Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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."
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.
Space for rent, inquire within
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!
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.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
France has troops in the Congo. (Article's from May, at which time they were planning to deploy; by now thay already have.)
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
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.
MHO. YMMV. Any resemblance between this post and real persons, or reality in general, was accidental.
Like the caption says: Check those URLs!
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...
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.
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.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
From the New York Times: Article (NYT reg req)
... '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."
"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.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
For instance, take a look at this.
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.
There is no longer such a country as Burma. It is now called Myanmar.
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
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.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.