[Lee Jamilkowski]

http://www.eff.org/share/petition/

Quote:

To The United States Congress:


We are the customers and former customers of the member labels of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). We love music and will gladly pay a fair price for it, but we are outraged by the RIAA's tactics in suing ordinary Americans for filesharing.

We condemn the RIAA's choice to force the family of a 12 year-old girl to forfeit $2,000 - money that could have gone to feed, clothe and educate this honor student. We stand with the retirees, parents, children and others who have been caught in the RIAA's line of fire.

We respect reasonable copyright law, but we strongly oppose copyright enforcement that comes at the expense of privacy, due process and fair application of the law.

We urge you, as our representatives in Congress, to stop this madness.

We oppose the recording industry's decision to attack the public, bankrupt its customers and offer false amnesty to those who would impugn themselves. We call instead for a real amnesty: the development of a legal alternative that preserves file-sharing technology while ensuring that artists are fairly compensated.

In signing this petition, we formally request that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), as representatives of the public interest, be included in any upcoming hearings regarding the proper scope of copyright enforcement in the digital age.

We sincerely thank you for your time.

If you feel about this issue, I highly recommend you sign it. All relevant details are at the webpage. The count is already at over 43,000 signatures - and the petition has only been up for less than a week.

[Philip Hamm]

Ludicrous.

[John_Berger]

Because you disagree with it or because you honestly think that it will serve no purpose? Considering that they have almost 500,000 signatures, a large number of people clearly disagree with you.

[Brian Perry]

Quote:

Considering that they have almost 500,000 signatures, a large number of people clearly disagree with you.

It doesn't matter how many people sign the petition. I'm sure a lot of people would sign a petition asking for free gasoline.

It's easy to gain sympathy by focusing on the 12-yr. old girl. However, you can just as easily say that the RIAA, by filing only 261 suits against the most egregious offenders/uploaders, showed remarkable restraint. They could have sued thousands of people.

I agree with Phil--the petition is ludicrous and, I think, disingenuous.

[John_Berger]

Quote:

I'm sure a lot of people would sign a petition asking for free gasoline.

Why not just merge all of these RIAA threads into one because they're going to end up degrading themselves into the same boring argument anyway? This is *NOT* about wanting something for nothing; it's about the method by which the RIAA is going about it.

Don't bother replying that you agree or disagree because it's already being discussed in other threads. In fact, the admins should just lock this one because otherwise this thread will end up being a repeat of the others.

Thanks for the info, Lee! We'll see what happens with this.

[Lew Crippen]

I too think that this thread should be merged.

Even so I am bound to observe that I lost all respect for the petition because of it’s emotive use of a 12-year old, instead of relying on logic. I am sure that it will get a lot of signatures because of the nature of the appeal—but it will also make for a weaker case when examined dispassionately.

It is also amusing to read in the petition that she does not have the money to pay to settle the lawsuit. One then also assumes that she would not have had the money to pay for the legitimate use of the music in question, which we should all remember numbered in the hundreds, not in the ones and twos.

She knew what she was doing and got caught. Can we say personal responsibility somewhere along the line—if not for her, for her parents?

[Seth--L]

Two points:

1. This sounds like "Well, in theory we may have broken the law, but only because the music industry didn't give us a way to pay them for downloaded music and because we didn't like the price of CDs. The punishment for breaking this law that we may have or have not broken isn't fair - we really shouldn't be punished for our supposed crime."

2. Turning the 12 year old school girl who pled ignorance as her defence into a martyr is just pitiful. Why don't they mention the rich college student that has taken full advantage of their high-speed connection...

and will gladly pay a fair price for it

Well if the price isn't fair, don't buy the product! And an unfair price is not justification for ripping off the product.

[Glenn Overholt]

Brian, it isn't just 261 suits. That was just the first round. More are on the way, I'm afraid.

And once again, if the girl can't pay it, she should file for bankruptcy. In 7 years she'd only be 19. Hardly a bad hit, and her credit report would be clean then anyway.

Glenn

[Rachael B]

Glenn, I suspect minors cannot file bankruptcy in about 50 of the 50 states.

Wheather one likes the wording of this thang, the music industry needs investigating and reform IMO. Asking for it can't be all bad, can it???

[Steve Kuester]

The part about this petition I don't like is the "while ensuring that artists are fairly compensated."

That's only half of it, the record companies should be paid for the product they provide. I don't see the petition addressing this.

On a further note (this is not meant to be a political statement) I would just as soon not have our government getting involved in the music business.

We urge you, as our representatives in Congress, to stop this madness.

Let's just let the free market do it's thing.

[John_Berger]

This has nothing to do with free market. This is about the recent tactics of the RIAA and their possible violation of due process laws at stated in the U.S. Constitution.

Frankly, I'm very suspicious at the attempts to minimize this petition by the pro-RIAA people. All that the EFF is doing is trying to get in there to have their say in the name of "the public's interest" whatever that might turn out to be. I sincerely doubt that they would be stupid enough to defend a position like "Hey, file sharing is okay!"[/i] which would severely damage their credibility. Yes, they might be crossing ethical boundaries by making this girl a martyr, but there are a bunch of people who think that the RIAA crossed ethical (and legal) lines.

Just because the RIAA is trying to protect copyrights does NOT automatically give them carte blanche to take whatever actions they want. There are still laws and procedures that they have to follow. All that this hearing is about is whether or not they are within the law. For all we know, the committee might decide that the RIAA is correct. So, why shouldn't the EFF be involved?