What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
77 Comments
- darkened, on 10/11/2007, -3/+107Glad to see atleast one judge is willing to stand up on this reign of terror brought down upon college students, children, grand parents, people who do not own a computer and even the deceased by the RIAA.
- mookieXL, on 10/11/2007, -4/+104It's ***** THE RIAA! All caps.
- PleaseJustDie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+85the only phrase on digg where all caps is not only allowed, but enforced.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+83Judges are dealing blow now? What is this world coming to?
- antnee3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+49The RIAA has scared the artists into thinking that they need them. We gotta support artists in direct ways, bypass all the bottom-feeders, and convince the artists that the RIAA is a power-hungry, self-serving, money machine serving its own interests more than those of the artists it purports to protect.
- aliengoods, on 10/11/2007, -1/+50This is an issue for the supreme court. That's why the RIAA is afraid to go to trial. If they win or lose and the appeals escalate to the supreme court, then things could go either way. Once the supreme court tells the RIAA their tactics are BS, then they're screwed.
- numbered, on 10/11/2007, -4/+35No, it's gotta be shaved.
- MKautz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+27Although this is good news for the state of New Mexico and it's residents, what are the odds that other judges follow? I think that some most definitely will but as it mentioned in the article, citing New York as an example, many judges don't see eye to eye with Judge Garcia on the issue.
- schoate09, on 10/11/2007, -7/+30***** the RIAA.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23Well now other judges will have a prior ruling they can cite instead of actually standing on their own cowardly feet and making a stand against the RIAA.
All it needed was for a single domino to fall... - NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21Headline should be, "RIAA Attempts Underhanded Legal Tactic, Judge Prevents Blatant Abuse of Law"
- therealgeddylee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20Is it just me, or does hearing news regarding the RIAA just raise my blood pressure? I'm frankly sick of hearing about it. I'm suprised they're still going after these people. I mean, clearly it's not working, and they're just pretty much guaranteeing that all these people will never, ever buy a CD again. They've ***** themselves. Jesus christ, you don't sue your own damn customers!
- Frankie4Fingers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15Someone really needs to stop blanket lawsuits. The RIAA should have to, just like other poeple, prove that there was a infringement instead of just suing anyone who happens to have an IP address and connect to a song. They should have to link up actual person to an actual stolen file.
I thought I had heard of a case where lawyers in Calif were going around finding restaurants that were violating some obscure health code violation and mass suing them, offering to settle for 5k a pop which would save costly litigation but in the process it kinda worked like blackmail and they were prosecuted for filing frivolous lawsuits. Isn't the RIAA doing the same thing? Suing tons of people and offering a settlement just to make come coin off of it and to scare others rather then working to fix the situation. - antnee3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13They've proven to the tech-savvy that they don't have the imagination to come up with a new (and definitely much better than the old) business model.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13I think most artists already know this, but they're too scared to try and make it on their own, despite evidence to the opposite effect becoming more commonplace.
- santeria49, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Yea the real issue is that the bloated music companies are having a tough time adjusting to the changing way of doing business. At the end of the day, they will each have to adjust or die... you know, like companies in every other industry on the planet have to do.
I have never understood how the RIAA thinks that they are exempt from economics... if people aren't buying your *****, looking in the mirror at how you run your business is a good idea. Just beating people over the head and trying to force them into doing business your way is kind of a bad idea.
Sure, piracy might be some of their problem, but, ever since the days of cassettes, illegal sharing of music has been very common. Pirates will pirate whether it is easy (modern day torrents) or hard (tape-swapping, BBS's, and other methods of the past) Maybe some of the honest, music-loving people just aren't buying CD's because there isn't much good music coming out and albums are $15-$20 a pop - even though the cost of recording music and distributing it have both fallen exponentially. - JlmAWP, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13This whole RIAA downfall thing is working out quite nicely....just at an incredibly slow rate. It's a shame that we can only address the problems with their legal methods once they decide to ***** someone over.
- AriaStar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12An ex-parte hearing is one where only one side gets to present evidence. You wouldn't like it if I went to court to get info on you, and not only were you not notified, but you had absolutely no chance to present evidence on your behalf as to why I shouldn't be allowed to know your info. However, the tricky thing here is that the RIAA can't otherwise get the info. And the judge will know this, that the only way to find the identities of the kids is an ex-parte discovery (a discovery is an order for information, different than a warrant, more similar to a subpoena).
Seems to me that the judge is already siding with the kids by blocking the RIAA's efforts to find out who they are. - tandonmiir, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12I recently bought (gasp) my two CDs for the year, both of which are unaffiliated with the RIAA. I'm doing my best to do this.
Keep up the fight people! - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Judges dealing blow.. what is this world coming to?
- fack0, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10I definitely agree. But, as you know, many of today's artists are too much focused on the money rather than the art itself.
- SpoBo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@fack0: true. It'll be a big blow to gangsta-wannabes all over the world. But as long as you have fans they'll probably buy your music. And if the artist actually gets money from records sold (instead of record companies and RIAA) they'll have to have less fans. Also, let's face it ... if you hate paying for music now there is just no way in hell that you'll pay for music at a later point in time. Unless all music becomes DRM free and cheaper.
The whole album concept sucks by the way. It takes ages for it to produce and come out (and SO much money)... and then when it's out, the world has changed so much that your lyrics are either irrelevant, completely passé or that your fans dislike your new style. So why investing so much money in a single album. Why not just make a single track every time and spread the love immediately? It'll make artists record label independent, fans happier since they'll probably get a new track once a month or so and the artists will have a more steady cash flow (& generally more cash) + much more feedback from their audience. To me the music business is just doing everything wrong!
Thankfully there is something like iTunes. But it has it's flaws (paying for RIAA + record labels with every purchase). I'd MUCH rather just pay the artist + a small fee for Apple for distributing it. And that's it! If every artist would make 30 cents on each song and Apple 10 the world would be a happy place (RIAA/Record Label-less). - Hobofuzz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@RobN
I normally don't do this, but
***** YOU.
The record companies are the real criminals here. We aren't stealing from artists; the artists' labels are stealing from them. - NakedDemon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Exactly. Since this such a new legal issue, and many states have never approached it, any judge's decision or case law is influential to the judges in different states.
- Travelsonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+51. ad hominem... and you call us idiots?
2. Assumption of guilt is not proof of guilt without evidence, and get the ***** crime right will you? Theft is not involved here, unless you really are just trying to troll.
3. No matter what crime they are accused of, they should only be prosecuted IF FOUND GUILTY and ONLY TO THE DEGREE DEEMED REASONABLE. Remember, punishment fitting the crime. - returnofajedi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Someone seriously needs to step up and cry "Extortion!!!" here...
- trapilales, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7They're all in it together. Artists, labels, the RIAA ...all of them.
In fact the artists and labels love the RIAA, because they love having a this separate seemingly disconnected organization that absorbs all the hate and loathing of the public, and then they, (the artists) can point and say "see...it's not us".
In fact IT IS them. They're all part of the same industry, where the only goal is money. Do you really think that Justin Timberlake or Snoop Dog (or whatever crap kids listen to these days) are really in it for the love of "art" ?
They ***** their own mothers to get where they are, do you really think they would think twice about taking you to court for "stealing" their music?
This is the perfect strategy for them...buy a nasty bulldog that bites anyone what crosses your sidewalk, and then complain to the people it bites about how much you hate that damn bulldog...meantime you keep feeding and encouraging it to bite more people.
Don't be fooled. You wanna get rid of the RIAA stop buying music from any artist or label that's associated with them. Period. Steal it if you have to, but don't give them any more of your money. - skizotd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Support RIAA free artists. You can find out which albums are associated with the RIAA on this site.
http://www.riaaradar.com/ - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Oh the irony.
- moxley, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@antneee3 -
Most artists I've known or spoken to who come from the indie world and have made it to a major know they don't need the RIAA. Most of them hate the RIAA as much as you do - it's part of the industry along with the major labels and is one of the things they have to contend with in most cases like it or not.
They know that they are next in line to be ***** by the RIAA (albeit in a more gentle manner, with some kisses and such included).
They know that the RIAA is all about the big business for the labels, NOT for the artists (though the RIAA sure likes to claim to be supporting the artists, they help ***** the artists out of money in favor of the labels). - cheesegrits, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5The current issue of the Rolling Stone has a very good article on the decline of the music CD. Interesting reading. There was a point where the major record companies and Napster were negotiating on making Napster the official downloading agent for the RIAA. Napster offered payments over a number of years of over a billion dollars. The record companies could not agree on the price and sued Napster out of existence. Thereby, leading to their demise in the near future.
Concerts, videos, ring tones, legal downloads bring in bucks but the artists will eventually realize they do not need a "record company" anymore, just a manager who contracts out the work. Some management companies already do this and Sony/EMI/BMG,etc are laying off 400 workers this week, more layoffs to come. They are signing new artists with agreements for part of the video, concert, ring tone, etc income to go to them. But the bands are realizing, "why do I need them?". - chowdah, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@smurf22
I always though it was RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE ;-] - SpoBo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Exactly antnee3. And with the internet these days any artist can freely (or at least cheap) distribute their music online (no stinking record companies needed anymore). So why even bother with something like the RIAA ? While there should be a mechanism in place to check for the legality of music in homes/schools/clubs/whatevers it shouldn't be this aggressive and money hungry. And if people love the artist's work they'll buy it anyway. Especially if they take off the percentage that the RIAA and record companies get on their songs. It'll be like free music! (well, allmost). Making the RIAA (and all similar companies all over the world) go away will probably create a new generation of artists and consumers.
- Frankie4Fingers, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Lets all hope that this will change law and make it harder for companies to ask for our personal information based solely on our IP address. IP address is hardly an SSN and even SSN numbers are used fraudulently.
- cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Its about time someone hasn't been paid off under the table (aka free trips, cash, bribes, payoffs, kickbacks, VIP Lunches). Someone who interprets the law as it should be.
- Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2*blink*
1) Not proven. Not even vaguely proven. That's what a John Doe suit is. They bring the suit in order to iscover whether or not the found party is a pirate.
2) Not theft, infringement. You'd think you'd know the difference by now.
3) Not 'prosecuted', sued. There's a big difference; if I sue you for being a moron, and win, you don't go to jail.
That's a thought. If only it were actionable to be an idiot. I'd be a rich *****. - sushicombo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The story right before this one was, Treasurer Indicted on Cocaine trafficking. This one was judge deals blow to RIAA. I got confused in a very awesome way.
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"The record companies could not agree on the price and sued Napster out of existence."
Bastards. I can't wait until they die. - numbered, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The problem is that the image of alot of these artists is owned and copyrighted by ginormous record companies. Not all artists are adept at actually recording music, just playing it.
Its the record companies that are a part of the RIAA. The artists themselves dont really make nearly as much off CD sales as they do off of a concer tour. Selling tickets is where its at. CD/DVD Sales and RIAA ***** all goes to fatass record companies.
http://www.music-law.com/contractbasics.html gives a much more detailed explanation - JohnnyXmas, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Isn't it supposed to be undercover COPS that deal blow?
I mean, clearly the RIAA is on drugs, but buying it from a JUDGE?! That's just RISKY! - JohnnyXmas, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Buried for not being titled "JUDGES ***** THE RIAA" (All caps)
J/K - astrotrain, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@numbered
I prefer it hairy... ** queue the Indiana Jones theme ** ;) - 10001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Bands are about music and money... if you want to entertain people full time without expectation of compensation you'll find it a might bit challenging to continue using digg
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4@ RobN, you put the quotation marks around the wrong phrase, it should be around the phrase "breaking the law" not around the word 'trading'
- numbered, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@santeria49
For using 3 different grammatical definitions of the root word "pirate" you deserve an "ARRRRRR MATEY!"
P.S. I totally agree with what you said - CalmLlama, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11. Blanket subpoenas cost the companies that are subpoenaed lots and lots of money in lost employee manpower. The RIAA is just putting the cost of their failed business practices onto other companies.
2. The RIAA is nothing more than an organized cartel of record producers which attempt to artificially inflate and fix the price of music.
3. Congress gave the RIAA the right to subpoena without a court order, and that has never been upheld by the supreme court.
4. The people that the RIAA work for have been (successfully) sued by 43 state attorney generals for price fixing. - 10001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1EITC didn't run around signing startups into a contracts that appealed to greed
EITC killed pirates
the pirates of EITC's time deprived merchants of their goods. To be analogous EITC time pirates would have needed star trek matter replicators.
which is worse? RIAA.. it still exists.. largely because of tolerance.. the very flavor that is destroying USA - arunforce, on 10/11/2007, -24/+25***** BUSH?
- 10001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1(1) RIAA is pushing unAmerican to new heights
(2) in that context RIAA is doing nothing inappropriate... in a free market.
(3) Congressmen who fail their constituents or fail to fulfill most of their campaign promises should be executed. That'll expediently clear out corruption - jason469, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Support the artist directly by going to their concerts. Then and only then will the RIAA realize that they aren't needed and that the artist doesn't need the RIAA to represent them in order to get paid.
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is