What is Digg?146 Comments
- Zpanzer, on 06/05/2008, -6/+138***** them, ***** the RIAA, ***** all the anti-pirate companies out there, exploiting the law.
- MAGZine, on 06/05/2008, -1/+65I cringe every time I hear TPB filed a complaint. I wish they could do more, filing complaints just seems so... harmless.
Oh well. Another win for TPB nonetheless. - switchmullet, on 06/05/2008, -3/+39and the plot thickens!!
- BigManOnCampus, on 06/05/2008, -10/+42It's not that information wants to be free. It's that capitalists and legislators created a commodity industry where none existed, nor should it.
Human creativity is not a commodity, it is an essential part of humanity that must be shared. - TheFoolyCooly, on 06/05/2008, -0/+23can anyone explain how the act of giving someone a file containing hashes and metadata ... is piracy?
- Zpanzer, on 06/05/2008, -3/+25:(
- TheMightyDane, on 06/05/2008, -0/+21Somebody should egg his house.
- Jambi, on 06/05/2008, -3/+23Piracy in general is morally wrong, in that you're getting for free something that you'd otherwise have to pay to see/hear/use, but given the actions of "big media" over the years to protect their cartel, most people view it as robbing a bunch of criminals (which is a pretty accurate assessment), and therefore don't see much wrong with it at all.
- dinostabOMG, on 06/05/2008, -0/+18They pay a cop while he's doing an investigation for them and you're asking how they're exploiting the law?
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 06/05/2008, -0/+18Here is why piracy is not always wrong. When the people who treat their talent poorly and their customers worse demand money for the same thing in different forms, while talking out of both sides of their mouths they need to be taught that they cannot control both sides of the transaction as well as the will of the people.
Sure; in a perfect world, we would all boycott them into oblivion, however that does not appear to be the case.
These are the people who are talking about stealing from artists, when they have taken that to the level of art form. The contracts they sign without intention of ever making good on them are signs of this. How many artists have had to sue over back or missed royalties? How many times have these con artists fudged numbers to show they have to pay less in royalty money to their "talent" all the while, bilking the consumers for the content others have created?
They claim that the content is what they are selling, and not the medium, however, should you have the cassette tape version of an album, I would imagine it would be nigh impossible for them go give you the CD for the cost of the medium. Should you lose or damage the medium, they will not replace it for the cost plus shipping.
The price disparity over the medium was also an issue at times. Due to economies of scale, the first CDs were costlier to produce than mass produced cassettes and we were assured of the fact that the price of CDs would invert to lower than cassette when they flipped in demand/production scalability. This did not occur. These same con artsists also were accused and convicted multiple times of price fixing, which is illegal in the US.
As well, they insist on controlling how and when you can use the items you have purchased, and have instilled this idea that they have a right to control something that they are treating as both a good and a license. They cannot have it both ways. They have also forced onto consumers DRM, which devalues the work they are using while the unencumbered versions obtained through piracy have no such restrictions. Merely possessing or listening to these versions criminalizes you in their eyes. They have pushed for more and more restrictiveness, at the detriment of the "product" they sell. - buba1243, on 06/05/2008, -0/+16As an open source developer i have to disagree I have a paying job that is not satisfying so I go home and program for free on something that is. True artist are in it for the same reason that it is satisfying to play for people and this they really don't need to be compensated as much as they are. There is a point when people's greed overcomes them.
- thescimitar, on 06/05/2008, -2/+18In defense of BigMan, creativity itself shouldn't be a commodity. A reproduction is just that, a reproduction. I have always hoped that this whole "piracy" thing would lead us back to a culture of concerts and live music appreciation; maybe an understanding of the value of live arts.
To answer toastjam, the people that produce entertainment can support themselves through tangible commodities. I am a photographer and cinematographer, so I sell my knowledge to companies that make use of it... but if I want to sell my Art (capital a art, haha) I sell physical prints. I don't think your monitor will display a photograph as well as I can print it (by the very nature of what a monitor is). So I don't care if you reproduce my work digitally, it isn't my work at that point.
I've seen thousands of reproductions of Van Gogh's "Starry Night" blown up to the size of posters and commercialized in every way possible, but it wasn't until I saw it in person, a foot away from the res ipse, that I really felt like I had experienced the piece. - inactive, on 06/05/2008, -12/+26When you grow up you'll understand that neither you nor the RIAA are correct. The answer is between both your extremes.
- BigManOnCampus, on 06/05/2008, -4/+17We tried it one way, the capitalists were too greedy to leave well-enough alone. We started with a policy on human creativity that if enforced as laid out, would have protected the creators right to profit from their ingenuity while allowing society to eventually benefit and move on. We started that way. Capitalists have now succeeded in destroying all of that and we essentially have a market that should not exist.
If the answer is so close to the middle, ask yourself why the world of open-source exists in the first place. Noone profits from creating drivers or software that just-works, yet they spend time to create such things. I'm guessing the artists would still spend time to create songs without profit. - denizb, on 06/05/2008, -2/+15To all those who wonder how poor artists will make money for their work, are simply asking the wrong question. If you create art, it is not to make money, it is express yourself and communicate with other human beings, what you do as an artist feeds the soul of others. There can not be a price put on such a thing, unless you dream of a fascist money driven world where human nature is completely ignored except for GREED. Up until the industrial revolution, EVERYTHING was open source. Science, Art even Religion. The greatest achievements of humanity only happened when people's motivations were not money. Today, scientists are in the pockets of corporations, musicians and hollywood movie studios are propelled by greed not the desire to create art. Scientologists sell faith.
I agree with movie studios and the music industry that stealing their PRODUCTS is wrong, because they have stopped producing art, they produce their media with board room executives who try to figure what will sell best - that is not art - that is a product. The only way for humanity to reclaim its right to be creative again is by stopping these mega corporations. We all know who gets $19 out of $20 when you buy a CD - its not the artist.
Here is how musicians can make their money: Concerts. This is how they have always made their money in the past. Writing a song is not work in itself. It is art. If you do not wish to communicate your message via music, then don't write music. Make shoes, or grow potatoes or something. But if you are an artist, then you better get on a stage and earn that money. Don't tell me Britney is gonna hurt because of Pirate Bay or Demonoid. She is more hurt by the music industries policies. - thelostemperor, on 06/05/2008, -1/+13@Gndoab "Why would anyone go through the agony and annoyance of having to learn an instrument without any incentive?"
If you don't know the answer to that question then I'm guessing your guitar playing is pretty soulless. - Samsong, on 06/05/2008, -2/+14Let's say you had a device, called a Duplicator, and with it could replicate any object. If you took said device into a store and replicated a TV; would that be stealing? The store may lose you as a potential sale, but would not lose any inventory, or neccessarily be harmed in any way. You are merely choosing not to give them your business.
And I like free stuff.... - yodaj007, on 06/05/2008, -0/+12@gndoab:
I do open source programming *because I enjoy programming*. Some workdays I look around wondering where everyone in the office had gone. Then I realize it's 9pm. I do programming because it's fun, not because I'm trying to earn something. A friend of mine wrote a tetris game in Javascript. Why? Because he wanted to know if he could. It was an exhilarating challenge. I wrote a sudoko solver and a solver for those triangle games you find at Cracker Barrel. Why? I enjoyed the challenge of coming up with the algorithms and then watching my creations work. I'm currently working on a flash card program for Japanese characters and words on the Mac because I'm dissatisfied with what I find on the Internet. I might post it to Sourceforge under GNU if I feel proud of my work. I never did put any of my other programs out there. They're just sitting on a CD somewhere.
I have friends who play guitar and other instruments *because they enjoy it*. Don't think that everything in life consists of doing things for gain. People do gardening because it's fun and, hey, they can even grow their own herbs and stuff. My mother grows tomatoes and cucumbers and gives 3/4 of it away. A friend of mine likes to write poetry in a notebook. Occasionally he shares one with us; otherwise it never sees the light of day. Another friend of mine likes to skateboard, not because he wants to be competitive but because he and his friends like the experience.
Don't you dare say that people only do these things for external gain. I and the people I know do things because we enjoy them. - wolferz, on 06/05/2008, -1/+13no no no, you have it all wrong.
They are doing something immoral AND illegal to stop people from doing something that is only illegal, but not immoral - theandy1, on 06/05/2008, -3/+14KEYZER SOZE!!!
- HamNCheese, on 06/05/2008, -1/+12Simple. They (WB, the RIAA, MPAA, IFPI, MediaDefender, etc) are breaking the law in order to stop people from filesharing.
In other words, they are doing something *ILLEGAL* in order to stop people from doing something *IMMORAL*
Huge difference. - keeganspeck, on 06/05/2008, -0/+11Pirate Army?
I am SO in. - DrPh0bius, on 06/05/2008, -0/+9Lets just forget all the artists, record companies and assorted arguments and look at the real issue here, like when the U.S. Government sent agents to Sweden after Pirate Bay. As a tax paying citizen of the United States, why is my tax money being spent to protect the profits of private corporations?
It gets down to that.
And in this case, once again, a government employee was collecting a government paycheck (which taxpayers pay for) to protect the interests of private company (WB). - charliebucketts, on 06/05/2008, -1/+9Is charging 15.00 for a 50 year old Jazz CD morally wrong? What if I check it out of the Library and make a "back up " copy for a research paper. When does music become public domain?
Since when is our economic system about morals? It everyone for themselves! - mrkmrk, on 06/05/2008, -2/+10With the price of music what it is (too much) and with the amount of quality music that is released (too little), buying CDs is like playing Russian roulette. I only own the CDs that I do because I downloaded them first, and I liked them enough to support them with my wallet. It seems to me that the best bands are the ones that are promoting their music by any means possible, not the ones trying to ***** their potential fanbase at every opportunity.
- zerobackup, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7@Gndoab
People like you are the reason why the music industry in general needs to go away. Music has been made by man for thousands of years, only recently did it become a "business". True artists will make music, paint, or create other artwork regardless of monetary compensation. How many amazing painters died rich?
I say let the labels crash and burn, I hope every label goes bankrupt because no one will buy their ***** anymore. True artists will still make their art even if they aren't getting millions of dollars. - modad, on 06/05/2008, -1/+8"High quality programming will be a thing of the past."
It already is. - sfacets, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6Shut up with your propagate spam! This user has several accounts on digg.
http://digg.com/users/curmudgeon42 beig one of them (see below) - shane1337, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7the "***** RIAA, etc." chants are not due to people not wanting to pay a fair price for content, ether with money or time spent watching ads (look how well itunes is doing). It has to do with the RIAA and MPAA manipulating and abusing laws and lawsuits to attack people, often when they have done nothing legally wrong. They do this rather then the music, movie and television industries adapting to current technologies.
The problem is adapting to technology means a lot of rich people are finding themselves no longer needed in the industry. People have been put out of a job by technology before, but it is usually entry or unskilled labor, so when it happens they just try to find another job. Now that it is happening to people with funds, they are fighting it every step of the way, one way or another, and the RIAA and MPAA are the tools they are using to fight it in an unethical and border-line illegal manner.
Take for instance tpb - they are just distributing torrent files, not copy-righted material, but the mpaa will use the backing of the movie industry to file lawsuit after lawsuit in hopes of bankrupting them. That is extortion, not upholding justice.
How is that for a 13-year-old view of the world.
so yeah,
***** THE RIAA
***** THE MPAA - Taiyoryu, on 06/05/2008, -2/+8You can no longer generate revenue from something the moment that thing can be exactly replicated and instantly distributed at no cost. An original tangible work has value due to its uniqueness, but a digitized copy has none or at best a fractional value. (How many people a year still go see the Mona Lisa despite it being the most recognized painting world wide?) A performance has value for being a one-time, localized event whereas a digital recording, again, has no value or a fractional value. (Have you seen the prices for sporting events?)
I have nothing against media producers making a living. Just because you as a media producer are no longer able to extract revenue directly from copies of the work thanks to new technology isn't a problem. And depending on legislation to artificially prop the old model of selling copies by criminalizing the distribution of copies will not work in the long run. Media producers made a living long before copyright existed typically through patronage, commissions, performances, or employment in a related field. Not only do those options still exist, but other opportunities exist as well. Licensing of derivative works or licensing of translations, for example. There's even the classic selling of a tangible product, i.e. merchandising.
As a media producer, you should be not focused on extracting revenue through copies of a creative work but focused on developing a brand. That is where the true value lies. - sfacets, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6Stop spamming.
- litkaj, on 06/05/2008, -5/+11Uh, no, they are doing something "ILLEGAL" to stop people from doing something "ILLEGAL" (at least in the US).
- phorty40, on 06/05/2008, -3/+9torrents, direct downloads, hosting sites , when they go down we'll all just jump to IRC.
try and shut that down! - tech42er, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7Don't care. Just because you create something does not mean you own all copies of that product. Honestly, intellectual property is bunk; it's simply an arbitrary law.
- wolferz, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7Uhm lets see.... Just off the top of my head I'm gonna have to go with "Bribing an officer of the law."
And no one in this thread has claimed that they have the right to share copyrighted files... That's just something you made up. They are claiming that the MPAA and RIAA DOESN'T have the right to do what they are doing. These are two totally different things.
Or was your point that since filesharers are breaking the law that means the RIAA and MPAA should be able to too? - cathl, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5I the past networks were needed for their ability to distribute and promote. The web can accomplish these tasks at a fraction of the cost. As technology continues to improve and become cheaper for consumers, this trend will only become more pronounced. We don't need the networks to create this content as you imply, at least not anymore.
- speel, on 06/05/2008, -1/+6Some one should literally walk up the glass doors of the riaa building an just ***** on all of them. Then if your willing use your index finger and write "The Pirate Bay"
- elhaf, on 06/05/2008, -4/+9Piracy is morally wrong. That doesn't mean that the U.S. government should set its foreign policy in a way that has anything to do with it whatsoever. Nor should the federal government expend resources (my tax dollars) to criminalize what fundamentally is a civil tort. This is all about passing the buck. Those of us who don't pirate are paying to enforce anti-piracy, rather than the offenders being judged against in civil court to foot the bill. But you see, that is an expense to the media companies (litigation), so they would prefer that you and I pay it.
- humanerror, on 06/05/2008, -4/+9Thank god Lyph5 is here to defend orthodoxy and remind us that if you don't agree with the standard narratives of our society then you're not a grownup!
- eleete, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5Of course they do, they're lining and protecting their already lined pockets.
- banderwocky, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5Suhweet! How much is it to buy your own cop?
I never thought they were for sale for organizations. Kinda thought they worked for the 'people'. - designerutah, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5First, downloading a torrent is NOT piracy. It's copyright infringement. Piracy is the term used by the media to add "hype" to the concept. Piracy would be essentially stealing something and not just copying it. What is really happening is that copyright is being violated. Copyright laws are set up to protect creators from having rare resources stolen, or a new creation copied with no profit to them. It was a way to provide incentive to creators for their efforts.
Morally, it depends on why you are infringing the copyright. Several examples will illustrate:
1. I want to listen to an album. Download it so I can hear it all. At this point, I am in violation of copyright. Morally wrong. If I then buy the album, I've rectified the business issue by paying for the content. Still morally wrong, but now ethically right. But, the content creator's often want you to buy the CD, and pay for the digital file again, and seems morally wrong on their side. If they're selling me the content, I can use it how I will, right? If they're licensing it, aren't they then obligated to replace the damaged medium? What happens when they fold, and no one is producing it?
2. I have a DVD. Kids scratch it. I download the movie, burn it to a new DVD (at a reduced quality level), and move on. Or alternatively, I rip the original and let my kids play it, keeping the original safe. Content creators tell you this is piracy. It's not even copyright infringement. And yet they want you to assume it's morally wrong. It's not. Just sensible. Take a print example. I have a favorite book. It's getting worn, so I photocopy it, pay for the binding, and now have a duplicate. Is it copyright infringement? Nope,. it's a backup, and is legal.
3. I download a game. Play it for 800 hours. Love it, but never pay for it. Morally wrong. No question. Illegal too. And doesn't give the creators a return on their effort, which is the point of the copyright laws.
To get to the meat of the matter. It's not black and white. There are grey areas. But those grey areas are well defined. Copying the work without giving the creator recompense is illegal and immoral. But the question (and the grey area) comes in how much is fair recompense? Once I buy it, is it mine, or is it just licensed for this iteration? How long should we be paying for this material? Movies produced in the 30s are supposed to be public domain, yet if copyright was maintained, you have the odd situation where a newly released DVD is copyright protected, but a VHS tape made of the same film 20 years ago is now in the public domain. In other words, depending on where you got it, you are either using legal or illegal material to make your copy!
Understand that I am a content creator. I write professionally. Novels, articles, scripts, screenplays, etc. And yes, I want you to pay me for this effort. But I don't think it needs to work the way it does. CDs that cost more to than audio tapes used to, while numbers are up and costs to produce are down? But the band gets even less and the studio gets more? Anything that is easy to duplicate, such as music, movies, games, etc. could be distributed in very different ways.
Why not sell media based on what you're getting? A low-res, small digital file is $1.00 for a movie. A medium-res one say $3.99, and the HD version is $7.99, but still only has the movie. If you want it all, all the extras, etc. you pay full DVD price, but the DVD comes with token to download 1-2 digital versions. And they're incoded with some personal data of yours to track it if you distribute it. Of course, it would take the wind out of "pirates" sails if the profit were modest rather than steep. It's the cost-to-buy versus cost-to-duplicate ratio that encourages so-called piracy. If users could easily purchase a digital copy at a decent quality for a modest price, there's little profit in piracy! - banmaster, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5Yeah, with bricks!
- TheFoolyCooly, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5what is and isn't piracy, torrent files are metadata files, not the actual files.
This means it is a "grey area"
Grey only because money is involved causing the should be black or white, stay grey.
Is the act of providing a roadmap to commit any kind of crime is a crime itself....
here's an interesting analogy:
Google.com provides (in a sense) metadata so that users can find websites, its search engine.
Google.com lists TPB if you search correctly.
Does that mean Google is also a "pirate" .
Soooooo Grey when people want it to be. - denizb, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5It is another reason to reaslize the police aren't here to protect you, the tax payer. They are here to protect money and property. Who ever has the most money gets the best protection. Protection FROM you.
- zerobackup, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5@Patrikimo
I wasn't saying that music hasn't been bought and sold for a long time, Mozart and the like were all commissioned by royalty to write and preform their pieces. My main point being that anyone who brings up the argument that "no one will make music/movies/any other art without being paid" is complete *****. People who think that way are businessmen, not artists. Artists will create because something inside drives them to do so. Businessmen will push that next album out because they are contractually obligated to do so. - inactive, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4I create and share with all of you, so that all of you can create and share with me. Everybody wins. No one gets bored, no one is denied fun and novelty. We all get inspired by seeing and experiencing those things we never could imagine on our own.
Why should we let someone else, who isn't contributing, profit off of our arrangement?
Because they say so? - sfacets, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5I agree - by producing media, the record labels become their own worst enemy, while simultaneously killing of creativity and the social greatnesses that are concerts and live performances.
- inactive, on 06/05/2008, -3/+7Yeah but if your work sucks and im not entertained with my copy of the original then i'm not out anything and neither are you since you still have the original. Now if i broke in and stole your only copy i think its a different story.
- com2, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4It's like a paraphernalia charge for having a clean glass crack pipe, tools of the trade, the intended use is for the purpose of breaking the law. That being said I really hope we get back to what the copyright was supposed to do, give the owner an advantage for a limited time then his creation became part of the free market.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 147 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