What is Digg?69 Comments
- chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Oh, and further, it is copyright violation. Not theft. I didn't deprive anyone of anything. Not even the money they asked for me to have RIGHTS to that content, including backup, archive and other fair use rights.
See how I paid to watch a show? And how I watched that show? Difference was source. I paid my money. Should I pay twice? Three times?
Fair use says no. Morals say no. Law now says yes.
And with DRM - it will be great.
A new fee for every use and device. Want to listen? Great - the cost is .99 cents. Want to burn? Do you have a license to? No? That will be another .99 cents per song. Want to transfer it to your MP3 player? I'm sorry, your listen license is for listening on your PC only - not devices. That will be .99 cents per device please. This little example is piss-poor. I'm sure content owners (not authors, creators, or the "starving millionaire artists") are thinking up much better uses for DRM. Think hardware. Think upgrade treadmill. Think a new standard ever two or three years. How many times will you buy the same content? How many times do they want you to? What choice will you have?
It has only gotten worse since the Sony vs. Universal ruling, coupled with Fair Use gave us rights to make personal copies of content that we have legally purchased. It has done nothing but go downhill from there.
If I have legally purchased content (lets say TV). And in this purchase is the right to record and/or back up this content for my own personal use. Even though technically illegal, how illegal is it to download it from a torrent? I have PAID. I'm just getting it the only way I can - because the service had failed me.
Illegal. Sure. How illegal? Seems rather gray to me. Immoral? Hardly. I paid, and I have right to that content, even as a backup or recording. - chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I have digital cable.
I was promised a DVR. I have called a couple of times (always polite... get more flies with honey and all that). Regarding my status on the DVR waiting list. The last update was essentially... a very long time.
I missed a show I like to watch. I would have recorded it on DVR and watched it when I returned from work - but I don't have a DVR. My VCR is, like all VCRs, not incredibly reliable (subject to programing, timing, tape, and the manual's accuracy).
So I torrented the TV show. A show that is one of the primary reasons why I pay for TV in the first place. This is the only reason I torrented that TV show. In torrenting it - I shared with those that were in the same swarm as me.
Am I going to jail?
Am I going to hell?
According to the RIAA and MIAA's description of theft and piracy, I have stolen from them.
Should I contact them and explain the situation - or just hope I don't receive a letter in the mail saying I owe them several thousand dollars?
What do I do?
Was it a mistake to watch what I paid for - but was unable to because my cable company sucks? What if they have an outage and I miss my favorite show? Should I just eat it? Or should I get what I paid for? - halikar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6While I agree in principle with you jkfan87 that downloading and sharing consitutes theft in todays market, the problem is that the RIAA has made it a business model to sue people. They don't deal with this case by case, they are production line suing, even to the point of having a center dedicated to collecting settlements and nothing else. That says either law enforcement is seriously in need of help, or something is wrong with their business model.
Time and again, the movie and recording industry has said, pay the way we want you to and enjoy our product when we tell you. Technology has made it possible to enjoy the product when we want to, not when they tell us to. We can either turn back the technology clock, or find a way to make it work and be reasonably profitable for them. They are choosing the former. The consumer market wants to choose the later.
The real problem is not stealing, it's the failure of business to supply it's customers what they want. Until that gets addressed, the downloading and sharing won't go away, the suits won't solve anything, and lawyers will be the only ones making any money.
And before my character gets slammed by the obvious, no, I do not download nor share music, movies, or software that is copyrighted. But I find it very hard to condem those that do casually at this point when business models are designed to treat customers like criminals irregardless of actual actions. - goahard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"the RIAA has every legal right to ask for 750 dollars per song, the courts allow for statutory damages of up to $100,000 per infringement (not just actual damages). so it could be worse."
It can ALWAYS be worse. But that doesn't mean that a stupid law should be adhered to. I think there's a saying, which paraphrased, states: "No just law will be broken, no unjust law should be upheld." I believe that's the point people are making here.
It is tempting to blur the facts with emotions, but you can keep kicking those that do...while missing the point that the emotional content is making. It doesn't change the fact that people feel screwed and not served by the RIAA and there will likely be huge parties when that body crumbles to dust like the Berlin wall.
-Course it may just mean people have to get off their @rses and DO something about it. Seems like whining in the blogs isn't going to change much, IMO. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wouldn't be surprised if the money they intend to collect from suing is part of their projected quarterly earnings.
Boss: We need to sue 482 people this quarter to break even.
Jenkins: Well sir, we currently have a compiled list of 302,581 people pirating with full details.
Boss: Good, pick 500 random just in case we lose a few. And don't bother verifying if grandma even has a computer.
Jenkins: Ok boss, I'll get right on it! - xst4t1kx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Chrono13: If the RIAA/MPAA were really looking for a viable solution they would be headed in that direction, instead their lawsuits amount to being nothing more than an extortion scheme. If they believe they can squeeze something out of you then you have reason to be concerned. Logic and circumstance are irrelevant, it's about money.
- meatpuff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The thing that bugs me is that its ok to download a ROM of NES or SNES as long as you OWN the actual game (or at least as I understand). Well 1 year ago when I was in school we had an FBI agent come in and talk to us about filesharing and such, then I asked him "So since its legal to download ROMS and emulate games on our computer AS LONG AS WE OWN THE GAME, is it then legal to download the song from, say kazaa or and other filesharing program, as long as I own the song/cd?" his answer was "No comment" (or something along those lines). My question still stands, if I was to download a song from a filesharing program and I own the CD is it legal? If the RIAA catches me, am I still going to get sued? Or if my CD got scratched but I still have it, can I download the CD to replace the scratched one?
- milieu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"the RIAA has every legal right to ask for 750 dollars per song, the courts allow for statutory damages of up to $100,000 per infringement (not just actual damages). so it could be worse."
If you read the article, that is one of his points. The courts have repeatedly found that punitive damages must be related to actual damages.
The other point, that the $750 is to cover the number of times it may have been downloaded...nice try, but they have to PROVE those downloads occured. You can't sue somebody for something they might do in the future. Where are the server logs showing the number of times those files were downloaded? - stonedgeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It's hardly the consumers fault that artists are starving (if that is the case). They don't seem to get a very big percentage of the profits their music makes.
I'd like to see a torrent site where you can download whatever and then paypal some $$$ to the artist. I'd feel much more comfortable doing that than buying a cd. It's not the cd, or the packaging, or the advertising I want to buy. Just the music. All the rest is useless to me (and destined to become landfill eventually too).
Even if the artist puts a paypal button on their site and says, "click here if you downloaded and enjoyed my work". I'd click it.
I want my money to go to the people who deserve it, not the leaches. Artists should be working towards cutting out the middle-men. - MrBester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"The RIAA have a point- file sharing can be detrimental to their business"
a) not proven
b) "can be" does not equal "is". Vitamin A can be detrimental to your health if you ingest massive quantities. An overdose of Vitamin C gives you the *****. Gonna sue some supplement company because you snarfed an entire bottle in one go?
c) Copyright infringement does not equal theft. Abrogation of fair use rights DOES equal illegal. - dominowrecker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah I agree as some of you kinda pointed out. There is a big difference in "allowing a place for copyright violation", and "copyright violation" are 2 different things. What I mean is, they have no idea who may have downloaded from me. Hell that person may already own what they are downloading from. The point is, the burden of proof should be on the RIAA. If they are going to sue people for these insane high amounts, then they damn well better provide proof of an actual case of copyright violation. Again since there is no way they can tell who is downloading what from you (or at all) how do they come up with these numbers? I do think (and some of you may not agree) they should be able to go after you for "allowing a place for copyright violation to take place", but I dont think it should be based on the insane copyright fines. Which lets face it were designed so someone couldnt take your work and sell it as their own. (hence the reason the fines are do high) It is clear that is not what is happening here. There needs to be a punishment that fits....dare I say a slap on the wrist would be more than enough to stop some people from sharing music. And from there they could increment the punishment as needed. But starting as high as they do is just scare tactics. And the worst part is, what you are in violation of is not what the fines are based on....just doesnt work.
- goddess1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21.proof of uploading the song to others should be required before this litigation goes too far but it will not be required it will be assumed
2. do people actually download songs on computers and golly gee "NOT SHARE" them again Yes they do because of bandwidth issues and other things like "not getting caught by the RIAA"
3. so until the RIAA can "PROVE" not "ASS-U-ME" that these people actually share files I think they are going overboard
4. Fair usage copyrights are better in my opinion than having to deal with the gestapo like tactics of the RIAA
I know a teenager in Atlanta whose car stereo costs more than the car. I can just see the RIAA going after him for "public performance" of copyrighted material just for driving down the streets playing the music on his stereo. Not to mention all the cars cruising A1A in Florida with there stereos cranked in the summertime. Whats next RIAA operatives on surf boards to see if the music from the beach is loud enough to be considered "public performance" I can just see the next "stupid law" coming out of Washington being that everyone must wear earphones when listening to music in public (which will be defined as any place outside of your home including your car). Boy won't it be fun to live in the next 15 years as the hearing of the entire country deteriorates and ASL becomes the "Official Language" of the United States. - Meshyf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Sorry Chrono, you're going to the courts for a $15,000 case. Then you're going to jail, then you're going to hell.
MPAA/RIAA said it was fair punishment for making their artists starve. - chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"chrono13...so what you are saying is "Someone (the cable company for having an outage) stole from me, so I should be able to steal from someone else to make up for it."
No outage per say. Just a lack of DVR. And further - I didn't have any blank VHS tapes. For gods sake it is 2006 (as you said). I would have to get my VCR out of the shed and see if it still works.
Oh, and it is as I said - my work hours prevent me from watching the few shows that are the reason I pay at all; and what are the MORAL issues surrounding post-air, and post-rerun download of content that you have already paid for.
Yes, I know it is illegal. Again, I was driving at the fact that it is more illegal than immoral.
And also, I was making a joke - a funny. Sarcasm. I wasn't really asking for an address to send a check to. - chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How much and who do I make the check out to? Who wants my money? I thefted Battlestar Galactica. Kinda. I paid already, but I need to pay again!
Who do I pay and how much? Is it $1,000 to watch a TV show that I missed? $2000? - bendalton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The RIAA have a point- file sharing can be detrimental to their business."
At first, I want to react like many other people do: "No, it is not detrimental to their business."
But, then I realized that doesn't matter. There are things which are obviously illegal, such as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. In that example, it doesn't matter if someone gets hurt or not, you are breaking the law. Unfortunately for the RIAA, they are greedy and no-one feels sorry for them. However, they are in the right to try to stop p2p file sharing even though there is no proven harm to them. Just because we want their music and don't want to pay their highway-robbery prices doesn't mean that we have the right to steal it.
It is unfair to these individuals who are getting picked on, but I imagine most of us would prefer that to an automated system which would ticket EVERYONE for downloading a track illegally.
I know my view is not popular. While I don't pat us on the back for our criminal behavior, I don't commend them either. The way to fix this is for them to be aggressive with the online distribution methods and their pricing, find new ways for physical media to be an added-value proposition, and stop treating people like criminals who want to use their legally purchased music on their ipod and computer and in cd format.
This suit is not going to be dismissed on those grounds. Hopefully this person can avoid the heavy fines and will avoid making the same mistake twice.
I just wish the RIAA would wake up to the fact that they are slowly killing their industry. - Sklz711, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For all the pointing out its the uploading they are suing for and not the downloading and such, I'm afraid that you're still going to be to flat out wrong.
Most people who do share their music via BT or some other such thing only do so until their ratio is 1 to 1.
Thus at worst, 99 cents for a download and 99 cents to give to someone else, and that's if they can even prove that.
2$ = 750$?
It's really simple. What the RIAA/MPAA does is commit barratry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry
In criminal and civil law, barratry is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass. Usually, the actions brought lack merit. This action has been declared a crime in some jurisdictions. See also: champerty, SLAPP, vexatious litigation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, forum shopping.
Or depending on how you're looking at it, their mass settlement issues and such are rapidly approaching extortion.
IE: Either you give us X amount of money or we are going to run you through the legal system until you're broke one way or another.
Here is the really dangerous part. If they ever get convicted of extortion, even just once, then pretty much every single case they've brought forth so far would fall under the same, which if we actually had a gov that wasn't bought and sold by these people would make them eligible for RICO charges.
To sum it up, the RIAA and MPAA are walking a slippery slope. They are filing mass charges for the sole purpose of generating some ancillary income, and eventually some day it's going to come back to bite them. - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Also, idiots, like eonblue, for like the ***** MILLIONTH TIME!!!
CIVIL COURT != CRIMINAL COURT
There is no prosecutor and the burden of proof is much different. The RIAA, the plaintiff, is suing you, the defendant. - tryferos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Aussieaubs:
It stands for "Recording Imbeciles Attacking their Audience" or something like that... - plnegative1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Musicians barely get any money at all for their music that's sold. The music industry today is a big fat leech. Musicians, some do at least, have to depend on them to become big. Musicians have to rely on money from touring cause the recording industry STEALS money, that the artist deserves, for themselves for just distributing the CD. Stealing more money for people sharing songs is the stupid thing I've ever heard. Most people who download just one song do it cause they wouldnt want to buy the whole CD or give apple 99 cents for something they dont have full control of.
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The RIAA (and MPAA) is getting ridiculous. Can we please just disband the associations, send all of the current members to prison for life (where a big guy named Molly wants to dance with them), and let it serve as a lesson to corporate-criminal America??
- KRockXP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1these people will never learn how to sell music.
- JShope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is interesting to me that ordinary people stand behind the RIAA and MPAA. They are not one bit concerned about the artists or music. It is entirely about the money for them.
This is why they have lobbied (and been granted) nearly unlimited copyright extensions. This is because they own the copyrights, not the creators. Until you become well known enough to negotiate a good contract, they own everything you do.
Secondly, they use their collective influence and wealth to force payment where many other art forms do not enjoy the same remuneration. Do painters or sculptors get to charge patrons each time their artwork is displayed? Aren't Public Libraries committing a massive copyright violation for providing millions of books at no charge? It is fascinating to me that football, basketball, baseball and hockey games are shown on TVs in restaurants and bars throughout the entire U.S., but they have to turn off the sound because the RIAA will sue them if patrons hear a copyrighted song that they have not paid for.
It is time for the RIAA and MPAA to shoulder the burden of proof that they are losing revenues. They seem to be doing as well as ever, despite the exponential growth of file-sharing. - coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To Outdoor, we've actually already legally determined that big record companies are charging too much for CD's (If you would have looked around online, there was an antitrust act that anyone who had bought a CD within the past few years could participate in. I recieved $15 from it).
Luckily I don't have to worry about this. RIAA only puts out crap. I don't take part in the sharing of crap. Ever. - coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know why people defending the RIAA are citing costs of a single download. It's impossible to actually figure out who would have bought the CD instead of downloading it otherwise. My CD purchases have gone up since I discovered torrents, in fact, I discovered, listened to, and supported hundreds of bands that I would have never gotten into if it weren't for the fact that I have access to them through file sharing. What if my upload triggers two people to buy a cd while one person just keeps it and burns it. Now, by the logic of the RIAA, they owe me....that's my plan at least....*bwahahaha*....ok not really. But seriously, they have no proof otherwise, and for some reason the American government is giving the RIAA as much power as friggin homeland security, suing with almost no proof.
Seriously, I've been boycotting RIAA artists for a while now, and I'm no skinflint, recently I bought a CD that I found online, the money went straight to the artist via paypal and it was at a reasonable price. It makes me happy to know that all of the money I give goes to the artist, instead of like 5 cents per song or whatever the RIAA swindles them out of. - RobbieCrash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm glad to keep hearing about those who are not just settling. Even if it is the same 3 people over and over again. Those who aren't settling are making more noise than the RIAA is with all their law suits. That can only be good for everyone who isn't the RIAA.
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"The RIAA have a point- file sharing can be detrimental to their business."
And what point is that?
This argument makes the assumption that entertainment companies are -entitled- to consumer dollars. They are not. Their business defies the laws of supply a demand and the current model is unsustainable.
And... if that point was so clear and defined, WHY are the **AA -still- trying to set a legal precident. Right. They can't, because their argument is too weak to hold up in court. Instead, they use coproprate bullying tactics to scare people into settling.
I think it's safe to say, though, that suing your customer base is detrimental to their business. - breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Submitting a motion to dismiss the case is a very common standard first step.
- br0ken1128, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@jkfan87
"maybe those songs were uploaded 5000 times"
Yeah, and maybe they were uploaded 2 and you're being anal raped by the RIAA..
I don't like the fact that I can be sued based on assumptions rather than hard facts, we're just going to assume that because we detected the file shared that it MUST have been downloaded x number of times, and they still value the songs in their lawsuits at more than 99 cents, I read somewhere that in these lawsuits they are valuing each song at around $450. - xioner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"amen brother" to Chrono's speech.
- rcook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I create digital intellectual property for a living. It has a $0.00 real cost to make a copy of. Does that mean everyone deserves a free copy? Do I deserve to be compensated for my work so I support my family? If I choose to give it away for free, then fine. But if someone takes their own copy of my work, that they have not paid for the right to enjoy, then that is morally wrong. If they have no problem with that, then that speaks to *their* character, not that of anyone else.
- serpentor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The FBI came to your school to talk about file sharing?! Good lord..
- mcgarry83, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why cant we get the Taliban to attack the RIAA, lets tell them that they hate Alla and want to kill all Muslims. I will personally send them a google map to RIAA HQ, LOL
- JShope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There is a huge, unspoken assumption, in all this, that the stuff that is being downloaded is stuff that would have been purchased. When we were kids, we all listened to music and watched movies that we didn't pay a penny for. We copied tapes, and played them until they broke, and the industry thrived. We saw stupid movies at our friends' houses, and decided never to spend our money on such stinkbombs. We listened to what music our friends were playing, and decided whether we would buy our own, or not. Oftentimes, we purchased the same album on vinyl, cassette, and CD. (Personal experience with Yaz - You and Me Both)
With the advent of the internet, our freundeskreis has simply grown astronomically. Digg is a perfect example.
How effective will the internet remain if every copyright on it is as aggressively enforced as the RIAA is attempting? I look forward to the day when the entire Library of Congress and the Smithsonian Institute are available online. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Good lawsuit. The RIAA have a point- file sharing can be detrimental to their business."
no it cant - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Can we alos just PLEASE have a boycott?? Please??? If not only because the music the RIAA represents sucks. If only we can stop the American sheeple from spending their nights watching American Idol and their days shopping at Wal-Mart for RIAA artists.
Maybe it would just be easier if an "accident" were to occur at the RIAA/MPAA corporate headquarters... - jinexile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People that think downloading is theft have been brainwashed by the **AA and just goes to prove that their propeganda campaign is being successful. Do you know why you hear so few cases of people getting sued in Canada? Heavier burdern of proof needed, ISPs with a backbone, Government that defends it's people and the **AA up here lobbied for CD-Rs to have levvy that everyone pays regardless of usage (about 50 to 1 of my cd-rs have music on them.) They are kicking themselves now (and trying to get the legistlation changed) because they can't get in on the action that the MPAA/RIAA in the US is currently getting, why? Because it is their most successful business model to date.
- coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0JShope hits it right on the nose. Seriously, i've talked to a few bigger and smaller labeled bands and they always say they make their money off of concerts/merch/cd purchases at the shows, because that money goes straight to them. The label takes almost everything else.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Download song - like artist - buy RIAA album - give artist $.05 - give RIAA $12.95
Download song - like artist - buy artist's next album direct from artist - give artist $7.50
Download song - share with friends - friends buy album - gives artist $royalty x #Friends"
Your little asinine argument falls apart at alot of points.
1) Why would you buy something you already have?
2) Buy next one direct from artist? Since when is that even possible? Artists rarely flip/flop in/out of RIAA distribution networks
3) Again, if you already gave it to your friend, why wouldn't you give him the rest of the album, the next one, etc, or just have him steal it outright?
You make the radical assumption that people are truly sampling the music. While I wish I could believe you, you're simply wrong. For every 1 person you cite that actually went out and bought what they downloaded, I can cite 100 who simply didn't, because, why should they? - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You all you bitches jerking off about the RIAA 'raping' artists, remember, here's your logic:
Buy CD, give artist $x, x>0, NO!
Steal it, give artist $0, YES!
Yep, you're sure supporting these artists by stealing their music.
And, the RIAA can get $10k per infringement, but they're quite happy with $750 per infringement. - blasphemer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The FBI came to your school to talk about file sharing?! Good lord.."
LOL...Don't they have serial killers to catch? - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Sklz711
Or it won't, since in each case they can without a doubt prove that moved forward with the belief the person was infringing on their copyrighted works, which is criminal and allows the plaintiff to unequivocally claim up to $10k in damages per instance, so... you're a ***** idiot who hasn't the faintest clue regarding copyright law?
Maybe next time you should stop pretending like you know *****, and actually lookup cases in which RICO charges were brought and successfully prosecuted, and not use wikipedia as your sole discretionary information source. - JShope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I buy CDs and Concert DVDs when one of the following applies:
- I want to support a particular group who I feel deserve it
- I consider the cost/benefit ratio to be >= 1:1
- I want the whole package - Commercial Pressing, CD Art, Cover Art, Liner Notes, etc
- What I want is not available for download (not everything is, y' know)
My friends don't have exactly the same interests, ideals, or purchasing power that I have. Therefore, they do one of the following,
- Purchase everything they listen to
- Purchase things I would not
- Download/copy things that I would pay for
- Download everything, buy nothing (actually I don't know anyone like this, but it could happen)
It is human nature for us to feel good when we are able to share something we really like. Should I buy several copies of each CD before letting my friends listen to it, so that I am not running afoul of the RIAA? Because, according to them, each listener must own their own copy. And, once I've let one friend listen to it, I would need another copy for any other friend who may, or may not, like it.
Unlike the RIAA fat-cats, I don't have unlimited purchasing power. I will continue to search out the best deals for my disposable income that I can find. Research requires listening to, and reading about, many different things. Then, I will continue to support those things that I feel deserve it - so that they may thrive. I will continue to do all I can to avoid supporting those things that I feel deserve to fail, like the greedy, non-producers at the RIAA. - anonynous2_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't agree with everything in the motion, but I like the politics of it. I digg.
- eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"And one more time for those that are ignroant(including this Greubel guy). They are NOT being sued for downloading the song. Therefore the damages are NOT 0.99 cents. They are being sued for UPLOADING the song to others. Who knows, maybe those songs were uploaded 5000 times, and $750 is a bargain.
It is a bad sign when your motion for dismissal shows you don't even know why you are being sued."
Its a bad sign when people accept/assume without actually understanding/checking the facts.
The fact is that in america you are supposed to PROVE things, PROVE harm, PROVE guilt. Unfortunatly people like you just accept what youre told. The burden of proof is on the prosecution NOT the defence and for every person here who believes that their suits for 750$ a song are just I dare you to watch a queue, and what about those who leech... the point is for the most part they dont have PROOF of the damages and therefore should not put the burden of PROOF on the defendant. If they can search my computer with a john doe suit whatever. They can prove I had them... Perhaps I got them from a friend, but i guaruntee you I have NEVER shared out my songs for download via a p2p network and thusly it would be quite unjustifed for 750$ per song for somethign they can't even prove. - Thundercat1971, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol @ ThadBoyd
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0not to mention that you can get unlimited downloads off Yahoo for like $5/month. . . where is this $750/song thing coming from?
- chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0".99 cents?"
Oops.
"Wow, who sells songs for less than a penny?"
Sell wouldn't be the best tern to describe it... but there are places... deep underground smelly places that give songs away. Dark caves and urine filled alleyways. A very secretive group that call themselves P2P. They love to pee.
You pee, IP, we all love p2p! - JShope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hey jasqwerty.... Here are the most likely equations....
Don't buy CD, Don't Download - give artist $0
Hear friend's CD - decide artist is not what you'd buy - give artist $0
Download song - don't like artist - give artist $0
Download song - like artist - buy RIAA album - give artist $.05 - give RIAA $12.95
Download song - like artist - buy artist's next album direct from artist - give artist $7.50
Download song - share with friends - friends buy album - gives artist $royalty x #Friends
There is a thing called MARKETING that the RIAA spends scads of money on to promote only what they want to. Downloading is free marketing that will neither bankrupt the RIAA nor the artist. Artists make most of their money from concerts and, last I checked, you still can't download those. - ThadBoyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0.99 cents? Wow, who sells songs for less than a penny?
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 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