This has got to be one of the funniest things I have seen in a while.
quote: According to sources, the RIAA will not pursue legal action if infringers delete all unauthorized music files from their computers, destroy all copies (including CD-Rs) and promise not to upload such material in the future. Each infringing household member will have to send a completed, notarized amnesty form to the RIAA, with a copy of a photo ID. Those who renege on their promise will be subject to charges of willful copyright infringement.
Anyone can see right through this. If you sign up for the amnesty program out of fear that you will get in trouble, you are admitting that downloading music is, in fact, copyright infringement. Then, as soon as you download something later on, they can nab you since you've already admitted that it is wrong.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
But it is copyright infringement...
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
depends. If you own the song on a CD that you bought, you can download as many copies of that song as you wish, for back up purposes of course.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, no, legally if you own a cd you can make a backup copy from that. I don't think there's anything that says you can get it from anywhere you want.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Says who??? One was always allowed to make copies of inventions and writings for personal use. The prohibition was against making copies for commercial gain. Just because known thieves (RIAA) can bribe jerks into saying otherwise doesn't make their mugging attempts legal.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
*clamps hand over mouth*
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Yes, you can make copies. You can't go get copies, or buy copies, and you're not supposed to distribute the copies you make.
Which means that technically, making a mix disc and giving it to a friend is illegal. But the recording industry knows that trying to enforce that is a) impossible, b) stupid, and c) counterproductive, since it gets them more listeners in the long run.
Downloading copies is benefiting from illegal distribution. Like knowingly buying stolen goods at a pawn shop. You didn't steal it, you even paid for it, but you're encouraging the practice.
Edited to add: I should also mention that I do not agree with the RIAA's habits, pricing structures, or attitudes, nor do I cast moral judgments over downloaders. I just insist that if you're going to steal, steal, don't waste my time trying to justify it or explain why it's not really stealing. And the amnesty program has got ot be one of the most boneheaded PR moves I've ever seen.
[ September 05, 2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And you mistake my motivations entirely: I have never downloaded music. In fact the instant I realize that a link I've hit leads to a download, I immediately cancel it. I keep my speakers turned off. To me, music over the internet is more annoying than pop-up ads. I've never recorded even a single broadcast, either radio or television.
However, I do object to muggings. And the RIAA is doing nothing other than using its power, its financial clout, in an attempt to claim property rights it has never enjoyed.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm afraid that there we disagree. Copyrighted material cannot be distributed without permission from the copyright holder. That's what copyright means. That's what they're trying to block, the distribution of the material. Someone making copies is nothing. Someone distributing copies, even without charging, is a copyright violation, and must be challenged.
When the people stealing your stuff are untouchable, smarter than you are, and number in the hundreds of millions, what recourse do you have?
The heavy-handed way they're going about it is probably the only way they have open to them if they plan to continue marketing the way they are. They have to scare people into not downloading music, because there's no way they could possibly stop all the downloaders from doing it. I think they're desperate, and it shows.
Personally I think they'd be better off drastically changing their practices and making it more convenient and enjoyable for consumers to buy from them, but they don't seem disposed to listen to that sort of reasoning...
[ September 05, 2003, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
The whole issue of copyright and fair use is a lot more complicated than most people realize. I just finished reading a book called Copyright's Highway that I recommend for anyone interested in the issue.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes; copyright is an extremely complicated field, which IMNSHO congress has butchered lately.
On the subject of amnesty, DON'T TAKE IT!
The only case in which this would be beneficial is if you are one of the small number of people whom the RIAA has just targetted but not subpoena'd yet.
Consider the matrix for all people who have infringed copyright in the past (the only people this matters for):
Signs RIAA thing, no infringment in the future: gets off clean
Doesn't sign RIAA thing, no infringement in future: gets off clean (excpet for the .0000001% or less the RIAA is about to subpoena).
Signs the RIAA thing, infringes in the future: the RIAA both has better odds of finding you (they can check up by searching for your name and then scanning networks you are on), though this is a negligible risk, and if they do find you in the future they are going to crush you as an example. They'll have taken care of half their case just by having that piece of paper you signed.
Doesn't sign the RIAA thing, infringes in the future: the RIAA has no in to find you, and in court they have an uphill battle to get a large penalty, as there are numerous mitigating arguments you can make with regard to ignorance and good intentions in civil lawsuits.
If you are absolutely certain you won't infringe in the future, go ahead and sign. But if you're already sharing files now, odds are you'll give in to temptaion at some point and do so again. Plus, there are many legal ways to share music (certain being under a license that allows sharing, for instance), and signing one of these may result in the RIAA hassling you a lot until/unless you can prove what you did was legal.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I've never recorded even a single broadcast, either radio or television.
You are extremely honest!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It's perfectly legal to make such recordings. There are some caveats, particular with regard to television recordings, but making them is perfectly legal and has been upheld in the highest court.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Extremely honest or just doesn't know how, like me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You're missing the point. It's legal to make them. It's not legal to distribute them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I fully follow that. I was responding to Teshi's post, which assumes there is something dishonest about making them.
. . . of course, you could be commenting on Teshi's post here and not mine, as I have assumed. Oh, the tangled posts we weave!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You are extremely honest!