What is Digg?64 Comments
- admirabumblebee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+67Now that they actually have to 'prove' something.. there goes all the RIAA's cases.
And I was just starting to enjoy the constant flow of ironic humour too :( - Travelsonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29Score one for common sense and reasoning. ^_^
- darkened, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I've been waiting for a judge to say this because with all P2P clients this is beyond impossible to prove, it could only ever be proven with BitTorrent. Even with BitTorrent you could only prove they distributed some random pieces of the file and then the question would need to be raised if data can be copyrighted or if only the whole file is subject to copyrights. Furthermore I've always wondered about the implications of the P2P tracking firms downloading files from the defendants to prove they were actual recordings either they were authorized to download the files and no infringement occurred or they were ones that deliberately broke the law and should be subject to the maximum $150,000 per song downloaded DMCA fine.
- Nevrast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19@ronin2040
I don't care at all if the RIAA is buried completely. The RIAA and the current copyright system really has nothing to do with content creation. They've made a business out of it, but that's not what its about.
There was music before the RIAA, if the RIAA and big record companies ceased to exist right this minute people would go on making music, because let me tell you something - people who are real musicians make music because they want to and love making music. Music does not depend on the business; the business depends on the music.
In fact, much of the great music being put out today isn't championed by the RIAA at all and comes from independent bands who aren't really make that much money but are doing it for the love of what they do.
Furthermore, we're in a position right now technologically where we could completely severe our ties with the record industry and create a wholly new system of music production and distribution. I can record amazing sounding music in my basement with minimal equipment and distribute it online. With the right kinds of mechanisms for artists to get known online outside of the mainstream channels (this is already happening) we could have a totally new system that cuts out the middleman who takes all the money.
So I say go ahead, destroy the RIAA completely. If anything we'll just lose a bunch of crap that they brainwash people into liking. Music will live on, just like it always has. - Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21@darkened
"Even with BitTorrent you could only prove they distributed some random pieces of the file and then the question would need to be raised if data can be copyrighted or if only the whole file is subject to copyrights."
Dark, you have hit at the very heart of the case: is the service of random pieces of a file "distribution" of copyrighted material?
I think the answer will be yes. - Dested, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17"I believe that children are the future... unless we stop them now."
- OnymousHero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14IANAL, but: If this does go to trial and the judge rules in favour of the defendant, will this mean that all the people who "settled" with the RIAA can counter sue and get their money back?
- ronin2040, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20@darkened
"Furthermore I've always wondered about the implications of the P2P tracking firms downloading files from the defendants to prove they were actual recordings either they were authorized to download the files and no infringement occurred or they were ones that deliberately broke the law and should be subject to the maximum $150,000 per song downloaded DMCA fine."
Actually, if your distribution was unauthorized, you have still broken the law. As owners of the content, they are free to do whatever they want with it, be it uploading, downloading, or whatnot. That right does not extend to you.
As for your comment on bittorrent, thats an excellent point, but I worry about crippling the RIAA TOO much. The consumer's rights need to be protected, but we cannot allow piracy to run rampant or people will simply not want to make their content available at all, for fear of piracy. The RIAA HAS to have SOME recourse if people illegally make their content available, and if that bittorrent argument were to hold, that would cripple any chance of defending their content.
People need to keep in mind that the RIAA is wrong in how theyre excercising their rights, but that doesnt make their POINT wrong. - ST47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Cool. A smart judge. That's the first step - next step will be to clone him and use the clones to replace the armies of monkeys that we call "judges"
- baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11the RIAA, or any business for that matter, is powerless to millions of angry and ingenious teens on the internet..resistance is futile
- mulling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Ronin2040: "The consumer's rights need to be protected, but we cannot allow piracy to run rampant or people will simply not want to make their content available at all, for fear of piracy."
This keeps coming up, and I'd like to take the opportunity to call ***** right now.
Even if copyright laws were abolished, it would do practically nothing to stem the tide of content being produced. Why? Because if you don't produce anything, you don't exist. The artists who are popular will be taken care of always, regardless of how many dollars their album sales generate.
The record labels *don't matter anymore*. Their job was to foot the bill (and the accompanying risk) for distribution. Guess what? Distribution costs next to nothing now. Recording an album costs next to nothing. The labels are trying to sue their way back to relevance, but it's like demanding that the tide stop on your command.
If, starting tomorrow, every man, woman, and child quit buying music and instead pirated, it wouldn't make a difference in the production of music. It would make lesser-known artists famous, make megastars less famous, and people who "didn't make their stuff available for fear of piracy" would simply drop off the map.
Artists make art because it's in the very fabric of their soul to create. The true artists don't give a ***** about the money, and it's an insult to them to claim otherwise. - ml7667, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Can the RIAA actually prove that file sharing is hurting artists?
- pyrexia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9So, basically, defendants will now be innocent until actually proven guilty? What a novel concept!
- Jeffrey903, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Sweet. Now if this really becomes a precedent, the RIAA will basically not be able to prove anything. Just because a person is sharing a file that has a file name of something like "Britney-Spears-Toxic.mp3" (or some other bad song name) does not prove with 100% certainty that the audio actually contained within that file is the actual copyrighted song. Hell, I could rename a picture that I took with my digital camera to "Britney-Spears-Toxic.mp3" ....that doesn't make it the copyrighted song.
- vernsan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It says sound files, what If i were to name a blank text file to a mp3 like "blank.txt" to "artist-title.mp3" would that still be considered a sound file even though theres no data?
Pretty much what the guy above me said ^^^^^ I posted to slow! - Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"That's the first step - next step will be to clone him and use the clones to replace the armies of monkeys that we call 'judges.'"
I believe the more precise term is "turd-tossing assmonkeys." - ST47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Even THAT may be a little too flattering...
- pgraf1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This just in the RIAA has dropped all suits against alleged file sharers.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They don't care if it hurts artists. They believe that it is a violation of their copyright and if they can get any cash out of it they will sure as hell try.
- AlexSuvorov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ Ronin, are you actually making the leap to comparing file sharing with murder?
- ronin2040, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"and the judges would accept this"
Cite? Unless I'm mistaken, the RIAA cases almost NEVER go to court, and when they do, its not as if the courts are going along with everything the RIAA says. The RIAA needs to procure evidence like anyone else, and I cannot remember a single instance where they've won in court with little or no evidence. - djdocremixed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3But it is NOT facilitating a crime. It is hosting a file on the internets (btw - this could be argued as being the PURPOSE of the internet). They can not prove that you didn't host the file so that you could access it on the road or in a cybercafe, or any number of other things considered "fair-use".
Oh, and "intent" only works in criminal cases - not civil cases. Thus the judge's ruling.
Better example: If I have a chainsaw that I keep in my backyard (.mp3 on my website) and someone steals it and uses it for other means, then how am I legally responsible for any of it? - reed311, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You guys shouldn't be using the word "illegal" or "legal" when referring to these cases. The RIAA is suing people in Civil Court and are not/cannot bring charges against a file-sharer. The burden of proof is slightly different in a civil case, only requiring a "small tipping of the scales" in favor of the plaintiff. Secondly, jail time is not possible in a civil case. (unless found in contempt for not paying awarded damages)
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Remember when people used to "steal" long distance phone service. I'm old enough that the default DOSA passwords for some widely used PBXs was useful knowledge for a poor college student in my day.
Today, that sounds as quaint as being a horse thief. Reason is, of course, everybody with Skype is getting phone service for free. And if you pay for it, it is too cheap to steal. I haven't hacked a phone system in over 15 years.
Make music too cheap to steal. Say $0.05 per cut. Problem solved. - ehmjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3TAKE THAT RIAA! HA!
- CowDefender, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm likely 7-10 hours to late to join in on this fun, but I'll talk to the wall if need be.
It frustrates me greatly that music is cheapest the first two days of release (as cheap as $8 per CD), then climbs to about $13 and there hangs for the rest of time (until I buy it used from amazon).
DVDs start around $20. They crawl down over time ($12ish), and for whatever reason sometimes plummet to $5.50 at Wal-Mart.
Why does music get more expensive over time? The first week is when the most sales are.
I think Ronin did a pretty great analysis on much of what was said, except for a large oversight.
Ronin seems to believe if there was no money in the creation of content that there would be no content.
This falls flat for a great many reasons.
1) my friends and I create content because it's a release. We write, draw, compose, etc. We want to make more, and we don't do it for money. There are people far more passionate about content creation than we.
2) look at the open source community. They create content, often for free.
3) even the RIAA losing ALL policing rights to the content wouldn't not lose them (or the artists) their money. There are bands that are independent that release all of their content for free, and people wind up buying their disc anyway. I can't remember the name of that British band that released their three albums for free on their site, and made it big (fame and money), but they exist. One of my favorite bands (Roger Clyne & the Peacemakers) is independent, and he says he is fine with people getting his music for free. In an interview he said he wants people to listen to him. He wants people to come to his shows (where he'll make some money from the door). He wants them to enjoy themselves, and if they want they can buy a CD, share it with friends and bring them next time.
3b) RCPM's first independent release sold a sixth as many copies as their first major release (as the Refreshments), and they made more than double the money. I've heard the same for Peter Gabriel when listening to TWiM.
My solution: making unlawful downloading a ticketable offense. $2-3 per track on top of a minimum fine of $15 (and the removal of any infringing material from your HDs). This could be policed like crazy, people get stung and factor it when pirating, RIAA doesn't look like quite as bad of a group. Slaps not mollywhomps.
I despise the RIAA and look forward to the day that bands produce out of their own homes, or local bars that have talented 'sound guys.' Bands distribute by way of mySpace and iTunes. Bands get promotion from sites akin to digg and mySpace. Promotion is really all labels do well, and I hope there will be defections. A new breed that flee the majors and start boutiques that topple the monoliths.
Goodnight wall. - jgreenberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now if only they had to prove each song totalling that $1.65 trillion lawsuit against AllofMp3 I just read about...
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/AllofMp3_com_Sued_for_1_65_Trillion - rettix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The ultimate solution to all of this:
Quit damn charging $20 for a CD, if CD's were like $4 or $5, there would be no need to pirate stuff. I personally had rather have the actual CD, case, and the stuff that come with it. But honestly, that's all its really worth to me. You could just waltz into the store and grab the CD you been wanting with spare change. Sure the companies wouldn't make billions but they would still make a ton more than the average person. Problem solved.
Same goes with professional sports, as much money as being made, and how much they are able to pay the freaking players from tv ads and what not, sporting events should be free to attend. Aww, Peyton won't make 50 mil, just 45 mil this year /cry (just throwing numbers out there, it is prolly more than that with endorsements). - mementh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I am sorry man you were in my friends list but not your gone.. why? The stupid comments you making..
One The RIAA has no reason to exist except to protect the company.. not the artists...
Two The tactics they use even if they have been "legal" are dirty... so dirty it makes SONY'S ROOT KIT look clean.
Three.. I just don't agree that trading online in piracy..... Its a diffrent age... In my early days I remember making MIX tapes of songs i wanted to listen to often... Under the RIAA thats wrong..
I remember given some of those tapes to friends..
Under the RIAA is wrong for me to make ANY copies for ANY reason.
Yes the net lets me share with untold millions without care who they are.. but i am still telling them hey.. "i liked this music and i think you would as well" by sharing it.
What the RIAA was MADE TO DO, was deal with those that make copies and SELL THEM ILLEGALLY... the SAME with the MPAA.. NOT THE CONSUMER!
Why do I think that the RIAA and MPAA should not care about me and you sharing... because in the end we help sales.. we show others good music.
In the end those that make illegal copies and SELL THEM are hurting the ARTISTS by selling a copy to someone who IS WILLING TO BUY A COPY.
Its just easier to get 4k from a housewife/family then it is to make ANY money shutting down a illegal record distributor in ANY country. - wm2010russ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2a "preponderance of the evidence" isnt really that hard to proove.
- gwinerreniwg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@reed - Most insightful comment I've read yet! Said another way, when the local or federal prosecutor starts bringing charges, the whole argument changes.
- gwinerreniwg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone who's used the old Kazaa and apps of their ilk knows these programs made it far too easy for a newb to share their entire hard drive. Just because a poorly designed UI made someone's legal, private copies of files available, doesn't mean they had intent to distribute. Because Kazaa was installed, one arguably at least had an intent to RECEIVE, but that is a different argument.
- djdocremixed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You see - that's just the thing. In the child-porn scenario, they would have NO reason to arrest anybody, because no laws would have been broken. Would it open up the indivuduals to investigation? Sure! Do I think we need to get pedophiles off the street? Of course! But do I think that people who have not actually broken a law should be arrested and charged? No I do not. If they had rights to arrest everyone who went to this "fake kiddy porn" site, then they would have rights to sue anyone who ever looked at www.napster.com, www.kazaa.com, www.bittorrent.com, et. al.
- kuribo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ronin2040
Absolutely. In both cases, there has to be some form of punishment. I just meant that the person sharing the file should be punished based solely on that one point, just like I would be punished for shooting you, and that factors out of the person's control (people downloading the file, or doctors saving you) shouldn't be taken into account.
I'm as against the RIAA as anybody, but if you're voluntarily making this material available, you should face some punishment. I've done it myself (I don't now), and regardless of your stance on the whole debate, you're still breaking established laws. - gwinerreniwg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As silly as some lawsuits seem, civil courts allow a legally binding way for individuals and corporations to work out their disputes without having to resort to extortion or violence. If people paid half the attention to the judges they elect instead of the politicians, this country would be a much better place.
- lemur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think music labels should prove that they're not retarded.
- dpkp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3thank you digg lawyers. "preponderance of the evidence" means anything greater >50% probability. the real significance in this ruling is the phrase "actually shared." This means that you aren't liable for copyright infringement until someone downloads (offering for download is ok). But if you think they can't get evidence that you "actually downloaded," you're wrong.
- JrGhoull, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this stuff has been sooo crazy. The RIAA has up till recently been using their own people to say whether or not the people did in fact do something illegal with their music, and the judges would accept this. Its amazing how much stuff like this happens in court, but it happens all the time between businesses and individuals for one reason or another. I also cant believe how far the RIAA is taking this. I mean, they should be happy enough with the fact that they so far have just been able to sue anyone, whenever they want, like crazy, but then to do stuff like try and sue a dead guy? and saying its illegal to get the sheet music? those guys are huffing from the wrong paper bag if u ask me. i just hope that this stuff gets sorted out as quickly as possible, so that at least the RIAA cant be the bully its been so far.
- kuribo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I agree that, from the uploader's perspective, making a file available to be downloaded and actually having that file downloaded are the same thing. I would think that, if a person is willing to make a file available, THAT'S the problem, not whether or not anyone actually downloads it or not.
But, from the company's perspective, I think that the illegality is whether or not the file is exchanged. IANAL, but it seems to me that by sharing a file (i.e. making it available) you're not actually breaking the law, because no copies are being made, and no one is getting something for free, until someone else actually downloads it.
But I agree with you, the fact that someone is willing to share it should be no different from someone who has actually had their files downloaded. I always thought this could be applied to other crimes as well; the person's intent is what matters, not outside factors. If two people are both speeding down the same road at night without their headlights on, and one happens to hit a pedestrian while the other doesn't, are they really guilty of different crimes? Both had the same intent and the same willingness to break the law, one was just unlucky enough to have a person get hit by their car. Just like if I'm willing to shoot you, should I be punished differently based on whether or not doctors can save you (attempted homicide?) or not (murder)? But I digress... - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Ronin
The recording industry has no inherent right to stay in business. Candle-makers, whalers, fletchers, etc. are all out of business. The recording industry is about 100 years old. It may be technologically obsolete because the only way to protect it is to be too intrusive and litigious. Keeping it in business may be as ridiculous as keeping buggy-whip makers in business by requiring that we all travel by horse-drawn carriage. - djdocremixed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1However in the e-bay case - copies were made BEFORE the auction went up. Lets try again - suppose you have an e-bay auction for an item. You intend to steal that item as soon as the auction is closed. If noone bids, then you don't steal the item, and no crime has been committed.
- mementh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am saying that the RIAA has overstepped it reasons for being and that they should not go after the normal consumer..
It IS a new age.. where we have seen "don't download this song" given away for free... and "white and nerdy" given away for free.. yet Weird Al is if i recall was top on VH1's music video list..... (which if i recall bases on record sales and some user choices?)
So the old idea that you MUST buy is no longer there.. yes it is anarchistic somewhat. but consider i bought the Weird Al Album... only one i have bought.
I have only bought TRACKS of songs i like for a long time
My Point is and always will be... even in its highest point P2P file sharing never hurt music sales.. if anything it helped them...
There Is though a proven fact.. that there are illegal sellers of the music. And that people are BUYING from them...
now.. to me.. whats worse..
1 million people trading a few files a few POPULAR songs.. and more then likely 2-4 out of 10 will buy the track online or the CD.. (200-400k profit if buying the song itself)
1 million people buying the cd for the equivilent of $4 USD on the streets of hong kong or some other city... (-4 million )
which should a company be concerned with.. ???? IMHO.. i would take the free advertizing.. maybe find a way to do it more though my own sites ( advertizing revenue though banner ads ) and find a way to give the consumer a good deal..
And i would go after the shops that are illegally selling..
makes more sense in my pocket book - shrewdape, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The harm or damages resultant from filesharing and music downloading has long been a question, and an important one, in this debate. Would anyone have a moral problem with music downloads if artists actually benefited from the phenomenon?
Harvard Business School and UNC Chapel Hill released a study that shows much of the RIAA's fears are vain ones.
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf
The whole notion behind copyright holds that producers (or more likely their publishers or financiers) need an incentive in order to foster and encourage creative output. But don't musicians still create even when it's just for fun? Why are there starving artists? Aren't they supposed to be mercenary? - ronin2040, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@kuribo
"Just like if I'm willing to shoot you, should I be punished differently based on whether or not doctors can save you (attempted homicide?) or not (murder)?"
Excellent point, but can we agree that in both cases there should be punishment?
Going back to the original scenario, perhaps simply making the file available should be punished less severely, since no damage was done, but the intent was still there. Do you agree that in both cases there should be some punishment? - djdocremixed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No - its like saying that there's nothing wrong with having a tiger-trap on my property - unless someone comes into my property and falls in it (bad example - but I can't think of another one). In other words, as long as no COPIES are being made from your source, no COPY-right is being infringed upon.
- ronin2040, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2mementh, youre missing the point
Are the RIAA douchebags? Yes. Theyre using the law in entirely the wrong way, to punish the wrong people, using dirty tactics (although I would say that the Sony rootkit is equally as bad).
HOWEVER.... you are breaking the law. By "its a different age" do you mean that because a certain number of people want something for free, stealing should be legal? Dude, if you take away any financial incentive for people to create content, there will be no content. Thats right up there with people arguing that Windows should be pirated because Microsoft is full of douchebags, or that it costs too much. Guess what? They can charge as MUCH as they want, its THEIR content. Whether theyre ***** or not has NO bearing. Whether or not you would have bought the song if you hadnt downloaded it has NO bearing. There are laws, and ethics, involved that you cant change simply because you wish to.
You also argue that the RIAA was designed to stop people from selling their content illegally--are you saying because one person CHARGES for the illegal song, its worse than giving it away?
What also has no bearing is whether the RIAA recompensates the artists. Thats a seperate issue, to be dealt with seperately. Part of their purpose is to protect their content. When you download music you did not buy, you are breaking the law. If you want a single song, use iTunes, or Rhapsody, or any of the other online legal music download sites. You dont get to shape the law to fit your desires--if you think the law should change, we have a system that allows you to suggest that change, and vote on a representative that you think will initiate that change. This is NOT a democracy, the mob does NOT make the rules--our representatives make them.
Your statements suggest that we use a system that is akin to anarchy--people doing whatever they want. - compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It doesn't matter if it hurts them or not because really it doesn't hurt the artists, it hurts the RIAA since they're getting 95% of the profit. Furthermore the RIAA is the copyright holder, not the artists.
- liquidboy2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry if ive miss-interpreted the ruling but doesnt it mean that
1) if i put the copyrighted material on my computer which happens to be online IM NOT VIOLATING COPYRIGHT..
2) if someone finds the file on my computer (via online means) and i didnt entice them to the share then IM NOT VIOLATING COPYRIGHT
3) if ive actually advertised for people to download the song from my online share , IM VIOLATING COPYRIGHT!
If this is correct then i can put all my copyright songs on my computer, into a shared folder thats available online. Then i can listen to it anywhere i want via online means (streaming content). I can do this without copyright violations as long as i don't invite other people to access my shared files. If other happen to find my shared files then i should be fine as long as i didnt invite them...
I hope ive understood it correctly! - ronin2040, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Im not arguing that the RIAA should be able to outlaw P2P entirely, or even have any say in what technology is legal and what isnt. But I think requiring them to actually RECORD a transgression is a bit much, given that they would have to break the law to do that (sniffing a network that's not theirs).
You could argue that they could simply download the file themselves, thus proving their case, but things like PeerGuardian make it awfully difficult.
I think you run the risk of swinging the balance way too far towards the consumer, leaving the content-owners impotent. There needs to be a balance between the two... -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is