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.
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. ========
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
Omission of information with intent to defraud, which seems to be the case here, is indeed illegal. It's on a par with selling someone a new car (with no chance to test drive it) for the unbelievable price of just $2999.95, while neglecting to mention that there is no motor included.
There's a legal term for this sort of deceptive practice, but beings how IANAL I can't remember what it is.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
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.
"It's not against the law to fool people."
Tell that to anybody prosecuted for false advertising. Or any manner of con artists.
"The RIAA isn't lying. They won't press charges."
Sez them. However, I don't see that in writing, at least not without a signature with some weight behind it.
"In this case they simply don't spell out that other owners of the IP can press charges."
The RIAA members are the people who own the IP. If they are dues-paying members of the orgainziation, then it is reasonable to assume that the organization they are a part of speaks for them, especially when they are obliged to follow other membership regulations.
Or are the US steel tariff's magicly OK because, while the WTO has ruled against them, the US (a member of the organization) is free to ignore them at its liesure without fear of recrimination?
"Law enforcment does this type of thing all the time."
No, they do it once. And then they find that all of the local defense attorneys stonewall them, and suddenly it's much more difficult to prosecute just about any crime as plea bargaining becomes a thing of the past.
"It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It's perfectly legal and there's no reason it shouldn't be."
No, in many states it would be considered breach of contract, which is (and should) be illegal.
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
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.
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.