What is Digg?54 Comments
- daspacepirate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+64Well, I guess if music can't be free, then speech can't be either.
- danakin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+26It's almost as if the RIAA actually WANT us to hate them.
- Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Your post has been noted as being hostile to the RIAA. This is not allowed by the laws of man and God. You must remove your hate-crime post or be squashed like a bug.
Cordially, Counsel for the RIAA. - defslyr4, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19RIAA... they just don't like free anything.. I wish we didn't have lobbyists in the government. It would be nice if our congress people listened to the people instead of lobbyists. I suppose that they are people too, but they shouldn't have more say
- Elbart, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21Brilliant analogy.
- boobees, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16RIAA Paul can suck it
- luchid, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16Gahhhh!!!
**Furiously downloads dozens of albums**
I feel better now... - amunimanghi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14I can't believe he was comparing illegally downloading music to losing a pair of trousers.
- williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Let's make sure to exceed expectations.
- Shaman760, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12I was interviewed by a music newspaper in my city (large western US metropolis of about 3million folks). Being that I derive my income from playing music, I'm kind of in a position to speak on such things:
"The industry as we know it is killing itself off due to greed and mismanagement. Musicians will soon be responsible for their own destinies, and record execs will be on freeway off-ramps with 'Will ***** Artists for Food' signs. The RIAA and its recent shenanigans are testament to that -- what does one do when they can't breathe, their oxygen/lifeblood gets cut off? They thrash about and lash out at anyone and everyone. Frank Zappa would be proud of the situation."
That's what got published. ***** the RIAA. They need to die. - Iolite, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Yay his blog is back up. When this story was previously submitted, the link was dead. Good to see he's gotten his service back.
Also, ***** the RIAA. Why on earth do they think they have a right to stop this man from sharing his opinions with the world? - gleipnir, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Another day, another story chronicling the stupidity of the RIAA, big surprise.
Lack of proficiency in English aside ("It might not be nice to be sued by the RIAA and potentially put in a position of being made bankrupt; neither is issuing redundancy notices to hard working staff."...Snuh?), his arguments lack any semblance of being logical. "You might argue that your professional blog is your opinion alone, however you are interwoven into the views and policy of the University of Central England and I think that puts you in an exposed positon Andrew."...because you can't express an individual opinion in an "exposed position? By being a lecturer at a particular university, you are automatically "interwoven into the views and policy of" a university?
Just like most of the other stories of this nature involving the RIAA, it'll probably end up amounting to nothing. If the lecturer is unlucky, he may have to deal with....a complaint to the university? Uh-oh.... - daftman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9There are two points I would like to raise up here.
First there is a large difference between those who create art to make money and those who make money to create art. People like Van Gogh, Beethoven, Da vinci, Bob Dylan, Mark Twain are true artists. They are artists and creating art as a main drive of their life. Making money out of it is a side benefits. Very same way how programmers create open source because they love programming. Artist who getting paid measly dollars should ask themselves, are they in the profession to make money or are they in the profession to make art? Being an artist/musician should be self-less profession.
Secondly, they should also question why the majority of their profit goes to the music industry instead of the artist themselves? Michael Jackson is the only man in history who could argue successfully to receive $1 per cd sold. Most artist only see something close from 10cents-30cents. After the platinum and factoring in all the promotional cost and music videos, that's the reason why they are earning bare minimum wages.
So instead of playing the pathetic trump card of the artist has to eat too remember that there is alot of bureaucracy and mouth to feed before the artist see a dime. Now I'm sure their fans would love to pay directly to the artist themselves but until that happen most people that enjoy music are poor. Combine that with the notion that art, music, literature is for mankind, people would find ways to obtain those at minimum cost. - johnnyklaj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7haha
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8956330@N05/556063377/ - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I didn't know you can download copyrights now. Is nothing sacred!
- troydoogle7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7There website is here http://www.heavymetalrecords.co.uk/revolver/
and here is their myspace page: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=33226637
I am going to write them a letter next week. Perhaps if you let them know that this behaviour is unacceptable, they will change their tune.... - HairyFotr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6tobias1482:"Why should you expect to get their work for nothing? They need to eat, too. And most artists, even if they're on MTV or working the circuits for other media, are usually making just better than teacher salaries."
I don't see even the most respected college profesors live in huge mansions or drive Maserati or Ferrari (ot both). Or be half as respected as stars in society for that matter, even though they might as well have invented the technology that enabled the stars to become rich in the first place...
And I see absolutely no reason for stars to make more money then teachers...
If an artist is good, people will come to their shows and pay good money for it... - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6also still on the front page
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Grant_Robertson_of_Download_Squad_to_the_RIAA_Bring_it_beeotch_w00t - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6quoted: "Well I am in regular contact with the RIAA and both they and the IFPI are subject to hate mail as a consequence of hubcap, our litigation against *consumers* for illegally downloading our copyrights."
so they consider people they take legal action against to be consumers. meh. - williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5They have an unfinished Web site on a sub-domain and this guy Paul Birch is thumping his chest like some industry bigwig? Sounds like Paul Birch is delusional, or he is some kind of fake "indy" shill. Show him the path to enlightenment: Paul.Birch@Revolver-e.com
- williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Right on, brotha! I mean, we need to keep an open mind that the recording industry isn't populated by *****, frauds, and an altogether subhuman species, despite the overwhelming evidence it is.
Here is some critical thinking for you: What does it say when an industry cartel that depends on discretionary spending on an entertainment products is hated about as much as the Nazis? Who is at fault? - ccanni1028, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4We have Digg Up and Digg Down buttons. Tobias' reply deserves the creation of a new Bitchslap button.
- williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Copyright is not like real property. It is government granted. And it expires. None of your other rights are granted by the government. Copyright is a weak right. Disrespecting copyright is a valid expression of disgust for illegitimate laws like DMCA, and mafias like RIAA.
- Ratteler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"What are you prepared to do?"
It's pretty clear that this terrorist organization known as the RIAA has no intention of ever stopping their crusade on free speech and our other rights.
The question is... what are you prepared to do about it.
You can't "steal" the music from them, because it's not theirs in the first place. It blongs to we the people, who give the artist and investor a right to profit from it FOR A LIMITED TIME. "Illegally" downloading music is like sneaking into the library and reading the book in the stairwell, then claiming you got over. The problem isn't what you're taking, it's the bully trying to make you pay for the book you read on the way out.
We need to educate people to their public domain right that is being pirated by music and movie corparations.
We also need to make it unsafe to think like this PAUL charater.
Paul needs to know that because he is against free speech, and for the terror group the RIAA, he give up the rights he wants to take from others. He needs to give them up first since he thinks it's such a good idea, and he needs to be given as little choice in giving them up as we are. - williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4There are a number of bands and musicians that produce their own albums, on their own dime. Some are old acts that the labels are not interested in anymore but that can make a fine living off a dedicated fan base. Some are quite new, like Gnarls Barkley, which is Cee Lo and DJ Danger Mouse. Danger Mouse did the famously "illegal" Grey Album.
There is no reason to buy RIAA music. - cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Theres only one way to change things.. and that is to not every buy a single music cd again, unless its directly from an artist themselves. until the artists go to a studio for an hourly fee (giving up no rights) ONLY PAYING for the service of recording. Then they can sell their own cd's and videos on demand on their own website and still make a decent living. They can also high quality video recordings of their live shows too.
BTW? Does anyone know of any artist, who's doing this now and making a buck? - DiggDagger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3http://torrentspy.com/
http://mininova.com
http://isohunt.com
http://thepiratebay.org/
Sorry.... I unconsciously type random torrent sites' URLs after reading RIAA news. - dasunst3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I do not think that this lecturer gives up his right of free speech simply by being affiliated with a (possibly funded) academic institution. That is a violation of the First Amendment. Any attempt to silence academics is a threat to the entire community, and I hope the lecturer does will help us get rid of this threat.
- corwin155, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Riaa should actually read what people are saying rather then attacking them heh
- gleipnir, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2No, I understand his intent perfectly. His wording is terrible, though. The first part, for example, could've been infinitely more readable if worded along the lines of "It would be unpleasant to potentially go bankrupt as a result of being sued by the RIAA...", etc. He also makes two completely unrelated points in the sentence...the first part is directed towards the blogger ("It would be unpleasant [for you] to be driven bankrupt"), but the second part is about how it would be unpleasant for the company to issue redundancy notices ("neither is [the company having to] issue redunancy...)
If you go through, you can find dozens of little grammatical, spelling, and stylistic things like that. It might be nitpicky, but the e-mails sound like they were written by a high-schooler, not by a board member of an international organization. If you're going to threaten someone (even a hollow threat like this), you should at least appear competent, not incapable of proper English. - Ratteler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I actually GPL or CC most of my stuff. So... I do "give up my right to profit off of my work" as an artist. Of course that's my choice as an artist, author and inventor.
The Author, Artist and Inventor should be able to choose NOT do that as well. It is why the Constitution protect THEIR rights as individuals, and not he rights of a corporations who may license work from them.
The RIAA/MPAA campaign has NOTHING to do with the rights of Authors or Inventors. EVERYONE knows this.
"We the People" DO give them the right. Under the Constitution of the United States of America, all law is by, of, and for the people. That includes Copy"right" law. We exercise our democracy through elected Representatives in a republic, but those Representatives are charged with, and take an oath to, serve "the will of the people they represent" to the best of their ability. All law comes from the will of the nations people.
The only "Work" done by the RIAA/MPAA is the "work" of making sure they control the media at every level. Specifically access and distribution, so they can lure artist who don't know any better into signing over their rights on the off chance that the little inner circle will decide to promote them through the network of "We the Peoples" airwaves.
Name a single song written by the RIAA. Name a single THING written or invented by the RIAA. You can't. The RIAA is not an individual. It can no more be an author or an inventor than a sting holding a pencil over a piece of paper can. Therefor how can it possibly claim protection under Article I Section 8 Line 7?
They are abusing the privileges we have granted the "Author and Inventor" in Article I Section 8, Line 7 of the Constitution even though they have NO CLAIM TO THEM.
What's more, the RIAA/MPAA are using terror tactics to enforce their will on the American People.
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of *force* or violence against persons or property *to intimidate or coerce* a government, *the civilian population*, or any segment thereof, *in furtherance of political or social objectives.*
With the exception of the word "unlawful" there is no question that the RIAA/MPAA's tactics meet this definition, and the "lawfulness" of the RIAA/MPAA's attacks have yet to be tested in court because when ever some one fights back, they drop the case rather than loose and set a legal precedent.
Abuse of process is considered illegal in most states. Yet because of both the cost of pursuing justice, and the fact that our courts have been purchased by the spending power the RIAA/MPAA have accumulated, we have never been able to organize a class action action these terrorist. A fact that further undermines our faith in our own court system.
All work is public domain from the moment of it's creation. We the People have allowed the Author and Inventor a limited time (13 years when the Constitution was signed and it took a month to send a letter,) the opportunity to make a profit so we can reward them for enriching and informing our society. Because an educated electorate it necessary to a functional democracy.
I'm not from "Cuba" you traitor. I'm from "Boston" where we make tea in the harbor rather than put up the lack of representation you and your kind are selling. - ccanni1028, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's back up.
http://newmusicstrategies.com/2007/06/14/an-ifpi-bpi-board-member-writes/ - McTendo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Bitch got blocked. Third time I've seen you spam this garbage.
- slapthemonkey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree with daspacepirate. Very well said..
- jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@ williamdyer - "There is no reason to buy RIAA music." -- that is, unless you like the music of an artist that has chosen to sign with an RIAA label.
- wigren, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Do you have a license for that logical thought?
- jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Sometimes the artist doesn't have a choice ... a non-RIAA label may not make an offer.
- revisrev, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@daft
Yea, your argument could be extended to everything we consume. Every industry has its red tape and its mouths to feed. I do feel like the RIAA is way out of line nearly all of the time and that the industry does need to evolve to face the market of today. That doesn't mean that I think artists should view their profession as selfless. They can view it however they want... that's for them to decide, and they have the right to resent thieves. - CamperBob, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1There are PLENTY of artists who are not signed to RIAA labels. Please consider visiting http://www.riaaradar.com before buying any music in the future, and decide for yourself if giving money to these guys is worth whatever they're giving you in return.
- williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Yeah, it's a sucky choice the artist made. The RIAA is a mafia. A boycott is the least they deserve.
- Niteryder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1RIAA sucks plain and simple, they criminals and just to make their ripoff self more miserable, RIAA = Rectal Injection of American *****
All lawsuits should entertain the notion of a very large class action suit to put them out of business and MPAA and any others that are like them, worthless money grubbing ways, for people to try and make a paycheck, by taking advantage of people - fjc8, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I hope the source blog is down for some stupid reason like bandwidth overage.
- ccanni1028, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"The industry as we know it is killing itself off due to greed and mismanagement. Musicians will soon be responsible for their own destinies, and record execs will be on freeway off-ramps with 'Will ***** Artists for Food' signs."
Yeah, but how far off is this? It's happening too slowly. - drlha, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3I read that sentence a few times over and don't understand why you think this guy has a "lack of proficiency in English"? What don't you understand, redundancy?
- jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1@daftman - you said, "Being an artist/musician should be self-less profession."
Why? Or, more to the point, why should you get to decide if someone's chosen profession should be selfless? What do you do for a living ... should it also be "selfless?" - jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1So, if an artist CHOOSES to sign with an RIAA label, they're wrong for doing so? Isn't it their choice?
It's kind of like when someone sells their house ... they can do it themselves, and handle all of the details themselves, or use a Real Estate broker ... the seller knows up front that they'll be paying the broker a percentage of the sale price. If they choose to do so, it's their choice. Would you choose to not buy a house because the seller chose to sell through a broker? - revisrev, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0*DISCLAIMER*
I don't like the methods of the RIAA any more than anyone else on digg.
*END DISCLAIMER*
And you Ratteler, should give up your right to profit off of your work, since you are willing to take that right from others. We the people don't give them the right to profit, they sell us license to enjoy their work until such time as it becomes public domain. Go back to Cuba. - mbthompson, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2dupe, a few stories down the list
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Yea, because if someone posts a bunch of emails, they could NEVER just have made them up to get free publicity. Let's see...who do I want to get harassed by and get 15 minutes of fame... Critical thinking is dead.
- tobias1482, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1"He's got every right to say what he thinks and he shouldn't have to put up with the whinings..."
Um... that's sometimes what happens when you say something publicly...
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is