Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Media Music The Courts Your Rights Online News

Few Takers For RIAA's "Clean Slate" 252

Posted by timothy
from the now-how-much-would-you-pay dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Few Takers For RIAA's "Clean Slate"

Comments Filter:
  • by Dancin_Santa (265275) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:13PM (#7090696) Journal
    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.
  • by grolschie (610666)
    As to be expected, why would anyone volunteer for this?
  • 838! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cliffy2000 (185461)
    And how many of them will be sued next year after lapsing back into their MP3 addictions? Hmmmm...
    • How many will be used by the record labels individualy (not the RIAA as a colective) even if they DON'T lapse? They are only ptorected from the RIAA, not the labels as individuals. It's also a slam dunk case, they have already plead guilty!
  • by cRueLio (679516)
    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) ...
  • This surprises me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scrote-ma-hote (547370) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:15PM (#7090715)
    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.
    • Re:This surprises me (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Davak (526912) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:23PM (#7090787) Homepage
      An older buddy of mine got scared, called, and said that he would stop sharing files. They told him to delete everything and that he would not be charged. End of story. They never took his name, number, sent him a get-out-of-free card, or anything.

      So...

      I'm assuming if they come after you. one can just erase everything and say, "I called and the guy said if I erase everything, you would forgive me."

      • Do you believe everything people tell you?

        Is it really your plan to go in to court, and say "uh this guy called me and told me it was OK?"

        And even worse, someone moderated up the "anonymous-stranger-told-me-it-was-ok" legal defense plan.
      • An older buddy of mine got scared, called, and said that he would stop sharing files. They told him to delete everything and that he would not be charged. End of story. They never took his name, number, sent him a get-out-of-free card, or anything.

        Someone should repeat that expiriment and record the phone call, making sure that somewhere in the exchange validating information is provided by the representative of the RIAA. That phone call (if legit) could provide amnesty for anyone if posted to the Int
      • They never took his name, number, sent him a get-out-of-free card, or anything.

        That's naive. Just because they didn't ask for his number, doesn't mean the call isn't logged with a CID string somewhere. And even if they don't depend on CID, the RIAA has already shown that it's more than happy to subpoena the phone company when it thinks it could find some useful information...

      • Yeeeesss...

        I hope that, even if your buddy wasn't asked for his details, he at least got the name of the person who told him this, and noted the date and time of the call. It still might not have much effect, but at least it's something, y'know?
    • by B.D.Mills (18626) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:24PM (#7090799)
      There's a sucker born every minute. Spammers make a "living" the same way. Spammers spam to millions, and make all their profit on the miniscule percentage that respond to the offer. The RIAA is doing much the same thing - making a dubious offer to the gullible - and it's not really surprising that the response rates are similar to the response rates for spam.

      I would love to get hold of the list of people that have responded to the RIAA's offer. I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell cheap.
    • The set of people who are cluefull enough to know the amnesty exists, and yet still clueless enough to beleive it will do them any good, is actually quite small. Plus, it costs time and money to have your confession notarized. I wonder if any of those 838 are faked confessions sent in with the name of RIAA officials...
  • ... if it turns out that those swappers where actually swapping KaZaA!
  • ...according to news reports [sfgate.com], 52 out of 261 of the people sued have settled so far.

    On the other other hand, this bit of news is brought to us by the RIAA themselves -- a continuation of their FUD PR stuntery.

    On the other other other hand, all this still makes the RIAA look bad.

    Good night, and screw the RIAA.
  • A good sign (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 7759-60784-1-E (706154) <deaconblues@nospam.inbox.lv> on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:17PM (#7090733)
    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.
    • It is a good sign - and I suspect it's because the grand majority of P2P users (well, computer users in general) know at least one "geek" they can turn to for advice. I myself have been asked by at least 10 different family members and friends about this whole "lawsuit" thing with music, and quickly responded that the RIAA is full of it and they have little to fear - and certainly never trust anything they say, since they're rather well known for outright lying.
    • 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'm sure a lot of the reason so few people signed up is because no one knew about it. I never heard anything about it except for on slashdot.
    • 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.

      Yeah, those 800 people are a LOT dumber than the millions of P2P users who only MOSTLY open themselves up to litigation!

      Anyone who trades copyrighted materials on P2P networks are open to litigation. Signing up for the RIAA "amnesty" list didn't do anything but make it easier for them to find out who you are.
  • by Alien54 (180860) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:17PM (#7090734) Journal
    I am reminded of the far side cartoon: "bummer birthmark, man"

    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.]

    • 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)



      This is the RIAA. They're shipping pants with a target design on each pair. In the back, of course.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      The deer's name is Hal. "Bummer of a birthmark, Hal.

      Don't worry, I won't hold it against you.
  • by Spazholio (314843) <slashdot@lexalIII.net minus threevowels> on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:17PM (#7090736) Homepage
    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?
    • The RIAA "amnesty" does not apply to people who have pending litigation against them. (this is the RIAA's terms, not anyone elses).
    • *ONLY* 838 takers

      is in fact the true number of downloaders out there. The rest are spoof accounts. These 838 will of course go to jail due to the billions they have cost the record companies. and will be responsible for all damages.

      This will go down as the world's biggest practical joke, faking out the RIAA.

    • by babyrat (314371)
      the RIAA specifically said this offer was not extended to anyone who had already been contacted, or presumably to anyone in the future once they were contacted by the RIAA lawyers.

      That's why they didn't wait.
  • by Erik_the_Awful (675368) * on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:17PM (#7090741) Journal
    "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," Amy Weiss, senior vice president of communications for 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."

    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.

    • Of course, no pun intended, this whole situation is like the show trials in Soviet Russia, under Stalin. Stalin would force people to sign ludicrious confessions that involved grandiose plans to topple the government, and then had then executed for their "crime".
    • act like the RIAA and the RIAA's constituents: 1. Sue their own customers.
      I see file swappers being referred to as 'the RIAA's customers' a lot, but they really aren't. You wouldn't refer to a grocer as 'someone arresting his own patrons' when he nabs a shoplifter, whould you? Not even if that shoplifter happens to make legitimate purchases from the store from time to time.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    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.

  • It will be very interesting to the next move made by the RIAA. Their whole 'shock and awe' campaign seems not to have rocked the boat much.
    It has been said, but I will repeat it...when the 'average' person believes mp3 trading/sharing to be legal/moral/whatever, then the RIAA can threaten up the wazoo with minimal results.
    At my school, a recent poll showed that well over the majority of students felt that mp3 sharing was 'ok to do' even though a much smaller percentage actually participated in the file
  • Not... (Score:1, Insightful)

    Unlike the leadership of SCO and the RIAA most people doing P2P music trading are not smoking crack.
  • In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arctan1701 (635900) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:19PM (#7090751)
    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."
  • by Mr. Ophidian Jones (653797) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:20PM (#7090761)
    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.
  • by inaeldi (623679) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:24PM (#7090798)
    Why the hell would anyone outside of the US even consider giving themselves in to the RIAA?

    Anyone who did do that would be pretty stupid and should probably deserve to be charged.

  • "The music community's efforts have triggered a national conversation--especially between parents and kids--about what's legal and illegal when it comes to music on the Internet," said Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, in a statement. "In the end it will be decided not in the courtrooms, but at kitchen tables across the country. We are heartened by the response we have seen so far."

    This is precisely the point. I know a lot of people who are somewhat uneasy about file sharing. Giving it bad publicity

  • by Crashmarik (635988) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:26PM (#7090813)
    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.
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:26PM (#7090814) Homepage Journal
    That is going under the assumption that ALL P2P useage is audio piracy... and that isnt true.

    Thanks for spreading false information.
  • by Waffle Iron (339739) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:27PM (#7090826)
    That's less than 1/1000th of one percent of the estimated number of P2P users worldwide."

    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.

  • Isn't it completelly obvious to (practiclly) everyone that the extended olive branch was just a publicity gimmick? I say practiclly only because RIAA ends up shooting themselves in the foot again with more negative publicity. How many more times can one firm screw up before the snowball becomes an avalanche? Boycott RIAA [boycott-riaa.com] is gonna go mainstream within months.

    The real news in all this should be that things are going to get a lot worse before it gets better for RIAA.
    RIAA Sues wrong person [slashdot.org]
    P2P Music Shari [slashdot.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:29PM (#7090835)
    I refuse to believe there are only 838 stupid people on the internet.
    • by DrEldarion (114072) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:47PM (#7090938)
      It's just that all the other ones were too stupid to know what "amnesty" meant.

      -- Dr. Eldarion --
    • I refuse to believe there are only 838 stupid people on the internet.

      If you count up their aol screen names (8) and other idents (120), you'll find these 838 stupid people represent 107,264 internet users, which i'd say is about the same response you get when you send out say four million spams for wincash or the latest get rich quick scam.
  • 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.
  • by jemenake (595948) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:38PM (#7090890)
    ...and further investigation reveals that, of those signing up for amnesty, 94% of those individuals were unpopular high-schoolers who seem to have also recently:
    • Subscribed to a whole bunch of lame magazines, asking to be billed later,
    • Requested enlistment information from all four branches of the armed service, and
    • Signed up for diaper delivery service.


    Seriously... why doesn't the RIAA just make the amnesty form into a business-reply card and put them in all the kids magazines?
  • That's less than 1/1000th of one percent of the estimated number of P2P users worldwide.

    And yet, I'm sure they will somehow end up being taken for the same amount that the RIAA would sue all P2P users for combined, since they freely admit to illegal actions... Last I checked, an agreement made outside of legal context (ex: side betting, friendly wager, etc.) cannot be bound by the laws of the United States government.
  • It should be noted that of the 838, an astounding 773 had the name Hugh Jass, Phil McCrackin, Mike Hunt, Ben Dover, or Hugh Janus.
  • So I was going to go look for the number of employes the RIAA had, as I was betting on the fact that they probaly only have 838.

    The interesting thing was, www.riaa.org is not coming up.

    Thinking that this was just my internet connection, I travled to www.webperf.org for a 3rd party breakdown and I received a 130 second response time..

    Damn, what a shame. *grin*
  • by $beirdo (318326) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:45PM (#7090926) Homepage
    Does the name of this program remind anyone else of a line from the original Matrix?

    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." ...to which the obvious answer is...

    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?"
  • more from Wired (Score:4, Informative)

    by segment (695309) <sil @ p o l i t rix.org> on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:46PM (#7090935) Homepage Journal
    P2P group seeks peace but talks tough
    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 [nytimes.com] subscription bs required

    • 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."
      I think the RIAA's member companies "need to do a whole lot more before they can claim to be legitimate businesses."

      Or at least, they can adapt to the technology.

    • 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.

      Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?? Seriously, how utterly stupid an idea can you come up with? If there's one thing more retarded than assuming every P2P user is a criminal, it's assuming every *high-speed internet* user is one! Your politicians really WANT to hurt internet growth in the US, don't they?
  • by El (94934) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:51PM (#7090960)
    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?"
  • ...only a very small amount of population are really that stupid [members.shaw.ca], right?
  • by felonious (636719) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:52PM (#7090971) Journal
    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
  • by saskboy (600063) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:53PM (#7090978) Homepage Journal
    And try supporting the alternatives:


    [magnatune.com]
    http://magnatune.com/

  • by EvilSporkMan (648878) on Monday September 29, 2003 @09:56PM (#7090990)
    Studies have found that 99,999 out of 100,000 Americans think the 100,000th guy is a dumbass.
  • by anon*127.0.0.1 (637224) <slashdot@baudk[ ]a.com ['arm' in gap]> on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:08PM (#7091062) Journal
    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?

  • How strange.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kjella (173770) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:58PM (#7091179) Homepage
    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
  • Apples and oranges (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lightspawn (155347) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @02:32AM (#7091629) Homepage
    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.

  • that all file sharers who didn't register are obviously illegal. We gave everyone a chance to tell us if they were illegal and we only got 800 of them. They have been warned and given a chance to repent and now have no defence against our huge supoenas.

    Of course we could find that those 800 plus the 260 supoenaed were wholly responsible for all the illegal fire sharing going on and the rest of us are in fact sharing open licenced product and band released bootlegs.

    I know I am.

  • ... so...how much is that in elephants please?
  • by DaneelGiskard (222145) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @05:19AM (#7092042) Homepage
    ... so, how many employees does the RIAA have again? ;-)
  • by vonFinkelstien (687265) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @06:13AM (#7092213)
    I was just wondering how many others (besides me), who use the public library to try out and rip CDs instead of P2P. Sure the selection is not as good as P2P (except for Classical music, which is my primary choice), but there is no problems with RIAA, lawsuits, viruses, crappy downloads, etc. You only have to look out for scratches and dirt on the CDs before ripping.

    Or is it too uncool in the U.S. to go to the public library?

    • many people I know do this. it's perfectly legal in most countries, but I'm not sure if it is in the US.
    • Actually our libraries have quite a good selection. You can even request the latest hot cd if you want (and willing to wait).

      And box sets...well those are nice.


      • Sure, but it's still copyright infringement to rip a library-owned CD for your unlimited personal use.
        • Might technically be, but think about the logic behind this move before blowing it off as "plainly illegal - so what's the point?"

          The government pays for these libraries to purchase CDs so they can be loaned out to anyone who asks for a library card. There's no real limit on how often you can check a CD back out after the first time you borrow it, and no restrictions on your personal listening while you've got it checked out.

          Yet, if you copy it (allowing others to borrow the original, and possibly even s
  • The settlements, which do not include any admission of wrongdoing, require Internet users to destroy copies of illegally downloaded songs and agree to "not make any public statements that are inconsistent" with the agreement.

    Dear World:

    The RIAA is Mother.
    The RIAA is Father.
    {signed}
    52 Signatures of Settlement
  • That's 838 more than I thought would sign up. I'm actually quite amazed by the number, the RIAA should be touting this all over the news.
  • How many spent more money on CDs this month than they spent last month?

    Because it's that issue, and nothing to do with file sharing or any other indirectly related matter that's the RIAA's problem.

    All the misery that they're causing, all of the PR gaffs that they keep making, it all counts for nothing unless people start spending more.

    So, let's hear it, RIAA. You've built up an industry that controls the channels of distribution so well that you can apparently tell how many unlicensed CDs are being s

IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...