What is Digg?208 Comments
- fuzzmeister, on 01/11/2008, -1/+84There's no better way to kill innovation than creating a system of flat, guaranteed revenue.
- PistolSO, on 01/11/2008, -2/+47The music industry doesn't care about innovation. Indefinate copyrights also kill innovation
- actorboy, on 01/11/2008, -2/+33"Last month the Songwriters Association of Canada called for a mandatory $5/month ISP music tax."
Pretty ridiculous, innocent people being taxed to subsidize the dishonesty of others rather than catch them. - inactive, on 01/11/2008, -0/+29So if this succeeds can the porn industry also lobby for a porn tax?
- CheeseburgerBro, on 01/11/2008, -0/+21Do you know who creates music?
People like you and me. If your talented neighbour can't get a deal with a giant label, he'll still make music if that's his passion. And, you know what? If you go see him at a local bar and buy him a beer, he'll be happy to keep working on his passion.
We don't NEED megacorporations to put us in touch with boy bands from Singapore when there are talented people all around us, chomping at the bit for a chance to reach our ears. Global distribution is about money for shareholders, not a better product for us.
We don't need the giant labels. Music will never die. - digitalpencil, on 01/11/2008, -1/+18So when I get my ISP bill through its going to itemized as:
$30 for throttled, 20mb-my-ass broadband
$5 Music Tax
$15 Video Tax
$15 Gaming Tax
& how much for porn?? - davidrools, on 01/11/2008, -0/+16that's a a terrible direction to go in, not only because you're forcing people to pay for something they might not be using, but because of the lack of incentive for music labels to be innovative and experimental as the article says near the end (if you read the whole thing)
- nblsavage, on 01/11/2008, -1/+15I'd love to hear why you think copyright should last the life of the author + 70 years.
- sHockz, on 01/11/2008, -4/+17tax? rofl.
as if charging $15 a cd for 1 good song wasnt enough...now they are gonna TAX it?!
seriously, who is the idiot coming up with these ideas? my daughter could come up with better ideas, and she isnt even born yet. - ZenMojo, on 01/11/2008, -0/+12You can always pay .89 cents for that 1 good song. This isn't 1998.
- inactive, on 01/11/2008, -2/+13Trent Reznor said it. The Music Industry did not. It will NEVER happen. People are not going to stand for paying $5 (is that per MONTH?) to subsidize other cheapskates.
- rezonq3, on 01/11/2008, -0/+10OK. What about my friend, who writes music. Let's say he writes a song that becomes really popular by internet popularity...Where is his portion of that 5$ a month? Who decides that? Who decides how much? Or maybe, since the RIAA holds all of the keys and then, by holding the right to police copyrights, can just steal his song and say it was their own writers who wrote the song. How can my friend prove it? Or perhaps I am just misunderstanding...
If this is just a tax for protecting copyrights, are the RIAA and maybe next the MPAA going to be the new Federal Copyright Protection Agencies?
This just all sounds too ridiculous to me. Am I living in a dream right now? - sgxyay, on 01/11/2008, -0/+9A music tax will only benefit the big labels that already exist. How would one apply to get their share of the tax and who would determine who gets it?
I am an independent musician myself - I produce my own music and sell it off of my website (both downloads and physical copies) and on places like cdbaby.com and iTunes. I make a few $k a year doing it....now if there was a music tax and I try to get in on my fair share, I have a feeling that the gov or whoever administers the system will be like "who the eff are you? What company are you with??" How would they determine who is legitimately contributing music or not? Fine...I guess I've been doing fine outside the system anyways, but there's still that music tax people are paying for PLUS I need to charge for my music. - CheeseburgerBro, on 01/11/2008, -1/+10I must disagree with your assessment.
The human need for music and song means that people will continue to create music and song. If the gobal industry collapses alll that will mean is we'll be forced to source our music and songs locally -- and I can guarantee that there are a lot of local artists ready to step up to the plate for us. - asdfuiop, on 01/11/2008, -0/+9They breast not! Aha.
- inactive, on 01/11/2008, -5/+13They just won't give up...
***** THE RIAA. - arbulus, on 01/11/2008, -0/+6I like the things Reznor has done recently, but this is *****. There's absolutely no need for it. So you sue people on one end, treat everyone else like a criminal, and then force people to pay for something they may or may not be using? Do you really think this even remotely makes sense? You're going to alienate the consumers even more.
Here's what needs to happen: Remove the chains from music and stop treating consumers like criminals and then your sales will skyrocket. People are happy to pay for something that they can use however they wish without fear of lawsuits. Just like if the RIAA would be shut down tomorrow and abolished completely, you would see a 1000-fold increase in the number of CD sales. People don't want to feed the tyranny; people don't want to support a business that ***** them at every chance possible. Remove the DRM, stop the lawsuits, and sales will skyrocket. Make digital downloads free and usable everywhere and however the consumer wishes, and sales will skyrocket. Let people do what they with with what they buy and sales will skyrocket. - andycr512, on 01/11/2008, -1/+7So I, as a programmer, am not innovative enough because I need someone to own a computer I didn't invent to run my work? I'm not innovative enough because I need to hook into someone else's GUI library to display my interface? I'm not innovative enough because I base my work on the work of others? Clearly you haven't heard the amazing remixes done by people basing their work on that of others, doing things which the artists would never do because they are hooked up to a label and forced to grind out the same old stuff like a cow on a milking machine - people like danger mouse. Clearly you don't believe Newton, either - "If I have seen further it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
But Newton wasn't innovative enough, was he? - treed, on 01/11/2008, -1/+7That's neither here nor there. Perpetual copyright takes away the incentive to *continue* to create new works. Especially when it lasts for generations after the creator has died.
- tba2287, on 01/11/2008, -0/+6A monthly ISP fee wouldn't be a bad thing if it is voluntary, but forcing people to pay is an unfair tax for an industry that can't come up with a better business model.
- SleepingOrange, on 01/11/2008, -1/+7Thats crap. Musicians will still make the music they want to make, and people will still seek out the music they like. Innovation died a long time ago... have any of you even switched on MTV lately?
Indie music has already generated more steam than ever lately thanks to the lower costs of recording, the slow downward spiral of the garbage record companies, and the increase in opportunities thanks to the internet.
Innovation in music has never been driven by money, it's been driven by artists. - Yez70, on 01/11/2008, -0/+5Being forced to pay for something you aren't using. How could they do that? Hmmmm.....
I pay $80/month for about 280 channels. I watch about 20 of them in the course of a month. In order to get all 20 of the channels I want, I am forced to buy 4 tiers of cable programming.
Why do I have to pay for some religious freaks 20 channels? Why am I paying for 10 shopping channels? Why am I paying for 40 sports channels? Why am I paying for family programming?
Just because we think it's a terrible route to go, does not mean it won't, can't or isn't happening. - pismophreak, on 01/11/2008, -0/+5"I'll have TERABYTES of music."
I don't think that there's that much good music around. ;) - sparql, on 01/11/2008, -0/+5Personally, I think they were on the right track with Niggy Tardust. The only difference I would have removes is the option to the the whole thing for free. They should have just said here is the full album, and it's $5. I think they would have had less downloads but more sales.
IMO, I'll gladly pay $5 for a full album that is only in a digital format. And I think that is the key. iTunes has proven people will pay for digital music, but it's a matter of hitting the consumers sweet-spot in terms of perceived value. - ZenMojo, on 01/11/2008, -1/+5While I'm ambivalent on the subject, I'll step up to it.
1) It means people don't have to keep creating to keep food on the table. There's no motivation to create new material if you can keep getting paid for the old material.
On the other hand:
1) Indefinite copyrights FORCE other people to innovate instead of remaking stuff over and over again...(don't act like you can't see the effect that public license has on the movie industry). - lazyfisherman, on 01/11/2008, -1/+5Music isn't even the only type of file that is traded on the Internet. If the music industry gets a tax to support them, the movie industry will want one... and if they get one.. the people who make the tv shows will want a tax going to them... and then the comic book industry will argue that they need a tax because people aren't buying comics anymore and just reading them online... and then book publishers will want a tax... and then software makers will argue that people are downloading their products and they deserve to have everyone supporting them too... and on and on and on..
- kufu91, on 01/11/2008, -2/+6well we do the same with blank cds and no one seems to care
- jlebrech, on 01/11/2008, -1/+5Then you can apply for a songwriters degree, and just leech of the state. Everyone seems to be getting for nothing nowadays either by getting music free through piracy or labels making money from covers, lyrics, songbooks of old music. and now they want our cash by default.
- Sraza, on 01/11/2008, -0/+4If every major music label collapsed tomorrow my music collection wouldn't be effected at all. I've been buying independent music for ***** years now. If I buy, I buy directly from the artist, online.
They lost me around Napsters fall. They can die. - Tenlow, on 01/11/2008, -0/+4Well unless there's a way to track what you download and charge the tax accordingly, I say get *****. Actually, if there was a way to track what you download and charge the tax accordingly, I still say get *****. I'd rather pay $2 a song and have 100% of that revenue go straight to the artist than let one penny go to the RIAA.
- fkr3, on 01/11/2008, -2/+6Do you know how many clicks it takes me to buy a song on iTunes? One. The 'time consuming' method is to enter your password each purchase but I make the assumption nobody's going to sign in to my computer as me and buy music on my account.
- 28dayslater, on 01/11/2008, -1/+5I don't even know why musicians and labels bother trying to make new music anyway, the pinnacle was set, and it's been downhill ever since Wham's 'Wake Me Up Before You Go Go'. It's over everyone, you are arguing for no reason.
- bdbr, on 01/11/2008, -0/+4Let's be clear, the music industry is NOT dying. The president of Merge records, for example, said just this week that their sales were up last year. They were up in 2006, too.
Its only the major labels that are dying. You know, the crap that's played on the radio and MTV2. They used to be able to sell full CDs with only one or two "good" songs on them; now that doesn't work anymore. They're forced to produce quality music, and they don't know how to do that.
This would be just like the "tax" that they've managed to levy on internet radio...which is collected by an RIAA agency (and doesn't represent the independent labels that are doing well today). Its a way to keep the failing major labels in business. Its not needed. - Wargalas, on 01/11/2008, -2/+6I say charge me the $5 bucks a month. I get the right to download every song on the planet that I want for that $5 bucks a month. I'll have the largest music collection on the planet. I'll have TERABYTES of music.
- cadmiumpaint, on 01/11/2008, -1/+5that is just desperation talking.
there is no way people like my parents would tolerate a mandatory $5 tax to subsidize the DL habbits of kids that aren't theirs. If you DL music heavily you might be into it, but if you're older than 30 which most cable subscribers are you won't stand for it. great way to piss off your cable customers and drive them all to sattelite. - sgtpppr, on 01/11/2008, -1/+4Voluntary tax? Isn't that an oxymoron?
- rarson, on 01/12/2008, -0/+3I like to roll on underground techno, too.
- rarson, on 01/12/2008, -0/+3Boy, buying records must have been completely unbearable to you. You actually had to get up and move the needle to skip a song.
- domness, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3They best not! Aha.
- vdog, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3I tend not to download music off the internet. Why should I pay $5 a month to subsidise you?
- inactive, on 01/11/2008, -1/+4I do get it. I don't obtain $5 worth of music every month. And I am not paying for YOU to get it legally that way. You have to be a complete idiots to think it is a good idea that other people should be subsidizing your music collection. A 100% luxury item should never be subsidized with a tax on something that has become as close to a necessity as you can get.
- lazyfisherman, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3Music isn't even the only type of file that is traded on the Internet. If the music industry gets a tax to support them, the movie industry will want one... and if they get one.. the people who make the tv shows will want a tax going to them... and then the comic book industry will argue that they need a tax because people aren't buying comics anymore and just reading them online... and then book publishers will want a tax... and then software makers will argue that people downloading their ***** and they deserve to have everyone supporting them too... and on and on and on..
- capiCrimm, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3"Indefinite copyrights FORCE other people to innovate instead of remaking stuff over and over again"
artists build on each other and the previous generations. It's even more obvious with patents. If someone had an indefinite patent on wheels, anyone who wanted to design a car would have to reinvent the wheel. So instead people working on car innovation you get people wasting time on a ***** of slightly modified car wheels.
A while back on digg there was a study that said the perfect copyright duration should be somewhere around 7 years. - willfe, on 01/12/2008, -0/+3Free, *legal* downloads. If I'm being forced to pay $5 a month as a "tax" on music downloads (to subsidize that poor starving music industry) I damn well expect to be able to freely, lawfully download every piece of music I want, period, without limitation or question. I want to be immune from prosecution for sharing it. I'd be *paying* for the privilege, right?
- Stoppay, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3While this may make your purchases skyrocket, the average person (IE my mom who can use a computer but still buys CDs from the mall) doesn't know or care about DRM, the lawsuits or that she can rip her CDs to MP3 and give them to her friends. What will make purchases skyrocket is $5 dollar CDs, Good Music (not just singles), and the labels attempt to recoup costs through tours and merchandising
- hiikeeba, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3Blank cds labeled "for music" have a surcharge for the RIAA here in the US. But if they are labeled "For Data" they aren't.
- cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3there are millions who never download... they shouldnt have to pay for those who do. just another 5 bucks out of your pocket. to the poor that hurts... right?
- Evildudetx, on 01/11/2008, -1/+4The RIAA can suck my dick.
- sgtpppr, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3It's sad that it's now accepted that today's art is based on incentives. There is nothing more sad than an 'artist' saying they wouldn't make music if they weren't paid for it. Sure, its great to make a living as an artist, but art is more than a product. The RIAA and current industry has been around so long that most people just accept that music is nothing more than a commodity to be bought and sold.
- vdog, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3Who's going to volunteer to pay an ISP, when they're not willing to even pay an artist directly?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 201 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