What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Know a Book Lover? Give Them the Sony Reader Touch view!
bestbuy.com - It's sleek and light, stores hundreds of books and has a long lasting battery.
228 Comments
- switchmullet, on 04/24/2009, -12/+253Q. Why Everybody Lost The Pirate Bay Trial?
A. The judge was in their pocket. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -6/+126Sweden needs a better class of criminal, and I'm going to give it to them.
- drunkenoaf, on 04/24/2009, -10/+85*Sigh*. The labels say they're just trying to get the money that the artists are due.
But they pay the artists SFA really -- their royalties are tiny, compared with the cost of putchasing a legal download. Rather, they want to keep as much money for themselves (understandably).
Even if everyone downloads legally, and pays what's asked, about 80% of their staff aren't needed. They'll still be fired eventually. And the artists will still be paid a tiny proportion of the cost of that MP3.
I much prefer the "honesty box" idea. Download some average-quality MP3s. If you like 'em, donate to the band. Then you could be rewarded with a better quality MP3 or some bonus stuff. If it's crap music, you don't need to pay. Sure, some people will freeload, but I reckon the artists would do better overall. - modingo, on 04/24/2009, -6/+79The "War against Piracy" is the next "War on Drugs". It's not winnable. The politicians know this but as long as they get their monthly check from big media, this kind of crap makes it to court. It's all for show. Nothing gets accomplished and things remain the same.
Someone will eventually come up with a system that will benefit everyone. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -2/+58Hey, lawmakers.
Learn to internet. - brianpeiris, on 04/24/2009, -4/+42Erm, TorrentFreak articles are usually top-notch but maybe comparing TPB users to the Somalian pirates was not such a good idea.
- thenorwegian, on 04/24/2009, -8/+41***** you conformist pig. It has nothing to do with people creating or mooching. It has everything to do with overcharging. They could easily cut dvd prices in half and still make plenty of money. The consumer would be happy, and so would they. But they are greedy. We will continue to pirate until reasonable prices are set. ***** them, and ***** you.
- AndrewMoyer, on 04/24/2009, -0/+30Or maybe he was just angry because the files he wanted had 0 seeders.
- vilago, on 04/24/2009, -2/+30isnt this what radiohead and NIN proved?
- brim4brim, on 04/24/2009, -9/+36This article is good for a laugh. I don't agree with much of it but copyright law does not reform. It simply isn't working in its current form.
It needs to adapt to the Internet and it has failed spectacularly to do this so far. - thyagobr, on 04/24/2009, -2/+24He's a member of some copyright "protection" organization.
The hell, how come nobody googled this judge's name before or something... - theOster, on 04/24/2009, -3/+24Q. Does the trial make any difference?
A. No. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -1/+20I don't think anybody "lost". Regardless of incorrect verdict, which can be appealed, piracy will still continue. This is more like, "losing a battle, but not the war" (since this war is impossible for them to win)
They WILL have to adapt their business practices at some point. This is obviously the way things should be, and will be. Most others are slowly coming to their senses with this. Netflix, for example, when they put their streaming service on the 360 took a HUGE step because now it's easier to just pick a movie and watch it on demand than to screw around with downloading, waiting, transferring to media server, etc.
There's a million ways for authors to profit from apps, movies, music, whatever, while being widely available online. Which.. is kinda obvious since all these things exist anyway and they still profit. There's the hypothetical "every download is a lost sale", but since duplication of data isn't theft, that's inaccurate. A lot of people just need to think outside of the box when it comes to marketing to an online audience.
The faux legal entities like record labels who claim ownership and most of the profit on their artist's works will die off, and rightfully so, they shouldn't exist to begin with. They had their run, now it's time to sleep. - EVILTHETURTLE, on 04/24/2009, -3/+22"i don't think i'm doing anything wrong. and if you say otherwise your a fascist."
That right there is a fascist statement.
BTW the word you are looking for is "you're". - christoast, on 04/24/2009, -6/+23and I thought my jokes where bad
- groumpf, on 04/24/2009, -5/+21When did the production companies start being creative? That is the issue here... Most of the creators are usually ok with their creations being as spread as widely as possible... But when it becomes industrial, free distribution becomes intolerable. Why? Because 1) industry produces mediocre things, that nobody would ever buy if there was no advertising, and 2) the amount of money invested in advertising is so huge that the product *has to* be bought.
Art is not meant to be bought, it is meant to be appreciated. The looter is not the "pirate", it is the production company who turns a piece of art into a merchandise. - brim4brim, on 04/24/2009, -3/+18Intellectual property exists to provide a monetary benefit to encourage people to create these ideas rather than leaving them as ideas.
Many would be unfeasible if there was no such thing as intellectual property. It has to exist but for the content creator and not a middle man. - Smelltastic, on 04/24/2009, -0/+12Perhaps, but an economic model that worked well once for well-known popular bands is not necessarily going to be feasible for the majority.
- maz2331, on 04/24/2009, -1/+13Bingo.
The appearance of bias on the part of the judge destroys the credibility of the verdict. Regardless of which "side" one is on, a trial that has the appearance or substance of bias is not credible.
The verdict needs to be set aside and a retrial performed before a judge who is and appears to be neutral. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -5/+17"If you can't afford to buy dvds, don't buy them.Problem solved."
That's exactly what we do. We don't buy them.
We pirate them. - brim4brim, on 04/24/2009, -1/+13Most people are only ignoring it to get free movies because they believe it to be unfair.
These companies have treated them unfairly and they pirate the content as a result. If they had been fair from the start and embraced the Internet they would not have created this large market for pirated content.
They need to change and market the change and themselves as treating consumers and artists fairly in order to survive. They aren't owed an existence either, they may have screwed this up so bad they'll just die.
Good riddance if they do. Record companies don't have a right to a business model. Artists can use the Internet to distribute their own content, record companies sole purpose is promotion at this point. Artists can't promote themselves online. They need to find a way to get revenue from that and use it to fund marketing to the general market on TV.
I think record companies are obsolete and are lobbying and fighting for laws to be introduced to protect their existence. They aren't owed an existence and the lobbying must be stopped/countered. Cut out the middle man and ensure artists get what they are owed, all of it not just the cut the record companies are willing to give them. - rufnear, on 04/24/2009, -1/+13You've got to be joking. Look around for God's sake.
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -2/+14I am unaware of this "bad" location also.
- FlyinRyan89, on 04/24/2009, -2/+13thats the same side.
- illDecree, on 04/24/2009, -0/+11I believe you were looking for this:
"lose" - dsmx, on 04/24/2009, -2/+13Piratebay is 5 clicks from any file you could possibly want.
- waynehoggett, on 04/24/2009, -1/+11Agreed
- mabsark, on 04/24/2009, -0/+9@computershack
None of which can stop piracy. How cany anyone stop me from connecting to a friend's machine and sending it an encrypted file? The only way to defeat digital piracy is to close down the internet.
If you had another brain cell, you'd be a muppet, and your suggestions might not be so retarded. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -3/+12You get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!
- johnbonham1, on 04/24/2009, -0/+9Q. Are we not men?
A. We are Devo! - XeroXenith, on 04/24/2009, -0/+9By being a pirate, you're showing us that copyright laws aren't working (in their current form).
- brim4brim, on 04/24/2009, -2/+11I ain't a looter. Copyright laws aren't working.
On many websites the act of submitting content gives the copyright control to that website. This includes photo websites.
It is possible for people to not own their photographs anymore and when giving copies to friends are actually violating copyright law.
Millions of people should be in jail if this is right. The system obviously isn't working. The record companies are only one aspect of copyright law and don't have special rights over other copyright holders. Read the book Free Culture. Available free online as PDF or you can buy it from amazon. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -2/+11You're in it for the wrong reason then, haydesigner.
- bobburn1, on 04/24/2009, -8/+16Q. Was it a good idea to taunt copyright holders and name yourself the *Pirate* Bay?
A. Not really. - pyromaster114, on 04/24/2009, -0/+8I believe that the judge was being paid off, because there wasn't any substantial evidence really.
- jeremymccurdy, on 04/24/2009, -2/+10Except you'd have to ban millions upon millions of people from the internet, and these days with people so reliant on the internet, you'd see riots in the streets.
- FredFredrickson, on 04/24/2009, -5/+12Yes, it's a loss for legal P2P. But really, the only people who lost with this trial are TPB, and people who don't pay for the media they download.
Digg me down all you want - but I'm a creative person, and I think it's ***** that so many people feel entitled to music / movies / games / art for free, just because it's easy to do. People like me put a lot of time and effort into the things we make, and you don't deserve it for free any more than I deserve to have you fix my car or build my house for free.
It's funny that pirates always cry about keeping the internet free, because they are the ones who are ruining it for the rest of us. If piracy doesn't slow, the internet is going to lose the things that make it good - the fact that it isn't monitored or filtered, the user anonymity, etc. If it wasn't for people downloading and pirating so much *****, stupid companies like Time Warner wouldn't be trying to roll out tiered services.
So top crying about TPB, man up, and start paying for your ***** already, before it's too late to fix things. - ZeroCubed, on 04/24/2009, -1/+8This sort of thing is something we're studying in my Internet America class. Our professor asked us: Does the Digital Millenium Copyright act of 1998 need to be updated? Or should there be an entirely new model of copyright? One that fits and functions in this age of the internet.
How can copyright survive when the entirety of Internet culture is about sharing, providing equal access for all, whether it be information or files. It can't. And it's too late to change the internet - we've become a force to be reckoned with. Whether it's tracking down a kid torturing a cat or write-in voting Colbert's name in NASA's naming contest - if the outside world doesn't deal, doesn't come up with radically new and different models of copyright, marketing, business and so on, they're going to learn the hard way that we push back, and we will push back harder.
It was a minor victory for the old, outside world, but it was a major lesson for us. They will continue, blind in their belief and desperate to hold on to a world that, in Internet terms, is as ancient as Medieval Europe. But we have learned from this trial, that we need to dive deeper to avoid detection, and run faster to lose the chumps chasing us. - wigren, on 04/24/2009, -0/+7We'll see how well that works once you're accused.
- kinseyincanada, on 04/24/2009, -0/+6no they proved that a successful well known band can do it.
- vilago, on 04/24/2009, -0/+6***** contracts. just like cell phone contracts and professional sports contracts: extravagent, pointless and most of the time generally only good for the person or company issuing it.
- PlusTheBear, on 04/24/2009, -1/+7Q. Is it against the law to do so?
A. Google is the same exact thing.
http://www.thepirategoogle.com - fuzzymuzzy, on 04/24/2009, -1/+7Reply button *****, do you use it?
- bobburn1, on 04/24/2009, -0/+6Yeah..all 20 seasons of the Simpsons for free isn't piracy, it's "sharing."
- shark72, on 04/24/2009, -1/+7Agreed with you that copyright law doesn't need much reforming in general, but that the fines need to be fixed. The statutory limits for copyright violation are out of touch with most piracy which goes on today: P2P trading. The current statutory limits of $30K/$150K (depending on the situation) are a relic from the days when most piracy was a for-profit endeavor. I think the maximum statutory fine per work should be south of $1,000.
Of course, your typical Digg reader likely thinks there should be NO fine for violation, and that copyright holders should be able to subsist on live performances or readings. If you see my post dugg down so hard that it strikes oil, you'll know why. - computershack, on 04/24/2009, -3/+8So by your beliefs, you can't own the money sat in your bank account as it is merely a figure on a computer screen and an entry in a database.
- Myztry, on 04/24/2009, -3/+8People farming isn't turning out to be what the IP traders had hoped. The ability to obtain intangible creative works and merely clone them into tens of millions of copies so diluted as to be worthless. The creative work becomes just one amongst untold millions, and the market won't bare the price demanded by the IP traders.
Examine any auctioning market where creative works are sold. You won't find any items that exist in the tens of millions. Why? Because they have no value... They are not unique. They have no unique traits. They are not original.
The IP traders pay the artist of the creative works for the right to make their work artistically worthless... And isn't the whole concept of Copyright meant to protect the worth of creative works? - aforsberg, on 04/24/2009, -2/+7To the people that keep saying that this is good that they lost, and that all pirates are criminals:
The point is that we SHOULDN'T be criminals. The idea here is that the record companies are playing on our field now, and some rules are going to need to change to benefit us all. This is saying that the rules, not people's habits, need changing. Just look at Radiohead and NIN. - XeroXenith, on 04/24/2009, -0/+5I wonder what would happen if everyone switched to NIN and Radiohead's view on things. They were extremely successful, though I wonder how that success would transfer to the mainstream - are the good morals of a select few applicable to everyone who listens to music? It would put record shops out of business, for a start, unless they gave proceeds to the artist while keeping some for themselves.
- brim4brim, on 04/24/2009, -1/+6Its the length of time that is the whole problem though isn't it?
Copyrights have been lasting longer and longer because of continued lobbying on government.
Copyrights do limit creativity. I'd probably explain it badly if I tried but it is all in the book Free Culture available freely online or on Amazon if you want a paper copy. -
Show 51 - 100 of 237 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is