What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
142 Comments
- Threlly1, on 04/29/2009, -2/+50Look, music industry.
People who love music, download music.
They ALSO buy music.
People who treat music as a backdrop, download music.
They do NOT buy music.
Therefore, if you use your hopelessly antiquated business model to promote
and sell really, truly inspirational music, you might actually survive. - jos22, on 04/28/2009, -0/+29well by right you should not even need a pay per month. IFPI claims the piratebay makes millions right.
so why not set up their own tracker put all IFPI/RIAA music on it and then they can make the alleged " millions" that the piratebay are making by giving all the music away for free. - Thoku, on 04/28/2009, -2/+28I agree with this wholeheartedly. I used to download music on dialup just so I could try before I buy and have completely replace my illegal music acquisitions with last.fm.
This argument still holds for my other digital consumption most notably TV, anime and films. If I could watch films cheaply, easily and in a free format (i.e. I can pick the experience e.g. boxee or other not Windows option) then I would stop downloading them. TV and anime are downloaded so I can watch them when they come out and don't have to the necessary months before I can view them, thats providing they are released at all. I do regularly spend money on and advertise the quality shows I find.
If they want me/us to stop downloading stuff have a cheap way (maybe pay per month for whatever you can consume?) of ad included region free, fan editable (i.e. subbing etc) and multi-platform system that uses the crowd to distribute it. Its not hard. They just don't want to do it. - cromulent742, on 04/29/2009, -0/+20You are correct sir. When are the labels going to realize that pirates and legitimate consumers are not mutually exclusive groups.
- Wesside, on 04/29/2009, -1/+19Mostly because millions is just pocket change to them
- lindenwold, on 04/29/2009, -4/+16i think you may have misunderstood the point of the article - re-read.
- wikinerd, on 04/29/2009, -3/+14I wonder how long is it going to take for the industry to get their heads around to this one?
- moonglaive, on 04/29/2009, -1/+12We've been making music for centuries. Record labels have just recently managed to capitalize it. We would still have music if they weren't around, even if the scene was different. If they want to make money off people who want to listen to music, they need to stop ignoring what it is consumers actually want. It doesn't matter how much the industries produce if people won't buy from them. Copyrights, right or wrong, are just being used to enforce outdated business models.
- logstaa, on 04/29/2009, -2/+12FTA:
"The Internet makes it possible to offer unlimited access to music cheaply with virtually no production and distribution costs."
I'll agree with no distribution costs, but no production?? Last time I checked, it still costs money to record, mix, edit, and produce a song, regardless of how it ends up being distributed. That's where piracy would have the most financial impact. - billraydrums, on 04/29/2009, -0/+9I am an independent artist who wants NOTHING to do with big labels. I'd rather give my music away than have some big corporate giant tell me what I can and cannot do with it.
- JRowe3388, on 04/29/2009, -1/+9I downloaded Silversun Pickups' album Swoon when it leaked onto the internet. I loved it.
I picked up the album when I saw it at Wal-Mart. My friend kept telling me I was wasting my money. I told her it was a good album and they deserved at least some reimbursement from the hard work they put into it. Also, I love the artwork. Easily worth $9.95. - bmcnally, on 04/29/2009, -1/+8I want to see a breakdown by age of pirate.
My guess is that younger pirates buy virtually no cds, while older ones (i.e., ones who actually used Napster back in the day) purchase a lot.
Could be a number of reasons: anything from steady income stream to an understanding that artists and labels need the money to keep producing. - eleete, on 04/29/2009, -1/+8Thievery Fail... If nothing is missing from anyones possession, nothing is stolen, no theft has occurred. Let me ask this.... When I step into a library in AnyTown USA and walk out with 3 books, 2 CDs and 4 DVDs why is it that no one complains about my 'stealing' or the poor poor artists and authors ? After all, if not paying for content consumed is the tragedy here, we better start closing off all avenues for this delusional behavior. What is being robbed by draconian copyright laws is the public domain. I would think that would matter more to people than arguing in favor of corporate greed so that artists can make a nickel on the dollar you spend.
- Stingwolf, on 04/29/2009, -1/+7From Last.fm:
By default, we can only allow for you to listen to a 30 second preview of a track. Should the rights holder allow for there to be a full length preview available, you'll find the words “full track” next to the track name.
Lose.
From Spotify:
Unfortunately, due to licensing restrictions we are not yet available in your country. We understand that you are currently in United States...
Lose.
Yeah, they've adapted, alright. - Psara, on 04/29/2009, -0/+6I can think of several albums I've purchased based on one song I've downloaded. Of course this works with the radio as well, IF you only like top 40.
- eleete, on 04/29/2009, -0/+6Agreed, or ahhh greed.
- inactive, on 04/29/2009, -0/+6Yeah they'd rather spend their money suing file sharers and torrent trackers than come up with a real solution to their dying business model. The era of buying hundreds of CDs or even $1 a piece songs is over.
- HMMcKamikaze, on 04/29/2009, -1/+7Is that the same as making an exact copy of said clothing/cars while leaving the original intact?
- stotty, on 04/29/2009, -0/+5Library?
- jostheller, on 04/29/2009, -1/+6great article, would be nice if the RIAA would open their eyes to this.
I buy about 5-10 CD's per month, about 100 per year. Before file sharing half of the albums I bought were complete ***** with maybe 1 decent song. Now I download, listen and if like then I always end up buying that album. Why? I am big on audio quality and want the actual digital source as opposed to some lossy "good enough" version. I also like the album art, but I could live without. The only thing file sharing has changed in my buying CD's habits, is now 100% of my albums are awesome. - lindenwold, on 04/29/2009, -7/+11once again torrent freak hits the nail right on the head.
meanwhile - labels continue to struggle with this or any kind of logic, repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot.
There is alot of money to be made out there through music distribution - but it will not be made by the current label owners. - Travelsonic, on 04/29/2009, -0/+4Your analogy, Mighty, is "*****" too.
You can read a book in the bookstore before decidig whether or not to buy it. - eleete, on 04/29/2009, -1/+5You could have just sent them the $0.99 they made directly. It's far more efficient from the artists perspective.
- serif69, on 04/29/2009, -2/+6The music industry giants need to wake up to what has been happening on the internet for music lovers. It isn't merely file sharing and illegal downloads, but the pervasiveness of information, especially regarding their treatment of artists. They have completely lost sight of their customers, and why their customers buy music: to support the artist. When we find out that the music we're buying through a record label only pays the publisher $0.08 per track, and the artist (if they're different) even less, we're not likely to spend $0.99 or (now) $1.29 per track, or $10+ on an album. We know the rest goes to the record company. So by illegally downloading the track/album for free, and then going to a concert of that band, we're supporting the artist more than if we were to buy the track/album. If we then buy an album at a show, we're giving even more money directly to the band. I'll only buy an album from iTunes or on CD if I know the artist has its own label or is signed to an independent label that doesn't treat its artists like a means to an end.
- artfiend77, on 04/29/2009, -1/+5Shut up Lars, adults are trying to talk here.
- wakeb791, on 04/29/2009, -1/+5Yeah...it only costs like 20 a month for high speed net. Your logic sucks ass.
- lindenwold, on 04/29/2009, -0/+4i think they meant production of the physical piece - disc, jewel case, etc.
- aufte, on 04/29/2009, -1/+5@urbandispute
Didn't you read a single word of the article? - eleete, on 04/29/2009, -0/+4It's amazing how many people cannot realize that the world has changed dramatically thanks to the internet. Draconian laws may influence right and wrong, but ultimately the population will decide for themselves. Fight that tide and you and the laws will end up soaked.
Should you care to see why these laws have been repeatedly extended...
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?in ...
It's not for the poor starving artists, that's for sure. - Redzin, on 04/29/2009, -0/+4In that case it is very poorly phrased. CD production is part of the distribution costs, not the production costs.
- dstz, on 04/29/2009, -1/+4"What about quality?"
well let's see:
http://gizmodo.com/5231112/best-video-ive-seen-tod ...
not mentioning that a lot of successful music on social networks (independent pop music that people massively listen to) is produced with such setups. It's about 100% of electronic music too. - eleete, on 04/29/2009, -1/+4Well Said
- DOCNM, on 04/29/2009, -3/+6Because you might discover some information that the seller would rather keep for themselves?
- HMMcKamikaze, on 04/29/2009, -0/+3Libraries are criminal!!
- fluoro, on 04/29/2009, -1/+4Yeah, I have to admit that I have downloaded plenty of music online. I also own a ton of CDs. If it's something I like, I will spend a lot of time listening to it and I like to have the physical media. It tends to sound better, but not always. But I still like to actually have the disc for whatever reason. If it weren't so overpriced I might just buy the discs up front, but since they're pretty expensive I tend to make sure I'm going to like it first. The kind of groups/artists who I imagine suffer from piracy are the kiddie pop type.. Britney Spears or whoever kids listen to now. Kids don't have a ton of money to spend on CDs, so if they download an album and they like it that probably doesn't translate into a potential sale as it does when I download something I like.
Movies are different. I'm not that into movies for whatever reason, and I'm not a DVD collector (except for some tv shows, like Family Guy). But I imagine if I was, they're not like music.. you can get the latest Decemberists album and listen to it many times and still enjoy it, but if you get some movie you'll watch it once and probably not care about it for a few years and then maybe watch it again. Not really worth keeping it around. In my opinion not even worth the time to download it, but I'm clearly a minority here. A person who's really into movies might like to have a collection.
The point being, from my own experience I can see how record labels might benefit from piracy and how movie studios may not benefit in the same way. - DOCNM, on 04/29/2009, -1/+4Until is going to be obsolete, like tapes, VCRs and CDs. They always claim that the latest technology is going to kill music, until a new technology replaces it.
- dstz, on 04/29/2009, -3/+6"I'll agree with no distribution costs, but no production?? Last time I checked, it still costs money to record, mix, edit, and produce a song"
A laptop, a software sequencer and a mic. It's virtually nothing compared to even ten years ago.
"That's where piracy would have the most financial impact."
No, that's were the redundancy of media companies will have the most financial impact. For them.
And in my opinion it is why they want to limit, as far as possible, net neutrality and its corollaries, since too many people can produce for almost nothing what those company produce using buckloads of money, of which only a part actually is invested in music, the rest being used for supporting an antiquated business model.
They don't want to prevent people getting culture for free as much as prevent the ways for artists to provide it without resorting to their business model. - eleete, on 04/29/2009, -1/+4So you condone using terms that are inaccurate to argue the situation ??
You say "work is really in their, and everyone elses, best interest" yet you could not be more wrong, If we were all free to use eachothers content, we would create exponentially more of it, nice straw man argument though.
Also on the internet, you are wrong, they do not decide, which is why for every lawsuit taking down a sharing site results in ten more popping up in it's place. It's not like the Napster decision did very much to stop this now is it ? Also, If you think the US's draconian laws will be respected in places like China and Russia, you are way off base.
The one thing you did almost get correct is that this argument has been ongoing, not for decades, rather, centuries. Open your eyes to the other side of the argument.
As for Felix, they do not get royalties on each check out, they get a minute royalty for the purchase of the books. You stand corrected
I recommend to you both to read up on Thomas Jefferson. You might be enlightened to think outside the box. - jostheller, on 04/29/2009, -0/+395% of my music listening happens via a portable MP3 player or via my car audio system, and its not just one album listen that will cause me to buy an album. It is very rare that I will like a Album after the first listen and It is much more common that it takes a good 10-15 listens before I really see the finer points of the albums. Anyways, I hardly doubt that any of the bands that I like would have any problems with my downloading especially when they see my CD catalog. If it wasnt for file sharing I would not own any of the music I own today.
- eleete, on 04/29/2009, -0/+3I used to fill cassette tapes with FM radio and swap them with my friends all the time during high school.
- Stingwolf, on 04/29/2009, -0/+3"Could it be that there was an artificial force at work here -- i.e. illegal downloading?"
Here, you are on the right track, but hit the wrong conclusion. There is, in fact, an artificial force moving the market, but that force is not illegal downloading. That force is copyright and the bought and paid for laws the content industry keeps pushing to block out competitors who want to utilize new business models. Licensing issues are a huge aspect. There are public performance licenses you have to acquire in order to play music in public -even if you are not playing ANY music licensed by the RIAA-. They are constantly pushing (and succeeding) for laws that stop any form of competition; even legal competition. - Stingwolf, on 04/29/2009, -0/+3There's no way they got $0.99 from that sale. That would be an amazing record contract.
- lindenwold, on 04/29/2009, -1/+4wow, i didn't realize that i was stealing music or that i was a "*****", as you so intelligently put it.
what i was pointing out is the labels' failure to be forward thinking, and not being able to adapt to changes in the way their product has been consumed for the past 10 or so years. Many label heads have actually come out and admitted to exactly that, and that they're "lost" in how to regain control in their own industry.
but you obviously knew all that, which is why you called me a *****.
and by the way - you are not mighty, and i am impossible to upset - so you seem to have failed twice. . . - wrique, on 04/29/2009, -0/+3I think the music companies also forget this scenario. I bought Dark Side of the Moon on vinyl in the 70's. Wore it out. Bought it again on vinyl. Bought it on CD in the 80s. Bought the Original Master Recording of it on CD a few years later. Bought the SACD of it in 2003. I've never downloaded it because I always wanted my own copy of the best version I could get at the time. That's quite a return for the record companies.
- Aleman360, on 04/29/2009, -1/+4"A laptop, a software sequencer and a mic. It's virtually nothing compared to even ten years ago."
What about quality?
The real costs for good recordings are paying people who know what they're doing for their time, having a studio with good acoustics, and higher end equipment. - eleete, on 04/29/2009, -0/+3Not to mention, they buy it online which causes a decline in CD sales. I'm just surprised they aren't whining about the sales of 8-tracks and cassettes.
- Travelsonic, on 04/29/2009, -1/+4So he only substnce to back up your claim is personal attack?
Very reasonable/logical. /s - inactive, on 04/29/2009, -0/+3Actually it's a very valid point. Those of us who are the most into music consume ***** of it, all the time, from whatever sources, legit or otherwise.
People who aren't really that into music (godless heathens) don't buy OR pirate much music. This is really obvious but it's a good point. - jostheller, on 04/29/2009, -0/+2"using sites like Pandora or even *gasp* the radio"
Pandora is great but its too random to give you an idea if you will like a whole album before you buy. The radio only plays music the industry has labeled "popular" because it has spent millions on marketing. 99% of the music I listen to will never see air time because their label doesnt have money or connections to market them as well as the bigger sellout labels.
As an example of fantastic album that never received air time: Ayreon - The Human Equation. - wakeb791, on 04/29/2009, -1/+3Not to mention 30 second previews of songs do not cut it, since it's hard to grasp the whole vibe of a song based on that ***** sample. Full song sampling FTW.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialoggs, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is