RIAA offers file traders amnesty

[ibe98765]

A somewhat rambling but interesting column on this subject from the San Francisco columnist Jon Carroll:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../11/DD46077.DTL

Excellent article. He sure can write an article. And that was a short one compared with some articles I've read on the different aspects of this mess.

Jon Carroll has been around for a long while. He has a unique viewpoint on many things. Search out his bio and or his other columns at:http://www.sfgate.com/search/Just put his name in the byline box.

[Peachy]

In today's Toronto Star Business section there is a story called Canadian file sharers' risk low.

But even if the Canadian recording industry was successful in tracking down the identity of suspected music pirates, it's unclear whether any legal challenge would succeed. That's because the federal Copyright Act was amended in 1997 to create a levy on all blank recordable media, essentially allowing all Canadians to legally copy music as long as it's for personal use."When they did that, it meant it was legal for me to buy a CD and copy it for my own use," said David Canton, a lawyer with Harrison Pensa LLP in London, Ont. and co-author of Legal Landmines In E-commerce."It's also legal for you to lend me your CD and for me to copy it for my own use. So in Canada, it's my belief — and this hasn't been tested in court — that it would be legal for people to download."Still, he said people who download music would likely be treated differently from people who make songs available on the Internet so that other people can download them. The language of the act forbids "distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade."The big question that a Canadian court would have to decide is whether a user of Kazaa, Morpheus or similar services, by creating a folder on their PC from which other users on the Internet can download songs, is actively and knowingly engaging in distribution."As long as Canadians don't provide any files and are only downloading, the theory is that the private copying exemption would cover that activity," said Geist. "It comes down to whether you're authorizing someone else to make a copy."

The physical copy of the paper also had a photo of Brianna LaHara, the 12-year old who was sued by the RIAA, which you won't see on the web site, because of copyright restrictions.

[havnblast]

Wow, so it sounds like in Canada it is perfectly safe to download music, just don't provide music to others. No Fair - hmmmm I am only 17 miles from Canada maybe I could just move

[ibe98765]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/opinion/12FRI2.htmlNYTimes.com > Opinion Suing Music DownloadersSuing a 12-year-old girl for illegal file sharing is hardly a way to generate good press. But the music industry was intentionally "playing the heavy," in the words of its main lobbying group, when it filed lawsuits this week against Brianna LaHara and 260 other alleged online music swappers. Music companies are right to aggressively pursue people, even minors, who steal their products, but that alone will not solve their problems. They need to change how they do business, and fast, if they want to survive in the 21st century.Music sales are slumping, with shipments of recorded music down 26 percent since 1999. The reasons are many, ranging from the growing popularity of DVD's and computer games, which compete for young people's discretionary dollars, to the hefty price tags the industry now slaps on CD's. But the 11 million homes now actively sharing files, through Napster successors like KaZaA and WinMX, are a big part of the problem. One analyst estimates that file sharing costs $700 million a year in lost sales.This week's lawsuits represent the industry's best legal strategy. The courts have ruled that file-swapping services like KaZaA cannot be sued directly because, unlike Napster, they do not keep a central directory of music files available for copying. Instead, the industry is focusing its legal firepower on individuals who "share" music through these services.Some downloaders have reacted angrily to the lawsuits, claiming that they did not know swapping music files was illegal, or that it is justified by high CD prices. But stealing is stealing, online or in a store, and this theft has real victims. It robs artists of their livelihoods and, by changing the economics of the industry, makes it harder for new acts to break in. The only way for the industry to defend itself is to litigate hard, and publicly, against the copyright infringers.But it also needs to adapt to the times. Consumers do not want to pay $18 or $19 for a single CD, a steep price in absolute terms and when compared with other forms of entertainment, like DVD's, which offer more bang for the buck. Universal Music Group's recent decision to reduce prices as much as 30 percent stands as an example for other companies to follow.The industry also needs to improve its technology. File swappers get their music online not only because it is free, but also because it is convenient. Consumers want to get the music they want in their homes, immediately, and they don't want to be forced to buy a whole CD to get a song they like. Online music stores, which keep prices down by eliminating CD's, packaging, delivery and bricks-and-mortar stores, are the wave of the future. Apple announced this week that its iTunes Music Store, which was introduced four months ago, has sold its 10 millionth song, proving that consumers will pay (in this case 99 cents a song) for online music if it is presented the right way.Music companies can, and should, keep hiring copyright lawyers to protect their intellectual property. But only programmers working on better delivery systems, and executives developing better pricing models, can save the industry.

[Guest LilBambi]

Yes, there are always several sides to any issue ... and the economy is just rosey too!RIAA Amnesty: Deceptive Business Practice?

Eric Parke, a 37-year-old mortgage broker, says in a lawsuit filed in Marin County Superior Court in San Rafael that the amnesty offer is "hollow and deceptive" and provides "no real legally binding assurance" that those who sign the amnesty offer will not be sued at some later date by copyright owners. "There's little of anything in the amnesty offer that's legally binding on the part of the RIAA," Ira B. Rothken, Parke's San Rafael-based attorney, told internetnews.com. The lawsuit claims the RIAA amnesty consists of "deceptive and misleading representations by the RIAA including a 'guarantee not to sue' file sharers designed to induce members of the general public ... to incriminate themselves and provide the RIAA and others with actionable admissions of wrong-doing under penalty of perjury while members of the general public actually receive ... no legally binding release of claims and no actual 'amnesty' from litigation in return." The RIAA's actual amnesty agreement states that in exchange for admitting to past copyright infringements and agreeing to delete "from my computer(s) and storage devices (including portable devices) all copyrighted sound recordings downloaded, copied or shared using P2P networks," the RIAA agrees "not to support or assist in any copyright infringement against me based on these past activities."

Lawsuit Attacks RIAA Amnesty Plan

The amnesty offer from the music industry to its file-swapping fans will not shield them from lawsuits, according to a new legal complaint filed in California. Touted as an olive branch to file traders, the so-called Clean Slate agreement could result in legal claims from parties not represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, which announced the program last week, a lawyer said."When you read between the headlines, the legal documents do not provide any real amnesty from lawsuits and do not provide any real clean slate," said Ira Rothken, an attorney who is representing Eric Parke, a private citizen who filed the claim. "The legal document does not even provide for a release of claims against suits brought by RIAA members."

RIAA amnesty offer dismissed as 'sham'

"The RIAA cannot actually protect anyone from all civil suits, and individuals who sign these affidavits may open themselves up to criminal prosecution," the EFF said. It pointed out that the RIAA amnesty only offered protection against RIAA lawsuits. Additionally, signing an RIAA affidavit could expose an individual to criminal liability and even this affidavit may not save one from the RIAA. "While the RIAA claims that this is an amnesty programme, it doesn't actually have the authority to grant real protections from civil lawsuits. It doesn't own any copyrights, and its member labels aren't bound by this arrangement," the EFF said. "In addition to the civil suits, a signed admission of guilt could make you a target for criminal prosecution under the No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act). "The RIAA's offer only applies to people who have not been sued or are not 'under investigation.' Unless you are 100 percent sure that you are not on the RIAA's hit list (and there is no way to be sure), it is extremely risky to send them a signed declaration when they could still sue you and use your own words against you," the foundation said.

Senator: Beware RIAA's Amnesty Offer

"The newly proposed 'amnesty' is clearly a strategy by the industry to address some of the concerns I and others have had in this matter," Coleman said in a statement. "But, it raises new issues that require careful analysis and review. An amnesty that could involve millions of kids submitting and signing legal documents that plead themselves guilty to the Recording Industry Association of America may not be the best approach to achieving a balance between protecting copyright laws and punishing those who violate those laws."

If you like a little humour with that, there were some humerous sites as well in the following Google.com/News search on RIAA amnesty (results referred to here are for 9/12/2003).

[Peachy]

As I was driving into work this morning listening to CBC Radio when they played an "apologetic" song on behalf of file sharers everywhere. I liked this line:

... Eminem I'm so sorry for ripping you off so I'll stop. Now you can afford to buy your son a gun for Christmas ...

[Prelude76]

Music companies can, and should, keep hiring copyright lawyers to protect their intellectual property. But only programmers working on better delivery systems, and executives developing better pricing models, can save the industry.

It robs artists of their livelihoods and, by changing the economics of the industry, makes it harder for new acts to break in. The only way for the industry to defend itself is to litigate hard, and publicly, against the copyright infringers.

- ok, let me catch me breath from all this laughing at right. 12 year old downloading her favorite britney spears songs is going to KILL THE ENITRE MUSIC INDUSTRY. yeah, ok. pop another pill, eh? reality check! reality check! 1. all this money being ROBBED from 12 year old girls and average joes and normal WORKING people is going straight to overpriced well-to-do $250,000+ / year lawyers of the RIAA. 2. "changing the economics of the industry, makes it harder for new acts to break in." on which planet is this referring to? if anything, if the entire RIAA multi-billion dollar industry collapsed tomorrow, as the article seems will happen if something is not done, new unknown indie bands will flourish on the internet. the RIAA controls what you hear on all their syndicated controlled radio stations, all their syndicated controlled music video stations, music stores, concert venues, movie soundtracks, etc... if you take all that crap away, a very talented but unsigned artist will have a MUCH better chance at becoming famous than these made-to-suit boy bands with no talent other than knowing how to dress nice, wear their hair nice, and spin around in a choreaographed fashion.3. "The only way for the industry to defend itself is to litigate hard, and publicly, against the copyright infringers." what about : - lower CD prices, at least half the price of current DVDs - launch a good quality service, where ALL songs are included, for a lot less than $1 a song (maybe 25cents or less if you buy more) - stop restricting peoples' rights when they do purchase songs; allow ebay trading, take out DRM and copying technologies - start paying your artists more than 10 cents out of every CD; we want to support THEM, not the lawyers of the RIAA - change the copyright laws so after 5 years of an artist's death, all his work is PUBLIC DOMAIN and free. i dont want a world where executives live the life of luxury just because they had enough dough to purchase someone else's copyrights for the next 150 years (michael jackson owns quite a few Beatles songs, FYI. so buy buying Beatles albums, you're giving money to a freak, or to Yoko Ono. think about that)anyways, thanks for the laugh. it made my day.

[nlinecomputers]

Question what do you mean by "allow ebay trading"? Do you mean reselling CDs or do you mean allowing you to sell CDs that you burned yourself. I have no problem with the first but the second is true piracy and counterfeiting and that I do have a problem with. The whole point of a copyright is to give limited rights to the author to determine how his copies are being distributed. You say a copyright should be 5 years after death. I say it should be a flat number of years period. Why is a song more valuable if the author lives 50 years versus some dude that ODs and is gone in a year? The old guy can write more songs then the dead one who is out of the business. I'm a strong believer that copyrights should be fixed and limited and STRONGLY protected. Piracy defeats that, so does changing the rules as we have often done.

[Prelude76]

Question what do you mean by "allow ebay trading"?  Do you mean reselling CDs or do you mean allowing you to sell CDs that you burned yourself.

actually, neither. i was referring to the guy who tried to sell an iTune song he purchased for $1 from Apple, and ebay blocked him from selling it. he was trying to prove a point, not to make a buck or whatever. regardless of copyrights, you are allowed to sell anything you purchased WITHOUT having to get approval from the copyright holder. since iTunes can be purchased, it falls into that category as a resellable property item, yet the industry (or ebay, in this case) still treats it like a digital copy and not a real item.

[nlinecomputers]

Prelude,The problem is how do you prove that he is only selling his only copy? If I sell a CD that I bought you can see the packaging and know that it is the orignal item. Sure you can fake it but that is covered under the counterfeiting laws. For a pure digital item is impossible to determine if you are selling the orginal downloaded item or selling a copy. It can only be an honor system of which most people will abuse so as a copyright holder I would be unwilling to approve of it. As a copyright holder I have the right to control and limit the number of copies of an item produced in order to hopefully inflate it's price and to charge what ever I wish for a copy of my program, my song, my book, my photo, my whatever, and not be undercut AND robbed by someone that takes my product and replicates it to the world.

[Stryder]

Even if someone is selling the original CD, who is to say they did not rip and burn themselves a copy first? So I guess the honor system applies no matter what.

[nlinecomputers]

Which is why your finding publishers going after used CD stores and the like.Honestly though if the prices were low enough would there BE a market for used CDs or mp3s?

[Guest LilBambi]

If I buy a CD, record, carton of eggs, shirt, whatever ... If I want to sell it, I can.They have no right coming going for after market sellers <_ next ... the garage sale police just kidding here lol are right if pricing was better there href="http://news.com.com/2100-1023_3-244195.html?tag=mainstry">price fixing suit that is still unfolding about that) .... but the point is they wouldn't have had to sue their customers to take care of that one LOL!

Edited September 12, 2003 by LilBambi

[Stryder]

Which is why your finding publishers going after used CD stores and the like.Honestly though if the prices were low enough would there BE a market for used CDs or mp3s?

I know it is happening..... but going after them (used CD stores) for what???? That should be the question. They already made their money off the original sale of the CD's. Using that logic Ford, Chevy, etc. should be able to go after used car lots. If the record companies were offering a product for a price that was considered a good value then there probably would not be a market for used CDs....or at least the market would be so small that it would not matter.

[Jeber]

Using that logic Ford, Chevy, etc. should be able to go after used car lots.

I'm betting the labels would argue that vehicles don't have an original artist who also expects royalties from sales of a car/truck...like the music industry does. The fact they pay minimal royalties to their artists would be ignored.The only thing I have to add to this discussion is, that after 9 years in music retail...the activity I saw daily that cut into our sales more than any other was CD copying, not downloading. It's been said before, downloaded music usually doesn't have near the quality of music from disk. and seldom do people download entire albums. Sales of singles were affected by downloading, but those sales were going down already. But when someone with a CD burner comes into the store, buys the latest Seal album and a spindle of 50 blank CD-R's...that store just potentially lost $1000 in sales. 5 of those a day, and some of the smaller stores just lost their entire day's sales.My final thought...the label's greed, either in high CD prices or litigation, is the main reason we even have this issue before us.

[nlinecomputers]

I know it is happening..... but going after them (used CD stores) for what???? That should be the question. They already made their money off the original sale of the CD's. Using that logic Ford, Chevy, etc. should be able to go after used car lots.

That is not the same. You can't replicate a car, you can a CD. If I copy a CD then that is one sale that the orignal copyright holder has no ablility to get any money off of. That person is not going to go to the CD store and buy the same CD he just got a ripped copy of. As Jeber said it's CD burning that is hurting the industry. And I predict that we will get CD quality music files in the next five years. If that happends then the music industry as we know it will be dead.(Not a bad thing but we don't have a workable replacement IMO.)

[Guest LilBambi]

My final thought...the label's greed, either in high CD prices or litigation, is the main reason we even have this issue before us.

Sad but true

[Peachy]

Just to bring some focus to what we're arguing about, I just want to say that the late Johnny Cash (died September 11, 2003, age 71), was one of America's best singer/songwriters. He ranks up there with Hank Williams, Chuck Berry and Woody Guthrie.

[Guest LilBambi]

He sure does Peachy ... it is a very sad day

[Cluttermagnet]

Just to bring some focus to what we're arguing about, I just want to say that the late Johnny Cash (died September 11, 2003, age 71), was one of America's best singer/songwriters. He ranks up there with Hank Williams, Chuck Berry and Woody Guthrie. 

Yep. In the country music genre, he was a giant. BTW isn't that him doing the background vocal in that GE ad we see all over the networks? I'm talking about the one that shows a GE jet engine mounted atop the Wright brothers Kitty Hawk, NC flier. "Come take a trip in my airplane...we'll dance with the man in the moon". OK, to steer it back on thread, isn't it true that big name talent gets an 'enhancement' to their income by various crossover activities? I can think of a lot of talent I hear doing the background vocals (music or spoken word) in TV ads. And of course there's the athlete superhero endorsements of sneakers and movie star endorsements of telephone companies, etc. ad nauseum. Could it be that, for the artists at least, getting 'published' is mainly a means to an end, and the end is the big paydays from endorsements or 'narrations'.This does not, of course, address the problems of the various publishers and their attack dog organizations like RIAA and all their lawyers. I certainly care more about the artists' losses to piracy than I do about their industry organizations' losses. What RIAA and SCO are doing somewhat resembles the piracy _from_ individual inventors _by_ the organizations of their day. I'm thinking of the example of how totally Colonel Edwin Armstrong got ripped off by fat cat RCA in the early 20th century. The scenario never changes- the real creative sources get cheated by the middlemen. The music industry has blood on its hands so far as how shabbily they treat their captive artists _and_ their equally exploited customers. As far as I am concerned, they have been throwing stones in a glass house. Their greed will be their ultimate undoing.

[havnblast]

Yes and only 4 months after his wife died, two great legends gone from the music world. Johnny Cash and John Ritter both dieing around same time. Sad about Ritter too, my god he was young.

[Stryder]

I know it is happening..... but going after them (used CD stores) for what???? That should be the question. They already made their money off the original sale of the CD's. Using that logic Ford, Chevy, etc. should be able to go after used car lots.

That is not the same. You can't replicate a car, you can a CD. If I copy a CD then that is one sale that the orignal copyright holder has no ablility to get any money off of. That person is not going to go to the CD store and buy the same CD he just got a ripped copy of. As Jeber said it's CD burning that is hurting the industry. And I predict that we will get CD quality music files in the next five years. If that happends then the music industry as we know it will be dead.(Not a bad thing but we don't have a workable replacement IMO.)

Look, I understand what you are saying and I understand what the record companies are saying. I was just being a smart ass with the Ford/used car thing. I personally think it is a bunch of crap. I just flat out disagree and think it is BS. If I buy a CD, I should have the right to resell it. If I buy 10,000 CDs I should have the right to resell them. That is all I am saying. And as a consumer, I disagree so much I refuse to support such business practices and will not purchase anything that says I can not resell something that I just spent my hard earned money on if I choose.

[Peachy]

Does anyone remember the Softman vs. Adobe case a couple of years ago? The gist of the California US Distric Court decision was that a shrink-wrapped software EULA cannot prevent the buyer from reselling the software when they've done with it as long as it is not a copy, but the original, and the original buyer hasn't kept a copy. A sale is a sale.

[havnblast]

But in the end we really don't own it to sell it - do we? When we purchase a CD, we are purchasing a license to use the software. According to that I could buy a bunch of software and turn around and sell it for whatever, even tho it is the manufacturers software and it is sealed with the original cd and I have no copy.Getting back to music: like someone mentioned earlier - we have all over paid on multiple purchases of the same album - from Album on up to CD - will the RIAA refund us?

[ibe98765]

Does anyone remember the Softman vs. Adobe case a couple of years ago? The gist of the California US Distric Court decision was that a shrink-wrapped software EULA cannot prevent the buyer from reselling the software when they've done with it as long as it is not a copy, but the original, and the original buyer hasn't kept a copy. A sale is a sale.

In reading the links you provided, it appears that this decision, which may have been appealed by now, applies to software bundled with hardware and also applies ONLY if you haven't installed the software. I believe their have been other cases where the manufacturers have won. Specifically, if you buy, say, a full copy of MS Windows, then at some point in the future, buy an upgrade and apply it, you cannot {legally} sell the original full copy.

[ibe98765]

My final thought...the label's greed, either in high CD prices or litigation, is the main reason we even have this issue before us.

We are all greedy in one way or another. Many love to shop at the big-box stores like Home Depot, Costco, Ikea, etc to get lower prices and better selections. But then we complain that all the little stores that we previously brought from are no longer in business and our local downtowns are ghost towns or taxes are higher because the locals have gone out of business. That is greed in a way. When we do buy CD's, we buy them from Amazon or CDNow because the prices are generally lower than at Tower or Virgin. We scour the internet looking for bargains instead of paying a bit more at our local store.I went to the movies today (it was too hot in Northern CA today) and paid $6.25 for a matinee showing. I watched 15 minutes of previews and 3 advertisements before the show started. I never buy snacks in a movie but noticed that the popcorn is now selling for between $3.30 to $5.25 (small, medium, large). $3.30 for about 2 ounces of popped corn that cost the theater maybe $0.30? Now that's greedy! How about pizza? Some dough, cheese and tomato sauce. Maybe $1.00 worth of content. Your cost? $12-20 or so! That's greed.btw: Don't waste your time going to see Matchstick Men with Nicholas Cage. It's boring. I was looking at my watch 1 hour in and wondering how much longer this would go on for...

[Guest LilBambi]

Naw... we make our own pizza from scratch ... only costs a few dollars and tastes better than the pizza places ... they can't make pizza right in Virginia! (sorry, must be a north-east thing! LOL)

[Jeber]

I see a difference between thrift and greed. Thrift is simply trying to extend your allotted portion to it's maximum yield. Greed is taking more than your allotted portion. As long as I ask a fair price for my products or services, I'm not being greedy to try and make that profit go as far as possible. True, the desire to make my money go further sometimes hurts the small business person who can't sell for as cheap. I was one of those business people until recently. Sadly, I'm not so selfless that I will sacrifice my earnings to bolster all the small businesses in town. I do what I can. But if I charged you a far higher than reasonable price, just so that I didn't have to ever be thrifty, that becomes greed. Like the theater popcorn, candy bars, drinks... I surprised they don't have quarter stalls in the rest rooms.

[ibe98765]

OK, how about a little song parody? "R.I.A.A." by William Tong http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/thevill...epeople10.shtml

[Jeber]

If lawsuits don't do the trick, perhaps this solution will.