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."
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
"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.
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.
#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
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.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
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.