What is Digg?117 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+218DRM is neither popular, nor enjoyable
- KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+97if the riaa slams it, than it must be good.
- Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+71"DMCA has enabled consumers"
Just as speech codes enable free speech.
Game. Set.... - Dhalsim007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+71RIAA, the DCMA doesn't "ENABLE" anything!!! It just "disables" everything I want to do with my properly-purchased media files. ARGH!
- jersey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+52You know, its funny .... every time these ***** get up on their soapbox, it makes me want to download ***** I don't own. Even horrible pop music, just because I know it makes them crazy.
Fair use needs to be protected, no matter what it takes.
- DisembarkedOne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42Nothing like PR spin...
- Ghstfce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37Of course they are going to blast the proposal, that is taking money out of their already fat pockets. Forget our rights, it's THEIR MONEY that is the issue at hand. Does anyone else think the RIAA is just that mentally ill neighbor that we all just tolerated until the raving lunacy hit the breaking point? I think congress really needs to pass the FAIR USE Act, so then the proverbial "Sit down and shut the ***** up" will finally be made to these money hungry right stripping whores.
- linkwray, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
WAR IS PEACE.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
DMCA ENABLES TECHNOLOGY. - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36I'm tired of this *****, so very tired.
The RIAA is completely and utterly out of control. Completely. They have absolutely no claim to the money that they're ruining this country over. They're going to die, and they're making the worst fuss in the world about it. But at the end of the day, this world no longer needs a massive overarching label structure that takes 98% of the artists money.
Once big name artists move to labels that offer all the same benefits and 10x the amount of money in their pockets, the little artists will follow, and this fiasco will almost be over.
Then all that will be left will be a couple decades of clearing up the ***** mess these bastards have left in the legislative branch.
***** this "don't pirate it hurts the artist *****". I pay to see my artists in concert and I buy their merchandise to help them. But ***** if I'm paying the car payment for some talentless ***** Mercedes. - littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35I'll never forget when the original Napster came out. I knew then that everything was going to change regarding the distribution of music.
The Music Industry was running around saying, "The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!" And they still are.
Meanwhile, digital distribution of music on the Internet has become a Global cash powerhouse and spawned whole new industries, ahem, iPod to name one.
The old school doesn't want to let go of the control they once had (to price fix).
They don't realize that they've already lost it. Lawsuits, and harassment of their customers is all they have left.
That's all this is. - weprin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30I digg that logic.
- heaintheavy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26OK, there is Superman and Bizarro Superman, right?
Apparently there are spokespeople and bizarro spokespeople, too. - bbrosemer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30What's the difference between Ebola and the RIAA....
I'd rather have Ebola in my house then anyone who works for the RIAA... - darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Well...I don't think this surprises anyone. I'm surprised it took until the next day....
- astatine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Well, now we know where that Iraqi Minister of Information got to.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Blah blah blah. I've got about 3000 legitimate tracks right now. Either from CD rips, or iTunes purchases. Honestly, I don't like most "new" music, and I really don't *need* any more music than I currently own. Buying new songs is kind of a path of least resistance thing for me. If it becomes too cumbersome, I just won't bother. I also won't buy a CD with less than 11 tracks on it (and they better be GOOD tracks, not *****). 10 tracks for $14 or $15 is a ***** ripoff. If you can't come up with a dozen songs worth listening to, then you're not ready to release an album.
- betterth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19I disagree completely.
The RIAA is funded by labels, who are funded by pro-DRM album purchases. Every song downloaded illegally is money that the RIAA no longer has. I'm not for hurting artists, so I would say buy some merch off their website or go to a concert, you better believe they'll see a ***** more money off a $12 T-Shirt than a $15 album.
But at this stage, the RIAA has proven that it's 100% ANTI-Customer. In their eyes, every single one of us are dirty criminals who must be controlled and have our payments extorted by whatever measures necessary. They are the epitome of corruption.
The ironic part is, the only thief is the labels. Legislation doesn't make it right, just means you have a lot of money to buy senators. The RIAA steal music in ways we could never imagine. They don't steal a song to listen to it privately. Oh no. They steal the entire copyright for the song from the artist and "own" the music that the artist made. They steal in a way more evil and corrupted than a consumer could ever imagine. - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19gracemolloy: DVDs have DRM on them. Weak and easy to break yes, but still DRM and breaking it is a violation of the DMCA. That's one of the reasons that iTunes allows you to rip CDs but not DVDs.
- jcounterman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24You do NOT help the cause...you only give the RIAA strength with your public displays of ignorance.
- rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15This is the "kicking and screaming" that should be expected when dragging an organization's broken business model from the 20th to the 21st century.
- bdbr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15"There's nothing illegal -- or immoral -- about the sale or loan of an existing piece of media."
But as the RIAA says, "the difference between hacking done for noninfringing purposes and hacking done to steal is impossible to determine and enforce"...and similarly, the difference a CD that was borrowed and one that is stolen is impossible for an outsider to determine and enforce. Therefore, they should consider anyone who possesses a CD as a thief (unless they can show a receipt).
The stupidity they apply to digital media simply looks outrageous when applied to anything else. - AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -1/+13We've known this for a while... I mean, there's our favorite spokesthing Jessica Simpson, and then theirs the other Florida spokesthing, Jack Thompson, both of which follow under the 'Bizarro Spokespeople/things' category ..
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The DMCA hasn't "enabled" anything. Well, it's enabled the **AAs to SUE people. But that's it. Kinda arrogant and offensive for the RIAA to attribute to the DMCA what is rightfully attributable to the hard working, smart people in the technology field.
- diagonalfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12He was great. It was a sad day when I stopped hearing about his daily announcements. His perseverance in the face of possible, nay, obvious incorrectness never ceases to amaze me.
- SenatorPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The really sad thing is, that the DMCA is the only reason the RIAA even allows their music to be sold over "popular new techonlogies."
I'm willing to bet that about 90% of the "enjoyment" comes from "illegal" sources, however. - writerboyVSgod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11That's like saying locking me out of my house ENABLES me to enjoy the great outdoors!
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"The DMCA has enabled consumers to enjoy creative works through popular new technologies," the RIAA said in a statement."
This is a factually true statement. It just so happens that the popular new technologies are BitTorrent, Kazaa, Grokster... ;) - I_Soar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"Why don't they go after used record stores instead?"
Because of something called the doctrine of first sale, sometimes called the right of first purchase. There's nothing illegal -- or immoral -- about the sale or loan of an existing piece of media. If I own a book, or a record, or a DVD, I can sell it or lend it in whatever way I wish. It's no different from selling any other object I own. This is the reason libraries can exist. It's the reason used record stores can exist.
What I may not do, of course, is make a COPY of that book, record or DVD, and distribute it. That's because copying is a right exclusively held by a COPYright owner. - jcounterman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10But for every song illegally downloaded, it gives the RIAA more ammunition to take to the government and say "See! They're stealing our stuff! We can't allow Fair Use, because people will abuse the system and use it to steal even more music."
The more illegal downloads, the more ammunition they have. And the people who simply state to the world "Pirate Everything! Becuase they're screwing us!" do not show reason and will only encourage the government to side with the RIAA.
And as you say, the RIAA is already 100% against their customers. That means that pirating music will NOT bring them a wakeup call and make them realize that restriction and DRM are hurting their business. They will only get angrier, sue more, and push even harder for tighter legislation. Only an organization that is truely in touch with its customers could look at piracy and say "We aren't providing what they want...how do we change that?" The RIAA is not that organization.
The best way to fight against them is to ruin both of their revenue streams (music sales and lawsuits) by buying independent music and letting them know what you think of their business practices. Let your lawmakers know what you think, too. But by shouting out from the top of a mountain that you are showing your disagreement by pirating will only hurt Fair Use, DRM-free content, and consumer rights in the future.
And as an aside, the RIAA isn't "corrupt" in its thinking that all of its customers are enemies...They have every right to think such a way. It would do them well to realize that that kind of thinking will probably be the end of them, however. - artfuldodga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9lets cross our fingers and hope FAIR USE can slam RIAA for once.
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"The DMCA has enabled consumers to enjoy creative works through popular new technologies," the RIAA said in a statement."
It's like what a rapist would say: "you know you love it. Feels good, don't it bitch?" - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Unfortunately the RIAA is like Blockbuster. It's not transitioning from 20th to 21st century distribution, it's dying.
Artists no longer need massive up-front "loans" to produce their music. Software and hardware to make a near-professional quality album is not that expensive. Talented artists can produce and release music on their own tab with independent labels.
What we see here are companies trying to protect their cash-cow business model in an age where the business model is unnecessary. What you're seeing is literally a business model being forced upon us that is outdated, inefficient and expensive, just so they can continue raking in the billions. - jcounterman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Legalizing in a hard-and-fast law what is already leagal under the DMCA could have some very negative implications. The last thing we want to do is to put some sort of cap on Fair Use rights. Could this bill be seen as a cap?
Is this the ceiling? Are we saying "Yes, this is what we want. That is all."? More importantly, is that how the bill/law will be interpreted in the future?
I can't be the only one out there who is weary...although I am comforted at least slightly that the RIAA is bothered by this. That could mean there is more in it for the consumer than meets the eye. - kraemer007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Go HERE to support this initiative now: http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=271
- mt066, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7That must have taken them forever to come up with that clever anagram: (FAIR USE = Freedom And Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007). If this bill does not pass, it will be a waste of a perfectly good anagram, and that is unacceptable.
- peranadigital, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Big friggin shock. They are scumbags that are scared ***** of losing control. It's only a matter of time before everyone realize how ridiculous it is that, despite modern technology, we can't buy directly from the artists that create the music that we enjoy. Screw these vampires that take way more than they give.
- wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I love the **AA's claim that "the DMCA allows consumers to enjoy content". The implication is that without the DMCA the record labels wouldn't sell Cds or release digitial versions of their songs, and the movie industry wouldn't sell DVDs.
What a total crock of *****. EIther way they would have sold the content. Once Hollywood figured out (granted, it took a very long time) that they could make a TON of money selling their catalogs, they started pushing the crap out the door as fast as they could make it. CSS has been broken (DVDJon FTW), but millions more DVDs are sold than downloaded. With or without AACS the studios would have gone for HD optical formats. Why? Cause now they can sell the same crap for a THIRD time (VHS, DVD, HD optical). (note, FOUR if you went Betamax initially).
The record labels went the same way for a different reason. Unless they allowed a reasonable (granted, FairPlay and WMDRM may not be reasonable, but stick with me here) download system, they were going to be killed by piracy. A significant (don't know how many, but more than a few) number of the 1 billion iTMS sales (add all WM music stores as well) would have been lost to alternate non commercial digitial distribution channels had not there been a way to dl the songs. If you got rid of DRM and decreased the price to something reasonable, even more would be sold.
Sigh. They are just to stupid to see. They continue to have this fantasy that consumers will (if forced) pay for the same content multiple times to get it on they computer, PMP, in their car, and in their office. - I_Soar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"But as the RIAA says, 'the difference between hacking done for noninfringing purposes and hacking done to steal is impossible to determine and enforce'...and similarly, the difference a CD that was borrowed and one that is stolen is impossible for an outsider to determine and enforce."
bdbr, I'm not sure I completely understand the claim you've attributed to the RIAA (though that's not necessarily your fault -- I may simply be misreading).
That said, in the realm of physical goods, there's clearly a difference between a stolen object and a borrowed object. But that's beside the point. After all -- as many are quick to point out -- copyright infringement is not the same as theft. So it's an apples and oranges thing, which is what I was explaining to the poster who tried to equate "used record stores" with matters of copyright infringement. It's just not a relevant analogy.
So, moving on to the actual issue: I'm not a fan of legislated DRM. I'm not much of a fan of legislated ANYTHING. But I do think it's misguided to talk about DRM as a "restriction" on fair use. Fair use is not what we call a positive right -- in fact, it's inaccurate to describe it as a "right" at all. It's simply an available defense against an infringement claim.
Fair use does not -- and never has -- required anything of a copyright holder. It has never, for instance, required that a copyright holder distribute his products in some defined form, such as one that allows certain types of shifting among devices. We did not require cassette sellers to make tapes that had to be usable on turntables. We don't require publishers to make books that have to be usable on TV screens. And we don't require sellers of digital media to make files that have to be usable on Arbitrary Device X.
So it's totally within bounds to complain about DRM, to tell the sellers of digital media that we want more flexibility, to vote with our wallets when it comes to choosing between products. But it's wrong to claim that DRM "restricts fair use," as if a legal right has been violated. Because that's just not the case. - WhackingDay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's quite simple. There absolutely needs to be a national boycott on all RIAA controlled products. No CD sales, no downloads, no concert attendance, nothing. People can rail all they want against RIAA, but they're not going to stop until they're put out of business. Listen to independent artists, go to local clubs for your live music, etc., but stop buying from RIAA labels.
It's a pipe dream of course. Look at the popularity of American Idol. All those viewers don't even know what RIAA is or what they do, and they'll happily plunk down their $15 bucks for whatever crud gets thrown on the market. - kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"I'm going to download Jessica Simpson's new album. That's how much I ***** hate the RIAA."
- WiLLGT09, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6my fingers are crossed that this bill passes!
- obrysii, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8This is extremely surprising!
/sarcasm - BennyBoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5lets face the reality of politics in washington.... Senator A has popular support for an agenda, and attempts to introduce real legislation with teeth to help his constituents. Senetor A is contacted by rich lobbying orginatization that is opposed to his agenda. Senetor A takes large payout from said lobbyist organization, for which he will never be hel accountable. Lobbying organization and Senator A craft "Revised" legistation, with absolutle no teeth, and minimal resemblance to original legistation. Senator A brings the Revised resolution to the floor, to show that he still supports his popolar agenda, while knowing that he has been baught. his constituents beleive that the revised legislation will provide what was originally promised. Senator is a hero to his constituents. Lobbing orginization steps forward to "oppose" the new legislation that they helped to draft. Senator A is again a hero because he fights the lobying organization very publicly. Lobbying organization evenually gives in and aggrees to revised legislation. legislation si passed, and the constituents are happy. Unfortunatley, Senator A and lobyists are also happy. Senator is happy because he gets money and gets re-elected, Lobbyist is happy because the original agenda went no where. Constituents are screwed because the legislations does nothing for them, and they don't realize the have been duped.... all is well in Washington DC
(EDIT: i am a thinker not a speller :) - diagonalfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The alarms in the RIAA building go off any time anyone mentions the words "fair use", let alone in capital letters.
- Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5According to statements made by the RIAA, cd rips are NOT legitimate as you claim. They claim the license you purchase only allows for the media to be used in the same format in which the license was purchased. If you want a digital copy of what is on your cd....the RIAA claims you need to purchase a separate digital copy...that fair use does not cover placing the contents of cds onto your computer.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5>"The DMCA has enabled consumers to enjoy creative works through popular new technologies,"
Not nearly as much as buying a CD and converting it to a lossless file on a hard drive. - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6They provide artists with top of the line equipment run by teams of top of the line sound techs. Are they better than the dude in the basement? Yes. (They also cost a hundred grand more). Will anyone but an audiophile listening to the cd at 320kb/s on a high fidelity system realize the difference? No.
They also handle distribution of the album (which an independent label could do), they handle marketing and advertising as well. The guy in the basement probably couldn't get the song to be widely played nation-wide on the radio, since the RIAA pays for exclusive access to radios through companies like ClearChannel (who owns like 90% of popular radio in America). So really the only singles you'll hear are RIAA sanction -- another way they stifle innovation. - MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Prysorra You need to reread your Ministry of Information pamphlets. By providing a preset list of words and topics free speech is broadened by your ability to speak freely within these topics without fear or retrobusion. Otherwise how can you relax not knowing if your speech is truly free?
- jcounterman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't completely buy the "by the people for the people" argument here. Like it or not, the RIAA is creating something to be sold (or at least they are controlling the distribution.). They do not HAVE to do so....music is not a necessary commodity like oil or electricity, which are regulated. If everybody in America stood up and said "We want you to give us your product for free," (which is the Pirate Everything argument), the government would have to be a broken mess if it complies. It flies directly in the face of the free market economy.
Now I don't like the RIAA or the way it works, but here are the facts:
The RIAA screws its customers...but it does so legally (as the laws are written now and as the DMCA is interpreted). Not ethically, but legally.
The downloaders screw the RIAA....but they do it illegally (actually, a tortious clame, not a criminal act). Ethical? Probably not, but perhaps you could make a cse. But still definately illegal.
So when has continually doing something illegal every helped when the company simply won't change their business ways? (And do not bring up the example of civil rights...these are two completely different situations and we all know it). Downloading more won't help our cause.
If you download illegally, that is your choice. Just know you aren't helping us change the way things are done.
If you download illegally, then post on digg that we should pirate everything, then just shut up. You just made us all look bad. - dogshaft, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I believe he's been giving instructional lessons to Dick Cheney, if memory serves.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 116 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