What is Digg?91 Comments
- emblym, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17This is a joke. That's like saying gasoline companies should get a chunk of automobile sales.
- Trepan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The RIAA and MPAA both are deluded into thinking that we NEED their product. Well we don't. Hell, go listen to indie bands or watch indie movies. Even make your own music or movies.
This kind of iron fist routine is getting old. If they had this type of cookie cutter pop hit artist ***** around in the 60s and 70s you would have never heard of The Beatles or Pink Floyd or even Elvis.
Now they want to sell you songs that sound exactly the same, over and over and over again ad naseum. And guess what, some people really are obviously stupid enough to buy them.
The problem is that by paying for things that are remakes of old songs, or ***** that sounds exactly like last years' *****, you don't realize that you're perpetuating the cycle of nonsense.
I guarantee you that the next big thing is out there somewhere, but nobody will ever hear it because the radio is too full of beyonce and american idol winners. The next big thing can't get a record deal in today's world because of these greedy hypocrites. - Misos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4$.99 is too much as it is. Use AllofMP3 - custom encoding, and you pay per MB
http://allofmp3.com - zwilliams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"We're not greedy; we just want more money."
- pondster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great point mattman, It's atrocious that they are getting this greedy! I mean they have been hammering us on overpriced CD's for years now and finally there's a decent system where the public can listen to music they way they want to and they want to come in and ruin it for everyone! If the price goes up I for one will be banning Itunes - Might be time to digg out my hook, eyepatch and dead parrot :-)
- themattman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, just no. If it wasn't for Apple they would not even have made the money they do now.
- Chasin_Fat_Kids, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seems like Jobs' comment is true. He set the comment up so that no matter what the record companies say in response they end up sounding greedy - kinda cool. I love rhetoric.
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Instead, maybe they should create their own service that doesn't suck balls. I guess that's too much to ask of them.
- neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2who's the fool that said it only costs 5cents?
there's something called bandwidth costs... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its always about the money with the record labels, never about the music!
- domc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I for one will not buy another IPOD (maybe getting a Nano at Xmas) if the price goes up on songs. The Ipods are overpriced as it is.
It cost about 5 cents to have a song on any download music store.
Think about it, no printing copies of CD's, no plastic and paper covers to put in the CD covers, no marketing cost (APPLE does it for them), they hand over ONE FILE that gets downloaded a thousand times. There making enough money already. Maybe if they put out better songs, sales may go up. They always complain (including the movie industry)that there sales are down. Maybe they should look at what there marketing to the customer (crap) instead of complaining about there number of sales.
If anything, the price of songs should go down to 50 cents or less but of course greed is always in the free market society. - f1gm3nt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There should be an Open Source Label =)
- jman420, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who still pays for music anyways?
- unmarked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah -- like demanding a share of iPod sales doesn't amount to them being greedy as all hell. Next they'll want a cut of CD player sales, and speaker sales!!
"We're not greedy -- we just want to sit on our lazy asses and some of Apple's profits." - vertigoblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i would tell them to fornicate themselves... apple should be the ones to stand up to this. they are big enough to have some pull and i thought they were all anti corporate, robot/machine anyways.
- ryanwarren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This finally proves once and for all that record labels are in fact the devil himself.
- mistermoose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why don't the labels break down exactly how much revenue they make from a song? I understand that this will be different for each song, but give us an average. I bet the artists aren't making very much.. but nobody wants to talk about that..
- Misos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Allofmp3 isn't illegal.
- pixelmatrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what makes them entitled to part of the iPod sales? They dont make any money off the CD player sales! They are lucky they get ANY MONEY AT ALL!! people buy music from iTunes, so they actually get money. They should not be complaining!
- archerx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't like Apple but I think this is messed up, Steve Jobs is right, they are greedy!
- kirk06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It cost about 5 cents to have a song on any download music store."
Really? I want the web host thse music stores have then...since the bandwidth is free. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Record labels are just asking for people to go and download music illegally
- Seaton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have almost 1,500 CDs laying around the house right now. I have a 30GB iPod which I don't expect to hold all my music, but a good portion of the music I wish to carry with me all the time. I have been in the habit of ripping my CDs to place the files on my iPod. With the iTunes music store, it is sometimes more convenient to just buy an album again and download it, then to look through boxes for the original CD. So now I have bought certain albums twice. I also wanted to do my part to contribute to the success of the iTMS. To date I have downloaded over 1,300 tracks off iTMS. With average price of $13.00 per CD, I have spent well over $19,500 on CDs plus another $1,300 with iTMS. If any record labels or the RIAA in general think I owe them one more cent, they have another thing coming.
The bottom line is, leave well enough alone. If a record label decides to levy a tariff which causes my cost of downloading music to rise, I boycott all online music stores and I am sure other users will do the same.
After Apple pays all the bandwidth charges to Akamai, their profit is a very small percentage of 99 cents per track. The money they make is from iPod sales. Now, record companies want a piece of that hardware pie too. The record companies can go straight to hell. - Fowz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The records companies NEED itunes as that is where a significant amount of their sales comes from. Itunes saved them. I hope they buckle on their fat asses and reduce the cost of a song from what it is now. Here in the UK I'm looking at 75p a song!!..more than other countries!
- CaptSnuffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1seriously ***** the labels, ***** the RIAA. They should be ***** happy that anyone uses iTunes, and they especially should be thanking Apple for bringing music sales out of the stone age. If they raise the prices i suggest that everyone protests by not buying any music. Hit 'em where it hurts and boycott songs with raised prices.
- tarball, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1magnatune.com:
Play the complete album, decide how much you think it is worth, buy it, 50% goes to the artist, 50% to the company behind the site. - ke4wkp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Being the audiophile freak that I am. People are being ripped off at .99¢. I would never pay .99¢ for a compressed music file. Compressed files should be .25¢-.50¢. I would however pay .99¢ for a flac file, But that will never happen.
- Trepan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wouldn't the labels have signed some sort of agreement with Apple in terms of what they can sell and for how much?
They're whiny bastards, and renegging on their agreement it sounds like. They should go fist themselves. They won't be happy until they get 250% profit. - esourcemag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2OK
You guys need to get off your wallets. .99 cents for a song is not too much. Saying that you will only pay .50 for a song that AN ARTIST made is ridiculous. We know the music industry has costs and these costs are spread to all its artists; good and bad.
Now after saying all of that, yes the music and movie industry sucks ass hair balls. Their system is outdated. Business model outmoded.
They don't know how to come up with a music portal that will make money because of all the multiple contracts they have with multiple companies PER ARTIST. Just figuring out who to pay what to costs money for them.
They get Apple and now music players are the thing, but they want more cash. Instead of looking ugly at Apple, maybe they should come up with a way to:
Add more content (album art, videos, desktop skins,
Reduce costs and reorganize their business
Pull a 'U2' and sell special official iPod cases, Sony cases and others
They can make more, but they are way too willing to stay with the old ways of making money than venture off into new ways. Business as usual. - Trepan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd rather pay a band directly $15 for an album than give it to the RIAA. And guess what, there's no reason this can't occur. If you downloaded an entire album off the net, and then sent like $5 to the actual artist, that's seriously 100 times more than he/she would have made if you had've purchased the CD legally.
It is not fair that a musician does all of the actual work, and only gets like 5 cents per album. If you ever wanted proof that the labels are greedy mafia-like institutions, look no further than the contracts they make with their artists. These people have to sell out concert after concert, on the road for sometimes years at a time just to make a living. The average professional musician doesn't really make a killing. Some of them can't even make a living even if their CDs are selling thousands of copies. - esourcemag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There should be an Open Source Label...
There is about to be one:
http://esgmusic.modblog.com
Non-Profit will be running it, promoting artists and their shows.
I see all these diggs about the RIAA and such, but no one is doing much about it other than going to a torrent or P2P and stealing it (yeah, I know... I listen to it and if I like it, I buy it... right 2,000 songs and you bought all 2000 of them, right?).
ANYway... half the songs will be open to everyone and the other half will be for purchase only. All songs are purchasable and downloadable. Same rule for video.
A MTV like bittorrent TV show will be produced, other free TV shows to follow. - movieguyjon, on 04/03/2009, -0/+1the only way to truly harm the RIAA is to get EVERYONE to stop buying...that will never happen seeing that there's always someone who will pay for expensive music...
- kcappraiser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't really like Apple that much but this is such complete BS. If Apple gives them one cent I will...well nothing, but it would be stupid and set a very bad precident.
- Linuxrocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I say ***** music, we don't need it!
- wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Drop dead. I have a 1G MuVo and there has never been a downloaded song on it. I use it exclusively for podcasts. Why should the record companies get a cut of it?
And I do agree with some of you that have pointed out the iTunes downloads are NOT the same thing as buying the content on a CD or DVD-Audio. There is a pretty significant difference, and anybody with halfway decent ears and a halfway decent audio system can hear it. - awilke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apple is probably going to give them the finger.
- JWood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"the artists only receive $1-$2 out of every album sale anyway. they make their money in concert sales, so i say download to ur hearts content and support the artist by going to the shows"
Good idea. I'm with you there. - cr0wbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ke4wkp
I will not buy any music online until the price drops or it is non-lossy compression. Why pay $10 for an album with horrible quality, no artwork, and no physical media, when I can buy a DVD-Audio or SACD in 5.1 surround lossless high fidelity audio for $15-$20. - ibelite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I heared its 35 cents to apple and the rest to Recording industry...where did u get that 89cent info...aresef
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's great to see an industry go through it's death dance. I remember when the movie theaters used to show propaganda pieces on how free TV would devastate Hollywood and then later how cable TV would kill free TV. Well, in truth they were right. The lawyers and the other 4 horseman reign now and the only way to get decent content is off the Internet.
I'm not a fan of Steve Jobs but he needs to resist his legal advice and continue to starve the parasites. I will not subject myself to DRM so I will buy the CD or borrow it from the library. There are too many people in Hollywood that add no value and get paid way too much. They need to find another way to steal your wallet. Sad to say they probably will. - mikeyj10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This would be like the radio stations getting money for every car radio that someone sells. The RIAA argues that when you buy the CD you are paying for the RIGHTS to listen to the song, not how you listen to the song. Now all of sudden they change their tune (pun intended), sounds alittle like the RIAA doesn't care about the consumer to me.
- Sixcolors, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0$.99 per song is fine by me. I don't buy that much music in general. Not because I use P2P, but because I don't listen to crap. And right now there's a lot of crap on the air. iTunes should start working like this: users vote on the quality of a song (quality as in appeal). This appeal rating is evaluated and the price of the song rises or falls based on popularity. Kind of like stocks. That means that while Mandy Moore's new hit single soars to $2 a single, the good, reasonably unrecognized music becomes less expensive for the rest of us.
I know that wouldn't really work. I just thought it would be a funny way of doing things. - sandrino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And Apple is just going to bend over and give them some of the action why?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is one more example of the greed of this outdated and failing industry.
The labels have to realize that these attempts at grasping at every penny they can are just speeding up their aging process. The collapse is imminent. - anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0"There should be an Open Source Label =)"
Haven't read about Creative Commons.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/
http://www.legaltorrents.com/index.htm - DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What everyone should do, right now, is stop buying new CD's unless they are from true indie labels (not the ones that claim to be indies that are owned by the majors). If everybody just bought only used CD's, or made it a point to burn half a dozen copies for friends every time you got a new CD, it would put a serious hurtin' on the majors. The majors have already pretty much destroyed all the small record stores, and now they want to ***** the consumers a bit more than they already have. All the people who say that going to see the artists live, or sending them money is better than supporting the labels are right.
It's basically like prostitution. The bands have to sell their asses to the major label pimps, or they won't get any protection, and they won't be allowed to work the big money streets (stores). The labels exploit their power by making the artists sign contracts that give all of the rights to the labels, and then they just slap some makeup on em' and put em' out on the street. Then in a few years when they aren't drawing as many customers as they used to, they just kick em' to the curb. It's all a ***** scam, and always has been...
***** the labels, ***** the RIAA... Like the article said recently about the Scotti Brother's record stores marketing plan: Rip, Burn, Return... - Flynnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0well I still dont see how anyone can spend that much money on the itunes store for a "copy" of a product in the first place.
And lets also not forget that with all the DRM attached to those files they are pretty much useless for using on any other computer or device. I know there are ways around the DRM...but since thats breaking the law....why not just download for free in the first place?
Am I missing something? can someone please explain why you would you pay for something that is so restricted and overpriced? when you can buy a CD and have better sound quality and full flexibility of the content for about the same price. I really dont get it. - Walt65, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0record companies can blow me.
they suck bad.
they will f--- it up for them self's and then they will in real trouble. - Gills, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the artists only receive $1-$2 out of every album sale anyway. they make their money in concert sales, so i say download to ur hearts content and support the artist by going to the shows. or u could even send the artist $2 per album.
- cwoolf34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the record companies put up the money for the artists in the first place, it makes sense for the record company to get a large amount of the money. There was a article on digg about it a while ago.
http://www.music-law.com/contractbasics.html -
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is