What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
91 Comments
- 0Troy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5By "buy(1)"ing this CD you agree never to bring it within 40 ft of a computer or electronic device (such as a cd player). Were you to somehow listen to the CD you may never repeat the lyrics nor hum the tune within earshot of any other human being or electronic device. Once you hear the music you will be required to use a memory erasure device(2) to prevent any form of music from being copied into your brain. After listening to the CD you are required to destroy it. Should you with to listen again, another will be made available to you at your nearest retail store.
(1) you don't really own this CD you just bought with with your money and are holding in your hands
(2) revolver - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Let's see... the Copyright Act gives the copyright owner *exclusive rights* to:
1) reproduce the work
2) prepare derivative works
3) distribute copies of the work
4) perform the work publicly (17 U.S.C. ยง 106 (paraphrased))
I guess I missed where Congress amended the Copyright Act to include an exclusive right to "make available for distribution." RIAA must be making this stuff up as they go!! - sogo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So Rhapsody, Napster, Yahoo, Etc., will all be brought to judgment by the RIAA?
- zediker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So what they are saying is even if no 'crime' is commited, you're still guilty. HAHAHAHAHA, wow... thats pritty ass backwards. That wont have a chance of standing up in court. Its like thinking about hurting that jerk that just made fun of you, but not actualy doing anything, yet still going to jail for it.
- G0DM0D3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the RIAA is playing Calvin ball and they get to be Hobbes
- pmrush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If it wasn't for RIAA's exploitation of consumes *AND* musician, punks wouldn't have to pirate. Punks aren't costing the system real money. Pro pirating is [China]. Yet American businesses continue to go over there and play by their rules [Google et al]. Vote with your dollar, vote with your boycott (good luck not using google0. Vote with letters to businesses and your politicians.
- Psykus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Simply having your legally owned music in any sort of shared folder would be a copywrite violation as well, according to the RIAA.
- Mediaright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Jesus. Here we go again.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> Let's see... the Copyright Act gives the copyright
> owner *exclusive rights* to:
>[...]
> 2) prepare derivative works
...and you know what? I have a really *HUGE* problem with that. I've heard so many remixes (way beyond just sampling) that were so creative and more interesting the the original work that I don't even consider them "derivatives" (although the original content producer could probably haul the remix artist into court and win).
Folks, the system is broken beyond repair and the only acceptable (ethical, moral, etc.) way to behave is to not participate. - garretble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The RIAA is the Jack Thompson of companies: they're always in the news but they don't know what the heck they're talking about/doing.
- Neonlights, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't buy CD'S!!!!!!!!!!!! because there is a possibility that they could be borrowed by your friend, and your friend burns a copy and finds it way back to the RIAA; where they will look that the thumb print from the burner, trace it back to best buy where your friend bought the computer/CD burner, knock down his door and find him looking at porn in his underwear, ask the friend who's CD it was. Go next door knock in your front door to find you also looking at porn in your underwear, snap on the cuffs and haul you to jail.
God these people have no life!!!!!!!!! - farrellj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Remember, the RIAA does not represent musicians, it represents record companies. And the record companies are scare ***** that musicians are going to bypass them, just as Garth Brooks did by totally bypassing the RIAA members, and dealing directly with Walmart. After the current stocks of Brooks' albums are gone, you will only be able to buy his stuff from Wally World. Not that I am a big fan of either him or Walmart, but it shows the new dynamics that will crush the record industry dinosaurs if they don't learn to change.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What next. If your roomate copies your cd while you're at class, you're breaking copyright laws for making it available? Thats about as dumb as a burglar suing you for getting hurt on your property during the deed, and winning.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So by the same comparisons, if I own a handgun AM I a murderer?
- lexbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"So, I imagine mp3 players are now illegal."
NO! Think, people. How does an MP3 player distribute music? - Wid0makr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So everyone who stores their music collection on a PC running Windows 2000/XP/2003 is in violation? Because there is this little thing called a "default hidden admin share" on the root of all drives which in a sense shares out all data on that drive. Granted, you can't access the files without haveing the correct connection credentials but that's not their concern. They are only saying that if the media is there, and it is shared, you are violating Copyright... pfft. The RIAA will be it's own downfall. I just hope it's sooner than later.
- Darkmoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If exposing a file to the Internet is "distributing" it, then how many people are you distributing it TO? Clearly, an indeterminate number. Given the viral nature of p2p networks, once the initial file leaves your computer it can be distributed far faster than your bandwidth alone would allow.
So...if simple exposure is the equivalent of distribution, how do you calculate damages? "You opened your FTP ports for 20 minutes, now please pay us a billion dollars!"
My home computer goes though a router to connect to the Internet, so my family can use the same connection. Once in a while I have to connect my computer *directly*, to fix small network issues. If I forget to turn on my software firewall, my computer is exposed to the Internet and *becomes a distribution source*, albeit an unwitting one.
Less technical persons are probably already exposed directly. Their PC's have FTP ports open, and the music they purchased legally is ripe for downloading and redistribution.
Like many of it's initatives, this position of the RIAA simply makes more people into criminals, by broadening reasonable interpretations of the law past common sense. You cannot just equate "distribution" with "exposure", without understanding the ramifications. Obviously, some of our judges, don't. - Darkmoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I really don't get the "I'm soooo bored with RIAA bashing" comments. This happened yesterday, not 50 years ago. It's not an overplayed song, or bellbottom pants. It's a powerful group of lawyers and lobbyists who are going to keep redefining "crime" until all digital distribution is regulated, and most of us are criminals.
This new legal position would make connecting to the Internet, without appropriate security, a crime. The copyrighted software you have on your disk would be "available for distribution", and you would be robbing the copyright holder of the "right to make available". Even IF the RIAA isn't the one that abuses any precedent based on this, it's there to be abused.
Yes, sure, the mob mentality can be a bad thing. Apathy can be worse. Minus tens of thousands of dollars to mount a legal attack on such tactics, it won't kill you to express two sentences of outrage in passing. The Sony case showed that the collective voice of the net-masses can sometimes have a positive effect. - SteveR4376, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've never need to, or wanted to pirate music or movies, but all the actions of the RIAA and MPAA over the last few years make me want to start.
- ElliottB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm curious, am I the only one that finds this concept to be completly moronic? That means any creation of possible mass production is thus illegal. So, in turn, they shouldn't be able to sell their music without paying fines.
- Darkmoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"aahahahahaha who cares new technology everyday coming out! check out this ( what next!! )"
Ok, this is my final "chicken little" post on the subject, but the RIAA and MPAA are way ahead of you.
The Big Double A's are pushing to replace the concept of "fair use" with "customary historical use". That means, instead of being allowed to do what is reasonable on current technology, you will be allowed to do what is reasonable on *2006* technololgy. That is, for all intents and purposes, a move to freeze digital technology and make innovation illegal.
To quote the EFF: "Had that been the law in 1970, there would never have been a VCR. Had it been the law in 1990, no TiVo. In 2000, no iPod." It sounds unbelievable, but it's all too real:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004340.php
This s**t is no joke. I'm sure your Senator would love to hear your opinions on this. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> A "shared folder" or P2P application's "primary function" IS to distribute files.
Ok, so no ethernet port for your ipod.
*NEVER* let lawyers define what type of technology is "acceptable". - allonline, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Does this mean all shops who sell cd's are guilty of sharing because shoplifters are able to steal the music for free.
What about people who sell there old Cd's and records, tapes etc on ebay and car boot stalls, it is still music bought once and re-sold many times over just because its not a digital download. - ZRaven, on 11/18/2008, -0/+0WHY IS THE COPYWRITE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The copywrite law states it is a crime to copy protected material.
An alleged crime to be a crime must have three components. First: You have to have a victim. Second: Damage must have occurred. Third: There must be willful intent (to have a victim and cause damage).
Example: Joe Blogger rents a movie from the neighborhood movie club and makes a copy of it for his collection of favorite movies. We have to ask if he intended to hurt anyone. Did he intend to cause damage to property or person? Was there damage done to the property he rented? Was there even a victim?
In this example there was an obvious act by Joe resulting in his possessing a copy of a movie that he did not pay for through buying a copy either used or new of this movie. However, this should not be a crime unless this act involves outright stealing the copy of the movie. If he had done this, there would be a victim, the person who owns the copy of the movie. There would be damage because of the loss of the value of the copy of the movie. And there would be intent through willfully removing the movie from the possession of the owner of the movie. That would satisfy all the criteria of this act being criminal.
The Copywrite Law ignores the criteria for the definition of a crime by stretching the definition to include saving data for personal use that was originally obtained legally. The law if carried out to its logical conclusion would make it a criminal offense to remember the movie or talk about the movie to a friend. The law as written violates the first amendment as well as the forth amendment to the constitution because it criminalizes the free expression of the person who has a right to save for personal use his memory of pleasant experiences through memory even if this memory is digital. The forth amendment protects us from being compelled to incriminate ourselves. The seizing of our materials like a DVD of digital memory to prosecute us for criminal acts by default causes us to self criminalize.
The legal eagles representing the movie industry argue that they are victimized by the Joe Bloggers of this world because when he copied the movie it represented a lost sale of that copy of the movie. To them this lost sale is the same as stealing the movie. This is such a stretch. There is no proof that if the situation were that Joe did not have the ability to copy the movie he would have bought the movie. He might have but then maybe he would not.
In either case, it is not constitutionally correct to make a crime out of what he may or may not do given a circumstance. - myskja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WTF? RIAA is run by rabid monkeys...? ...Must be it...
- kevbryant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0correction: RIAA is NOT a legislating body
- spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What I'd like is a list of those independant artists that have nothing to do with the RIAA. I might actually start buying music if I knew that it wasn't going towards paying for yachts for these suits.
- beatniak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+01) If their tactics work out for the best, they'll say their tactics where right, and everything worked out because of those (scare)tactics.
2) If their tactics fail, they'll blame piracy.
I guess they're "always right". There's nothing we can do about it.
Oh wait... they're alienating more and more of their customers. Even mothers and grandmas tell their children not to buy CD's, because they hate the RIAA *****. Less and less buy CD''s because of strange user agreements, DRM and rootkits.
Oh wait... CD sales are down because of piracy. Almost forgot that. - ironbear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Please don't stop supporting independent artists, who have no connection to the RIAA. They often record and produce CDs themselves, arrange their own tours, and do marketing through specialized outlets (like CD Baby). Plus, the stuff they record kicks ass. A good overview of the scene from the artist's eyes at: http://indiebible.com/newsletter/january2006.shtml
- jwalk81980, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In future news, the RIAA now has the authority to grab potential pirates, formerly known as people, by their ankles and shake them upside to collect any change that falls out of their pockets. ~~ You know, this whole ***** the RIAA thing is getting kind of old. Maybe we should all join together to take them out. Fight Club style.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People are pissed they can't steal. LOL
- kevbryant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0guys I don't know how to tell you this, but the RIAA is a legislating body. AKA they don't make the laws! if you don't like what they're doing please by all means sue THEM! Like that canadian group. They make legislation by taking people to court, the courts decide. so make the courts decide that they are douches. yes, here we go again.
- p3lEr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0here.we go again...
- jayf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You know its the end of the world when the next episode of COPS is dragging a man out with nothing but a wet towel on for singing a pop song in the shower.
- OutcastJiob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The RIAA once again proves that it's actually run by carefully shaved monkeys wearing business suits.
Story dugg and the RIAA's actions mocked on my blog. . . - Plezops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0next we wont even be able to listen to music because we might remember the words and sing it! and thats copyright infringement.
- brydude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0by playing music outloud, you're giving people the opportunity to tape it.
your sharing music between your ethernet card, motherboard, and hard drive as you download legal music from itunes. ***** this. i'm never buying a cd ever again. make as many laws as you want. i don't care anymore. i'm never (even if they refrom) any CD from a non-independent distributor ever again. ever. i declare it. - HouseofEl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0By that logic the only person allowed to hear a song you bought is you. Sorry I can't play this for you....copyright!
- XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The problem is that making available for fair use (backup copy, network distribution in home for playback on PCs, cell phone, other portable devices, etc.) would be the same.
Someone has to step up and get a Digital Content Bill of Rights for consumers that specifically identifies some basic actions consumers can execute such as migrating from one digital form to another for backup, portability, or to migrate from media no longer supported. - gODfall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Once again...LMAo
- foulpudding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I stopped buying music when the RIAA started suing grandmothers.
I have a couple hundred CDs in my collection and would have probably added another hundred by now had I kept buying.
Not a big hurt to their wallets, but I suggest that everyone do this and maybe they will get the message.
You can even put the saved money to good use by going o a local bar where a local band is playing and pay to watch them... heck, give them a tip if they play well. Support the music that matters.
-Don - jayf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The RIAA make Darl McBride and the gang at SCO look like legal geniuses with statements like this.
The problem is that most judges don't know where the Enter key is on a keyboard and the RIAA has lawyers with the entire set of Encyclopedia Britannica.
I keep thinking that the best way to deal with the RIAA is to hire a team of moles to jam their photocopiers enough times a day that nothing will get done. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Lexbaby: "Giving or sharing your CDs is not distribution because there is only one CD. It's just passing hands."
I think your friends at the RIAA would think otherwise. - Stuart.n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guess I don't really understand what the motion is trying to do. So, if you have files and you have the ability to share them, you're violating the law. If this motion wins, doesn't that make all the legal downloading sites, like new Napster, Yahoo, and Apple, illegal? Wouldn't that be a shot in the foot? If this motion also succeeded, wouldn't the sharing ability of iTunes have to go, along with online radio and podcasting? Even though it's not sharing by downloading, it's sharing by streaming. Does streaming account for sharing? It very easily could in the wording given in the motion. Wouldn't this motion also kill off the entire music section of MySpace, an immerging section of promotion for immerging and major artists. I don't see any bright side in this for anyone.
- yellowmello, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What I want to know is when are we going to stand up to them?
- KingChango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What about ftps?
- lexbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>> How does an MP3 player distribute music?
>When I plug it into my friends usb/firewire port and he copies the entire contentes of a 40GB hard drive >onto his computer?
>Yeah, I'm pretty sure that makes it available to him.
OK, good point. In this case I don't think it applies. The "primary function" of the MP3 player is to play music, not copy/share it. (Isn't this "Primary use" arguement how VCRs won their lawsuits 20+ years ago?)
A "shared folder" or P2P application's "primary function" IS to distribute files. - spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, except for the fact that labels do it with authorization from the copyright holder.
- Hassassin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Making available for Distribution" wouldn't the mere fact of pressing CD's and selling them constitute as a violation under that phrase?
- freedom2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0aahahahahaha who cares new technology everyday coming out! check out this ( what next!! ) ...
http://www.streamsharing.com or http://www.xtme.net ahahahahhaha .... if you want to "digg" the article check it out under technology .... -
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is