Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sued For Amnesty Offer
wo1verin3 writes "CNET News is reporting that the RIAA is being sued because of 'Clean Slate' filesharing amnesty program that was announced on Monday. 'Clean Slate' allows people to (supposedly) avoid legal action by stepping forward and forfeiting any illegally traded songs. The suit, filed in the Marin Superior Court of California, charges that the RIAA's program is deceptive and fraudulent business practice." The suit claims that the amnesty is "designed to induce members of the general public... to incriminate themselves... while (receiving)... no legally binding release of claims", a statement the EFF also agrees with.
It is not publicity. The RIAA doesn't control all the sources of potential lawsuits. They cannot give you total amnesty. It is deceitful. That is why.
> They never claim you're clear from prosecution.
> Merely free of procescution from the RIAA.
From the article:
"The RIAA's legal document does not even prevent RIAA members from suing."
Umm what?
It is against the law to decieve people for your own gain. It's fraud at worst and false advertisement at least.
The plaintiffs contend that the RIAA is not providing legal amnesty, and thus saying something and doing something legally different. Lying.
What are you talking about? Look at the copyright on a CD and it will tell you exactly who owns the copying rights of the music. Most likely the owner of the music is a recording company. That's not any different from software companies owning the copying rights to software their employees produce on company time.
Thank you for your attention.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
I am well aware that the RIAA is a U.S. corporation (or organisation, not sure which). However, had they issued their immunity offer in Canada, they would be breaking the law. Section 143, Advertising reward and immunity. Basically, nobody (including police officiers, though the law states 'Every one', not 'every officer') can offer a 'no questions[...] asked' advertisement whereby if you return something that has been stolen (and the RIAA would have to argue that the MP3s have been stolen, by definition), no 'interference with or inquiry about the person' (i.e. charges) will be made.
I am rather surprised that this is allowed in the U.S., assuming the RIAA really isn't committing a criminal act there.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
You've never heard of "lying by omision" or a "lie of omission"?
In many, many, circumstances omitting important information is a crime.
At any rate, the plaintiff does have a valid argument, if they go in the direction that the RIAA's intent was to mislead. The strength or validity of this argument is up to the courts to decide.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
The RIAA wants you to admit (in writing) to filesharing, saying that they'll...do nothing actually. From the offer itself:
Support or assist?!? The "Amnesty" program implies a pardon, yet there really is none being given. All you really do is admit guilt. That's what this suit is about.
It isn't being cynical. It is standard evidence and civil procedure.
...
Off the top of my head (and I am a guy that doesn't often deal with evidence and civil procedure. So, your mileage may differ)
1)
It isn't a settlement contract. You are not giving any consideration (one of the 3 main elements of a contract). You are just promising to refrain from an illegal action. Refraining from illegal acts isn't consideration, it is a pre-existing duty. So, no contract.
2)
It is an admission against interest (i.e. a hearsay exception) and therefore admissible evidence against you. And, it is notarized. So, what is the jury going to think about it?
Also, as a notarized document outside the hearsay exclusion, other parties (i.e. the Federal government) can use this against you in a separate case. Oh, and for a few reasons, including that it is a voluntary admission, you've waived your 5th Amendment privileges in a criminal case with this.
If the RIAA was trying to be nice, they did a horrible job of it.
If they were trying to slip a Trojan Horse by us, they didn't do too well either.
If they were trying to make a PR point, it all depends on what the media reports now doesn't it?
They already have!!!!! It was advertised in a back issue of National Geographic that the big 5 record labels were guilty of artificially inflating the price of records at their outlet stores! I don't remember what month it was in, but it was in either 1999, 2000, or 2001 and it was toward the back of the issue in just black and white, like a typical legal announcement. If my memory serves me correctly, it was the attorney general of Indiana or Ohio or some state like that that initiated and won (settled or outright won) the case! Would someone please find this issue and put a scanned copy of it for /.ers to look at?
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
"If my memory serves me correctly, it was the attorney general of Indiana or Ohio or some state like that that initiated and won (settled or outright won) the case! Would someone please find this issue and put a scanned copy of it for /.ers to look at?"
How about this instead?
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
You're right, and this is why in general you should never reveal any information that incriminates yourself without advice from a lawyer. If anyone ever presses you into admitting guilt, something is awry.
Reminds me of a recent experience one of my friends had. Police had found some pot in his dorm room, and a cop asked my friend, "off the record, why is a good guy like you involved in drugs? just between you and me buddy". My friend revealed too much information (i.e. admission of ownership) at this point, and he got in trouble for it. (Note: he's in Canada so he didn't get in any real trouble).
Admit nothing. With P2P I really don't even think sharing music files I own is illegal in the first place. The RIAA is pressing hard to impress on people a sense of guilt for wrongdoing; people are not necessarily guilty of breaking the law by using P2P apps.
You're getting your legal terms confused. It's easy to make an out-of-court settlement for a pending civil claim, even if the claim hasn't even made it to the point of a lawsuit. There are certain things you can't waive before they happen (such as a claim for wrongful death for a deliberate killing) but that's an exception to the general rule
What's impossible is for the RIAA to grant immunity from a criminal prosecution, only the government can do that. Just like a rape victim that tries to pull out of testifying at the trial, the government can still go forward with a prosecution even if the victim of the crime doesn't want to press the charges.
Program Details Affidavit Details
I hope this and other similar suits bring the RIAA down. I don't support bootlegging software or content, but neither do I support terrorism
This wont bring the RIAA down (though I'm sure it will help). What will bring the RIAA down is consumers switching to new distribution channels, such as collaborative filtering, that cut out the RIAA on all levels.
People shouldn't download stuff that was produced by RIAA artists, that just means they are still listening to RIAA music (yes I know that there are some good bands that are part of the RIAA empire but they shouldn't need to be).
I'm doing my part, I have a chat at http://www.delphiforums.com That talks About
the RIAA and how out of hand they are now. You will see RIAA in the Main Chat for 7 pm Till 9 pm
est... Feel free to drop by. I'm on now, the delphiforums is called The Nut House.
12 year old girls getting sued, give me a break.
The RICO statutes were originally created to provide a legal framework for going after organized crime based on a pattern of illegal activities rather than just one single individual illegal action. This was effective because the pattern of crimilality was often obvious and easy to establish based on the money trail, tax code violations, murders and assaults, etc. while the specific individual crimes were difficult to prosecute due to intimidation of witnesses and a general lack of evidence connecting a specific perpetrator to a crime. The most famous example of this was the conviction of Al Capone for income tax violations where the government was able to show that Capone had spent millions of dollars but had never paid a dime of income tax.
What is ironic is that organized crime has been heavily involved in the music business for many years through their control of the associated unions, talent-booking agencies, radio outlets, performance venues, and ticketing. They may even be behind the RIAA.
Warez sites attempted to use a bit of legal mumbo jumbo that basically says "by entering this site you agree not to sue." I don't believe that's ever held up in court. Sites that actually carry warez tend to resort to using technical means to cover their asses and not legally questionable agreements. Kazaa is demonstrating it's value in that area.
However that's telling me I can't sue them. The RIAA is (possibly pretending) to have you sign something so THEY won't sue you. Basically it's a legal document to restrain themselves under specific guidlines. Not for you to restain yourself other than by stopping your illegal activity.
It's perfectly reasonable for me to remove my own right to sue. That's my choice. I can deny myself free speech as well and censor everything I say. I can also deny myself a gun or any other number of things.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of what they're doing as far as "right to sue" but how they've worded their agreement and how they're selling their agreement appear to be the hot issue. And that's far more relavent anyway.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Back in the old days you could download all the mp3's you could handle from little known artists trying to get a foot in the door. I have not been there in a long time but I see it's now populated by all the big names in the business and it's hard to find unsigned artists at the top of any of the charts. All the big names have done to MP3.com is use it to advertise their songs.
Depending on the state, maybe. Honeypots are becomeing illegal in various parts of the united states.
Who are the member companies of RIAA and how do I stop supporting them?
The page was down, but this is Google's cache of the RIAA members page. I was surprised there were so many. I was further surprised that Sanctuary was one of them. Now I wish I hadn't have bought the new Anthrax CD. Gonna have to stop buying Anthrax, now. :(
Boycott RIAA is a website that talks about boycotting them. I haven't read through the website myself, I've just been doing my own independent thing.
RIAA Radar is a searchable database to see if an artist is on an RIAA label. They also have a javascript bookmarklet that will tell you when an artist is RIAA while you're on Amazon.
Like what I said? You might like my music
A) We've been party to the Berne Convention since 1988 after we made changes to our copyright laws. The Berne Convention has been administered by WIPO since 1967 and has since then been superceded and extended by the TRIPS agreement and the WIPO treaties that the DMCA is an implementation of.
B) The DMCA's alternate title the WIPO Treaty Implementing Legislation. It was passed to fulfill the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treatry which we both pushed for as part of an economic strategy to strengthen IP. It was our diplomats who behind closed doors helped force this upon the world, and it's our diplomats who are continuing to campaign for even stronger treaties as an end-run around the democratic process in our own nation.
C) It wasn't written to "buddy up to Europe." The EU didn't even pass their own implementation of the treaty until 2001 whereas the DMCA was passed via unaccountable voice vote in 1998 (along with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act the next day) to avoid media attention. EU member states are still in the process of ratifying it and implementing their own local versions of it.
D) Finally, tt's the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998, or DMCA, for crying out loud. Spelling it wrong twice is a clear warning flag that you haven't researched it at all and are just regurgitating half-truths and misinformation that you've heard elsewhere.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").