What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
80 Comments
- taketheleap, on 06/17/2009, -4/+93FTA:
"We want to highlight this problem. We do not wish to censor the Internet but we do want the possibility to make a living on what we create."
I call "*****". That's exactly what you (the IFPI, the RIAA, the MPAA) want to do: censor the Internet. Just can all the ***** and call a spade a spade. - philkav, on 06/18/2009, -1/+41But the pirate bay isnt illegal. Thats wur i get my linux's!!
- physixx, on 06/17/2009, -2/+42Telenor, which is popularly referred to as "Telehor" in Norwegian (meaning "telewhore") deserves credit for their stance against IFPI.
"The underlying problem is that rights holders haven't adapted to the reality of the Internet, according to Telenor." http://www.itworld.com/legal/69411/battle-against- ...
Big corporations talking perfect sense? How bizarre... - ialan2, on 06/18/2009, -0/+35"We want to highlight this problem. We do not wish to censor the Internet but we do want the possibility to make a living on what we create."
But they don't create the content...they just take it from content creators and distribute it. - inactive, on 06/18/2009, -0/+28This is censorship by the back door. Today its pirate bay. Tomorrow it wil be free speech sites.
We need to fight this. - borez, on 06/18/2009, -4/+23Note to the Entertainment industry: Stop trying to ruin our ***** entertainment.
- Myztry, on 06/18/2009, -0/+18@computershack - The difference is quite simple. Their is an unlimited amount of equitable distribution channels for 'widgets' but only a few for music.
The few who control the distribution methods for music form cartels and hold the music creators to ransom in order to distribute their intellectual property.
These agreements with music creators are very much formed under duress. If you don't agree to the cartels terms and conditions then you can't get access to the market and in turn just return for your works.
The music cartels are the equivalent of the troll on the bridge. - pigfister, on 06/18/2009, -1/+17
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate hardware DRM anymore.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the ***** capitalist corporate globalist wankers from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
====================================================================
If payola wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm ...
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326 ... - Myztry, on 06/18/2009, -1/+17The cartels were established before "the world got smaller". They did have a place once upon a time. It was necessary to have the means to 'freight' the works to other locations.
It is no longer necessary. Distribution is trivial - physical or digital. They have lost their purpose.
Now they just use established leverage to become a cost to the creators of the works. - slippeh, on 06/18/2009, -1/+15It's Norway, not US/Canada/etc
- Skye16, on 06/18/2009, -1/+14I'm pretty sure most pirates would admit that, actually. It *is* about getting free ***** (free for us, not necessarily for the people who created it, though). I don't know that anybody ever said it wasn't.
We may strenuously object to being called thieves (as that results in deprivation of property AND profit, not just deprivation of maximum potential profit), and we may be angered by the current state of copyright law, and we are positively apoplectic concerning the "trillions lost to piracy numbers" (I guarantee you that I would only have purchased maybe 0.5% of the stuff I ever downloaded for free. Given an unlimited bank account, I still would only likely purchase maybe 25% of the stuff I ever downloaded, as the other 75% was worth 0$, but wouldn't be worth any amount of money over that 0$. I'm sorry that this skews your obscenely large numbers, but since we're working on telling the truth here, let's tell the truth.)
More truth? The moment copyright term got effective unlimited extensions, you lost any ***** sympathy I have for you. Intellectual Property is NOT an inherent right. We, the people of the US, attempted to subsidize the creation of said intellectual property works by granting a short term monopoly for you to distribute your works and make as much profit as possible. That you continuously paid for legislators to constantly lengthen that term does not mean I'm going to accept it. I may not be playing by the rules, but in my opinion, neither were you in the first place, so that's pretty much how it's going to be between us. I'll happily never pay you a dime, and you'll attempt to ruin my life if you ever catch me. I'm very much so okay with that.
If you want me to have some compassion, go back to 28 years (max), and I'll come back in and be a law abiding citizen. Until then, you won't receive any pity at all from me. Since, in my opinion, your actions are antisocial, I have no problem being antisocial in return. - Niz1, on 06/18/2009, -0/+12Good to know some ISPs are on the customers side, should see a rise in their customers just for principles. I don't torrent but I don't like the whole censorship BS.
- leonidas333, on 06/18/2009, -2/+13Similar thing is happening in Australia where a bunch of media companies are suing iinet for not banning users they suspect of copyright enforcement. All the more power to the internet providers for standing up to these companies
- Jahweh, on 06/18/2009, -0/+11MPAA make me sick
- addikt, on 06/18/2009, -0/+11they block ptb, customers will go elsewhere or use technology to go around it, ssh tunnels, proxies, vpns.
they are wasteing their time, to the RIAA, IFPI, MPAA and the rest of the pro copyright *****, just give up. - boombye, on 06/18/2009, -1/+11"main torrent server"
lols learn how torrents work first retard. - JantjePietje, on 06/18/2009, -0/+10No site is being shut down an ISP is sued for not blocking an existing site.
- Zippo, on 06/18/2009, -3/+12If the MPAA/RIAA/etc had their way, ripping CDs would be illegal and ISPs would be monitoring all the traffic of its customers and blocking all sites that even mention file sharing. Search engine results would be censored as well.
***** 'em.
Besides, trying to block access to TPB would be laughable. As soon as it happened, TPB would throw up a dozen and one ways to help Norwegians get around the block. The block would be rendered useless withing minutes. - inactive, on 06/18/2009, -1/+9So UPS gains the rights to distribute a CD for X band exclusively and in doing so control the financial and promotional interests of the Band for a period of time or until all debts are paid. They did not create the music, name the band, write the songs or play the instruments. They simply agreed to distribute for a fee. The same applies to movies. Funding is not the distributors problem, Movie funding is often private but sometimes public. The creator and artists, directors and so on have a vested interest in the movie. Many directors such as Spielberg will back the costs of the movie paying part or full costs of production. The distributors bare no liability. They are simply advertising and distribution services, nothing more.
SO UPS gets the Distro rights under Debt contract. You actually go into Debt with a company and these companies force teenagers under the age of 18 into debt that a bank would not be allowed to do.
Then Fed Ex allows users to access other peoples files at no cost. some of those files happen to be copies of the CD UPS delivered.
FedEx gets sued for distribution even though it was a client that made the error.
UPS warned FedEx about the discrepancy but FedEx has no rights by law to deny a client a service without proof of the infringement. To do so would mean FedEx is liable under many trade laws and discrimination laws and it is simply bad to treat clients so poorly.
Proof here is not a random thing. FedEx cannot go about pulling phone lines and deliveries based on the words of a single private company. The ruling must be backed with a court order and even in some countries, a judgment in favor of UPS.
So
***** THE RIAA. - Paranor01, on 06/18/2009, -0/+8And they should definitely disconnect your internet as a troll.
- Jahweh, on 06/18/2009, -1/+9SHOOT HIM, HE WORKS FOR THEM
THE STUPIDITY IS A SURE SIGN! - Myztry, on 06/18/2009, -0/+8There is nothing entertaining about the entertainment industry.
- Paranor01, on 06/18/2009, -0/+8It's a troll, don't feed it.
- skinturtle, on 06/18/2009, -0/+8Its like this dude....music isn't for sale anymore. It has value in terms of the artistic merit..and in the fact that we enjoy it but monetarily speaking? Nah. Nowadays it's an advertisement product at an expense to the artist.
Besides..the labels have ripped off more artists than anyone has. - fretslide, on 06/18/2009, -2/+9@GaltShrugged Are you high on ***** and I mean real ***** like dog *****? .
- hardeep1singh, on 06/18/2009, -1/+8Why don't these record companies realize that although piracy has always been there, still they have always been able to make a living or maybe I should say they've always been able to earn a fortune. They should stop wasting their money on such lawsuits and concentrate towards creating good quality music. They would be rewarded for their work and they would continue to make a fortune.
- fretslide, on 06/18/2009, -2/+9Come on dude you are trying to pick up fight with everyone . Now will you just chill down or should I just send you a torrent for Vanilla ice.
- Paranor01, on 06/18/2009, -2/+9GaltShrugged is pro RIAA/IFPI/MPAA & Rebulican/GOP/Conservative & Corporations whom rape & pillage citizens of every dime.
... In other words ... A Troll - Myztry, on 06/18/2009, -0/+7The entertainment industry has adhered itself to the works it trades in.
It may shock you to find this out - but there was music before there was an entertainment industry.
The entertainment industry needs the music. Music does not need the entertainment industry...
If music (works in general) disappeared then so would the Entertainment Industry - but not the other way around.
The Entertainment Industry is superfluous. This is the issue that faces them.
They are a cost to, rather than a contributor of creative works... - EllimistX, on 06/18/2009, -0/+7Yeah, distributing links to content, without having the actual content yourself, is illegal. Oh wait, it isn't. Jackass.
- MWeather, on 06/18/2009, -0/+6"How is that any different to a company that makes a product that it sells for £1000's profit but only pays the workers who made it an hourly wage?"
The recording artists are not employed by the IFPI. This is akin to outsourcing the design and production of a product, and calling it your own. - inactive, on 06/17/2009, -5/+11The IFPI continue to break the law and get away with it.. so what's new.. I guess having making millions off of the works others is okay.. oh wait.. isn't that what they're accusing other of doing.. remember it's only wrong if your not a company with millions to spend on lawyers tying up the courts forever.
- punktdawg, on 06/18/2009, -0/+6So retarded. As a previous digger said... Proxies anyone?
- fretslide, on 06/18/2009, -1/+7Yeah...that ***** remark wa little uncalled for I'll admit it but i won't apologize .
By the way "The day someone invents a technology through which can send a punch over internet that'll be an interesting day" - thesonofdarwin, on 06/18/2009, -0/+5I think you vastly underestimate the users of the Bay. It's not ma and pa types who need help using an automated installer. It's mostly people with an understanding of computers and the internet. 99% wouldn't know? I doubt even a fourth wouldn't know by themselves how to circumvent it and, even if it was slightly higher, there'd be guides up within hours all over the net accessible via a quick google search.
- ChocChunkOaties, on 06/18/2009, -0/+5Who the ***** would be stupid enough to pay them?
- jasalo, on 06/18/2009, -0/+5If we use the same thought as IFPI ....can I ask the goverment to close freeways because some users move drugs thru it? ....yes it is an stupid argument they are using
- Travelsonic, on 06/18/2009, -0/+5". Intellectual property being stolen ..."
Is, by construct of the concept and legal protection wise, impossible.
It is a means to frame a debate and discussion and try to squeeze some relative morals and high horse-ism by the likes of Galt, who cant understand the difference between advocating for piracy and having a different approach to the problem. - acknotSW, on 06/18/2009, -0/+5They see as clearly as the rest of us do that their way is over. From the top down they know that the overall monetary value of IP is going to drop like a rock over the next few years and that means major pay cuts for everybody involved. This is what happens when a new technology comes along and completely changes the rules as digital medium and the internet have. Some people lose their jobs or make less money, others find new opportunities to succeed. The days of actors making 20 million per film and popular band members buying mansions and expensive cars after one hit record may be coming to a close.
No matter how they try to stop it, consumers will be able to completely view, listen, try out any IP before they spend money on it and this (rightly so) scares the living hell out of them. - midbc, on 06/18/2009, -0/+5@GaltShrugged disconnect your brain from your ass
- Paranor01, on 06/18/2009, -0/+4Am I missing something ? Isn't that extortion ?
- hoptilludrop, on 06/18/2009, -2/+6If they block the pirate bay, they should block google as well. its where i find most torrents. just type filetype:torrent (insert file name here)
- ultrafez, on 06/18/2009, -0/+4You're doing it wrong.
- alexkorova, on 06/18/2009, -0/+4Pirate Bay is 'blocked' for me, and I live in Sweden :'( (I've got a Danish ISP though, since I live near Denmark)
(it's just a simple DNS redirection, and it doesn't actually block any of the trackers or anything so it is pretty harmless) - lyonsban, on 06/18/2009, -0/+3Oh and Galt is a twit with one song. Yeah I agree. I digg him down regularly.
I also agree that there is a different approach and the industry better wise up or they are in trouble.
It should be "not compatible with the golden rule". My edit didn't make it in time. - petemorley, on 06/18/2009, -1/+4You do realise these aren't the same 'Pirates' as the ones the US engaged in Somalia, right? Those were actual Pirates.
- Travelsonic, on 06/18/2009, -0/+3Buried and reported.
Come on, telling others to eat *****? tisk tisk tisk. - timothycrash01, on 06/18/2009, -0/+3Judging by his screen name we seem to have a Rand fan. (John Galt is the central character from her novel Atlas Shrugged.)
As a hard core capitalist, Ayn Rand was all about unconditional copyright / property law. (I have no problem with this personally.) She would have definitely been on the side of the MPAA and RIAA.
The funny thing is - Rand thought that protecting copyright, etc. would actually result in innovation and creativity - as it would guarantee profit and thus innovation. But as we've seen from the music and film industry, the least innovative companies / people are those trying to control the internet and digital distribution. They have no interest in innovation or ideas - all they give a ***** about is money. They aren't forward thinking, they don't adapt to new technology. They are stuck in the past - with no solutions or resources to move forward.
NBC / Universal are one of the worst perpetraters of this 'protect our content at all costs' - and they are on the verge of bankruptcy. Their TV shows, movies and music are bland and generic. Their online presence has been all but invisible until this year. They hide behind the principles of capitalism when it comes to money - but when it comes to the ideas that capitalism requires to stay competitive and relevant, they fail miserably.
There seems to be a direct correlation between how a company treats the internet, and how successful they are. If you embrace it and understand it you'll do well - if you go to war with it, you'll fail. - Travelsonic, on 06/18/2009, -1/+4Well Galt, if IP were a sentient being, you'd probably ***** it to death.
- eleete, on 06/18/2009, -0/+3"I love intellectual property."...
But you hate creativity and art, and believe without profit there is no use for either. Thus you are constantly obnoxious, disgruntled and therefore dugg down. Keep your mind and eyes closed, your wet dream of a business/welfare plan will soon end. -
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is