RIAA responds to Politech over EFF note on lawsuit amnesty [ip]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

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 () well com
From: Jonathan Lamy <deleted () RIAA Com>
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 () well com
From: Cindy Cohn <cindy () eff org>
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/)