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.
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.
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 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.