Slashdot Mirror
Few Takers For RIAA's "Clean Slate"
gbulmash writes "In the wake of the RIAA's highly-criticized "Clean Slate" program, a recent article about P2P United reveals that the RIAA has only had 838 takers for their file swapping amnesty offer. That's less than 1/1000th of one percent of the estimated number of P2P users worldwide."
37 Ben Dovers
22 I.P. Freelys
20 Hugh Jasses
C'mon people, they are trying to run a business here, not deal with cranks.
And how many of them will be sued next year after lapsing back into their MP3 addictions? Hmmmm...
do they think that i'm gonna turn myself in and possible be closely watched etc. when I can just keep on sharing files with almost 0% chance of getting caught!?? heh! this is the funniest thing i've ever heard. i'm gonna take my chances and keep on sharing ... (using PeerGuardian - you can never be too careful) ...
Investing forum
I would have thought that it would have been more than this. There's a lot of P2P sharers out there, and surely some of them wouldn't understand the ramifications of what they were doing. Then they see this, think "that's good, I won't get into trouble now", and get a clean slate. 838 is ridiculously low.
People aren't falling for the RIAA's line of bullshit. It's somewhat reassuring to know that only 1/1000th of one percent of the p2p using public aren't stupid enough to completely open themselves up to litigation. I wonder what kind of legal steps the RIAA might take after this development, though (increasing, decreasing prosecutions), and what might happen to those unfortunate 800-odd folks who did fall for it.
Did the RIAA at least send them a t-shirt with a nice target design on it? (your choice of in the back, or on the front)
[on the other hand, maybe the signees are lawyers setting up some sort of a legal honey pot.]
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Holy hell, that's several times as many people that were sued! Why would so many people go for this, when there wasn't any legal action yet? And, if I remember correctly, those who were sued were offered this "deal". Why didn't these people just wait to see if they were going to get sued, and THEN take the deal?
So for the P2P United businesses to become quote legitimate businesses end quote, they should act like the RIAA and the RIAA's constituents.
1. Sue their own customers.
2. "Offer" their artists (perhaps the programmers in this case?) unconscionable contracts along the line of "You agree to assign the authorship rights of your work to us. You will bear the entire financial risk of the marketing and reproduction of your work. In most cases we will receive the vast majority of the benefits of your work."
3. "Cook" their books so that any profits generated by their artists/programmers appear in the vaguest possible terms, again avoiding any requirement to actually pay the artists/programmers.
4. Control their customer's access to new and old works. Make it difficult/impossible for their customers to legally obtain works that aren't on the "top 40."
5. Accuse anyone who complains (or offers an alternative) of profound moral sins such as stealing from the artists.
6. Spend profits purchasing lobbying power to protect the above system.
7. Attack any organization or entity that appears to offer alternatives to the customers or artists.
8. Require the artists under threat of financial ruin to use the above system.
Wow. That's a great way to run a business. I'm sure that the P2P networks would be loved by everyone if they adopted to above "business plans."
I've got a few other words for Amy Weiss, but they are not fit for printing.
I bet I could interest them in 20% of some soon-to-be seized Nigerian oil money. Or maybe they'd just like to verify their Paypal or Citibank user name and password / PIN codes.
In other news, 838 copyright infringement lawsuits were initiated by the major record companies. RIAA spokesman, "We're doing out part, we said that the RIAA would not sue Clean Slate suck... er... members. We have no control over what the record companies do."
It was pretty clear to everyone that the "Clean Slate" program offered nothing to individuals. If you know the RIAA is coming after people, what's the difference between admitting guilt and just stopping?
Instead, the RIAA is just building a list of "admitted offenders" to do God-knows-what with later.
One thing the RIAA and company seem to have a hard time understanding is that there will always be another way of sharing content. Peer-to-peer file sharing is just a method out of hundred other. To stop filesharing you have to stop ALL traffic on the net and screen every mail delivered in the world.
Since I can burn my files onto a CDR and swap it with a friend instead, stopping P2P sharing through the various online services is not going to accomplish anything. Maybe they will succeed in stopping a promising communications protocol from being able to mature and start being used in other ways like in a distributed OS or other ways not yet used.
The only way to stop filesharing is to gain the trust and liking of the buyers so that they pay out of free will. RIAA has taken the opposite route which already has proven itself futile. One can only watch sadly when they destroy great technology for no good.
I think that one in a thousand is actually a pretty high rate.
Yes, but what they got was less than one percent of that.
In the metric system at least, 1% of "pretty high" is roughly equal to "quite low".
-- MarkusQ
Anyone who did do that would be pretty stupid and should probably deserve to be charged.
This is precisely the point. I know a lot of people who are somewhat uneasy about file sharing. Giving it bad publicity was probably their goal from the outset. Not that they're going to stop hardcore swappers who know several sites other than Kazaa, have each other's emails, know how to proxy sites, et c. but plenty of casual users will think twice about getting into it.
The other question is are these 838 people the ones that actually buy the things spammers sell ?
Seriously I am surprised anyone actually took this. Even if you were worried, and believed that the amnesty was worth something you could have checked for your name in the subpoena databases and if it wasnt there just stopped. Why expose yourself needlessly.
That is going under the assumption that ALL P2P useage is audio piracy... and that isnt true.
Thanks for spreading false information.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I think that this statement comes from the "glass is 99,999/100,000 empty" viewpoint. I'm more of an optimist, and I prefer to look at it as 1e-5 full.
I refuse to believe there are only 838 stupid people on the internet.
I guess the public-at-large is more savvy than we give them credit for. People saw the loophole in this "amnesty" offer glaring them in the face, and decided it wasn't a good idea. FYI, the loophole was(is?) that signing up only guarantees you won't be prosecuted by the RIAA; you're wide open to anyone else. And no one has enough faith in the RIAA to think that they would actually do something to protect you.
my $.02
-D
That's less than 1/1000th of one percent of the estimated number of P2P users worldwide.
The slashdot story perpetuates the same fallacy that the RIAA is constantly trying to promote, namely, that P2P == piracy. Not all of the P2P users worldwide need to be granted amnesty, because many have not done anything illegal. True, that 836 number is a tiny fraction of the number of pirates the RIAA estimates, but their numbers are skewed to help their cause. Still, ther are probably more than 836 people violating copyrights via P2P networks.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
Seriously... why doesn't the RIAA just make the amnesty form into a business-reply card and put them in all the kids magazines?
Does the name of this program remind anyone else of a line from the original Matrix?
...to which the obvious answer is...
Agent Smith: "We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start and all that we're asking in return is your cooperation in bringing a known terrorist to justice."
Neo: "Yeah. Wow, that sound like a really good deal. But I think I got a better one. How about I give you the finger... and you give me my FSCKING MP3s back?"
Declan McCullagh, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: September 29, 2003
A newly launched peer-to-peer trade association has offered to sit down and negotiate with music industry lawyers, while it simultaneously denounced its adversaries as obsolete and "tyrannosaurical."
P2P United, a group of six peer-to-peer businesses, held a coming-out event Monday in Washington, D.C. The lobbying effort is designed to demonstrate to the U.S. Congress that peer-to-peer companies are legitimate enterprises that will abide by the law. The group is touting a code of conduct that promises to warn users of their software that copyright infringement is wrong, but does not offer to police the vast sprawl of peer-to-peer networks for illegal activities.
The members of P2P United that showed up at the event at the National Press Club included LimeWire, Blubster, Grokster and Streamcast Networks, which distributes Morpheus. (The other two participants are BearShare and eDonkey 2000.) Noticeably absent from P2P United is Sharman Networks, distributor of Kazaa.
"P2P United is here and intends to remain here as a presence in Washington to demonstrate not just with our words but with our actions that this is not a fly-by-night business," Adam Eisgrau, a veteran lobbyist who represents P2P United, said at the event.
However, other members of the lobbying effort at the event denounced the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)--which is targeting individuals in its legal efforts to stifle file swapping--in language rarely heard in policy circles.
"What the hell are these guys doing? Who do they think they are? For God's sake!" Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster, said. "This is absolutely reprehensible. I don't care what anyone says, but suing a 12-year-old girl is child abuse."
Eisgrau said the colorful language shouldn't hurt the peer-to-peer group's planned efforts to reach a deal with the RIAA. "If they're afraid of a few adjectives, even our willingness to talk with them won't save them," Eisgrau said.
"It is refreshing to see that P2P United is acknowledging that their members should be more active in educating their users about the consequences of illegal file sharing that is rampant on their networks, as well as the other risks these networks pose to personal privacy and security," the RIAA said in a statement. "But, let's face it, they need to do a whole lot more before they can claim to be legitimate businesses."
P2P United wouldn't give details on what kind of deal it would seek with the RIAA and other copyright holders except to say that it was looking for some sort of compulsory license or indirect payment system. One idea that's been floated is for Congress to levy a tax on high-speed Internet connections, with the proceeds split between the RIAA and peer-to-peer companies.
"It has been reacted to as if it were radioactive," Eisgrau said, talking about the suggestion of compulsory licenses. "That has to change. It is a legitimate set of strategies present in copyright law in many forms. It is a general subject that belongs on the table."
Eisgrau, who once worked for the American Library Association, said the idea was to impose "small levies which are spread widely and pretty invisibly" and noted that a previous copyright compromise in Congress resulted in a few cents "being attached to the cost of a blank tape."
NYTimes subscription bs required
MoFscker
How many of the file swappers are actually under the age of 18, and thus not legally capable of executing a signed confession? What would a Notary Public have done if that 12 year old girl came in to get her confession notarized? "Can I see a driver's license please? Two forms of picture ID?"
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Yes this is just the latest in a long line of self-serving propaganda. Stories of this ilk have only one intention and it's completely self-serving.
Scare the consumer into staying with an old business model. Only misinformed and gutless fall for this misguided and weak attempt and converting the masses.
What we as consumers are best exemplifying is civil disobedience on a virtual, grass roots level. Copyright infringement isn't stealing so it's hardly disobedience but it's an easy way to articulate the thought.
I have been downloading this and that since it was mostly ftps through napster and the like and from my experience the files available are just as plentiful than before. The RIAA propoganda is just that...pure bullshit meant to scare little kids and grandparents. I've yet to see the RIAA go after someone with the funds and knowledge to fight them. They're going after the easy marks and I'm not surprised.
Whne it's said and done it'll just be little kids and grandparents who buy the shitty music we are exposed to on a weekly basis.
Anyone who buys music is polishing the brass on the Titanic. It's going down and I'm loving every minute of it:D
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
http://magnatune.com/
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Studies have found that 99,999 out of 100,000 Americans think the 100,000th guy is a dumbass.
-insert a witty something-
I'm sure the RIAA will soon be issueing a press statement saying "Clearly, based on the small number of people who responded to our amnesty program, music piracy via P2P networks is not nearly as pervasive as we had initially thought. We now feel that there are, at most, only a few thousand people using P2P networks to obtain copyrighted works. It would also seem that P2P networks are not to blame for decreased music sales and lower profits that RIAA members have experienced over the past few years."
I mean.. that's what logically follows, right?
I am NOT a man!
I am a free number!
If you signed up for the RIAA's amnesty program, here is some important information you need to know.
How ya like dat?
It's like an amnesty for any speeding you may have done in the past, if you promise not to speed in the future, and higher punishment if you do. Except that only makes sense if you think the cops have measured you speeding, just not issued the ticket yet. Otherwise, well you've already gotten away with it. Why turn yourself in, although you won't be punished for it - this time?
Personally I'd like a list of those people. I've got some penis enlargers, herbal viagra, pheromones and cheap mortages to sell, not to mention some Nigerian money that needs laundering.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why compare the number of takers for an offer only available in the U.S. to the number of file sharers worldwide?
It's like feeling really safe because the number of murders/year in your town is less than 1/100000 of the total murders/year worldwide, or something.
... so, how many employees does the RIAA have again? ;-)
Or is it too uncool in the U.S. to go to the public library?