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.

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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[Red Warrior]

Parent said: if some western democracy decided

And you bring up france?

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"

[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"

[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"

[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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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?

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*

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...

[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...

[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.

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. ;-)

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.

[Scrameustache]

collage students etc

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

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

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

[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

[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.

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.

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:-)

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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

[OscarGunther]

That link again: Boycott-RIAA

Like the caption says: Check those URLs!

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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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."

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

[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 :-).

Here is a copy of the form..

[doormat]

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

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!

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."

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: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.

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.

[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.

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]

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?

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.

If you or anyone else...

[Valiss]

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

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

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.

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.

Insightful thought for the day...

[Mashiki]

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

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...

You sure??

[3terrabyte]

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

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.

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."

Falsify the notarization

[robogun]

For instance, take a look at this.

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!

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?

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,

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?