What is Digg?119 Comments
- pyrates, on 10/01/2008, -2/+46I think the record companies should absorb the cost. The artist should be paid more. And Apple should be allowed to make money when selling music, if the price went up of what they paid the record company, they would be selling at a loss and they don't want that.
As for amazon selling for less then 99c, well it's quite simple. The record companies are making less money then, amazon is still selling them for a profit. So clearly the record companies can afford to pay the artists more, they just don't want to. - bitfreak, on 10/02/2008, -10/+45Apple is doing the right thing, sticking up for the customers. Shut it down if you have to....but don't bow to the tools at the publishers/record companies. ..|.,
- nicepants, on 10/01/2008, -3/+36iTunes is the #1 music retailer in the US.....if the record companies are too greedy to absorb any additional royalties, they deserve to lose out on those sales.
- inkswamp, on 10/02/2008, -5/+28Digg: our apostrophe key is broken.
- TunaFishGangsta, on 10/01/2008, -0/+20You guys really don't read the articles do you? The extra 9 cents would be for the publishers, not the artists.
- inactive, on 10/01/2008, -10/+27Artists don't make money from CD sales. Majority of their income comes from performing live concerts.
Raising the price per song will BARELY effect the wallets of the artists. It's mostly to make the recording industry happy.
Maybe if everyone stopped making such ***** music, people would actually want to buy more than one song.
And if you are sooooooooooo worried about how much the artist is making per song, then why aren't you bitching about the Amazon MP3 store too? They sell some songs for LESS than 99 cents. How is that helping the artists?? hmmmmmmmm???
It's not just Apple....So keep your flames under control Captain M$ Fanboy - iericg, on 10/02/2008, -0/+17Talk about bad timing...
If the Copyright Royalty Board approves the 6 cent increase it's only going to do two things.
1.) Lower the stocks of the #1 music retailer in the U.S.
2.) Encourage the public to pirate more music
And ultimately lead to selling less music.
I seriously doubt Amazon or any other online music retailer will reach the success of itunes. - marcus1060, on 10/02/2008, -6/+22It's not Apple sticking up for the customers, it's Apple sticking up for their profits.
If Apple has to pay 6 cents more a song, they'll either have to charge 6 cents more, which means they may charge 6 cents more to the consumer, potentially making them more expensive than other music stores, losing customers and profit, or they lose 6 cents profit. Either way it's about Apple, not Apple sticking up for the customers. - kawaiirobo, on 10/02/2008, -5/+19Eh, this guy just trolls digg and hates on apple, he's really kinda pathetic.
- jwdav, on 10/01/2008, -0/+13And who are these "publishers" ?
Most of the time, it is the record labels themselves who own the publishing rights to a song, particularly with new artists, who usually have to sign over publishing rights to get signed to a contract.
Only very established artists are able to own some or all of their publishing rights. Artists usually only receive the performance mechanical royalties.
Very disingenious of the labels to cloak this in the guise of giving more $$ to impoverished artists, when in reality, it would go to whoever owns the publishing rights - mostly, the labels themselves and Michael Jackson of course ... - bitfreak, on 10/02/2008, -1/+14The price increase is not for the artists, it's for the publisher. Greedy ass publishers.
- tomwhughes, on 10/02/2008, -1/+11With the number of songs they sell through iTunes, that's a hell of a lot of cents!
- inkswamp, on 10/02/2008, -3/+13It says nothing about a "closure." For god's sake, this story has taken on a life of its own. Here's what Apple said (FTA):
"Apple has repeatedly made it clear that it is in this business to make money, and most likely would not continue to operate [the iTunes music store] if it were no longer possible to do so profitably."
Doesn't say anything about closing iTunes which means they are likely talking about selling it to a third party. Apple would be insane to close it up. They could turn an amazing profit selling it off to another party to operate. I bet there are plenty of potential buyers out there who would likely get into a bidding war over it which would allow Apple to impose certain iPod-centric contractual restrictions on how the store would be operated after the sale.
IMO, what Apple is really saying is, "You may not like dealing with us, but consider the alternatives." - inactive, on 10/02/2008, -1/+9if apple closes itunes store everyboby will return to piracy again thanks goverment !!!!
- wukillabee, on 10/02/2008, -24/+32Digg: its never apples fault
- Millsee, on 10/02/2008, -3/+11@Metalhaze
Never a truer word said.
The worst thing is that record labels and publishers are now wanting a slice of the artist's money made during live tours because record sales are completely shafted.
There has been a lot of ***** music in the last 15 years - yes, there always has been ***** music, but switch the radio on in the UK over the last 15 years and all you get is *****. Consumers are tired of it all and want music for free now.
The TV shows no longer exist over here, they are going to get rid of the singles chart too.
iTunes is one of the last places people can sell their albums, because not even the major shops sell anything over the top 20 now. It's all DVDs and games now.
Yes I'm in the business. Yes I'm *****. - caveman84, on 10/02/2008, -3/+10if they shut down itunes how am i gonna get my daily fix of podcasts
- inactive, on 10/02/2008, -9/+16this has already been on the front page. twice.
http://digg.com/apple/Apple_Threatens_to_Shutter_i ...
http://digg.com/apple/Apple_Threatens_iTunes_Shutd ... - pigfister, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7let me just reply here:
The RIAA basically want everyone on a pay per listen model and Apple has stood up to them on many occasions to stop the RIAA and MPAA's anti-consumer tactics such as blocking the package deals (scams) and charging more for popular songs, another RIAA scam just as is regional pricing and DRM locks.
The RIAA want to charging everyone as many times as possible even though they are stealing 70% of the profits and giving a very small cut to the artists and composers. $0.045 in the $1
www.daily-nonsense.com/Blog/riaa-wants-songwriters-to-get-less-royalties
RIAA Wants Songwriters to Get Less Royalties
fta: In pursuit of their mission to suck the lifeblood and very souls from the musicians who provide the real product in the music industry, the RIAA is seeking to lower the royalty rate that the artist gets for each downloaded track from its current 4.5 cents per song to about 2.5 cents a song.
4.5 cents, an artist who works for Sony, BMG or Warner (to name just a few), gets 4.5 cents from every legal download. The publisher demands an equal fee for all that they do.
_The labels contend that the music publishers have gotten fat as their business has starved and want the payment method rewritten._
===========================================================================
www.inmoneytoday.com/2007/10/25/sony-bmg-posts-loss-despite-larger-profits
Sony BMG posts loss despite larger profits
fta: the second quarter totaled $851 million
www.reuters.com/article/MediaMarketing06/idUSN2828682620061129
Universal Music sees record profits in 2007
fta: revenues increased 7 percent to $137 million and digital music sales increased 9% sequentially and 25% year-over-year.
===========================================================================
NAME AND SHAME THEM PPL!
dont allow them to hide being the smokescreen of the trade body titles!
RIAA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, CRIA, Ect, Ect, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Universal Music Group
# Warner Music Group
# EMI
MPAA:
# The Walt Disney Company
# Sony Pictures
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner) - MisterKen, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6Dear Copyright Royalty Board,
Thank you for the work you do.
Love,
The Pirate Bay
xxoo - kawaiirobo, on 10/02/2008, -2/+7@jerrycurley
You know all point is lost on your post if you can't even spell 'the.' - UltraDavid, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5who's a fanboy, jerry? i don't care about apple or itunes or the online music store model, and i'm perfectly willing to take a wager on their deaths. if they survive, cool, i'm fine with markets surviving, and if they die, oh well, nobody will pay for music again.
i'm just saying that it's funny that the copyright royalty board, which is supposed to care about incentivizing the creation of music and the success of markets, is considering an action that could end up hurting the sale of music and the economic incentives for its creation. - Enron, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Publish.
- r3zonance, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4"Apple already take a massive chunk per song out of the artist, which I'm sure the label passes onto the Artist."
Apple does not take a massive chunk at all. Over 70% goes to the labels and they squander it on god-knows-what! - clonejks, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4In fact, if the record companies want to continue using DRM, it is in their best interest to absorb the cost. That Walmart is closing their DRM server (http://digg.com/tech_news/Wal_Mart_shutting_down_D ... alone will cause some bad faith in DRM among consumers, but if a second major DRM retailer closes down (especially one as ubiquitous as iTunes) the public's willingness to buy products with DRM, which they will realize are ultimately ephemeral, will drastically decrease.
- UltraDavid, on 10/02/2008, -3/+7lulz at government considering killing innovation and markets in the name of boosting innovation and markets
- MrChunks, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4True.. true.. that makes cents.
- scoottie, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4i dont know why people think that. there are many people that own an ipod but dont use the itunes store. i own an ipod and have never used the itunes store. i might if they get rid of drm
- Raian, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4In the face of competition from Apple... many stores would absorb the cost-- sell everything at a loss, and try to steal market share-- which would make things hard for the whole market.
- Virgule, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3I do not know the exact figures of this market. I don't know how the publishers (labels?) use their cut and what push them to claim more money.. I don't know exactly how much maintenance the iTunes Music Store require. Sure they tell us this and that but I found the rates to vary depending on who and when you ask... maybe Im seeing things?
I can't take a side on this issue as I don't know enough, yet, I tend to take Apple's side on this one since billions of song has been sold thru iTunes. That's a lot of money and exposure they otherwise would not have. Don't put down your milk cow, guy. - Ravatar, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3It's actually in the best interests of shareholders if Apple were to shut down a nonperforming division to focus their efforts on more lucrative markets. Apple isn't making nearly as much money on music as people think they are.
- br0ken1128, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4Yes, but some of us .. shockingly ... do not read Digg every single day, and while I do read digg almost daily, this is still the first time I've seen the article.
The people digging up the article to get it to the front page, a 2nd or 3rd time.. probably also hadn't seen it the first two times.. the system works, just annoys those of you who digg constantly.
I mean I rarely see dupes.. but always see complaints about dupes in the comments, I guess if I spent my whole day on here I might be annoyed by them too :) - pigfister, on 10/02/2008, -4/+7let me just reply here:
The RIAA basically want everyone on a pay per listen model and Apple has stood up to them on many occasions to stop the RIAA and MPAA's anti-consumer tactics such as blocking the package deals (scams) and charging more for popular songs, another RIAA scam just as is regional pricing and DRM locks.
The RIAA want to charging everyone as many times as possible even though they are stealing 70% of the profits and giving a very small cut to the artists and composers. $0.045 in the $1
www.daily-nonsense.com/Blog/riaa-wants-songwriters-to-get-less-royalties
RIAA Wants Songwriters to Get Less Royalties
fta: In pursuit of their mission to suck the lifeblood and very souls from the musicians who provide the real product in the music industry, the RIAA is seeking to lower the royalty rate that the artist gets for each downloaded track from its current 4.5 cents per song to about 2.5 cents a song.
4.5 cents, an artist who works for Sony, BMG or Warner (to name just a few), gets 4.5 cents from every legal download. The publisher demands an equal fee for all that they do.
_The labels contend that the music publishers have gotten fat as their business has starved and want the payment method rewritten._
===========================================================================
www.inmoneytoday.com/2007/10/25/sony-bmg-posts-loss-despite-larger-profits
Sony BMG posts loss despite larger profits
fta: the second quarter totaled $851 million
www.reuters.com/article/MediaMarketing06/idUSN2828682620061129
Universal Music sees record profits in 2007
fta: revenues increased 7 percent to $137 million and digital music sales increased 9% sequentially and 25% year-over-year.
===========================================================================
NAME AND SHAME THEM PPL!
dont allow them to hide being the smokescreen of the trade body titles!
RIAA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, CRIA, Ect, Ect, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Universal Music Group
# Warner Music Group
# EMI
MPAA:
# The Walt Disney Company
# Sony Pictures
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner) - Virgule, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4Well, you raise an interesting perspective.
Even tho what Mr. Cue said can be interpreted as downright closing the store if it's no longer profitable he really has _not_ said that. I guess that's what they call reading between the lines.
Selling the whole thing would make much more sense........ damn you are smart :)) - itsbob, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Maybe the government can bail out the music industry next.
WTF is "our" government doing to us?!?! - Hosalabad, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3Apple has lobbyists that will take care of this. They have too much invested in the model.
DRM is still crap and the labels are ripping off the artists. I'm not the one who signed the contract though. - ambivalent, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Podcasts were not invented by Apple. You can get podcasts on to your iPod without involving iTunes in any way.
- jbond, on 10/04/2008, -0/+2"iTunes is the #1 music retailer in the US"
Wrong. Free is the #1 music retailer in the US - Virgule, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2yea so they say. It's a perspective thing. One million dollars seam like BIG money to buy groceries and daily stuffs but that same one million can barely pay for a small building.
A cent seam like puny money, sure, but contracts and royalty fees are regularly negotiated down to the tenth of a cents, sometimes down to the hundredth, because in the long run its a sink or float little cent. - NormalVisual, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2The iPods will continue to work just fine. iPod sales were quite brisk for the year and a half before iTMS opened.
- r3zonance, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2They sync with iTunes application, and be loaded with either ripped music (legal/illegal) or MP3 music purchased from elsewhere.
The iPod will be fine. - znicket, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3well no, other online stores would also have to increase their prices by 6c.
- pigfister, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3CORPORATE GREED with the backing of the US congress. This Hike is no different.
couldn't webcasters bypass all RIAA affiliated music to avoid extortionate royalty rates, well NO because the Gatekeepers don't want you to listen to any Indie music as it diverts revenue away from them!
As we had with the Payola deals (RIAA pay to only play their music on the radio)
Now we have this, which makes it impossible for any Indie artist to succeed without signing their soul over to the Gatekeepers
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/29/033522 ...
fta: "With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326 ... - SSUK, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4Don't Bury this man, he speaks the truth. It's also been on every major tech blog everywhere. It doesn't need to hit the front page more than twice, once was sufficient.
- Ravatar, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Apple is likely only making about $0.10 per song now, so this move would cut out 60% of their profits.
A ~6% reduction in revenue amounts to about $300,000,000 in lost profit as iTunes has sold more than 5 billion songs. - painted82, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3Since when are artists in it just to make money? Greatest art came from artists in extreme poverty, therefore I'd like to think that I'm helping them create better art by pirating music.
- kawaiirobo, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2that is a lot when your only making 4 or 5 cents a song. For *****'s sake did you read the article?
- FredFredrickson, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3Good riddance. I hate that AAC format and their horrible DRM (even if they don't use it anymore, I still have music "protected" with it). I'll be continuing to use Amazon.
- Myztry, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Then it needs to get uncomplicated.
The distributor idea seems flawed. Apple receives a master copy and then publishes a multitude of duplication of that. Intangible commodities which are trivially duplicated don't belong under the term distribution which was created explicitly for tangible goods. Including commodities such as gas, electricity, water,etc which still have finite supplies at both ends. Digital commodities are distinctly infinite in supply.
It would also appear the term distributor is flawed as example where a Label/Brand publishes an compilation album licensed from a multitude of sources. Do those albums have multiple publishers in reference to the sale? I think not. -
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is