Previous Politech message (probably just a temporary location): http://politechbot.com/pipermail/politech/2003-September/000002.html --- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:00:04 -0700 Subject: [Politech] RIAA responds to Politech over EFF note on lawsuit amnesty [ip] From: Fred von Lohmann EFF <fred@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Declan, A brief rejoinder seems in order, in light of Cary's letter to the editor responding to my op-ed regarding the RIAA's Clean Slate "amnesty" program. First, Cary fails to respond at all to the main point of the piece -- the proposal that the major record labels offer a *real* amnesty to file-sharers in exchange for a reasonable monthly fee. This is what the music publishers opted to do in the face of that earlier scourge of copyright, broadcast radio. Today, ASCAP and BMI manage to divide up a very large pot of money for their members, without insisting on control over what radio stations play or what kind of transmitting equipment they use. Sure beats suing thousands of individuals in a futile attempt to intimidate tens of millions more. Second, Cary claims that the RIAA's "amnesty" program provides assurance that repentant file-sharers "won't be sued by any of the major record companies." Well, that's not what it says on the "Clean Slate" description page (see http://www.musicunited.org/cleanSlateDesc.pdf). There, the RIAA merely promises that it will not assist copyright owners in suing you. It does not promise that its record company members won't sue you anyway. If they decide to sue you, they can use DMCA subpoenas to get your name from your ISP, then can subpoena RIAA records to find out whether you signed up for the "Clean Slate" program. Third, Cary asks "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?" Yet the RIAA is refusing to grant amnesty to anyone who it has already begun investigating (and woe to the unlucky ones who sign the "amnesty" before discovering that they are already under suspicion and thus ineligible). So evidently there is some rationale for suing those who promise to stop file-sharing, since the RIAA is reserving the right to do it. Perhaps to "send a message" as Cary would say. Can Cary promise that no other copyright owners will take the path he's blazing? Fred von Lohmann Senior Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation --- Subject: Re: [Politech] RIAA responds to Politech over EFF note on lawsuit amnesty [ip] From: jason <jaegner@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Date: 24 Sep 2003 21:26:44 -0400 This gets more interesting (and sad) every day. "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." Followed by: "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." Doesn't that prove Fred's point? The recording industry does make one good point: "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." I think that's a good point. If there is a valid fair use application for filesharing networks, the creators of those networks should not be liable simply because their product could potentially infringe copyrights. However, I think the recording industry is screwing up because their targets are overly broad. The targets should be those individuals that are intentionally and knowingly infringing copyrights FOR PROFIT. I believe that the RIAA is making a perfectly understandable mistake: when presented with a disruptive technology, they're equating profit with potential theft. That nonsequitur precipitates the slippery slope that they're currently sledding down. The people actually stealing money from the recording industry are selling burned CDs all over the world (and have been stealing music since the 8-track tape). The people being sued by the recording industry might (but probably don't) fall into that willful violation category. I re-emphasize my belief that the industry has brought this backlash upon itself by extending copyright terms for far too long. When you attempt to over-own ideas, don't expect people to take it lightly. This is not an unsolvable problem. But we can't even begin to work on it until the copyright-capitalists abandon their lobby+litigate mentality and come to the table with their customers to work out a compromise. Like Hugh said: "Let's come together." Your customers are at the table, Mr. Sherman. Where are you? --Jason _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 00:56:31 PDT