What is Digg?85 Comments
- BrettFromTibet, on 02/12/2009, -1/+56"Preventing copying of digital data is like trying to make water less wet" - Some Famous Cryptographer Guy
- shutaro, on 02/12/2009, -3/+38***** THE RIAA!
- TheJalu, on 02/12/2009, -2/+20Time to embrace!
- fasda, on 02/12/2009, -0/+14In this economey?
- psYcon, on 02/12/2009, -2/+16and the MPAA
- Akairenn, on 02/12/2009, -1/+14"Piracy" is a faulty word for "copyright infringement".
Copyright infringement is not "stealing", else it would be called theft.
You sure do love the word dumbass. Pity. I do not think you know what it means. - inactive, on 02/12/2009, -0/+12AAA? They have towed my car quite a few times when I needed help, they are good guys.
- dsmx, on 02/12/2009, -1/+11Companies that put DRM on things have no confidence that the product they are selling has any intrinsic value so they put DRM on it to create an artificial value.
Piracy has forced companies to lower prices, get rid of DRM or at least make it less intrusive and drive innovation in the market place. - CrazySpaniard, on 02/12/2009, -1/+11***** THE **AA
- alpharaptor, on 02/12/2009, -0/+9can i buy a vowel?
- Akairenn, on 02/12/2009, -2/+9@Stallionism:
Sure. If you can manage duplicate my hardware without affecting or damaging it in any way, go nuts.
Wait, what's that? Physical objects and data cannot be compared in this manner? Oh, snap - only a dumbass wouldn't realize that. Wouldn't you say? - PisoMojado, on 02/12/2009, -1/+6But first learn to spell.
- FunnyBoyz, on 02/12/2009, -2/+7thats the name of the game!!
- Redzin, on 02/12/2009, -1/+6Sharing != theft.
- Redzin, on 02/13/2009, -1/+5@Stallionism
The main reason I dispise the concept of "Intellectual Property" is that it limits the potential of whatever it is applied to.
First and foremost it does so by making a false "limit" on the number of available copies, when there essentially is no limit - any data can be reproduced an infinite number of times. This means that less people get to enjoy the subject than what could be achieved.
Secondly, it has a negative impact on inovation. Yes - it does exactly the opposite of one of it's orriginal goals. A great example of this would be The Grey Album, which was a mix of Jay-Z and The Beatles (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Album).
And I would like to remind you that music existed before the recording industry (as is the case with anything that can be digitalized). Stop being so ***** narrow-minded. - wolferz, on 02/13/2009, -0/+4a battle cry isn't about hurting the enemy... but rallying and inspiring your allies
- designerutah, on 02/13/2009, -1/+5Yes, but the intellectual property ON the CD/DVD is NOT real property. Real property has a physical presence. Like real estate, an automobile, or home. Intellectual property isn't real property, so the property laws in the early history of this country were amended and copyright laws were born to cover this new concept of property... one where a person can take a copy, and the owner loses nothing measurable. Property laws were largely based on the idea of scarcity, meaning that if I take your car, you don't have a car to use. Intellectual property isn't that way. I can take a copy of your movie, and you still have a movie, so it's murkier.
Piracy is the word used by publishers to elicit a larger emotional response than copyright infringement... and that's just what you're doing by calling it stealing. I'm not disagreeing with you that if someone copies intellectual property, they are depriving the publisher of potential income. It's just not stealing. It may be potential loss of income, but it's only potential... and that's why this is so difficult for the courts to address. If a person copies a song, doesn't listen to it, share it, or use it, what have they done wrong? There's no loss to the publisher. If the person does listen to it, but doesn't keep it, this is the same as if they listened to the 30second demo clip and then decided against, but did it with the entire song. Only in the case where they listen and keep the song in their library have they actually deprived the publisher of income... and that's where your concept of stealing comes in. But what if they own the song on CD? And just downloaded it as a backup? Or because they don't know how to digitize it? Depending on what their use is, and how the publisher crafted their intellectual property agreement, it may be perfectly fine, or illegal. Or the IP agreement may be unlawful.
Don't make assumptions about it being theft. Theft deals with specific, real property. - Suzpaz, on 02/12/2009, -0/+4Gotta love Norwegians
- wtfhacksDan, on 02/12/2009, -2/+6How about you shut the ***** up.
- baleoutplz, on 02/12/2009, -2/+5A person who also says that something is wrong. Finally
- iceman0113, on 02/12/2009, -3/+6So why didn't Radiohead fail? They made it free to everyone to download in various bitrates on both What and Waffles. In fact, they are still number 1 on Waffles for most Active Torrents of All time. I think they were Amazon's number 1 best selling album for a while also. Do I feel like I'm stealing from them or any other artist? No, because I pay them back through concerts and merchandise, tons and tons of shirts, hoodies, etc. Of course, it's going to be a different matter if Ticketmaster and Live Nation merge, ***** charging a $10-$15 convenience fees on the tickets.
- Surferess, on 02/12/2009, -1/+4"Hug it out!"
- Redzin, on 02/12/2009, -1/+4The difference between what you suggested and sharing a movie on a P2P network is that I don't lose the movie by sharing it.
Dumbass. - nonnald, on 02/12/2009, -3/+6While you're sharing it here's the first place you can go
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/ ...
Dumbass - wtfbatman, on 02/13/2009, -0/+3Hey, man, if you want to talk ***** and be a tough guy about intellectual property then you should hit up Trent Reznor, I'm sure he's dying to talk to you.
How many times have you purchased a CD that sucked donkey dick because of the one song that was on the radio?
I can probably guess: too many. Get over yourself. - Nerys, on 02/14/2009, -0/+3Piracy is wrong. It is NOT theft. Nothing is stolen. That does not make it any less criminal or any less immoral or bad. but its NOT THEFT.
Its Copyright Infringement. If it was theft they would have called it Copyright Theft but the people who made up these laws had SOME brains at the time and realized its IMPOSSIBLE to "steal" copyright at least in the conventional sense.
STOP CALLING IT THEFT.
roodammy44 has it right.
Piracy is wrong. MASS piracy is a form of political or consumer speech. its a way for consumers to SEND a message.
NOW in a NORMAL capitalist enriched consumer friendly system the following would happen when PIRACY becomes a problem.
The manufacturer would FIGURE OUT what they are doing wrong (bad product too high a price etc..) they would FIX the problem and people by and large would RESUME buying or not. Its that simple.
Along comes conversion of the CIVIL matter into CRIMINAL and the DMCA to make it FEDERAL.
ie instead of doing what they are SUPPOSED to do. IE fixing the problem. they are FORCING the problem down out throats.
I was effectively forced to download a copy of Red Alert 3. I HAVE my preordered special edition copy sitting on my shelf. I even bought the pre order "demo" disc to go with it.
I will never "install" that legal purchased copy though because my computer is my PROPERTY and I refuse to RELINQUISH control of my property to EA via Secure Rom. They have NO RIGHT to compel to relinquish control of my PROPERTY to them.
DRM should be ILLEGAL. its THEFT of my personal property.
Piracy when describing the downloading of games is a cute "name" that is not an actual description.
PIRACY on the other hand is EXACTLY what program companies are DOING to the high seas of our computers with DRM. That's REAL piracy on an electronic level.
When are people going to WAKE UP and assert there personal property rights. - inactive, on 02/13/2009, -0/+3They fear p2p because they can't control the distribution system.. ***** happens when your product can be digitally distributed.. Want some value to your content..? Don't make it worthless..
I can get it for free.. right or wrong.. you must convince me what are the added advantages of purchasing your product.. fear of being sued is not an advantage to buying the product.
These people just don't like it when Capitalism doesn't work in their favour. ***** Commies. - HonoredMule, on 02/13/2009, -1/+4"...wonder why they call it intellectual property?"
Just who exactly is the "they" to whom you refer, and:
- what is their legal authority
- what is their financial motivation
- what is their business model's justification for existing
- what have they done for (to) the cultures in which they reside
"They" can call it stinking watermelon rinds for all I care. - Logrusmage, on 02/13/2009, -1/+3The artist gets little to no money from their actual music. They get money from concerts. I'm sorry for not feeling bad about stealing from people who's entire purpose is to sell CDs.
- Nerys, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2That is where you are wrong Stallionism and its YOUR attitude that is partially the CAUSE of these problems.
the IP owners have NO choice have NO SAY.
they want MY MONEY. NOT the other way around. If you want MY hard earned BLOOD AND SWEAT CASH. you need to EARN IT.
You need to CONVINCE me I should hand it over to YOU.
its MY TERMS or the HIGHWAY.
THIS is how CONSUMERS SHOULD BEHAVE !!
Let me give you an analogy to explain this problem. I am choosing names here not for accuracy but for simplicity.
Lets say we have Ford and Chevy
Chevy decides to start raping there customers. Crap products crap terms higher prices.
NOW in a PROPERLY capitalist leaning but consumer friendly market (IE what we are supposed to have ie a FREE market) this is how things play out.
People STOP buying Chevy and Start buying Ford.
CHEVY now faces a choice. FIX the problems and EARN back the trust of there customers or GO OUT of business.
Well instead we live in Bizzarro world.
Chevy BUYS fords and closes up shop. SO we goto to third parties. Chevy BUYS them and "rigs" the legal system to effectively "stunt" them and put them out of business.
SO the consumers decide OK we will bypass chevy and start making our own copies.
SO chevy SUES said Third parties and lobbies for legislation to villify the consumer and FORCE THEM to "eat" there crap.
Sounds pretty screwed up ehh?
NOW lets clarify one more thing for you before I continue the analogy.
When dealing with labels WHO IS THE CUSTOMER? Let me give you a hint its NOT you and me. its NOT the consumer. We are NOT the customer. I will leave it at that for now.
THIS is what our IP industry is doing. the labels have taken almost complete control of the entire entertainment (especially music) industry. they control EVERYTHING from studio to marketing to advertisement to shelf space production stamping and radio time.
They can effectively SHUT YOU OUT of the system if you do not "play ball" on there terms.
They start to "cherry pick" artists and push them exclusively to "maximize" there profits.
They start to realize we can make one hit wonders and add "filler" to the rest of the CD. you hear the great song on the radio buy the CD and wham you just paid $18 for a "single" with a bunch of crap filling it out and your NOT allowed to return it.
SO along comes several key technologies. The Internet and MP3 (ie compressed but good enough audio) remember back then it was MODEMS so a 700mb CD would be a non starter but 40mb of mp3 was JUST withing the realm of doable. ESPECIALLY one song at a time at 3-4mb each. you could get a song in 10-20 minutes !! (back then this was amazing mind you)
Consumers started to fight back. just like with "chevy" with there crap products inflated prices and restricted infrastructure except there was no alternatives. the "labels" crushed bought buried or COOPERATED with all of them. it was deal with THEM or NOTHING.
so the consumers said OH YEAH and said we will do it without you because you see the Internet and MP3 and Personal Computers suddenly made this possible.!
Now a strange thing happened. PEOPLE LIKE CD's they like OWNING it Posessing it. There is not much "possession" going on for a 4.3mb "file" of 1's and 0's on the hard drive. Its just not the same.
as with me and the MASS MAJORITY of others. CD sales for the first time in a VERY long time over a decade SPIKED. They went UP and BIG TIME some 7% the first year napster really took off. Keep in mind back then they would have been tickled pink with a half percent increase ! so 7% was simply massive.
but here is where the trouble started. It was not a 7% spike in the "currently pushed one hit wonder crapola album" they put all there money behind.
IT was "everything else" that people suddenly discovered. Music NOT playing on the radio NOT prominently displayed in store shelves. It was the "little guy" and the "lesser know" guys or the "older guys" that were selling.
people were finding music THEY WANTED to purchase and they were buying big time.
NOT good for labels.
Lets get back to my above statement. WHO is the CUSTOMER.
it makes NO SENSE to sue your customer base. and the labels are NOT doing this.
WHAT you thought YOU were the customer? how naive you are :-)
NO the "customer" for the labels is NOT the consumer. its the ARTISTS.
THEY are the customer and the labels had a STRANGLEHOLD on the artists. RAPING and PILLAGING them. while a few artists here and there scored and "got rich" by and large most artists were in poverty or worse in DEBT to the labels. Remember they own and control EVERYTHING. so there contracts are SERIOUSLY biased. Since the control everything its THERE WAY or the HIGHWAY.
SO whats the problem here? well the combination of the following technologies.
Personal Computers and Home Made CD's
Digital Studio's
The Internet
MP3's (compressed high quality audio of any format really)
These technologies had a MASSIVE potential that scared the living ***** out of labels.
these are SMART people. they can see the writing on the wall folks and LONG before it was even a GLIMMER in your eyes.
They realized that these technologies could spell the END of the label as we know it today.
These technologies would render them OBSOLETE. ARTISTS would no longer "NEED" labels at the level they needed them in the past.
You could make your OWN studio. You could mix YOUR OWN tracks. You could start your OWN website for next to NOTHING (I get a 100gig space with 1TB of bandwitdh at a VERY reliable high quality host for under $9 a month!!!
You could encode YOUR OWN mp3's and put them on your website your fans could SHARE them easily and effortlessly. You could even BURN AND SELL your own CD's and now even STAMPING CD's is becoming affordable!!
ARTISTS would no longer have to limit themselves to the nasty vile massively unfair label contracts. They could strike out on there own.
those LITTLE KNOW artists could get some EXPOSURE that otherwise would never happen without the "golden touch" of the label liking you.
This scared the LIVING HELL out of the labels. They could lose it all.
THAT'S why they went after napster and RIO and the MP3 format in general.
These technologies could FREE artists from the reign of the labels.
Thats why they attack MP3's thats why they attack FILE SHARING. NOT PIRACY but FILE SHARING directly.
that's why they do not want "piracy" outlaws so much as P2P outlawed.
Because its the IDEA of P2P that can EMPOWER the artists with that LAST critical need. DISTRIBUTION. and CHEAP massive widespread distribution.
THAT'S why they are SUING US. to RETAIN CONTROL over there REAL customers. The Artists.
Once you realize how the system works. Once you realize the CUSTOMER is not us but the Artists. Everything makes sense. All the pieces fall into place perfectly and it all makes perfect sense.
You see FREE FILE SHARING is GOOD for the artists. Not so good for a domineering Label that should have NEVER been permitted to acquire so much power to begin with.
Pure Greed.
Hopefully now you understand a little more about this situation and won't just follow the "company line" of propaganda of calling it theft and free loading and entitlement.
IT is a war and we intend to WIN it and so do the artists.
THEY the enemy the labels are ABUSING out legal system to manipulate the playing field.
the DMCA was WRITTEN by the labels and handed to congress with a wad of CASH and told PASS THIS.
Its criminal. - Sethbacca, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2The point is it's not your decision to make. You're trying to assuage your feelings of self righteousness in downloading of music by telling yourself that these people already have enough money. The point is that person a has a product, person b buys the product, person a makes money. In the digital age, person a can have a product, and that product is leaked online and downloaded by people, and person a no longer has that stream of income and has to adapt elsewhere.
I agree that downloading is wrong, but I do it. I think all Dynelol is saying, is stop saying it's right, when it's clearly not. You're clearly using somebody else's work without compensating that person. We are the welfare recipients of the music world, leeching off others for our own benefit. Accept it and move on. - ReeferChiefer42, on 02/12/2009, -2/+4For the last ***** time IT'S NOT STEALING!
Read up on your case history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_Sta ... - PinkyTheWinky, on 02/13/2009, -0/+2Piracy of music is good. More people listen to it the more people attend concerts, the more fans you have etc. I am an amateur musician and I give all my music away for free. Music isn't my day job, but if I could constantly have a crowd it would be. I would be honoured if people pirated my music.
"All digital creators are getting ripped off by piracy." What about radiohead and nine inch nails... Are they getting ripped off?
"Piracy means getting the hamburger and not paying for it." Don't be retarded. You cant copy and paste a hamburger. - Nerys, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2HE IS. file sharing is "public radio" literally and physically realized.
You have no idea how much music I download. You also have NO IDEA how many CD's I buy.
Hell this is a perfect example. the first YEAR I "discovered" mp3 downloads I bought MORE CD's in that one year than I had purchased previous in my ENTIRE LIFETIME. and I am not talking 12 years old I am talking 22 years old and I had been buying my own music for nearly 10years.
I am now 32 and I continue to buy massive quantities of CD's (I think Mp3's by and large sound like CRAP and much prefer to rip my own CD's)
The problem is I am buying the CD's that "I" want and not the CD's the labels WANT me to buy.
all thanks to internet mp3's they have opened a VAST library of music to me I would NEVER otherwise have had access to or even KNOWN about.
We have a blast with the "Billboard Top 100" torrents.
My father and I have discovered so much new and "old" new music its astonishing. We have CD's coming in from Amazon every month. its an addiction now.
Before it was a pain. Never knowing what your going to get NO ability to RETURN something that sucks.
Now that we have MP3's we buy so much more and LIKE everything we buy because we already know what we are getting with our limitless public radio station called the "internet"
our favorite new gadget? Slacker Radio. WOW. I bought one for everyone in the family this Christmas thanks to a great deal on WOOT.
What a service! its like INTERNET File Sharing but you never have to mess with downloading anything. Its radio like it should have been (and like it used to be)
I have a job. My father has a job. and we BUY lots of CD's but its the CD's WE WANT not the CD's the labels want to shove down out throats. - Nerys, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2VERY cool. that should close the door on calling if theft but the labels keep pushing that propaganda.
Wrong YES theft NO. - inactive, on 02/13/2009, -0/+2absolute garbage.. people/companies/Opensource users/universities etc etc.. use P2P to legitimately distribute files..
What they FEAR is the lack of control.. well tough *****.. you cannot control everything on the internet like in real life.. a percentage of your product will always be either infringed/stolen/copied etc. ALL other business's on the face of the ***** PLANET.. who aren't creating digital content.. know this and understand this and take it into account.. but somehow digital creators are more special with special rules that magically apply..
Here's an idea if someone can steal/copy your work in less than 2 seconds.. quit your job and become a builder.. if it is such a big deal..
How many games companies, music companies.. etc have gone bust because of copyright infringement to date.. ABSOLUTELY ***** ZERO! - Lockhart1, on 02/13/2009, -0/+2What is the cut-off in earnings of the artist before stealing isn't stealing? Is it ok to take a persons product without paying if he makes say $100,00 a year? How about a $50,00? Please enlighten us.
- Nerys, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2"I guess you wouldn't mind if I shared your computer than. Dumbass."
No I would not mind at all. Just bring over your matter replicator and make as many copies of my computer as you want.
I will still have my original computer so I don't care how many copies you make. (had to make it apples to apples)
Anything else you want to add you dumbass ? - roodammy44, on 02/13/2009, -1/+3A court would know the difference, since theft is a forced change of ownership of individual property, and piracy is copying of property which does not deprive the owner of their property.
Theft is a criminal matter and piracy is a civil matter.
Not only are they completely different, they are a totally different class fought in completely different courts.
Piracy is way more like a parking ticket than stealing cars and is treated like it in the court systems. - MeccaYdna, on 02/13/2009, -0/+2I love when people yell about the music I've downloaded because the CD I bought got scratched or lost. Or the movie DVD that's been handled so many times that it's no longer usable. Or the independent music or other media that can't be found anywhere anymore. Or the foreign content that sure as hell can't be bought at walmart.
There are plenty of rational uses for the technology. All there is to it. - kamisama, on 02/12/2009, -2/+4You may do so, a court however won't, because even they know there is a difference.
- vozdra08, on 02/13/2009, -0/+1go green. go p2p.
- roodammy44, on 02/13/2009, -1/+2I would say a fortune of $5,000,000 would be the cut off point.
You would never have to work again if you had a brain and money like that.
The rolling stones made $80,000,000 on touring for a year, excluding cd sales, and tax free. Do you feel bad about pirating them? Especially considering they don't give anything back to us in the form of taxes.
Besides, most of the money doesn't even go to the artist with cd sales.
@dynelol
What the hell is wrong with not wanting to give money to the super rich? - Ebacherville, on 02/13/2009, -1/+2Lets see hes with the company and hes all fighting it , leaves and says its useless.. i wonder if he left for personal conflicts of interest..
ARRRRRRRRRRR :) - Nerys, on 02/14/2009, -0/+1PisoMojado your a Dick but that post was hilarious :-)
- OmegaWolf, on 02/14/2009, -0/+1Amazing how a suit's attitude can change when money's no longer a factor.
- reeds1999, on 02/13/2009, -0/+1Control freaks, public or private, have every reason to fear P2P.
- Nerys, on 02/14/2009, -1/+2But thats just it. They should NEVER be able to control what the user does with the file.
When you BUY a song its your PROPERTY. Have people forgotten what PROPERTY IS.
by and large RIGHTS are DERIVED from PROPERTY. No Property means NO RIGHTS. - Nerys, on 02/14/2009, -0/+1Or better stop SCREWING your customers and work for them.
but you have to remember the label situation is an ODD ONE. people never seem to get this.
CONSUMERS ARE NOT THE CUSTOMERS OF LABELS.
THE ARTISTS ARE.
File Sharing - Computers - digital studio's - MP3
these things EMPOWER ARTISTS and REMOVE the need for labels.
People keep saying they are SUING there customers this makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense when you realize the consumer is NOT THERE CUSTOMER.
the ARTIST is there customer.
They wish to RETAIN the stranglehold they have over artists.
once you understand this everything suddenly makes sense.
an artists can sell me a CD directly for $5 and make 400 times more profit from that CD than they do via a label.
the average artists gets a NICKLE or LESS from that $18 CD. - Nerys, on 02/14/2009, -1/+2I guess you missed the other *
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is