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.
70 Comments
- Plopfish, on 06/20/2009, -0/+37Total insanity!
Mid-sized restaurant (120 seats): from $125 to $19,344 a year.
Small restaurant (50 seats): from $84 to $16,016.
Cafe (50 seats): from $62 to $10,010.
Smaller cafe (30 seats): from $124 to $5864 a year.
Gyms: Up from 96 cents a class capped at $2600 a year to $4.54 per member a month. - inactive, on 06/20/2009, -0/+28***** THE PPCA
- spookyttws, on 06/20/2009, -0/+25WTF? If they buy the CD or the "Family Friendly Mix" they did pay for it. So next time I decide to blast the sub woofer in my car and pass a few dozen cars on the freeway should I too have to pay a licensing fee?
At this point the record industry is getting so desperate to hold onto it's 1986 business model, it's just sad. I'd feel sorry for them if they weren't suing everyone they meet and ***** over everyone else. I really don't get why they just don't scrap the old "money for disc" model and implement something to compete with iTunes and thepiratebay. It's been proven time and time again that even those who pirate music are more than willing to compensate those who created it. So why is it so hard to provide high quality, DRM free music that's easy and quick to download (for a fair price) and gives a solid percent to the people who actually made the it? - suntzusputnik, on 06/20/2009, -0/+21a friend of mine received a letter from the riaa two years ago seeking claims for a selection of downloaded songs he supposedly obtained "illegally". the songs in question were test tracks we had recorded and mixed. while the charges were dropped, my buddy lost nearly everything paying his attorney fees and as a result his counter suit had to be dropped
- bunnybash, on 06/20/2009, -0/+20my wife and i own and operate a gym here in perth, australia... we have made the decision last week of "***** them". We were paying all the licensing fees etc, but now we are paying nothing. This way there is less money for lawyers and less money to throw at politicians.
Also just for the sake of saying "***** them" because seriously if this goes through it will actually send us broke within 3 months. I say every business in Australia should just stop paying, what are the going to do, sue us all? The cost of sending a us "demands" and then summons to court, alone will send them broke, and there is no way that they can actually take us all to court.
The only reason I can think of that this is happening is if record labels are owned, operated and managed by Beelzebub and his cousin Satan. Well I say, ***** em. - brickbat, on 06/20/2009, -0/+20We really need to take some coordinated action to speed up the demise of these dinosaurs. They are becoming a menace - First, 2 million bucks for downloading 24 songs and now this *****. Almost 20K of hard earned restaurant profit for what? The right to play some music?
And how much of this money goes to the people that actually made the music? ZERO.
The faster we kill off these vampires, the better off we will all be. - smokkeyy, on 06/20/2009, -0/+19If I owned a cafe I think I would opt for a live guitar player or some type of musical artist! If this turns out to be a law maybe local musicians will find a lot more business.
Hopefully live entertainment of original music becomes more popular out of all this greed! - hanban, on 06/20/2009, -0/+17why should the general public have to pay for music that they don't have a choice about listening to anyway? and where do we draw the line? maybe i should start charging guests to my house parties for listening to music they haven't paid for...
- Hraes, on 06/20/2009, -1/+16Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. Maybe this is the record industry's cry for help: they're too cowardly to directly commit suicide, so they're asking for a bit of a push.
Off a cliff.
With a very, very long drop. - inactive, on 06/20/2009, -0/+14The great thing about violating music copyrights is that it only hurts the effort by large record companies to homogenize music. This is why there seems to very little variation between the new music you hear on a pop station, a country station or see on television. This is why there are millions and millions of fans of independent artists -- artists who don't fall into the prefabricated music categories of the RIAA (and clone) heavy-hitters -- who we never hear on radio stations or see on music-oriented television programs. The people who suffer most from piracy are the people who make (and make money from) the ""hit songs"" played repetitively on cookie-cutter radio. When's the last time you were asked what your favorite new song was? When have you or anyone ever been allowed to vote on the Top 40? An album hits the shelves the day the "music" is forced down our throats as what we should like, because they tell us how popular and good it is.
The problem with piracy and public performance for the people who sucker us into listening and buying albums of such crap is that they know the stuff they try to pass off as good music isn't, and people are eventually going to get sick of the "new song." There's a time window to make money while people still believe this or that artist is in fashion, and if millions of people are pirating that Top 40 song or album they won't get around to buying it before they get sick of it.
The talented artists, the good and creative people who come up with fresh, original ideas or know how to respect old ones -- those thousands of groups and individuals who have millions of fans who have found them online -- they make money from touring. These artists are different in that they make an honest living on their music, and not on the hype their influence media friends will give them for a cut of the sales. Piracy, public play and live covers benefit these artists, because people can discover them on p2p networks or in cafes and listen to their music while the Clear Channels and the Viacoms of the world try to hold the status quo. I've pirated nearly 10,000 songs -- not as much as some people -- but among those songs are the creations and thoughts and feelings of real people, hundreds of bands and performers I would have never know about otherwise. And, because I know about them I can attend their shows and share their music. I can proudly wear a band tshirt, and introduce new fans (sometimes by playing the music over the business sound system). They benefit from piracy because they're quality, and the rare big name artists who are both quality and played on Big Media (like Radiohead, for example) realize this.
It doesn't take much effort to see the explosion of variety and choice for the listener that has been brought about alongside the rise of filesharing sites and networks. There are great musicians able to continue to make great music because people anywhere in the world could discover, listen to, and share their music, thus continuing the process. Of course the RIAA gremlins don't want this to continue, because their most powerful members can't build predictable business models based on those individual aesthetic preferences and enjoyments each of us has. They'd prefer to control the playlist...so that you are left paying them without a choice.
If we all got together and fought for this issue, we could kill off the RIAA and it's foreign clones by getting a few influential bills passed in Congress -- that or sniping a few of their lawyers and executives -- either way, the time has come for action. When will we stop drawing lines in the sand and bitching and start shoving back? - bakaoni, on 06/20/2009, -1/+14Seems to me that there are plenty of up-and-coming DJs who would gladly licence their music for nothing (or even give it away for free) for those dance/exercise classes.
Weren't things like radio and background music supposed to be advertising for these people? Maybe they're trying to prove their point that no one buys music when they cut off the advertisers for their music? - thecatcantalk, on 06/20/2009, -0/+13I don't know about AUS, but in the US, restaurant profit margins are so thin (5% is a good year) that such a surcharge would guarantee a loss of revenue for the record companies. Owners would, as mentioned, either switch to classical, or simply hire a local musician to play his guitar, etc.
Sounds like PPCA has tied its own noose. Silly. Also very greedy and stupid. - studiopenguin, on 06/20/2009, -1/+13$5864.00 in AUD works out to just over $4,700 USD. That's more than my local café's annual rent.
- tearalong, on 06/20/2009, -0/+12A club manager was telling me about this. the fee for there bistro area is based on the number of seats times the number of days they are open. The bistro is quite busy on Friday & Saturday nights, but never gets over about 15% capacity at other times.
Yet the fee is based on how many people the place can hold.
I'm going to suggest my band records something for them for 1/2 the PPCA fee. - thecatcantalk, on 06/20/2009, -0/+11Same reason why musicians still don't get sweet f*ck-all from their recording contracts. Record companies are outraged that customers are doing to them, what they've been doing to musicians forever. Pot and kettle go to court, one has a $400/hr. lawyer...
A record company is a useful parasite at best. And as parasites go, they're like the flea who bragged to his friend about how well he'd trained the dog they were both riding around on...
They're putting themselves out of business.
But who cares? No one will miss them, and each new outrage polarizes public hostility against the industry as a whole. - Jaggd, on 06/20/2009, -0/+10I don't think that these businesses will just sit there and take it up the ass like this, how hard can it be to find some music that is out of copyright or free.
- Nickste, on 06/20/2009, -0/+10Wake up you idiots. No longer can you make money from charging ***** for your product. Instead, you should be harnessing the power of world wide communication - making ***** by pricing low and selling lots!
- linuxrebel, on 06/20/2009, -1/+10As I see it the business model of the Music Industry today is the same as it was in the 60's. Sell and market to the 13-20 set. The following problems have set in.
1. There are less than 1/2 the number of people in that age group than back then.
2. In the 60's kids could find jobs and earn the money they needed to buy music. Now those jobs are gone.
3. The tastes of that age group are more refined, more diversified.
4. The largest group of people willing to buy music is 50-65 AKA baby boomers, and frankly the music they like you can't buy. (Go buy a copy of a Blue Cheer, or Vanilla Fudge album I dare you.)
Face it, the demographics are all wrong, there is no way possible for them to make enough money selling the current rash of crap to pay for their drugs and booze. They have a monkey and it has to be fed. The old stuff. Well they don't know how to market/package/move that music. They don't understand the market, they couldn't grow with the boomers and they definitely couldn't make the switch now, the gap is too large to breach.
Essentially the Music Industry hasn't been able to make the change from a time when every band was a one hit wonder, and there was a new one in every garage. I used to spend 100 bucks a week on music, but once the RIAA claimed that "The only reason I bought music was to steal it" (my paraphrase not their exact words) I decided to stop buying, period. Sucks too lots of good stuff in the last 10 years I'd like to of had. (Not the pop stuff, more blues and jazz than anything) But I won't. I'm now limited to anything that I know the RIAA doesn't get a cut of, is legal. - TotalHalibut, on 06/20/2009, -0/+9Sorry music industry, your product is not as valuable as you think it is. On my station, we play as much unsigned/indie label as possible to avoid your ridiculous fees. I suggest business owners do the same.
- orientis, on 06/20/2009, -6/+15Every time I walk through a supermarket, or get into a lift, and find some ***** top 40 American pop ***** being piped in through well-armoured speakers, I do something I never thought I'd do: get all nostalgic over muzak.
- tk0680, on 06/20/2009, -0/+8Insane. Music played in shops is essentially free advertising for the musicians (well, not free, they actually make people pay them to do it), and they want to bump the cost up 2000%?
Business sense there, AustralianRIAA. Seriously, the short-sightedness and greed of these organisations will never cease to amaze. - Cerebron, on 06/20/2009, -0/+7Live music, especially well played classic/spanish guitar does wonders for the dining experience.
- Amnesia10, on 06/20/2009, -0/+7Though if that musician played anything copyrighted then you are back to square one. The best thing to do is stop playing music or just out of copyright music.
The live entertainment business is also affected. - tk0680, on 06/20/2009, -0/+7Don't give them ideas ..
- netneutrality, on 06/20/2009, -0/+6But I don't enjoy that music. :(
- eleminop, on 06/20/2009, -0/+6This is madness!
- Loki101, on 06/20/2009, -0/+6Business opportunity people! Form a rival source of background music - the Garage Artists' Group and make a counteroffer! Instead of forcing young talent to source for record companies, GAG will simply provide businesses with the option of purchasing tracks straight from unknown talent. That way everyone wins - cheap background music for stores, free/cheap publicity for aspiring artists, a kick in the nuts for the PPCA.
- pagno, on 06/20/2009, -0/+5Um, No. Then they can get you on the "public performance" deal.
- Myztry, on 06/20/2009, -0/+5Maybe it's different in the US but DJ's don't tend to create music. Sure, they mix and match pieces from their collections but they don't actually sing or play instruments.
- anarcurt, on 06/20/2009, -0/+4There are plenty of artists in general looking for the exposure. Websites like thesixtyone.com is full of artists offering their music for free download.
- gerbil20, on 06/20/2009, -1/+5Reminds me a joke about a guy who tried to sell a chicken for a hundred bucks.
--Are you crazy?
--No but I need money.
Same story. I can see businesses playing classical CDs and I can't see myself getting upset over it.
They should just cancel their subscription and put those copyright morons out of business once and for all. - Zalyster, on 06/20/2009, -0/+3THIS...IS...PPCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- consonance, on 06/20/2009, -3/+6You have a band? How about a link?
- Sillywombat, on 06/20/2009, -0/+3Their rent is under $4,700 USD annual?... mad!
- spartan8103, on 06/20/2009, -0/+3They probably figure if the RIAA can get $80,000 a song, this is their chance to make unreasonable amounts of money as well.
- snached, on 06/20/2009, -0/+3madness!?!?!
- Myztry, on 06/20/2009, -0/+3"even those who pirate music are more than willing to compensate those who created it"
That's the problem. It's not the people who create the music they are trying to impose these levies or who are going to benefit from them. - NeddieSeagoon, on 06/20/2009, -0/+3I'm sure they'll still find some way of being unhappy about the live musicians performing copyrighted works.
- Enigma776, on 06/20/2009, -0/+3Seems a lot of countries are taking a leaf out of America's great money grabbing book. How can I make lots of money quickly, oh I know I will sue long running establishments who promote our music for a price who we have been charged a low fee since day one, they will now have to pay 2000% more.
All these companies are are get rich quick schemes, none of the money goes back to the artist and in the end hurt the music industry further with distrust and shoddy music. - MerchantofPanic, on 06/20/2009, -0/+3The spin the music industry continues to put on their own importance seems to get more rediculous every day. Surely there is a valid argument that music played publicly helps the music industry to sell more music? Gyms and restaurants do the music industry a huge service by 'introducing' and 'reaffirming' new and old music to the buying public (like how often do you hear a song on radio, at the gym, etc... and then go and buy (download) it). On that basis these recording organisations should be paying fees to gyms, restaurants, malls etc for the service they provide in promoting the recording industrys product.
Collectively, any business that plays music to the public, should get together and draft an 'Advertising Agreement' along the lines of, "for the privilage of continued advertisement of your products in our businesses you are required to pay $XXXXXXX per annum - otherwise you can shove your music up your arse". It would be interesting to see how the music industry would respond if suddenly their cheap advertising of product dried up and they had to pay for it instead. - portnoy, on 06/20/2009, -0/+3I only have two comments on that. First, it should be in the USA two and second it should also apply to individuals who play music over speakers loud enough for others to hear. Any sound system with speakers that go in cars with enough power to make them audible outside of the car should require payment of an annual performance tax, ditto for any portable player that runs on batteries. Anyone who wants to listen to a device outside of their homes or inside of their homes at a sound level audible outside of their homes should also require a license. The music industry needs more money. Cocaine doesn't grow on trees!
- killaspike, on 06/20/2009, -0/+2Good.
- acknotSW, on 06/20/2009, -0/+2Nope, just the natural change that comes from new game changing technology. Adapt or die as the saying goes. They are trying to adapt while trying to maintain their previous profit margins. Sorry guys, but the easy gravy train has left the station. The days of making a fortune off of one hit song are coming to a close.
- acknotSW, on 06/20/2009, -0/+2I'm glad to see this happening, it means we are winning, but I didn't expect it to start happening so quickly. The companies are starting to realize that pira.....***** that, file sharing cannot be stopped and they are going to start using copyright laws for what they were originally created for; preventing someone from profiting off of someone else’s IP without their consent.
The obscene rates they are trying to charge is a last ditch attempt to maintain their profit margins, but it will ultimately fail and they will have no choice but to severely lower the price they charge which means major pay cuts all around. Look for them to eventually go after wedding DJ's and cover bands. - davidjunit, on 06/20/2009, -0/+2Easy solution, tell those execs to eff off and then find people that WANT their music to be heard and tell them you'll play it as a courtesy over your store system. Hopefully you can find some decent stuff for free, heh.
- 4NDr01D, on 06/20/2009, -0/+2all the music I like and support
is not part of the PPCA
my music is not signed up with them
I'm happy to donate my songs for the peoples enjoyment
***** the PPCA Cartel ! - dazparkour, on 06/20/2009, -0/+2Reminds me of the story of the 1000 dollar lemonade stand.
There was a kid with a lemonade stand. Guy comes up, "how much is a glass?".
The kid looks him straight in the eye and says "1000 dollars".
The old man says, belittling him "You won't sell many glasses of lemonade for that price!".
The kid looks him straight in the eyes and says "I only need to sell one". - elmundio87, on 06/20/2009, -3/+5It's only music :/
- Lunarsight, on 06/20/2009, -0/+1Merchant - Agreed. I'd argue that it's a win-win scenario when places of business play music in their respective establishments.
The business wins by adding a little atmosphere to their establishment. The musicians and record labels in turn win by getting additional exposure.
In one particular store I frequent, you wouldn't believe how many times I've walked up to the front counter after hearing something they were playing in-store, in order to find out who the artist is. - Zalyster, on 06/20/2009, -0/+1It relaxed a little(by at least Halo 21), it just says unauthorized copying.
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialoggs, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is