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.
235 Comments
- Itazura, on 10/12/2007, -5/+422Every time they talk I feel like taking the Cd's I did purchase and seeding them for free to the rest of the world. They should learn to shut up.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+220Let's see. Record companies have been screwing their artists for decades. Even refusing to pay royalties in the tens of millions of dollars. Do a search for "unpaid royalties" and you'll find hundreds of artists that have sued and are suing in order to retrieve back money that the record companies have stole from them.
Looks like they are getting whats coming to them. - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+122I want their music, so I buy it...then it doesn't work on my mp3 player (or it does, but it doesn't work on my linux box without software that's technically "legal-grey-area")...and that's the music I PAID for.
Then, I find out about a nickel of the $14 cd went to the artist, two bucks to the retailers, and $11.85 went to the label and RIAA, for what? To advertise the OTHER bands because what I listen to doesn't get advertised.
Sorry, but that's a lot of middle-men, and one of those middle men is taking ~11,850% profit margin. And yet I still buy the crap...the market's corrupt. I'd be fine to give my favorite -band- $15 bucks for a cd, even 30 bucks...they earned it.
No venture capital firm pulls the kind of profit a record label does. They find innocent "would do anything to be signed" people who are generally NOT businessmen, then they hand them a no-haggle contract that is price-fixed to be similar to the contracts of their competition. They know there's no alternative. If you want to be famous, you sign... which signs away your rights and your family's rights for the rest of your lives, requires financial compensation for costs, and guarantees nothing in return. But then, they corner the market so their risk is minimized, but any other companies who try to give a fair deal have no shot at breaking even, which keeps the real venture capitalists out of the fray, and prevents anyone from going to a bank and saying "I wanna take out a loan to publish a cd". - geoken, on 10/12/2007, -6/+115"Looks like they are getting whats coming to them."
Anchorman, you're missing the point. Do you know that just yesterday fifty cent had to settle for only 9 screens in his H2, because the 15 lcd screens he wanted would have cost too much. If that wasn't bad enough, he had to cut down on his prostitute expenditures. He can now only hire 3-4 high class escorts per week. Tragic. If you listened closely you would have heard space Jesus shedding a tear for him. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+112The message to the artists is simple:
Ditch the RIAA, until then I'm boycotting YOU. And I'll take the liberty of downloading your music for free and enjoy it too. - ibeetle, on 10/12/2007, -10/+63***** the RIAA
***** Sony
***** Microsoft
***** the iPod
***** iTunes
After awhile there will not be anybody left to *****, and you will be left masturbating. - benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+49remind me to send them a christmas card
- BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+40 Firs of all, jobs should be generated where the market demand is, not other way around. Other way around you have producers and distributors shoving their products down consumers' throats. People have a choice, and the provider has to cater to public interest.
Movies and music disappearing? Well, make it so then. Make us regret. Make us realize those things are nothing more than forms of entertainment and that people only want to be entertained when it makes their lives easier.
What I call "entertainment" is the lack of constraints. Let me have fun the way I want. Start imposing rules and I'll do something else for fun.
Loosing revenue? Improve your business model. Can't be done? With computer games my best example would be WOW. Loads of money, subscription model. The game can be pirated, but the service manufacturer provides makes it unique - the servers that run the game. That supports the value of the product and puts a positive incentive on legal distribution.
Interactive media caters to the interest of younger generation the same way movies and music did to older age groups. The culture is changing. The demands change, yet the providers insist on preservation of their inflexible business.
If certain parts of entertainment business vanish, it'll be due to lack of demand, regardless of the reasons. No demand means no business and that is perfectly fine by me.
I like the comparison brought up by one of the commenters last time we spoke of piracy here on digg. He said the fundamental difference between piracy and the physical act of stealing is that stealing prevents the vendor from selling the product to the person willing to by it. If the item disappears off the shelf it cannot be sold. With piracy, the person generates a virtual copy of the thing he arguably would not have purchased in first place, however he does not prevent others from paying for the product. The program, the movie, the song is still there.
Why do people pirate? Cause it's more convenient. Leaving morals aside, that is the problem. It is hard to compete with something that is free, but the last thing you want to do is make the process of "consumption" even more difficult. Format wars, DRM, lawsuits, extortion tactics both, ruin the enjoyment and confidence in those providing the service.
People that advocate artists say that now, due to piracy, bands are forced to tour more and that is difficult work. They don't want to be touring, they want easier profits through seldom recording sessions. Well, I say, let them work for their buck. The problem with concerts is that RIAA doesn't get a chance to profit as much as through sale of recorded media. They are worried about artists being driven out of the studio and hitting the road as that puts them in direct contact with their audience. RIAA wants to be the middle man in everything the artist does. They want their share and they're loosing every which way.
Movies and music - oh, they'll stay. MAFIAA might vanish though, and I'm all for that. - livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41Warning, comment abuse...
Direct link to the Op-Ed peice being referred to:
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/03/15/sherman - NightBlade40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37@Idanix
http://negativland.com/albini.html
Go to the very bottom of the page and look at the balance sheet. - benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -12/+48thats why I have a rapidshare account
- mikepictor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35Oh...so close, I was more or less with you until the end. There are a lot of arguements about the justifications for doing illegal downloads, but as it stands, they are illegal, and you definitely do not have a "right" to them. You may think their objections are trivial, you may think they should change their outlook on this, I will agree with you to a certain point, but no one has a "right" to it.
- LDanix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31I keep hearing that artists get only some ridiculously small amount of the revenue from our purchase of CDs and the RIAA/Record Labels/Retailers get the rest. Can anyone here provide credible sources for these claims and "common knowledge"?
If this can, in fact, be backed up, we should use the RIAA's (and some artist's) own argument against them. If we are hurting the artists so bad, then burn a copy of a friend's CD (or download non-DRMed MP3) and send the artist $5. At the rate quoted in a previous comment of $.05 per CD (that the artist is said to actually receive) then you essentially purchased 100 copies of the CD that you can give away to friends and other fans, without hurting the artist in any way. In fact, you have just shown the artist that they do not need an old-fashioned label, just good music and the internet- publicity, fans, and money will follow.
If the RIAA is really pissed about the artists not getting anything, then they need to sue Ebay, Amazon, Hastings, Warehouse Music, Vintage Stock, etc for selling used CDs without giving the artist even the nickel they have worked so hard for.
At this point, there is only one way to see that all our objectives are met (DRM-free music, highest quality, artist gets paid, more publicity for the artist, and stick it to the RIAA- legally). Buy the CD used and send $1 to the artist. If we all do that and promote it to our friends, the artists will quickly see the rewards of making 20x what their contracts allow.
The RIAA shall stare at a mirror as they disintegrate and are blown away by the winds of change. - OutThisLife, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39***** the RIAA.
- jake8689, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27makes me want to download some music
- RoboDonut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27I wish I had billions of dollars in revenue to complain about losing...
- marmanukem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24I think another thing they don't realize is that many people would just go without anyway, they aren't losing anything, because there is so little music out there that I would pay for to begin with.
- DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24For every CD someone buys, I'm going to eat two hamburgers.
- chkmate21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Awwww.... He touched my heart and now have changed my mind totally about RIAA. Dude you can sue me now I dont care! As long as we save those tax dolors and lost revenue. RIAA is soo cool, where can I get RIAA t-shirts?
- Nesh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24"By the way dont you guys think that the term "BitTorrent Store" is an oxymoron??!!"
It's not, actually. The fact that you think it is shows that you've bought what they're selling. The RIAA wants everybody to think that Bittorrent = Stealing because Bittorrent is a legitimate distribution method which could challenge their own, if implemented properly. - ominpotent123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23@ CorrosionX
You can download the music, but dont you dare enjoy it! :) - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18@novagensis
The vicious cycle will continue until the established artists fight back. If enough established artists banded together, they could start a label to bring balance to the market. The big record labels are just like big oil. They are a pseudo-monopoly. Instead of working against each other to keep prices down like a freemarket is supposed to do, they work together to keep prices artificially high. I have nothing agaist buying a CD, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay 22 bucks for a piece of plastic when there are only a handful of songs I want. - merlin77077, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18"It’s not just the loss of current sales that concerns us, but the habits formed in college that will stay with these students for a lifetime. This is a teachable moment — an opportunity to educate these particular students about the importance of music in their lives and the importance of respecting and valuing music as intellectual property."
I couldn't agree more. I attempt to 'educate' students daily by suing them and ruining the next 5-10 years of their life. - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@ttoastt
No, the music isn't meant to be free. It's meant to be sold at as much profit for the labels (and as little for the artist) as possible. They sell a nickel's worth of media for 15 bucks, crossing from red into the black within the first week, 100% of the time. The rest of the sales are pure profit. That's an ROI no other company can claim.
How do they do it? By abusing copyright laws.
See, in history, art was priced fairly and kept fresh by intellectual theft. Shakespeare wrote so many plays because a week after Hamlet was out, another hack group started performing it, without him seeing a penny of the royalties there.
It's only -very- recently (last hundred years or two) that companies were allowed to keep -total- ownership of a piece of art, thus forcing fans of that style (and "style" is not that loose a word, since some companies do own entire -styles-, like Adobe and the general interface style of Photoshop) to deal with that company, who is then given a monopoly for the extent of that ownership. Originally, it was to allow for a return on investment in return for that investment bettering the public and culture... then Disney (and others) kept pushing to lengthen copyright and trademark lengths, squelching public domain and maintaining their monopoly on the style for a lifetime or more.
Think what you will about me for being a fan of Nine Inch Nails, but it does require me to deal with a very specific, very self-centered, profit-centered mega-corporation, if I want to hear Trent Reznor without breaking the law. And there's no start-up company that could market NIN for a fair price, even with a reasonable licensing fee and the permission of Trent... get it? Destruction of free market, destruction of cultural growth, and every band becomes a monopoly of its parent company... You can pick between two cell phone companies and get comparible features, but nobody sounds remotely like Nine Inch Nails. - Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17If I really like a band but don't want to support the RIAA I'll "borrow" the CD and just go see the live concert or buy some merch from their website. That's how artists get their money anyway, not from CD sales.
- selrahc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16"I think another thing they don't realize is that many people would just go without anyway, they aren't losing anything, because there is so little music out there that I would pay for to begin with."
The way things are going, they will probably start suing people who don't listen to their music at all too, just because they aren't profiting from them. - TheJuggernaut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17God, I hope not; I was going to name my next kid Riaa. Thanks for helping me avoid a potentially nasty lawsuit!
- theotherjchen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17People seem to have the wrong impression of digg.com's collective response to the RIAA's friendly and totally non-threatening actions. The issue here isn't whether the actions of downloaders are immoral, it's the means the RIAA uses in cracking down on downloaders. No matter which side you stand on as to intellectual property, you can't deny that the RIAA is a big fat, smelly doucheturd for suing stroke victims, grandmothers on welfare, blind starving AIDS-infected babies in Africa, Tiny Tim, and other deserving recipients of pathos.
My opinion? The RIAA is a lumbering behemoth from when five was a pretty acceptable figure for miles per gallon. It cannot stay competitive in the information age. It refuses to even consider the possibility of staying competitive. Instead, it thrashes and kicks and generally makes a huge fuss , much like its cousins Communism and the American steel/car/textile/everything industry. It refuses to look at its own faults and instead haphazardly lays blame on evil 1337 h4x0r college downloaders (see greedy capitalist pigs and conniving Japs for comparison) and lax intellectual property laws. Well, you know....like....sorry, dude.
The issue here isn't even morality. It's practicality. The RIAA and its constituent companies just CAN'T COMPETE anymore. Recording music stopped being insanely profitable because of a slew of technological advances in sharing information. It happens all the time: oil devastated the coal industry, cars wrecked the railway industry, whoppee cushions massacred the fart industry etc. etc. Eventually, the music industry will find its equilibrium, somewhere between its original form, as a strictly performing art, and the record-centric monster it is today. Artists are going to get more freedom since they don't need Harvard MBAs to market their recordings to everyone in the world. Smaller record labels will gain a competitive edge. Things change, but one thing is clear: Music will survive without the RIAA. Some might argue that it would thrive without the rigid structure of a profit-seeking industry. Either way, I just refuse to believe that the product (good music) is in jeopardy.
So let's take a look at the purpose of property rights: to protect acquired assets so that individuals have the incentive to produce more assets. That's the whole argument against Communism, right? In a capitalist (we really prefer the term free-market, more P.C.) society, you keep what you kill...I mean make. You get to make whatever you want, unless you don't make anything in which case you starve. Furthermore, the purpose of intellectual property rights is to ensure that people are rewarded for brilliant ideas and creative works of art. Well...let's see here...do major label recording artists really have the rights to their works? Do the artists keep what they make? Well...2-5% worth. Hmm...okay. So do they at least get to make what they want? Well...not always. Creative control is a bit hit and miss these days. Well then what about artists setting up their own shop with non-restrictive DRMs? Oh, they get to keep 100% of what they make (even with the risk of bootleggers, that's not 5% by a long shot) and they get complete creative control. So...the purpose of the recording industry's vision of intellectual property rights is to PREVENT the rewarding of brilliant ideas and creative works of art and to RESTRICT the artist's creative freedom. The only entity these restrictive intellectual property rights PROTECTS is the Big Five conglomerate. Wow. I wonder why so many people haven't fallen in line with this propaganda
And yes, propaganda is the right word. You know how I can tell it's propaganda? Because not a single ***** word of it is true. Their entire argument rests on a negative causal effect between mp3 piracy and sales. No study has shown a negative causal effect between mp3 piracy and sales. Why did sales revenue fall between 2003/4 and 2005/6? Because the RIAA reduced its inventory. (Source: http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html) What about PROFITS!!! Sony/EMI sure didn't have any problems (http://www.mp3.com/stories/3031.html) LAYOFFS!!! You HAD to layoff thousands of workers? Very convincing. Sounds like that time I had to download that new rap album. I'm sure a few thousand (massively exaggerated) employees off the payroll really helped compensate the reduced sales that mp3 piracy wasn't responsible for. A few thousand is what...a hundred million? Given the record industry's collective sales of $21 billion, are you sure it was necessary? CD sales DOWN!!! 20% decrease!!!! You sure that isn't being compensated by the 900% increase in digital music sales? (http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/5975.cfm) ILLEGAL!!!! Well, are you sure collusion isn't illegal? Because that agreement to not compete on the basis of price sure sounds a bit illegal (http://www.state.ia.us/government/ag/consumer/press_releases/CDsuit.html), not to mention those stormtrooper scare tactics you favor (http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5129687.html). The difference is, our illegal activity hasn't cost you any money. Yours cost us hundreds of millions.
While we're at it, we might as well address those deep moral issues. It's really funny how the same industry that exploited recording artists for a century would have the chutzpah to come back and defend those very same artists. It's absolutely hilarious that the same people that were wringing obscene profits off of CD's (they cost $0.25, $1.00 goes to the people who ...so what happened to the rest?) just a decade ago can call us robbers when the tides of economic fortune turned against them. It's *I'm running out of synonyms for funny* how the same dudes(?) who have made billions off of gangsta rap, death metal, grunge and other unsavory genres that may or may not have negative psychological and cultural effects (oh yeah, ask me for a source, just ask me...PLEASE) can talk about a university's "moral responsibility...as organizations transmitting values." May we live in interesting times, indeed.
Downloading illegally copied music is not a victimless crime. The victims are the RIAA and the Big Five recording companies it represents. Now, why are they victims? Because they were innocent and helpless in the face of 1337 barbarian hordes of mp3 pirates? No, it's because they are a group of colluding wanna-be monopolists that are losing their unfair and illegal market dominance because of new technological advances. Now, the rational thing to do would be to follow the market and start dealing in digital music sales. But instead, they use their monopoly of the market to bully everyone from single mothers to Apple Computer. Hey, douchebag, I got a message for you:
***** YOU.
P.S. Sorry. I never intended for this comment to be this long. I ***** HATE the RIAA. Nothing is more repugnant to me than those ***** thieves and cowards. - chkmate21, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19By the way dont you guys think that the term "BitTorrent Store" is an oxymoron??!!
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@headphonz
Be a real man and admit that piracy is NOT stealing.
That's a perpetuated lie.
Downloading a song is -not- committing theft in any way, shape, or form.
People who download songs are -not- thieves, and until about a decade ago, weren't even criminals in many places (certain areas could twist pre-existing crimes to fit this, in theory...but anyone can do that).
It's like the prohibition...almost everyone does it, and it's suddenly drug abuse when it's illegalized. And like prohibition, it'll probably become legal again. In a decade or two, it'll hit a Supreme Court that decides that the prosecuting of citizens for distributing copyrighted materials, non-commercially, for improvement of culture in their own lives and those of others (a lot of people I knew in my IRC days had their own MP3 distribution servers that cost them a bunch of money, and gave without downloading new music, because they felt that distribution was the right thing to do...they gained nothing out of it except an FBI raid and seriously ugly settlements) - zenothestoic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I hate.
- Axfire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The RIAA is not trying to stop piracy, they're using piracy to create a money stream.
- igotdugout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14***** the RIAA
- dontstaylong, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"They sell a nickel's worth of media for 15 bucks, crossing from red into the black within the first week, 100% of the time. The rest of the sales are pure profit."
As someone graduating with a degree in music business in may, I have to point out that your statement is completely false.
Sure, for the major labels, a few acts do break even and make money. But do you realize just how many smaller acts come nowhere close to recouping the original investment? Watch a major label like Universal: they'll release 5-10 albums in a similar genre at a time, and they do this because they know that out of those 5-10 acts, *maybe* one of them will be a hit and go on to make money.
Also, that "nickel's worth" of material covers the cost of the physical media alone. What about the producer on the record? The manufacturer of the disk? Publishing? Distribution? There's more to pay for than just the piece of plastic.
Also, someone else made a comment about how they haven't heard of any labels closing up lately. V2 records (home to the White Stripes, Grandaddy, and several other great acts) just closed up a month ago.
I understand completely what all of you guys are talking about, though. Being required to pay for a piece of music twice, just so it can play on two different brands of mp3 players is ridiculous. The industry has no idea what it's doing to itself in the longrun.
But at the same time, it gets depressing to look at Billboard charts to see that sales are 20% below last year's, week after week. Piracy isn't the only reason why sales are down, obviously, but for an industry scrambling to try and reason why nobody is buying records, it's the most visible scapegoat. - curunir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"The RIAA may be evil incarnate, but that still doesn't give you the right to steal."
Ha! You just bought the propaganda. It's *not* stealing. It's copyright infringement. In fact, if you're just downloading songs, you're not even doing that, you're just taking advantage of the fact that someone *else* infringed on the copyright owned by record label.
Stealing is something else entirely. It's no more stealing than to say that since everyone stopped buying CDs, they are "stealing" by not buying them. - echo2501, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"In the news today, RIAA sues farmers for generating products that people spend money on instead of CDs."
All your $$$ are belong to us! - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15...and you definitely do not have a "right" to them. You may think their objections are trivial, you may think they should change their outlook on this, I will agree with you to a certain point, but no one has a "right" to it....
Which stance are you taking? The law and ethics do not always converge.
You do not have a -legal- right to do anything illegal.
I don't have the -legal- right to fend off a guy with a gun trying to shoot his dog in the legs. In fact, if I hit the -armed- man attempting to -murder- a living being, I will get serious jail time, and he (if they decide he was guilty of cruelty to animals) will get a fine. I still have the -ethical- right to do so, and WILL do so, knowing full well it'll end me in prison.
We have a -cultural- and -ethical- right to have access to music at reasonable costs, most of which reaches the artists creating the music. I buy my music, or get it through "fair use" (a cd borrowed and copied off a buddy is decriminalized as fair use), but if I weren't so paranoid about getting caught (since this isn't as important to me as saving a tortured animal, for example), I'd pirate the music and mail the artists anonymous checks for more than the CD's retail.
There's your idea. If you -want- to pirate, I'm not going to stop you, or tell you that it's right or wrong, but find your fave artists' home address and give them something back to prove you're not just about stealing music.
I -have- given money directly to bands I like, have you? - FloppyLlamaDigg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21@giga (or is it j2007?)
STOP YOUR GIGATRIBE SPAM K THX - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9novagenesis needs to calm the ***** down.
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@drmangrum
...If enough established artists banded together, they could start a label to bring balance to the market...
I wish...I really do.
But ever notice how -very- few established artists speak against the RIAA openly, but often give very subtle hints of -not- being rabidly anti-piracy?
As part of most recording contracts is a limiter on free speech regarding criticizing your record label or the political stances your record label takes. They can be fined until broke, and still held (broke) to their contracts, preventing them from using their art to gain money. Further, I have little doubt they sign a non-compete agreement, meaning even if they got out of -that- contract, they'd be stuck fined to bankruptcy.
A lot of indie artists are openly for free distribution, but once they're signed, they're -owned- (or would that be -pwned-?) - IEatHamburgers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Well, in case anyone's interested:
http://www.cafepress.com/jmcdesign.118135959
(it would be nice if Cafepress didn't force you to pay $11 for just 6 cards)
I can't find the address for the RIAA though so that's up to you I guess - MotionAesthetic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think he already wrote his article for this year.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'll digg this one up since a lot of thought went into it.
The standard "***** YOU RIAA" is lame, at least you went the extra mile and said why. - Braingoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9When will the RIAA and MPAA learn that they are obsolete. Their way of doing business is not going to be here in the future. They can either adapt to it or get out of its way.
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@njank
"wow... no you don't."
And who the -hell- are you to tell me what my morals and ethics are/should be?
I'm not ***** saying my rights are legal rights..they're ***** not. But you will get your ass kicked if you tell someone to their face that they can't act on something they believe because it's illegal.
***** you.
***** any law that directly opposes my beliefs on violence or humane treatment. I will go to jail to prevent a cold-blooded killing, and I'll put myself in front of news cameras to burn the government at the proverbial stake for punishing my humane acts. I knew a guy who went to jail for stopping a dog from being murdered by theatening the abuser with a gun...that was his ethical ***** right...problem?
note I didn't say ***** the RIAA. They're just a company that's being given the legal right to do something horrible. - ExSlashdotter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6somebody get Maddox on the line...
- cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -0/+6"Artists' mansions are shrinking. Their children are only able to afford a Wii and a 360, but not a PS3."
Well played, Gizmodo. - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@DirtySnaches
"Which rights exactly ?"
Wha? I don't get your question but I'll try to respond.
I have two key ethical and cultural rights.
The right to fight to change a law that doesn't fit what I feel is the ideal direction a government's authority should take.
The right to ignore a law and risk imprisonment if the law opposes my moral and ethical principles...
The former right is what I utilize when I argue regarding the RIAA.
The latter right is what I would utilize if I saw someone torturing an animal, or if I were more personally invested in this whole RIAA insanity - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@dontstaylong
"The industry has no idea what it's doing to itself in the longrun."
I agree that there's serious costs. I figured they got their cash back fast... if not, I think your statement regarding how the labels are responding to piracy (above) fits their entire business tactics as well.
They're not supposed to bribe radio stations to put the song on the radio, if I recall...
I sure as heck don't know anyone who becomes a fan due to ads on tv.
It's about concerts, and about letting the band become visible...
And if you tell me they can't break even on a per-concert basis, then it's time to fire them all and hire me (without any business degree at all) to change it...and if they break even on a concert, that counts as serious free advertising!
I have a slightly different picture to paint on the piracy issue, though...and it's this.
These are -not- stupid people.
They don't in the least think piracy is causing any net hit in sales.
I don't know any people who buy LESS music because of piracy.
Not the people I went to college with.
Not the friends I hang out with.
Not the people I work with.
I think the iTunes music store's option that lets you "just buy the single" hurts their sales more than piracy.
I have never seen any realistic figures from any objective source that suggest piracy does damage...and the people on the inside -have- to know what some of us see as obvious, that you can't convert 100% of the piracy into sales (or, heck, 10%), and completely disregard the significant increase in average-user spending caused by piracy, and then call it an accurate guess of loss... No, they want -us- to see the loss.
They all love piracy. They love how it saved music from its downhill slide that other media has constantly been causing. They love how people are getting addicted to the "more songs than you'll ever listen to" iPod. If they were truly anti-piracy, they'd crush the iPod. They got Kazaa on "more than 50% of use was pirated"... I highly doubt anyone can display better figures for the 80gb iPod. Yes, SOME people spend the massive money for legit media on their iPod, but at about a gig an hour, you'd need 80 hours of video (which is swapped out by default after being watched), or 160 show episodes... Most people still use it for music, and for music, we're talking about approximately 1,600 albums, or about $24,000 in music. Oh yeah, the RIAA could spin a suit against Apple as easily as it has against Kazaa. it won't, though, because it likes piracy, it loves the iPod...it just wants the pirates to start paying now that they're addicts... You usually get your first drug fix for free, too. - arbulus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I hate gizmodo.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 236 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is