What is Digg?Sponsored by She's Out of My League
This "She's Out of My League" Trailer Is NSFW view!
GetYourRating.com - Exactly why you want to watch it, probably at work, hopefully while your boss is out sick...
39 Comments
- dopesheet, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21I think he was making an analogous comparison. Sort of like saying "What PDA's looked like in 1909" referring to paper and pencil.
- DeskFlyer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18***** THE RIA- wait hang on here......
:scratches head: - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Its not DRM, DRM is the bit that enforces the restrictions.
Also it stands for *DIGITAL* rights management.
But nice to know that we are still paying exactly the same amount for music as we where 100 years ago despite the massive reduction in production costs. - MrTRiX, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15"I could contact the Victor Record Company, but they sold assets to RCA, which was acquired by General Electric, which was sold to BMG, which merged with Sony."
Wow thats a lot of corporations. - frieddonuts, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17I'm sure it was all Taft's fault. He was one cold, fat bastard. TAFT!!!!!!
- aserer511, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14ah, the simple days, when stealing music meant robbery, and bit torrent referred to calamitous weather..
- bekeleven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14"...leased solely for the purpose of producing sound directly from the record and no other purpose..."
So, no throwing it at Zombie's heads? - C00001, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Another interesting point that the author didn't bring up is the fact that the label clearly violates the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act ), which outlaws price fixing, resale price maintenance, etc. Part of this meaning that it's illegal for anyone to set the resale value of any item ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance ).
So, even outside of the whole IP issue, the legal ***** on the label is on worse than shaky ground. In fact, it's on ground that our legal system literally associates with "cartels". - ricree, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12$21.65
It says so right in the article. - UtahApocalyse, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I think he should contact Sony. I bet they would be totally confused and have no clue what to do.
- diggydougie, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13This makes me realize that the rules have always been the way that they are now. Only with the ease of distribution brought about by the Internet It's now a big legal issue, where before it was mainly on the honor system unless discovered.
- chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Contact Sony had ask if it has a rootkit.
- Matri, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6What makes you think they have a clue NOW?
- talman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I don't think you can patent music, perhaps they were referring to the technology. So if you copied it on to a different medium then you would be fine. Bit like licensing CD's and DVD's technology today.
- BlackCow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Buzz saws work better with a gravity gun.
- aldenhg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Yeah, this is really more like ARM.
- Abomonog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3What this guy needs to do is get a hold of the RCA Victor Museum (yes, there is one) and tell them he's holding a first generation 78. (also a 3rd generation grammaphone recording). I once got $200 for a ww1 era recording of "Silver Dollar Country" out of them (very early amplified recording). This was back in the late 70's when the museum was still a collection society. A century old 78 that was recorded without electronic assistance got to be worth some cash.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Thats why i quit buying stuff, because you'll never own it.
- flashpointbob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Now I see this, and I think it is cool as hell. Sure, you pick it up at the store for a buck, and then you decide to turn it around at a garage sale or something, you legally have to sell it for at least a dollar, therefore breaking completely even! Its like stealing, but nobody loses!
And it is personalized... this is for all of us out there with personalized electronics. Apple didn't think of personalizing music playing machines, those bastards stole it from RCA! - Murdats, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3*sigh*
yes, he is 100% serious.
you cant seriously believe the RIAA wont bust down his door and drag him out by his hair if he listens to it do you? - NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You don't know how right you are:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060621/0235216.shtml - acebrickman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2DRM
that's right..
oh, and site's down
http://duggmirror.com/music/What_Restrictive_DRM_looked_like_in_1909/#c7258806 - GameSkillPhil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I am not 100% sure but that record should be out of copyright and be under free domain. So the owner should not be worried
- bightchee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1FTA "any erasures on or removal of this label will be construed as a violation of this license"
This reminds me of an ink stamp I had custom made which says "DO NOT REMOVE THIS STAMP". I go around stamping it on random things. No one can wipe it off or else they're disobeying the stamp. - Lasereth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I'm gonna puke if I see the word DRM one more time
- aerospace, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Isn't this similar to how books are sold? They have the price printed on the cover, and isn't it illegal to sell the book without the cover?
- poedguy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I bet they wouldn't be able to do anything considering the record is no longer copyrighted. People should really learn copyright law before complaining about it.
- jackhole, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Not only that, but this record is obviously in the public domain now. This guy can't seriously believe he's not allowed to play that.
- brinkofdanger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2DRM.
Yeah, I had to do it. - mtcantor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This license is illegitimate under the First Sale Doctrine. Its a fundamental principle of US Copyright Law. Basically means that if make something I can sell it for a certain price, but if someone else buys it from me to sell again, I cannot control what price they sell it at. Record companies weren't able to get away with this, even back then.
Book publishers tried to do this too. Didn't work for them either. - fuzzynyanko, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wow. Legal English wording hasn't changed much since 1909.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1anti-DRM inside albums, pretty cool!
http://digg.com/pc_games/UK_pop_bands_put_game_code_in_the_albums - vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I think the term 'music traders' is hillarious. I remember when trading meant that you had to give something up to get somehting you wanted. Now you keep what you have and get what you want. Sense of entitlement much?
"I'll trade you a copy of my Metallica CD for a copy of your Iron Maiden CD, but we'll keep our originals." - jackhole, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1FTA: "However, admitting I have an unlicensed copy of a record will certainly put me at risk of a lawsuit."
He says that and goes through all this tort rigmarole, but never once mentions public domain. I'm just pointing that out. - unibonger, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1patents expire. I suppose unless another company renewed a patent on it, which I see some what unlikely, I'd think hes fine.
Interesting comparison, but I don't know if I see it as a good one. - terracottapai, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Records aren't magnetic, tapes are.
- flyingwolf, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0And its illegal to have a car with no seatbelt, unless of course that car came from the factory with no seatbelt.
You see the deal is, when this label was made it violated no laws, and therefore is still fine. It can no longer be enforced, but the label itself violates no laws. - LukyJay, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2Pfft, one dollar each. It would cost how many thousands now?
- agrabob, on 10/11/2007, -24/+4Innacurate title. This cant be DIGITAL rights managment on an analog mangetic record.
On topic: I understand there were restrictive licenses 100 years ago, but what groups/compaines/associations were going after their own consumers to enforce these licenses? The difference today is the agressive, sometimes illegal, enforcement by the RIAA and MPAA.
