What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
64 Comments
- CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm guessing no one actually read the article. Too busy knee-jerking.
The article talks about sharing playlists, not files. And it looks like the author is just as clueless as the rest of the people digging this.
But keep telling yourselves that stealing is ok. Keep believing that Robin Hood was a hero and not a criminal. I'm sure it helps you sleep better at night. And in 20 years, try to explain to your kids why it isn't right for them to steal, but it was ok for you to. - anthony1124, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1seriously. duh.
i get into so much new music from recommendations. everyone benefits. bands have more people going to there shows, they sell more merch, more cd's, then they go and tell all there friends that they saw the greatest band last night. the ones who do benefit the least though are the labels, bands make more money selling there cd at shows than they do getting that dollar per cd that they sell at tower records or whatever.
something i never understand is if an album is released on CD and Vinyl, the Vinyl is always cheaper by at least 6 bucks, but obviously takes more to ship, produce, and there's less bulk, so that's something that has always stumped me. record labels suck. :/ - uber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the RIAA knows this they just want complete control...
Boycott the RIAA - Safe97, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is old news, the riaa just wants control. music sharing popularizes unknown artists and brings in fans who will spend money on them. sure, big names would loose some money, so what.
- Necromancyr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You mean you haven't realized that the file-sharing is still occuring (helping the recording industry) AND they're getting the money from the lawsuits, thereby giving the recording industry benefits from both ends.
- combatcupcake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The whole industry is changing, RIAA is trying to stick to 'the old ways'.
People dont have to settle only for whats on MTV and the radio and only what the labels push (***** Britney and Madonna).
People can go out and find the music they want on their own, and get it without going to marked up stores, and all legally. Directly in the format they actually use.
The RIAA and the 'big stars' are a dying breed. - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
This should be refocused to say that "File sharing helps artists". The "industry" is the RIAA, and in its current carnation, where it controls practically everything about who, what, when, why we get to hear various artists, and how much it will cost us. Meanwhile, there are many artists that make at least some of their work available for free. I suspect, that unlike the RIAA, they care a bit more about whether or not their music is something we'd like to purchase.
With or without the RIAA, I would like to believe that people truly do want to support the artists that produce music that they like. The world is lot bigger than MTV or the other limited choke points controlled by the RIAA. I hope people start venturing forth to figure that out, because until they do, they'll continue supporting the same, tired, overzealous model that brought the "industry" where it is today. - CableCarrier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I believe it. I tried some stuff from the Talking Heads after someone reccomended it, and its some of my favorite music now.
- THX-7168, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.brianjonestownmassacre.com/mp3.html < Great band that offers nearly all of their albums for download.
- HerbSolo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OF COURSE IT IS!
They're making more money with lawsuits than with CDs by now. - tastypastry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Its a shame the fat cats in their corporate offices do get it. Instead they would rather make money the easy way and sue people $750 per song.
I know I learned about a bunch of new music in the Napster era and I went and bought those albums. - africanherbsman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Who cares. All the good musicians are dead, corrupt, or aren't famous enough to be significantly effected by music sharing anyway.
- CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Then you have no rights to the copy.
I agree that the industry needs a revamp. And it will happen. Heck, it already is. I use itunes all the time to buy music. But the way to get change isn't to steal music. That's just stealing. If people want digital music, they should buy it from places like iTunes. The market will correct the RIAA. We don't need crusading vigilantes to do it. Let them "protect" the old ways. Someone else will come along and crush them legally and they'll be left with nothing. But stealing isn't the way to get that change. - Nullifidian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What I find amazing is the morality police everywhere on the internet informing us that downloading music is "stealing". Read the posts around here or anywhere and there they are beating their chest telling us how wrong we are for doing what we do. They then bask in their righteous glow and feel all good inside because they told us how bad we are for downloading copyrighted music. This has always made me wonder:
1) Are they getting paid to be moralistic a-holes?
2) Do they really think downloaders care what they think?
3) Are their ego's so damn big that they have nothing they could ever do that is "possibly" wrong but they do it anyways?
Yeah, the righteous are usually wrong.
We all have to listen to it because their mouths and ego's are always so damn big. - Arru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think the real news is that consumer-to-consumer music recommendations is file sharing. I had no idea!
No digg. - FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0quote:
99.9% of all this anti-RIAA crap is just fluff to attempt to justify stealing. I wish the RIAA didn't exist either but the simple fact is that the RIAA didn't exist before file sharing/stealing became huge and was created specifically to combat the problem.
-----------------------------------
Fu say:
Actually the RIAA has been around since 1952. The file-sharing that came on the heels of digital music is only one of the legal and technical issues they have addressed over the decades. - emiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm always skeptical about things called "studies." Haven't you noticed that "studies" tend to have results like "cellphones will kill you" and "eating nothing but broccoli linked to a 5% reduction in liver cancer in black women."
Still, I bet these guys are accidentally right. - combatcupcake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People dont want to pay for what they can just as easily get for free. In order for them to pay you have to provide them with better means and better product. As of yet the pay services are pretty *****, their formats are all different and even the quality isnt that great, why would I pay for inferior product? This is my main reason for still downloading from free sources (not p2p/bt).
And when did I ever say I feel bad about stealing? Of course I want free music, who doesnt? But
A) I still by albums I really love as long as the price is right (around $10)
B) I go to concerts as often as I can and buy band merchandise
c) I would buy music online legally once its all sorted out and high quality standards are set without the need for DRM or proprietary formats.
The RIAA and MPAA as well are horrendous organizations that do nothing but hurt the people who are the consumers of their products, its all about the money for the already rich, they have no concern for furthering the industry and only know what worked in the past and cant look past their noses to the future, so they only see a source of revenue that involves suing people for a lame ass excuse like "file sharing". You dont see the porn industry complaining about all the porn people "share" around the net, honestly, who pays for online porn? The difference is that the porn industry is so lowbrow, their is no moneygrabbing watchdog who runs the business. And you dont see the porn industry complaining about bad sales.
Both the music and movie industry suffer from the same problem. They put the blame on consumers for piracy for their losses when their losses come from the fact that all they release is complete *****. Maybe if they put more quality and less commercialism into the product people would be honored to pay for it. If you make *****, people wont pay for it. Dont blame people for not buying your *****.
And the issue with 'reccommendations', this is how people want to get their music, from others with similar tastes, not billion dollar companies who pour money into talentless hacks who would never be able to get past an audition on their own.
Complain all you want about 'sharing' or 'stealing' or *****... its a piece of ***** industry that people have and will take advantage of until it changes for the better. - cyndicate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, it's all just greed. Millions of dollars in their pocket is just not enough.
- M3Parker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The music industry knows this, they just choose to be blind about the issue. All their after is money, and they've made that crystal clear with their actions against file sharing.
- bmatherlyjr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Forget sharing this intel with the RIAA that's just going to fall upon deaf ears and blind eyes, someone needs to mass email this information to the legislation enforcers (ie: federal judges) so they can make better informed rulings in cases pertaining to issues such as file sharers.
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Duh.
- IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0AudioGalaxy openend me up to a lot of new artists/songs due to the great community features. It is missed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wow no kiss ass comments from fake accounts!
- inajeep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Duh is right. I know I have bought more music in the past two years than the previous 5 years combined. Thank you Columbia House. But because of they way the RIAA conducts itself, I may start changing my purchasing habits.
- Neptuned, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1what a ***** shocker!
- snownskate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0so true, i have found countless new artists through file sharing...many of whom i go on to support by buying their albums OR even better for the artists , go to their shows.
- woody94, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My question is what am I buying with a CD? I've purchased many CD's over the years, so if I therefore own the songs that I purchased, if I damage the CD through my carelessness, do I then lose my rights to the songs? I do this on a regular basis, because I don't take good enough care of CD's but once I have it, I don't have a moral problem with downloading the song, because I already paid for it once. That's my way of justifying it.
- clinko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"consumer-to-consumer music recommendations a growing feature of online music stores and Web sites will benefit the industry"
I wrote some software to do this a few years back... http://www.clinko.com/music/ - chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"the RIAA knows this they just want complete control..."
The RIAA and the MIAA don't give a crap about p2p. The RIAA has publicly stated that CD copies hurt sales more than p2p. They don't mind CD copies. Why? Because it isn't about the bottom line, it is about their entire business model becoming irrelevant. They are middlemen. Now there is no need for them.
What they care about is the distribution model. P2P is a new distribution model, one that, charge or no charge (think about bands that sell directly via the Internet) the RIAA no longer has a purpose.
Anyone moron who thinks that the RIAA is willing to endure this much egg on its face as it punishes its own customers with over-zealous and far-reaching legal action is... well, a ***** moron. They are suing not to protect Intellectual Property. They are suing to protect the very reason the RIAA exist... because we need them to get music.
If a band wanted to use Bit Torrent, a private tracker (IP white-listing or some-such), to charge for their music. Or even to offer the first 3 songs off their album for free, and you order the CD from them for the rest. Do they need the RIAA? No.
That scares the RIAA. The RIAA doesn't care what the consumers do (much). They are terrified the artist will begin to have a choice. And if the artist chose to go with company C, which uses new tech from teh Internets - the artist get more money, and have just made the RIAA irrelevant. Bottom line: any company, or even an average geek (or a band) can be their own distributors. The RIAA is in the business of distributing. It is all they do. They were the only choice... the ONLY choice. Now they're not. - dr-steve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Agreed with all of you (those few) who actually read the article and observed that it spoke of PLAYLIST sharing and LISTENER RECOMMENDATIONS. Not file sharing.
To those of you who curse the RIAA, I ask: 1. How many rock concerts (large theater) have you attended in the past five years? Were they all mainstream/main-line groups? 2. How many small/new/traveling/unestablished groups have you watched in smaller club settings? Have you, after listening to their music, purchased any of their self-produced CDs?
Exposure to new music? It's the same question, guys... - rohcky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0100% true. I wasn't a fan of Metallica until I dled some of their songs. Then I went out and bought 3 of their cds. Then RIAA came. Now they get jack from me and I haven't bought an album since.
- combatcupcake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No one said anything about downloading as vigilante justice. The issue seems to be that the RIAA is using downloading as a scapegoat to protect themselves. "Lets sue people who download music to we make THEM out to be the bad guy!" If I really like an album (FULL ALBUM) I will go buy it, and this is not the case with a lot of music, most bands only tend to have a few good songs. My main problem with the legal music is that I dont like the 2809625698 different standards they all use. My entire library is all actual mp3 encoded files, not aac, not ogg, not wma, no DRM, etc. Until that happens and all the crap is worked out and I can just login and buy the songs I like without horrible DRM ***** or formats I dont want I will continue to get music the way I want.
- combatcupcake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Metallica is so funny, I've been a fan since the Black album, I buy their albums, and when they started the whole thing yeah it sucked, but their music was still good, so I didnt mind as much (unlike the other artists which I dont give a ***** about).
Then most of the blaming died down and they were releasing a new album which I was already to buy and then..... the album ***** sucked (St Anger)! - xeeton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, because stealing always bolsters an industry. This argument is akin to saying that since everyone is stealing Macs from the Apple Store they are realizing that they are better; this is good for Apple!
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This article is full of crap. Notice is went off talking about how "suggestions" and sharing "playlists" helped increase sales and learn new bands. That has nothing to do with downloading through p2p. I download like everyone else, but it doesn't mean I will write or say BS things like this article. If RIAA stopped downloading through P2P people could still "sample" music online at websites, or MTV music videos or several other ways, or simply download a "recommended" song and see if they like their music. You can listen to online radio websites, etc to hear samples of bands. Downloading with P2P has nothing to do with it. No Digg for a really stupid argument that has nothing to do with P2P downloading and all to do with shared playlists and recommendations that are done with or without P2P...
- shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I used to buy hundreds of dollars in music when Napster was thriving.
The instanty the music industry considered me a CRIMINAL for copying my CD to MP3 I STOPPED BUYING CD's! They have lost THOUSANDS of my dollars over the years. - dc2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i always knew file sharing was better for the consumer & the srtists.
i mean im always looking for free downloads from the offical site to see if i want the album or not. also if you think about theres another way as well, music statsions like MTV and VH1 and fuse will play videos from new albums and that also help us decide if the album is good or not.
but like anything else in the world, some loser will abuse the concept and ruin it for all of us in the end. - afpunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, this article isn't really about file sharing so much as playlist sharing. That said, file sharing isn't good for the 5....it really does decrease their profits. However, for music in general, the independent bands that play great music, and the smaller labels that sign them, file sharing is a dream come true. There are very few people in the music business outside of the 5 who are strongly against file sharing.
- tranix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Top 40 pop/classic-rock sucks. I didn't buy CDs for years until I started downloading and searching for music I really like, which I now buy CDs to own high quality copies. See how that works riaa?
- africanherbsman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Jealous?...
Actually, albertpacino has a story he submitted more than 22 hours ago and only got 6 diggs.
You just lost your credibility. - bitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Come on not many people really care about this want proof? Think people dugg this story on it's merit or even because it was about filesharing, heck no. It was only dugg 817 times so far because Alberpacino posted it. All of Albert's fanboys noticed another post and of course had to digg it.
Here is another good related story, http://digg.com/movies/Just_Let_Us_Play_The_Movie
Guess what it's been over two hours since it was posted and has only had 6 other people digg it.
Seems that many of us might just be very wrong about digg and the whole web 2.0 craze in general. Worse than slashdot, just populated mostly by fanboys and if your not a top poster then forget your stuff getting dugg by more than a few others. Digg had won me over to the whole rss, blog, web 2.0 craze, now I'm starting to see where it isn't so great after all.
I could be wrong though, maybe others just hate me for some reason and refuse to digg whatever I post (still comes down to bias based on who's posting).
Of course with such a messed up system, there is room for rampant abuse, the kind of abuse we've already seen and were upset by. - nnonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+099.9% of all this anti-RIAA crap is just fluff to attempt to justify stealing. I wish the RIAA didn't exist either but the simple fact is that the RIAA didn't exist before file sharing/stealing became huge and was created specifically to combat the problem.
News flash crazies .... stop stealing. Your not on some sacred quest to rid the world of the RIAA or making a social statement about making too much money (as you'd like others to believe) ... your just stealing for your own greed & gain, plain and simple. - Sell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Only people with Ipods pay for their music. The rest use P2P or stream rippers.
- awright38, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0s/the provide/they provide
- awright38, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0why should someone have to pay $.99 for a song. Most of the money goes to music companies who have no viable reason to exist anymore (the only valuable function the provide is PR, which can be done by any PR firm).
Distribution occurs on-line, albums can be recorded for a fraction of the price they used to cost, there is no need for a record company to pool together talent to hedge risk like a Venture Capital fund. - CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So, just to recap combat, you steal because you don't like DRM and multiple file formats. Then you blame the RIAA for making you feel bad about stealing. *shrug* Good for you.
- Seveneb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think the RIAA has been bit in the ass by technology. If I download a music file by p2p, the original CD was bought somewhere sometime. I don't feel its stealing, I'm getting a copy. I don't get the original packaging the song came with (Booklet/physical cd). And the person I'm downloading from is not making money by giving me a copy.
-
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is