What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
71 Comments
- Salgat, on 10/11/2007, -4/+121I wish I could digg you more.
- Mosatii, on 10/11/2007, -6/+99@Salgat
Click faster then. - DeskFlyer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+94Main Entry: prod·uct
Pronunciation: 'prä-(")d&kt
Function: noun
2 a (1) : something produced
http://m-w.com/dictionary/product :) - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+81@Mosati
I shouldn't be surprised how well that works. I just bumped you up from +1 to +4 by clicking quickly :o - UnoriginalMind, on 10/11/2007, -4/+54@amalgamutt (#7019446)
That doesn't work, it sets it back after you refresh the page. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+47Best of luck to her; may she smack RIAA down mightily, and may she be awarded phat damages. God knows few deserve being smacked down more than the RIAA goons.
However, if there is the slightest chance the RIAA will lose, they will probably settle, to avoid setting any precedents. That's what they've always done before. - Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -4/+38javascript:dC(7019446,'ce5aa228b5c832d0a7fb44f9a32f94dc')
click go on the address bar a few times
(digg needs to fix this) - Travelsonic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35And regardless of copyright rights, purposly mis-naming the crime is not one of them.
That's why it's copyright infringement and not theft - because nothing was stolen but rights were violated. That's why they are not named the same, don't have the same penalties or acts surrounding them... they are different.
Wrong? Who says it isn't, but to fail and see the difference is ignorance to boot. - dodus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+25Whoa! That was exciting!
- Scottitude, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20I love it when the bully gets bullied. Hopefully some right-minded (as in correct thinking, not ultra conservative) judge will soon rules that the RIAA is a criminal enterprise and orders its immediate dissolution.
- edesignweb, on 10/11/2007, -13/+27thanks deskflyer!
- jedioniram, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Then let's hope the defendant is stalwart enough to not accept a settlement.
- dattaway, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Wait until the legal system matures. Young lawyers are making ranks from the colleges and are soon becoming judges. I hope the RIAA isn't targeting law schools by accident. What an education that would be.
- convergent, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Tyler Durden would have targeted the RIAA
- Iconwolf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10"Let me get this. She stole something, and is now suing the people she stole from?"
1) It's copyright infringement, not theft, regardless of how many times the RIAA tries to call it theft.
2) Even if the RIAA ever does succeed in getting a lawmaker or court to make it actual theft, there is no real proof she was guilty of such a "crime". It's long been proven that the RIAA's methods and "experts" get a LOT of false positives (the main reason the refuse to actually take any cases to trial), but they often refuse to drop cases simply to avoid making this fact any more obvious than it already is.
3) Even if she is "guilty' of downloading, it doesn't mean a "crime" has taken place. While I sold most of my cassettes years ago, I still have about maybe 50. I've downloaded a fair number of tracks from those albums off file sharing networks (mind you I have never made any files available to others) as well as several CDs that have become broken/damaged over the years. Should I ever get sued I have commited no "crime" because I've already paid for the rights to the music, I'm just downloading it in digital format (and both broken CDs and a broken cassette are siting snugly in their cases on the shelf so that I maintain actual physical copies of my purchases). I've bought four copies of Metallica's Master of Puppets album over the years (twice on cassette, twice on CD) due to damage or breakage, and I have no intention of double, triple, or quadrupal paying for a product that costs nothing to replace (the actual song in digital format) because it is damaged or in a new format (I've already paid the "licence" and the cost of the new format or copy is already subsumed in the cost of buying a physical blank CD, a CD burner, and/or MP3 player).
And yes, some people DO download or copy music "illegally" without ever intending to pay for it, but in most cases they'd have never paid for it in the first place anyways. And in many cases, as has been argued repeatedly, it that "sharing" often benefits band/artists more in the long run. As an example, years ago a friend made a half dozen copies of a CD she had for a few people (myself included). Most of us liked it, and over the years we've been to dozens of shows, invited other people to shows, purchased their other albums (I bought an actual copy of the one my friend burned from me, but I know other who didn't) and merchandise like T-shirts. In the past half dozen years, the band has made far more money (even from people who didn't eventually buy legit copies of those "pirated" cds) than they "lost" through "non-sales"
Of course this is exactly what the RIAA and major labels DON'T want. They don't want a market where 10,000 or a 100,000 bands can compete fairly and sell 20,000-30,000 albums each and all earn a reasonable living. The want a few dozen "hit" bands they can market and sell a few million copies of and make tens of millions of dollars off of for doing next to nothing, because that's where the massive profit margins are for them.
it's simple economics. Years ago supply was low (not as many artists) demand was high (a growing consumer base), and now it's the opposite, a very large supply (artist like the Rolling Stones or Aerosmith or Kenny Rogers have to compete with all the "newer" artists like a Disturbed or a Saving Jane) for a fairly "maxed out" consumer base with a fairly set amount of expendable capital. Not to mention competing with other industries for our money.
for example gas prices have gone up a buck since November. That's about $15-20 extra out of my pocket every 2 weeks. That's about the cost of a CD. So is the RIAA going to sue Exxon/Mobil for costing them about 26 CD sales a year? Or do they expect me to work a couple hours overtime every week so some stockholder can sit on vacation and earn a higher dividend or some artist who doesn't feel like touring can sit at home and earn a royalty on music they recorded 30 years ago? Sorry but copyright is NOT a welfare system, and the more they try to turn it into one the more most people who actually have to work for a living will ignore it. - Iconwolf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9"Most people settle because most people are guilty. And all the losers on Digg parade around the one case where someone made a mistake."
No, most people settle, because as was previously mentioned, most people don't have the financial resources to fight the deep pockets of the RIAA and the major labels. And this is far from one case:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070604-riaa-throws-in-the-towel-in-atlantic-v-andersen.html
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/02/0516242&from=rss
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/28/0111205&from=rss
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070410-defendant-prevails-in-another-riaa-file-sharing-case.html
And the list goes on. In fact, I have yet to here of a single instance of the RIAA actually allowing a case to proceed to trial. They've even allowed (and in at least one one case willingly volunteered) to have the cases dismissed with prejudice and pay attorney's fees (although in most instances they try there damndest to get them dismissed without prejudice so they don't have to pay) rather than allow a case to actually proceed to trial. The simple fact is that the RIAA knows that most of their cases would simply not hold up under real legal review. They rely on FUD (and paying the government to pass laws to protect them) to carry the day for them.
I've seen a few people (one or two names I've come to recognize even) parroting the RIAA propaganda, apparently blind to the fact most of the arguments are quite easily shredded as wrong or outright deceptions. In fact I even pointed out quite a few counter-arguments on another story about this case:
http://digg.com/business_finance/RIAA_Accused_Of_Extortion_and_Conspiracy
Of course it actually requires people to do a fair amount of reading and not just parrot 10 second sound bites. And not everyone opposed to the RIAA and the major labels are "illegal file sharers". I used to buy 100+ albums a year from 1987 until mid 2001. At it's height my library contained 1,500 albums all legally purchased. Of course I had to sell about 850 cassettes when I was off work for three months after 9/11, and when I could afford to start buying music again the RIAA was starting into their campaign against conusmers. From 2002- 2006 I bought maybe 30-40 albums total, and the vast majority of them were directly from artists or record labels. That's a loss of about 500-600 sales that have nothing to do with illegal file sharing.
I started buying music again in bulk in the past year, but all my purchases are either second hand, directly from independent artists or labels or from independent digital services like eMusic (although unfortunately a few of those independent labels are RIAA supporters, which I discovered after the fact). I legally purchase maybe a dozen or so CDs and digital albums a month now, and thanks to services like http://www.riaaradar.com/ I make sure none of my purchases are from major labels or RIAA supporters. - Grouser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9In law, "theft" applies to movable assets only.
- WoollyMittens, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8It's hard to tip the scales of justice in your favour, when they put a million dollars worth of corporate lawyers on the other side.
- fallenone05, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8My pirated ones, let me show you them
- WoollyMittens, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11fkr3: It's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
- mrmatchgame, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8***** YOU RIAA!!!!
- yomamaisfat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6This just in, the RIAA had this defendant wacked.
- drakethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Not too get too philosophical but concepts of copyright infringement tend to be the creation of western culture. Sometimes its hard to believe but other cultures don't value the content produced by one individual so highly because its inherently a more selfish way of doing things since it favor's the individuals right to procure material goods as the result of one idea.
- syafthegeek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4***** you RIAA!!! You are damaging other people's life!! Justice? Yeah right...
- aristoworks, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I don't know why everyone thinks that the RIAA directly represents the "LABELS"... They represent the "DISTRIBUTORS" which have had labels by the balls for years.
- Random63, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The day they show on TV a SWAT team leading away a poor little suburban white 12 year old girl in handcuffs because she downloaded a mp3 of her favorite boy band, is the day that the RIAA loses the public relations battle.
- Travelsonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Really, do you think laws passed on IP 100 years, or even 50 years ago really apply now? "
No,
Definately they need updating, but sorta off3topic to that, I strongly feel that it doesn't justify making the digital data the same under law as physical proprty given the obvious differences on that note. - Travelsonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Doesn't matter what the Justice Dept. thinks IMO, as it still is copyright infringement in the books and prosecuted, further proving a more frightening ignorance in our own government.
- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They day they drag her out and evidence shows the download never occured...that's when it'll end..
no wait, that's already happened a dozen times already.. the news don't talk about it much - chrismgtis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2dugman74: Who cares whether or not she "stole something". They dismissed with prejudice. How do you know she did or didn't steal anything? Who is more evil, her because she "might have stole something" or the RIAA because... well you better damn well know how evil they are.
- underStated, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Been "stealing" music for almost two decades. I dare the RIAA to prove it. Open invitation. Come and get me.
As for the article . . . it's like screaming into a hurricane, trying to argue with the storm. - fiver22, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3It would be ideal if we could identify all these poor people and contact them and let them know what their rights are -give them contact info. for lawyers familiar with the RIAAs tactics... give them contact info for the EFF.
Most people that the RIAA goes after are so scared that they settle which leads to more RIAA spying and litigation. -A decent lawyer versed in the ways of the internet could get these people justice -and put pressure the RIAA to stop randomly suing your grandmother. - strobe33333, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3RIAA will eventually tank. Here's why.. As the internet AND cheap/free recording technology saturates the market. Every Joe Blow (myself included - Shameless Plug Here - www.j03l.com,) will self-produce and distribute their music globally and for cheap/free. As this process becomes more and more user friendly, the companies that made their fortune will see not only losses from piracy, but more-so from the fact that artists simply don't need them any more. The only thing they ever had to offer (aside from drugs,) was production and distribution.. I wouldn't sign with a label at this point, even if they promised me the world, they simply can't deliver........ no record company profits = no RIAA (regardless of how many people they sue.)
- OwdenBowden, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You go girlfriend.
- Iconwolf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"That makes the RIAA and MPAA greedy for wanting to not only charge us a high price for a broadband connection, but also charging us per download."
I don't mind that scheme. I'm content to pay a relative set fee for general access and then a bit more for more specialized content when and if I want it. What troubles me is the lack of competition to keep pricing fair. The idea that the Telcos/Cableco "own" the networks when those most of those networks were originally built with taxpayer funded programs which they were granted exclusive leases to until they earned enough to be able to buy them outright is what I consider ludicrous. When a company like Google is allowed to build their own fiber network instead of having to lease the "pipe" from a Verizon or a Comcast because those agencies have "exclusive" rights then we can discuss eliminating "net nuetrality".
After all, the RIAA at the very least, is starting to suffer the effects of competition. Alternate services, most especially the likes of eMusic, are really starting to gain ground, especially now that a lot of "name" artists are freeing themselves from the major labels and doing their own thing or going back to independent labels - Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I get it...if I don't like the current state of capitalism, I'm a socialist.
No, I just don't like the current state of capitalism. If anything, I'm a Star Trek Communist, but acknowledging the impossibility of that, I'm a cynic who tries his best to improve what he can - Sargasso_C, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2They tried that with other, criminal organizations and it didn't work, either.
- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I find some people have a hard time wrapping their mind around the fact that not everyone who thinks the RIAA is evil is a music pirate.
We won't get into the topic of "right" and "wrong" in the massive capitalistic arena of intellectual property. The Native Americans used to hate the way the stupid white men could "buy" land... well now people are "buying" ideas. they're "buying" the sounds of music... Sorry, but just because society is a capitalism, doesn't mean we have to accept that nothing is free and that the corporate word is god.
The tactics of the RIAA are illegal, just like copyright infringement. Further, they're "wrong" on a more basic premise.
Their profits are holding high. They're bringing suffering to massive numbers of people, many of whom haven't committed the "wrong" they're accusing them of, and twisting the public view so inaccurately it's putting the word "theft" on the lips of people, when it's NOT theft in the lawbooks...and with MUCH harsher penalties than theft, even armed robbery and grand theft auto. - TheMrFlibble, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah but aren't they currently pushing for legislation that would mean they had to be paid for all downloaded works ?
- roosterjm2k2, on 10/11/2007, -8/+9Oh, and Travel...
The DoJ actually does consider IP violation theft, and there is precedent to commit to that idea as well.
You see, our legal system is not so much based on the actual letter of the law, but also on previously set precedent.
When you steal music/video/software/any IP ... you are GAINING. You're gain would normally lead to financial gain to the owner of the IP. By taking it without paying, you are denying them that financial gain, thats where the "with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of its possession" comes into play.
Personally, I do believe that the RIAA are a bunch of bullies and need to be put in their place. However, it doesn't change the fact that morally, and more importantly, based on previous legal precedent, IP violations and Theft are generally one and the same. - catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1See, here is where we run into the problem. The value of a product is not directly related to the ease that the product can be copied. If someone spends 10,000 man-hours developing software or 10,000 man-hours building a physical object, the value of those are roughly the same, depending on skill involved.
If you are socialist, you should recognize the value of work...unless you believe that the only work in a society should be related to the survival of the society, in which case nobody wants your form of socialism. - Travelsonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"As I said before, a rose is a rose by any other name..."
And as I said before as well, just because it has feathers, makes a noise, and ***** everywhere doesn't make it a duck.
Legally, and logically speaking - not talking morals because that does differentiate between people, as it should, it is not theft, will never be theft regardless of how much the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/whatever try to convince us and the politicans factually, and to try and paint it as such factually is a true act of ignorance, in my opinion. - Omsil98, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@poorsod
Music is the property of the artists but I don't side in any way with the RIAA. The RIAA seem to think that music is their property rather than the artists. The corporate music industry doesn't help musicians or protect their interests any more than they do the consumers. I stopped pirating music because I wanted to support artists, I also stopped buying CDs from big record labels for the same reason, same moral rationale. I support piracy because it hurts the record industry. Piracy hurts artists because they don't get paid for their work but it also helps them by hurting the RIAA and the big corporate labels. Until the RIAA and the big corporate labels take a dive I'll support piracy and suggest they find ways to support the artists at the same time. - zensmile, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I find that some Diggers, and the public in general, have a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea that taking something without paying for it is wrong. I am no fan of heavy-handed tactics used by entities to go after downloaders, mostly because some innocent people get caught up in the mix, but taking something or sharing something without compensating the owner or distributer is wrong. You can add all the legalese you want--it is wrong. It doesn't matter if it is a song, shareware, commercial software, e-book, or whatever...stealing is wrong.
Do yourself a favor and pay for your shareware, start buying your music from lala.com, find alternatives to commercial software if you can't afford it. It makes all the difference if you are working with the system instead of against it. I learned a long time ago that it is better to pay as you go and/or use open source. You do the same. You will be a better person because of it. - Iconwolf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"As I said before, a rose is a rose by any other name. Or in this case, a dirty, wilting, rotten rose. It's theft as far as the man-on-the-street is concerned."
Actually, not true. Most people don't consider it theft, hence why most of them engage in it. Nor do the courts, who have generally been quite clear on the distinction. A duck is a bird, a bird isn't necessarily a duck.
"I've already paid for the rights to the music" Morally you have the high ground. Definitely. However I'm not sure if that stands up as far as legals are concerned. I can't pass judgment.
I fail to see why it shouldn't stand up. Their argument is we aren't paying for the rights to their IP. I've paid. Of course we know the real reason for their effort is they really want us to pay for the same content repeatedly, but they know they can't USE that argument, because they know it would never pass muster.
"in most cases they'd have never paid for it in the first place anyways" - that doesn't make it any less wrong.
True. I agree. But punishing the 90% of the population to try to stop the 10% of the population who are going to do it anyways seems rather silly and counterproductive. If anyone thinks the "War on Copyright" is going to be in anyways successful, I simply point your attention to our 20 year old "War on Drug" or our continuing "Zero Tolerance" in schools which have both been abyssmal failures and often produce exactly the opposite of their intended purposes.
"often benefits band/artists more in the long run" - only really applies to indie artists, who the RIAA doesn't represent anyway.
Except that the RIAA claims it does. Matter of fact a lot of Indie labels have had a tough time getting the RIAA to remove their names from the members list because the RIAA claims them and doesn't want to be associated with them. Not to mention that a lot of big name artist are now starting to move away from them as well because they feel the RIAA doesn't represent their ideas or views as well.
"The want a few dozen "hit" bands they can market and sell a few million copies of and make tens of millions of dollars off of for doing next to nothing" - unfortunately that's still true, despite the Internet. Look at the charts and their sales figures. Everyone is buying the latest ***** hippity hoppity, not the top-notch talent that can be found if you know where to look.
Yeah, I agree there.
"is the RIAA going to sue Exxon/Mobil for costing them about 26 CD sales a year?" - not exactly sure where this fits in. The RIAA is suing the actual copyright criminals, not the people who take their money at the other end of the chain...
It doesn't really fit in. Just taking the RIAA's arguments to an extremist point. They're bitching CD sales are down. Well, if the oil companies weren't raking me for over $1 a gallon from six months ago, I could buy even more music (of course I still wouldn't buy anything from the RIAA, but still.....)
"copyright is NOT a welfare system" - it is. Look at the name. Copy - rights. The right to copy something. The artists (or more commonly the labels, unfortunately) own this. The music belongs to them, and the copyright ensures that.
No it's not. Copyright is intended to help inspire and support innovation FOR A LIMITED TIME (historically 14 years). If you can't produce something new in 14 years, that's your problem. After 14 years it was meant to go into the public domain. You can still profit off your work, but you're no longer guaranteed "exclusive" profit off that work. To use an example: Dean Koontz wrote a couple of Frankenstein novels. Derivative works of Mary Shelly's novel set in modern times. For those who argue for perpetual copyrights, to be fair it should be retroactivated, which means Mary Shelly's descendants could sue Koontz, or at the very least be entitled to some licensing fee for work they themselves never did. And I wonder how Disney would feel, given most of their works are derivative themselves, and retroactive copy protection would allow all those copyrights holders to sue Disney for infringement, or at least force Disney to pay substantial licensing fees for works they refuse to fall into the public domain themselves.
"In the end copyright is a Good Thing, made with the best of intentions. We certainly should not throw it out as some anarchists who don't really understand the situation propose, but I think it does need a redesign so the actual creators profit from the work, not the labels and the RIAA. I totally disagree with their witch-hunt methods, but morally they are in the right place. Piracy is piracy, and no matter how much you try and justify it with ***** about 'the man' it'll remain a form of theft."
I agree. I don't think copyright should be jettisoned altogether, merely returned to it's original intention and parameters. I can live with a short term "welfare" system, but like I said before, the more they try to turn it into a perpetual welfare system, the more poeple will simply ignore it. Nor should organization or corporation be able to force content owners to turn over the rights to their works permanently. The labels should be allowed to, at most, "lease" that copyright for a few year (3-5 years should be more than enough for them to recoup any investment they made) and then that copyright should automatically revert back to the "rightful" owner - the artist - to do with as they please.
The above wasn't so much directed at you, iconwolf, but at the entire community that seems to think this type of crime is OK.
I understand. I used to be very anti-filesharing and pro-copyright (and I still am to some extent) myself up until maybe 3-5 years ago. But as the industry has increasingly butchered and warped the original purposes and intent of the system it's become necessary to try to find ways to balance that deprivation out. I agree, on the whole, "stealing" content or copyright infringement isn't right, but neither is the what the entertainment industry it trying to do. There is no reason the rest of us should have our rights trampled because a small group feels their right are being trampled (or more importantly that they want to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can protect a steady profit margin). - dingleberry, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1While I do feel they have a right to protect their copyrights the method they are using borders on extortion. Pay us 3k or we will sue you into oblivion. Regardless of how many people they sue the music will still be there available for download. So in essence this tactic is doing nothing but hurting common folk and fattening lawyers wallets.
- Travelsonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1In layman's terms, even a layman's terms they are not the same, it's obvious... the differences are right in front of you, and yet it is ignored by flawed logic.
"copyright infringement is still theft. You're taking goods without paying for them, which puts it on a par with theft...."
Why in elementary school was it taught with people LOSING things ?
Because in layman's terms, payment or lack therefore is not the focal point, and we know it, we just don't realize it.
Legally: Theft requires loss, not a lack of payment.
You are arguing circular logic, arguing points that can be equally aupported against you. - Travelsonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1IGNORE ABOVE POST
The layman bases it on flawed logic, why is it that we are taught about stealing with examples where people lose things?
Because that is, in my opinion, the real definition, and payment or lack therefore is strawman.
Repeating it over and over again does not make it true,
making appeal to emotion or other logical errors onmy makes you lose,
it is wrong, but it isn't theft.
Just because it makes a noise, has feathers, and ***** everywhere doesn't make it a duck. - ronygenius, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1RIAA i hope you get sued back to the stoneage
- ren1999, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I figure that the film and television industry has large investments in our internet providers. That means they are already earning money from the file content. If the internet had no files, we wouldn't need broadband connections.
That makes the RIAA and MPAA greedy for wanting to not only charge us a high price for a broadband connection, but also charging us per download. -
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is