EFF petition asks for end to RIAA lawsuits

4/30/2006 10:57:49 PM, by Ryan Paul

Condemning the RIAA's endless litany of litigation, concerned consumers and the EFF have taken a stand and started a petition requesting that our elected representatives stop exploitative and detrimental filesharing lawsuits. Referring to a plan for voluntary collective licensing that would enable the music industry to increase its profits without having to perpetuate its futile war against file sharing, the EFF petition calls for the music industry to adapt its business model and accept the technological realities of the modern world:

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.

The voluntary collective licensing plan proposed by the EFF recognizes the rights of the artists and copyright holders to be compensated for their work and intellectual property. It also recognizes the reality of technological challenges to traditional distribution methods, including file sharing. Under the plan, music fans would make "reasonable regular payments" which would give them the right to share and download whatever music they wish without fear of legal retribution. It's novel idea, but one the labels are unlikely to embrace.

Linking to an article by our own Anders Bylund, the EFF calls for an end to the attacks on innocent parents, children, and college students. The EFF also points out that musicians, who don't benefit from such lawsuits, are now voicing their opposition to the tactics of the recording industry:

This irrational crusade is not generating a single penny for the artists that the RIAA claims to protect. The RIAA should be working to create a rational, legal means by which its customers can take advantage of file sharing technology and pay a fair price for the music they love. With artists increasingly turning against the lawsuits, momentum may be shifting in favor of a better way forward.

The EFF petition has garnered over 90,000 signatures so far, and the EFF plans to deliver the petition to the commerce and judiciary committees in the House and Senate once it reaches 100,000. I have no doubt that many readers here at Ars will help the EFF reach its goal, but will a petition with 100,000 signatures speak louder than well-funded lobbyists? Lately, it seems that our elected representatives are increasingly eager to sacrifice our civil liberties and waste our hard earned dollars. But with control of both houses at stake in this fall's elections, lawmakers may begin to see the wisdom of siding with their constituents rather than exploitative record industry executives, at least if their constituents raise enough of a stink. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060430-6706
.html
Go here to sign http://www.eff.org/share/petition/

With artists increasingly turning against the lawsuits...

Took them long enough.

I think it just took them long enough to start reporting about it. Many artists (even RIAA artists) have been against the lawsuits the entire time. Again its too bad that the mainstream press isn't picking this type of stuff up!!

"The RIAA should be working to create a rational, legal means by which its customers can take advantage of file sharing technology and pay a fair price for the music they love. "

If you want to support your musicians, send them a $5 note and a sticky note that says rock on. (Good idea Goerge).

I doubt paying for a sharing technology (or p2p) will work. They exist already, and not only you pay per month or year, but you have to pay for each song and album. (Boo). Although, I have Dell Juke Box and I beleive that you can just buy songs with out having a paid subscription service.

File sharing technology = advertisement technology. Just put some ads and you get plenty of money. NO need to pay for it. It's low quality music any ways.

"Under the plan, music fans would make "reasonable regular payments" which would give them the right to share and download whatever music they wish without fear of legal retribution. "

As a musician, I would oppose this. It should be free. A lot bands now a days have free full clips of their songs. Besides, what is reasonable. 99 cents for a 1 minute song, and 99 cents for a 22 minute song?
Also, with out record labels, you get ALL of your money from an album. Say $10 an album, and you sell just 1,000 in a month. Wow, there's $10,000 dollars. If you keep that up, you'll make $120,000 that year, which for me, is way more than necessary. (Of course, then subtract all expences.)

Well, i'm interested in hearing what kind of model, specifically, the EFF might propose that would legalize filesharing. Who or what would decide which artists are compensated? Regardless, I don't believe in suing families who swap songs in the name of "fair use".

"I think it just took them long enough to start reporting about it. Many artists (even RIAA artists) have been against the lawsuits the entire time."

I am sure the EFF (like us) POUNCED at reporting the news of major label artists who take a stand against the Riaa's evil lawsuits.

I am very very glad the Canadian Coalition was formed and all, but George is right... it sure "took them (artists) long enough" to speak out.

I guess they had to wait and see about the evidence of what the FANS pocketbooks and wallets had to say about the matter first.

The Canada Coalition of Creators is just a few brave slaves testing the waters of a new fish-bowl because they are smart enough to have finally figured out that they have been swimming in their own sh*t for too long.)

Think "natural selection" and all that jazz...

"Who or what would decide which artists are compensated? "

An independent dowload monitoring agency for one. Anyone but the RIAA, since we know they would screw as many people as they could.