What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
116 Comments
- asif5th, on 10/12/2007, -8/+123***** the RIAA :|
- NX910a, on 10/12/2007, -2/+55How its customers view the RIAA: completely worthless
- ray901, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44The RIAA cannot let it go because of the money and power involved. They simply do not want to give it up and have seen other companies hold (relatively) successful positions at the top of markets with similar approaches. They will not give it up unless they have absolutely no other choice.
- Mootabolife, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38If your customers were a bunch of music stealing hooligans, wouldn't you not trust them? Wait.. there's a contradiction somewhere there..
- PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25yeah, they sure are scaring away MY dollars.
- mulling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21I think it's funny how the term "pirate" gets tossed around with regard to downloaders.
People who download music generally don't:
1. Sell the music they downloaded.
2. Try to claim authorship of it.
I'd say the vast majority of downloaders hoard more music than they could possibly listen to. It's almost a compulsion to become a music librarian. How many people have over 60 gigabytes of music? Probably half of that will never be played, and in 2007 60 gigabytes isn't a totally crazy amount of music.
In large part, the internet is taking over for libraries. You can generally go to the library and check out a cd and listen to it...*omg without paying for it!* The artists don't see a dime! That's just like stealing! The internet is the same thing. It's exposing people to music that they never would've bought, but thanks to convenient access they can hear it and perhaps enrich their musical knowledge. I think the thing that really scares the RIAA is that they will lose their ability to manipulate the buying habits of listeners through marketing.
When downloaders start plagiarizing music and claiming they wrote it, or when they start reselling it, call me. I'll get all up in arms about it. Until then, I'll continue to call ***** on calling file sharers 'pirates.' Incorrect use of language is a kind of insanity. - Coopjust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17@crix
Some people feel that pirating music is wrong and others don't. However, you can't put everyone into the same group.
The main concerns with DRM are:
-Limits. I should be able to play my movies on my iPod, right?...Oh, wait, I can't. At least not legally. With DRM, you have to rebuy whatever content in every format.
-The future. What if a company selling DRM'd content fails and their servers are no longer operating? All of your content is useless. Rebuy...
As far as feeling entitled to DRMless content...yes, I do feel that way. I've stopped buying from iTunes unless it's a free song credit. As a consumer, I can vote with my wallet. I don't, however, pirate, because I feel it is morally wrong. DRM is a way to limit consumers and make money for the media cartels, but that doesn't mean I have copy music. ("Steal", as a term digitally, implies I took it from someone and now they are deprived of it permanently) - kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16i like to buy my music. really i do. but theres a difference in going up to a member of a band after seeing them perform and giving him 10 bucks for a cd and telling him how you liked his performance vs going to an online store or a brick and mortar store and handing over your credit card.
- KarbonKopy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Haven't spend a dime of music in a long time, and looking at the way they treat people, I won't consider changing. Go to hell RIAA.
- kingp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15It's funny because most of the musician's involved in mainstream music feel the same way about the RIAA. Patrick Wilson (weezer drummer) has a completely different take on digital music downloading. He's also given away some music for free.
http://ind-music.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=1 - Coopjust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@mogus
Some people will take anything that they can. That is the nature of the matter, and any DRM will be circumventable.
So, DRM doesn't stop piracy. It limits customers. When I pay $20 for a movie, and I can't play it on my iPod legally, it is frustrating and I am being punnished as a paying customer.
Meanwhile, some of my friends pirate. They don't pay a dime and they can play it on whatever device they want, without limits.
That's why I avoid buying DRM'd content. It's not about the pirates, it's about abusing the consumer. - reed311, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The customers of the RIAA are actually the musicians and the record labels which pay dues to fund the RIAA, consumers are not the RIAA's customers.
- ashwinashwin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14i realize that the RIAA is pretty much an industry tool... but as a part time musician, i dont think that music should be freely downloadable for everyone unless of course the artist chooses to do this for exposure... why shouldnt music have the same protections as other intellectual property like software or movies?
- ray901, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14That makes sense, but by the same token - if I do buy your music, how can you tell me post-purchase what playback devices I can and can't listen to your music on.
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13If you don't like the RIAA:
http://www.eff.org/share/petition/
Do something about it. - Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Hell yeah. If I "illegally" download a song from an artist and I hate it, it's deleted. If I like it, or love it, I tend to then go out and buy the album (tho, I don't bother downloading music from bands I already enjoy listening to, I just go ahead and buy the album).
- bonexaw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I would buy a CRAP load more music if:
(a) I knew that more than 10% of the money I paid actually went to the artist (like, you know.. maybe 100% of it?)
(b) I was able to listen to their music prior to buying it (you know.. that whole try before you buy thing).. oh wait.. that's what i do now.. via bittorrent - metafore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10why should the RIAA trust me? i don't trust them. then again, i haven't been one of their customers for years, so they're probably not referring to me.
- weister42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Everytime the name RIAA pops up on Digg I already know it's bad news. BAD BAD BAD
- jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I don't want the RIAA to embrace Fair Use. I want them to either comply or die. I want a judge to smack their arrogant, non-compliant asses to the ground but I'd settle for them to cease to exist. They're not evolving in the market place. They're holding back progress. They're a problem, not a solution.
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@crix: DRM isn't really stopping people from pirating music. Most (all?) of the mainstream DRM systems have been cracked, and for any that haven't, there's always the analog hole. Name one album that can't be found on P2P networks because DRM has prevented people from copying it.
DRM does, however, inconvenience people who are willing to buy music. I'm happy to buy stuff from Magnatune, which provides me with DRM-free FLAC (in addition to MP3, AAC, Vorbis, and even WAV, if I want them). In principle I wouldn't mind buying music from iTunes -- though preferably in a lossless form rather than AAC -- but I'm not willing to buy DRMed music because it restricts fair-use personal copying, and would also limit me to specific players that I don't want to use.. With my physical CDs, I rip to FLAC and keep the FLAC file as a backup in case the CD gets lost or damaged, and I won't buy copy-protected CDs that prevent me from doing so.
Furthermore, downloading isn't always a bad thing. I don't download a lot of music, but nearly all of the music I've purchased in the past few years has been a direct result of having previewed it for free, either by P2P downloading or legal online streaming (Shoutcast stations, Last.fm recommendations, and Magnatune's and CDBaby's preview features). Last summer on a trip to Japan I bought $300 worth of game and anime soundtracks in a single day in Akihabara, 90% of which I'd already downloaded, liked, and was waiting for an opportunity to physically buy. (The one CD that wasn't, was by the singer who performed a certain song on one of those game soundtracks I'd downloaded, and I bought it on impulse to see if her other music was equally good.)
I agree that people who download everything as a way to avoid paying for it are a problem, but they're not the only factor in the equation. - smokinjuan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8***** the music industry and their godamn musical graffiti. When I go to the gas station for some petrol they'll blast me with some ***** 50's music from the loudspeaker. When I go for some groceries they pound that country music in my ear holes. Let's not forget xmas music either. I've heard enough of that ***** drivel - two or three notes of an annoying tune will keep it looping through the head for hours, or worse days at a time. It's even better if you don't know the whole song and that 10 second part you do know gets looping. The only way you can manage to wash it out is by listening to something more palatable...
and those ***** want everyone to pay to rectify an annoyance they created?!
*****. That. Noise.
Stop raping the public spaces and people might stop raping your insidious ***** laden industry. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"People that create the music should get paid for it, not fat old men with oily hair wearing suits and sitting in board meetings."
How about the IT staff for record labels? Should they get paid, or just the musicians? - Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6For me it's the hypocrisy of the RIAA that pisses me off, not to mention their business practices. Why anyone should want to "support" the RIAA is beyond me. From my understanding, the RIAA rapes their own bands when it comes to divvying up the profits from record sales. In my mind, the people who create and perform the music should be the ones making the majority of the profits, if it wasn't for the musicians, the RIAA would have no reason to exist.
And they treat the common customer like a common criminal. Placing restrictions on how we can use music we've purchased? If they're going to treat me like a criminal, I might as well acts as one, right? - dpcamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7and thats why they don't find us trustworthy..
god i love free music. - daridave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Meh. they're just hardheads.
Anyway -- for the heck of it -- here's how its costumers see the RIAA:
dispensable idiots. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Wait have you seen the contract that you agreed to that delineates the rights you've acquired to the music on the CD and the video on the DVD, because I haven't. The RIAA wants to define the contract for the exchange in the terms that best favor it. If I were to do the same, I'd declare the CD a "work for hire". But the force of what can't seriously be called law is on the RIAA's side.
There's also the issue of obtaining rights for making things like AMV's. There's no way to come to terms for such projects.
It's not just about not wanting to pay. There's also the issue of not being able to obtain something at any price. - mtalon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Amen. Also, break the addiction by not downloading or buying any RIAA produced music. Yes, that means no BT too. If you can wean yourself off of their drug, you won't have any reason to either give them money or "steal" from them (as they would say).
Use that audio player for better things, like artists who really need the support. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate#Privateers
A privateer or corsair used similar methods to a pirate, but acted while in possession of a commission or letter of marque from a government or monarch authorizing the capture of merchant ships belonging to an enemy nation.
Pot, kettle, black. - NX910a, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You know, I think the RIAA really could care less about pirating; it is clear that the sales of CDs aren't really affected.
They just want the thousands of dollars (per song!) they get as a result of these settlements. - trer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@berwiki
"they dont understand the concept of capitalism because their socialist liberal teachers have their heads too far up their own smug asses."
Ok. You're an idiot.
Do you honestly believe that those college and high school kids who download even understand abstract concepts like socialism and capitalism and are stealing music because some "socialist liberal teachers" taught them corporations are evil and stealing music is how to "fight the man"?
It boils down to this: why pay for something when my friend bas got a way to get it for free? This has nothing to do with socialism invading the fabric of America (that's another debate, and let me give you a hint, there's more socialism in America than you realize and that's what keeps the whole thing functioning) which results in millions of kids downloading music. These downloaders are merely doing what corporations do on a daily basis: find ways to cut costs even if it is legally ambiguous. How is that socialist? That's capitalist to me. - bdbr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The RIAA is afflicted with myopia; they continue to attribute their shrinking profits to piracy while independent labels are seeing record growth. Certainly if my spending is any indication, there IS a correlation. I was never particularly cognizant of the labels from which I purchase, until the RIAA started treating its customers with such contempt.
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Haven't spend a dime of music in a long time, and looking at the way they treat people, I won't consider changing. Go to hell RIAA."
I've spent plenty on music, hundreds in the past few years (since finishing college and getting a "real" job), but none of it DRMed and very little of it RIAA. Money is power, and the RIAA has lots of it, so give your dollars to independent artists and DRM-free labels so they have power too. - mtalon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Here's something to try: non-RIAA music
Quit drinking the water that says that only music on the radio/TV/big-screen is any good. Just because a company pays a ton of money to get a song played everywhere doesn't mean that's the best song there is. It just means they're trying to make you think that. A lie repeated over and over again only becomes truth if you let it.
Go out to a local venue. Listen to some talent that isn't crammed down your throat. If you like them and they have merchendise, buy it. If you don't have a venue nearby, go out on the web and support independent musicians there. The absolute best way to defeat the cartel is to support the music that exists outside of it. Prove to the artists that they don't need the machine to succeed. Without the songs, the RIAA has no product.
I don't pirate music, and I don't give the RIAA companies a dime of my money. I buy non-RIAA produced music, and I support independent artists. That way, when the time comes and the RIAA goes away, I know I did my part to help that happen. - sdphost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I can agree with not wanting to support the RIAA but I hope then you DO support the artists you say you are a fan of (buying merch/going to concerts) or else you are exactly what the RIAA says you are, thiefs. The Musicians work hard and they deserve to get money, not just you downloading it and not supporting the artist.
- sven007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The only problem is that the RIAA does not want to try a different business model. if you listen to the podcasts on twit, they will eventually go into a topic about DRM, and how the fact they buy music from itunes means they are stuck in the apple market. also, i have no problem with buying music. I will gladly pay 18$ for the new Snoop Dogg cd, because i have heard it on the radio. unfortunately, when the CDs have all this copy protection on them, it turns me away. Living in the 21st century with our MP3 players, we should no longer have to carry around a cd case with all the CDs we might want to listen too. as a paying customer, i should be allowed to copy my music onto my own personal music player, because whether i play the tunes through my ipod or through my car cd player, they won't get any more money they what i already payed them.
I payed 20$ for a cd. if i play it 20 times in my car, of 10 times in my stereo and 10 on my ipod, the artist makes the same amount of money. that is the flaw in DRM. - bonexaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4point taken... pop music is VERY much about who you know
on the other hand, GOOD musicians still get screwed.. and you know how easy it it to get a good internet following for a music group? (just look at how easy it is to get a news article following on Digg)
even though musicians may only do 10% to make it popular, they still did 100% of the singing, lyrics, guitar playing and drum high hatting
Go buy from: www.cdbaby.com, then you'll start to see what artists should be getting for their time
(the 15 second clip on amazon is not "listening", its more like trying to summarize a book by taking out a random page from the middle, and don't even tell me that the radio is a legal way to do so. I can't remember the last time I heard a good song on the radio). - weebit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4 The customers are not the only ones screwed here.
How the RIAA treats their artist: http://digg.com/music/How_the_RIAA_really_treats_it_s_artists
Musicians Get Together For Anti-RIAA Concerts: http://slashdot.org/articles/01/12/20/051232.shtml
how poorly big business treats most rock stars
http://www.futureofmusic.org/articles/newboss.cfm
Many are turning away from big labels, to favor managing themselves, or going for a manager that is far away from the RIAA and all their BS.
I hate it when it comes to buying music today. Years ago we were handed a tape deck, and all of the music we ever could want. Everyone I know made their own mixes from the music they had bought. When cds came out it was no different. You like certain bands? take the music you liked on each of their cds, and burn it to disk, and put it in the car to enjoy.
How to fix the problems of today? There is no clear cut way to fix the problem. Every time you fix the problem, someone will break your fix. The best solution is to come up with better ways to entertain the masses. Possibly even offer more on cds for our buck Offer better mixes on the cds, Plus find better musicians that really know how to sing. Yes I am bashing a few wanna be teen boppers, that do nothing but shake their butts, and show a little cleavage, or per say a guy showing his dish board abs. They can't sing. If it wasn't for todays Tech gadgets, and their looks, they would not have a job.
So basically to me it boils down to content, and lack of skills, and the RIAA that keep me from buying those new cds. I am sure many can come up with other reasons. But lets be fair here. The bands of the 80s, and such were the best to me. To me there has been no good new entertainment since then. So how could the RIAA blame it all on theft?
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"the RIAA is making the fatal mistake of treating its honest customers like criminals who have to be supervised, while their staunch position does nothing to stem actual piracy."
I'm of the opinion that the RIAA has actually LOST a good portion of their customer base, and it just won't work to strong-arm people back as "customers." Is music piracy a copyright violation? Sure it is, but at this point being uppity, litigious, and sacrosanct about your industry hardly lends to understanding the minds of end users. Not to mention, there are many other reasons why people dislike and distrust the music industry.
If the RIAA cannot get a clue about their craptastic music, parasitic/predatory business practices, and how they anger their "customers", let their business suffer until they do. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Don't forget that there is more competition for the entertainment dollar today than 10, 20 or 30 years ago. When I was in university during the late 80s, only business people had cell phones, ring tones did not exist, gaming consoles were far and few between, DVDs and cheap DVD players did not exist and the internet was just starting (I remember using Q-Link on my C64) as a commercial venture. Today, university kids have many more choices to spend their dollars on. Despite this competition, the music industry flourishes.
- 404UserNotFound, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Wherever you fall on the argument of what is right/wrong morally, or whether it is 'stealing' vs 'violating copyright' I think anyone should be able to see that the current market structure of CD's is outdated and ultimately does not serve the artist nor the consumer.
They spend less than 25 cents on the CD itself, probably less than $1.00 on the overall cost of plastic, paper, and CD. Am I to believe that the other $20 or so that is charged is reasonable? If a group does a single song that I like - should I not be able to pay 99 cents for that song - including the unrestricted right to transfer to my iPod, CDR, external hard drive, X Box, Zune, or bicycle without it being a big deal?
I have no problem paying for music. I believe that any DRM scheme that is created should have a wide latitude on Fair Use provision. If I must use my music with a certain player and maybe it is time limited or I can only play at reduced quality or only during a full moon - I'm going to do like everyone else and say "***** this." and I'm going to download unrestricted music.
Bundling a $20 package together and then wondering why people have quit purchasing it due to alternatives is not a call to start limiting or cracking down on the alternatives. The alternative market should be embraced and encouraged - and a little guidance towards responsible development of the market instead of trying to hobble it in its infancy would go a long way towards developing some sort of sympathy for the RIAA instead of the vile hatred we all have at the very mention of it. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"just think how much CHEAPER music would be WITHOUT the RIAA.. then again think about how much less music you'd know about... it'd a double edged sword"
I can't remember the last time I learned about an artist or album (that was actually worth buying) because of RIAA marketing. All the music I buy comes from hearing it on Last.fm personalized recommendations or Shoutcast internet radio, browsing Magnatune or CDBaby and listening to their (DRM-free) preview streams, hearing it as soundtrack music in movies or video games, being given MP3s by friends, or (occasionally) hearing that an album is good and downloading it from a P2P network to hear for myself.
Music that I "know about" thanks to the RIAA? Let's see... Britney Spears? Can't think of any others offhand since I generally ignore the glamorous pop-star marketing.
I have no problem finding good music, and I'd certainly buy more of it if it cost less. - mtalon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes, but as a musician (me too), wouldn't you at least like to have the say on how your music is distributed? If you sell your rights to the RIAA, you can't make the choice on whether your songs are DRM'd or not. Your name is on the album, and people will look at you negatively if your CD doesn't play right in their players.
It's an old statement, but it bears repeating. If you sign a recording contract, you may be signing away your rights to control how your music is distributed and promoted. The RIAA has shown repeatedly that profit is more important to them than their artists. Just say no to supporting them. - Daolohua, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And in other news, the sky is blue.
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3in 1998, the Recording Industry made nearly $13 BILLION in the United States ALONE.
in 1999, That number ROSE to OVER $14 Billion.
in 2000, $14 Billion YET AGAIN! DESPITE the Dollars-Per-Release decreasing!
C'mon, RIAA! You can lie better than that! - mogus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Let's face it: a lot of people steal music. A lot. You can't blame a company for offering a product, and then protecting what they see as an opportunity to make the most profit they possibly can. Here's how capitalism works: you buy the music because you value the music more than you value the money you spend on it. Stealing it requires no money, and is inherently wrong and those involved should be punished according to the law established to keep our society afloat. If you don't value the music more than the money they are asking for a particular piece of music (the rights to sell and distribute which belong to the record companies themselves) because of the DRM or whatever else, then DON'T BUY IT. The result: demand for DRM'd music plummets (assuming there are enought like you, which, at this point, it doesn't seem like) and artists are inclined to sell through other channels without DRM at a price that is settled upon by market forces. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Stealing is wrong. Just because you think it's a raw deal and you really really want that Beyonce track and the record company is charging waaaay too much doesn't spontaneously give you the right to steal what is not yours.
- g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Some people? I thought the only people who thought the RIAA was doing good was the RIAA.
- g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They are wrong. They can trust me. They can trust that they will never see a penny from me. Ever.
Music isn't food, water, and fuel. You can live without it. - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is no different than the horse-related industry getting all those absurd laws about cars passed, when they realized that cars were going to destroy their "business models".
"Set off a bomb in the intersection to alert anyone driving horses that might be startled by the car"
"Have someone walk in front of the car with a red flag"
etc.
Sad, really, how history repeats. Human nature doesn't change no matter how technology does. - dungbeetle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't think the idea is that we should get everything digital free, it's that if we buy the music we should be able to use it where we like. Example: DVD should be able to be ripped to the computer, watchable on your iPod (or whatever), and spread across as many DVD-Rs as a person has without it becoming a felony. Why? Because the person bought that copy of the movie. If they aren't going to distribute it to the Internet, then there should be no reason that someone who bought the movie shouldn't be able to do with it what they please.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is