What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Geek Squad employee sings for Best Buy in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Valerie DeAngelo explains the moment she got the casting call.
93 Comments
- inactive, on 11/09/2008, -2/+76"It’s up to Hollywood to take the next step, and compete with piracy."
I've always believed that when you create something of true quality, you will be justly rewarded. What is happening with Hollywood is the crap that they used to cram down our throats is being accepted less and less (though stupid people still do prevail at the moment, so they'll still pay for crap like Beverly Hills Chihuahua). - latrosicarius, on 11/10/2008, -6/+39do what you want cuz a pirate is free
you are a pirate - MeatPlow, on 11/10/2008, -6/+28I think they should change the name from pirated to ninjaed.
- petethepanda, on 11/10/2008, -6/+27There's something people don't seem to want to admit here. Even if the content is great, and less and less crap is produced... people who pirate are going to continue doing so. Anybody who says otherwise is either lying or just doesn't realize yet how nice it is to get stuff for free.
This "it'll force the industry to stop making crap" argument is *****. Everybody who pirates knows that argument is *****. Even if Hollywood tries to adopt Bittorrent in some way, people won't go along with it as long as they can get stuff illegally for free. This guy either has far too much faith in the internet generation or is a moron talking out of his ass. - Mjeacoma, on 11/09/2008, -3/+23Word up!
- pradaaddict, on 11/10/2008, -3/+22media downloading =/= theft
- pigfister, on 11/10/2008, -0/+19Despite the "rampant" piracy EA still produce games that continually suck.
And The MPAA constantly churn our CGI PG13 cash cow ***** movies.
And the RIAA are continually producing pretty young dancers that are completely talentless when it comes to singing and have to be put through auto-tune and such like, while blocking real talent by payola and the royalty streaming scam (see below).
All these fecktards are capable of creating is *****, cruddy, cash cows media.
===========================================================
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the ***** capitalist corporate globalist wankers from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
====================================================================
royalty streaming scam
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm ...
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326 ... - inactive, on 11/10/2008, -2/+21To me this argument has ended because of Dark Knight ,It was good and hence it was worth my money and made a billion dollars and Piracy is my way of quality control if you make crap I'm not allowing you to get my money.
- andytandreou, on 11/10/2008, -1/+14***** THE CLASSIC CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION!!!!
TV: What a joke!!! They are seasons behind when it comes to shows like Desperate Housewives, Prison Break and Lost, you have to be living in the USA to enjoy that level of up-to-dateness. Even if they do air an episode you want to see, it's cut and edited until they deem it appropriate for the audience of the country it's airing in. ***** YOU!!! Don't cut and edit my ***** show, that's as bad as pirating in my opinion. Look who's violating the rights of the creators of content. NOT ME!!! You think Seth MacFarlane wanted Family guy edited out the ass by some snob that thinks the word "silly" is immoral...!?!?!?! TV is a hilarious joke compared to the freedom of the Internet. I get a bit torrent link from my friend telling me to download this new show and BAM!!! years later I'm still watching family guy. That is the future, not some idiotic hyped up piece of crap show being thrown at me during prime time. AND NOW!!! GET READY FOR....!!! So you think you can dance 7, homosexual edition!!!! PISS OFF!!!
OMG and wats up with the ads on TV.... I would watch a couple but COME ON!!! The time-line for the TV station must be a little like this:
Ads
opening credits
Ads
10 seconds of show
Ads
10 seconds of show
Ads
10 seconds of show
Ads
***** YOU TV !!!!!
TV has great potential but it's being killed but people who have made so much money in the past they didn't find in necessary to hire people with imagination and talent anymore so now they're stupidity is ruining them. TV could become bigger than ever before. Imagine a Youtube channel on cable TV. or a Digg Channel where a narrator reads the days best Digg submissions with a few guests to comment! Man I would stop using digg if that happened (maybe). In fact why don't they just release the shows on the Internet BEFORE the pirate groups do and that way they can put their ads in there too, if the pirate groups do release an ad free version then the studios could build the ads INTO the shows and make money that way. It would make it a lot more realistic if Peter Griffin in Family Guy drank Budweiser beer instead of some random made up beer. I dunno... whatever... I'm not trying to fight for something here, I already enjoy unlimited, ad free programming on my computer, TV has already lost the game. - Dumbledorito, on 11/10/2008, -1/+14At least in terms of "small" media (independent film and some obscure to mid-size content providers), piracy has been an absolute boon. I met some filmmakers at a con (they had finished a second niche movie about gaming) and I asked them about their first film being pirated, as I'd seen it on BT and YouTube.
They said they used to fight it, but they noticed that every time it went back up, their sales would see a spike. The secret, I suppose, is to have the product ready for sale when someone who sees and likes it wants to buy. - MetalCharms, on 11/10/2008, -2/+12Yar har, fiddle di dee,
Being a pirate is alright to be,
Do what you want ‘cause a pirate is free,
You are a pirate! - grivad, on 11/10/2008, -0/+9The question is not the legality, but rather if the laws are relevant in this day.
Those laws were created before a method of distribution of this nature ever existed or was conceivable. Those laws are now antiquated, and perhaps should be adjusted to accommodate these new technologies that are applicable today.
Correspondingly, corporations should perhaps embrace the technology and use it to their advantage to broaden exposure of their products and stimulate sales, rather than try to quash it which creates exposure to a negatively viewed impression of the corporations themselves. Statistically, and logically, distribution such as this simply broadens exposure and thus raises revenue and an extremely low cost -- the more people you show your product to, the more people are going to buy it. The cheaper you can do it, the more money you'll make. Immense distribution using BitTorrent or similar technologies is practically free. Simple. Can't get much cheaper than that.
That is the question -- it seems illogical that a corporation would try to dissuade people from using this practically free method of efficient distribution of their products, at questionably undue harm to the consumers who use this tool to compare products and choose where to spend their money. Thus the debate. Technology and innovation such as this should arguably be embraced and utilized to its fullest potential, not shunned and discouraged. - jjones20, on 11/10/2008, -1/+10i look at it this way.
If someone makes a product you dont like, you dont buy it.
If i try to sell you a dog turd with pubes on it, you probably arent going to want that.
but what if i said "OMFG, I HAVE SOMETHING AWESOME FOR YOU, FIVE BUCKS ONLY" and then once money changes hands, what i give you is said pube covered dog turd?
this is how piracy works (for the most part), the people making tonnes of money from selling pirated movies are a minority in this game. Me and Joe the plumber are the majority. We download ***** we either dont feel is good enough to pay the asking price for, or stuff we cant really afford anyway.
Its a weird thing, Would i pay to see that movie? no. If it wasnt available to me for free, would i EVER see that movie? no. Then why do i download it? because it is free, it is there, and it isnt worth paying for.
if movies were priced properly, and the quality of movie was equal to the price, things would be different.
but for alot of titles "free" is the only price id pay to see them, and if there werent a way to make them free, i would just never see them. - thestereofield, on 11/10/2008, -1/+10Agreed. Looking at movies like The Dark Knight shows that if something is great, no one will hesitate to throw down some hard-earned cash to see it on the big screen. However, I'm a little less than convinced when it comes to music. I suppose that the $30 live shows for buzz bands sort of make up for that...maybe
- deadleaf, on 11/09/2008, -6/+15o/
- Aensland, on 11/10/2008, -0/+8Yawn, yet another sheep who doesn't get it.
- thestereofield, on 11/10/2008, -0/+8then from ninjaed to Seagal-ed?
- SilverBlade2k, on 11/10/2008, -0/+8I don't think we 'hate' copyright, but copyright has been abused far and above what the original law intended it to be.
Big Content uses the whole 'copyright' law in order to lock down movies and music so that we can't do what we want with the movies/music we purchased. The population wants to be legally able to transfer their songs and movies from the media (CD's, and DVD's), onto mp3 players and media servers, or simply to make a backup so they keep the original in decent shape and not worry about it getting ruined. But Big Content uses the whole copyright law to say that we can't even do these things legally.
I do agree with paying content creators for the content I consume, BUT, if it comes at the cost of not being able to do what I want with my purchases, I download because it's just easier to do what I want with it.
Copyright law in itself isn't bad, it's just that Big Content uses it to artificially control their creations, stifles innovation and won't allow other people to use it creatively (like..ripping a DVD and making a music video out of it for fun) - Murdats, on 11/10/2008, -1/+9you're an idiot no matter how much you pretend you aren't
- Dumbledorito, on 11/10/2008, -1/+8I wasn't addressing the legality issue; I was addressing some of the effects.
- rupertmorris, on 11/10/2008, -1/+8Y'know, I was about to post about how the article sounds like it would actually lead to mainstream-only, wide-net-casting garbage, when I realized the same thing. Indy producers + internet = exposure, and crappy movies + internet = lost sales.
- Mankrik, on 11/10/2008, -0/+6You missed the part about how companies deal with piracy the wrong way.
Companies think by bulling customers they'll be more inclined to buy more stuff in the future. Sadly, this doesn't work very well.
Also, think of it this way. Say you buy a CD of band you like alot, but it turns out to be *****. Next time, rather then dumping 20$ on something that may be *****, you might wanna "sample" it first, to see if it's worth your money.
Not to mention not everyone wants every last song on an album, why pay 20$ for a CD when you can pirate the one song you want off it? Itunes is proof that giving customers the OPTION to buy the songs they want is a step in the right direction. - atchon, on 11/10/2008, -2/+8If when the thief robbed your place he didn't actually change anything in your place just took a copy of everything in your place.
- diggitalism, on 11/10/2008, -1/+7oh, come on, you can't honestly sit here and tell me 50% of the people who pirate do it because "the market is filled with crap." that's just ludicrous. we do it because we're cheap, and because free > paying... ;(
- Junior612, on 11/10/2008, -0/+6Couldn't have said it better.
- TritonX, on 11/10/2008, -1/+6Distributors are obsolete.
- latrosicarius, on 11/10/2008, -3/+8"It’s up to Hollywood to take the next step, and compete with piracy."
exactly. oh, and suing consumers for cruel and unusual amounts money is not competition - Twinnie, on 11/10/2008, -0/+5That could be arguable. There was a day when I went out and paid or everything, pirating was just something other people did as far as I was concerned. Then one day I just got sick of going out and spending a couple of hours wages or more on something that turned out to be total crap. I could have paid all my bills with the money I wasted on shoddy products sometimes and all I'd done with it was reward a faceless corporation for making a crap product.
- grimfandango, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5@zionifi - and what's your problem?!
- inactive, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5no, please, tell us how you really feel
- CalcProgrammer1, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4The problem is, in a perfect world we could just duplicate everything in a super ultimate clone-it-all 5000 machine without inputting any cost or material. Problem is, for most things, we can't do this. The Internet has reached this "perfect world" too soon and the business losers behind it aren't ready to accept that their business model is outdated. They profited because back in the old days, you couldn't get free records, tapes, or even CD's for a period of time. Tapes could be copied, but with lossy quality, so buying the original was always advised. Once CD burners came out, there was still the problem that you had to have someone buy one copy of the CD and then buy blank CD's. Now you don't need any material objects at all (theoretically better) but the cavemen behind the desks at the **AA can't come to terms with modern technology and are trying to protect their dying business model the only way they know how: beating consumers with sticks (in a theoretical lawsuit-courtroom kind of way).
- Murdats, on 11/10/2008, -3/+7"people who pirate are going to continue doing so."
thats true for some people, definitely not all though, there will always be a black market but most people don't use it, a surge in piracy indicates the market is demanding something that is not being provided, as soon as it is then piracy will become a niche activity again - marshallpeck, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4let me just say... i really enjoyed wall-e. heh heh
- bonk2k, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5I usually torrent the stuff I can watch with my brain turned off for a little mindless entertainment, but as soon as I something worth watching on the big screen comes along, I'm first in line for a ticket.
- inactive, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4Well, I believe that Hollywood should compete the p2p. They give services like hulu, where you watch a 2 minute ad and then the show. The average pirate would probably prefer watching a short ad to downloading a full length show, and a lot of people have been using online services for media.
- trix334, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4I think you nailed it on the head, thats all there is to it. Fat business wall-street type guys need to disappear. Any should should be able to produce and distribute itself. I can see if say there were famous portals that would co-host shows that were becoming famous on their own, that would be great. but non of this, "well decide whats good and force it on you with as many adds as we want. crap."
- rdoger6424, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4It's more like having a shady neighbor decorate their house to look like yours
- inactive, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4I pirate absolutely everything, but I do on the other hand go to see movies like the Dark Knight in IMAX because it's worth it. I'll also recommend good shows and lesser known movies to friends who actually pay for the stuff.
- grimfandango, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4@computershack: take the blinkers off, buddy
- Aensland, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3See, it's like this: first, Big Media hypes something up. Now you can either hand over the money, go home, open up the box and pray you weren't sold a turd... or pirate it first to see if it actually does live up to the goddamned hype.
Props to you if you're still forking over money for unopened boxes of random hilarity, but some of us don't feel like bending over anymore.
You obviously don't understand the concept of quality control. - ChileanGoD, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Why not Stalloooooowned while we're at it?
- Rioracer916, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3The flimsy assumption you made is that the person is in the market for furniture in the first place.
You can't directly attribute lost sales to piracy.
For example, a lot of people experiment with new music genres. More often than not, someone isn't going to get get hooked by listening to samples from ONE CD at a crappy record store, they're going to download many artists (or borrow CDs) and see if they think the style is worth buying the CD over. If not, the music is deleted/ returned.
No one has been deprived of anything, and the good artists typically get paid.
Whether or not big media likes this, this is the new paradigm that media has evolved into over the past 10 years. They got over tape recorders and VCRs, they'll get over this too. - Swivelstick, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3I resent that, I'm not a HO, I'd like to be but I'm to old, ugly and fat..
- Platypus3333, on 11/10/2008, -1/+4I don't mean to troll, but why do we hate copyright? What's wrong with the simple proposition that an individual who creates something should retain control over access? I'm not even talking economics here. To me it is moral.
Think of it this way. Control over access to work can be given to either (1) the creator or (2) everyone else. Why on earth should a creator's rights to his own work be limited to what, in the aggregate, everyone is willing to give him? Aren't we subjecting him to the tyranny of the majority? - ultrafez, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Except BT trackers...
- CalcProgrammer1, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Theft:
I have car. You steal car. You are now happy, because you have a car, but I don't have a car anymore, so I'm angry and arrest you to get back my car.
File Sharing:
I have file. You copy file. You are now happy, because you have a file, but I still have my file, so I don't care and we both live happily ever after. The losers at the **AA get mad because you got a free copy of their so-called "property". They ridiculously claim that since you got their file free, that it automatically means they lost a sale. Totally flawed logic, because people download things because they don't feel it is worth buying or don't have the money/ability to purchase it in the first place, either way, they wouldn't buy it anyways so no "lost profit". The concept of "cash flow" is a totally illogical idea to begin with, it is not guaranteed anywhere that customers will buy your product. You have to put in the work (aka making your product attractive) to make customers WANT to buy your product. Putting out pathetic same-old-same-old media with no physical attraction (by physical attraction I mean things that would make people want to buy a hard copy over a download, such as a packaged in poster, map, book, collectible, etc). If people lose nothing from downloading, they will not see any reason to buy media.
Theft =/= File Sharing indeed. - o0joshua0o, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Maybe buying used furniture should be illegal because when someone buys it, a furniture salesman somewhere may have lost a sale.
Or, you know what, maybe I'm not responsible for propping up the furniture salesman's business model. - Jimbob200, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3If you paid money to see Meet the Spartans, Epic Movie, or anything recent with Cuba Gooding Jr, you're an idiot, and you should leave digg.
- dsmx, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3If it's good then people will pay for it, it's just that so much music is recycled crap that actually finding something worth paying for is like looking for a specific needle in a giant stack of needles.
- playuhh, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Yaarrrr.... yee forgets yer purpose ninnnnja. Pirates be the rebellious the scoundrels the ragged the everyman. Ninjas be ye elite silent assassins contemplating the right time to pounce on ye target. Respect to ye but we own the identity! Ye can't have all the marbles, MeatPlow.
Drink up me hearties, YO HO! -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is