What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
339 Comments
- wallclimber, on 06/20/2009, -1/+443"Has the RIAA's Fight Against File Sharing Gone Too Far?"
The RIAA has gone so far past "too far" it's appalling. These are mobsters, getting bolder everyday. They must be stopped. Enough is enough. They need to get out of our governments out of our lawmaking processes (worldwide!) and out of our lives for good.
I hope those jurists never get a good night's sleep again, I also hope none of them, including the judge, ever look too closely at their own computers, it'll likely scare them. Maybe the RIAA's next victims will be their own children or friends or neighbors...or even themselves. I hope so.
The RIAA lawyers/henchmen/thugs/scum have no shame, no pity, no ethics, no concern for anything but greed and power and control. They need to be marched "too far" off the end of a very long gang plank...but the sharks would probably just spit 'em back. - ialan2, on 06/20/2009, -2/+395Yes
- keviniskool, on 06/20/2009, -5/+310***** THE RIAA
- Gareth321, on 06/20/2009, -4/+174I wrote this on Reddit regarding the same story:
That's disgusting. Not because I think life is worth $24,000 [life is sacred], but because anyone could possibly believe a pirated song is worth $80,000. The real criminals are from the MPAA and RIAA. - Contradictions, on 06/20/2009, -1/+137So much for the "justice" system. No reasonable person can think that ammount of money is a fair penalty for 24 songs.
- Rudegar, on 06/20/2009, -1/+112you can only sing songs in the shower you have bought the rights to sing!
- Paranor01, on 06/20/2009, -0/+81Not to mention that the RIAA still hasn't released any of the money it's "recovered" to the artists it says it's fighting so hard for. Lies and bullcrap from a cartel out for it's own greedy interests. That's all they are.
- overridemymind, on 06/20/2009, -1/+65In before MrUploads anti-P2P ranting stupidity.
Seriously though, the RIAA and the MPAA can eat me. $1.92 million for 24 songs? WTF who the ***** do these people think they are? ***** OFF, RIAA! - thePTS, on 06/20/2009, -0/+64They are using the copyright law for all it's worth, they are manipulating public opinion as well as politicians and courts. They're using lots of money against poor people. Why do people accept these slimeballs to shape our future?
Yours truly,
a guy who has bought more CDs, DVDs and games than most people. - bleak26, on 06/20/2009, -4/+57surly this means that copy wright infringment is a greater degree of crime than rape and murder as the compensation to the violated party is so much greater than rap or murder.
- method7670, on 06/20/2009, -1/+50The RIAA is by far the most evil thing out in corporate practice.
- inactive, on 06/20/2009, -2/+46So 1.9 Million Dollars, at a dollar per song, is stating that she allowed 1.9 million downloads of songs from her computer. Or each of the 24 songs 80,000x. If each song was 5meg then they should have to prove that her bandwidth utilization the days they collected information was apx.
By my calculations that is about 9.5TB of data transfer for 24 songs.
Unless they can prove that her computer was on, sharing all the songs, for the entire duration they should only be able to collect a few x the total amount able to be downloaded by her network connection. Back in 2004, I would say the highest upload speed was probably 768Kbps. or 96KB/s. This works out to be one song every 52 seconds. (roughly a dollar a minute). If she was sharing all 1702 songs, and each song was downloaded. It would take apx 28.36 hours to download them all. I wonder how long their evidence lasted as far as how long she was actively sharing? - bombula, on 06/20/2009, -5/+48This isn't compensating victims for actual losses or anything like that - this is a _fine_, which is just a punishment. It's not like $80k isn't cruel or unusual punishment... And it's not like the Constitution forbids cruel or unusual punishment...
- scarwars, on 06/20/2009, -0/+42... with utorrent actively running in the taskbar doing it's thang.
- Findeton, on 06/20/2009, -0/+39I just want to inform you that here in Spain "piracy" is legal if you don't sell what you download. That is, you can download or share a whole discography just to listen to it and no lawyer can make you pay a single penny for it.
So, from my spanish point of view, yes, the RIAA has gone too far, they went too far when they started to fight "piracy". - fightingforair, on 06/20/2009, -0/+39I am quite curious about this jury actually. Are they serious a jury of that persons' peers?
I wonder how much the jury members made off of their verdict... - Claverhouse, on 06/20/2009, -0/+37I have always held the position that Rap should automatically carry the death penalty.
- RoanokeRich, on 06/20/2009, -0/+36Came for this
- dglad, on 06/20/2009, -3/+39Have to feel sorry for the RIAA. They're desperately clinging to a business model that has all but ceased to be meaningful. This makes them not unlike churches that hang on to outdated dogma, governments that refuse to change obsolete policies because they're...well, policies, and scientists that won't let go of pet theories, even if every shred of new data shows them to be no longer valid. There's a deep human need to not see things change, that's proportional to how much of yourself you've invested in the status quo. Only part of this is about money to the RIAA. Part of it is about their unwillingness to adapt; they're scared, frankly, of a future that they can't see and don't understand.
A future that's actually already here. Or, to put it another way, "dead business model walking". - Choobie, on 06/20/2009, -2/+35Keep in mind that it was the jury that awarded the $80,000 per song. Sure, the RIAA called for a very large penalty, but it ultimately comes down to the jury that should have stood up to the RIAA and say "No, that fee is ridiculous." Now maybe if the jury was stuffed with people working for the RIAA, then I could see that they have gone too far in this case, but otherwise in this particular case it was the jury that took things too far.
Now as a whole, has the RIAA taken things too far? Yes. Their lobbying is near criminal. It is ridiculous the amount of clout they swing in various law making bodies. The ease with which they can influence and introduce bills to the U.S. congress is a major problem, especially since I do not have the same ease and resources to do the same. Sure, I could gather a large group of U.S. citizens to lobby against the RIAA and introduce bills, but we would need an incredibly large group to reach the donations that could keep up with the RIAAs money scheme.
Also them trying to get the government to go after file sharers is unconstitutional. It is outside the governments scope of responsibilities to track down copyright violators and punish them, except as to provide the court, judge, and jury for cases (which should all be covered by court fees). The copyright czar position needs to be removed from the cabinet. (Although you could say that the government does a lot of work outside its scope of responsibilities). - rl41, on 06/20/2009, -3/+33Short Answer: Yes
Long Answer: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss - N0DIGGITY, on 06/20/2009, -0/+28at that price, I owe $682 million! ouch
- Ophie, on 06/20/2009, -1/+29Well somebody had to say it.
- furrball, on 06/20/2009, -0/+27this is sad you can go to walmart and steal a cd and just get a slap on the rist
- davcross, on 06/20/2009, -0/+27After all the crap the RIAA has been doing for many years, why do people still purchase material (CD's etc) from the companies that make up the RIAA?
If everyone stopped for one month what would that do to the RIAA? - ryanonfire, on 06/20/2009, -1/+26What I want to know is how is this lady going to be able to pay the RIAA?
- xobecide, on 06/20/2009, -1/+25http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_inco ...
50,000. And they expect the average person to pay 80,000 per song. So a person pirating one single song should have to put forth more than a year and a half's worth of effort to simply pay someone else for work they did not do.
I think, although I'm not positive, that that is where the problem lies. - ghostlywind, on 06/20/2009, -4/+28The RIAA has gone way to far, our copyright laws are completely ***** up. A friend of mine who had exstacy in his car has only had to pay about $3000 in court fees and U.A.s, and my older brother who got caught for drunk driving only had to about $5000 court fees and other stuff and those are far worse than downloading some songs.
- brucealmighty, on 06/20/2009, -1/+22Just imagine if this jury had been hearing a criminal case.....death penalty for shoplifting...???
- kenedamick, on 06/20/2009, -0/+20I say we all as RIAA opposition pay 1.92 million dollars to hire a group of lawyers to put the RIAA away for good. For every major label album you'd normally purchase at best buy, donate it to a fund to eliminate these greedy knuckleheads.
- roodammy44, on 06/20/2009, -0/+19Guns don't kill people, rappers do.
- rnawky, on 06/20/2009, -1/+201 Album costs more than the Unreal 3 Engine.
- YouAreDead, on 06/20/2009, -0/+19***** the mpaa
- Paranor01, on 06/20/2009, -1/+20better to call your Government reps. and tell them they need to get off their collective asses and stop allowing such archaic practices and change the method of copyright challenges.
- tgc1, on 06/20/2009, -0/+19Jury got paid off.
- keviniskool, on 06/20/2009, -4/+23While I'm flattered that you find ***** RIAA people to be one of your favorite sexual fantasies, please do not mention what you fap to ever again.
- SoCalCove, on 06/20/2009, -1/+20The punishment should fit the crime, if a person gets busted for wrong doing they should get something like 5 hours community service or some such crap thats relavent.
2 million dollars for 24 songs, is just flat out malicious and EVERYONE including the judge and lawyers know it.
This is the crap that makes me sad for America man, lots of stuff to be proud of, but seeing this shi# is just wrong. - buzznjackal, on 06/20/2009, -1/+19The rediculous thing is that the copyright laws were originally put in place to protect holders from people who would take a product, copy it, and resell it to make a profit. What do you do about people that are just sharing stuff for free? Its not like this woman burned the 24 songs she downloaded on a CD and sold them to people. She just downloaded them and other people downloaded off of her. Whats to say that anyone would have paid any money to own those songs. No money is exchanged, therefore its not a matter of economic loss. People need to carefully examine the context of these cases and rule on them individually. Someone who downloads 24 songs, burns them on a CD then resells it to countless people I believe isdoing real harm, because they are economically taking away money that rightfully belongs to the copyright holders. I think the exchange of money is what is important here.
- ryanonfire, on 06/20/2009, -1/+19http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?id=67AC2E75-E62A- ...
Call their Contact number people: 202/775-0101 - acknotSW, on 06/20/2009, -0/+17Spain doesn't get nearly enough credit for that enlightend view.
- 8347, on 06/20/2009, -0/+17Assume the woman earns $10 per hour working and $7 after taxes. It would take her 11,429 hours of working to pay off just one song. That's 5.5 years of labor!! That's also assuming she gives every penny she earns to the RIAA. For 24 songs it would take her 132 years of labor to pay off her debt. Hmmm I think that qualifies for cruel and unusual punishment.
- ifallen, on 06/20/2009, -0/+17RIAA = = Current day Witch Trials
- Th3R3dFly, on 06/20/2009, -1/+18$750 to $150,000 per song... Considering that there's people who torrent and host entire discographies of many various artists and have libraries of music that expand into the TB range, they could charge thousands of people extraordinarily unrealistic fines for the entire file-sharing system legally.
There's a point where this just becomes silly, especially considering how many people have heard great music from artists they never would've paid to hear without it. We need a new business model to distribute and sell electronic media, not stick to the pre-internet ways.
(And this is just one comment from some guy on digg that no one will read and won't carry any weight...) - AdamsGuitar, on 06/20/2009, -0/+16Just FYI, a "jurist" is a judge. A "juror" is a member of the jury.
- SoCalCove, on 06/20/2009, -0/+16Wouldnt it be cool if all music fans donated 1 dollar a month to an non for profit organization that would investigate ANY wrong doings by the RIAA (and its companies that are part of it) and aggressively sue them.
I mean if a company can be treated like an individual, why cant we go after them for harassing, breaking laws, intimidating, and i am sure countless other affronts to people everywhere.
I still remember the Pepsi commercial (was it superbowl half time) to intimidate people about little childrens getting pushed to make commercials about fighting the law and losing and 'now they know' better. Seems like it horrified me more than anything using kids for their own profit agenda. - inactive, on 06/20/2009, -1/+17it's not the system.. they are a bunch of bullies with money.. if anyone can come up to you and accuse you of crime and they have enough money to tie you up in court for years and to be able to lobby governments etc.. you have no hope.. why should anyone settle to pay them with zero evidence.. when they broke laws collecting evidence that proves nothing.. it's a total ***** farce.
The RIAA had zero respect for human life and the law.. so guess what they are going to get that treatment back from the internets. - freakstyle571, on 06/20/2009, -1/+17the simple answer is indeed the best one in this case.
- brownsound00, on 06/20/2009, -1/+17The real injustice is the the lack of money the actual ARTISTS get. (according to Trent Reznor, it's only 89 cents out of a 15 dollar cd). So not only is the money probably not going to the artist who makes the music... it's going to the people who deliver it.
That's just wrong on so many levels. - inactive, on 06/20/2009, -1/+17The RIAA never wanted her money.
They want people to talk about her (lack of) money, so that the next time that you think about pirating, you'll aslo think about having your life ruined, not just about paying a fine.
And you know what? In between the "***** THE RIAA" chant, talking about her money sis exactly what we are doing. - Elderon, on 06/20/2009, -1/+16What makes this judgment even more asinine is that if she had gone to the store and just stolen the cd's she would be in less trouble then she is now, think about that for a while. I don't think I've ever heard of a petty shoplifter having to pay almost 2 million dollars.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 348 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is