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 easy to be cynical and think that the RIAA's offer was just a trap, but what if it were genuine ?
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
Sue Brittany's pants off while you're at it please.
That's all. "Hey! Look at us! We're willing to forgive! We're nice guys! Please buy some music."
Isn't it possible for the RIAA to put all the money they spend on lawsuits in some projects which make music legally available on the 'net? They'll loose the war against (millions of?) p2p swappers in the end
Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
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
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,
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. ========
My business faces ruin. CD sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as many CDs as they did just a year ago. Revenue is down and costs are up. My store has survived for years, but I now face the prospect of bankruptcy. Every day I ask myself why this is happening.
I bought the store about 12 years ago. It was one of those boutique record stores that sell obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them. I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market. My store specialised in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to. I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.
The business strategy worked. People flocked to my store, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase records without profanity or violent lyrics. Over the years I expanded the business and took on more clean-cut and friendly employees. It took hard work and long hours but I had achieved my dream - owning a profitable business that I had built with my own hands, from the ground up. But now, this dream is turning into a nightmare.
Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer CDs. Why is no one buying CDs? Are people not interested in music? Do people prefer to watch TV, see films, read books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame. The statistics speak for themselves - one in three discs world wide is a pirate. On The Internet, you can find and download hundreds of dollars worth of music in just minutes. It has the potential to destroy the music industry, from artists, to record companies to stores like my own. Before you point to the supposed "economic downturn", I'll note that the book store just across from my store is doing great business. Unlike CDs, it's harder to copy books over The Internet.
A week ago, an unpleasant experience with pirates gave me an idea. In my store, I overheard a teenage patron talking to his friend.
"Dude, I'm going to put this CD on the Internet right away."
"Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic], you'll get lots of respect."
I was fuming. So they were out to destroy the record industry from right under my nose? Fat chance. When they came to the counter to make their purchase, I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to copy this to your friends over The Internet, punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.
"Uh y-yeh." He mumbled, shocked.
"That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store - and don't come back." I barked. Cravenly, they complied and scampered off.
So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society. If pirates want to steal from the music industry, then the music industry should exclude them. It's that simple. One strike, and you're out - no reputable record store will allow you to buy another CD. If the pirates can't buy the CDS to begin with, then they won't be able to copy them over The Internet, will they? It's no different to doctors blacklisting drug dealers from buying prescription medicine.
I have just written a letter to the RIAA outlining my proposal. Suing pirates one by one isn't going far enough. Not to mention pirates use the fact that they're being sued to unfairly portray themselves as victims. A national register of pirates would make the problem far easier to deal with. People would be encouraged to give the names of suspected pirates to a hotline, similar to TIPS. Once we know the size of the problem, the police and other law enforcement agencies will be forced to take piracy seriously. They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?
This evening, my daughters a
There is no god
..and Railroad Tycoon, and Civilization and..
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
The bartender say, "Sir, did you know you have a steering wheel down the front of your pants?"
And the pirate says, "Yarr, it's driving me nuts!"
Always fall back on the Bart Simpson way:
;)
I didn't do it.
And even if I did do it, you couldn't prove it.
And even if you could prove it, I wouldn't admit it.
If you never confess, they'll never "know for sure" that you were guilty.
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
I wanted to confess and free myself from this evil sin of mp3 trading... here take my 10,000 mp3's on cd and I agree to format my pc....
lmao, I hope the courts eat them alive.
Now that they have a documented case of someone who was part of the 261 doers of evil against the RIAA paying only 2000 dollars for their crimes, does this hurt their 150k per song price?
:D
Couldn't you just argue that 2k is the going rate?
IANAL, so I don't know, but it sounds funs
Wait a second, doesn't the RIAA assume everyone is guilty to begin with? I suppose you wouldn't really be incriminating yourself in the RIAA's eyes, just incriminating your self even more than you already were.
Still I agree, it's a bum deal anyway you look at at.
> 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."
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.
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.
http://fnord.to/fun/riaa.jpg
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.
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
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 suit ... charges that the RIAA's program is deceptive and fraudulent business practice."
Which brings us one step closer to my idea. If there are any real lawyers here, could you please tell me why no one has bothered to attack the RIAA's charges using the Federal RICO Act? The RIAA and member organizations have engaged in a pattern of corrupt business practices for over 50 years, and are now using the law to intimidate individuals, companies, and universities to further their interests.
From my (admittedly limited) understanding of RICO, you must prove that the organization has engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, and is using illegal means, especially under cover of authority (court actions, copyright law, etc) to further their interests. Now, the ongoing illegal activity is really two-fold. That being, the RIAA's member companies have illegally maintained an effective distribution monopoly by engaging in anti-competitive acts, and have conspired to defraud consumers with a massive price-fixing scheme which caused consumers to be overcharged by more than $480 million (USD) since 1997 alone, according to the former head of the FTC. This scheme was labled "Minimum-Advertised Pricing", or MAP by the Attorneys General who investigated and eventually brought about a settlement. With regard to the anti-competitive acts, the RIAA and member companies have engaged in such practices as "payola", in which radio stations were paid money in order to ensure that music not controlled by the RIAA's members was never played, and therefore never heard by the public at large. Thus, their only competition, the independent artist/label, continues to struggle to get by, while the RIAA monopoly takes in billions each year.
So I ask again, why is it that no one has attacked the RIAA on RICO grounds. A corrupt organization cannot use the legal system to facilitate its illegal activities. The lack of legal online modes of music distribution is but more evidence of the RIAA's desperate struggle to maintain its distribution monopoly with an iron fist. It would seem to me that showing these lawsuits to be nothing more than tactics designed to further the interests of a corrupt organization is a far better defense than, "my client didn't know it was illegal".
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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.
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?
But what about the time your little girls (who have big, dewey, imploring eyes and cute little hair-bows they made themselves out of old gift ribbons) asked you: "Daaaady? How come the pirates hate us so much? We wuuuuv them!"? Don't you remember? You almost cried. Right there in front of them, and God, and everyone. But you didn't. You were strong for them. You kept it in. Then you replied: "I don't know, honey. But don't worry. With the help of the kind, gentle people at the RIAA, we'll turn them around yet. Just you wait." "Key! Thanks, daaaady!" they chirped, and scampered off, unaware of the evil pirates lurking all around them. Some might go to school with them. Some might be in their own classes. Some might -- poor little girls! -- even be friends with them. Oh, the betrayal they'll know in their sweet lives. But that was not for now. And, with any luck, the benevolent leaders at the RIAA, with a little help from plucky "little guys" like you, might -- just might -- change the world before then.
For those of you reading along, check this guy's info. Giant troll. If that's not enough to convince you, look at the home page: "http://slashdot.org/~trollback/".
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
"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.
" It's complete and total garbage. The RIAA has the right to do this amnesty program. "
[snip]
Yes, RIAA has the right to do anything they want. They're not above the law; they ARE the law (or rather, owns the law.)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
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.
And here I thought the RIAA was all sweetness and light and Hillary Rosen (Yes, I know she's not associated with them anymore, but this mental image doesn't work with anyone else) would come down in a tight spandex Tinkerbell costume and wash all my sins away! Boy, I almost got taken in, glad you guys were there to save me!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Omission of information may or may not be a "crime" (which is not the issue here, but may be an issue for another day). However, ommission of information (i.e., the willful suppression or failure to disclose a relevant fact) can give rise to civil action for fraud or willful misrepresentation.
California Civil Code sec. 1709 provides:
See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1709.
Most importantly, section 1710 of the California Civil Code provides:
See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1710. (emphasis added)
Finally, section 1711 of the California Civil Code provides:
See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1711
Without reading the compalint (which to my knowledge is not yet available), my guess is the plaintiff alleges that the RIAA amnesty program amounts to a deceptive and fraudulent business practice because it suppresses or fails to disclose certain relevant facts (e.g., that the person seeking amnesty can still be sued by others and is still subject to criminal prosecution) while giving "information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact." See Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1710(3). The complaint may cite more specific unfair business practices statutes, which are found in the Business and Professions Code, but the basic principal is the same.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
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.
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.
Um, no. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Distributing copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright owner, whether you know you are doing it or not, is certainly copyright infringement (civil) and if certain thresholds are met it is also criminal. Ignorance may play a part in penalty or settlement.
The issue with P2P is not whether or not it is legal to download or redistribute the (copyrighted) files. That's simple, it isn't. There's a variety of issues, including the fact that the laws are unjust and counter-productive, the despicable RIAA tactics, the business model of RIAA and member companies, monopolies, and how the RIAA and music industry treat artists and consumers, to name but a few.
But there is a useful point hidden in your message. I've always wondered whether downloading a song is in fact illegal. Certainly making it available (distributing) is illegal, and that's about the only way the RIAA can catch you, by finding copyrighted songs available on your computer. I know the copyright laws talk about distribution, but I'm not clear on what they say about accepting illegally distributed copyrighted materials (consuming). Can they even really catch you downloading?
As far as I know, with P2P you can't see who is downloading unless they are downloading from you. So the only way the RIAA can see you downloading is if you download from one of their computers, which would either be legal (if they have the copyright to distribute the songs) or they'd be breaking the law themselves (distributing the songs without proper copyright authorization).
So the only way the RIAA can see you downloading is if you download from one of their computers,...
This conclusion doesn't follow. For example, if they identified a server, they could plop a court order on the ISP to set up observation, and collect all the "downloaders" that way.
C//
Program Details Affidavit Details
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 difference is the RIAA is an organization whose sole purpose is to represent the major record labels.
If their amnesty program doesn't include their own members, how is that not deceptive?
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.
Man, if you are for real, it's no wonder you're losing business.
:
First off, the conversation you "overheard"...WTF??? No one, anywhere in the entire history of computing has ever said, "Yeah, dude, that's really lete, you'll get lots of respect." in regards to adding files to a P2P network. To get lots of respect means you have to get people to know something is the result of your actions. There is no IRC channel, or newsgroup where you can go and brag, "hey, respect me! I just uploaded Christian rock songs on the P2P!!" And, I guarantee no one who uses words like "lete" respects some one who uploads Christian rock!
This evening, my daughters asked me. "Why do the other kids laugh at us?" I wanted to tell them the truth - it's because they wear old clothes and have cheap haircuts. I can't afford anything better for them right now. "It's because they are idiots, kids", I told them. "Don't listen to them." When the kids went to bed, my wife asked me, "Will we be able to keep the house, David?" I just shook my head, and tried to hold back the tears. "I don't know, Jenny. I don't know." When my girls ask me questions like that, I feel like my heart is being wrenched out of my chest. But knowing that I'm doing the best I can to save my family and my business is some consolation.
Give me a fucking break! This entire passage sounds almost word for word like some SPAM email that made the rounds a few years ago, trying to get pity donations sent to someone. If this is true, why don't you tell the kids the truth? Maybe they will quit downloading songs off KaZaa while you are at work. Kids CAN handle the truth you know. My dad was a school teacher, and mom didn't work, so I myself had to wear old clothes, and my dad cut my hair. Big deal. No one laughed at me. I even knew why I had to wear old clothes, and to this day, I see no reason to spend $15.00 on a haircut that looks no different than the haircut my wife gives me.
My store specialised in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to. I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.
You say this, and you say
People flocked to my store, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase records without profanity or violent lyrics.
But, you talk this way to your customers:
"That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store - and don't come back." I barked.
and you think in terms of:
I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to copy this to your friends over The Internet, punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.
And, you are:...inspired by artists such as Metallica that have taken a stand against the powerful pirate lobby.
Pirate lobby!?! WTF? I've never heard of a lobby of pirates.
Maybe your business is dropping off because your words and actions do not reflect the wares you are peddling.
And finally,
Once we know the size of the problem, the police and other law enforcement agencies will be forced to take piracy seriously. They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?
They have fought the war on drugs with skill, eh? Do you know what the number one cash crop in America is? Marijuana, to the tune of many billions of dollars. As an aside, marijuana is illegal to use, distribute, grow, possess, or any thing to do with it. Now, if they fight the "War on Piracy" with the skill they've fought the "War on Drugs"; downloading your precious Christian rock and family tunes that contain no profanity will be an illegal act, however, it will also be the most popular thing since marijuana use!
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
In A.D. 2003 ....
War was beginning
Teenager1: What happen?
Teenager2: Somebody set up us the P2P sniffer.
Teenager3: We get e-mail.
Teenager1: What!
Teenager3: Main mail client turn on.
RIAA: How are you gentlemen!
RIAA: All your MP3 are belong to us.
RIAA: You are on the way to bankruptcy.
Teenager1: What you say!
RIAA: You have no chance to pay us make your time.
RIAA: HA HA HA HA
Teenager1: Take off every share!
Teenager2: You know what you doing.
Teenager1: Move share.
Teenager1: For great lawsuit.
Robert Fripp said it the best "Music and the music industry have nothing to do with each other." This persuasion, featured in RIAA propaganda, and held by some people(guy who ran "family" record store?), that somehow by downloading songs you won't have any music to enjoy is just stupefying. Even if all the major labels went out of business the consumer would not be negatively affected. The internet with all its file-sharing realms would still be there, and no-doubt better then ever. And new music would still fill these realms. Artists make art because that's what they do. It has nothing to do with profit to them. They would be making art no matter what. If anything, it just opens up the average consumer to more artistically inclined music; they're better off.
I did that in college. I stole a sign from the library that said something like 'Stealing from the library is a crime.' Ah, memories...
Like what if you never downloaded anythnig, and sent in the stuff anyway? I can't seem to find the document that you have to sign, but it'd be interesting to see what would happen in this case.
I'd love to hear what Frank Zappa would be saying now. I'm sure it isn't to different to what he has always been saying. Too bad he's gone the the big "Joe's Garage in the Sky." He'd be lighting a nice little fire under some RIAA peoples. If nothing else, he'd be throwing out some great musical commentary. **sigh** I miss him.
To answer your question of who might be willing... I don't know if anyone is willing today. For someone to have the "oomph" required, they would have to be a child of the RIAA and people in the entertainment industry tend not to bite hands that feed of have fed them.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
Actually, there are many companies that let you do something as crazy as Valenti's lawnmower story. You can generally return products to companies like Target, Land's End, or Nordstrom without argument. In the case of Nordstrom I once returned a sportcoat my son wore only once because he outgrew it within three months. I once had a Land's End phone rep encourage me to exchange a briefcase after a year because it was fraying in some areas and "it should have worn better than that."
If you think about it, the cost of good customer service to the recording industry would be almost nothing. Why don't they make an ironclad guarantee that anyone who presented at least 51% of a damaged CD or DVD--no matter how old--would be given a new copy? Wouldn't that help to reduce the need for backup copies?
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
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 !
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.
So you are one of those people who see a sign in a store that says "Take three, pay for two" and leave the store with five of whatever the offer was for?
"GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
Back in the Old days the Record Companys push little 12 year old girls to screw band members, Now the RIAA/Record Companys want to cut the perk out of that for the artist too and screw 12 year old little girls themselfes....
Depending on the state, maybe. Honeypots are becomeing illegal in various parts of the united states.
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.
The RIAA is proud of:
1. the decline in perceived value of manufacturing and distribution
2. the decline of musicality
3. the disillusionment of many top-notch artists
4. the pollution of young children
5. the sexual exploitation of young women such as Britney Spears
6. the decline in quality and usefulness of liner notes
7. the decline of cover art
and
8. making thugs into multi-millionaires.
In a just world, their dollar sales would not be slipping.
[Note for readers of English as a second language: Taken literally, the
statements above are nonsense. They are intended to be taken in a
satirical or ironic sense, as a commmentary on the absurd record
industry claim that sales are dropping because of "Internet piracy",
suggesting that there are abundant other reasons, reasons which may
ultimately lead to much worse declines in sales.
]
"Actually, there are many companies that let you do something as crazy as Valenti's lawnmower story. "
When I bought my Nintendo 64, I paid $30 for a warranty like that. They said I could drive over it and still get a replacement heh. In retrospect, the warranty was a waste of money. The motivating factor in getting it was the analog controls, had no idea how long those would last.
The reason I picked on Valenti on this one was because his choice of rebuttals. The main problem with it is that when somebody burns a copy of a CD or downloads Mp3s, the RIAA suffers absolutely no direct expense from it. You're not using their media, you're not using their internet bits, you're not even using their electricity. So, in Mr. Valenti's case, he's saying I'm not allowed to buy a lawn mower and then, using this one as reference, build a duplicate one with my own resources. If it were being asked of the RIAA to make backups available for the consumer, well that'd be a different story.
Which leads to this point:
"Why don't they make an ironclad guarantee that anyone who presented at least 51% of a damaged CD or DVD--no matter how old--would be given a new copy? "
They should be doing that. They absolutely should be doing that. But since they don't do that, it makes one wonder how they're supposed to know they're buying a license to listen to music, not a pretty CD with music on it. Grr.
It seems that the Record Industry has forgotten that sales are dependent on both product and service. Customers'll come buy your stuff, but you still need to treat them good. Soft drink companies come to mind. They produce a consumable. You can get them anywhere, often times without any sort of human interaction what soever. Yet, they still make you glad to be a customer. Sometimes they give away prizes. Sometimes they entertain you with amusing commercials. (well, Coke moreso than Pepsi) Sometimes they even respond to supply and demand. Buy 12 cans of Coke, pay less per oz. than you'd pay for one can of Coke. I don't think softdrink companies could get away with demanding that customers only buy 24 packs at a time. No single can for you.
...and at least somewhat offtopic.
OK. So I download an album from the internet that I Do Not Own. It is horrible and illegal and for this I will burn in hell, etc. etc. etc. Now, the argument behind this, supposedly, is that I have not paid for and asserted ownership over the material, and (presumably) the RIAA/Artist/ASCAP hasn't received any money. And they're not happy. And thus I am infringing and rightly in the Wrong.
Say I acquire the CD. I buy it used, even (heaven forbid) at a garage sale. I pay $1.99 for it.
I realize that now I am "allowed" to have these MP3s, and to do with them whatever I please...perhaps I will rub them all over myself gleefully. But *why* exactly? I understand the first sale doctrine and how it works, but I still haven't enriched anybody. My owning the CD certainly hasn't contributed to the flow of royalties. Presumably the original owner no longer has a copy, so this is all kosher, but it's still an odd way to thing about conferring "rights to have." No royalties have entered the chain, but suddenly I'm immune and (more importantly) an Honest, Moral Being.
As at least 70% of my CD collection is secondhand at this point, it's fascinating to think that while I certainly don't contribute to anybody's revenue flow by downloading albums, I *still* don't tend to profit the artist/record co/etc. if I do indeed deem something worthy of my all-purchasing eye.
Again, just a thought/musing/whathaveya.
I submitted this as a story, but who knows if it'll get accepted? So I'm posting it here.
;)
I'm just as sick of this RIAA nonsense as the rest of you. Here's what I'm doing about it. I had this idea for a t-shirt, and I decided it would be coolest to just put it up on Cafepress and donate the profits to the EFF. So that's what I did.
The shirt is based on the real pirate Bartholomew Roberts' -- aka Black Bart -- flag (one of them), which originally had the letters ABH (a Barbadian's head) and AMH (a Martinican's head) on it. He didn't like those places much, since he was wanted for piracy there, much more aggressively than anywhere else.
I should make it clear that I'm not affiliated with the EFF in any way. I'll just be donating ALL the profits ($5 per item, except for the stickers and mousepad, which generate $2.50 profit) to the EFF as I get checks from Cafepress (in $50 increments, is what they say). No, there's no accountability -- you'll simply have to trust me. I'm just a geek trying to do something good.
In the case of someone getting sued that I feel really got screwed (like Brianna LaHara), I'll be donating the money directly to their paypal recovery fund (assuming they have one) instead of the EFF. As soon as my Cafepress account shows some sales, I'll post the progress on my website, with full disclosure (# of sales, total profits, where they went).
Feel free to post your opinion if you think I'm being too naive -- I'll get screwed by taxes for not filling out some form or something -- but I trust you'll do that anyway
c-hack.com |
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.
It doesn't matter.
Distributing copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright owner, whether you know you are doing it or not, is certainly copyright infringement (civil)
It doesn't matter that there was no sign telling you that it was copyrighted, it still is. It doesn't matter that you don't know, you are still infringing on th copyright. Both you and whoever originally copied the work, are infringing on the copyright.
There is no such thing as "leaked" copyrighted materials. There is just plain copyright with no mitigating factors.
Don't believe you have the right to distribute any copyrighted material (i.e., any material that is not trivial) without the consent of the copyright holder, preferably in writing. (Usual disclaimers for fair use)
>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.
How is one to know whether something is under copyright or not? I couldn't care less about the current offerings of the music industry, but I might be interested in an old recording of Robert Johnson blues or an old but outstanding recording of a Verdi opera. All the composers and performers are certainly dead. I think--but don't really know--that performances themselves are subject to copyright. Is that true? There must be *something* out there that the RIAA has no claim on, but how is one to know?
...that the DVDs have content beyond the movie. Companies actually make an effort with the DVD to sell you something you feel like owning. In many cases the 'bonus' material is a significant quantity of work. Lord of the Rings is a good example. The fact that people appreciate this stuff is reflected in the sales.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
At what price does the RIAA put on their IP? Expecially IP that is inferior to the original. If they are claiming the violation is worth full market value, this is ludicrious. This would be akeen to buying a car with parts missing. Just like an MP3 has parts missing.
Sure, one can find music compressed in the lossless .shn format, but not generally "illegal" music.
My point here is the RIAA should not even bother. Sure, many people don't care about prestine CD quality, but a lot of people do (and the better the car stereo, the worse MP3s sound).
This tends to help the augument that P2P services are actually doing the RIAA a free and helpful promotional service.
" I did that in college. I stole a sign from the library that said something like 'Stealing from the library is a crime.' Ah, memories..."
That's the most irresponsible thing I've ever heard of. I wonder how many books were stolen because you thought you had the right to steal signs in opposition of the very sign you stole. How are people supposed to know it is wrong if there is no sign? This is why murder is such a big problem. We have NO fucking anti-murder signs. Wake up people!
My Blog
see if you can follow my bizarre circular logic: [blah blah blah]
That logic is not circular.
Nor is it rectangular, oblong, or triangular.
It is not ovoid, or spherical, or hypercuboidal.
It is not even logic.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
California Civil Code sec. 1709 provides:
1709. One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.
so this makes Microsoft Products Illegal in California?
Hell it should apply to every EULA I have ever read.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
The Fornicating Bank Robbers struck again today, hitting another bank downtown. A bystander tried to recover some of the money, and some.. uh.. other associated paraphernalia, but was ordered to return it.. them.. nevermind.
You don't sue every person who records a TV show and keeps it, because the precedents you would set (violation of privacy, corporate search and seizure, etc) are greater cost to our society than letting individuals have the "right" to make copies for their own use.
This is the way the court has read things several times, and the way any thinking individual would be likely to read it as well.
Where p2p is "different" is in the peer part. Every download you make from kazaa goes into a folder that defaults to "shared" which means every song you download is made available for someone else to upload. Every reproduction of the file adds to the available bandwidth for "sharing", which technically makes you party to an act of unauthorized distribution.
The thing is, if you're a dialup user that bandwidth is probably never used, because most clients favor the lowest ping times and that ain't gonna be a dialup user who is in the act of downloading. The 12 y/o girl who was sued allegedly had "over 1000 songs" in her "shared" folder. But so what? Is it more of a "crime" if I let you choose which of my 1000 CDs you can take home to copy? Odds are great such nonsense wouldn't stand if tested, because the RIAA is suing people for actions they cannot prove ever happened rather than suing them for participating in a conspiracy to pirate works - which is technically what you are doing when you "share" on kazaa.
The problem is no one has challenged this nonsense in court. There is no "de minimis sharing" precedent (and, thanks to the DMCA, there isn't likely to be one). This is another reason I'm hopeful about the record industry suing its own customers; once they've bullied enough of them, it's a sure bet some lawyers are going to decide a(nother) class action is worth their while.
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
There is a web site hosted in russia that allows legal downloads for a fee. The have all kinds of artists, including most of the US ones. If I pay for my membership and download the files off there, can RIAA still put their foot up my ass?!!
http://club.mp3search.ru
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").
at this mirror
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..