What is Digg?109 Comments
- rabidmonkey1, on 12/05/2007, -1/+95Stop buying their music already!!! Buy used if you have to! The Big Corporations are writing the laws now! Simple common sense would dictate that such a ruling is obviously unconstitutional! The law is no law if it does not make sense/is not enforceable! I wonder how many tax dollars are going to pay for all these lawsuits?
BOYCOTT BIG MUSIC UNTIL THEY MAKE THINGS RIGHT!! - autosovereign, on 12/06/2008, -0/+69department of JUSTICE. heh. how ironic.
- duggtodeath, on 12/05/2007, -0/+47FIXED: Department of Corporate Justice :)
- sophiaperennis, on 12/05/2007, -0/+40The DOJ has an annual budget of $43.5 billion and still they can't seem to understand what fair and impartial means in this digital age.
- verge, on 12/05/2007, -1/+26Huh.. Seems there's a chance to provide free ads with thumbnails when we go to submit. I wanna cut, Server Central. Otherwise inclusion was completely a mistake! :P
- 4bit, on 12/05/2007, -0/+22So, as the DoJ argues that it's impossible to understand the full amount of the damages because we don't know how many other people downloaded her songs, and she's been penalized for it, can we assume that those damages have been compensated for, and people who downloaded songs from her are in the clear?
Some how, I doubt that's the case. And since when is it any ones responsibility to pay for damages that other people commit?
Yes, it's Digg. No I won't change anything here. Just had to say it somewhere. - Richandler, on 12/05/2007, -0/+19People need to know about their right as a jury to find these people innocent if they themselves feel the person's so-called crime was not harmful
- airwalkery2k, on 12/05/2007, -0/+18I agree. But go one step farther. Boycott even stealing their music. That crap factory music is not worth even that much, nor is giving them an excuse to flail around screaming murder over their loss in sales.
- LeeSoong, on 12/05/2007, -1/+18You mean the Department that belongs to Just US.
Forget you little citizens. - zeptobyte, on 12/05/2007, -0/+15Well to an organization with a $43.5 billion budget, $222,000 isn't really a lot. Hmm. Maybe we should start paying them less until they can start getting it right.
- PistolSO, on 12/05/2007, -4/+18The DoJ credibility under this administration is less than zero because they also won't say that waterboarding is torture. Now if someone could waterboard the RIAA....
- badjokes, on 12/05/2007, -0/+13kinda makes you wonder, what will they do to you if you've downloaded 10,000 or more songs? 100 billion dollar fine? death?
- Outdoor83, on 12/05/2007, -0/+12$9000+ per song isn't excessive damages?! "It's OK because we don't know how many people she gave the song to." No way. At $1 a track, I can assure you that she didn't upload it to 9,000 people: you'd sure have to leave it on for a damned long time to make that kind of upload ratio.
badjokes, you raise an interesting point. Let's get out the back of the envelope.
Let's assume that 10 million Americans steal / share music. I don't think this is too far out of line. Let's assume that the average one shares... let's say 500 songs: some are far more, some less. $9000 per song.
10,000,000 * 500 * 9000 = 45 trillion. GDP of the United States: 13 trillion.
And these are conservative estimates.
This is flat-out INSANE. If the record company were able to catch all Americans who stole files and refused to settle their case with them, this precedent makes them able to bankrupt the country. - Shaman760, on 12/05/2007, -1/+12No wonder more and more people take this country's administration less and less seriously.
- qpn6ph9q, on 12/05/2007, -0/+8Let's see what the supreme court has to say about this... I am pretty sure they have a better grasp of what is and isn't constitutional.
- maninblac1, on 12/05/2007, -1/+9And it only took $2000 to get them to write it...what a deal!
- Makisupa, on 12/05/2007, -0/+8DOJ submitted a brief. It is their opinion on the matter, not a ruling.
- fonebone2, on 12/05/2007, -0/+7Actually this is an elementary legal concept. In general, the penalty for crimes is inversely proportional to the detection rate. Otherwise we would underdeter crimes that are difficult to detect and prosecute. If you have a 90% chance of getting busted for a crime that's worth $45 to you, we might set the fine at $60 so that your expected penalty is 60*.9 = $54. If the detection rate drops to 10%, we would set the fine at $540 so that now your penalty is $540*.10=$54. In both cases, the expected penalty exceeds the value of your expected benefit from the crime by 20%.
- l00s3r, on 12/05/2007, -4/+11Two times the monetary value in compensation sounds fair to me. Once to pay back what was "stolen" and once to pay back for the crime of stealing. $47.52 is what she should pay. That sounds fair to me. What the ***** happened to common sense?
- msaleem, on 12/05/2007, -1/+8May not be unconstitutional but is still completely idiotic and does nothing to improve the case for the RIAA and only foreshadows their impending demise if they don't embrace a new business model and new technologies.
- SpykerSpeed, on 12/05/2007, -0/+6...more money than the founding fathers could have fathomed for a handful of songs.
- bdbr, on 12/05/2007, -0/+6That's definitely the way to do it. Check riaaradar before downloading anything, and if its RIAA music, don't touch it. Don't download it, don't buy it, don't even acknowledge it.
Unfortunately, there are several million others out there who won't do that. But maybe at least those of us who will might cost them more than $220,000. - maexus, on 12/05/2007, -1/+7His point is they are rationalizing the fee per an unknown number of people that could have downloaded. By this rational, you are paying for their... you know what? never mind. I'll just let me digging do my talking.
- qpn6ph9q, on 12/05/2007, -0/+5Exactly.
1. The number of people the file was shared with could be any number, including 0
2. Even if the file was shared, it could be a few fractional parts of the file rather than the whole file
3. Even if the entire file was shared with 100 people, say, the RIAA surely must have to produce prima facie evidence of who these 100 people are otherwise should they try these damages 'again' for the 100 persons who received the song. The RIAA could be making 13 trillion x [some large number] by double-dipping - fonebone2, on 12/05/2007, -0/+5Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.
- Wiwoz, on 12/05/2007, -2/+7Really, it's more semantically precise than saying that it's outright constitutional. The set of things which are constitutional (explicitly allowed by the constitution) or unconstitutional (explicitly prohibited by the constitution) does not encompass all things.
- andycr512, on 12/05/2007, -0/+5Yeah, they should put a good hosts file on the server that fetches the thumbs...
- dacomputerfreak, on 12/05/2007, -1/+5Are you confusing duplication with theft again?
- Makisupa, on 12/05/2007, -0/+4You should try reading the article. The DOJ submitted a brief stating their opinion on the matter. They can't make a ruling. Amicus curiae briefs aren't uncommon.
- rmetzger, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3And I bet they don't even throw in real copies of the albums. For that price they should give you lifetime concert tickets and it still would be a retarded amount of damages. Dicks.
- ResonantToe, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3Then I withdraw Slanderous comments and burying. My mistake :)
- strangewill, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3MadroneDorf, information age, straight to public. Record companies were good back in the early 1900s, but due to the types of media used they're out of date, a middle man with no use, like a car salesman that does nothing but jacks up the price.
- dacomputerfreak, on 12/05/2007, -1/+4Makisupa, I can afford your medical bills, can we hook up so I can test your theory? :)
- dacomputerfreak, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3duplication != theft. However duplication = illegal. People: Don't download, because it's illegal. If you don't like that fact, put your money where your mouth is and change the laws.
- Blue_Eon, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3I'm sorry, but the fact that she could could go into a music store, steal two 24 song CDs, and get a fine that would be a small fraction of what she was fined for "stealing" bits of data that can be infinitely reproduced for negligible costs is ludicrous. This, again, is just the RIAA using her to to put fear in the hearts of downloaders in an effort to keep themselves from going under with a business model that is going the way of the dinosaur. But, hey, this government seems to have taken a liking to putting fear into peoples' hearts.
I realize I am not a lawyer, but it doesn't take one to see that this is unconstitutional. - nertzy, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3The question is not whether she is guilty. The question is whether or not the punishment violates the Due Process clause of the Constitution.
- enigmaneo, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3Waterboarding the RIAA isn't torture. They are a terrorist group.
- bluechocobo42, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3Digg seems to find the first image tag on the site (if there is one) and display that to the right of the story. I believe that this is to give a preview for all the silly [PIC] stories. However, as you have noticed, this method is not foolproof, and can sometimes display a completely irrelevant image.
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a trivial way to make this better, save for giving an option to show a preview picture. - Crisender111, on 12/05/2007, -1/+4shut up butthead.
- andycr512, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2Perhaps have the submitter choose which image on the page should be thumbnailed?
Would require some AJAX voodoo, but it should be doable. - teh_techie, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2What if the robber took a taxi. Walked around the block, walked into the bank, robbed it, walked back to the taxi and took off... Would the taxi driver be responsible?
- Makisupa, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2Posner ftw.
- thcobbs, on 12/05/2007, -2/+4What part of the constitution protects you from civil laws and lawsuits?
- Myztry, on 12/05/2007, -3/+5Isn't the DOJ's job solely to prosecute criminal cases on behalf of the Government, and expose them to process of Judge and Jury.
It's not meant to act as Judge and Jury, and that in itself is unconstitutional.
Find the decision maker at the DOJ, and you've found a corrupt official being paid to represent a Corporate Interest. - BigGourgues, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2WoW. that's terrifying. We just had a class about Jurisdictions and the complications of judicial decisions over internet crimes. I can't believe they are really going to fine her that much. That's completely excessive. Who was the jury sitting on the first trial?
- poonaka, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2Canada?
- dacomputerfreak, on 12/05/2007, -1/+3Good job, now here's my answer to you: When your friends come over you can play them all your RIAA music to promote it some more and get all your little buddies to purchase/download your favorite RIAA tainted music as well, therefore keeping the ball in the RIAA's court and leaving ALL of the power to a very powerful, irresponsible, and unrespectable organization.
Your answer kind of sucks in my opinion. - aznhomig, on 12/05/2007, -2/+4So, how much did the RIAA offer the judges for a favorable verdict? $9000 PER SONG in "damages" (please define what that is, please) isn't "excessive"?
Jesus Christ. - zipzooka, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2I'm still glad I'm not that woman. If the minimum-per-song that they're asking is $750 and that applied to all the mp3s I have, I'd be looking at $10,093,500 as a bottom number.
- Urusai, on 12/05/2007, -2/+4How am I not surprised? The DoJ probably files amicus briefs at Charles Manson's parole hearings recommending he be exonerated and put in charge of the nation's nuclear arsenal.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is