forgives you, Sony, AOL Time-Warner, et al. can still go after you, and they can use that "shamnesty" confession as all the proof they need.

Re:Hmm

[psilosopher256]

Yeah, the fourth amendment only restricts the government. It's not that they aren't honoring the law, it's that the law doesn't apply to them. This isn't a reason to trust them, sure, but it isn't a reason to distrust them either.

Re:Hmm

[larry bagina]

no they can't. RIAA is acting as an agent on Sony/AOL Time Warner/etc's behalf.

The real problem is that the RIAA doesn't represent all labels, so some of the smaller independent lables could sue with the amnesty beign prima facia proof of guilt.

Re:Hmm

[C10H14N2]

You sound like the guy who drove into my Bentley at 35mph when it was parked at Wal*Mart. Why don't you give me your name, address, license plate number and a notarized admission of guilt?

Oh yeah, I was only borrowing the car to deliver pizza, but I'm sure the actual owner, his insurance company and bank won't sue you into oblivion if I hand all your documentation over with an admission of guilt.

Bessos.

Re:Hmm

[jazman_777]

Yeah, the fourth amendment only restricts the government. It's not that they aren't honoring the law, it's that the law doesn't apply to them.

+1 Informative.

Re:Hmm

[pla]

What about that last quote, where they said that because they weren't a legal organization, they weren't bound by the limits of search?

Wouldn't that tend to imply that they have no right to conduct a search in the first place?

I have signed no contracts granting the RIAA the right to conduct a search of myself, my property, my history, or even for my car keys that I keep misplacing.

Baring some official status, or a contract... Why should it matter that normal proceedural limitations do not apply to them? My neighbors don't need to observe due process in considering me annoying, but if they decide to search my house to prove it, the police will get a call right after the use of deadly force in self defense.

Re:Hmm

[rgmoore]

Yeah, the fourth amendment only restricts the government.

It's not 100% clear that's true. The Fourth Amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It doesn't say that the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated by the government, but that it shall not be violated. That at least suggests that private entities shouldn't be able engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, either.

Even if it applies only the government, you have to remember that the courts are also part of the government. That means that private entities should not be able to use government power in the form of court orders to perform searches that would be rejected were a government agency to try them. That may leave it open for private agencies to snoop in ways that the government isn't allowed to, so long as they don't use court orders to do so and they obey relevant laws against trespass, unauthorized computer access, etc.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity, is their evidence admissible? How do the courts know the evidence is valid?

It may have been tampered with, falsified etc. I was under the impression that there were rules of evidence, or is that strictly criminal cases?

I may be watching too many crime dramas.

Re:Hmm

[fenix down]

New rule: from now on, all bad /. analogies about file sharing must be at least as surreal as this one.

Re:Hmm

[shdragon]

...the police will get a call right after the use of deadly force in self defense.

Ahhh....you must live in Texas too.

Re:Hmm

[canadian_right]

Only an Amerikan would think using deadly force is an appropriate response to a simple trespass. It this attitude, not the just the fact that there are so many guns floting around, that makes guns so dangerous in the USA.

Re:Hmm

[Reziac]

Never heard it laid out that clearly before, but you're right, the 4th DOESN'T say "only the gov't can't unreasonably search and seize...".

I'm wondering how this might be applied to "entrapment" as sometimes practiced by *non-gov't* outfits. (IMO, this whole amnesty thing IS an entrapment scheme.)

Re:Hmm

[Brandybuck]

It doesn't have to explicitly specify that it is the government which limited in search in seizures, because this is a part of the US Constitution, which specifically applies only to the US Government.

Re:Hmm

[JayBlalock]

I agree. If the burgler refuses to leave on his own, it's MUCH more entertaining to beat him for awhile instead of just killing him. (which is messy and wasteful) It's nice living in a state that believes a criminal's rights more or less end the moment he breaks into your house. In California, there's at least one incident on record where a burgler broke into a house, managed to injure himself on carving knives left in the kitchen, and then successfully sued the owner of the house for negligence. (while dodging any criminal charges of his own) Not kidding. And THAT would be why some people feel it's better just to shoot on sight. /also Texan

Re:Hmm

[CentrX]

If they're not a government entity, then they don't have the authority to do ANY sort of search or seizure. The government is given that authority if there is a probable cause to search or seize, but without that, no one has any right to search or seize anything of mine.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Government agencies don't have the right to conduct searches either. They have to get warrants from a court, which in this case is vested with the power to permit the search to happen.

This is very different from a "right". If you have a right to do something, you don't have to ask anyone for permission.

That said, your conclusion is nonetheless correct. The RIAA has no right to infringe your privacy.

Re:Hmm

[AJWM]

using deadly force is an appropriate response to a simple trespass

Walking across the guy's lawn is simple trespass. Showing up in his house and searching for stuff is unlawful entry, probably breaking and entering, and no doubt a few other things besides.

Re:Hmm

[el-spectre]

Actually, unless there is a sign stating that you can't be there, or a significant mechanism to stop you (door, fence), it isn't trespass until you are asked to leave.

Re:Hmm

[Moofie]

Somebody trespassing, in my house, in the middle of the night, isn't trying to sell me Amway. They're up to no good, and they are in mortal peril.

Me, I prefer to rack the slide of a shotgun noisily first. That gives them plenty of incentive to leave. If they stay, after hearing that sound, they're pretty darn dumb.

Will I shoot first, and ask questions later? No. I will challenge from behind a weapon equipped with light. If the intruder then does anything other than comply with my orders, well, that was a pretty bad idea on their part.

Re:Hmm

[caluml]

Bentley + WalMart in the same sentence?! Don't you rich people have somewhere better to shop? :O)

Re:Hmm

[psilosopher256]

But the thing is, you're broadcasting that you have for distribution a work that has a copyright held by someone other than yourself. In short, you're broadcasting that you are a criminal. If you put on your website that you are sharing music, and the copyright holder sees that, they haven't conducted a search or seizure that is in any way illegal. This is precisely analogous.

Re:Hmm

[Channard]

What about that last quote, where they said that because they weren't a legal organization, they weren't bound by the limits of search?

So they're saying they have the right to enter your house willy nilly and take your things? That'd be burglary, surely? When can we expect RIAA members to be arrested for breaking and enterting?

Re:Hmm

[golgotha007]

a bentley? what, does your kid have some facination with getting some poor people pants?

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

> Only an Amerikan would think using deadly force
> is an appropriate response to a simple trespass.

I'm not an American. If I find the neighbour in my apartment when I come home tonight, he has three seconds to cough up a really good explanation.

(Three seconds being the estimated time it takes me to rush to the kitchen and grab the cleaver.)

("Simple trespass" aka "knowingly and willfully breaking and entering". At least 'round here where we have concepts such as doors, locks and private property. And no neighbours that magically and accidentally diffuse through said locked doors without in any way meaning to do it.)

Re:Hmm

[Jonner]

Does spelling it with a "k" make it derogatory? By the way, Candians are Americans too.

Shooting someone is not usually a reasonable response to breaking and entering; in some cases, it is. The wielder of a deadly weapon needs to be responsible, whether he is a private citizen or a police officer. It is legal for citizens to shoot trespassers in some places because private citizens need to be able to defend themselves and are capable of just as much responsibility as the police. Both private and public authority are necessary parts of a free society.

Re:Hmm

[maddskillz]

What is a Candian?
And if you mean Canadians, then yes, they are North Americans, but please don't refer to them as just Americans, since that word almost always means people from the USA

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt that lawsuit is real; unless you can link me to some relevant info on it. Sounds like one of those made up lawsuits that were in the news recently.

Re:Hmm

[Jonner]

I'm pointing out that the word "American" is often abused. To describe my nationality, I say that I am from the US, or that I am a citizen of the USA. The problem is that there is not a good English word to describe that nationality. There's a good Spanish one: Estadounidense. Maybe I should start calling myself a UnitedStatesian.

Re:Hmm

[satch89450]

I may be watching too many crime dramas.

Yep. You forget that the RIAA is working in the civil arena, where the rules are completely different. First, the burden of proof is the "proponderance of the evidence", you don't have to have 12 out of 12 jurors -- hell, you don't have to have 12 jurors, some cases have been decided by a panel of 6 -- but 9 out of 12, and there is no such thing as the right to remain silent.

On the other hand, the only thing the RIAA can get is money.

Re:Hmm

[Licinius]

You're digging too deep. 'American' is pretty much synonymous with US citizen around the world. Yes, technically Canadians are Americans, Mexicans are Americans, et cetera, but semantically they are not. You're not gonna be able to change that.

Re:Hmm

[Jonner]

A man can dream, can't he?

Re:Hmm

[sjames]

It may or may not be real, I haven't heard of this one. However, it is not out of line with all too real cases.

It seems that so called 'judjes' (so-called since they regularly fail to show any sign of judgement) and some juries are unable to comprehend the simple concept that a person surrenders all legal expectation of reasonable care or safety upon breaking and entering. One might expect that a law to spell out such an obvious thing wouldn't be necessary, but obviously, it is. That is the actual motivation behind such laws as Louisiana's 'shoot the carjacker' law.

Re:Hmm

[sjames]

I would argue that it usually is reasonable, even without warning. If I get up and see a person that I KNOW has no business being in my hose, it is reasonable to conclude that he is a burglar who is already well aware that he is not allowed to be there.

Since burglars are also well aware that they are lot likely to be welcome, they are often prepared for violence. That is a risk they assme by breaking in. I on the other hand did not take any action to assume risk of violence. Therefore, it's reasonable that I shoot him without warning to preclude the possability of him using a weapon against me. There is a possible exception in cases where they are obviously unarmed, but since most burglars don't turn the lights on and make their presence obvious, that is reletively uncommon.

My only legal DUTY in this case is to verify my target.

There are cases where a person I don't know may have a reasonable cause to enter my home, but none of those involve burglary, and in those cases, they have a duty to announce their presence (I'm thinking fire, police, or people seeking shelter from dangerous weather or other emergency) I argue that those allowable circumstances are vastly outnumbered by burglaries.

Re:Hmm

[sjames]

It doesn't have to explicitly specify that it is the government which limited in search in seizures, because this is a part of the US Constitution, which specifically applies only to the US Government.

That would indicate that the right to search and seize without a warrant is not the government's to grant in the first place. Thus, the DMCA cannot constitutionally grant it.

Re:Hmm

[Jonner]

I think it would be extremely irresponsible to shoot someone unless you were quite certain he threatened you or your family or another person. I cannot justify killing a person to protect my personal belongings. Things are not as valuable as a person, no matter how much of a scumbag the person is.

Re:Hmm

[Bendebecker]

Too bad we can't arm our hard drives and our virtual selves with guns (with the exception of ineffective virtual guns.)

Re:Hmm

[sjames]

I think it would be extremely irresponsible to shoot someone unless you were quite certain he threatened you or your family or another person.

I do not maintain that my property is more valuable than the life of another. I argue that I have a reasonable fear for the safety of myself and my family in the event that a stranger breaks into my house by stealth, and that they have no reasonable expectation of safety (in other words, that it is reasonable to expect a potentially lethal response from the residents when you break into a dwelling).

If there was some sort of clear and incontrovertable sign that the person absolutely would not act against me or my family, that would be another matter, but what believable sign might that be? Surely not their sterling reputation as an upstanding member of society!

So all that means is that I can not reasonable use lethal force as they back out of my driveway or run away across my lawn (though I reserve t5he right to shoot out their tires unless that would subject bystanders to the risk of a stray bullet, and I reserve the right to use non-lethal force against them to recover my property.

In summary, in my living room = one shot, one kill. Running away = disable only.

Re:Hmm

[tanguyr]

I think that's unlikely to happen, as the RIAA (probably) wouldn't give these unaffiliated labels access to the information. Remember that the RIAA is only sueing people who share content under copyright to RIAA members. Industry associations don't represent an industry, they represent the interests of their members (and in a manner weighted by the relative size of the member in quetion).

I'd have to say that filling in one of these forms is a bad idea because the exchange isn't fair: you're admitting to a crime for which the other party can't really grant you amnesty - they promise not to sue you, but that's not the same as granting you immunity from prosecution for this crime. /t

Re:Hmm

[b-baggins]

This is a bogus argument. The warrants were sworn out by a court. That gives the RIAA the right.

The validity and legality of the warrants have been upheld several times now.

The RIAA is acting legally. Get over it.

Re:Hmm

[b-baggins]

One of the fundamental pillars of personal liberty is the right to be secure in your property (hence the fourth amendment).

Without the ability to use deadly force if necessary to preserve that right, the idea of personal property is meaningless (thus the second amendment).

Making it impossible to be utlimately secure in your property is Communist Russia, friend, not "Amerika."

Re:Hmm

[Abcd1234]

Therefore, it's reasonable that I shoot him without warning to preclude the possability of him using a weapon against me.

Funny, that accurately describes the foreign policy of the United States since JWB entered office.

Hey, wait... is that you, Junior?

Re:Hmm

[Jonner]

I guess it comes down to judgment. I would guess that the typical burglar would be more likely to simply flee than attack if discovered. My family's house was broken into when I was young. Electronics and other valuables were taken. We were frightened the next morning, but I think it was better that none of us woke up and caused the burglar to become alarmed.

Re:Hmm

[b-baggins]

Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:
BANG!

Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click... (sounds of clip being ejected and fresh clip installed)
Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: "Nice grouping Daddy!"

Re:Hmm

[Destree]

You can be charged with "False Imprisonment" why not "False Searching and Siezing"?

Re:Hmm

[Destree]

It's in a non audible high frequency EULA you agree to by listening to the music. /smartass

Re:Hmm

[pla]

The RIAA is acting legally. Get over it.

Fine. I can accept that as well.

But if they act with the authority of the courts, they need to obey they same rules as any other agent of the courts, a point that they have publically rejected (and the very statement that lead to this thread).


We come in peace (shoot to kill!).

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called criminal trespass and burglary.

Re:Hmm

[pla]

or a significant mechanism to stop you (door, fence)

So, where exactly do you live, where most houses lack doors?

Re:Hmm

[pla]

Things are not as valuable as a person, no matter how much of a scumbag the person is.

Ah, now there, you have it wrong.

Humans have no value. We have made it as the single most populous species on Earth, by a a factor of 3 over the second most populous (rats, who only made it that high because they do well in the shadow of human settlements).

We have no value. Any one of us can dissapear, with no real loss to the rest of the universe. You could even wipe out four or five billion of us (as long as that didn't include all of one gender), with no real loss to the world - That would still leave more people alive than existed at any time prior to the 17th century (you know, one of those major times of unrest when people realize that if they didn't find a way to increase food production, most of them would starve, leading to such Modest Proposals as Swift's to deal with overpopulation?)


So no, your fundamental premise does not hold true. We have no reason to allow someone to threaten our safety by inquiring why they've entered our house without our permission, because the loss of that person means absolutely nothing. One more walking bag of pondscum placed a safe distance underground, and a thousand other walking bags of pondscum get the message not to break into my house.

Re:Hmm

[Jonner]

That's a pretty dim view. Since you mention Swift's "Modest Proposal" without mentioning that it was satirical and gloss over a lot of other things, I would guess you're just a troll.

Re:Hmm

[monkeydo]

It isn't proof of anything unless you specify exactly which works have been infringed. If one of the smaller labels sues you could just claim that you only infringed on RIAA covered works, and they have to prove otherwise. This is a contract between you and the RIAA not to engage in CIVIL litigation. You could still be held CRIMINALLY liable, but the complaintant, RIAA or otherwise, still has to prove that you infringed on specific works.

Re:Hmm

[Abcd1234]

That would be GWB, of course.

Re:Hmm

[Rasta Prefect]

Humans have no value. We have made it as the single most populous species on Earth, by a a factor of 3 over the second most populous (rats, who only made it that high because they do well in the shadow of human settlements).

There are many species far more populous than us. Ants, termites, etc. Not that this really makes the argument in favor of Humans being valueable, but...

Re:Hmm

[Tom7]

This is the really scary thing about many gun rights folks--they really look forward to the *opportunity* to shoot somebody.

I'm not saying that searching your house is legal, or that you shouldn't use deadly force if someone actually threatens you, but there are lot of fairly innocent things that can be mistaken for a search, that definitely do not justify killing someone.

Re:Hmm

[sjames]

Funny, that accurately describes the foreign policy of the United States since JWB entered office.

Actually, JWB's policy would dictate that I burn down my neighbor's houses with them inside just in case they might have a weapon that they might decide to use against me one day, but only if they speak a foreign language and seem reasonably poor.

Re:Hmm

[pla]

There are many species far more populous than us.

Many genera more populous than humans exist, but not specific species. Well, in fairness, you could say that all E. coli belong to the same species, and all humans have millions living inside them, but, dealing only with multicellular organisms, my statement holds true.

Re:Hmm

[pla]

That's a pretty dim view. Since you mention Swift's "Modest Proposal" without mentioning that it was satirical and gloss over a lot of other things, I would guess you're just a troll.

No, not a troll, I quite fully mean and believe what I said.

As for Swift writing satire, I realize that, but you may have missed the point of my reference. Though of a satirical bent, "A Modest Proposal" addressed an issue that even 300 years ago people had already recognized - Namely, that the world has too many people. And since Swift's time, that number has grown by a factor of 12.


So call me a troll if you will, or just extremely grim, but quite seriously, not a single one of our lives matters one whit. Sure, a few people may mourn our deaths, but a century after we die, people will only remember the worst liars among us (ie, the major politicians). And a thousand years from that, only the heads-of-state of major economic or military states will remain in the books. And in 10,000 years? Probably not even them (or do you happen to know the leader of the Mo'oklawa-i tribe, of present day Ghana, in 7052 BCE? And yes, I made that up, but feel free to substitute any real tribe anywhere in the world, in that same year).

So no trolling involved. Simply a statement that we live a cold, souless universe that will retain no trace of our existance in another 4.5 billion years - Humans may still exist in some form, but nobody currently alive will make it beyond our solar system.

Re:Hmm

[el-spectre]

Quoth the grandparent:
Walking across the guy's lawn is simple trespass.

I was responding to this. Lots of places are owned but w/o protective measures. Lawns, fields, etc.

Re:Hmm

[pla]

This is the really scary thing about many gun rights folks--they really look forward to the *opportunity* to shoot somebody.

This strikes me as the really scary thing about anti-gun folks - They get twitchy about the very thought that someone, somewhere, might actually have a gun and, *GASP*, use it.

Guess what?

I do not have a gun. I did not mention guns in my post. And yet, more than one person assumed that the term "deadly force" means "gun".

Odd, that.

Re:Hmm

[pla]

I was responding to this. Lots of places are owned but w/o protective measures. Lawns, fields, etc.

Ah, fair 'nuff. I apologize for my sarcasm, we apparently took his statement in the exact opposite way... You that such an act would satisfy my conditions for shooting the person; and me, that a reasonable person wouldn't consider simple tresspass (as opposed to criminal tresspass along with B&E) as a reason to use deadly force.

But a fair misunderstanding, on both our parts, I think. On rereading it, I see that he could have meant it either way. :-)

Re:Hmm

[nametaken]

That's nice. First, he wasn't talking about "simple trespass". If a person breaks into a lady's home at 3am, she could probably make the case that she honestly believed he was a serious threat to her person, or life. The rule-of-thumb goes, "equal or slightly greater force". If someone your size walks up to you on the street and slaps you, you can't shoot him. If a big dude walks up and threatens you with a 2x4, cap him.

Also, guns are dangerous in the US because gangstas, crack addicts, etc have them. Not because we have a will to protect ourselves from people in our homes at night.

"Amerikan" should = "American". Thanks.

Re:Hmm

[Brandybuck]

You are absolutely correct. The philosophical underpinnings of the US Constitution are that all rights, every last one of them, belong to the people, and only by their explicit consent can government violate them.

The right to be secure in your self and your property belongs to you. It requires the highest law in the land, the constitution, to allow the government to violate that via search and seizure.

A private company cannot do this without explicit permission from you, such as in the form of a contract. The DMCA is wrong.

Re:Hmm

[el-spectre]

Eh, I'd never kill someone for simple trespass, even a texan (unless they were a Spur fan...)

***Ducking texan punches***

Yes, I've been to texas. Other than the BBQ, the state is worthless :)

Re:Hmm

[SillySlashdotName]

WTF? You were using a borrowed bentley to deliver pizza? To Wal-Mart?

I say again, WTF!?

Re:Hmm

[Tom7]

Well, my comment was directed more to the sentiment in general, than to your particular situation.

But my point is equally applicable to people who look forward to using their swords, knives, chemical spray, karate skills, or whatever.

Yes, indeed, I am twitchy about the idea that someone would be excited use deadly force, because that is precisely the "I'll show them!" attitude that causes so many accidents. Why do you find that scary?

Re:Hmm

[pla]

Yes, indeed, I am twitchy about the idea that someone would be excited use deadly force

Alright, I can agree with you to that extent.

If I came across as "excited" about it in more than a "don't screw with me or mine" way, then I spoke (wrote) poorly. I do not look forward to someone breaking into my house so that I can kill them and have it legally justified (I'd join the army if I wanted to do that). I would consider someone wandering unannounced around inside my house at 2am as quite likely a very real threat, and deal with them accordingly. Nothing more, nothing less. No joy in it, just a likely course of action.

I consider it unfortunate, though, that most people who responded to me chose that particular point to take issue with - I meant that as little more than a throw-away (if serious) aside, more meaning to convey the idea that I would not take lightly to anyone else without any particularly special legal status "searching" my house, so why would I let the RIAA do so?

Re:Hmm

[Tom7]

> If I came across as "excited" about it in more than a "don't screw with me or mine" way, then I spoke (wrote) poorly.

OK, in that case, it was probably my own prejudice, since I have heard very similar comments from gun aficionados who were genuinely excited.

> more meaning to convey the idea that I would not take lightly to anyone else without any particularly special legal status
> "searching" my house, so why would I let the RIAA do so?

Well, few people took you up on that because I think we all agree that we don't want the RIAA searching our house, and wouldn't treat it any differently than a burglar!

Re:Hmm

[CentrX]

If you write on your website that you're sharing music, that's not even probable cause for a search by the police, let alone some random organization.

I'm not arguing that the RIAA is even conducting an illegal search by downloading a file from someone's machine. That person is allowing such downloads or, at least, the RIAA's activities in such an instance are as legal as the activities of anyone downloading a file (in terms of illegal search/trespass/seizure).

Re:Hmm

[shdragon]

Gimmie a plane ticket & a decent job and I'll move to BC. I love Canada. So far I've been to Vancouver, Calgary, & Toronto. Good jungle scene up there...I'm not saying using deadly force just because someone is on your property is the right thing to do, only that where I live; it is what happens.

Re:Hmm

[DeanT]

None of this comment should be construed to mean that I agree with or condone the RIAA's behavior or indicate my feelings on P2P, but...

Yeah, the fourth amendment only restricts the government...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...

That at least suggests that private entities shouldn't be able engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, either.

...and they obey relevant laws against trespass, unauthorized computer access, etc.

I enjoyed your analysis of the 4th ammendment. I would like to add that the RIAA's search is not "unreasonable". Nor would it be "unreasonable" if a government agency were to do it. They are (at the current time at least) scanning the lists of files that people are advertising that they have available.

You can hardly expect to say "Hey! Here's a list of files I'm sharing come look... except you RIAA bozos should respect my privacy."

In other words, if you put out an invitation for people to come look at your files, you really shouldn't be too surprised when people (or even RIAA reps) accept your offer.

Re:Hmm

[Concerned Onlooker]

Precisely. In fact, when a non-governmental entity does a search and seizure there is already another term to describe it: Breaking and entering.

The RIAA has become nothing more than a deputized arm of the government somehow. And don't go miscontruing this as a defense of music file sharing (or stealing or whatever you want to call it), it's just that what's happening as a reaction to it is a tad scary and draconian.

Re:Hmm

[Daengbo]

Better to use your shotgun on his right knee, evacuate the house, and let the police do the rest, because he ain't goin' nowhere after that.

Re:Hmm

[Daengbo]

God! I just pissed my pants. Gotta love Texans, huh?

Re:Hmm

[Daengbo]

Why would he mention it? Swift was a satirist. Almost everything he wrote was satire.

Re:Hmm

[ChuyMatt]

DEAR GOD!! How many of you all have guns?! There are a startling number of posts indicating that they do indeed own a firearm. A tad disturbing... and seemingly proving an interesting point brought up by Michel Moore in Bowling for columbine. (Yes, it is edited. congrats. you understand film making. yes, it is biased. Congrats, you understand reporting.)

This just in: EFF doesn't trust RIAA!

[zipwow]

This just in: EFF doesn't trust RIAA!

Details at 11.

-Zipwow

Re:EFF can butt out

[dAzED1]

ummm...the EFF does QUITE a bit, considering the responsibilty it has to do anything at all (none). Just what are you suggesting?

GARA - Geeks Against RIAA Amnesty

[inertia187]

Remember, friends don't let friends claim amnesty.

Re:GARA - Geeks Against RIAA Amnesty

[Anonymous Coward]

And for that matter, why does sell these?

Re:GARA - Geeks Against RIAA Amnesty

[Waffle Iron]

Are you a geek?

Are you against RIAA Amnesty?

Are you a geek against RIAA Amnesty?

Re:GARA - Geeks Against RIAA Amnesty

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think the people who knows what gara means in Hebrew, will concur that this a good name...

Re:GARA - Geeks Against RIAA Amnesty

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because of these.

Hey, how did you drop the [amazon.com] from your link??

Anonymous?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not anonymous while trading songs online, how come they need to get someone to figure out who the hell you are?

Re:Anonymous?

[dicepackage]

Its easier or in the RIAAs case it is cheaper

Re:Anonymous?

[Fr33z0r]

The fact that they *can* find out who you are should give you insight into the "depths" of your anonymity.

What was that?

[IpsissimusMarr]

What was that Lassie?
*woof* *woof*
Don't trust the RIAA?
*woof* *nods head* *woof*
They're only trying to destroy their customer base?
*woof* *nods head* *woof*
Good Lassie.. *pets Lassie*

Re:What was that?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"

Proof positive that there is no god! ;)

Re:What was that?

[fenix down]

No, it just proves the work of God consists largely of getting drunk and subjecting everyone in the room to progressively more hideous puns about friction.

so?

[Neppy]

If you or anyone you know was contemplating handing over information to the RIAA, you may think twice.
I guess nobody has anything to worry about then.

I always thought...

[rasafras]

that the action by the RIAA isn't really defensive, it's offensive. Chances are, you're going to keep sharing after you file the forms. Now, if you violated a written agreement, they have a far more solid basis upon which to prosecute. It turns into a black and white case. Otherwise, the RIAA seems to me to be a police force of sorts now, prosecuting people left and right. Karma whore help me out - there is a law against the abuse of the legal system in overusing lawsuits, isn't there? The RIAA is practically using form letters to send them out.

Re:I always thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

It turns into a black and white case

You mean it's not a black and white case if your caught the first time around?

Cry cry sniff sniff. I shed crocodile tears for anyone caught doing something they shouldn't have done in the first place. Maybe then I won't have to put up hearing penis length wars like "Oh yeah, I got more gigs of MP3s than you do!"

Re:I always thought...

[Darth Coder]

Personally, I think their action is very offensive :-)

Re:I always thought...

[Androgynous Coward]

Actually, I'm thinking there are other motives. In a court of law any claims on how much downloading is hurting their business can still be considered speculative. I mean, it would be difficult or just plain time-consuming for the recording industry to *prove* in a court of law that x number of files are traded by n number of people.

In essense, this amnesty would assemble the evidence list for the RIAA enabling them to go before a court (or congress via their lobbyists) with documented and notarized numbers...can't argue that unless you're Johnny Cochran.

- AC

Re:I always thought...

[LostCluster]

Yep, they'd love you to make it a whole lot easier to prove that you knew you were breaking the law by trotting out that agreement right next to logs that say you shared songs after signing it...

Re:I always thought...

[DeepRedux]

They can ask for up to $150K per song in "statutory damages" without having to prove any numbers. The court could give them less.

Re:I always thought...

[gl4ss]

more importantly you're confessing that you were doing a willfull breach of copyright, which may end you up in jail.

not that i would believe for a second that such a mail in form would be worth shit in any higher court(who sensible person takes photocopies of his/her id and sends it to ANYONE through mail???). now here's a fun idea, make up some names and send them to riaa, or better yet, find out some lawyers names and executives names that are pushing this kind of sillyness and file some papers with their names(possibly fakish id's too, at least maybe that way they could maybe possibly understand how stupid such a system is from the start. as there is nothing to bargain the only reason to send such forms is to joke around).

-
riaa, the free pr engine of kazaa.

Re:I always thought...

[EMN13]

The confession needs to be notarized. That makes it much harder to "fake out" and also makes it quite expensive otherwise - seeing as that notary will charge you :-). And if you're forging notarized documents, you're playing a new game...

Re:I always thought...

[emptor]

Erm, notaries don't charge all that much; my bank'll do it for $2 a pop (well, mine does it for free 'cuz I'm such a good customer :). There's usually State-mandated max charges for notary services.

Re:I always thought...

[EMN13]

Interesting - I live in the Netherlands and you should add two zero's there :-(

Seriously, notaries cost ridiculously much here.

Re:I always thought...

[pla]

Maybe then I won't have to put up hearing penis length wars like "Oh yeah, I got more gigs of MP3s than you do!"

Hmm, I don't think I've ever heard anyone brag about that. Golly, to think of all I've missed out on...

Okay... Free "PLA's Tip of the Day" to anyone who thinks the size of an MP3 collection reflects on its owner's penis lenght - Store raw CD rips. You'll increase your MP3-virtual-penis length by a factor of 10 overnight!

Of course, since only pussies use MP3s, while "Real Men(tm)" use OGG, 10 times nothing still leaves nothing. ;-)

Re:I always thought...

[DDX_2002]

Rasafras said:

Karma whore help me out - there is a law against the abuse of the legal system in overusing lawsuits, isn't there? The RIAA is practically using form letters to send them out.

Yes, there are rules against abusing the legal system, but merely filing a bunch of lawsuits isn't in and of itself abusive, nor is using form letters. It's not how many lawsuits you file, it's whether the parties named are proper parties and whether you have a case or not. There's nothing at all wrong with suing thousands or tens of thousands of people, so long as they've actually done something to you.

You'll be hard pressed to find a lawyer anywhere that doesn't use form letters or form pleadings. Lawyers LOVE precedents and HATE drafting things from scratch. A precedent that you've already used a dozen times before (and won with) is a whole lot better than a newly drafted document never tested by the courts.

Similarly, no client wants you spending hundreds of dollars an hour drafting and redrafting a simple letter - if you have a form letter that your assistant can put the numbers and names into in five minutes, save your client some money and spend the time you save on strategy.

The trick is to make sure you do actually update the form and precedent to fit the situation. There've been a lot of lost deals and suits because people used precedents without understanding them or reading them carefully.

Just my opinion - I could be wrong, and probably am in your jurisdiction.

Re:I always thought...

[Rich0]

You mean it's not a black and white case if your caught the first time around?

Actually - there are all kinds of fair-use-oriented defences you might apply the first time around. Remember - they aren't going after Napster which profited off of copyright infrigement - they're going after individual users who are freely trading files at no profit to themselves (in fact, it is to some cost to themselves (electricity, bandwidth, etc.)). This could change the legal equation.

On the other hand, a signed affidavit saying that you concede that file trading is illegal would essentially be a guilty plea in a court. It potentially makes their job much easier. They can also trump out stats like x million people concede that file sharing is wrong and they've seen the error of their ways - which is good for convincing congress to pass DRM legislation (after all, most file sharers realize that it is needed to help them avoid returning to their old sins).

Note - I'm not arguing whether sharing of copyrighted files online should be legal or not - just that the case against file traders is not as airtight as the RIAA would like one to believe. Of course, they can force traders to run up legal tabs - which is their main goal.

Personally, I think there needs to be a balance between casual file swapping and an environment where a company can expect to sell exactly one copy of a CD before it is ripped and free to all. Content creators should not have to rely on charity, but on the other hand they should not be entitled to a free ride for life based on a single creative act.

to sum...

[dAzED1]

"Stepping into the spotlight to admit your guilt is probably not a sensible course for most people sharing music files online, especially since the RIAA doesn't control many potential sources of lawsuits," EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer said in the statement.

That's pretty much the sum of it. That, and the fact that they're not promising to /never/ prosecute, they're promising a reprive.

Can we get a blanket amnesty?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say Dubya signs a release on behalf of all of us, kinda like Jesus did for all our sins. Should take 10 seconds tops. No sense doing this piecemeal.

Interesting Quote

[Disevidence]

"Addressing the issue recently, Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs at the RIAA, said that courts have already ruled that individuals are not anonymous when they publicly distribute music online."

I find it interesting that he states that your not allowed or should be disregarded of being anonymous when you distribute music online. What if i want to distribute my OWN music online, anonymously. Sure theres probably little reason for me to.

I find it disturbing that they seem to be confusing distributing music online with copyright violations.

Re:Interesting Quote

[Dopefish_1]

Of course they're confusing distributing music online with copyright violations. They want to paint a picture where P2P applications are evil and all their users are "stealing" music. If it becomes generally acknowledged that P2P apps have perfectly legitimate use, then the RIAA loses some credibility and some leverage against file-sharers.

Re:Interesting Quote

[Blackbrain]

I think that's really the heart of their worries. The RIAA does not want you distributing music period. They only want members of the RIAA to have the right to create distribution channels. The P2P cases have nothing to do with copyrights and everything to do with distribution and content control.

Re:Interesting Quote

[pla]

I find it disturbing that they seem to be confusing distributing music online with copyright violations.

Ah, you haven't seen HR1911, defining "Music" as a trademark of the RIAA member corporations, and everything else as "pornography induced instrument torturing"? Tsktsktsk. Gotta keep on top of these things. ;-)

Re:Interesting Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't that you're not allowed to be anonymous, or shouldn't be allowed to be anonymous. It's that you aren't anonymous, for purely technological reasons. These people were (allegedly) advertising the fact that they had made copyrighted material available for download without authorization from a specific IP address. And their ISP knows exactly which customer was using that IP address at the time of the alleged infringement. IOW, you are not anonymous when you share music, and that is not the RIAA's fault.

I'm not trying to defend the RIAA, they are doing some shitty things. But just because they are evil does not mean that they are guilty of every charge leveled against them.

what bothers me.

[blanks]

Is that people like parents, kids who dont know better, collage students etc, are going to give out this information willingly.

They dont know what to expect, or in most cases, what they may be doing is wrong (downloading music, videos etc).

Re:what bothers me.

[Feyr]

exactly, i was almost shocked to hear my friend say that it was legal to download music off of kazaa. shows how little most people know: very little

a funny bit, it IS legal to download music in canada! seems like the canadian equivalent to the RIAA shoot themselves in the foot a few years back. all CDs are charged a 5 cents tax to pay for it. i almost fell off my chair

Re:what bothers me.

[Scrameustache]

collage students etc

Not just collage students! Papier mache students and bas-relief students too!

All the arts & craft students are at risk!
;-)

Re:what bothers me.

[SanLouBlues]

But is this a bad idea for parents or gramdparents who might be sued for the actions of their young ones? I think that's who's really being targeted here.

Re:what bothers me.

[3terrabyte]

You'll be hard pressed to find any U.S. law that states downloading is illegal, also. Everything listed revolves around "distribution of copyrighted works". That is why all the cease & desist letters, subpoenas and the 261 lawsuits revolves around those that shared.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they'll purchase the rest of the laws as soon as they can. They just haven't yet. Not that I want to go to court and find out!

Re:what bothers me.

[Feyr]

copyright law in the US forbids you from making multiple copies it seem.

canadian copyright law specifically allow "private copying". basicly, i can buy a cd, hand it to my friend and he can legally make a copy for himself. i am not, however, allowed to buy a cd, make a copy and give it to my friend. same end result, different pathway :) the artists gets their compensation from the taxes on the CD and other recordable medias (or so they say).

don't ask for logic in there :)

Re:what bothers me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, that has to be the damn funniest thing i've read all day! Thanks! =)

Re:what bothers me.

[galgon]

collage students etc

What you are forgetting here is the laziness of college students/kids. Do you really think college students are going to run out and get something notarized and then mail it? First, college students wouldnt know where the hell to take something to get notarized. Second they wouldnt have the cash to pay for the notary service or the stamp to mail it. This is of course assuming that they know how to mail an actual letter.

If there was a popup window in kazaa that said click here to get amnesty for all your illegal mp3 downloads a large portion of college students and the rest of the population would probably do it. But jumping through all of these legal hoops would only be done by a scared parent.

Re:what bothers me.

[3terrabyte]

As mentioned before, you have to have the copy to begin with, to make a copy.

When you download, the person that has the 'original' is making the copy for you. He/She is the infringer.

Re:what bothers me.

[Feyr]

no when you download, the person that has the orignal copy is lending it to you, YOU are the one requesting the download hence making the copy, kazaa isn't pushing anything to your computer

Re:what bothers me.

[Anonymous Coward]

people actually study collage? I thought it was just a bunch of pictures stuck together.

College!

Re:what bothers me.

[Anonymous Coward]

ditto: roflol :^}

Re:what bothers me.

[3terrabyte]

Sorry, you're wrong. Logically some of the words you say make sense, but we're hardly talking about logic with the RIAA and laws... :)

Post a link where the law says it's illegal to download. You won't. Everything that's listed deals with distribution of copyrighted material. And when you request a file. You GET a file. And they are the ones GIVING it to you. They are the ones distributing it to you. One copy is on their hard drive, the other is in memory, then in the bandwidth, then on your computer, and only then do you have it.

Just like if you were to buy drugs. You are not going to get busted for distributing drugs, you'll get busted for intent to purchase. Much less of a fine. I hate analogies, sorry.

Check out the current lawsuits. People with over 1,000 songs (on average). Do they have to prove that each file was distributed? No. They only need to show that all of the files were available for distribution. Downloading is not an issue here, ---yet.

Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

You sign a document where you admit you illegally shared Metallica songs, under the condition that the RIAA not ever sue you.

Then Metallica sues you.

It's a sucker deal. Not to mention that you're also agreeing to refrain from engaging in lawful behavior as well!

Re:Makes sense

[LostCluster]

This sounds like such a sucker deal that it shouldn't even be legal... afterall, a contract requires both sides to exchange value. You're offering a confession and an agreement not to do some legal things, and what exactly are they offering again... a promise not to sue from somebody who lacked the authority to sue?

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if I subpoena Metallica to appear in court, then it'd be worth it. But since it's Metallica it's not ;)

Re:Makes sense

[stwrtpj]

You sign a document where you admit you illegally shared Metallica songs

You would think that alone is embarassment enough.

Re:Makes sense

[Rich0]

In signing the contract you concede that you traded files illegally and infrigned their copyright. In admitting wrongdoing you indicate that you clearly believe they had grounds to sue, and consequently their amnesty would be consideration for your agreement to cease and desist.

I'm not saying I agree with the RIAA position, however I think the contract would be legally binding from a consideration standpoint - your objection probably wouldn't hold up. You might try other lines of reasoning though (the RIAA was deceptive, or that you shouldn't be able to waive fair use, etc.). Overall, I think you'd have more legal standing if you didn't sign the affidavit than if you did - and apparently the EFF agrees.

Re:Makes sense

[Reziac]

T'other day when this first came up here, I said that I think the whole thing smells like a honeypot. Sure, get amnesty from the RIAA, which has no direct right to sue you anyway, and lay yourself wide open to suits from individuals labels and artists. Yeah, that sounds real safe to me, how about to you??

Re:Makes sense

[Mahtar]

Metallica can't sue you, as they don't control the rights to their works on the CDs that were put out by (whatever RIAA label).

The label owns the rights.

Re:Makes sense

[JupiterP5]

Metallica can't sue you, as they don't control the rights to their works on the CDs that were put out by (whatever RIAA label).

The label owns the rights.

Actually the poster wisely used Metallica as an example because they are one of the few bands that do own the rights to their own songs. So this is a possible scenario.

what amazes me the most ...

[Dreadlord]

... is how RIAA copyrighted stuff (movies, albums, etc) get shared on KaZaA and other P2P programs as soon as they are released, and sometimes even before! (the case of albums), if they can't protect their stuff in the first place, why are they suing people?

Re:what amazes me the most ...

[mcpkaaos]

if they can't protect their stuff in the first place, why are they suing people?

Why would a drowning man clutch at a straw?

The RIAA is fighting a losing battle and they know it. They are desparate, stabbing around in the dark, hoping to find something, anything, that will stick. Why else would they attempt to link P2P to child pornography?

You'd almost think the RIAA and Gray Davis have the same advisors.

Re:what amazes me the most ...

[Dopefish_1]

if they can't protect their stuff in the first place, why are they suing people?

It has been well discussed that there is really no way to prevent CDs from being copied/ripped/shared/whatever without simultaneously preventing them from being listened to (this also applies to DVDs and other copyrighted stuff that gets shared on P2P apps). And yet the RIAA/MPAA/software publishers have tried to protect their stuff, for example with copy protection. Guess what, it hasn't worked, but it has caused some legitimate customers to have problems.

Protecting their stuff is not the issue. People would share mp3s on Kazaa even if CDs weren't so easy to rip to mp3 and share. And the RIAA is under no obligation to try and protect their stuff (although there's nothing preventing them from doing so if they wish).

And as far as why they're suing people, that's simple. People are illegally downloading music, and as the copyright holders, the RIAA (or specifically, the labels represented by the RIAA) have the right to sue them for it. I'll leave the discussion of their attitude and tactics regarding the whole file-sharing phenomenon for another discussion.

Re:what amazes me the most ...

[Dreadlord]

I can understand it if albums are bought, ripped and shared, but what about sharing albums before the release date? Another example is sharing movies before releasing the DVD.
That was my point.

Re:what amazes me the most ...

[asscroft]

they tried to link p2p to child porn. funny, I wouldn't be suprised if it was on kazaa, but I know it wasn't on Napster.

Re:what amazes me the most ...

[3terrabyte]

You should do a search on google about "release groups". It's a fascinating read. You'll see that all it takes is one "supplier". Examples of suppliers are reviewers, artists themselves, bob's secretary, jim the engineer at the marketing studio who got an advance copy, or if worse comes to work, your local Best Buy employee who gets the CD the week before the Tuesday it is officially released.

All it takes is one copy, then it's ripped, encoded, checked, and then uploaded to a number of FTP sites that trickle down to other FTP sites, then IRC, then Newsgroups, then P2P, then Little Jane's shared folder.

I find the software scene a little more impressive, considering the cracking abilities needed to circumvent the keys, and in a timely manner.

So the security is pretty hopeless for the media companies. All it takes is one leak. As as we all know about company theft: Employee theft outnumbers shoplifters. Think there are any disgruntled employees in the Media companies? :)

Re:what amazes me the most ...

[Read Icculus]

Sorry Mr. Asscroft those porn hounds have been everywhere... as some of us will recall Napster was used by warez d00ds and pervs alike. A simple renaming of the extension of a file to ".mp3" allowed you to share any kind of file you wanted. I downloaded and shared tons of music files of various formats, (vqf, shn), and occasionaly stumbled across an "mp3" that turned out to be a jpeg, movie, or an executable. Often times these files were named authentically, "photoshop-v5.0.mp3", "hotteen.mp3", "lezbobitch.jpeg.mp3". Other times it was a given a song name as camo. While I personally never saw any child porn on Napster I'm certain that it was there, and this link from TechTV seems to back that up. Napster and Child Pornography

Re:what amazes me the most ...

[AnotherBrian]

BZZZZZT - wrong
One could not just rename a file and share it on Napster. A valid mp3 header had to be on the file or it would not be recognized when the program scaned your shared folder. One had to use Wrapster to stick a header on the file.

Other helpful advice

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you or anyone you know was contemplating handing over information to the RIAA, you may think twice."

Hmm.. If the first thought led someone to the conclusion that they should participate in RIAA Amnesty, then I might want to clear some distance before that person thinks a second time...

Well no duh...

[Stephonovich]

Seems to me you'd have to be pretty stupid to admit guilt. I mean, if they don't already know you're file-swapping, it's bloody unlikely they will in the future. (unless you're doing really massive trading, of course)

Of course, I stopped using P2P quite a bit ago. IRC works just as well, if not better, and you have access to better quality files, to boot. And the RIAA doesn't (yet) track it.

(-:Stephonovich:-)

Re:Well no duh...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason they don't track IRC is because

1. The majority of people don't use it.
2. The people that use IRC are much more determined to get files then people that just do a search on KaZaA, they'll get them somehow, Joe Sixpack isn't going to do much more then a search or two.

Re:Well no duh...

[Jacer]

With the proliferation, it's unlikely that IRC will be tracked. I've been using it for over a decade for warez trading, and it's always been the best. It's not as user friendly, but that's why 60 million people don't use it.

Re:Well no duh...

[3terrabyte]

Riiiight. They aren't tracking IRC. Who's the stupid one now?

There's plenty of articles out there to read right now about undercover software employees, tracking companies, and others patrolling IRC at this minute. Just because it's not in the news yet, doesn't mean it's safe. You think these are big headlines, just wait til they nab a few traders fserving up 50,000 files.

You might think the execs at the RIAA/MPAA/BSA are stupid. But they have the money to hire non-stupid people.

ummmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

not to troll but...

I don't think any of us is stupid enough to even contemplate getting this 'amnesty'.

Re:ummmm...

[EmbeddedJanitor]

People are stupid enough to get suckered by the Nigerian scam every day. This one is far more sensible.

Beyond Captain Obvious

[tarnin]

While this really is a "Thank you Captain Obvious!" statement, it is nice to know where the EFF stands. While so many other lawyers are out there drooling over the opportunity to scrape up wads of cash at the RIAA's biding, these guys come right out and tell people that the RIAA is full of crap.

Only thing is I wish more non-techy people even know the EFF existed. I told my mom about this as she had heard all about the RIAA and this new amesty thing from the local news, she had no idea who the EFF was. Apparently the news is only running the RIAA's side of the story. No great suprise here but it kind of limits the impact of their statment now doesnt it?

Re:Beyond Captain Obvious

[LostCluster]

The fact is, for all the news organizations reporting the RIAA's offer, I've seen very few report the EFF's response... apparently there's some segment of the population that needs to be rescued by Captain Obvious.

Re:Beyond Captain Obvious

[Esion Modnar]

Apparently the news is only running the RIAA's side of the story.

Follow the money.

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the major media outlets are either RIAA and/or MPAA members, or subsidiaries of members. And even without that, whose side do you think they'd pick? The EFF?

Re:Beyond Captain Obvious

[Militant Libertarian]

Apparently the news is only running the RIAA's side of the story.

Well who runs the news.. let's see here there's CNN (owned by AOL TW), ABC (owned by Disney), and probably several other companies that also own record labels.

Do you know anyone NOT on slashdot that heard of the price fixing scandal by the record labels? There aren't many, and that's because the conventional TV news sources didn't cover the story, even though it accounted for more than $60million in losses for the record companies that year.. And the news was (and is) refering to the drop in revenues to be the fault of piracy.. every. stinking. time.

Re:Beyond Captain Obvious

[jeffkjo1]

Actually, at least in my area (central NC), there was a story on local CBS affiliate WRAL, and I saw at least 1 one report on CNN... although, now that I think about it, it could have just been a ticker at the bottom. I did not, however, see anything in the print news...

Re:Beyond Captain Obvious

[justforaday]

actually, i saw a guy from the EFF on the news tonight. i think it was world news tonight on abc/disney. anyhow, he was mentioning that it sets a scary precedent for the riaa [or any copyright holder] to be able to get your personal info from your isp just by claiming infringement without any burden of proof. nothing your average /. reader wouldn't know about. but still, it was on mainstream news, which i think was the point that i was trying to make.

Re:Beyond Captain Obvious

[geekoid]

If anybody you know hasn't heard of the EFF, you are doing them a dis-service.

Re:Beyond Captain Obvious

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I heard some jackass on CNN (one of those guys on the morning show, with Soledad and that other guy, that they bring on to comment on various topics) say the following: "[...] [i]file sharers, or as I call them, file stealers[/i] [...]" *click*

Talk about ignorant media...

IGNORE THE UNFORMATTED KARMA WHORE

[Anonymous Coward]

Users Warned About Anti-Piracy Campaign

Individuals should not accept RIAA's offer of amnesty, privacy group says.

Scarlet Pruitt, IDG News Service
Monday, September 08, 2003

U.S. privacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation is warning individuals not to admit to illegally trading copyright music online, even if the music industry offers a reprieve from its anti-piracy campaign, saying that users could still be subject to legal action.

The EFF issued a statement Friday in response to several published reports that the Recording Industry Association of America was set to launch an "amnesty" program this week, in which it would excuse users who swapped copyright music online if they erased the music from their computers, destroyed all hard copies, and promised not to engage in future online piracy.

"Stepping into the spotlight to admit your guilt is probably not a sensible course for most people sharing music files online, especially since the RIAA doesn't control many potential sources of lawsuits," EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer said in the statement.
Change In Tactics

The RIAA, which had been targeting peer-to-peer file trading networks in its efforts to battle online piracy, has recently set its sights on individual file traders. The association has filed over 1,000 information subpoenas, asking Internet service providers and universities to hand over data on users thought to be illegally trading music online.

The stepped-up campaign has sparked concern among some privacy groups, individuals, and ISPs that are reluctant to hand over private customer data. Verizon Services, for example, fought for a year to protect the identities of four of its customers but lost its appeal in June.

In August an anonymous Californian woman filed a motion challenging a subpoena asking her ISP to hand over her identity. The case, refered to as the "Jane Doe" motion, was the first time an individual has struck back against the subpoena campaign.
New Plan

With criticism of the music industry's latest legal tactics increasing, reports surfaced last week that the RIAA would be offering an amnesty program for individual file traders.

An RIAA representative refused to comment on the reports Monday. The group has scheduled a press conference call to announce "anti-piracy initiatives" at 12 p.m. Eastern time Monday, however.

In addition to RIAA officials, "leaders from throughout the music community" will be participating in the call, an RIAA press advisory said.

The RIAA announcement comes in the wake of news that the U.S. Congress will be holding hearings on the subpoena provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been the legal backbone of the RIAA's subpoena campaign.

According to the EFF, 95 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and major ISPs, sent letters to congressional leaders applauding the hearings because of their concerns with the provision, which they say invade the privacy of Internet users without due process of law.

The RIAA, for its part, has held that the 1998 DMCA clearly lays out the right of copyright holders to file subpoenas seeking the identity of alleged infringers.

Addressing the issue recently, Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs at the RIAA, said that courts have already ruled that individuals are not anonymous when they publicly distribute music online.

Not trying to troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really trying to figure out why the EFF is spending so much time on this. There are a lot of really scary things out there (the DMCA for one), that don't involve helping defend bigtime copyright infringers. (Note: copyright infringer here is defined as someone who willfully shares copyrighted works, not fair use copiers, or even downloaders. The indicted today are, AFAIK, bigtime distributers of music to many people they probably don't know) I understand that some of the previous cases have been indirect infringers, but these seem to be more appropriate. If I remember, the /. community was advocating this when they were taking down Napster (via the legal system).

Re:Not trying to troll

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I'm really trying to figure out why the EFF is spending so much time on this. There are a lot of really scary things out there (the DMCA for one), that don't involve helping defend bigtime copyright infringers.

Because the way power groups remove one of your rights is by FIRST going after some scumbag who is using that right for some icky purpose that NOBODY approves of. Then, once they have the precedent set, they go after someone less scummy.

After a few steps they have the machine builit and greased. THEN they go after the people using the right for innocent purposes. (See the Martin Niemoller "First they came for the Communists ..." quote.)

Classic example: Going after Kiddie Pornographers as the first step of shutting down free speech and the free press.

So the time to stop them is when the go after that first scumbag.

Re:Not trying to troll

[GoodNicsTken]

1. The congressional hearings the EFF have asked for will re-evaluate the subpena provisions of the DMCA.

2. When I joined the EFF, I told them the RIAA/MPAA is the reason why.

Running the underground rail road to free slaves at the time was illegal, but that didn't make it wrong.

Copy-protection on CDs: One more reason for me to find a fully functional copy on the Internet.

Re:Not trying to troll

[King_TJ]

B.S.!

The indicted today are *NOT* "bigtime distributers of music" at all. The only people truly fitting this description are the folks churning out black-market counterfeit tapes and CDs and *selling them* on the street.

The RIAA still hasn't shown much interest in stopping those people, by comparison. They're too hung up in this "fight the P2P networks!" garbage.

The fact is, even the individuals with the biggest hard drives full of MP3 music to share are giving the stuff away - NOT selling it at a profit. The folks selling counterfeits are much more of a direct threat to music sales, because they're diverting money from customers who are actively trying to BUY music.

One of the big problems I see is the RIAA's seeming interest in the sheer number of files available for free downloading from a single source. What if the person is some teenager on a 33.6K modem connection? His/her vast collection of MP3s doesn't really mean much at all in the "big picture", because the bandwidth limits physically prevent too much music from getting shared around anyway. Theoretically, one guy sharing only one "hot new album" off a T3 could be a much bigger problem ... but you know the RIAA isn't looking at it that way.

Re:Not trying to troll

[IM6100]

Well, then the tactic to properly take is to clearly define the difference between kiddie porn and legal expression. The tactic in the case of 'shared' music is to refine a definition that excludes 'bigtime copyright infringers.'

I am sorry. We are NOT all in this together. People who rampantly 'share' the copyrighted works of other people without their permission aren't equal to you and I 'ripping' our own purchased CDs and listening to them on MP3 players.

If the EFF isn't willing to draw a line somewhere in there, they're not on 'our' side as people with Fair Use rights. The EFF's 'anything or nothing' attitude, defending rampant piracy as they appear to, puts our Fair Use rights at risk.

They're just playing self-serving 'civil libertes' games.

Re:Not trying to troll

[charon_on_acheron]

So what you're saying is that the police shouldn't go after child pornagraphers because they will then be able to prevent you from posting to Slashdot?

Please tell me if this is what you meant to say.

Re:Not trying to troll

[Hodr]

Sure they do.

It works like this, if you have a 28.8kbps modem and are sharing 1 song, you are infringing on one copyright. If you have a DSL, then you are infringing 50 times as much.

I hear it works with CD-RW drives as well.

Re:Not trying to troll

[IM6100]

Well, then the tactic to properly take is to clearly define the difference between kiddie porn and legal expression. The tactic in the case of 'shared' music is to refine a definition that excludes 'bigtime copyright infringers.'

I am sorry. We are NOT all in this together. People who rampantly 'share' the copyrighted works of other people without their permission aren't equal to you and I 'ripping' our own purchased CDs and listening to them on MP3 players.

If the EFF isn't willing to draw a line somewhere in there, they're not on 'our' side as people with Fair Use rights. The EFF's 'anything or nothing' attitude, defending rampant piracy as they appear to, puts our Fair Use rights at risk.

They're just playing self-serving 'civil libertes' games.

I'll say it one time.

[Anonymous Coward]

The public reaction to the lawsuits needs to be loud and clear--

Boycott.

And it needs to be directed not just towards the RIAA, which is a lobbying industry group meant to be considered separately in the mind of the public from the actual companies.

I think maybe a targetted boycott campaign against not the RIAA blanket company, but a particular member (chosen randomly) would wake them all up. Put some direct pressure on one pillar, somethign that will hurt, and maybe they'll start to get the message.

A month-long focused boycott of a single RIAA member company-- recording division only-- Internet-wide. Think of the media attention that would get! Then the next month, a new company...

Just a thought. Anyone wanna pick up the ball?

Re:I'll say it one time.

[Mike Hawk]

I'd just like to point out here, that for said boycott to be taken seriously by the public at large (which you need to be effective), that members actively participating in said lawsuit should probably not get caught sharing copyrighted files.

Continuing to share files and getting caught could be construed by the RIAA to show that you don't really care about whats "right" and that you just want free stuff. This would kill all of the positive publicity and could taint the whole group in the eyes of the public at large (see Greenpeace and some of their more fringe actions.) For this to be effective, the participants will need to show that what they are doing is unquestionably "right". Just look at (a grossly oversimplified) history in the US. Cop punches protester unprovoked = public sympathy and outcry = laws get changed, constitution gets amendments. Cop beats the sh*t out of protester after getting hit with a bottle = no sympathy = public becomes entrenched AGAINST said cause.

I'd participate under those conditions.

Re:I'll say it one time.

[El_Ge_Ex]

I think maybe a targetted boycott campaign against not the RIAA blanket company, but a particular member (chosen randomly) would wake them all up.

He's right, let's stop trying to punch them where they can block and clock them in the knee Tonya Harding Style!!!! :)

A little recommendation though, we want to promote good behavior, not Universal.

-B

Re:I'll say it one time.

[jpmkm]

You left out a t in your link. Try this

Re:I'll say it one time.

[OscarGunther]

That link again: Boycott-RIAA

Like the caption says: Check those URLs!

Re:I'll say it one time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that is the effective way of attacking and waging war effectively: focus on one thing, and hit it hard.

Re:I'll say it one time.

[RealityShunt]

Universal seems to be waking up. A little bit, anyway, with their announcement that they are dropping CD prices.

A candle in a hellish, stormy darkness....but still a candle. We'll see if it stays lit, or gets snuffed out.

realityshunt

Re:I'll say it one time.

[R.Caley]

I think maybe a targetted boycott campaign against not the RIAA blanket company, but a particular member (chosen randomly)

Better still, if you think the RIAA are wrong, boycott the artists who chose to live under the RIAA umbrella. They are the people who give the RIAA it's power.

Of course, if you'd done this consistantly in the past you wouldn't have anything to confess to...

Re:I'll say it one time.

[Lehk228]

Wow that was so wonderfully evil linking to an .asp page on the riaa's web page... somebody is going to have to pour some water on their server. click that link a few times

Hand over your enemies...

[gnovos]

Go ahead and hand over the information... Just not YOUR information. Instead try handing over the names of the sons and daughters of your favorite senator. Maybe that will finally put an end to the mess once and for all.

Re:Hand over your enemies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sure it's some reactionary puss hole, like Hatch or Gregg or Furst or Lott or Lugar. For a list go here. I can't wait til the 'real" RIAA form comes out.

Re:Hand over your enemies...

[KanshuShintai]

...of your favorite senator.

err..... Orrin Hatch?

Re:Hand over your enemies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, the confession has to be notarized. If your local notary public signs off on your confession without you proving you are indeed the honorable Senator Fritz Hollings' son Billy Bob without providing him any proof, please let me know.

Re:Hand over your enemies...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Instead try handing over the names of the sons and daughters of your favorite senator

Unfortunatly, it has to be notarized. Unless you know a notary willing to risk their license...this won't work.

Re:Hand over your enemies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead and hand over the information... Just not YOUR information.

You mean commit mail fraud to cover your tracks because you illegally distributed someone else's work? Brilliant! I'm glad Slashdotters are so smart, because the world can use more smart people.

Re:Hand over your enemies...

[Ryokos_boytoy]

I remember in the 80's Regan and his nazi crew wanted an anonymous phone call to police to be probable cause for a search warrant. So, as per High Times instructions, the police lines were flooded with tips about lawyers with non-existant cocaine stashes. After a couple of raids and the resulting lawsuits, the gov quickly gave up on that idea. Same concept here. Sounds like a solid plan to me.

Re:Hand over your enemies...

[DesScorp]

" Instead try handing over the names of the sons and daughters of your favorite senator."

Actually, just for shits and giggles, I was going to give them yours.....

Hmmm, wait a sec.... *looks over Foes and Freaks lists*..

Heh....heh heh....Mmmm mmmm... mwah hah hah hah hah....fiendish.....FIENDISH....

Re:Hand over your enemies...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not hard to become a notary public. Couldn't you just do it yourself? In California, all you have to do is pass a test that, from the looks of it, is no harder than the drivers license test.

Re:Hand over your enemies...

[Kyn]

Just fake it. How hard would it be to look up online what a notary seal (or whatever it's called) looks like and reproduce it on a confession? With all the letters the RIAA gets, how well do you think they're going to check the seal?

Just make sure you use gloves. And don't lick the stamps or the envelope.

Damn the man.

Re:Hand over your enemies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hatch's offspring is SCO's lead lawyer.

Re:Hand over your enemies...

[clambake]

Does fedex count for mail fraud?

True colo(u)rs

[Andy Smith]

Seems to me like the EFF just lost its last shred of credibility.

There has always been a pretense that they were defending against the RIAA, MPAA, etc, because they wanted to protected the innocent bystanders. But now they've come straight out and said "if you're doing something illegal then don't admit it". Plain and simple, defending the guilty.

You do realise that the RIAA will win this war, don't you? :-)

Cool, just checking.

Re:True colo(u)rs

[Tony-A]

"if you're doing something illegal then don't admit it"

Sounds like standard legal advice.
Among other things, you're likely to admit to something you didn't do.

Re:True colo(u)rs

[Razor Blades are Not]

It's not a case of defending the guilty, it's a case of defending your rights.

Admitting something that is not yet proven is a way of giving up some of your rights. Standard legal advice is to say as little as possible, unless there is a clear benefit to you to do otherwise. The onus of proof remains on the plaintiff.

Re:True colo(u)rs

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

No. The EFF doesn't support copyright infrinement. But they think that being sued and put in jail is far too harsh considering that it's just people shareing music for private use. The punishment should fit the crime as they say. The EFF are also annoyed because the RIAA aren't really looking for proper solution (ala iTunes) to their obvious problem.

Re:True colo(u)rs

[ch-chuck]

Miranda: "You have the right to remail silent"

Also see the Vth amendment to the US constitution (void where prohibited): "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

Re:True colo(u)rs

[bigmaddog]

What kind of a world do you live in? Do you run to the police station after speeding on the highway or doing a rolling stop at a stop-sign? The fact is people casually break the law all the time, and even when the authorities witness it they often don't react (again, the car example; people generally don't get speeding tickets for going 110km/h on a 100km/h highway). Even when you get stopped, it doesn't mean you'll get a ticket - it's a judgement call by the officer. The idea is that the system is fuzzy, with some give here or there, which makes the world livable. Even so, there are plenty of abuses by the authorities.

Now we have RIAA flexing its hugely wealthy legal muscle, forcing ISPs to cough up their customers information, suing people a gazillion dollars per IP-infringing song and trampling fair-use in the process, and you're suggesting that an organization like the EFF, generally concerned with watching out for the little guy, tell people to hand themselves over? Would you go running to them?

Hmpf, you're either extremely right-wing or, well, I don't want to get modded into obscurity for being needlessly rude.

And now that I've previewed my glorious write-up, I noticed that you've been moderated into obscurity yourself. Good for you. I didn't want to waste my last point as a moderator on this, and it felt good to rant.

Re:True colo(u)rs

[Andy Smith]

Also see the Vth amendment to the US constitution (void where prohibited): "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

That's a good point. I hadn't considered that. (I'm actually in the UK but as we're talking about a US industry targeting US citizens, obviously the Constitution is relevant.)

I think my original comment stands true, though, despite the various squawks of troll and "mod down" :-)

Of course it's good legal advice that people should NOT jump up and shout "I did it!" when accused of something.

But the point I wanted to make (and very nearly did!) is that the EFF has made a clear jump from defending the innocent to defending the probably-guilty. This is where law-abiding people should stop supporting the EFF, or at least stop supporting them on this issue, in my opinion. Obviously a lot of Slashfolk will disagree with me but it's a discussion and I'm entitled to disagree with the majority, just as they're entitled to mod my comment down.

Sorry if I was a bit inflammatory at first :-)

Re:True colo(u)rs

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never really understood why a extreme right winger would support the RIAA. I'm conservative on 90% of issues, but really, do i give a damn if Eminiem loses a couple million dollars? Let them think... [B]Nope[/B]

And now, Deep Thoughts, with the EFF....

[GrnArmadillo]

Seriously, if the RIAA is good for its word and doesn't sue (or turn over to individual labels contact info for) anyone who files for amnesty (and stops downloading/listening to RIAA artists), what do they get out of this? Nothing really but another publicity stunt. And what does the person filing get? Well, if the RIAA already knew who they were, they're prolly being sued and thus ineligible, so all they're accomplishing is handing over a notarized admission of guilt. This one is a pretty much no-brainer. Though yesterday's User Friendly prolly said it best....

Public Service Announcement

[ChrisHanel]

If you or anyone you know was contemplating handing over information to the RIAA,

...please try not to pass on your genetic map to offspring, and do us all a favor. Thank you for your cooperation.

Re:Public Service Announcement

[glwtta]

...please try not to pass on your genetic map to offspring, and do us all a favor.

A bit superflous, given the context, isn't it? I mean, there would have to be girls involved.

RIAA's privacy policy

[SnowWolf2003]

This CNET article on the topic points out one of the major flaws of the amnesty program.

"The group said it would not use the information gathered for marketing purposes or share it with any other group of copyright holders. Critics such as the EFF's von Lohmann dismissed the assurances, saying that the RIAA's privacy policy allowed the information to be shared if "required by law," a clause which could allow groups such as music publishers or Hollywood studios to subpoena the information from the RIAA to use in their own lawsuits."

Re:RIAA's privacy policy

[LostCluster]

Even if that clause wasn't there, a supoena trumps any privacy policy... this smells so much like a setup this isn't even funny.

Who to hate more

[jdc180]

Aaarrgghh... who am i supposed to hate more, RIAA or SCO... maybe i'll get lucky and a microsoft story will be up next and complete the slashdot axis of evil :)

Re:Who to hate more

[Sri Lumpa]

Hey, don't forget us, we are still relevant!

Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA.

Re:Who to hate more

[shdragon]

Sorry, but with DVD's priced at about $5(Wal-Mart)-$15(Kroger) currently, I'd say the MPAA is learning from the RIAA's mistakes. I can buy movies where I buy groceries. I'd say the MPAA is leaning towards an impulse buy model more than a sue your customer model.

The frustration of current "IP" stuff.

[EMN13]

I guess this is slightly offtopic; but with all this talk going on not only about the RIAA but also the software patents now in europe and DMCA etc etc etc, it's becomes hard not to notice the big pile of dung that copyrights et al seem to be causing. And for what? There's so many cool things one could do with a more relaxed information environment but instead, copyrights not only prevent this, but often, one of the original motivations behind copyright (namely that things get published at all) is rather side stepped. You can't learn anything from a compiled binary; yet nevertheless it enjoys copyright protection (effectively does in any case).

I don't think the right to exchange information is holy or somehow a human right which you're suggesting here. Consider slander, spam, or malicious information. Malicious information is for instance a virus, or even something as simple as telling a very gullible person that to cure his headache he merely needs to jump off that tower there...

Given the obvious advantages of free information flow (it is for instance the underpinning of a free market, and necessary also for a "democratic" society), I'ld say information should not be needlessly restricted unless there is a very good reason for it.

Supposedly, copyrights/patents are a required to encourage the production of new knowledge.

I would say it's clear that they do encourage some creation of knowledge. By their very nature, however, they also limit it's applicability and extension, therefore also discouraging the creation of such knowledge. Furthermore, I think a better system could be instituted.

Given that copyrights use market dynamics to encourage creation, whilst those dynamics work only in situations of scarcity, and that information itself (not the distribution thereof!) is not scarce, we can conclude that a system that tries to encourage new knowledge without enforcing scarcity would be optimal, as doing so would bring encouragement without destroying the actual point of the knowledge in the first place.

People regularly comment on the fact that communism (specifically in Russia) collapsed because it (it being the abstract administrative process that is communism) is a fundamentally bad match in the real world (in which resources are scarce). Generally it's not so widely noted that the same could be said of our current Intellectual Property mess.

Fortunately, we already have a mechanism to support non-scarce goods (aka social goods) in our society! Subsidizing knowledge production is a far superior solution... and we already do it to some extent with schools, art grants, universities, etc etc etc.

The question then becomes: how to divide such grants? I don't have an easy answer to that but a model ala de references by academic papers (or for that matter hyperlinks in the net) comes to mind.

To draw an analogy: in our current situation, knowledge is exclusively controlled by it's creator, which is comparable to how a completely "closed" internet portal would control its content and display information and news depending mostly on how much it can pay to create or buy that information from some news service or equivalent. The subsidized model which supports knowledge creation is more like the net at large with hyperlinks forming the votes for who's cool and who's not. Even without a framework specifically designed to support it, google seems capable to extract useful information from those votes :-).

Re:The frustration of current "IP" stuff.

[Mike Hawk]

I cannot back a federal government subsidy like this, at least not in the US.
#1 Its not a power of Congress to do this.
I could go on, but #1 is enough for me.

Re:The frustration of current "IP" stuff.

[EMN13]

Your counter argument isn't convincing.
First of all, the issue isn't what congress can or can't due; it's what should be done. I also don't believe that this really "can't" be done - generally, the interplay between te various government arms, the legal system, and the populace has been very sucessfull at doing this clearly beyond any initial boundaries - consider the closed military trials, and the various other crackdowns on civil liberties enacted and enforced after 9/11. The law isn't a religious text; it serves merely to support our values, morals (and religion depending on where you're from).

The federal government already does subsidize and tax at a large scale; doing is necessary for a functioning free market (without being great on the terminology: public goods are/cause market imperfections). Additionally, it's often a tool for a policy.

Given current subsidies in agriculture, social security, and education (which is almost knowledge), it's definitely possible to subsidize this.

Re:The frustration of current "IP" stuff.

[hacker]

Supposedly, copyrights/patents are a required to encourage the production of new knowledge.

Copyrights are not evil, and in fact, are what allows Free Software to propagate as it does, without being abused in commercial companies as it would be, if copyrights were abolished or "relaxed".

Copyright != Patent

Re:The frustration of current "IP" stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that is a great idea... Let's give the keys of the creative engine to the Federal Government, that way all art can be propoganda.

The appreciation of any artform is totally subjective, and no one should be forced to pay for someone else's art. I am aware that this happens with alarming regularity, but that doesn't mean it should.

I am all for deciding what I like and letting my dollars do the talking.

I find it alarming that years after the "fall" of communism, so many people advocate socialist ideas. Usually it's people who think their ideas should be globally appreciated and financed.

Here's an idea, lets all just give our paychecks directly to the Federal Government and let them decide what's good for us. Better yet, who needs paychecks, we can just do our labor for the state and it will supply what we need, like a colony of ants... Man, sign me up.

Get a brain and use it.

Re:The frustration of current "IP" stuff.

[Mike Hawk]

It should absolutely be about what Congress can and can not do. How much of your life do you want them involved in? As for the closed military trials, please understand that the Constitution is very clear in that all rights granted therein are for citizens only. Anyone who runs afoul of those citizens should not expect protection. As for those other subsidies, I'm against all of them too. I'm not trying to "convince" anyone, only pointing out that, constitutionally, this is not the business the federal government should be in. Why not have a subsidy for getting out of bed in the morning? Oh wait, I guess some people already get that too...

Amnesty

[stormcoder]

Also known as the RIAA IQ test.

Here is a copy of the form..

[doormat]

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030907& mode=classic

Re:Here is a copy of the form..

[stwrtpj]

I came onto Slashdot with the express intent to post the very same link. I obviously came up with it first, therefore you are infringing on my copyright. I shall now sue you for fifty kajillion dollars unless you sign this simple amnesty form:

I hearby promise to never infringe on stwrtpj's copyrights ever again. I will destroy all copies of his posts in my browser's cache and will change my Slashdot ID to "insensitive clod" as penance for my sins.

Signed: __________________

Re:Here is a copy of the form..

[Reziac]

Actually, that cartoon smells too much like Real Life. I still want to know how the RIAA knew to target FOUR kids who ALL had over $10,000 in their bank accounts.

Suing any four *random* filesharers should have netted more like $10, given the financial state of the average college student. So it strikes me that there was inside information being passed here somewhere (IANAL, but since when can a *threatened* lawsuit subpoena your bank records??)

Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Look for the following line:

"sent in a picture of themselves in a goatse-like pose"

The RIAA Clean Slate program

[SnowWolf2003]

The RIAA Clean Slate Program (pdf)

The Affidavit (pdf)

Music United

These links are provided for info purposes, but I agree with the EFF - Don't Sign!

Re:The RIAA Clean Slate program

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, don't even go to these sites from your own machine. Use a library PC, or other frequently used public-access machine, to look at them. Don't make it _that_ easy for them to find out where to look.

Horror Movie

[Esion Modnar]

Is that people like parents, kids who dont know better, collage students etc, are going to give out this information willingly.

It'll be like watching those horror movies, where you see some dumb guy walking into the deserted house, going "Dude? You in here?," then gets hacked to death. Or maybe like one of those poor redshirts from Star Trek, who wander off and get eaten by the Space Wedgie.

Point is, most of us know better. We shake our heads and laugh that somebody would be dumb enough to try this. But somebody will.

I'm reminded of that demotivational poster, which shows the wreckage of a ship in shallow water, and has a caption: "Mistakes: It may be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."

Suing is all they can do...

[PoisonousPhat]

if they can't protect their stuff in the first place, why are they suing people?

Probably because litigation is the only action the RIAA seems to be willing to take. They have can't seem to protect their stuff; as soon as some new "protection" device is established, someone inevitably finds a way to defeat or circumvent it (I found the black marker trick the most amusing of these circumventions). They obviously won't just let everyone get away with file sharing. In my opinion, the sensible and probably inevitable option will have to be a reworking of the entire business model of music retailing, an idea that large corporations like record companies and organizations like the RIAA have been slow to embrace.

We should have a bogus Amnesty filling in day.

[hashish]

Were we all give them junk forms to process; one for each P2P user (all 200 million ).

This is hilarious!

[2toise]

Good one!

Amnesty Application Form

[c1ay]

You can get an amnesty form here

How much do I owe

[QuackQuack]

I downloaded an album called "Selections from the Linux kernel source code, set to music, with contributions from IBM"

I'm starting to feel guilty about doing this, and want to fess up, How much do I owe?

Re:How much do I owe

[Anonymous Coward]

$150,000 to the RIAA, and $699 to SCO.

Re:How much do I owe

[Reziac]

Assuming a typical album with 10 songs, that will be $6,990, plus tax.

Re:How much do I owe

[balloonhead]

$699, to SCO.

More if you make a backup copy.

MOD PARENT DOWN!

[PhreakOfTime]

Insightful? Come on...how about troll

You do realise that the RIAA will win this war, don't you? :-)

So by win do you mean never having a large majority of people listen to any of their prepackaged crap? This time I cant help but feed the troll...I share PLENTY of files online, and the plain fact is all of it is LEGAL. There is not ONE single piece of music I own, or listen to that will support that trade group or their member labels. Sure its a hard line position, but Im thankful that my standard for what is good music has gone up by orders of magnitudes since that time. What am I missing again? when I turned off the crap it was all brittney spears and eminem.

Although your rephrasing another party on their own viewpoints is a little presumptious, its not all that suprising. FACT is, the statement is not to ADMIT to illegally sharing files. Its a strongarm tactic, nothing new. If you are arrested and cave into the threats of cops on the beat and admit to a crime just to get them to leave you alone even though you are innocent, you can still be tried and found guilty based on that confession. The legal ignorance in this country is frightening.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!

[Kelz]

What am I missing again? when I turned off the crap it was all brittney spears and eminem.

That could mean yesterday or 5 years ago... its still the same crap.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!

[Flarelocke]

Where can I find your collection? I'll probably end up mirroring it, and listening to some of it.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!

[Reziac]

Problem is, the RIAA wants to stop your completely legal filesharing *too* -- because those files represent songs and artists whose distribution (therefore profit structure) they don't have complete control over.

Killing off illegal filesharing is just step one. Step two will be killing off filesharing entirely, no matter how legal the materials are for trade. I think that is the real reason the RIAA is playing the Bad Porn angle -- to try to turn public opinion against filesharing entirely, so it'll be easier to get laws passed prohibiting P2P.

This has the same root motive as when they got so hardassed about the high royalties for internet radio. Internet radio bypasses the Clear Channel (and whatever the other outfit's name is) promotion monopoly. They want control over the entire money tree, period. No independents allowed in their perfect universe. :(

Sorry, won't work.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Let's say Dubya signs a release on behalf of all of us, kinda like Jesus did for all our sins. Should take 10 seconds tops. No sense doing this piecemeal.

Nope. Dubya can only sign such stuff for criminal cases, not civil.

And if he DID do something like that, the RIAA could then bill the GOVERNMENT, claiming they "took private property for a public purpose". Fifth Amendment.

Re:Sorry, won't work.

[mOdQuArK!]

And if he DID do something like that, the RIAA could then bill the GOVERNMENT, claiming they "took private property for a public purpose". Fifth Amendment.

If the government did such a thing, I'm sure the 5th amendment would be applicable _if_ there was actually any property being taken.

Unfortunately for the complainants, information isn't really "property", and the government could rightfully point out that they didn't take anything with real value from the complainants, and their real problem is assuming that they had some "right" to make profit based on the control of information, instead of providing a good or service in response to demand like any "real" business does.

Re:Sorry, won't work.

[geekoid]

please re-read the constitution.

Re:Sorry, won't work.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If the government did such a thing, I'm sure the 5th amendment would be applicable _if_ there was actually any property being taken.

The Supreme Court has recognized the concept of a "partial taking": government action that sucks part of the value out of something by limiting the owner's use.

Classic example was a church camp in the Monterey, CA area. A forest fire demolished the camp. The county decided they wanted the area returned to a more "natural" state and blocked the rebuilding of the camp by zoning changes and permit refusal, leaving the church with the land but without the camp (and unable to sell the land to someone else who could build a similar camp). This reduced the value/potential sale price of the land.

The supreme court recognized that sucking part of the value of the land out in this fashion was a "taking" for a "public purpose" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment and upheld a judgement against the county for the price reduction of the land (including, if I recall correctly, the lost revenue during the time the camp COULD have been up and running but wasn't due to the County's opposition to the rebuild.)

The RIAA could similarly claim that the music in question was theirs / their members', as was their claim for restitution from illicit file traders / infringers. By letting the infringers off the hook (if it were possible), Dubya would have "taken" the "value" of the potential settlement from the RIAA and its members. So the government would be on the hook, constitutionally, to replace that value by paying off the RIAA.

Re:Sorry, won't work.

[calidoscope]

Quick question: Has the RIAA or any of its member companies ever paid property tax on their so-called IP??

California is in desperate need of new tax revenue, I'd say the easiest way is to start levying property tax on their collections - they say an individual song is worth $150,000, then they owe the state of California $1,500 per year per song!

Re:Sorry, won't work.

[mOdQuArK!]

This decision still involves the control of _real_ property, rather than imaginary property (although I'm sure that the RIAA would be quite happy to argue from the viewpoint you are espousing however).

MPAA

[Asmodean]

And of course the RIAA would *never* share this info with the MPAA to go after movie sharing... nope, not gonna happen.

err... hang on there's a knock at my door...

@$#^% [NO CARRIER]

Re:MPAA

[evilviper]

@$#^% [NO CARRIER]

I sure was nice of that 'NO CARRIER' error to click the submit button for you...

Re:MPAA

[Anonymous Coward]

No Carrier? Must be a bitch downloading movies on that dialup connection...

So in your logic..

[Adam9]

The next time you're driving 41 on a 40 mph road, change your direction, and head over to the nearest police station to turn yourself in. I'm sure they would really appreciate it.

Final Quote

[DongleFondle]

"Addressing the issue recently, Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs at the RIAA, said that courts have already ruled that individuals are not anonymous when they publicly distribute music online.

Gee, it sure is nice to know that the individuals behind the recent destruction of our privacy rights at least understand the issue. Matt clearly point out here why privacy is not an issue: the RIAA has already decided that these individuals are indeed sharing files. No evidence, no due process, just hand over the personal information so we can slap them with a lawsuit they can't possibly afford to defend themselves against. Thank God for the DMCA.

Translation

[cluge]

For those that haven't been following along

What the RIAA says: We are just fair minded people protecting the artists.

What they mean: Our middle managers want a raise.

What the RIAA says: For every 50 bands that get signed only 1 "makes it"

What they mean: Hookers are expensive, and sometimes when we get drunk we sign people that aren't very good

What the RIAA says: If you promise to erase all the MP3's you were letting other people download we won't prosecute you

What they mean: yet

What the RIAA says: The illegal distribution of MP3's are hurting our CD sales

What they mean: We thought our near monopoly on music distribution would protect us in an economic downturn

What the RIAA says: No one wants to play the heavy

What they mean: We hired these god damn lawyers, it's about time we use them

What the RIAA wants you to think "It's about what is fair" what they don't want you to know is that in every single case brought against them by an artist for failure to pay royalties, they have lost. (Ok, maybe not that time michael jackson sued)

Sound familar?

[soulee]

"For those who want to wipe the slate clean and to avoid a potential lawsuit, this is the way to go,...", Mitch Bainwol, RIAA Chairman and CEO. Is it just me, or is this quote just a little too Agent Smith?

Re:Sound familar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Mr. FileSwapper. You have quite a interesting life. Honest hardworking citizen by day and a mp3 fileswapping sociopath at night. We're prepare to offer you amnesty if you cooperate fully.

F&*k You. I know my rights. I want my phone call.

It's going to be hard to make a phone call without a mouth, Mr. FileSwapper. ,......

Is file sharing over..

[nolife]

I feel the RIAA is playing the FUD game here with this campaign. They are simultaneously issueing the subpoenas and this amnesty program to give the impression to the average Joe, that they, the RIAA, are now in complete control of the P2P situation and in just a matter of weeks, music sharing via P2P will be over. The free ride is over, we already know who has done what, all that is left to sign this agreement to avoid legal action. I wonder what other card they will throw down when this has no effect.

Re:Is file sharing over..

[Lord_Dweomer]

Fortunately, the majority of P2P users won't stop using P2P until they can't connect anymore.

Britney & Justin provide amnesty!

[aacool]

In addition to RIAA officials, "leaders from throughout the music community" will be participating in the call, an RIAA press advisory said

'Nuff said - now everyone who shared Britney/Justin/Madonna watch out for an appeal from the 'leaders'

Wonder who else is considered a 'leader' by the RIAA?

Indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've got a better idea. How about I give you the finger, *insert finger* and you give me my phone call."

If you or anyone else...

[Valiss]

If you or anyone you know was contemplating handing over information to the RIAA, you may smack yourself.

Re:If you or anyone else...

[AhtirTano]

If you or anyone you know was contemplating handing over information to the RIAA, you may smack yourself.

*SMACK* *SMACK* *SMACK* *SMACK* *SMACK*
I wish my sister's friends weren't so stupid.

Troll Accusation Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't fall for any post accusing another post to be a troll. Its just a scam to get moderators to blindly mod down posts.

We can read for ourselves, thank you very much.

Car accident

[Weaselmancer]

It's good advice, period. Illegal or not.

Ever been in a car accident? Doesn't matter if it's your fault or not, what's the last thing you say to the cop?

"It was my fault."

Because if you do, you've just thrown out any hopes of a successful defense. You WILL be reamed to the full extent of the law. NEVER admit to anything if the law is involved. Your fault or not. Illegal or not. Let the prosecuting attorney earn his keep.

Weaselmancer

Re:Car accident

[CausticWindow]

Your legal system is so nice.

Re:Car accident

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter if it's your fault or not, what's the last thing you say to the cop?

"It was my fault."

God bless America. The place where neighbors know and trust each other, where CEOs don't lie to shareholders about the company's earnings, where people don't illegally distribute each other's work, and a country whose government doesn't start wars in countries that aren't a national threat. I'm glad America is a beacon to the world, truly a model to show the rest of the world how to live.

Re:Car accident

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to a sense of personal integrity and dignity? Oh, that's right, this is America.

Re:Car accident

[swillden]

Ever been in a car accident? Doesn't matter if it's your fault or not, what's the last thing you say to the cop? "It was my fault." Because if you do, you've just thrown out any hopes of a successful defense.

If it was my fault, why would I *want* a successful defense? If it was my fault, and I knew it, it would be wrong to lie about for several reasons. First, because dishonesty is wrong. Second, because my lie is going to force the police, the courts, the prosecutor (if applicable, generally not), and the attorneys for both insurance companies to expend time and money (which ultimately comes out of *everyone's* pockets) to determine the truth. All because I wanted to skate out of my legitimate legal and moral responsibility. Third, if I actually got away with it I'd just end up feeling guilty and what's the point in that?

Be a man! If you caused it, face the music, tell your insurance company they have to cough up the cash, and then deal with the higher insurance premiums for the next few years.

If you don't think it was entirely your fault, then by all means defend yourself. But do it honestly and we'll all be better off in the long run.

Call me a boy scout if you like but, seriously, we'd all be better off if more people would accept responsibility for their actions.

Re:Car accident

[mrscorpio]

I agree with you in principle. But WHAT was your fault?

The car accident, right?

That statement could be interpreted to mean anything to a gold digger with a team of lawyers.

I am an auto insurance agent with one company and I have my auto insurance through another. Right on their ID card, it says "#1 Do not admit fault!"

This is good advice to be heeded, for your own protection. When you are in a possible liability situation, look out for #1 (that's you) or your life could be destroyed...all because you wanted to make things simple and save everybody time...

Unfortunately, personal injury attorneys don't make money by making things simple and easy...

Chris

Re:Car accident

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, while that is true have you ever heard of the Prisioner's Dilemma? Its a game played out in political science and economics. While both criminals are better if they both keep quiet, if one talks the other one suffers and he gets off lighter. As such, both talk. The situation is the same here; if you want to take the fall thats fine but the rest of us will keep quiet and do what is in our best interest.

Re:Car accident

[sholden]

If it was my fault, why would I *want* a successful defense? If it was my fault, and I knew it, it would be wrong to lie about for several reasons. First, because dishonesty is wrong. Second, because my lie is going to force the police, the courts, the prosecutor (if applicable, generally not), and the attorneys for both insurance companies to expend time and money (which ultimately comes out of *everyone's* pockets) to determine the truth. All because I wanted to skate out of my legitimate legal and moral responsibility. Third, if I actually got away with it I'd just end up feeling guilty and what's the point in that?

*Not* saying "It was my fault" is different from saying "It was not my fault".

You might want to check your insurance policy, the ones over here tend to state that you must not admit fault - doing so can leave you uncovered for the incident.

You don't lie about things, you just don't admit fault.

"I ran into him while he was stopped at lights." is fine. "It was my fault, I ran into him while he was stopped" is not.

Be a man! If you caused it, face the music, tell your insurance company they have to cough up the cash, and then deal with the higher insurance premiums for the next few years.

Admitting fault may lead to you insurance company refusing to cough up the cash... Better to let them handle all that crap - after all they're the ones with all the experience and statisticians...

Re:Car accident

[Weaselmancer]

Thank you... I was going to write a rebuttal to this guy, but you've summed it up perfectly.

Weaselmancer

Troll Accusation Troll Accusation Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't fall for any post accusing another post accusing another post of being a troll. Its just a scam to get moderators to blindly mod down posts.

We can read for ourselves, thank you very much.

Re:Troll Accusation Troll Accusation Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, I'm a moderator. I've been trying to read for myself, but - to be perfectly honest - I can't. Can anyone point me to a post that needs to be modded?

Thanks,

michael

Remind me....

[cgranade]

Remind me when something surprising happens. In the meantime, I will continue to rant and scream at the idiocy of those who submit to the RIAA. As for myself, I bought $45 of CDs from CD Baby, which does not sell RIAA-tainted albums. In other news, if you bookmark

javascript:var%20index=location.href.indexOf('/- /');if(index!=-1){var%20asin=location.href.substri ng(index+3,index+13);}else{var%20index=location.hr ef.indexOf('ASIN');var%20asin=location.href.substr ing(index+5,index+15);}window.location='http://www .magnetbox.com/riaa/check.asp?asin='+asin;

as a bookmarklet, it acts as a RIAA Radar. Go to a CD on Amazon, and it will take you to magnetbox.com and tell you if something is RIAA tainted.

It's not a scam

[mflaster]

I don't think it's a "scam". The RIAA is not trying to trick you into giving out your info so they (or someone else) can sue you. The amnesty only applies to people they don't currently have evidence against, and, if you stop sharing after you sign, then obviously they won't be able to get any evidence in the future.

It seems to me like there are a few main reasons they're doing this:

• If lots of people reply, they can boast "We stopped 10,000 users that were sharing 1,000,000 songs" through our actions.
• Afterwards, when they do sue (more) people, for PR, they can say, "Look, we gave you a chance for amnesty, and you didn't take it."
• They can set up scripts to automatically monitor those people's PC, to make sure their sharing really stops. (OK, maybe this one is close to a "trick"...)

Mike

I still don't understand...

[vudufixit]

How any private party has a right to check out what's on my pc. So the RIAA sends me a nasty letter. What happens if I ignore it?

Hey look!

[Atmchicago]

Fred: Hey look! Scooby found something! Velma:Why, it's Mr. RIAA! So he's the one who's been trying to stop our P2P sharing. He's the first person I suspected. Scooby: waohooo.... Shaggy: Man this makes me hungry... I want to download some more mp3s.

Re:Hey look!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey you missed the bit where they unmasked Mr RIAA, what disguise was he wearing?

Re:Hey look!

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't see clearly, but it looked like Senator Fitz and Bill Gates rolled into one ugly mess.

Um...

[mog007]

I think you guys and gals are wrong. I just signed the amnesty and things are great.

Hold on, someone is pounding on my door.

*Sound of a scuffle*

Sorry /. this computer is in violation of copyright laws, it must be taken as evidence.

unless

[geekoid]

you haven't donated, in which case, run right out and sign them!

Insightful thought for the day...

[Mashiki]

It's only illegal until pollies change the laws, or until the courts say otherwise.

Rid the world

[t_allardyce]

Just checking.. the RIAA arnt comming to England any time soon are they?

It would be interesting to see what a world without music labels would be like, and how that could be acomplished. I'm all for ruining the RIAA and its members, even just for the curiosity factor, sure you might loose a couple of bands and knock-offs from stupid reality tv shows, but really, who cares? maybe if were lucky we could loose Justin Timberlake, but he probably has enough cash to make it on his own.

Re:Rid the world

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA can't touch us over here. (England)

If they get your private information from your ISP then they are illegally obtaining your information, so both your ISP and the RIAA are in the shit. (Data Protection Act).

Also the way copyright is handled in the UK, if the "damages" is low (let's say you have 10 mp3s which would be maybe 100 quid max fines (I know it's drastically over but meh)) then they can only take you to a small claims court and only take that small amount of money off you.

Now if you're selling tons and tons of CDs on the street and have CD-Rs coming out of every orifice, then you're likely to be slapped with something big.

Crap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to /. our friends =/

Why is this modded funny?

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be insightful.

Alternative to mainstream

[Anonymous Coward]

just to remind you of good old Modarchive as an alternative to commercial music. some of the artists there are really good, and the whole scene has a familiar community feel.

Just listen to music that doesn't SUCK

[puzzled]

Grateful Dead, Widespread Panic, Phish, Moe, etc, etc, etc all allow live recordings of their work to be distributed in any fashion possible except that you can't charge for the reproduction.

I've got a zillion hours of music, I downloaded it from the internet and the RIAA may kiss my PC's parallel port 'cause its all legal.

Now if you want some icky top forty boy band puke you're S.O.L. Improve your taste in music, or pay the RIAA tax ...

Re:Just listen to music that doesn't SUCK

[evilviper]

Now if you want some icky top forty boy band puke you're S.O.L. Improve your taste in music, or pay the RIAA tax ...

I'm really getting tired of pompous asses like yourself. Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it bad. I certainly don't listen to POP, or other "top forty" music, but there are many very good bands that don't have policies as open as the ones you've listed.

However, with the RIAA's tactics, I have stopped all music purchases. I don't copy it, I just stopped buying it, because I would rather have no music, than to support an organization like the RIAA. Personally, I'm waiting for King George II to get booted out of office... Then I expect serious changes on behalf of consumers. In the Bush Whitehouse, unless 40% of all voters write angry letters to congress, nothing gets changed for the better (that's assuming congress actually does counter the FCC's decision--maybe the situation is even worse).

I've been thinking...

[retro128]

...We need a category for "No Shit"

What about this legal out?????? Proof of...

[holy_smoke]

Infrigement. Just because I happen to share a lot of MP3's doesn't mean that people actually download them...think about it.

Don't they have to Physically PROVE that they were downloaded and how many times each they were downloaded before they can prove infringment and assess damages????

Its all hearsay and conjecture unless they can prove that "beyond a reasonable doubt". Right?

All I am guilty of in the mean time is using a software that theoretically shares files.

Just because I own a gun doesn't mean I killed someone...

I just don't see how the RIAA can win these cases.

Re:What about this legal out?????? Proof of...

[danoatvulaw]

You are in a sense somewhat correct in my opinion. The RIAA would need to prove by preponderance of the evidence, not reasonable doubt (thats criminal, what the RIAA is pursuing here is a civil action), that you infringed on their copyrights. I cannot remember if there is case law that says making copyrighted files available to the world via, say, napster, is per se infringement. (i think i remember a case that said that, but i'm not sure.) In the absence of that, a defendant could put them to their proof. However, given that the cost of litigation nowadays is easily in the 6 digit range, who is going to go to trial? Most people will likely settle before going to trial or even before it gets to the pleadings. That's my take on the matter.

Hi - I'm with the RIAA.

[holy_smoke]

Thanks for making us aware of this alternate form of pirating. We really appreciate concerned citizens such at you who help protect our great democracy. Because we appreciate you so much, we would like to extend an offer to you for a free CD at the retailer of your choice. Just send us your name, address, copy of your driver's license, and your daytime phone number in order to receive your free CD coupon. Please allow 6-8 weeks for court^H^H^H^H^H delivery. Have a nice day!

Love,
The RIAA

Sabotage

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to sound like a total "let's organize a boycott" dweeb, but what about sending in packages that look like amnesty confessions, but just say "Go fuck yourselves." Or better yet, are fliers from dowhnhillbattle.org. If everyone who was pissed off at the RIAA sent them a fake affadavit, it might do more than just bitching endlessly here on /.

For the love of Dog...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the individual members of the RIAA whose content you've stolen

Christ. IT'S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, NOT THEFT!

Label Execs:

[rmohr02]

I don't understand--we use flat out lies to sue the fuckers, and they still don't buy our music.

Well...

[Sean Clifford]

Just because I happen to share a lot of MP3's doesn't mean that people actually download them...think about it.

Sure, OK. But you *are* sharing them. If you're a streetside peddler of pirated CDs it doesn't matter if you've sold zero of your 1000 CD inventory. You've still committed piracy and have offered pirated goods for sale. That's plenty to get busted and/or sued for. Only difference of sharing files online is no cash trade, no physical trade. But with the DCMA it doesn't really matter anyway.

That said, the RIAA can lick my nads. I have a shitty library of 80s music I painstakingly ripped from my fewscore scratch-repaired 80's metal, 60-s-80's rock, classical, and soundtrack CDs. It's about the only music I listen to aside from Thistle & Shamrock on NPR and the occassional "something different" on XM Radio.

And no, I don't share crap or participate in P2P - I'm selfish that way. My precious bandwidth is mine...all mine...

My precious...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You sure??

[3terrabyte]

"notary" isn't some kind Dutch translation for hashish is it?

Re:You sure??

[EMN13]

No - hashish doesn't cost much more than beer here, I'm quite certain about that ;-)

--Eamon

Pseudononymous?

[rgmoore]

The reason that you're not anonymous (when trading files) is because you do actually have a name or persistent identifier attached to you. This is like the difference between being an Anonymous Coward on /. and being a regular poster. The AC is, as the name suggests, truly anonymous; /. has taken some steps to make it so that even they can't identify ACs some time after the fact. Regular posters, though, are pseudonymous- hiding behind a false name. You can track what an individual poster does, but you can't necessarily connect them to a particular flesh and blood person without help from /. Even if the poster deliberately puts identifying information on his user page, that information could be fraudulent, so you'd actually need to ask the /. staff to uncover the information in their records to have a good chance of proving who they are to a court.

Their next angle of attack - CHILD PORN!

[HungWeiLo]

From the New York Times: Article (NYT reg req)

"The industry is trying to enlist broader public support with a campaign intended to show that its nemesis --- the peer-to-peer networks for swapping files like KaZaA and Morpheus --- are used not only to trade songs but also pornographic images, including child pornography. ... 'As a guy in the record industry and as a parent, I am shocked that these services are being used to lure children to stuff that is really ugly,' said Andrew Lack, the chief executive of Sony Music Entertainment. ... The available evidence does not show that pornography on file-sharing systems is growing any faster than through other online vehicles. Indeed, the federally financed child pornography tip line run by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children found that 1.3 percent of the reports of Internet child pornography were related to file-sharing services so far this year, down from 2.1 percent last year. Nearly three-quarters of child pornography reported is on Web sites."

WTF?! Flamebait?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to detect even a hint of spite or sarcasm towards Amnesty International in my post (the parent).

I don't get it. I (along with others) point out that Amnesty International is not ostensibly bad, yet has the word "amnesty" within (point raised by grandparent).

I don't see why I shouldn't Request Amnesty...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they should have a hard time finding me with just a photo of my nutsack to work with.

Use the DMCA to fight the RIAA?

[CrashPanic]

Ok I posted this on another discussion but got no satisfactory answer: Why doesen't someone copywrite/patent/whatever a method of encryption that can be used to mask IP's and users over the p2P network, license it to kazaa/morpheus/limewire/etc for free and then DARE the RIAA to crack it and bust users? Doesen't the DMCA prohibit this kind of activity?That way we can play one monster against the other! Either the DMCA will break the RIAA or vice versa. Either way its one less to deal with! Seriously why wouldn't this work?

Here is a crazy idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

... How about I just stop sharring, keep all the booty I've downloaded and shared with others, and SEE IF YOU CAN F***ING FIND ME!

Who ever in the RIAA came up with this idea, you are a complete wase of sperm.

RIAA Amnesty Program Entertainment Declaration

[ac7xc]

RIAA Amnesty Program Entertainment Declaration
RAPED

Falsify the notarization

[robogun]

For instance, take a look at this.

Re:Falsify the notarization

[dmuth]

As someone who is interested in becoming a Notary, I would really advise against this. A notary is someone who is recnogized by their state to authenticate signatures on documents. If forged notarizations start floating around, it makes the rest of the notaries look bad, and weakens the system as a result.

Compare this with being a sysadmin. It's one of the cardinal rules of being a sysadmin that you NEVER read users' e-mail without their explicit permission. If there ever ends up being a high profile case of a sysadmin who did that (without being ordered to be law enforcement), it would only serve to make the rest of us look bad, don't you agreee?

Boycotting CD purchases

[Oshkoshjohn]

I quit buying new CD's when I cancelled my cable TV hookup. Without MTV and VH1 to tell me what to buy, I'm lost!

Re:It's not a scam (yeah right)

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you didn't know, confessions are used lots
in legal cases. Unfortunately, while they are generally
uncredible (many are forced from a person), they are often
given very high regard by jurors. One company could
simply use the confession against you even though you
signed it in hopes of not being prosecuted. And when
a jury of complete fucking idiots sees it they will
immediately say you're guilty of whatever you're charged with
(copyright infringement, cannibalism, etc.).
I think this is what people should avoid.

Frankly, who is this amnesty for?

[Kjella]

If you don't want to P2P anymore, simply stop. The chances of already being in trouble are 250/4,000,000 = 1/160,000 or so. If you're planning to continue, there's certainly no reason.

It's like you're speeding on a remote road at night. Maybe, there's s police car on your tail measuring your speed right now. So if you pull up at the nearest police station, you'll get an amnesty, provided you don't speed in the future. Only what are the chances of that? Not to mention you'd be in bigger trouble if you ever speeded later...

Kjella

Ever since she kissed madonna

[Anonymous Coward]

Brittany seems even skankier.

Its gonna be great in about 5 years when she is so over and when she poses for playboy and she'll have that belly hanging over the chain and the badly trimmed bush.

All you idiots will still droool because you think trailer trash is hot.

Impersonating an officer

[__aagmrb7289]

Is there a law that we can use to smack the RIAA around for pretending to be a law enforcement agency? The RIAA has absolutely no right under the law to offer amnesty for a crime, and they ought to be smacked to hell and back for trying. Why in all hell isn't the FBI/government all over their ass for this? I mean, if Microsoft said they would offer amnesty to all software pirates, it would pretty much be the same thing. WTF?

Phyiscal Evidence

[spigi]

I realise that in a civil case you don't have to prove "guilt" beyond a reasonable doubt. But it seems to me that the only evidence that RIAA can hold up in court is a piece of paper with your Kazaa nickname, your IP address and a list of files that you supposedly made available.

How admissible is this kind of evidence? Could you successfully argue that while you acknowledge that the nick and IP belong to you, you've never seen that list of files before? It would be different if they had your hard drive. Any legal types care to comment?

Is the EFF trying to tell me....

[Anonymous Coward]

that it was a bad idea for me to send the RIAA that affidavit in the name of Ben Dover with the address of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC 20220? I suppose attaching the picture of me bent over with my pants down around my ankles and my hairy ass (cheeks spread) and nutsack pointing right at the camera was also a no-no?

Wow, I can just imagine if the RIAA follows up that submission:

Presidential Aide: Mr. President, the head of the RIAA is here to see you.
President: Send him in.
RIAA Assclown: Mr. President, I'm here to follow up on an affidavit admitting guilt in music piracy. We really need to make a positive identification so if you could just turn around, drop your pants, and spread your cheeks...

Does RIAA...

[utlemming]

Does RIAA read /.? I mean with everyone annoucing that they are file sharers, if I were RIAA I would be following /.

(Sorry RIAA, I am no file sharer. I am just boycotting you, complained about your actions to my congressman and generally and specifically hate the actions of your organization. I actually hope that you and your archaic business model fold and die. Well, with that off my chest...good night)

Can /. get a spell checker?

[OT] It's not Burma anymore

[usotsuki]

There is no longer such a country as Burma. It is now called Myanmar.

-uso.

Re:[OT] It's not Burma anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment is a bit on the excessively pedantic side. Many historians of Southeast Asia refer to Myanmar as Burma. It's a matter of pronounciation, essentially (the word Myanmar is pronounced in a way similar to how an anglophone would pronounce Burma). Officially, it is named Myanmar, but this is often ignored.

Other potential actors include...

[Anonymous Coward]

...your ISP for violating terms of service, the P2P network you were using for violating their terms of service, and there is probably a clause in the Windows EULA that would give them the right to revoke your license or worse if you perform copyright infringement while using their software.

Just wait for the next wave of P2P programs to have anonymity/encryption/whatever,-one-of-you-nerds-el aborate-here-please, to help protect you.

I believe the RIAA is legally hanging themselves

[1iar_parad0x]

I think 50 years from now, people will look back and say this moment was the beginning of the end of copyright law.

What is a copyright? Seriously. It's an attempt to protect something valuable that you have labored to produce. However, if copyright infringement is so incredibly rampant, maybe your particular work isn't so valuable. Remember, laws don't exist just to give lawyers a reason to exist. Laws aren't about morality either. Laws exist to help society function. It's all about law and order.

Have you ever drank a coke, made a xerox, or used a kleenex. How about the word spam. Corporations are constantly battling to keep their respective trademarks from entering the public domain.

Think of a future of near-infinite technology. What if some really brilliant scientist finds a way to use the technology of quantum teleportation to replicate goods (i.e. a "halfway" quantum teleportation). I know that's quite a pipe dream. But what if? What happens when I can produce goods at will. What's more important, feeding the hungry or protecting the world's economy. I do know we will run into some very ugly legal and societal issues over genomics and genetic engineering.

How much copyright law do you think you break in a given day? Okay, I'm not a lawyer, and I do believe file sharing IS wrong. However, I'm a little sick of the piousness of the record industry.

I find it quite a ironic that an industry that has spent the last 20 years ammoralizing the youth of America, is now upset at the lack of morality of the youth of America. What, you mean stealing is wrong? What's next, Keith Richards and Ozzy Ozbourne telling kids not to do drugs. (Although I believe such an ad would be so much more effective than the frying pain with the "this is your brain on drugs" spiel)

Yeah, it's a rant, but this is Slashdot and I'm complaining about the RIAA.

Re:Should we boycott

[cypherwise]

Finally someone here seems to make some sense. If you're going to trade copyrighted music you ought to be prepared to face the consequences.

Wake UP! Complaining that they're trying to stop LEGAL trading is one thing. But they're not doing that. If you make your own music and distribute it, the RIAA isn't going to bat an eye.

Absolutely right. A large amount of the people are posting their comments blindly by thinking that RIAA is attacking everyone who is using some P2P program.

Additionally, the argument that the artists only get a small portion of the proceeds from CDs is completely ludicrous. The artists know damn well what they are getting themselves into, and if they don't then they shoudl've RTF contract a little better. For all those who tried to use this argument: You are no better than the RIAA with respect to the artists. You are using them (the artists) as your tool.

However, I do beleive that the RIAA is putting on some type of show with all this. Their actions are over the top. They will most likely be hurting middle-class people who really didn't see this coming and who don't have the means to fight it; which leads me to thank the EFF for basically putting out the other side of the issue and standing up for people. Moreover, I really don't see much hope for the people being sued. They almost certainly are guilty and should probably settle as quickly as possible to minimize their loss. They apparently had copyrighted works posted online free for anyone to download which does violate copyright standards which have been in place for quite some time now. There is harm that has been done by this and will continue to be done by this if it is allowed to continue. The RIAA's purpose here can be considered 'system sustaining'. While it may cost more for them to go through this whole legal process the main point is to get as many people as possible to stop trading music that they own. (NOTE: Success levels vary.)

Most people probably see online music piracy as a type of calculated risk. Odds are they aren't going to get caught and will reap a decent reward. The suing of the 261 file-sharers proves this by showing that only the 261 "most active" traders are now directly targeted. Now , IDK how the RIAA conducted their search for these people, but these are the ones who probably have the largest amount of copyrighted music in their Shared Music folder. These are the people who didn't calculate the risk factor very well and now have a hell of a mess on their hands which will undoubtedly ruin the better part of their lives for the next several years. Now, the real question becomes clear: Is the RIAA justified in their actions?
1) Legally: Yes
2) Morally: No
But, honestly, what other choice do they have? They are after all, a consortium of corporations interested in one thing: The Bottom Line. Which, one can inevitably concede: screw the bottom line. Goto Cd Baby. Or goto the local music retailers in your area. Buy used CDs and donate/sell your old CDs. There is so much more out there than what many people know. But then again, I suppose ignorance truly is bliss.

screw amnesty, take revenge!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a need for a GPL that is appropriate for musicians. Let the people that want their music heard, and don't mind it being shared release it thusly. There are decent indie labels and bands that would support a well-defined license, there's just no movement in this direction.

Let the majors have what they want. They'll be marginalized in due time - and they'll be cut out of the next big change....

Law Enforcement

[davidylin]

Last time I looked at this, public law enforcement was more or less responsible for enforcing the public law...

Has something changed? Or is it just not really a law worth enforcing at all?

Re:Hmm 2nd amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd amendment and the will to use it when necessary, is what provides protection for all the other amendemnts. This is America, not some 3rd world or European country, freed from Britian using guns in the 1700's & 1800's and staying free because everyone has guns. It's just too bad that the RIAA has never run into the 2nd amendment. Hopefully they will in the future.

This is how the police work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Police: Is there a reason you were speeding?
Driver: [Insert generic excuse interpreted as an admission of guilt]

Case closed.

RIAA: Anyone care to confess their filesharing crimes?

Don't you have a right to a jury?

[Anonymous Coward]

Several sources all refer to what "the judge"
has to say, but isn't it true that you as the
defendent have the right to a jury trial?

If so all people being sued by the RIAA should
demand to have a jury for several reasons.

First a jury is more likely to acquit you.
After all most people have done something
that borders on or violates copyright law.
Copied a movie onto tape, taped music off of
the radio, copied pages out of a book.
( Yes, you have a right to do some of these
things, but there is a limit to how much you
can do this and most people come close to the
limit at some time. )
What you have to do is convince them that sharing
music is like the things that they did. That it is more like jaywalking than murder.

Second. A jury trial goes much more slowly. So if
everyone who gets sued uses a jury it will clog the coursts even more. This will piss off judges
and make the newsmedia report unfavorably on the RIAA clogging the court systems.

Trap.

[Agent R]

Don't be fooled this amnesty == trap by all accords.

The EFF is correct with its warning. You admit to your crime and it may (likely) be held against you at anytime.

Yes, we already

[Rogerborg]

figured this out. Once you show weakness, you're their bitch for life.

Here's an innovative strategy. Ignore them. Just throw the letters in the bin. Ignore the court dates. Ignore everything and just get on with your life. Show up for your final court appearance (for not paying the fine levied by default for your no-shows, not for copy right violation) and wangle a stay in a low security prison. Stir up a media fuss, do the time, use the time to write a book about it, laugh all the way to the bank.

But don't ever, ever compromise with the bastards. Bitch for life.

Re:Yes, we already

[dick johnson]

I'd like to start with the disclaimer that I in no way support the record industry's position. But to take your advice would, from a legal standpoint, be fairly naive. Yeah. Go ahead, get on with your life. But what happens when you go to buy a house and at closing, your lawyer finds there is an outstanding court order/lien against you? I'll tell you what happens. You won't be allowed to buy the property until you make good on the debt. You will essentially be relegating yourself to the status of permanent renter. I have no idea what the best defense or legal strategy would be for a case like this. But telling anyone that they should ignore the court order is just bad advice. -dj

Re:Yes, we already

[Rogerborg]

In most other circumstances, it's bad advice. Under these circumstances, what have you got to lose? What's your alternative? Settle by paying out more money than you can possibly afford, take a loan to cover it, then declare yourself bankrupt? Hey, much the same situation.

Only it's worse, because as part of the settlement, you'll have to sign a full confession. Sure, the RIAA has settled with you. Now, how about all of the individual labels and/or artists?

Oh, wait, we hadn't thought about that, had we?

Carnivore's snooping is illegal but RIAA's isn't?

[Quizo69]

Let me get this straight - the FBI's Carnivore program, which lets them intercept traffic on the internet in pursuit of a case, is deemed illegal because it is overly zealous and can catch innocent third parties in the net, yet the RIAA's software, which obviously does just the same thing, is legal?

Maybe this line of questioning should be pursued further in court as to how this set of facts can be reconciled.

Not to mention that the FBI no doubt had to provide some sort of chain of evidence to show that what they got was legally obtained. How does anyone know that the RIAA, a private lobbying group that represents the big five record labels, has maintained a proper, legal chain of evidence in logging your private IP info? Can they prove they didn't trample over innocent third parties' rights when gathering their evidence on supposed guilty parties?

Some thorny questions I'd say....

Quizo69

Re:He's wrong - no, he's right

[Anonymous Coward]

"(And mods, those of you not on crack, please don't give the original poster any of your hard-earned points)" says the AC, as he's modded -1, Offtopic.

My letter to the local TV station

[teamhasnoi]

Dear WCCO,

In your 'RIAA lawsuits' piece this evening, I thought it rather irresponsible of you to suggest that all songs downloaded via P2P were illegal and copyrighted by the RIAA.

Since WCCO is no doubt familiar with Minneapolis and its plethora of musicians, you might have taken a moment to interview a musician who uses P2P to distribute their own works, of which there are many. A trip to mp3.com, for instance, turns up hundreds of thousands of bands and artists that give their music away, with *no* connection to the RIAA.

I thought the suggestion at the end of your piece to 'apply for amnesty from the RIAA' was especially misleading, as this would probably open one up to multiple lawsuits from other sources; giving your personal information to an organization that has already proven itself 'lawsuit happy' and has attacked its own customers as liars and theives is not a good idea.

I am rather disappointed in your treatment of this issue, and I believe that one-sided reporting like this only adds to the misinformation that the RIAA 'owns' all music, that P2P applications are only used for piracy or (child) pornography (this is the next view that the RIAA is pushing), or that P2P is at the root of reduced CD sales.

I suggest either doing some research on this topic in the future and presenting a balanced view, or please mark your broadcast 'Sponsored by the RIAA' in the corner of the screen. You could probably get the MTV logo guys to do that, as MTV is owned by Viacom, your parent company.

Thanks for your time,

Re:My letter to the local TV station

[Slur]

I would be really surprised if anyone at your local TV station cared a lick about depth or accuracy in reporting. Everyone from the guy who sweeps the place up to the cute chick who reads the news only cares about getting their check at the end of the week and not rocking the boat. Conscientious, thoughtful, deeply probing reporting? In-depth research? Such things would probably be considered "anti-American" nowadays.

RIAA hands the copy to the UPI. UPI hands the copy to your local newswriters. Local newswriters hand the copy to the talking heads. The talking heads deliver the corporate message straight into your warm safe home. Your loving family gathers around the TV and trembles in fear. The world sure is a sick place, you think. You're glad to have your warm safe home. Just so as not to be associated with a sick pornographer you take a vow not to ogle your teenage daughter's precocious girlfriends. You think perhaps you should buy a CD tomorrow just so "they" can see you're a good citizen.

We aren't living in a Totalitarian state (yet) but things are definitely leaning that way. First step is to vilify every fringe temptation, create new categories of thought crime. Social pressure will provide all the leverage necessary. Citizens quickly learn to be afraid of social vilification for admitting their own natural predilections (even to themselves). They form groups against the things they suppress in themselves. Everyone then must declare "I'd never do such a thing," and to prove it they stone the next sinner they can find.

Similar to the instincts of our political types, when after 9-11 they fell over themselves trying to demonstrate the appropriate level of "moral outrage" for the benefit of their constituencies (and the administration began to advance the decades-old Bush Agenda). Even Dennis Miller bought into it. When the smoke began to clear America woke up to find itself embroiled in a half-dozen new untenable quagmires around the world. Her hipocrisy had grown to greater and more embarassing heights. America needs a good honest cry and a long period of genuine solemnity, but she's been too busy blindly acting out to begin her grieving.

So given the current social environment, is it just me, or does it seem that every form of "crime" against Capitalism now throw the shadow of "terrorism"? Somehow the DMCA, the Patriot Act, and the willy-nilly assignation of "enemy combatant" to hundreds of sequestered prisoners all hang together in the periphery of our awareness whenever questions of rights and retribution come up nowadays.

Especially in relation to crimes against Capitalism.

Because, as we have begun to see, Capitalist pressures are now the only thing necessary to lead us into war - to summon the angel of death. When we see our foreign policies being determined by Dow, Boeing, Haliburton, Raytheon, Exxon, and Enron it lends some additional tangible weight to the activities of the RIAA, MPAA, the BSA, and the SCO.

Times are dark, so resist, be happy, and joyfully undermine them every chance you get.

Re:My letter to the local TV station

[dick johnson]

>>>RIAA hands the copy to the UPI The UPI? Sheesh. You must be fairly old. Hardly anyone uses UPI anymore. As a company/wire service, it's barely alive. It's bounced around for years now and last I heard some Saudi Shiek owned it. I don't think ANY U.S.-based newspapers use it anymore and I'm fairly certain that is the case with local and U.S. national news organizations. Maybe you meant the AP or Reuters? -dj

let's beat up the small kids first!

[geoff lane]

Rather than the school yard bullies.

The real reasons the media companies are seeing a slump in revenue are a/ really crap music being published and b/ the large illegal pressing plants that exist around the world.

In some markets 40% of CD sales are illegally pressed but are packaged up to be near indistinquishable from the official product.

Futile in the end...

[goodbye_kitty]

Unfortunately for the RIAA gang, since their methods of investigation totally rely on a verifiable identity trail from the shared content to its respective downloader it wont be long before mainstream P2P clients start implementing freenet-style anonymity as a high priority requirement...im sure this is already under way at kaaza/morpheus research labs etc

macarthy rules!!

[glassesmonkey]

Are you now, or have you ever been a file swapper?

Re:macarthy rules!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you now, or have you ever been a file swapper^W^Wterrorist^Wgoat fucker?

Remember Private Investigators?

[Slur]

Wouldn't that tend to imply that they have no right to conduct a search in the first place?

This is exactly what led to the extinction of private investigators back in the twentieth century. They are extinct aren't they?

Re:Remember Private Investigators?

[Anonymous Coward]

Private investigators don't do their job by trespassing (at least, not if they are legit). They search documents, make calls, ask questions, perhaps do some social engineering. Maybe you watch too much TV.

corollary use issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Child pornographers use sidewalks, too. So if you see someone walking on the sidewalk, they may be a child pornographer. Oh yeah they eat in restaurants, too.

Listen to non-RIAA music then

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a wealth of tunes out there, none of which are RIAA-owned. The source? Chiptunes for classic computers/game consoles. The HVSC [http://www.hvsc.c64.org] has over 20,000 C64 SID tunes that are legal to trade around - the only thing that is verboten is selling copies of the tunes.

And no, there's no clickable links, I'm too fucking lazy to change it.

Backing up your form?

[Anonymous Coward]

One question - if I want to send the RIAssA my form, am I allowed to photocopy it before I send it to them so that I can keep a backup copy?
Also - is it classed as my work or will I have broken someone's patent by altering the existing form with my own comments?

IT'S A TRAP!!!!!!

[skinnedmink]

http://www.x-entertainment.com/stuff/ack1.jpg IT'S A TRAP!

Why?

[wolfson292]

My one question. Why?

This is the same tatic that the BSA uses during the "Amnesty" periods. You promise to be a good boy for the rest of your life, and pay them tons of money and they will leave you alone. Its also the same game that DirecTV is pulling. Admit to doing wrong, pay us tons of money, and we won't sue you. Currently the RIAA does not want money from you, but maybe they will take DirecTv's and the BSA's idea and start requesting $X per song you admit to having.

Scott Wolf - Network Engineer
http://www.aginet.com

More extortion by corporations?

[Kalak]

I'm exposing my legal ignorance, but isn't the idea of "fess up now and we'll give you amnesy" when the RIAA doesn't actually *own* the copyright, the same as "buy a license now and we won't sue" when they don't own the Linux kernel like another group we know of? The RIAA may as well charge for the amnesty (or someone else may as well offer to give away licenses). If Sony, WB, or the *artists* (who actually matter) who actually own the copyright made this offer, it'd be a different discussion.

For the record, I don't share MP3s, I don't even use them. I use oggs, and I keep them to myself. I load the CD I own to friends.

Search RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a quick test about private entities searching: show up at the RIAA offices after-hours to "search" them. See how quickly the police arrive. After you explain you're just "searching", see how quickly they charge you with either breaking & entering (if you broke in), or trespassing (if the doors were unlocked).

4th amendment restricts the government's power to search. Private parties are restricted from searching by other laws, which the government can bypass under some circumstances.

Unreasonable searches & seizures by private parties are called burglary or theft. If a private party wants to force a search, they need to force it by involving the police - not just pushing past you & searching anyway.

I only trade small chunks of files

[polyp2000]

I only trade small chunks of files, like most people, we're not trading entire files, so the blame can not be put on a single person. Isnt that the whole point of most new p2p system, napster was fundamentally flawed, and a couple of other systems after that, but with the more recent p2p progs, the files do'nt exsist in a central place, instead they exist in the "ether" of p2p space ?

Might've already been suggested...

[MImeKillEr]

.. but where does one get a copy of the amnesty doc? We could start a campaign to send bogus docs to the RIAA (like the guy who sent SCO monopoly money) just to flood them with paperwork.

Print up some bogus Notary stamps (make it an obvious forgery) and just flood them with paperwork.

Use their own names, Darl McBride, Heywood Jablowme, Mike Hunt, every character from The Matrix and Office Space, etc.

Anyone?

Only if you allow it to be over.

[jotaeleemeese]

Share music you are entitled to share. Don't share music for which you don't have a copy-right.

Just Smith now

[qwertyatwork]

Dude, hes no longer an agent of the system. Hes just plain ol Smith now. Gona screw things up in reloaded, somehow hes gona be the key to the humans winning. Dont any of you dare to mark this OT, its a post about The Matrix!

Re:Translation - Don't Forget

[DrinkDr.Pepper]

What the RIAA wants you to think "It's about what is fair" what they don't want you to know is that in every single case brought against them by an artist for failure to pay royalties, they have lost. (Ok, maybe not that time michael jackson sued)

RIAA also wants you to forget that they keep having to refund people after courts find them guilty of price gauging.

Thou shalt not kill thy tribesman

[arete]

As I've heard it explained, the commandment said you shouldn't waste the lives of people, but "people" basically meant those people in your tribe. Everyone else was considered sortof a savage, since they were likely to come attack you. (and vice versa)

And furthermore that waste was pretty loosely interpreted. You could certainly argue that "everyone is our tribesman now..." but it certainly wouldn't be the original meaning.

Of course, not randomly killing people in your own tribe is a good way to keep your numbers up, as is making sure you only use sperm if you're breeding. So those factors do tend to make a strong tribe.

Of course, the thou, shalt, thy stuff is junk, because it wasn't even english. But I think it sounds better that way.

death penalty

[arete]

I'm not a terribly liberal person, but I'm currently decisively anti-death penalty. Life without the option for parole COSTS less money for society. Apparently we spend so much money fighting appeals and paying both sides of them that housing and feeding for life is cheaper.

I believe the chance of someone escaping from our maximum security prison is essentially zero. (If they could escape, I imagine they could do it from death row, too, and likely would try faster) And the few occasions I know of where it has happened have had rapid successful manhunts. Perhaps I'm being too idealistic on this point, and I agree it's a prerequisite for my major point.

MOD Parent funny plz

[(54)T-Dub]

that is some funny shit

Misguided?

[riptalon]

Haven't you heard of globalisation? The Congo may be the other side of the world for you but it is just next door as far as the transnational corporations that are driving the war there are concerned. A big war in Africa doesn't just happen. A hundred years ago it would have been the governments of major european powers that called the shots. Now it is large mining corporations, IMF, World Bank, CIA etc. that pull all the strings.

To use your analogy the western "democracies" already have the bull crippled trussed up and are now preparing to slaughter it. They love to play the disinterested bastards who should really get involved and help the poor niggers out, while behind the scenes they are engineering the whole thing, as they did in Rwanda. People are dying in the Congo right now so the west can get diamonds and coltan for next to nothing. I am sure the people of the Congo would be really happy to see the west even more involved.

AP or Reuters works

[Slur]

See what you think of the UPI as it still exists.

riaa violates copa

[Anonymous Coward]

another poster already mentioned it, but it bears repeating:

the riaa has violated the copa:

http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm

OT - scarcity is the cause of injustice?

[Anonymous Coward]

The injustices, the violations of human rights, will continue as long as there is inequality among societies. Unfortuneately there are not enough resources in the world for everyone to live the "western lifestyle". In order to make things equal citizens of western countries would need to accept a siginificant decrease in quality of life. I am not willing to accept this (and I'm sure many others are with me). (emphasis mine)

While this lie is often repeated, repetition doesn't make lies true: the scarcity to which you refer is a myth.

We live in an era of artificial scarcity--manufactured and sustained by private interests. We live in a world where the economic systems around us encourage and support shortsightedness and competition over concerted co-operation and long-term planning. If it were not for this, we might live in a world where everyone could enjoy a "standard of living" on the scale that the West can afford.

We, in fact, have the technology to feed and clothe each and every person on the planet. We have the space and the means to provide everyone on Earth with comfortable and modern places to live. We have the know-how to provide universal transportation; clean air and water; access to medicines and health care.

We have the technology to power the energy appetite of some six and half billion human beings and their productive machinery.

We have the technology to make work and the vacuous work ethic obsolete (and to instead make the exercise of our lives the diverse pursuit of joy). We have the wisdom to know how to organize our homes, communities, workplaces such that all are free of unreasonable authorities and bureaucrats.

We have the capacity to replace the carcinogenic compounds we use to manufacture the things we possess and the thing we consume with harmless substances from sustainable processes.

We know how to farm, manufacture goods and distribute them, move people and things from place to place, produce energy and construct and maintain infrastructure without damaging the ecological foundation upon which humanity and all the life on Earth is built.

In fact, we have known what we've needed to know for a very, very long time. Some of it we've known for thousands of years.

We're sold a lot of bullshit about the cause of the inequity and inefficiency of our economy; the alienation it causes in the West; the oppression it causes in the South. We're told that free markets will cure it, or--no wait, communism! The solutions always suggest the convenience of some imagned authority, be it public or private.

Well... "scarcity of resources" is one of those big fat lies (just like "competitive free markets are pre-requisite of progress" and the line that the Soviet Union was "the free worker's republic").

You know, it doesn't take but a little digging below the surface to see it, either. Here, I'll get you started.

A WAY AROUND THIS PROBLEM

[pensivemusic]

go back to snail mail, and hand carried CD copies as the preferred internet providers of choice. same result, but different and non traceable Servie Providers.

Settlement scenario, apparently...

[Anonymous Coward]

potential settlee: I want to settle out of court. How much will it cost?

RIAA landshark: How much ya got?