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."
Any thing with word "amnesty" in it, should be a warning by itself.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
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.
-- Bill "Houdini" Weiss
This just in: EFF doesn't trust RIAA!
Details at 11.
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
"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.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
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).
TruePunk | Games
The IT section color scheme sucks.
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:-)
"Who needs reincarnation when we've got parallel universes?" -Me
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.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
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.
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.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
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.
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
#define DRM chmod 000
B.S.!
... but you know the RIAA isn't looking at it that way.
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
It's only illegal until pollies change the laws, or until the courts say otherwise.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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,
.. 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?
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!