What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
85 Comments
- zarvensha, on 03/25/2009, -4/+92Dear Hollywood,
We aren't making money from downloading, we are sharing copies of stuff we have gotten through renting or borrowing from friends.
You wont make any more money by shutting down the Internet.
The only reason you don't make as much as you would like is due to the quality of most of your product. The Dark Knight made money, it was good. The Love Guru didn't as it sucked big time.
Start believing in vision and stop believing in focus groups.
Take a risk, make entertaining art or get the hell out.
Or just keep trying to remake the world the way you think it should be, ie the 1980's.
Welcome to the 21st Century, torrents will never die, and you cant put the genie back in the bottle.
Get over it, shut up and hang on, its gonna be a bumpy ride. - borez, on 03/25/2009, -1/+80This is becoming ridiculous. If you think about it, what the studios are trying to do could be put in the context of suing a rail network because people are carrying pirated DVD on their trains, at the end of the day it's still moving data from one place to another over a network.
- draxenato, on 03/25/2009, -1/+40The last paragraph is especially sinister, FTA:
"Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the case is that according to the studios, as soon as they report an alleged infringement to the ISP, the ISP is now aware that infringement is taking place and is obliged to take action under the law. If it fails to take action the ISP is breaking the law by effectively authorizing the infringement, opening itself up to damages claims. One strike and you’re out?"
Given that criminal (and civil) law is involved here, where's the right to defence ? - Hellman109, on 03/25/2009, -0/+25Heres some background, Im an iiNet customer and have kept an eye on this.
iiNets headquarters is in the same building as the Federal police (FBI equivilent). When they get a notice they give it to the Feds. But the company sueing iiNet dont want to talk to the Feds, and want iiNet to act.
iiNet claim that there is no infringement until its proven, this company is claiming that their say so prooves infringement.
Thats the main parts of it, iiNet want actual proof, this company just wants say so.
PS: iiNet's CEO is publicaclly burning Senator "retardo" Conroy for his blacklist ideas. And he has from the very start. They wanted to join the tests to show how utterly stupid they were. - VodkanLemons, on 03/25/2009, -1/+23You can't shut down the internet. You don't have the access to that switch.
:) - inactive, on 03/25/2009, -0/+21Interesting, so allegations of infringement are now EVIDENCE of infringement.. I didn't realise it was okay for Denmark to spy on the citizens of Australia.. I didn't realise committing acts of war was legal in order to prove copyright infringement.. I don't know why I'm always surprised at how much more retarded these people can get..?
- noisician, on 03/25/2009, -0/+14Only if you accept everything the alleged "IP owner" says as true without any evidence that they own the "IP" in question and that an infringement is taking place.
- diggymow, on 03/25/2009, -1/+14As noted the frightening part here is these content owners basically want the power to decide infringement without trial. Which is really quite scary. No one would even get to defend themselves it's just, oh you've got an infringement notice here's your punishment.
- computershack, on 03/25/2009, -4/+16As much as I am anti-piracy and anti-TPB, it is impossible to argue with a single point of that post. I think it just about sums up everything perfectly.
- boxxa, on 03/25/2009, -0/+11They should sure the power companies too for providing power to servers and computers that are used in file sharing.
- Shazbuckle, on 03/25/2009, -3/+14They probably wouldn't make any more. Because the people that pirate this stuff most likely wouldn't buy it.
The only reason they pirate is because of uncertainty, and what better way then to get it free, then there is no buyers remorse. - Uaedaien, on 03/25/2009, -0/+11The DMCA is legislation from the USA.
In any event this is taking it too far, in criminal law the courts have been defensive of holding some one party to a crime for 'aiding and abetting'. To say the ISP is responsible for the infringement is inherently wrong. - vilago, on 03/25/2009, -3/+13well i guess i'm a 'tard then
- Hellman109, on 03/25/2009, -1/+11And the company didnt spy on iiNet users, they used a PI to deliberatly download information and then send infringement notices agianst him, and sued iiNet after iiNet did nothing.
Australian consumer laws are good though, we said no to Paypal being forced on Ebay users for instance.
and as for "Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the case is that according to the studios, as soon as they report an alleged infringement to the ISP, the ISP is now aware that infringement is taking place and is obliged to take action under the law. If it fails to take action the ISP is breaking the law by effectively authorizing the infringement, opening itself up to damages claims. One strike and you’re out?"
This I totally disagree with, iiNet now know there is an ALLEGATION of infringement.
Otherwise, I will make a copywrited works and put it on the internet and claim no one can watch it. Then allege that every employee, supporter and funder of AFACT downloaded it, send infringement notices and have them wiped from the internet. Because, allegations are fact accotding to them. - deanc, on 03/25/2009, -3/+13Whats 'actually' illegal here is that the content providers expect iiNet to turn of internet users accounts without legally proving that illegal file sharing is occurring.
If the content providers want to prosecute the file sharers then go right ahead..... in court and with proof.
Otherwise....go suck your toe all the way to Mexico.
Cheers,
Dean
http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/afact- ... - fragomatik, on 03/25/2009, -0/+8And iiNet announced the other day that they wouldn't proceed with the "filtering" trial because the concept is so fundamentally flawed, that they would not subject their customers to it, even as a trial.
- bob_the_alien, on 03/25/2009, -0/+8Frat boys and retards need entertainment as well, that's the only reason that could explain Meet the Spartans making money.
- bob_the_alien, on 03/25/2009, -0/+8it really doesn't matter if it's ok or not.
people that only pirate movies or music, would never actually purchase those items anyway.
But what they are doing, is getting to ppl like me, who have been told a movie sucks, and even though I still kinda want to see it, I'm not going to go buy a dvd or pay for a movie ticket, if the movie is a piece of *****. So I'll download it, and I'll watch it, if it turns out I like the movie after all, I purchase it. Seems studios and record labels have forgotten this. I'm not going to pay of POS, however I will pay for quality entertainment, but you don't know which your getting until you've already had it to begin with.
And btw, I've read some of your other comments, stop being a ***** troll and try thinking for yourself for a change. - DeathRay2K, on 03/25/2009, -0/+7Really? You don't realise that Australia and Canada aren't the same country?!
Or maybe you just thought they all follow American law? - Javy42, on 03/25/2009, -1/+8It should not be the ISPs problem... and I appreciate iiNet actually taking their customers privacy seriously.
- WiseGuy1020, on 03/25/2009, -1/+8How many criminal activities are set up by telephone each day? A lot, anyone reasonable would agree. Should we make telcos be liable for what is said(transmitted) over their lines? I mean they are clearly "allowing it continue."
- Remelox, on 03/25/2009, -1/+8I'll say right now that people transport pirated DVD's over the rails and that there is a reasonable expectation that they know this is true. I do not see them doing anything about it because anything that they did do about it would be a huge invasion of privacy to all the law following passengers. To do what is necessary, there would have to be a warrant against specific individuals carried out by law enforcement..
By the same token, you can not monitor the traffic through an ISP without infringing on the privacy of an individual. This should require a warrant and not a simple notice from the media lawyers. They should have to provide sufficient proof to a judge to allow the police to take action, not the ISP. - wolfing, on 03/25/2009, -2/+9Let's face it, the only ones committing a crime here are the pirates. Not the makers of bittorrent clients, nor the ISPs or even sites like Pirate Bay or Oink. This is what the copyright companies started attacking, but the 'social' backlash was too big, they were the 'bad guys' going after grandmas and suing them for $100000. They would spend a lot of money in small lawsuits, take a big public relation hit, and the returns are very small (how much can a college kid or grandma really pay? when she wasn't even the culprit, just her grand-daughter that visited her for summer and downloaded stuff in her computer?).
Now they're trying to go for the 'bigger fish' that really don't have anything to do with anything. I guess they're betting on paying-off government officials all over the world to introduce unfair rules that make no sense (but with a good lawyer/lobbyist, they don't need to be fair or right to pass).
I think it's a lose-lose battle for the copyright holders. - FlareHeart, on 03/25/2009, -2/+8Suing the ISP's for the actions of their users, is like suing the car companies for the actions of the people that purchase the cars.
You pay the ISP to access the "Information highway," and then your ISP gets sued for your illegal downloading of copyright material.
Now compare that to:
You pay the car company (for a car) to use the Highway, then you drink and drive and kill someone. Does it make sense to sue the car company for your illegal actions? No way.
This whole debacle is so twisted and backwards, because the people serving the lawsuits have no idea how the file sharing system works. They should just give up since they have no clue what they are talking about. I'm not saying that pirating is wrong, I just think that they are going about this lawsuit thing from the wrong perspective. - Travelsonic, on 03/25/2009, -1/+7Wow, they sound so certain that the people "caught" are indeed infringers - not just accused. They might want to put the evidence where their mouthes are.
- shutaro, on 03/25/2009, -1/+7YARRRRRR!
- PopcornDave, on 03/25/2009, -0/+6So if I accuse you of murder you should be thrown in jail just on my word? Accusations are not proof.
- scriptcoder, on 03/25/2009, -2/+8"it these movies weren't free, I wouldn't be going to the movies to see them. You haven't lost anything. "
You are not entitled to the movies in the first place. What makes you so special that you don't have to compensate the creators for watching their stuff? - Gibletoid, on 03/25/2009, -1/+7The world needs a satellite provided ISP that is encrypted in the same vein as Hushmail.
The best ISP would be the one that doesn't know what their customers traffic actually is. - nephilimx, on 03/25/2009, -0/+5"Knight made money, it was good. The Love Guru didn't as it sucked big time."
What about meet the spartans and the other dozen crap movies that made money. - inactive, on 03/25/2009, -0/+5Although I do recall a parent trying to sue a gun maker after their kid got shot. I never really followed up on that, but I'm assuming it didn't go anywhere. At least, let's hope to god it didn't.
- Travelsonic, on 03/25/2009, -1/+6So somebody is a 'tard just because they disagree with somebody's pinion, regardless of the reasoning?
Count me as a tard then.
Also, scriptcoder:
" it does not consider ethics and reeks of American entitlement."
On the other hand, the sense of entitlement to profit (as opposed to trying to secure a fair chance of profit) seen by our entertainment industries is equally sickening considering how they take to rediculous family-bankrupting lawsuits, and manipulating our laws. - Shazbuckle, on 03/25/2009, -4/+9***** the RIAA!
- replaysMike, on 03/25/2009, -0/+4I do, and they can pry it from my dead, cold hands.
- AgeofMastery, on 03/25/2009, -0/+4Australia adopted laws pretty much identical to the DMCA as part of a trade agreement with the US.
- Remelox, on 03/25/2009, -2/+6You think the media industry gives a damn about the ethics of pirating? They only care about the profit involved. You think pirating reeks of American entitlement? So do the draconian rules that movie execs would like to implement. If the media businesses had their way, you would be force to watch every commercial on tv, you would not be allowed to record anything, and you'd probably have to pay for every item you watched. They feel entitled to every little bit they can squeeze out of you.
No putting a tv show on your iPhone to watch on the bus unless you pay them for that copy. No making a backup copy of a DVD in case your kid runs over it with a tricycle. No timeshifting over an ad that you have seen so many times that you have either decided to use or not use the products.
If the media companies cared about ethics and not entitlement, they would see that a happy customer is a returning customer and to protect themselves but more importantly while helping the consumer. They would not go after ISPs in an attempt to squash legal technologies, and trust me, they'd like nothing more than to be rid of torrents and the internet even though people like me use it for game updates and NIN music. They're lawyers are flailing in every direction to stop the bleed of profits. The problem is, it isn't about the pirating so much as the increased choice the consumers has.
In the recent past, we had four channels, two screens, and a half dozen radio stations. Now we have 400 channels and more, two dozen movie choices at a time, and enough radio stations to fill most cities' radio dials. On top of that, we have video games and internet entertainment from people who (gasp) don't even make any money. I would not be surprised if we found out some time in the future that more money was made on going after small time pirates (not the Chinese businesses but individuals) that was lost by their thievery. Make more available to the public through ad sales supported internet and allow more viewing options and they might just come out ahead.
Keep in mind, all suppositions about the money involved are off the top of my head. I doubt they are about as accurate as anyone else's considering no one can truly identify real losses due to piracy.
Oh, and Chinese entitlement is worse than American when it comes to pirating. Look at some of the opinion polls on pirating there and stop making the Americans out to always be the bad guys.
(rant rant rant)(pant pant pant) - zingo70, on 03/25/2009, -1/+5I'd spend money to see another Dark Knight in a heartbeat.
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3It's a bit like car dealers being held responsible if a customer gets drunk and hits other cars. It would only make things more difficult for people to buy cars, as dealerships would be forced to perform 'deep traffic inspections' (haha) on customers vehicular usage trends.. It would only be useful in a totalitarian regime schema that trusts nobody, to everybody's peril.
- Tenoq, on 03/25/2009, -0/+3Except in this case iiNet DID act when it received the notices: it forwarded them to the police, who are responsible for such matters. iiNet maintains it is not their place to be judge, juror and executioner for their clients simply based on an unconfirmed allegation by 'big media' with little or no evidence.
Rightly so too. AFACT is just trying to shortcut the legal system - just like the RIAA does in the US with their extortion letters. They can't be bothered trying to prove a case against individual users, so they tackle the ISP instead. Hopefully the judge can see that makes about as much sense as prosecuting road-builders for a drunk driver. :p - Natnie, on 03/25/2009, -0/+3Is that true? If so, that sets a good precedent.
- LostSoul83, on 03/25/2009, -1/+3Do you honestly think the American justice system is smart enough to see the resemblance there? We're talking about the guys who made it illegal for me to watch my DVDs on my personal computer without letting Hollywood put god knows what on it.
- Rodalli, on 03/25/2009, -1/+3How do laws like this get passed? If the majority of citizens knew that their government is forcing ISPs (an industry that has nothing to do with copyright law or police work) to police the movie and music industry's intellectual property for them, they'd be screaming bloody murder.
This isn't the ISP's responsibility, and never should have been, unless Hollywood is paying them to perform this service for them. Basically, the government is saying to the ISP, "Hey, do this guy's job for him, without pay, or else you'll be fined."
Total *****. - Travelsonic, on 03/25/2009, -0/+2I take it this is heavy sarcasm? You need toe /s, or you will (are being) buried into oblivion.
- shark72, on 03/25/2009, -0/+2You make some good points, but unfortunately, the law isn't that simple. I know that we're discussing an Australian case here, but in the US there's a separate concept of "contributory copyright infringement." It's not well-known by many pirates, but unfortunately it's there, and unfortunately the government uses it. A quick description is here:
http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/what_is_contribu ...
"Contributory infringement occurs where someone knows that infringing activity is taking place and either induces it, causes it, or materially contributes to it."
That's why most pirate torrent trackers are based outside of the US. Due to the concept of contributory copyright infringement, TPB couldn't easily operate in the US.
It's similar laws that took down a lot of the major file sharing services. You might remember Kazaa -- they tried to get around these sorts of laws by registering on the island of Vanatu, but since their executives all lived in Australia, it didn't fly. At the time, a lot of pirates made the same points that you have -- that Kazaa wasn't actually doing the pirating, didn't know what was on their networks, wasn't responsible for the actions of their users, etc. -- but it didn't work.
So, be careful. We may not as safe as we think we are. - LostSoul83, on 03/25/2009, -1/+3We both know that EVERY ONE's wireless network is secured with WPA2 and no individuals ever leach wi-fi connections. Thus, if traffic is coming from a given IP, that person is automatically GUILTY.
- snatchmstr, on 03/25/2009, -0/+2It didn't.
- Natnie, on 03/25/2009, -1/+2Why this had 0 diggs when I got to it I don't know.
- FlareHeart, on 03/25/2009, -2/+3The ISP is not providing anything. They are allowing access. Google and Youtube HOST the data on their servers, therefore they have the responsibility to remove it, I agree with you there, however, the ISP HOSTS NOTHING, this means that they are not responsible for what you download since it was not hosted on their servers to begin with.
- LostSoul83, on 03/25/2009, -1/+2I look forward to a day when Internet access is offered by the public, to the public through long-range wireless communications. That way, it would be extremely hard to even find people.
- uknowwhoibe, on 03/25/2009, -4/+5That's not what he said. Nice try, though.
Also, it's aXXo. -
Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is