Nonprofit Group Sends Filesharing Propaganda To Students 266
palegray.net writes "The National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit organization, has sent file-sharing propaganda to thousands of students. The supposedly 'educational' materials, presented in the form of a comic strip, are intended to frighten students with gross exaggerations of the legal consequences of sharing music online (lose your scholarship to college, go to jail for two years, and more). From the article: '"The Case of Internet Piracy," however, reads like the Recording Industry Association of America's public relations playbook: Download some songs, go to jail and lose your scholarship. Along the way, musicians will file onto the bread lines. "The purpose is basically to educate kids — middle school and high school-aged about how the justice system operates and about what really goes on in the courtroom as opposed to what you see on television," said Lorri Montgomery, the center's communications director.' I'm not encouraging anyone to break any laws, but this is ridiculous. What's truly discouraging is the fact that several judges appear to be in full support of this sort of 'education.'
The propaganda material is available in PDF form, and it lists the judges and others involved in its creation. Wired's post has a summary of the story (which is good, since the story is awful), and Techdirt notes a couple of the legal inaccuracies.
The beginning of the pamphlet .... (Score:2, Interesting)
Would anyone by any chance have a script that will email this to every single Congressman and everyone in the Whitehouse. It's a cartoon so Bush will understand it too.
Before modding me Flamebait, Troll, or -1 whatever please read this thread and article. [slashdot.org] Then mod away.
Re:Courts are Public (Score:5, Interesting)
Strange but serious question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't intentional misrepresentation of the law an actionable offense (perhaps in some states, but not others)?
That outfit is composed of judges (Score:5, Interesting)
Most state bars have requirements related to acting ethically. I wonder if those responsible for this pack of lies could be handled with a bar complaint?
It might not have a direct effect, but who knows?
Oh dear! (Score:5, Interesting)
All I can think of is how relieved the grandmother was when she found out Megan wasn't pregnant!
That being said, legal action against you isn't a laughing matter when you are young. You don't have the money, you don't know what you are doing, and you don't know where to get help.
A parady on this would be nice. Something along the lines of,"File-sharing is not a victim-less crime..... Look at Megan."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm waiting for the counter punch.... hurry up (Score:4, Interesting)
*searches again* Come on, there must be someone out there going to do a mocking comic of this. Perhaps in the second frame Richard Stallman could appear out of a cloud of 1s and 0s with a tight organic hemp superhero suit and give the girl a pep talk about her freedom in the digital world while smashing her iMac into bits and wiping the hard drive platters with ionizing radiation from his nostrils...
Re:Best coverage on p2pnet.net (Score:1, Interesting)
Aren't the people distributing this PDF file running the risk of a copyright infringement lawsuit?
Letter writing campaign (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in Texas, so here's mine:
Hon. Wallace B. Jefferson
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of Texas
P.O. Box 12248, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
Dear Judge Jefferson:
Today it came to my attention that a group called the "National Center for State Courts", of which you are apparently a board member, has released a new comic book called the "Justice Case Files."
This book is full of legal inaccuracies and misrepresentation, claiming that internet file downloading is a state crime, punishable by years in prison, when in fact, this sort of copyright infringement is a federal civil matter.
I do not engage in copyright infringement; however, I am incensed at the malicious PR campaign undertaken by the RIAA and the MPAA, which apparently has co-opted this organization of which you are a board member. It makes the National Center for State Courts, and those associated with it, look foolish at best, mendacious at worst.
As I'm sure you are aware, rule 8.04(a)(3) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct requires that "a lawyer shall not ... engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation," and comment 7 on this section additionally clarifies that "Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of attorney. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust. See Rules 8.04(a)(2), 8.04(a)(3), 8.04(b)."
Please take a look at this comic. If you find it as laughably erroneous as I think you will, please do the right thing and publicly disavow its publication and use your position on the board to try to stop it. Believe it or not, several hundred thousand influential internet users are watching this issue very closely.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Re:get em young (Score:3, Interesting)
You seem to think that if someone makes more than a certain amount of money when they sell something that they don't deserve to receive any compensation as a result, even though you still use their product? I don't understand your rationalization (although I do see it all over the place).
Teaching an entire generation that if someone charges more than you think is fair it is appropriate and even somehow noble to steal anything you want is profoundly disturbing. This isn't even remotely close to civil disobedience.
I hate what the RIAA does, so I don't use their products. I like music, but I don't need it, and neither do you. Anything else is just a weak attempt at justification for getting something you want for free.
There is a big difference between boycott and looting.
And yes, the cartoon in TFA is really, really creepy.
Reefer Madness (Score:3, Interesting)
Honeypot (Score:4, Interesting)
Has anyone thought of creating a honeypot full of songs THEY, and not the RIAA or their ilk own the copyright to, then busting Media Sentry when they download the songs/torrents? Seems like turnabout is fair play
DARE (Score:4, Interesting)
For some reason, this reminds me of the DARE education I received in jr/sr high school. At the time, I didn't do drugs (nor did any of my friends . . . we were all nerds). But I had this overwhelming feeling that what they were telling me was bullshit (at least parts of it).
"Marijuana is a gateway drug. If you smoke pot you'll be using heroin within a few weeks" Really? Those stoners who got high before school don't do heroin, and actually manage better grades than we do.
"If you share files you'll go to jail and your life will be ruined." Really? 2/3rds of my high school class illegally download music, and yet they haven't been harassed by the cops.
All stuff like this does is make kids mistrust authority. If they were honest--"Pot is okay in moderation, but heroin is really, really bad", or "having a few mp3s on your computer is not a big deal, but selling bootleg DVDs on the street corner is bad"--they'd probably be a little more effective.
Re:It's not "file sharing" (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, 'sharing' implies two or more people, both using a resource, which is exactly what 'file sharing' is.
In no way does the word imply consent of anyone except for the two people doing the sharing. If I share my cookies with you, does that imply Nabisco's consent?
From the comic (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems the comic text likes to bold 'Industry' but not 'Artists'.
---
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ [zeitgeistmovie.com] I didn't know.
Re:File-sharing is illegal but SPAM is not. (Score:5, Interesting)
The question remains; is this appropriate for a non-profit organisation? I know the non-profits in the US can get away with bloody murder, more or less, but this is special-interest lobbying thinly disguised as 'education' and inaccuracies (rather than lies) render its educational value questionable.
In the UK non-profits are much more closely watched if they apply for tax-exempt status. They can't act as a lobbyist for business or political interests. See the case of the Smith Institute [wikipedia.org], on paper an educational charity think tank, in reality an organ of the Labour party.