What is Digg?195 Comments
- fkr3, on 11/11/2007, -27/+177Google indiscriminately indexes everything it can find and it's incidental that it can be used to infringe copyright. That's not what it was made for, that's not it's purpose, it's just a side effect of indexing everything.
Popular torrent sites, with very few exceptions which exclude OiNK, exist to facilitate copyright infringement. Any legal torrent you find on a major torrent site is there by accident.
The OiNK kid is wrong, and if his defence is "google does it too" then he's going to be able to make gaper porn by the time he gets out of prison. - Sarki, on 10/29/2007, -9/+105Crappy arguments like this just make P2Pers look stupid. OiNK and Google are not the same, at all, and trying to push that argument is the easiest way to signal to the opposition that we're grasping at straws. I love my BT as much as the next guy, but I'm not willing to paint myself as an idiot to try and justify it.
- deekismusic, on 10/29/2007, -8/+103Waffles anyone?
- Crimsoneer, on 10/29/2007, -5/+48Sorry, but this is completely wrong. This is like saying that a gun is the same thing as a toothpick, as you can both use them to kill people. Massively flawed analogy.
- shark72, on 10/29/2007, -5/+44If this were correct, why would Oink need to exist in the first place? Why all the coveted invites? Why the sadness when he was busted?
If Oink were just like Google, then this is what would have occurred:
1. When Oink launched, nobody would have used it. Why would they, if they could just have used Google?
2. There would have been no demand for invites. After all, why bust something trying to get an invite, when Google is just as good, with no invitation required?
3. There would have been no outcry when he was busted. If it were just like Google, folks would just have gone back to using Google to get their free music.
The argument also requires a non-understanding of the phrase "substantial non-infringing uses" -- that is, the magical legal phrase behind the Betamax decision, and what allows us to have recordable media today. I can understand today's high school and college students aren't familiar with the "substantial non-infringing uses" concept, but to claim that Oink is "just like Google" takes, I think, an act of willfully ignoring the concept.
If you have read the above and you still truly believe in your heart that Oink was "just like Google," then please, I insist -- digg me down. If you understand and agree with the above, digg me up. Let's call it an informal poll on the understanding of the basic concepts of legal intent and, of course, "substantial non-infringing uses." - caddoo, on 10/29/2007, -6/+33Thats a stupid comparison, lets be honest the primary purpose of OiNK was to get music you usually have to pay for for free. That's not google's.
- KnightMareInc, on 11/02/2007, -11/+37google also respones to DMCA takedown notices.
buried. - deadbaby, on 10/29/2007, -11/+34Big Difference: OINK actually ran the tracker that coordinates sharing. Google does not.
- insomniac8400, on 10/29/2007, -8/+30He is right. Torrents point you to a tracker. And the tracker lists the sources for the copyrighted content. So the hosted torrents infringe nothing. At best you could go after the person hosting the tracker. But a tracker is nothing more than google. It's a user supplied list of IPs where content can be found. That is similar to how youTube works in that it's all user submitted content. youTube is protected as long as they abide by take down requests. Which means the copyright holders should have filed appropriate take down notices based on the law of the country the tracker was hosted in. Of course that notice specifically had to request that links to copyrighted material had to be removed from the tracker. No one holding a copyright could have asked for the torrents or the site to be shut down, because neither of those parts of the equation contained copyrighted information or links to copyrights information.
- ismith, on 10/29/2007, -0/+15Saying that you can share legally doesn't mean it doesn't promote illegal sharing. It does, get over it. I share music too, but pretending that it doesn't willingly and intentionally facilitate illegal file sharing is stupid.
- ddcrandall, on 10/29/2007, -1/+13couldn't get an invite, huh?
- Smeed, on 10/29/2007, -1/+12It would make plenty of sense if Oink had legal torrents. Then they could argue that they are there for legal use only, and claim oink is unmoderated when it comes to legal and illegal content. The problem is, Oink WAS moderated very closely and they had a rule that forbade a torrent for anything freely available.
- thewebguy, on 10/29/2007, -1/+12game, set, match
- aDJsavedmylife, on 10/29/2007, -2/+12To further your analogy:
Google is like a knife, OiNK is like a gun.
A knife has many applications, whereas guns are mainly made for killing. - Samsong, on 10/29/2007, -1/+11Don't google gaper porn. You don't want to know.
- NoOneButMe, on 10/29/2007, -11/+20Dont forget: http://www.google.com/custom?q=intitle%3Aindex.of+ ...
- wolferz, on 10/29/2007, -1/+10FTA: "what the riaa now calls "stealing," I would call "promotion." the analogy I like to use is this: would you not want to observe a painting in great detail before making a purchase on it? and once we have the painting, lets say a copy was made. does this give the copy great value? well, no, we're just using the copy as a simulation of the real work. if we shared this simulation with somebody, you'd be promoting the artist, who should, in fact, be honored at such a gesture."
I stopped reading there. The blatant fallacy demonstrated by this statement is a clear sign that the author of this article is not living in the real world.
Original paintings have additional value far beyond their entertainment value. Take the Mona Lisa for example. You can copy the image, you can age the paint and the canvas, you can do all the things forgers do, hell you might even be able to duplicate the painting down to the atomic level with the right technology, but there is something about the original Mona Lisa you can't duplicate. Namely the fact that your copy wasn't hand painted by Leonardo De Vinci. Original paintings are collectible. They are collectible because they are in limited supply (in this case exactly one Mona Lisa was made by De Vinci) and by being collectible they gain additional monetary value far beyond what can be granted to a copy.
Music on a CD is NOT collectible. It is worth exactly as much as the copy. The copy has exactly as much monetary value as the original (unless there is a change in quality, change in "portability", etc.). Perhaps the original studio recordings by the artist would be collectible but only if they could be authenticated as the original and there-by gain additional monetary value the many copies made from it can not have. How much monetary value the music on the original CD has is what is in question. It is my opinion thanks to the existence of P2P the music on a cd has very very little monetary value because it is possible to make infinite copy's of it and distribute those copies with ease. Does that mean file sharing is "right." No. However, file sharing is here to stay and the media industry's current methods of dealing with that (imho) are not the best given the circumstances.
So the argument that copying an original does not make the copy equally valuable to the original does not apply to music shared via P2P networks since the original is not collectible. The loss of quality inherent to compressing the music was never great enough to significantly change that and in fact its distribution method makes it in some mays much more valuable than before (though still not profitable). The comparison to paintings is inherently flawed because there are circumstances surrounding paintings that do not apply to music cds. Since the only argument for why artists should be happy that their music is being handed about for free is inherently flawed then it is likely he is wrong about that too.
He WAS right that the music industry needs to find a way to ADD monetary value back to the music. This could be done with some form of advertising coupled with a play-any-where-and-any-time-for-free distribution system (allowing them to provide a service p2p can not while making money off of the advertising). This would result in people losing interest in p2p. Only the few who hate advertising in their stuff would make any effort to block it and would not be prevalent enough able to damage the bottom line significantly. You could have your music where you want when you want without having to pay for anything beyond perhaps some wifi/satallite/gsm enabled equipment and without having to lug around stacks of cds.
Honestly, I think he was only right about that because he was parroting what he read some where. I get the feeling that all of his arguments are based on something he heard or read some where because he doesn't some to understand the arguments he is making or the reason why they need to be made. Simply put take everything said here with a spoonful of salt. - peaches017, on 10/29/2007, -1/+10Just because Google links to absolutely everything, INCLUDING copyrighted material, does NOT mean that it's establishment is for the purpose of spreading copyrighted material. I love/d OiNK as much as the next guy, but this isn't a sound legal defense by any means.
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -3/+11No. you are the idiot. A site whose PRIMARY purpose is copyright infringement versus one that has a fraction of a percent of its total uses being that, and that responds to takedown notices are NOT the same.
- issachar, on 10/29/2007, -1/+9He's clearly expressing his opinion that the guy broke the law. Only police say he "allegedly" broke the law. Regular people express their opinions he did. Stop being a legal nit-picker.
- rawheadrex, on 10/29/2007, -0/+8Goodbye OiNK, and thanks for all the waffles.
- catfish182, on 10/29/2007, -1/+8keep in mind this person is facing some serious ***** so dont be shocked by this chewbacca defense
- snypa, on 10/29/2007, -0/+7O_O
- extratired, on 10/29/2007, -1/+8joy? attention is the last thing soulseek needs. I see it becoming a target if it hits mainstream.
- digghugger, on 10/29/2007, -3/+10And some bands uploaded their OWN music to thepiratebay, what's your point...?
- Elderon, on 10/29/2007, -1/+7Very Wrong! I'm not against oink, I really don't even know much about what it is, but there is a huge difference between them and google. Google is sorta like an isp, they don't filter what gets added to their search engine. Oink on the otherhand would not recieve the same immunity that google does because oink unlike google filters out everything BUT music (am i right?)
maybe thats not the best way to put it but saying google is like oink is kinda ridiculous - marvinmatthew, on 10/28/2007, -0/+6But couldn't most any sites that host trackers be considered (or at least charged with) aiding and abetting? They are at least pointing you in the direction to get the copyrighted material.
Not to mention that most torrent sites (the Pirate Bay comes to mind) HAVE gotten take down notices in the past, and have ignored them (and have been very public about ignoring them). - aFloppyFish, on 10/29/2007, -4/+9But some did...
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -6/+11I love how idiots think that intent is not a very real factor. Or hte ones that beleive their own lies that bit torrent is used for legal purposes by more than about 3% of people.
- EricSchC1, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5If all of this is really about "sharing music" and making art available to the masses online, why not respect the requests or intentions of the artists first and foremost? If an artist doesn't want to make their music share-able, online and they've conducted their business in a manner befitting that intention, then yes file sharing becomes theft at that point, at least on a moral/ethical level. If the artist doesn't care, than by all means share away. Comparing OiNK to Google is absurd in terms of relative content and public benefit and OiNK's creator sounds pretty flippant about potentially ignoring the artists' intentions in the name of sharing their art for them.
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6GAPER PORN FTW!!!
- Dorepoll, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5Oink is like a Pegasus, where as Google is like a Unicorn.
It's pretty simple, really. - indiefan, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4You're point actually works against you. OiNK did respond to DMCA takedown notices, which is why he has a chance in court. Set up a site with a very straightforward disclaimer "only post content you're legally entitled to post" and then respond to DMCA notices. They may not be Google, but they're damn close to YouTube.
- actorboy, on 10/29/2007, -2/+6The more I read your comments, the more I question your relationship with reality. Here are a few prime examples of your work:
"My passion is to have no schools at all. ***** the govt. ***** the police. ***** the schools."
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Change_The_Schools_Ch ...
"God, I wanted to ***** her. I still would today, too." (re: Ann Coulter)
http://digg.com/politics/Ann_Coulter_is_Hilarious? ...
"***** the jews."
http://digg.com/videos/comedy/Larry_David_on_Why_M ...
"I can't even walk down the ***** street because of all the black people everywhere."
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Shoot_first_laws_make ...
And of course the ever under-thought:
"EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE. SPREAD THE WORD"
http://digg.com/music/Nine_Inch_Nails_Trent_Reznor ... - shark72, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4I agree 100%. But as crappy as it was, it sure was popular on Oink.
- abeautifulplace, on 10/29/2007, -4/+8Agreed. Sometimes Digg can feel like a glorified message board. This article is hardly newsworthy, it's a minor (and as reasoned by later diggs, poorly argued) point made in the context of a much wider debate which this article makes no efforts whatsoever to address, and, to my eyes, fails to qualify as even a newsworthy posting.
- Scaryclouds, on 10/29/2007, -1/+5"the analogy I like to use is this: would you not want to observe a painting in great detail before making a purchase on it? "
Uhh... So how many albums do you actually buy?! If you really feel this way why not use things like Pandora? Yes you don't get to listen to the song you want right away, but it will eventually come up and that would be legal sampling.
Stop acting like you are entitled to free music! You are not. If everybody used filesharing sites like OiNK new bands couldn't get started because they could never make enough money. - b-dizzle, on 10/29/2007, -1/+5your mommy had no moral values. and she didn't teach you grammar either.
- mt066, on 10/29/2007, -8/+12His "painting" metaphor is so convoluted and *****.
- marvinmatthew, on 10/29/2007, -2/+6Three Points:
-Google does not intentionally cache search results for copyrighted material. The people who are using Google to find copyrighted material are using an exploit within Google's search feature.
-Google responds to take down notices. Most all bit torrent trackers (the Pirate Bay comes to mind) ignore take down notices.
-Bit torrent trackers (who are hosting torrent files for copyrighted material), while not technically guilty of distributing copyrighted material, ARE at least guilty of aiding and abetting copyright infringement, as they are telling you where you can download copyrighted works from.
As much as I love bit torrent, putting Google on the same level as tracker sites is a poor argument. - Ludnix, on 10/29/2007, -1/+5God dammit, don't let anyone else know about soulseek. It already has enough users to get any possible song you like and no lime-light. Don't change this.
- vlurk, on 10/29/2007, -1/+5I can't believe you got buried; you're right buddy. Without the tracker, most if not all the "torrent" files you could download from Oink would have been useless. That said, I don't know if they (Oink) were offering torrent files from external trackers? I never had the chance to get a membership...
- actorboy, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4"Hey mom! I sent you an invite to OiNK so you can download your mix-cd!"
You really have no grasp of the argument, do you? - CheeseBiscuits, on 10/29/2007, -2/+6How many people actually went and bought the music that they downloaded through torrent trackers over the internet? Don't get me wrong, I use trackers all the time but you've got to be kidding me if you think that analogy is in any way correct. It's more like "what if I could get that same painting off the internet, go to Kinko's and have the exact one on my wall in fifteen minutes?"
- KungFuJesus, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4Except for the fact that OiNK would remove an album if they got a takedown notice, I remember that some organization called "web sheriff" or something got a couple white stripes albums removed from OiNK. They were re-uploaded soon after though ;)
- Damian91, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4Blame yourselves god dammit! Piracy is the main reason the freedom online will be gone soon, FFS!
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -1/+5No, it is a "google" that exists SOLELY to index where to get copyrighted material. Unlike Google.
- ZigVicious, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3link please?
- ZigVicious, on 10/29/2007, -2/+5make that two.
I have. - kinghajj, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3Yes, but they list the complaints, so although the infringing results are taken away from the normal search, just one button click and you get a list of sites that a copyright owner didn't want you to see! DMCA takedowns are effectively useless at Google.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 192 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