What is Digg?259 Comments
- str1fe, on 12/23/2007, -4/+163"Lobby groups such as the MPAA and the RIAA represent the distributors of movies and music, NOT the creators."
Thank you. - rmd34, on 12/23/2007, -14/+92The article doesn't point to another important issue - a worldwide buying market. You can chat across borders, send emails and even buy goods and services. When it comes to buying specific digital media, however, the borders go up and many people suddenly become criminals with charges levied against them that far exceed charges of manslaughter, rape and child abuse.
You can't, realistically, expect users on the internet to understand international laws when they can barely manage to use a search engine. What you can always expect of people is an understanding of the bottom line - is my neighbor paying more or less than I am for the same product? This is a universal constant.
As a good citizen of country B, you might pay $1 a song while another good citizen of Country B pays $0.04 cents a song. There is a worldwide imbalance taking place in how these goods are delivered to different consumers. Given the nature of the internet, it is the same as your neighbor having advantages that you yourself would not have. Forcing these borders on the internet under only specific and unique circumstances is ridiculous.
When business enters politics, as in the case of the WTO and other big business interests - cries of greed are shouted across the globe.
When these same interests force citizens into what can only be described as industry collusion and price-fixing effecting the normal process of 'supply and demand' and follow that up with systems of spyware, privacy violations and encryption methods in the form of DRM on machines that belong to no one else but the end-user - an opposing system of thought takes root.
The industry has waged a war against every single computer user on the planet instead of working toward reasonable and 'sound' solutions.
Given the criminal behavior of the industry as a whole, many users elect to bypass it entirely because there is NO sane middle ground. There are no competing products since the industry sets the price across their complete product line... no way to tell if the company is operating in Country A or Country B... there is continued abuse of power within governing bodies when playing to the needs of big business and not the consumer...
It doesn't make freely downloading copyright material right nor does it justify purchasing these products from offshore companies (despite the continued confusion surrounding this). One thing is certain... given the actions of the music business - they are certainly equally to blame for the current state of affairs and have proven culpable for this self-fulfilling prophecy.
When it comes to the industry... whether a user is politically motivated, simply cheap, or possibly unaware - one refrain unites them all and it is - ***** THE RIAA. - Hyperion1144, on 12/24/2007, -0/+30I've pointed it out once, and I'll keep pointing it out until people start to get it:
Econ 201, Econ 202: When the marginal cost of a good (the price of making one more of something) reaches zero in a free market, the marginal price of that good must also fall to zero. That's capitalism. Deal with it. The cost of making one more of a song has fallen to zero. This means the old business model is dead.
Music distributors were needed in the past because the equipment needed to replicate and distribute music used to be expensive. It is no longer.
Marginal cost is zero, marginal price is zero.
The music industry is broken at the most fundamental of economic levels. Until they come up with an entirely new business model, it will stay broken. Any attempts at fixing this problem that do not pursue the creation of a totally new business model are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/24/2007, -3/+33They can't. Their service is distribution. The Internet makes their service obsolete.
All a band needs is a website, an agent, a crew, and an ad firm.
They don't need a record deal, because people don't buy records anymore. - piXelatedEmpire, on 12/23/2007, -1/+30since when did any government develop laws that reflect what the general public considers to be legal, fair use or moral anyway?
- inactive, on 12/23/2007, -7/+32Speaking of morals, apparently it's ok for the RIAA to sue dead people's families, bankrupt college students and give the same prison sentence most rapists get.
- LilJimmyNordin, on 12/23/2007, -8/+31Considering the INSANE amount of money I've spent over the years on albums, singles and remixes on every conceivable format outside of 8-track, I don't feel the SLIGHTEST bit bad about stealing every single song I take the tiniest interest in. Strangely, none of the new stuff is any good these days, so I end up downloading most of the stuff that I or my parents have already paid for several times over. The music industry can now eat ten dicks.
- hamobu, on 12/23/2007, -11/+33Downloading music is not stealing - it is copyright infringement. Copyright is a tax on users on behalf of creators that was created at the time when printing press was the only copying technology. Saying that downloading is stealing is a dirty Orwelian tactic to sneak a conclusion into assumption (conclusion being that downloading is wrong).
Is it really in the societies best interest to limit the freedom of many for the benefit of the few? Do artists really have the right to sit at home and receive checks for the songs they recorded decades ago? How about artists make money by giving concerts, recording more songs and -god forbid - work for a living. I am not against copyright law for the benefit of society, but current copyright law not only limits freedoms of many for the benefit of the few, but also discourages productivity by the treats of lawsuits. - smacksaw, on 12/24/2007, -4/+21FAIL
That's illogical. The cartel of the RIAA controls the distribution model. If you want to be a commercial musician you must partake in their controled commerce. Furthermore, you don't work for anyone but yourself. A musician IS the small businessperson. The self-employed contractor.
There's a difference between capitalising on the talent of a contractor you hire and gaming the market so they have no alternative means of profiting from their efforts. - Riggs, on 12/23/2007, -3/+19In terms of pirating music, I think that the music industry needs to realize that their way to distribute music is outdated. They need to come up with a new way to distribute music that actually gives the artists money direcly and actually compete with piracy, or music piracy will continue forever.
- ThetaDot, on 12/23/2007, -2/+15"It doesn't make freely downloading copyright material right nor does it justify purchasing these products from offshore companies (despite the continued confusion surrounding this). One thing is certain... given the actions of the music business - they are certainly equally to blame for the current state of affairs and have proven culpable for this self-fulfilling prophecy."
Well said. - smacksaw, on 12/23/2007, -11/+24The students are right. It's no more immoral to download an album and listen to it than it is to hear it on the radio or in a record store or whatever.
What's immoral is that if you like it, keep it, use it etc - and you don't pay for it at some point. He didn't ask that. Even the article states that piracy increases purchases. No one EVER makes that connection in these articles. People download things for free and buy them if they like them. Shareware, test driving a car, sampling food, whatever.
IT IS NOT STEALING. - inactive, on 12/23/2007, -12/+23The majority of people once considered slavery to be moral. Not that sharing music is in any way equivalent to slavery, but a majority consensus does not dictate morality.
- Ellipsys, on 12/24/2007, -4/+15Why should artists get special treatment? I've worked in two (debatable, I am sure) more important industries, IT and medicine, and I sure as hell don't get paid royalties for everything I develop. If I spend years upon years in school, and create a slightly different technique for laproscopic surgery, I will be lucky to get my name in a journal as doing it X way will become the ______ Method. The engineer that built a bridge that carried me to work today doesn't get to sit on his ass and collect a few cents every time someone drives over it. Why should "artists" be able to create something and then reap the benefits of it forever when the rest of us who create the path for science/business/society to move forward, have to work for a living?
- RST1123, on 12/24/2007, -3/+13"Do artists really have the right to sit at home and receive checks for the songs they recorded decades ago?"
How can you ask such a question. Artists spend months, if not years refining their talents; and you think that the value of their work should have a limited term? If you wrote a book, you think you shouldn't be able to sell it as long as you want?
There's a reason that these "artists" are making millions of dollars, they have an ability, a talent that you don't possess. I like how you don't see "writing music" as work. Like the notes put themselves on the paper. - Jo9100, on 12/24/2007, -7/+16I'm sorry, I just won't pay for a $20 CD when I know the artist isn't going to touch even a buck of this. epic fail.
- smacksaw, on 12/24/2007, -2/+11You still fail the logic test.
If I say "I'm going to shoot you. Where do you want it, the head or the chest?" am I giving you a choice as to whether you LIVE or not?
If you want to be a commercial musician you have to sign a contract. The internet is not an alternative, because even if you want to go play at PUBLIC venues, many of them have exclusive quid pro quo EXCLUSIVE agreements with say...Ticketmaster/LiveNation. I don't think you'll ever get it. You think that collusion is the free market because of the illusion of choice.
I choose not to get shot at all. Sorry, that's not a choice I am being given. - hoegaarden, on 03/31/2009, -5/+13This is an unpopular argument but the music and motion picture industry have every right to sell their content in any way, shape, or form. The problem is, YOU (the people pirating music, maybe myself included), the consumer, are fans of music and movies that these companies are largely responsible for producing and/or providing a business model for you to obtain this content.
The reality is, you have to use the most effective weapon you have...the power of choice/boycott. If you pirate the material, you're still demonstrating demand. If you choose to not buy the content, as a whole, and over time, these industries will listen. It's about the bottom dollar, and that's okay, business gets run by money...and lots of it.
Bottom line, if you want to make an effective protest, you need to personally draw a line in the sand. Many have, but as a whole, most haven't. And the sad reality is, most of these people just want content free but will continue to complain. And there are more of those people (think beyond the people you know) than ones who choose to give up something for a greater good. - LeeSoong, on 12/24/2007, -0/+8The Good Meme:
1. Buy an item (CD / Movie / Book)
2. Immediately donate it to the Public Library
3. Check out the item you donated and use it.
4. Convince all your friends to do the same.
You are now legally sharing music, videos, and books - all for the public good.
Have a heart and donate some cash to the library too.
They keep the lights on, the books, CDs, and DVDs neat and orderly, and make it a pleasant place to visit.
Help them out - volunteer some of your time - you just might meet hot library women !
If you have some skills, produce content, CopyLeft it or GPL it, and give it away.
Really good free content becomes more popular, faster and easier than some expensive material. After giving away freebies, you can make some stuff to sell, put advertisements on your website, etc. Make yourself popular without being super greedy. - actorboy, on 12/24/2007, -0/+7Only in that copyright laws are meant "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." In other words, it benefits society because it benefits the artists.
Source: http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constituti ... - LeeSoong, on 12/24/2007, -1/+8Well, that is absolutely true:
- buy yourself a guitar, learn to play, and when you want to listen to some music - you play it! Learn to sing while your at it.
It was once understood that music was a participative activity.
If you want some art, learn to paint, draw, write poetry or stories, and/or sculpt for yourself.
Creating your own music & art will be much more satisfying than just
the rest of the world do it...
Get Creative!
It's good for your brain, your soul, and your outlook on life. - Hyperion1144, on 12/24/2007, -3/+10When I open a book, I find the copyright held by the author, the CREATOR OF THE CONTENT. Why on a CD do I see the copyright being held by the distributor? What is the relevant moral difference between print and music?
- inactive, on 12/24/2007, -0/+6I would have been one of the two of that 500 to raise my hand. Piracy is both illegal and immoral. To claim otherwise is denial for the hope of self-justification.
- inactive, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6It's my opinion that file sharing is, undoubtedly, stealing. You're getting a product that is only offered by the retailer for a price, instead for free. I agree that file sharing doesn't necessarily hurt the company trying to make a profit; perhaps you're just testing it out to buy it, or your CD broke, or whatever. If you're just making a backup, or the disc you paid for doesn't work, then yeah, I suppose it's morally acceptable to file share. But in most cases, in my experience, people who file share do so because they don't want to have to pay, and they know they won't get caught. That's why it's so popular.
I will admit that the online distribution methods available for media are limited and balanced against the consumer, and the MPAA and RIAA are unlikable and use outdated business methods, but that doesn't make it moral or legal to steal anything. I've seen "This Film is Not Yet Rated", and I've looked at many of these Digg articles, but seriously, that's not a good excuse to steal music. Someone has to pay for the studios, and the people who do the work, and that money eventually comes from the people who pay for music. Even if a lot of it goes to wealthy executives, that's just the way it is.
A lot of people on the internet seem like they think they're entitled to good-quality music and TV shows, at low prices, delivered without DRM. If you can't afford to buy a CD, or you're not willing to pay, and there's no alternative, then you'll simply have to do without it.
I think what I'm trying to say is, go ahead and pirate whatever you want, but don't try to convince yourself you're justified, or fighting a corrupt organization, or even worse, doing something noble. It's likely that DRM-free, good-quality downloadable media will eventually become available. When that happens, would you really pay for everything? I'm sure many here won't practice what they preach.
(Is anyone else kind of embarrassed by posting on this website sometimes? I always feel like I've wasted my time when I write a message here. Every article is either Halo, or the Gamespot firing, or a new Apple product, or Ron Paul, or Vista-Slipup!!, or a sex article, where everyone scrambles to make the joke about how Digg users never have sex. That stereotype is more true than I'd like; and tell you what - if you post here, and you laugh 'ironically' about how nerdy you are, but if you really are a nerd, with no social skills, and few friends, and no sex life, it's really not that funny - it's sad, and you should change that. I would never, ever tell anyone in real life about being on this site, it's just a... never mind.
I kind of want to delete my account, but it's impossible. If an administrator reads this, could you delete my account please? Thanks) - eviscero, on 12/24/2007, -1/+7The way I see it is for many years the RIAA made me pay 20 bucks for a CD with only one song was worth listening too.
Technology and progress has afforded me, us the chance to get ***** over. - Oomsoup, on 12/24/2007, -1/+7Nice round number. Enough to be offensive yet not enough to be ridiculously unreal.
- GMorgan, on 12/24/2007, -0/+5I don't want to pay a tax on media. I use loads of CD for backup and for burning FOSS ISO's. I do not pirate, there is little worth pirating. There is no way I should be made to pay for other people.
The sane solution is for people to change their business model. It will happen eventually because artists will recognise they don't need the big distributors anymore. - mt066, on 12/24/2007, -2/+7Just because their marketing system isn't up to your lofty standards doesn't mean you legally get to steal it.
- akkibaba, on 12/24/2007, -1/+6The point Hyperion is trying to make is that the old industry model of middlemen charging you massive fees for mass-produced copies of someone else's music is over. The old model worked when the means of duplication were capital-intensive and media was not as decentralized as it is today.
The two changes that broke the old model are : Now it costs nothing to duplicate a song, and the internet has made it easy for artists to get their music to people directly, without middlemen. The nitty-gritty of how this will work is not clear yet, but that is the general direction. It will be much more clear in 10 years or so. - brianary, on 12/24/2007, -0/+5@actorboy:
How is authorship transferrable? - inactive, on 12/23/2007, -9/+14Morality has nothing to do with what really IS right or wrong. And just becuase enough people think that something is OK to do does not mean that it is. (Oh, and if you poll every single person, you will find more people who think that taking music that you don't pay for is wrong.)
- inactive, on 12/24/2007, -1/+6Meh, this just further demonstrates the fact that people will steal anything they want and justify it as long as they don't have to look someone in the face while they do it.
If there was a computer store that didn't lock up their merchandise, people would steal it and blame Microsoft and various big manufacturers for high prices.
It's so easy with intellectual property that people don't care and never would unless someone stole their shiat. - hamobu, on 12/24/2007, -1/+6patent expires after 20 years, Copyright expires after 125 years
- actorboy, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Because the artists have signed over their copyright in exchange for royalties. Distributors don't want to ask permission every time they want to include a single track on a compilation CD or sell usage to a movie soundtrack. So they offered a deal instead -- sign over the rights in exchange for royalties every time a song is sold.
- hamobu, on 12/24/2007, -1/+5Just one of many problems. 125 Years! WTF! That is not even remotely fair.
- tossaway, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4remember when parents used to teach kids the difference between right and wrong? I see alot of people posting to this thread with some ***** up parents.
Do I download music and movies from the net wtihout paying for them?
Hell yes I do.
Do I know it's illigal and wrong.
Hell yes I do.
I don't hide behind some disillusion that I'm doing it to stick it to big corparations. - actorboy, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Steal:
take without the owner's consent; "Someone stole my wallet on the train"; "This author stole entire paragraphs from my dissertation"
Source: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=steal
No mention of depriving someone of a physical item in the definition.
"Steal it. Steal away. Steal and steal and steal and steal some more and give to all your friends and keep on stealing."
-- Trent Reznor, Concert at Sydney Hordern Pavilion, September 16, 2007
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ5iHaV0dP4 - baalzebub, on 12/23/2007, -2/+6if i was living in Uganda or some other Timbuktu country where there were no IP laws regarding music and video then downloading music and movies would not be against the law, stupid corporatism wants to project their brand of law & order beyond its jurisdiction...
- cbuddha42, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Music is copyrighted by the distributor instead of the artist because the artist sold the rights to the music to the distributor. It works the same as if you were contracted to write a piece of software for company x. When your done the software does not belong to you but rather to company x.
- BlackJackJester, on 12/24/2007, -3/+7Except in this case, no human's rights are being infringed, unless you consider their right to sell out a right they deserve to keep.
- xtragedy, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4There are no morals in informatics and marketing... Both together is something to see!
- poisonborz, on 12/24/2007, -2/+6I'll be the bad example, but hey, I live in East-Europe. No, I haven't bought my downloaded records, nor have my friends, ever. I know it's not something to be proud of, but a mere fact. And maybe I'm saying this since salaries here are a bit different, but hey, it's funny to think of the same "try it, buy it" slogans from nfo files of cracked games. Be honest, what's the percentage of someone downloading, listening to it, and then buying it? It's a nice, naive dream, but hey, society doesn't work like this. Even if that 5% who buys it after all, is more than nothing, this system won't work like that. Digital information can be transferred for free, and nobody can do nothing about that. It's like forcing someone to pay for air. It can be done with some rude method, but it wont be quite succesful, especially not on masses.
- mt066, on 12/24/2007, -2/+6Way to equate Bittorrent to SLAVERY
- solis365, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4roads dont exactly work like that though. the person who walks probably buy groceries at the store, gets things shipped to him via UPS, gets mail. all of these things require roads. roads are very very nearly a 'pure public good' and as such, no one can be excluded from using them NOR from paying for them. its like National Defense--I cannot simply say "I dont want the military to protect my house today. its too expensive, so hey you terrorists, if you want to attack the US, you can attack my house and not worry about it."
- mt066, on 12/24/2007, -2/+6Some people really will try anything to justify their free CD's. But first of all, I have a hard time believing that "most" people in the country would even support an intellectual property free-for-all. That's because they understand that there is more to the world than a few free mp3's to be had.
The idea that none of the music is good enough to pay for is totally ridiculous as well. You just aren't looking hard enough. There's something for everyone out there. You can't expect them to deliver it right to your laptop personally. Nobody's making you buy and listen to the new Nine Inch Nails album. Find your own ***** and pay your own way. And if you don't like it, find something else to do that is free. - cliffski, on 12/24/2007, -1/+5I agree with you 100%, but the digg generation feel they are entitled to take others work for free. big shocks will come when they leave moms basement and have to get a job.
- boflaade, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3Actually I'm swaying your way. I'm too old to read snot nose, self-centred baby talk. On occasion, a good article comes along and the comments are from immature children wanting to get noticed.
As far as "closing" you account, why bother? You just don't have to return to Digg. Perhaps that will be my next years resolution. - MaliciousKitty, on 12/24/2007, -1/+4I'm so-so on the downloading thing.
On one hand, I do see it as bad if you never pay for it. Someone worked to put that music together and you're just taking it for free. It takes money to rent the studio, pay the staff, etc.
Also, most people I know don't like working for free. Would you go to work everyday if you weren't getting paid? Probably not. So I do think that fans should support the artists when they can.
HOWEVER, I would be happy if musicians and fans would meet half-way. If we download a couple things here and there, but buy other stuff then give us a break.
Some fans don't have enough money to buy EVERYTHING. We have to pick a choose what to buy and what to download.
For example, I listen to foreign music, so I have to import it. The last CD I bought cost about $26 but after shipping and everything it cost me $37.25. And the last tour dvd cost me about $70. I don't have enough money to buy everything so I pick and choose. I don't buy singles, but I'll buy albums and dvds when I can. And if I can't buy it, I download it.
Then there's things I have to download if I want to watch them - tv interviews/performances - because they don't air on tv here...
So I think fans should support the artists when they can, but give us a break every now and then...
Also, I think they should release regular CDs for the more serious fans who like owning cds (me!) - and release songs online (which you can buy song-by-song) for the more casual listeners, fans that don't care about cds, and 'that guy' who just wants that one song.
I know there are some people who never want to pay for music, but most fans I know don't mind buying things. It's just that if you're favorite artist is releasing a lot of stuff, things can get pricey quickly.
This year my favorite band has released a couple singles, an album, a dvd or two, and they're on their second tour this year... - inactive, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3Even when Radiohead tried this around 2/3 of people paid ***** all.
- flieger, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3The "***** THE RIAA" statement was all it needed for me to digg the comment.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 258 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is