Nonprofit Group Sends Filesharing Propaganda To Students

palegray.net writes "The National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit organization, has sent file-sharing propaganda to thousands of students. The supposedly 'educational' materials, presented in the form of a comic strip, are intended to frighten students with gross exaggerations of the legal consequences of sharing music online (lose your scholarship to college, go to jail for two years, and more). From the article: '"The Case of Internet Piracy," however, reads like the Recording Industry Association of America's public relations playbook: Download some songs, go to jail and lose your scholarship. Along the way, musicians will file onto the bread lines. "The purpose is basically to educate kids — middle school and high school-aged about how the justice system operates and about what really goes on in the courtroom as opposed to what you see on television," said Lorri Montgomery, the center's communications director.' I'm not encouraging anyone to break any laws, but this is ridiculous. What's truly discouraging is the fact that several judges appear to be in full support of this sort of 'education.' The propaganda material is available in PDF form, and it lists the judges and others involved in its creation. Wired's post has a summary of the story (which is good, since the story is awful), and Techdirt notes a couple of the legal inaccuracies.

Comments

Best coverage on p2pnet.net

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The best coverage of this has been on p2pnet.net, where Jon Newton has been trying to get answers out of these people as to (1) where this drivel comes from, (2) who is responsible for it, and (3) when is it going to be corrected or withdrawn? See, e.g, here, , and here.

But this one was my favorite.

Re:Best coverage on p2pnet.net

[ScrewMaster]

Shill. Fifty bucks says Ray is dead on.

Re:Best coverage on p2pnet.net

[multisync]

Look, I'm no fan of RIAA, but calling this "propaganda" and saying the the RIAA is behind it is over the top, invented out of whole cloth, and a conspiracy loon's fantasy.

You're either a troll, or incredibly naive. This reminds me of the the Captain Copyright propaganda campaign Access Copyright ran in Canada a couple of years back. In addition to giving one-sided and often inaccurate information to school children, and omitting important aspects of copyright such as fair use (known as "fair dealing" in Canada), they also appeared to violate copyright law themselves by failing to abide by the terms of the Wikipedia's Free Document License.

I would like to see an effort made to educate the next generation on issues such as the erosion of our privacy, the lack of balance in current and - in Canada, at any rate - proposed copyright legislation, and the importance of looking at the source of information and considering what that source's motives may be for providing it. Maybe some savvy teacher will use this as an example of never relying on a single source for information on a given subject.

Re:Best coverage on p2pnet.net

[LunaticTippy]

I can't believe they took a swing at evil libraries. Destroyer of homes, lender of copyrighted materials.

Re:Best coverage on p2pnet.net

[fishbowl]

>The full length movie will be coming out any day now, and then how will you feel?

Got a torrent?

Re:Best coverage on p2pnet.net

[eonlabs]

Well, there seems to be a trend going on here.

Duck and Cover, and you too will be able to survive a nuclear blast... with heavy radiation poisoning...

Smoky the Bear says you can stop forest fires, which is good, because many plants and animals living in areas with forest fires actually depend on the fires for their natural life cycles at this point. We can't have that. Also, stopping forest fires causes a buildup of underbrush, which means that when lighting strikes in a forest, and something sparks naturally (because that can happen), or when it's just hot enough, the fires are bigger and less controllable than the little ones.

For a guidebook on what privacy concerns might end up being in the future, look at the game paranoia. Laughing is not mandatory, but is highly recommended!

Re:Best coverage on p2pnet.net

[Eg0Death]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xfqkdh5Js4Don't copy that floppy!

Re:Best coverage on p2pnet.net

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Shill.

Definitely. Any post that starts out "I'm no friend of the RIAA, but...." is a dead giveaway.

Courts are Public

[xstonedogx]

Take the kids to a court if you want them educated about how courts work.

Re:Courts are Public

[bigredradio]

I think that is their intent. Except the RIAA wants them to be defendants instead of spectators.

Re:Courts are Public

[Original Replica]

Take the kids to a court if you want them educated about how courts work.

As it was pointed out, several Judges support this scare campaign. Why? Because if kids are educated to believe that Judges can rightly enact these "gross exaggerations of the legal consequences of sharing music online (lose your scholarship to college, go to jail for two years, and more)." Then slowly, as more and more people believe that lie the more power the Judges will have and the lie will become the truth. Look at every other power grab in recent American politics, it starts with a gross overstatement of authority, follows with stalling if pressed with the real limits of authority, wait until a different issue gains the spot light, act on your overstated authority as "an already established power". I'm sure the RIAA has a few pet judges (even if many Judges are starting to come around to common sense) and I'm sure the RIAA would love to have the authority to imprison copyright infringers or at least make them lose their scholarships (that aught to teach these schools to stand up to the RIAA) But none of that can happen if children are well educated on the proper processes and limits of different government functionaries.

Re:Courts are Public

[monxrtr]

Nobody downloads more music illegally than the representatives of the RIAA. It is your *right* to download anything and everything to check to see that none of your own copyrighted work is included in those files, exactly as the RIAA does (and fails to report it's illegal copying, along with a plethora of other RICO predicate violations). Nobody knows what the content of any file actually is before they download it.

Nobody has ever been charged with any civil or criminal counts for any downloading of files; such charges would be laughed out of Court. The cartoon is pure propaganda lies, and if those pamphlets are passed out or "made available" in any Courtroom, those schools and Courts should be sued faster than you can recite the "10 Commandments".

If I were a defense attorney, I would also be sure to remember every single one of those names listed on that pamphlet and have those Judges removed from any cases involving copyright infringement, have any verdicts or cases regarding copyright involving those Judges since publication of those pamphlets overturned, and letters published in the local papers of their Court Districts published outlining their conflict of interest to Justice. Also keep those names handy for an organized campaign against those Judges for any appointments to higher Federal Courts. Maybe also look into banning this organization for not presenting a legal disclaimer that such material does not constitute legal advice to revoke their nonprofit 501(c)(3) status. These people need to be taught that they are not messing with minority drug dealers, and that they will be held accountable to the strict letter of any and all Court procedure.

Re:Courts are Public

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was in college in the early 90s, I was pulled over by the police for not making a complete stop at a stop sign. The cop flashed a flashlight in my back seat, and found a single closed beer can, which had been accidentally dropped by one of my friends from earlier in the night. I was 20 years old. My friend, who I had already dropped off, was 21. I had not been drinking that evening, but because the beer can was in my car, I was sited with "minor in possession."

In court, I plead guilty. A decent lawyer probably could have gotten around this case, but I didn't have the money for a lawyer at the time, so I plead guilty. (I wonder how common that is.) As part of my rehabilitation, I was sent to an underage drinking class. This was in spite of the fact that I had already turned 21 by the time I had my court date, so I could then legally drink.

At the end of the rehabilitation class, the instructor asked if anyone would be drinking again. I was the only person in the class who raised my hand. After explaining that I was 21, the instructor just frowned, and adjourned the class.

File-sharing is illegal but SPAM is not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain on that?

Also how is it legal to use legal institutions to spread a fake message?

And now we are on the topic this is not the definition of culture of fear?

Re:File-sharing is illegal but SPAM is not.

[Tuoqui]

No its copyright infringement that is 'illegal'. You cannot steal something that is given away for free (IE. I've heard this song a million times on the radio, its been used to pimp phones and cars and what have you). Any of these sources could be a legal avenue for recording but if you download from the internet suddenly you're the worst criminal scum in teh world and should be put in the electric chair atleast according to the RIAA.

Re:File-sharing is illegal but SPAM is not.

[jabithew]

The question remains; is this appropriate for a non-profit organisation? I know the non-profits in the US can get away with bloody murder, more or less, but this is special-interest lobbying thinly disguised as 'education' and inaccuracies (rather than lies) render its educational value questionable.

In the UK non-profits are much more closely watched if they apply for tax-exempt status. They can't act as a lobbyist for business or political interests. See the case of the Smith Institute, on paper an educational charity think tank, in reality an organ of the Labour party.

get em young

[timmarhy]

well you have to give them points for effort. no one in their right mind that's an adult is believing their nonesense so the obvious step is to get to them before they have a chance to form thier own opinions.

i always find targeting children such an insidious method of control, i shouldn't be suprised at this move really.

Re:get em young

[hairyfeet]

Actually it doesn't work on kids either. They sent some similar crap out to my oldest nephews school last year,and he handed me one to show me when I went to pick him up. When I asked him and his friends(most of which were females,I swear that boy's a magnet for them) thought about it they all said in unison "Greedy Pigs!". I just smiled,wiped a fake tear away,and said "What wonderfully smart little subversives you are! I'm so proud!".

The simple fact is today's kids are not only smart,but cynical as hell. They also have iPods. When I went to pick up my nephew it was an equal mix of iPod,Creative,and Sandisk MP3 players,so rich and poor all had 'em. They see that to buy songs on iTunes it would cost 40K to fill it up so no wonder so many of them share files. And instead of trying to find ways to make it more affordable for kids,what does the RIAA do? One of their own with a straight face gets on the stand and says ripping your OWN CD isn't fair use. So it isn't like they have been sneaky with their greed. They see these companies making record profits,yet the price never seems to go down,why should they care if the greedy bastards get ripped off?

I personally am quite happy the new generation is so cynical. They don't believe ANYTHING just because someone in authority says it is so. It is nice to see the newer generations seem to have a lot more wolves and a lot less sheep. Maybe their lack of gullibility will help turn it around when they get old enough to get their own power. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:get em young

[Anonymous Psychopath]

You seem to think that if someone makes more than a certain amount of money when they sell something that they don't deserve to receive any compensation as a result, even though you still use their product? I don't understand your rationalization (although I do see it all over the place).

Teaching an entire generation that if someone charges more than you think is fair it is appropriate and even somehow noble to steal anything you want is profoundly disturbing. This isn't even remotely close to civil disobedience.

I hate what the RIAA does, so I don't use their products. I like music, but I don't need it, and neither do you. Anything else is just a weak attempt at justification for getting something you want for free.

There is a big difference between boycott and looting.

And yes, the cartoon in TFA is really, really creepy.

Re:get em young

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I hate what the RIAA does, so I don't use their products. I like music, but I don't need it, and neither do you. Anything else is just a weak attempt at justification for getting something you want for free.

Do you believe that turnabout is fair play? Sounds like you don't because regardless of if "someone makes more than a certain amount of money" (whatever the eff that means) copyright extensions are outright theft. When the the MAFIAA bribed congress to take from the public domain and give to the distribution cartels they stole from you, me and every resident of this country. The MAFIAA didn't need the extensions, it was just something they wanted for free.

Re:get em young

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That question, you mean? No, I don't. This philosophy only results in a sequence of escalations where ultimately everyone loses. Reprisals don't work.

No, turnabout does not mean reprisal. Turnabout means what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It means one person cuts the cake and the other person picks the piece. Turnabout is fair play is another way to say equality.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. The RIAA/MPAA know people are pirating, so instead of looking internally to see what is wrong with them they only see what is wrong with the people who steal it. If it were a boycott instead of a looting, they'd be desperate to increase sales, not punish their would-be customers.

I understood you perfectly. I don't WANT them to increase sales. I believe copyright is fundamentally broken. No business model based on fee-for-distribution of things that have zero cost to distribute can be successful without severely compromising society at large.

I don't think that when you burn everything down, something better always arises. I think fixing it is better than destroying it.

I don't think ANYONE believes something better ALWAYS arises. But in THIS case, the industry has already burnt down, not by pirates, but by the internet. All that's left is just inertia.

But mostly I'm just irritated by the see-through rationalizations people use to steal without guilt. Just because they are wrong does not mean that you aren't wrong, too.

Yeah, it kind of does. If one party to a contract breaks a contract, then there is no moral or ethical requirement for the other party to continue to adhere to the contract.

Bizarre

[russotto]

The message I get from the comic is "Get caught pirating, save someone's home". Also that copyright violations are handled as criminal complaints in city courts (???!!!)

The beginning of the pamphlet ....

[BitterOldGUy]

talks about the separation of the three branches of Government and about what our Founding Fathers wanted for this country.

Would anyone by any chance have a script that will email this to every single Congressman and everyone in the Whitehouse. It's a cartoon so Bush will understand it too.

Before modding me Flamebait, Troll, or -1 whatever please read this thread and article. Then mod away.

Re:The beginning of the pamphlet ....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a cartoon so Bush will understand it too.

It's a cartoon so Bush would be willing to read it. Whether or not he'd understand it is anyone's guess.

Puts me in mind of something

[ThanatosMinor]

Is anyone else reminded of Chick tracts? Share files and you go to hell...

Boston Strangler

[Nymz]

After reading the comic excerpts, I couldn't help but think the exaggeration sounded familiar.

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." - Jack Valenti

Cruel Mantra?

[ProlificLurker]

That's my favorite band too!

Strange but serious question...

[Penguinisto]

Isn't intentional misrepresentation of the law an actionable offense (perhaps in some states, but not others)?

/P

Re:Strange but serious question...

[ScrewMaster]

Isn't intentional misrepresentation of the law an actionable offense (perhaps in some states, but not others)?

Only when you and me do it. When big corporate types do it, it's okay.

this is the reefer madness of filesharing

[circletimessquare]

this propaganda is wonderful!

please, please, anyone who supports filesharing rights, do not stop the spread of this propaganda, it is guaranteed to backfire

your average college student can spot a bully and a bully's rationale. if this is their argument: do what we want or we'll hurt you, your average college kid can see the obvious moral bankruptcy in that, they will see right through this, and even better than that, if this is the best argument the RIAA's puppet organization can make, everyone can see the RIAA has no more argument at all

please folks, let them proclaim the hollowness and pointlessness of their dead end effort with this propaganda. college kids are receptive, they are listening, and they can smell bullshit. so this propaganda is GOOD for filesharing rights as it is a guaranteed backfire

i swear, it's reefer madness for file sharing

Reefer Madness (aka Tell Your Children) is a 1936 exploitation film revolving around the tragic events that ensue when high school students are lured by pushers to try "marihuana": a hit and run accident, manslaughter, suicide, rape, and descent into madness all ensue. The film was directed by Louis Gasnier and starred a cast composed of mostly unknown bit actors. It was originally financed by a church group and made under the title Tell Your Children.[1][2]

The film was intended to be shown to parents as a morality tale attempting to teach them about the dangers of cannabis use.[1] However, soon after the film was shot, it was purchased by producer Dwain Esper, who re-cut the film for distribution on the exploitation film circuit.[1] The film never gained an audience until it was rediscovered in the 1970s and gained new life as a piece of unintentional comedy among cannabis smokers.[1][3] Today, it is in the public domain in the United States and is considered a cult film.[3] It inspired a musical satire, which premiered off-Broadway in 2001, and a Showtime film, Reefer Madness, based on the musical.

That outfit is composed of judges

[pem]

For example, the head of it is the "Chief Justice, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts."

Most state bars have requirements related to acting ethically. I wonder if those responsible for this pack of lies could be handled with a bar complaint?

It might not have a direct effect, but who knows?

Don't-Don't-Don't Copy That Floppy!

[Perseid]

Really. When you have to resort to outright lies to protect your business model, doesn't that tell you something about said business model?

Re:Don't-Don't-Don't Copy That Floppy!

[ScrewMaster]

Really. When you have to resort to outright lies to protect your business model, doesn't that tell you something about said business model?

Yes. It tells you that said business model is highly profitable.

Oh dear!

[Maelwryth]

All I can think of is how relieved the grandmother was when she found out Megan wasn't pregnant!

That being said, legal action against you isn't a laughing matter when you are young. You don't have the money, you don't know what you are doing, and you don't know where to get help.

A parady on this would be nice. Something along the lines of,"File-sharing is not a victim-less crime..... Look at Megan."

Time we hit Hollywood with a Digital Tea Party

[CuteSteveJobs]

Here we see Hollywood studios regularly rob, cheat and steal from the people that work for them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2001/aug/31/artsfeatures

Here companies like News Limited trick the public into surrendering their copyright, giving them massive royalty-free photo libraries, all for the "chance of winning an iPod".
http://blogs.smh.com.au/photographers/archives/2008/07/read_the_fine_print.html

Orson Scott Card wrote this good piece on the hipocracy of the RIAA:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-14-1.html

And for years, we the public have had our rights progressively eroded. Well-monied rights holders throw money at congress who turn around and keep extending their copyright. This reached an artform in the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act", otherwise known as the "Mickey Mouse Copyright Act". Yet Disney has quite happily argued against this when it suits them.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17327,00.html

Well, eat this Disney: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mickey22-2008aug22,0,3228580,full.story

And then there was that DRM debacle... What's worst is countries like Australia spinelessly accepted the DRM laws as their own (and US patents being enforcable in Australia) all for a political photo opportunity with George W. Bush. In this way, these execessive new laws are spreading all over the world. And here we have Universities teaching one side of the Great Copyright Rights Grab. Why aren't they educating their students about both sides, instead of brainfeeding them RIAA propaganda?

Bottom line is: Congress doesn't work for you. It works for these guys. I don't see Congress ever saying no to MPAA slush funds, and treating IP the way the Constitution intended it too. So to hell with Congress and the MPAAFIA: Stupid Laws are made to be broken. I say torrent freely and torrent often. It's our very own digital tea party.

Re:Time we hit Hollywood with a Digital Tea Party

[Uther_Dark]

Amen to that, I'm going to start by violating any copyright you have on your post, making it a text file and spreading it across the internet. Your message will be heard. :D Toss that tea...

I'm waiting for the counter punch.... hurry up

[w0mprat]

I'm waiting for webcomic artists to pen a rebuttal strip to this drivel. Something deliciously satirical and damning.

*searches again* Come on, there must be someone out there going to do a mocking comic of this. Perhaps in the second frame Richard Stallman could appear out of a cloud of 1s and 0s with a tight organic hemp superhero suit and give the girl a pep talk about her freedom in the digital world while smashing her iMac into bits and wiping the hard drive platters with ionizing radiation from his nostrils... ... ?

For one thing the IP of 25.369.46.251 can not even

[Joe The Dragon]

For one thing the IP of 25.369.46.251 can not even be a working one as they max out at 255.

Craziness. they win with eminent domain?

[k1e0x]

But loose with the RIAA?

Even the way they phrase the eminent domain case. "The City is trying to buy our house." lol .. no they are not buying it, they are taking it at their price and if you refuse they are just going to take it and put you in jail.

What garbage, I hope kids are smarter than that. Unfortunately I have not a lot of faith.

The purpose is basically to educate kids

[nurb432]

My ass it is. Its to brainwash them so that the next generation will obey the orders of the media corporations of the world, and adjust the future laws.

It's time to stop

[vic-traill]

[rant]

I know it sounds like high moral ground apple pie crap, but at this point it is true: it's time to stop giving money to companies that treat their customers and the public so shabbily. Fuck Sony. Fuck Universal. Fuck Warner Bros. Especially, Fuck Sony - they do at least double duty.

Find local theatre groups - go see live actors. Check out local bands - go see live music. Video games - well, I don't know what to there, but someone will have a suggestion.

I'm not interested in buying their crap, taking their crap, listening to their crap, pirating their crap, or watching their crap.

They're behind the people who sue. They're directly responsible for rootkit installations to support their DRM. They're behind the distribution of lies such as this material in TFA. Okay, well, we don't know the last part, but I'm guessing.

No Más. Let's spend our money buying entertainment from people who give a shit.

[/rant]

Re:It's time to stop

[ricegf]

Well, it needn't be a crusade. The first movie I bought that wouldn't play on my computer because of DRM (and couldn't be returned because it was opened) pretty much cured me of buying movies - they intentionally designed them not to work. The first threatening letter I got from the BSA cured me of buying their proprietary software - they'll threaten me if I do. The first song I bought from iTunes, and then couldn't play on my PDA because of the DRM, cured me of buying from iTunes - their music is fragile.

It's not a crusade - their products work poorly and they treat their customers like trash. No sale. I want products that work.

Letter writing campaign

[pem]

And these are judges -- so make it a REAL letter, with a stamp and everything. See if you can find one locally who knows you are a voter. Remember that, just like a big company, these people are nominally in charge, but may clueless about some of the things the organization is doing, so try to politely remind them of their obligations to the public.

I live in Texas, so here's mine:

Hon. Wallace B. Jefferson

Chief Justice

Supreme Court of Texas

P.O. Box 12248, Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

Dear Judge Jefferson:

Today it came to my attention that a group called the "National Center for State Courts", of which you are apparently a board member, has released a new comic book called the "Justice Case Files."

This book is full of legal inaccuracies and misrepresentation, claiming that internet file downloading is a state crime, punishable by years in prison, when in fact, this sort of copyright infringement is a federal civil matter.

I do not engage in copyright infringement; however, I am incensed at the malicious PR campaign undertaken by the RIAA and the MPAA, which apparently has co-opted this organization of which you are a board member. It makes the National Center for State Courts, and those associated with it, look foolish at best, mendacious at worst.

As I'm sure you are aware, rule 8.04(a)(3) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct requires that "a lawyer shall not ... engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation," and comment 7 on this section additionally clarifies that "Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of attorney. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust. See Rules 8.04(a)(2), 8.04(a)(3), 8.04(b)."

Please take a look at this comic. If you find it as laughably erroneous as I think you will, please do the right thing and publicly disavow its publication and use your position on the board to try to stop it. Believe it or not, several hundred thousand influential internet users are watching this issue very closely.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Best regards,

Can I ...

[PPH]

... share this with a few friends of mine?

Re:For one thing the IP of 25.369.46.251 can not e

[Skuldo]

This is probably intentional, they do this whenever an IP address is mentioned in a film or TV show.

Re:Shades of "Reefer Madness"

[roc97007]

If I had breasts, I'd never have to leave the house.

How about making our own comics?

[Doug52392]

Why not make comics that represent the sad, pathetic truth of the fucked up legal system and unconstitutionality by the RIAA and MPAA? Hell, just edit this one and add the truth to it, like change the police officer giving here the trial notice to a money-hungry lawyer in a suit and tie, with $ signs for eyes. And add in some details in the end, so it says "I say it's good I got caught because some people don't get caught, which means they are hurting the (take out music industry) the artists that make music, because now they won't be able to afford their 10th Lear jet or 4th luxury sports car or huge mansion because people are waking up and realizing that this is BS."

Oh, and add some stuff about how the RIAA are demanding 9,250 times the "damages" the poor girl caused, and have the RIAA lawyers say "We don't give a fuck it's unconstitutional or not. This is America god damn it, and in America, we have a truly fucked up legal system where we, the legal representatives to the few conglomerates that control the entire media in the United States like Commies, can sue innocent people for not doing exactly what a certain industry wants us to do!

This bitch should have realized that we make you PAY so much money for music for a reason, because we WANT $$$$$$$. And yet she chose to get in the way of our capitalist dream, so she must burn in Hell!!! (but since we can't go that far, let's just sue her for 9,250-20,000 times the value of the music she downloaded). I mean seriously, if the government didn't have a problem with us harassing Sweden to shut down ONE WEBSITE FOR A FEW DAYS just for hosting LINKS to copyrighted materials (The Pirate Bay), what makes you think they'll have a problem with this? "

And, with the eminent domain BS (isn't that a thing Republicans love to do), edit the section and have the mayor come down to the house, with police officers armed with AK-47s saying "Get the fuck out of this house, it's the city's now biach! We take this house under Eminent Domain, SO GET THE FUCK OUT"

So once we make these comics, distribute them to all the collage students that received the lying propaganda!

Reefer Madness

[Charles Dodgeson]

Maybe I'm showing my age (no, I didn't see it when it was first shown), but this actually reminded me of Reefer Madness .

Honeypot

[Sooner Boomer]

Has anyone thought of creating a honeypot full of songs THEY, and not the RIAA or their ilk own the copyright to, then busting Media Sentry when they download the songs/torrents? Seems like turnabout is fair play

DARE

[interstellar_donkey]

For some reason, this reminds me of the DARE education I received in jr/sr high school. At the time, I didn't do drugs (nor did any of my friends . . . we were all nerds). But I had this overwhelming feeling that what they were telling me was bullshit (at least parts of it).

"Marijuana is a gateway drug. If you smoke pot you'll be using heroin within a few weeks" Really? Those stoners who got high before school don't do heroin, and actually manage better grades than we do.

"If you share files you'll go to jail and your life will be ruined." Really? 2/3rds of my high school class illegally download music, and yet they haven't been harassed by the cops.

All stuff like this does is make kids mistrust authority. If they were honest--"Pot is okay in moderation, but heroin is really, really bad", or "having a few mp3s on your computer is not a big deal, but selling bootleg DVDs on the street corner is bad"--they'd probably be a little more effective.

Of course they lie

[Charles Dodgeson]

They do not lie in the comic itself

In the comic, Megan, merely an end user, is being prosecuted for theft in criminal court. Has that ever happened in real life?

The comic definitely tries to convey to the reader that unlawful downloading can get you prosecuted for theft. That is a lie. They also are exceedingly misleading about who they are. While maybe that isn't fully a lie, they are certainly far from honest

PS: for the record, I do oppose the copyright violations of these kinds of "sharing".

Re:It's not "file sharing"

[lilomar]

Actually, 'sharing' implies two or more people, both using a resource, which is exactly what 'file sharing' is.

In no way does the word imply consent of anyone except for the two people doing the sharing. If I share my cookies with you, does that imply Nabisco's consent?

From the comic

[fireheadca]

"We do not want to minimize the impact of these crimes on the industry and artists, who are the victims."

It seems the comic text likes to bold 'Industry' but not 'Artists'.

---
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ I didn't know.

New courtroom scene.... How it should really play

[Dr_Marvin_Monroe]

Where the court appointed attorney is defending poor Megan...

New text should read...

Megan's attorney..."Your honor, the record companies are an illegal monopoly with 'unclean-hands,' any theft from them cannot be prosecuted because they obtained the rights to this so-called 'music' through illegal means. The music industry had engaged in illegal price-fixing, secret accounting, payola, thuggery and perhaps even murder to maintain their grip on new music creators. The artists don't have the opportunity to present their music directly to the consumers, and frequently don't even make any money off the albums they record. Musicians frequently see their biggest take while performing live shows, and don't receive money from the labels until they sell millions of albums. The system is rigged. The music cartel's complaint should therefore be discharged immediately."

Judge... "That's an interesting point..."

Attorney... "Your Honor, we're prepared to show that the record companies used illegal tactics to get the rights to each of the songs that the defendant has in possession. In fact, we'd like to see the accounting of record sales and proceeds to make sure that the band actually got their fair share."

Music industry lawyer...."That's going too far... my client doesn't have anything to hide, but we're going to hide it anyway..."

Megan..."You people are crooks, and I don't feel bad stealing from you one bit..."

Judge..."Case dismissed..."

   

Time for musicians to cut back some

[Alzheimers]

Sorry guys, the glory days of excess are over.

It's either Cocaine OR Hookers. Not both.