What is Digg?66 Comments
- AngelBunny, on 06/13/2009, -2/+51the print media is known to lie about everything
- inactive, on 06/13/2009, -4/+47The Print media is known to lie about P2P and copyright laws.
- roguenkatz, on 06/13/2009, -4/+38Just because it's not true doesn't mean we can't report it!
- Rememberthe0511, on 06/14/2009, -6/+34The greatest fear of the MPAA, RIAA and all other media outlets is not that their content will be pirated, but that the ever day man will be given the means to create and distribute his own content making them all together obsolete. Their rush to shut down or lock down the Internet is claimed to be over copy right infringement of their content, when really they are just deathly afraid of the reformation that is about to happen when their services are rendered useless and every day people are empowered to create, edit, mix share and remix.
In the end ether we we will have a free and open Internet where piracy happens but people are far more interested user made content or we will have a Internet that is so locked down and no one even wants to use it any more and the Internet will just be this thing that came and went. - DrivingVertigo, on 06/14/2009, -4/+25STOP THE PRESSES! NEWS MEDIA SENSATIONALIZE STORY TO CAPITALIZE ON READERSHIP WITHOUT PROPER RESEARCH!
…………………………………………......._„„„---~~~~----„„„_.......……__
.....…………………………..........„„–~''''¯:::::::::::::::::::::::::¯¯'''')-~''''¯::::¯''''~-„
……………………………….„–~''''¯:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/::::::::::::::::::::'\
……………………........„~"¯:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|:::::::::~„::::::::::'|
........„-„…………..…„~"::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\:::::::::::)::::::::::¯''''~–-„
......,/:/…………...„-"::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\~—~":::::::::::::::::::::¯"~–,„
....,/'::|…………„-"::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::„-":::::::¸„–~~–„::::::::::::::::::::::"~-„
.../:::::|..........,/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ƒ::::::::„-". . . . . ."-„:::::::::::::::::::::::"-„
.ƒ:::::::\,......,/::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|:::::::::(. . . . . . . . .|::::::::::::::::::::::::::"-„
.|::::::::::"~„¸/'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\,„-~''''''''~-„. .L. . . ./::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'\„„_
.|::::::::::::,/::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/...........…"~„. . „-"::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::¯''''~-„
.'|::::::::::ƒ:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|..........………¯"–„:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::„~'''''''~„:::::\
..\,::::::::|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\…………..………"-„::::::::::„–~~~–„:::::|:::::::::|::::::)
....\,::::::'|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\„_……………........"~„ „-". . . . . . ."-„-"-„:::::":::::„/
......"-„:::'|:::::::::::::„—-„::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::¯"~-„__::ƒ¯¯''''-„…………......_„„/––~u~'''''''¯¯¯;;;;;;"„~–~"¯
........."-„:\::::::::::ƒ. . . .\ „-~-„:::::::„-~":::::::::::::::::::::„-". . ¯"-„. . ƒ\__„„„„—~''''¯¯;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;„-"
............"-\___„„„„\¸. . „-"(. . . ')„„„-"„„„„„„„„„„——–~~~~"-„. . . „-";'''''';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;„-"
…………{¯;;;;;;;;;;;¯¯;;;;"~-~'';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;"~~";;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;„-"
…………'|;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;„-"
………….\;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;„-"
…………...¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''~~~~~~~~~~~~—————–—–-"
Wake me when some real news comes along.... - appleofdischord, on 06/14/2009, -2/+23Except that all they did this time was point out the facts. The trial has not been decided. A judge gave an opinion, and then media telephone game happened.
This is not an opinion piece. - Auraness, on 06/14/2009, -0/+18Is that a... Slowpoke?
- AngelBunny, on 06/13/2009, -1/+17The 'news' is nothing but a giant telephone game.
- Travelsonic, on 06/14/2009, -1/+14"Guess what? That still doesn't mean its not stealing!"
No, the fact that you didn't deprive them of something they had - which you do through shoplifting etc - does make it not stealing.
Believing it isn't stealing / believing it is moral are not inclusive propositions.
You don't have to see piracy as the right thing to do in order to know copying a file and shoplifting a car are not the same thing. - ethanator1088, on 06/13/2009, -4/+16AARRGH!
- Hashshashin, on 06/14/2009, -0/+12IMPOSTOR!!
- Travelsonic, on 06/14/2009, -1/+12The only bias here is GaltShrugged.
They were reporting facts all right, not that you'd accept anything anti-RIAA/MPAA/BSA. - Travelsonic, on 06/14/2009, -0/+11". It seems like a lot of people don't see it as stealin"
Because stealing actually deprives them of something whereas copying a music file doesn't.
You can't use that as an argument to say people who make the argument are pro-piracy or immoral, it means they have a different opinion. - inactive, on 06/14/2009, -4/+14I dugg this because I am interested in science and programming.
- Zaxcomp, on 06/14/2009, -1/+11Everyone is known to lie about anything.
- inactive, on 06/14/2009, -0/+9I think it has become meme.
- maxvette, on 06/13/2009, -3/+12Glad to hear that, I thought it was true and im glad to hear that it isnt.
- avengedx47, on 06/14/2009, -1/+10ENEMY SLOWPOKE USED REST! ENEMY SLOWPOKE FELL ASLEEP!
- maz2331, on 06/14/2009, -1/+9It's important to ensure that the trial was actually fair under the law. That way nobody can credibly question the year in prison and life in crushing poverty that the TPB defendants earned themselves.
Too bad the other side can't spend time in a nearby cell too. - maz2331, on 06/14/2009, -1/+9Too late, it already exists and has for some time. Recording hardware and software are dirt cheap, as is hosting. That genie is out of the bottle.
The second point is interesting, and exactly what they want. The problem with implementing it is that interests FAR bigger than the *AA crowd would be wiped out. Google, Amazon, and a whole ***** of retailers, plus blogs and Digg-like sites have a market capitilization hundreds of times those of the AAssholes.
Time for a consortium to just buy them out and fix it. - Gusbob, on 06/14/2009, -0/+8/me plays the pokeflute.
- artfiend77, on 06/14/2009, -0/+8Geez, everyday I wake up I thank the powers that be that I'm not an angry little man like Galt.
- Travelsonic, on 06/14/2009, -0/+8"How are you not depriving them of something? You are depriving them of revenue from that potential sale."
The key word is potential.
Potential is never something you have. Thus, you can't lose something that you were never going to get in the first place... from there, I argue if you never had it in the first place, you can't have it taken away from you, in this case that is profit you might never see to begin with.
Using your logic, considering buying something and then changing your mind is theft.
That is logicless. - eleete, on 06/14/2009, -0/+6He lives in a lonely corner of the world fighting the tide of what will eventually be. Sift through his comments and he is not just angry, he is depressingly miserable and may be beyond hope.
- MofS, on 08/13/2009, -0/+6Dugg you up cause I'm also extremely interested in science and programming.
- krisrm, on 06/14/2009, -0/+6I suppose as long as you aren't EXTREMELY interested in science and programming. That could get ugly.
- Travelsonic, on 06/14/2009, -1/+7"Yes, the definition may be archaic, but it is STILL the legal definition."
Thank you.
You just proved in one sweep you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.
The legal definition of theft requires TAKING (not copying) property and depriving them of it.
Not taking something that may have value, and not copying.
Re-enforced in the U.S in Dowling v. the U.S and the Grokster case. - Travelsonic, on 06/14/2009, -0/+5"Thanks! That really helps. "
Glad you understand /s
"I'm still curious how it would work if it were legal to file-share copyrighted material."
NOT AT ALL what you were talking about before, but since you inquired I'll bite.
IT ALREADY IS legal. That free stuff people share legally? Most of it is copyrighted, so the copyrighted / lack therefore status of a work is not at all a good indicator of the legality to share it.
"Why would anyone create movie, software and such if the first person who buys it can copy it and share it for free to everyone?"
It isn't as dire as you put it, stop the bleeding heart crap.
Even still, people DO - granted, hobbyists, but P2P will never mark the end of creating media of any kind. - eleete, on 06/14/2009, -0/+5That's what I said when I read your comment.
- DarkLaughingMan, on 06/14/2009, -0/+5@HardMoneyMan
"I'm still curious how it would work if it were legal to file-share copyrighted material. Why would anyone create movie, software and such if the first person who buys it can copy it and share it for free to everyone?"
You can make money off physical products that are based off of X. For example, make a successful movie that people just shares free to everyone? What about collectible items, limited edition items, autographed items by the movie actors. For software, you can offer support costs. Or have a system in place where if you want an update, you have to help pay for development, + whatever living and entertainment expenses.
Or people might just do it for fame, popularity, reknown, or just to have it out there. That's been happening for a while now (see Jamendo, Open Source Software, most research scientists do).
Will things have to be changed? Yup, but that's pretty much the case with every advance out there humanity has gone through. But somehow we've managed to create even more out of it. E.g. cars changed almost every aspect of our lives, but put alot of people out of business in the horse and other transportation industries. Or even farther back to historic mankind. Farming devalued hunting.
Now the real issue is if 3D printing advances to the point where any of us could make any object we wanted. Or if any of us could instantly download knowledge and capability. But that's another change we may have to deal with. And who knows, maybe even this model will have to be replaced. - Myztry, on 06/14/2009, -0/+4That's not true!
(Sorry - I was lying about that) - sychodan, on 06/14/2009, -6/+9***** THE RIAA!!!
- HardMoneyMan, on 06/14/2009, -2/+5I've been a pirate since I got my first computer in the early 90s, but I have a question. What is the argument against intellectual property rights and pro-piracy? I mean I do it ALL the time, but I know it's wrong... It seems like a lot of people don't see it as stealing & want it to be legal, so I was wondering how you justify that.
Thanks in advance. - KingFog, on 06/14/2009, -0/+3You clearly didn't read the article at all did you?
This is about The Pirate Bay (which you'd know if you were interested in technology), a popular file-sharing site, not about Pirates in the sense of "Aaargh me 'arrteys, let's go plunder some booty!"
On top of that, what The Pirate Bay was doing wasn't illegal in their country... - eleete, on 06/14/2009, -1/+4Stealing: Take without the owner's consent.
You were close, and some might believe that simple statement, though it is demonstrably false.
Stealing is removing property from someone elses possession. Unless the item is no longer available to the original owner (which making a copy deprives no one). No stealing or theft has occurred. This is at the heart of Jeffersons view on the issue.
He who lights his taper at mine receives light WITHOUT darkening me. - eleete, on 06/14/2009, -0/+3I take it you are not a programmer, otherwise you would see the art as well as the science.
- lead2thehead, on 06/14/2009, -2/+4You're asking the MSM to get their facts straight? Good luck with that.
- Travelsonic, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2
cecil,
we are talking about the law though. - srg13, on 06/14/2009, -2/+4Stealing is a lot different from copyright infringement, both legally and morally...
- winterspan, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Exactly... I heard the same thing, and I just assumed that when they mentioned "court" they just meant the special judge overseeing the "bias" claim.
I hate when this type of inaccurate crap happens, and I catch so much of it particularly in the tech/science sections of MSM that I wonder WHAT ELSE is the paper or on the television station is *****? - computershack, on 06/14/2009, -1/+3"the New York Times and several other publications report inaccuracies and plain wrongs that claim otherwise. "
Translates as "Torrentfreak believes the New York Times and several other publications have printed pro-judgment things that we don't agree with which are more likely to be the real story so we're going to use FUD to try and discredit the stories" - canyoodiggit, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1Exactly. Fox News FTW!
- Travelsonic, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1Damn digg's comment threading problems. >_< ignore this post.
- sychodan, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1dugg for slowpoke.
- smord, on 06/16/2009, -0/+1This report on bias in the media comes to you courtesy of TorrentFreak, cherished provider of 100% objective news reporting since 2005.
- enrq, on 06/17/2009, -1/+2paradox
- eleete, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1Here's how it would work if it were legal to use others work. The artist may cry that now anyone may use their work, transform it, mix it and create something new, possibly far better than the original.
Many would have you believe that the original artist is now cast out and has lost rights to his work.
What is overlooked is that if we (all) were allowed to use eachothers (all) work. Then that artist would immediately have exponential media to work with too. If we all gained that, exponential content could be created because we would be able to create with far less constraints.
Your question is answered in reality as well. IF anyone can have content without paying and freely downloading it, all content creators would die.
The wake up call there is that as P2P rises these companies still set revenue records (dark night, wolverine, hulk, iron man....) so even with the existing ability to share content (legal or not), the market thrives.
The Susan Boyle video was rampant on the internet. Thousands of those videos were 'illegal' and infringement, yet the overall result was a TON of publicity (and ratings which equate to revenue) for the original producers.
It takes some thinking, but profit should not be the ONLY incentive to create. Nor should profit be so zealously protected that those who wish to create are constrained by the very laws that encourage creativity. - HardMoneyMan, on 06/14/2009, -1/+2I asked this question because I was genuinely interested. Obviously I have an open mind so I don't know why you have to be rude. Thanks again to everyone who helped explain the arguments.
"It isn't as dire as you put it, stop the bleeding heart crap?" I'm afraid you misunderstood my question. Perhaps it is not currently dire, but I was asking about when it becomes legal to share copyright protected files, and rather than a minority of consumers bootlegging things, a majority does this. This is a clear logical extreme.
Are you saying you think it's already legal to share files that are copyrighted? If so, you're wrong. You have a sound argument for changing the law, or interpreting the definition of stealing differently. But currently, precedent says if the FBI or whoever is responsible for these things in your country decides it's crackdown time, you will be thrown in jail. -
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is