What is Digg?69 Comments
- giggins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Retarted Idiots Association of America (RIAA)
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2LEARN THIS TO FIGHT THE RIAA
DON'T PLEA OUT
Now is not the time to cower to such repugnant and illegal extortion.
Read what the law says:
Fromt the United States Supreme Court:
Like the prudential component, the constitutional component of standing doctrine incorporates concepts concededly not susceptible of precise definition. The injury alleged must be, for example, "` distinct and palpable,'" Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 (1979) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 501), and not "abstract" or "conjectural" or "hypothetical," Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 -102 (1983); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974). The injury must be "fairly" traceable to the challenged action, and relief from the injury must be "likely" to follow from a favorable decision. See Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S., at 38 , 41. These terms cannot be defined so as to make application of the constitutional standing requirement a mechanical exercise.
Furthermore, [it] is equally true that before one is entitled to a remedy against an alleged wrongdoer, there must be some duty owing from the wrongdoer towards the injured person." State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court, 15 Ariz App 597,598,490 P.2d 426 (1972)
---
That means to have a "cause of action" the RIAA will need to prove there is a real loss. Not "abstract" or "conjectural" or "hypothetical,". Remember the burden of proof is on them.
For more information on how to stick it to the man, visit Mark Steven's http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com - RpgActioN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can remove the media and say you don't know what they're talking about... They will have no proof to convict you other than connection logs, and all you have to prove is there's more than one way to use somebody else's connection without them knowing.
- anarchy2465, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the RIAA and record companies no longer have a place in our society.
- NINJ4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is *****. I'm not worried, this will all catch up to them eventually.
- rewritable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is no way they can prove that your IP address contains the music that they said it does. Its like calling the police department and turning in someone's license plate number for running a stop sign. RIAA thug: "We're suing you for stealing music Mr.Rewritable" ME: "Well you guys are some dumb muther ***** because my computer doesnt even have a hard drive, I run Knoppix 3.9 which doesnt have music on it and doesn't need a hard drive so you retards cannot say that I have to have a HDD to use a computer." (mean while my hard drive is sitting inside of my television or many other little nooks and crannys I have).
You see people, the RIAA do not knock down doors over music, infact it is against the law for them to even suggest they'll do that. What They do is send you a letter in the mail telling you to either pony up some dough or they'll take you to court and -TRY- (aol keyword here -TRY-) to get you to pay a horrendish amount of money for each song you supposedly have on your computer that is sitting at home while you're in court telling these dick heads you dont have a hard drive. Badda bing badda boom! - sych0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so theyre getting cocky now eh?
Anyhow, to those of you in the creative industry, if youve signed with a record label youre working for free anyways. You get ***** royalties. TWiT 21 has a good interview with Roger McGuinn on the subject.
The RIAA just pissed of that people are screwing the screwers.
Its like that old bumper sticker: Don't steal! The government hates competition - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The respective recording labels, who are the actual litigants, are using their own resources to enforce compliance with the law.
On "repealing copyright": copyright, in and of itself, is not evil. It constitutes a compromise: for a set period of time, the party creating (or, in the case of for-hire work, financing) the intellectual property is provided sole financial gain and exclusive right to dictate manner of use of the copyrighted material. After that period of time, the material reverts to the public domain, where it may be freely used by all. The originator is paid for creativity for the useful lifespan of the copyright, after which time, the public may take that material and try to use it in new and/or innovative ways.
Problems arise when laws such as the recent copyright extension act passed several years ago bar material from entering the public domain. This law was led by the Senators and Representatives from California, and supported by legislators in New York, Texas, Florida, and other areas with burgeoning entertainment/publishing/advertising industries.
You all can help reverse trends like this on Election Day. Until then, glib namecalling and posing only serves to distract from the solution. Stop whining here.
Take the time to compose, proofread, and cogently argue your position to your representatives in Congress. Those of you in California have an elevated duty to do this because many of the laws you do not like are being put forth by your legislators. Pretend thuggery makes you sound like spoiled 15 year-olds. And 15 year-olds can't vote. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ Oswald
Then boycott it. Use your wallet to show the industry that that price point is too high. There was an excellent recent story about how the record labels are considering pulling their artists from iTunes because iTunes has (a) shown that a $15 price point is too high for most music and (b) offers reliable (somewhat) proof of actual sales, which are the basis for the labels' royalty payments to the artists. Listen to last week's TWiT - the one with Roger McGuinn, formerly of the Byrds.
Stop buying CDs at stores that charge more than $10 per CD. If enough people do this, the industry will change.
And as to your question, Oswald - gasoline is a necessity. Using a disaster to cash in is immoral. More importantly, consider who is making the charges of "price gouging."
While I am not defending the gasoline/oil industry, the charges are being led by politicians and the media. Politicians can make the charge, thereby gaining "common man" appeal come election day. Media can make the charge because it is sensational and boosts ratings. No one votes for higher gas prices. No one writes letters to the editor complaining that gas prices are too low.
Think critically. Question motives. - OswaldKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0All this talk about theft and nobody points out the $20.00 price tag on a CD that costs about $2.50 produce excluding advertising. If this is ok, why is a gas station in violation for charging $6.00 a gallon for gas? Price gouging is price gouging. It's supposed to be against the law for everyone.
- Monkeman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Apparenlty you can't prove you're innocence so you pay the fine like a good little thief."
Apparently this is America and since America was founded it has (supposedly) worked the other way around, and it's disappointing to see that people are letting even the most fundamental of our rights as American citizens be trashed by corporations in the face of "theft".
P.S. It's not theft. Theft is the removal of an object. If I take a photocopier into a store and copy the entirety of a novel, then leave the novel, and walk out, I have not stolen anything. Stop throwing around words for the sake of abusing their weight for emphasis. - lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If those terrorists hate corporate America so much, they should just fly a plane into RIAA headquarters. That way, everyone wins! Oh, except the suicide bombers. They lose.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here's how some folks do it:
1.Buy the latest music CD that you want from ebay.
2. Burn a few copies.
3. Sell original on ebay
4. Goto 1.
I personally don't do this as I'm one of those
that feel the music coming out lately is crap. - olie_baba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The RIAA are spineless arse holes. The RIAA charge people with stealing, which its not. They say its just as bad as going into a store and stealing the cd's. But tell me this why if your caught stealing cd's you have to return the merchandise. and pay the court a fine of no more than $500. They are on a crusade and im sick of it. Im with the guy who prescribed violence. Im personally issuing a fatwa to The RIAA.
- OswaldKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why hasn't anybody countersued? Sure going one on with the big Four is a no win battle, but a large cooperative class action suit would make them think twice about their practices.
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://digg.com/music/How_much_do_artists_actually_make_on_CDs_
Oh... and while you are bemoaning the artists loss of revenue for Downloading their music... read the above digg and the story it links to.
The RIAA claiming that WE are ripping off the artist is a little like Adolph Hitler complaining an Arab cab driver is an anti-Semite.
When you a buy a CD you are not supporting the artist, you are supporting a better grade of coke and hookers for some fat record company exec, and of course... you're support the war against your rights to free speech and due process.
If you want to support your favorite artist, go see them in concert. Don't buy a CD unless they hand it to you themselves, and you put your cash in their hand. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I haven't bought a CD since Napster was shut down.
I refuse to put a dime into the war chest of the con artists who are using the law to commit acts of litigious and legislative terrorism against the people of the United States.
You want a political movement instead of violence?
Repeal Copyright.
Our founding fathers allowed copyrights in this country to encourage the creation of an American culture by rewarding those who create work of art and literature.
Today those laws are being used as a form of commercialized censorship.
They have obviously not only outlived their usefulness, but are being used to stifle and destroy the American cultural base they were intended to grow.
Repeal copyright for personal non-commercial use. - wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sigh. The RIAA and the RIAA are looting the court system, and will ruin the next generation of both operating systems and home theater equipment with draconian DRM technology.
Frankly, I'm ready to start paying to use a proxy and go totally pirate. Hell, if the industry is going to ASSUME that I am a thief I may as well act like one.
Oh, and as to the issue of harm. Look, right now you can get AYCE music from Yahoo for 60 bucks a year. So, lets say 2 years of p2p use = 120 bucks. I really, really want a court to get the RIAA to show how having some songs on a HDD causes a direct loss to them of $8,000. Not potential revenue loss, real loss. Even the most sympatheic judge will probably end up trying either to supress laughter or trying to supress the urge to throw the RIAA lawyer out of their courtroom for thinking they were so stupid the would swallow the line of crap they are spewing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you are an independent artist, would you send me all your music, and let me pay you whenever I feel like it? I don't think so, so screw all artists, independent or not.
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think we need to behead an RIAA employee Taliban style everytime some one get's fined. It's the only way they're going to learn who the boss is in this country.
I'm really sick of watching them get away with litiguos terrorism. It clear that we can't fight back in the court system because the EFF and other consumer rights groups are out numbered, outgunned and out spent. They can buy Senetors and Judges too. We need to strike back with our brand of terrorism to counter theirs.
Their not going to Learn until some one does an Oklahoma City on the Captial Records building or they get a multi billion dollar lawsuit because some releases video of an RIAA secreaty being executed in retaliation. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ratteler:
That line of argument is both immoral and puerile. If you are sick of the recording labels are litigating rights that their lobbying efforts secured, violence is not the answer.
Furthermore, if you do not like the concepts of lobbying as it presently exists, vote for legislators who will effect a change in the system.
As far as the judges are concerned, the RIAA lawsuits, being founded on federal law, are venued within federal courts. Federal judges are appointed for life. Therefore, unless you can show some evidence of bribery of a federal judge, you corruption charge against the federal judiciary is baseless. Most federal judges that I have appeared before are intelligent and extraordinarily mindful of the law. The only people I have met who are consistently better versed in the law than the judges are their clerks.
In short, violence, at least to secure one's "right" to download popular music for free is illegal and immoral. Please stop, think, and obey the law. All of the laws. - ForumTroll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"LOL. If you're stupid enough to pay a 'fine' from the RIAA without checking your legal rights, then let me know where you are and I'll send you a 'fine' too. -Diggg"
Except the RIAA is a rich and powerful corporation that has been granted a lot of power by the government and if you take it to court you will lose just like everyone else who has fought or counter sued. The RIAA is a lot more powerful than you will ever be! You’re just some random noob who thinks he has out smarted everyone by pointing out the blatantly obvious. Everyone knows what they’re doing is wrong but without changing the system they will continue to do it and they will continue to win these cases. If you don’t want to be sued the only way to be sure of that is to stop listening to their music. - hayden.evans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I dont see the artists of the music complaining, nor homeless. to think of it i dont even think they give a flying *****. they got there several multi-million dollar houses and cars for each day of the week. Has anyone seen cribs? its sickening to see how rich some of these artists are.
- ForumTroll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"You can remove the media and say you don't know what they're talking about... They will have no proof to convict you other than connection logs, and all you have to prove is there's more than one way to use somebody else's connection without them knowing."
The problem is that this doesn't hold up in court where the people making the decisions usually know very little about computers and Internet security. Also, most people won't let it get to court because hiring lawyers for a legal battle like this is more expensive than simply paying the fines. Especially, when you're going up against the RIAAs army of lawyers which consist of some of the highest paid and most successful lawyers in the country.
They continue to do this because the court system allows them to do it and because most people simply can’t afford to go to court to fight them. If what you’re suggesting worked thousands of people would be doing it instead of paying the fines. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah some one needs to stop them it will take someone powerful.
But they wont go after someone like that i bet more like the little guy.
We cant do much at all i wish we could. - Majin_Raditz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I dare the RIAA to try and "fine" me. I'll gladly take there ass to court.
- Diggg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just as well OJ & Michael weren't 'accused' of downloading ...they'd be in big trouble now.
LOL. If you're stupid enough to pay a 'fine' from the RIAA without checking your legal rights, then let me know where you are and I'll send you a 'fine' too. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0By the way, elections don't mean crap, democracy sucks and laws are opinions backed by a gun.
People writing definitions for things doesn't make me their obedient servant. It's their opinion, it only gains validity when pointing guns at me.
Scroll back up to what the Supreme Courts say about "tangible loss" and don't ***** in your pants thinking the RIAA has some magical (or legal, same difference) powers setting boundaries for people and supposedly protecting artists.
If you pay a fine because you don't know your legal rights, then you deserve to be stripped out of your cash by thugs.
@cool4u2view: yes let us fall into intellectual laziness and actually chose the violent mean over trying to find a non-violent mean... that's why we're in this mess! - redpoint73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The record labels are doomed and they know it. These lawsuits and fines are a desperate attempt to deter people from distributing and downloading music, because these old men that run these record labels can't create a compelling online product.
They all have been dragging their feet for years in developing a web based system of distributing music, while anyone with a brain could see what was happening. COnsider this the death throes of the record labels. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@mcbesq: that's a legal opinion, are you a lawyer?
You ought to know the difference between an opinion and fact. only facts may be brought up as evidence. A law is a (legal) opinion backed by guns. You "breaking a law" is you only breaking an opinion, which is not cause for complaint.
Are you obliged to obey the law of Iran? No because it doesn't apply to you. You're not a citizen of Iran. At least you know that.
Do you know what a citizen is? A citizen is someone who owes duty of allegiance in exchange for a duty of protection by the government. The Supreme Court of the US already ruled that you can't sue the government for failing to protect you. If there's no duty of protection, there's no duty of allegiance, therefore there's no US Citizens.
Read Adventures in Legal Land by Marc Stevens or get f**ed in the ass by your government of choice.
http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com - digit9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If I bought a CD of some music and then just out of pure laziness I downloaded it instead of buring it does that mean I stole it, even if I had bought it before?
I'm not buying this crap that we are stealing from artists. The artists, in most cases, don't make ***** from their CDs, it's the record companies.
The crime doesn't rest with the people downlaoding the music. It lays with the lawyers representing the RIAA and the record labels themselves that steal millions from artists.
These people suck. If you don't like the fact that people are stealing your "property" or your "craft" then change careers. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0IMHO, it seems that people with deep pockets win more lawsuits than those who can barely support themselves.
Unless of course, the case is just ridiculous, like when Microsoft sued Zamos. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Cool
Violence as a means of wealth redistribution is wrong. Consider your socio-economic station in America relative to those in the lowest economic brackets. By your reasoning, because the system has seemingly (or truly) abandoned their interests, then those worse off than you would be justified in using force to take your property because (and I'm just assuming here) you are a middle/middle-upperclass male, aged 17-49, single, and so the various braches of the consumer industry is based around you.
Cool, have you contacted your representatives? Have you looked into organizing a local chapter of the EFF or joining one if one already exists? Have you taken your money to legal downloading services such as Napster or iTunes? These are nonviolent methods. Look into them. Or are you more interested in merely reflexively adopting the "violent rebel fighting the Man" stance.
Stop posing, Cool. Start doing.
Finally, do any of the people here who download music without paying for it ever actually follow up and buy the CD if you like what you heard? I for one have. I have gone to shows to see artists whose music I've downloaded off of free sites.
If you are not doing this, whatever your political belief may be, by not purchasing music that you have enjoyed or seen that artist live, you are depriving that artist of his/her property. If you like it, BUY IT! - billmania, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"That's the most retarded argument I've seen in a long time,apparently you think those of us who work in the creative industry should work for free."
YOU said it right there, creative industry. Any industry built around exploiting art is inherently evil. Besides, if anyone should get fined in this whole deal it's the record companies for ripping off "their" artists for the last forty years. Not to mention us, the public. - brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"but you are removing a sale from the original artist, that's a theft of value."
This is stupid logic. It assumes that everyone who copies the book would have bought it..
Theoretically of course, if I just downloaded the Madonna Discography just uploaded to Demonoid that does not mean that I would have bought it...ever, so in that case, what was stolen? - zenghost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah...the RIAA is lookin reaal bad right now...good for them...
- nuxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0y'see it always helps when you don't listen to top 40 crap either, because that's obviously the first thing the RIAA is looking for on p2p services.
somehow, i doubt epitaph, hellcat records, or the many smallish european dance music labels really give a flying ***** about p2p sharing....
solution, listen to more punk rock and electronic music!! ;-p - culebra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Guitly until proven innocent? Well actually yeah, thats how it works. I'm no lawyer by any means, but I did take a few law classes in college. One of my classes specifically covered copyright law, and copyright law is vastly different than criminal or common law. Specifically, when it comes to copyright law, you have to prove your innocence. So, as ***** as the RIAA is, they are within their right to go straight for the throat and not just do a benign cease and decist order. Just my $0.02
- karamba_kid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Whats even more sad is that people are still going out and buying there crappy music and downloading there crappy songs. I have been boycotting them (RIAA) ever since I have found better independent artists out there. Obviously the artist with RIAA record labels approve of the RIAA actions against fans otherwise they wouldn't have signed there lives away. Stop supporting them don't download there music don't pirate there music stop going to there movies. If we want them to disappear and die out we are going to have to do it fair and square.
- OswaldKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mcbesq,
Good points.
I have not purchased a single CD in the past 8 years. Nor do I intend to ever buy one again. I'm positive the RIAA is not missing my money.
I do support peer to peer song trading, however. As others have said, I would be more than happy to send the artist a fee for the use of his/her creation, but I will not give the members of the RIAA one cent of my money. And if theft is theft, why is there not an outcry again the entertainment industry? Consumers are being robbed blind.
What baffles me is that people will scream about high gas prices and ignore the gouging that takes place within the "luxury item" scene. You see no one selling their $40,000 gas guzzling SUV in favor of an $18000 fuel efficient car, but they'll rush out and buy the newest Eminem CD and all the greatest hits CD's as they're released. - Kashey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I already convinced many of my musician friends to never sign any contracts with record labels. MAKE YOUR OWN RECORD LABEL.! There is no need for huge record studios anymore. $5.000 is all for your gear and about 2500$ to press CDs. $7.000 is not that much.
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The respective recording labels, who are the actual litigants, are using their own resources to enforce compliance with the law."
There is the first problem. You not facing "A" litigant. You're facing a gang... a collection of people, posing as an idivudual litigant because under U.S. law a corparation has all the rights of an individual.
It's a fundamental flaw in our legal system, and it make corporations first class citizens, and individuals second class.
We are not talking David Vs. Goliath. We're talking about David Vs. an Army of Goliaths.
Faced with such an unfair advantage the only way to win is change tactics. To not fight by their rules until they balance them. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, Corrosion, you are obligated to obey the law. If you do not obey the law, you are subject to various consequences, which may range from fines to imprisonment to execution, depending on the law.
Every person is required to obey all the laws, not just the laws that that person agrees with.
Alas, Corrosion, I suspect I am talking to one who is more interested in whining than in doing.
If you believe in downloading intellectual property without right, then when you are sued, appear in court, waive liability, proceed to trial and tell a jury that you downloaded the material because you did not like the law. You can also try that tactic with other laws. Let me know how it works out for you. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Election Day doesn't change jack ***** with corrupt politicians, rigged elections and lobbyout out the wazoo.
Only thing that matters is you are NOT under obligation to obey every law they throw at you. THEY are acting illegally. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Corrosion
Yes, I am a lawyer. And violating a law is actionable. An indictment is nothing more than a complaint in a criminal action.
And are you obliged to obey the laws of other countries? You may be, depending on which treaties exist and what laws are covered by those treaties. For example, if you violate a British copyright, under present treaties, legal action may be brought against you.
As for suing the government, that too, depends. There is a general rule of sovereign immunity, but some jurisdictions have rules setting aside sovereign immunity in certain circumstances. Many of these are actions at tort against municipalities or counties for negligent maintenance of infrastructure.
If your local police department fails to afford proper protection, or engages in abuses, you may bring suit against that police department.
Additionally, if the government fails to afford you certain rights or protections, you may sue. In 1954, there were two of the greatest decisions in American jurisprudence - Brown v. Board of Education. The government of Kansas, specifically the Board of Education, did not afford full and equal protection and benefits to African-American citizens because of segregated schools. Legal action was brought, and, by using the system, real change was created.
If your constitutional rights are violated by the government, you may bring an action, in federal court, for injunctive relief, in other words, telling the government to act within its boundaries.
If you feel that the government is violating your constitutional rights, speak with an attorney, perhaps through the EFF, and bring suit so that the government will recognize those rights.
A law is not an opinion backed by guns. It is a rule which every person (not only citizens) must obey. The power to make the laws stems from the People's investment of power within the legislature to make laws, the executive to enforce laws, and the judiciary to interpret laws.
Your proposed system does not work. It was tried in "the Wild West" when people who disobeyed the law were deemed to exist outside the law - hence "outlaws."
One final note on the title of this digg -
The RIAA did not fine the students. The students settled out of court for that sum. Think of it like poker. You can either fold (settle) or call (litigate and try). - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well if you're a lawyer I won't take your advice.
- cool4u2view, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Unless a nonviolent method presents itself (i.e. tiananmen square style) then I have to side with the violence (maybe not towards people) is best way to get them to listen crowd as the RIAA has everyone overpowered in all aspects.
Most of you will just sit around complaining vs. actually trying to do something about it. Someone should organize a massive protest. I swear there has to be professional protestors who are anti-everything. - adminmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the problem here isn't whether some one did or did not download music. I thinks its that certain people's rights are being alienated. like the RIAA *NOT* giving clear specific evidence linking them to the 'crime'. America was established so every one could have certain inalienable rights, and if a couple million dollars and a pocket full of lawyers merits the total disregard of these right....then this world is going to hell.
- MrZaiko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why not get rid of the bootleggers first?? maybe because they are harder to get caught???? back in late 1997, I downloaded MP3's from IRC channels, They were only a few little groups of people who got MP3's. I still bought CDs. people reacted to this when they noticed THEY WERE BUYING a $20 CD for just 1 or 2 songs. Lots of crappy music made.
thats why Napster in late 99 was so popular. It was the easy way out... - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@wilf brin: as i mentionned earlier, they do have to prove there's a real loss.
Supreme Court says:
The injury alleged must be, for example, "` distinct and palpable,'" Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 (1979) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 501), and not "abstract" or "conjectural" or "hypothetical,"
Whatever the Supreme Court says right?
Let them show evidence. Remember that jurisdiction is also an element of the evidence. Have them prove their jurisdiction over you. Ask them what jurisdiction factually is.
Don't get violent, get smart!
This guy'll show you how:
http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/interview.mov
Buy his book! Stand up! -
Show 51 - 66 of 66 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