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as to (1) where this drivel comes from, (2) who is responsible for it, and (3) when is it going to be corrected or withdrawn?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?

Courts are Public

[xstonedogx]

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

Puts me in mind of something

[ThanatosMinor]

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

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.

Strange but serious question...

[Penguinisto]

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

/P

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: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

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,