Last fall, before the RIAA actually started suing people for sharing unauthorized music files, they offered their amnesty program, which basically said if you 'fessed up to sharing music and removed those files immediately, they probably wouldn't sue you. Of course, they couldn't guarantee that the actual copyright holders wouldn't sue - and in admitting guilt to the RIAA some felt that people would actually open themselves up to more liability for exactly that reason. In fact, even a US Senator, Norm Coleman, told people not to fall for the program and some people filed a lawsuit against the program, saying that it was deceptive. Well, now the RIAA (as they've been known to do) has asked that the lawsuit be dismissed because they've recently canceled the amnesty program. Of course, that makes you wonder. Is it okay to offer a "deceptive" program for a few months, and then ask that lawsuits against it are dropped once you stop? Doesn't that just encourage more temporary deceptive programs? The article also notes, by the way, that over 1,100 people actually signed up to request such not-really-amnesty. The RIAA promises that they'll continue to not sue those individuals, though, they still can't make the same promise for the actual copyright holders.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Feds Insist It Must Be Kept Secret Whether Or Not Plaintiff In No Fly List Trial Is Actually On The No Fly List
- Documents Show LA Sheriff's Department Hired Thieves, Statutory Rapists And Bad Cops
- Unarmed Man Charged With Assault Because NYC Police Shot At Him And Hit Random Pedestrians
- Judge In No Fly Case Explains To DOJ That It Can't Claim Publicly Released Info Is Secret
- German Court Says CEO Of Open Source Company Liable For 'Illegal' Functions Submitted By Community