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."
We promise nothing bad will happen if you admit guilt and give us all your contact information.
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
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
ummm...the EFF does QUITE a bit, considering the responsibilty it has to do anything at all (none). Just what are you suggesting?
Remember, friends don't let friends claim amnesty.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
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 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*
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
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.
webpage
That's pretty much the sum of it. That, and the fact that they're not promising to
"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
Amnesty International?
Last time I checked, they were doing some decent things.
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!
The IT section color scheme sucks.
Like Amnesty International? It sure has some ugly pictures on it, like of human rights abuses. So I guess it does deserve a warning.
Karma: Excellent^(-t/Tau), Tau=Wittiness/Trollishness
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?
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).
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.
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?
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!"
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....
...please try not to pass on your genetic map to offspring, and do us all a favor. Thank you for your cooperation.
-=-This sig brought to you by The Cheat; and by Viewers Like You.-=-
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."
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 :)
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
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030907& mode=classic
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
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!
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."
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
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?
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
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.
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]
It's a good thing the world sucks or we'd all fall off.
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)
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
"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?
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.
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
If you or anyone you know was contemplating handing over information to the RIAA, you may smack yourself.
-Valiss
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
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
#define DRM chmod 000
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.
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!
Parent said: if some western democracy decided
And you bring up france?
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
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.
To quote Top Dollar:
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.
Karma: Could be worse (could be raining)
For instance, take a look at this.
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.