RIAA sued over Amnesty Program - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tinfoil · 09-11-2003, 07:09 AM

Quote:

California resident Eric Parke has launched a lawsuit against the RIAA regarding the groups 'Clean Slate' amnesty program. Eric and his lawyer contend that the program is deceptive and fraudulent.

This lawsuit seeks a remedy to stop the RIAA from engaging in unlawful, misleading and fraudulent business practices,' the suit reads.

The program is 'designed to induce members of the general public...to incriminate themselves and provide the RIAA and others with actionable admissions of wrongdoing under penalty of perjury while (receiving)...no legally binding release of claims...in return.'

'No good deed goes unpunished, apparently,' says an RIAA representative. 'It's also unfortunate that a lawyer would try to prevent others from getting the assurances they want that they will not be sued.'

Ira Rothken, Parke's lawyer, has examined the RIAA documents and has concluded that the agreement offers no real protection, nor does it prevent RIAA member companies from suing those who avail themselves to the program.

The lawsuit seeks to prevent the RIAA from advertising the program.

The EFF is also suggesting that people do not take advantage of the 'Clean Slate' program as the language in the document is very vague and offers no real protection.

Link:
http://music.tinfoil.net/modules.php...rticle&sid=771

rider6061 · 09-11-2003, 07:14 AM

That's how they get you!

What a load...I read about a 12 year old living in the projects whose mom settled for two grand to avoid lawsuit!!! The recording industry eats Filet Mignon...This family is lucky to get Hamburger Helper.

Ripsaw · 09-11-2003, 07:20 AM

The alternative was potentially $150,000 <<<per>>> each of the 1,000+ songs she downloaded. Plus legal fees. Do the math. You'd settle too.

rider6061 · 09-11-2003, 07:46 AM

yes, but look at the public relations disaster they are creating for themselves, a twelve year old living in the projects. The alternative never would have been collected and they are pulling food out of the mouths of babes. The real wrong doers are the file sharing systems...are they going after the creators?

tinfoil · 09-11-2003, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rider6061
yes, but look at the public relations disaster they are creating for themselves, a twelve year old living in the projects. The alternative never would have been collected and they are pulling food out of the mouths of babes. The real wrong doers are the file sharing systems...are they going after the creators?

Your logic is flawed.

That would be like saying that instead of the shoplifter being responsible for stealing a chocolate bar, it is the shop-owner for making it easy to steal.

They have (and still are) trying to hold the people who created the networks responsible. So far, with little success.

Quote:

In a stunning move, the courst have ruled that Grokster and Streamcast Networks were not liable for illegal copying. This is a major blow to the music industry if it stands up in court.

Judge Stephen Wilson sided with the two companies in his 34 page ruling, citing the 1984 case where the courts sided with Sony after the movie industry filed suit against the company for producing VCRs, which could be used to illegaly copy movies.

Along the same train of thought, the judge agreed that Grokster and Streamcast only provided the technology.

'It's a vindication. We are not pirates,' said Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster, based in Nevis, West Indies.

'Businesses that intentionally facilitate massive piracy should not be able to evade responsibility for their actions,' said Hilary Rosen, chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.
Get the text of the ruling http://www.boycott-riaa.com/pdf/grokster.pdf (pdf)

http://music.tinfoil.net/modules.php...rticle&sid=652

Holo · 09-11-2003, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rider6061
ye The real wrong doers are the file sharing systems...are they going after the creators?

How? Were you around during Napster? They tried to kowtow to the MafRIAA and block certain song titles. You know what happened? Ppl developed Pig Latin renamers for Mp3s and several other workarounds. Gnutella cannot be controlled since it's decentrailzed, as well as many other networks that have no central server as an Achille's Heel. The programs do about as much as a gun on a table....if not picked up, pointed at someone and fired it's not harmful in any way.

You can use a gun as a paperweight, and you could use a file sharing program as an alternative to FTP for personal files and self released material. FTPs are used for many illegal sharing purposes as is IRC...but these also have legal applications just like any program for file sharing. The PEOPLE have chosen to use it for these purposes. Vox Populi Vox Dei.

The MafRIAA needs to offer a music service of their own that encompasses all labels under their banners, something they been unable to do 2 years since the death of Napster. You make songs 50 cents and have almost every song available like any good P2P does and they would see a major difference. Ppl don't wanna pay even 12.98 for a CD...I don't want to pay any more than $10 maximum, and I don't by going to used stores or trying it out online.

edit: some fun Napster era cartoons

http://www.campchaos.com/cartoons/napsterbad/

MikeyChalupa · 09-11-2003, 08:33 AM

Part of the settlement undoubtedly included making public statements that file-sharing is wrong. Before the settlement, these are quotes from the girl and her mother:

"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother.

"I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"

"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."

After:

"We understand now that file sharing the music was illegal," Sylvia Torres, Brianna's mother, said in a statement. "You can be sure Brianna won't be doing it anymore."

-Mikey

Booboo · 09-11-2003, 09:11 AM

Does anyone know if they've gone after people downloading with kazaa lite? or if it even makes a difference?

RoadRage · 09-11-2003, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ripsaw
The alternative was potentially $150,000 <<<per>>> each of the 1,000+ songs she downloaded. Plus legal fees. Do the math. You'd settle too.

False diochotomy.

Another alternative is to force the RIAA to spend a shitload on lawyers prosecuting the case, and then filing for bankruptcy protection.

Any judgment is automatically treated as an unsecured debt, and they have to wait in line with others unsecured debts while basic necessities, governmental and quasi-governmental entities (FNMA, SLMA, etc.), and secured debts get paid first. A single-parent family in a rented apartment (similar to these folks) is likely to have only the computer sold off at auction because everything else they'd have is either of no significant value or is considered a basic necessity. The RIAA's own lawyers would end up doing more monetary damage to the RIAA than the fileswappers do.

crfpilot · 09-11-2003, 10:21 AM

true....a judgement and a buck fifty will get them a cup of shitty coffee.

nothingx · 09-11-2003, 10:24 AM

I was just wondering if the Napster settlement could be overturned because of the FastTrack ruling. They found that FastTrack can't be held responsible for the responsible file sharing of its users. Wasn't this also true for Napster? Maybe it has something more to do with the decentralization of the servers or something...

Thraeryn · 09-11-2003, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ripsaw
The alternative was potentially $150,000 <<<per>>> each of the 1,000+ songs she downloaded. Plus legal fees. Do the math. You'd settle too.

No. You're just as short-sighted as this girl.

More views on the subject.

water_boy1999 · 09-11-2003, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Holo
How? Were you around during Napster? They tried to kowtow to the MafRIAA and block certain song titles. You know what happened? Ppl developed Pig Latin renamers for Mp3s and several other workarounds. Gnutella cannot be controlled since it's decentrailzed, as well as many other networks that have no central server as an Achille's Heel. The programs do about as much as a gun on a table....if not picked up, pointed at someone and fired it's not harmful in any way.

You can use a gun as a paperweight, and you could use a file sharing program as an alternative to FTP for personal files and self released material. FTPs are used for many illegal sharing purposes as is IRC...but these also have legal applications just like any program for file sharing. The PEOPLE have chosen to use it for these purposes. Vox Populi Vox Dei.

The MafRIAA needs to offer a music service of their own that encompasses all labels under their banners, something they been unable to do 2 years since the death of Napster. You make songs 50 cents and have almost every song available like any good P2P does and they would see a major difference. Ppl don't wanna pay even 12.98 for a CD...I don't want to pay any more than $10 maximum, and I don't by going to used stores or trying it out online.

edit: some fun Napster era cartoons

http://www.campchaos.com/cartoons/napsterbad/

Can't agree with you more. I think that with all the technology we have, we shouldn't be keeping people from filesharing, but rather promoting it. Of course, charging a super minimal fee for it would keep the music industry happy.

09-11-2003, 07:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
rider6061 Crazy Location: oklahoma	That's how they get you! What a load...I read about a 12 year old living in the projects whose mom settled for two grand to avoid lawsuit!!! The recording industry eats Filet Mignon...This family is lucky to get Hamburger Helper. __________________ Is This Thing On?

09-11-2003, 07:20 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ripsaw Chef in Training	The alternative was potentially $150,000 <<<per>>> each of the 1,000+ songs she downloaded. Plus legal fees. Do the math. You'd settle too. __________________ "We are supposed to be masters of space, but we cant even line up our shoes?" One life, one chance, one opportunity.

09-11-2003, 07:46 AM	#4 (permalink)
rider6061 Crazy Location: oklahoma	yes, but look at the public relations disaster they are creating for themselves, a twelve year old living in the projects. The alternative never would have been collected and they are pulling food out of the mouths of babes. The real wrong doers are the file sharing systems...are they going after the creators? __________________ Is This Thing On?

09-11-2003, 09:11 AM	#8 (permalink)
Booboo Insane	Does anyone know if they've gone after people downloading with kazaa lite? or if it even makes a difference? __________________ "Your life is yours to live, go out and live it" - Richard Rahl

09-11-2003, 08:33 AM	#7 (permalink)
MikeyChalupa Squid Location: USS George Washington	Part of the settlement undoubtedly included making public statements that file-sharing is wrong. Before the settlement, these are quotes from the girl and her mother: "I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother. "I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?" "It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud." After: "We understand now that file sharing the music was illegal," Sylvia Torres, Brianna's mother, said in a statement. "You can be sure Brianna won't be doing it anymore." -Mikey

09-11-2003, 10:21 AM	#10 (permalink)
crfpilot Punk In Drublic Location: So Cal	true....a judgement and a buck fifty will get them a cup of shitty coffee.

09-11-2003, 10:24 AM	#11 (permalink)
nothingx undead Location: nihilistic freedom	I was just wondering if the Napster settlement could be overturned because of the FastTrack ruling. They found that FastTrack can't be held responsible for the responsible file sharing of its users. Wasn't this also true for Napster? Maybe it has something more to do with the decentralization of the servers or something...