What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
118 Comments
- LordBacon, on 05/13/2009, -6/+57***** THE RIAA !!!!
- PlutoIsApluton, on 05/13/2009, -0/+39Great article. Worth keeping a copy of. Good to see that the FSF understands the importance of what the RIAA are doing. It's a pity that so few other progressive organizations are standing up to them. Why is that? Anyone know?
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -0/+24we have to avoid confusing this institutionalization of corporate greed with “art.”
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?c ... - PlutoIsApluton, on 05/13/2009, -0/+18Thanks - I must admit I had no idea that Obama was sucking so deep on that tit.
- Bicep, on 05/13/2009, -0/+17Interesting paragraph from the article... whooda thunk?.....
"In the U.S., the new administration continues to side against the public. Vice President Joe Biden recently spoke at a MPAA luncheon. He adopted the entertainment industry’s loaded “piracy” language, saying, “It’s pure theft.” Biden also assured the MPAA that President Obama would find the “right” copyright czar. His attitude is not surprising, given his past eagerness as a senator to sponsor and support RIAA-backed legislation. He was, after all, one of four U.S. senators invited to a champagne celebration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) hosted by the MPAA, RIAA, and the Business Software Alliance. Obama himself has already appointed Tom Perrelli and Donald Verrilli, both former lead attorneys for the RIAA, to be associate and deputy associate attorney general." - eleete, on 05/13/2009, -0/+14It's been going on a long time, both sides of the aisle, here's another to see. Much milk to gather from them.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?cy ... - kylere, on 05/13/2009, -0/+14I am waiting for the change we were promised in November, still feels like Biden is highly paid representative of the RIAA to me. Oh, wait, he IS.
It will take a major political figure stepping forward to change this. - Porkrinds, on 05/13/2009, -1/+14An excellent article, worth the entire read.
- inactive, on 05/13/2009, -1/+14Yes! It's stuff like this that makes me proud to be a badge-wearing FSF member! Join 'em and support 'em, guys.
- PlutoIsApluton, on 05/13/2009, -3/+15Richard Stallman has no understanding of intellectual property? What a moron you are. Thanks for the laugh though!
- NorthMass, on 05/13/2009, -0/+11Obama is just as in the pocket of the RIAA as anyone in Washington.
- Stingwolf, on 05/13/2009, -0/+9My bigger concern is the way in which the content cartels are trying to get entire technologies (P2P, bit torrent, and, in the past, tape recorders, etc.) declared illegal under the false premise that they, in and of themselves, are piracy devices. File sharing and social networking have allowed anyone to become a publisher, and that scares the industry to death. They are simply manipulating the laws to maintain their monopoly positions on content distribution. This has -nothing- to do with "lost sales" due to piracy, and everything to do with keeping things under monopolistic control. Piracy is a very handy moral scapegoat used to convince people like you that the RIAA is on the right side of this issue.
And no, I do not pirate music. My concern is for technological development, and personal freedom from legal extortion, not corporate profits. - NorthMass, on 05/13/2009, -7/+15It is time to elect libertarians and true conservatives like Ron Paul so that organizations like the RIAA are not allowed to use government regulation to pursue forcing ISP's to shutdown someones internet service if they download a song illegally.
Politicians like Biden justify their power grab to control the internet by stating their intention to stop people from downloading songs illegally. - inactive, on 05/13/2009, -1/+9And the RIAA lawyers are..? Since when do you have to be a ***** genius with a law degree to see the there is something wrong with suing grannies and dead people for millions for copying a song.. do you even use your brain dude.. clearly no!
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -2/+10I don't think anyone in the libertarian movement wants copyright 'abolished'. There is a critical element in the quote you proposed. "For Limited Times". I take it you feel that The life of the author PLUS 70 years and often more is Fair ? When lobbyists push to have copyright extended in scope and terms beyond what the constitution provided for it is not the poor artists and authors who stand to gain. Then again, I am positive you gloss over the fact that after Limited Times those same works are destined to head to the Public Domain. Perhaps you should understand that if I were eventually allowed to use your work after a limited time, that you would equally be able to use mine, therefore YOU would gain exponential amounts of content that you could freely use to create even more content. Exponentially more content for the public domain is the greater good and truly fair. I would love to be paid for going to work for three years (or 5 or 10) to be paid for the rest of my life and will that income to my children, but does that even sound sustainable to you ? Copyright has become a welfare system my friend. It would do you good to have an open mind and inspect what Limited Times could have meant from the beginning. Want to know why it is constantly being extended ? Check here http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?cy ...
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -2/+10"It's all a bunch of BS excuses to try to justify bootlegging which has never been legal in the history of the world."
That statement is so wrong that it is funny. During the Renaissance humans had the greatest time of enlightenment, artistic and scientific advancements without the aid of a single intellectual property law. Check your history. - inactive, on 05/13/2009, -0/+8You are misinformed and have no idea how GPL works do you.. you can make money off of it.. you can repackage and sell it.. and why do you feel entitled that you should be paid for your hard work at all.. what makes you so special that you feel you should be paid period. I won't let people like you take my freedom away..
- digitalArtform, on 05/13/2009, -1/+8If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 13 Aug. 1813
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/ ... - eleete, on 05/13/2009, -0/+7Actually they understood it enough to turn it against itself and force things to be free as in beer and speech. Or have you no idea who Richard Stallman and the FSF are to begin with ?
- inactive, on 05/13/2009, -0/+7What? That's pretty much the opposite of what libertarians believe.
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -0/+7Is there no truth to what they say in the brief ? Are their facts not relevant ? I especially liked to learn that artists make about $0.045 on a $0.99 song. I assume you are on the side of the $0.945 of the argument ?
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -0/+7http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?c ...
- digitalArtform, on 05/13/2009, -0/+7Nor is any Friend of the Court a neutral friend. Nor are they supposed to be.
- acknotSW, on 05/13/2009, -0/+6The internet and digital age are major game changers that will force a total reevaluation of exactly what rights the IP creator has. IMHO, copyright will return to its original intent, to prevent others from profiting from someone else’s work or creation without their permission. Today IP creators and owners are trying to use copyright laws to insure an eternal money stream for any popular IP.
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -0/+6then why are grandmothers and children being taken to civil courts ? It is not a crime it IS a civil matter. Do you honestly believe that the RIAA/MPAA would not love to prosecute on your dream based theory ?
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -1/+7Programmers would make a living as they always have, by selling their wares. I don't argue that copyright should be abolished. But is it not true that giving someone a monopoly for their entire lives PLUS 70 years or more is a bit egregious ? If that programmer cannot make his money back in 10 or 20 years perhaps the title was not worth the money he was trying to charge ? Also, If I go to a library and check out and read a book, have I harmed the author ? In my city, there is a Barnes and Noble, a library and a Borders book store on three corners of the same intersection, and both Borders and Barnes an Noble have survived for about a decade there. Can there not be both outlets, with enough money for artists/authors to make a living. I don't think copyright was intended as an indefinite welfare system.
- Wag3Slav3, on 05/13/2009, -1/+7What the matter? No one wants to buy your music that sounds like your banging a pot in the kitchen while making puking noises?
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -1/+7Do you have any agreements with the programmer or the artist ? Surely if they were greed based they would not give up their rights just as you would not give up yours. They would want the maximum compensation as well. Would you be willing to give them each one third of all profits ? For their entire lives Plus 70 years ? As a photographer, I have seen weddings that were paid for by bride and groom. Photographer comes and shoots the wedding to the tune of $5000 or more. Guess who owns the photos ? Not the bride and groom, unless negotiated. As people became more aware of this, their rights were removed by the market demanding rights. Some still try to retain rights, others lower the cost of the shoot to retain rights and still others give the rights away to make a living today. Hint Hint.
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -1/+7Clearly intellect does not have the same properties as tangible items. Once people realize how infinite media is, this will all seem insane. Perhaps you should explain why an artist or author should have nearly complete and monopolistic control of their content for their entire lives Plus 70 years ?? I'm sure we would all love to be paid on those terms. Is that how you would pay your employees ?
PS. Sharing is NOT theft at all. Removing something from anothers possession is stealing/theft. - Stingwolf, on 05/13/2009, -0/+6“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
I think you overlook this point in the actions of the RIAA/MPAA. The way that they try to -hinder- the progress of science and useful arts by trying to get technologies declared illegal that go against their traditional business model. They are not the good guys, no matter how you frame it. - eleete, on 05/13/2009, -1/+6As of yet copyright is not a crime. Counterfeiting is, and that is punishable by far more than a lost internet connection. Copyright violations are an infringement of rights, they are a civil matter, not a criminal matter, such as using a car to rob a bank.
Want to know why we may see it categorized as a crime ?
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?cy ... - eleete, on 05/13/2009, -1/+6Uhhhh, because they are the ones executing the work ? In fact they are the ONLY ones who have a copyright interest in executing the work. You cannot copyright or own an idea. Only the execution and the final product.
- Stingwolf, on 05/13/2009, -0/+5Who ever said amici curiae had to be neutral? By definition of the process of filing an amicus curiae brief, you -have- a position on the issue. If you didn't, you wouldn't be filling a brief! Of course they're not neutral, but it's ok, we'll just allow the RIAA lawyers to twist the definition of another legal term in order to confuse the public into thinking they are in the right. And it is up to the discretion of the court to decide if the brief is "anything special."
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -2/+7downloading illegally is not ok, neither is preventing things from falling into the public domain as they were designed to be. Why enter that little factoid into the conversation though ?
- inactive, on 05/13/2009, -0/+4Now you know way there are less and less good games out there. If I am the programmer why should I let you get my coding ideas for little or nothing?
- digitalArtform, on 05/13/2009, -0/+4What was a copyright then? 14 years? I don't even know, but it was something like that. A patent is fairly short even now.
The point is: "Intellectual Property" is not property. If it were, your rights to it would not expire, as they do. These things are limited monopolies designed to encourage and reward the creator for the ushering of his idea into the public domain fast as possible for the benefit of society. - eleete, on 05/13/2009, -1/+5The part that says specifically that you are allowed to SELL the content if you chose. You could download Firefox right now and sell it on the street corner if you so chose to. I make money programming using free software and tools. The idea is it is not the little disk that should make the money, it is peoples effort. And that effort should not be paid in perpetuity for the rest of their lives, and beyond. No one argued that IP has no value, again I don't argue that copyright should be abolished. I argue that no one should be paid 25 years down the road for something they worked hard on for a year. There may be a rare few instances where I can understand protection beyond 25 years but a song, a video, a book will not make the grade. Consider that The Dark Knight is already profitable beyond imagination, in the face of piracy. My personal opinion is that many are using IP as a welfare system and a club to beat the competition with.
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -0/+4Not when said item is infinitely available. You are confusing scarce goods with infinite goods. Making a copy is not theft. Ever. an Infringement ? I'll give you that, then again, if you think you or any government will be able to control it, keep dreaming.
- feignNU, on 05/13/2009, -0/+4@MrUploads
You don't understand the sense in which the FSF uses the word "free". I suggest you forget what you think you know and do some reading. - eleete, on 05/13/2009, -0/+3That is exactly what he was referring to. He also worked for the Patent office so that strikes at the heart of all your claims. Isn't delusional expecting compensation for work you've done 60 years later or even after your death ?
- BBird, on 05/13/2009, -0/+3did you read it?
- jamesmcm, on 05/14/2009, -0/+3They mean Free as in Freedom, not Free as in gratis.
See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - Stingwolf, on 05/13/2009, -0/+3"eleete....The Supreme Court addressed this issue."
Because the Supreme Court has never been wrong before...:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson - eleete, on 05/13/2009, -0/+3No I sure did not. At the time of the constitution, copyright was for 14 years renewable for an additional 14. Now in the age of media and content being produced increasingly with less costs it is being extended ?? Wtf is that. For the life of the artist PLUS 70 years ? I find that repulsive myself, is that how you would pay your employees ? If they have the right to change terms and scope why do they not reel it in in this day and age ?
answer: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?cy ... - NorthMass, on 05/14/2009, -0/+2I'm not well versed on this issue, but I do know that Ron Paul would try to stop all these bills that give the RIAA more power to sue, and he is completely against regulating the internet.
- temujin1234, on 05/14/2009, -0/+2RTFA
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -2/+4Do I deprive anyone if I visit a library and check out 3 books 2 movies and 4 music CDs ? Have I harmed anyone ? Seems your government sees the need for sharing.
- acknotSW, on 05/13/2009, -0/+2I'm sorry kalvinb, but attitudes such as yours are going to vanish over the next 5 to 10 years. Copyright laws are going to return to their original intention, keeping others from profiting from another’s work without their permission. This is not the same world that existed 15 years ago. A book or song no longer need huge expensive machines in order to be mass produced and we no longer need a huge shipping and distribution system to get those works into the hands of consumers.
Right now books, software, and music are being priced based on what the IP owners believe is the highest price that the largest percentage of the consumer base will bear. It's not based on anything real like how long it took to create, how much it costs to create and the consumer will not stand for being gouged forever.
Attitudes are changing rapidly on this issue. A law abiding family man isn't going to give the slightest thought to IP theft or piracy if he pays for and downloads a song and then his wife and children come along behind him and copy that song onto their MP3 players or burn disks to listen to it in the car. - eleete, on 05/13/2009, -1/+3Poorly indeed. If you ever took the time to read Larry Lessig you would understand the damage it does to our culture regardless of the few that stand to gain from it. If you understand that case, you also understand that ALL content will eventually end up in the public domain. I will fight for sooner, you for later. Neither of us is right. One of us is focused on art, the other profit.
- eleete, on 05/13/2009, -0/+2Very Wise indeed, My favorite of all quotes from Jefferson, I especially love...
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. -
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is