What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
89 Comments
- LordSeth, on 11/20/2007, -2/+61man the whole copyright thing is nuts.... Why is it you can face harsher penalties for copying music than you can for stealing money?
- gbarberi, on 11/20/2007, -0/+50I remember a time when it was about "not making money off someone else's work; now it's about "any behavior that can be deemed as negatively affecting the profit that someone can make off their work". Copyright owners have moved from targeting individuals attempting to make profit off another's work to targeting the behaviors of consumers, even those that were once innocent (and should still be).
- basic0, on 11/20/2007, -1/+30Sorry about posting twice in short succession here, but I have an idea for you film students out there. How about a documentary along the lines of "Supersize Me", but about copyright law? Just to show people how ridiculous it is. Basically you go around for 30 days doing your normal daily routine, but you have a copyright attorney follow you around. You aren't allowed to do anything that infringes on copyright, and if you do, the attorney "fines" you $1. Intersperse it with interviews and relevant stats and graphics, then at the end of the 30 days you total up your fine. I'd watch it.
- basic0, on 11/20/2007, -1/+27FTA: "Singing "Happy Birthday" at a restaurant (unauthorized public performance) and capturing the event on a video camera (unauthorized reproduction) could increase his liability"
I didn't believe it, "Happy Birthday to You" is a traditional song, right?
"Happy Birthday to You", Wikipedia: "While the current copyright status of the song is unclear, Warner claims that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to them."
Wow. I think most people would be as surprised to learn that as I was. I also think that even the most law-abiding people would read that and say "Yeah, well, Warner can bite me." - anarchytv, on 11/20/2007, -1/+25In other news, Time Warner just bought the letter "a", and Sony BMG bought the musical notes "c", and "g". Apple fights off a lawsuit with Microsoft over the letter "i", while the government passes a per individual and equipment tax on air consumption. A scientiest working for Huges Aircraft patents gravity, and the Jehovah's Witness file a lawsuit in Federal Court that electricity was actually invented by "God", claiming prior art. Further, that royalties should be paid to the registered representative of gd whenever there is use of light, matter, or energy.
- baalzebub, on 11/20/2007, -0/+19The USA is a nation of laws, poorly written and randomly enforced - Frank Zappa
- Rakuseki, on 11/20/2007, -1/+16You face harsher penalties because the people prosecuting you for copying/stealing music have more money and more clout than your typical homeowner or convenient store owner. That and they hate you.
- inactive, on 11/20/2007, -3/+17 Very well put...It's past time this boil came to a head and was lanced.
- WiskyDrinker, on 11/20/2007, -0/+13exactly.. when I grew up it was commonly accepted as law (although I'm not sure if it really was) that sharing music and movies was completely acceptable as long as you weren't making money in the process..
- SlipStream89, on 11/20/2007, -1/+13If he's at 4.5 billion per year, I'm surely in the high trillions somewhere.
- KSUdesigner, on 11/20/2007, -2/+14I'm all for getting things for free, but to play devil's advocate, what gives people the right to get something for free just because they are broke? Also, ten years ago downloading music (and movies) was a much different beast. It's MUCH more accessible now than it was then.
- CondoleezzaRice, on 11/20/2007, -1/+13because the copyright holders have no way of knowing how much hypothetical money they lost so they have to make figures up
- jbird71, on 11/20/2007, -2/+13The good news is, the dollar's falling so fast $4.5 billion = price of a six-pack.
- hiphoc, on 11/20/2007, -10/+21I would love to buy music and such, but I am ***** broke. Downloading music and other "crimes" can be linked to the economy. 10 years ago I would buy 4 or 5 CD's every pay day. But my money is losing purchasing power, and the price of a CD hasnt dropped. So yea, its the economy stupid.
- lowerlogic, on 11/20/2007, -0/+9lets all be bad-ass social deviants and stand up to authority by singing happy birthday in the streets.
....
what has the world come to? - arbulus, on 11/20/2007, -0/+8exactly. and that's what is so disgusting about what this society has become. People use their copyrights as excuse to sue anyone they possibly can with or without evidence just so they can make money. it's not about making a good product that people want to buy, it's just about copyrighting something and suing everyone. The mainstream music industry stopped making good music a long time ago, that's why people stopped buying it. so since they couldn't get our money in the market place, they just decided to start suing everyone because they're too ignorant to realize that if they gave the people a good product without chains, they would make money left and right.
So now that technology has advanced, the copyright holders have found all these new exploits and excuses to sue people. They tell us we can't rip a DVD or CD to hard drive; they tell us we can make mix tapes (or discs if you prefer) for our girlfriends; they tell us we can't let a friend make a copy of a CD until he can buy it when he gets paid. They tell us when and where and how we're supposed to use their product, but don't even give us the chance to be responsible, they just sue us all as a matter of course. They hand us a product and hand us a set of chains and dungeons with it and think that we're just supposed to keep on lapping it up and spilling out our cash for them when they produce a product worse than that of an eight year old.
Copyrights have long gotten out of hand. These chains that we have to bear for our entertainment are inexcusable. The rule book we're supposed to abide by is ***** when they're just going to sue us anyway no matter what we do. And it's not even suing, it's extortion and blackmail. Pre-litigation letters, "chances" to pay them off to get them off our backs. Sounds like a mafia to me. And I for one have had enough of it.
This has to end. This copyright sue-everyone-because-we-don't-want-to-have-to-make-a-good-product mentality has to end. The chains, the DRM, the restrictions must end. The lawsuits, the "pre-litigation" warning letters must end. We need a new system, one of openess and one with no chains, no DRM, and no big sue happy conglomerate. - Arramol, on 11/20/2007, -0/+8Heck, in this country, you're in more trouble if you're caught pirating music than if you're caught driving drunk. Signs that our legal system is in desperate need of an overhaul...
- Dokument, on 11/20/2007, -0/+7I had to read that like 5 times.
- Pinhedd, on 11/20/2007, -0/+7I'd actually pay to watch it, maybe.
- lowerlogic, on 11/20/2007, -0/+6if you're speaking in the third person, then yes.
- masterofgrond, on 11/20/2007, -1/+6It's not about getting sued for singing Happy Birthday. It's about pointing out how broken copyright law is, and that it needs to be fixed. Sure no one sues over Happy Birthday now, but the fact that they COULD is the scary part.
- djbon2112, on 11/20/2007, -0/+5That's actually a good idea.
- arbulus, on 11/20/2007, -0/+5seconded. our entire legal and criminal justice system needs a complete overhaul.
- archimago42, on 11/20/2007, -1/+5All I have to say is, "duh". If you can't see that copyright law is broken in the digital age you aren't looking.
- pfromg, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4The trouble is , if Warner can bite them , then they most certainly will.It is the nature of copyright which forces them to do so.
If they do not defend what they own , they no longer own it.So they have no choice but to go to court.The law is the ass , not Warner. - ricree, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4Snopes is often a great place to look for something like this.
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp - antitab, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4One of my Canadian friends asked me recently, "So how do you feel that your dollar is going to *****?"
"Pretty good. Means all my thousands of dollars of debt are declining in value."
He was amused, to say the least. - GnuTzu, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4Yes, the free market determines value when real money changes hands. But, instead, what you're calling hypothetical money is based on the fallacy that people would pay the asking price if they could be forcibly restrained from copying. Clearly, if people were forcibly restrained from copying--through DRM for example--then people would have a very different attitude about what would be an acceptable price.
These corporate tyrants are such hypocrites--only being loyal to the free market when it suits their profit margin. - PhireN, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4Might as well overhaul the political system at the same time.
- PunkRockGeoff, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4Would they really lose? How deep are your pockets compared to Warner's? Win or lose, an average person would lose in a de facto way spending the 5 figures it would take to defend themselves.
- EntangledPhysx, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3I agree. The only thing holding me back from purchasing music online is that pointless DRM.
- EntangledPhysx, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3Sadly, your idea is too good to make into in the movies. Sorry kid! =P
- inactive, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3There was a big movie star in town recently. He appeared at a famous local establishment. Since it was to be filmed, his crew kicked everyone out of the establishment who was wearing any professional sports insignia. The reason they gave was that showing said insignia on film could encumber them with licensing issues.
Kill all the (copyright) lawyers. - RetlawST, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3No, Snopes agrees. Happy Birthday makes $2 million in royalties annually.
Man, some people make it too easy. - inactive, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3Awesome.
- arbulus, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3this
- deweyhewson, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3Actually, yeah, "Happy Birthday" is under copyright and you can be liable for related damages if it's performed.
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
Now, whether or not you would be is a different story. - kufu91, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3yes it is
its owned by warner chappell - manitcor, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3that would be a trademark, its ok, people often confuse the 2 even the owners of them
- andycr512, on 11/20/2007, -2/+5To play "angel's advocate": On the other side of the coin, what gives them the right to restrict the ability to personally copy things? Should giving recipes to friends be illegal as well? "Hey, this is great Chicken Parmesan!" "Thanks!" "Can I have the recipe?" "Sorry, it's copyrighted. You can buy Cooking with John Doe for $25, it's on page 225." " ..."
"Also, ten years ago downloading music (and movies) was a much different beast. It's MUCH more accessible now than it was then."
The accessibility of media has also added to the ability to conveniently buy media online - or it would be convenient, if they didn't insist on putting useless, cumbersome DRM on it. - manitcor, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3While it erodes his position I think he was trying to make a point of extremes in the article. At the same time even though it has been ruled on in the past we all know that would not stop a motivied lawyer with $'s in his eys from trying it. Just looking at the weak cases many compines have thrown around in the past few year and actually won should tell you that.
- GoatMonkey2112, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2The RIAA is closely following the rules of acquisition relating to the exploitation of customers.
- Rakuseki, on 11/20/2007, -4/+6Eh? Years ago, CDs cost around $17-19US ( http://www.news.com/2100-1027_3-5071138.html ). New Releases today are more like $10-15US (samgoody.com) if you purchase the entire album or you can piecemeal it for a dollar a song from iTunes. Your purchasing power and/or the overall US Economy doesn't have anything specifically related to this as far as I can tell.
- bigdaddyguido, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2Excellent article, great depiction of how maddening these laws are if you actually study them.
As one additional point, where the hell are these damage sums being created when people are brought to court. Seriously, how can one's action of allowing a friend to watch a movie he bought result in a $500,000 or more loss to the companies profit? I mean lets work out the possible outcomes of this situation, your friend likes the movie, buys a copy himself and tells friends about it (increasing sales), your friend doesn't like the movie and doesn't buy it or recommend it to friends (no changes in sales), your friend hates it and badmouths it to other people (well some sales may be lost, at most 10 or so, but chances are you'll be raving about the film since you bought it and probably cancel out any negative reviews this friend can give).
So where's the 500 Gs? Seriously its more profitable to sue people for stealing your creation than your creation could ever conceivably be in it of itself (one copy = $500,000). - hiscity, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2ps. Just to clarify -- without an ongoing connection to the license server -- the program does not function. Definitely important to save often if you have flaky connections.
- aznhomig, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2"Tehranian calculates his yearly liability at $4.5 billion."
Imagine how much money pirates and MP3 downloaders "owe" to the RIAA and MPAA.
Our copyright laws are broken, plain and simple. Interest groups such as the RIAA see no incentive to change this as they hope to make money off of a broken law and vague & unclear policies in the realm of United States Copyright Law.
Oh yeah, I forgot some "©" symbols, how much do I owe? - jonr, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2I'll wait for it to come on torrent somewhere... ;)
- parkerhiggins, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2That was the point. He's not saying that people should stop all these every day infringements, but that there's something wrong when the laws and our behaviors are so out of whack. (And I don't think he's advocating for a change in our behaviors.)
- archimago42, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2Wow, way to be so certain of something and still be way off.
- dnields, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2And when was the last time the wait staff actually sang "Happy Birthday" to you?
Chances are, they didn't. Restaurants all have their own little quirky diddies with different tunes and lyrics. Almost none actually sing the actual song, "Happy Birthday". Ever wonder why?
And yes, capturing the "artwork hanging on the wall behind the dinner table" would be incidental... which is the point I was illustrating. The professor seems to think that this act of "reproduction" would add to the total infringement cost when it is a moot point. The incidental recording of such material is covered under "Fair Use" -
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is