What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
49 Comments
- owenphen, on 11/17/2008, -1/+53***** THE RIAA
- Natitude, on 11/17/2008, -1/+33It's about damn time!
- GeorgeWKush, on 11/18/2008, -1/+20A Harvard Law School professor? The RIAA is totally *****.
- Cannon49, on 11/18/2008, -2/+21$220,000 for 24 songs, ya thats about right.
- NeedlerFanPudge, on 11/17/2008, -3/+19LOL
RIAA can't catch a break these days, and they weren't doing so good in the first place... - kd420, on 11/17/2008, -1/+15It's still unbelievable that they put such high penalties per song. If they had a reasonable rate (even ~5$ per song, 5X the actual price) I could see it as somehow remotely close to justice. But how can I even think about the moral issue of copyright infringement when they are so greedy and corrupt about it? Until they stop acting like idiots and actually make a real, valid case all I can say is ***** the RIAA!
- thePTS, on 11/18/2008, -0/+13Heh, seen your kind before in these debates, think you can come in all high and mighty and expose everyone as hypocrites.
Problem for you is that most of us who attack these kind of laws, are among the most important customers of the entertainment industry, and we are not trying to legitimize thievery, but to lay the foundations for digital rights that we're going to have for the next hundreds of years. We want to avoid the unfair market these slimes want to create for themselves:
- they want to print unlimited digital copies for free, but charge the same price for each copy
- they want to control in detail how you use the "object" you buy from them, and charge you more and more for it.
- they want to keep mass producing cheap pop alternatives and discourage diversity.
- they want artificial boundaries on a free and open information exchange channel.
Basically they want us all to be hooked on being like everyone else and tuning into the mainstream, so they can print money by creating stars with their age-old, standard star formulas.
They blame their consumers when they have a sinking market (did they think the CD and DVD age would last for ever?). And how much of my money, which I use to buy legal media on a monthly basis, is being used on these useless, annoying piracy protections and these infantile law suits?
These creeps have none of my respect, and they don't deserve any of it either. I'm almost tempted to start downloading in stead of buying. - HookmasterCH47, on 11/18/2008, -1/+13The law should be used as a shield, and not a sword. I'm all for this lawyer. I think our judicial system has more important things to do than go chasing free money for the ***** in the RIAA. Oh, and a pirated song does NOT equate a lost sale. If EA can realize this then so can everyone else.
- Cannon49, on 11/18/2008, -1/+8http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n48/lil_naruto/ ...
- Zuwxiv, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7This guy helped work on the case that became "A Civil Action." Great book by the way.
So yeah, I hope the RIAA is ***** nice and proper. - Vektuz, on 11/18/2008, -1/+8A lot of web radio stations tried to do this. And then got labeled as "web broadcasters". And then got sued.
And now the FCC/RIAA want to increase the licencing fees for online podcasts/web radios to be ridiculously overpriced, pushing services like Pandora out of business.
They're getting so very good at shooting themselves in the foot. - EMFK, on 11/18/2008, -1/+7He should join forces with EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation).
http://www.eff.org/ - alphaeno, on 11/18/2008, -1/+7"One idea would be to bundle music with ads and post it for free online, he says." Kinda like Hulu with videos, smart.
- caes08, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6the fact that the RIAA is ***** makes it easier for me to sleep at night
- feignNU, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5ratles:
Do you really think that the RIAA is perfectly in line here? Do you really think that copyright law is fine as it is? Do you really think 150,000 dollars *per song* is in any way a fair penalty for sharing it? Because if you really think so, I say you're a moron. Or an employee of the RIAA itself. Or more likely a simple troll.
I mean you clearly don't intend to have a real conversation on this topic. thePTS made it quite clear that those of us who are against the RIAA understand that intellectual property has value for a reason. We understand that artists, and even record labels, need money to keep doing what they're doing, and we WANT to give it to them.
What we *don't* want are laws that allow enormous corporate entities to use outdated copyright laws to unfairly force a tired old business model down our throats. - zirce, on 04/04/2009, -2/+6(obligatory)
***** THE CRIA - JulyZerg, on 11/18/2008, -2/+5Does anyone know where I can get myself a "***** the RIAA" t-shirt?
- Atertract, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3This could be big.
- Kyora, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3It's good to see that people are finally fighting back. :)
- atobkindaurl, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2hopefully others join
- WaxTrax, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3As always, ***** the RIAA!
- Unknown038, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3@ratles
"and you already agree to all those controls when you buy the product, it doesn't matter how fair you think they are, its a contract"
that's exactly the reason why we DON'T buy the product. DRM and other such evil devices impose unfair limits on the customer, which is why many customers simply get it for free. if the RIAA was willing to offer customers a high-quality, DRM-free, *****-free product, piracy would decrease.
this is offtopic, but take Spore for example. it has one of the most draconian DRM systems known to the gaming industry (securom w/ only 3 installs allowed), and yet the game was cracked and readily offered on the torrent network days before it was even released . i know of multiple people who would gladly have paid its $50 pricetag, yet pirated it instead for fear of the devastating power of securom (it has since become one of the most pirated games of all time). this same theory applies to the music industry. if you treat your customers like criminals, and offer them nothing but *****, you will lose them. - dragonballz66, on 11/18/2008, -1/+2The RIAA should consult with Attorney Ben Dover.
- Ratteler, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2You conveniently left out the "Popular Amendment" option.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
To Paraphrase,
The Constitution's power is derived from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of ALL the people.
If the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, the people must be allowed to make such a change?
"... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them." Wilson -1787.
In the mean time, YOU, and your fellow travelers like the RIAA/MPAA, are one of my best weapons in making that change. You clearly disregard the rights of this nations citizens in general. Supporting Terror campaigns using the legal system to enforce your will without due process. Illegal breach of private communication. Complete lack of evidence as to any actual infringement that has taken place. You even challenge the rights of those consumers who DO pay for your work, granting them NO RIGHT of ownership to for their purchase, and attempting to dictate how those purchases are used after the fact.
All I need to do is educate the public in general to your agenda and remind of them of their actual rights. They don't "fall into line" against you, THEY RUN TO VOLUNTEER FOR THE CAUSE.
You keep on supporting "The Law".
I'm going to worry about loosing this war the day you move toward the center and admit the system needs reform. Until you start compromising, you just keep driving people to my side. - Drkgodess, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1hurray!
- vashth3stampede, on 11/18/2008, -2/+3what what?
in the butt. - thePTS, on 11/18/2008, -1/+2"Why shouldn't they get the value of their creation in every single copy, whether it be the first or the ten millionth? And under what justification can you argue that the intellectual property contained in a later copy isn't worth as much as the first"
Does money get less worth the more they are mass produced? Yes.
Does every single commodity in the universe have this dynamic? Yes.
Did you ever hear about supply and demand?
What these people want, is to break the rules for supply and demand. They make the logical short-circut that because there are so many copies of their music, that means the demand for their music is equally great, where as in fact the amount of copies reflect supply and low cost.
Also, ask yourself, why are some types of intellectual property more valued by people like you, than others? Why, for instance, are there so few millionaires among scientists? They can get a small boost from lectures, maybe a book, until the theory is absorbed in other fields or in books that sum up the core conclusions. Why don't the scientists get paid each time their theories are being applied, or at least when written down?
"You may not like it, but since the dawn of copyright,"
You may not like it, but the rules of copying and ownership of items has changed drastically since the introduction of digital data. That's something you and many others seem to have a hard time understanding.
"They are making a product that people are willing to pay for."
Again you are referring to the logical short-circuit that the people who download, are just dumb leeches who want to get something for free that they otherwise would have paid for. Wrong.
We see record companies more or less saying pirates owe them billions of dollars, whereas they have no idea how their product would have sold in a regulated market. Completely out of touch with reality. We see guys like ID Software blaming the lack of purchases of their game, Doom III, on piracy, rather than admitting fault and realizing the fact that their game had stale and mediocre gameplay.
"No matter how much you shout from the rooftops that all music and media should be free, it's never going to happen. The world doesn't work that way and never will."
It already has happened. The internet is a digital ether where music goes in one end and echoes throughout the system. And all attempts to stopping this dynamic and avoiding realizing the truth for those who work in industries affected by this, is a complete waste of consumers money.
I'm sorry. - JohnGotty, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1lol, yeah that's pretty accurate. smh @ the RIAA
- Ratteler, on 11/18/2008, -1/+2Absolutely true.
For example the Big Media Terror groups have, until now, had NO REPERCUSSIONS from stealing from the Artist, Author and Inventor. So they believe they have the RIGHT to circumvent the will of the American People just like they do those artists.
This is why We The People... need to make them pay the "enormous penalty" of loosing all Copyright. - Ratteler, on 11/18/2008, -1/+2Right. And when We The People... decide that the Big Media Terror Groups have abused the Law, and circumvented the will of the people, our "Punitive Damages" against them will take the form of REVOKING COPYRIGHT to Deter similar anti-American conduct in the future.
- Ratteler, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2The reason we didn't get a direct democracy was logistical not any "fear or the majority".
There was simple no workable way to make everyones vote count and still have a functional government when communication from the top to bottom states was measured in months.
Today we can communicate in fractions of a second from anywhere on the globe.
Direct Democracy is now TECHNICALLY possible. It's the Tyranny of the Elite, like you, who dedicate every waking moment to protecting your privileges against the will of the people who don't want a direct democracy (Or any real democracy at all.)
The Popular Amendment is a logistical nightmare, and you're right... it will probably never actually happen. When ever enough people get together to even make it a credible threat, the politicians will capitulate, and the peoples demands will be met with one of the other constitutional methods.
After all, why set a precedent of people directing the government without "representative" interference, and loose that power, when you can seem like the hero and let them doze back off.
Either way, we WILL get back the rights you've stolen from us. - jamesglord, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1I would encourage people to simply do this boycott all recording media concerts excreta and remind RIAAI the public has the final say, they put a surcharge on cassette tapes once.
- Ratteler, on 11/18/2008, -1/+1Where can I contribute to his case!!! Some one set this man up a PayPal account.
- locojones, on 11/18/2008, -1/+1So you would be completely find if you suffered a catastrophic injury due to the negligence of another and you were unable to wield the sword of the law to get your damages? Afterall, that's just what you said.
- locojones, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1"There was simple no workable way to make everyones vote count and still have a functional government when communication from the top to bottom states was measured in months."
I wonder who I'm going to believe on this point -- a delusional poster who clearly needs medication, or James Madison, who actually signed the founding documents of the country? I'll go with the latter, who wrote on the idea of direct democracy:
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths..."
You should read through the Constitution. Noticably absent in the document is the word "democracy." - inactive, on 11/18/2008, -2/+2No one should settle. They should all join together and fight back.
And not download from college computers, what are they, retarded? - Ratteler, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1Spoken like a true elitists.
I suppose there are NO RIGHTS in your belief system that DO NOT have monetary value assigned to them.
You can twist my words all you like... you know damn well that there is a enormous groups of people who simple cannot afford to BUY their justice at the inflated price the Corporate Oligarchy puts on it.
99.99% of the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits never get to trail because they have the money to harass the
I didn't say the lawyer doesn't have a right to charge. I said as a business, the lawyer HAS to refuse a case that would not be profitable. That doesn't mean he wouldn't win, or that the the defendant's rights haven't been trampled. It means he would make more money on cases with less difficulty that could resolved in a more timely manner. If the contingency fees will not be worth the lawyers effort, it's only reasonable to assume that he would not take the job.
Since there is nothing like a Public Defender for civil actions, this leaves the defendant in this case relying on a passionate, and wealthy Pro Bono benefactor to defend themselves.
Without that, their options are putting their entire life on hold and educating themselves to every nuance of the legal system to represent themselves, or paying the extortion fee, and falsely confessing to a "crime" in order to be left alone.
Just because you've elevated the cost of maintaining a right above the amount your terror groups are asking, doesn't mean justice has been served.
Of those who have had the time, money, and ability to fight back... those wealthy enough to pay the lawyer enough up front to defend them, the vast majority of cases are dropped so that the outcome doesn't set a legal precedent.
Of course anyone who can quote law like you can KNOWS THIS already.
Either you're some kind of developmentally challenged individual who to spite have all these facts and figures at your disposal can't see the truth... or your a morally challenged individual who simple does not care.
You are clearly the fool, thinking that simple because you deny the truth the average person doesn't understand that you have victimized them. When the facts don't support you view, you ignore them. When they are brought to light in spite of your neglect, you resort to personal attacks.
It's bad enough to claim that the public property of ideas should be owned for eternity by those whom have been loaned it by society. But to then turn around and claim that Justice is served by the rapid abuse of our legal system.... you have crossed the line from some of a bad opinion, to an active participant in oppression of the less privileged classes of society.
Once again you've shown yourself to be a spoiled brat with the "MINE MINE MINE" mentality of 2 year old. You claim whatever right you want under "the Law" like a lord claiming ius primæ noctis over virgins on his land, and then balk at the peasants outrage while making fun of the fact their arguments are less informed because YOU have denied them the ability and right to educate themselves.
You are a TYRANT. Plain and Simple. - Ratteler, on 11/18/2008, -1/+1
Access to law is based on access to money in this society, so for the 99% of the population that does not control 60% of the wealth, and therefor the corrupted legal system, that is already the situation.
You can only effectively litigate against people of your own class and station. In the case of a Corporation attacking an individual, it is nothing short of predatory class warfare.
And inequity of law that cannot be rectified as long as those who control the legal system are those who have the money.
You're argument is like playing a game of chess where the guy who controls the white pieces can change the rules of how the black pieces move every turn, but the one who controls the black pieces has to wait till the game is over to even protest, and then he only get to protest to the white player! - locojones, on 11/19/2008, -1/+1Clearly you're not an attorney, so I wouldn't expect you to understand how the notion of contingency fees exist to provide legal access to those who can't front the costs of litigation. And whether you'd like to believe it or not, much of the important change that has come in this country through litigation has occured through the small guy prevails over the big guy without the small guy being able to afford it. Clearly, if your argument held any water, that result would never happen.
- locojones, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1I'm not sure what planet you live on Ratteler, but the civil justice system is designed to compensate aggrieved parties WITH MONEY. So forgive my lack of surprise if a lawyer refuses to take either a losing case or a case that won't pay for the costs of its own prosecution or defense. Because our system is based on a "loser pays" philosophy where the losing litigant pays the other side's costs and attorney's fees, it wouldn't make sense to pursue cases in any other way. I understand that you expect all movies, music, and other forms of entertainment to be free, but to expect attorneys to forgo working for money too is simply beyond reason.
And I don't know who is feeding you your propoganda, but you clearly have no idea how the real world works. Contingency fees are an incredibly important cog in the justice machine. They allow parties who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford the vindication of their rights to have their cases heard. If they lose, they're out no money. If they win, then the lawyer gets a cut. And because you're so fond of the social compact of contracts between parties, I can't understand why you're complaining that an attorney takes more or less of a piece if that's what the parties agreed upon.
Additionally, the contingency fees actually promote the advocacy of grey area cases, contrary to your assertions. Without these arrangements, most of those cases would never see the light of day. Nor do you even bother to address the tens of thousands of pro-bono hours that go into cases every year, which also discounts your colored view of attorneys as only out for money. In fact, most cases of historical import have been done on a volunteer basis.
So when you say something silly like "only those who can pay up front" have access to the system, or the court system victimizes litigants (which makes little sense because >90% of cases settle before trial), you're just making a fool out of yourself. - Ratteler, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1Clearly you've never needed a lawyer and been unable to afford one. Even a cursory look at your past comments shows are some one who profits from the system as it is. You are most likely some one who preys upon artists, authors and inventors... if not a lawyer yourself. At the very least, you come from a privileged class.
In the VAST majority of cases the legal council will simple not take your case unless there is money to be won in retaliation. In which case... the lawyer will take the vast majority of the any win just like you CopyCensor Terrorists steal from the artists, authors and inventors.
This is the problem with contingency fees. You can only get a lawyer if there is a way to win money at the end of your case. This eliminates the vast majority of "Grey Area" cases, like those involving copyright vs. privacy rights. Simply defending the client provides no financial incentive to the lawyer, so only those who CAN pay UP FRONT to defend their rights in Civil Court, can even offer resistance to the near insurmountable legal resources.
Yes. Occasionally, when a there is a financial motive big enough for a hungry lawyer to take a risk, a miracle can take place, and something "justice-like" happens. But in most cases, the legal system simply victimizes the defendant and denies them any justice.
WE THE PEOPLE... all know this. - locojones, on 11/19/2008, -2/+1Send me a postcard and let me know how it goes trying to (1) garner the support of 2/3 of each Congressional house; and (2) getting 3/4 of the states to ratify the constitutional amendment to revoke the Copyright and Patent Clause.
To me, it sounds like removing the incentive from people to create and publish new works and ideas is the anti-American agenda at work. - locojones, on 11/20/2008, -2/+1The reason the Popular Amendment has never been used is because it's a fiction. The reason that the Framer's rebuked direct democracy due to the tyrrany of the majority is the same exact reason why they didn't put such a ludicrous idea into the Constitution about amending it via popular demands. So stomp your feet and demand all you like, the document won't change. The ONLY way to amend the Constitution is written into the Constitution, period.
- locojones, on 11/18/2008, -2/+1"they want to print unlimited digital copies for free, but charge the same price for each copy"
Therein lies the beauty of copyright. And why should it be any different? Why shouldn't they get the value of their creation in every single copy, whether it be the first or the ten millionth? And under what justification can you argue that the intellectual property contained in a later copy isn't worth as much as the first? In fact, let's apply this logic to your job. You should get paid less for every unit of your production because clearly the later units are less valuable than the earlier ones. How would you feel about that? Not so fair now is it?
"they want to control in detail how you use the "object" you buy from them, and charge you more and more for it."
You may not like it, but since the dawn of copyright, the holder has held exclusive control over the bundle of rights inherent in their IP. And one of the hallmarks of the creation of some form of copyrightable expression is being able to control every nuance of its use. So if you don't like how one copyright holder chooses to license their rights, then you are free not to purchase their product. But to have the audacity to tell them that they should be charging less for their work the more they print AND demanding that you get the full bundle of rights to copy, make derivatives, distribute, publicly perform is simply ludicrous.
"they want to keep mass producing cheap pop alternatives and discourage diversity"
What's the problem with that? They are making a product that people are willing to pay for. If you don't like it, produce something that isn't cheap pop alternatives, and then give it away for cheap and without retaining any rights, and let's see how far you get.
"they want artificial boundaries on a free and open information exchange channel"
If by 'free and open information exchange,' you mean giving their product away for free, then you're crazy. No matter how much you shout from the rooftops that all music and media should be free, it's never going to happen. The world doesn't work that way and never will. - locojones, on 11/18/2008, -2/+1It's called punitive damages and they are designed to deter similar conduct in the future.
- locojones, on 11/18/2008, -3/+1Just because he's employed by Harvard doesn't engender him with mystical legal abilities. Don't forget, Obama is a Harvard Law Graduate in constitutional law, yet he had no problem eviscerating the 4th Amendment in voting for telecom immunity.
The penalty clauses of the Copyright Act were lawfully passed by Congress and fall squarely within the bounds of the Necessary and Proper Clause. And the rational that it somehow "is unconstitutional because it effectively lets a private group - the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA - carry out civil enforcement of a criminal law" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The criminal provisions of the Copyright Act are wholly irrelevant here because the RIAA is proceeding under the civil provisions for damages. A Harvard Law professor should know that the damages provisions in section 504 are clearly distinct from the criminal penalties of section 506, which can only be enforced by the US Attorney's Office. - Vektuz, on 11/18/2008, -2/+1I think if there wasn't an enourmous penalty, people would be much more likely to try their luck. If the worst that can happen is having to pay $5 instead of $1 its possible that a lot more people will take that gamble, especially considering your chances of getting caught are already infinitesimal.
- Dronez, on 11/18/2008, -4/+0Captain obvious saves the day.
- Swany, on 11/18/2008, -5/+1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It’s a trap!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . . ._________/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . /. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
. . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .,/ /|| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . . .’| |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
. . . ./¯ :| | : |/ :: ::----, :/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
. . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’ . . . .
. ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
/ : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : : -
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 