×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

444 comments

EFF can butt out (-1, Troll)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905496)

How's that song go? What have you done for me lately?

Re:EFF can butt out (3, Insightful)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905508)

ummm...the EFF does QUITE a bit, considering the responsibilty it has to do anything at all (none). Just what are you suggesting?

Re:EFF can butt out (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905538)

As a non-profit organization, it is REQUIRED to follow its stated course of action. Considering that people give it money to do this, it is quite disingenuous for the EFF to take the money and make stupid Flash animations, proclaim RIAA to be EVIIIILLLL and other such tomfoolery.

EFF has done NOTHING. Again, NOTHING. They take donations and return NOTHING. Name even a single thing that they have done successfully.

Sure.... (5, Funny)

feyhunde (700477) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905497)

We promise nothing bad will happen if you admit guilt and give us all your contact information.

word "amnesty" (2, Interesting)

stonebeat.org (562495) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905498)

Any thing with word "amnesty" in it, should be a warning by itself.

Re:word "amnesty" (4, Insightful)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905536)

Amnesty International?

Last time I checked, they were doing some decent things.

Re:word "amnesty" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905644)

you need to check again. Nowadays their spend all their spare time attacking western democracies for human rights abuses and remain silent about third world dictators and torturers. Even if you think that the US and Europe are human rights abusers, you have to agree that there's if you had to single out the worst human rights abusers, North Korea, Burma, Saudi Arabia etc. should all rank ahead of Europe and the US. But you wouldn't be able to tell that by reading Amnesty International briefs.

Re:word "amnesty" (1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905736)

yeah, well speaking out against the US makes you a liberal hero. Speaking out against some third world dictator means is a one-way ticket to a death squad or prison camp if you ever set foot in the country.

Re:word "amnesty" (4, Insightful)

Absurd Being (632190) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905543)

Like Amnesty International? It sure has some ugly pictures on it, like of human rights abuses. So I guess it does deserve a warning.

Re:word "amnesty" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905564)

Any thing with word "amnesty" in it, should be a warning by itself.

yeah, watch out for amnesty international, or they'll protect the hell out of your human rights.

Re:word "amnesty" (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905642)

What about Amnesty International?

Re:word "amnesty" (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905655)

Yes, but what about Amnesty International?

Re:word "amnesty" (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905720)

oh, and let's not forget about amnesty international

Re:word "amnesty" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905766)

Hmm, are you saying that Amnesty International is evil or something?

Re:word "amnesty" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905774)

Yes, but does your hypothesis extend to include Amnesty International?

Look (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905501)

who gives a shit about the Electronic Faggot Foundation?

Never trust them (1, Offtopic)

osme (634595) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905503)

I'd never give any information to them, or sign their papers. But, then again, I also don't use P2P.

Re:Never trust them (0)

CrazyGringo (672487) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905629)

I wasn't going to give them information, but I was going to give them a mailbox full of dog poop.

Hmm (4, Interesting)

cultobill (72845) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905506)

Ok, the RIAA says they won't come after you if you fill out the form and destroy your copies. That's great.

What about the labels/artists they represent? Those people probably still have the rights to do so. And, hey, they've got your name and stuff...

I'm still a fan of only downloadings stuff you're allowed to, but whatever. I'm not too zealous about people downloading their music.

Re:Hmm (5, Insightful)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905612)

What about that last quote, where they said that because they weren't a legal organization, they weren't bound by the limits of search?

I'd be dubious of giving anything to anyone who said they didn't have to honor the law.

Re:Hmm (2, Interesting)

psilosopher256 (705026) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905760)

Yeah, the fourth amendment only restricts the government. It's not that they aren't honoring the law, it's that the law doesn't apply to them. This isn't a reason to trust them, sure, but it isn't a reason to distrust them either.

Re:Hmm (1)

OMEGA Power (651936) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905615)

And does anyone think they won't give (or sell) all the admitted filesharers info to other groups that can sue them (MPAA, BSA, etc)

Re:Hmm (2, Informative)

Aadain2001 (684036) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905616)

Only the copyright holders can go after people downloading their work illegally, and last time I checked the RIAA's contract practices, the artists give up all rights to their works to whatever label just signed them. Someone about their songs being concidered "work for hire" or something. The artists are little more than line workers to the RIAA.

Re:Hmm (3, Interesting)

goodship11 (301870) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905617)

about 3 months before RIAA sued the two students at rpi, they invited the student population to come down for some "focus group" question and answer sessions. coincidence?

Re:Hmm (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905637)

That's exactly the problem here. You're handing over a notarized confession complete with your home address as verified by ID to the RIAA, while it's the individual members of the RIAA whose content you've stolen. The RIAA doesn't have the authority to legal agreements binding upon each individual label... so even though the RIAA forgives you, Sony, AOL Time-Warner, et al. can still go after you, and they can use that "shamnesty" confession as all the proof they need.

Re:Hmm (2, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905761)

no they can't. RIAA is acting as an agent on Sony/AOL Time Warner/etc's behalf.

The real problem is that the RIAA doesn't represent all labels, so some of the smaller independent lables could sue with the amnesty beign prima facia proof of guilt.

This just in: EFF doesn't trust RIAA! (0, Interesting)

zipwow (1695) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905507)

This just in: EFF doesn't trust RIAA!

Details at 11.

-Zipwow

Re:This just in: EFF doesn't trust RIAA! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905523)

I like how your subject matched the comment. Cleverly done.

Anonymous? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905513)

If you're not anonymous while trading songs online, how come they need to get someone to figure out who the hell you are?

What was that? (4, Funny)

IpsissimusMarr (672940) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905515)

What was that Lassie?
*woof* *woof*
Don't trust the RIAA?
*woof* *nods head* *woof*
They're only trying to destroy their customer base?
*woof* *nods head* *woof*
Good Lassie.. *pets Lassie*

Re:What was that? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905567)

*woof* *woof*
It's Timmy? He's down by the river?
*woof* *woof*
He's been captured by Darl McBride and is being forced to drag a completely offtopic SCO bash into an RIAA flamefest?
*woof* *woof*

Re:What was that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905646)

"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"

Proof positive that there is no god! ;)

so? (0)

Neppy (673459) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905521)

If you or anyone you know was contemplating handing over information to the RIAA, you may think twice.
I guess nobody has anything to worry about then.

I always thought... (5, Insightful)

rasafras (637995) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905522)

that the action by the RIAA isn't really defensive, it's offensive. Chances are, you're going to keep sharing after you file the forms. Now, if you violated a written agreement, they have a far more solid basis upon which to prosecute. It turns into a black and white case. Otherwise, the RIAA seems to me to be a police force of sorts now, prosecuting people left and right. Karma whore help me out - there is a law against the abuse of the legal system in overusing lawsuits, isn't there? The RIAA is practically using form letters to send them out.

Re:I always thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905598)

It turns into a black and white case

You mean it's not a black and white case if your caught the first time around?

Cry cry sniff sniff. I shed crocodile tears for anyone caught doing something they shouldn't have done in the first place. Maybe then I won't have to put up hearing penis length wars like "Oh yeah, I got more gigs of MP3s than you do!"

Re:I always thought... (3, Insightful)

Androgynous Coward (13443) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905620)

Actually, I'm thinking there are other motives. In a court of law any claims on how much downloading is hurting their business can still be considered speculative. I mean, it would be difficult or just plain time-consuming for the recording industry to *prove* in a court of law that x number of files are traded by n number of people.

In essense, this amnesty would assemble the evidence list for the RIAA enabling them to go before a court (or congress via their lobbyists) with documented and notarized numbers...can't argue that unless you're Johnny Cochran.

- AC

Re:I always thought... (1)

DeepRedux (601768) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905733)

They can ask for up to $150K per song in "statutory damages" without having to prove any numbers. The court could give them less.

Re:I always thought... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905662)

Yep, they'd love you to make it a whole lot easier to prove that you knew you were breaking the law by trotting out that agreement right next to logs that say you shared songs after signing it...

Re:I always thought... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905734)

more importantly you're confessing that you were doing a willfull breach of copyright, which may end you up in jail.

not that i would believe for a second that such a mail in form would be worth shit in any higher court(who sensible person takes photocopies of his/her id and sends it to ANYONE through mail???). now here's a fun idea, make up some names and send them to riaa, or better yet, find out some lawyers names and executives names that are pushing this kind of sillyness and file some papers with their names(possibly fakish id's too, at least maybe that way they could maybe possibly understand how stupid such a system is from the start. as there is nothing to bargain the only reason to send such forms is to joke around).

-
riaa, the free pr engine of kazaa.

to sum... (5, Insightful)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905524)

"Stepping into the spotlight to admit your guilt is probably not a sensible course for most people sharing music files online, especially since the RIAA doesn't control many potential sources of lawsuits," EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer said in the statement.

That's pretty much the sum of it. That, and the fact that they're not promising to /never/ prosecute, they're promising a reprive.

Can we get a blanket amnesty? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905526)

Let's say Dubya signs a release on behalf of all of us, kinda like Jesus did for all our sins. Should take 10 seconds tops. No sense doing this piecemeal.

Sorry, won't work. (2, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905749)

Let's say Dubya signs a release on behalf of all of us, kinda like Jesus did for all our sins. Should take 10 seconds tops. No sense doing this piecemeal.

Nope. Dubya can only sign such stuff for criminal cases, not civil.

And if he DID do something like that, the RIAA could then bill the GOVERNMENT, claiming they "took private property for a public purpose". Fifth Amendment.

Site slowing - here's the text (-1, Informative)

Spamkill (705384) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905528)

Users Warned About Anti-Piracy Campaign Individuals should not accept RIAA's offer of amnesty, privacy group says. Scarlet Pruitt, IDG News Service Monday, September 08, 2003 U.S. privacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation is warning individuals not to admit to illegally trading copyright music online, even if the music industry offers a reprieve from its anti-piracy campaign, saying that users could still be subject to legal action. The EFF issued a statement Friday in response to several published reports that the Recording Industry Association of America was set to launch an "amnesty" program this week, in which it would excuse users who swapped copyright music online if they erased the porn from their computers, destroyed all hard copies, and promised not to engage in future online piracy. "Stepping into the spotlight to admit your guilt is probably not a sensible course for most people sharing music files online, especially since the RIAA doesn't control many potential sources of lawsuits," EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer said in the statement. Change In Tactics The RIAA, which had been targeting peer-to-peer file trading networks in its efforts to battle online piracy, has recently set its sights on individual file traders. The association has filed over 1,000 information subpoenas, asking Internet service providers and universities to hand over data on users thought to be illegally trading porn online. The stepped-up campaign has sparked concern among some privacy groups, individuals, and ISPs that are reluctant to hand over private customer data. Verizon Services, for example, fought for a year to protect the identities of four of its customers but lost its appeal in June. In August an anonymous Californian woman filed a motion challenging a subpoena asking her ISP to hand over her identity. The case, refered to as the "Jane Doe" motion, was the first time an individual has struck back against the subpoena campaign. New Plan With criticism of the music industry's latest legal tactics increasing, reports surfaced last week that the RIAA would be offering an amnesty program for individual file traders. An RIAA representative refused to comment on the reports Monday. The group has scheduled a press conference call to announce "anti-piracy initiatives" at 12 p.m. Eastern time Monday, however. In addition to RIAA officials, "leaders from throughout the music community" will be participating in the call, an RIAA press advisory said. The RIAA announcement comes in the wake of news that the U.S. Congress will be holding hearings on the subpoena provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been the legal backbone of the RIAA's subpoena campaign. According to the EFF, 95 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and major ISPs, sent letters to congressional leaders applauding the hearings because of their concerns with the provision, which they say invade the privacy of Internet users without due process of law. The RIAA, for its part, has held that the 1998 DMCA clearly lays out the right of copyright holders to file subpoenas seeking the identity of alleged infringers. Addressing the issue recently, Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs at the RIAA, said that courts have already ruled that individuals are not anonymous when they publicly distribute porn online.

IGNORE THE UNFORMATTED KARMA WHORE (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905559)

Users Warned About Anti-Piracy Campaign

Individuals should not accept RIAA's offer of amnesty, privacy group says.

Scarlet Pruitt, IDG News Service
Monday, September 08, 2003

U.S. privacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation is warning individuals not to admit to illegally trading copyright music online, even if the music industry offers a reprieve from its anti-piracy campaign, saying that users could still be subject to legal action.

The EFF issued a statement Friday in response to several published reports that the Recording Industry Association of America was set to launch an "amnesty" program this week, in which it would excuse users who swapped copyright music online if they erased the music from their computers, destroyed all hard copies, and promised not to engage in future online piracy.

"Stepping into the spotlight to admit your guilt is probably not a sensible course for most people sharing music files online, especially since the RIAA doesn't control many potential sources of lawsuits," EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer said in the statement.
Change In Tactics

The RIAA, which had been targeting peer-to-peer file trading networks in its efforts to battle online piracy, has recently set its sights on individual file traders. The association has filed over 1,000 information subpoenas, asking Internet service providers and universities to hand over data on users thought to be illegally trading music online.

The stepped-up campaign has sparked concern among some privacy groups, individuals, and ISPs that are reluctant to hand over private customer data. Verizon Services, for example, fought for a year to protect the identities of four of its customers but lost its appeal in June.

In August an anonymous Californian woman filed a motion challenging a subpoena asking her ISP to hand over her identity. The case, refered to as the "Jane Doe" motion, was the first time an individual has struck back against the subpoena campaign.
New Plan

With criticism of the music industry's latest legal tactics increasing, reports surfaced last week that the RIAA would be offering an amnesty program for individual file traders.

An RIAA representative refused to comment on the reports Monday. The group has scheduled a press conference call to announce "anti-piracy initiatives" at 12 p.m. Eastern time Monday, however.

In addition to RIAA officials, "leaders from throughout the music community" will be participating in the call, an RIAA press advisory said.

The RIAA announcement comes in the wake of news that the U.S. Congress will be holding hearings on the subpoena provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been the legal backbone of the RIAA's subpoena campaign.

According to the EFF, 95 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and major ISPs, sent letters to congressional leaders applauding the hearings because of their concerns with the provision, which they say invade the privacy of Internet users without due process of law.

The RIAA, for its part, has held that the 1998 DMCA clearly lays out the right of copyright holders to file subpoenas seeking the identity of alleged infringers.

Addressing the issue recently, Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs at the RIAA, said that courts have already ruled that individuals are not anonymous when they publicly distribute music online.

He's wrong - no, he's right (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905779)

This would probably have gotten modded up faster, and thus been more useful - I realize you're not worried about karma as an AC - if you had just had a subject like, "And now, properly formatted..."

In other words, no need for the flamebait, if you don't know the poster is a-

oh wait, I just checked and realized that this guy just opened the account for this comment, so is probably trying to get karma to troll. You are right. I stand corrected. Flame away.

(And mods, those of you not on crack, please don't give the original poster any of your hard-earned points)

Interesting Quote (5, Interesting)

Disevidence (576586) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905529)

"Addressing the issue recently, Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs at the RIAA, said that courts have already ruled that individuals are not anonymous when they publicly distribute music online."

I find it interesting that he states that your not allowed or should be disregarded of being anonymous when you distribute music online. What if i want to distribute my OWN music online, anonymously. Sure theres probably little reason for me to.

I find it disturbing that they seem to be confusing distributing music online with copyright violations.

Re:Interesting Quote (3, Insightful)

Dopefish_1 (217994) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905638)

Of course they're confusing distributing music online with copyright violations. They want to paint a picture where P2P applications are evil and all their users are "stealing" music. If it becomes generally acknowledged that P2P apps have perfectly legitimate use, then the RIAA loses some credibility and some leverage against file-sharers.

what bothers me. (4, Interesting)

blanks (108019) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905534)

Is that people like parents, kids who dont know better, collage students etc, are going to give out this information willingly.

They dont know what to expect, or in most cases, what they may be doing is wrong (downloading music, videos etc).

Re:what bothers me. (1)

Feyr (449684) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905632)

exactly, i was almost shocked to hear my friend say that it was legal to download music off of kazaa. shows how little most people know: very little

a funny bit, it IS legal to download music in canada! seems like the canadian equivalent to the RIAA shoot themselves in the foot a few years back. all CDs are charged a 5 cents tax to pay for it. i almost fell off my chair

Re:what bothers me. (5, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905640)

collage students etc

Not just collage students! Papier mache students and bas-relief students too!

All the arts & craft students are at risk!
;-)

Horror Movie (3, Funny)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905672)

Is that people like parents, kids who dont know better, collage students etc, are going to give out this information willingly.

It'll be like watching those horror movies, where you see some dumb guy walking into the deserted house, going "Dude? You in here?," then gets hacked to death. Or maybe like one of those poor redshirts from Star Trek, who wander off and get eaten by the Space Wedgie.

Point is, most of us know better. We shake our heads and laugh that somebody would be dumb enough to try this. But somebody will.

I'm reminded of that demotivational poster, which shows the wreckage of a ship in shallow water, and has a caption: "Mistakes: It may be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."

free songs (-1, Troll)

chimpo13 (471212) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905535)

So once again, I need to say, visit my site and get Star Trek punk rock songs for free. [nokilli.com] Recorded live to 2 track but hey, they're free and they're about Star Trek. Man oh man, I'm a geek. I wanted a slashdot sticker for my bass for when we were filmed for Trekkies 2 [trekkies2.com], but I never got one.

Makes sense (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905539)

You sign a document where you admit you illegally shared Metallica songs, under the condition that the RIAA not ever sue you.

Then Metallica sues you.

It's a sucker deal. Not to mention that you're also agreeing to refrain from engaging in lawful behavior as well!

Re:Makes sense (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905706)

This sounds like such a sucker deal that it shouldn't even be legal... afterall, a contract requires both sides to exchange value. You're offering a confession and an agreement not to do some legal things, and what exactly are they offering again... a promise not to sue from somebody who lacked the authority to sue?

heheh (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905540)

what moron would put anything in writing admitting
their guilt to the RIAA? .. for those of you who
Were thinking about doing it - you're all a pack
of fucking morons and you deserve to

choke on your own vomit

what amazes me the most ... (3, Interesting)

Dreadlord (671979) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905541)

... is how RIAA copyrighted stuff (movies, albums, etc) get shared on KaZaA and other P2P programs as soon as they are released, and sometimes even before! (the case of albums), if they can't protect their stuff in the first place, why are they suing people?

Suing is all they can do... (1)

PoisonousPhat (673225) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905680)

if they can't protect their stuff in the first place, why are they suing people?

Probably because litigation is the only action the RIAA seems to be willing to take. They have can't seem to protect their stuff; as soon as some new "protection" device is established, someone inevitably finds a way to defeat or circumvent it (I found the black marker [wired.com] trick the most amusing of these circumventions). They obviously won't just let everyone get away with file sharing. In my opinion, the sensible and probably inevitable option will have to be a reworking of the entire business model of music retailing, an idea that large corporations like record companies and organizations like the RIAA have been slow to embrace.

Re:what amazes me the most ... (2, Insightful)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905693)

if they can't protect their stuff in the first place, why are they suing people?

Why would a drowning man clutch at a straw?

The RIAA is fighting a losing battle and they know it. They are desparate, stabbing around in the dark, hoping to find something, anything, that will stick. Why else would they attempt to link P2P to child pornography?

You'd almost think the RIAA and Gray Davis have the same advisors.

Other helpful advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905545)

"If you or anyone you know was contemplating handing over information to the RIAA, you may think twice."

Hmm.. If the first thought led someone to the conclusion that they should participate in RIAA Amnesty, then I might want to clear some distance before that person thinks a second time...

./ed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905551)

U.S. privacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation is warning individuals not to admit to illegally trading copyright music online, even if the music industry offers a reprieve from its anti-piracy campaign, saying that users could still be subject to legal action.

Advertisement

The EFF issued a statement Friday in response to several published reports that the Recording Industry Association of America was set to launch an "amnesty" program this week, in which it would excuse users who swapped copyright music online if they erased the music from their computers, destroyed all hard copies, sent in a picture of themselves in a goatse-like pose and promised not to engage in future online piracy.

"Stepping into the spotlight to admit your guilt is probably not a sensible course for most people sharing music files online, especially since the RIAA doesn't control many potential sources of lawsuits," EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer said in the statement.
Change In Tactics

The RIAA, which had been targeting peer-to-peer file trading networks in its efforts to battle online piracy, has recently set its sights on individual file traders. The association has filed over 1,000 information subpoenas, asking Internet service providers and universities to hand over data on users thought to be illegally trading music online.

The stepped-up campaign has sparked concern among some privacy groups, individuals, and ISPs that are reluctant to hand over private customer data. Verizon Services, for example, fought for a year to protect the identities of four of its customers but lost its appeal in June.

In August an anonymous Californian woman filed a motion challenging a subpoena asking her ISP to hand over her identity. The case, refered to as the "Jane Doe" motion, was the first time an individual has struck back against the subpoena campaign.
New Plan

With criticism of the music industry's latest legal tactics increasing, reports surfaced last week that the RIAA would be offering an amnesty program for individual file traders.

An RIAA representative refused to comment on the reports Monday. The group has scheduled a press conference call to announce "anti-piracy initiatives" at 12 p.m. Eastern time Monday, however.

In addition to RIAA officials, "leaders from throughout the music community" will be participating in the call, an RIAA press advisory said.

The RIAA announcement comes in the wake of news that the U.S. Congress will be holding hearings on the subpoena provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been the legal backbone of the RIAA's subpoena campaign.

According to the EFF, 95 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and major ISPs, sent letters to congressional leaders applauding the hearings because of their concerns with the provision, which they say invade the privacy of Internet users without due process of law.

The RIAA, for its part, has held that the 1998 DMCA clearly lays out the right of copyright holders to file subpoenas seeking the identity of alleged infringers.

Addressing the issue recently, Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs at the RIAA, said that courts have already ruled that individuals are not anonymous when they publicly distribute music online.

Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905664)

Look for the following line:

"sent in a picture of themselves in a goatse-like pose"

Well no duh... (2, Interesting)

Stephonovich (601356) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905552)

Seems to me you'd have to be pretty stupid to admit guilt. I mean, if they don't already know you're file-swapping, it's bloody unlikely they will in the future. (unless you're doing really massive trading, of course)

Of course, I stopped using P2P quite a bit ago. IRC works just as well, if not better, and you have access to better quality files, to boot. And the RIAA doesn't (yet) track it.

(-:Stephonovich:-)

Re:Well no duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905591)

The only reason they don't track IRC is because

1. The majority of people don't use it.
2. The people that use IRC are much more determined to get files then people that just do a search on KaZaA, they'll get them somehow, Joe Sixpack isn't going to do much more then a search or two.

ummmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905553)

not to troll but...

I don't think any of us is stupid enough to even contemplate getting this 'amnesty'.

Beyond Captain Obvious (4, Insightful)

tarnin (639523) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905555)

While this really is a "Thank you Captain Obvious!" statement, it is nice to know where the EFF stands. While so many other lawyers are out there drooling over the opportunity to scrape up wads of cash at the RIAA's biding, these guys come right out and tell people that the RIAA is full of crap.

Only thing is I wish more non-techy people even know the EFF existed. I told my mom about this as she had heard all about the RIAA and this new amesty thing from the local news, she had no idea who the EFF was. Apparently the news is only running the RIAA's side of the story. No great suprise here but it kind of limits the impact of their statment now doesnt it?

Re:Beyond Captain Obvious (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905698)

The fact is, for all the news organizations reporting the RIAA's offer, I've seen very few report the EFF's response... apparently there's some segment of the population that needs to be rescued by Captain Obvious.

Re:Beyond Captain Obvious (2, Insightful)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905727)

Apparently the news is only running the RIAA's side of the story.

Follow the money.

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the major media outlets are either RIAA and/or MPAA members, or subsidiaries of members. And even without that, whose side do you think they'd pick? The EFF?

Re:Beyond Captain Obvious (3, Insightful)

Militant Libertarian (696302) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905728)

Apparently the news is only running the RIAA's side of the story.

Well who runs the news.. let's see here there's CNN (owned by AOL TW), ABC (owned by Disney), and probably several other companies that also own record labels.

Do you know anyone NOT on slashdot that heard of the price fixing scandal by the record labels? There aren't many, and that's because the conventional TV news sources didn't cover the story, even though it accounted for more than $60million in losses for the record companies that year.. And the news was (and is) refering to the drop in revenues to be the fault of piracy.. every. stinking. time.

Re:Beyond Captain Obvious (1)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905755)

Actually, at least in my area (central NC), there was a story on local CBS affiliate WRAL, and I saw at least 1 one report on CNN... although, now that I think about it, it could have just been a ticker at the bottom. I did not, however, see anything in the print news...

Not trying to troll (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905561)

I'm really trying to figure out why the EFF is spending so much time on this. There are a lot of really scary things out there (the DMCA for one), that don't involve helping defend bigtime copyright infringers. (Note: copyright infringer here is defined as someone who willfully shares copyrighted works, not fair use copiers, or even downloaders. The indicted today are, AFAIK, bigtime distributers of music to many people they probably don't know) I understand that some of the previous cases have been indirect infringers, but these seem to be more appropriate. If I remember, the /. community was advocating this when they were taking down Napster (via the legal system).

I'll say it one time. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905566)

The public reaction to the lawsuits needs to be loud and clear--

Boycott [boycot-riaa.com].

And it needs to be directed not just towards the RIAA, which is a lobbying industry group meant to be considered separately in the mind of the public from the actual companies [riaa.com].

I think maybe a targetted boycott campaign against not the RIAA blanket company, but a particular member (chosen randomly) would wake them all up. Put some direct pressure on one pillar, somethign that will hurt, and maybe they'll start to get the message.

A month-long focused boycott of a single RIAA member company-- recording division only-- Internet-wide. Think of the media attention that would get! Then the next month, a new company...

Just a thought. Anyone wanna pick up the ball?

Re:I'll say it one time. (4, Insightful)

Mike Hawk (687615) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905699)

I'd just like to point out here, that for said boycott to be taken seriously by the public at large (which you need to be effective), that members actively participating in said lawsuit should probably not get caught sharing copyrighted files.

Continuing to share files and getting caught could be construed by the RIAA to show that you don't really care about whats "right" and that you just want free stuff. This would kill all of the positive publicity and could taint the whole group in the eyes of the public at large (see Greenpeace and some of their more fringe actions.) For this to be effective, the participants will need to show that what they are doing is unquestionably "right". Just look at (a grossly oversimplified) history in the US. Cop punches protester unprovoked = public sympathy and outcry = laws get changed, constitution gets amendments. Cop beats the sh*t out of protester after getting hit with a bottle = no sympathy = public becomes entrenched AGAINST said cause.

I'd participate under those conditions.

Hand over your enemies... (4, Interesting)

gnovos (447128) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905577)

Go ahead and hand over the information... Just not YOUR information. Instead try handing over the names of the sons and daughters of your favorite senator. Maybe that will finally put an end to the mess once and for all.

Re:Hand over your enemies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905689)

Make sure it's some reactionary puss hole, like Hatch or Gregg or Furst or Lott or Lugar. For a list go here [senate.gov]. I can't wait til the 'real" RIAA form comes out.

True colo(u)rs (1, Flamebait)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905578)

Seems to me like the EFF just lost its last shred of credibility.

There has always been a pretense that they were defending against the RIAA, MPAA, etc, because they wanted to protected the innocent bystanders. But now they've come straight out and said "if you're doing something illegal then don't admit it". Plain and simple, defending the guilty.

You do realise that the RIAA will win this war, don't you? :-)

Cool, just checking.

Re:True colo(u)rs (1)

Tony-A (29931) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905691)

"if you're doing something illegal then don't admit it"

Sounds like standard legal advice.
Among other things, you're likely to admit to something you didn't do.

Re:True colo(u)rs (1)

Razor Blades are Not (636247) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905710)


It's not a case of defending the guilty, it's a case of defending your rights.

Admitting something that is not yet proven is a way of giving up some of your rights. Standard legal advice is to say as little as possible, unless there is a clear benefit to you to do otherwise. The onus of proof remains on the plaintiff.

Re:True colo(u)rs (3, Interesting)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905742)

No. The EFF doesn't support copyright infrinement. But they think that being sued and put in jail is far too harsh considering that it's just people shareing music for private use. The punishment should fit the crime as they say. The EFF are also annoyed because the RIAA aren't really looking for proper solution (ala iTunes) to their obvious problem.

MOD PARENT DOWN! (1, Troll)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905743)

Insightful? Come on...how about troll

You do realise that the RIAA will win this war, don't you? :-)

So by win do you mean never having a large majority of people listen to any of their prepackaged crap? This time I cant help but feed the troll...I share PLENTY of files online, and the plain fact is all of it is LEGAL. There is not ONE single piece of music I own, or listen to that will support that trade group or their member labels. Sure its a hard line position, but Im thankful that my standard for what is good music has gone up by orders of magnitudes since that time. What am I missing again? when I turned off the crap it was all brittney spears and eminem.

Although your rephrasing another party on their own viewpoints is a little presumptious, its not all that suprising. FACT is, the statement is not to ADMIT to illegally sharing files. Its a strongarm tactic, nothing new. If you are arrested and cave into the threats of cops on the beat and admit to a crime just to get them to leave you alone even though you are innocent, you can still be tried and found guilty based on that confession. The legal ignorance in this country is frightening.

So in your logic.. (2, Funny)

Adam9 (93947) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905776)

The next time you're driving 41 on a 40 mph road, change your direction, and head over to the nearest police station to turn yourself in. I'm sure they would really appreciate it.

And now, Deep Thoughts, with the EFF.... (3, Funny)

GrnArmadillo (697378) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905581)

Seriously, if the RIAA is good for its word and doesn't sue (or turn over to individual labels contact info for) anyone who files for amnesty (and stops downloading/listening to RIAA artists), what do they get out of this? Nothing really but another publicity stunt. And what does the person filing get? Well, if the RIAA already knew who they were, they're prolly being sued and thus ineligible, so all they're accomplishing is handing over a notarized admission of guilt. This one is a pretty much no-brainer. Though yesterday's User Friendly [userfriendly.org] prolly said it best....

P-R-O-B-A-B-L-Y (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6905602)

"prolly" is not a word. The word you are trying to spell is "probably".

Plz fx, kthx bye!

Public Service Announcement (5, Funny)

ChrisHanel (636741) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905583)

If you or anyone you know was contemplating handing over information to the RIAA,

...please try not to pass on your genetic map to offspring, and do us all a favor. Thank you for your cooperation.

RIAA's privacy policy (5, Informative)

SnowWolf2003 (692561) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905592)

This CNET [com.com] article on the topic points out one of the major flaws of the amnesty program.

"The group said it would not use the information gathered for marketing purposes or share it with any other group of copyright holders. Critics such as the EFF's von Lohmann dismissed the assurances, saying that the RIAA's privacy policy allowed the information to be shared if "required by law," a clause which could allow groups such as music publishers or Hollywood studios to subpoena the information from the RIAA to use in their own lawsuits."

Re:RIAA's privacy policy (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905677)

Even if that clause wasn't there, a supoena trumps any privacy policy... this smells so much like a setup this isn't even funny.

Who to hate more (5, Funny)

jdc180 (125863) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905605)

Aaarrgghh... who am i supposed to hate more, RIAA or SCO... maybe i'll get lucky and a microsoft story will be up next and complete the slashdot axis of evil :)

The frustration of current "IP" stuff. (3, Insightful)

EMN13 (11493) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905607)

I guess this is slightly offtopic; but with all this talk going on not only about the RIAA but also the software patents now in europe and DMCA etc etc etc, it's becomes hard not to notice the big pile of dung that copyrights et al seem to be causing. And for what? There's so many cool things one could do with a more relaxed information environment but instead, copyrights not only prevent this, but often, one of the original motivations behind copyright (namely that things get published at all) is rather side stepped. You can't learn anything from a compiled binary; yet nevertheless it enjoys copyright protection (effectively does in any case).

I don't think the right to exchange information is holy or somehow a human right which you're suggesting here. Consider slander, spam, or malicious information. Malicious information is for instance a virus, or even something as simple as telling a very gullible person that to cure his headache he merely needs to jump off that tower there...

Given the obvious advantages of free information flow (it is for instance the underpinning of a free market, and necessary also for a "democratic" society), I'ld say information should not be needlessly restricted unless there is a very good reason for it.

Supposedly, copyrights/patents are a required to encourage the production of new knowledge.

I would say it's clear that they do encourage some creation of knowledge. By their very nature, however, they also limit it's applicability and extension, therefore also discouraging the creation of such knowledge. Furthermore, I think a better system could be instituted.

Given that copyrights use market dynamics to encourage creation, whilst those dynamics work only in situations of scarcity, and that information itself (not the distribution thereof!) is not scarce, we can conclude that a system that tries to encourage new knowledge without enforcing scarcity would be optimal, as doing so would bring encouragement without destroying the actual point of the knowledge in the first place.

People regularly comment on the fact that communism (specifically in Russia) collapsed because it (it being the abstract administrative process that is communism) is a fundamentally bad match in the real world (in which resources are scarce). Generally it's not so widely noted that the same could be said of our current Intellectual Property mess.

Fortunately, we already have a mechanism to support non-scarce goods (aka social goods) in our society! Subsidizing knowledge production is a far superior solution... and we already do it to some extent with schools, art grants, universities, etc etc etc.

The question then becomes: how to divide such grants? I don't have an easy answer to that but a model ala de references by academic papers (or for that matter hyperlinks in the net) comes to mind.

To draw an analogy: in our current situation, knowledge is exclusively controlled by it's creator, which is comparable to how a completely "closed" internet portal would control its content and display information and news depending mostly on how much it can pay to create or buy that information from some news service or equivalent. The subsidized model which supports knowledge creation is more like the net at large with hyperlinks forming the votes for who's cool and who's not. Even without a framework specifically designed to support it, google seems capable to extract useful information from those votes :-).

Re:The frustration of current "IP" stuff. (1)

Mike Hawk (687615) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905709)

I cannot back a federal government subsidy like this, at least not in the US.
#1 Its not a power of Congress to do this.
I could go on, but #1 is enough for me.

We should have a bogus Amnesty filling in day. (1)

hashish (62254) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905694)

Were we all give them junk forms to process; one for each P2P user (all 200 million ).

How much do I owe (4, Funny)

QuackQuack (550293) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905724)

I downloaded an album called "Selections from the Linux kernel source code, set to music, with contributions from IBM"

I'm starting to feel guilty about doing this, and want to fess up, How much do I owe?

MPAA (5, Funny)

Asmodean (21717) | more than 10 years ago | (#6905759)

And of course the RIAA would *never* share this info with the MPAA to go after movie sharing... nope, not gonna happen.

err... hang on there's a knock at my door...

@$#^% [NO CARRIER]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...