What is Digg?101 Comments
- OrangeSoda31, on 09/14/2008, -0/+57Every additional law that congress passes diggs us deeper into a hole. Pretty soon, we will look around at the remains of the internet and wonder why it fell apart.
- bieber, on 09/15/2008, -0/+39The fact that I can be tried criminally for *gasp* playing DVDs, for instance, that I've purchased, on my computer (with DeCSS, of course) is just sad. This is one of those places that most of the world just seems to have ***** up irreparably...
- XtheXlanternX, on 09/15/2008, -0/+35The funniest part is the people who pay the price for all the "copy protections" are the average consumers, not the people pirating DVDs or whatnot. If you buy a legit DVD, you have to watch the FBI warnings and can't skip through them. If you buy a legit PC game, the copy protections are a huge hindrance more than anything. If you pirate a DVD or PC game, you don't have to deal with the hindrances. Most of the time the pirated product runs/works better than the legit copy. There are much better ways to make money off material that would, in earlier years, be protected by copyrights alone. Price, lack of content, many subpar releases for every 1 decent release, all of these are factors into why piracy is so rampant. Copyright law isn't going to make these companies any money, making better products that consumers will feel compelled to buy will.
- inactive, on 09/15/2008, -2/+35Stop buying all this DRM crap and it will all go away. Copyrights were intended to protect an artist for a short period of time while ensurign that cultural works of art eventually go into the public domain.
- BrendanJB, on 09/15/2008, -0/+31"Every broken regulation brings a cry for at least one new regulation even more sweepingly worded than the last. Copyright law in the 21st century tends to be less concerned about concrete cases of infringement, and more about criminalizing entire technologies because of their potential uses."
Couldn't have put it any better. - crichton101, on 09/15/2008, -0/+27Minor problem though, even when the sales of this crap go down, the big companies instead of blaming themselves and realize no one wants the crap they are selling, blame piracy and call for more laws so that they can keep their business model. These big powerful corporations have a ton of money, and use it to get D.C. to bale them out of their mess.
- Sirocco, on 09/15/2008, -0/+26The worst part is that it will eventually spread at things continue to tie into the net, such as set-top media access and "smart" appliances. The goal is not just to curb piracy but to make sure big media controls all content and can mete it out at their discretion and for whatever price they please. Paying for something once and holding on to a physical copy that you can enjoy at your discretion is going the way of the dodo.
- zarvensha, on 09/15/2008, -0/+23Okay, I wont get to read the whole article for about a week, but a quick scan and I see the old friend of mine, the concept of the "sneakernet"
Old school, take copies to your friends house like we did with Videotapes.
Hell, in Cuba, with Internet tightly controlled by the government, videos get swapped by USB, no torrents, no Internet.
So if anyone thinks they can stop this, if any government, and industry thinks they can outlaw copying, well take a look at illegal drugs, they actually can kill people, and no one has stopped them in 30 years.
So if you really think you can change society from its current technological direction, with the drastic socio-economic changes hitting all the worlds economies (Lehman Brothers anyone? How about AIG needing $40 Billion) how you can possibly change things so piracy vanishes??
The inventiveness and free spirit of the Internet will never die, as Cuba proves, it may move off the grid, but it is an inherent human quality that cannot be denied. - PhilMoskowitz, on 09/15/2008, -1/+20@OrangeSoda31
Oh, I think it will stretch well beyond the internet. As awful as losing freedom on the internet is, I think there's more than that on the horizon. - r0flcopter, on 09/14/2008, -2/+19Did you even read the article?
- OrangeSoda31, on 09/14/2008, -2/+19Seriously, you should read the article. This runs much deeper than outright piracy.
- Murrabbit, on 09/15/2008, -1/+17Well there's your guarantee of immunity from unreasonable search and seizure for one. Copyright law these days wants everyone to have their nose all the way up your ass sniffing for any trace of content that might infringe some company's copy right, and if they find it they are obligated to destroy it without so much as verifying it's infringing status or having the copyright holder request that they do so.
- inactive, on 09/15/2008, -1/+13Copyright is so tied to piracy these days. I think both sides of the fence are using that idea to their advantage, but the fact is that copyright had absolutely NOTHING to do with "piracy" when it was thunk up. It still shouldn't... because it doesn't.
Download all you want, but I still made it. I'm glad you enjoyed it. - RoboDonut, on 09/15/2008, -0/+11I agree that avoiding DRM'd media is the best option, but there are just far too many people who will buy this stuff no matter how locked down it becomes. For each of us that actually cares about this stuff, there's fifty others who negate our small contribution.
- matthewinDRO, on 09/15/2008, -1/+9that post was loco, jones.
- XtheXlanternX, on 09/15/2008, -1/+9I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint, but I am also a musician. I don't care if people download my music for free (in fact, I love the fact that they are sharing it and getting more people into it). I don't care that I'm not making any money on it. People still buy CDs at shows and people still pay for the tickets to get them in the door. The "live performance" experience of music can never be traded via the internet or whatever medium you so choose. Free sharing of music has done so much good for so many artists, the only people who really lose out are the huge multiplatinum artists, and they are even still getting more fans by p2p sharing and those same fans come see their live shows. People have been pirating music for over a decade now, yet concerts still get bigger and bigger. Local music scenes still thrive. Do you know why? (Hint: It has nothing to do with copyrights.)
Just on a separate tangent: If it weren't for p2p sharing, I'd probably still be listening to whatever it is they get paid to play on the radio these days. When Napster and stuff like that originated, it allowed the little guy to get a foot into the door. Suddenly, there was a massive distribution center for one's music. I can't even begin to count how many bands I like and have went to seen/bought merch from who I never would have heard of if it wasn't for pirating music. - xcbxcb, on 09/15/2008, -0/+8(He's welcome to download a copy of my free writing text book.)
- inactive, on 09/15/2008, -2/+9Big Media will never control all content. I seriously don't even know any real people who pay attention at all to any mainstream media. I read statistics here and there saying various things, but I don't think those people actually exist. Even if the entire internet were seized tomorrow by government agents who wanted nothing but the subjugation of the entire human race, it would just disappear and something else would pop up. Just look at what happened to radio. One day it's a powerful tool for information exchange and social revolution, and the next day, it's a 24 hour a day multiband commercial. The internet is no different. It's the human drive that stays alive.. not corporate *****. No matter how much it seems otherwise.
- phoomp, on 09/15/2008, -1/+8Only if you consider it an infringement on the protected works of others for me to be able to watch a movie I purchased on my TV, iPod and computer. Or, if I want to back up a DVD so that my kids don't destroy it. The big copyright holders want us to purchase a separate copy of the content for each of those scenarios.
- juliohm, on 09/15/2008, -0/+730 years? That's being generous.
Drugs have been around for centuries. - PeppermintPig, on 09/15/2008, -1/+8Laws can only restrict freedom.
- stubear, on 09/15/2008, -1/+8a) any artist who thinks, hell ANYONE who thinks, they can write one song and make millions is delusional or purposefully obtuse.
b) you picked a career field saturated with a lot more competition with others who can do the same job as you. Deal with it or go back to school and learn a skill that you can excel in where most others cannot. - Ganpachi, on 09/15/2008, -2/+8No one is asking you to give them out for free. What we *are* asking for is that your record labels that you are signed with do not abrogate our rights to privacy in their quest to expand their definition of IP to include the very thoughts in our own heads.
- cnot3, on 09/15/2008, -1/+6What about the Bill of Rights? Libertarianism isn't Anarchism. I see what you're getting at, though.
- XtheXlanternX, on 09/15/2008, -0/+5I've heard a ton of new, amazing artists, especially since p2p became popular. I don't know where you listen to music or where you get your information from, but the big music companies tell the radio stations what to play, so thats why you don't hear any new music. They spent lots of money making people like Metallica or Fergie or whoever is popular these days famous, they want to reap the benefits of their investment. If you are into independent music and you want to see all the great stuff that is out there, all you have to do is look. Find a message board where people are chatting about the stuff you're into-- I'm sure, along with some good conversation, you'll figure out some new bands with the kind of sound you dig.
- inactive, on 09/15/2008, -1/+6Why did anyone digg you down? You're exactly right. That's precisely the idea.
- hugolp, on 09/15/2008, -0/+5@skyz are you saying engineering doesnt need to keep on learning? I promise you engineering changes a lot more than music.
Anyway, with that post explanation you answered yourself. You need to work to make money, dont expect to work a week and get money for all your life. - absurdist, on 09/15/2008, -1/+6Sorry, but you're full of *****. You seem to expect that your creative output should line your pockets for the rest of your life. Other forms of art (painting, sculpture, etc...) don't. The entire point of copyright was to provide a limited monopoly for a short period of time to encourage creative individuals to create and be able to profit from their creations, but ultimately those creations would become a part of the public knowledge. The key words are limited and short period of time.
But then, I have a feeling you're a troll who never spent anywhere near 10 years in college, judging from your writing style. - KaiUno, on 09/15/2008, -2/+7Ten years of college and you never learned how to write propperly?
- inactive, on 09/15/2008, -0/+5Locking up ideas as property is ultimately not different than repressing them through censorship. It is a bad idea whose time has passed.
- inactive, on 09/15/2008, -1/+5It's called a computer. It's great.
- xcbxcb, on 09/15/2008, -1/+5"How relevant is it to declare oneself to be “for” or “against” copyright?"
I've spent my entire life breaking copyright laws.
Lately, I've been working pretty diligently on an ESL writing text book.*
I'll be giving it away when I'm done.
Whether or not this is relevant is anyone's guess.
*Based on years of experience in the field and a goodly amount of time in any number of fairly pricey schools.
Even if that dude up there ^ won't give you his piano concerto, you're more than welcome to my text book! - HonoredMule, on 09/15/2008, -0/+4It wouldn't matter if we COULD start over. Achieving a proprietary version of the personal computer is virtually impossible. Industries that produce REAL products all know (secretly or openly) that our current state, or our breadth and pace of progress, or the affordability of pocket calculators let alone digital media, wouldn't even be a glimmer in Gene Roddenberry's eye without the voluminous magnitude of open standards, interoperability efforts, and cooperative regulations managed and ratified by countless organizations such as the IEEE.
Yet like all the big players in technology or intellectual "property" markets, the entertainment industry giants feel strangely entitled to complete ownership and dictatorship of all society's output, innovation, and intellectual discovery spanning the last 500 or more years...just to artificially inflate the value of their crap and protect the marketability of the worthless. - StaticThunder, on 09/15/2008, -0/+4"would it not be tragic if we had no musical heritage of the great composers and performers ?"
If media conglomerates had their way, we'd still be paying out the nose for Mozart. And all of his music would be recorded onto digital media and encrypted three ways from Thursday so that if anything ever happened to its current owners, it would be lost forever. - StaticThunder, on 09/15/2008, -0/+4"i have a feeling that you have never created anything of any worth in your entire life nor ever will"
Thanks, that was a great argument in defense of royalties. I am impressed by not only your use of capitalization but your concise and cogent rhetoric. It truly cut to the heart of the issue, that is Absurdists economic worth.
Some of us have to work for a living. You get to compose for a living. Be happy already with how good you have it. I am not sympathetic to anyone who plays around making a virtual luxury all day, lords it over people who produce real products and services, and then thinks that copyright should be extended as far as it has been. And I am working to get the laws changed through donations to foundations that support intellectual freedom like the EFF, but they are up against Disney, AOL-Time-Warner, Paramount and a bunch of congressmen who know where their campaign contributions come from.
In the meantime, cry me a river. I neither download nor purchase popular music, and I'm not about to support any artist that thinks they are entitled to a profit from non-sales other than greater market visibility. For what its worth, all of my work winds up in the public domain immediately - those were the terms I created it under, and somehow I've managed to earn a living. - hexydes, on 09/15/2008, -1/+5This is why governments get overthrown. They begin making laws that are not in the best interest of the majority of the people they are supposed to represent. We did it once (circa 1776), and if it came down to it, I'm sure the founding fathers would be proud to see it happen again. I'm sure they would be saddened that they tried so hard to create a perfect form of government (and they came damn close), but the last thing they would want is for citizens to live under a government that does not serve their best interests.
- tdclark23, on 09/15/2008, -1/+4Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution reads:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
and gives Congress the task of protecting science and art by means of patents and copyrights. In our current environment, by making draconian laws to protect intellectual property of fading technologies, they are no longer protecting science and art. New technologies and art forms are hampered by going too far, they are basically saying that one person's intellectual property is worth more than another's. The holders of old copyrights are more valuable, or more protected, than the new innovators of technology. - WilliamDavis, on 09/15/2008, -1/+4Nobody cares about your civil liberties. has the drug war taught you NOTHING?
- hugolp, on 09/15/2008, -3/+6If you are an artist, dont expect to write a song, and then sit at your home and live the rest of you live out of the week you spent working on that song. Move your ass, play live, work and earn a live like the rest of us do.
I am an engineer and was a good student at school. After being a good student, I spend 6 years studying complecate math formulas, electronics, and a lot of stuff most of the people could not even get to understand even if they tried. And I happen to play the bass guitar and know a lot of "art people", so I know how was uni for them. Now after all my years of education, I dont expect to work for a week and have the rest of my live solved because of that. Why do you? - XtheXlanternX, on 09/15/2008, -0/+3As long as man has been around.
- hugolp, on 09/15/2008, -0/+3"sharing copyrighted files is illegal" Not in my country. In my country selling copyrighted files is illegal. Sharing copyrighted files (getting no money profit) is not ilegal. Only an ill minded country would ban sharing.
- KaiserArny, on 09/15/2008, -2/+5You're the spam.
- Netizentalk, on 09/15/2008, -0/+3Open source and file sharing will save us
- javaroast, on 09/15/2008, -0/+3"and i have a feeling that you have never created anything of any worth in your entire life nor ever will"
And you obviously have an exaggerated sense of what your works are worth.
As for circumvention of bad law... it's a time-honored tradition in America and I suspect elsewhere as well. See the Boston Tea Party for reference. There are times when it takes the law some time before it catches up with will of the people. Especially these days when the law seems much more interested in the will of corporations than the will of the people. - Rhydeble, on 09/15/2008, -0/+3Except its not a market, its free.
- PeppermintPig, on 09/15/2008, -0/+3I know what you're getting at as well. :)
I should probably qualify the statement by saying regulation, or imposing a coercive and forceful system. There are costs in the form of time as well as money in a system where people are not given the choice to consent or decline, and these are resistances working against liberty.
Establishing a principled set of moral/ideological beliefs is the foundation for a rational code of laws. Of course, we can discuss moral systems without having to promote actual 'regulations'. People may have sufficiently agreeable codes of conduct which they've internalized.
Libertarianism is foremost an individualist ideology rather than a political one. Some would say anarchy isn't an ideology at all.
Libertarians need not believe in 'rights', in the explicit absolute sense, or the authoritative sense in which a government is claiming to recognize such things. - Taiyoryu, on 09/15/2008, -0/+3Artificial scarcity is dumb. Just look at the diamond market and economic and political effects that has had. Making digital data artificially scarce is even dumber. We're at a technological level where media can be reproduced and distributed for little to no cost almost instantaneously across vast distances, and it makes little sense from the perspective of improving human progress.
Now some are going to argue that media producers need to be compensated. Keep in mind that the media distributors tend to take the largest cut and this is during a time when distribution is now easier, cheaper, and, in all honesty, irrelevant since there are many tools and services that would allow media producers to be in direct contact with media consumers. But going back to artificial scarcity, it's silly to try to extract compensation for a media copy. A product's value is partially derived from its scarcity, but trying to make a resource rare that is, for all intents and purposes, infinite, is a futile exercise. The product that actually has value is the original performance (e.g. music concert) or original hardcopy (e.g. painting). From those things you can make money easily. Whether it's a little or a lot depends on the market. However, a digital reproduction will have little to no value since it's trivial to produce and distribute.
So media distributors (and some producers) would rather enact laws to enforce artificial scarcity rather than change their business model, often at the expense of consumers. A lack of or reduced financial incentive will not prevent or slow down media production as some would fear. Humans were creative long before financial incentives exist and people are creative where money isn't a motivation. Besides before media producers could make a living from their media works and media distributors expanded their audience, artists made a living through patronage. The financially rich have the discretionary income to support the arts, but it may go beyond just a return to patrons, and we may have corporate sponsorships as well, much in the way businesses sponsor sports, sports stadiums, and athletes through endorsements. - DavidYeah, on 09/15/2008, -0/+2Digital copyright owners are just having a hard time dealing with the fact that computers are fully capable of being means of (re)production for any digital media. There's no way to turn off the spigot, since everyone has a computer and can easily make a copy of any digital media they want.
Compare that to the fact that you need a book binding and printing process to mass produce books, a newspaper press to print newspapers.... making major distributions of these things was incredibly expensive and only a limited number of companies could control the costs and limit competition.
When pretty much everyone with a computer can be considered competition in the digital world, these companies are screwed. Enter fascist government to crack down on this very democratic means of production. - absurdist, on 09/15/2008, -0/+2"The law, sir, is an ass." - Samuel Johnson.
I build science museums. My exhibits educate and entertain millions of kids all over the world. What have you ever done except provide sycophantic support to whatever authority you can find that will allow you to fasten your lips to its ass?
Oh yeah, that's right. You've written 100 songs. I'm sure they've brought you fame, glory, and wealth. How about letting us know what some of the more popular ones are so we can judge them for ourselves? - hexydes, on 09/15/2008, -0/+2That's because this system works better than any other currently available. People commit copyright infringement because it provides you with an end-product that is easier to use then what you would get by legitimately purchasing it. The fact that it is free is just an added incentive.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is