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.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
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. ========
..and Railroad Tycoon, and Civilization and..
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
It doesn't matter if the offer is genuine or not. The question isn't one of intent on the part of the RIAA, but of the actual rights (or release of claims) imparted.
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.
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
My business faces ruin. Horse carriage sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as many horse carriages 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 carriage stores that sell obscure, independent carriage models that no-one rides, 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 carriages - stuff that the whole family could ride in.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
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
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
"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?
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
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").