What is Digg?110 Comments
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41B-b-but if we pirate, the terrorists will win!
- Chakz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34A agree
- Pix869, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.
- SaxxonPike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22As a musician, this is one reason I won't sign on with a record label. Most people don't know this, but even if I was signed, I'd rather you paid me $1 than buy my CD. Or even 25 cents. I'd be getting more that way than through the record company, and that's no lie.
- futzy99, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22I wish all of these articles about the same thing over and over would actually make the record companies do something...
I guy can dream can't he? - bolero421, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19You're missing the point of the article. It isn't trying to justify copyright infringement on the basis that it does not really hurt the artist. Instead, it is simply debunking that claim as it is used by the record labels.
- NeCtUr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15the courtney love article is an amazing read, if you haven't read it, read it here:
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.xml?pn=1
long read, but its worth it, and provides a view from an artist's perspective. - po43292, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Soviet Russians and people in Boston suffer the most...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Who says musicians should be rich? Why do they have to make millions?
- crawfishsoul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14are you the same anicejew I already blocked by another, less capitalized username?
- livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Artists are (if) starving, is because of the Labels.
They accumulate $100s of millions for the Labels but live their glamourous lifestyle on a lease, they end up broke. Remember, most sign contracts with these same labels without owning their masters. The label owns their work.
That's why so many of those great selling artists die broke.
Do you realize how much they make on a song sold on iTunes? Compared to what the label gets? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Agreed... And yet I somehow find them more deserving than the well-bred white men in tailored suits who arrange these deals and have relatively nothing to do with the artist's creation. Fronting money should NOT be such an embarrassingly lucrative and empowering vocation.
- indiemusedotcom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Artists make barely any money from their labels. Most of their revenue is from touring, and from what I've read, labels now want to dip into that money too. It feels like it's getting to a point where artists will benefit more by remaining independent.
- asdfrewq, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"It doesn't help the artist if downloading gives him more exposure. So what? Exposure isn't money, especially if everyone wants to download it for free. (After all, if you already have the song, why would you pay for it again on iTunes/Napster?)"
But exposure does help artists. You're missing the point that most artists don't make all that much money from record sales, in fact that's a small portion of the pie. Most artists today make money from playing live shows, licensing and other appearances. All of which will come as a direct result of gaining an audience.
And I'm not sure where you're going with that last point, but your right, why should I pay for songs that I already own? I have a rather large vinyl collection and in no way feel I should have to pay for that music once again just because I want digital versions of the same songs. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9He appears to be. I had a moment of sheer horror for a moment thinking Digg had lost the hundreds of jackasses I've painstakingly removed from my existence.
- inmatarian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Creative Commons!
Artists need to not be so shy of listeners wanting to hear their songs. Maybe accept the fact that you wont get millions of dollars from having your music on every iPod in the country, but revel in the fact that you OWN your music, and that you still have the right to sell it however you want (yes, you can still sell your own work licensed under CC), and that you can play whatever you want when you go on tour. - danakin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Maybe if artists WERE starving we'd get some music worth listening to.
- isny, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12The terrorists only win if you pirate Aqua Teen Hunger Force
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12PLEASE, fatdog. Don't hold everyone to your morals, it's no better than claiming everyone else is ignoring theirs. I morally believe that a victimless crime is (in most cases) not a crime at all. If I don't have the money to spend on a CD, and I download it instead, there's absolutely nothing whatsoever conceivably wrong with that. In fact, when I finally pay off college loans, guess what--I might actually buy a CD from that band, since I know if I like their music or not!! I'm sure as heck not buying a CD on the off chance I might like what's on it.
What determines something as morally wrong (for me) is the effect of the action. Will it hurt anyone/anything? Could it hurt anyone/anything? Is it negligent? This is none of these. In fact, it's the opposite--it's something for free. It's giving without losing. Hardly morally wrong, IMO. - xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Who makes the profit from dead musicians?? I mean not like Elvis or Mozart are missing out.
- Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Stealing is wrong, because when you steal someone's stuff they don't get to use it any more. I'm not sure what that has to do with music though, unless you sneak into the studio right after a song is recorded and steal the master...
- Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6In the story of copyright and copyright infringement, the only thing that's unethical is trying to legally prevent people from sharing data so that some greedy bastards can make a profit. Copyright isn't a natural right, it's a bit of legal trivia from before our society had decent communication technology or a passing understanding of economics. No artist's right to extort money from people is greater than a person's right to share with their fellow men.
- Dabellah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10That's 2 nice Jews I've had to block... who's next?
- pathy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The paparazzi.
- pathy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm not putting words in to TheFamousOne's mouth here, but there are a few people that I've known in bands, or as solo artists that get signed.
Even though they aren't getting signed on with major labels, they see the deal as their way in to the industry, and to start making better money than they currently are. They'll sign the contract, and most of the time will barely read it, or not understand it, but simply think of it as something to get them started.
Once they're locked in to the contract, they can't really do much untill the contract expires.
That's only from the few people that I've met whom signed on to labels, and it may be different in the US (This was in the UK), but all the bands I knew were very, very eager to get signed. - typo180, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@tanaeem
That's the outlook that lets the entertainment industry control everything. Artists have been around since long before there was an entertainment industry. Things would work differently without the RIAA, but music wouldn't die. - realyst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://www.okgo.net/news.aspx
Oh yeah. They seem to be hurting real bad....
I don't think you got the moral of their story...the fact that everyone downloaded their video(which was their intended effect) HELPED them. They weren't well known at all until their treadmill video made it all over the place(hell, I even heard the song playing on a Scrubs ep).
If you're going to use an example to make an argument, make sure the example doesn't prove the opposite. - inmatarian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You're looking at it from the wrong angle. If I make a single song, CC it, and then release it to the internet. Yeah, of course I won't make any money that way. However, if I make an entire CD, CC it, market it a bit, and then go on tour playing to my fans, I make my money via touring. I can guarantee you that I wouldn't be a Britney Speares, in that I wouldn't be as astoundingly rich, but I would also not be as publically stupid and inconsiderate of my fans.
Basically, I'm asking for a musician that is legitimately about his fans. Creative Commons music is a gift to the fans, and a little free publicity if people like it and share it. - argoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"B-b-but if we pirate, the terrorists will win!"
Actually, one thing I've noticed about the terrorists is that their attacks have no strategic value, but only media value, as they get hyped up in the press to push their agenda. So why does the press always hype things out of proportion? Well you guessed it. copyrights. Since they have a monopoly on the showing of their clip, they have every incentive on the word to hype things out of control to ratchet up their publicity, and thus ratings.
Without copyrights the market would be forced to center around news services instead of news hype, because there would no money in hyping things out of control - other outlets would just copy the clip and steal away their ratings. That would kill the terrorists media advantage, and at the very least increase their costs if not drain the incentive to fund them. - Platypus3333, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Chandon, while I'm not touching the issue of the RIAA, it seems that you're arguing that even ARTISTS have no right to stop people from sharing their work, and that they have no right to ask for compensation.
Is that really what you believe? If people share work freely at the expense of artists, how would artists survive? And what would be their incentive to continue producing? - 6strings, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Getting screwed how?
If you can manage to get your novel published, you will keep the copyright. If you don't care about your copyright, simply never prosecute anyone who violates it.
Publishing music... and even in music, it's up to the artist whether or not to sign away rights. Frank Zappa started arguing in favor of self-publishing music in the sixties, and it made him a very wealthy man by the time he died. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You seriously misunderstand copyright law. CC doesn't do anything that copyright law doesn't already do.
Musicians were touring long before the CC.
You can already release a song for free under copyright. All those fair use provisions in the CC? They're taken straight from copyright law. The CC is like the Equal Rights Amendment. It's great in theory, but it's redundant. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Sure, pirating music by well known millionaire artists isn't going to hurt them
But think twice before downloading an album that's on an indie label. They actually try to put out good music, and I have a lot of friends who are in indie bands who tour the country, work their asses off and live out of a van 100+ days out of the year and don't get paid squat. I've done it myself a few times and it really sucks when you plan a tour, go to a city 500 miles away to play a show and people talk about how they found your music on Soulseek, say they love your band, but don't buy any of your merchandise while at the show. Sure it's awesome they love your music and you really appreciate them coming out, but it sucks that you have to sleep in the van that night surrounded by 5 sweaty guys because no one bought your merchandise, but a dozen or so people were there screaming every word to every song you played. Indie bands make ***** off of music sales and have to tour to try to make it big, barely breaking even by traveling and earning every penny through their blood sweat and tears.
Anyone who has ever toured with an indie band knows what I'm talking about. It's a hell of a lot of hard work for very little money. If you enjoy an indie artist and have downloaded their music and enjoy it, pick up a copy or at least, go out and see them live and buy them a few drinks. These guys really deserve it.
Sure ripping off Carrie Underwood of James Hetfield isn't that big of a deal, as they get pennies per copy and the rest of the sale goes to the record label, but please think twice before doing it to someone who has to struggle to pay rent, while you listen to their music for free. - The5thHorseman, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Hardly new, but well written. And it is heartening that more and more people are talking about these issues.
Imagine for a moment, if music were like shareware - you listen, and if you like a track, you send the singer/songwriter/band a buck or two. It would be easy to do these days from a technological point of view (since it is already being done except the money goes to the media companies instead).
Young music creators (ANY creative people!) need to join collectives, organize the technical systems and do this.
Sure you will continue to have people rip them off (few programmers ever made a living at shareware), but as a model it could really grow. Right now, a few are trying to do it, but very piecemeal (though I could stand to be corrected!) - ummagummas08, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This article doesn't make sense! The views that he states don't really correspond with piracy. I mean is that just the way I read it or are people just commenting for the sake of commenting?
- pathy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Come on dude... Spill it, who are you?
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"[The article] is debunking that claim as it is used by the record labels."
The writer refers to the the entire entertainment industry, not just the music industry. I can't speak to the music side, but I can speak to the film side.
"But exposure does help artists. You're missing the point that most artists don't make all that much money from record sales, in fact that's a small portion of the pie. Most artists today make money from playing live shows, licensing and other appearances."
Again, the article talks about the entire entertainment industry, not just the record industry. This works against your argument, as actors do not tour or sell t-shirts. The only thing most of us have the opportunity to license is our creative work -- in the form of theatrical releases, DVDs and/or television broadcasts. By pirating movies, people are essentially making their own t-shirts rather than purchasing one.
As far as the exposure argument goes, it doesn't apply to the film industry. How many times have you said, "I absolutely have to have more work by 'Man with Fruit Cart' and the guy who doubled for the villain to take that 10 story fall"? The article says that most artists don't strike it rich -- these are the kind of artists he's talking about. However, he is wrong in saying that they see no profit from their work. I have a couple of these roles to my credit as well and have received residual checks from them that specifically cite whether the money came from DVD sales or television sales. The money has gotten me through some lean times.
"What determines something as morally wrong (for me) is the effect of the action. Will it hurt anyone/anything? Could it hurt anyone/anything? Is it negligent? This is none of these"
Most actors work in relative anonymity while the characters they play remain essential to the story. If the role didn't serve a purpose, it would be cut to move the film along and save the production company money. I know a lot of struggling actors who need their residual check to survive, which debunks your 'doesn't hurt anyone/anything' argument.
"Copyright isn't a natural right, it's a bit of legal trivia from before our society had decent communication technology or a passing understanding of economics. No artist's right to extort money from people is greater than a person's right to share with their fellow men."
Professional actors and musicians provide the service of entertainment and are up front about the fact that involves a fee. You have the option to accept that service and its cost or walk away. That's not extortion, that's business. Nowhere does the law provide that you have the right to free entertainment. In regard to sharing, you are somewhat correct, only in that I have the right to share my work without profit as much as I have the right ask that it involve compensation. But sharing my work with you does not automatically give you have the right to distribute to the world without my permission.
FTA: "Artists don't have any money, and if the Tidy Bowl Man did, do you think he'd be living in the crapper? Publishers/Recording Artists/Movie Producers are better organized and do better lobbying. Plus they have all the money they've made off the backs of the artists...There is an entire industry that leeches off the creative talent of legions of artists. The artists, almost without exception, never make it big."
Again, we're talking about business. Every business is going to try to get the best deal they can on the products or services they need. That's why I belong to an actor's union that fights for its members to get fair compensation and a fair share of the profits. The reason we get a share of the profits is to protect ourselves as well as the companies who employ us. It's not fair of us to ask that we get all the money up front, as there is no guarantee that the movie will be a success. Initial work by non-celebrity actors gets a standard pay rate that allows the film to be shown in theaters without further compensation. If the movie flops, the film company takes the loss. If it's a hit, then the movie will go to DVD first and then television, both of which offer further compensation to the performers for helping make the film a success. Non-celebrity actors do not get rich off this arrangement, but they are being compensated for their work, despite what the article says.
In general, this article is opinion with nothing to back it other than the fact the author says he was in D.C. for six months. Even then, we don't know what he did there. But I can tell you, as a non-celebrity, professional actor who has been in the entertainment industry for more than 14 years, we do see compensation from sales after the film has left the theaters, and that piracy does affect the pocketbooks of struggling artists. - NoNameHere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Piracy against those media that are under a financial stranglehold is GOOD. Weakening corporations, and the collaborations and conglomerates thereof, strengthens individuals and furthers the cause of true freedom. Down with those that would dare to tell us what we "can" and "can't" do!
- Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What you're describing is plagiarism. Plagiarism is wrong, not because it involves copying, but because it's a form of fraud: you're taking someone else's design and claiming it as yours, lying to everyone who sees it.
- livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5There is plenty of good music, but it just ain't on your radio or your music television stations.
Turn Off The Radio, Tune In Online!
Indie artists these days are coming up with the best sounds today. The A&R's have been pushing the same garbage for so long now, even good artists are forced to conform or they get dropped.
Yes I agree sex sells, but there is a ******* demand for pretty much anything today.
There is hardly any creativity left in what we hear on the radio or the stuff selling millions upon millions. No better example of this than Hip Hop music. Glory days of inventive style and creativity of the 70's, 80's, early 90's have all but disappeared except in the Indie scene.
/rant - EasyEve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I thought this article was just a method of getting people to click ADWORDS, but hey you tell me.
The article was wack and your one experience in D.C. does not mean you are a trusted source for such accusations about Congressional decision making.
Anyway- people who create music (or any form of intellectual property) should be fairly and properly rewarded and protected! - jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's the solution: NEVER buy a cd, ALWAYS pay for a performance, the word busker comes to mind.
- Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you give it it's own name and market as something else, and especially if you earn money from it, that is not a valid comparison with piracy.
A valid comparison would be if you set up a mirror site, that didn't earn you any money, and just redistributed the stuff on digg, still stating that it is from Digg- which I don't think many people would think was a crime. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What does that even mean? How does taking a really old artist and then pointing out that you don't hear his music anymore prove your point?
- Pix869, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I was mainly talking about the morons who say "Who cares if I download their music, they have millions of dollars!"
- angeloloria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2but if i don't buy cds lars ulrich won't be able to build his golden shark tank
- tolldog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you both sing and write the songs, you should be getting a better cut than 3%. Being the songwriter alone is more than 7 cents a song, usually the artist gets about the same amount. That's at least 4x what you negotiated for. I am sure you already know this, of course.
Hopefully your advance wasn't too high either, recouping from that is usually the worst part. Newer artists get hit the hardest because they (or their managers) waste the advance during recording and don't see a dime from sales for a long time.
What I would like to see is artists get 25% of sales, songwriters get 25% of sales (at least for digital, but the cost of cd's has gone down a lot), and a max on the recoup amount from royalties going in to the advance. Maybe 50% or so. This way, the artist is receiving income while the album is selling, and the label is getting paid off on their investment.
With the internet, both sales and advertising have become extremely cheap and easy, the industry needs to reform to catch up with this. If the labels don't the indies will take over. People will become their own label and distributor and even the smaller artists will be able to make a better living.
As far as other's ideas about copyrights, unsold songs hurt the artist. So spread the word about good artists, and if you hear music you like, pay for it. - hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2so Diggers could help Unsigned indy bands by giving them the odd free drink...
i cant see the harm - if you can afford it... WTF
mind you the band shouldnt ask..too often - CLEVELTECH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree with with you because my best friend has been in so many bands and he's struggled so hard just to be heard. I support ANY musician that all they want is to be heard. I understand that. What I detest and HATE is greedy rich performers like Lars Ulrich and James Hetfield that decide to declare war on the very people that love their music and have gone to see them in concert. It takes years to earn fans and only SECONDS to lose them. It's those guys will never see another penny from me ever again.
- robbclark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23%? you got yourself a sweet deal
Mostly how it works is so:
you sign a contract, the contract stipulates that if you sell 1 million albums, you get a certain percentage. You release 3 albums, the first sells 200 k, the second sells 800k, the 3rd sells 2million. Know how much you make? Jack *****. you average 1 million per record, the label takes it all.
Peoples best bet is to go to shows, buy the album there, or buy merch. The money artists make is from touring. Unless you are some ***** ass pop star who sells 3 million albums, you make *****. Record labels and the RIAA are the people who stifle creativity. Pirates make no difference whatsoever, unless the band in releasing the album independently, then if you steal it, you suck. I saw a comment on digg earlier today, to the effect of, if you are a band who associates with the RIAA, i boycott you and the RIAA by pirating you so the RIAA gets none of the money, I whole heartedly agree with that.Be indie, or you get ***** from me. Record labels and the RIAA are evil, so why cant I be? -
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is