What is Digg?189 Comments
- fightclub, on 10/11/2007, -4/+193DAMN you diggers!!! it's down! .....Is there a mirror I can download from???
- VideoQueen, on 10/11/2007, -3/+123wow very interesting. am wondering though if they will come back under another name?
- guywhodoesstuff, on 10/11/2007, -2/+80If they didnt take it down, I think most of use would take it down for them with some Denial of Service attacks they really deserve.
- tunapez, on 10/11/2007, -6/+76Safe bet they never went away, just the one site. I'm sure there's more. While it doesn't affect me directly, I am sick of seeing the Guv kowtow and police for the Corps. The SonnyBono/Disney act was a rape of the Public Domain and the non-corporate world. Sell-out Sonny got his dose of instant karma on the slopes of Vail, just a couple years too late.
- Azimuth1, on 10/11/2007, -5/+73Our work here is done.
- magic6435, on 10/11/2007, -3/+70Who the ***** would trust a torrent site with a " family Filter" any way. Come-on people!
- getrealnow, on 10/11/2007, -2/+67I hope they lost money on bandwidth.
- Lazyboy0172, on 10/11/2007, -3/+56Now where am I supposed to download movies from?
- MercedRocks, on 10/11/2007, -4/+54Im sure they will but, at least we know now what kind of tricks they are capable of using. I mean a fake video download site? Thats "nucking futs."
- Azimuth1, on 10/11/2007, -5/+49"How would you like it someone did this to you, stole your car every single time you bought a new one?"
Right so when I download a song, the artist somehow loses that song and cannot play it any more, and has to spend a lot of money to recreate it?
Oh wait, no. That analogy is retarded. - wildfire, on 10/11/2007, -7/+49Wait, bury that. I just got the dumbass joke. Time for sleep.
- EnglishVoodoo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+41Anyone saying downloading a song is stealing from the artist is a moron. That's the record company's job.
- ackza, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36We need more publicity for things like this!!! This is basically a VICTORY! A small one in the REALLY annoying war we have to fight against this overbearing autocratic BS that surrounds our society and could eventually ruin our lives if we don't win! The MPAA and RIAA can go to HELL. They are about just as ethical an organization as the tobacco Industry.
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -1/+34Dicky Roberts, huh? "Nucking futs" has been around for a lucking fong time.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+39you eat ***** for breakfast?
- Beaver6813, on 10/11/2007, -1/+32I don't care how much they're paying for you to post this crap, theft = stealing. sharing != stealing. copying != stealing. Jeez... find some other arguement for a change instead of "wa wa wa" its stealing, its theft "wa wa wa"
- DestroyFascism, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31About $3250 + web design no big deal, just issue an infringement on another 12 year old downloading something illegal (not that a 12 year old would understand law)
- g4blows, on 10/11/2007, -2/+32Your point might be true but thats not really the problem here. It's their tactics in trying to catch pirates that are pissing most of us off. They are going after inexperienced computer users on these types of sites, they are even targeting the people who upload the movies.
- pyrotherm, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30Let me explain this to you in a way you may, or may not understand. When you download a file from a P2P network, you are making a digital copy of the file you are download, just like if you were to make a copy of a CD. You are not stealing the original work. If you were to sneak into the recording studio, right after a recording was made, and steal the DAT tapes the song was recorded onto, your argument would be valid, but that's not what's happening.
Here is how your argument should be logically construed.
* you buy a new car, and park it in your driveway
* someone walks up to your car with some kind of scanning device and, completely un-intrusively, figures out exactly how it was built, what materials were used, etc.
* they go home and build a car just like yours, down to the type of rubber used in the windshield wipers
How, do I ask, is this stealing your car? - wildfire, on 10/11/2007, -3/+28Do flies eat *****? Of course.
- leviathan3k, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23Sorry, but theft and copyright infringement are two separate crimes for good reason. As you state, the only thing lost through copyright infringement is a potential sale. This is not the same as any tangible good. and *literally* means the person whose copyright is being infringed does not lose anything tangible.
As for actual loss of money..
The studies that show an actual drop in record sales are generally done by the record companies, who have a clear bias towards maintaining control over distribution methods.
Independent studies, such as this one: ( http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4206.html ) actually imply that copyright infringers mean *more* money for the artist. Copyright infringement is free advertising, and advertising results in more music sales.
So..
Would you like less copyright infringement, or less money for the artists? - KlayBorg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+25I guess people counter that by pointing out how little actually goes to the artist/they wouldn't have bought it anyway.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21Our work is never done.
- Amablue, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21"If I'm not doing anything wrong I have nothing to fear" is a horrible mentality.
- Brahma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19Hurry..Grab the domain name.
- sexybobo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19a third party organization is doing it instead of the police / FBI
- ZZZin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Technically, you wouldn't be taking *anything* out of their pockets by downloading a song, because it's just a digital copy. Stealing an actual car, however, is a completely different thing, rendering your analogy useless.
People on digg may represent a *better* America in the future not because of the expectation of something free, but rather the ability to adapt to new technology. The current system simply doesn't work, and the industry is too stubborn to change. - hexydes, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17Does anyone else find it ironic that if the movie industry had actually come out with an online service like this five or so years ago (free Flash preview trailers of the movie, downloadable in file format), and charged money for it, they likely would have:
1. Highly slowed the popularity of downloading movies from torrent sites.
2. Created a new paradigm in content delivery to consumers, likely making a lot of money.
3, Avoided moving down a path of self-destruction, a la the RIAA.
For a service that gives free trailers, free previews (say the first 10 minutes of the movie), and then the option to download either the AVI / WMV / MOV version of the movie, or an ISO file to burn to disc, I would probably be willing to pay a couple hundred bucks a year. Hell, make it like Netflix, and offer a scale, so that you can:
1. Get a "pass" to one movie for $14.99. This would give you the trailer, preview, file version, and ISO version.
2. Get a month pass, with up to 10 movies a month (as described above) for $29.99.
3. Get a year pass, with up to 15 movies a month (as described above) for $299.99.
I can tell you right now, I would choose #1 today to see what it was like. If I liked the process, I would probably choose #2 tomorrow. If that worked out well, I would likely be in for #3 at the end of the first month. I can also GUARANTEE that I do not buy $300 worth of DVDs per year, so they would be making a lot more money on me, and I would imagine many others as well.
If you REALLY want to spice things up, then really get the community into it. For instance, once a month, have a "vote" for which soon-to-be-released-in-theaters movie you would like to be available on the site within two weeks after the movie has opened. Whichever one gets the most votes, put it up there. For big movies like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, you stand to make a LOT of money, because people would likely see it in the theater, and then right away buy it on the site (I know I definitely would). Maybe charge $29.99 for it for non-members, and $9.99 for it for members.
Or have an indie-film section, and even a user-indie-film section, free for members (free previews for non-members). Give people that upload stuff credits, and if their movie gets popular, do something with that (maybe even pass their names on to directors and studios, etc).
And to the ONLY argument that the MPAA ever puts back, regarding piracy. How would you stop these movies from being pirated? YOU CAN'T STOP IT RIGHT NOW SO WHAT DOES IT EVEN MATTER?! At least if you have a legitimate service, you stand a chance of getting money for it, because right now, you get nothing. - Murdats, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
you actually think your innocence matters to them?
wouldnt it be deliciously ironic if they were to pull your IP out of their random IP generator and sue you for piracy. you could sit their sputtering "im innocent, I have nothing to fear" as much as you want while they drain your bank account.
did you think they worried about guilt when they sued a 12 year old girl, twice, or they sued a dead lady who never owned a computer? or all the numerous other people who they just randomly choose? - thegoodsteer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15"You meddlin' kids always get in the way"
- LoopyChew, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Out of curiosity, has anyone ever made you a mix tape?
- peacebyanymeans, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14I don't agree with cdnyny, but seriously...
1. Learn to spell.
2. It's not your or our website. We dont't own it. We just use it.
3. You on the ***** internet and you can't spell website correctly? Jesus... - ThndrShk2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14"Ron, it sounds like you are trying to convice yourself"
Second that, since they're gonna sue you someday. Doesn't matter when or where, you're a theif to them, so pay up you illegal pirate.
*Note: Downloading is not illegal, only distributing e.g. Uploading. When will people learn? - Markpdotcom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14What? You mean like the way pirate bay and countless other sites hide the adult content unless you are logged in? :D
- ThndrShk2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Not when the market gives them little to no choice. That and even with the lose justifications people give, most people digg stories like these because the RIAA and MPAA have horrible customer service and public relations, along with their power over restricting our media.
At least the Internet is opening things up for a reasonable alternative - zhulien, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13did I miss something? if the MPAA is providing downloadable material, how is it illegal? unless they are providing material from non-MPAA parties... also if it is all fake stuff, how is it illegal too?
- Matri, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12You know, you just described what the Transformers do. And they don't steal the cars either, just copy.
- h4mx0r, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Just stick to what you know and trust till it goes down ;)
- poseitom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11One down... many will follow... Aaarrh! P-)
- jayneff, on 03/30/2009, -3/+13Ron, it sounds like you are trying to convice yourself
- mathew_bug, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16Thanks Digg? Well, the article talks about a slashdot article, not digg's...
- djwk1928, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11They're not losing any potential sales. People who download, are going to download. They won't buy it, ever.
If someone downloads a single, people are still able to buy it in a store. - shawnz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11"No fool, every time you download the song you take money out of his pocket by taking away a potential sale. Now you might say 'I wouldn't have bought his song anyway'. Who gives a *****, it is still theft"
but i _wouldn't_ have bought the song anyway, which makes your entire first point void. you can't just say "now you might say..." and counter it with a completely unrelated point. idiot. - richardhenry, on 10/11/2007, -11/+19I eat ***** like you for breakfast!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6
“The Internet, and downloading, are here to stay… Anyone who thinks otherwise should prepare themselves to end up on the slagheap of history.”
- Janis Ian during a live European radio interview, 9-1-98
.
DOWNLOADING DOES NOT EQUAL A LOST SALE, IT ONLY INCREASES CHANCES OF SALES.
.
We’re not taking food from anyone’s plate.
This is how people listen to music, they share it. Without offering albums like this small scene artists would be in an even worse position, the internet and forums (you know the other hundred that also offer albums out . . . well not the sites, but their members do) is the single greatest advert an artist can have.
People don’t just pay for music they’ve not heard of before, the more people that download the better . . . because out of those numbers you will get some purchases, without those people downloading one of two things would happen:
* They wouldn’t buy it.
* They wouldn’t even know it exists.
There’s millions of “artists” so expecting people to buy an album without hearing it first, is ridiculous. Getting people downloading your album is the best way to get exposure and a much larger potential buying audience.
Example - File Sharing
* I have never heard of “murckle man” and see an article.
* I download what music i can find.
* I enjoy the music.
[ POTENTIAL PURCHASE #1 ]
* Music is played when friends are round.
* Friends like it and download it
[ POTENTIAL PURCHASE #2 - MORE THAN ONE PURCHASE POSSIBLE ]
* Friends Play album with their friends
[ POTENTIAL PURCHASE #3 - MORE THAN ONE PURCHASE POSSIBLE ]
This goes on and on. The sheer amount of possible purchases for the [i]album / tickets to see them live / shirts[/i] or other streams of revenue an artist has set up is staggering.
Example - NO file sharing
* I have never heard of “murckle man” and see an article.
* I don’t buy an album, there’s been too many other people I read about and are willing to give them a chance first, or someone I know has purchased a copy (what are the odds?)
People still suggesting that snippets and tracks with audio tagging is acceptable. . . . it’s not.
For years we’ve been able to download albums from every genre, because it’s free we can take risks in what we listen too. It opens up a whole world of new music we would have missed out on, if not of a huge library of shared music that exists today.
People mistake copying for stealing, file sharing is nothing more than copyright infringement . . . . the only people that respect that is the industry. It’s about their money which they made with your work, it’s not about protecting the artist and it’s not about protecting the consumer either.
The physical collection of albums I own (a few hundred at last count) is 80% based on the strength of the music I felt worthy of my money and shelf space. Without downloading the full album, I wouldn’t have spent anywhere near what I have. That doesn’t include bands seen live or merchandise opportunities.
Support the scene. - jtrost, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I hate to play devil's advocate here, but how is this any different than a sting operation that a police department would carry out?
- Myonosken, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Spoooonerism
- Suplyndmnd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6"Well, thanks to all of the the publicity generated by that article and elsewhere, and with Digg and slashdot seemingly proving to be the final nails in the coffin, MiiVi.com has been taken offline and visitors to the site are now greeted by one of GoDaddy's parked domain pages."
Get glasses :) -
Show 51 - 100 of 180 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is