digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at farm3.static.flickr.com

Think Illegal Downloading is Free?

farm3.static.flickr.com — Think Illegal Downloading is Free? Click on...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Centurion890, on 01/27/2008, -2/+478Picture taken in a DePaul University Dorm Room
    • Vajrapani, on 01/27/2008, -2/+72I used to live in a Sanctuary townhouse...downed at 2mb/s, upped at 5 consistently. Damn I miss that connection. Thanks for the speedy porn, DePaul!
      • elipodio, on 01/27/2008, -1/+26You're welcome.
      • Mekanikles, on 01/27/2008, -5/+26Are you serious? 2/5 is alot in the US? Getting 100/100 next week. Not to brag, just curious...
        • elnerdo, on 01/27/2008, -2/+26My area (Northern New Jersey) has among the fastest internet connections in the United States. I have 15Mb/2Mb
          It's pretty bad.
          • Azimuth1, on 01/27/2008, -0/+14And I thought the UK was lagging behind the rest of the world. Even we have 24Mb/3Mb available.
          • SleepJunkie, on 01/27/2008, -2/+5Get optonline turbo boost! I get 30/5-10 and i'm not penalized for uploading. Worth an extra $10 a month.
        • D4r7h3v1l, on 01/27/2008, -1/+16I believe he was referring to mega(mebi)bytes/s, not mega/mebibits/s. So that would be 16 down/40 up.

          IDK, though, he may have been talking bits. I personally have 30/5 in NY.
        • viniciusfontes, on 01/27/2008, -1/+9You think this is bad? Here in Brazil the most popular speeds are 400/200, 600/300, 800/300. And I'm talking in kbps, not mbps.

          The very best connection you can get is 8mbps/1mbps. The reasons why we suck so much in bandwidth? 1) Carrier: "people don't need more than 8mbps, which is fast enough 2) Taxes, taxes, taxes.
        • vagarach, on 01/27/2008, -1/+7Not to brag, HAH.
        • dclowd9901, on 01/27/2008, -1/+10We have ill-regulated, no-oversight phone companies to thank for that. It's like my econ professor said: Nothing wrong with a free-market. Just gotta make the playing field fair. In the US, it is not.
      • chingy1788, on 01/27/2008, -0/+5in bits
        10/0.256 here in Aussieland
      • altrego99, on 01/27/2008, -0/+26I have 256kbps. The ***** Indian government doesn't give anyone else right to dig internet cables...
    • elipodio, on 01/27/2008, -2/+14I was going to say, that looked A LOT like DePaul. Then I noticed the Dominicks sign in the 2nd photo...
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/27/2008, -34/+10In de Ron Paul university...
      (First thought... sorry)
      • hmunkey, on 01/27/2008, -2/+5Do you dream about Dr. Paul?
      • TopherT, on 01/27/2008, -2/+3First Digg was inundated with pro Paul comments, then it was inundated with anti paul comments. Please will both groups just tone it down some. Keep the Paul comments on stories on 1Constitutional Issues, 2Election '08 3Corruption/Big Government.
      • rand0mm0nkey, on 01/27/2008, -3/+3Shut the ***** up.
    • lys3rgic, on 01/27/2008, -4/+129They misspelled downloading...lol.
      • TheAkolyte, on 01/27/2008, -0/+159Arrr ... you try typin with a' meat hook, an' eye patch and 12 pints o' mead!
    • HeroreV, on 01/27/2008, -2/+38We have tons of ridiculous posters with a similar message in the dorms here at the University of North Texas. The current generation say something like, "$750,000 per song. Free never cost so much." What a crock of *****. When did colleges become government training camps?
      • kublerross, on 01/27/2008, -1/+22not government training camp, corporate training camp - and it happened a long time ago
        • RobotBuddha, on 01/27/2008, -1/+3Indeed. I suspect most of us went to the same university, Microsoft/Pepsico.
      • schnikies79, on 01/27/2008, -1/+7Long before any of us were born.
      • sorrytheusernam, on 01/27/2008, -0/+8I also attend UNT. We have those exact signs in my dorms. I'm going to print off some of the pirate bay ones.
        Viva la revolution!
      • cbuddha42, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Ok, when I google UNT I get this as the blurb of the first result: "The University of North Texas is a student-centered public research university and the flagship of the UNT System." Oh look, you go to a public university, paid for and run by the government, and you want to know what it became a government training camp? Well seeing as how it's government owned and it's goal is presumably to train you, I'm going to go ahead and say since the day it was founded.
      • fantastcandy10, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3actually, I think the best ones, although not really related to downloading, are the anti-meth posters at the UNT dorms.

        apparently, one of the side affects is euphoria. like its a bad thing.

        and about UNT being a training camp... it is! The only thing is they're training us to be environmentalists and liberals, mostly.
      • CaptainGirf, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Since they were State Government funded
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 01/27/2008, -25/+10We as an internet community really do need to start discouraging piracy. Not for the RIAA. ***** the RIAA. But for the artists and for ourselves.

      Not only do the artists deserve to be compensated but because of our actions our net neutrality is in danger. That's the main reason for companys fighting against net neutrality. Piracy.

      Every song, movie and game you download illegally is one more reason for a politician to take away your ability to do so.

      I already know I'm going to get dugg down because no one likes to give up something they can so easily do without getting caught but in the long run you're going to be hurting us all because of this *****. Just knock it off. Support your artists. Support your actors and support your game developers.

      You're only going to make this harder on the internet in the end when they finally say enough is enough and block all p2p traffic and filter sites they deem influence "criminal" behavior. And don't think for a minute the internet is immune from that because it's not. Stop pirating now. Save our internet.
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 01/27/2008, -16/+7Yup once again I'm getting dugg down because all people care about is the free stuff they get and they don't give a ***** about the internet as a whole. You think you're going to convince politicians that net neutrality is a good idea when you are pirating ***** like crazy? *****, the politicians have been LOOKING for ways to filter this exact thing and they finally have an idea that will work and you just keep wanting to give them reasons too. All because you don't feel like paying a measly 10 bucks on itunes or 15 bucks at best buy.

        In the long run piracy just isn't worth it.
        • Travelsonic, on 01/27/2008, -4/+3You got dugg down for missing the point, like both posts here.
        • ennTOXX, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1dont kid yourself, give in? i think you have been reading / doing the wrong *****... or maybe you've been writing / watching it. give it a try, search out what real artists are doing against these record companies, they started the fight long ago, but you kept buying into the record companies *****...
          i still buy mp3s, cds. but i try to make a COMMON SENSE judgement on my purchase. check WIKI for history of music sales, you'll be surprised what reading can get you these days... wait did i just read that??? *mumble* 8/
        • RobotBuddha, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1I didn't dig you down, because I find the whole concept of modding down for disagreement stupid. But I do disagree with your statement. I'd love to support the movies and tv shows I currently pirate. In the same way that I enjoy supporting artists by buying their music online. I can do that now because they're actually willing to sell it to me! It took an amazing amount of time, but finally, post-napster, I can buy an album online and get it as DRM free and playable on my media center. I can't do that with movies or tv yet. A fraction I can get from cable, true, but the content is all locked down by country. This isn't 1950, the entire planet is making interesting programming. Even in the best case scenarios, what I can buy is the ability to watch something in a locked down format on my computer monitor. And have my rights to do so with the content I've bought removed at any time. Sell me video in the same way that I can buy audio and I'll happily hand over money. Until then, I'm just going to keep downloading it.
        • pnarel, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2The money that artists don't get because of piracy is symbolic. Let's not pretend that they land in the poor house because people download their music.
      • rowjimmy, on 01/27/2008, -6/+12no, we as an internet community need to continue pirating as a show of our consumer power to force the music and film industries to realize their production, distribution, and reimbursement methods are archaic and simply meaningless in an age where lossless quality audio and video can literally be streamed for a dollar a day (or even free if you just got to a coffee shop, library, neighborhood with unsecured wifi networks).
        saying we need to stop because it is endangering net neutrality is like telling women to wear burkas because they keep getting raped. if MLK decided, "hey guys we should really hang out indoors or at blacks-only coffee shops cuz we are seriously pissing these guys off and they're gonna throw us in jail" where would we be today? if gay people decided, "you know, we should pretend we're not so damn gay so that people won't discriminate" where would we be today? civil disobedience is just that - disobeying the government, the law, societal norms - and is downright dangerous; however if it is for a just cause (in this case, showing that the 20th century model for music and film production & distribution is archaic in a digitalized economy) it will eventually prevail or take down a hell of a lot with it.
        • TheTaoOfBill, on 01/27/2008, -13/+6Except they have a right to be pissed off. You're stealing their *****. Your refusing to pay for something a lot of people worked hard to bring to you. No matter what excuse you come up with that's wrong.

          What has priacy done so far to the industry? All it's done is caused prices to go up and inocent people to get sued into oblivion by the RIAA. Yeah real good work you guys are doing. You're sure bringing a lot of good into the world.
        • bagelmaster, on 01/27/2008, -3/+4@Tao, The biggest thing it has done is bring attention (through the internet and the media) to these lawsuits. People are slowly realizing what a greedy piece of ***** thing the RIAA is and are turning away from.
        • Outdoor83, on 01/27/2008, -3/+6Did you seriously just compare stealing a whole lot of stuff for free with MLK? Did MLK advocate looting from businesses that didn't support black people? Your analogies don't really fit here.

          TaoOfBill's got a point here, and it's disturbing that the majority of people here don't see it. Piracy is stealing. Maybe it WAS civil disobedience to force market change, but not anymore. Right now, I can head to amazon.com and buy most any track I want for $.99 (some for $.89), at 256kbps, DRM-free. Look guys, we WON. We get tracks a la carte (no more buying the whole damned worthless CD), they're encoded at high quality (for many people's definitions of high), and they have no DRM.

          We got what we want, we won the battle. NOW WE HAVE TO SHOW THE MUSIC INDUSTRY THAT WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM ON THIS ONE. If I want a song, some episodes of a show, etc, I *always* see if I can buy it DRM-free first. If I can, I do. I want to show the entertainment industry that they can sell their efforts, but it's going to be on my terms. Which is what capitalism is.

          If you don't buy DRM-free tracks that you can get in less than a minute for a low price, you're just stealing... not making a statement.
          • RobotBuddha, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3"some episodes of a show"

            Where are you finding 'any' that you can buy without DRM?
          • dopplerdog, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3Piracy is NOT stealing. It is copyright infringement - the infringement of an arbitrary and conventional set of "rights" that had their time and place, but are increasingly unviable. It's a completely different situation to theft. Don't swallow the lies they're feeding you. They call it "theft" for propaganda purposes, and because they can't accept that their archaic business model is obsolete. It's not theft, never has been, never will be.
          • strangewill, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2I like how someone who actually knew what they were talking about eventually pointed this out.

            It's still bad, but you're right, it's not technically theft.
      • bagelmaster, on 01/27/2008, -3/+5Please take a pic of that paycheck they send you every week, I'm curious.
        • TheTaoOfBill, on 01/27/2008, -6/+6I don't work for the RIAA. Seriously ***** the RIAA. Bunch of greedy pigs. I just said if artists were smart they would ditch record companies all together.

          I simply believe that 10 dollars for an album is a really fair price. And at this point people shouldn't be bitching. You can't expect to get everything for free and not see any consequences. You're going to wind up driving the music industry out of business if you continue to download for free when there is already a very fair price on the market. Some artists are even going unsigned so they can offer even cheaper prices and market completely over the internet.

          There has to be a line you draw for when it's time to stop and I think it's time to stop. We won. We got prices down from 20 CDs dollars to 10 dollar itunes albums. That's a really fair price. Honestly what more do you want at this point?

          Oh that's right. You just want everything for free. It will only be fair to you when it's free.
          • ennTOXX, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2"....You're going to wind up driving the music industry out of business if you continue to download for free when there is already a very fair price on the market..."
            :::
            you said it, that's the point, kinda like everything else corrupt. stick it to 'um... read the history & stop watching fox news 8/
    • rowjimmy, on 01/27/2008, -0/+8oh, and ps - unless an artist has a VERY specific and quite rare deal, or unless they have produced and distributed their own album, they receive basically jack-squat for sales. read David Bryne's article in this month's Wired for a breakdown of the different types of artist-label relationships
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 01/27/2008, -13/+5And who's fault is that? They signed the contract. If they were smart they wouldn't even use record companies.
        • ricree, on 01/27/2008, -1/+3The fact that someone could have avoided being taken advantage of does not excuse the people who took advantage of them.
      • Outdoor83, on 01/27/2008, -3/+2Yeah, those contracts are ass. And if they didn't need record companies or if they truly didn't provide any value, they wouldn't sign them. But they keep singing them... wonder why. Seems that the record companies help them after all.

        Look, if you get a crappy contract, don't sign it. If you truly are worth it, you'll get signed on your terms. If not, well, sign your life away :) Bill's getting dugg down because he said that signing a dumb contract is, well, dumb? What the heck is Digg coming to?

        The artist-label relationship is very, very similar to the employer-employee relationship. Many employees suck, and barely make wages (if they even do). However, they still get that check every week, and that's very comforting / secure. People pay for that risk reduction. However... some of the employees are awesome, come up with great ideas, overachieve, and the company makes huge bank off of them. Is that employee screwed? Yeah, but they were the ones who opted for security over the chance to make huge bank. It was their choice, just like it was the artists who signed the contracts' choice.
      • ennTOXX, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1@ rowjimmy :: amen allibabba ***** stains batman, you hit it on the nail, thank you *dugg closed*
    • Vektuz, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1They forgot to include the URL to the pirate bay :( I guess people could just google it.
    • wharlie, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Someone pirated the "a".
    • sotopheavy, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Dugg for accuracy!
  • PtoS382, on 01/27/2008, -9/+511Some of the download bars aren't even finished, and your posters are insinuating these people were fined for that? Congratulations RIAA propoganda, you fail.
    • FoxOrian, on 01/27/2008, -1/+27If not that, it's as though they're waiting for the moment the download reaches 100% and bamf, you're turned into a statistic and owe large sums of money.
      As though there are RIAA agents watching you, every single one of you in that building, until the download completes... Scary.
      • staxx202, on 01/27/2008, -2/+6you could always use peer guardian 2

        I thought everyone did
    • MaiSacNjoMouf, on 01/27/2008, -2/+19Not only that... I pay for my usenet :-)
    • i208khonsu, on 01/27/2008, -16/+5There is no such thing as illegeal DOWNloading no more than it is illegeal to take, or even buy, a bootleg movie form a street vendor. It is illegeal to UPload just like it's illegeal for that bootlegger to be doing what he's doing.
      • ubrikkean, on 01/27/2008, -3/+3The point is that it's file sharing, meaning you're doing both by the nature of the system.
      • TH3W1R3D, on 01/27/2008, -1/+16Its dicks like you that cause me to always have an upload MUCH greater than my download speed. ***** moocher.
        • i208khonsu, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1Um, I always share 150% of the files I download. I have uTorrent programmed to stop uploading after that. Not restricting your upload paints a big target on you for the RIAA.

          It's dumbasses like you that cause all the legal problems and give the RIAA the full to feed the fire.
      • dunk71, on 01/27/2008, -4/+5Um... Getting bootleg copies might not be illegal where you live but in the UK it's called "receiving stolen goods" and it's definitely illegal. I'm sure there's a multitude of other terms that can be applied, depending on where you live.
        • daverave999, on 01/27/2008, -5/+7They aren't stolen though are they? You think there's no 'receiving stolen goods' law in the US?
          • dunk71, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Of course I know there's recieving laws in the US! It's just I'm more familiar with the UK legal system. Making unlicensed copies of copyright materials is illegal, it's theft of registered intellectual property. Knowingly receiving stolen items is also illegal. I'm a filesharer myself, but there's no point in being stupid about it. Any copyright material I've download, bought, or been given as a gift, that's not been officially manufactured, is illegal for me to obtain, accept and own.
        • s1mph0ny, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4The RIAA/MPAA may want you to think of copyright infringement as stealing. At least in the U.S. they're two totally different things.
    • joegibes, on 01/27/2008, -0/+39"Think illegal downloading is free? It is, but we're gonna arbitrarily fine you tens of thousands of dollars for it."
    • delecti, on 01/27/2008, -3/+3You're right, some of the download bars aren't finished, but they're not the ones who were fined.
      None of the arrows coming from download bars are going to the same place as arrows coming from fines.
    • ShloppyJoe, on 01/27/2008, -8/+1delecti, you're a fag.
    • xile, on 01/27/2008, -0/+7I work in a university IT department and we get DMCA notices (with fines) for partial downloads all the time. Luckily for students, we tell the RIAA and MPAA to ***** off rather than release names.
      • Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1What university to you work for? You wouldn't happen to know if anyone has compiled a list of university's responses?
  • Despero, on 01/27/2008, -5/+133This is so perfect.
  • slipperysnider, on 01/27/2008, -6/+356I love nerdy rebels.
    • wordglue, on 01/27/2008, -1/+102Now if only you were a hot chick...
    • QuickeningYak, on 01/27/2008, -4/+7Nerd open face only when have thing to say, is important why nerd better at anything worth doing.
    • GuacamoleSan, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Nerds will have their day. Oh, they will have their day.
  • AROZ, on 01/27/2008, -4/+435They used even used colour ink. Excellent work.
    • Nerfdude, on 01/27/2008, -47/+16wouw, that's cooul
      • theone3, on 01/27/2008, -15/+27The scholars in your nation thought that the lot of you were too damn stupid to learn the language properly so they produced a simplified version. This is proof that they weren't being pessimists.
        • daishin, on 01/27/2008, -6/+24Yeah cause it takes a lot of ***** brain power to place a "u" after an "o".
        • blazes816, on 01/27/2008, -4/+14I think we (Americans) are right in the color debate. However, you are showing us up in the 'Herb' department.
        • PhoenixAvatar2, on 01/27/2008, -2/+3You think English is a simplified version of anything? If you were a non-native speaker, you'd have some idea of how hard it is.
          • RobotBuddha, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2I think English has an undeserved reputation for complexity. Mandarin, now that's a difficult language.
          • strangewill, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1I think for minor rules, English is complex, for simple communication it's mainly straight forward without lots of irks that other languages have... You can get a point across in English fairly easy, though "incorrectly".
        • Nerfdude, on 01/27/2008, -1/+6FYI, if you have to put a '3' after 'the one', there's a good chance you're not the latter
  • Xerces, on 01/27/2008, -2/+99In this special case 1 beats 2.
  • remisser, on 01/27/2008, -14/+1235The people at The Pirate Bay need to illegally download a spell checker.
    • t3soro, on 01/27/2008, -9/+245LOL I didn't even notice that
      • DontEatTheFish, on 01/27/2008, -0/+22wow... i looked at 3 other words after reading this comment before i found what word you meant...
    • scullyshouse, on 01/27/2008, -7/+96thats the l33t spelling
      • Xerces, on 01/27/2008, -1/+34you mean 1337 spelling?
        • falafelkiosken, on 01/27/2008, -0/+17did your 1337 spell checker correct that for you? ;)
    • rubenz, on 01/27/2008, -6/+217I'd like to buy a vowel. An A please.
      • rawheadrex, on 01/27/2008, -0/+35Nevermind buying, I just downloded it.
    • ceris, on 01/27/2008, -6/+84What do you expect, it's only DePaul. ;)
    • ceris, on 01/27/2008, -28/+5What do you expect? It's only DePaul. Jesus school.
    • mrdiggdude, on 01/27/2008, -19/+3how do you know its official TPB?
    • Denelson83, on 01/27/2008, -1/+18I guess TPB thinks that downloading and downloding are not the same. And they are correct. ;)
      • bagelmaster, on 01/27/2008, -0/+10I wonder how that would stand up in court... "but your honor, I was downLODING the music, not downLOADING the music!"
    • OomBok, on 01/27/2008, -8/+8Since we're splitting hairs here, you just split an infinitive. ("to illegally download")
      The spelling error does sort of take the sting out of it.....
      • nittanylion06, on 01/27/2008, -1/+8Nothing wrong with a split infinitive (lookup wiki article if you don't believe).
        • Nonplussed, on 01/27/2008, -3/+1"However, most experts on language now agree that the split infinitive is SOMETIMES appropriate." (look up wiki article if you don't believe).
      • TomScrace, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4Better a split infinitive than an inelegant sentence.
      • KyleGoetz, on 01/27/2008, -0/+6Split infinitives are acceptable if you want to emphasize the splitting adverb. According to The Elements of Style by Strunk and White (one of the classic and most respected texts on English grammar): "There is precedent from the fourteenth century down for interposing an adverb between to and the infinitive it governs, but the construction should be avoided unless the writer wishes to place unusual stress on the adverb." It also says that "[s]ome infinitives seem to improve on being split, just as a stick of round stovewood does. . . . [It is] a matter of ear."
        /is an editor for an academic journal
      • somedirtbag, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1You sirs, are cunning linguists.
    • wiirdo, on 01/27/2008, -6/+17Hell, who cares! TPB FTW!
      • Outdoor83, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4... we dig up a comment that just says TPB FTW? seriously?
      • saketome, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0... we dig up a comment that says we dig up a comment that just says TPB FTW? seriously?
    • screensnot, on 01/27/2008, -3/+124They are trying to download a spell checker, but they are stuck at 97%. SEED PLEASE!
      • parkermauney, on 01/27/2008, -0/+18It 's always got to be 97%
      • MadOtaku, on 01/28/2008, -0/+5I just went through that painful experience; I had a download stuck at 98.9% for 2 days before finally getting a peer. At just over 1.3GB and 1 week of waiting, I was elated to finish it.
        • gotspeed1212, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1and thats why torrents should be free if you have to wait a week for it to be free or go pay 10$ and have it right there and always working why not

          maybe some of the copy right people need to learn that torrents take days and some times weeks or months thats the price we pay.
    • Osama, on 01/27/2008, -4/+3Perhaps it's a reference to loder?
      • grinchdec23, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Indeed "loder" looks better than "loader"
    • ifknot, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4downlod is the new pwn
  • Vostok, on 01/27/2008, -18/+8One of these is not like the others, can you guess which one?
    • tikiman453, on 01/27/2008, -3/+4oooh! oooh! pick me! it's the green one right?
    • pjsk8, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2All of them!
      What do I win???
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2People don't get the IQ Test joke.
  • TiG4, on 01/27/2008, -29/+12Learn how to spell Downloading. :)
  • reepax, on 01/27/2008, -1/+15one million and counting!
  • unearth, on 01/27/2008, -10/+450***** the RIAA
  • chkdg8, on 01/27/2008, -16/+7Spoken like a true prodigy.
  • smacksaw, on 01/27/2008, -0/+98All of those fines are hilarious. Fear is such an effective deterrent.
    • imikedaman, on 01/27/2008, -0/+59You have to wonder, though... if the RIAA was really pulling in hundreds of thousands of dollars from every dorm across America like the poster suggests, wouldn't it be in their best interest to not warn people?
    • cigawoot, on 01/27/2008, -0/+6That makes too much sense.
    • SierraAlpha, on 01/27/2008, -2/+3Yeah I have a friend living in the U.S. and she's too afraid to download lots of music because of this. She downloads the occasional album but she buys most of her CDs.
      • LBobRife, on 01/27/2008, -0/+6Why would she pay the people that are intimidating her? I don't download illegaly anymore, but I also stopped buying music.
      • eridius, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4I hope she realizes that it's still more likely that she'll be hit by lightning than she gets hit by a lawsuit from the RIAA
        • MadOtaku, on 01/28/2008, -0/+8That's why I buy all my electricity instead of trying to steal it from the clouds.
    • directedition, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Yeah.... effective for everyone but the RIAA.
  • jorgamun, on 01/27/2008, -2/+10Excellent find.
  • sgtcaboose, on 01/27/2008, -0/+86Well played PirateBay fans, piracy will never be stopped no matter how many people they fine :)
  • russianfool, on 01/27/2008, -6/+78College propaganda.
    Finding new ways to fail every day.
    • moletimer, on 01/27/2008, -2/+12hmm....***** THE RIAA
    • Emelius, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3In my dorm the RIAA gave everyone one of us a slip of paper that says that our internet traffic was watched and that people WILL get caught. Apparently living areas that are on university grounds have to have their residents internet tracked at all times according to some law.
      • kcap122, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1They can track it all they want, but if your traffic is encrypted and you're using peerguardian, there's not a hell of a lot of chance that they'll know whether you're visiting a porn site or downloading britney spears.
        • Matri, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2If they are monitoring the internet lines, what's to stop us from goatse-ing them?
  • pat0neill, on 01/27/2008, -16/+4rofl
  • ceris, on 01/27/2008, -6/+180The odds of being sued by the Riaa are probably about the same as the odds of being struck by lightening. That's free enough for me.
    • Corvias, on 01/27/2008, -1/+65Um. No.

      I'm the sysadmin at a small university. We have about 600 on-campus students. We get about 2 pre-litigation letters per semester. At that point, the RIAA does not know the student's name. We are legally obligated to pass the letter on to the student that used the IP in question. If we don't. or the student decides not to respond to the letter, the RIAA just sends along a subpoena and a warrant for the students info, and an official suit is issued --no option for a settlement. It's never gotten that far, though. Of the 9 pre-lit letters I've had to hand out (worst part of my job, btw), all those students settled out-of-court for between $3000 and $16,000.

      The RIAA is kinda weird. The other tactic the RIAA uses is they'll just give us a warning that a certain IP has been downloading copyrighted material. We then meet with that student, let them know what they did, and shut them off for a week. If they get busted again, they get it shut off for a month. After a third time, it gets shut off for the rest of the semester, and I teach them how to make patch cables, and they make 20 of them for the next years incoming freshmen.

      The weird part is that there is no correlation between who just gets a warning, and who gets a pre-lit letter. In other words, you don't have to have gotten a warning from the RIAA for them to send you a pre-lit letter. In fact, most of the students that had gotten pre-lit letters, had not gotten warnings previously.

      Lastly, most (if not all) of the letters were sent to kids using limewire. I've only recently started seeing warnings for kids using BT.

      Bottom Line: If you're downloading stuff illegally (and you're really stupid about it) on a public university network, it's like shooting fish in a barrel for the RIAA to get you.
      • mikewhite314, on 01/27/2008, -1/+32Bottom Line: Anonymize yourself
      • jim1977, on 01/27/2008, -4/+6That's because with Limewire you're actually distributing media, where as it becomes a little more complex with BT.
        • briansearles, on 01/27/2008, -1/+14Yeah, if you're one of the ***** that leeches but doesn't seed.
          • jim1977, on 01/27/2008, -0/+10No, even seeding isn't the same issue as actively sharing on Gnutella, Kazaa, eMule, Limewire or whatever it's calling itself these days...

            It's to do with the distributed nature of BT as opposed to Limewire being a searchable network of people distributing files as webservers.
      • Pritchard, on 01/27/2008, -3/+5How about you start teaching your students how to use haxx0r proxies?
      • svivian, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Encryption with uTorrent works, right?
        • Corvias, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0Not if you connect up with a torrent set up specifically by the RIAA to gather IP's.
          I'd stay away from torrents of RIAA label music on public trackers. Especially new releases.
    • da_bradler, on 01/27/2008, -0/+19That's so ***** up that the RIAA can get away with demands like that, in Canada it's against privacy laws for ISPs to give up information on whos IP it is unless it's the police and they have a warrent, your schools should just flat out refuse the RIAA isn't the federal government they can't just do what they please. it's so disappointing that american refuse to stand up for themselves.
      • stoodleysnow, on 01/27/2008, -0/+5Thank God we don't have the RIAA here in the UK.
        • patik, on 01/27/2008, -0/+7Instead you've got cameras and microphones tracking your every movement, watching out for "antisocial behavior" (which means pretty much anything they want).
    • iMike360, on 01/27/2008, -1/+0God I love Canada
  • LaerrusFish, on 01/27/2008, -8/+49I for one am glad i can steal over priced ***** with bittorent. With that said, can someone please explain to my why they think this isn't a crime and why people are so against legal action against it?
    • mrdiggdude, on 01/27/2008, -8/+1because we wouldnt want to lie
    • bieber, on 01/27/2008, -11/+15Because sharing is a fundamentally good thing, and copyright exists to serve the public, not as some inalienable right of those who make music (perhaps they should read the constitution?) There's absolutely nothing wrong with sharing something with someone that they will enjoy
      • Mactrekr, on 01/27/2008, -13/+11I think I'd enjoy your wife, wanna share? Your arugument is childish at best and frankly the only difference between you and L. Frank Baum is that he didn't ACTUALLY believe in OZ! There are many things that people would enjoy that shouldn't be shared. Heroin addicts enjoy sharing needles, according to your logic, there "nothing wrong" with that because they'll enjoy it. Maybe I should share your private email address with my friends the telemarketers and the spam bots, they'd enjoy that, I'm sure.
        • Icyfenix, on 01/27/2008, -4/+21Not the same.
          Music = art. Art = owned by humanity.
          Your wife = Not art(fugly). Your wife = already shared by humanity.
        • CTK14A, on 01/27/2008, -2/+9Baloney. Musicians deserve to be paid; their talent and the hundreds of hours of practice that go into making music belong to the musician.

          Now, the RIAA is another matter...
          • bieber, on 01/27/2008, -3/+3And? Is one musician more important than the entire friggin public? We don't pay them because they "deserve" to be paid: in fact, none of us commissioned them to create the work. The reason we pay them is so that they will make more music to benefit society, not because they have some inherent right to make heaps of money...
          • Etheo, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Perhaps when you've had your turn going through the hardships of creating something only to find that everyone's enjoying it, but you're starving to death because you aren't getting anything back, then you'll realize why Musicians need to get paid too.

            You're talking about the RIAA. If you want enjoy your favorite musician's music, and want more of it, shouldn't you support them so they can survive long enough to create more music for ***** like you?
        • blazes816, on 01/27/2008, -4/+4Music = art. Art = owned by the artist who should be paid for his work.
        • hatdrop, on 01/27/2008, -0/+7@CTK14A

          musicians do not get paid very well by the recording industry, not sure on the exact statistic but the artist gets something like 12 cents per cd, the label on the other hand gets the rest of the 14-18 bucks.

          most artists actually generate money from concerts.

          now the best alternative to this model would be the digital distribution method done by Radiohead and Saul Williams (not iTunes). Radiohead was charging free to any price for i think 160 kbps, saul was charging free for the 160 kbps or 5 dollars for 160, 320, or FLAC (cd audio quality) plus pdf for the CD inserts.

          itunes by comparision is 120 kbps for .99 per song.

          with the distribution method done by Radiohead and Williams the money paid would go DIRECTLY to the artist.

          art is free, but artists should be paid as well, however the distribution method done by the recording industry is NOT the way to go and ends up exploiting both the artist as well as the consumer. sadly the sales number for Williams weren't too hot; but luckily Radiohead has been doing very well, sadly though i wish more of those folks that bought the overpriced CD knew they could get it from them and give the band all of their 14 bucks instead of giving the suits 13.88.

          ***** the RIAA, ***** the recording industry.

        • NoPantsToday, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2I have to agree with blazes816 on this one, the statement made should be against the RIAA and the artists should most certainly be getting paid for their work if they would like it sold. I like Radiohead's little experiment, hopefully their efforts with started something, but the only way art should be morally free is if the artist gives consent for it to be.
      • SPhil64, on 01/27/2008, -7/+8Have you even read the Copyright laws? They're designed to protect the creators of the work not your "right" to take it. I hope you never create anything that others would want to steal because your tune will change pretty quick when your works are being pirated.
        • andycr512, on 01/27/2008, -3/+8No, actually, it is intended for the public good. From the constitution:

          "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

          As you can see, it is only intended to promote the authoring of new works, to the benefit of the public. As it is being used right now, it has obviously overstepped that boundary.
        • nickwebb, on 01/27/2008, -2/+6Amen, brother. It's not about screwing the artists out of money, its about being told what I can and can't do with my legal copies. It's also about price gouging. I don't think the majority of the artists support what's truly happening with their media - they're just ignorant.

          The entire 'sharing' movement has been brought on by the fact that the industry refusing to meet the market needs. The control of piracy has always been in the industry's hands. The market moves elsewhere, and people are going to jail ? I know what the law says, but thats ***** wrong.
        • NoPantsToday, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2I love how you've completely ignored the "exclusive rights to their respective writings" part. Now if you read the Copyright At of 1976, which are basically our current copyright laws, you'll see that the author has EXCLUSIVE rights over reproduction, recreation, selling, performances, display, and as of 1995, produce on a digital medium. The copyright remains exclusive to the artist for the duration of their life and to their beneficiary for the next 50 years. That is the "limited time" being put upon what you referred to as "new works." This is not an uncommon practice in other places. It's true that the method of distribution need reformed and the RIAA simply abandoned, but it's certainly not true that every piece of art is public domain.
      • delecti, on 01/27/2008, -3/+2Copyright exists to protect the rights of the original creator. Perhaps you yourself should read the constitution "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
        Exclusive rights to the creator, which the creators license to the record labels.
        It's absolutely illegal to share music, I'm not saying that I don't do it, but you can't argue that RIAA doesn't have the right to sue.
      • eridius, on 01/27/2008, -2/+4The problem is the RIAA isn't the creator of the music, it's the fat lazy middleman sucking up all the money and giving the actual artists jack *****. There's absolutely nothing morally wrong with stealing from the RIAA - just don't steal from the artists, they actually *deserve* your money.
        • FutureEng, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, the only that an usually give the artist's money, is to give to the record labels the money and then the artists get their small cut of that. Te other issue is that there are other people who put some work into an album (studio engineers, whoever makes that album art, marketers, etc,) and the only way they'll get paid is if you buy the record. Also, the RIAA doesn't own anything, they are ust a representative of the labels.
    • captainspud, on 01/27/2008, -4/+60All that hippie "sharing is great!" crap aside, my argument's always been that while file sharing is not necessary legal, it doesn't fit within the crime they say we're committing. They call piracy theft, but it's not. If someone steals your TV, which is more upsetting: the fact that some criminal just got a free TV, or the fact that YOU no longer have one? I'd wager it's without a doubt the second one. Theft has two very important components, the criminal getting, and you losing. If thieves could magically clone your stuff and walk away with your TV without depriving you of yours, you wouldn't give two farts about it.

      PIRACY IS NOT STEALING BECAUSE YOU DO NOT DEPRIVE THE RECORDING INDUSTRY OF ANYTHING.

      That said, it may still be illegal, but I wish they'd stop calling it theft. Cuz it's not.
      • fatdog789, on 01/27/2008, -14/+5But you do deprive the artists and studios who actually make the music. And because enforcement by individual artists would be too expensive, the artists let the RIAA do it for them.
        So, in the end, you ***** over the artists, the studios, and all the other people who depend on the studios for employment (sound techs, etc). You also screw over the good musicians whose music never gets produced because the studios can no longer use the profits from bubblegum acts to finance the prestige acts. This, in turn, screws over everyone, because we get stuck with Britney Spears.
        SO ***** YOU DOWNLOADERS, YOU'RE THE ***** REASON WE'RE STUCK WITH BRITNEY SPEARS.
        • EXreaction, on 01/27/2008, -2/+7Deprive the artists? They make a very, very, very tiny amount of money on the music you purchase. It all goes to the greedy bastards in the middle.
          • actorboy, on 01/27/2008, -7/+6They make even less when you steal it. Kinda makes you the greedy bastard, doesn't it?
          • Matri, on 01/28/2008, -2/+2@actorboy: Oh noes, someone downloaded a copy of my new album and I just lost the 14 cents the RIAA masters would have given me for it, oh noes!
            /sarcasm.

            I'm sure that's a lot to lose. Do you even know how the industry works?
          • actorboy, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2@ Matri

            Musician profit per CD is $1.60 (source: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6558540/wal ). Since Saul Williams is an indie/lesser known artist, let's use his unpaid download numbers (source: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9847788-7.html ) to make your statement more realistic: "Oh noes, 126,127 people just download copies of my new album and I lost $201,803."

            Yes, that is a lot to lose.

            As for how the music industry works -- or any industry for that matter -- yes, I know how it works. They invest in projects, attempt to recoup that investment and also profit so they can develop new projects. Do you know anything about business?
      • nickwebb, on 01/27/2008, -4/+7That is not accurate at all. What makes it 'stealing' is the assumption that, if you want that media enough to pirate it, you also would want it enough to pay for it. Based on that assumption, piracy is seen as removing a potential product from the market.

        It's a completely wrong assumption. The rules have most definitely changed. But that's the way the majority sees it.
        • Incosian, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2That's *****. There's no correlation between downloading an album and purchasing it. It's a false assumption that someone who would download an album would purchase it in absence of the option to download it.
      • Cerium, on 01/27/2008, -2/+3If people ask me about piracy being wrong I ask them if its wrong to go to a car show, sketch a copy of the car, then go home and build yourself a car using your own resources and machine shop.
        • UNCCEJ1010, on 01/27/2008, -0/+5Well, that would be more analogous to listening to a live concert, and then going home and recording your own tracks.
        • FutureEng, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Actually yes it is. It's called patent violation. You may ask "But what if I just make it for myself?" Well, that happened when Eli Whittney invented the cotton gin, and then he sued all of the plantation owners who had made their own cotton gins without giving him anything.
      • LaerrusFish, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Well, what if you gave a performance and charged at the door, but every one person let two friends in the back entrance.
    • mcoder, on 01/27/2008, -0/+10Several points:
      1) If you pirate music, it's ethical to pay for your favorite artists, since they don't live with air and water only. As 99% of the current music is *****, accessing to on-line music allows you to give money to the people that you should (I paid a lot of albums that I should have not several years ago !)
      2) If you pirate games, try to be ethical. Of course, some on-line games cannot be pirated, since you'll need a key. As above, 99% of the games are *****. Just put your money in the best games, so that all the ***** companies die.
      3) If you pirate software, there are necessary software and useless software. You should have realized that 99% of the pirated software you installed is useless, and just takes place on your disk. Here, I recommend that you try to find freeware alternatives. Some software are necessary, and it's ethical to pay for it.
      4) If you pirate movies (like I do, but my wife is handicapped so we cannot go into a cinema, and we pay for a lot of satellite channels !), the same applies.

      What should exist for music and movies is a try-before-buy, like watching the 15 first minutes of a movie, or listening for 3 tracks of a disk (in software, such an approach already exists).
      • senatorpjt, on 01/27/2008, -0/+8Then you'll get movies that are good for 15 minutes.
    • KyleGoetz, on 01/27/2008, -1/+9I think the real backlash is because the current copyright regime is ridiculous and doesn't serve the Constitution's stated goal for copyright ("to promote the . . . Arts). Simply stated, Copyright is ONLY supposed to incentivize artists to create art, which will benefit the public. Then, after a time, the art is supposed to enter the public domain, where the public can enjoy it without restriction.
      It is clear to anyone not beholden to Big Media that NO ARTIST ON THE PLANET says, "Hmm, I'd love to write this novel, but 'life plus seventy years' isn't a long enough copyright term to incentivize me to write the novel." Any term that extends beyond the life of the author is clearly idiotic and inconsistent with the Constitution, and if the Political Question Doctrine didn't exist (that is to say, the doctrine that states the Supreme Court will not interfere with an issue that is political rather than legal), the Supreme Court would have ruled the current copyright regime unconstitutional a long time ago.
    • LaerrusFish, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1People argue that the artist only gets pennies per CD compared to the recording industries. However if the bastards are so greedy, don't you think they would turn around and start taking money from the artists other earnings to make up for the loss?
  • Azap, on 01/27/2008, -14/+20p0wn3d
  • digitalvibe, on 01/27/2008, -10/+16I cracked up with I saw that!
  • Bozzi, on 01/27/2008, -13/+8Haha, owned
  • o5rob5o, on 01/27/2008, -3/+68the posters should say i was a dumbass and left limewire open on a highspeed connection all night sharing my britney songs while i drank mr boston out of water bottles playing xbox with the fat kid from down the hall.
    • fnord12345, on 01/27/2008, -2/+22Wait... fat kid from down the hall? Is that you?
      • JeffD, on 01/27/2008, -0/+22Hey fat kid, stop ***** stealing my frozen pizza pockets. Just because they're in the communal fridge doesn't mean you can take them. And don't lie saying it wasn't you, i saw the damned wrapper in your room when we were playing xbox.
      • chingy1788, on 01/27/2008, -14/+6in america everyone is fat
    • skippyatuw, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4GET OUT OF MY HEAD!
  • sjm20k, on 01/27/2008, -48/+8thanks for seriously ***** ***** up for indie musicians
    • wordglue, on 01/27/2008, -4/+36Bittorrent = spreading more indie music = getting more of a name for your crappy indie band = more people come to your live shows = good thing.

      On top of which yours is a dumb comment for a bunch of reasons anyway, too lazy to type them out.
      • actorboy, on 01/27/2008, -3/+7Funny how only a small minority of indie musicians agree with you. Short answer: people who pirate will come up with any excuse to justify their actions. Unless an artist encourages you to share his/her work, you should stop doing them "favors".
        • gfnw, on 01/27/2008, -5/+3Here's my excuse to justify my actions:

          LOL ***** YOU.
    • sjm20k, on 01/27/2008, -18/+5really? go ahead! list them! i'll counter with a list of critically acclaimed indie labels that have gone out of business because of people like you who think they have a clue as to how the music industry works.
      • pands, on 01/27/2008, -10/+4WAH WAH WAH ITS TOO PAD ALL YOU HAVE TO WEAR IS INDIE CRY BABY PANTS
      • EvilDr.X, on 01/27/2008, -2/+16That's workED... the way the music industry workED. When technology comes along that affects the industry, you change how you work in the industry, you don't hold your hands over your ears, shout "LA LA LA LA LA!!!" and then increase the price of your product. I agree, seeing indie labels go down is rough, I would much rather see the majors bite it, but honestly, technology has changed the role that a label plays in a band/artist's development.
        • sjm20k, on 01/27/2008, -11/+4new technology? youre referring to people STEALING music. you're just skirting the issue that youre not paying for something that the artist wants to sell. its YOUR fault for stealing, dont even try to blame an artist or a label. I dont like the RIAA either, but get over the idea that music is something that you're entitled to.
        • Matt2k, on 01/27/2008, -1/+8> When technology comes along that affects the industry, you change how you work in the industry

          Yeah! Tell that to iTunes, Yahoo, Napster, Amazon, and Walmart. They just don't get the digital revolution, baby! We want instantly available tracks ala carte at prices under a dollar a track. That way we only have to buy the songs we like. And independent artists should be able to sign up too! Oh, and DRM-free would be swell. Also they should have some sort of service where you can pay a fee every month and listen to as much music as you like.
          If they did that, can you imagine how people wouldn't pirate any more!!
          OH HELLO?
          • sjm20k, on 01/27/2008, -8/+2nice matt - yeah itunes hasn't really slowed piracy at all.
          • Firgof, on 01/27/2008, -2/+5Uh, maybe you didn't notice? Yeah. It kinda has. However, again, for big labeled bands. And the irony? Nobody's giving a ***** about the 86% of businesses which open up every six months which then, promptly, FAIL. In this economy, who the hell has the money to spend $20 a CD for music? Any indie group that sells their music at a flat $1-4/track has my eternal respect and wishes.

            Finally, they don't lose any ***** money. What they lose is people who didn't like their music enough to buy it. I understand that's a real quagmire, but understand that I've spent far more buying indie music than I have stealing it. And why do I steal it? Because I want to hear their music before I buy it, but they only perform live, or they only put up 30 seconds of one track, or they don't do any of the above.

            You want to stop piracy as an indie group? It's simple: remove the incentive. If you don't get that, and you can't market that to your favor, then I apologize for your failure at business strategies. The point is not to piss and moan. The point is to make money. If your favorite group doesn't get this point, e-mail them. Simple as that.
          • sjm20k, on 01/27/2008, -5/+5ah god, youre so ***** clueless. its not that people dont want to hear it - the reason why piracy is so prevalent is because it the easiest way to get music and it doesn't cost anything - why would a rational person choose something else you might ask?

            Several labels have closed down in recent years - Sublight, Merk, Bloody Fist - all of these labels had artists with large fan bases, but piracy, mainly through p2p like soulseek & oink torrents tanked their sales and forced them to drive their cd prices up just to meet the cost of production on their current stock. thats why indie labels are dying - they don't have the extra resources to totally restructure overnight & greedy fans will just download assuming its a victimless crime. to make things even worse we have ***** like you who think they have a degree in music marketing telling people who actually work in the business what to do like you have half a clue.

            if youre a person who ACTUALLY buys the cds/mp3s they like after stealing them, youre 1 in a million. everyone says they do it but the numbers prove otherwise. don't try and ***** school me on my own territory, you have no ***** clue what youre talking about as do 99% of the other pricks here sounding off like they're an authority on the music business.
          • uremomsnitemare, on 01/27/2008, -3/+4So you're going to school me like YOU'RE the authority on music business?
            You're an idiot no offense and the amount of times all your comments have been dugg down should give you a little hint.
          • sjm20k, on 01/27/2008, -5/+4considering that i make my living as a musician i'd say im probably a better authority than yourself, yes.
          • NuclearPyro, on 01/27/2008, -2/+3sjm20k. you're not going to solve the problems of piracy by ranting on digg... nor by insulting people.

            I download stuff which isn't even released on a label, demos and the like. then, i go their gigs and buy theri albums when they're released... p2p is no different than listening to music bands upload to their myspace for free (for small bands w/o labels or releases)
          • uremomsnitemare, on 01/27/2008, -2/+3I also make my living as a musician you stupid douchebag.
            You are not the king of the world.
            You know a lot less than you think you do.
            Please don't even say that so do I because I am not claiming that I know everything, unlike you.
          • actorboy, on 01/27/2008, -3/+4@ uremomsnitemare

            "the amount of times all your comments have been dugg down should give you a little hint."

            Pro-tip: Diggs are based on popularity, not accuracy.
          • Matt2k, on 01/27/2008, -1/+3> I also make my living as a musician you stupid douchebag.

            OK, can you post a link to your music and where we can download it?
            I mean, I wasn't going to buy it anyway. So this should be no problem. Right?

            Come on guys, we can have a discussion without calling each other names. One-off sniping remains fair game though. For example: I find it hard to believe that someone with the username "Your mom's nightmare" with a history of posting page after page of one sentence inarticulate insults makes any sort of meaningful contribution to the arts.
    • sjm20k, on 01/27/2008, -9/+8also i'd like to add that every band you listened to started out as a "crappy indie band" you pompus *****.
    • UnderWaterman, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4well the internet IS serious business
    • sjm20k, on 01/27/2008, -9/+9i can't believe the lot of you would rather completely ignore the fact that youre taking music that an artist expects you to pay for, instead of facing the reality of what youre doing. not everyone can be radiohead - some people still need to worry about money for rent and food. the bottom line is, youre stealing. you aren't entitled to free music - it's not in some unwritten contract, that when you are born, you can get free music for life at the expense of other people's efforts. I agree the RIAA is bogus, but if you're going to try and tell me with a straight face that every time you download a non-major label artist, youre doing a lot of harm for a little self benefit. stop deluding yourselves into believing that what youre doing isnt wrong or effecting anyone. grow up and pay for what you enjoy.
      • EvilDr.X, on 01/27/2008, -3/+5Sorry, I'm not really sure which of your comments I should reply to here, but I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point... Music SHOULD be free. I think the RIAA is at fault here for making you think that you owe someone (them, specifically) for the reproduction of something that, as a part of human nature, has ALWAYS been free. There were musicians before the RIAA came along, and how did they make a living? By traveling around and performing their music for people, who paid for the experience, not for the sounds that came out of the artist's instruments. If artists today want to make money for their music, they should do the same thing, using recorded music as a type of advertisement to get people interested in seeing the real product, the performance of the music. As a consumer, you don't pay for advertisements.

        Look, I agree with you that it seems harder now for a band just starting out to make it, but a living can be made making and performing music without signing the rights to your work over to a record label and letting them advertise and promote you. And no, not everyone will be as successful as Radiohead or NIN, but then again, not everyone is that caliber of artist, either. Would either of those bands be as successful as they were without a record label behind them during the earlier parts of their careers? Yeah, probably not, but that was damn near 20 years ago, when the tools for self promotion that exist today weren't around. Even then, how many other bands were starting out at the same time that have fallen by the wayside, despite the fact that they were on a label, major or independent? The bands/artists that have survived have done so by touring, by performing, by building a fan base, by basically working their asses off at their chosen profession. They would have spent the last 20 years doing the exact same thing, with or without a label, making a living doing what they love. If an artist expects that simply by being on a label they're going to be successful, they're lazy and delusional, and if they are making music because they want to be rich and famous, they are in it for the wrong reason.

        Sorry if I'm rambling or incoherent, this may all just be the fever talking.
        • sjm20k, on 01/27/2008, -4/+4if you asked any artist who isn't already rich if they thought their music, which they spend all their blood sweat and tears making, should be given away for free, i'm pretty sure most of them would say no way in hell. you are not entitled to free art! if someone is singing on the street, you don't need to pay. if i'm letting you download my music for free, i'm not asking you to pay. but if i put out an album which i sell so i can afford food/rent equipment, and you steal it like it's free, you're screwing an artist, its as simple as that. this sense of entitlement is totally new to people who grew up with p2p. sure i made mixtapes from the radio back in the day, but i own tons of records, and i still buy what i like, because no, i don't feel like art should be free - its someone's work - it's like saying we should pay for food because everyone likes it.

          the live experience is another thing all together - and if you just go to shows to have fun and don't even care about the music - then you're not a music fan and you shouldn't even be discussing this since you would have no idea of the value of music and art in a society.
          • EvilDr.X, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2Oooh, good one. Hey, how about we skip the backhanded insults and try to maintain an intelligent discussion here?

            You're not talking about art, you're talking about product. The musician's art is in the performance, not the reproduction of it. If you want to talk about a sense of entitlement, let's talk about labels feeling entitled to get fat off of someone's blood, sweat and tears.

            The simple fact of the matter is that artists and musicians made a living performing long before the advent of recorded music and the bloodsuckers that spawned as a result, and they will continue to do so long after those leeches have died off.

            Elvis would have still had a career without a record label, so would the Beatles. You know who wouldn't have had a career? Britney Spears.
          • sjm20k, on 01/27/2008, -3/+4so youre telling me the mona lisa isnt art, but the act of watching da vinci paint it was? albums are more than just a band playing. take radiohead or aphex twin etc etc etc - it takes countless hours in a studio to make those records, its not simply a one take performance.

            the beatles probably wouldn't have had much of a career without a record label since their label facilitated thier popularity through records and singles and then through setting up tours. labels do more than just make money from an artist's work - thats a bad label setup - a label is supposed to do the work that the musician is too busy to do (manufacturing, selling, booking) because they are presumably making music (what they are good at).

            you have to take it from someone in the music world - the art is NOT just in the performance, there's a LOT of art in making a recording - you don't just mash the record button and turn someone loose, it's a craft.

            before the advent of labels or radio, if you wanted to make it in music you either joined an orchestra, played piano in a bar, or became a famous composer and got money from your country - thats pretty dismal for aspiring musicians in that day in age.
          • EvilDr.X, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2And yet musicians made a living being a musician all the time. Also, the Mona Lisa is a different thing altogether than "Hey, Jude".

            I'll grant that there is more to recording than pushing the button and going, that is a good point. And you're right, a label is supposed to do more than just make money from the artist's work, but that's not what they are doing now. The labels left the other aspects of their job behind in their push for maximized quarterly profits. Artists aren't nurtured or developed anymore, they're drained and tossed aside for the next flash in the pan act. The labels brought the current situation on themselves, and they can either adapt to survive, or go back to doing what they were originally meant to do, nurture artists, bolster their efforts, and promote them. The labels have no business owning what the artists create.

            Out of curiosity, what end of the music world are you on? Most of the artists I know are generally OK with people finding their music through whatever means they have, and enjoy playing live. More exposure means larger audiences, plain and simple.

            I'm digging you up and enjoying the conversation.
          • sjm20k, on 01/27/2008, -2/+3if you look at my initial post i'm only talking about indie labels - i'm totally aware that the major labels are really only in it for their own sake, and i wont argue against that.

            musicians, like you know them today, aren't like the musicians before the day of the music business - back in the day you couldn't write your own songs on a guitar or some folk instrument and expect to make enough to live - it wasn't until radio and the hype machine started building around artists that they really came into their own and began to make a living off of their craft.

            if you're a big beatles fan, whats the difference between the mona lisa and strawberry fields forever really? one is a meticulously created image on canvas - the other is a meticulously created image in sound on a record - they could never really recreate the exact nuance of the recording with all the overdubs live - it just wasn't possible.

            i'm a musician - though i have helped people start their own labels - most of which are still going thankfully. i enjoy working in the studio much more than i do playing live for the reason above - i think working in the studio is like making a sculpture or a painting, playing live, for me at least, is the re-creation.
          • EvilDr.X, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Well, you've got me there, I suppose. The situation for studio artists is much different than the situation for live artists, and there is a world of difference between independent labels and the majors. I don't have any answers, dude, sorry. I still maintain, however, that musicians made livings with their craft before the advent of the music industry. They may not have had the opulent lifestyles that the industry afforded some artists, but they still got by. With the technology and the tools available today to reach larger audiences than ever before, there's no reason why they can't now. As for studio and production artists, yeah, you got me, I don't know what to say.
    • Icyfenix, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4Sry, do you get paid everytime someone on iTunes buys your song?
    • eroel462, on 01/27/2008, -7/+2lets put it this way - was there an indie scene before piracy?

      no. piracy enables indie bands.
      • Matt2k, on 01/27/2008, -3/+8> was there an indie scene before piracy?
        Is this a trick question? The answer is yes, of course.
      • sjm20k, on 01/27/2008, -2/+7i cannot imagine why matt is being dugg down - of course there was an indie scene before p2p - are you 12 years old or something? ever heard of the velvet underground? sub pop records? any of this rining a bell? i'm trying to give you things you may have actually heard of/stolen online for free.
    • brutusx, on 01/27/2008, -0/+5Indie music is actually the only ***** that I will buy. Of course only after i preview a couple songs from TPB if it is available. If not i find it on last.fm. The only album I thought was good enough to buy in 2007 was The Wildlife , Sweet Plastic. and that came out a couple years ago.The other 200 albums weren't that great.
    • reduvall88, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1havn't you noticed the really good bands make it anyways? just because your dream is to live the rich and famous life, doesnt mean its going to happen if your music sucks. who cares if the critics like it, its what the majority likes now. music is a business now, take it or leave it.
    • darksyde, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2If you really want to help the indie bands...go to their shows. Buy stuff directly FROM them. Buy their merch. I download indie stuff to see if I like it and then I actually go support the bands. If I don't like it...it doesn't stay on my harddrive. No harm, no foul.
      • sjm20k, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1again, not all bands play live much - some are just producers, some studio musicians - those are the people who filesharing is killing off. if you can tour a lot and make your cash that way, great - but studio musicians expect people to pay for their albums if they want to hear it in nice full quality and enjoy it, and by ignoring their wishes and stealing it, you are screwing an artist, like it or not.
    • Calcularius, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2Yeah, blame sucking on "illegal downloading" if it makes you feel better.
      • sjm20k, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1yeah ***** off *****, im not refering to myself. you're opinion doesn't really matter anyways - there are indie artists out there with a ***** ton of fans that still suffer because most of them just steal rather than supporting the artist.
  • cr4wl3r, on 01/27/2008, -24/+16Epic. Dugg.
    • optimuscrime, on 01/27/2008, -1/+35Your expectations must be extremely low for this to be epic. It's a sheet of paper with bad spelling.
      I'll digg you up on the assumption that you were being sarcastic.
      • Immune, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1How come he doesn't have 24 + Diggs then?
    • billski, on 01/27/2008, -1/+0epic. Scrugg.
  • reddevil3, on 01/27/2008, -23/+9You know, we all love downloading stuff for free from the internets, but I bet most of you would have a vastly different opinion if it was your work which was being spread around for free without your consent.
    • vacax, on 01/27/2008, -3/+24Feel free to download any of my spreadsheets or reports I have made
      • cliffski, on 01/27/2008, -9/+3how does your employer feel about that dumbass?
        • bob12321, on 01/27/2008, -2/+6I keep everything that I want private encrypted.
    • mrdiggdude, on 01/27/2008, -4/+2you know what, i shouldnt have to retype or paste what i or others have said numerous times. it just doesnt get into your thickhead
    • omyard, on 01/27/2008, -2/+4Yeah, you're probably right. Still, that doesn't stop me. Maybe I'd have more incentive to "support the artist" if the record companies didn't rape their royalties. Ohhh...a shiny quarter for a band to share for each album sold.
      • actorboy, on 01/27/2008, -3/+5I love how people who pirate think giving the artists 0¢ is a better deal than giving them 25¢.
    • senatorpjt, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1In academic science, you have to pay to have your work published in a journal that costs money, pays no royalties, and in fact you have to pay them money to read your own article. I have no sympathy for musicians. I'd rather it be spread around for free than spread around making someone else money.
  • chingy1788, on 01/27/2008, -3/+106from what I read on digg it seems that the MPAA/RIAA or other anti piracy organisation just randomly sues anyone with a computer or other electronic device, even a toaster
    • ryanonfire, on 01/27/2008, -0/+61toasters are dangerous
      • JeffD, on 01/27/2008, -0/+27my toaster has this weird habit of illegally downloading Celine Dion songs ... shudders ...
        • streetr8cer13, on 01/27/2008, -1/+8you should get that checked out
        • stoodleysnow, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Near... far... wherever y-KA-CHUNG! (toast is done) :-D
      • leif77, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4theyre dangerous because theyre brave...
      • Rebel44, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1Toasters from BSG are really dangerous :)
    • Borgcube, on 01/27/2008, -0/+31People shouldn't even own toasters.
      • JeffD, on 01/27/2008, -0/+8Then how do you make toast?
        • blahtastic, on 01/27/2008, -0/+11Heat vision.
        • Cyberbladewolf, on 01/27/2008, -0/+9You call Powdered Toast Man.
        • eridius, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2You have to purchase it from the BTAA (Bread Toasting Association of America).
        • gh0st3000, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1But their toast sucks! I'm not even allowed to make a sandwich with it, some fair use crap.
    • Mactrekr, on 01/27/2008, -0/+47Only if that toaster made toast available to others.
      • RobotChicken1, on 03/07/2008, -0/+8brb i have to disconnect my toaster
    • foxingworth, on 01/27/2008, -0/+19People use the computer to download the music, and the toaster to burn it.
    • JaggedToaster, on 01/27/2008, -4/+2Toasters? Uh oh.
    • GunDownCCL, on 01/27/2008, -0/+8Well if you download Roxio Toast you might piss them off.
  • smurf22, on 01/27/2008, -7/+35Im not sure what to do. It was witty but at the same time they misspelled download.
    • Greengoo, on 01/27/2008, -3/+41Pirates don't need to ***** spell ***** right.
      • QuickeningYak, on 01/27/2008, -3/+9or to avoid split infinitives, I gather.
      • AgentPeay, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1"Pirates don't need to ***** spell ***** right."
        I would have dugg you if you had misspelled someting.
  • elipodio, on 01/27/2008, -1/+36I go to this school and can say that the "facts" on these posters are totally false. DePaul has only had a few students caught for downloading (my roommate was one of them) and the only thing to come out of it was a slap on the wrist from the school.
    I feel stoopid for going to a school that promotes such filth.
    • nickwebb, on 01/27/2008, -5/+7I'd be more concerned about your school's english department.
  • tikiman453, on 01/27/2008, -5/+13why would you put 2 of the same poster right next to each other? is it cause they're different colors? sure the buildings may be different but the stats are all pretty much the same, in the same spots, same fines. RIAA= fail. Pirate Bay FTW!
    • bxblox, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3.
    • xrevision, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1You should play that one game, where you try and find the difference between the pictures. Hint: One is the building.
      • tikiman453, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1haha, i did! high school champ as a matter of fact!
    • gh0st3000, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1maybe they were accounting for colorblind people. they don't want anyone to have an excuse when they sue them.
  • SpittingUpWind, on 01/27/2008, -3/+21Yes.
  • blackmesa, on 01/27/2008, -1/+30If by "fined" the RIAA means "coerced with BS lawsuits into paying an out of court settlement for a grossly inflated arbitrary figure which is far more than we could have actually won in a court of law had they challenged us" then yeah... maybe those other posters are closer to correct.
  • Enfecktion, on 01/27/2008, -5/+55downloading music illegally makes record execs sad =[
    no sports car for you!
    • superdoofus, on 01/27/2008, -0/+5but the world needs more yellow lamborghinis.
    • SimonDonkers, on 01/27/2008, -15/+4It also makes small independent artists sad who now can't earn an income. I fully agree that what the RIAA does is wrong, I also agree that the profit margins from big record companies are wrong, I also agree that ISP's blocking all P2P traffic is wrong, but how is not giving any money to the artists right?

      Yes there are some artists that are incredibly rich and there are some software programs that are ridiculously expensive, however you are entirely free to pick what you want to have.
      I really like to have Porsche and I'm pretty sure the CEO of Porsche is rich, I still pay Porsche though if I want one. As it's not worth the money it costs I just pick a cheaper car. Why is theft of digital property legal? I understand there are no manufacturing costs but there are one time costs to create the song that need to be paid.
      • andycr512, on 01/27/2008, -0/+5"Why is theft of digital property legal?"

        Because it's not property, and it's not theft.
      • da_bradler, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4downloading music isn't theft. if it were to be compared to a real world situation it would be like. Say a store has a really nice bike in the window, well you go up to the front window of that store and with your own materials you build an exact copy of the bike you are looking at. You violated the copyright on that bike design but you didn't steal the bike.
      • Travelsonic, on 01/27/2008, -1/+21) Get your facts right. Copyright infringement, it isn't that hard.

        2) stop invoking the voice of people who either use the methods you denounce, or disagree with piracy yet obhore your blatant ***** tactics in addressing the issue.
      • NeMoD, on 01/27/2008, -3/+2shut the ***** up
  • aakoosh, on 01/27/2008, -3/+26the only price is of your Internet connection
    unless you steal wi-fi ;D
    piratebay pwnage
    i still miss demonoid tho =(
  • DrHadr, on 01/27/2008, -0/+27I thought there should've been "Do you think free downloading is illegal?"
  • zaxang, on 01/27/2008, -0/+41Blatant, fearmongering propaganda. That's just hilarious. Not to mention completely false.
  • ufia, on 01/27/2008, -3/+12Downloading a movie, whether illegally or not, is never free. Unless your parents are paying the monthly bill.
    • Rijnzael, on 01/27/2008, -0/+19Or the neighbor's wifi is open.
      • PhonicUK, on 01/27/2008, -0/+7Or you're on a campus network.
        • orca94, on 01/27/2008, -0/+6You still sometimes have to pay for internet on campus.
        • MeatyDoughnut, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2You pay for the internet. Not the movie.
        • gh0st3000, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0Even if I wasn't downloading movies, I assume I would still be paying for internet regardless.
  • mrdiggdude, on 01/27/2008, -0/+21if it wasnt free we would be doing it legally
  • Apoc04, on 01/27/2008, -7/+6do they know how to spell downloading?
    • mrdiggdude, on 01/27/2008, -1/+7who gives a *****, at least they know how to download
      • CeeJayDK, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4or at least they know how to downlod
        • ViP3R16, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1It makes more sense if it has the ing
          Down-Lo-Ding
  • AlienMushroom, on 02/21/2008, -4/+178Downloading copyrighted stuff is far more serious than murder in the US. Good job, lobbyists.
    • mrdiggdude, on 01/27/2008, -0/+17or scientology
      • bob12321, on 01/27/2008, -0/+5Scientology is now running RIAA/MPAA.
        • gh0st3000, on 01/28/2008, -1/+0Now that I think about it, the RIAA and Scientology are remarkably similar...
          RIAA/MPAA- sues you for downloading music/movies, uses questionable tactics, made up primarily of assholes, Digg hates them.
          Scientology- sues you for criticizing them, uses questionable tactics, made up primarily of assholes, Digg hates them.
    • edd17, on 01/27/2008, -0/+31Everyone knows that illegal downloading eventually leads to murder.
      • RobotChicken1, on 03/07/2008, -0/+5I torrented Starcraft, and the next day my dog died. Coincidence..?
    • gstep, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4"Because of illegal downloading Britney Spears is not able to keep a Gulfstream IV, so she must replace it with a smaller Gulfstream III, which doesn't have a remote control for its surround sound DVD system...." - South Park
  • ryanonfire, on 01/27/2008, -0/+141RIAA: Sueing people who can't fight back since 1999.
    • dawnraid101, on 01/27/2008, -4/+1ryanonfire making gay comments since wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy back
  • unixbomber, on 01/27/2008, -4/+15"Downloding" ...
    • egonSchiele, on 01/27/2008, -1/+10pirates are not known for their spelling.
  • mklnz, on 01/27/2008, -4/+26***** THE RIAA / MPAA
    • jordn, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2don't forget the IFPI- they've been causing us europeans a few problems :(
      • jm4847, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0And the SGAE who even charges people in Spain something called "cannon" (a "tax" for CD's, DVD and other devices just in case you use them for copyrighted content).
  • buddamus, on 01/27/2008, -1/+17Sorry I was to busy downloading to look, did i miss anything?
  • fierarul, on 01/27/2008, -25/+4Enough with the Pirate Bay propaganda. That website is still running since they *don't store copyrighted content*. Call me when they actually have the balls to store something copyrighted. Until then, they are just a pimp basically, showing people where to get copyrighted stuff while at the same time trying to look oh-so-cool because they are "fighting" with the RIAA or whatever.
    • mrdiggdude, on 01/27/2008, -3/+5idiot
    • Garbagio, on 01/27/2008, -3/+1veediot
    • Firgof, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4How about: THE PIRATE BAY IS AN AGGREGATOR. Do you happen to know what ELSE is an aggregator? How about DIGG?

      Does DIGG 'pimp' content, do you think? Mr. Look-oh-so-cool, because you are "fighting" piracy, or whatever, you clearly do not understand the issue. I respectfully request that you take your OWN POST down, if only to save you from the MEGA RAPE that is coming down the line to check your post.

      "still running since they 'don't store copyrighted content'" => Epic failure. Reason: In Sweden, the sharing of copyrighted content is fully legal. They could store all the copyrighted content they wanted to and get away with it just the same. Again, in Sweden, the sharing of copyrighted content is fully legal. Do I need to punch that into your head any further or will you relent and come full circle, embracing, now, the thing which you said didn't have the balls worthy of its title?
    • FunkyLlama, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1TVLinks anyone?
  • radionics, on 01/27/2008, -7/+2Do you think walking around your neighborhood is free!?
  • mode7even, on 01/27/2008, -1/+92I always loved the RIAA commercial that you'd see during the trailers for a movie, you know, the one where theres a party and everyone's dancing, then you cut to a girl somewhere else who's downloading the song that the party's dancing to. then, when the song is finished downloading, the music stops and the power goes out at the party. hmm, last time i checked, when you download something, you make a copy of it, not take it away from another location. that's why it's called sharing! :D
    • JAFFA, on 01/27/2008, -4/+23In the UK we have a similiar themed advert (Americans read: Commercial) about a fella called 'Knock-off Nigel' ... The assumption is that if you have knocked-off (stolen) music/dvds etc you will become a social pariah.

      I dont think it works .....
      • Airloss, on 07/18/2008, -0/+20Why was adding (Americans read: Commercial) necessary? We call commercials adverts too.
        • MooNinja, on 01/27/2008, -1/+0Not anyone I know does. We abbreviated Commercial Advertisements along time ago :)
        • Haz3rd, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2I never even heard of advert till Youtube came around.
      • AmICoolNow, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1That's clearly not why Digg users are social pariahs... :P
    • emotecontrol, on 01/27/2008, -0/+20This is the reason why downloading is not theft, and is in fact only copyright infringement. If they were to accuse you of theft, they would lose their case automatically. They must accuse you of criminal copyright infringement. In more enlightened countries copyright infringement is a civil matter, rather than a criminal one. However, thanks to the hysterics of the entertainment industry, they have criminalized an activity that the majority of people under the age of 30 participate in. They complain about all the money they lose to piracy, but perhaps if they didn't throw so much away on lobbyists, lawyers, and bribes, they wouldn't have so much trouble making ends meet. Consider the case of EMI, who is no longer considering membership in the RIAA to be cost-effective, and is considering abandoning that organization. The best they're getting for their money is half-assed efforts like the scare tactics above, and the worst is the public relations nightmare that comes from suing your customers if they happen to step out of line.
      • Travelsonic, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Not to mention calling you a thief when copyright infringement is in question would be grounds for slander, if I am correct in my thinking that is..
        • thecatcantalk, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2If it's in print, it's libel (more serious). Slander is merely spoken, libel is considered more serious as the damage to one's reputation may reach a wider audience (e.g., spam email claiming that "Obama Attended a Jihadist Training Camp" is demonstrably libelous).

          But it just goes to show how illiterate we've become, as a nation. If I steal your car, you no longer have a car. Therefore, by the same legal principle, illegal downloading is not theft!
      • KyleGoetz, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4Copyright infringement is a civil matter in the US as well. That is why we keep calling them "lawsuits" and n