What is Digg?54 Comments
- mulling, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Hooray for Australia. Your tax dollars hard at work, outlawing the internet. At least we in the US don't have a monopoly on retarded authority figures.
Judges shouldn't be allowed to rule on things which they have no ***** clue about. For that matter, legislators shouldn't be allowed to pass laws regarding things which they don't understand. Lobbyists should be lined up and shot. Finally, I would like a pony. That is all. - treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12When it comes to online technologies and trends, I would say Australian judges and politicians are at least twice as stupid and in the dark as their American equivalents.
...don't worry, I'm Australian :) - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10YouTube is still here because it has good lawyers and is mainstream.
I just wish people would stop trying to fight the internet. you're never going to win. - vuduchild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8No such thing as freedom of speech in Australia champ.
- fatadamblog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Our laws are so screwed up its illegal to put music on an ipod or mp3 player 0_o
- sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Typical Australian bureaucrats - the judge(s) probably didn't even understand what they were doing - maybe time for retirement?
- mulling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The important note is that MP3s4free.net knew it was linking to illegal mp3s."
Yep. MP3s4free.net was offering up a list of the sites that were hosting files which infringed copyright. They were, in effect, 'the messenger.' So the copyright holder cartels...shoot the messenger? WTF? All they had to do was use MP3s4free to find the sites hosting the files and send a friendly C&D notice.
The stupidity of the court in this case is just breathtaking. Really amazing. The shrewdness of the media cartels, on the other hand, is scary. They're willfully using this to damage the freedom offered by the internet and they should be punished for that. The realities of the market will make them pay eventually, but I'm impatient. - Remz02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You don't seem to be able to comprehend how retarded our laws are at the moment, it's illegal to put music on an ipod. Or put music on a computer and awhile ago they were going to ban singing in public places because of copyright infringement, (ie. sing happy birthday in a park, cop a massive fine) but I'm pretty sure that last one didn't make it through.
Australian law sucks. - snac72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You would think that with Australia's use of technology (per head of population) being one of the largest in the world, that common sense would come to the fore when looking at such cases.
Sadly not.
When you have crusty 76 year olds passing judgment on modern matters, when they still haven't worked out how to program their VCR's......well, we'll be stuck with decisions like these for many years still to come. - greyfade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@WestDC: You seem to be ignoring (or perhaps ignorant of) the effect this ruling has on the rest of the internet. Due to the wording of the decision, it could easily be interpreted to apply to more than just music.
Oh, by the way, Digg, Google, Slashdot, Fark, Yahoo!, MSN search, and even your own blog are illegal in Austrailia now. news.com.com.com could easily sue Kevin in an .au court using this case as precedent saying that digg.com is illegally linking to copyrighted material - that is, the news articles c|net holds under copyright.
Oops. - Kirium, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The irresponsible actions of the court will only serve to embolden the enemy*!!!!
* The recording industry lawyers.... - bdk9246, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Thex1138
They are going after google.
"Mp3s4free was different in the sense that it actually catalogued MP3 files that were infringing copyright material - Google doesn't do that," she said.
"There is, however, action that is being taken against Google in other jurisdictions"
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/copyright-ruling-puts-linking-on-notice/2006/12/19/1166290520771.html)
and yes our judges are totally ignorant of the implications of this. - DogGunn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Wow. Go the Australian Legal System... We fail. (I am Australian)
- mitrebox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The important note is that MP3s4free.net knew it was linking to illegal mp3s. All they had to do was disable the links to most of the song held by the biggest of music companies who filed the injunction.
15minutes of SQL was all that was needed to keep the site from being shut down.
youTube is still around and they actually hosted the files. remove a couple NBC skits and any judge would say they made a sufficient and reasonable effort to prevent copyright infringement. - Narwaffle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Search engines probably have some immunity, considering it's the users input that would uncover anything illegal.
- Thex1138, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Google Links to MP3 sights when you search for them and that you can download...so why don't they go after Google...?
Funny how they aren't going after search engines...one rule for one..and another for the rest they can't convict [yet they provide a similar means to the same end] - greyfade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41. set up a .au site. sue google for indexing it. sue MSN. sue Yahoo!. sue Lycos. one by one, they will add .au as yet another TLD they can't legally index.
2. watch the .au economy crumble from afar.
3. profit! - wastern, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I guess google will be closing up shop then.....yahoo too...ask.com.....lycos......microsoft......etc...etc....etc
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=-inurl%3Ahtm+-inurl%3Ahtml+intitle%3A%22index+of%22+%22Last+modified%22+mp3
this is just ridiculous. go after the linker, not the one supplying the content. if anything these sites make it easier for copyright holders to track down people hosting their content. they should be encouraging it
they need to understand that until they come up with something better, this stuff is going to go on. They can't fight against it, people have it and they like it. They need a service that works, has everything, is cheap or free for stuff with a copyright while still allowing for free stuff for people to upload their own content to the public if they wish. they have enough money and resources. They can make it happen, they are just too lazy and are investing too much time into their attempt at halting progress. They should be investing that money into a solution
/rant - Thex1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's incredible...if the legislation had not been amended at the last minute the police would have had the power to fine [at least AU$1000 bucks on the spot!] anyone on the street with an MP3 player they suspected of having copied music..! or take the device!
Have you seen how Aussie DVDis are set up? if you choose almost all other languages yo go straight to the movie...but choose English and you get the unavoidable 2 minute anti-piracy spam....and they wonder why movies are ripped! - Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm of the belief that if a law is not universally enforced, it must be stricken from the books immediately.
- DougO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What's one MORE law to break? Add it to the list. Up until recently in Australia, I was a criminal because I ripped CD's to MP3 to play on my iPod. I swear if ever the man catches up with me, I'm gonna be some bad-man's girlfriend for 8 to 10!
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It's a series of tubes right?
- reviewd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Stuff like this makes me want to stop studying to be an engineer and go ahead and become a lawyer. It's ridiculous that linking to something can be illegal. "The enemy" in this case shouldn't even have to "embolden" in the first place, because nothing wrong was being done. Go after the people hosting the illegal content, not the ones directing people towards it. This is just another case of the man trying to keep us down. I meant that last sentence as a half-joke, but that makes it no less truthful.
- moonhead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Don't worry next thing you know good ol' Sol will be announcing Telstra's latest and greatest broadband plans. For just $80 per month you can download a massive 2 Gb of data!
Sigh.
I think its time to move to Europe. - netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6So much for freedom of speech. What's next, teaching your kids about sex is statutory rape?
- ifonly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I used to own www.albumbase.com (which I then sold due to a take over deal many months ago) it is a site which archives links (nearly 150,00 to be exact), I remember reading http://tinyurl.com/vkub8 when owning the site. Crazy Aus government :/
- kutza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You buy a DVD so you DON'T get ads. Who wants two minutes of anything that's not the movie at the start of their DVD? That's why a DVD costs money, and TV is virtually free. Moron.
- avatarpalin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yes we don't have free speech in Australia, the difference between AU and US is that we know it, you guys still believe you have it. We poked our head out of the sand, the US's is still in it.
Oh and even though we don't have free speech, we tend to get to say whatever we want.. strange that really - netferret, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I guess google will be the next target soon as they link to illeagal material all the time, but probably unknowingly.
- cdnbambam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Now if only I can have a judgment against me for linking to MP3s4free.net, or Google and Yahoo for that matter, then we can finally be done with this whole internets fad.
- kloof, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3+ there trying to push for sex ed as early as year 1. It's true, i heard it on A Current Affair. It's gotta be true.
Get em' young that what i say =) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2nice find for the RIAA SueBot
- kutza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Vote Libertarian ;).
- JackyTreehorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I just wish people would stop trying to fight the internet. you're never going to win."
Eric Schmidt (Google CEO) wrote almost the exact same sentence in an article he wrote for The Economist's "The World in 2007". - ramaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Everyone would like to see more common sense in the laws and how they are enforced.
But if you break a known law knowingly, and in a manner that's obvious to anyone who looks your way ... don't be too surprised if a little law enforcement happens to materialize in your case.
In my state in the US, most fireworks are illegal. But people drive across the border and bring them from other states quite a lot, and this is winked at. I've done it before myself.
On the day I choose to be out shooting off illegal fireworks, if something motivates a police officer to give me a citation and I have to pay a fine, I won't be happy. And it won't be fair, either - because I'd be thinking about how many other people are doing this without being hassled. And I'm not stealing anything, or helping others steal something (as in mp3s) - it's just a safety law.
BUT it wouldn't be an outrage - I know it's illegal, and I'm not going to be a crybaby about it. The same if I get a
speeding ticket.
The same if I'm illegally helping people download mp3s they haven't paid for. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Libertarians are not anarchists. They believe in copyright enforcement.
- BladeMelbourne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think I would try New Zealand first. (I don't have a thing for sheep and I dislike the accent but it's much closer)
- zc_au, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4thats just *****
and we still got i think the law saying we cant copy the cds we own for backup..... still .....
is waiting for Australia to take the lead on f**ked up laws ...... - treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well it's just that no well-thought rules have been applied to copyright on the web yet.
The website was only linking to illegal music downloads, not hosting them.
In real life you could compare that to say, telling someone from who and from where they can buy illegal drugs (once they had come to you). - ramaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry, you don't have it "strait" yet, Buck - better try again.
Where did the "he gets hacked" part come from? Your example is pretty disconnected from the case in the article. - Thex1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kutza
You ***** bozo.. missed the whole point...Non-english viewers [ie chinese, malaysian, thai etc,.] don't get the 2 minute mandatory blockage in the beginning of a DVD...THAT's the WHOLE POINT you ***** *****.....when you learn to read you can rejoin the human race again..if you're wanted! - VAPerson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2So a newspaper publishing an article that states where prostitutes hang out is guilty of prostitution? Same thing for publishing an article about the drug trade and where sales take place? This site is not the one breaking the copyright. They simply point out where someone is breaking the law. At no time they possess the copyrighted file. Free speech takes another hit. How can judges be so dumb? Are the judges too old to understand the technology?
- Kirium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And that's the way Phil Ruddock likes it....
- jmcv, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2what the hell does this have to do with freedom of speech? a magazine/newspaper wouldn't be allowed to advertise something illegal, so why should a website be able to link(and in the process advertise) to something illegal?
- supermajic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"At least we in the US don't have a monopoly on retarded authority figures."
You might want to think about what you post before you do so ;) - buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So, let me get this strait.
Stay with me and let's think through worse case scenario.
If I have a link to some random dudes web page somewhere in the world and he gets hacked and I am now linking to something obscene then it's as if I posted the obscene material myself?
[sarcasm] Ummmm, yeah, that's reasonable. A ruling like this won't be abused at all. [/sarcasm] - sariss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And speaking of VCR's be careful not to tape anything off the telly either....also illegal :)
- sinisterD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1im Australian and even thou i download music, i believe linking to free mp3 site even thou they don't host mp3 should still be illegal. put it this way what would you think if the site linked to child pornography or something else as bad, they didnt host anything but they still made it easy to find it and they knew what they where linking 2
- sinisterD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0actually don't worry about above, i have more thought about above and realise that the 2 things are entirely different things in the court room
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. As long as sharing these files is illegal, it is also illegal to provide links to do it. If you help somone commit a crime, you are committing a crime too. As for why it is different from Google, these sites manually provided these links. As in, someone purposely typed them and put them into the web page. And for one reason.
-
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is