What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
107 Comments
- vangogh71, on 10/10/2007, -1/+89I wish all of these attacks on the RIAA could be combined in a class action against them.
- Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+45She didn't have KaZaA installed. From the first sentence of TFA: "Another file-sharing defendant who says she has never installed or used file-sharing software is fighting back against the RIAA,..."
Just because the RIAA says she was using KaZaA, doesn't mean she actually had KaZaA. We are talking about a group that has sued people for file sharing when they didn't even own a computer. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060424-6662.html - Menace1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+41 RIAA needs Music
Music doesn't need RIAA
Get the word out. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+33I hate people who try to defend the RIAA. Usually saying ***** like, "You might not agree with it, but these people DID break the law..."
They don't realize that these laws were created for and lobbied by corporations to get passed in their favor when in reality, copyright is in place so people don't steal each other's ideas and try to profit. That is much MUCH different from taking an item, duplicating it, and trying to use laws to sue people.
Sure, the laws are in place, but they aren't legitimate laws. It's pretty much everyone's responsibility to ignore these laws and show the law makers how unjust they are. Just because it's a law doesn't mean you have to be a slave and bow to it. There's been tons of ***** laws in the past, and even if it takes decades to undo those laws, they reveal themselves quickly. So instead of the "boycott the RIAA" idea alone, not only should you boycott them, but just take it a step further and download if YOU want to. Is there an artist you like? There sure is, and while you're probably doing it anyway, download away. It's justified.
These people are computer illiterate, generally without logic, and assume that duplication of data STEALING when it is not. They simply see black and white and say, "Well, you got this item and didn't pay for it.." Yeah, so? It's data. While technology progresses, failed business methods don't, which is why we're in this situation.
This country is for the people, by the people, and if the majority of people are downloading songs, then guess what? That's the way it is. Now, with that statement, all I'm waiting for is some clown to reply to this comparing downloading music to murder ;) - malkir, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Downloading legitimate files like..say...a linux distribution? Files that fall under fair use? Or any other type of file that isn't copyrighted? Sure, they may not be the main stream reasons, but they are still legitimate ones.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29No, it's failing because they refuse to adapt to changes in technology and society.
- Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25It's hard to see how the public sees them when all they have is dollar signs for eyes.
- basye, on 10/10/2007, -5/+29***** RIAA
- mtgarden, on 10/10/2007, -7/+31The part that gets me is their refusal to exam her computer. She is attempting to offer proof of her innocence and they won't look at it. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" I guess they have their proof and woe to the person who dredges up pesky facts or counter proof.
I don't mind them going after people who commit piracy. Piracy is against the law; break the law at your own risk. But this unconscionable attempt to prosecute people without regard to their guilt goes to far.
I still have to wonder why she had KaZaA installed. I only know of two reasons to have it: performing security research and illegal file sharing. Are there any other reasons to have it?
/I really would like to know if there are other reasons. - ForeverXeros, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22I wonder if they realize how they look in the publics eyes? They have to see, a few might even understand what they're seeing. Then again, if they work for the RIAA I could be wrong. Perhaps they're blind?
- sqladmin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18...RIAA abusing courts to shore up "failing business model"
all their efforts summed up in one comment, and totally justified.
well spoken! - lololwut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Good ***** Game, RIAA, at least get people who actually did something wrong.
- shinobiwest, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15That must be why the iTunes store has sold 3 billion songs-- literally.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/07/31itunes.html - breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Care to explain wtf you're trying to say? If you're trying to argue that those aren't legitimate reasons for using P2P software then I'm afraid you're wrong. There's nothing illegal about P2P software per se, it's just another method of distribution that some companies are finding is more efficient and cost-effective than hosting their own files for download via HTTP or FTP. Sharing copyrighted material is obviously illegal in most places, but as malkir points out there are plenty of examples of perfectly legal files being distributed via P2P.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Somebody please tell me just how much of these "settlements" that they do get really goes to the artists?
- DontGiveADamn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Stealing is when I take something from you and now you don't have it anymore. Who the hell decided to change the definition?
- roycifer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10file.duplicate() != stealing
- mdwstmusik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10@actorboy - "It's pretty hard to construct a business model that competes with free."
While I don't agree with your statement, even if it was true...tough ***** for the RIAA. I'm a musician/songwriter myself, and the RIAA/MPIAA etc. aren't worried about protecting the rights of artists. Record companies are notorious for screwing artists every chance they get. Then RIAA is worried about losing control of distribution. When musicians have a choice of distribution methods, that "big break" contract that requires you to give away most of the rights to your work doesn't look so good any more. - dsmx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Don't exaggerate none of it goes to the artists.
- basic0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"...allegedly sharing tracks such as "Teenage Dirt Bag," "She F***** Hates Me," "That N*****'s Crazy," and "F*** You Softly" via KaZaA."
I can't help but picture some dried up old lawyer in a $2000 suit presenting that evidence. - weebit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9The RIAA has never proven to anyone that file sharing has done harm to their business. Plus in every court case i have ever seen a person has the right to defend themselves. I bet they knew as soon as Catherine Njuguna spoke up and said that she doesn't even like that kind of music, only Christian music they knew it was a bum law suit, and that was why they refused to look at her computer. She was in the right, and they knew it. I seriously hope the woman milks them for all she can.
- xaxxon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal cases.
- flaterates, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Bad business model is right. The RIAAA and MPAA are going to crash and burn. Then we'll get good entertainment.
- TheConfusedOne, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"In its motion to dismiss Njugana's counterclaims, the RIAA argues that it owes no duty to negotiate in good faith to the defendant."
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8What do artists, producers, or engineers have to do with anything I just said?
Unless you incorrectly assume that by downloading, we're taking something from them, which we are not. - breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Too right. What all this really boils down to is not the costs incurred from a few lost sales. This much is obvious from the heavy financial costs of chasing people down for relatively small settlements. What it comes down to is that sooner or later the musicians and consumers will realise they really don't need the big labels any more. The cost of reproducing CD's is now within the reach of any small artist. And now the internet terrifies the labels because artists can cut them out completely. They want to hang on to the business model that has made them a ***** fortune for 50 years now. They get to push mass-produced artists via outlets like traditional radio, MTV, etc. We buy whatever they tell us is cool this week. And we have to go to the high street and pay $15-20 + tax for a CD with 12 songs. Or artists could be distributing their own music via independent internet radio and we could be downloading them directly from the artist at 99c a pop. iTunes and other outlets have proven that this is a viable model and it scares the ***** out of the RIAA establishment.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Satan?
- tendonut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Why charge 99c a pop? The artists are already loaded and they only get pennies for profit on a CD sale. Hell, if the cost was going right to the artist, charging 10-20c increase their income exponentially. Just think about the kind of money the labels are pocketing per CD sale this very moment. It makes me sick.
- small3687, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I wonder how the lawyers for the RIAA feel. Truly they must have moments where they think to themselves, why am I working for them, at which point they receive their pay and they remember why. If going after a lawyer let alone multiple lawyers wasn't such an awful idea I would suggest someone post the Names of the Attorneys so DIGG users might be able to say hi.
- tendonut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Oh sweet jesus, one question mark will suffice. Does the & symbol really save you that much time compared to typing "and"?
Also, "wud" is not a word.
Go back to YouTube - Randinn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Say, tell your RIAA masters we wont listen to their spammers....
- deviantsteve, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Suing you customer base, just doesn't seem like a good long term business model to me.
- williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Better yet, just jack the ***** up. None of them should be walking without a limp, and with their natural teeth.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Nope. You're the exact type of person I'm speaking about :) I'm not passing any blame. My actions, along with the will of the majority, is what's justified. Period.
You forget I said their business model is failed, which is what they are currently paid on. There are other options, like working directly with the artist and getting a % of gross from cd sales and touring, for example.
Re-read the post. It has nothing to do with them because they get paid regardless of whether or not you download a CD. Downloading a CD isn't taking revenue away from anyone, which is the whole point entirely. - gamerzworld, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6$0.001
- Beylan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Of course they know. They don't care. The whole reason the RIAA was formed was to allow the the individual record companies to do their dirty work without ruining their individual reputations.
Sony Music suing a 12 year old Girl Scout could ruin their PR campaigns and might cost them some sales, but when the RIAA sues on behalf of Sony then Sony can stand back and say "Sorry, it wasn't us! Buy our stuff!" - breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+63 billion songs that could very likely have been downloaded for free via P2P. I'd say that's a business model that seems to be competing with free, wouldn't you? I think shinobiwest made a very good point in reply to your post. Your petulant response gets you dugg down.
- Kappa00, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I'm sure the vast majority of Digg users, as well as the public, have no clue as to who the individual heads of the RIAA are.
- fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6NO, it shouldn't apply to civil cases like this. We have a different maxim for civil cases: "Not liable until proven liable."
- lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5How about one so awesome that it automatically sorts your music into manageable playlists and assures you a reasonable distribution of songs, while also introducing you to new songs, that supports itself with between song ads? like, a radio?
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Wow, those RIAA guys sure don't know their comparative adjectives. Or maybe that's just part of their greater "making fools out of ourselves" plan. Cunning.
- Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Are you dense?
Sounds legitimate to me. - psevium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4@indiephoenix,
http://www.nyrock.com/interviews/2001/disturbed_int.asp
Interview with David Draiman from Disturbed, in the napster section he only says "I don't really make money off of record sales anyway". So, we're not doing anything by downloading apparently, not to the artists at least - Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5If you can't find any song, ever, by P2P, you have no idea how to use P2P technology today.
- indiephoenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'll agree that the business model is flawed and I can't wait for the day when organizations such as the RIAA are shrugged of by the music community. Nonetheless, your proposition is only relatively financially harmless (as the current model exists) as long as purchasing music remains the predominate method of acquiring it.
I'm not saying that the act of downloading a CD in itself is taking away revenue, but the act of downloading in place of purchasing does. Obviously this is only applicable in the situation where a person would have bought the music if it had not been available for free. I will admit that I doubt that potential revenue lost in this manner is enough to have much of a financial impact on the people that deserve the money. However, it really bothers me (from a logical standpoint) when people portray this matter as if there is not potential for harm involved. Like I said before, as long as this current model exists, it's only relatively harmless when the majority of consumers continue to purchase the music. - mraustin1337, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This lady is a ***** badass. Seriously. She is my new hero.
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You're kind of jumping the gun by assuming she even HAD KaZaA installed. If they have record of certain actions taking place when she was not even present, chances are that whatever happened also didn't even actually involve her computer, and there are virtually endless possibilities for alternative explanations. Keep in mind that all the RIAA has is an IP address and some source claiming that it was bound to her ISP login at the time.
- misconstrued, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6John Edwards still practicing law? ;)
- tmslak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"why do you think music CDs cost $15 each? it's certainly not the materials it takes to make a cd that makes the cost so high. you're being charged for the data that's on the music CD and that is what you are spending money on _THE DATA_. downloading the music off the internet is economically just as bad as stealing a CD from a store. It's not justified, it's theft, simple as that."
Actually, CDs are $15 a piece because we're paying a ridiculous markup to the record companies. We're spending our money on a label, not the songs, not the artists ideas, but the pocketbook of some executive sitting in an office at a record label. Downloading music off of the internet is no worse, and no different, than recording songs off of the radio. Technology is changing, and the recording industry is going to have to change with it. The easiest medium through which to distribute ideas has become digital, and it's only going to get easier.
And, seriously...I'm sure you've seen the way some of these artists live...do we really need to be supporting that lifestyle any more than we already are? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Why are you being dugg down? You're right.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is