What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Scary Quiz - Do you have what it takes to attract women? view!
doubleyourdating.com - Think you know a thing or two about meeting women? Take this quiz and find out...
153 Comments
- Dhalsim007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+124If those become popular, I can see the RIAA lobby pushing to ban all P2P exchange programs that encrypt on "national security" grounds. RIAA: "We MUST be able to see if terrorists are sharing MP3s ... that "Fergielicious" song is the BOMB!" (**chuckles quietly to self**)
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+86Well, that is a complete and terrible point. "It is still illegal"...that is what we are TRYING TO PREVENT. Some guy downloads five songs, the total net worth is like $4.50. He shouldn't have to pay a 83,000% markup. $4000 is just the RIAA being their usual moronic self. ACTUAL petty crimes, like speeding, which ACTUALLY put people's lives in danger definately do NOT rack up $4000 fines on the low-end tickets where you are two or three miles per hour over the limit. This is exactly what this is -- a low-end petty crime. Why does the RIAA feel the need to get up the guy's ass about it?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+52Gawt...except he is not being sued for DOWNLOADING the songs.
And even if he was, you are suggesting that the penalty for theft should be a fine equal to the price of the stolen goods? Why would anyone ever pay for anything ever again in that case? Steal a $100 piece of clothing. If you make it, great...free clothes. If you get caught, you are out the $100 that you would have paid anyway. - zachlutz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37Here's a list of all the RIAA member labels: http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Never buy their music again. Punish the musicians who have been sucked into this and allow it. Change is necessary. In this case, it needs to be forced along. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34@forlornhope
I was going to use that quote, but it is too...campy. There is a HUGE difference between robbing a ***** bank and downloading five songs. It is like picking up a $5 you see on the ground at the bank, and putting it in your pocket. What next? Will you be slapped with $600 fines whenever you pick up "lucky pennies" in a couple of years? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Inaccurate. He is not being sued for DOWNLOADING anything.
So far, no one has been sued for downlading songs. - kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft. It isn't analogous to stealing a CD; you've deprived nobody of the physical product. The loss in revenue is theoretical.
- AeonTorpor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20"We should setup a donation for this guy to fight it. I pledge $300 for the guy to fight the RIAA."
It's called the EFF. Donate. - Adoozie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Extortion.
Either the guy pays what they demand or he pays even more to go to court. This is plain ***** extortion. - tidu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Of course, talent isn't required for some "board of directors" type job
- septicmadman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Your IP has been tracked. Expect a knock on your door anywhere from 2 to 67 months
- WolfDV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18So $750 bucks a song, lets say someone has 32486 songs, that somes out to around . . . . $24364500 . . oh god.
meh whatever . . ***** the RIAA . . go canadian pirates .. Yarrrrr eh? - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16That's the scary part. Why are we making sharing things for free on the net so damn illegal..... Does it infringe upon the artistic material? I'm dead serious. I remmeber when a copyright law meant that you couln't publise another's persons ideas or artform, but now its been changed to "You can't buy something then give it away for free."
That's why I don't see downloading as something illegal. ITs ridiculious to tell me what I can, and can't do with the product I buy. ITs like I paid 15 dollars for a CD I don't own. .... Will RIAA be suing people who trade CDs next? There is going to be a stopping point or things will get ridiculious. Like in the future oyu may buy a house, and then the home builder says you own it, but they still own it, an so you can't sell it when the value goes up, and if you do thent eh home builder company can sue..
Seriously. That is the easiest way I can put it. ITs crazy how the consumer is losing out. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19j2007...The small/medium bands are the ones losing hte most. Becuase hte record labels are not takin hte chance on anything non-mainstream anymore. So the alternative bands that are not a sure-fire money maker are stuck without any deals, and stuck playing to the same 100 fans at the same dive bar week after week.
- t3hNinj4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14If the RIAA ever tries to sue me, I'm suing them back. With bullets.
Did that sound cool?
No? Seriously? Well I like how it sounded. I'll say it again. "I'm suing them back. With bullets." Sweet. - TheWorm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13By those calculations *ahem* some people may owe up to 4,125,000. I have trouble understanding how these RIAA people take themselves seriously.
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I just hope the RIAA pisses off someone more evil than themselves.
- DrunkenCP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This is an old RIAA strategy. They usually sue people for small amounts of under ten grand, because usually it is cheaper to just part with your money than risk a messy and protracted legal battle with people that are willing to sue grandmas, twelve year old kids, and the estates of the dead. They sue loads of people this way, but for the most part nobody hears too much about it because there's always some insane "suing a 90 year old WWII vet that saved a busload of orphans by taking on a squad of machine gunners with nothing but his can opener and is dying of cancer and does not even own a computer anyway" type of lawsuit going on and it gets all of the attention.
- Etaoin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I was with you up to "by any means necessary" and "terrorism". Yes, it's ridiculous, but let's do our best to sound reasonable and not crazy, yes?
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@broomett
Non-bigwigs in the music and movie industry are unionized. Downloading doesn't hurt them.
Also, I was just putting it in perspective from the "robbing a bank" idea. When you think of robbing a bank, you think of hostages, gun fights, elaborate schemes, get away cars, killings of innocent people / cops.
This is *nothing* like downloading music...if you are downloading music it is usually something spotaneous (much like seeing money on the ground and pocketing it). I've downloaded 213 songs according to my hard-drive, almost all of which I can now associate to a purchase of a CD. It is always something spontaneous, like if I'm watching a movie, I'll do a lyrics search then hop on Limewire. If I like the song? Next time I'm at an HMV I'll purchase it.
It doesn't relate to "picking up money", but it is definately a LOT closer to picking up money then robbing a bank -- no one gets hurt when someone downloads a song. In fact, people often gain. However, when robbing a bank not only is there hundreds of thousands of dollars lost, but people are killed or seriously injured... - mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Thank god he's off the streets. Now I feel safe.
- Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8For the RIAA to get somebody for sharing, all they have to do is download a song from someone, or just see it in the user's shared files. On the other hand, to sue someone for downloading a song, they'd have to share it themselves....and being the owner of said song, they'd be legally giving it away.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The guy deserved to get sued for the ***** songs he downloaded. Norah Jones and Tracy Chapman?
I'm only kidding. ***** the RIAA. :) - MaiSacNjoMouf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"because you took no measure to prevent "
So by that thought, shouldn't it be illegal for a cd shop to not have anti-theft, (i mean 'inventory control') hardware at the doors?
Again, this is just a what if.... - Etaoin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You've got it backwards, unfortunately. Nobody fights it because the *legal* fees are so high, compared to the actual stakes of the suit. A penalty of $3,750 (probably lower with a settlement), while absurd, is significantly lower than the lawyers' fees and court costs that would come out of actually fighting the lawsuit. The RIAA knows this, of course - it's part of their strategy. They may or may not win an all-out court case, but if they can scare someone into settling, it's worth their while.
- kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@broomett
You do know RIAA pushed legislation to change the copyright laws to mean exactly that...
I say its *****. - psyops2000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8One day, the RIAA/MPAA will realize what happens when you push the people around too much. They eventually begin pushing back....
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Like Michael Bolton
- Snoopsor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@broomett
Okay first lets go with the clothes stealing analogy..If you steal a tshirt for instance, then you're depriving another person from wearing that top that you didn't pay for. With online distribution you're not taking something tangible which after you've taken is no longer available.
It's similar to say going to a clothes store (using some application to download files) with your own material which you've bought (the internet connection from the isp - bandwidth, data costs etc, the pc you're using etc), sitting down with the tshirt (searching for a song), and copying the design exactly (downloading the song), including the logo onto the material you brought with you, without paying for the original tshirt then putting on the copied shirt and walking out of the store with it (listening to the copied song). Should the person just buy the shirt instead of going to the trouble of copying it exactly? Probably..Is it classed as theft? No. Just like how copyright infringement is not classed theft.
The small/medium bands are the ones who benefit from getting their name out, as not as much advertising is spent on them. If the album is good, people will talk about it..The more people that know the name of the band, the more likely they're going to buy their cd the next time they're at a record store, go to their concert the next time the band tours, buy the bands merch, and also spread the word to others.
You could think of the lost sales from people who have just downloaded without paying as the new cost of advertising, instead of using traditional record industry methods of advertising. The cost of advertising for the record industry is beyond massive, so maybe this is a much better way to go? Over in New Zealand, many of the small time bands here put all their music on myspace or their own site, so others can get into their music, and spread the word. - zachlutz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Better yet, max they should be able to sue for should be 99 cents a song. ;-)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Everyone always talks about this mythical backlash happening, but it just isn't happening. The vast majority of people have NO IDEA any of this is happening at all. And many of those that have heard of these cases don't care enough to read up on it.
Remember...most people spend less than an hour a day on the internet, outside of work. Most do not go to sites like Digg, or sites that mainly talk about this. And by most, I mean WELL over 90%. - RyTsYdUp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Since when is downloading five songs equal to Grand Theft. Back in the day, I remember making mix tapes for my girlfriend as a thirteen year old kid. I could not imagine that it could have bankrupted my parents. You get off easier stealing something from a store. There you have to take a diversion class and are not required to pay a dime. In a couple of years, if you keep your record clean, it would be wiped off. I am sorry but the penalties imposed do not match the crime. But hey, the business model works, so why not.
- sathias, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@zachlutz
Even if it was successful, it wouldn't achieve anything. The RIAA would just use the lost sales to prove that piracy is hurting their business, and get even more stringent laws passed in order to be able to escalate their extortion. - kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7We should setup a donation for this guy to fight it. I pledge $300 for the guy to fight the RIAA.
- CarzorStelatis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@broomett: copyright infringement is not stealing, it is copyright infringement. Technically the guy involved in this could make his $3000 back by sueing you for libel by calling him a thief.
- dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I like it when the evils fight each other... It makes it so much easier to defeat whichever evil wins, since they spent all their resources fighting the other evil. As long as they are not the borg...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Mai...again...it has nothing to do with you downloading a song that you don't own. It has to do with sharing it with others. And it is what you are making possible. So you can't say "I only wanted others to take it from me if they owned it legally" because you took no measure to prevent those who didn't own it from taking it as well.
- threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The idea for the fine (right or wrong) isn't about how many songs he downloaded. It's about how many OTHERS he allowed to have the song. File sharing is the issue in this case.
There are lots of angles to the argument; he wasn't going to pay for it anyway, there's no physical loss, in the grand scheme it's not a big deal.
But for right now, it's illegal to download and share a file and remove control of the music from those that want to control it's distribution and receive money for it. Anyone who does it is fair game regardless of how much it will cost them in that particular case because it gets on the news, it gets people talking about it, and if it makes .5 % (yes, 1/2 percent) of the people who do not realize piracy is illegal to now realize it, then it's money well spent. - ohearn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This may be their new strategy. Go after the small time people. The fine really is probably smaller than it will cost to defend themselves in court half the time so they are more likely to just pay RIAA instead of fighting it.
- MikeFromAmerica, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Etaoin:
Hmm...That sounds like something a terrorist would say...
"You're either with us or against us" -- George W. Bush - crispytown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What "GigaTribe"? Come on now. That app has the worse setup ever. The free version only allows 1 dl at a time and you wont be able to do Multisource Downloading, NO Control on the upload bandwidth, and Password Protection. All of those features are for the paid clients. you wont be seeing me on that network until they get a 100% free full package.
- WolfDV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3^-- lol, I mean hypothetically :wink wink: Do you ever think they would sue onesingle person for that much money (no one could ever pay it)
. . wait wait . . never mind I forgot, they're pure EVIL (they'll do it just for the hell of it) - MikeD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Another way to put it is you don't have to download any music to get sued.
If you rip the CDs you bought and made those songs available to the public using a P2P program you are going to get sued if you are caught. Not for ripping, but for giving the ripped music away to many others.
The crime is the sharing part not the downloading part. - peranadigital, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Getting some of the money out of that industry is, as best I can figure, a good thing for everyone (except the executives). The vast majority of movies are made purely to make money, think about all the money spent on the CGI for a movie like Little Man, I really don't think it's a bad thing if movies like that don't get made or are made cheaper (use a real little person for Chrissake!).
These organisations are attacking things from the wrong perspective. I pay for music through ITunes because it's quick, cheap (relative to CDs), easy and legal. They need to make it easier to get content ligitimately for a reasonable price. Imagine how many more people would buy movies if they could download them quickly for $1 each. sure there's costs involved in setting it up but what about all the money these organisations are spending on legal costs at the moment.
Most people don't download movies or songs because they don't want to pay for them, it's just usually easier. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Is it even worth it (legal costs-wise) to go to court to fight this?"
Yeah because they see a terror value in it. Make people afraid and they think it is money well spent. - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2BitTorrent is what I find most effective.
Quickly followed by IRC (they're called fserves; type !list in a server channel and you'll see what I mean) for obscure stuff, and Usenet for just-came-out stuff. - D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2First, stealing 1 movie > ripping 5 songs
Second, zach was right it's MPAA not RIAA for movies
Third, Honestly there isn't much you can do to avoid it short of not stealing movies (and who wants that?) - Kison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I tire of the RIAA.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So, you want the RIAA to tax the internet? Making EVERYONE pay you to be a piece of ***** and download music? I am not paying for you to download music, *****.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 154 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is