What is Digg?118 Comments
- tigertiger, on 08/18/2008, -7/+72MAY violate copyrights? MAY?
"Stabbing someone in the face until they are dead may be murder"
"Taking a car that doesn't belong to you may be theft" - theragu40, on 08/18/2008, -4/+28Please. That would be shifting their entire revenue system over from a subscription based to a purely ad-based system. This is hardly a boon - ad rates would have to skyrocket in order for magazines to stay in print...and there are plenty of magazines that are already struggling to stay afloat with the proliferation of information on the internet.
I find the title - "it may violate copyright" - to be hilarious. Last time I checked, this is the *exact thing* that copyrights are meant to protect against. - diemunkiesdie, on 08/17/2008, -3/+25I did not know about this site before! So thanks media for informing me of another great site!
- sfacets, on 08/18/2008, -4/+24...but history has shown that these people typically are not smart.
- kalel90, on 08/18/2008, -2/+19Hmm said site is down :(
- ObamaWins08, on 08/18/2008, -2/+15Ohhh, I see a slight difference. Do you really go to a Dr.'s office to read the magazines, or is it just a bonus to be able to read 6-month old literature.
I don't know, I think the publishing companies have a point here. And for the guy who mentioned measuring metrics, that means the publishing companies would have to be allowed access to see how many times those magazines were being read. And since you have to login to view them, I'm guessing now that if those companies sued and won the lawsuit, that they would then have access to logs of who read what magazines when.
I'll take privacy over the latest edition of Entertainment Weekly any day. - aheram, on 08/17/2008, -18/+29You would think that the publishers would welcome this as this will be a boon for the magazine themselves. They are getting more exposure for their advertising.
If they are smart, the magazine publishers should be able to track how many views the copies of the magazines are getting on that site. Metrics that they can use to charge higher ad-rates for their advertisers. - Fullvinyl, on 08/18/2008, -0/+11Well, there is that whole "legal resident of the United Kingdom" thing in your way.
- ShadyG, on 08/18/2008, -0/+10Forget about the numbers. Yes, it became a huge difference between making and passing cassettes around to a few friends vs. distributing copies to millions online, but we're talking copyright. Key work being "copy". At a doctor's office, there is never any copy. One magazine is passed around, and while a patient reads it, the doctor cannot. Why would any copyright lawyer draw a parallel between an act that makes a copy, and one that does not?
- virtualblogger, on 08/18/2008, -4/+14May?
A large amount of content submitted to digg MAY ALSO violate copyright.
It doesnt seem to stop anyone however.
What about a site that promotes a site that infringes copyright ? - jcm4, on 08/17/2008, -3/+12Finalllly, I can read British magazines the month they were published. This also means I can actually enter their contests! Schweet!
- curseoflou, on 08/18/2008, -7/+16"no different from magazines shared in a doctor's office or salon"
solid argument there. i don't see any judicial system denying that. - hokie47, on 08/18/2008, -3/+12I see any judicial system denying something like this. In a Doctor's office a few people each day may read a given magazine, at mygazines.com there are thousands readers. The difference is like if I recorded the Superbowl and I had a few friends over to watch it again, or I uploaded it up on youtube.
- chedonline, on 08/18/2008, -0/+9Include the 'www.'
- ObeseSnake, on 08/18/2008, -0/+9+1 for the URL Kung fu.
- EarlOfLade, on 08/18/2008, -1/+9What are the Copyright laws of Arguila again? I'm not up to speed on Arguilian laws...
Remember, American laws are only valid in...??? Where are they valid again??? That's right, children! American laws are only laws in USA and not in other countries. Children, other countries have their own laws, we may not like their laws, just like they may not like our laws, but they are THEIR laws. - bwdd, on 08/18/2008, -1/+9'the pirate bay MAY violate copyrights'
- Tzeentch, on 08/18/2008, -2/+10Nothing like Digg to shutdown a site.
- jeremyduffy, on 08/18/2008, -2/+8No different than a doctor's office or salon? Sure and posting a movie online is no different than showing it to a few friends in your house. The fact that it's an audience of tens versus and audience of millions couldn't possibly matter now could it?
- ObamaWins08, on 08/18/2008, -0/+6Library much?
- ibeetle, on 08/18/2008, -0/+6It is kind of a double edge sword. Obviously they want to sell you a magazine, or even better a subscription. They would also love for you to visit their website; and clicking on a few ads while you are there does not hurt.
One thing that bugs me is some magazines do offer an exact replica in digital form of the print edition. However, they charge extra. Even if you are a subscriber. And sometimes the digital copy cost more than the print edition.
They should give the digital print version away for free. Letting advertisers and the website pay for it. Or if they do charge for it make it substantiality less than the print edition sense cost is significantly less. - dazparkour, on 08/18/2008, -2/+8What the hell is with the thumbnail‽
- Wade, on 08/18/2008, -1/+6Eh, I can't be the only one getting sick of people violating other people's copyrights and then them getting some kind of revenue for stuff they had no hand in creating. The magazine companies should just get this site shut down and release their own, better version with integrated ads or make it a digital distribution etc. to make money. Or not, because they don't have to digitally release every single product they make and distribute it freely, although the gap won't exactly lead to it being not pirated.
- ObeseSnake, on 08/18/2008, -0/+5Include the 'www.'
- igyigyigy, on 08/18/2008, -0/+5But that's not legal either...
(Actually, maybe that was your point?) - Murdats, on 08/18/2008, -1/+6so at what number do you draw the line?
100 views per day? 1000?
how do you determine the distinction between these views lose us money, but this number gets us money? - GiJoeBob, on 08/18/2008, -1/+6No different than making photocopies and giving them to your friends!
- HonoredMule, on 08/18/2008, -0/+4...economies of scale...
Ad-based models always reach a far wider audience than subscription-based models.
However, as theragu40 said, "there are plenty of magazines that are already struggling to stay afloat with the proliferation of information on the internet" so all is right with the world already. In this day and age, I question whether printing magazines even deserves to be profitable on the scale that it currently is. They offer far too little value to a web-empowered society that is slowly opening up to free exchange of information, creativity, and ideas.
Besides, most of the popular magazines are little more than the output of trashy bloggers on printed media. - ayeroxor, on 08/18/2008, -1/+5Lazy noob submitter. Next question?
- Techeon, on 08/18/2008, -4/+8People that get their magazines here would not be buying the magazines in the first place. Seriously.
Besides, what are you gonna do? Print them out? All magazines should already be available online in their entirety. Old media still doesn't get it. - ObeseSnake, on 08/18/2008, -0/+4Include the 'www.'
- BrandonJM, on 08/18/2008, -0/+4File this one under, "Gee, you think so?"
- inactive, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3Obviously it violates copyrights. You are making a digital copy and distributing on the Internet. Putting an old magazine in a doctors office is not what they are doing here.
- zhenya00, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3I disagree. The site is down, but I'll be checking it out when I can. I subscribe to a large number of magazines, but am often out of the country for long periods of time, and hence, don't get to read the issues that come over that time until much after the fact (if I ever get around to it at all). Secondly, I still subscribe to many magazines that I can get the bulk of the content for free online because the printed format is much superior. However not a SINGLE one of those magazines gives me, a paying subscriber, access to read their content in this format.
- jcm4, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3PC Plus.
- kendetroit, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3They should trade paper copies of the magazines like lala.com does for CD's. Actually, I think I will start a site like that.
- sparsely, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3Finally! I can complete my Goofus and Galant collection!
- jcm4, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3I've never actually seen that in one of their contests. Hmm....Good point though.
- an0nymous, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3If you uncheck the family filter options (upper right) the search returns adult magazines as well.
- camiller, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3The subscription rate pays for very little of the magazine. The bulk of the magazines revenues come from advertisements. The only reason for a subscription fee is to help define the demographics. Without a subscription fee a lot of bozos would subscribe to magazines they are not really interested in since the cost to them would be zero. With subscriptions the bozos are more likely to only subscribe to what truly interests them. That way the publishers can give a certain amount of assurance to advertisers that they are reaching the target demographic.
- albatross5000, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3wow this is awesome. BTW, the link is http://www.mygazines.com and the site is up as of right now (w/o the "www", it doesn't work)
- Drizzit, on 08/18/2008, -1/+3Sick is it not? They take the digital copy and send it to the printers, but charge more for it.
It's greed as usual. - xptoast, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2This is just like a library. However a library goes under the radar of copywrite? How again? I know there must be a reason. However doing this is just like copying books. I think if you are sharing the books or written items at no cost it should be fine. No cost directly at least to those reading the materials. If they are donating money(not that have to kind of donating), going through ad links or w/e then good stuff.
- chaiwalla, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2Libraries do not make copies of their works. That is the clincher. They also pay an institutional subscription rate. A digital copy is still considered a copy, though no actual physical copy exists. Perhaps that will be challenged one day.
- RyeBrye, on 08/18/2008, -1/+3First sale doctrine applies to the doctors office - obviously not to this site.
- zombiecarlin, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2So I guess Yahoo News has nothing to do with it?
- dragon76, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2This has nothing to do with smarts. When negotiating with advertisers over ad placement, circulation is EVERYTHING. There are hard numbers related to subscriptions and hard numbers related to shipped mags and sell-through. If a third-party website is hosting the images, this does nothing for the magazines ability to negotiate for ads. I firmly believe that more magazines should go online and either include it with the subscription price or make it a nominal fee for those not receiving a physical item. The idea that for a magazine to be successful it has to have a physical shipment is ridiculous.
- cquinnd, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2EarlOfLade - American copyright laws are (iirc) valid in every country that is a signatory of the Berne convention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_ ... - hitkaiser, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2photography magazine?
- jeremyduffy, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2Right... Because killing one person is the exact same as killing a thousand. Raping a woman once is the same as raping her 30 times. Holding someone prisoner for 1 day is the same as holding them prisoner for 10 years. It doesn't make a difference at all.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is