What is Digg?151 Comments
- rubicante, on 10/12/2007, -2/+123From the title I thought the RIAA was suing a deaf person (i.e. RIAA: HEARING Vitally important).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+65Yes, I'm sure all the Internet geeks like us will just rise up, go buy guns, and have shoot-outs in the street. I totally buy that.
- Aquinas315, on 10/12/2007, -2/+53The RIAA wants to prove that Making Available = copyright infringement. Technically, wouldn't infringing on a copyright imply COPYING said material? If you don't copy anything you aren't infringing on a copyright. Do the members of the RIAA understand English?
- xjadams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+45Well, I for one, will be happy to start suing libraries for copyright infringement of books, seeing as they are books that I don't own, which are available to me for reading.
Lets also sue radio stations that play music over the air, making it of course, available.
Perhaps we can sue the RIAA back, since they made them available to make available in the first place. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+58This thread should be ended.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41Ooh I wasn't going to attend, but you just reminded me...I have a Pirate Bay tee shirt...so maybe I will go....just to piss them off!.
- theghoul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39If I lived in NY or near it, I'd be there with an EFF shirt and hat on.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37So, your plan is have a bunch of unemployed 15 year old kids show up with EFF T-Shirts on ?
Sounds great guys. - VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -6/+37The Internet does not revolve around music filesharing, contrary to what some may think. Just because that's all YOU use it for, doesn't mean the same for others.
- rcsheets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Isn't this just about equivalent to leaving a book in a room with a photocopier?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29Let's go people... This really is an important day for many of us... Digg this story and show your support for the victims of this *****.
- bysubmitted, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Flash mob! Flash mob!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29The scariest part of this whole thing is: "And the U.S. Department of Justice weighed in, submitting a "Statement of Interest," in which it confined itself to rebutting EFF's argument."
Thus far, the DOJ has not taken any legal action against anyone with regard to file sharing. This is their first foray into the arena. - kcpwnsgman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27well I am sure they have tried suing dead people before....
much like how AOL charges dead people - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+32If this passes, armed insurrections will follow.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Well what do you expect when the prince of darkness is in town...nice, warm weather?
It's actually 20º here in the east village....but I can hear the winds blowing.
Still, I might go...if I could just tear myself away from Digg.
- Xenogis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Rage against the damned machine. RAGE
- nstern2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Yeah with their logic we are all infringing on their copyright when we listen to the radio. Streaming music is not the same as downloading music.
- hukedonfonix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Three easy steps to successfully cancel your AOL account.
1. Call customer service.
2. Accept the free month they offer once you try to cancel.
3. Repeat steps one and two once the free month runs out.
Who am i to say no to something free, especially the internets even if it was only dialup. On month three or four they canceled the account no questions asked. Got a bit disappointed really, i was starting to enjoy the free ride. - ExSlashdotter, on 10/12/2007, -11/+25@ilyag
People have really short memories these days.
To us, the civil war seems like *ancient* history, as will WW2 to our children.
The USA has only been around for ~200 years. In the grand scheme of things, thats nothing. And as far as civilizations go, history tends to repeat itself. Just look at the public approval rating of our government. Look at the total % of your income the government takes. Eventually it'll get to be too much, and the people will get sick of it (at which point we get a new government that swears to be "for the people").
You may write that off as an 'extremist' view at first, but seriously, think about it. Look at everything that's happened in the last 50 years. Who's to say what'll happen in the next 50? - dmurray14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13maybe they would get a bit better turnout if they didn't post this the day of...
- RatTrap, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16All the RIAA hear is MONEY.
- burntfire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Is it just me, or does this article make it sound like the RIAA is evil because of the foriegn influence?
From the Article:
"Boiled down, this means the Recording Industry Association of America, owned by EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), with Warner Music (run by a Canadian) as the only American label, will try to justify the ludicrous assertion that anyone with a shared folder containing legally obtained copyrighted files which has been online, even for a second, is guilty of copyright infringement."
I think the fact that it is specifically pointed out that the only American label is run by a Canadian, is just a subtle attempt to suggest that the blame rests outside America.
*I'd just like to say, I hate the RIAA and what they are doing, I just thought that this was an interesting point. - sheepster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13i'm stuck out in florida, so somebody HAS to make a post letting those of us who can't make it a heads up of what happens. PLEASE
- jersey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11pigs. I hope they get smoked.
They want everything to be an act of infringement. Makes me ill. - clinko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11It's 9 degrees and WINDY outside right now in NYC. Plus that area gets a lot more wind. I'm sure with wind-chill it's negative there.
Lucky timing for RIAA. - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Yes, because a decision of one US court will kill the Internet.
- ExSlashdotter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@quasi
I'm not a crazed gun-toting redneck or anything like that, I'm just saying that for the last few thousand years, humans in general haven't exactly been too successful at keeping any single nation/civilization together. Doesn't look like America is exactly breaking the mold here.
The problem is people in general. A select few get hungry for power, and stop looking out for the good of the people. It's the truth. Ask any politician (rep or dem) about getting any *actual* good done. With the bueracracy in place, its pretty much like pissing in the wind.
Do you really think that the United States of America will last until eternity? Absolutely not, it doesn't even make sense. Just because its been here all of your life, its hard for people to imagine it ending. Or just because some event has never happened, it seems like it could never happen at all. It's like that with any earth-shaking historical event (take 9/11, pearl harbor, katrina, etc) - meepus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Actually streaming music is the same as downloading music. You just usually don't store the stream's data in any permanent way, and the stream's audio quality is usually at a cripplingly low bitrate (though with services like Pandora, you're getting 128 kbps mp3 quality). What I find REALLY notable about what the RIAA is doing is that they're saying a 96 kbps MP3 is equivalent to the full quality studio recording found on the CDs they sell. Downloading an album of crappy mp3s is not the same as downloading a full quality CD, and they're trying to prevent the courts from acknowledging that when determining settlements.
- roadtrippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I always wondered, what if I bought a CD and I lost it or someone stole it from me? Should I have to pay for it again? In some cases, more than twice? I don't believe I should have to pay for an album twice to be able to listen to it. If I were to download another copy of it, having purchased it once already, does that make me a thief?
I guess I could start saving my receipts. Then again, who actually saves receipts for CDs? It's not like you can return it if the album is crap. - shagz7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@ VeganG "The Internet does not revolve around music filesharing, contrary to what some may think. Just because that's all YOU use it for, doesn't mean the same for others."
That's right.. it revolves around PORN! - heffae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think ohgr has a point. (If all he is talking about is stealing music/video then it is an unintended point but still. . .) This is more about the RIAA using incredibly flimsy evidence as proof of a crime. Whats most important about this case is telling the RIAA that they do not have Carte Blanch to decide what is a crime or not.
This is a group that made a public statement (changing their earlier position) that they consider ripping a CD that YOU OWN to put on an MP3 player that YOU OWN copyright infringement. Right now they haven't been stupid enough to challenge this in court (because they would get their asses handed to them) but the more the courts let them define the law the more power (and money) the RIAA is going to try and seize.
It's a good idea to remind them that just because they have decided that something is illegal doesn't mean that it actually is. In this case (as I understand it) they are claiming that sharing a folder with music is the same as actually pirating music. This is like arguing that thinking about killing someone and First Degree Murder are the same thing. (not that piracy and murder are equivalent crimes in anyones mind. . . with the possible exception of the RIAA) - omgbanana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Ignotus:
Here's the thing, though. They have repeatedly tried to prove that we do not own the material goods. The CD is just a vehicle to deliver the content that we have licensed.
When you purchase a game on Steam, do you lose that game if your hard drive crashes? No. You've purchased a license to play one copy of the game.
So the RIAA is trying to license an album at 15 bucks a pop, but you don't have a right to retain the license if you lose the hardware. Yet, at the same time, you don't have the rights to do with the actual hardware as you like. They're trying to get the best of both worlds. - meepus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The question is: if you see that movie, are you in violation of the copyright if you recount what you saw to others privately in your home? If the MPAA had its way...
- shagz7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8ceralor,
they called because your mom canceled her credit card, not the paying of AOL... they aren't gonna stop deducting money from the account if you have already agreed to have it charged (even if it was many years ago). You would have to speak with AOL about stopping the charges... it's called taking candy from a baby - phrozenfearz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ceralor
I think shagz7 just called your mom a baby. - Jaq524, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Hearing is very important to the RIAA, seeing as their money comes from music.
Leave it to them to sue someone for having a disability preventing them from using their product, though. - parkerhiggins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I just got back from this. It was the first time I think I've ever been in a courtroom, so I'm not sure I followed everything. In any case, the judge (who really seemed like a great guy) didn't announce the decision yet, so I'm watching for it just like you guys are. If anybody has any questions, I can answer them on here.
- Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The MPAA (and RIAA) arguments are all around licensing.....when you attend a viewing of a movie, the theater is licensed to show it, and they control your access to using their license. When you purchase the DVD, the MPAA doesn't believe you 'own' anything....you have the license to view that content at your home, only in the original format on the original media, for your own personal use. The license can be revoked by the MPAA at any time for any reason.
True...it flies in the face of any shreds of 'fair use', but this is largely the licensing scheme as it's being explained by the industry associations. - mercurysquad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Oh come on. After all this hue and cry about anti-RIAA sentiments, no one shows up because it's cold?!
I hope people DO turn up just to let the court and RIAA know how important it is to us. - SirBriggs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I was seriously considering going until I remembered how cold it was.
18°F w/ winds between 14-16mph as high as 31mph (Wind chill 1°F). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I like how the article says this is taking place "tomorrow" (no date), and the article itself isn't dated. Nice job for something so vitally important.
- parkerhiggins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Honestly, the RIAA lawyer made a pretty good case, in terms of sticking to the law. One main point that everybody was arguing was that in section 106 (to which shagz7 made reference an hour or so ago, way up there), the law says something like, "The copyright owner has the exclusive right to, or to authorize..." and then, in section 3 of that, the right to distribute is mentioned. The RIAA viewpoint, which I was surprised to not find totally unreasonable, is that by putting a song in a shared folder, especially in a p2p service where it will almost certainly be shared, the user is authorizing other people to distribute it.
That was my understanding. It's not a perfect argument, but it's not bad, either. - sds8081, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's really unbelievable, if you think about it, if these ***** win, you probably get sued for not only your music in your shared folder, but for everything else in your shared folder, you could also get sued for anything you own that you let someone else borrow.
Unless you can prove you made it, then prove you own the program you made it with, then prove that you own your copy of windows, then prove nobody else uses your computer...... remember not to share a meal with anyone, the restaurant only sold it to you!!!! - heffae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Libraries are specifically exempted under most laws for this sort of thing."
Yes but they place photo copiers in the same building, some times in the very same room, as the books. If this is inducement for me to copy the books in clear violation of copyright law I don't know what is.
I'm joking but it wouldn't surprise me that if the book publishing industry had a lobby as powerful and as bat-***** insane as the RIAA that we would see some law that would require the copiers to be under lock and key and that you could only photocopy specific pages under supervision to ensure that you don't copy more that what is consider fair use. - roadtrippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's a public showing. You never owned a physical copy meant for home viewing, so no. That would be the same as thinking you could download a CD because you went to a concert.
- jdawg19, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Will someone youtube this please?
- Shade00a00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This article (linked from article) explains the issue in detail :
http://www.hollywoodreporteresq.com/thresq/spotlight/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003535810 -
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is