What is Digg?167 Comments
- giveer, on 10/18/2007, -7/+114I remember after 9/11 people were wishing for the days where people get all pissy about useless ***** again. Those days are here. It's beyond arrogant and silly. This endless avalanche of ass-tacular behavior is really starting to piss me off.
- dbw784, on 10/17/2007, -1/+85I understand the need to protect intellectual property and the difference between licensing IPR for personal use and public performance, but this is going too far. We all thought US Copyright laws were draconian, looks like we've been outdone by the Brits.
- ReDoEr, on 10/17/2007, -3/+79I'm actually quite glad to hear this. Let them do it. Then they can sue you for having a stereo on at a family reunion, putting in a CD when you're driving a convertible, or singing to your girlfriend in the shower when you know you have voyeuristic neighbors. Let them keep doing it. Sooner or later, they'll have enough rope to hang themselves like this. Every flamingly retarded suit they bring marginalizes them more and more in the eyes of the public (and potential juror pools).
- pilotss, on 10/17/2007, -0/+66And in the streets: the children screamed,
The lovers cried, and the poets dreamed.
But not a word was spoken;
The church bells all were broken.
And the three men I admire most:
The father, son, and the holy ghost,
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died.
And then I was sued for quoting those words. - jdoe562, on 10/17/2007, -2/+52Wait, so now only the person who paid is allowed to listen?
I call shenanigans! Seriously though, with this and the case of the kid getting arrested for having a copy of The Anarchists Cookbook, I'm afraid the UK (and the US) are moving towards becoming Orwellian thoughtcrime societies. - DefaultGen, on 10/17/2007, -0/+45I was blasting a radio at a party once and the RIAA came and took my radio away :-(
- Frei, on 10/11/2007, -1/+43Is it April 1st yet or have we stepped into the twilight zone?
- notninja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+40Then what the ***** is a radio for then? Isn't it so OTHERS can enjoy the music YOUR listening to? Since they failed cracking down on online piracy, they are going after people pirating sound waves.
- arbulus, on 10/17/2007, -0/+31So apparently now having a CD playing at a party would fall under this category as well? A boombox in the corner playing softly at a family reunion? Playing a CD and dancing at a wedding?
Are we supposed to play our music ONLY with headphones on so that NO ONE ELSE could possilby EVER hear it??
Bull. *****. *****. There's a clause called "fair use" and playing a CD at a party or family reunion or wedding falls under fair use. I'm so ***** sick of this *****. Revoke fair use already and be done with it. Make it so that you can only play music with headphones so that no one else can hear it. Be done with the pretense and have what you want you *****. Because that's what you're going to have to do to make these kind of lawsuits legit. Otherwise, you need to go straight to hell and leave us alone. - livestradamus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31You know we're heading toward a time in the future where we pay, per listen.
- dbw784, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31and in the meantime, we just let those caught before the revolution go bankrupt?
- Bleeblaow, on 10/17/2007, -0/+27This is just ***** ridiculous, perhaps the textbook definition of a frivolous lawsuit (if there is one).
- parbjohal, on 10/17/2007, -0/+26I'm glad the Judge has let this go forward and hasn't dismissed the suit.
Hopefully it will mean that at the hearing, the Judge will find in favour of Kwik-Fit, and a precedent will be set to stop these money grabbing fools from trying anything like this again... - SineCurve, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24"I went down to the sacred store,
Where I'd heard the music years before,
But the man there said the music wouldn't play"
Send me a subpoena as well... - Royalsarko, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25If people went to the car repair chain to listen to music that would be one thing, but here it's just meant to pass the time while some guy repairs the carburator on your Ford Pinto...!
- CrackaPleeze, on 10/17/2007, -0/+21Wow... way to shoehorn 9/11 into a completely unrelated discussion. I'm not even mad. I'm impressed.
- BlackOp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21Stop buying their *****.
- brickbat, on 10/17/2007, -1/+20Firstly "Intellectual Property" does not exist. It is a term thought up by lawyers. In law there is copyright and Patents. Neither of these were intended to be property when they were introduced.
Secondly, Will these ***** just hurry up and die already. STOP flopping about. Just die. The quicker the better. - ryan899, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19I used to work at a "large electronics retailer I'm embarrassed to mention" and I seem to remember we were not allowed to store-use movies to play on TVs and the same went for audio CDs. The reason was for copyright since it would sort of be a public performance. We could only play the feed coming in from corporate satellite and the corporate CDs since they had agreements with the publishers.
- gfnw, on 10/17/2007, -0/+17It's not even that. It's not meant for the customer AT ALL, this is about the mechanics listening to the radio while they work, a common practice in most garages.
- poppieprong, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Then what the ***** is a radio for then? It's to sell ads to you.
- moofer, on 10/17/2007, -1/+15I fail to see how blasting a song is an "unauthorized duplication" of any media. Even if some choad is standing on the street corner with a microphone and a tape deck - it's the guy with the microphone's problem, since he's the one making the duplication.
Stop the planet - I wanna get off. - Immij, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13"The judge refused to dismiss the £200,000 claim, however, saying that there was at least enough evidence such that the case should be heard."
What was the judge thinking? Surely the purpose of these rules is to protect the artist from loss of earnings. Does he honestly think people will say to themselves - "sod going to see my favourite bands live, I think I'll go down to my local Kwik-Fit and listen to their ***** radio mixed with the sounds of pneumatic machinery. That's what it's all about!" ? There's no merit to this whatsoever. - itspuddingtime, on 10/17/2007, -1/+14Rudy, is that you?
- dougmc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Back in 1984, I was at a store and I made a funny face at the CCTV camera they had. A man came out of the office and told me I couldn't do that.
I shrugged, and stuck my tongue out at him. He frowned. I laughed, and walked off. - grexeo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12You've got to be kidding. It won't be long before it's illegal to listen to music or watch movies on anything but head/earphones.
- jydesign, on 10/17/2007, -0/+12Sing it with me: Copyrights killed the radio star, na na na, na, na na na na, na
- Tenlow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Oh crap, that reminded me of a song. *gets out checkbook*
- DefaultGen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11The situation is... completely ridiculous.
- airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11They will be glad to know their names were written down in martyrdom.
- spudnic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Nothing to do with duplication, it's classed as a performance
- mcnasby, on 10/17/2007, -0/+10Dugg for the blatant Best Buy reference ;)
- misterhat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Someone clever with a bit of talent could do a pretty good cover of the Ramones "The KKK took my baby away"
- damonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10So, if I hear the loud music with both ears, do I have to pay twice?
- poynterphoto, on 10/17/2007, -0/+9That's it. I'm tired of the music industry. It's a radio, it's a f#cking radio!
- BlackOp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9You can let them know if you want.
http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/contact_us/page ... - catfish182, on 10/17/2007, -0/+9so i live near germain amp in central ohio and since i was able to hear the music from the outdoor concerts will they come after me for tickets that i didnt pay for?
- Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9 Yes,that is the REAL reason there is radio...And even the music itself is an ad.
- gnomeingham, on 10/17/2007, -0/+9Hearing this case is exactly the right thing to do. What you have to understand is that British law is largely based on precedent, and precedent can sometimes override and can certainly clarify legislation. What we have here is a case where the legislation is unclear and the PRS is trying to take advantage of its interpretation.
Once this has been decided on in court the outcome will effectively become the law, at the moment if the case is dismissed the PRS could just bring a different organisation to court for the same thing.
We should only worry about this if the court decides in favour of the PRS. - poppieprong, on 10/17/2007, -0/+9It's the same thing in the United States. Under 17 U.S.C. § 101, performing or displaying a work "publicly" means "to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." 17 U.S.C § 106 gives a copyright holder the exclusive right to perform or display a work "publicly"; in other words, the copyright holder has the right to control his or her own work and to receive royalties from secondary transmissions. This is why you don't actually buy the music that is on a CD--you buy a license, with the assumption that you will not be rebroadcasting that CD without providing royalties. Thus, everyone who goes blasting around town in their boom cars, letting me know why they're hot, are technically violating MIMS' and Capitol Records' copyrights in the work, because it's being broadcasted to more than just a circle of friends.
Is this stupid? Assuredly so. - DontGiveADamn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You'll only be allowed to listen if you have a RIAA chip implanted in your brain and it tracks what to listen to and sends you a bill at the end of the month.
- insllvn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8what then do you propose?
- ByteGuerilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8If the Judge throws it out, he doesn't establish a legal precedent. If he lets the case be heard and then finds in favour of Kwik Fit, he sets a legal precedent against the money-grabbing PRS.
- myalterego2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8How long will it be before the PRS/RIAA claim that any use of the letters A - G, plus abbreviations "maj", "min", "aug", "dim", all numerals, the symbols b, #, all constitute copyright infringement? Am - C - D - F -Am - C - E constitute the first 8 bars of a well-known 60s song - so sue me!!!
When will these money-grubbing ***** learn that they are becoming a laughing stock in the eyes of listeners and musicians everywhere... go, Radiohead, go!!!
(Sound of lawyer's knock at the door...) - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8This right here I why I hate people.
- rayefrenzy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9RIAA took my radio away... Isn't that a Ramones song?
- RabidAngel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Lol. Wish I could digg this one twice.
- qwertydvorak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Party of the future. i thik this would fall under their rules:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RD4y2HcnQs - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Already have.
- boomqweeshaa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7dugg for use of ass-tacular
-
Show 51 - 100 of 165 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is