What is Digg?53 Comments
- krustie, on 07/30/2008, -7/+55***** THE RIAA!
- smacksaw, on 07/30/2008, -3/+40The music industry tries to pass off dreck to us as music. They use payola, music videos, retail product placement - whatever they can to confound consumers into buying/making popular music that no one would ever listen to if they knew better.
This is par for the course with their legal tactics.
They are trying to pass off ***** technobabble as real evidence. They use corrupt investigators, flawed methodology, break laws to collect evidence, abuse the legal process, etc., again to bully defendants, confuse judges and jurors and basically pass off an abuse of the legal system as legitimate. And if people understood what they were saying and doing, they would never stand for it.
They basically adapted their successful music marketing scheme to the law. And the reason it is working in the legal arena is the same reason a song that goes "Umbrella, ella, ella, ella" over and over again can sell three million singles and countless more records. A repeated dumbing-down assault until people just give in to the "ella, ella, ella", sing along and buy it. Just like judges are buying these legal idiocy. - palewook, on 07/30/2008, -2/+18don't support the riaa. dont buy music from the big 4 labels.
- gdog05, on 07/30/2008, -3/+15New York Country Lawyer, we all thank you for this. Educating judges about the RIAA/MPAA's tactics is THE way to end this ridiculous blanket lawsuit business plan of theirs.
- b4cheung, on 07/30/2008, -3/+15Ray Beckerman for President!
- Halenthal, on 07/30/2008, -0/+9Ray is a true hero, and not only a nice guy for standing up to the RIAA, an all around nice guy even though he's a lawyer. He's a regular /. poster also.
- hexydes, on 07/30/2008, -4/+13While this is a FANTASTIC criticism of how the courts are currently being manipulated by the RIAA, as well as a well-constructed recommendation of how they should handle such predatory cases in the future, after reading the entire document, I can't help but think that the root cause of all this is simply that copyright in the United States is broken. This is brought up a lot, but looking at all the nonsense that this article is having to defend against just shines a light on how broken the copyright state is in America. When we have a system in place that allows one cartel of four multi-billion-dollar corporations to come together and sue tens of thousands of American citizens based on nothing more than a number that links to them, that's proof enough to me that the system is broken.
My recommendation:
Step One: Throw all copyright law out.
Step Two: Re-implement copyright as it was originally laid out in the Constitution of the United States of America (i.e. twenty years).
Step Three: Make resources available to those in the branches of government (especially the judicial branch) that are spelled out plainly, clearly, and simply that will help them make informed and proper decisions in regards to technology.
The RIAA (and other similar illegal cartels) are destroying our country. The government is supposed to represent and protect the people that put it in place, not let a select minority manipulate it to their own ends. - hexydes, on 07/30/2008, -1/+6Absolutely. If there were no copyright laws, then if an artist released a song that started to gain traction, someone could just come along, take it, and sell it to people.
Copyright was originally intended to give an artist a very brief monopoly on their work so that they could make 99% of the money that it will ever make, and then after that it is released into the public domain. There is nothing wrong with that. Artists deserve to make money (though with the way the industry works now, it is unlikely they will make much, but that is the industry's fault).
What is NOT alright is that copyright was extended several times until it reached the point currently where no one could ever live long enough to see the copyright on their work expire in their lifetime. There is only one reason why that could be, and it is because someone, or someTHING wants to make money off of artists' work for longer than a human lifespan. That thing is the RIAA, a (possibly illegal) cartel of companies that believe artists are nothing more than IP in their portfolio. Of course they extended (and likely will want to continue to extend) the length of copyright because they are a corporation that can essentially live on indefinitely.
There are multiple problems with the entertainment industry that need to be resolved. Some of these include:
1. Copyright needs to be thrown out and returned back to how the founding fathers intended it to be. Twenty years is more than enough time to give a temporary monopoly on a creation in a capitalistic economy.
2. Cartels. The RIAA is nothing short of a collusive monopoly. The government should treat it as such, and disband the organization.
3. Copyright lawsuits. Out of control. The judicial branch of the government should be extremely critical with these cases, 99% of which should be thrown out before ever reaching the courtroom.
4. DRM. End it. It does nothing but punish legitimate people, and turn them to piracy to get around these artificial limitations in technology. Pirates already know how to get around this.
5. Technology. This will take care of itself. Once items 1-4 are addressed, it will be much easier for media content to be made available in legal forms for purchase, the way consumers want it. Yes, it will still be pirated by some people, but how is that ANY different from how it is today?
This is not hard stuff. The only reason any of this is a problem is because we let the RIAA and MPAA grow to such a large size that they operate as a pseudo-branch of the government. This is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to warn against. These illegal cartels need to be dissolved so that the market can operate properly (and so that regular citizens don't lose their freedom and aren't targeted needlessly by these predatory cartels). - blacklilyninja, on 07/30/2008, -0/+5riaa/mpaa/esrb same people
all media corps in collusion with each other. should be made illegal. - hexydes, on 07/30/2008, -1/+6Right, right. The Constitution simply makes it possible for Congress to create copyright law. I was suggesting the we return to something similar to what was laid out in the Copyright Act of 1790, with initial copyright lasting for 14 years, with one SINGLE extension possible for a combined total of 28 years.
It's hard to remember all the different incarnations of the law since it has been amended so many times...the point still stands though; copyright is out of control, and does not reflect the original spirit of the clause set out by the writers of the Constitution. - LeviTheSmith, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4You know the rules, and so do I..
- inactive, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4We're no strangers to love.
- shibbmaster, on 07/30/2008, -9/+12As an artist, myself, I understand the way artists feel about their music but, at the same time, I do feel it's enough already. People are going to download free music and listen to music for free because that what musicians who, indeed, love to make music, intend on doing with their music. The support should come naturally and it shouldn't be a reason for people to be afraid of music and being a passionate music listener. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF562oCeaUA
Just remember: my name is Jonathan Tal Evron. And I'm not going to bring you to court if you try to listen to this more than once. please do... :) - V1ncent, on 07/30/2008, -3/+6You can't put the genie back in the bottle. This is because once the genie is free she eats too much and gets fat...
- breakaway, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3I'm afraid I'm going to have to concur with enclaved. It really does suck.
- poiuytrewq44, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Piracy aside, why the ***** are you listening to Rihanna?
- inactive, on 07/30/2008, -2/+5Blame Mickey Mouse. When the copyright to Disney's cornerstone character was due to expire, Disney started lobbying to get the copyright durations extended.
- ieatpizza, on 07/30/2008, -3/+6If you can even call it music...
- enclaved, on 07/30/2008, -2/+4No offense or anything but I couldn't even listen to it once the entire way through let alone multiple times.
I guess it was silly to say no offense or anything and then proceed to say you suck, but yeah unless this was a joke and I missed anything funny about it past 30 seconds in, I can safely say that you are safe from pirates stealing your music. - aggiewes, on 07/30/2008, -4/+6the worst part is that downloading music for free hurts the record companies much more than it hurts the artists.
artists make most of their money from touring, not from record sales. They get something like $.10 a record. - cheesehead, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2A few of those notes kinda hurt my ears man. But there were parts of it that had rhythm and flowed nicely.
The visual didn't do much for you. Get some professional input and keep at it. - ElMoselYEE, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2you can't be an expert in everything, dude
- epemac, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3I got in one little fight and my mom got scared; and said you're moving with your auntie and uncle in bel-air. I whistled for a cab and when it came near the Licensplate said fresh and had a dice in the mirror If anything I could say that this cab was rare; But I thought now forget it, yo home to bel-air. I pulled up to a house about seven or eight And I yelled to the cabby yo, home smell you later. Looked at my kingdom I was finally there to settle my throne as the prince of bel-air
- twigboy, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2well said ol' chap!
- cheesehead, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2Which brings immediately to my mind the question. Why are these highly paid judges so ***** clueless?
Do they get paid to go to stupid school, or do they just get paid to be stupid? - enclaved, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2Ok, I went back and listened to the entire thing and now I have to say it sucks about 6 times worse then before. Limited exposure was working in your favor and you had to ruin it.
- Trickybunny, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1who is digging these comments down? Im going to go out on a limb here and say its probably not diggers...***** bots.
- SolidSnak, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1You mean "illegal" bullying
- bdbr, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1This often isn't the case with independent labels, that often split 50/50 after the initial pressing expenses are paid off...and they don't sue their customers.
- ktetch, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1By the same author as the main article - http://neuron2neuron.blogspot.com/2006/07/copyrigh ...
- inactive, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER
- LeviTheSmith, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1That's what I do. But I use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/300 ... Video DownloadHelper to download flash content.
- ElMoselYEE, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2I guess you guys don't understand that sometimes music starts off raw, unproduced, and a little bit pitchy. While I'm not planning on downloading the song, I liked it. Keep on livin' the dream, sir, and don't let these kids whose standards are somewhere around 'mainstream' tell you any different.
- taketheleap, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1***** the RIAA
/obligatory - Jamesx6, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1It was a genuine question. thanks for the great answer. however, shouldn't their reward be proportional to the work they put in? i mean someone could get lucky and come up with a one hit wonder that took maybe a day to make, yet current copyright laws would allow them to keep raking in profits long after they're dead! whereas if you have no copyrights, your works could spread naturally and if your work is popular, people will eventually want to hire you to continue. Look at youtube and how some of the users there rose to fame. they didn't need copyrights at all really, just recognition. people who steal their ideas will either seem like cheap rip offs and won't become popular, or some might build on the idea and make it better and people will naturally flock to that instead. humanity has always thrived off copying the ideas of others. monkey see, monkey do. i just don't see the need for copyrights anymore.
- JoeVet, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1If you like the article and would like to help, please donate to the RIAA Lawsuits Expert Witnesses Fund @ https://www.fsf.org/associate/riaa
And keep updated with the despicable antics of the RIAA at Mr. Beckerman's blog site: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ - ktetch, on 07/31/2008, -0/+114+14 is the aim of the chairman of the US Pirate Party (http://pirate-party.us) but afaik, the party themselves have set no goal as yet.
- bdbr, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Well, there are plenty others:
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=a ...
or http://riaaradar.com - bdbr, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1The entire music industry isn't doing this. Just the RIAA labels. Its worthwhile to understand the difference.
- nydwarf, on 07/30/2008, -2/+2***** the Lawyers!
- itsbradman, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0Dude, seriously? That was hella ella ella ella horrible!
- CalcProgrammer1, on 07/30/2008, -3/+3It's not good that the record companies make so much from artists. The record companies could be eliminated in a modern environment. What we need are artists to refuse record contracts and record their own music. A studio quality sound system is a lot easier to come by these days with advanced professional computer sound systems and software. You can record your own music on any old PC with fair quality, and that means professional equipment is just a few steps up. If they proceeded to sell albums and music for lower than record companies charge as well as offering free samples and online downloads, they would easily get back the cost of the equipment and then everything else would be pure profit.
- chikuten, on 07/30/2008, -4/+4that actually fits here. good job
- shibbmaster, on 07/30/2008, -1/+0No offense or anything. I could safely say that you are "only human" but, I don't feel precautious enough to have to safely say it. And, just to make something clear: if you decide whether music "sucks," based on having heard 30 seconds, including a five-second intro, you've obviously got much more than simple provincial-mindedness to get passed.
- PHiZ187, on 07/30/2008, -2/+1Check out and subscribe to Ray's blog: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
- toomuchpete, on 07/30/2008, -3/+2"Step Two: Re-implement copyright as it was originally laid out in the Constitution of the United States of America (i.e. twenty years)."
You might want to re-read the constitution. - maeon3, on 07/30/2008, -6/+4Rihanna - Umbrella
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4X7eFbP3u4
download flv: http://www.downloadyoutubevideos.com/
Plays perfectly in videolan client: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ -
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is