What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
51 Comments
- e_mnc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Obviously you don't believe in innocent before proven guilty. They may not be breaking copyright law.
- Hypersapien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Anyone else think that the RIAA is going to try some legal asshattery to prevent thier victims from doing this?
Remember, this is the organization that is forcing a web site that it is sueing to turn over all the money that people donate to thier legal defence. - cyborgO, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Good thing you weren't around during America's witch hunts, you would have been one of those calling everyone else a witch.
Only fools blindly follow a government without question. - info, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The original story is here...
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/03/2-john-does-from-across-country-team.html - wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Awesome idea. The RIAA is picking off people one at a time, using what amounts to racketeering tactics to get settlements. If they stick together they may be to afford a defense.
"We must hang together or we will most assuredly hang separately" B Franklin. - tony23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I've said it before: RIAA? RICO...
Their tactics certainly qualify. Good luck finding a prosecutor willing to do anything though. - fortezza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I mostly agree with your post, but understand that I do not support the idea of "Intellectual Property", if it isn't physical, it isn't property. It is a term created by lawyers for lawyers to create a new litigation market from which they could get rich off of. And it seems to be working. Maybe I should make up "Emotional Property" which is a feeling you have for someone else. If someone else has the same feeling, you can sue them.
i.e. "I hate mashed potatoes!"
"I hate them, too!"
"I hated them first!"
"Oh yeah? We'll let the judge decide who gets to hate them. That is my EP!" - DougPenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7They're hiring one lawyer to represent both. So the single lawyer's fees are split between the two, thus reducing the cost of defending themselves.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7No one said they were guilty of anything. The RIAA has merely accused them based on IP information and demanded cash. They are filing suit in return to clear themselves. Technically if they own albums or records that contain the songs they downloaded (IF that is the case) they are not in violation of copyright law. That being said, the RIAA is trying to make it illegal for you to rip your OWN cd and record it on a compilation disk. That is why they must be reigned in.
- cyborgO, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8We can go rounds brother. But I suspect you wouldn't be able to, and it is senseless to throw remarks of physical consequence on the net. Albeit, I do agree with laws, if you read what I said, I don't agree with blind obedience to laws, and that, my pissy fool, is where the problem lies.
Laws can't be changed if only the rich get to write them. And if the rich are getting richer, well, ^&$%* then we will end up slaves if we don't voice our opinions and stand up in court.
It was once a law where blacks were to sit on a bus. I'm glad that that they stood up. It was America that slaughtered people in the "name of the law". It could be America that becomes a tyranny.
Be careful walking around asking for physical trouble. You may get in your first "tiffy" someday, and guess what, not only could your ego be smashed by someone, your bones too.
I welcome your opinion, but stupidity doesn't help an issue. - cyborgO, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Down with the RIAA! They're thieves and those who support them are sycophants and toadies. The artists are being robed too fools.
No backbone I say to those who support those who would enslave them. I say, give'm bloody hell in the courts!
If everyone fought in court, that is everyone, then the RIAA would break and crumble.
America forgot it had rights. America is full of cowards now. America is going down the downward spiral in arrogant indifference.
Wake up America before it's too late. - deusx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@chaos86: Nope, try again. They're defendants in lawsuits, not criminal suspects. Civil trials, no police or arrests involved. The RIAA wants you to call them criminals, but due to the indiscriminate shotgun nature of these lawsuits - 'victims' may well be a better term.
- flaxx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7although i don't completely agree with you 7of7, i do agree that the RIAA is doing far more harm than good. Instead of encouraging new, more convenient, and cheaper methods of distributing music, they want it their greedy way. They furthermore make it sound like the artists are suffering, but take a look at concert revenue, which is where the real money is for the artists anyway. The truth is that the RIAA is only concerned with record company profits and they have no sincere or genuine concern for the artists themselves and they don't want to risk restructuring their role in the entertainment business. The MPAA has a strong foot in the movie industry due to the economics of creating and distributing movies, but if the "big four" record companies don't get with the program they'll make themselves obsolete.
- tmcleroy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6good, someone needs to stand up to those RIAA goombas
- Cerberus047, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@john117
Have you looked at the track history of the riaa or the mpaa or any of those **aa's they have tried to stop goverment funding for the interent... tried to take away radios... tvs....vcrs....dvds, because they all asumed it would kill the inudstry... and look it hasent...so fine follow the riaa with no tv, vcr, internet, dvd, and soon hddvd for lots of early hd adopters, and really ask are the **aa doing any good? - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5so now the RIAA can affort 2x the lawyers, while we will still not be able to afford one?
- cyborgO, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You're side has a flaw. The artist only makes a penny or two from that 18 dollars. The point is that the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poor. And hey guess what, the fools are getting dumber.
I'm not communist, but I certainly am not in support of capitalist tyranny, where the corporate leaders, (oil included) tell me what rights I can have and not have.
The RIAA are thieves, no two ways about it.
And just so you know, I have not bought a cd in years, and I don't download "illegal" (misnomer) music.
Doesn't take a genius to see they're pushing us around. But it would take someone who isn't a coward, and that someone would have to be able to be honest too. - mistshadow2k4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Take away the money that the record companies make on the multi-platinum CDs and they will NOT SIGN any risky band.
And what we would have left is nothing but bubblegum pop."
Dude, where have you been? They won't sign anything but that anyway. Do some research and you'll see, the record labels are only signing with bands that sound exactly the same as a hundred others they already have. I would say "newsflash" here but it's not news that they're not signing any new artists that are slightly original in their sound. - Travelsonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Unless you haven't been up on current events, some of the targets who are "victims":
Don't own a computer
Don't have file-sharing software on their computer
Don't even exist, or in other words are dead.
Which leaves a lot of questions as to why anybody would blindly support these methods of tracking down people who are ACTUALLY illegally file-saharing, when there are obvious flaws in this method. - rot97, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Compare Cd's to DVDs. You're getting more content on DVDs and getting it for equal or sometimes cheaper prices. The RIAA is suing some people who don't even use computers, and other weird circumstances. This is a good reason to be mad at them, but for those of you who download tons of music illegally without buying one CD, you deserve to get in trouble.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'd like to see defamation lawsuits against the RIAA by people who are really named 'John Doe'.
How would you lke it if they used YOUR name to represent people whom they presuppose are guilty and 'bad' people? - RayBeckerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As a matter of fact they've been about breaking even. They make money on the settlements, not on the litigations. But they're making enough money on the settlements to offset the cost of the litigations.
Which is why people who are settling with them are actually fueling the litigation machine. - migel628, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How about the "lawyer" said leveller...By the way, it would be they're (as in they are), not their...
- darrenford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Actually I agree with everything you said, except that my position is flawed.
The statement that a CD should not cost $18 because the artist doesn't get enough is valid. Thats my point. Use a good argument. I am not defending the RIAA here -- I'm saying people are using foolish arguments when there are plenty of good ones.
I hate communism, love capitalism, but I try to fight against corporate tyranny when I can (don't get me started on the oil companies, or wal-mart).
I hate the RIAA's bully tactics as much as you I bet. I also have not bought a CD in many years, and don't download music except occasionally from iTunes (paid). If there is ever any new good music released, I might reconsider; although honestly the RIAA has just about convinced me to not bother with it. If the RIAA had their way, it would be too much trouble and confusing to know when or where I can play the music I have purchased the right to listen to.
I think we agree more than we disagree. - RayBeckerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Exactly.
Every person that settles with them feeds the flames.
Every person that stands and fights is helping to defeat them. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hey lets start a class action case against the RIAA, lets see anyone who connects to the Internet can claim that their rights are being abused by the RIAA. Hey if the RIAA wants out they can just mail us $20 each.
- DiggerPlease, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1About time. The RIAA shouldn't be able to bully people like this simply because they're big and people aren't these huge corporations that they're used to going after.
- Fly1m1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You are right sir! I can only hope that has Levellerized the playing field.
- wbeck85, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think that before posting a comment poking at someones use of the English language, you should probably make sure you perform your own spell check. "lawer" and "Their" ? I do believe the proper spelling for each is "lawyer" and "They're."
- dasunst3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't understand the defendants' tactic. Are they going to go on trial together to cause confusion over which "John Doe" is which, and to cost the RIAA more money?
- fortezza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>y migel628 14 hours ago Block/Report this User
>[comment buried, show commenthide comment] + 2 diggs bury this digg this
>How about the "lawyer" said leveller...By the way, it would be they're (as in they are), not their...
And someone really cares about a typo, it is easy to figure out what he meant to say. Well, for most people it is simple. - runningnick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@fortezza
I really don't understand this argument. Would you say a book is not intellectual property? It's just thoughts expressed on a physical medium. Whether it be a printed book or an e-book or an HTML page ... it's still the work of the author.
Why is music any different? Whether it be on a CD or a tape or an MP3 ... it's still the work of the songwriter, singer, composer, mixer, etc.
Hating the RIAA and endorsing sensible intellectual property law reform should not be mutually exclusive. - cyborgO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK, before this story is too old. I have one point to add to those I said above.
This isn't a case of, who's right who's wrong. Clearly, the RIAA tactics are wrong, but they're not openly against the law, but... big but, most of us realize behind close doors and between pin strip suits they're not legal. But that point is moot in battle since it's a case of Schrodinger's cat. We'll never know.
What we do know, is yes, downloading the music is illegal, no question. But, **cking huge but, the question is the law constitutional?
Sure none of us are probably lawyers, but I think we're all logically sound when we're honest with ourselves. And I'm tired of these fancy word slippery tongue cockroaches infesting our gov., also known as lawyers, thinking "we the people" don't write the laws. That's horse shi% and they know it. Nonetheless, they manipulate the spineless and political young and dumb. WE do write the laws, never forget that.
The debate really is, is this a case for civil disobedience? Truly. If the laws are out-right wrong, and the majority realizes it - side note sycophants have no place in writing history, they're underneath the man's desk - then it's time for some healthy civil disobedience to educate the haughty masters we currently have.
If we the people crack this small company's back (small compared to the length of American history past to hopefully will be future) then the law in their favor was absolutely bogus, and with our loyal civil disobedience we will have helped the country stay in line with the majority, and not the dirty rich lobbying for more rights for themselves.
There will always be the same sides and stances in all these battles. You have the sycophants, the rich thieves pets - "good doggy. Now eat my *****..." You have the anarchists who want free reign, but would spin out of control within seconds if they had it. You have the "I don't cares." The "I care crowd" but unfortunately some twisted neurosurgeon removed their spine as a baby. And the "I care crowd and I'm going to do something about it." Whether that's blogging and/or civil disobedience.
Note, I don't take human personality to be a discrete set that can be enumerated. It was for the necessity of not having infinite time to try to name them all.
Ok enough, but remember this isn't who's right. This is, "is this law constitutional?" and if you feel it isn't, you owe every citizen and fore father before you to do SOMETHING to try and change it, as grand or small as that is. - fortezza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> wbeck85 13 hours ago Block/Report this User
>[comment buried, show commenthide comment] + 2 diggs bury this digg this
>I think that before posting a comment poking at someones use of the English language, you should probably make >sure you perform your own spell check. "lawer" and "Their" ? I do believe the proper spelling for each is "lawyer" >and "They're."
We DON'T CARE! - Cyberdactyl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"It means the legal cost for each is split in half, and the playing field just got a little bit leveller,"
The >lawer< said leveller? Hahahaha.....>Their< going to lose...
And this guy's judging grammar? - Battlecry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow.. Being told by THREE people that you made spelling/grammar mistakes must suck.
Wait.. There's FOUR people! One guy doesn't know how to reply to comments. - RayBeckerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0DougPenn has it right.
- darrenford, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3How many times are people going to write something that implies the RIAA is making money off of these lawsuits? These are to make an example and discourage the action, its not a way to enhance revenue. Do you *really* think they can get a $3K or $6K judgement and break even?
I'll add another comment that will get me modded down to the depths, just in case the previous one didn't. I have seen time and again the dumbest arguments made against the cost of a music CD. If you want to complain about the cost, fine; but don't say that a music CD shouldnt cost $18 because you can buy a stack of CDRs for that much, or that the cost should have dropped because the cost of CDRs dropped. YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE MEDIA.
Thank you and have a nice evening. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Why are they considered victims? They stole music afterall. In no way, however, am I condoning what the RIAA is doing to them, but these "victims" could have avoided it by not downloading copyrighted files in the first place.
(Expects liberal anarchists who support file sharing to bury this comment. But before you do, do note that I have nothing against file sharing, but think that it's important to believe in the honor system and BUY music/movies, otherwise, how will music artists put food on their table? Would you work for free too? At least the Firefox you're using made $8 million dollars when users Google search) - chaos86, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@info
Misleading title; those on trial against the RIAA aren't 'victims', theyre suspects in criminal cases. - 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9Good, the RIAA is doing more harm to the cause of intellectual property than it can ever imagine. These lawsuits have made it seem ok to break copyright law and download media without the authors consent just because the RIAA is acting so outrageously.
- Fly1m1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6"It means the legal cost for each is split in half, and the playing field just got a little bit leveller,"
The lawer said leveller? Hahahaha.....Their going to lose... - TR77, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2What the *****, RIAA = Rich Ignorant Anal ***** need to get real, For one they will never be able to stop illegal music sharing for every one P2P network thats shut down 5 take its place until they get shut down.
And for going after the people who bought there over priced music which they Capitalize on the hard work and talent of the musicians. and they ***** up the little mans life just cause they want to hear there favorite bands it makes me sick. Ive said it once and i will say it again ***** the RIAA and the Brute Force Tactics i will never buy some thing for company's that ***** over there Costumers the way the RIAA has take out the middle man
LONG LIVE P2P - Raldikuk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1...
- kilofox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0"They furthermore make it sound like the artists are suffering, but take a look at concert revenue, which is where the real money is for the artists anyway."
Sorry pal ... that's just another lame excuse to steal music. Not everyone tours... and you know it.
What's really pathetic is this... does the RIAA "have it wrong" when it comes to innovation and recognizing technology? Certainly yes. However what is equally pathetic is the people that think that downloading via P2P and what not is an effective way to "stick it to them" when it is most certainly not. Its about as effective as the fire department showing up to a fire with gasoline in the water tanks. It only gives the RIAA ammunition to do what they do.
Consumers and the RIAA are screwing this up just about equally IMO. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0What makes you think the only artists are the ones that are selling 3 million CDs?
Who do you hink pays for the alternative bands to test the waters with non-boy band/Britney style music? Take away the money that the record companies make on the multi-platinum CDs and they will NOT SIGN any risky band.
And what we would have left is nothing but bubblegum pop. - john117, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Someone points out that the RIAA is on the correct side of the law, and you label him a Salem-style witchhunter - and *I'm* the foolish one? You need either a lot of therapy or a long vacation, or both.
p.s. Anytime, princess. You have no idea whom you're talking to. - tkloppel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1As solar winds alluded to, why the hell are the people who have been sued victims? The RIAA owns the rights to the music. It is their PROPERTY to do with as they wish.
It will be sad when these zealous "liberals" create a communist state in the US.
Vote Libertarian. (lp.org) - john117, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0@cyborg0
The original poster is correct: the RIAA are defending their legal rights, and they have every right under the law to litigate. I question the amount of damages they seek, but not the legal grounds of their cases. That doesn't make me or the original poster a witchhunter, a "sheep," or any other knee-jerk Digg-friendly epithet you care to throw at us. If you simply don't respect the law, then that's another matter - but I assume that means you won't complain to the cops when I smash you in the face, since the law means so little to you. - PKO17, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Why is the RIAA always seen as being so terrible? Downloading music for free that you should be paying for is illegal. Period. Maybe the RIAA really doesn't care about the artists but that doesn't remove the fact that it is illegal.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is