P2P filetrading insurance for only 19 bones a year, no way |
Loading ...Yes, way according to Boing Boing. Really? A swedish company via Tankafritt.nu is selling P2P filetrading insurance against being sued by the RIAA for $19/year. This has hoax written all over it to me, but since I don’t speak the language, I can’t verify the translation or any of the backstory.
Here are some of the reasons why I don’t believe this:
- it’s insurance against illegal activity. I’ve never heard of any policy that would do such a thing. How about marijuana insurance. They pay if the chronic is nabbed?
Now before anybody gets wrongly sidetracked, I do realize there is plenty of legitimate P2P filetrading going on, but the RIAA is only going to sue for the illegal variety so this loosely coined insurance policy is essentially insurance against illegal activity.
- not enough premium.
An update at the end of the Boing Boing post indicates the odds of being sued for P2P activity as being 1:1840 [source]. This is high, high, high risk insurance.
Lloyds of London will insure some pretty odd stuff for the right premium, but they usually have very high minimum premiums. Stuff like: insuring model’s lips. $19/year times the number of people who might seriously buy it vs. the risk just isn’t enough money.
- licensed/guaranteed by whom?. Is this an actual insurer or just some company that wants to act like an insurer? The red tape any company has to go through to become a bonafide insurer would most certainly prevent this type of insurance from ever becoming a reality. Who is guaranteeing — or at least certify and regulate — the company’s solvency?
I’m going to point my friend from Sweden to this post. I’m real curious what he has to say. Forser, is this bogus or what?
Related Posts- MPAA sues grandfather for $600,000 over 4 illegal movie downloads
- Privacy fears over surfing justified or not?
- Darren is taking it to next level with comment spammers
- Boing Boinged out by SmartFilter
- Voting today and didn’t try touch screens
- Studies show music sharing has little impact on CD sales
It isn’t bogus, there are similar services for not paying the fee when going by the subway/bus or when you drive past the taxbooths with your car.
BUT, i would never support that kind of stupid stuff, better go and shave of the beard, get a haircut and a nice suit.
and apply for a JOB.
If i download and get busted, then it is my damn own problem for doing something illegal.
Oh well, doesn’t see a future in that really.
Comment by Forser — June 30, 2006 @ 1:05 am PST
I don’t know if it bogus or not, it certainly sounds fishy. But given the way the RIAA has been conducting those lawsuits, there is a lot to insure there that isn’t for illegal activity.
They sued people that couldn’t physically have downloaded songs if they wanted to. A lot of their lawsuits are baseless, if not outright absurd. Not all, for sure, but a noticeable amount.
Most people will have a very hard time going to court for a lengthy and possibly very expensive trial, even if innocent. So theoretically an insurance against an unjustified lawsuit by the RIAA, which explicitly stipulates only covering costs if the insured person goes to trial and is found not guilty (or something like that), could make sense.
Of course, this makes it not an insurance for people trading copyright files against being sued by the RIAA, but an insurance for people who don’t trade copyrighted files against being sued by the RIAA. I don’t know Swede myself, so I’ve no idea if this is what they’re suggesting or not.
Comment by Yaron — July 2, 2006 @ 9:43 am PST