Users should not accept RIAA's offer of amnesty

[PintOGuinness]

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....

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112362,00.asp

[jessica73]

They'll never be able to stop it. People will still burn CD's and copy songs off the radio, even if they eradicate file sharing.

[LimeTwister]

so the companies have to give up people's identity?

i don't think that is fair, and I don't think the RIAA should be able to see who is downloading files, they should be able to try to get rid of P2P's like Kazaa, but attacking the individual is not fair...especially if they want millions of dollars per song....

I did not steal the music...I didn't go to the store and take a copy from the store, that to me is stealing...If i like something I will buy it, if i don't i won't.

[TSE]

Someone explain this to me . . .

Can't you olny be sued for the damages?  And wouldn't the "damages" be the cost of whatever song you have?  And how much does that cost?  Well 99 cents . . right?  If you buy it for an iPod, it's 99 cents.  That's the cost.  That's the damages.  That should be all they can take from you.  A buck for every song you have.

Right?  Tell me why not.  *realizes she hasn't paid much attention to the issue*

[kev222]

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...

I <3 The EFF.

they should be able to try to get rid of P2P's like Kazaa, but attacking the individual is not fair

Why? The p2p networks are not illegal in themselves. People who use them to trade music for free (whether rightly or wrongly) should take the responsibility for their actions, not blame the p2p networks. That's like shooting someone and then blaming Beretta for it.

-Kev

[rroo]

so the companies have to give up people's identity?

Yea, that sucks! Here the law on privacy protection states that companies (like ISP's) don't have to give personal information of their customers to anyone. So associations like the RIAA really can't do anything to stop the dutch from sharing files.

[rroo]

That's like shooting someone and then blaming Beretta for it.

But hiring someone to kill someone else is a crime.

[LimeTwister]

Why? The p2p networks are not illegal in themselves. People who use them to trade music for free (whether rightly or wrongly) should take the responsibility for their actions, not blame the p2p networks. That's like shooting someone and then blaming Beretta for it.

-Kev

i mean like be shut down...they are supporting the act...

[Will]

i mean like be shut down...they are supporting the act...

And the entire internet has spawned trafficing of child porn in volumes that have never been seen before. We should shut it down too.

[zurielshimon]

And the entire internet has spawned trafficing of child porn in volumes that have never been seen before. We should shut it down too.

Oh it has, huh?  Then why can't I ever find any? :lol:

But you Dutch have always written rules to get around everything.  I wish I was more Dutch than I already am.  Just call me van Dijk!

[MistrFish]

Oh it has, huh?  Then why can't I ever find any? :lol:

exactly! that's what i thought too. :mrgreen:

*whispers* ya perve!

[MartUK]

Oh it has, huh?  Then why can't I ever find any? :lol:

Did you miss the word "child"?

Free "regular" pron is pretty easy to find . Uh... so I've been told I mean.   :?

[LimeTwister]

i mean like be shut down...they are supporting the act...

And the entire internet has spawned trafficing of child porn in volumes that have never been seen before. We should shut it down too.

or shut down the websites, if you leave something out for people, people are going to take it.

[Grakthis]

They'll never be able to stop it. People will still burn CD's and copy songs off the radio, even if they eradicate file sharing.

Burning and copying songs off the radio is perfectly legal.  Sharing them on the internet is not.
---Andrew

[Grakthis]

Someone explain this to me . . .

Can't you olny be sued for the damages?  And wouldn't the "damages" be the cost of whatever song you have?  And how much does that cost?  Well 99 cents . . right?  If you buy it for an iPod, it's 99 cents.  That's the cost.  That's the damages.  That should be all they can take from you.  A buck for every song you have.

Basically, the government allows such things as punitive damages, which essentially means "punishment".  Its used to force people to never do it again, basically.

Plus, if I am sharing a SINGLE song, and someone downloads it from my PC 100 times, thats 100 counts and 100 different accusations, so even if it were only 99cents per, thats still almost 100 dollars right there.
---Andrew