What is Digg?185 Comments
- theragu40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+133This is the most intelligent, well thought out, and coherent thing I've seen come out of the music industry. Finally someone is speaking sense on this issue. The best part is that everything they say is completely legitimate and true. Their "three guiding principles" hit the nail on the head as far as problems in the recording industry.
I know that I can attest to the fact that things like copy-protection on CDs is not beneficial to the artists. I have several CDs that I purchased that I will never ever listen to because I cannot play them on my mp3 player. If I don't listen to that CD, then I'm probably not going to get into their music and buy their other albums or attend their concerts either. This isn't fair to the artists, but it's true.
Here's to hoping that American artists and recording companies can take some cues from this great example that the Canadian artists are making. - Sandtiger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36Thank You! I will now add Avril and Barenaked Ladies cds to my do not boycott list.
- jggr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35MTV plays music?
- SuperRob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Note that this is the ARTISTS, and not the music labels (read: cartels) that are behind this movement. Artists understand that sharing is what exposes people to new music and will enhance sales. That's what the RIAA just doesn't get, and feels threatened by. They can't see past the initial "lost sale" to the eventual future purchases.
Of course, it's also worth mentioning that the artists make their money on tours, and rarely on album sales ... the album is a vehicle for exposure to the artist so that people will pay to see the artist live. The motivations are obvious ... - BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26How long before RIAA sues the Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne and other artists for file sharing and facilitating file sharing? Anyone? After all, the artists are really at the root of the problem. If they didn't make music, no one would share it.
- sudonim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27Nobody is gonna be blaming Canada anymore.
- newevilmind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25I would like to mention the record label Nettwork as being one of the best Canadian record labels.
- myxyplik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Um, it's a good thing if ANY musician endorses it. If the entire artistic community can band together and stand up to the big media cartels, that could be a catalyst for change.
- theblackgecko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Artists make most of their money from touring, not CD sales. There are more than a few artists I missed out on because I had never heard their music (and hence didn't go to their concert). More music listened to is good for artists, because people want to see bands that they hear, regardless of how they heard the music.
- toekneebullard, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31@DigitalBrain
You comment was bad. But you put it over the top by laughing at your own joke. I realize my own message will be buried with yours...but I felt you NEEDED to know this. - newevilmind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Nettwerk actually paid for the defense of someone sued by the RIAA.
- EtaoinShrdlu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15In any case, sharing music in Canada is perfectly legal, according to recent Supreme Court decisions.
And efforts by the recording industry to make it illegal are thwarted by the revelation that such laws would only benefit foreign industries. - nuvem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14You fool. Avril Lavigne is a force to be reckoned with!
We're talking about a woman who controls millions of angsty female teenagers! Angsty female teenagers who control their parents wallets! Wallets which control the parents themselves!
I hope for your sake she spares you her wrath. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13From my own experience, file sharing is the best thing to happen to music in a long time.
If I wasn't able to download any album I want, I would have never purchased about 60%+ of the albums I've gone on to purchase (supporting the artist in some way is a much IMO - A CD sale, seeing them live, buying a shirt).
"A download is not a lost sale" is the motto I live by.
Those who download and don't support the artist wouldn't have bought the album in the first place. - thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Barenaked ladies is a great band
Avril Lavigne... well, at least she's standing up for what's right I guess - kimos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11There is a whole list of artists on there, not just those two. Some other equally good Canadian talent there... I'm a huge BNL fan. Stars and Broken Social Scene are awesome groups too.
"Members include, Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41, Stars, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace), Dave Bidini (Rheostatics), Billy Talent, John K. Samson (Weakerthans), Broken Social Scene, Sloan, Andrew Cash and Bob Wiseman." - ghoppe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Why so much Avril Lavigne hate?
Her record sales make her standing as an "important musician" self-evident. I haven't bought her music but yes, I've heard it on radio/popular culture a lot. From interviews I've seen she seems relatively well adjusted (compared to many other famous folks) and not undeserving of her success.
I guess it's mostly blowback from being over-exposed, but bashing people just for being successful is sad, really. Even if you don't like her music. - jmuchrisf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The barenaked ladies have been one of our favorite bands for the past 10 years or so. Because of this, my wife and I have had the pleasure of each going to about 8 shows each. She's met the guys twice, I've met some of them once. They appeared to be kind, stand up people. They've always been in close contact with their fans.
This kind of group or publication is wonderful to see them doing. We need more people to do this across the world! - jeolmeun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Are we legally allowed to "share" their music now?
- yonnie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8the musicians themselves are probably the most powerful people in this fight.
if they aren't, they frickin should be.. - Beelzebub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I agree everything HAS gone wrong since Canada came along.*
I'm just waiting for Canadian movie directors, actors(?) and the like to stand up against the MPAA.
*For the RIAA. - JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Downloading is legal in Canada, uploading is still illegal.
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"I would like to mention the record label Nettwork as being one of the best Canadian record labels."
I agree, but the spelling is "Nettwerk".
(Interestingly, I discovered this label after hearing a remix of one of their artists' songs on a Shoutcast station, and then telling a friend, who found one of that artist's albums, downloaded it, and gave me a copy. I liked it and bought the CD. If the major labels had their way, this would never have happened.) - MugatuOT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Awesome article - and a really nice contrast to greedy losers like Metallica.
- ehmjay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Furthur proof that we Canadians kick serious butt. But seriously though, this is genious, and a very important message to be sending out. Kudos to those involved.
- ProphetSix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually, passing on someone else's music "for-free" IS what some artists want. It's the SALES of these music files they they DON'T want. Artists live and die on word of mouth. Passing on music to your friends WITHOUT charging for it is how artists get the word out, and then they get fans into the stadiums, where they make MOST of THEIR money.
I agree mass-bootleging copies for a profit is illegal, but, read the article. Distributing music to friends for "non-commercial-use" is exactly what they WANT to happen. It actually does help. - bharder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I just wouldn't be exposed to new music if I didn't download songs.
All of the radio stations I listen play 'oldies'.
I occasionally see something I like on MTV but it's very rare.
I don't want to say contemporary music isn't good,
but the contemporary music on the radio usually just doesn't interest me. - adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I have always been indifferent to the music of Avril Lavigne. Nevertheless, having this attitude grants her more credibility.
Musicians can only benefit from being nice to their fans. It is good to know that some mainstream "artists" are beginning to realize take notice. - rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Now maybe people will realize that the RIAA could give a damn less about "their" artists. They're concerned with selling records and thats it. They couldn't care less about if the artist sells 1 piece of merchandise, 1 concert ticket, or anything other than selling the records they put out.
The focus of the RIAA is to make the member COMPANIES (not artists) more successful financially. It's obvious with the focus on bringing in new artists, squeeze them dry for a short amount of time on a low end contract, then dump them out on their ass. Then it got more obvious once it started the thousands of lawsuits against random people (even those without PC's) for "stealing" their music. It got even uglier when they started pushing the DMCA very hard and spending lobbying money in DC.
Now it's to the point where artists are risking their relationship with their record labels because it's so ridiculous they HAVE to speak up.
I can only hope for the sake of our laws, and rational use of them, that this will slap the DMCA/RIAA in the face. I hope the internet makes the RIAA irrelevant and all their 6 and 7 figure corporate folks lose their jobs and join the real world again. - thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The test is not whether it is illegal, but whether it's wrong. Many things are illegal that shouldn't be, and many things that are legal should not be. A law is only as good as the people who created it.
Now, that said, I can understand your point of view, although I'm moving farther and farther away from it. As far as I'm concerned, intellectual property shouldn't exist in its present form. It's not the same thing as a physical object; only one person can wear a shoe at a time, but if I make a copy of a book and read it, a thousand other people could be reading a copy at the same time.
My first point: Copying mp3s is not stealing. It's no different from listening to it on the radio, where it is freely broadcast. If creating a copy of an mp3 is stealing, then I hope you've never sung along with a song on the radio, or stored a memory of listening to it, because you copied it there as well. Should we have to pay license fees for that too?
My second point: Music is worthless. The free market sets a value on music, and it's decided that music is worthless in terms of money. Sure, some folks pay for it, but the vast majority know that you can get it for free and the ONLY reason they don't is because the record companies call it stealing and compare it to stealing jewelry or some physical object, which the previous owner no longer has when it's done. This means that any prices set are now artificial prices, based on the premise that if you don't pay this, you're a horrible thief, and you're cheating people, even though you could just as easily listen to the song on the radio for free.
My third point: Intellectual property was meant to provide incentive to create new things and ideas. Instead it is being used to stifle this innovation and invention, and to keep others from building on old ideas.
In summary, sir, I disagree with you. Copying music and sharing it with your friends is not stealing, and it's not wrong. It's free advertising for the bands that are involved. - theragu40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Then how do you explain people like me? I have downloaded songs, and I still do so sometimes. But that's not the point. The point is that through downloading, I have been exposed to lots of music I would never have bothered to check out had I not been able to sample it first. I personally own hundreds of CDs, and I still download music on p2p programs to check new stuff out. If I like it enough, I'll buy the CD, but if I had not first downloaded, I would never have considered a purchase in the first place. A good case in point is the Gorillaz. I had only heard one of their songs, and I didn't like it much. However, I downloaded a few other songs because a few of my friends were fans, and what do you know? I really like it, so I bought both of their albums. Those are two sales they would never have gotten had it not been for filesharing. I have had this same experience with many other bands.
Certainly there are people who take advantage of the system, but don't go thinking that there aren't people out there who download but are still willing to support music they think is great. - Bluezdood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is quite possibly the best thing to come along in a while. I only hope that they aren't targeted with lawsuits from record labels that claim they are hurting sales. I think this happened to that guy that Leo had on TWiT, you know the guy that was part of the Byrds, Roger something... Anyway, I don't think this would happen or even if it did, fortunately the artists would seem to have the time and money to fight it. If they were to fight it (which I imagine they would) and win, it would be landmark decision that could effect the way the recording industry operates, at least in Canada. Dang, Canada is looking really good these days. Cute girls, good government, artists that stand up for they're fans, Leo, shoot.
- M3Parker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5to a new band or artist, the sharing of their music between fans is a must for them to be noticed and gain exposure. You only hear artists that have been around before file sharing complain about it...
- petiejoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Cleverboy-
First of all, there are ways for bands to make money besides selling albums. In fact, selling albums doesn't make nearly as much money per album as selling merchandise and concert tickets and whatnot.
Second, I have purchased CDs even when I own the entire album on mp3's. Go to http://thepartyparty.com/ , download the entire album and then purchase the CD if you like it. Or the same thing at http://www.childrenofthecpu.com/ . I happened to like these two bands, so I purchased their albums- I'm no fool, if I like music and I want the person to make more of it, I chip in to encourage them. Plus CDs can still come with cool booklets and liners and stuff.
And those are just the ones I can think of that I "legally" downloaded and later purchased- I also bought both John Mayer CDs, all three Linkin Park CDs, an Avril Lavigne CD, and a couple others- These are all bands /artists that I had the entire album before I owned the CD
Just because you're a greedy freeloader doesn't mean the entire free market is. - newevilmind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@jeolmeun
yes. - Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I don't understand how people complain that it's Avril and BNL that are supporting this cause. We should be so thankful that some big names are taking a stand.
It's like a homeless person complaining that they only have a hotel to stay in and a was only served a hamburger instead of steak.
Take what you can get folks. - yonnie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5im glad to see that at least CANADIAN artists are actually listening to their fans, and not their big fat record companies that just tell them what to do.
sharing music digitally is no different than sharing music physically, such as burning CDs or just letting friends borrow or have them.
i actually prefer buying real CDs though. having a nice case to keep it in with the album cover and all that stuff is way more satisfying to own, IMO.
the U.S. needs to be more like Canada... - ghoppe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Well, I don't think she was an average 16 year old. (She wasn't 15 when she was signed) Yes, she understandably had some co-songwriting help, but she did write her songs. There are dozens of examples of successful musicians getting started in their pre-teen years. This whole "I can't take young musicians seriously" thing sounds pretty elitist to me.
Bringing up a Simpson sister comparison is unfair, this isn't a case of children being groomed by their parents for stardom, it's a case of a girl being discovered singing country covers at a local bookstore.
I wonder if Mozart got this much flack for being young... :) - sixspeed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Oh. Well off you go then to make your Metallica CD purchases at the record store. Dumbass.
- thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I encourage you to read the comment I wrote up a little farther, the really long one. Copying mp3s is NOT stealing. :-)
- ProphetSix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You can also argue that by this article alone, that chances are at least 1 artist did NOT want their intrests represented by a big-label record company, beholden to investors and not the artist's interests.
- jmholloway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It is ashamed that artists are tied by contracts and publicity to these big music corporations. :( Less people would get sued by the Riaa that way... >
- therernospoons, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Avril and Sarah rock :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Unless, of course, the artists' agents and the record industry executives decide that because of piracy they have to raise concert ticket prices to some ungodly amount, like Madonna has done with her new tour. ($200+ for Madonna? What happened to $60 being enough?)
The recording industry will find a way to screw the artists and the fans, as they have always done. Piracy doesn't hurt them nearly as much as their anti-piracy measures do and will. - PGvildys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Dude, majority of Canadians don't speak french.
- ghoppe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You know what? I have no problem with people who don't like her music. Or with people with opinions.
Evidently, there are people who have a problem with people that DO like her music. Bashing people for their musical taste is juvenile and elitist. That's what I was getting at with my first post. - thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"No, it's not that it's worthless. The artist put time and effort into creating it, and that has value. Noise, arbitrary sound chosen at random, is worthless. Music, chosen carefully from the realm of all possible sound, is not.
The problem with intangible, easily-copied "intellectual property" is that in the absence of artificial constraints on distribution, the supply, at any price -- including zero -- is nearly infinite, limited only by disk capacity, bandwidth, and processing power which are all increasing rapidly. This screws with conventional supply-and-demand economics. The reason the record labels are trying to stop this phenomenon is because they can't see any way to keep the supply-and-demand equilibrium point above $0 *except* by artificially limiting distribution, through copyright laws and enforcement. I can't really think of any way either, though that's not say there is none. But this is the problem that needs to be solved."
I can put time and effort into creating a huge sculpture made of poo, and (I suspect) it would be worthless, because no one wants a sculpture made of poo on their coffee table.
Now that's not to say that the artist didn't make some decent music! They certainly did, but what are they selling? The sequence of sounds that they came up with. They didn't come up with the sound, they just came up with the sequence.
If someone wants to pay for it then I, of course, encourage them to support these artists. But that said, in a free market, it's worth what someone will pay for it. The ONLY reason (as you said) that people buy these things is because the RIAA and MPAA have set up an artificial supply and demand imbalance by labelling those who would copy it as thieves, and as I pointed out in my first point, copying MP3s is not the same as stealing. It may be illegal by current law, but obviously we're speaking in a future tense where hopefully the right thing is done, and the law is struck down.
Basically I think we agree on some level here, but if you take away the artificial limitation on supply based on the illegality of sharing it freely, then there is an unlimited supply and a very limited demand, making it basically worthless in terms of money.
In terms of art? Well, that's subjective, and I probably don't have the ability to speak on that. But in terms of money, music is only worth what someone will pay. I'd pay to see a lot of artists live, but I wouldn't pay to listen to what I could get for free (legally) on the radio. - freebirdpat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I would have to agree, I heard Imogen Heap on the radio awhile ago, and really enjoyed the song. Then I went and downloaded more, fell in the love with the music and went and bought related CDs, (one digital, one CD). I wish the digital one wasn't DRMed to hell though.
- XorSystem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I highly suggest checking out Billy Talent also... They're freakin' great!
- economissed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The record industry is dead as soon as artists take control of recording, marketing and distribution of their own music.
The interests represented by the RIAA are losing and they're trying to grasp on to whatever they can in an attempt to survive. -
Show 51 - 100 of 188 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is