What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
121 Comments
- dgath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I hope this the last time I see a student newspaper linked to on Digg.
"Apple Computer’s founder Steve Jobs helped to revolutionize the MP3 downloading format, with the popular iTunes program." Eh? He didn't revolutionize the MP3... Napster did. ITunes has nothing to do with MP3s
"Without internet “piracy,� this independent musician would not be able to make these sales, which are becoming a growing sector of the music industry."
I hope that's the last time I see "piracy" in quotes, as if it isn't. When "Steal" is in quotes, that is understadable as nobody is "stealing" anything, but "Piracy" doesn't fly.
The sad state of copyright laws is that it is piracy unless you go out of your way and put it under a license like the Creative Commons. Blame the government for that one. The RIAA isn't going out of their way to sue people who download mp3s from indy artists, they can't, they have no jurisdiction. In fact... the RIAA's hard stance against piracy is the most benefitial scenario for Indy artists on the net because it forces people to seek alternatives. When people come across legally free music they cherish it and like it that much more, at least I do.
Bottom line is the RIAA can't stop piracy, they can sue those who pirate music left & right, but there is still going to be piracy. This article goes in 5 different directions. He's arguing that they shouldn't stop piracy (which the author probably means just ignore it), and they should embrace new technology to distribute music. They didn't start sueing people till they did embrace technology. The bigger hand they have in the pie & the bigger selling music on the internet becomes, the more involved they are going to be in going after those who download.
Don't waste your time preaching to the RIAA, they are a lobby group. They are a bunch of lawyers who have no goal but to bitch about how much money their little club is losing even though they are filthy rich. They won't change. The change should come with the artists. Stay indy, embrace the Creative Commons license, be loyal to your fans, play more live shows (that's where you'll make the money), and play music for the right reasons, entertaining others.
No digg - OswaldKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Steve Jobs could just refuse to sell any music on iTunes for more than $1.00. That would eliminate all new releases by the grossly overpaid teen bands that the RIAA relies on to make its money. Then Apple could make its own deals with the indy artists and compete with the record companies on the digital turf that Apple owns. Not long after that, the RIAA would collapse under the weight of its own ego.
- kenthorvath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1. Even if you could argue that every artist in the world would benefit from freely sharing their music, it's their right to protect their works.
That may be true, but it is the law that gives the artist those rights and like so many other things law is about striking a balance between what is right and what is pragmatic and in the overall best interest of the people. While it is the case that the artist has control over many methods of copying, he has little control over others. Performances of a composer's work may be publicly made - without the composer's permission - because congress has enacted a compulsory licensing system for it. That is, for a set fee decided by congress, you can pay the author of a musical work to perform it, and the author has no option to deny you. This is one instance of many balances that have been struck to protect artist's rights and encourage new works to be created and culture to spread.
In his book Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig make many great arguments that information technology and the Internet is going to require new compromises between artists and consumers if we are to regain that balance. He points to the many other balances struck in the past as technology has involved including radio, broadcast television, cable, and music recordings.
Anyway, just thought you might be interested in a good read. - mugget, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Today’s pirates operate not on the high seas but on the internet."
haha - yeah what about those guys out on the open seas that attack and pillage other ships? i suppose we've gotta give them another name now...
that article pretty much sucked. no Digg. - Remmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We always bash the RIAA/MPAA for what they do, yet we continue to support them by purchasing music/movies. Their fate is in our hands. If we refuse to support them, they will have no alternative but to offer a solution that the public will accept.
- TK99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IN the end a new generation of music and movie exec's who grew up with the net will take over and figure out how to make money. Its just the old guard who are freaked by any technology and so will continue to sue grandmothers and 12 year old girls till the are pushed out by the young.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0brickbat says: When you copyright a lyric, you are taking away my ability to use that word any way I wish without paying someone - including the way it is used in the lyric.
That isn't even true - in order for copyright infringement, there has to be a willful intent to copy, AND there needs to be a clear indication that the intent was to copy a significant portion. IF you want to copy a set of lyrics *created by someone else* then yes, you might run into trouble. I it just so happens that a line or two in your song coincides with a line or two in someone else's work (not because you copied it, but because you both arrived seprately at the same creative juncture), there is no infringement.
My point is this...there are many, MANY songs whose topic is that of love. There are only so many ways you can manipulate a given set of words to express any thoughts you may have on the subject. And yet, people keep producing songs about love. Many of them have the same general idea, but are differentiated by the music, mood, verse content, and other factors.
That having been said, can you show me why this is suddenly such a huge problem? To suggest that a copyright on a set of lyrics infringes on your freedom because somehow, at *some* point, you *might* want to use those very same words, in the very some order, in the very same way, just doesn't seem very logical. - Berek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0dugg. Continue ripping dvd's for ipods.
- bill.clark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Norgus:
"I think the £0.99/$0.99 itunes charges a track is overpriced as I just wonder why the hell English people pay almost twice as much as Americans."
That's a little inaccurate. The British do not pay almost twice what the Americans do. It's all relative. Let's say I make $25 per hour at my IT job. My counterpart in London makes £25 per hour. Is his £0.99 taking more out of his paycheck than my $0.99 takes out of mine?
You can only say it's twice as much if my counterpart in London makes the Pounds Sterling equivalent of $25/hr, which would be a little more than £13.
-B - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I hear all the time that if writers did not get compensated enough there would be no music. This is just obviously a lie. Copyright laws have been around for a hundred years or so. How long has music been around? And yet, every time, I hear that argument rolled out over and over again."
Recording devices have been invented for only like 50 years. Copyright laws were invented as a response to the invention of copying machines. In old times, music performers makes a living only thorough theaters performances, which can not be recorded. - brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0joe_mama,
If you cannot keep a civil tone here you should go back to your RIAA masters you little piece of ***** apparatchik. Go and tell them that reality is coming to bite them on the ass. This is just the tip of the iceberg. - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"if I download a song from a band that I have not heard of before, and I like their music, i'll just listen to the music i have already downloaded, cause it's a waste of money to buy their album."
I think it's a waste of money to pay for anything I can steal, so therefore I am just going to steal.
Yes, that logic makes perfect sense so long as you don't mind its implications. - Trjn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"if I download a song from a band that I have not heard of before, and I like their music, i'll just listen to the music i have already downloaded, cause it's a waste of money to buy their album."
On the other hand, if you happen to be in a store and see a new CD by that same band. . . would you not be more inclined to buy it?
I've always thought of music downloading with regards to marketing as something similar to "I liked coke, I think I'll try vanilla coke" type deal. You drink coke for a while, you like it, then one day you are at a vending machine and you see a vanilla coke, slightly more expensive for some reason, but hey, why not give it a go?
Its kind of like how if an artist is a known name, by making appearances in movie,s MTV, talk shows, whatever you can think of, you are more likely to buy their album because they are a known name, you recognise it, you've possibly seen something they've done that you liked and you buy this product of theirs because there is a possibility that it will also be to your liking. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Shouldn't Penny Arcade sue Jack Thompson, given that he falsely accused them of extortion?
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0brickbat says: The word love is a common word. If you use it in a lyric and then copyright that lyric...You are taking something from the commons.
No I am taking nothing from the commons, because the word is still available for anyone to use. I am contributing something TO the culture, however, by way of using the word within a context that others may find elightening, interesting, or entertaining. Without context, it is without meaning. The creators are the ones who *provide* that context, and it's the context (the "whole" of the expression) which is under attack by those who feel they are entitled to do what they please with it, having contributed *nothing* to its value. - brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hi 5blocksfree,
"No I am taking nothing from the commons, because the word is still available for anyone to use."
When you copyright a lyric, you are taking away my ability to use that word any way I wish without paying someone - including the way it is used in the lyric. The fact that you have not taken away the ability to use the word in all contexts is little comfort. Although you could argue that given enough time, all usages of the word would eventually be copyrighted.
Hi GotAMD,
"You can't compensate everyone every time you do something that they had a slight amount of input into."
I agree. That is why I say that it is all commonly owned and cannot be charged for. Regarding others that contribute - obviously if someones contribution was significant enough for a business transaction to take place then they would be paid. In contributing, they are performing some sort of service. If that service was valued by both parties then a transaction may take place. If you want to make a concert and enough people regard your music highly enough, you can charge for your performance. If not then do something else.
Finally this argument I hear all the time that if writers did not get compensated enough there would be no music. This is just obviously a lie. Copyright laws have been around for a hundred years or so. How long has music been around? And yet, every time, I hear that argument rolled out over and over again.
Looking at it more globally, under my system ALL the money would go to performers and the people that directly support them in producing their music. Now it predominantly goes to transnational marketing corporations and their shareholders. I know who the pirates are.
Ciao
bb - pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Next the RIAA will be implementing the Cat O' Nine Tails, keelhaul or just hang offenders from the yardarm as these are also old tactics that are no longer relevant in a modern society.
Eventually a payment system will be worked out, like ASCAP/BMI which is what finally got them to stop resisting FM radio. Until they run out of Artists money to use to sue their clients there is not much that can be done to stop THEIR insanity. They have a bad business model that is now outdated and will use every lawmaker in the nation that they can bribe to make sure that they are protected from the future.
They will fail, the internet makes what they do economically irrelevant. You can aid in their downfall by purchasing indi artists and don't buy DRM media of any kind. Protect your rights and deny them their source of income. Britney Spears is one of the top selling artists of ALL TIME. And her popularity occurred during this period of unprecedented piracy. If all the "kids" steal then who the hell bought her CDs?
My Mother was remembering that a gas station in town used to sell bootleg 8 track tapes. You could buy many hits (including music not available in 8 track format legally). It was eventually shut down, the guy paid a small fine and kept his business. Today we have factories in China stamping discs and selling them, yet it is downloading that is the menace to society. Why not concentrate on those who profit from the sale of counterfeit discs and not those downloading music. - brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hi 5blocksfree,
I don't blame you for not understanding what I am saying. The manipulation is strong and sustained for you to think that it is normal to pay someone for their words. Let me try explaining it differently.
The word love is a common word. If you use it in a lyric and then copyright that lyric...You are taking something from the commons. You are taking away my ability to use that word in any way I choose. What gives you the right to do that? That word has been around long before you were born. Being published or unpublished has nothing to do with it.
As for artists making money. They should be able to charge for their performance. They should even charge for cd's and videos of their performance. What they should not do is steal words or notes from our shared culture and call them theirs.
Ciao
bb - VladDrac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hate the RIAA, but this article sucks. Get your ***** facts straight BEFORE you right the article! "Apple Computer’s founder Steve Jobs helped to revolutionize the MP3 downloading format..." Apple has NEVER EVER "revolutionized" the MP3 format!!! I wish it had, if iTunes used MP3 formats I'd probably sign up. But they don't, they never did, and they never will!
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Brickbat, if you can't charge for the music that you create, how can you charge for your concert either? I mean, you have a large family tree, I'm sure. And a lot of those people have passed down to you your genetic code. You owe them part of the profits for giving you a voice that people want to listen to. Then you have the people who have given you advice on performance/singing (which all artists I know of get). You also owe them a little chunk of what you make at your performances because their work went into your success.
It's ridiculous. You can't compensate everyone every time you do something that they had a slight amount of input into. Each person is a separate entity. They're also not taking words away from you. You still have the right to use them, in fact you have the right to use them in the same way they were used in the music. What you don't have the right to do is to get yourself a copy of that music without paying the people who made it. It's still *their* work that went into making the CD, not everyone elses. It is not public domain.
Basically what it boils down to is you being communist, but that's another argument for another day. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Damnit. Ignore that.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Remmy - you are one of the very few who seem to get it.
Most other people just continue their folly, somehow rationalizing that they are entitled to whatever music they want, merely because of the ease with which they can acquire it.
@ brickbat >> Actually, I don't agree with this. I don't believe you have a right to protect information from propagation.
Let me get this straight...I compose a song, and for some unknown reason, I have no control over it? I create something that automatically enters the public domain, merely by virtue of its creation? This is TOTAL BULL. If you want music, write some yourself and stop relying on others to feed you what it is that you feel you're so entitled to.
brickbat goes on: I did this ALL BY MYSELF so only I should benefit.
That only happens if the music/artwork/whatever is never PUBLISHED or otherwise released. Since most of it is, your point has no merit at all. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Their refusal to adapt to new technology, and to create new and innovative ways to profit from it, is doomed to fail."
If their refusal is doomed to fail, I take it they will soon stop refusing? I think he meant their refusal is dooming *them* to failure.
"Eric Bana was unable to act his way out of a wet sock."
I imagine it would be fairly difficult to act one's way out of a wet sock. A wet paper bag, OTOH...
"Downloading a movie is functionally no more different than letting someone borrow your tape."
*More* different than?
Throw in about a dozen unnecessary adjectives and adverbs, and this makes for a pretty goddamn annoying article.
Just admit that you like to steal, kid! Playing the smart guy about it is not working! - ucf2011, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That is a good story... and it is very true... if I download a song from a band that I have not heard of before, and I like their music, then I am going to go out and buy their cd, and if it wasn't for downloading the song then I would not have gone out and spent money to get the cd
- myskja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Any "law" or "prosecution" which makes perfectly normal human beings criminals is an unhealthy surreal slap in the face for society in general. And just because so that a handful of over-wealthy artists can be sure they can keep their bling-bling. Bizarre.
- daone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I will never agree with the RIAA method of dealing with piracy. But their is piracy none the less and it can't go forever unchecked. Internet Piracy can never be fully stopped, but I agree with TWIT, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs that selling copyrighted material by hard disk media is a dying and doomed main source of income.
The people are showing the RIAA indirectly that we the consumers want our music and video at the click of a button on the internet. I will confess I use bittorrent to download television shows that I missed while at work. If Steve Jobs can get Itunes more liscense deals with television networks, I may pay for the episodes I download almost for free. I still count the money I pay for electricity and internet monthly as not actually getting something for nothing.
All I and the rest of the public can do is wait and watch what the RIAA does next and see how that affects us. Until the RIAA actually for real starts knocking on my door, I'll still bittorent in moderation the shows I want to watch. And see if hollywood can actually come up with a affordable alternative. Movielink is a good start, they just need to get far better qaulity codecs and get far away from Internet Explorer dependence. - brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Even if you could argue that every artist in the world would benefit from freely sharing their music, it's their right to protect their works.
Actually, I don't agree with this. I don't believe you have a right to protect information from propagation. I think copyright and patents are systems for segregating wealth from the commons. A quick explanation - An idea - every idea you have is developed within a context - your education, culture, environment. All of these are commons. By copyrighting and patenting them, you are saying - I don't care about all that. I did this ALL BY MYSELF so only I should benefit. If that is true, please show me one person that really did this. They grew up completely isolated. They did not go to school. They did not get ANY ideas from their environment and then they just magically produced this new idea without any context. Of course not.
The bottom line is that it is actually copyrighters and patenters that stealing from all of us and every breach by us is an act of patriotism.
(C)opyright brickbat 2005 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0if I download a song from a band that I have not heard of before, and I like their music, i'll just listen to the music i have already downloaded, cause it's a waste of money to buy their album.
- wastern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"LOL, of course, piracy is all about e-tough, idiot."
yeah you are so hard and so 1337 with your limewire and bit torrent. you kids are funny. i think when you get to high school you'll spend a lot of time in your locker - XDataBurn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0my bad, hahaha wrong post. Im having an id10t problem
- XDataBurn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Has google ever failed?"
Two words... google talk. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The RIAA should focus more on marketing music and less on silly lawsuits that accomplish little. If piracy is so prevalent as the RIAA would have us believe, then why was 2004 the best year is music sales (in dollars) in the past five years? I thought everyone was downloading illegal music? Or is this no different from when people made cassette tapes of CDs (I know I did, but I also spent a crap load of money during my university days on buying CDs of artists I liked, sometimes because of a copy I made to tape).
- wastern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"You kidding me? This kid is going to be dead. He'll say this sort of ***** to the wrong people, and will be beaten to a bloody pulp."
i wouldn't worry, i'm sure his social skills are lacking enough where he can't even speak full sentences in front of real people. i'm just sitting here laughing, thinking about how that kid will never touch a girl, probably won't ever even talk to one. haha - bossm4n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This article is a nothing but a poor attempt at justifying illegal copying and swapping of intellectual property. I don't support the RIAA and their methods, however I support the musicians right to profit from their creations.
- kungfustickman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The RIAA is killing themselves.
- shriek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"everyone has the right to protect their property", this is as good as you can protect it!
We all have to recon that the whole music/movie/entertainment industry business model is just obsolete in this digitally-linked world where more often then not what matters is feedback and reputation and not so much marketing that tries to sell some crappy music/movies.
Both industries have become inflated artificially through absurdly spent money on things that just can't return the money spend. OK, I don't believe in Utopia but why do "artist" think that people would care more about their music just because they take part in a movie? or they have more appearances on MTVs, magazines, and alike.
And by artificially inflating the value of a given artist you would have to charge an absurdly high percentage to finance this industry then you get artist who are left with less then 10% profit of their sold music.
The current business model is expensive, non-efficient, unfair to artist and does not promote quality for quality sake.
blog.vir2.us - Voide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"i wouldn't worry, i'm sure his social skills are lacking enough where he can't even speak full sentences in front of real people. i'm just sitting here laughing, thinking about how that kid will never touch a girl, probably won't ever even talk to one. haha"
Agreed. 100%. - torunforever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you think artists should be in charge of their own affairs and don't need an industry to hold their hands, then you should encourage the RIAA to continue down its archaic path. That way they'll fade into obscurity and a new business model will emerge that puts the control into the artists' hands.
- Voide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nobody respond to Joe_Momma. All he wants is attention. Just report his comments and go on with your life.
- wastern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0seriously though, how old are you?
- m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0e-thugs for life homiez.
- wastern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"-Nope is that still going on?"
should be going on as long as the album is out, check out their website. i'm sure the torrent is still live. it wasn't some limited time offer as far as i know - Voide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"yeah you are so hard and so 1337 with your limewire and bit torrent. you kids are funny. i think when you get to high school you'll spend a lot of time in your locker"
You kidding me? This kid is going to be dead. He'll say this sort of ***** to the wrong people, and will be beaten to a bloody pulp. - Remmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just X out Joe_mama. It's a great feature.
I agree with gotamd. It can't be a double edged sword. You have to stop downloading and stop buying if you really want to see a change. By continuing to download the songs, you are only giving proof that their model is damaged by file sharing. If you stop both, the artists will take notice and realize that the RIAA is hurting them. - wastern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"LOL, but you can't!!!! LOL, you are like RIAA, wants to kill me, but can't even touch me!!! LOL"
you're so e-tough....haha
pathetic - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The largest problem with their heightened outrage over music and media downloading is the complete disregard for the artists that make the material."
That is *****. Piracy of music doesn't help the musicians who make the music at all in any way. So you trade the RIAA "not helping" artists to you not helping the artists. So what? You're still screwing them over. If you think the RIAA is screwing artists, don't you screw them too by not paying for their material. Why don't you send them a check after you download their songs? Oh, I see. The real reason you download the songs is because you're too cheap to buy them. If you really do feel that you're hurting the artist by supporting the RIAA, just boycott the RIAA. And that doesn't mean downloading songs from artists affiliated with it. That means NOT LISTENING to any of their music. Why don't you just listen to your indie music and know that you're on the moral high ground? - heartless_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The RIAA has been about lining their wallets for too long. They basically created piracy by refusing to budge prices as the Napster age was being born.
Now they sue the end user who downloads illegally for what they created in the first place. It doesn't make downloaders right, but it doesn't make the RIAA anymore popular.
With the RIAA getting a worse reputation by the lawsuit... they heap on trying to push iTunes prices higher. All while other companies push the prices lower.
It is obvious they are in it for profits because their business model is failing. Maybe they need to stop paying every new rap artist 3 million dollars a record and let them make fools of themselves in public. - wastern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"And..... the result would be???"
time will tell, i never checked back at the site. i'm sure they did fine. probably better because more people would come out to the concerts - nstern2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"did you see that Harvey Danger released their whole last album for free as an experiment to see how sales and profits would be effected. the torrent was fast as hell that firs day too, got the whole thing in a minute"
-Nope is that still going on?
"And..... the result would be???"
I'm guessing the result was a free album but hey I'm sure that's not good enough for you. - wastern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"WHOA....calm down Joe mama. Seems like if more mainstream artists started having a free single download id be more intrigued to buy the whole album. Heck I will download the free songs off of itunes even if I don't know who the artist is"
did you see that Harvey Danger released their whole last album for free as an experiment to see how sales and profits would be effected. the torrent was fast as hell that firs day too, got the whole thing in a minute -
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is