What is Digg?57 Comments
- xDynaBlade, on 05/28/2009, -7/+86***** THE RIAA
- trizzleatl, on 05/28/2009, -8/+62The Constitution is a joke now. They might as well stop teaching it in schools, or at least teach it as history only. So many loopholes have been opened that it's original intent has been spoiled.
Money is power. The more you have of it, the more of the world is yours. We choose this, because we all want for money and the things it brings to us.
When we're born, we want stuff. As we age, we want more stuff. We soon discover how we're supposed to get stuff, and most of us follow that pattern (working for the man, earning a paycheck). A rare few of us discover unconventional ways to hack the system and get more stuff. Then you have those of us who understand and/or participate in politics. That's the top tier of "getting stuff". Democracy is a farce. Our founding fathers were just acting like disgruntled employees would... breaking off from the mothership and creating their own company. Them and all their friends and descendants are reaping the benefits of that action. History portrays it as heroic, patriotic stuff done by brave men. The reality is, some people got tired of other people having more stuff than them and decided to do something about it.
Now we've come full circle. - smacksaw, on 05/28/2009, -1/+46I like how he points out the purposes behind the Congress that wrote the Copyright Act. The whole idea of getting a copyright on something that I create, be it a book, song, movie, etc, is not to protect my sales on the market, but to ensure that whoever finds my work knows it is my work. The purpose of a copyright is to make sure that any old Joe can't pick up my book, copy it, put his name on it, and then claim that he wrote it.
(c) smacksaw - Dougman82, on 05/28/2009, -1/+34I like how he points out the purposes behind the Congress that wrote the Copyright Act. The whole idea of getting a copyright on something that I create, be it a book, song, movie, etc, is not to protect my sales on the market, but to ensure that whoever finds my work knows it is my work. The purpose of a copyright is to make sure that any old Joe can't pick up my book, copy it, put his name on it, and then claim that he wrote it.
- Rothis, on 05/28/2009, -1/+20This looks familiar.....
http://digg.com/d1rWWm - chrisinsocalif, on 05/28/2009, -1/+15So it seems the few caught pay the price of many. Sounds unfair
RIAA need to work with technology not against it. They can be putting all the resources of suing people into benefiting from the what the internet offers. Hopefully someday they will catch a clue and realize they will never win. - Dougman82, on 05/28/2009, -0/+12Damn it!!!
- suinmind, on 05/28/2009, -0/+11Has "Unconstitutional" stopped anyone from doing anything nowadays?
- korbandallas, on 05/28/2009, -2/+11Maybe so, but they only got elected because they already had money.
- draculthemad, on 05/28/2009, -2/+10But the fines for speeding are a criminal ( albeit misdemeanor ) penalty.
What hes talking about here is a CIVIL case.
It isn't about "punishment", its about "damages".
The rights holders or their proxies are not the government, and these cases are not criminal prosecutions. - inactive, on 05/28/2009, -2/+10And your freedom of speech has been infringed by frivolous lawsuits too. God forbid you speak out against a big corporation, you'll be sued in seconds.
- Kuci06, on 05/28/2009, -1/+8***** THE RIAA
- atruskot, on 05/28/2009, -1/+8The artists hand over the copyrights for the music when they are signed. So they don't have any right to it, as it's no longer theirs. Same goes for authors of books, movie writes, etc...
Not that I agree with this system, that's just how it works. - xmzx, on 05/28/2009, -2/+9This guy thinks he's a Harvard Law Professor or some *****.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+6"I like how he points out the purposes behind the Congress that wrote the Copyright Act. The whole idea of getting a copyright on something that I create, be it a book, song, movie, etc, is not to protect my sales on the market, but to ensure that whoever finds my work knows it is my work. The purpose of a copyright is to make sure that any old Joe can't pick up my book, copy it, put his name on it, and then claim that he wrote it."
Ref: http://digg.com/tech_news/Harvard_Prof_RIAA_Lawsui ...
smackshaw (circa 2009) - 99XX, on 05/28/2009, -0/+6the problem with this idea is jury selection. They don't select your peers, they pick people that don't understand file sharing or don't use computers, etc. To make them "neutral" - but in the end, it's not neutral at all.
That's happened in numerous cases with RIAA... People on the jury with no concept of what their talking about - some who don't even use computers! - bmatherlyjr, on 05/27/2009, -10/+16While I understand that argument posed, the analogy is not the greatest in the world. The reason why you don't get fined $750 for every mile over the speed limit, is because the local yokel knows that with a fine that excessive, you won't pay it defeating it's purpose. The reason why the RIAA uses the $750 per song is purely a deterrent because they know the federal goons will help them collect at some point or another. In one scenario, it makes no sense to charge outrageous fines, in the other it's still outrageous but you can see how they are getting away with it.
- inajeep, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5Don't forget we need a place to put the stuff then when we go on vacation we need a smaller version of stuff to bring along.
I miss Carlin. - blackninja543, on 05/28/2009, -5/+10Hell yeah finally someone with credentials willing to put his ass on the line with the rest of us to show just what the entire entertainment industry dose.
- JoeHague, on 05/28/2009, -4/+9The (***** THE)RIAA may have hundreds of millions of dollars and high powered legal council, but Anyone who chooses to make a stand against these frivolous lawsuits will have the Full support of the internets and all their resources/
Keep in mind, that while they can threaten you with MASSIVE fines, you can threaten them back with legal precedent/ It would only take one jury of your peers finding p2p to be fair use to end all of their lawsuits/ - suntzusputnik, on 05/28/2009, -2/+6we should pursue a class-action lawsuit against the RIAA
- pagemap, on 05/28/2009, -0/+4Well said.
- skipvt, on 05/28/2009, -0/+4I like the way this guy thinks.
- Suzilla, on 05/28/2009, -0/+4This is how a group called ALAM tried to monopolize the auto industry before it even got out of the cradle. It was made up of a group of businessmen who, between them, owned a number of patents -- one in particular: the Selden patent -- that they claimed were crucial to making autos. Anyone who built or bought cars that were made by "unlicensed" manufacturers were threatened with an infringement suit.
And then along came a guy named Henry Ford who said, in essence "No no, my friend. F*ck YOU!" to ALAM.
The sad irony is that ALAM was formed with the purpose of protecting the technologies behind, and the markets dominated by the ELECTRIC car. The outcome, as we're all well-aware, was the death -- or, deep stasis, anyway -- of electric vehicles.
This has all happened before, and it will all happen again. - TheUngod, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3Umm...no. They want money. Really.
- PaulClayberg, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3Came here just to digg this up.
- chojin, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2Hilarious. ©2009
- AutomaticTLC, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2ARE-EYE-DOUBLE-A.
- gazzigger, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2Brilliant. HAHA.
- chanman201, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2you go harvard professor. defend the little man with your immense wisdom
- burketo, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2"I like how he points out the purposes behind the Congress that wrote the Copyright Act. The whole idea of getting a copyright on something that I create, be it a book, song, movie, etc, is not to protect my sales on the market, but to ensure that whoever finds my work knows it is my work. The purpose of a copyright is to make sure that any old Joe can't pick up my book, copy it, put his name on it, and then claim that he wrote it."
This famous quote, regularly attributed to smacksaw, was actually from a work by lesser known Dougman82, who wrote it almost an entire hour earlier. The common practice of attributing this piece to smacksaw stems from his copyrighting of the work, which had previously been in the public domain. This is yet another example of copyright law being used outside of its intention. - catbeller, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2The RIAA bought new law over ten years ago. Copyright infringement is now criminal, with all that implies. It is no longer a civil complaint.
- InfamousAtheist, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2@PooPoo,
George Bush is no longer President.
That's who you were referring to, right? - joebaloney, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2If they could actually collect $750/song they would be encouraging the hell out of file sharing.
- Inspiron08, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2This article is a duplicate of another given by Ars Technica or TorrentFreak don't remember which one.
- AndrewDB, on 05/28/2009, -2/+4I really hope during litigation they bring up the fact that the artists see /none/ of the money that the RIAA gets during these lawsuits.
- MxM111, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2I do not think that RIAA is actually wants those $750 per song, they do not care if it is actually paid. Their goal is to make it known and to induce terror in public, so that people reduced sharing.
- JoeHague, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1Acting pro se, I would argue that internet savvy peoples are numerous and clearly distinct from those people who are not internet savvy- Therefore exclusion from a pool of prospective jurors must be deemed Unconstitutional under our 6th protections/ (Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975))
During jury selection I would make sure internet savvy folks were selected. It would only take 1 or 2 internet users to sway the jury/ - Roobix, on 05/28/2009, -1/+2How do you diggers pronounce 'RIAA'? Just out of curiosity. Saying each letter is such a tongue twister. "Reeah"?
The RIAA even pisses my mouth off! *****! - eleete, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?cy ...
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?c ... - DrVekk, on 05/28/2009, -1/+2Wouldn't it be great if the opinions, and thoughts of academia mattered? Well at least with Obama in office (he himself an academic) there is hope!
- bmatherlyjr, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1That would be entrapment. :)
- compulsive1, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1Think about it this way- you paid some city worker's wages for half a day. It's how municipalities make up budget shortfalls these days. What used to be a warning, or non-bother offense has become a valuable source of funds.
There is really no difference between ticketing people for minute offenses or technicalities and stealing or robbing.
There is a famous little town in Texas that extorts and confiscates money from passers by, through merely suspicion of wrong doing by the sheriffs. CNN had a couple of reports recently about it. - 7aji, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1was looking for this comment
- InfamousAtheist, on 05/28/2009, -1/+2@gm33,
Your argument holds no water. Speeding is a criminal offense. RIAA lawsuits for "damages" (in quotes because the term's use is highly suspect) are civil complaints.
There's simply no comparison between the two, except that they're legal issues. Two very different legal issues. - PooPooPlatter, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1Look at Obama's record, ya sheep.
- MxM111, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1If you think that $750 is the money they want, your are wrong. They spend much more on layers for the trial. No they want bigger chunk of money, that's why they want to terrify public and force everyone to buy. That in their mind, will create millions upon millions of dollars profit.
- gijoe86, on 05/28/2009, -1/+2I'm not going to allow you to soil the intent of the Constitution, what I consider one of the most brilliant documents ever conceived by man, so easily:
"Money is power. The more you have of it, the more of the world is yours."
Yes, but you make the specious connection between money and government. No matter how much "power" one has acquired, they cannot take a position of authority in our government (see: Ross Perot, Mitt Romney). This is still a government designed for the people by the people.
"Democracy is a farce. Our founding fathers were just acting like disgruntled employees would... breaking off from the mothership and creating their own company. Them and all their friends and descendants are reaping the benefits of that action."
And here, further corroboration for your false claim that the sole driving force for our government has been for those with money to make even more.
You are in fact disappointed with the members of society, who vote for pernicious politicians, or who don't have the initiative to run for government themselves.
Our government is simply a reflection of the members of society. Our Constitution had no provisions for running a perfect government. But they DESIGNED this wonderful republic to allow for its citizens to change its government how it sees fit and to live as freely as possible.
Back to your true concern, the citizens of the United States have never fully realized their "governing potential", which I would define as being fully-informed and compassionate for liberty. Could it be because of their materialistic desires? Possibly.
So don't blame the train when it crashes if the conductor wasn't paying attention.
P.S. you're materialism rhetoric is really an Americentric perspective. Other cultures value education,family, etc. over material wealth - catxors, on 05/28/2009, -1/+1Absolutely right. It frustrates me to no end that people think power comes from money; it comes from demagoguery, and a lot of money buys only a little power.
- sHockz, on 05/28/2009, -1/+1are you ***** kidding me?
/wrists -
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is