What is Digg?108 Comments
- whatthefu, on 10/19/2007, -2/+88Obsolete? Yes. Dead? No. They'll still sue your ass.
- fluidfoundation, on 10/15/2007, -4/+67Is CNN dead?
- jt18, on 10/15/2007, -2/+25Not yet they aren't. They are dying though. Lets make sure they die and stay that way.
- Ch3n3yTh3D1ck, on 10/15/2007, -1/+21it's because CNN is no longer a real news source
- objectcode, on 10/22/2007, -1/+20Obligatory digg up for ***** the RIAA
- inactive, on 10/16/2007, -0/+17What did Radiohead do?
- reed311, on 10/19/2007, -6/+22Ahh, the daily "Trent Reznor dropped his record company, therefore the record industry is dead."
- techmonkey4u, on 10/15/2007, -1/+13I was thinking the same about Cracked
- inactive, on 10/15/2007, -0/+10How is that not keeping their word?
- shad0w, on 10/16/2007, -10/+19Well lets hope that Trent keeps his word, unlike Radiohead.
- inactive, on 10/15/2007, -1/+9They're shopping the big 4 for a deal, adding "bonus content" to the major label release
- chase001, on 10/15/2007, -0/+7No. CNN is the mouthpiece for AIPEC.
- JoeVet, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6My God.....they'll have to have artists who can play instruments and sing. Bye Bye Brittany.
- RunawayElf, on 10/15/2007, -0/+5A well worded analysis on the state of the recording labels. A change is definitely coming, but I'm not so sure it'll be as big as many hope it will be.
- smacksaw, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4I guess if we keep getting these ***** redundant articles posted to Digg every day they aren't. You'll know they're dead when there's no more of these articles. Until then, fry me an egg for these re-hash browns.
- aegion7, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5They can't even provide that anymore. They don't have the money, have you watched MTV lately? There's a reason it's all reality TV now.
- Dorepoll, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5I disagree. Not every fan of Radiohead is aware of the In Rainbows website, so this would be a good way for them to find that music.
- vinnievivace, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3i kinda feel the same way about your comment.... oh ***** now i just wasted a further 20 seconds responding to you
- inactive, on 10/15/2007, -2/+5There are so many people out there still who are after record deals until the record companies have little to worry about. Just because 3 major groups known here to digg (nobody I hang around listens to radiohead or madonna or NIN...' and im serious) doesn't mean the music industry is flooring. There's loads of untapped talent still out there who's happy to be taken in by record companies and spit out and controlled by them; as long as they bathe in a suitable amount of money. So it depends where you come from; as far as I am concerned, the music industry leaders still have unprecedent power over music; new and especially old.
This isn't to say i'm for the music industry; the RIAA can kiss my ass. - inactive, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3how can they not mention iron maiden and sanctuary. they left emi and made sanctuary and did records for many other artists liek thin lizzy, robert plant, motorhead, Black Sabbath, Dio, Elton John, Guns N' Roses voivod etc. etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_Records - cheekybastard, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3"You are not fighting the power you are merely giving the government the excuse they need to take increasing control over the Internet." Are you a music industry PR troll? I call FUD.
@aegion7 "tl;dr" WTF? Does it hurt for you to think? Please restrict yourself to AOL and MySpace. - manicallday, on 10/15/2007, -2/+4I have no idea why record companies are necessary. I think it's just one of those institutions that just exist for the sake of existing. They really don't provide any services to the artist other than front money. But that's just a loan because the expenses of producing and promoting the album is left mostly to the artist. But, they're still are seem as a necessity to the entertainment world. Go figure.
- gquaglia, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3Lets hope so. These blood suckers have been making a mint for decades. Aside from the megastars, how much money actually went back to the performer.
- fireantz, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2I think as long as there are crappy artists making crappy music (99% of the hip hop these days comes to mind) there will be record labels making sure they're getting their 'music' played.
- yosempai, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Dugg down...it's Pop Rocks and Coke!
- fkr3, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3No, people on digg just figured they were going to get everything for nothing. Be satisfied you got something for nothing at least.
- Ronnie, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Obligatory link to my website on music industry stories.
Oh did I mention my CD is available only on line? (Reznor is doing nothing new, although prolly selling more CDs then me)
http://www.ronnierecords.com - chrism1128, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3They're not dead, they've just been slipped a ruffie.
- inactive, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2yhea but cracked is more accurate then CNN on the stuff that it reports on.
- ReDoEr, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2we can but hope.
- oxygen911, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3"It comes down to, do you need a label? Possibly not. Do you need the expertise that a label traditionally brought? Absolutely," Cohen said.
Well put. You don't need a label, but you need to know what the ***** you are doing. Think putting your band on myspace and barely playing shows is going to break you? Please.... You need a great sounding record($, and no, your pro tools LE rig and shoddy engineering "skillz" wont cut it), you need to tour($), you need to eat ramen out of the back of your van outside a show where you were only able to sell 4 t-shirts and a thumb drive with your raw AIFFs on it. You need conventional wisdom you only having the will power and the desire for people to hear your music. When you start to get larger, you are going to need people to help market you, book shows for you, get you heard and seen. No kids, its not just done "all over the internet". You need to talk to promoters on the phone, you need to meet with people face to face who want to invest in your band. It takes real connections, real effort, and real time. while it may not be a label, it is still a group of individuals working for the band, when the band simply does not have the time to do so (touring)
The new era: Band + Independent Finance + Management + Distribution. - xister, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2This could mark the beginning of a new era for concerts and promotion if the focus is shifted to shows and touring instead of CD sales.
- ksmith34746, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3They're still giving their music away for free. They're selling a bunch of their artwork and stuff. That's totally optional. They promised to give away their music for free, and that's what they are doing. That's the promise they made, and they're keeping it. So what's the problem?
- fkr3, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1You know they use more than just MTV to get music out there?
The internet isn't a comparible alternative, as seen by every other forms of advertising and marketing which have grown and flourished despite businesses and people having the ability to 'go it alone' with the internet.
You can sign up on every indie site out there and you're not going to get half the exposure a single decent radio station can provide in one afternoon while people are commuting. - bdbr, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1That sucks, dude...who was it that forced you to download that?
- ksmith34746, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Downward Spiral was a great album!
- technoredneck, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1"You are not fighting the power you are merely giving the government the excuse they need to take increasing control over the Internet."
Just like Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights activists gave society and the government an excuse to be more racist, right?
"Maybe when you all graduate high school and begin working for a living at McDonalds you might start to understand that not everything can be free."
Of course everything can't be free, but bigwig media execs certainly can give their acts decent money and stop oppressing independent artists in order to get richer. And they can lower their prices.
"So when the time comes that you have to sign in with you own name and are tracked everywhere you go be some ***** employed by the Department of Homeland Security all you have to do is look into the mirror to find someone to blame."
It's not the pirates' fault if a handful of corporations manipulate the government because they didn't have a viable market. If you think pirates are to blame, /your/ response is the one outside of the real world. The majority of people don't pirate because they want 'free stuff'. Most of those that pirate do so because they can't afford the stuff or aren't willing to pay the price for it, and a select few even pirate out of nothing but civil disobedience.
Furthermore, those that pirate just for 'free stuff' aren't going to buy to begin with, no matter how controlling the government or effective the DRM. (They'll just abstain from MAFIAA media, like I'm doing.) If anything, it will only make them worse. Of course, the MAFIAA is not to blame for the choices of those who pirate, but if they were more reasonable in their pricing and trolling, they'd actually /sell/ a lot more stuff to those pirates.
Sure, pirates are the ones who pirated, but their actions have no influence on the morality of MAFIAA's choices, thus negating any blame on pirates. If you kill my mother, does that give me a right to kill yours? Does provoking me to kill your innocent mother make it your fault? If you answered yes, I'm sorry, but we're just not on the same page. My mind just doesn't tick that way; I think an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. And like the dead mothers, creativity and innovation are innocent bystanders killed by the notion of moral relativity and blaming one's choices on others.
If pirates provoke negative consequences, then the MAFIAA does too just as much. They can't be blamed for MAFIAA's actions if MAFIAA can't be blamed for theirs. You can't have it both ways.
This day in age, the notion of enforcing copyright with an iron fist and draconian sense of justice is a joke. Hell, it always was, but it's looking extra joke-like in the digital age. You should read "The Right to Read" by Richard Stallman and try to blame the way things are in that little story on consumers and pirates.
This day in age, the notion of enforcing copyright with an iron fist and draconian sense of justice is a joke. Hell, it always was, but it's looking extra joke-like in the digital age. You should read "The Right to Read" by Richard Stallman and try to blame the way things are in that little story on consumers and pirates. - offspring06, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1What kind of music do you play?
- pilgrim3970, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1"how can they not mention iron maiden and sanctuary."
dugg for the Iron Maiden reference. - fkr3, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1And the tens of thousands who've had to fork over a couple of grand too.
Reality is if you're sharing their IP and you're sitting in the US you face an increasing chance of consequences. Every other person they sue just brings them one closer to yourself. - pyromonkey, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1I agree with you pizzasLover. Radiohead can afford to unleash themselves from a record label, because they already have their name out there. Even if they went straight to web publishing, fans would still find and download their albums.
When you get newer, barely-out-of-the-garage bands trying to promote their album I'd imagine it would be a little more difficult without record labels to push it for you. - bonsaidouglas, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Just like any other business the talent should focus on what they're good at, in this case making music. I think the real story here is that new labels are popping up and with the available technologies are letting them promote their artists like a big label. Madonna is breaking with her label to sign with Live Nation who does music promotion? They're still going to need someone to handle distribution and all the other parts of running a business. I think the message is replace "Record Label" with "Music Promoter" if you're setting up a company to let artists focus on what they're good at.
- bdbr, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1How about DISTRIBUTION? If the bands must all be personally responsible for negotiating deals with retailers, figuring out tariff and copyright laws of hundreds of countries, and setting up and maintaining global distribution workflow, then bands will stop being musicians and start being accountants and lawyers.
- bdbr, on 10/15/2007, -0/+128% of Americans and 23% in the UK have broadband...and not all of those have MP3 players, are comfortable buying digital music, or want to pay for lossy music. Online music may rule someday...but that day is a long, loong, time from now.
- Myztry, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Well obviously it'd be a transitional thing. As any change, in any form requires.
As for non Internet/Computer the booths could cater for them (like digital photo printing)
I wasn't talking strictly WWW. More the point the expense of The Labels is completely unnecessary, and unjust.
Though Ironically, the Label could function in this environment but their greed dictates ALL OR DEATH. - inactive, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1i certainly hope so. trent, you rock.
- offspring06, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Obligatory digg up for digging up ***** the RIAA.
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is