What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
97 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Damn right.
- lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27Its not the RIAA, its the Super Awesome Talent Agency! And they have a great fountain in their lobby.
- spikes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14That argument is flawed, if we were renting the music we buy, we should be entitled to cheaper upgrades when the format changes to the next big thing, considering we already "own" the rights to play it.
- punkdigerati, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Recycle all of the old media, to either make new media, or into another form that is useable. It would be much better than having it fill up landfills. People throwing away scratched cds is probably as bad as everyone throwing away the AOL cds
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12All this crap makes me sick. It's one thing to make the price of a CD $15-20 , but you cross the line when you make us pay that good money to effectively "rent" our music/games/movies ect.
If I buy my music, I should be able to use it for whatever purpose I want. I understand why the RIAA wants to do this, but making your customers second-rate citizens is not the way to stop pirating.
Maybe if they treated us with a little respect, some of us would feel bad about pirating. But that is not the situation we are currently in. - Mental64, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13RIAA won't be relevant in the future, they were just the middleman in between the artist and the fans of yesteryear. The Internet and other forms of distribution will get rid of them and bring the artists back to the fans.
- compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10***** the RIAA
- JamesGolick, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Why is this comment being negative dugg?
Its a great reference--to a great episode of South Park!
If you don't get it, leave it alone, so the rest of us can see it. - tuxidomasx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18...i can see an image of the mona lisa for free. i can see the david statue. i can view an electronic image of the Sistine Chapel. so why do i have to pay to hear a copy of a song? do artists charge people to look at their work? no, they charge people to own the original.
so why on earth would i pay for a copy of a song? music is art right? either i can pay a few million dollars for the original, or i can get a copy for free. sounds fair to me.
or...heaven forbid...artists and record company execs would go broke and have to get regular jobs and earn a living like everybody else. oh no! we cant have that now can we?
i think we'll have better quality music when artists do it because they love to make music (as a hobby) as opposed to doing it because they are under contract and BMG has them by the bizzalls. let artists make money from concerts-- thats where REAL performers will shine. I'd pay for an original expression of art-- not for a copy. and that goes for everything. - iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9and a ton more with your post... you do have to buy another 8track because the one you bought years ago no longer works (the media is broken), the CD you got is scratched now ----but you say you have to buy new tires every year, right? sure! *BUT* you don't purchase the "media" you purchase a license to the recordings.. so why should you have to re purchase the cd/dvd/8track/tape again? I mean you purchased a license to "borrow" the music itself.. that is why fair-use was created. Also, not like the riaa or mpaa want you to know, but the whole purpose of copyrights isn't to pay the artist, or to pay the maker, but to encourage people to make things even better than what was copyrighted - better artists, better composers, better techology, to encourage you to take what is there and make it better, over and over again, stimulating society.... google it yourself. So, given that, you're not in copyright violation as the RIAA and MPAA would like to scare you into thinking, any competent attorney will be able to get any one of those poor grandmothers who are getting sued out of the bind, but of course, the revenue of attorneys is yet another whole book.
- rapidtransit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Hi. Public domain.
Thank you. Come again. - Henley24, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Visual artists are feeling effects of this too. Go to your local museum, you won't be able to take a picture of anything in the contemporary galleries. I don't know who made the push for that rule, but there are some artists/trustees who are very particular about who can even look at copies. For the Sistine Chapel, anyone who reproduces new images owes royalties to the Japanese company that funded the restoration a few years back.
Older work is public domain. No one can stop us from downloading public domain works... - jholdaway, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Situation one: You find a clip of music or video from a movie on the internet. You show it on your podcast that is seen by thousands and are sued by the RIAA and MPAA.
Situation two: Saturday Night Live, The Soup, and/or G4 finds a clip of media you created with your own money and talent. They air it to millions. The RIAA and MPAA laugh in your face. - serra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No comments saying "***** the RIAA"? Shocking!
- Lewie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Brings up a lot of good points. Although we've probably heard them all before, it's a good article.
Digg++ - matsientst, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What drives me nuts is how many times the record companies have been caught price fixing.
This seems to always be ignored in these scenarios. That is a whole new angle to the 'Who are the pirates' angle. If they put out the music at a fair price and let people choose that way I guarantee people would buy a lot more music. - MadEnvoy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8You're not paying to own a copy of a song. You're paying to rent it.
- EricWest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I work for one of the top record labels in the world which is currently a member of the RIAA and I can tell you for a fact that we have unlisted departments that release stuff to p2p's early to create hype.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7 a cd costs .2 ***** cents to make
- Cerberus047, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The difference is that when it comes to hardware, or any other device or similar object, you own it.
The RIAA is constantly trying to get that sort of thinking out of people's heads and replace it with the "you didn't buy that CD, you bought a license to the music on the CD" way of thought. If they want to go down that road, this idea of media "upgrades" should be a part of it. They shouldn't expect to get the best of both worlds."
I Think this statement alone put all the arguments to rest! - killerklown, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4sure they do
HP let me send in my PocketPC and gave me $100 to a new one. Gateway did the same thing with both of my laptops they gave me $500 on one of them and $300 on the other - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Good points.... When I'm downloading illegal music I just think back to all my scratched LP's and my eaten tapes and any moral reservations I have vanish away.
- potifer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're all missing the point. The concept of information rights didn't exist (as the article is using it) before a handful of years ago. When you bought lps, cds, of the same recording you didn't buy a license; you bought the media. I imagine things are going to change now to reflect a more computer-centric model of things, but that's no reason to go back in time and cram the idea into things it never applied to.
Sheesh. - lemz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think a lot of people misunderstand what RIAA is trying to do. They aren't looking out for artists interests, they are looking out for labels and trying to squeeze as much money out of consumers as possible, and therefore will try their hardest to insure that squeezing goes on.
- nickurfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The music industry will eventually fail. They will cry like babies for a while but eventually it will be like it is in Asia where it is estimated over 90% of all media sold is pirated. Artists in Asia do not make money off of music sales. They make money off of concerts and commercial advertising.
- nnonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2EXACTLY!!!
I'd like to have rights to the music in any format just like the next guy but that isn't the way the product is offered. If you don't like they way they offer music, don't buy it. As much as many of you may want to argue .... It IS that simple! - Raldikuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, because it would be absolutely impossible for the tides to shift... The digital medium is obviously going to be where things change and the RIAA will become much weaker. Obsolete? Probably not, but artists won't necessarly have to go by their ironclad terms.
- Pioto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Agreed. As was said above by boohiss, no one is forcing you to buy the new format. All my CDs all work great and I see no need to get rid of them, even though I've got all my music on my iPod now.
Also, I know plenty of folks who feel that LPs are of better quality than the CDs of the same albums. Why would they want to exchange them for a format they feel is inferior?
The issue I see, though, is in the current trend of DRM. I personally will pay for all my DVDs, CDs, and video games. But, I don't like being restricted in how I then enjoy them. I wanna be able to watch my DVDs on my 'ol laptop which runs Linux, or listen to my music I bought in the iTunes Music Store in foobar2000 instead of iTunes.
I think that the MPAA and RIAA, as well as the video game industry, are getting overly paranoid about piracy. The fact is, most people will buy the product if it is easy enough to obtain. They shouldn't go out of their way to make it harder or even dangerous for folks to then enjoy said products, be it with trojaned CDs, annoying CD keys, or DRMed digital media. - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It all depends if you wanted to make money from this said podcast/videocast. Obviously, if you do not, you had a different purpose for your media when you made it. If my podcast was mentioned/played on SNL, more people would listen to it, and that's really the only reason I would ever make one- to entertain people. If the RIAA laughed in my face, it wouldn't matter, they see the world as an opportunity to make money.
In the end, it all doesn't really matter, the RIAA can have their closed-minded view of the world. Afterall, a fullfilled life is worth more than one could ever make selling music to people. - Codebender, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I completely agree, but they will fight hard to keep that lucrative middle-man position. They'll even lobby for, and get, laws that make their business model the only legal one.
- zombie-m, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The difference is that when it comes to hardware, or any other device or similar object, you own it.
The RIAA is constantly trying to get that sort of thinking out of people's heads and replace it with the "you didn't buy that CD, you bought a license to the music on the CD" way of thought. If they want to go down that road, this idea of media "upgrades" should be a part of it. They shouldn't expect to get the best of both worlds. - lava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just want to make a comment on this part:
"To end this injustice, the recording companies should consider changing its tactics and make available through their distributors:
1) Replacements for broken or unusable media for the cost of the media: If it got cracked, chipped, eaten, scatched, folded, melted, or just plain worn out, or like U.S. currency, anything over half is whole anything under half is zero.
2) Media format upgrades and updates: If it's on an LP, 45, eight-track or cassette, etc., bring in the original for an upgrade to the current media format for the cost of the media.
That would be justice!
The recording companies would actually make money on these exchanges. Even at an exchange rate of $1 or $2, they would make money because they are just replacing the media. They don't have to pay out royalties to artists...."
The RIAA would find this logic faulty. Why? Because they equate copyright violations with stealing. They say that piracy costs distributors millions of dollars per year... money that they expected, but certainly weren't entitled to. Since they assume that someone who obtains a track ilegally is someone who would have bought it otherwise, they would regard any "exchange program" as a loss, because they would consider someone who exchanges the media as someone who would have bought new media otherwise. Greedy. - modsuperstar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Who are you kidding? The whole software industry is built on the upgrade model. I can upgrade a copy of Photoshop 5.5 to the current version at a discount assuming I have the previous serial number. It's not necessarily what the article is suggesting, but it is a working system where you can upgrade to the latest and greatest, comparable to if you were to trade in a tape to get a remastered version of an album on CD.
- mastershake1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's crap. The music industry is so heavily subsidized that saying it operates in a "free market" is an insult to consumers. Until the government stops picking Peter's pocket (i.e. the tech sector and Joe Public) to pay Paul (the record industry), your argument is specious at best.
- modsuperstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, it's so true. The music industry has artificially kept the value of CD high just to maintain their exorbitant profit margins. The music industry has essentially been ignoring what's been staring them in the face for decades. The fact is, the music industry would already be dead if it weren't for re-issues and their ability to re-sell you the same stuff you already own. I'm sure if the industry cut away the percentage that was made up by people buying new copies of what they already own(be it as a replacement, new version with added songs or better sound or simple format upgrades) the music industry would have already collapsed.
I think Bill Gates said it awhile ago(and I paraphrase) that really we're leaving the end of solid state formats that the music industry relies on to make it's money. When the world moves entirely onto digital formats, why do people need to buy a song or album more then once?(end paraphrasing). Essentially, barring hard drive failure, what is stopping you from keeping files for the rest of your life? I know I already have MP3s in my collection that are 7-8 years old that I've migrated across a couple of computers and hard drives. - LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"But when you had an obsolete computer, do the stores or manufacturer let you return it for credit toward your next one?"
Some time ago, I believe Circuit City (or maybe it was Best Buy?) had a test run for a program where you could bring in your old PC for a (very tiny) credit towards the purchase of your new PC. It was really popular (at least where I lived), but I think they stopped the program.
Conversely, there are numerous programs out there dealing with trade ins. For instance.
Some gaming stores will let you trade in a previous generation console and games for cash or credit towards new games.
You can trade in your automobile for money towards your new or used car, guaranteed a minimum of $500 for the old vehicle.
PG&E has implemented a program where they'll give you money ($700 I think) for replacing your old washer and dryer.
Music stores (though for entirely different reasons) have offered to buy your used CD's for credit towards new CD's. There is a specialty store here that will buy your old LP's as well. - Rocketgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bmac wrote:
> not all artists and record company execs are scumbags.
Of all the artists I have ever worked with, I'd say the majority of them are nice decent people. Of all the record company executives I have had the misfortune to deal with, calling them scumbag would not be a sufficient insult. They are leeches who do not care about the artists. They really have no morals and seem only interested in making enough money to buy their next line of coke.
> being an artist or an executive is a "real job" you moron,
Being an artist is yes, but being a record executive isn't. It's a way of enforcing servitude by the artists, and dreaming up new ways to stiff the music buying public.
> Most artists I know make less than minimum wage and struggle to survive,
> yet you still want to steal their work and tell them how to make a living?
> Have you no respect at all for artists and writers?
Interesting that having previously mentioned record company executives, you do not then mention them as making less than the minimum wage and struggling to survive, like artists often do.
Funny that.
I've seen numerous artists struggling to survive, yet I've never seen a record company executive struggling to survive. And we're supposed to believe that the record companies "care" about the artists ?
Yeah right. - compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not only is the content on the CDs not worth $15-$20 but the form you get it devalues it even more. Think about it, you buy it in CD form and the CD can get scratched so easily and then you're *****. You try to rip it to your computer right when you get home but your computer gets a virus the next week becuase of Sony's lame Rootkits your virus scanner didn't pick up on it.
Or perhaps you can download the CD for $10, but you're use is extremely limited. Usually it's like you can only burn the songs 3 times. What kind of ***** is that? I'll consider buying your already over-priced content when I can be free to use it how I want and be assured I'm not ***** when my CD gets scratched. Until then, I'm not buying your music. - Solarusdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I disagree. The industry doesn't need to "track" you or your music license. If you have a tape, CD, or any original medium, then you own a license and you can exchange that medium for another one. It's like owning a ticket for a show. The venue owners don't need to track who bought tickets or who the current holders are (if they were resold). If you own a valid ticket, then you get to see the show. It's common sense, simple common sense.
- afpunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jkfan
There are a ton of non-RIAA bands that are making a good living off of it. Not necessarily "rich" but then again most bands that don't suck aren't in it to be rich anyway. RIAA getting pushed out of the way to stop telling the public what music is good can only be a good thing for all dedicated musicians in the future. - autobahn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The only music I buy these days are 12" singles for DJing.
Most of that stuff, coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, is from non-RIAA labels.
RIAA has lost me as a customer forever. Sorry guys, you had your chance to not be money-grubbing dicks, and you failed. - jholdaway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So true, but the first example was a podcast, or blog. The second may be video I make for a living but it got out on the web, just as Men In Black got onto the web.
We just have to keep in mind the hypocrisy and expose it to the public eye when we can. That way when future laws look at the issue they will be aware that corporate clips on the web have a different legal status than individuals. And maybe in time it will change. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Wow, guess you didn't understand a damn thing that the author said. And you accuse him of having faulty logic.
- Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@You can bring up the book argument when they start loaning CD's at the library.
They do that at every library I've ever been to. - anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1"They don't have to pay out royalties to artists."
That's another problem, labels don't pay fairly to the artists/musicians. The % of an album should be at leasy 75% for the musicians and the rest for production costs and the labels. - hoodedrobin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I havent bought a cd in months, last one I bought I think was the last modest mouse cd which was like a year or two ago. (pandora.com) and BT all I use now.
- brispet1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with this, I have a charting program I use, and for it I have to buy licenses for different charts
once I buy the license I can get the charts sent to me In any format I want, and when a new revision comes out I only need to pay a media and shipping cost to have them sent to me. The riaa is the ones who have been making such a big deal about how we only own a license and not the music itself... well it about time they started acting like it. - copper7op, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1++ Totally dug. if this business model was brought out ... it would be great, ive got EASY 100 Cd's that need replacement
- p0laris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fantastic Article, clear concise analogy.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Way too many people here are getting hung up on the "trade in the old media thing". That was not the point of the author's article.
He is asking, "Why if I already purchased a license to listen to this music, do I have to continue to purchase a license?" That's it. Nothing more.
Stop arguing over whether "anyone forced you to upgrade media", or "how much a CD cost the manufacture". That's not what the article was all about. It was about continuously paying for the same product over and over. -
Show 51 - 97 of 97 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