Category Archives: Digg

RIAA/MPAA Followup

Well the person who i was responding to.. responded on digg with

mementh, youre missing the point

Are the RIAA douchebags? Yes. Theyre using the law in entirely the wrong way, to punish the wrong people, using dirty tactics (although I would say that the Sony rootkit is equally as bad).

HOWEVER.... you are breaking the law. By "its a different age" do you mean that because a certain number of people want something for free, stealing should be legal? Dude, if you take away any financial incentive for people to create content, there will be no content. Thats right up there with people arguing that Windows should be pirated because Microsoft is full of douchebags, or that it costs too much. Guess what? They can charge as MUCH as they want, its THEIR content. Whether theyre assholes or not has NO bearing. Whether or not you would have bought the song if you hadnt downloaded it has NO bearing. There are laws, and ethics, involved that you cant change simply because you wish to.

You also argue that the RIAA was designed to stop people from selling their content illegally--are you saying because one person CHARGES for the illegal song, its worse than giving it away?

What also has no bearing is whether the RIAA recompensates the artists. Thats a seperate issue, to be dealt with seperately. Part of their purpose is to protect their content. When you download music you did not buy, you are breaking the law. If you want a single song, use iTunes, or Rhapsody, or any of the other online legal music download sites. You dont get to shape the law to fit your desires--if you think the law should change, we have a system that allows you to suggest that change, and vote on a representative that you think will initiate that change. This is NOT a democracy, the mob does NOT make the rules--our representatives make them.

Your statements suggest that we use a system that is akin to anarchy--people doing whatever they want.

And i feel i given a good point responce here

I am saying that the RIAA has overstepped it reasons for being and that they should not go after the normal consumer..

It IS a new age.. where we have seen "don't download this song" given away for free... and "white and nerdy" given away for free.. yet Weird Al is if i recall was top on VH1's music video list..... (which if i recall bases on record sales and some user choices?)

So the old idea that you MUST buy is no longer there.. yes it is anarchistic somewhat. but consider i bought the Weird Al Album... only one i have bought.
I have only bought TRACKS of songs i like for a long time

My Point is and always will be... even in its highest point P2P file sharing never hurt music sales.. if anything it helped them...

There Is though a proven fact.. that there are illegal sellers of the music. And that people are BUYING from them...

now.. to me.. whats worse..

1 million people trading a few files a few POPULAR songs.. and more then likely 2-4 out of 10 will buy the track online or the CD.. (200-400k profit if buying the song itself)

1 million people buying the cd for the equivilent of $4 USD on the streets of hong kong or some other city... (-4 million )

which should a company be concerned with.. ???? IMHO.. i would take the free advertizing.. maybe find a way to do it more though my own sites ( advertizing revenue though banner ads ) and find a way to give the consumer a good deal..

And i would go after the shops that are illegally selling..

makes more sense in my pocket book

What do you all think?

RIAA/MPAA

I feel i need to blog about this.. the RIAA and MPAA and there tactics.. this is a direct quote from myself from a entry on the DIGG website
Digg Artical

Link to post

I am sorry man you were in my friends list but not your gone.. why? The stupid comments you making..

One The RIAA has no reason to exist except to protect the company.. not the artists...
Two The tactics they use even if they have been "legal" are dirty... so dirty it makes SONY'S ROOT KIT look clean.

Three.. I just don't agree that trading online in piracy..... Its a diffrent age... In my early days I remember making MIX tapes of songs i wanted to listen to often... Under the RIAA thats wrong..
I remember given some of those tapes to friends..

Under the RIAA is wrong for me to make ANY copies for ANY reason.

Yes the net lets me share with untold millions without care who they are.. but i am still telling them hey.. "i liked this music and i think you would as well" by sharing it.

What the RIAA was MADE TO DO, was deal with those that make copies and SELL THEM ILLEGALLY... the SAME with the MPAA.. NOT THE CONSUMER!

Why do I think that the RIAA and MPAA should not care about me and you sharing... because in the end we help sales.. we show others good music.

In the end those that make illegal copies and SELL THEM are hurting the ARTISTS by selling a copy to someone who IS WILLING TO BUY A COPY.

Its just easier to get 4k from a housewife/family then it is to make ANY money shutting down a illegal record distributor in ANY country.

http://www.dumbthings.com/

OH MY GOD!!!!!

i was surfing though DIGG.com and found this on the front page

http://www.dumbthings.com/

a few of the funnier things i found were

When asked for her occupation, a woman charged with a traffic violation said she was a schoolteacher. The hudge rose from the bench. "Madam, I have waited years for a schoolteacher to appear before this court," he smiled with delight. "Now sit down at that table and write 'I will not pass through a red light' five hundred times."

A lawyer defending a man accused of burglary tried this creative defense: "My client merely inserted his arm into the window and removed a few trifling articles. His arm is not himself, and I fail to see how you can punish the whole individual for an offense committed by his limb." "Well put," the judge replied. "Using your logic, I sentence the defendant's arm to one year's imprisonment. He can accompany it or not, as he chooses." The defendant smiled. With his lawyer's assistance he detached his artificial limb, laid it on the bench, and walked out.

well have fun :)

a weird idea (teleportation)

http://digg.com/general_sciences/How_Te ... _Will_Work

ok... i think i understand.. a Startrek transporter works like this artical..

the reason teleportation is possable is because they don't read the quantum states of the particals directly. they read ones that are entanngled and therefore they can move them though the computer..

so the hysenberg compensator is nothing more then a quantum entabglement device..

this also allows for the riker clone in tng... the transporter cheif makes two seperate streams of quantum entanglements...

IMHO when this starts moving sentien beings the souls will recognize the entanglement and move to the new body....

anyway i thought it was interesting

a few digs

I have been visiting DIGG.com a SHITLOAD

i found a few things lately that i love

http://digg.com/movies/Will_Ferrell_s_N ... on_Trailer
Will Farrell is... a book character in real life :)

http://digg.com/videos_comedy/404_The_T ... en_clogged
A Interesting 404 webpage based on Sen Stevens

http://digg.com/movies/Robin_Williams_p ... hn_Stewart
OMG THIS IS A MUST SEE
Robin Williams plays a Comedy Political Newscaster who RUNS FOR PRESIDENT AND WINS!!!!

"There is nothing new under the Sun." (found on DIGG)


"There is nothing new under the Sun."

Attached Image

My quickish translation of the remarkable speech given by Rickard Falkvinge, the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, in the Pirate Bay support demonstration in Stockholm 3.6.2006. If you wish, you can Digg this story here.

Friends, citizens, pirates:

There is nothing new under the Sun.

My name is Rickard Falkvinge, and I am the leader of the Pirate Party.

During the past week we have seen a number of rights violations taking place. We have seen the police misusing their arresting rights. We have seen innocent parties being harmed. We have seen how the media industry operates. We have seen how the politicians up to the highest levels bend backwards to protect the media industry.

This is scandalous to no limit. This is the reason why we are here today.

The media industry wants us to believe that this is a question about payment models, about a particular professional group getting paid. They want us to believe that this is about their dropping sales figures, about some dry statistics. But that is only an excuse. This is really about something totally else.

To understand today’s situation in the light of the history, we must go back 400 years - to the time when the Church had the monopoly over both culture and knowledge. Whatever the Church said, was the truth. That was pyramid communication. You had one person at the top talking to the many under him in the pyramid. Culture and knowledge had a source, and that source was the Church.

And God have mercy on those who dared to challenge the culture and knowledge monopoly of the Church! They were subjected to the most horrible trials that man could envision at the time. Under no circumstances did the Church allow its citizens to spread information on their own. Whenever it happened, the Church applied its full judicial powers to obstruct, to punish, to harass the guilty ones.

There is nothing new under the Sun.

Today we know that the only right thing to happen for the society to evolve was to let the knowledge go free. We know now that Galileo Galilei was right. Even if he had to puncture a monopoly of knowledge.

We are speaking here about the time when the Church went out in its full force and ruled that it was unnecessary for its citizens to learn to read or to write, because the priest could tell them anyway everything they needed to know. The Church understood what it would mean for them to lose their control.

Then came the printing press.

Suddenly there was not only a source of knowledge to learn from, but a number of them. The citizens – who at this time had started to learn to read – could take their own part of the knowledge without being sanctioned. The Church went mad. The royal houses went mad. The British Royal Court went as far as to make a law that allowed the printing of books only to those print owners who had a special license from the Royal Court. Only they were allowed to multiply knowledge and culture to the citizens.

This law was called "copyright".

Then a couple of centuries passed, and we got the freedom of press. But everywhere the same old model of communication was still being used: one person talking to the many. And this fact was utilized by the State who introduced the system of “responsible publishers”.

The citizens could admittedly pick pieces of knowledge to themselves, but there always had to be somebody who could be made responsible if – what a horrible thought – somebody happened to pick up a piece of wrong knowledge.

And this very thing is undergoing a fundamental change today - because the Internet does not follow the old model anymore. We not only download culture and knowledge. We upload it to others at the same time. We share files. The knowledge and the culture have amazingly lost their central point of control.

And as this is the central point of my speech, let me lay it out in some detail.

Downloading is the old mass media model where there is a central point of control, a point with a ‘responsible publisher’ – somebody who can be brought to court, forced to pay and so on. A central point of control from where everybody can download knowledge and culture, a central point that can grant rights and take them away as needed and as wanted.

Culture and knowledge monopoly. Control.

Filesharing involves simultaneous uploading and downloading by every connected person. There is no central point of control at all; instead we have a situation where the culture and the information flow organically between millions of different people.

Something totally different, something totally new in the history of human communications. There is no more a person that can be made responsible if wrong knowledge happens to spread.

This is the reason why the media corporations talk so much about ‘legal downloading’. Legal. Downloading. It is because they want to make it the only legal way of things for people to pick up items from a central point that is under their control. Downloading, not filesharing.

And this is precisely why we will change those laws.

During the passed week we have seen how far an acting party is prepared to go to prevent the loss of his control. We saw the Constitution itself being violated. We saw what sort of methods of force and attacks on personal integrity the police is prepared to apply, not to fight crime, but in an obvious intention to harass those involved and those who have been close to them.

There is nothing new under the Sun, and the history always repeats itself. This is not about a group of professionals getting paid. This is about control over culture and knowledge. Because whoever controls them, controls the world.

The media industry has tried to make us feel shame, to say that what we are doing is illegal, that we are pirates. They try to roll a stone over us. Take a look around today – see how they have failed. Yes, we are pirates. But whoever believes that it is shameful to be a pirate, has got it wrong. It is something we are proud of.

That is because we have already seen what it means to be without central control. We have already tasted, felt and smelled the freedom of being without top-down controlled monopoly of culture and knowledge. We have already learned how to read and how to write.

And we do not intend to forget how to read and how to write, even if yesterday’s media interests do not find it acceptable.

MY NAME IS RICKARD, AND I AM A PIRATE!

I saw this post.. it sorta makes sence in a odd way

I mean.. If your talking "knowlage" its perfect.. If your talking culture its perfect..

I still feel that companies ahve a right to make money off what they do.. but i don't feel they should have a right to interfear with my rights to spread culture..