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

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?

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.

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.

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!

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: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

[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.