What is Digg?67 Comments
- Ninh, on 09/25/2009, -1/+44Personally I think that not a cent more of public money should be spent on fighting "piracy" than the industries involved pay in taxes. Why subsidize their failing business models?
- g3r4, on 09/25/2009, -1/+26Hahaha... So, GaltShrugged, your plan is to ban half the internet from the internet. Good luck with that, sir.
Also, don't throw around the term "fear mongering" when you're comparing pirates to terrorists, murderers, and rapists. Hypocrite. - gobbleplex, on 09/26/2009, -1/+21"Is it stealing? Of course."
What is being stolen? No physical item is removed from one person's posession by another. - wikinerd, on 09/26/2009, -0/+18@geogeer
Wow. The ignorance is overwhelming.
Pirated copy != lost sale.
Piracy == market failure leading people to seek parallel market, i.e. black market, piracy. - Sirocco, on 09/25/2009, -3/+18I seriously hope you're trolling. I'd hate to think you're that ignorant.
- brickysam, on 09/25/2009, -5/+20Comparing intellectual piracy with rape? Are you kidding me? The only people harmed by this particular property crime is millionaires. Maybe they should pay for the law enforcement themselves.
- AdmiralHalsey, on 09/26/2009, -1/+16What crime?
- gobbleplex, on 09/26/2009, -0/+15I'm sorry that you chose a profession that is destined to become monetarily valueless, GaltShrugged. Perhaps you still have time to change course and adopt a profession where your work's value is not dependent upon its scarcity, or at the very least where its scarcity is a result of natural physical quantity. It would be a more fruitful way of spending your time than attempting to place constraints of artificial scarcity on a medium that is by its very design abundant.
- varmit, on 09/25/2009, -7/+21So as long as the crime costs less than what it take to fight it, we should just let it slide. Is that what I'm suppose to get from this.
- AngryDeuce, on 09/25/2009, -6/+20Right or wrong, the genies out of the bottle, and it ain't going back in. They can litigate to their hearts content, and for every person they get slapped with a huge fine (that in effect does absolutely nothing since the people don't have the millions of dollars to pay it and just file bankruptcy) there will be 10 more doing the same *****, day in and day out.
Is it stealing? Of course. But it'll never be stopped. So they can continue to waste money prosecuting people, or they can come up with new ways to make money. They can be bitter all they want, but really...who DIDN'T know this was coming? Who is actually surprised with the proliferation of P2P file sharing?
All I can say, is give a kick ass show, go tour, sell merchandise, and there's still plenty of money in music. Ever been to a Tool show? Best $60 I ever spent in my life, and worth every penny. - CalcProgrammer1, on 09/26/2009, -1/+13Music piracy "costs" nothing. The only cost associated with torrents are the hosting fees for the sites and trackers. All other "costs" that the RIAA spews out are so-called "lost sales"...but they're not since most people wouldn't have bought the album in the first place. The only cost of piracy is in the crazed minds at the RIAA where they believe money is in their bank accounts before they even sell a product and then complain when their product doesn't sell like their over-hyped sellout dreams intended.
Fighting it, on the other hand, costs real money. So really they lose out on the fake money by "lost sales" and then lose out on real money by wasting their time "fighting". Wonder who thought up that plan. - 3nder99, on 09/26/2009, -1/+12"Why does everyone assume that I'm comparing rape to pirates?"
Because you just did? - Sirocco, on 09/25/2009, -3/+14You're missing the forest for the trees.
What you're actually promoting is an endlessly escalating "war" against piracy that will fare no better than the "war on drugs" or the "war on terrorism". Eventually you will be left with a useless internet service that will allow you, the supposedly "good citizen" to access a few specifically designated sites for content providers, and nothing else. You'll find yourself locked out of every avenue that would allow you to enjoy the music, movies, and games you've paid for (but don't own... check the licensing!).
Meanwhile, the pirates continue to do what they have always done. - Wade, on 09/26/2009, -0/+11Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one. - rabidbob, on 09/26/2009, -0/+10@gobbleplex - Don't be sorry. He's a parasite, draining money from people who do real work, and he's either too ignorant or too immoral to understand just how much money piracy has made for music artists.
- Animan351, on 09/26/2009, -0/+10I quit buying CD's just because they've been such dicks about it. Now I'll only buy anything if the band sells it off their website and they own their own label. Otherwise I just go to concerts or buy shirts and *****.
- wikinerd, on 09/26/2009, -0/+9Lol?
"Did you intentionally fail?" -GaltShrugged
Cost of rape = loss of consumer confidence, psychological damage, cost of counseling, damage to infrastructure of society, shrinking economy (people unwilling to go to work out of fear, or move out of country), loss of labour from the raped (unwilling to work from psychological damage),
Cost of catching rapist = insignificant compared to above
Cost of potential rape = loss of consumer confidence, psychological damage, cost of counseling, damage to infrastructure of society, shrinking economy (people unwilling to go to work out of fear, or move out of country) - gobbleplex, on 09/26/2009, -0/+9Like it always was before recorded media.
- Iceman21, on 09/26/2009, -0/+9Galtshrugged is *The* troll
- CalcProgrammer1, on 09/26/2009, -1/+9CAPITALISM in its current form is the true drain on society and intellectual integrity. When money wasn't a big deal, people would happily share their ideas with one another and contribute information for the perfect design. Once money was thrown into the equation and greedy corporate heads were blinded by it, intellectual progress was stalled by competition. For instance, if all of AMD, Intel, and nVidia's researchers joined forces and shared their technology, we could have much nicer systems than we do today. Today's closed-wall competition mindset leads to nothing but wasted time in cloning/racing designs to production and cutting out features to make it more profitable. Also the ridiculous patent system means that progress can be stalled because some idiot claims a generic patent and then uses it to stop others who actually want to make it a reality. What we need is less government tie-ins with money and less closed minds like yours. That way we can finally crush the greedy corporate leaders and see real progress.
- billpyle, on 09/26/2009, -0/+8Thank you. I've gotten into many a argument over whether or not pirating music is stealing. Its copyright infringement, not theft.
- SpyDerMann, on 09/26/2009, -0/+8"Pirated music = lost sales" fallacy again. I'm sick tired of hearing that. Music cartels not only criminalize consumers. They also want to brainwash us too!?
- MScrip, on 09/26/2009, -0/+8I bet more people are just paying the dollar for the song, than even bothering with P2P.
8.5 billions songs have been sold on iTunes alone... and I don't know of anyone who still uses LimeWire anymore.
Yes, music industry... people *can* still pirate songs... that will never change. But, you've also *sold* billions of songs simply because they are available for sale. Funny how that works, huh?
If I were them, I'd pump more money into the selling of songs... instead of the *never ending* fight with piracy. - traldan, on 09/26/2009, -1/+9Broken system is broken.
- AngelBunny, on 09/26/2009, -1/+8It really is shaping up to be another war on drugs. *sigh*
- ajsmth, on 09/26/2009, -1/+8***** the RIAA!!!
- Sil369, on 09/26/2009, -1/+8hey col slanders, u make good chicken
- Iceman21, on 09/26/2009, -0/+7http://digg.com/users/ColonelSlanders/history
Galtshrugged's alter ego?
Obama story trolling, check, anti piracy rants, check. - yocouchdigga, on 09/26/2009, -0/+6LOL!
- gobbleplex, on 09/26/2009, -0/+6geogeer: "If their product is crap, then don't buy it and let free market forces do their work."
This is exactly what is happening right now. Remember, many people who share music online would not have bought the music in the first place. 1 download does not equal 1 lost sale. In fact, it can provoke a sale.
Big name artists may very well be losing out these days, but I don't think it's all down to file sharing. We live in a very wide world of music these days, where bands from all over the world are a click away. Many smaller bands who would have languished in obscurity are finding an audience these days, and even making some paying customers out of them in spite of how easy it is to share music. The public is no longer at the mercy of the traditional gatekeepers of music when it comes to finding new talent, and that freedom to find new talent means that the money spent is more diffused rather than concentrated into the pockets of a few.
So yes, the market is working its magic. - Iceman21, on 09/26/2009, -0/+6So called piracy has been going on long enough to have had the catastrophic effect you describe a long time ago, yet movies are still being made, music is still being made and its selling enough to keep being made, i don't think any of the massive harm that's been foretold has been happening.
What is happening is film and music producers looking at every download and the estimated downloads as sales that could have been, then comparing it to stealing, its no wonder they are worked up over it but there's crap all they can do about it so they need to grow a pair and quit whining, you can't ever stop thefts and you certainly can't stop people sharing, the easier it becomes for people to share the more we will do it. - rabidbob, on 09/26/2009, -0/+5Well considering that piracy does not *cost* anything, in fact it *makes* money for artists (and recording companies), and that fighting piracy costs recording companies and artists a lot of money the real bad guys here are the parasites in the RIAA etc who simply have a vested interest in preserving the status quo and continuing to gouge hundreds of millions of dollars out of an otherwise thriving industry.
- yocouchdigga, on 09/26/2009, -0/+5Are you christian?
- bdbr, on 09/26/2009, -0/+5It *might* be equivalent to stealing (basically, you took something of value without the owner's permission and didn't pay for it), but ONLY if it is a lost sale.
If you downloaded a copy, loved it, and bought it, then its more equivalent to advertising, not stealing. People do this all the time.
Of course, the majority of downloads likely fall into another category - people really wouldn't have bought it if they had to pay for it. Before music could be copied, almost no one owned thousands of tracks...it just wasn't something normal people could afford. If downloaders truly wouldn't have bought the music, this couldn't rightly be classified as stealing, because there was no lost sale.
Its not nearly as cut-and-dried as saying "its stealing". One category is a loss to the label, one category is a gain, and in most cases its neither. If I had to guess the actual overall effect, I'd say its a wash. - phrstbrn, on 09/26/2009, -0/+4@acknotSW
"The concept of making a copy of something of which there is a limitless supply without permission or paying for it is so new we don't have a defined word for it."
I don't know if you're deaf, dumb, or blind, but we do have a word for it, it's called copyright infringement, as stated in the post directly above yours. - tao52nyc, on 09/26/2009, -0/+4And the "War on Drugs" has been SOOOOOO successful.
- NeoTechni, on 09/26/2009, -0/+4"if only diggers had common sense"
Then you wouldn't have posted - tymufc, on 09/26/2009, -0/+4"Music was a product, now it is a service." MC LARS
- gobbleplex, on 09/26/2009, -0/+4brickysam, it is not just some fat cats who lose out when the bottom falls out from under their market. There are a lot of people who make money in the production of music, and the less money that the industry can make the less of these people they can afford to employ.
Me? I love demo quality recordings of awesome bands. I don't think I'm very common in that respect though, and I think you'll find that as less money can be made at this game that the production values are going to drop like a rock. Maybe you're okay with this? Either way, that's where I see things headed. - GeekNurse, on 09/26/2009, -1/+5It doesn't cost me anything...
- kyle212, on 09/26/2009, -0/+3It annoys me when music companies say they're gonna lose money. If I download something it doesn't mean I would of bought it, they may have missed out on potential customers but they're certainly not losing anything.
- InactiveUser, on 09/26/2009, -0/+2Spotify shareholders are the same people behind RIAA
- tao52nyc, on 09/26/2009, -0/+2I rarely download music, only stuff I've heard on the radio and tweaked my interest. Sometimes that generates a sale - but only for indy artists with their own label. Otherwise, I stopped buying CDs. The labels as we know them need to die, and the only way to do that is to stop feeding the beast.
- donciclon, on 09/26/2009, -0/+2^GaltShrugged, question....you said something earlier to the effect of stealing a millionaires car in order to demonstrate the ideology of piracy.my question to you is, would it be wrong if instead of stealing the millionaires car i find some way to make myself a completely identical copy of it? I mean the millionaire still has his expensive car. Hell, the manufacturer didn't lose any money because i wouldn't have had the money to afford such a fancy car anyways. Now lets say others start figuring out how to make completely identical copies of not only the millionaires car but also the copies of the copies; So in essence what everyone is doing is sharing information about the car in order to make the copy.
So going back to the topic at hand. The sole purpose of the internet when it was created was to share information, not to sell it. And what am i (someone who believes strongly in the sharing of information and the advancements we have achieved through the use of the avenues through which it is shared) to do when someone comes and tries to manipulate law makers into limiting the avenues of information. You're asking me to see that wrong is being done, but I really refuse to believe that. The internet is not broken, it's doing what it was meant to do. The industries business model is broken.
If Music industries are allowed to censor the internet, who else will be allowed to do it after them? So my question to all is, when will it end? - rabidbob, on 09/27/2009, -0/+2@ClaireQuilty - You're sadly uneducated if you think it does not.
- Nanoha, on 09/26/2009, -1/+3Rapidshare works fine, no riaa there. No need to waste upload bandwidth.
Don't think I've downloaded any music p2p/torrent/rapid very long time. - bdbr, on 09/26/2009, -0/+2The labels own the rights to the music - if they don't want me downloading, I don't download. How good is Lily Allen's new album? I have no ***** idea; I've never heard it because they don't want me downloading it. I'm not going to sit through hours of commercials waiting for the chance to hear one selected song on the radio (that probably isn't even representative of the album as a whole).
Independent labels know that downloading can be just a form of advertising. I downloaded albums from indie labels, and I've bought many of them.
I never used to care about what label an album was one, but since the major labels started acting like a bunch of litigious pricks, now I certainly do. Sometimes it seems as if these labels really *want* to die. - varmit, on 09/30/2009, -0/+1Well, the "War on Drugs" isn't stealing. Drugs could be legalized, getting someone's hard work for free when they want you to pay for it wont be legalized.
- spoogieking012, on 09/26/2009, -1/+2The same goes with monopolies. If the legal fees and such to break up a monopoly are greater than the dead weight loss (to the whole of society) of letting the monopoly exist, then you let it be.
- inactive, on 09/26/2009, -1/+2Because of course a download is a lost sale, every time.
-
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is