What is Digg?114 Comments
- KloroFormd, on 06/23/2008, -1/+136I have a knife. Holy *****, I must have stabbed someone.
***** the MPAA/RIAA. - moocow1452, on 06/23/2008, -1/+124So, the reason the MAFIAA appears to be firing blind, is because they actually ARE firing blind?
- Inera, on 06/23/2008, -0/+113I quote, "Therefore, anyone who makes files available over P2P networks should be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of actual distribution, even if proof of that actual distribution doesn't exist." Wow.... guilty until proven innocent? Are we still in the USA? How absurd is this quote?
- rald84, on 06/23/2008, -1/+66i have a penis therefore i must be guilty of rape!
- flooz, on 06/23/2008, -0/+59Wow... By this logic, I could be convicted of shoplifting in a store simply because the store's wares we're availble for shoplifting.
- inactive, on 06/23/2008, -1/+57So driving a car should be illegal, and taken off the roads!
Because someone might speed, and we might never see it happen! - spiralspirit, on 06/23/2008, -1/+36Since we don't have at this point and it is often impossible get, evidence that the accused is guilty, you should therefore make him guilty even without evidence of laws being broken, because it is very difficult get evidence that laws have been broken or that he is guilty.
Are you sure a lawyer wrote that? - PopcornDave, on 06/23/2008, -0/+30There are some hard core feminists that actually might agree with you on that.
I remember a segment from the Tom Snyder show where he had some rabid feminist who claimed that all men wanted to rape her. He finally had to burst her precious bubble and inform her that he wasn't interested in raping or even remotely having sex with her. - Sendai129, on 06/23/2008, -3/+32This doesn't have anything to do with protecting intellectual property. What all of this has to do with is control. The government wants to control you and they would like nothing better than to be able to put whoever they want in jail whenever they want. Currently they can't do this, and that makes them unhappy. So their solution is to first make everyone into criminals, that way when they find somebody that they don't like they can charge them with "making available copyrighted content" and then they are free to go into their homes, and scan their entire computer and find out whatever it is that they REALLY want to know.
So maybe you have political views that they really don't like. But they can't simply arrest you for that. Well they just charge you copyright infringement and then invade the privacy of your home and dig up anything else they can find to charge you with and lock you up. Then they don't have to worry about staying in power anymore because their citizens are now only the people that they choose to stay citizens. Then when they go to war they don't have to worry about pesky protesters or people disagreeing with them. Backed by the biggest army they can now go and take what they want, when they want, with next to no consequences.
I really hope this is just the crazy rant of a mad man... I really do. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong here. So please Diggers... make a fool of me. - bullhead2007, on 06/23/2008, -0/+22It is a sad state of affairs when corporations have more rights than citizens.
- Elderon, on 06/23/2008, -1/+21WAH !!! it's to hard to find evidence, please rule in our favor anyways LOLBBQ!!!
- spiralspirit, on 06/23/2008, -1/+21I'm going to sue them for copyright infringement, and when they ask to see the proof I'm going to point to this as precedent. I'll make millions.
- Apokalyps2547, on 06/23/2008, -2/+22Your first 2 sentences are spot on: it has everything to do with control.
You lost me 2 words later. The MPAA / RIAA is NOT the government.
It has little to do with politics and everything to do with corporate greed. - DeathRay2K, on 06/23/2008, -7/+26Uh, yeah, I'm not surprised at all. US rights have become so horribly eroded over Bush's term, I'm almost surprised this isn't now the case with all crimes...
- AndrewDB, on 06/23/2008, -1/+18You act like this surprises you...why?
- vanillagamer, on 06/23/2008, -0/+14Hello, facism! :D We've been expecting you!
- tb0n3r, on 06/23/2008, -0/+14There currently is no prohibition against "Intent to Distribute". Copyright law does not grant copyright holders the right to "make available" their product, and therefore, no rights have been infringed. There has to be actual, provable, distribution, which is a right granted solely to copyright holders.
If I put out an ad in the local newspaper, saying that I have pirated CDs that I am willing to give anybody who wants them, for free, is not illegal. It is only illegal after I have actually given someone said pirated CDs. - CalcProgrammer1, on 06/23/2008, -2/+15Perfect logic. Same thing, tons of people speed and aren't arrested, but does anyone care? The same logic applies here. If they don't have EVIDENCE then their case is worthless. Period. They're stupid and their logic is messed up.
Speeding actually kills people, by the way, transferring 1's and 0's across the Internet doesn't. The idiots running the government need to get their priorities straight! - infinitely, on 06/23/2008, -1/+14The MPAA's argument should be laughed out of court. It pretty much invalidates every claim they have ever made. I certainly hope it changes the judges opinion, as it seems like a fatal misstep on their part.
- insomniac8400, on 06/23/2008, -0/+13As it should be. The only way they can prove it is capturing packets between two people transferring information. If the MPAA was allowed to do that, the internet is done with.
- Snokage, on 06/23/2008, -5/+17so because i have a gun....means i fired it and killed someone?
- Bozmanbeyond, on 06/23/2008, -1/+13Who's copying what? And who's selling it? Is she making money off this?
So let me get this If I buy a Ben and Jerry's Ice cream cup, a bottle of Pepsi, and a Nathan's Hot Dog and share it with my girlfriend I can go to jail for that? Oh wait I should because they all are copy righted products also.
Be careful everyone, don't let your friend borrow that Craftsman's wrench of yours. You could be next - redux2redux, on 06/23/2008, -0/+12If I own a CD and I download a track from that CD from a P2P, has any copyright violation taken place?
- NuclearBlast, on 06/23/2008, -0/+11Lots of times you'll burn a movie or song for yourself on your computer. If your P2P program picks it up and puts it in the sharing folder, you're automatically charged with copyright infringement. I feel like this situation would be all too common with the average computer user.
- Incosian, on 06/23/2008, -1/+12That logic is impenetrable.
- chrisduser, on 06/23/2008, -1/+12I'm a person, therefore I am guilty of a crime. It is often impossible to prove what crime I am guilty of. Ignore that and sentence me to five years in prison. Also, seize all of my assets because I might have gained some of my money illegally.
- FeloniusMonkey, on 06/23/2008, -0/+11Um... no he didn't (I kide you not). He was pretty clear in stating "over Bush's term".
- fani, on 06/23/2008, -7/+18***** the MPAA/RIAA.
- sarchosis, on 06/23/2008, -0/+10I think the best course of action for users would be to begin downloading all of their favorite movies and music via P2P, and if they get a letter from the MPAA or RIAA saying "we have evidence of you downloading copyrighted material, pay us $2000 or we'll take you to court", respond with "prove it *****!"
- robEstyles, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9Lionel Hutz could come up with a better argument than this and you would get a hilarious smoking monkey with it.
- cybrguy, on 06/23/2008, -1/+10When Hertz rents out a car, did they "make avaliable" wreckless driving?
- Sendai129, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8But you're not looking at the big picture. According to the proposed Bill C-61 the government isn't even going to go out of their way to collect the charges against those committing copyright infringement. It's going to be up to the RIAA/MPAA to go out and actually collect the fines... Now why would the government want to pass a law that really doesn't do much for them? Certainly the MPAA and RIAA are just greedy corporate whores but if you think the government is going to pass this bill and not expect to see anything from it... well you have to really look at their motives.
- portnoy, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9"Copyright holders shouldn't have to prove that an unauthorized distribution of their work occurred in order to collect damages"? So then you shouldn't have to prove that criminal activity was inspired by movie plots or song lyrics to collect damages from movie and song producers? Interesting, this might be a really fun time to become a lawyer. :/
- mxdxo, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9Major Prick Association of America
- infinitely, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8Actually, it's a HER, and I don't think that letter bombing her would make her more open to the right point of view, but if anyone finds it and can send their opinion, that's great. Just be respectful and honest.
- PopcornDave, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7Hasn't Jack Thompson been trying that tactic for years and failing? Guilt by supposition?
- Matri, on 06/24/2008, -0/+7Wouldn't matter. According to these "people" (and I use the term loosely), the act of burning a copy, even for yourself, constitutes theft.
- lordmetroid, on 06/23/2008, -1/+8OM NOM NOM NOM!
- bdfariello, on 06/24/2008, -0/+6I might have sex with her remotely, but I'd have to SSH, because it's important to use protection.
- zephyr42, on 06/23/2008, -2/+7*fires up uTorrent and all my seeds*
- inactive, on 06/23/2008, -2/+7That's like convicting someone of murder for owning a gun!
- ScottoGato, on 06/23/2008, -1/+6Good luck to Jammie Thomas! You have my support!
- Tenoq, on 06/24/2008, -0/+5Dugg for 'rabid feminist'.
- smmakira, on 06/24/2008, -0/+5Every store that sells CD/ DVDs should be required to state this above the display. "Making a copy of this material even for personal back-up reasons is illegal." Because right now it's hidden away in the DMCA where your average walmart-er is never going to see it.
- explnx, on 04/27/2009, -0/+5Actually, he doesn't. Attempting or intending to do something are not the same as actually doing it, and make up different crimes.
- PopcornDave, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5Can't we turn around and blame them for producing the item in question that's able to be shared?
/sarcasm - Matri, on 06/24/2008, -0/+4It isn't just a fatal mistake, it practically mocks the justice system.
"You should find him guilty because I said so." - tehknotte, on 06/24/2008, -0/+4They are not being good role models for the younger generation. If there is something I have found not right with the majority of my generation it is the failure to think logically and calmly.
- pagno, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5Ill throw the "Drive-up Liquor Store Argument" into the mix. Just because its there, doesnt mean they advocate drunk driving, its all about personal(pertaining to a single person) decisions. Hell, having alcohol in your car isnt illegal until its opened(Open Container laws, check local listings), or if youre underage.
Point being, simply having files in your car doesnt mean your doing anything wrong. They need(atleast for now) actual proof of wrong doing. If they had their way, they could hack your computer, legally, find "evidence" and win every case they file. I think this Telcom Immunity ***** has wider implications than just domestic surveillance? Pirating music = Hurting America = TERROISM
Nah, Im just a leftist nutjob. - Tenoq, on 06/24/2008, -1/+5You mean the sudden stop at the end kills? Speed kills only the context of a crash (not accident) being inevitable - in which case speeding makes the crash severe enough to kill.
And I don't call them accidents because they rarely are. 99% of the time someone was doing something wrong. Incompetence, arrogance, sheer stupidity: but not accidental. -
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is