Well, not quite. As outlined in this Slate article, just because you sign on to the RIAA's amnesty program, you aren't necessarily protecting yourself from litigation, and may very well be setting yourself up for it. Basically, the RIAA says they won't release their amnesty list unless they are required by law to do so. In other words, a label that isn't a member of the RIAA could very well subpoena the RIAA for their list and then sue everyone on it.
In fact, this article implies that even RIAA members could sue people in the amnesty program. So a lawyer is suing the RIAA on behalf of all amnesty takers on the grounds that the amnesty offer constitutes false advertising.
I like Slate's suggestion for permanent amnesty: Have Congress pass a law that downloaders can pay for their downloads after the fact, or tax every Internet connection and split that money among the record companies, just like the tax on CD-Rs and DAT tapes. If I could, I'd gladly pay a buck or two for the songs in my collection, or a few bucks a month on top of my broadband bill.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Very sensible Matt, thanks
2 - Mark Saleski
it may well come to that, but i personally would object to a fee added to my broadband bill because the only stuff i ever download is promo material directly from band websites.
in the past the few things i have downloaded have resulted in cd purchases.
still, it would be a wise industry move to abandom the 'we lose money on each and every download' stance and do something in the subscription direction.
i wouldn't count on it though.
3 - Matt Moore
I agree that the broadband fee wouldn't be fair, but there is a precedent, in that you have to pay the fee for a music CD-R no matter what you're going to do with it. That includes legal uses like backups, personal use mix CDs, etc.
It sucks, but there really are no easy answers to this.
4 - Ms. Tek
I download porn.
5 - Eric Olsen
I will encourage legislators to take this into account, Victoria.