What is Digg?145 Comments
- synystar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+116How eloquent. Unfortunately for us, laws are a reality. What is needed is a different model. I don't want to pay for gas, drive miles, pay 10 dollars for a ticket and several bucks for a cheap snack, then stand in line for 20 minutes to be seated next to a group of vocal dimwits, to see a movie that everyone said was "***** awesome" only to discover that it was only mildly entertaining. Give me an alternative. I'll pay for your crap, just like everyone else... if you take away some of the overhead. We have the technology. Give me a choice. And make it cheap.
If it's worth seeing on a bigger screen I'll be happy to pay again. - kuribo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+59I really don't see what's wrong with the university informing students of commonly-committed illegal activities which can both easily be discovered, and result in major lawsuits against the university. Seriously, whether or not you like the current laws and business models (and I personally agree that they're very flawed), how hard is it to understand that the university wants to prevent itself from getting sued?
- zombiedepot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32so is underage drinking but colleges do little to prevent that.
- stuf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27Also, I believe RI/MP/AA is better off called the Music And Film Industry Association of America™ (MAFIAA), check it out at mafiaa.org
- NX910a, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Of course not; there are not enough financial incentives to do so
- rbeschizza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19The headline here is a little deceptive. In the letter itself, the author refers specifically to distributing copyrighted materials as illegal, not just file-sharing any old thing.
- Hickeroar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Maybe so, but I don't get this guys deal. The College is protecting themselves. They can A) Ignore the problem and get sued by the RIAA and MPAA or B) they can warn the students and side with the law (however ridiculous it may be) ans save themselves a HUGE amount of money down the road.
Regardless of how anyone here feels about it, at the moment this sort of file sharing IS illegal. We can only hope such laws wil be repealed down the road, but for now, just obey them and grit your teeth.
jimv-
You're 100% correct. The university I work at has done this already for various protocols. They'll straight up disconnect someone from the internet is they're doing anything illegal. (Its a radius setup with a logon and they just ban the logon you use) - synystar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Yup, Ahmadinejad. Not even the most accomplished lawyer can penetrate the .rar extension. But you're not safe, Bush is on to you.
- Hickeroar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9badbox-
The unfortunate truth is that a defense like that will get you a nice fat loss in a lawsuit. While i despise the nature of it, the law is the law... - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11>Under the DMCA, copying and sharing copyrighted materials without a license is illegal.
So, uh, where does one get a license? Do I have it straight that it's illegal to do without a license, but impossible to obtain a license? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19Laws are only a reality if you accept them. Just because they're there doesn't make them legit or something to be followed.
Personally, I don't give a damn about copyright laws. If the **AA or any large entity of that sort won't budge and allow this new technology to take over, then I have no desire to support them.
It goes both ways. - h43p, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Am I the only one that sees absolutely nothing wrong with what the university is doing here? This seems perfectly reasonable.
"You should consider removing illegally-obtained copyrighted material and/or peer-to-peer applications that might illegally share copyrighted material from any computer you manage on the University network. If you choose not to remove these, you should IMMEDIATELY ensure that your system is set to prevent it from acting as a provider of unlicensed materials to other users (some instructions are linked to http://security.uchicago.edu, but the only safe action is to remove offending materials and applications entirely)."
Notice the use of the words "consider" and "choose not to." This is anything but a firm threat, but more of a cautionary and accurate warning. - DarknessGP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Umm, small correction to his statement "Illegal file sharing is illegal" File sharing itself is the foundation of the internet, you know to transfer data in the form of files!
- Mootabolife, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12yes.. they allow all the freshman to get rides to parties every friday at my school while the cops drive around and watch
doing everything they can - JimV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@badbox
I wouldn't want to try that defense in court. - synystar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Schools do everything in their power to prevent underage drinking. Similar to file sharing, there's really not much that they can do.
- nukem996, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The RIAA is really just scared. With the current wave of technology you can easily setup a computer for a band to do all of their recording which they then give out for free on the Internet. As they grow they more people come to see them in concert and they make more money. Artists make money through concerts not CD sales, only the RIAA makes money there. As for the MPAA they really need to rework what their doing. Everyone I know who downloads is because movie theaters suck(people talk, txt, cough, and just annoy the hell out of you), and DVDs suck(buy them and their over price plus I usually only watch a movie once rent it and its either not there or scratched to hell so it hardly plays once you get threw the hassle of renting it your treated like a criminal with all these warning signs) If the MPAA would just release reasonably priced DRM free movies on the Internet I would be happy to get a movie every weekend(now its about once a month).
- JimV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I love this line from the article:
"There is just simply no way to monitor them all without creating some sort of Gestapo-like IT division with which to snoop on them all 24/7"
LoL, something like this is only impossible when you don't want it to happen. They don't have to "snoop on them all 24/7"; they only need to check a sample of their network traffic every now and then and give the offenders some kind of punishment...maybe shutting off net access for their account or mac address for a week.
That is possible, and that is what my university does. - BGog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I hate the riaa/mpaa tactics as much as the next guy but sharing and downloading copyrighted stuff is illegal and wrong. I am TOTALLY against the DMCA and how the RIAA etc use it to bully the small guy and abuse people without giving them their day in court but I'm a little sick of hearing people act as if it is OK.
I've done it myself but that doesn't make it right and I do not pretend that it does. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10NO its not!
- Sarge117, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I like the picture:
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h187/soulxtc/mpaa-1.jpg
What year is it again? 1984? - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6They need to be stopped from being pissed because people...are STEALING FROM THEM? All this whining is just too much.
Steal if you want. But all this ***** Robin Hood steal from the rich record companies is okay, stealing music and movies and code isn't hurting anybody...that's just retarded. It won't put Best Buy out of business if I go in there and rip them off for a CD and a game. But it's stealing, it's wrong, and they have a right to be pissed off and do whatever they can to stop me.
So the artist gets a quarter when you buy his *****. He made that deal. He busted his ass to get that record deal so he could get that quarter and not have to work at Starbucks. It was his choice to accept the terms. The fact that the record company is rich, and evil, and all that other ***** is just noise.
Steal, or don't. If you steal, don't make like you're striking some noble ***** blow for justice. You're just a ripoff punk just like the kid that gets snagged on his way out of Best Buy with a CD under his coat. - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6 Personally I'm against abuse of intellectual property laws, not so much regarding to media, but in general. Also against the idea of patenting.
What often happens with inventors is they get offered a substantial amount of money for the rights to the invention. It could be a new battey type, a new engine, a new drug. Common practice is the corporation will simply aquire and hold the patent without implementing the technology, ensuring the longivity of their conventional market model.
It takes an effort to produce a physical product. If intellectual property in form of a design blueprint gets duplicated, that means the brand being able to manufacture the item at the lowest price is going to win the market share.
China makes replicas of many consumer goods. They are generally well below the market qualty, but the price to quality ratio is alot higher. Fake Rolex lasting for a year for $5 as oppose to $5000 watch lasting 50 years? I'd rather spend $250 on fakes and save myself $4750.
Patents do not ecourage a stand-alone investor as the whole process of registration is difficult and expensive. It promotes corporate development while exploiting talents of individuals.
Movie and music business cartels make us believe they are essential to media distribution, as well as the media itself. They make us feel like music and movies are as imporant as the air we breath and that the consumer should be catering to the provider of service as oppose to other way around.
It again reminds me of the pice on 9/11 about the pizza guy that complained he lost all his customers after the WTC collapsed. Well, the businesses should be following the demand and demographic. Consumers have a choice and it should be driven by convenience of service.
The artist right cartels are trying to preserve an outdated business model.
I work in the movie business. I make visual effects for film and television and I don't feel particularly worried if the industry collapses. I'll find a different job. Some other kind that could be more productive for the planet. I simply don't see conventional entertainment as an essential product. If people don't watch movies, I'm not going to make movies. I'll go work at a corner store bakery or at a hardware store. I'm not going to be catching people in the street shoving down the movies down their throats, demaning I get my monthly paycheck.
I work on movies that get horrible reviews at the box office sometimes. Guess what? I get paid just as much as if the movie did well. So, I'm ripping people off, it turns out. Do I have the right to complain if the viewers come back to me and say they want the $10 and 2 hours of their life back? No.
I don't think entertainment is essential if the demand has to be tailored around the product. I think the same laws that supposedly are in place to protect the artist allow for greater exploits and choke smaller productions, independant creators. I'm against copyright and against intellectual property laws. I'm for open market. - TheLee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No, the university is saying that if you break the law and the right legal forces find out about it, the university has to obey the law.
RTFA. - TheLee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I go the UofC as well and recieved this mail.
I don't get the blogger's deal and why specifically he's singling out this mail in particular. Yeah, the RI/MP/AA sucks, but no institituion (especially an academic one) would, in their right mind, fight against legal forces. Especially at the UofC, where logic and reason prevail over short-sighted conceptions of moral imperative.
Yes, it's lame that such a legal necessity is there for the university to follow, but what would be even lamer is if the school I love gets hit with massive lawsuits because it refuses to comply with the law. Plus, if you people actually read the mail, it's not like the school is doing anything on its own. It's warning the students (and faculty) that, should the need arise to act, it *must* act in accordance with the law, so it's making sure its student body is atleast aware that if they do get caught doing some piracy, the unversity isn't going to be their moral platform of rebellion. - MikeF74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I really don't know why this is newsworthy. That was a very even-handed letter. To sum up "Don't do illegal things or there may be repercussions". That's always been the case. Nothing new here.
- Sarge117, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I wasn't trying to imply that it does - however, that image is clearly intended to have the same effect on people as "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU" is intended to have on the citizens of Oceania.
- tagawa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7In other words, students have an incentive to download over $1,000 worth of material so they're not out of pocket even if they get caught!
- synystar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The argument is that you don't own the data on your computer. You can think that it is just bleeps and blips that you share with someone else, but those bleeps and blips come together to make a copyrighted piece of someone else's work. Do you own that? Do they? That's the big question.
- TheIguana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yes, the university is covering their ass and personally I do not blame them for doing so.
But it is this kind of bowing out under "legal" pressure to a pathetic industry hellbent on propagandizing and slandering anyone who gets in their way, that only helps strengthen their cause. The RIAA and the MPAA NEED to be stopped! Bowing out under "legal" threats only strengthens their resolve and legitimizes their actions before people who are not following this whole debacle strongly but ultimately will have greatest say in the outcome.
The RIAA and the MPAAs path is not a solution. It is only their plan to control how we think, how we consume media, and what we will be able to see on our computers, TVs, stereos and any other amazing device that relies on content. It is their attempt to strangle out a monopoly on our lives, the content we see, and even beyond that who will be allowed to supply.
I just hope we are all able to stop these monsters of organizations before they actually do some real harm to more than just us, but our future generations.
Iggy - nightsweat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Buried as inaccurate. The headline is a misrepresentation of what is said in the letter. At no point does the letter claim that "file-sharing is illegal," which would be an outrageous and inaccurate claim. It says:
"Under the DMCA, copying and sharing copyrighted materials without a license is illegal."
Which is an accurate statement. If you don't like it, pester your Congressman to change the law. - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Licenses can be purchased for 99¢ per song through iTunes.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Will you obey the law if it demands you act in a ludicrous manner? Say, for instance a medical corporation copyrights certain genetic traits you hold and subpoenas you to not "disseminate" these genetic qualities, i.e. no jerking off and no sex with women, period. Assuming you are male ofc.
You'd probably say, come and trying control me in my ***** house and while you try, suck on this 12 gauge.
However that's what is at stake. Stuff on YOUR computer, raw data, you see fit to handle as you please - and that's a crime. You share bleeps and blips with someone else and that, by some arbitrary turn of fate is a crime. Likewise someone could arbitrary copyright your semen or eggs and start implementing laws on YOU.
Well it's all academic. People in the US, don't worry. Don't share files. Just download them from my country, the netherlands. Let Europe take care of storing the required files and you americans, who live under gestapo laws (and are too chicken to do something about it), can download to your hearts desire. These bastards are losing anyways. It's just a matter of time. - 1911wolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's not the message that the RIAA/MPAA/Mainstream Media are trying to convey. In every news story I've seen or read by them touts that any and all sharing of any files are illegal.
- adamfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't quite understand how the blogger lost his focus. He discusses the fact that some student bodies are up to "35,000" students. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this letter sent to an employee? How is bringing up the size of the student body relevant to this current letter? Personally I think it hurts his credibility. Listen, there are a lot of different arguments one can make about this issue. Argue that records are too expensive. Argue that members of the RIAA may even be price fixing and not allowing for fair competition. Argue the ideas of fair use. But don't just complain about the RIAA. Because in the end, they're just doing their job. They're attempting to keep the property of their members from being stolen. It's as simple as that.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, this is putting an incredibly bad spin on the email and the U of C's policies. We have some of the most relaxed policies in existence. The reason for this email and "crackdown" is that the RIAA and MPAA are putting pressure on the university and threatening real lawsuits instead of allowing the university to handle it internally. So basically, the U of C is trying to *protect* its students from these lawsuits. Many, many of them get caught by the RIAA and MPAA all the time and are not sued *because* the university has promised to handle it. It's much better than the alternative of having multiple lawsuits against students from the RIAA and MPAA.
- burnchicago, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I go to UofC, AND I've been caught by the MPAA at this University for dling Hannibal (Great movie btw). I almost ***** myself when I saw the words 'file-sharing' and 'NSIT' in the title. Once was fun enough. NSIT (our IT department) isn't the collection of dicks they might come off as in this email. They don't want to deal with your filesharing unless you kill the network doing it. Even then they will just send you a please stop email. They only pursue disciplinary action if then get one of those notices from the RIAA/MPAA. They probably like the RIAA/MPAA just as much as you guys do.
- TheLee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Filesharing can be a center of debate, but not when it comes to law. I don't think the UofC is trying to actively set itself into a position to be a precedent-setter, so having a clear legal policy is essentialy.
It's like the UofC's drinking/drug use policy. Lots of under-21 students drink and a non-trivia population dopes it up with little consequence, but if the UofC is informed of your behavior by the, say, the police, then they have no choice but to comply. It's the law. - Hickeroar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That's what the statement says. The poster here just screwed it up.
- rohanch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The university seems pretty relaxed about sharing, I am surprised.
Look at their pages on "disabling sharing":
http://security.uchicago.edu/guidelines/peer-to-peer/
They actually don't seem to care if you're not uploading. Their BitTorrent page is my favourite: http://security.uchicago.edu/guidelines/peer-to-peer/bittorrent/index.shtml
"It is not possible to disable filesharing in BitTorrent or to disable sharing of .torrent files while downloading with any other BitTorrent client.
As long as you are downloading a .torrent file or leave the window open, you are sharing that file. Because of this, it is recommended that you not use BitTorrent to download copyrighted files, since it is not possible to remain in compliance with the Educational Acceptable Use Policy."
OK, so as long as I follow their recommendation and don't use torrents, disable uploads in other apps, I'm allowed to carry on downloading stuffs? Cool! - SPRFRKR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2more than a little...it makes this a complete non-story. If the president had said "file sharing is illegal", then that would be something. Yet, he said, sharing copywritten material is illegal (which it is), so he is right. Employees get these letters every day.
- JimV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I imagine if you were using school resources in some way to allow underage drinking then they would care, but really, that's not a real analogy to the file sharing situation.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Exactly, the tone of this is completely unjustified. The email is a *good* thing. The university is trying to save itself and us, the students, from lawsuits from the RIAA and MPAA. Filesharers have been getting caught in larger and larger numbers and the **AA's have been putting more pressure on the school to cut it back.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Might be an interesting idea to setup wireless, solar powered storage drops of mp3s. Just fill a large hdd with mp3s.
Obviously right now they would cost too much but the price of technology is dropping it might be quite dooable in the distant future. Just get a basic embedded Linux compatible board with wifi, attach a hdd (solid state if possible) and hook up a solarcell (and maybe a bettery if you want it to work at night). Then add windows filesharing/webserver so when the laptop autoconnects there is a nice list of pirated mp3s.
Then leave them hidden around places, would be fun to leave them hidden at the RIAA, somewhere they wont be found like on a roof, or those shade coverings lots of places have over the entrance. Could even encase them in a ball and add weights to they could get be thrown and knocked around quite a bit, but are left with the solar panel facing up. Add OLPC style mesh networking and the ability to automatically connect to unprotected access points to allow internet access for extra fun :) If there encased well enough you could just leave them on the side of the road etc, technology would hopefully be cheap enough that no one would bother to steal them, assuming they even know what they are and they would get moved around which would be an advantage since the locations would change when drunk people decide to walk away with them :) - anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Then their consumers need to start acting like consumers instead of thieves.
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ daviddigg
You have $40 million? I have a script I'd like you to read. - Strd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Could someone explain to Islamic fundamentalists that MP/RIAA conspiring to copyright Quran, muezzin calls and introduce tax on praying. And they pissed on the Prophet grave too.
- crimson117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3>>Under the DMCA, copying and sharing copyrighted materials without a license is illegal.
>So, uh, where does one get a license? Do I have it straight that it's illegal to do without a license, but impossible to obtain a license?
The license they're talking about is not the same license you get with an iTunes purchase. iTunes gives you a limited license to use the file for personal use on up to 5 of your computers. It does not give you permission to share the file with anyone else.
"copying and sharing copyrighted materials without a license" means without a license to distribute the copyrighted material. When you share a copyrighted file, you have become (to the RIAA/MPAA) a competing distributor. They paid money to get exclusive distribution rights for that content, so they feel ripped off when other people start distributing their content and giving content away for free to people they had hoped to sell it to.
As for "where do I get a license", you're asking for how to buy the license to distribute or even sell the content? You would have to negotiate a price with the current distributor or copyright owner. - Bigcat1021, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@broomett
Don't bother. The one's who throw around the phase "1984" generally have no idea what it means. - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If you totally destroyed the business and started from scratch then we might have an arrangement such that the artist gets a fair deal"
Agreed, artists should get better deals from the big companies. Strangely though, some actually use the pennies-per-song issue as a justification for piracy. They claim they support the artists and refuse to pad the pockets of the corporations that them, but then screw them even more so by depriving them of the little profit-per-song they make. -
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 