Perhaps if a ton of Slashdotters leave them critical feedback of what they did, it might knock some sense into them. (I would maintain a level of courtesy in the message, if you choose to do this. It's harder to disregard when it's kept civil.)
I adamantly refuse to support the RIAA labels until they stop treating consumers like crap.
That doesn't mean changing the tactics used in treating consumers like crap - it means STOP TREATING THEM LIKE CRAP.
Sadly, though - for every one person who refuses to purchase their wares, there are ten more who need their "Soulja Boy fix", and will keep groups like UMG in business. To make matters worse, groups like UMG and Sony obviously aren't one-trick ponies. They have other industries they can draw money from, even if their music component doesn't make one dime.
One can only hope that if the music component of their business declined enough, they would kick it to the curb, but that's not a given.
What's the penalty for this kind of thing, in terms of the company and individuals? I hope there's some personal liability in there somewhere.
I hope there's a penalty too, but going after MediaSentry itself is pointless. They're just a disposable face.
The court should take out its judicial fury on the corporations pulling MediaSentry's strings. I'm not talking about the RIAA either. Keep going even further back. Follow the money. Make the real people calling the shots accountable.
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as to (1) where this drivel comes from, (2) who is responsible for it, and (3) when is it going to be corrected or withdrawn?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.
You know -- speaking of copyright infringement..
I think Jack Chick is going to sue these dweebs for stealing his gimmick.
I believe he owns the rights to the act of creating inaccurate propaganda in comic book form.
Exactly. They aren't concerned with killing internet radio, they're trying to kill the "mom and pop" internet radio companies. They need their music played on radio stations they control, so they can properly maintain who gets played how often.
Ironically, it's this overcontrolling of commercial radio which has driven so many people away from it.
I want radio that has some degree of spontaneity. I don't want radio which is just some corporate machine shilling the dozen or so songs that large labels want to shove down our throats. That's boring.
If they manage to destroy internet radio via all this legal maneuvering, then screw it - it's time for some serious civil disobedience. If the law is no longer on our side, then why the F do we still even pay attention to it?
This whole democracy thing is beginning to fall apart. We all talk about separation of church and state, but IMHO keeping the corporations and government separate is every bit as important, if not more so.
I think everyone agrees that Lori is a dick, and probably should be punished. However, violating the ToS of a website should not be a criminal offense, which is what this case is trying to turn it into.
I agree here. I think while she deserves punishment, this is not the way to go about it - it will open up a giant can of worms.
With that said -- I think she is in a deep pile of poo, and this court case is probably the least of her problems at this point. In cases like this, justice typically finds some way of being served, and the end results are often very ugly.
Not that I -condone- this sort of 'justice', but if I were her, I would definitely be watching my back.
For reasons which are unclear, the IT department then suggested that the RIAA next time send them 'notices to preserve information,' in response to which they would preserve, rather than overwrite, the DHCP data, for the RIAA's forensic benefit."
I honestly wish Tufts hadn't even suggested this to the RIAA, since we all know this will be the next thing they'll try and have legislated through Congress. One of the congressmen on the RIAA payroll will attempt to slip it into a bill undetected.
They won't limit it to colleges either - they'll probably make it a requirement of ISPs in general.
Now that sounds like an endorsement of mob justice. I never claimed that I was above that mentality or denied that I could never be pushed to that level*, but my (possibly irrational) faith that a civilized society can exist with enforced laws pushes me to avoid it.
Well, I'm not saying what I think should be - I'm saying what I think would be. The distinction needs to be made.
Do I want to see an angry mob rip her to pieces? No.
Do I think she'll probably be plagued by the ramifications of this for the rest of her life? Absolutely.
One can try and move away to escape the shadow of this sort of thing, but in an internet age where information travels almost instantaneously, where can you run?
That's encouraging harassment and an endorsement of mob justice. However, I really dislike this bitch and, as a parent, I could see myself falling into this kind of destructive behavior after losing a child. I'd like to think I'm emotionally adjusted enough to rise above that, but I've not dealt with that kind of emotional trauma since reaching adulthood and can't testify that I'd hold up well...
If the court doesn't create some kind of sense of justice, the community will go out and make its own. It's not always pretty, but one way or another, justice will be served.
I'd love to see the woman be on the receiving end of exactly what she dished out in the way that she dished it out. If she considered it a 'joke', then surely she'll find it funny if the tables are turned on her.
The problem is, we can "don't approve" all we want but they still keep getting re-elected so obviously enough people do approve or don't care.
You said it - most people could care less.
This isn't even about P2P/file-sharing. It's about the entire legislative process being corrupt. If corporations can pull this stunt with something like this, they can do it for anything.
So, the million dollar question - how do you get people to give a damn? They seem too fixated on American Idol to bother with such trivial matters as government corruption.
Yes, vote in nuke-happy endless-wars McCain.. that will show the RIAA.
Eh - I didn't say I was going to vote for him. I said it would be one of the few reasons I would support him.
Whoever is elected needs to deal with the whole earmarking issue in Congress. It's completely ruining the legislative process.
They shouldn't being smuggling crap into the fine print of a bill. It puts the legislators into the awkward position where they either have to vote in favor of the bill, and let the crap pass through, or vote against the bill, and throw out the baby with the bathwater.
To me this transcends the whole P2P/file-sharing issue. It's a much bigger problem with corporations having their hands too much in the legislative process.
The odds are quite good that you will out of school and have other things to think about before your Senator comes up for relection. Your threat is just so much hot air. Free music in the dorms is never going to rank high on his list of priorites.
Just for the record, I've been out of college for a considerable amount of time. I rarely if ever user P2P software.
However, if this isn't a blatant example of fine print being smuggled into existing legislation under the proverbial radar, then I don't know what is. To me, that's the bigger issue here. I'm tired of corporate interests sneaking their wishlists into well-meaning legislation by using those representatives they have in their proverbial pockets to do the deed.
Perhaps the threat of their removal from office is hollow for the Senate, but something definitely needs to be done here to express our disapproval with this. At very least, write your representation in both sections of Congress, and let them know you don't approve.
If that doesn't make them change their tune, then perhaps we need to begin playing dirty like the RIAA does.
Notify your Senator that you'll be voting for his opponent the next time he's up for re-election.
On a sidenote, this is why earmarking legislation is a major problem. Corrupt legislators know they can smuggle crap that would NEVER pass in a million years, if they hide it in a bill that has otherwise good intentions. It's one of the few things drawing me to voting for McCain, since he's one of the more outspoken people about this particular practice.
I think they're just bringing in the best hired gun that they can. No different from any other company or organization in that respect. This case is absolutely huge to them. Of course they're going to get the best counsel they can. Wouldn't they be foolish if they didn't?
IMHO at this point, it's more foolish for them to continue with this sorry campaign than it is to just stop.
I think a lot of people are waiting for the record labels to eat crow and acknowledge that suing everything that moves is not the best way to increase their record sales or customer support. Now is the time for them to do that, rather than dig in their heels, stubbornly trying to justify their position.
I began boycotting all RIAA music specifically because of this particular case. I haven't purchased an album from anybody any RIAA-affiliated label since they handed down the nearly quarter-million dollar fine here. I'm looking for reasons to end the boycott, but they're still not giving me any.
I hoped that EMI would be the first to back down from this, after they had announced wanting to pull back support for the RIAA. Until they actually do, though - it's just lip service.
There are a lot of things that need to change in this country, but you need to ask yourself: (a) is war the only way left that change can be effected in this country, and (b) if so, is such a war winnable and/or are things so bad off that I'm willing to die in a futile war rather than maintain hope for an alternative solution? The answer to "a" for me is "no", but by the end of 2010 there may be a need for me to rethink my answer.
Touche - while I think a full-scale uprising would be a mistake at this point, I do think we need to begin to shake things up a little bit. This is the 21st century - surely there are ways we can make the government and large corporations sweat without resorting to old-school war.
Corporations have shown time and time again that they have no qualms about bending and outright breaking the rules to push their agendas. So, why should we do them the dignity of playing fair? As the old saying goes, nice guys finish last.
The truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country.... People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.
Amen. I think we need to remind the government of that.
If I was that kid with a parent-installed gps in my car, I would be disappointed in my parents for not trusting me. And I'd demand it being removed after, say a year if there has been no "use".
Again, it depends on who owns the vehicle.
If it's the parent's vehicle, they may be more concerned with the vehicle itself than what the son is doing in it.
For instance, if the son is tricked into thinking some business has a 'valet service' by some clever car thief, the parents obviously would want to know where the vehicle goes, preferably before it's disassembled into spare parts for the black market.
You know, my parents ran our family as a dictatorship. We never voted on anything and we never got to choose what the house rules were. That doesn't keep us from participating in elections and getting politically active.
Kids aren't full grown adults and they shouldn't be treated as such. If you raise them properly they'll be able to understand the differences between home and government and act accordingly. Also, sometimes lojacking the car is going too far, sometimes it's not. Things like that should be taken on a case by case basis.
With this story, the big question I have is who actually owned the car?
If the parents own the car, then they can put a GPS tracker in it, no questions asked.
If the son owned the car, then you're getting into a more gray area, IMHO.
Had he owned the car, and the parents installed the GPS behind his back, that is admittedly sneaky and underhanded.
However, had they made the GPS a prerequisite of him getting the car in the first place, well - they're the parents. It's their call, love it or hate it.
I WOULD stick the parents with the bill for removing the GPS once he turned 21, though. However, to be fair - this article shows how handy the GPS tracking can be in some cases. While he may want to assure that the parents lose access to the GPS data when he becomes an adult, he may not want to uninstall it outright.
TVs do not (generally) have the equivalent of adblock. And there is no easy way to totally cover the users monitor for five minutes of fullscreen ads on the web that they cannot disable.
Yes - they do have an equivalent of "ad block". It's called "going to the fridge for a snack".
The issue isn't that people are missing advertisements via Youtube that they would otherwise see via television. Let's face it - 99% of all television spots aren't really getting viewed anyways. Unless it's a fantastic advertisement, the ads get relegated to being background noise by the viewer.
However, Viacom realizes that they need to make advertisers FEEL that their ads are likely to be viewed to justify the cost of the time window. If they can't justify that, the cost of the advertising time drops, and Viacom loses money.
That's why Viacom is going after Youtube.
The thing Viacom doesn't get though is Youtube can be used to get more people viewing their programs. This in turn can be used to justify higher rates for advertising time, if it reflects favorably in the Nielsen ratings.
Perhaps there's another reason why Viacom programming doesn't always do well with Mr. Nielsen. Have you tried watching some of the crap on their stations? It's pretty horrid. Even prior to me boycotting their stations, I wasn't watching that much of it anyway!
What Viacom doesn't get is your average Youtube user isn't going to sit and watch an entire show on Youtube. Due to the program length limitations, it's just too cumbersome of a process.
I find what typically happens is 'sketches' or 'bits' of the program get viewed. From there, the viewer may take interest, and tune into a program they may not otherwise had exposure to.
Of course, this entire lawsuit has had the opposite impact on me. I've stopped watching all Viacom-owned channels outright out of disgust.
Viacom should put that in their pipe and smoke it.
Slashdotters, otherwise generally intelligent, have a subset who are unable to see this for what it is and believe that copyright should not be respected.
It's not so much that we believe that copyright shouldn't be respected, but we also see when the legal system is being blatantly manipulated.
In the case of Viacom, one must ask if they truly need all the data they are asking for, or if a more limited data set would have been sufficient. I think the judge here could have done a better job giving Viacom the tools they needed to make their case without blatantly infringing on the privacy of every Youtube user.
I can't speak for others, but I personally don't trust Viacom with the data they are requesting. Regardless of what stipulations the judge may have put on the usage of the data, I think it creates a dangerous precedent letting them have it. The RIAA has historically been known to bend and break the rules to get what they want - what's to stop Viacom from doing the same?
I work in the healthcare industry, and the general rule of thumb is you give the external party the bare minimum amount of data in order to do what they need to do. Any fields that they don't need - you remove them. It's that simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a link to the feedback form on their website:
http://phoenix.gov/EMAIL/svfdback.html/
Perhaps if a ton of Slashdotters leave them critical feedback of what they did, it might knock some sense into them. (I would maintain a level of courtesy in the message, if you choose to do this. It's harder to disregard when it's kept civil.)
Amen to that.
I adamantly refuse to support the RIAA labels until they stop treating consumers like crap.
That doesn't mean changing the tactics used in treating consumers like crap - it means STOP TREATING THEM LIKE CRAP.
Sadly, though - for every one person who refuses to purchase their wares, there are ten more who need their "Soulja Boy fix", and will keep groups like UMG in business. To make matters worse, groups like UMG and Sony obviously aren't one-trick ponies. They have other industries they can draw money from, even if their music component doesn't make one dime.
One can only hope that if the music component of their business declined enough, they would kick it to the curb, but that's not a given.
What's the penalty for this kind of thing, in terms of the company and individuals? I hope there's some personal liability in there somewhere.
I hope there's a penalty too, but going after MediaSentry itself is pointless. They're just a disposable face.
The court should take out its judicial fury on the corporations pulling MediaSentry's strings. I'm not talking about the RIAA either. Keep going even further back. Follow the money. Make the real people calling the shots accountable.
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.
You know -- speaking of copyright infringement..
I think Jack Chick is going to sue these dweebs for stealing his gimmick.
I believe he owns the rights to the act of creating inaccurate propaganda in comic book form.
Exactly. They aren't concerned with killing internet radio, they're trying to kill the "mom and pop" internet radio companies. They need their music played on radio stations they control, so they can properly maintain who gets played how often.
Ironically, it's this overcontrolling of commercial radio which has driven so many people away from it.
I want radio that has some degree of spontaneity. I don't want radio which is just some corporate machine shilling the dozen or so songs that large labels want to shove down our throats. That's boring.
If they manage to destroy internet radio via all this legal maneuvering, then screw it - it's time for some serious civil disobedience. If the law is no longer on our side, then why the F do we still even pay attention to it?
This whole democracy thing is beginning to fall apart. We all talk about separation of church and state, but IMHO keeping the corporations and government separate is every bit as important, if not more so.
Not quite. David has kicked Goliath squarely in the testicles but he isn't dead.
How many kicks to the testicles would it take to kill Goliath?
Let's a borrow a page out of Mr. Owl's book, and keep kicking there until we find out.
I think everyone agrees that Lori is a dick, and probably should be punished. However, violating the ToS of a website should not be a criminal offense, which is what this case is trying to turn it into.
I agree here. I think while she deserves punishment, this is not the way to go about it - it will open up a giant can of worms.
With that said -- I think she is in a deep pile of poo, and this court case is probably the least of her problems at this point. In cases like this, justice typically finds some way of being served, and the end results are often very ugly.
Not that I -condone- this sort of 'justice', but if I were her, I would definitely be watching my back.
Oh please. You think the idea hasn't occurred to them?
The RIAA may be blood-sucking mosquitoes who rape the justice system, but they aren't stupid.
Perhaps it has occurred to them, but the last thing we need is somebody reminding them about it.
This is like dangling the mouse in front of the cat.
For reasons which are unclear, the IT department then suggested that the RIAA next time send them 'notices to preserve information,' in response to which they would preserve, rather than overwrite, the DHCP data, for the RIAA's forensic benefit."
I honestly wish Tufts hadn't even suggested this to the RIAA, since we all know this will be the next thing they'll try and have legislated through Congress. One of the congressmen on the RIAA payroll will attempt to slip it into a bill undetected.
They won't limit it to colleges either - they'll probably make it a requirement of ISPs in general.
Now that sounds like an endorsement of mob justice. I never claimed that I was above that mentality or denied that I could never be pushed to that level*, but my (possibly irrational) faith that a civilized society can exist with enforced laws pushes me to avoid it.
Well, I'm not saying what I think should be - I'm saying what I think would be. The distinction needs to be made.
Do I want to see an angry mob rip her to pieces? No.
Do I think she'll probably be plagued by the ramifications of this for the rest of her life? Absolutely.
One can try and move away to escape the shadow of this sort of thing, but in an internet age where information travels almost instantaneously, where can you run?
That's encouraging harassment and an endorsement of mob justice. However, I really dislike this bitch and, as a parent, I could see myself falling into this kind of destructive behavior after losing a child. I'd like to think I'm emotionally adjusted enough to rise above that, but I've not dealt with that kind of emotional trauma since reaching adulthood and can't testify that I'd hold up well...
If the court doesn't create some kind of sense of justice, the community will go out and make its own. It's not always pretty, but one way or another, justice will be served.
I'd love to see the woman be on the receiving end of exactly what she dished out in the way that she dished it out. If she considered it a 'joke', then surely she'll find it funny if the tables are turned on her.
The problem is, we can "don't approve" all we want but they still keep getting re-elected so obviously enough people do approve or don't care.
You said it - most people could care less.
This isn't even about P2P/file-sharing. It's about the entire legislative process being corrupt. If corporations can pull this stunt with something like this, they can do it for anything.
So, the million dollar question - how do you get people to give a damn? They seem too fixated on American Idol to bother with such trivial matters as government corruption.
Yes, vote in nuke-happy endless-wars McCain.. that will show the RIAA.
Eh - I didn't say I was going to vote for him. I said it would be one of the few reasons I would support him.
Whoever is elected needs to deal with the whole earmarking issue in Congress. It's completely ruining the legislative process.
They shouldn't being smuggling crap into the fine print of a bill. It puts the legislators into the awkward position where they either have to vote in favor of the bill, and let the crap pass through, or vote against the bill, and throw out the baby with the bathwater.
To me this transcends the whole P2P/file-sharing issue. It's a much bigger problem with corporations having their hands too much in the legislative process.
The odds are quite good that you will out of school and have other things to think about before your Senator comes up for relection. Your threat is just so much hot air.
Free music in the dorms is never going to rank high on his list of priorites.
Just for the record, I've been out of college for a considerable amount of time. I rarely if ever user P2P software.
However, if this isn't a blatant example of fine print being smuggled into existing legislation under the proverbial radar, then I don't know what is. To me, that's the bigger issue here. I'm tired of corporate interests sneaking their wishlists into well-meaning legislation by using those representatives they have in their proverbial pockets to do the deed.
Perhaps the threat of their removal from office is hollow for the Senate, but something definitely needs to be done here to express our disapproval with this. At very least, write your representation in both sections of Congress, and let them know you don't approve.
If that doesn't make them change their tune, then perhaps we need to begin playing dirty like the RIAA does.
Step 1:
Go here: http://www.govtrack.us/
Step 2:
See if your Senator voted in favor of this bill.
Step 3:
Notify your Senator that you'll be voting for his opponent the next time he's up for re-election.
On a sidenote, this is why earmarking legislation is a major problem. Corrupt legislators know they can smuggle crap that would NEVER pass in a million years, if they hide it in a bill that has otherwise good intentions. It's one of the few things drawing me to voting for McCain, since he's one of the more outspoken people about this particular practice.
I think they're just bringing in the best hired gun that they can. No different from any other company or organization in that respect. This case is absolutely huge to them. Of course they're going to get the best counsel they can. Wouldn't they be foolish if they didn't?
IMHO at this point, it's more foolish for them to continue with this sorry campaign than it is to just stop.
I think a lot of people are waiting for the record labels to eat crow and acknowledge that suing everything that moves is not the best way to increase their record sales or customer support. Now is the time for them to do that, rather than dig in their heels, stubbornly trying to justify their position.
I began boycotting all RIAA music specifically because of this particular case. I haven't purchased an album from anybody any RIAA-affiliated label since they handed down the nearly quarter-million dollar fine here. I'm looking for reasons to end the boycott, but they're still not giving me any.
I hoped that EMI would be the first to back down from this, after they had announced wanting to pull back support for the RIAA. Until they actually do, though - it's just lip service.
It has some nice features, but in terms of recgonized keywords, it seems lacking.
I tested it out with my online name - other search engines have algorithms that can locate any website I've ever interacted with.
This one couldn't find me at all.
There are a lot of things that need to change in this country, but you need to ask yourself: (a) is war the only way left that change can be effected in this country, and (b) if so, is such a war winnable and/or are things so bad off that I'm willing to die in a futile war rather than maintain hope for an alternative solution? The answer to "a" for me is "no", but by the end of 2010 there may be a need for me to rethink my answer.
Touche - while I think a full-scale uprising would be a mistake at this point, I do think we need to begin to shake things up a little bit. This is the 21st century - surely there are ways we can make the government and large corporations sweat without resorting to old-school war.
Corporations have shown time and time again that they have no qualms about bending and outright breaking the rules to push their agendas. So, why should we do them the dignity of playing fair? As the old saying goes, nice guys finish last.
The truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country.... People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.
Amen. I think we need to remind the government of that.
Dare I say it - is it time for another 1776?
If I was that kid with a parent-installed gps in my car, I would be disappointed in my parents for not trusting me. And I'd demand it being removed after, say a year if there has been no "use".
Again, it depends on who owns the vehicle.
If it's the parent's vehicle, they may be more concerned with the vehicle itself than what the son is doing in it.
For instance, if the son is tricked into thinking some business has a 'valet service' by some clever car thief, the parents obviously would want to know where the vehicle goes, preferably before it's disassembled into spare parts for the black market.
You know, my parents ran our family as a dictatorship. We never voted on anything and we never got to choose what the house rules were. That doesn't keep us from participating in elections and getting politically active.
Kids aren't full grown adults and they shouldn't be treated as such. If you raise them properly they'll be able to understand the differences between home and government and act accordingly. Also, sometimes lojacking the car is going too far, sometimes it's not. Things like that should be taken on a case by case basis.
With this story, the big question I have is who actually owned the car?
If the parents own the car, then they can put a GPS tracker in it, no questions asked.
If the son owned the car, then you're getting into a more gray area, IMHO.
Had he owned the car, and the parents installed the GPS behind his back, that is admittedly sneaky and underhanded.
However, had they made the GPS a prerequisite of him getting the car in the first place, well - they're the parents. It's their call, love it or hate it.
I WOULD stick the parents with the bill for removing the GPS once he turned 21, though. However, to be fair - this article shows how handy the GPS tracking can be in some cases. While he may want to assure that the parents lose access to the GPS data when he becomes an adult, he may not want to uninstall it outright.
If you have a shortwave scanner or CB radio, try hooking it up to the satellite dish.
TVs do not (generally) have the equivalent of adblock. And there is no easy way to totally cover the users monitor for five minutes of fullscreen ads on the web that they cannot disable.
Yes - they do have an equivalent of "ad block". It's called "going to the fridge for a snack".
The issue isn't that people are missing advertisements via Youtube that they would otherwise see via television. Let's face it - 99% of all television spots aren't really getting viewed anyways. Unless it's a fantastic advertisement, the ads get relegated to being background noise by the viewer.
However, Viacom realizes that they need to make advertisers FEEL that their ads are likely to be viewed to justify the cost of the time window. If they can't justify that, the cost of the advertising time drops, and Viacom loses money.
That's why Viacom is going after Youtube.
The thing Viacom doesn't get though is Youtube can be used to get more people viewing their programs. This in turn can be used to justify higher rates for advertising time, if it reflects favorably in the Nielsen ratings.
Perhaps there's another reason why Viacom programming doesn't always do well with Mr. Nielsen. Have you tried watching some of the crap on their stations? It's pretty horrid. Even prior to me boycotting their stations, I wasn't watching that much of it anyway!
What Viacom doesn't get is your average Youtube user isn't going to sit and watch an entire show on Youtube. Due to the program length limitations, it's just too cumbersome of a process.
I find what typically happens is 'sketches' or 'bits' of the program get viewed. From there, the viewer may take interest, and tune into a program they may not otherwise had exposure to.
Of course, this entire lawsuit has had the opposite impact on me. I've stopped watching all Viacom-owned channels outright out of disgust.
Viacom should put that in their pipe and smoke it.
Slashdotters, otherwise generally intelligent, have a subset who are unable to see this for what it is and believe that copyright should not be respected.
It's not so much that we believe that copyright shouldn't be respected, but we also see when the legal system is being blatantly manipulated.
In the case of Viacom, one must ask if they truly need all the data they are asking for, or if a more limited data set would have been sufficient. I think the judge here could have done a better job giving Viacom the tools they needed to make their case without blatantly infringing on the privacy of every Youtube user.
I can't speak for others, but I personally don't trust Viacom with the data they are requesting. Regardless of what stipulations the judge may have put on the usage of the data, I think it creates a dangerous precedent letting them have it. The RIAA has historically been known to bend and break the rules to get what they want - what's to stop Viacom from doing the same?
I work in the healthcare industry, and the general rule of thumb is you give the external party the bare minimum amount of data in order to do what they need to do. Any fields that they don't need - you remove them. It's that simple.