What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
279 Comments
- 80hd, on 09/30/2008, -2/+112Artists or labels?
Honestly I can't say that I oppose artists getting more money for their creations. Labels OTOH are a freeloading bunch of talent killing garbage mills the world could do well without. - MidnightRIder77, on 09/30/2008, -28/+112"would grant artists a 66 percent increase in commission for each song sold through online download services."
I'll gladly give them a 66% increase for every song I download. Let me just do the math.
(0x.66)100= 0
Honestly if they want to stop people from pirating they need to lower prices of music. I can't afford all the music I like and have to turn to pirating. I would love to get music legally, but I have to choose whether I want a tank of gas or two cds. - inactive, on 10/01/2008, -18/+92Amazon MP3 > iTunes
***** DRM - Falldog, on 10/01/2008, -3/+59iTunes 9, now with torrent manager.
- VladII, on 10/01/2008, -1/+53You're ignoring the 61 ***** percent going to the label. Apple isn't screwing the artists, the labels are. Always have, always will. It's called selling out for a reason.
- Arramol, on 10/01/2008, -2/+50Ok, as much as I hate all the BS that the music companies spew, I have to say that the opposite side can be just as wrong. You HAVE to turn to pirating? Call me old fashioned, but what ever happened to the idea that if you can't afford it, you don't get to have it? Why are you entitled to get music for free if you don't feel it fits in your budget? There's plenty of music I'd like to have that I can't afford to buy (working part time through grad school = no money), but that doesn't give me the right to get it for free. I didn't pay for it, so I don't get it. Once I have the money, then I can buy it and get to have it. Can someone explain to me why it shouldn't work that way anymore? I can see downloading something to see if you like it before you buy it, but this doesn't sound like that at all unless I've completely misunderstood (in which case, feel free to correct me).
- iceman0113, on 10/01/2008, -5/+41Pirate and buy merch form the band's site to show your support. They get more money out of a tshirt or hoodie you buy than a cd or song.
- inactive, on 09/30/2008, -24/+59Are you serious?
You hope Apple manages to keep from having to pay the artists a fair share?
Do you forget who actually makes the music?
No one needs Apple (any web site could sell music), but without the artist Apple has nothing to sell. - CrimsonBlur, on 10/01/2008, -4/+39The reason Apple is against this isn't because they don't think artists should be paid more. Apple can't stand for this because it is a fixed increase on top of any other rates.
If this went through, maintaining the iTMS would put Apple in the hole big time if they didn't raise the prices; but no one is going to pay over a dollar per song. Either way Apple is screwed.
As the deal stands this should not go through, despite the fact I think artists don't get a large enough cut. If the artists want to make more money per download they need to go back to the drawing board on this deal and make it a percentage and not a fixed rate or negotiate new contracts with their record labels. - xGrill, on 09/30/2008, -12/+45Artist?
Do you really believe that B.S.?
Do you really think they are going to give the artist more money? - matt2m, on 10/01/2008, -2/+29RTFA The record industry gets 70 cents a song and out of that the artists only get 9.1 cents a song. Apple uses their 29 cents per song mostly for maintenance. Stop being idiots trying to jump at Apple, the record industry should be giving the artists a better cut that is less than 1/7th not Apple.
- vinceislegend, on 10/01/2008, -4/+31***** the RIAA...?
- kubedawg, on 09/30/2008, -0/+24That's great news for sites like Pandora. I'd love to see how the music industry would respond to Apple shutting down iTunes. I'd laugh my ass off.
- Amazetbm, on 10/01/2008, -2/+25Since AmazonMP3 went online I've been weening myself off of iTunes
- crugg, on 10/01/2008, -2/+23So if the store shuts down will I get the money back that is in the account on my itunes? HAHA
- Aanidaani, on 10/01/2008, -3/+24Forget the ***** iTunes store. Amazon's store is not only cheaper, but DRM-free and offers high quality downloads.
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/01/2008, -1/+19FTA: Apple pays an estimated 70 cents of every dollar it collects per song to the record companies responsible for each track. The record companies turn over nine cents to the music publishers who control the copyrights to these tunes.
- memper, on 10/01/2008, -2/+20Wow. No one told me I was ENTITLED to music from whatever company I want. What was I thinking. I should be looking for advice more often from people named MidnightRIder77, and so far 56 people agree. I just can't afford a Cadillac SUV. Tomorrow, I am just gonna steal one off the dealer lot. I mean, until they can lower the price, what choice do I have?
***** GENERAL MOTORS! - Arramol, on 10/01/2008, -0/+18"I just don't feel pirating music is stealing AT ALL."
I was wondering how long it would take someone to invoke the "piracy isn't stealing" argument. Curiously enough, I never asserted that it was to begin with.
I agree the system's messed up, but I'd rather give the artists a tiny sliver than give them nothing. If I'm going to enjoy something, I'm going to man up and do my duty and pay for it, even as a poor grad student. - guymandood, on 10/01/2008, -5/+22Yea, like Apple would take a stand like this and watch iPod fall flat :-) The last time I checked iTunes and ITMS are critical components to their revenue model. Steve is bluffing. Let ITMS close... yea, right.
The artists deserve more money anyway... their creation nets 10% of pie? That's *****. - joltcola, on 10/01/2008, -1/+18midnightrider77 is making it seem like hes ENTITLED to music, like its his right to have it.
- thrillki1l, on 09/30/2008, -8/+25*****. Apple is just trying to scare people out of letting this go through. They make too much money and have too much invested in iTunes to just shut it down.
- Digglet69, on 10/01/2008, -2/+19oh no, no more genius playlists :0
- diptheria, on 10/01/2008, -3/+19"I can't afford all the music I like and have to turn to pirating."
How about:
"I can't afford all the hookers and blow that I like and have to turn to sexual assault and armed robbery."
If you can't afford it, then you don't get to have it you ***** douche *****. So many good arguments and ideas about how to reform the music industry and you spout ***** like "I cant afford it so I'm FORCED to steal it." Why the ***** would anyone digg you up for being such a whiny tard is beyond me. Congatulations, MidnightRIder77. you've managed to show yourself as an utter ***** and get rewarded for it... - inactive, on 10/01/2008, -4/+19What a shame...No more monochromatic comercials with hipster douches.
- freediverx, on 10/01/2008, -2/+16iTunes does NOT drive iPod sales. It's the other way around. Please obtain a clue.
- cheezygrin, on 09/30/2008, -4/+18Sheer scare tactics. Apple may well not make that much money from the songs themselves, but it is the iTunes store that drives iPod sales - which they make a heck of a lot of money from.
- Lunarbunny, on 10/01/2008, -0/+13I just find artists that can make a full CD of good music and buy a CD. Voila, no DRM (unless it's Sony trying to pull a fast one), no *****.
- CVQuesty, on 10/01/2008, -0/+13Don't you find that 70 cents out of 99 cents charged for a song going to the label is a bit excessive?
Further, the labels have said they don't want to release another few cents to the artists, so let Apple do it. If that's the case, they'll be paying it out of their 29 cents per song they receive. So, now Apple is reduced to 14 cents a song just to operate the store, and the 70 cents going to the label just keeps on going to the label.
How you see that as fair is far beyond me. - scoottie, on 10/01/2008, -7/+20good. let them shut down the store.
- Khast, on 10/01/2008, -1/+13I personally say, give the artists a higher percentage....it's the leeches with the recording label which should eat the loss....they do jack *****, and get paid more than the artists who do all the work. time to trade places...Record labels...5-6% artists 50%...with that, I would happily buy the CD, as an artist that I like would get most of the profit from the sale of the CD.
- masterblair, on 10/01/2008, -2/+13Bro... its 99 cents for a song and $10 for an album.
1. If you can't afford $20 for two CD's, then it is probably a budgeting problem on your part and a lame excuse about affording gas over a CD. If they lowered the price, how much do they have to lower it to? 50 cents? Would you make the same excuse you can't afford it and gas? Ever heard of a bus pass? Then you can ride the bus and afford to listen to your tunes on the bus/subway/train.
2. I bet you have downloaded lots of free stuff, so can't you survive on all the stuff you have downloaded for free? Also, last time I looked, you don't need music to survive. You could just do without. You could work a second job to make that extra $20, you could collect bottles and cans and recycle them.
3. If your boss said he liked your work but he wanted to pay you 1/2 the minimum wage so he can afford to pay you and to pay for a tank of gas, how would you feel about that? Would you work for him any more? Would you be cool with it because, he is trying to make a living in this world? I think I know the answer without ever hearing from you.
4. I know this won't change your mind, you would make any type of excuse to not pay for music and to be able to continue to download the music for free. That is called rationalization. - sockpuppets, on 10/01/2008, -0/+11Cash Tank- is that like Cash Cab Baghdad Edition?
- inhaler, on 10/01/2008, -0/+11The first time I've ACTUALLY bought music online was through AmazonMP3... I'm pretty happy with it.
- johnpowell, on 10/01/2008, -0/+10If songs were 9 cents and albums were a dollar you would still complain.
- endustry, on 10/01/2008, -6/+16Boomkat.com > iTunes
Emusic.com > iTunes
Beatport.com > iTunes
Junodownload.com > iTunes
etc. etc. etc. - rodon, on 10/01/2008, -3/+13Why is everyone hopping on the Apple bashing waggon?
The point is, EVERYONE, Amazon, iTunes, etc will have to pass on the cost to the consumer by raising prices for song downloads.
Apple is trying to keep their existing price point at 99 cents / song. They barely make any money as it is, but this is the magic number that keeps people coming back to iTunes, even Amazon. Labels are pushing the price increase because it is the labels that get the lionshare of the profits rather than the artists. One of the main reasons Apple had for the 99 cent price structure was that it would help deter pirating because the price was so reasonable. If the price goes up substantially, then we have more people going back to downloading songs illegally. - palmer, on 10/01/2008, -0/+10"The labels take risks when they invest in a new, unproven musician."
Hm, less risk all the time. No budget for videos anymore. Ever-falling requirements for pressing discs and printing booklets. High-quality recording is ubiquitous, and after the album is recorded, it's essentially free for the record company to ruin it with dynamic compression (which they do in EVERY case now).
"lots of money" = gross overstatement - tiberone, on 10/01/2008, -0/+9Damn Arramol, I thought people like you didn't exist on digg. I completely agree; I really don't understand the people that say, 'the record companies give the artist so little of the profit, it's awful!' and somehow think that paying the artist nothing at all is supposed to be better. To me, that seems like the opposite of what you should do.
- carpespasm, on 10/01/2008, -1/+9If they're selling enough merch to make a living and are big enough to get a label in the first place they likely wouldn't care.
- nubnub, on 10/01/2008, -5/+13lol itunes
- Galaxylander, on 10/01/2008, -6/+14That's the label's fault, not iTunes.
- colincornaby, on 10/01/2008, -2/+10Here's an idea. How about if artists want more money, we take it out of the label's cut.
"Apple, which has leveraged the iTunes Store to help sell over 160 million iPods, typically collects 99 cents each time a customer downloads a song, of which 70 cents is turned over to the record labels. The record labels, in turn, then typically pay 9.1 cents to the music artists who own the copyrights to the songs. Most of Apple's remaining 29 cents is used for maintenance rather than profit." - stuffradio, on 10/01/2008, -0/+7I always tell the person behind the counter at Tim Hortons or at (your local donut place) that if I can't afford the donut... I will walk behind the counter and take it for free!
- memper, on 10/01/2008, -0/+7My driveway can hold 4 cars.
Where the hell are all my nearly free cars? - reed311, on 10/01/2008, -3/+10Probably, but they will get dropped from their label if they don't sell enough albums.
- shadydentist, on 10/01/2008, -3/+10Apple has a giant bargaining chip. They don't lose so much if iTunes shuts down, because people will turn to "alternative means" to get their music.
- ferinex, on 10/01/2008, -2/+9I don't see why they even need record labels anymore. Artists can digitally distribute their music themselves and get 100% of the profit. Or, you know, go through iTunes still, and the artist gets that entire 70 cents. The record labels don't do jack ***** anymore. Seriously, what are they there for? (That's not rhetorical)
- MatthewDuke, on 10/01/2008, -0/+6Nerys, if you can't get to the point within a few paragraphs, you'll just seem like a rambling nutjob and nobody will read your post.
- necromancer, on 10/01/2008, -0/+6Except sites like Pandora cant afford the fees to play songs, and are being shut down too.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 282 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is