Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Mr. Baby Man
26695 Followers
"ⓒⓗⓡⓞⓝⓘⓒ!"
5593 Followers
"ⓒⓗⓡⓞⓝⓘⓒ!"
5593 Followers
Caroline Thompson
1646 Followers
Caroline Thompson
1646 Followers
the Grey Ghost of 2010
990 Followers
the Grey Ghost of 2010
990 Followers
Victor Barrera
11005 Followers
novenatorAug 20, 2010
In this corporate oligarchy, the ultra-conservative SCOTUS will almost always rule in favor of the corporations. These profs are correct, but that will not stop judicial activism and legislating from the bench once again.
magus_melchiorAug 21, 2010
On the other hand, Beckerman and co. have several things in their favor-- for one thing, they have a compelling argument that the record labels' counsels have made pre-trial discovery into a witch hunt. For another, they have the advantage of judicial precedent and current law, which protects (albeit vaguely) against overzealous enforcement of copyright.
I know, long shot, but it beats getting even more pissed off when they rule 5-4 for the corporation again.
bigviAug 22, 2010
We do live in an era where Corporate rights for some reason supersede human rights so I wouldnt put it past them
shutaroAug 20, 2010
F**K THE RIAA!!!
deusexmachina7Aug 20, 2010
I'm no expert on copyright law, but it was always my understanding that ignorance of the law was no excuse to break it(?)
Piracy has its perks, but only so long as people are still willing to purchase art/music the old fashioned way. It'd be terribly hypocritical of that lawyer if he was arguing this case and wasn't doing it pro-bono. Anyone who expects artists to work for free ought to offer their labor for free as well.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
pro bono?
Leave your feelings for U2 out of it.....;)
magus_melchiorAug 21, 2010
@thegrantman: protip: "pro bono" means the lawyer (or, technically, any professional) is willing to work for free. More precisely, it means "for the public good" as opposed to personal gain.
magus_melchiorAug 21, 2010
As far as I know, the lawyers who defend against RIAA suits are in fact providing their services pro bono (at least, Ray Beckerman is).
Here's the thing with the "innocent infringer" defense-- the defendant didn't have the CD, and she probably wasn't warned that what she was doing was infringement. As the amicus brief states, even if there's a warning on the CD, someone who doesn't see that warning can't be held liable for disregarding that warning. Copyright law clearly indicates that because she was not properly notified, she should not be hit with the full penalty for infringement. It's not like she was getting away scot-free-- she still would have paid 200 bucks per track under the original judgment.
But the 5th Circuit disregarded the fact that she didn't own the CD or possibly obtained tracks that weren't available on CD-- which is understandable, since they're supposed to evaluate how the lower court did their jobs; in other words, the lower court should have asked this question and put it to bed. This means the 5th Circuit issued their ruling based on either an overly narrow interpretation of law or they tossed evidence that shouldn't have been tossed.
The SCOTUS can do any number of things without changing the law-- they can send it back to the lowest court to clarify the question the 5th Circuit ruled on, or they can overturn or uphold the 5th Circuit ruling.
getbrownAug 21, 2010
"Anyone who expects artists to work for free ought to offer their labor for free as well."
The great majority of artists do not make a profit from album sales. They consider the CD to be a marketing tool.
dayal911Aug 21, 2010
Source that the "great majority" of artists feel that way?
Are these artists business experts?
If you don't like the product, don't buy it.
You can all point to how ridiculous the music industry has become, but just because you disagree with their business model does not give you the right to violate copyright laws.
And the OP is correct. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
seltaeb4Aug 21, 2010
If only we felt this way about hedge fund managers.
w1cked1Aug 21, 2010
no, the fact that they're unjust laws does give the right, and copywrite holders are not the creators by thieves by pen. It's the people that own it. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
w1cked1Aug 21, 2010
Not hypocritical at all really. Maybe they should pay a massive fee everytime they reference case law.... thereby generating profit off of an existing body of work that belongs to somebody else and that you had no hand in creating. Sound familiar? BTW, I've seen your argument made before, do you own the copywrite to it, hypocrite?
deusexmachina7Aug 21, 2010
Like I said, piracy has its perks. The music industry is somewhat insulated from its effects because, like you said, they make most of their money off other ventures (i.e. touring). Same with the movie industry when it comes to 3D movies.
However, I'm not referring to only musicians or filmmakers. What about authors? Imagine if ebooks caught on, and ebook piracy caught on.
deusexmachina7Aug 21, 2010
@w1cked1
Are you replying to me, or to GetBrown? It sounds like you're replying to me.
"Maybe they should pay a massive fee everytime they reference case law"
Err... copyright law doesn't apply to caselaw...
"BTW, I've seen your argument made before, do you own the copywrite to it, hypocrite?"
Ditto.
While I applaud your effort to inject emotionally-charged, logic-deprived rhetoric in the discussion, I really doubt it's going to change anyone's mind.
seltaeb4Aug 21, 2010
I'm pro The Edge.
inactiveuserAug 21, 2010
"Anyone who expects artists to work for free ought to offer their labor for free as well."
Well you should go and tell that to the media companies then or didn't you know that the vast majority of artists never see a red cent.
deusexmachina7Aug 21, 2010
Most artists never get paid because their work isn't worth compensation.
travelsonicAug 21, 2010
"I'm no expert on copyright law, but it was always my understanding that ignorance of the law was no excuse to break it(?)"
Ah, but contrary to popular belief this is not absolute - possession of stolen property for example is one case. You can't be charged with it, IIRC, if you had good faith that you were obtaining said goods legitimately.
"...so long as people are still willing to purchase art/music the old fashioned way. It'd be terribly hypocritical of that lawyer..."
HOW?
"Anyone who expects artists to work for free ought to offer their labor for free as well."
Irrelevant strawman. Stick to the topic, stop creating s**t to fling at people.
deusexmachina7Aug 21, 2010
In response to the "HOW":
Those are two different sentences, hence the period.
In response to the "irrelevant strawman":
No, you're misusing the word "strawman." A strawman is when I stretch/extrapolate my opponent's point unreasonably.
If you think piracy should be legal, then you think it's ok to take an artist's work without payment. If you take another's labor without compensation, and you offer nonzero rates for YOUR labor, you are a hypocrite. Pretty simple, really.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pakobedejoAug 21, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
travelsonicAug 21, 2010
deusexmachina7,
"If you think piracy should be legal, then you think it's ok to take an artist's work without payment"
Except that is not the definition of piracy you lug - it is about permission or lack therefore, not payment or lack therefore. And yes, there is a difference. People ake and share works for free all the time, even big names give out their works from time to time.
deusexmachina7Aug 21, 2010
@Pako
It seems like you're only confirming my point that those who support unfettered piracy believe artists aren't owed compensation, and that artists are obligated to do everything for the love of it. I disagree.
"The only difference is that we're not taking their work...merely copying it."
Unfortunately, that does constitute "taking their work." Under copyright law, it is tantamount to theft. Potential sales =/= sales, yeah, I can get on board with that. But it's no coincidence that the music industry's revenue has been down since Napster. And yeah, correlation =/= causation, but I can name tons of people who once purchased CD's, cassettes, what have you... and now gleefully pirate as an alternative.
Anecdotal evidence may not count for much, but if you seriously can't think of anyone in your life who would be purchasing CD's if not for piracy... well I don't know what to tell you then.
deusexmachina7Aug 21, 2010
@Travelsonic, in reply to your most recent reply
I don't understand what you're trying to say. By "therefore" do you mean "thereof"? What does it mean to "ake"?
Are you saying that high-profile artists are sometimes willing to offer their music/movies/literature/etc. for free, and therefore all artists should do the same? If that's what you're saying, then my rebuttal stands unchallenged: some lawyers offer their labor for free, therefore all lawyers must offer their labor for free.
travelsonicAug 21, 2010
deuse,
It is very simple.
You claim that piracy is a matter of payment or lack therefore. It is about permission to share the work or lack therefore given how people share their works for free legally - thereby contradicting your implied statement..
pakobedejoAug 22, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
stalksAug 21, 2010
The law discussed in the article doesn't mitigate the criminality but the damages awarded.
btw, Pirates do give back to the community... by sharing :D
deusexmachina7Aug 21, 2010
Point taken about the damages awarded.
iceman0113Aug 21, 2010
"Anyone who expects artists to work for free ought to offer their labor for free as well."
Well, artists back then did work for free. They did it because they loved it. I don't know when we started paying artists money this great, but it was never like this in the history books. Plus, the artists' work is irrelevant to work other people do. You can't compare a person who only uses his voice and a beat to someone who uses their mind to better humanity or the world. Artists should not be entitled to money, unless their fans see to it that they are by purchasing their CDs, going to concerts, etc.
Plus, the RIAA have not paid any of their artists with the money they've been taking from their fan base.
deusexmachina7Aug 21, 2010
"Well, artists back then did work for free."
I don't know what time frame you're referring to, but copyright laws for literature have been around for centuries.
"I don't know when we started paying artists money this great, but it was never like this in the history books"
The money began rolling in during the digital revolution, when works of art could be reproduced and enjoyed on a portable format (i.e. CD player). Before that, artists made their money via live performances.
"You can't compare a person who only uses his voice and a beat to someone who uses their mind to better humanity or the world."
You seem to be making the argument that the value of an artist's work is nil. According to economics, that's not true. The free market has assigned a very high value to entertainment. Moreover, you need to look at other forms of copyrighted work, such as literature (which does require mental investment), and patented works by scientists.
"Artists should not be entitled to money"
I agree, but I also believe fans of a given artist aren't entitled to peruse said artist's work at their leisure and without payment.
greevarAug 22, 2010
"I'm no expert on copyright law"
Obviously.
"Anyone who expects artists to work for free ought to offer their labor for free as well."
Where in the copyright law does it say that artists are owed any compensation? I'll tell you. It doesn't. If people are sharing your works, they are not making you work for free. Do you go from house to house, mowing lawns, then knock on their door asking to be paid, and then complain that people are making you work for free when they refuse to pay? Well, selling art is the same thing. If you do the work and then ask to be paid after the fact, you're a fool.
Copyright is intended to give the exclusive right to distribute, not to be paid. Let me be clear, copyright does not guarantee the artist gets paid. If you're not happy with the fact that people share your works without paying you, get the money up front and then make it. Art has value. But in the laws of economics, art has no price. Artists are not owed money for what they create, they are owed for creating. If they are good creators, people will pay them to create more.
"So, although it may sound odd, it is not necessarily your right to get every possible penny from your work. Rather, our system is designed that you get enough to create, which promotes progress. But money that does not go toward promoting progress is not an entitlement. " - Alex Feerst of Standford Law in his email to Robert Brown
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100820/00543610697.shtml
deusexmachina7Aug 22, 2010
"Obviously."
Snarky jabs, one of the classiest ways to begin an argument. I commend you for such brilliance.
"Where in the copyright law does it say that artists are owed any compensation?"
And tell me, where in the copyright law does it say fans of said artist are entitled to an artist's work without payment? You answer mine first, then I'll answer yours. Because that's obviously what I'm talking about, artists whose work is pirated.
"Do you go from house to house, mowing lawns, then knock on their door asking to be paid, and then complain that people are making you work for free when they refuse to pay?"
s**tty analogy. According to your analogy, there is no active engagement on the behalf of the pirate. Here's a better example: in the far future, someone develops the technology to take a snapshot of another's lawn and instantly project onto their own property. Should the landscaper who spent a lot of hard work pruning and weed wacking and whatnot only be compensated once for his work, and never again?
It's not as if artists are begging people to download their music, then expecting people to pay them after the fact.
"Copyright is intended to give the exclusive right to distribute"
Err... did you think that one through? By that definition, piracy still violates copyright law, genius.
"But in the laws of economics, art has no price."
Elementary microeconomics would beg to differ.
"Artists are not owed money for what they create, they are owed for creating."
Lol. No response for that pearl of wisdom. I kneel in awe before your mighty skills of rhetoric.
@ your Feerst quote.
Please read my original post. I don't think piracy is an all-around bad thing. I think we need to find some middle ground in this issue, whereby people purchase what they value most, and pirate the rest. I think ultimately the fundamental principle that should guide the law as society evolves is written directly in the constitution. We should find a policy that maximizes both total welfare.
greevarAug 22, 2010
"And tell me, where in the copyright law does it say fans of said artist are entitled to an artist's work without payment?"
That's an excellent straw man. Have fun knocking him down. If you want to talk about entitlement though, outside of copyright the law considers the arts and sciences to belong to the people (e.g. the public domain). According to that fact, everything an artist publishes already gives the fans entitlement to it. It always belonged to the public, copyright is a *temporary* (albeit, excessively long) monopoly on the distribution of work created by an artist. As long as the copyright is valid, the artist retains the rights to his works, but after that right expires it defaults back to the public domain.
"Piracy has its perks, but only so long as people are still willing to purchase art/music the old fashioned way."
This question? "The old fashioned way" as you put it was never a realistic business model and contradicts the laws of economics. Digital goods will always have a price of zero because they are infinite.
"Should the landscaper who spent a lot of hard work pruning and weed wacking and whatnot only be compensated once for his work, and never again?"
Should the landscaper be entitled to perpetually receive pay for doing a job only once? Artists somehow feel entitled to such. Who is using a s**tty analogy? The point of my analogy was that artists make art without even being asked to do so in the first place and then complains that the results of his work is being enjoyed without compensation for each instance of that work. The artist should have secured compensation for doing the work (e.g. get hired/contracted) instead of trying to sell the intangible thing that was created. A landscaper doesn't sell pretty lawns, they sell their time and effort.
"Err... did you think that one through?"
I didn't have to. It's a fact. Copyright is not a mandate to pay artists, it's an exclusive right granted to artists to choose to whom they will distribute their works to. So yes, piracy still violates this, but you missed the point.
"Lol. No response for that pearl of wisdom. I kneel in awe before your mighty skills of rhetoric."
You would put the thing they create over the effort it took to create it? Do you buy a landscape from a landscaper or do you hire him to make you a landscape? Pay the artist for his skill to create, not his creations.
deusexmachina7Aug 22, 2010
"That's an excellent straw man."
The paragraph you follow up with doesn't address my post. You're only dodging my point by referring to public domain works, whereas I'm referring to copyrighted work (hence the word "copyright"). Works in the public domain are assumed to have been compensated during their 'monopoly' period.
"Digital goods will always have a price of zero because they are infinite."
They are only infinite if repeatedly reproduced, which is illegal. You said it yourself, the copyright holder holds the right to distribution. You seem to be suggesting that never, under any circumstances should an artist get paid unless their fan has the kindness to donate charity.
"Should the landscaper be entitled to perpetually receive pay for doing a job only once?"
Oh I see. So, if one person buys Bob Marley's CD, Bob Marley has been fully compensated?
"The point of my analogy was that artists make art without even being asked to do so in the first place and then complains that the results of his work is being enjoyed without compensation for each instance of that work."
And their complaint is legitimate. It's their work, not yours. Furthermore, in the case of artists such as authors and scientists (patents), the financial effort put into the resulting creation can't be offset if we use the model you propose, which as I understand it works like this: artists and scientists don't have to create, but if they do, they aren't owed anything. In economics, there always must be an incentive. I'm sure many artists will perform music as a labor of love, but that doesn't mean ALL artists should be forced to work this way.
"I didn't have to. It's a fact."
You don't catch why I responded in the manner why I did. I was pointing out that what you say does not damage my point. It rather reinforces it. Because, as you point out so fabulously, "piracy... violates this."
"Pay the artist for his skill to create"
You keep repeating this, and I'm really curious how you would go about it. What, charity?
I'd bet good money you aren't an artist, and you bristled at my suggestion that pro-piracy non-artists work at the same rates they expect artists to.
I sure hope you never become President. Your policies would effectively end scientific ventures. Imagine how poor Thomas Edison would be under your system--all that money he puts into researching the light bulb, and his only compensation is what he gets off of each individual light bulb. And then others legally copy his recipe, to boot!
greevarAug 22, 2010
"You keep repeating this, and I'm really curious how you would go about it. What, charity?"
The same way a mason, carpenter, or plumber does. Meet the customer, find out what they want, make an estimate for the job, and come to an agreement on pay. This works on an individual basis, but there is another model that works for projects intended to reach a larger number. Fund and release (a.k.a the threshold system) allows an artist(s) to offer their services to a large number of people by letting them "pledge" funding to a project. When the threshold is met, the funds are held in escrow by an intermediary until the project is complete. And once completed, the artist(s) get paid. Afterward, the art they create is free to anyone to share, distribute, or create derivative works from without restriction. In fact, there is one project that is using a slightly modified version of this model: http://www.interstellarmarines.com/
"I'd bet good money you aren't an artist, and you bristled at my suggestion that pro-piracy non-artists work at the same rates they expect artists to. "
Wrong. I am, in fact, an artist. I'm just one who has realized that the old ways of doing things no longer work and they were wrong in the first place. I also realize that I don't need copyright to make money if I am capable of making art that people feel I'm worthy of hiring me to make. I am not "pro-piracy", I am pro-sharing and pro-innovation. Both of those concepts are stifled by copyright.
You seem to be of the belief that artists cannot earn a living unless they have complete control over what they create. That is patently false. Copyright was never created to give artists the ability to make a living, it was created to censor those that would use authorship to speak out against the powers that be (e.g. the church). The publishers realized how much this system benefited them and decided that they didn't want to give up this power over information and art. It was never about protecting the artist, they never needed protecting, but the publishers' business model does, because without it they can't make obscene amounts of money.
"And their complaint is legitimate. It's their work, not yours. Furthermore, in the case of artists such as authors and scientists (patents), the financial effort put into the resulting creation can't be offset if we use the model you propose, which as I understand it works like this: artists and scientists don't have to create, but if they do, they aren't owed anything. In economics, there always must be an incentive. I'm sure many artists will perform music as a labor of love, but that doesn't mean ALL artists should be forced to work this way."
Spoken like a true IP maximist. The truth is, the art doesn't belong to the artist. It belongs to the people, but the artist is granted a temporary right to control its distribution because we want the artist to create more. Unfortunately, copyright doesn't accomplish this as well as we would like. Instead of enriching our artistic culture, it locks it down and limits it. It stifles innovation because the fact is, all art is derivative. Artists take their ideas from other artists in the past (Disney did this with the Grimm brothers tales) and create new works based on these ideas, but copyright says you can't do that unless it's in the public domain. That doesn't promote the progress of the arts, it retards and inhibits it all for the false claim that artists need copyright to earn a living.
"Works in the public domain are assumed to have been compensated during their 'monopoly' period."
That's false, they were given the *opportunity* to be compensated. You still seem to think that copyright is a mandate to compensate artists, which it is not. If nobody buys a work, has copyright been violated? Works are, by nature, a possession of the public domain, but that possession is delayed by copyright to give incentive to artists to create. Once the copyright expires, it returns to its original state as part of the public domain.
"You seem to be suggesting that never, under any circumstances should an artist get paid unless their fan has the kindness to donate charity."
No, I'm suggesting that selling imaginary goods is not a viable business model and it never was. I understand why you think this way, the publishers have been beating this false belief into the public conscience for three hundred years.
"Oh I see. So, if one person buys Bob Marley's CD, Bob Marley has been fully compensated? "
You falsely believe that the only way for an artist to earn money from his work is to sell copies. That's just not true. Let's throw out copyright for a moment here. I and one thousand of my fellow music fans hire an artist to make an album because we like his work. We agree on a fair payment for his work. He creates the album on time and he gets paid. In turn, we each get a copy of his work and the freedom to share it with our friends. In fact we are encouraged to share that album, because this gives the artist more exposure to the public, potentially providing more opportunities for the artist to sell his skills to new fans. If we don't pay, he doesn't have to release his work. If he doesn't release his work to us, we don't have to pay him. The fans get their beloved art, the artist gets paid, and he gets free publicity to boot. How could copyright possibly make that better?
bigviAug 22, 2010
I download a ton of stuff (151 gigs on utorrent in 30 days), but I also buy the stuff thats worth it.
Kick Ass, Avatar, entire seasons of Lost/Home Improvement/Eureka/BSG/ST TNG TOS DS9 and Ent/ etc. I would be deemed a big time criminal by the RIAA and yet I would bet that I spend more on tv, movies and music than any of their upper lower/lower middle class relatives. The 1 year I used quicken to track all my tv, movie and game purchases I spent over 1/20th of my yearly income on their crap.
Before I was unemployed for 13 months I had a stack of over 400 DVDs. Im trying to get back to that now that I am employed again, but I cant afford it.
aquapeteAug 21, 2010
absolutely ridiculous! i see no problem in people being fined for illegally downloading, but the punishment should fit the crime.
miatafitz2002Aug 23, 2010
I agree. 20 years to life
hipmanAug 21, 2010
"copyright notices on compact discs--which P2P users never see-"
More like "willfully ignore", but yeah.
suricouAug 21, 2010
Once you've seen the first thirty, you just tune them out of your perception. Like clicking through an EULA. People might read the first one they see, but that's the only one they'll read.
hipmanAug 21, 2010
So?.You still clicked and accepted it.Tough luck.
travelsonicAug 21, 2010
So, Hipman? THAT'S what the whole f**king debate is about.
travelsonicAug 21, 2010
"More like "willfully ignore""
[citation needed]
angelbunnyAug 21, 2010
radio stations break copyright every time they play a song and they do not even pay royalties. As in, you break as much law listening to a radio station as you do downloading an mpg. Do you know this or are you willfully ignorant as well?
bartledooAug 22, 2010
No, I didn't know that. In fact, it's not even true (in the majority of cases).
suricouAug 22, 2010
Radio stations have to get licences to play those songs. For the sake of convenience, the labels usually pool their copyrights together into a blanket licence. Saves the stations the effort of getting permission for every song.
angelbunnyAug 22, 2010
no, they do not have to, but many get licenses regardless.
hipmanAug 23, 2010
They do have to, that's why they even bother getting them.You don't know what you're talking about.
fuzzynyankoAug 21, 2010
I wondered if anyone has tried saying that someone broke into their LAN and used it for infringement.
barasawaAug 21, 2010
Easy enough thing to do if they have a wireless router or a computer (usually notebooks) with wireless that has internet sharing turned on.
gilgamesh999Aug 21, 2010
I'd agree with the defense, but she should have taken the 200$ a song and run with it.
spiralspiritAug 21, 2010
whereas any challenge is good, I think the ridiculousness of the law and the awards being given for non-commercial infringment are beyond all comprehension.
goingfishing11Aug 21, 2010
I agree. Generally, I see nothing wrong with illegally downloading, as long as it's for personal use. It's like recreational drugs or sexual preference. Besides, there is strong evidence for the statement that P2P activity is actually good for business. If the entertainment industry continues to push digital media on the masses, they should be prepared for the consequences. As I said, though, I don't really think it's as bad as the entertainment industry is making it out to be. They're quietly benefiting from the "illegal" advertising while making a big fuss to maintain their "face."
adml_shakeAug 21, 2010
I imagine that some record exec check book will be coming out soon to make this go away.
azwethinkweizmAug 21, 2010
As much as I hate to say it, ignorance of the law is not a defense.
brucealmightyAug 21, 2010
No one is claiming it as a defense, only as a mitigating factor in the determination of the damages awarded.
shutupflandersAug 21, 2010
They're not claiming to be ignorant of copyright law... just whether or not a particular file is bound by it. Lots of groups release music for free now. Radiohead and Pearl Jam have lots of free tracks.
starmanjonesAug 21, 2010
it is a defense. first, what we are speaking of is copyrighted material. P2P is just a target for other reasons having more to do with "net neutrality."
its nearly impossible to have a computer and not have some copyrighted material on it. it maybe unknowingly put there by the manufacturer, or your friend copied you on some copyrighted material... you may have sent your grand mother copyrighted material and... sorry granny.
laws allowing the authorities to get a warrant and search your computer for whatever reason they think they need to... you can guarantee a judge with near certainty that there is copyrighted material on the computer of interest.
P2P is not a program designed to break the law. it simply makes networks more efficient. hugely more efficient. hugely more private.
these laws aimed at P2P are the equivalent of passing laws and controlling printing presses because they can and do print copyrighted material then monitoring my car in case i go get that copyrighted material.
there is an old legal wisdom that says if a significant percentage of the population is turned into a criminal the result of a law... then the law needs changing.
also, P2P is more about network efficiency. the traditional server client method of moving things on the network bogs down under high loads. if what you are doing is successful you can fail because your server and bandwidth loads effectively make you unusable.
thats good for the big telecom giants and companies that can afford unlimited bandwidth. who wants efficiency when you sell bandwidth and your competition is squashed by cash flow problems due to their success... the answer here is: i pay for my bandwidth.
digg pays for its bandwidth. when i click on a link at digg... digg agrees to send it to me across my bandwidth. all paid for. whats the problem? yup... its that simple.
here is the problem the bad guys are really interested in stopping. the things that digg is sending me... picture... video... text... are broken in discreet packets and can arrive at my computer by the path of least resistance. the pieces to that one picture can travel many different routes across the internet. THAT IS WHAT MAKES THE INTERNET WORK!
that is its technical magic. thats why it continues to operate during the hypothetical nuclear war it was designed for. keep communications going no matter who gets nuked.
if you are able to watch, block and prioritize content then all the content must travel together or you have no idea what it is. with bottle necks like this the internet just became unusable. when a single router goes down you don't get your mail. when someone hits a telephone pole and breaks a fiber cable... no traffic. doesn't know how to route itself. TCP/IP is neutered.
lastly, when the powers that be are telling you what information you have a right to see... then political operatives get away with bulls**tting us again... we just got used to being able to know what they didn't want us to know. that bad was bad for bush.
access to information is a civil rights issue. restricting my right to information is unacceptable. if we do not use P2P then we are surrendering it to the bad guys. we are allowing brick and mortar business that should die or change their business model to rob the efficiency distributed networks. they didn't invent these technologies. they don't understand them...
its as pure an act of "civil disobedience" as can be thgouth of. this is the logical next phase of the civil rights movements of the 60's except it effects us all. ML King... Gandhi... would have approve of the use of civil disobedience in this cause.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
onebeforezodAug 21, 2010
lol.
starmanjonesAug 21, 2010
i take it you don't work in the industry. never been told you were going to be personally sued if you didn't go to a dailup users house... remove a song and provide them proof you did it?
its all very serious and has nothing to do with pirates.
barasawaAug 21, 2010
It is if it's a secret law. And although a copyright notice isn't a law, if you have never seen it and believe that there isn't one (either because it was presented to you as that, or you don't understand the issue properly), then it might as well be a secret law. Otherwise you'll end up with RIAA having a horribly abusive agreement that is binding on all the music they release, but since they keep it in a locked safe in their office, the only thing you will know about it is that you are somehow in violation of it when they take you to court. Yeah, I know, doomsday paranoia type stuff, but what they've been doing the last 10 years was the doomsday paranoia stuff of 20 years ago.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
azwethinkweizmAug 22, 2010
That's completely invalid. My town has a fireworks ban for the month of June, it's a law that if you are in possession of any type of firework then you are subject to a $50 dollar fine. If someone drives through and gets pulled over while a cop sees it, it's a $50 dollar fine. You can fight it but the judge will laugh at you.
There is no such thing as a secret law in American society, ignorance of the law is NOT a legal defense.
evilkrustydollAug 21, 2010
The reason the vast majority of artists never see a cent is the vast majority of artists never sell any albums and actually COST the record label money.
If a label gambles and spends $500k on producing and marketing an album, and it only makes $200k in profit, of course the artist is not going to see any money. A record contract is actually a loan with guarantees of profit if you succeed, it is not a paycheck.
Trust me, if you sell tons of albums over and over, you WILL get rich. If you have a problem with the system, you need to learn to market yourself better as an artist, or go indie where you try to make do with less resources but pull a bigger chunk of the profit. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cyclonusripAug 21, 2010
In theory that's how it works, but the record industry includes a lot of tricks that make it so they can make money off an album and still officially not count their advance as recouped.
suricouAug 21, 2010
The artist is liable for all those costs though - so in your example, after their album flops, the artist is left oweing the studio $300,000.
Indie is more viable than it used to be, thanks to the far lower cost of production - where once a well-eqipped studio was needed, now a single PC and microphone will suffice. The problem is that the big studios have access to the promotion and distribution network - they are the ones who can get a song on the radio, and the CDs on the shelves at wal-mart. Without their connections and contracts, it's hard for any music to become well-known, no matter how good.
diggorelseAug 22, 2010
How do they make no money if they received $700,000 in revenue (i.e., $200,000 profit)?
I think half the people commenting on Digg have never owned a business or anything more than the iPod their parents bought them.
suricouAug 22, 2010
Because there is a difference between sales and profits? If it takes $500k to record, edit, mass-produce, promote and distribute an album, but the royalties only total $200k, then it's an effective loss of $300k.
Making music the professional way is expensive - studio rental, equipment rental, hireing the engineers. If there is a video to go with the music, then it gets extremally expensive.
ikeeel4moneyAug 21, 2010
After I got a warning from my isp, I just let my 'friend' download anything I want then I either give him my usb to copy it or I just use a direct p2p site (currently using dushare.com) which is faster and far more secure than torrent.
suricouAug 21, 2010
Is that doing what it looks like it's doing? Huh. It can't be. Flash shouldn't allow for opening a port, and even if it could there would be issues with NAT. How does it work?
Not sure about dushare - I do not trust technology I do not understand - but there is much potential in shared-media piracy. Tradeing USB sticks works well. I know someone who attends big LAN parties, and there is always a DC++ hub operating where people can bring their multi-terabyte collections.
goingfishing11Aug 21, 2010
Generally, I see nothing wrong with illegally downloading, as long as it's for personal use. It's like recreational drugs or sexual preference. Besides, there is strong evidence for the statement that P2P activity is actually good for business. If the entertainment industry continues to push digital media on the masses, they should be prepared for the consequences. As I said, though, I don't really think it's as bad as the entertainment industry is making it out to be. They're quietly benefiting from the "illegal" advertising while making a big fuss to maintain their "face."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
philbertAug 21, 2010
That's crazy, it's like putting up a sign about paintings in a museum and I'm supposed to know about that sign from seeing the paintings on a web site.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thahmzAug 21, 2010
ɐɐıɹ ǝɥʇ ʞɔnɟ
jman5Aug 21, 2010
The real scandal here is that the fine is excessive beyond belief! $27,000 for downloading a handful of songs?
miatafitz2002Aug 23, 2010
I agree. That is ridiculus. Should have been 20 years to life. Get a job and stop stealing. Are you a democrat
s0nicfreakAug 22, 2010
So the RIAA has decided that from now on, every song will constantly yell "COPYING THIS SONG IS A CRIME"
min3matAug 22, 2010
And the pirated songs will have it edited out..one more great reason to pirate! Lol
miatafitz2002Aug 23, 2010
Most people have common sense and already know that. Are you a democrat
diggorelseAug 22, 2010
The problem is the person who first removes the copyright notice. That should be the target, not those who never see the copyright notice.
thealliedhackerAug 22, 2010
f**k Sony, EMI, Universal Music, and Warner Music.
Don't let these scumbags hide behind their shell organization designed to avoid bad PR.
blklightningAug 22, 2010
sorry, guy; i gotta have my ps3 fix.
bartledooAug 22, 2010
I guess innocent infringers are just ignorant infringers, which is not a good defense but apparently is mitigating factor in assessing the fines.
mawrizAug 22, 2010
WTF America, a teen downloading songs reaches the Supreme Court? What's next, firing squad for jaywalkers?
aquapeteAug 22, 2010
for all the people burying, i would love to know why.
Closed AccountAug 22, 2010
if it wasn't for torrents, i would have never spent hundreds maybe over a thousand going to events where my favorite artists play. i never had any interest in purchasing cds however, going to an event is different. in the future ill probably start purchasing more music online but to find music im interested in, torrents are the only way. what do you suggest, i watch MTV? lols.
miatafitz2002Aug 23, 2010
So how long have you been a democrat?