What is Digg?118 Comments
- Scottamus, on 07/16/2009, -6/+52That or pot.
Since no one dies or gets into gunfights over filesharing I'm leaning towards pot. - pheardotcom, on 07/16/2009, -3/+37so axxo must be al capone, and torrent sites must be speakeasies.
- KolbyT, on 07/16/2009, -5/+37The law IS an ass...
- mdelling, on 07/16/2009, -0/+21They can't entirely remove them. There has to be some protection for intellectual property. But they do need to update them to be compatible with modern technology. Most of the stuff we have now was written before tape recorders were invented...
- inactive, on 07/16/2009, -8/+28Q: Are Copyright Wars Against P2P Our New Prohibition?
A: No. - spaceageminds, on 07/16/2009, -5/+21No, I'm pretty sure pot is the new prohibition. The Copyright Wars have been going on for a very very long time (printing press, vcr, etc) and will continue to go on. We can't win the Copyright War because of the ever changing technological aspects but Marijuana will be legal some day.
- aarontex, on 07/16/2009, -6/+21They need to be changed for the better, or removed entirely (copyright laws).
- kahoona1, on 07/16/2009, -1/+14No, war against marijuana is our new prohibition.
- FredFredrickson, on 07/16/2009, -1/+12This is why I can't take people who endorse these ideas seriously.
You can't remove copyright protection. Do you know what would happen if you did?
You could create something incredible, amazing, earth-shattering - and then anyone who had the money to do so could take the idea and sell it, without giving you a dime. That's *****. - the8thbit, on 07/16/2009, -0/+10Yes, the printing press.
The copyright discussion has been going on for a long time. - the8thbit, on 07/16/2009, -1/+11I'm pretty sure prohibition is our new prohibition.
- bewareofthecow, on 07/16/2009, -1/+11It is more about prohibition of quality media. The RIAA and MPAA are the gatekeepers that have traditionally held all the keys for well financed mass produced media. Traditionally you have always needed a publisher to be able to market anything with high 'production value'. They have then been able to turn around and monetize that production value to highly inflated prices for which the consumer has no alternative. For instance, you want to go watch a movie in a theatre? that'll be 15 bucks. Obviously costs need to be covered, but some of these films are fetching over 300% returns, (aka Dark Knight) there aren't too many businesses where that kind of return is expected.
My point is that unbridled greed is waging war on anything that may provide quality alternatives to consumers for a fraction of the price, thus undercutting a highly inflated industry that has been around way too long. Look at new web shows like Felicia Day's 'The Guild" (http://www.watchtheguild.com/). This show has very decent 'production value' and that probably scares them ***** because she has refused to sell the IP rights to them. Their true intentions with waging war against file sharing is to eventually have law and systems in place that will prevent shows like 'The Guild' from reaching any commercial success. - matthekc, on 07/17/2009, -0/+9Originally copyright was 14 years with a one time extension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extens ...
They have stolen our public domain and now have the balls to call us criminals. Since your not going to be able to get the congress critters to give you your public domain back support as many creative commons works as possible as a form of boycott.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons
Creative commons works:
A creative commons search
http://search.creativecommons.org/
A list of 30 sites with creative commons media
http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/04/30/30-creat ...
A freely downloadable cartoon
http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/
Free music
http://www.jamendo.com/en - mulling, on 07/17/2009, -0/+9Gold performs many valuable functions independent of its use as currency. If you're just looking for a way of measuring value, you can use pieces of paper. Free gold would be a boon to humanity, and only money-grubbing parasites would weep for its lack of scarcity.
- StaticThunder, on 07/16/2009, -0/+9Or free, depending on how you look at it.
- dsmx, on 07/16/2009, -1/+9Media should be becoming cheaper, but it isn't.
Instead it's becoming harder to use in ways people want and need to thanks to various encryption and DRM schemes. More expensive to purchase since the publishers seem to think that charging more money for something will increase profits with no side effects.
Piracy seems to be a result of mainly increasing prices, if they charged 1-2 dollars for a film is it worth pirating? Your always going to get a few who want to pirate something but surely a service where a film costs a dollar and can be used on anything you own would be a very effective antipiracy tool? - Bulletbillx, on 07/16/2009, -0/+8I think limiting copyright down to around 20 years as well as protecting fair use would be a start. If 20 years is enough time for people that make patented inventions such as drugs which are more useful than anything under copyright, it's long enough for art.
- Tarmogoyf, on 07/17/2009, -0/+8Post scarcity economies ftw.
Come faster Singularity. - rjc5056, on 07/16/2009, -2/+9I hate the RIAA and these absurd fines as much as the next digger but, cmon... this is not CLOSE to as tumultuous as the prohibition.
- deweyhewson, on 07/16/2009, -2/+9Yeah, because NOTHING artistic was ever created before Copyright...
/s - el_jefe, on 07/16/2009, -4/+10No. Prohibition took something that up until then was not illegal, and made it illegal.
Copyright Law has existed for a while now, and people choose to break the law.
Not even in the same ballpark. - MrRtd, on 07/17/2009, -0/+6Copyrights last for far too long. I believe that copyright is necessary, for only for a reasonable amount of time, 10 to 20 years max. The RIAA and others just want to keep their get rich quick scheme going on for eternity.
- StaticThunder, on 07/16/2009, -2/+8As if your work isn't derivative.
- uncleosbert, on 07/17/2009, -0/+6mulling is right: there's like a quarter's worth of gold in your cell phone. free gold would alter technology and innovation, and you're griping about jewelry depreciating.
- StaticThunder, on 07/16/2009, -1/+7Um.... copyright protection didn't exist at the time many of those great works were created. The Sistine Chapel was done on commission, not by a monopoly on reproductions. You used to be entitled to the right of first sale, and after that, you were on your own. I'd argue that copyright actually encourages bulk production of substandard works of art, as the incentive to finance their creation is purely financial and they of necessity cater to the lowest common denominator.
Why you have an absolute right to police protection for your ideas, without returning anything to the society that protects them for over a hundred years, a right which I pay for using my tax dollars to enforce your "idea" monopoly, is just as questionable as the idea that there should be no protection for ideas at all.
But the world would keep turning, guaranteed. - depro9, on 07/16/2009, -2/+7If you had a bar of gold & you had the ability to duplicate that gold with nothing lost & a lot gained for those who could benefit from it don't you think it would be wrong to try & stop this extreme progress of humanity? Millions & millions of humans will be a lot better off because of P2P with a small small small few marginally hurt by it. We all know what the answer is & we all know what the final outcome will be.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 07/16/2009, -8/+13Piracy is what pirates do off the coast of Somalia
Bootlegging is when people or companies copy copyrighted products and resell them as their own (like China does).
FILE SHARING is what everyone in the world does, because our mothers taught us to share. And, no, it's not a crime at all. - inactive, on 07/16/2009, -3/+7The real problem is that the music and video industries spent ten years REFUSING to supply their product in the format that the Online community wanted. I'm perfectly willing and capable of buying the music I listen to and the videos I watch, but I've STILL had to use P2P for my media for most of the last decade, because there's been no legal alternative. The music industry in particular was incredibly brain-dead, refusing outright to adopt online sales of .mp3s. Even now, the legal alternatives are incredibly poor. There are almost no options in terms of format, quality, and portability. I say this as a full-grown Adult who'd be more than happy to buy music and video: You can't blame people for stealing what you yourself refuse to sell. The music and video industries need to grow up, and realize that they need to provide quick, flexible, and affordable methods of Online delivery.
- Travelsonic, on 07/17/2009, -0/+4Yes, there will be in impact on creativity - which is why I believe in revision/change, not abolition of copyright.
But people will always find a way to create/protect/profit from works they create. - StaticThunder, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4Ah, I edited because I realized that before you replied, but the copyright is generally on the particular translation or edition. Anyone is free to produce another one from an earlier uncopyrighted manuscript, and thousands get rich off of the Bible.
- BlakeEM, on 07/17/2009, -0/+4"We can't win the Copyright War because of the ever changing technological aspects..."
It's not a "war" and it's not something anyone can "win". It's just a bunch of fools trying to artificially control the market/our money.
The industry confuses the courts with technology when really the technology used is irrelevant. Technology has made sharing easier/faster but people have always shared things they buy and only recently has the laws changed.
The issue is that they think they can still own things that we buy after we buy them, even without the need to sign some sort of contract like should be required when you are buying something that has terms along with it. People come up with the same ideas constantly so any "intellectual property" law is a corporatist idea where individual thoughts can be owned by the ones with the most money and anyone that uses the idea can be sued for insane amounts making any real competition hard to come by. Thoughts and ideas are put under lock and key for all but those willing to pay an inflated price caused by this government aided monopoly, even if you come up with the idea independently and even if your idea is better.
Copyright laws fail to make much sense at all and are far more often abused and used to impede competition then of encourage it.
Marijuana is a larger issue however because of the lives lost in the "war on drugs". Both can destroy your life if you're not careful. - record200, on 07/17/2009, -0/+4Indeed, it's always better to call a spade a spade
- cfuse, on 07/17/2009, -0/+4If you think the current law protects you from that happening then you are mistaken. Any of the studios could crush you with a 1/100th of their legal staff after being *inspired* by your work.
Removing copyright protection is off the table as far as I'm concerned. Having fair copyright terms and durations, and reasonable provisions for fair use and remixing should be what we are aiming for. - StaticThunder, on 07/17/2009, -0/+4"Welcome to Capitalism, genius."
No, welcome to protectionism.
So you're defending the race to the bottom that pushes the best and most unique works out of the marketplace in exchange for mass produced crap that sells in volume? Speaking of genius, you must be brilliant. - ATL, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4anyone who diggs you down does so out of ignorance
- dalittle, on 07/16/2009, -3/+7Actually, this is a entertainment corp "holier than thou" so I disagree. It is the same.
- atgmac, on 07/16/2009, -2/+6The copyright laws in the US are ridiculous but they can't be removed completely. There are many independent musicians, artists, writers, software developers, etc, that rely on them to make a living. These people *do* deserve your money, even if the RIAA don't.
- uncleosbert, on 07/17/2009, -0/+4i worked to create something, and then taschen wanted to publish it for free. i said ok.
3 months later, they change their minds, but i signed a release. they stole my content, and i can't compel them to publish jack.
the leeches are the record companies and publishing houses that sit on enormous piles of money and creative work they squeeze out of the artists and musicians. - bewareofthecow, on 07/16/2009, -5/+8What about fair use? Why aren't kids allowed to use their favorite songs they bought off iTunes for school projects? You talk about hurting creatives and innovation, what about all the people who have amazing ideas and talents and skills but don't fit into the RIAA\MPAA's ideal for what would make the most money? These bastards hold all the keys for quality production. The whole structure needs to come crashing down to the ground before we can rebuild from its smoldering ashes.
If all these publishers went bankrupt tomorrow, the massive vacuum of demand for high quality media would allow smaller more independently minded publishers to rise up and compete on a level playing field; perhaps not expecting such massive profits from creating artistic content. Since when are artists ever supposed to be rich anyways? You look at the greatest artists that have stood the test of time: Bach, Beethoven, Van Gogh, Picasso... none of these guys were rich. They produced art because it was a passion of their souls. So I damn well hope my piracy is hurting them, it is the only way we will ever see change. - FredFredrickson, on 07/16/2009, -6/+9Copyright laws probably need to be updated, but removing them would hurt creatives and would hurt innovation. Piracy is popular, but it can't become legal. Whether or not you agree with what the RIAA / MPAA do, and whether or not it's easy to do, that doesn't give you unlimited rights to use and experience someone else's work if they are asking for money for it.
The laws should be relaxed to reflect the actual damage done by P2P file sharing... but if you can't pay or don't want to, you're not entitled to the content. That's all there is to it. - StaticThunder, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3And my point is that that an abundance of gold, so much that you could get as much as you want for virtually nothing, would just be awful, simply AWFUL. That would be terrible! /s
Well, if you were the one who held the previously scarce supply of gold it would be. But to most of us, not heavily invested in it, its hardly a disaster. - uncleosbert, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3it is if you have to face a lawsuit.
most people never came into contact with the mob. if you knew where to find a good speakeasy you could still get booze. it's actually a good parallel. - bewareofthecow, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3Actually most English translations of the Bible are copyrighted... but I still agree with your point.
- GeneralMills, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3agreed... for a couple years now I wish I could have bought all my songs in the FLAC format. But sadly.. I cant...
- MrTea, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3can't wait for the speak-easies
- jondan, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3"Technology will always win in the end and it’s time copyright holders and govt realized this." -> bottom line for me.
Excellent Article.
Part of the problem is it's an ease of availability issue. People are going to get what they want when they want it. It's the American (or Western) way. - my10cent, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2We need to reevaluate the copyright laws, a law nobody is following is not a good law, it need to be different somehow.
- 4AntiStupid, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2No, I'm pretty sure pot is the old prohibition too.
- record200, on 07/17/2009, -1/+3I don't think *90* years of copyright are necessary for a program developer :-)
- StaticThunder, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2Yeah, I've found that the people most fervent about insuring that "leeches" can't profit off their work are the ones who did near to none of the work themselves.
All your work is derivative of someone's earlier efforts, no matter WHAT it is. In fact, one could say there are only a few truly original ideas, and you're just damn lucky that you haven't been asked to pay royalties on those. So by all means, make your case about why your "truly unique" idea deserves any protection, protection that you ask ME as a taxpayer to cover, whether I benefit from your idea or not, at all. As it is, I'm paying to defend mass market crap from unlicensed copying. Of all the useless things my taxes cover....
Get over yourself. Everybody is a leech. Some of them just don't know it. -
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is