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.
The fact that the RIAA doesn't even own the entire copyright to songs. Songwriters own part, too.
It's not against the law to fool people. The RIAA isn't lying. They won't press charges. Ommision of information isn't a crime. In this case they simply don't spell out that other owners of the IP can press charges.
They never claim you're clear from prosecution. Merely free of procescution from the RIAA.
Law enforcment does this type of thing all the time.
It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It's perfectly legal and there's no reason it shouldn't be.
Looks like someone found another straw to tug at. And once again comes up empty handed.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Just read the article. "The RIAA's legal document does not even prevent RIAA members from suing."
If that doesn't flag their intentions clearly, I don't know what will.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
The RIAA responded to the suit with a maxim: "No good deed goes unpunished, apparently."
Wow what a good deed. They did a good deed by having that 12 year old's mom pay $2,000.00 too...why are they so mis-understood??!
I say we just give them what they want. Stop downloading...stop buying and find other sources of music. I buy CDs from cdbaby.com (I'm not affiliated in any way) from artists that are unsigned and have found a lot of good music. I also listen to a lot of local stuff and some of the smaller record companies that actually promote bootlegs and similar things. Like skunk records.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
I think that we're torn between rooting for the little guy, daring to go against the giant of the RIAA, and bemoaning the incredible litigiousness of American society...
So which is it going to be? Is it a crank suit or not? Is the wording of the "amnesty" indeed a trick?
I hate to say this, but this lawsuit does not have the slightest chance of being won.
Although it's quite obvious that RIAA's "offer" is full of shit, remind yourself that the burden will be on the plaintiff to prove their case. The only realistic chance of winning this case would be to come up with someone who did sign on RIAA's dotted line, but then got sued anyway. Has this happen to anyone, yet? Unless this happens, everything is mere speculation and hypothesis.
And what exactly are the plaintiffs' damages in this case anyway, to date? I can't figure this out.
The only way to hit RIAA where it hurts is to do absolutely nothing. They gotta be pulling these kinds of stunts out of desperation. Music sales are falling, and falling, and falling, and you're witnessing the last dying gasps of an obsolete dinosaur. You could argue whether or not the music sales are down because of piracy, or because contemporary mainstream music is shit that nobody wants to listen to, anyway. It doesn't matter. Whatever the reason is, so be it. Don't do anything that you're not doing already. And if you're not doing anything, keep on not doing anything. Whatever. Keep on going, keep on seeing music sales nosediving, until RIAA, and their ilk, are starved into non-existence.
My store specialised in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to.
I would blame your downturn, more on the decline of family values, than on music piracy. Music like that just isn't popular these days. If you want to be successful in the music business, you have to sell whatever obscenity filled, sex-charged, carbon-copy music the record execs are currently pimping.
Plus, there is considerable evidence to support Piracy helps music sales. After all, John and Jane Fileswapper usually don't know how to get their pirated music onto cds, and use the p2p networks as a 'Try before you Buy' service.
Got Shadowrun? Awakened Worlds
>> cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of
>> the most extensive Christian rock sections
>> that I know of.
It's called changing with the times, stop blaming your problems on others when perhaps it is your unwillingness to cater to a potential market that lets other record stores succeed while yours is destroyed.
I wouldn't blame pirates... I'd blame the kind of music you're selling. Independent record stores have been doing great buisness by selling things the big guys don't (indie music, hard to find music, imports, vinyl, etc) and selling/buying used CD's. There was an article in the recent rolling stone about this fact.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
It's easy to be cynical and think that the RIAA's offer was just a trap, but what if it were genuine?
If it was genuine, then it must have been unbelievably badly thought-through.
A reasonably smart lawyer, instructed by a client who genuinely wants to make a straightforward deal, should not have difficulty finding a way to draft a fairly simple document with enforceable and useful promises by the alleged copier for not copying, and for amnesty by the RIAA coupled with assurance that the RIAA is acting as agent for the relevant copyright owners. There is certainly no need to play around with the mischief of inducing incriminating admissions.
Terrorism???
I wish people would stop throwing the word around. You used to be a Nazi or a Communist if somebody didn't like you. Now you are a Terrorist.
The only time this supposed amnesty applies to you is if RIAA hasn't already begun investigating you. Assuming this is true, why do you have to sign an amnesty document? Just stop sharing and you'll be in the clear.
I think that just highlights how stupid the whole idea is.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Other than the fact that's suicidal. P2P swaping won't kill the music industry, but it will kill some of the no-longed-needed players in the music industry... those who made their money by controling the distrubition channels.
First: I bought more CDs a few years ago because I could download music...give it a listen...weed out the garbage, and there is a LOT of garbage out there, and pick and choose what I wanted. I would then go to the local music store and buy between 2-4 CDs of the best stuff. I didn't do this every week but I did buy a lot of CDs for someone who is also raising children and owning a home. I own somewhere in the neighborhood of 300-400 CDs and around 200 tapes. Now that I don't have the option to listen before I buy (unless you count the shit they play on the radio 40x a day as a preview of good music...which its not) I buy CDs rarely. I don't download music anymore either unless its Sublime bootlegs (which Skunk records actually doesn't care about) or underground bands who are promoting their music on their own. Most of the CDs I buy now are actually of underground unsigned bands. So I make many less trips to the local Newbury Comics, my local chain to buy music.
2nd: How are you going to enforce this blacklisting? The kid you kicked out of you're store went down the block and bought the CD elsewhere. Your not going to change his behavior by assaulting him and swearing at him in your "more family friendly and christian oriented" shop. Do you propose a photo ID system? How many people do you think openly discuss putting albums on the Internet in your store? How will you know if they are doing it? Do you suggest the RIAA track down everyone...make them submit to photos and finger printing and add it to a database and then before you can make a purchase you use some biometric to see if they are on "the list"?
I can apprieciate your stance and how the downturn in sales can seriously affect your life in a lot of ways but I doubt very highly that online music trading is really causing you serious problems. If you look at the numbers you'll see that during napsters reign record sales were up. So was the economy. To ignore the poor economy's affect on record sales, a product that is low on the list of "needs" is foolish.
Nobody can know for sure what mp3s and tools like kazaa have had on the industry and its entirely possible it has had a negative effect. I think there is evidence to the contrary out there but does anyone really know for sure? I doubt it. Data can be interpreted in many ways.
I do know that everyone I talk to is pissed off at the RIAA and are buying fewer albums as a result. As more and more news comes out about them taking 12 year olds to court and trying to get people to settle for $50,000.00 and other such heavy handed practices I think you're going to see an even steeper decrease in record sales.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
Kudos to the EFF.
If I had even a penny, I'd give it to them, but being a college student and still being a college student, the bum on the streets has more money and is covered with less bullsh!t (I hate bureacracy).
MoFoQ hands the EFF his flaming torch while keeping his trusty pitchfork.
What are assurances worth? legally?
A fair amount, actually. Especially if they're public (like this one) and include documentation (i.e. a signed declaration). Any competent lawyer could probably get the charges dismissed by showing that there was an implied contract between the RIAA and the repenter.
but it will kill some of the no-longed-needed players in the music industry
That's it exactly. Distributing audio on CD is archaic these days. Technology is making the world smaller and these guys are no longer needed and they know it. Thats why they have been fighting mp3 rather than embracing it. If mp3 or whatever codec (ogg :-) becomes the main legitimate way of distributing music they won't need 20% of the people that are currently in the industry and there won't be massive companies making obscene profits that these fat cats can own.
I know a small percentage of musicians are pro-RIAA, we have seen their disgraceful support. How many of the other musicians really know what's happening? Do they agree, but don't want to risk the PR nightmare of saying it out loud, or are they completely unaware of the war that is being fought? What we need is some prominent artist(s) to come out and openly defy the RIAA, someone with enough oomph in the industry that the RIAA couldn't squash them. Who might be willing?
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it pretty much legally impossible to "sign away" your right to sue someone? I'm sure the RIAA knows this. Hardly anyone else does, though.
if it is a free sample or just a free public domain content. And I don't have to do any investigation by myself. Instead, I have to be informed about any legal nature of the content at the moment I've tried to download the content.
Exactly. That is why I only shoplift at stores that do not have that pesky 'Shoplifters will be prosecuted' sign.
It is painfully obvious that the RIAA is in desperate straights and jumping on any idea that involkes fear in their ex-customers.
.99 downloads per song with no protection schemes
What I cannot figure out is how they simply ignore what they are doing to their (ex)customers. Not only are they alienating their long time customers but they are also alienating the next generation of customers. Even if this entire p2p quagmire is eventually solved they will still have to deal with the monkey wrench they threw into their business dealings.
I think it's safe to say that they are past the point of no return. They feel that they are losing too much to give a damn so they are rolling the dice on their scare tactics. The music industry as it was has ceast to exist. It's just an old horse that refuses to die but will eventually meet it's fate whether it wants to or not.
I think the music industry will survive but in another form and in a much smaller way. No longer will they be able to push certain artists on a consistent basis while ignoring the majority. If they actually listened to what their (ex)customers are saying then they would be completely enlightened to what's wanted in this day and age.
1)9.99 and under pricing
2)Under
3)The ability to transfer whatever you download to any device at anytime without fear of being called a criminal and sued to financial ruin
4)The ability to pay a fair fee for unlimited downloads of different music catalogs
5)To have the RIAA and the companies it represents actually listen to consumers and what they want instead of trying to sue them into being customers.
6)A written guarantee and promise to keep cd pricing low with no future collusion/price fixing. Cd's and their future derivatives must stay below $9.99 unless it is independently studied and verified that a newer standard costs more.
7)A Major FUCKING apology to those who were made an example of and possibly some form of restitution to those who's lives were seriously impacted.
That's fair and that's not a mountain to overcome.
To sum it up....
If the RIAA is to stay in business then they can either listen and come to the table and work with the consumer or the RIAA can continue to thumb their nose at all of us and ignore what we want. If they choose to ignore then they will never be able to recoup their loses and we are the ones who can control that.
So RIAA whatcha gonna do?
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
Well, in this case, rather then being an assumed music "thief" (which brings up a whole other rant about copyright infringement not being theft) you are now admitting you are.
And on another note, when they said "destroy hard copies" did they mean of your mp3s or your cds too? If it's the latter, sounds like a deliciously evil way to get MORE of your cash-money.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
I have one here, was one of the funniest lifts I did. I was bored, waiting for a bus. Saw the sign (on the inside of the main window) and just had to have it.
In fact it says "All Purchases Must Be Paid For"
Which I thought was stupid. If I stole it then it's not a purchase so therefore it says "steal here for free".
Which is true. I used to take my dinner from there on the way home.
Gotta love it.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I never said that I, as a downloader, ignore the law. I said that the law must not be applicable to my actions in circumstances I mentioned previously and bellow.
It's like arresting me for possessing the money I found on the street, which was left by rubbers there when they were running away from cops. The court may insist I return money, but they cannot arrest me for the fact I picked them up.
Distributing copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright owner, whether you know you are doing it or not, is certainly copyright infringement (civil)
The content I found on the web has not been marked as copyrighted. Therefore i am not the person who broke the law. Whoever ORIGINALLY published the copyrighted materials is the one who broke the law.
If the court (or even RIAA) will notify me that I poses LEAKED copyrighted materials then of course I agree to remove such materials. But I did not do anything that should be punished.
Another practical point that is yet highlighted is that if RIAA wants me aware about copyrighteness of any content I download from Internet they have to make publicly and freely available some mechanism where I can check the content for legitimateness of being copied.
It can be a web site where I can upload the whole file (well, the bandwidth is not free anyway) or it's checksum.
Without such mechanism RIAA has no way to prove that I downloaded a copyrighted material knowing that it is copyrighted. And it THEIR job to prove it, not mine. Otherwise the whole constitution is just screwed up.
Less is more !
According to you, it would be illegal for me to make such a posting. What a stupid law.
With all these law suits going on, it's becoming financially prohibitive to steal MP3's for free over the P2P networks. In fact, it's cheaper to walk into a store and steal a CD. What's the worst that can happen? You get caught shoplifting, and you have to pay $500 bail? This brings me to another point - If you stole a CD, would the RIAA hunt you down and sue you for $150,000 per song? 18 Tracks of mindless drivel multiplied by $150,000 is $2.7 million. If they're going to sue you for that much, they should at least let you keep the music.
>sigh<
Okay, class. Say it with me:
"Copyright infringement is not property theft."
"Copyright infringement is not property theft."
"Copyright infringement is not property theft."
Say it enough and maybe it will sink in.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
My 17 year old nephew 'distributes' some of his music on MP3.com. I've looked. It seems like lots of people in his category (kid with lots of energy, some talent, etc.) 'distribute' their music on MP3.com.
Most of it isn't very good. (emphasis mine)
*snip*
Most of the P2P is stuff recorded in studios by RIAA protected musicians. Please be real.
Most of the stuff recorded by RIAA "protected" musicians isn't very good either. What makes you think the RIAA "protects" (owns?) all the good musicans? Why can't good musicians do their own distribution (via mp3.com or otherwise)?
sudo eat my shorts
Instead, we should:
1. Make a nice printable list of all record companies in the RIAA.
2. Distribute said list.
3. DON'T BUY ANY RECORDS FROM ANYONE ON THE LIST, EVER.
4. Write the bands we like and tell them as long as they are on an RIAA label that we will not be buying their music.
Let's starve these bastards of dollars so they shut the fuck up.
Michael