What is Digg?50 Comments
- nicktx, on 12/14/2007, -2/+43It's time to recall this clown. As far as I know, that's possible in California.
- joebob, on 12/14/2007, -2/+27What, a congressman recommending legislation in direct opposition to the public good? Unhead of...
Stand up for the fight against lobbyists and maybe these assclowns can go back to screwing people in the private business only. - latova, on 12/14/2007, -1/+22Wonderful. The American tax dollars will go towards criminalizing the Americans.
- evi1, on 12/14/2007, -1/+21Word on the streets is Ron Paul is running on a anti imploding platform, so no need to worry.
- djbon2112, on 12/14/2007, -1/+20So fair use is "make-believe" and exploitive now? Guess I missed that one...
- blindguy, on 12/14/2007, -2/+18Yea, why can't we vote this joker out of office?
- TWODPodcast, on 12/14/2007, -1/+17What's most interesting (and most obvious, I guess) is that the top industries contributing to Berman's campaign in 2006 were...
yes, the TV, Music, and Film industries. Followed closely by Law Firms. Is this a government of the People, by the People?
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ... - wilf_brim, on 12/14/2007, -2/+14Nice job. Lets now hear how the Democrats are "the Party of the People".
- dynacrylic, on 12/14/2007, -7/+19If someone tries to fit a "Ron Paul" comment in here about how great he is and what he would say about the DCMA I'm going to implode...
- Evildudetx, on 12/14/2007, -2/+12Screw this douchebag - we don't need the government policing other industries problems. If the RIAA and MPAA can't figure out a new business model (lower prices/improved content????) to combat piracy, then its time for them to go away.
- zeromancer, on 12/14/2007, -1/+9i think you just did. better start imploding.
- JMDupont, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7You know damn well you aren't going to move to Sweden.
- jcaino, on 12/14/2007, -2/+9this country is supposed to be by and for the people. not corporations and special-interest groups. we've come a long way, baby.
- babar77, on 12/14/2007, -0/+5No more rhetoric than you. I think copyrights should be treated as patents - you get 7 years and if you want to keep it past 7 years you pay to keep it, to a limit of 21 years. Plus derivative works are completely allowed. Why do artists get such unbelievable rights over any other creator or designer or anyone else for that manner? Fair use should be any use that does not cause financial loss to the rights holder and any criticism.
One other point, there is no such thing as a completely original idea. Only in the last 50 years has these long strict copyright laws started. Prior to that, all the artists have had all their work pushed to public domain, and the current artists get to borrow those ideas and hold the rights on it for over a century. How is that fair? - lowerlogic, on 12/14/2007, -1/+6I don't even care anymore. If congressmen want to further detach laws from reality, go ahead, I'll still watch all the DVDs I buy or rent on the computer I want to watch them on, even if that makes me a "criminal."
- frsrblch, on 12/14/2007, -1/+5It's funny how IP rights seem to be getting stronger while basic human rights are continually being trodden on.
- burke, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4This is not a recall. THIS is a TOTAL RECALL.
</schwarzenegger> - Todamont, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4The industry is changing and nothing is going the save the RIAA. They need to stop fighting it and let it happen and we will all end up with a better system.
- LinuxGalore, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Looks at his LP collection and says "who's nuts now huh"
- BigBrother87, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4This will be the last straw if it passes. And you know it will; He'll throw in some kiddy-porn clause or something, and add in his own boat-hull designs (yeah, that's in the DMCA for some reason). I've been looking for another excuse to get out of this country, and this will be plenty reason. I hear Sweden is nice this time of year...
- strictnein, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Most of us don't live in his district? Thanks California! The only chance of this guy getting replaced is if he retires (not likely) or for some reason announces to the world that he loves George Bush.
- PA42, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2That's not even close to how patents work.
1) A patent lasts for 20 years from the filing date. I don't know where you came up with this "7 years" mumbo jumbo.
2) derivative works are specifically not allowed. If you use someone else invention in your invention you need to get a license from them first. A derivative work creator only has the right to exclude others from their improvement.
3) Artists actually get less rights than a patent holder. A patent holder can get injunctive relief to stop all others from using the invention. A copyright holder can get this in some situations, however they cannot really stop a radio station from playing there songs, there is a standard license paid.
4) Fair use is a term that is lied about on digg. it is a rather narrow doctrine which can be used for teachers and reviewers and legitimate purchasers of content, it does not give people to infringe because they think content is too expensive or in the wrong format.
5) copyright laws date back before the foundation of the US and in the constitution is given an "exclusive" right. So strict copyright laws have always been there, the content changed. You made up the difference. - jamwithdot, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3What an @ss
- Drizzit, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Yeah but once they can filter your traffic, they'll start looking at it. Then one day you realize that a week of surfing pr0n and suddenly your mailbox is flooded with playboy and penthouse ad's and your wife packing bags that maybe you should not of shrugged off what they're doing.
It's your privacy. Defend it. - DeFex, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2actually its not.
- actorboy, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2@ babar77
The first US copyright law signed by the American forefathers offered a term of 14 years with an option to renew for another 14, limiting copyright to a total of 28 years. With a few extensions in between, Disney lobbied to have it extended because they were and still are creating works that center around copyrighted characters. Protecting Mickey from entering the public domain was essential as the Mickey creative work as a whole is incomplete and many jobs still depend on his remaining Disney's sole property.
Still, even if your argument for a shorter term was implemented, it would for the most part be irrelevant to those arguing here against the DMCA. You know as well as I do, most people here aren't pirating things older than 5 years, much less 21. - strictnein, on 12/14/2007, -2/+4Here's a tip: when a politician and/or corporation is trying to ***** you over, they don't say "Hey, we're trying to ***** you over!".
- Urusai, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2I don't think anyone harbors that delusion since the midterm elections.
- strictnein, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1First off, I'm not defending this douchebag...
"He wants to examine the "effectiveness of takedown notices" under the DMCA"
It'd be nice if there was some real, set process. I'm probably one of the few people on digg who have actually sent out some DMCA takedown notices. Surprisingly, sites like megaupload were quicker to act than Google. Actually, Google never took down the content, even though it also violated its blogspot TOS.
And yes, this was a legitimate complaint, the type of content that the DMCA was designed to help get rid of. - spyd3rweb, on 12/14/2007, -5/+6Since I'm pro-you-imploding here it is. Come to my Ron Paul Tea Party on Sunday!!
- Chakat, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Only for state officials, not federal elected officials. Besides, even if it were possible, only his district would get to vote on it, and his district is well within the pockets of the hollywood lobbyists
- Drizzit, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1On that note Billary got 5x what this guy got..
1 Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $977,658 - zippy747, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2"his ideas sound like they're ripped right from the pages of the Big Content playbook."
That's because they are. - inactive, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1How else will the private corporations that run our prisons make their billions? Won't someone please think of the poor shareholders?
- actorboy, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2The guy is talking out of his ass, Either that, or his priorities are all ***** up. An ill-founded war against a nation having nothing to do with 911, the erosion of constitutionally protected rights, the abandonment of the Geneva conventions, torture, imprisonment without due process....and for this guy, not being able to get free music is the deal breaker? ***** him. Let some other country have him.
- dynacrylic, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1This is the type of "Ron Paul" comment I was referring to. Now I'm going to implode.
(If you don't know what I'm referring to, see my previous post on top of page)... - djbon2112, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1The consumer has SOME rights with the media, something called "fair use". They are allowed to copy it all they want for personal reasons under fair use. So yes, you and this article both said something about fair use.
- Attilitus, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1This article is absolutely ridiculous. "Big Content" ??? What the hell?
These companies are not evil for trying to protect their content... and although I pirate unbelievable amounts of IP from Mr. Big Content I only do it because Mr. Big Content produces a product that is impossible to protect from theft.
If they find a way to adopt filtering technology to protect their intellectual property then more power to them... It is a little ridiculous that websites like rapidshare can be used so easily for piracy. The congressman isn't a numb skull, he is working to fix an obviously ineffective piece of legislation. - Travelsonic, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1Methinks it already hit yours
- bbqribs, on 12/15/2007, -0/+0The problem is that if he gets voted out, the following asshat will probably just pick up the same failed legislation. That is why we have that worthless ***** dumbass "microstamping" law fr guns now in California. It's useless, stupid, and failed at the polls several times. They just keep re-introducing it.
- Wonderama, on 12/14/2007, -0/+0He can call it something like the "God Loves Puppies and America" act; after all, who can vote against that? Oh, and we must do it to protect the children (tm).
- asforme, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1Untimely death?
- inactive, on 12/14/2007, -5/+4"... he'd like to take another look at whether filtering technology has advanced to the point where Congress ought to mandate it in certain situations. "
Which shows why Ron Paul is against regulation of the internet, not "anti Net Neutrality" (not RP spamming, honestly, but this is why the government legislating the internet is a bad idea) - actorboy, on 12/14/2007, -4/+3Don't let the turn-style hit you in the ass. The impact might affect your ability to keep talking out of it.
- tgc1, on 12/14/2007, -2/+0So if this does go through, which by this point it's looking like it will... what is America going to do about it? I mean there's a lot of complaining going on, and yet no action. Which is probably why these sorts of thing go through. It's almost like they have a slip n' slide in congress now. They just put it in at the top, and whewwwwwwww... there it goes. Right before Americas eyes. And while you look all bug eyed as it passes you in surprise, people just fume and then go back to watching American Idol.
I guess the sad part is that I've essentially given up on the hope that America would do something. Seeing as since the Dems have no balls, and the Pubs are having a fiesta in there. - fkr3, on 12/14/2007, -12/+3More rhetoric. You don't have the right to take from others without fair recourse (and they decide what's fair not you). The artists are people too, they have rights too, the companies that represent them have rights just as the companies that represent you - your employer etc - have rights to protect your work and your income.
- fkr3, on 12/14/2007, -14/+3Did I say anything about fair use? Did the article say anything about fair use? No.
- fkr3, on 12/14/2007, -25/+5Why? Because in protecting the rights of one group of people to be paid for their work he infringes on the make-believe rights of another group of people to exploit them?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is