What is Digg?100 Comments
- Askee, on 06/23/2008, -3/+145EFF THE RIAA
- JitMaster, on 06/23/2008, -1/+80I believe the public library is "making available" many copyrighted works. /sarcasm
- inactive, on 06/23/2008, -0/+42The entire copyright system is seriously bent to the point of breaking. I am a copyright holder on many different works and yet I still see that. Copyright extension laws, bought and paid for by GE, Disney and other corporate "citizens," have robbed the American people of our common heritage by criminalizing reproduction of our cultural history (and yes, I am calling Mickey Mouse "culture") and preventing these icons from entering into the public domain far longer than any reasonable person would deem necessary. A copyright shouldn't last a century. They shouldn't last for 50 years. It's insane. These laws were to allow inventors to be rewarded, not to set up corporate "persons" with never ending cash flow at the public's expense. IP must enter the public domain at some point in order to permeate our common society. That is a large part of what causes invention to move forward in the first place. Edison, Tesla, Marconi, Newton.... they all stood on the work of earlier thinkers to achieve their greatness. The greed of a few has strangled that. It's time for reform.
- shitton, on 06/23/2008, -1/+38I think the idea that MediaSentry downloading the songs doesn't count as "unauthorized distribution" was interesting. I hadn't thought about the fact that they're acting on the RIAA's behalf, and because the RIAA has the copyrights in the first place, they're essentially just downloading the songs back to themselves. I don't know anything really about copyright law, but I think it's an interesting argument; one that would hopefully make it a lot more difficult for the RIAA to sue people left and right.
- sandiegodude, on 06/23/2008, -0/+32Go EFF!
Of course, if they manage to knock the RIAA down, the RIAA is just going throw more lobbyist money into congress' pockets to get our corrupt leaders to allow the RIAA even more power so they can prove actual downloads happened. You know, installing spyware to prove their point, or something similar.
All the same, I hope this case succeeds. RIAA has been given way too much power by our congressional "leaders" in terms of violating citizen rights. Not that they seem to have a problem with that anymore. Hell, all the RIAA has to do is work the words "Terroristic Threat" into their lingo and congress will be all over it like flies on *****. - coolboy0286, on 06/23/2008, -16/+40Ok digg, let's be nicer this time, instead of screaming ***** THE RIAA, scream GO EFF!!!
- acknotSW, on 06/23/2008, -1/+25Copyright law needs to be changed to be more inline with patent law. Right now I can take someone’s patented device, make as many of them as I want (assuming I have the skill and resources) and give them away to whoever I want; I just can't sell them.
Music needs to change to the same model.
Metallica writes yet another ***** song.
Metallica (or their label) copywrite it (patent it) and now they own the exclusive rights to profit from that song for the next 7 years or something
They are the only ones who can perform it and get paid for doing so. Radio stations have to pay if they sell ad time. Movies have to pay to use it, etc.....
Anyone can perform the song for free, anyone can copy the song and play it on any device, and anyone can distribute the song as long as they are not being paid for it.
- emkaysmith, on 06/23/2008, -0/+21I'm a retired public librarian, and also a copyright holder (books of local history, mostly), and I agree entirely that THIS IS NOT WHAT COPYRIGHT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. Books in the U.S. used to be copyrighted for 28 years, plus another 28 years at the author's option. I don't recall any major author complaining that a mere 56 years of monopoly on their work was unfair. In 1976, it was changed to "life of the author" -- plus 50 years! Then, in 1998, thanks to Sonny Bono (that bastard), the extension was changed to 75 years. In other words, an author can publish a work at age 25, live to age 95, and the work will be under copyright for a century and a half. And for works of "corporate authorship" (i.e., owned by a media conglomerate), it's even longer than that. Even Stephen King, owner of many millions of dollars worth of copyrights, is on record as not approving of this travesty.
- blinkatron, on 06/23/2008, -1/+19The EFF: Making the RIAA it's bitch since 2008
- Rudegar, on 06/23/2008, -0/+17they left the path of saneness when they started going after people who made guitar lessons on youtube
- Jellybean3473, on 06/23/2008, -2/+18Finally someone giving the RIAA a good slap. Notice the way no member of the public is defending them. If one person calls you a *****, ***** 'em....If an entire country is calling you a *****, you're a *****.
- inactive, on 06/23/2008, -1/+17No one cares.
- belzoradon, on 06/23/2008, -0/+13Why not? the EFF does great work and has brilliant lawyers working for them this change in mindset will help clear up a good number of copyright confusions simply because we are looking at the problem differently.
GO EFF! - UnleashX, on 06/23/2008, -1/+12RIAA have taken everything waaaay too far. They're tactics are nothing but abusive. They just bully people with their ***** laws and claims ... the truth is i don't think i know a single person who hasn't infringed a copyright law at one point or another in his life.
- dazparkour, on 06/23/2008, -1/+12It's not a stupid idea - the burden of proof lies on the accuser and proving that they LEGALLY supplied Mediasentry with a copy of a song does not prove ILLEGAL distribution.
- subterfuge, on 06/23/2008, -2/+12cops
*****
RIAA
MPAA
salt - longbow486, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9I'll digg to that
- scooterbaga, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9I was referring to NOT saying ***** the riaa. Who the hell wouldn't be for EFF?
GO EFF!!!
***** THE RIAA - gn0stik, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8Brilliant.
- blackturtleus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8 That reminds me... I need to renew my membership with the EFF!!! They do a lot of important work and corporations and governments aren't supporting them and so it's up to citizens to support them. After all, it's our rights their fighting to protect!
- dazparkour, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9Some people are, they just got buried very quickly.
For every oppinion, no matter how clear cut common sense makes it, no matter how clear cut common decency makes it - someone will do the opposite. - MasterThief117, on 06/23/2008, -1/+8Is this our new chant?
- Xalorous, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7dugg down for being an idiot
- donaldleegraham, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6the EFF sure has put some time into these lawsuits. I'm not a big fan of the RIAA because of their lack of morals and tasteless tactics from time to time
- HonestAbe, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6"Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."
- dazparkour, on 06/23/2008, -3/+9You are on one hand a douche and on the other the bag that it comes in.
Besides, what if someone is downloading a movie? Report to the RIAA?
No one believes you, no one cares - if you thought you would get anything other than buried you are a moron. - dupswapdrop, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6Let's say someone knows that I've committed a crime. Then they contact me and offer to forget about it for a sum of money. I believe this is called blackmail. So why is MediaSentry not being slapped with blackmail charges?
- GelfTheElf, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7Let's say someone THINKS I've commited a crime.
So the police show up somewhere and take my knife or gun.
Can I sue the Police for Stealing? That knife or gun belongs to me! Can I be convicted for distributing knives or guns now because the police took them?
So if the RIAA THINKS I'm distributing songs..
And they have the Media Sentry take my songs...
I don't think that makes me a distributer of music just as much as the police seizing my car, knife or gun makes me a car, knife or gun distributor...
They need to find my bullet in someone elses body just like they need to find MY Mp3s on someone elses hard drive. - donte, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5Posing sound, logical arguments in a court of law? It will never stand.
- Xalorous, on 06/23/2008, -1/+6LOL, sure, all those teenagers they scared into paying pre-trial settlements. I'm sure that money goes straight into the warchest.
- nblsavage, on 06/23/2008, -2/+7You want copyright change? Save up and send Mary Bono on a skiing trip.
- GelfTheElf, on 06/23/2008, -1/+6Also..
You can't go to a "beer distributor" and sue them for distributing to minors unless you catch them actually giving the beer to an actual minor.
Just cause it's on the shelf didn't mean they distributed it... mp3s on my drive available is not distributing. Distribute is a verb and all.. - Xalorous, on 06/23/2008, -1/+6btw, it's copyright
Copyrights were originally created with the advent of the printing press. Any nut with a press, and the time and patience to do so, could copy a book and sell it as fast as he could print the copies. So the legal whizzes of the time created copyrights. The original copyrights were for a reasonable, limited time (seven years rings a bell but I can't remember how long). The idea was to allow the author to receive income from the work to support his writing until he could publish again. The idea was definitely not to support the author until he dies, then support his offspring. And it surely was not to support the publishers. This type of copyright law worked then and would work again now.
The lawmakers in the U.S. have not studied the guiding ideas behind copyright law. They have gradually expanded the works covered, extended the period of time, made the rights transferrable (to a company, another person, or even an heir), made them automatic (you don't even have to write Copyright by soandso to hold the rights to the work) and eventually made them permanent.
Personally, I think "fair use" is the only worthy addition to copyright law since it was created.
So, here's what we need to do. Revert all copyrights to the original authors. Let the authors assign publishing rights as they wish. Remove the 'permanent and automatic' parts. Make them for a limited, reasonable length of time. Include a clause where any remaining time left on the rights passes to the estate so that we don't have authors being shot to put their works in the public domain. Otherwise, when the time is up, the work goes in the public domain. The key to this is a social taboo/etiquette issue. If you want to buy a copy of say a Stephen King book that is in the public domain, and you want to encourage him to continue writing, you buy from his officially licensed publisher. If the author of the work you want to buy is dead, buy from whichever source strikes your fancy. Require a statement in the packaging of any artistic, copyrighted work on who holds or held and the start/end dates of the copyrights.
The frenzy to see all publishers republishing all public domain 'stuff' will make it a very cutthroat market. Once the initial insanity is over, competition will keep the prices of reprints reasonable. - inactive, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4How many of you who are so upset have donated to the EFF?
or any other cause fighting the RIAA? - Manshima, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5And how do you know they are downloading illegally? Do you know ALL the laws concerning the matter? Do you know the specifics of the individual downloading? As Joe or Jane Public you would not be privy to this knowledge.
But then again, this is probably just a troll looking for attention. - cJw314, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5T-shirts are printing as we speak.
- sheetrock, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Look, I'm definitely on the side of the EFF (and citizens of the U.S.) on this one. I should get that out of the way.
But I should also mention that it is not legal to infringe patents even if you're not making a profit. For example, creating or listening to files in MP3 format is not as free-and-clear as it may seem (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_pat ... ).
Also, while musicians have live performances to fall back on when their recordings fail to bring in money, what do authors do when their works are freely copied between e-book readers? Copyright, I think, is still a beneficial concept -- though we've gone completely overboard on the length of the copyright terms and on the method and severity of punishment for infringement. - hollyminkowski, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5Copyright is not compatible with a world wide high speed data network.
Authors of works were supposed to have nearly exclusive rights for a "LIMITED TIME", this limited time allowance has been stretched out of all proportion.
Copyright needs to die now! Authors and creators of new works will just have to decide if they want to create new works in a copyright free world or not. I doubt we will suffer a drought of new creative works...new ways will be found to derive revenue.
In a few decades the patent holders will also be under the gun as nano technology enabled desktop assemblers come on the scene and allow actual physical devices to be created from plans spread on the network.
We must move into the future boldly...and leave the past behind...copyright must die...or at the least be limited to a year or two. - minc727, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4Honest question here -
Wouldn't they be able to prove that a download took place if they see the same file on a different network distributed by someone else?
E.G. Your stupid enough to put in the comment of a song "ripped by Immaretard" and distribute it over bittorrent, then they find the same file (with the same comment) distributed on another tracker, or over emule or another p2p network under a different username/password. - mithrasinvictus, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4That does not prove that either of these persons does not have the right to have that file as a fair use copy.
- rabidg00se, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3That seems like it would be circumstantial at best, although of course IANAL.
- scooterbaga, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3'Now' works too.
- kirado4, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3go EEF!
- pentalive, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3But how can "Media Defender" download a song from your computer, if you have not made it available for download?
- rawg, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3I think EFF's challenge of the "making available' right is a very important point. By the RIAA's absurd interpretation of copyright violation to mean "making available," a person could be charged with copyright infringement for the equivalent of "making available" a copyrighted book or CD in any public place, like a table in a Starbucks or on a bench in the park.
The EFF's definition of infringement would be if someone made an illegal reproduction of it, which makes a lot more sense. I hope they win their case. - Terr01, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5When you need the salt and can't reach it you say "Please".
- RevEng, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3At the very least, they would have to prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that you put that in the comments. After all, you can write anything you want in there. In fact, perhaps we should do that, "Provided free of charge by the RIAA."
If they want to claim unlawful distribution, they have to prove that you distributed it either willingly or that you ought to have known that you were doing so (e.g. downloading something with BitTorrent). The hard part is showing that you distributed it. That consists of showing that distribution was taking place (e.g. traffic logs that show a file transfer between two IPs) and that it was you who was involved (e.g. you were in possession of that IP at the time, the modem was talking to your personal computer's MAC at the time, and everything else in the chain to reasonably show that it was you).
In the end, it's nearly impossible to truly prove. You can show traffic logs, but who can verify their legitimacy? You can show IPs, but those can only be linked to a subscriber. What computer was responding on that IP? Who was in control of it? Those questions even the ISP can't answer. - coyote1284, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4While I see distributing a song, show, or movie as a clear violation of copyright, sueing the general user into bankruptcy for a download is rediculous. RIAA, if you want any money from me, your cut is no more 99 cents per song that you can prove I've downlodaed freely, and that's just the ones that actually fall under your umbrella, your foreign counterparts can contact me for the others. If you're going to charge me $5k+ for a single song, I better ***** well be buying the copyright.
- Altotus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2You're somewhat mistaken on patent law. A patent prohibits everyone but the patent holder and his/her licensees from making/using the invention. You can't make one for yourself, you can't give them away, you can't sell them.
Generally speaking, an individual violating a patent for their own personal purposes is not apt to attract any attention -- but, the patent holder could sue easily enough and get a favorable judgement. - PacoBell, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2The difference is that MediaSentry is not the victim. They're associates of the victim. And it doesn't have to be a random observer. Blackmail rarely is.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is