What is Digg?92 Comments
- IShouldBeWorkin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+69If i wanted constitutionality help i think the last place i'd turn is the DoJ
- gwinerreniwg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38Gee, can anyone guess how this is going to turn out? Get out the KY now for more fun with the Bush administration.
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31Why do we value art which only adds culture but not lasting economic value over science? Technological patents end after 17 years but artistic inventions such as books, movies, music, speeches, etc... last the entire life of the artist plus 50 years after. That is ridiculous. If there wasn't such a double standard then people wouldn't hate the RIAA and MPAA so much. Everything from 1990 and before should be immediately taken off any sort of legal protection.
- chugger1992, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2999 cents is my final offer.
- NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22What the ***** kind of ***** is that... the songs aren't even worth 2$ each... no one should have to pay $750 each because they shared a few songs... -_-
at MOST, a lawsuit like that should be $20 per song... accounting for a few other downloads people might have made... rarely do I ever see 1 song ever downloaded more than once... - gerkin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22The RIAA should pay me $750 per song for the crap they are churning out these days. Between the overdone compression during mastering that kills the dynamic range completely, the mass marketing of total crap with million dollar budgets, their obvious lack of desire to actually promote talented artists (they don't care in the least bit about talent, they care about sales) ... I think it's high time that they go away. They are destroying the music business and I refuse to assist them in the process.
I run a recording studio, have played professionally for over 20 years, produce and mix quite a few artists and am a partner in a recording label .... and wouldn't allow my name to be associated with those thieves even if they paid me millions. We are DRM free, RIAA free, and we actually care about the artists more than the bottom line. It's time for artists and other industry professionals to step up and tell them how we feel.
If you want to see what can happen without the RIAA, come sign up at our forums at http://www.musicianscollboration.com and take a look at the fantastic stuff going on there, our first collboration CD from those forums is just debuting. Check it out on iTunes at http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=258865345&s=143455 It's also on Napster and Rhapsody. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Great we have a department headed by a liar deciding whats constitutional or not. F U C K!!!!!!!!!!!!
- masamunecyrus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17If patents involving technology lasted as long as artistic patents, innovation and invention would be destroyed by greed.
- helikopter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16if it really costs them $750 in damages when we steal a song... how come we can legitimately buy it for 99 cents? i find it hard to believe. even if 750 people download the song for free... i still don't buy it.
- Ghoztt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Yeah, cuz the Constitution is only for the RICH, forget freedom of speech. Forget Habeas Corpus. Forget the 4th Amendment. BUT if you stole from the rich, the government is going to come after you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hey DoJ, I need you to take care of some REAL JUSTICE for my President LYING TO ME... care to help? No? Didn't think so.
- juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Why the hell can they get away with $750 dollars a song in the first place? I see they really do need help if they want to justify that.
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12You sir are a moron. The DOJ is part of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH and he appoint s a hell of a lot more than 1 guy. Keeping up on the prosecutor firings at all?
Supreme Court != DOJ - kabewm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11The DoJ is run by Alberto Gonzales and is part of the cabinet.. . You know the flunkie Bush appointed. The guy who fired Federal Prosecutors for not being "Loyal Bushies". The same DoJ who Clinton ordered to drop the provisions (with teeth) against Microsoft after they were convicted of anti-trust violations.
Yes, the President has a lot of influence at the DoJ. - jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10copyrights were once only 17 years long. But everytime the length has changed over the past 100 years, they have gotten longer. Has society benefitted from the lengthening of the copyright times?
- danknerd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I just read the Constitution and no where does it say anything about this... odd isnt it.
- surfing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Ok, ok... how about $749.99?
- Duston, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7While we all know that the RIAA is the poster child for litigating to defend your business model, but you guys are missing the point. This isn't the Goverment stepping in to help the RIAA. It was summed up much better in a slashdot.org comment (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=258193&cid=20060957)
QUOTE
It wasn't the plantiff (RIAA) that called in the federal dogs, it was the defendent. I'm reading through the defense's response and counterclaims right now. The issue is that the law requires that the Feds be notified about an accusation of an unconstitutional claim. The dependent therefore demanded that the government intervene to decide on the RIAA's claimed price of $750.
FWIW, this document is wonderful reading. The lawyer is throwing every book on his shelf at the RIAA, and when he runs out he heads over to Barnes and Noble and keeps chucking. He's got everything from Lachs, Estoppel, Waivers, Unclean Hands, Racketeering, Statue of Limitations, Failure to Mitigate, Copyright Misuse, Failure to register copyrights, Failure to prove copyrights, Failure to provide notice of a subpoena, insufficient service of process, failure to join necessary and indispensable parties, lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and good God my fingers are getting tired.
If this document is any indication of the caliber of lawyer Mr. Boggs has hired, than I'd say the RIAA will soon be running away at top speed with its tail between its legs. Huzzah!
/QUOTE
I understand that this is Digg and all but this really is a misleading headline. - helikopter, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8whatever they say isn't going to change my habits. it's called civil disobedience. i believe this is *****, therefore i will call them on it. art is to be had by all. you can enjoy a photograph of a painting for free, but you can't listen to a copy of a record? ***** that.
we are all e-gandhis, if you ask me. - stealth45, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Doesn't look like this situation is getting any better..
- gwinerreniwg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Then by your very admission, the world is losing out on innovation in artistic work since copyright law is so restrictive. Look at the explosion in creativity that has occurred as digital technology has allowed all sorts of creative uses of artistic content in new and innovative contexts. the remix culture is completely fueled by intellectual property. Never has so much creative power & content been available to more people in the history of humanity. We have to stop thinking like the 15th century and make more available to the public domain sooner.
- tempusrob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"you don't really need to improve on art to benefit all of mankind now do you?"
Take a music history class. - carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5ohh ***** this *****. shouldn't the DoJ be more worried about their own internal corruption and the corruption of most of the people who've stained the white house rather than some kid downloading music that's overpriced by some HUGE multinational corporation?
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5More likely someone who has read the research concerning the socioeconomically optimal length of copyright. Currently stands at 14 years and falling, after both theoretical and empirical work.
- Subterfug, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4$1 for an album seems fair to me since most of what the music industry churns out these days it pure diarrhea.
- tempusrob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Heh ... compared to the statutory limit of $150k per infringement, they're being a bit generous. Not to imply that it's *right* ...
- Classicgamer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You forgot the 'a' in collaboration. Here's the fixed address: http://www.musicianscollaboration.com/
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4If it was your first offer, you wouldn't be in this mess.
- Elohir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3As disgusting as it admittedly is, I wouldn't really have a problem with this as long as it wasn't retroactive. The likely result would probably be that a lot of people would pretty much give up on music and force at least _some_ to change their archaic business model. To be perfectly honest, with the industry the way it is at the moment, giving up on current music is really no loss.
- RCourtney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just to play devil's advocate: when the RIAA sues you it is for distributing (uploading) their work, not downloading it. Thus they claim $750 (or more) because you distributed the song to others. So if you have a torrent with 200 current leechers, thats 200 x $1.00 which the RIAA's members claim they don't collect. Extrapolate that to 750 people during the life of a torrent and, well, you get the idea.
Note: I despise the MAFIA and everything they stand for (which really isn't the artists btw) - this is just the logic they use. - Chubakkaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2such *****. the record labels are screwing themselves so badly. like if we were FORCED to buy their music if they were able to stop filesharing. artists will probably result to giveaways or cheap CD's, ***** I dont know.
of course, another WTF for the price and the corrupt system that's whipping us on the butt. - actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yet, if they rule against the RIAA, you'll be jumping up and down and screaming that it's about time.
- retawd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I steal a lot of music and movies and that is why I even opened this thread. As far as I know, and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but laws against stealing existed for a long time before the Bush administration. Seriously.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"the remix culture is completely fueled by intellectual property."
And they have to steal to get it, and are sued if their work gets anywhere. Don't forget about the 'Grey Album'. - chaddles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1or they should learn ways to continue making money without charging for recorded music... money can be made through merchandising and ticket sales etc. and it wouldn't alienate the public.
- compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think that the defence is very adequate $750/song is crazy when people buy them from itunes for $.99. I'd say just use that $.70 figure she came up with or at worst the $.99 figure as that is what it would cost to buy the song legally. none of this $750/song crap that's just a cash grab. if I got sued by the RIAA though I'd laugh in their face cause I live in Canada and they have no jurisdiction outside of the borders of the US
- kurtwinter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1uhhh... how about 99 cents?
- nationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1narrow minded perhaps?
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, that's why the constitutionality is being contested, isn't it? If even $750 is excessive, that statuatory $150k falls to its knees when faced with Amendment 8.
- DeusNova, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The RIAA shouldn't go after small time people like 99.99% of the population, they should go after the people who have terrabytes of music on DC++.
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There is no explosion in creativity. At best there's a floundering smut mill and art only surviving thanks to our amazing present-day communication abilities. We are not seeing an increase in creative output, but merely being given access (of a sort) to content from a larger (worldwide) artist base (and therefore seeing more of what has always been regularly produced, the variety of which merely reflects the variety of cultures from which they came). And as for quality...it's increasingly lost in the waves of cheap remixes and material desperate to be different and original above all else.
It's no surprise, really. Humanity has a tendency to make issues bipolar. So 99% of our art/entertainment comes from unbalanced conformists or separatists. - nondescrypt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2gwinerreniwg said "Gee, can anyone guess how this is going to turn out? Get out the KY now for more fun with the Bush administration."
I nominate this for "best comment ever" award. - chase001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If the RIAA is owed $750 for the crap the music industry puts out then I should be paid $750 for every turd I drop into the city sewer system.
- MisterZero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If the artist sold the song for $750 then I could understand that, but they don't. Maybe $50 max to add some kind of punishment, especially when people have downloaded several.
- nationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i seriously hope that the DOJ tells the RIAA to ***** off
- xst4t1kx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When the the industry figures you owe them, it's $750 per instance. If/when the industry ever admits that it owes the consumer anything, it's $7, total.
- cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Ok.. Ok... Isnt that like saying if i have a popsicle stand that you owe me 100 dollars in damages for every popsicle you stole? I really want to hear how a song copied from a friend can cost 750. Can someone please spell this out in plain english so i can understand how they arrive at this number?
please.. im really asking. - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Fortunately, he doesn't decide. Unfortunately, he's been given the opportunity to add clever legalese to whatever lame web the RIAA is spinning.
Or not. Gonzales never really seemed clever to me. The clever ones don't get caught. - spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1next up, the War on Piracy.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think he meant 'from a single client'. Most of your P2P'ers will delete the file shortly after its finished. Most of the remainder will drop it once it's 1:1. It's only a few people who will long-term seed.
- RCourtney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As I mentioned in a sub-comment above - they sue you for distributing songs not downloading them. I can't stand them either but please compare apples to apples, not apples to hammers.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is