Previous Politech message: "EFF's Cindy Cohn on RIAA amnesty, alternatives to lawsuits" http://www.politechbot.com/p-05061.html --- Subject: Re: FC: EFF's Cindy Cohn on RIAA amnesty, alternatives to lawsuits To: declan@private From: Jonathan Lamy <deleted@private> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:26:46 -0400 Hi Declan, Thought you might be interested in the response we have submitted to the EFF column. If you forward this to your list, please delete my email address. thanks Jonathan RIAA To The Editor: Fred von Lohmann's skepticism about the recording industry's Clean Slate program for illegal file-sharers ("'Amnesty' for Music File Sharing Is a Sham," Sept. 10) seems based far more on a reflexive hostility to the music community's efforts to protect itself against theft than on any discernible good sense or logic. Perhaps most misleading is his complaint that in return for pledging to destroy all their illegally obtained music files and promising never again to digitally distribute or download music without permission, reformed file sharers will get "nothing" from us. In fact, they will get exactly what we can provide: a promise that if they keep their word, they won't be sued by any of the major record companies who happen to be the sole plaintiffs in the current wave of copyright infringement actions that seem to have Mr. von Lohmann so exercised. It is true that we can't promise that other copyright holders, such as songwriters and music publishers, will not sue participants in our amnesty program. But then these groups have not sued any file sharers and have said they have no plans to do so. Even if they did, it's hard to see how participation in our program would make anyone more vulnerable to their efforts, since Clean Slate participants are not required to divulge their screen names or specific examples of any previous infringement (and as part of Clean Slate, we are specifically committing not to divulge the names of those who participate to any copyright holders, including our own members, so long as the participants abide by their word). And what would be the rationale -- public relations or legally -- for suing someone who has promised to stop illegal behavior when there are tens of thousands of other targets? The simple point of the Clean Slate program is to give those who want it the assurance that they won't be targets of litigation by the only companies who are bringing lawsuits. But there's another way to get some comfort too -- just stop the illegal activity. The irony of all of this is that Mr. von Lohmann only last year attacked the recording industry for not suing individual file sharers, telling Billboard magazine (and many other publications) that if we were really serious "about stopping piracy" we should be bringing "lawsuits against the actual people sharing the files." Apparently, there's just no satisfying some people. Cary Sherman President RIAA --- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:39:50 -0700 To: Declan@private From: Cindy Cohn <cindy@private> Subject: Fwd: [E-IP] LAT file sharing op ed Hi Declan, Thought you might find this interesting for Politech. The first part is about the phony "amnesty" that the RIAA is touting, but the second is the more important, I think, pointing just one of the many ways the RIAA could embrace its customers rather than sue them, and end up making more money in the bargain. Cindy [snip] _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 23:53:25 PDT