What is Digg?93 Comments
- nelsonjs, on 04/29/2008, -1/+56The record companies do not get it at all. They are the only industry that sues their own customers.
- H2Glitch2007, on 04/29/2008, -0/+35Go OGC yourself RIAA
- stonebone4, on 04/29/2008, -1/+30Dear Record Companies Suing Project Playlist:
When I hear about a band someone tells me I would like, I immediately use my Project Playlist plugin in Firefox's built-in search. I listen to a few songs that are on there from that band, without downloading them, only streaming them online. Entire songs, not crappy 30-second samples that tend to be useless when you like bands that don't follow the same boring song structure used in 99% of popular music.
If I like the band, I immediately go to Amazon and I buy the album, such as I did last night when a friend recommended a band called Porcupine Tree to me.
If I don't like the band, I close the tab and forget I ever bothered.
Just a hint - maybe you should stop with the frivolous lawsuits and find a method just like this to promote your artists so that you sell more music. People who steal are going to steal anyway, and you're only pissing off actual customers (like me) with nonsense like this.
Signed,
Someone In Your Target Market That You Don't Know A Goddamn Thing About, Esq. - Beatmiser, on 04/29/2008, -0/+21Thank god that the Record Companies are looking out for Bono and Gwen, I think that the hovels they live in might be blown over by a stiff wind leaving them huddling in the cold and unable survive- shivering like lost children in the night. This action will enable them to survive one more furtive day!
- Surferess, on 04/29/2008, -4/+22I'd have to say it is amazingly easy to find an mp3 on this service. It is like having a Kazaa-like service, but instead of taking the file from the hard drive of the other person you take it from an online hard drive/server. Not all servers will serve up the MP3 file URL, but plenty of servers do. I figured it wouldn't last long. Personally, as a musician, I do not condone file sharing, per se. It is sometimes hard to figure out what is legal, but it isn't hard to figure out what is moral.
Not that morality is most people's first priority. - SilverBlade2k, on 04/29/2008, -1/+19***** THE RIAA
- crushtheenemy, on 04/29/2008, -1/+18Shouldn't they just sue the internet instead, seeing it's where the files are stored?
- sgrfsh, on 04/29/2008, -2/+19While I don't condone stealing music, again speaking as a musician, I do find services such as last.fm and Pandora to be invaluable tools in finding new and interesting music. For me, using Kazaa, Napster, and the like, was merely another tool for the same purpose. If I like something I prefer to have a physical product that won't disappear when the hard drive decides to blow up. The fact is that there is simply no other way to be exposed to interesting music. Radio and television are non-entities in that regard because they don't cater to anything but a tiny, targeted demographic. The major labels don't bother to invest in the majority of worthwhile artists, so all I see and hear in the 'outside' world is dross, or the same crap I've heard for the last 10/20 years. They don't have to because there is apparently no end to Britney sound-a-likes, and [insert your country] Idol will be supplying 'talent' for some decades to come.
In fact, radio is mostly a joke. I lived in Las Vegas for 5 years, and honestly, for being the 'entertainment capital of the world' they have the most pathetic line up of radio stations I ever had the displeasure of hearing. Turning on the radio there is like being transported back to the 70's or 80's. It's like, time moved on, but ClearChannel didn't. It's actually kind of ironic that a lot of what I listen to now is produced by amateurs and is available for free most of the time. - inactive, on 04/29/2008, -3/+20Answer: Criminalize more people, build more prisons
- exformation, on 04/29/2008, -0/+15And this is why we can't have nice things.
- Fallout911, on 04/29/2008, -1/+14I like stealing your music and will continue to do so until you go bankrupt.
- chirwan, on 04/29/2008, -0/+12hmm this might be the same as bittorrent sites hosting links instead of the actual content. not sure how this is gona go..
- gubatron2, on 04/29/2008, -0/+10Record companies need to understand that the internet will do for them in the future what the radio has done this last century.
Promote their artists. Sites like project playlists are free promotion, free distribution.
If it wasn't for the radio, Elvis Presley probably wouldn't have been famous at all, just a local artist, or semi known singer, just like any other before the radio. The internet has the same power, and they're trying to kill music distribution online cause they can't figure out the goodness change will bring. - dukeochutney, on 04/29/2008, -0/+9news flash: record companies sue everyone who has ever had contact with their records.
- regression, on 04/29/2008, -2/+11Actually, when you do get "big", the labels are what hurt you as was proved by Radiohead's In Rainbows. It has been their most profitable album BY FAR and they relied on donations.
- uberamd, on 04/29/2008, -2/+10Why don't they sue google while they are at it? After all, doing the search: ( intitle:"index of" mp3 "song name" ) finds MP3's as well on public servers...
- Comp1demon, on 04/29/2008, -0/+8I don't get it?
SO this site figures out where are the legal music is hosted and makes it easy for you to find it and listen to it?
Example - I am into some obscure band like Insane clown possee (bad example but hey roll with it).
Jennifier of omaha Nebraska has the ICP song Im looking for on her myspace page.
The service finds the song on Jennifers page and enables me to listen to it as if i was at jennifers myspace page?
Well as long as jennifers Myspace isn't private - I don't see the issue?
If her page is public I can go to her page and listen to it - all this service does is allow me to listen to it without having to read about the cute teddy beats jeener is into.
Seems kind of grey line - but if all it is doing is indexing already avalable music that is legal, just making it easer to find - then I don;t see the issue. I never understood how linking to something can be infringing.
the point is if it is on the internet and cand be found - to point someone to it shouldn't be infringing or illegal. I just don't get it.
someone care to explain this to me or let me know if i have the general idea here? - seanhive, on 04/29/2008, -1/+9But at the same time file-sharing is THE biggest asset to small, unknown artists. It only hurts you when you get big.
Viral spreading of independent new music is not immoral, but stealing the hot new record from the record companies is. - Scheissen, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7downloading≠stealing
gg - inactive, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7Suck my dick RIAA, yes suck my big dick you scum *****!
there sue and bitch happy - Dubbsacc, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5I'm sure they would find a way.
- inactive, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5Dear Someone,
Please give us your address so we can Sue you for copyright infringement. Under the Digital I heard it through soundwaves act, we can sue you for sharing the song telepathically with friends. This also includes humming, and re-reading an non authorized verse. Please pay us 8,000 dollars since our Law- Suit is foolproof. Also we know you don't have a couple of thousand in the bank to cover attorney's fee in a civil suit .
Thanks,
Record Company Guy - smoger, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5so the RIAA believes it's illegal to acknowledge the existence of mp3's hosted on the internet? ..because that's all the PP does...
- neodorian, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5Is project playlist like seeqpod in that it only provides a frontend for search and playback of all the files sitting around on various web servers?
- theysayjump, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4A-*****-men.
- SpoonusBardus, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5Amazing that they *still* don't get that threatening people and throwing their weight around won't force people to go back to buying CDs.
- inactive, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Being criminalized is just a matter of time in Amerika
One out of every 142 Americans is in prison – and this does not include military prisons or INS jails.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts43.html - twiztedambience, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5This is a civil suit, not a criminal charge
- wellyuk, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4People just need to sit tight and last this out a little longer. The record companies will either learn from the repeated mistakes and take advantage of services such as this, or they will die out. There's only so long they can continue to make unsubstantiated lawsuits and they simply can't beat the millions of file sharers around the world
- Smuikas, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4In 2006, the average hollywood film cost 6.8 million to make. Typical audio CD required 80-120 hours in a studio, at around $500 an hour. So you're talking 40-60 thousand dollars in up front recording costs. Then there's mastering and other post production - which costs I don't know how much. On a quick survey of online mastering services, it's between $500 and $1000. Of course, these are no-name solutions - I'm sure mastering from Dre or similar would be upward of $1m.
So, for an A list album you're looking at about 2-3 million including marketing. Add in overhead for manufacturing and distribution, and I can see how it MIGHT reach $10 an album -- for an A list album. The record companies probably pad this to make up for losses on albums that don't sell well.
There is also a distinct difference between DVD and audio sales, in that there are MANY more audio CDs made in a year than films. Audio CDs also tend to be more narrowly focused than films - a broader swath of people will like one film than one audio CD.
I don't know average sales numbers. But if you can find them, you'll probably see that the average number of copies sold per album is much lower than the average number of copies sold per film.
Of course, there are some niggling details, such as the cost of an AAA album does not compare directly to the average cost of a hollywood flick. Now, if you compare the cost of Titanic (120 million or so IIRC) to the cost of an AAA album (3-4m), there's a huge divide that we don't see translate down to the price level.
Then there's all the price fixing conspiracies you hear thrown about with little solid evidence (I've yet to see solid evidence, anyway - if you have, feel free to link..) - stonebone4, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5You can't sue a series of tubes
- mdoenges, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4Really, Seriously?
I thought we were past this whole the Internet is the enemy of the music industry thing.
Stop chastising the stuff that works, maybe the BMG ASCAP and the RIAA could work out some sort of royalty deal with the site
RATHER THAN SUING THE FING ***** OUT OF EVERYONE - jcastillo81, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4The creation of the digital media file means there is an infinite supply. When someone "steals" an mp3, a record does not magically disappear from a warehouse or store shelve. No one's property is taken from them. If someone made it easy and free for everyone to replicate clothing, would you be a thief if you no longer paid for clothing? Distributors would die because they would no longer be necessary. The people that really care about fashion would find ways to support their favorite designers and designers would be required to find opportunities for their fans to support them.
- bdbr, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Funny...I think their music isn't even worth stealing.
- donores, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4WE SHALL NOT BE MOVED
- Kontra8, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Seems to me you are finding it hard to figure out corporate morality where they like charging fixed amount for something that can be reproduced infinitely for free. They also like charging many times for something you already paid for... once for cd, then again for download on pc, then again for mp3 player, then again for phone download etc etc.
You are looking at small picture instead of big picture. Morality is social category thats changing with times. Yesterday's immoral is today's moral. Business needs to change in virtual world. Corporations are resisting changes and trying to maximize profits at expense of users wallets and convenience.
In most cases it has nothing to do with morality my friend. I would say most of ppl who download music are just fine and moral ppl. Also there are many shades of gray too. - damnasteroids, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3I can't decide whether to digg this or bury it due to the sheer dumbness of the thing. as people have already mentioned, project playlist only indexes mp3s hosted on other public servers and streams them.
if anything, I'd expect the RIAA to use it to track down actual uploaders to sue. - Surferess, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Ok here is how it works. Yes you can go and listen to the song. That is not what the RIAA and major labels are talking about. They are talking about that playlist gives you the URL to the song, and you can just go save the song to your hard drive. Listening to the song isn't the problem, although many savvy folks can just rip the song when they find it, it is downloading the song in an mp3 format that is the desirable ends. As I mentioned before, not all servers will serve up the MP3 in downloadable format, but places like fileden do. You can take the URL, open it in another window, drop the mp3 URL address into the address bar and hit enter and you have a savable copy from the file menu.
- Bilabrin, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2I use Playlist on my Myspace page and I'd say that I own probably 75% of the artists I promote. I also make sure to put plenty of indy/self publish stuff on the list as a way to spread the messasge and hopefully increase sales for these smaller guys. I stopped downloading MP3's for moral as well as quality issues but I have no qualms about re-downloading mp3's from a lost or stolen CD that I've already bought.
- com2, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2You know why all the stations are playing music from the 70's & 80's... it's called declining royalties, the older something is the less you have to pay the label for it, in most cases that is.
- SteveRyherd, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2We want music. We want portable music. We're tired of buying one format, and then buying another 5 years later... We like variety in our music and we like it accessible. The best thing a record company could do now is scoop up a lot of unsigned artists, sort them very well according to genre and "sounds like". Nickel and dime the prices and sell them online DRM free then get a whole bunch of tailwind money.
Variety and innovation will out-pace piracy and sharing... and even with sharing, people will want more of what they like. The paradigm has already changed, someone just has to do it right.
Open source music would be a really neat idea. Online collaboration, remixing and sharing would help new artists see how songs are mastered and work with other artists to form great songs. - Dubbsacc, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2That would depend on who's asking.
- veganoob, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2...AWAY FROM OUR MONITORS!!
- Fallout911, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Some 80's and 90's stuff is.
- tdmand, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2THEY'RE
- twiztedambience, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4Charging kids $10-$17 for a CD is immoral also, which breaks down to about $99 cents a song. Having Gwen Steffani get paid 100s of millions of dollars while people in this world are starving is immoral also. Yes she earned her money -- but in a vastly inflated market very similar to professional sports. There's a reason people like college sports more, and it is similar to why people like indie bands/labels. There is more drive and determination to do well when you didn't just earn enough to retire on in about one day for one song. Unlike professional sports (with the exception of teams like the GB packers) the consumer controls the market for music and sites like this one will continue to pop up.
- jefree, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2I find the whole music business, file sharing and what is described here to be some sort of commentary on capitalism because "sgrfsh" is right. Why would the profit making entities of a business present and promote a 2nd rate product? And what kind of system punishes a process where a produced product can have a production cost of nearly $0.00 when you can simply file share and copy? What if Oil became free and easy to copy? Would the oil companies be able to "copyright" the use of oil? The only real problem (and what copyright tries to stop) is that is musicians and music producers in general don't get paid well, then talented people will not be motivated to create music for distribution and the quality of music will tend to go down as these talented, motivated and driven musicians choose to do something else with their lives to be compensated. Yeah, you will still have some good music and it will be true music loving musicians, but if the music product become nearly $0 then the motivation to sell and provide music will go way down.
- greyhatloki, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2I was waiting for this to happen...
- MrTito, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Never heard of seeqpod, but yeah it sounds similar. And by similar, I mean exactly the same as you described.
- redxxx, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Yes, if you also buy stuff there. Being a shoplifter does not preclude being a customer. Downloading music without paying for it does not preclude paying for music.
-
Show 51 - 92 of 92 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