What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
52 Comments
- geekchic, on 04/08/2008, -10/+34As a writer myself - I personally find copyright law too long and slightly campaign to lower it. However, we really do need to clear up the huge missunderstanding about what "fair use" means.
The number of blogs that just rip off other people's content (glares at certain tech blogs) and then claims it is fair use, and oh, they put a link on the article as "payment" is getting out of hand. I know it is almost impossible to define - but we need to clear up what fair use actually allows. - BigManOnCampus, on 04/08/2008, -6/+25It is the concept of content ownership that is the problem, not fair use. Fair use is the norm, content ownership is the new kid on the block. I say this because it is technology that enabled thoughts to be recorded. Without inventing written language, even literature wouldn't be manifested physically. It would instead be passed down verbally. I'm not even diving into video/audio recording capabilities and how that has created this concept of "ownership".
Creative works are not a physical thing. This is just a basic fact. Our modern materialistic paradigm doesn't want to accept this. We naturally want to accept that creativity is a manifested thing that can be "owned". We justify this by believing that artists/creators should be able to earn a living, pay for their food and raise children, etc.. like the rest of us. That's reasonable, rational, and expected.
But created works are not physical. Creativity is not a property, it is a talent. The works resulting from it should benefit humanity as a whole in perpetuity regardless of creator.
Content ownership should be abolished as a concept. Creativity should instead be regarded as a service provided for a fee. I wouldn't pay $.25 for yesterdays newspaper because I can read what happened yesterday online. Likewise, why would I ever pay licensing for software that is years old? The only reason I would do that is because the software industry believes in content ownership, which is out-of-whack with the natural order. Red Hat and other software companies have properly modeled themselves as service-oriented companies where creativity is a going-concern service, not an amortized asset. They will likely never be as monetarily profitable as Microsoft, but they'll probably have a greater impact on humanity as a whole. - DiggOrNotToDigg, on 04/08/2008, -0/+13I will be so pissed if I have to pay T-mobile for using color magenta.
- HonestAbe, on 04/08/2008, -1/+11I agree that there is no law of nature that makes concepts into property. You don't have a natural right to prevent others from copying your work.
Instead, you have an artificial human-given right. Copyright is a TEMPORARY monopoly on content reproduction, granted by society to allow for larger initial profits and encourage the creation of new content. This was originally a great idea, and has worked pretty well so far, but then the Berne Convention ruined everything. The combination of American copyright law with French "author's rights" (a pretty different concept) created a hybrid that combined the worst aspects of each. Now the "temporary" part is extended beyond all reason (it used to be 15 years or so; now it's 70 years after the author's death), the right to reproduction can be bought by unrelated third parties (including corporations), can be applied to things that really don't involve any creativity, etc. etc. Copyright is a legitimate construct that benefits society, but is currently abused to the detriment of society. It needs to be reformed, not abolished. - mousky, on 04/08/2008, -0/+10Just remember that many Disney movies were based on ideas in the public domain, the same public domain that they are thwarting today.
- tlm2021, on 04/08/2008, -1/+11The most disturbing trend in all this is how it has changed what exactly consumers are getting in exchange for their money. I'm not buying a song, I'm buying the right to listen to a song on iTunes and on x number of iPods. I'm not buying a CD or DVD, I'm buying the right to play this disk as long as I don't mess with its contents at all (e.g. rip them onto your computer for more convenient viewing/listening).
Once I've paid the content owners, I should have the right to enjoy that content in whatever way I will so long as I'm not profiting from it, or undermining the profits of the content owners. - BoneheadFarker, on 04/08/2008, -2/+12You have the intellectual rights to it, yes. And if you don't want to risk people "stealing" your ideas, then it's best that you keep your ideas to yourself. Otherwise you will spend a whole lot of money trying to protect an intangeble object that cannot be protected without stomping all over everyone else's rights in the process.
Oh, and by quoting the OP, you have just stomped all over his intellectual rights according to your own arguement... - kingmanic, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8It's greed that blinds content owners. They want to ring every dime from the things they pay others to make (RIAA, MPAA, Disney) and simply can't stand anyone making a dime off of "their" idea. While many smaller content producers do well by enabling others to copy, popularize and build on what they make (see Dōjinshi in Japan, the lively mix scene in the caribbean, or how all creative works were before the 20th century).
- Ratteler, on 04/08/2008, -3/+10Which words did you "invent"? None of them. You used the word of this society.
How do you intend to "pay" the society for ALLOWING you use of OUR words in your writings? Hmmm?
Are you claiming that the prior work provided by ALL OF US, for GENERATIONS, to create a language and culture has NO VALUE?
In point of fact... EVERY SINGLE THOUGHT IN YOUR HEAD has prior art dating back to cave paintings.
In the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Line 7) Authors and Inventors are GRANTED (By We The People) an exclusive right to profit from their work FOR A LIMITED TIME.
We can't grant you that "right" if "We The People" don't exclusively own all ideas and inventions first.
It's like me telling you it's OK to drive you neighbors car. I have no right to tell you that it is OK to use your neighbors property.
In the case of Intellectual Property, it is far too valuable to our Democracy for any ONE to be allowed to own it. So it is owned EQUALLY by ALL!
Then, and ONLY THEN, can We The People offer you a chance to make a profit from it. This LIMITED TIME of profit is solely to reward people for enriching our society and adding to our collective Intellectual Property. It is an incentive to create.
However that "limited" time has now been expanded past the lifetime of the Society that We granted you that right to enrich.
If your "intellectual property" doesn't enrich the society that allowed it to exist, than it has NO VALUE to society, and the "rights" you were granted should be revoked.
Copyright should NEVER be in corporate hands. A corporation is a GANG not a person. It is a mistake of U.S. Law that treats a corporate non-entity as a person that allows "Work for Hire". This has spawned a system of economic censorship where only the wealthy can have access to the distribution of ideas.
This is why we have this new "copy right" war. Because the ruling class, hidden behind corporate privilege the same way they used to hide behind Royal "right", now faces a true democratic force that allows us all equal access to both content creation and DISTRIBUTION!
We no longer NEED to grant you as much time to profit from your work because your ideas can travel faster and further than ever before. But instead of embracing this access and producing more, those in power are seeking to restrict our ability to spread idea, so only theirs will be available.
This is why we need to repeal copyright and patent. It has been perverted to do the exact opposite of it reason for being, which was to reward communication and innovation, not stifle it. - RadcliffeV, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7You know, I've never understood how content providers can be so close minded. They should take a few steps down the hall and talk to their marketing teams. They'll tell them to take the free publicity that comes with fair use, and maximize on it. Hell even build on it. Fair use is the best thing that could happen for any content provider, because it takes millions to keep up with their content and distribute it, why not let bits and pieces of it leak out for free instead of spending more millions marketing it?
- subscriber, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7It's worth noting that copyrights exist as incentives to stimulate content creators to produce more content for the public good. The beneficiary here is supposed to be the public, not artists specifically. It sounds harsh, but it's true.
Of course it's symbiotic: if the artists don't get paid, then the public will stop seeing and hearing great content. So it behooves the public to make sure the artists get paid. If the supply of quality work begins to dry up, then the public should take steps to provide more incentives to artists (longer copyrights, etc....)
The fact that corporations like Disney push for longer copyrights after the fact -- i.e. not as an incentive to produce future works, but as a way to squeeze more dollars from existing works -- is contrary to the spirit and purpose of copyrights. - HonestAbe, on 04/08/2008, -1/+7"Once I've paid the content owners, I should have the right to enjoy that content in whatever way I will so long as I'm not profiting from it, or corrupting the profits of the content owners."
You do have that right. It's called Fair Use. - BoneheadFarker, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6Well...exactly what is something worth if no one sees it? It seems to me that artists and writers only start getting pissy about intellectual property rights *after* they make it big...
- gothicform, on 04/09/2008, -0/+5Ever picked up a national newspaper and seen your story you published online reproduced almost word for word? How about reputable industry journals? How about when said reputable industry journal that charges its readers £4.00 a week (roughly $8.00) has literally half the news section pinched directly from your website? I am a guy who has successfully sued no less than three European national broadcasters for copyright infringement and they all claimed "fair dealing" at first and said they were not commercial organisations!
To assume it's the way of the world because you published it online simply isn't fair. You wouldn't say that if someone walked into a bookshop and copied a novel word for word and then published it as their own. You'd say it was totally utterly wrong... you'd be a lot more clear in your condemnation but unfortunately we seem to attach less importance to copyrighted materials on the internet.
I have no problem with non commercial stuff which is something I actively encourage, but there are plenty of major blogs out there (like the certain tech blogs who we all know about) who survive mostly from copying the work on smaller ones. What can I do about it?
Do you want me to end up suing 150 blogs for ripping a single story because that is literally the sort of scale we are talking about? I don't endorse any website or anyone but why should these people make money from my hard work and effort? The worst was three big Korean blogs which shall not be named that wrote about something we featured and then leeched the bandwidth from us for the pictures to illustrate the story! They leeched between them 152 gigabytes of bandwidth in 12 hours before someone noticed and I had them blocked.
I am the one who spent the time cultivating contacts within the industry, winning people over to what we are doing so that their firms will participate with us and gradually building a loyal readership. You're right about the fanbase, they do stick with you but what about the millions of readers who are reading my plagiarised work who keep going back to those big blogs over and over or reading those industry journals and they are going there because thats where they read their two week old "news"... which is MY content... and build up brand loyalty with those blogs when they should be my readers because they don't know better! - mousky, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5Actually, if you paid for the content, it shouldn't matter if you profit from it or not. The content owner already received their payment.
- MadFunk, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Hear hear, BMOC.
Perfectly said. Money and art (or 'content') are a poor mix. You turn it into a numbers game and everyone's going to play it as a numbers game. In that situation, the party that wins is not the creators or the audience, its the entrenched materialist/corporate influences who can game the system-- since they're pretty much the only ones who can play it (mass distribution is an expensive thing!).
Thankfully, the Internet is changing all that. Content is now able to find wider and wider audiences at relatively no cost. Without the middle man, is it so unreasonable to believe that creators will get no income from people who appreciate their work? Money can still flow, even if you're not charging. Patronage worked with small, exclusive audiences, it will probably function just as well in a larger, more open environment. (Obligatory: Radiohead, NIN-- though not quite). - Ratteler, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4I would make a Fantastic Four movie that wasn't horrible. Of course... I thinking more like 5 to 10 years.
Copyright was 13 years when it took 6 weeks to get letter from Maine to Florida. Given our instant communication, 5 years is more than reasonable.
The incentive is to create, and KEEP creating. Not create and STOP! - aladrin, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4There's no law of nature that makes physical things into 'property' either. That is -also- a human-given right.
The only difference between them is that 'concepts' can be reproduced infinitely at no cost to the original 'owner'. - zeabu, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Why not? I really don't know, there are pro and contra. Why should BMG or whatever get extremely rich from pressing someone else's music on discs. I think pay-what-you-want is the way to go. That has worked before, so why not again? Well, it won't work for products that think they're an artist or a creative somebody. But do you care? The model should be GNU-like.
- HonoredMule, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3(stupid comment system forgot my comment existed when I was still in edit time)
...with no exceptions made for fair use. It's why DRM became popular. The U.S. government put a legal stamp of approval on corporations defining whatever rights and restrictions they liked by writing laws in the form of arbitrary program code. - HonoredMule, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3You ARE allowed to rip CDs. Just because the RIAA says it is wrong doesn't make it law.
You are not allowed to rip DVDs because they are "encrypted" and your wonderful DMCA screws you over:
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.
(1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
It doesn't actually have anything to do with copyright protection itself, but the protection of technologically-implemented restrictions. - itsfini, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3I can't see counter movements making any headway. The past ten years has been a story of more and more rights being given to content owners and their lobby groups are just getting more powerful.
- tlm2021, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4Unfortunately that's not the case. It is illegal for me to rip a DVD onto a hard drive for my own viewing pleasure, or put it in an iPod. It's become mostly accepted by now that people are going to rip songs to their computer, but technically your not allowed to in the letter of the law. At least that's how judges have ruled in the recent past.
- HonestAbe, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2"When one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work ... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact ... that the entire work is reproduced ... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use."
- Chakat, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2What would you personally do if copyright reverted to 20-30 years?
- loquax, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3The real issue here is performance vs product. For the vast time of man on Earth, you didn't own something like a song or a story. You would perform it, and another would take it up, change it some perform it elsewhere where someone else would do the same thing. Works of art evolved in the mind of many performers and belonged to everyone. You made your dough on your performance of the piece--you owned the moment.
With the printed word, stories started to be written down and you had ownership issues immediately. Shakespeare apparently lived in fear of people cribbing his work and performing unauthorized versions of the play. It was only later in response to the numerous "bootleg" versions of the play that his supporters published the "First Folio." Chaucer had similar issues, but it was a little harder to crib his stuff due to the fact that printing presses were not available and it was not culturally common to find people who could read, let alone scribe stuff on the fly.
Sound recording has had a similar issue in the 20th and 21st century. Scores of blues men, folk singers, rock-and-roll pioneers, etc have lost millions of bucks to record companies. They could make the bucks at the concert door, but record sales went to the company.
People are going to use and reproduce content regardless of paying for it. Concepts shouldn't (in my opinion) be owned, but the performance of the concepts should be "own-able." Books are a little easier (now) to track as the medium to deliver them still hasn't changed in a few hundred years and the production is labor intensive. It won't be long, however, before they are as easy as songs to reproduce. We need some kind of "goodwill" fund to pay into when we use or enjoy the fruits of an artist--maybe some kind of Internet based tip-jar. Short of that, I have no idea what artist can do to stop the inevitable use of their materials. - OrganicDrew, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2I for one as a classical artist wouldn't mind for the Hollywood's and the Walt Disney's of the world to shrivel up into an almost empty shell of their former self , just look at the product that they produce Second to none believability no one can argue but the consolidation of power, we as humans base our reality upon what we see, as most people spend a good fraction of their day watching movies playing video games or listening to the late night news one can not argue that your perception has been altered. I am a man that has seen both worlds unaffected significantly by the latter. so much can be learned while having fun with nature so much productivity so much renaissance is formed by simply living in reality bumping into other persons and the like, I argue that reality is the first and the best internet absence its still to date privative transportation drawbacks. my point is simple, look at ancient Greece people had enough liberty enough freedom back then to have the time for an average person to paint to write to build a small mosaic all this without control or copyright oversight charging a nickel each time someone passes by your art. And artist got paid because everyone was an artist and people lived in the real world,there was never a central authority to be feared for the copying of a herculean portrait from one pot to another it was just a fact of life. All i ask is for people to look at the now and the then and try to compromise ideals, its impossible to go back to then and neither should one want to but we as good stewards of the earth and humanity should look now back and forward from time to time and assess our direction and its causes, are we headed toward a 1984 style police state or worse yet an Aldous Huxley style "Brave new world"
i don't know but maybe we should all do a little reading at Brave new books dot com and find out, you cant know unless you look.
truthnews.us is another good site - Ratteler, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1In a world of reasonable people, I agree. In our world, a message must be sent.
Copyright has become permanently tainted. Accreditation is an important right, but should no longer be tied to control of the right to copy.
A better solution exists. Hell if the RIAA/MPAA can claim they can sue some one with just an IP address, attaching your credentials to piece of information should be easy. - HonestAbe, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Animals have a concept of physical things being property, too.
- BigManOnCampus, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1I cannot defend the mass media first scenario you paint. I will not. You are right, that isn't fair.
I would say your only consolation is that the old model for mass media is dying, and those people will slowly be replaced by the internet for distribution. In that world, your weapons are greater. - HonestAbe, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Software's even worse. Windows 95 will be copyrighted until at least 2065?
- OmegaWolf, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1I have 0 respect for intellectual property laws and "content ownership". If I see a picture online that I want, I take it. If I want to copy/paste text from an article into a blog entry, I do so. ***** anyone who thinks they have the right to restrain me.
- HonoredMule, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2@Ratteler: so...overthrow your government then, is it?
Unreasonable people accomplish nothing because they REQUIRE that everyone be their opposition. Meanwhile, "reasonable" people, along with a little cash to grease the wheels of justice, accomplish great evil.
You are arguing with my approach while agreeing with all the details of my stance. But I won't apologize for failing to appear the fanatic, for I'd prefer the rest of the world not dismiss me as one. - Ratteler, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2You can't fight unreason with reason. Imagine a Chess game where only one side needs to move the pieces by the rules. The other side gets to make up rules like "White pawns have the power of Queen, but black pawns can't move at all." And they get to make up these rules at any point in the game.
The only solution is to not play, an/or flip the whole damn chess board over.
The only threat we can make AND ENFORCE at this point is that "NO ONE PLAYS!!!"
I personally believe that only individuals should have copyrights, and they should not be transferable in any way.
Want to profit from your creative work, this would mandate that the artist get paid whenever the company needs to defend a copyright.
Even "Work for Hire" should require that an individual be designated as Copyright holder. - Ratteler, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2My Government is by the people, of the people, and for the people.
The people running my country are not.
By all means, try your reasonable approach. If you win, we all win.
If you loose, me and mine will be able to point to your example of how "reasonable" didn't work, and about half the people you let down will join me.
You walk softly, and I'll carry the BIG STICK.
Remember remember the 5th of November. ;-) - BigManOnCampus, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3The problem *is* the concept of content ownership. A limited time of protection granted by the citizens as specified in the constitution is not ownership, not even close. This is not abolitionism, it is not extreme, it is a call to a return to how it was supposed to be.
- HonoredMule, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2In a world of UNreasonable people, we still need to be certain that we do not present ourselves as extremists. The stronger our message, the more unreasonable WE will appear. By extending our abolitionist stance beyond the actual problem, you open yourself up to endless "straw man" counterarguments made valid, and examples of how your cure could be equally or more damaging than the status quo.
- Atomic1fire, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1I agree that it should be much shorter
if a movie is created
chances are no ones gonna watch it after 15 years (unless its truly considered classic but its usually fans of the movie who consider it that way)
stores wont be selling it and it wont be produced
Fads and popular content come and go
after 15 years no one will probably buy something if they have already seen it so why attempt to force content rights on something no one cares about - gothicform, on 04/08/2008, -3/+3I totally agree with you! I know you read mine and I am pretty sure you've seen it happen first-hand with stories you've submitted to Digg from the original source that have been replicated ad naseum in the following weeks across the blogosphere until they become eventually popular on social news sites of course referring to the blogspam rather than the original. There is fair use, and then there is plagiarism. We actually have a definition of fair use in the U.K, read it on wikipedia, it should be found under "fair dealing" :)
- HonoredMule, on 04/08/2008, -3/+3Repeal patents, yes. Repeal copyright? No.
I absolutely agree with all that you have said, but copyright has valuable purpose outside of intellectual "property" protection. (I'm referring of course to it's original, ACTUAL purpose.) In the grand scheme of things, profitability is of secondary importance, but the true value of copyright is in demanding that the original author be accredited as such, and protecting authors' integrity/artistic vision from external forces over which they have no control.
For example, if I created the Superman (as in the characters, setting, etc) /recently/ and was now making a living by telling stories about him, I would be extremely pissed about the last Superman movie which totally subverts/dilutes my tales of a hero on the moral high ground that we can all look up to. My ability to say "that's not MY work and has nothing to do with MY superman," would protect my reputation and access to an audience that wants to consume what I want to produce. Similarly, the makers of the movie can say that is their work, and don't end up just adding to my audience if their work is popular. It would be even better if such "spin-off" content were required to be more substantially distinguishable from the original work, unless I grant permission to use MY characters, who exist as /more/ than the sum of works written about them to date. If you want to tell a story about a nearly invincible hero with relationship troubles and a child out of wedlock, fine. But MY hero and his love are moral beacons who never do wrong or let anything bad happen, so they can't possibly be the /exact/ same people. If your artistic vision is different, fine. Don't ruin mine.
Another example: I make a scientific discovery, write a paper about it, and a colleague finds and publishes it before I get the chance. Thank goodness copyright protection gives me legal protection of the CREDIT for my work. I'm happy for everyone to use the information I generate, but both I and investors will be sorely disappointed when they invest in HIS ability to apply (my) skills to continued research. Without copyright protection, I have to find a way to prove to EVERYONE that I am the original author, despite them not caring or paying any attention to me. With copyright protection, I prove it once in the courts, and then everybody knows, and comes to ME expecting continued innovation.
Copyright protection is extremely important for the production of art and innovation. That just has absolutely nothing to do with DISTRIBUTION protection. You only own the credit. - BigManOnCampus, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1That would be acceptable to me, personally.
- gkiltz, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0It gets worse!
There is an outright WAR being waged against public domain! - noumuon, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1.
- historycycles, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0As a writer and bookstore manager I am protective of content. I want to earn money from the work I put into my writing (and yes, writing is work). I also want my fellow writers to profit from their work. Without payment, how do we keep turning out books and articles? On the other hand, as an infogeek, I want information, I want it now and I want it to be free. Pay for a newspaper? No way! A magazine? Forget it! Books? I hate reading books on-line or on a reader (PDA, Kindle, etc.) but I like getting some of my information from or about a book on-line. I'll pay for a book- or, check it out from a library.
"Fair use" is the question here. Is it fair for a writer (or other content provider) to work to produce something only to have others take that content and make a profit from it? Someone recently stole one of my blog entries and put it on their website (with no reference back to my blog) in order to attract Google searches using my content and then make money for themselves by selling "adult" products. Fair use- NO. If that person had quoted my blog and given a reference to my site so that I still had the potential to make money from people coming back to read my other entries, then I'm all for that. It's all in the definition of "fair use," and we can't go with the Justice Stewart definition of pornography applied to fair use- "I know it when I see it." - BigManOnCampus, on 04/08/2008, -5/+3Are you kidding me? If you don't want something copied, don't put it on the internet! Just viewing it creates a copy. I agree that copying someone else's content and linking to it is very very poor form and should be condemned. But the reality is that the nature of the internet, the core nature of it, allows for information to spread quickly. It should remain so. If you don't like someone else copying your content, don't endorse their website, in fact, bring it up on your website that they are copying you without permission. If you have a fan base that enjoys your creativity, they'll want to participate with you, not the copycats.
- SuperJimmyJimbo, on 04/08/2008, -5/+3with a name like "fair use" how do you expect big media to trust it? I totally understand where they're coming from
- tlm2021, on 04/08/2008, -5/+2And this also isn't true. Just because I buy a CD, that doesn't give me the right to burn copies of the CD and sell them. And I think that's fair. As a graphic artist, I don't want people reproducing my work for their profit, even if they paid me for it once or not. Unless, of course, that was part of the agreement when originally purchased (e.g. stock photos)
- wild, on 04/08/2008, -11/+8So you are telling me I can't own my words? Sorry buddy, but as a creative, my ideas are my livelihood. If I come up with an idea, I have intellectual rights to it. And I have a right to protect it.
[Creativity should instead be regarded as a service provided for a fee.]
Exactly. And if you pay me to create content for you, then YOU own that content as part of most creative agreements. Nike didn't draw the Nike logo. The artist got paid for the work and gave the rights over to Nike for a fee. But someone owns it. It does not then become free for anyone to use. - lazyfisherman, on 04/08/2008, -3/+0Why can't artists have patrons anymore? With 10% of the people owning 85% of everything and old systems of revenue crumbling, wealthy patrons should sponsor more artists. The bigger and richer you are, the more artists you can sponsor etc. It's like why regular people have pets.. because they have enough money and resources to share their homes with animals that would otherwise be starving out in the cold.
- tekproxy, on 04/08/2008, -5/+0Why is it that something like 90% of all Digg/Slashdot is sensationalist? It's like people just read titles and digg them. Rumors of whispers of bad stuff happening. This just in: The Boogyman is forming a group to battle internet piracy.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is