Riaa Wants To Make A Truce...
<div class="IPBDescription">MY ****!</div> <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/05/music.amnesty.ap/index.html' target='_blank'>RIAA Truce? (CNN.com)</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WASHINGTON (AP) -- The recording industry is expected to announce as early as next week an amnesty program for people who admit they illegally share music files across the Internet, promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission and pledge to delete the songs off their computers.
The offer of amnesty will not apply to the roughly 1,600 people who already have been targets of copyright subpoenas from the Recording Industry Association of America, which has promised to file hundreds of infringement lawsuits across the country as early as next week.
Sources who described the proposal Thursday spoke on condition of anonymity. A spokeswoman for the RIAA, Amy Weiss, declined to comment.
Risky agreement
The RIAA's offer would require Internet users to complete a notarized amnesty form that includes promises to delete any illegally downloaded music and not participate in illegal file-trading in the future. In exchange, the RIAA would agree not to file a potentially expensive infringement lawsuit.
"I'll be curious to see how many opt for this," said Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, who has criticized the RIAA's use of copyright subpoenas. "It will be an interesting measure of how much fear the recording industry has managed to inject into the American public."
Von Lohmann cautioned that the RIAA doesn't represent all copyright owners and therefore couldn't guarantee an Internet user wouldn't be sued for infringement by others, despite what amounts to an admission of guilt.
"It's not the kind of agreement that most people's lawyers will embrace," he said.
But the amnesty offer could serve to soften the RIAA's brass-knuckle image once the earliest lawsuits are filed, giving nervous college students and others an opportunity to avoid similar legal problems if they confess to online copyright infringement.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.......
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission and pledge to delete the songs off their computers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:yellow'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>*cough* bullsh*t</span></span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WASHINGTON (AP) -- The recording industry is expected to announce as early as next week an amnesty program for people who admit they illegally share music files across the Internet, promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission and pledge to delete the songs off their computers.
The offer of amnesty will not apply to the roughly 1,600 people who already have been targets of copyright subpoenas from the Recording Industry Association of America, which has promised to file hundreds of infringement lawsuits across the country as early as next week.
Sources who described the proposal Thursday spoke on condition of anonymity. A spokeswoman for the RIAA, Amy Weiss, declined to comment.
Risky agreement
The RIAA's offer would require Internet users to complete a notarized amnesty form that includes promises to delete any illegally downloaded music and not participate in illegal file-trading in the future. In exchange, the RIAA would agree not to file a potentially expensive infringement lawsuit.
"I'll be curious to see how many opt for this," said Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, who has criticized the RIAA's use of copyright subpoenas. "It will be an interesting measure of how much fear the recording industry has managed to inject into the American public."
Von Lohmann cautioned that the RIAA doesn't represent all copyright owners and therefore couldn't guarantee an Internet user wouldn't be sued for infringement by others, despite what amounts to an admission of guilt.
"It's not the kind of agreement that most people's lawyers will embrace," he said.
But the amnesty offer could serve to soften the RIAA's brass-knuckle image once the earliest lawsuits are filed, giving nervous college students and others an opportunity to avoid similar legal problems if they confess to online copyright infringement.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.......
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...promising not to sue them in exchange for their admission and pledge to delete the songs off their computers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:yellow'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>*cough* bullsh*t</span></span>
Comments
the RIAA should fargen lower ALL CD prices to 9.99 and they wouldnt have a problem. As far as that manesty crap goes, I hope no one is lame enough to incriminate themselves by signing a pice of paper saying they have illigal stuff.
Or you could just download for free <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I used to use Kazaa to get songs a long time ago, but I was usually stuck with badly remixed verrsions, or ones that would cut off in the middle of the song. Once in a while I'll look for some really obscure song, like a Beethoven techno remix or something, but usually I get my music from actual CDs, or mp3.com.
Rich p*nk
j/k
the riaa should really realise that 20 bucks per cd is rediculous
$20000000 is what you would get from a single platinum album selling for 20 mil
not to mention liscensing to movies, merchandise... advertizing franchises...
Good grief, people buy a can of Coca Cola for $1.00-$2.00 each day. $20 for 12 songs isn't all that much.
I'm in a ska band, we're not signed or anything, we made a CD (btw u should all buy it, PM me for details). We're not selling it for freaking $20, we're selling it for $5. What do I care if we lose money bc of paying for the recording studio? It was an experience, it's fun making music, don't expect to go into music and make profit, k?!
No proof.
Full format=no detection
GG
**** off, riaa. i wouldnt want your manufactured pop is it was 1$ per cd. i use kazaa for techno trance, a genre my local record stores DONT CARRY.
The RIAA can not take any real legal action against someone without first commiting an illegal action on their own part.
This is, as others have already pointed out, complete bullsh*t.
But if they did use the information you supply them with as evidence to sue you, you can counter sue them for breaking a publicly released legally binding agreement (which would the little notice they have posted)
or thats what I think.. I'm no lawyer.. I'm just related to one.. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
So you <b>don't get music.</b> Save up.
However, on the topic of the RIAA, I find it fine for them to make this document. In the real world, when someone is suspected of stealing, a search warrant is made and police search the premesis. In the digital world, if the RIAA suspect someone of cheating, they get permission to search your hard drive. Now, they are giving you the opportunity to give up stealing music, and in return, they won't sue you for money you <b>owe</b> them. Seems legal to me.
Poor RIAA is only gonna make 9 billion this year instead of 10 billion....SH*T!!1 OMG THEY ARE POOR NOW!!@!
Gimme a break....
/edit
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So you don't get music. Save up.
However, on the topic of the RIAA, I find it fine for them to make this document. In the real world, when someone is suspected of stealing, a search warrant is made and police search the premesis. In the digital world, if the RIAA suspect someone of cheating, they get permission to search your hard drive. Now, they are giving you the opportunity to give up stealing music, and in return, they won't sue you for money you owe them. Seems legal to me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I honestly don't believe in buying a 20 dollar CD for 1 or 2 songs that I like off of it....I rarely find CD's in which I love every song...The RIAA needs to pull their heads out of their ****.
No proof.
Full format=no detection
GG
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that is why you'd be caught. It's pretty simple to reconstruct a HDD without a low level format taking place. Note : Format C:/ is <b>not</b> a low level format.
And if nothing else, I receive about 300 emails a week from RIAA, ELSPA & other organizations of IP's they've tracked, and we first send them an email saying stop it, then if they turn up again we disable their ADSL pending a written letter saying they are aware of the piracy laws & our T&C, and then if they still turn up, we hand their details over to them and let them do what they want.
You are not immune.
And it's not very hard to ensure an IP. You can from Data Link get the Mac address, and the Mac address is unique to your network card. That can also be spoofed, but it's beyond 99% of users to every do so, and easily uploadable in law.
I'm against the RIAA/everyone else crackdown, but I'd just like to point out 90% of the Internet fables about what they can/can't do are lies. The only reason they don't prosecute everyone they catch is because of the fact they <b>are there to make money</b>. If they save themselves £1,000 by catching you, but it costs £5,000 to do so, they don't bother. That's all there is to it.
They know they're losing. They SHOULD know few people will keep their word (come on, we're humans). I just don't think this will solve their problems. RIAA shouldn't stop this technology. This should use it. That's what good businesses do, THEY ADAPT!!!!111 (Like the Borg...and Microsoft). But they're stuck in archaic practices and they'll go down for it (Bada bing, ya know whad i'm sayin' ?)
And plus, I, as a musician, do not believe the eliticism of music. Nor should its spread be hindered. Music should permeate itself into the very fabric of our society. Is the RIAA gonna stop me from downloading Mozart or sharing Elton John? #@$ no! Or how 'bout Elvis or Michael Jackson. Sheesh, I hear their songs from street players (OMG, theY"RE SHarING, SUE THEM for their Pennies!) to the public restrooms ("RIAA announces crackdown on city toilets"), what kinda of copyright IS THAT! Some classics, you just can't infringe property (Stop humming that or I'll sue!).
Anyway, enough of my rant. First RIAA wants to show muscle. And now they want to show clemency. Too bad, too late, they're already the villain in my mind.
Plus, I haven't downloaded any music in a while. John Williams can only do so much at a time...
Anyway, about this whole issue with the RIAA, I believe they are being excessive in their choise of actions. If they were not losing money from song sharing, then they wouldn't have a problem with it. But because they are a big corporation, they focus on getting more and more money, and any losses of their income are not acceptable to them. Its too bad the ways they're handling the situation are intrusive and unconstitutional.
Is that ilegal?
Is that ilegal? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not one bit, as long as you don't distribute the MP3s or give the CD away.
If you don't wanna get ripped off then don't sign up with the RIAA, either...
Guess how much you'll see from a record deal?
$0
Of course, its' all publicity for concerts, which are money makers.
Good grief, people buy a can of Coca Cola for $1.00-$2.00 each day. $20 for 12 songs isn't all that much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
20$ is very much indeed, if you know a thing or two about cd pricing. My musical tastes are quite far from mainstream music, which is good for my wallet. Just two weeks ago I ordered 4 cds by mail, and they cost me a grand total of 46 euros (for those who don't know, one euro is a bit over one dollar). Mind you, these were not singles, but full lenght albums. One of them was actually billed as an EP, but still contained 74 minutes of music. My point is that if independent small labels can sell limited edition cds (200-1000 pressed copies) at the price of 10-14 euros, why do mass-produced albums that have been pressed over a million units at a time cost more? Shouldn't they cost less?
Maybe the problem here is that the business model of the labels under RIAA's protective umbrella sucks. They spew millions of dollars in marketing per year, and the few hit groups they produce must pay the bills of the flops. Also, the producing costs of pop albums border on the ridiculous. Michael Jackson's Invincible is reputed to have cost about 30 million dollars to produce. With that kind of money, I could produce an album that would make all other music obsolete. Apparently Michael couldn't. With this kind of expenses it's really no wonder that the bigger labels need every cent they can pump out of the customers badly.
If you don't wanna get ripped off then don't sign up with the RIAA, either...
Guess how much you'll see from a record deal?
$0
Of course, its' all publicity for concerts, which are money makers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
404 has it right there. The bigger the label, the more likely you'll actually end up indebted to it, rather than getting any money. Mainstream music is a hell of a job for any artist who composes and records his own songs, because to make the ends meet, you just can't say no to a tour offer. It's better to sign up with a small label that isn't in any way connected to the bigger ones. This guarantees you much more artistic freedom and an actual percentage of the album sales profits too.
Memories are so short.