What is Digg?44 Comments
- inactive, on 04/25/2008, -2/+13call your congressman/woman. Stop this ***** dead.
- AvangionQ, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6This angers me beyond words ...
- etourist2, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5Just like ignorance of laws doesn't protect you if you break them, not knowing the copyright owner of a work (even after reasonable steps have been taken to find them) shouldn't give you a free reign to use that work as you please. If you can't find the copyright holder to negotiate with then you shouldn't be entitled to use the work.
- anticorp, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Closer and closer towards a fascist state...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.co ... - dardrex, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6our gov't is full of ***** right... it's our creations... no one has a right to take it from us unless we sell it ourselves
- parrypix, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Let me take a wild guess that some companies with a lot of money are contributing to politicians to motivate them to pass the purposely misleadingly named "Orphan Bill."
It this law passes, let's orphan the jobs away from the politicians who voted for it.
Plus, every last photo of mine is coming off every site it's on. Good bye photos on internet, as a start. - chillnamoeba, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Rise up?
- ThePolitikMan, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Good video!
- Mitkartsumer, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2Ridiculous, i shouldn't pay to own what is already mine.
- HEROZ, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2Absurd. I just found out about this bill and I will do anything in my power to keep this from passing. Fascism is breathing down our necks and no one seems to care.....until Disney or Google use your Youtube clip or sketch to make a quick million. Then it's too late. Get active people!
- jotjot, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5Now you have to pay someone the rights to your own work thanks to Orphan Works Bill.
- Puxinatux, on 09/01/2008, -0/+2The Orphan Works Act will usurp the rights of the living artist -- let's put an end to this bill.
- psychedalien, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Very good video. It is shocking to see how corporates rule our lives!!!!!!!!
- AVTPro, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2This is a direct assault against FREEDOM
- JCPahl, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2Utterly disgusting.
- DANEgerous, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2We must kill this bill. my photos are... well.... mine
- crumvacker, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Please, please digg this and spread the word to any illustrators, photographers, etc. you know personally.
- Inevidence, on 01/04/2009, -0/+1I'd like to see the group who proposed that idea dumped into an artist convention. See what happens.
- RVRainey, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I have had work stolen already before and I didn't have them registered, I lost in not having enough money or access to a copyright attorney then. So money talks as usual. But we should contact our Congressmen, and Senators to stop this as it is an assult on our rights.
- Memesink, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1As someone who wants to be one of the "small guys," this bothers me quite a bit.
- ledartagnan, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Where is this bill made ?
Land of the Free ???
What's next which we will no longer own ? - kilcentralbanks, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1you dont get the point of this bill...
ever heard of the old saying "whats mine is mine and whats yours is mine"???
i suggest you go see a film called "the corporation", its on googlevideo, while your at it go watch another 1 called "the money masters". - MyTakes, on 01/04/2009, -0/+1Yeah they'd get a lot more than some exaggerated caricatures.
- Tessadafox, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1That is so wrong.... there are many talented artists that are young and don't even have enough money to pay for all their work... what will happen to us... who have no money for that and has all their work on a site to show the world and actually get some critics to improve.. not to get it taken by someone else and actually get away with it. **** off Orphan bill let us artists have our right and you big Corporations can just stop drooling over talented artists works *** OFF!
- OrangeFreedom, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1Almost every online community I have been part of will excommunicate you if you steal other people work and call it your own. Most artist do not have an interest in profiting from their work and do not want other to profit from it either. This bill goes against the open source communities that regulate them selves. This bill is for the privileged few that want to profit from other peoples work and have the means to do so. The law is by the people, of the people and for the people. As a people we should just be able to handle issues our selves, but a few anti-freedom citizens want to profit off the backs of every one else.
- Thien0995, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1This is ridiculous, ***** ridiculous, our art has value to US so that makes it ours, and we make it... so it's ours!
- CrazyPorpoise, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1WTF is this *****? We need to rise up and stop this bill. Like, NOW!
- Huwawa, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1@Partyworm:
Even so, the letters are asking Congress to hold of on passing this bill until next term, when it can be debated and revised. - bcvekic, on 01/04/2009, -0/+1Actually, it's not socialistic, as Alex mentioned in this interview. I lived in a socialist country (Serbia, Yugoslavia), and there was NO DOUBT what's yours in the terms of copyright laws, and all media that used somebody's work were paying fee to the author. For example, my brother had a band, and he was getting fee from every radio and tv station that played his songs. And besides, Sweden, for example, is in practice also a socialist country.
What Alex is talking about is DICTATORSHIP, which can be both left and right oriented. Even worse, in socialism everything belongs to the STATE, and for the benefit of the state. In the case of this particular law, all things belong to PRIVATE empires and corporations who have more money that average Joe. Not that this law violates the US constitution, it also violates constitutions of all the countries in the world. How can I, who live in small Serbia, possibly protect my work? - creardon, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Anyone ever heard of the "Long Tail" - small businesses out weigh large business, and generate more income. If this bill is put in place, small businesses will be severely damaged. Don't the people in Washington realize it's an eco-system?
- Thien0995, on 09/05/2008, -0/+0this is attacking the rights of every person though, not some ***** corporate company.
- Beadknots, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0You can also go to www.OWOH.org ( orphan works opposition headquarters) and sign a petition aginst this bill.
There are thousands of people there.
Also, write to your congressmens and house representatives, especially the ones are members of judiciary commette using the link below
http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/issues/a ...
They are the ones going to vote sometime before august 8.
We are in this together - inactive, on 12/29/2008, -0/+0Isn't this also UN-CONSTITUTIONAL?
- seogene, on 02/23/2009, -0/+0Amazing video. Always I find new thing what I didn't know early.
Thank you very march.
http://thepaydayadvances.blogspot.com/ - davidheath, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0plenty more on this issue here: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/18308/53/
- MickLauer, on 01/06/2009, -0/+0Corporations have always had systems in place to protect their work. Granted the internet has threatened a great number of them, they've still had the ability to take action against those that profited from the theft.
The other side of the coin is the individual artist, or the small group, that does have the money to protect every piece of work they do. In some cases, free-lancers would be making a fraction of what their work is worth only because they had to make sure no one else stole it.
That's like paying a fee to register that the paycheck handed to me by my employer is my own, otherwise some random stranger could simply nab it out of my hands and cash it themselves. Does that make sense? - Virgo911, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0absolutely ridiculous "law"!!!!
- bcvekic, on 01/04/2009, -0/+0@Partyworm
Rights of the corporation and an individual artist are not exactly the same. In the case of "piracy" that affects corporations, there is one misconception-corporations claim they lose money they actually NEVER HAD. I'll not point to some "anti-corporation" movie now, I will give you a REAL example.
EXAMPLE: I live in Serbia that was under international sanctions from 1992-2000. No imports no exports. Now, there is a band called "Red hot chili peppers". People in Serbia could hear them only on pirated CDs, because there were no originals, neither we could afford it. But, on the other side, RHCP didn't have to organize commercials, promotions, etc. for our market. RHCP invested ZERO on marketing in Serbia. But, they somehow "heard" that they are very popular here, and they came to Serbia to play in 2007.
There was 80.000 people on concert, the largest amount of people on a single concert in Europe that year.
So, they invested ZERO in Serbia, and earned approx. 2.500.000$. If they had to rely on "legal" music, they would sell 200 copies of their CD, and they would have 150 people on concert. So, what did they lose because of "piracy"?
How could they say they lost, don't know, a 1.000.000$ on pirated CD-s, when they would NEVER get that money from people here? It was not a choice "will I buy or steal". There was NO WAY to buy a legal copy. So, how can companies lose something they never had?
To make it shorter:
--Piracy and "Freedom of information" make big companies lose SOME money (and only some money), but adds greatly to popularity of their products, and to the authors of those products. "Give it away" is still a RHCP song, even on mp3, isn't it?
--This "orphan" law makes an author to lose EVERYTHING-popularity, name, property, money and rights.
So, you just can't compare two of these. - cbmtrx, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0This is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
- chekov1701, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0Totally agree. But I don't think that this Orphan Bill will happen anytime soon, but if it does I think there will be too much opposition from artists about this new law.
- MickLauer, on 01/06/2009, -0/+0So what this bill is saying is: "Either your art is registered...or it's worthless." Did I get that right?
During a time of such economic turmoil, how can the government bring themselves to continue discussing such a monstrously destructive piece of legislature?
I'll be doing some more research into this matter, but I'm curious what the counter-argument is...as in, who could justify the passing of this bill? Who are they? And what are their interests? The obvious surface answer (I'd assume), is that the bill was concocted by non-artists who are looking for new ways to take advantage of a sweeping online archive of talent.
But there has to be something even deeper than that. Especially with the future of art at stake here. After such a bill passes, art won't be shared...it will be bought. And this, to me, is the saddest benchmark in the evolution of how our society views artists and work they create: the notion that art is either "commercial" or it's "worthless". - psychtaygar, on 01/07/2009, -0/+0Why fix what isn't broken?
- pierresplace, on 05/29/2008, -1/+0It takes just $35 to register a work the last I heard. Isn't your work worth that much?
- Partyworm, on 05/27/2008, -3/+1I'm probably going to be dugg down, but what the hell.
When i first heard about this i was outraged. But then i thought about it some more, and i started to wonder - are we being hypocritical here? We attack corporations and draconian intellectually property laws for being ridiculously out of touch with the digital era, and then something comes along that threatens our own intellectual property we flip out, just as corporations have, from the fear of having our own works stolen from us. We preach the freedom to share information, and then do the exact opposite when our own interests are affected.
Not saying i support this law, as it seems unfairly weighted towards big interests, but it's definitely something one needs to consider before actively preaching for freedom of information and relaxation of IP laws, without realizing how it could potentially affect the little man.
No big deal, vassever. Bruno is our latest guest for Digg Dialogg. 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is