What is Digg?210 Comments
- Greengoo, on 05/18/2009, -5/+148I'd like to believe the judge will listen to this Expert Witness. But I don't think he will.
- spritom, on 05/18/2009, -4/+114Argh!
Curse you Digg Power User! You've submitted another story that I find interesting and digg-worthy! - masudnets, on 05/18/2009, -9/+88I ♥ Harvard!
- mbraynard, on 05/18/2009, -0/+60Given that he appears to also be Sith Lord Palpatine, he may have more powers of persuasion than you think.
- Schralpy, on 05/18/2009, -6/+59how is mr babby man formed?
- inactive, on 05/18/2009, -12/+63Before anyone starts a flame war about Mr Babyman, I would just like to say that I am sick and tired of this whole debate as to whether he's a good guy or not. These discussions on power-digging and the constant moaning have really diminished the "Digg experience". Sure it's annoying to some that he gets lots of Diggs, but please, can we just get on with enjoying the submissions, without the ranting and moaning?
If anything, all I want to know is:
How was he formed? - MrRtd, on 05/18/2009, -1/+52As far as I know, people have always shared music & other forms of copyrighted materials. If the "corporations" succeed in stopping P2P file sharing of their published content, people will just share there music in other ways, like the way they did before the internet.
- MrAwesomeMan, on 05/18/2009, -0/+45Does anyone else thinks he looks like Senator Palpatine?
- BlackJackJester, on 05/18/2009, -0/+38The Four factors are:
1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Now, 1 and 4 can possibly be argued in favor of fair use, but 2 and 3...I can't see it happening. - Subduction, on 05/18/2009, -2/+36"Nesson has been floating this idea to his supporters for some time, but the reception has been frosty.
"Lawyers like Lawrence Lessig, a huge fan of 'free culture,' remixing, mashups, and reduced copyright protections, wrote in an e-mail to Nesson that 'of course [Tenenbaum's conduct] was against the law, and you do the law too much kindness by trying to pretend (or stretch) 'fair use' excuses what he did. It doesn't.'" - Khast, on 05/18/2009, -4/+38On a second clause.
How about 25 movies that you legally own the DVD/BluRay, but you don't want the hassle of re encoding? (The movie industry still says this is illegal, even though it is considered as fair use.)
Just saying. - Frostek, on 05/18/2009, -3/+36So, say how is having 500+ downloaded movies that you haven't paid anything for still considered "fair use"?
Just saying. - ChiffX, on 05/18/2009, -0/+31Oh you.
- rmxz, on 05/18/2009, -1/+29So, say how is reading 500+ books from the library that you haven't paid for still considered "fair use".
BitTorrent == a very convenient library. - consonance, on 05/18/2009, -2/+27They need to do way instain digg> who promot thier babbys storys. becuse these digers cant frigth back it was on the news this mroing a digger in ar who had sumbitted her three storys . they are taking the three storry back to new york too lady to rest my pary are with the father who lost his shouts ; i am truley sorry for your lots
- serif69, on 05/18/2009, -1/+25It all makes sense now: Charles Nesson is aXXo. It certainly explains where he's been.
- AngelBunny, on 05/18/2009, -0/+19sharing is caring
- XenoSNK, on 05/18/2009, -0/+18You go, Emperor Palpatine.
- ileftfark, on 05/18/2009, -2/+20I am personally a fan of piracy, but I don't try to pretend that it's all perfectly legal. There is a difference between Fair Use, and amassing entire libraries of copyrighted content for free. But what I do like about this is that this guy (who is from one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the entire world) is taking an extreme stance on file-sharing. Whether or not you agree with him, this type of rationale is absolutely necessary to counteract the other extreme that agencies like the RIAA/MPAA/MAFIAA/IFPI have taken. These companies' lawyers have argued that punishments of jailtime and/or fines up to *$10,000* per infringement are reasonable. The *****? Maybe having more people on the extremes of both sides will bring us to a rational medium. Or maybe (even better), the judges and juries side with this Harvard guy, which will once and for all force content distributors to utilize a modern business plan that allows consumers to get what they want - no DRM, quality formats, portability, a la carte style picking and choosing (this applies mostly to cable television companies), and a fair price for the product being sold.
I won't be holding my breath, however. - inactive, on 05/18/2009, -8/+25Well I guess it does actually fall within fair use because you don't up-load or down-load from a single source.. it's like photocopying a legal amount of chunks from a book title until you have the whole book from lots of different books on lots of different photocopiers... hence you've broken no law and have copied the fair use chunk from multiple people.. of course the RIAA and the bribed judges won't see it like that.
- warriorpoetist, on 05/18/2009, -2/+18"if 'individual noncommercial copying results in no provable actual harm to the copyright harm holder,' then actual damages would be zero—and so would statutory damages."
Damn right. - rmxz, on 05/18/2009, -2/+18Next he'll tell us it's OK to read a book in a library without paying a per-use-license-fee.
- Frostek, on 05/18/2009, -1/+17Well having a couple of minutes of a film probably wouldn't be a problem, but I'd argue that fair use had ended long before the point when you take 50 or so of these two minute fair use bits and just happen to *knowingly* re-assemble them back into a pretty damn identical copy of the original!
- Subduction, on 05/18/2009, -2/+17It is also a core principle of the law that you cannot legally achieve something indirectly that is illegal to do directly.
It's why the law has people called "judges" -- people who love to say "nice try Sherlock" to people who think they've "technically" outsmarted the law. - bannor78, on 05/18/2009, -1/+13This guy is the modern day Clarence Darrow. he is protecting this kid from losing everything for violating laws that were bought and paid for by the plaintiff.
so here is what you need to ask yourself.
Are you willing to give up part of your freedom to protect one of Americas biggest industries?
i say no - Diggnabbit, on 05/18/2009, -0/+11Actually, he's someone's UNpaid attorney. He's doing it pro bono.
- reaper527, on 05/18/2009, -0/+11i honestly thought the same thing when i saw the picture. i'm glad i'm not the only one who saw the resemblance
- kevro, on 05/18/2009, -4/+15Every one but you.
- inactive, on 05/18/2009, -0/+11Interesting. There is no set "legal amount" you can copy from a book under the fair use doctrine. There is a commonly cited "school exception," but it is not codified in the law nor is there set common law on the subject.
If you were to go to 100 libraries and copy 5 pages of a 500 page book at each library, you would have a very weak argument that your copying of the book was "fair use." - Gunegune, on 05/18/2009, -4/+14You could use the argument, "If I wouldn't buy it, or rent it.... What's the harm in downloading it?"
The movie studios wouldn't make that money anyway and it's not like you're stealing a physical copy of the movie which took labor and raw materials to manufacture. - amdforever, on 05/19/2009, -1/+11I ♥ Natalie Portman (who attended Harvard)!
- inactive, on 05/18/2009, -1/+11exactly, there's no theft involved - copying is not stealing or piracy, it's copying.
- grbruner, on 05/18/2009, -2/+11Slippery slope
- bannor78, on 05/18/2009, -4/+13oldest form of copyrighted material BOOKS
oldest form of p2p sharing LIBRARY.
nuff said - inactive, on 05/18/2009, -1/+9Wait. Does that mean we're all mothers?
- shark72, on 05/18/2009, -3/+11You win the prize, Subduction.
Courts have much better ***** detectors than many people understand. Many "clever loopholes" are laughed out of court, because somebody already thought of it and tried it 50 years ago.
File-sharing enthusiasts do themselves no favors by banking on loopholes that don't exist. Lessig is right; Nesson is wasting his time. - Shadowlight5, on 05/18/2009, -1/+9Very good question indeed. I've wondered that myself. How IS mr babby man formed?
- Diggnabbit, on 05/18/2009, -0/+7Yes. It is.
- P522, on 05/18/2009, -5/+12In my opinion downloading is not piracy. Piracy is stealing a ship's cargo and holding it for ransom or selling it off. "Piracy" is the worst metaphor for file sharing, and just because the word rings a bell with lawmakers doesn't mean it should apply.
- Ziggy7273, on 05/18/2009, -3/+10Smoking weed is a bad analogy, Johnny is not doing anything wrong; at least no more than Hank drinking his beers.
- bilbohicks, on 05/18/2009, -0/+7Your analogy fails, as does any that equates downloading music as "stealing" (in the traditional sense of the word) because you are not "taking" a unique object. If you were to walk into that dealership, make a copy of the car and walk out then it'd be more accurate.
- inactive, on 05/18/2009, -0/+6"Now witness the power of this fully functional battle station!"
- benologist, on 05/18/2009, -3/+9Course it has. Fair use is a set of rights you get when you purchase a license, it's not something you get just because someone made something digital.
Fair use does need an overhaul but it's never going to happen while people are spouting crap like piracy should be fair use. - Frostek, on 05/18/2009, -0/+6That's not what's under discussion though. What's under discussion is if this counts as fair use.
- flyingmeteor, on 05/18/2009, -1/+6You're doing it wrong.
- beesaretasty, on 05/18/2009, -0/+5If I were to download any content like this, it would merely be to educate myself on film making, which I am interested in pursuing as a career.
- kalvinb, on 05/18/2009, -1/+6http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00 ...
506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement.—
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
---------------------
It depends on what those bits are. It's as dumb as the "skateboarding in not a crime" shirts. No one has ever been arrested for skateboarding. Except when they do it where they are explicity not allowed and when they damage public property. - P522, on 05/18/2009, -0/+5Well, Lessig definitely was not forceful or bold enough when he argued before the Supreme Court on Eldred v Ashcroft. Time to make a more deliberate assault on the four fair use factors. Make the courts clarify the factors some more, more in favor of the public. That doctrine has only been around for about 30 years anyway, since around the enactment of the 1976 Copyright Act.
- TexMexRex, on 05/18/2009, -1/+6Here is an article about a Harvard Proffesor who defrauded his students and friends of $600,000, and handed it over to Nigerian Scammers who were going to give him millions: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/31/harvard_pr ...
I'm just pointing ot that harvard has it's share of doushebag lunatics. - whahaa, on 05/18/2009, -2/+7so the analogy works.
file-sharers aren't doing anything wrong either! -
Show 51 - 100 of 214 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is