What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
54 Comments
- tman84, on 06/12/2009, -0/+47Putting out ***** albums is what's hurting the music industry
- lindenwold, on 06/12/2009, -0/+23the point of this article has been discussed multiple times before - and is absolutely correct.
there are now more things than ever for the youth to spend their money on, and that money is a finite amount.
furthermore, you can't possibly look at illegal downloads as lost sales - simply because the fact that it's free, may be the reason someone is taking it,
if i was walking past a starbucks, and a store three blocks away was handing out free coffees - i'd take one. that isn't a lost sale for starbucks, i wasn't even thirsty, but it was free. would starbucks lose some sales? yes. but a much smaller percentage than one might imagine. - atroxodisse, on 06/12/2009, -1/+16The big music companies no longer serve the same purpose that they once did. Music sharers can get the music without them. They're trying to hold onto the old paradigm because that's how they knew how to make money. Now they need to find a new way to make money or become extinct.
- YonicSouth, on 06/12/2009, -1/+15Kinda neglects the billions spent on VHS and Laserdisc. Buried!
(Sarcasm) - nicobu, on 06/11/2009, -0/+13This is a great story! Far away from the official statements
- jodts, on 06/12/2009, -0/+12Here's another theory not often discussed: Instead of being required to buy a whole CD for what was approaching $20US before digital downloads, users can now download the one track they want for $0.99-$1.29. Hmm, could that account for the lost income? If they want more money, then come up with more hits.
- oo7evan, on 06/12/2009, -0/+12Let's see, crap put out by major record labels pandering to the lowest common denominator, or top tier game from companies producing games that people actually want to play for an extended period of time.
Something to chew on music industry. Oh, and maybe stop suing grandmas and college kids. - nextekcarl, on 06/12/2009, -0/+12Incorrect. Some parts of the entertainment industry are (potentially) losing money to "other parts of the entertainment industry" due to file sharing. As a whole, the entertainment industry is actually making more money than ever before.
- FOR3MAN, on 06/12/2009, -2/+12File sharing is causing global warming and the swine flu. The RIAA told me so.
- digitalArtform, on 06/12/2009, -0/+9Many who download something for free would never have bought it.
- inactive, on 06/12/2009, -1/+10Darn those gamers! lol. Maybe the RIAA should be pressuring the game producers to charge less for their games so people have some money left over to buy some ***** pre-processed boy band cds.
- aspec, on 06/12/2009, -1/+9That you're trying to hard.
- norman619, on 06/12/2009, -0/+8We'd only buy more games.
- zephyrTR, on 06/12/2009, -0/+7been saying this for years. There's more competitors for the same amount of $$. Also, more people will take something for free than for $10. Each download is not necessarily a sale lost. The ratio's possibly as bad as 1:10.
- MrJagil, on 06/12/2009, -0/+6It's a pretty ***** good time for games atm. Blizzard, valve and even companies like Popcap are really making some great stuff.
- hauntedchippy, on 06/12/2009, -3/+9in before "***** the MPAA/RIAA"
Seriously though, ***** em. - IKORKYI, on 06/12/2009, -0/+5line breaks man, line breaks
- Gumphlumph, on 06/12/2009, -0/+5All market data gather by co's such as Neilsen indicates that downloaders buy more, not less music than non downloaders, so that argument is BS from the start. If the record labels want to make sales, invest in real artists, not a bunch of models that lip-synch to some over produced piece of crap that some pencil d!c# at the label thinks is cool. They, like the movie industry are not prepared to take risks and are going for short term gain by using formulaic garbage all the time. It's not rocket science, they're just blinded by their greed.
- diggeratwork, on 06/12/2009, -0/+5Well put a very nice analogy between P2P and the records industry. In the end, I still believe that if you truly enjoy the music you downloaded, you will go to the music store and buy the album/single.
- norman619, on 06/12/2009, -0/+5Not reading the wall of text. Sorry.
- digitalArtform, on 06/12/2009, -0/+4Off topic.
The point is you can't automatically count a download as a lost sale - which is also the main point of the article, although the author is not the first to make that observation. - MrSkills, on 06/12/2009, -3/+6Piracy *is* hurting the music industry. The problem is, most labels' reaction to the lost revenue is to panic and stop investing in their primary product (music), thus creating a vicious circle that has rapidly turned a manageable headache into a full-on crisis.
- norman619, on 06/12/2009, -1/+4Nope. The quality of CD's has been bad for a long time. Even in the 80's I begrudgingly bought CDs. I felt ripped off because I was paying full price for CDs which only had 2 or 3 good tracks on them. We had no options open to us. That is no longer the case. The music industry no longer has us by the balls. Do they change their business model? No they attack us.
***** them. - MacBandit, on 06/12/2009, -0/+3As mush as I agree with this... Rehashing the same facts that have been displayed and discussed again and again for the last decade will not change the minds of the idiots in charge of the RIAA and MPAA. It's kind of like trying to have an intelligent discussion with a someone in a coma.
- kentifer, on 06/12/2009, -1/+4Sure, they're making more money than ever before, but SOME is still lost to file sharing.
Needless to say, if a consumer has money, they will spend it.
It's used to buy a variety of things, so some of it may get 're-invested' in entertainment, while other parts go to groceries and home improvement. - Kidsturk, on 06/12/2009, -2/+5A shrewd and well reasoned article on this issue.
Top marks. - norman619, on 06/12/2009, -0/+3I remember a service Sam Goody had for a little while where you paid per track. You chose the tracks you wanted and they made a tape for you. Only thing was that they weren't selling current music. They were selling classics. This would be a great idea for selling CD's. I would definately buy more music CD's if they let me pick the tracks I wanted and burned them to a CD for me. Would be cool if they even let me design the CD cover art for my CD.
- aspec, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2Dammit. I didn't use "too". Teh internetz is makin' me stoopid.
- Chooxo, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2Without file-sharing, I would have bought an album in the last couple of years.
- sealink, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2FTA: But the reality is that nowadays, one can choose between a game costing £40 that will last weeks, or a £10 CD with two great tracks and eight dud ones. I think a lot of people are choosing the game - and downloading the two tracks. That's real discretion in spending. It's hurting the music industry, sure. But let's not cloud the argument with false claims about downloads.
Exactly. I just want one song from the album, with a few rare exceptions. Why should I pay for the whole thing if buying 4 bucks of music and saving 60 allows me to get the songs I want AND buy a game? - onimusha115, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2I dont know how much money the industry is actually losing, I used to file share back in the hay day of Kazaa, but stopped years ago, and I think I have bought maybe 3-4 albums since then, probably about the same amount I always have. I have just noticed albums going down hill, usually the single I hear on the radio that makes me want to buy the album ends up being the only decent song on the entire cd. I have since given up and just listen to the radio, music stations on my tv, or streaming music online. Why pay for what I can listen to for free, legally.
- pigfister, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate hardware DRM anymore.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the ***** capitalist corporate globalist wankers from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA, MPA:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
====================================================================
If payola wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm ...
"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 ... - pigfister, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate hardware DRM anymore.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the ***** capitalist corporate globalist wankers from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA, MPA:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
====================================================================
If payola wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm ...
"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 ... - kpepps17, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2Ya see, most entertainers in the music industry have spent there whole lives, before their record contract, developing their sound in hopes to be signed on by a major label. Typically, the first record is good. However, the label usually takes most of the $$$ from the first record. The entertainer must have enough material for a second record in order for them to earn their real $$$. Too many times the second record is rushed and it sucks with maybe two good tracks (mentioned in previous comments). Oh, yeah; I say entertainers because there are not many true musicians. Maybe that is why they call themselves artists. LOL. And I ain't payin' for crap.
- WarrenGHarding, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about artists get paid for concerts and recordings are distributed free for promotion.
"But that's not the way it's always been!" says the RIAA
"Well suck it up, times change." replies the World - califloridan, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1Dugg for American Psycho reference
- inactive, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1everything including and after "and then there were 3" sucked. Peter Gabriel > Phil Collins
- ITAvenger, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1I would question the gathering of statistics from press releases as a viable means of data collection... But my gut completely agrees with the conclusions draw.
- sooperdooper, on 06/12/2009, -1/+2Shouldn't that be "In *during* '***** the MPAA/RIAA'" then?
- onimusha115, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1I think thats true, most people probably bought albums for the single they heard on the radio. No need to do that with the ability to purchase one song now. I think thats good tho, it will push artists to create more than just 1-2 good songs per album. When I buy a song for the single and the rest of the cd sucks, I feel like I have been given the old bait and switch.
- firebhaal, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1a fairer analogy would include the store three blocks away being another starbucks, but with even more stores further down the road you would never have bought coffee from had it not been free
- fungie5, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1The record company's just blaming file-sharing for their own failings. The reality is that people who download lots of music via P2P actually spend more on legit music than those who don't. The file sharers love music; they just don't love ***** albums with only 1 good track on them.
Bands make the bulk of their personal cash by doing tours and charging for concert tickets. My question is this - has tour earnings been hurt by file-sharing? or have they actually increased because of it? - Tyrfang, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1I recognize the sarcasm, but on the plus side, if they DO try to pressure the game industry in some way...the games industry is now larger than the music industry and might actually organize a counter-lawsuit.
- Kedyn, on 06/12/2009, -1/+2I stopped reading after I saw "Phil Collins".
- GorecOverYears, on 08/20/2009, -0/+0"Illegal downloading ...seriously damages business and innovation" i'm almost crying))
I agree with the article in many ways. Many people will never buy an album before listening to it.
"The reality is that people who download lots of music via P2P actually spend more on legit music than those who don't."'
True, many of my friends do. And since they started downloading thier CD/DVD collections have just swollen.
The sale amounts decrease because today there are much more other entertainments available than before, people travel more, etc... - shrudheuie, on 06/13/2009, -0/+0This is kind of like the vacuum tube companies bitching that those damn transistors. Rather than launch an international campaign to prevent their business from going under though, they adapted or disappeared. The MPAA/RIAA are trying to hold onto better times, when they were relevant. It's too bad Obama decided to appoint their head lawyers to key Justice Department positions. Even he drank the cool-aid. They will disappear eventually, till then we can look forward to hearing a lot of stupid ***** about how it is downloaders costing them money, not ***** music and horrible remakes that no one over 10 (age or IQ take your pick) wants to see or hear.
- smalllaptopguru, on 06/26/2009, -0/+0What about the intangible benefits.
When people download, they get to hear a thousand genres of music they would never had heard, this ignites interest in the genre and then increases the popularity and then subsequent sales of cds and merchandise and concert tickets.
They should factor this into the calculations. -
Show 51 - 58 of 58 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