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."

838!

[cliffy2000]

And how many of them will be sued next year after lapsing back into their MP3 addictions? Hmmmm...

A good sign

[7759-60784-1-E]

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.

*ONLY* 838 takers?!?!

[Spazholio]

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?

RIAA's version of a Legitimate business

[Erik_the_Awful]

"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.

Not...

[Simple-Simmian]

Unlike the leadership of SCO and the RIAA most people doing P2P music trading are not smoking crack.

In other news...

[arctan1701]

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."

Maybe the RIAA will realize people just dont care!

[Mr. Ophidian Jones]

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.

Of worldwide P2P users?

[inaeldi]

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.

Re:This surprises me

[B.D.Mills]

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.

I don't think numbers are what they're aiming for

[metroid composite]

"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 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.

1/1000th of 1% of p2p users?

[nurb432]

That is going under the assumption that ALL P2P useage is audio piracy... and that isnt true.

Thanks for spreading false information.

P2P users are not necessarily pirates

[L-Train8]

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.

Interesting question

[El]

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?"

Spite and Plenty-O-Files

[felonious]

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

Re:This surprises me

[Second Vampyre]

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.

How strange..

[Kjella]

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

Re:P2P users are not necessarily pirates

[yuri benjamin]

Then what do you call downloading and not paying for an album/song?

Bootlegging.
Pirates kill people in order to loot their cargo (this still happens on the world's oceans).
I won't put people who murder and people who infringe copyrights under the same label.
I'm not saying it's okay to infringe on someone else's temporarily granted right to exclusive distribution of an intellectual work.
But please don't use the same label for such people as you would for murderers.

Re:P2P users are not necessarily pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirates kill people in order to loot their cargo.

Since we're being strict here: a pirate loots cargo. Killing people is not necessary to be called a pirate.