What is Digg?99 Comments
- zirtbow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+48Obligatory
1. ***** THE RIAA!!!
2. I hate the RIAA!!!
3. RIAA sucks!!!
I think I covered most of the standard bases. I'm sure people will addon the one's I missed. - wtfdan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39Wikipedia:
"It is commonly called bologna and often pronounced and/or spelled baloney."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_sausage
Don't argue. Wikipedia is always right.
Always. - Mujklob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34Bologna
- LecherousVenom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23RIAA's claims are also contradicted by BMI and ASCAP:
http://www.jeremiahjacobs.com/blog/archives/000217.html
If for no other reason, click for the picture of the pirate duck. - toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+231. rant about how the piracy is destroying your industry
2. make video about how it is destroying your industy
3. break your own rules/ try to change laws
4. ??????
5. profit! - sven007, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17i like the last quote: "The RIAA seems to be making up the rules instead of citing any consistent interpretation or precedent as to the law," Schwartz said.
sounds exactly like major corporations, and the u.s. goverment - LecherousVenom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Does it have a first name?
- kelkitty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I'm thinking somewhere along the lines of O-S-C-A-R... correct me if I'm wrong...
- ElBob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I thought it was interesting that they showed a screenshot of iTunes burning a CD when they were talking about illegal activity. Burning a CD is completely legal, even they agreed to allow people to burn CDs of purchased music.
- BillDoE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"The RIAA's video, a copy of which can be found on its Web site, suggests that students should be skeptical of free content"
I was very skeptical of this free video. Probably another rootkit searching for any folder named Shared. - Oakes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@drlog
Artists don't make enough money, therefore I will make sure they don't get _any_ money? Look, I don't care if you pirate, but that is a lamest excuse I have ever heard. You pirate because it doesn't cost anything, not out of some quasi-altruistic concern for the artist. - iconnor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I agreee, if the RIAA has a free download that tells you to be skeptical of free content, I guess it makes sense to follow that advice and ignore what they are saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction - Kosterfield, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"thereby depriving not only the record company of profits, but also the artist, producer, songwriter, publisher, retailer, … and the list goes on."
Notice they seem most worried about the record company, they come first, then the artist. Shows how straight their priorities are. - meatbites, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9In this sense, it is actually baloney.
The informal word for 'nonsense':
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=baloney
The seasoned, meaty sausage:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bologna - jefffm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8by going to concerts and buying t-shirts and such, you are helping the artist considerably more than by buying their albums.
just throwing it out there - sh0elace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The old one just wasn't musical enough.
- Tobey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I couldn't help but laugh when I saw that part. I think the FBI has better things to do than to talk to some teenager about stealing music.
- B111, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Now on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM2kIEZ3iuc
enjoy the FUD - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Of course it's contradictory. They wouldn't want to blow TOO much of their lawsuit winnings on creating propaganda!
- webonics, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Not a surprise by any means. The RIAA is about as ethical as Richard Nixon.
"We won't accept such a do-nothing approach." - RIAA Spokesperson
Funny and ironic...this same do-nothing approach is exactly what the RIAA did in the late 1990s, allowing P2P networks like Napster develop into enormous communities. If the RIAA had spent the time to develop true DRM and online purchasing options for songs, a lot of the illegal sharing could have been prevented. Instead, the RIAA just sends in its Abramoff-like lobbyists to shmooz Washintonians to pass legislation (and even secretly adding content to legislation just before signing) so Congress passes laws strictly in their favor withough really knowing what they are passing. This issue is not about the artists or the consumer...it's about greedy tyrannical executives at the top of the music labels.
F*ck the RIAA is definitely right. - RunnyBabbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That's a good question.
Hey, check this out...
http://digg.com/tech_news/This_Digg_Clone_will_Give_Digg_a_Hard_Time
Josepuerto claims to be the webmaster of a Digg clone. I wonder if he's just jealous that he couldn't steal any of Digg's success? - straxus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I went to a Bowling for Soup concert a couple months back. I never would have gone to see them if I hadn't torrented all of their albums, because I wouldn't have bought the albums based off of the handful of songs I'd heard on the radio. Considering I bought two tickets and three t-shirts, I think they made out much better in my case thanks to piracy.
I also discovered an unsigned band ('Army of Freshmen') that I loved, and bought their CD from the stand. Unfortunately, all of their older songs are only available on iTunes, and I don't buy media with DRM. - NoMercyGTP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@oakes
I am in entertainment industry, and i can tell you that yes the artists make more money from Concerts and their sundries. Bands get what is called a guarantee just for showing up, then they get a cut of the ticket sales, and the majority of the merchandising. the promoter gets a flat fee, and the venue get money from either rent or what is call a co-promotion, where expenses are shared by the promoter and the venue, and the profits are split. The safest bet for the venue is a flat fee show, and then the artist bank all of the profits. I can tell you that it is quite common for an artist to get a guarantee of 350-500 thousand per show, or for the biggies around a million. - fauxXenophanes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6...and if you do happen to buy our *****-of-the-week, please listen only once then discard promptly !!!
- Reno582, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The RIAA is a unnecessary middleman between fan and artist, it is time to cut the middleman
- celerate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Frankly whether the RIAA had adopted on-line music stores early on or not wouldn't change my opinion on downloading music for free from p2p networks. It's the DRM I don't want, and then there's the taxes on certain media that can hold the music.
That all doesn't necessarily mean I download music off p2p networks, but it does mean that it's been years since I bought a song or a CD from a store (on-line or otherwise). Why buy something that's broken by design. - muffinmanpoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why are there suddenly so many retarded trolls on Digg now?
- PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If, according to the article, it's illegal to make a copy of a song for your friend to listen to, does it not then follow that if you buy any album or CD, then you and you alone have paid for the license to listen to it. And if you listen to it with your friend you're breaking the law?
Not that I want to give the goons any more ideas, but it's not a far step for them when this ***** for brains idea fails as well. - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Hard drives crashing as a result of illegal downloads? Oh please! Next thing you know, they'll be saying, your laptop's Ni-Mh batteries might explode as a result of illegal activity.
Getting a virus through music downloads? I'm yet to see the day when someone figures a way to embed viruses into mp3 or avi extension files. I do agree that sites that offer illegal material do tend exploit security holes, but one has to be dumb enough to fall for the traps. Media content itself is not capable (yet) of carrying embedded executable code. Media file formats were not designed by monkeys, but the propaganda video I just watched, probably was.
Also, I find it frustrating that they emphasize on the extortion compliance in the video, mentioning the "settle out of court" fine, but not the court proceedings, or the cases they've lost... then again, why would they compromise their own propaganda.
No laws explained in the video. Only a brief mention of the Digital Millennium Act, with no elaboration. The propaganda's primarily designed to put fear into computer and law-illiterate students, instead of explaining the laws and people's rights... then again, RIAA sues young and old, living or dead, connected or Amish. Law doesn't work against those who are above it. - sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"The RIAA seems to be making up the rules instead of citing any consistent interpretation or precedent as to the law."
They forgot to add: "For decades! And they keep lobbying to make amends to the Copyright law!" - MrC539, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The thumbs up button is too close to the thumbs down button...somebody mod him down for me please.
- The_Hidden_Ice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4FBI interviewed him over copyright? How is that federal?
- Zuggy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.eff.org/IP/faq/
Questions 2-8 in music I really like Especially, in this situation, 3 and 5, 3 for college and 5 because it contradicts their FAQ.
Personally I bought more music in the hayday of Napster then I do now. As a college student my funds are limited and I don't want to waste my money on *****. In the napster day I would download a song, and then if I liked it I would by the CD to encode myself at a higher bitrate and so I'd have full quality audio. - kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you live in a democracy you should be fine. If 51% of the population thinks file sharing should be legal, then in time it will be.
... right? - drilldown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"What is HDCP?
High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection.
is a system for protecting DVD content outputted via HDMI [(High Definition Multimedia Interface) single plug, similar to a firewire plug for high definition audio/video.] from being copied. It provides a secure digital link between a video source (PC, DVD, etc.) and a display device (TV, projector, etc.). Content is encrypted at the source device to prevent unauthorized copies from being made."
Direct quote from a bought yesterday state of the art Samsumg High Definition ready DVD player manual. (Didn't explain HDMI so I added it. Sue me.)
So.... umm we should start throwing out 800 Million DVD units a little at at time due to new technology designed in order to limit people's experience of the world around them? We're going to need bigger dumpsters. Anybody got a dumpster I can toss my old, perfectly good DVD player in? It just won't play the newer DVDs. - zaofreek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Do they really expect me to believe that the FBI wastes time and resources on entertainment?
What's worse...I really think they're serious. There are child molestors, murderers, extortionists, terrorists on the loose, and the FBI is wasting time on protecting the interests of large entities/corporations? Say it ain't so... - GrayOne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why are colleges obligated to track down a student? Isn't the college network the same as an ISP? An ISP is not obligated to divulge who an IP belongs to.
- quazywabbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2or maybe Apple should make the stickers they put on the ipod saying to respect copyright larger, because the issue is that we just haven't heard that its illegal yet, but again all this video does is try to scare you and make you pay more money, and I love how at the end it mentions the out of court settlement fee. I have yet to hear about them actually winning a court case.
- NJank, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6actually, there's nothing wrong with the way they listed that. It's correct grammatically, and according to their intended usage, and in no way points to their bias. The statement points to the bias of the expected audience. Filling in the blanks:
"thereby depriving not only the record company of profits **which is the people we thin k you are most likeley aware of and don't care about**, but also the artist, producer, songwriter, publisher, retailer, … and the list goes on **who are all other people we don't think you take into consideration and for whom you may feel a little morre guilty**." - ChiKoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the RIAA stands for Greed.
- kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This message has been censored.
- quazywabbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2my guess is that it is tied in with the agreement they signed to use one of the paid music service and not charge the students outright (even though they pay with class fees)
- kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dictatorships are much more efficient.
- MrViklund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hope the terrorists soon will start to attack RIAA and MPAA.
- webonics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ geekee
I didn't state that the RIAA wanted Napster to develop; I was merely stating that the RIAA was ignoring the fact that "geeks" and "open source gurus" were working to develop the P2P networks. The RIAA had been warned years before the release of Napster and other P2Ps that the situation was coming but did nothing to offer up viable, legal options for consumers to PAY for the music or develop strong DRM to prevent the sharing. Don't you remember the Sony DRM that was like $2Bil and over 2 years in development only to be broken by using a Sharpie mark on the outside edge. The RIAA's ignorance led a lot of non-techies to learn about P2P and illegal file sharing resulting in their current debacle.
P.S. I'm neither stupid or on crack. What's up with all the hostility on this site..geez. - spyda45, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Perhaps someone should submit a letter to Apple asking about if their music downloaded from their iTunes constitutes as illegal downloading. Then state that you saw them in a video on the RIAA's website. That should get Apples lawyers all riled up.
- spyda45, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Did anyone actually watch the video? FBI agents? The FBI couldn't give a rodents behind about copyright infringement, they have bigger issues to tackle than that. Besides, how much did they pay these students (or shall I say actors) to lie?
- bigboy101011, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1in the FAQ section of the RIAA's site they say that music wil oventualy enter the public domain, they forget to add they lobby to extend the time it take for this to happen, all i know is that britney spears won't enter the public domain untill sometime in the eraly 2100's
- nicepants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RIAA: "Each sale by a pirate represents a lost legitimate sale"
*****.
That's like saying that every person who buys a counterfeit rolex would have bought the real thing if the fake hadn't been available. - Demarche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kettlechips
Who lives in a democracy? And to be frank, it's for exactly the reason you mentioned that I have no desire to live under democracy; the mob does what feels good, not what's necessary or best. -
Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is