What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
68 Comments
- leetleo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+68Maybe they should have invested that money into lowering CD prices and increasing the quality of their publishings, rather than prosecuting their customers.
- MillionsLivio, on 10/14/2007, -1/+29No *****, does this really surprise anyone?
- KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27It's the beginning of the 12th round in a match that RIAA has been losing. It's just throwing its last few punches out of desperation and lack of alternatives that suit them.
RIAA is today's typewriter technician - directsun, on 10/14/2007, -2/+25Nice kick in the ass of the RIAA.
- LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24RIAA - Terrorism against small children, who are defended by their grandmothers.
Way to go, RIAA - collecting protection money from children's lunches and social security checks!
If the 'music' isn't making money - The reason is because that audible vomit your trying to sell is trash.
Look at groups concert ticket sales - good singers get big crowds. Noise makers - no interest.
I just dropped $150 for concert tickets - and that was cheap compared to some bands...
Also consider different types of music, like new age music (where a large concert is not a typical type of performance.), or single, small club performers (jazz, quiet vocals with piano).
Musicians should do what some bands have done - GIVE AWAY their new CD on their website, ask you to pay/donate what you think the music is worth. No producer, distributor, middle men or Walmart - just the Artists and their Fans - direct transaction. You can even pre-order a physical CD with bonus materials in some cases. The benefit is they know how many to make ahead of time, so they don't over produce CDs. And a lot of people just want to download the music and pay $5 or what they think the music is worth...
iTunes brings this point to a sharp focus - why buy a CD when you just want 1 song ?
1 song = $0.99. That is fair. A band may sell 100,000 single songs but only 30,000 CDs - they still can make money on iTunes - even if they are a ''one-hit-wonder''.
Now with YouTube - new bands can make a music video and upload it to YouTube for their fans to see / hear for free - a sample to draw people to come to concerts, or to check out the band's web site and buy/download some tunes.
The market technology has changed - it's not the 1940s anymore. Old business models die ... new internet marketing is born. - jdm7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19stop focusing on business and start focusing on music. greedy bastards.
- dpchi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15I thought the point of this was to put money in the artist's pockets that have been so harmed by piracy...
- GDLaws, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14anyone else far more interested in this quote: "Toder asked Pariser how much Sony was suing the defendant for, and she replied that the amount was for the jury to decide and that the labels weren't suing for actual damages."
If no actual Damage occurred, don't they lose the right to sue? Make them prove damages occurred. - togra, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12"That raises the question of what the RIAA hopes to get out of the barrage of lawsuits."
The purpose of the RIAA is to make bucketloads of money for lawyers. What did anyone else think it was for, protecting musicians?? - HellDonut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11This entire façade is the story of an industry caught in a paradigm shift trying to stay relevant by the power of money. They will fail.
Think about it for a moment. Let's think of the middle ages. There were Minstrel and musicians that traveled playing music for the masses. For the rich folk, having someone to play for them was a luxury. But that's what music was - live entertainment for a few.
Suppose now that some magician or John Titor or something came from the future and immediately invented the radio, the cd, the dvd, the laser disc, and started selling audio records and equipments in which you could listen to music. Minstrels and bands would immediately lose their sportlight. They'd still be relevant, but suddenly the masses wouldn't have to resort exclusively to live bands for music, and rich folks wouldn't need to have an in-house Minstrel anymore.
Now, if the Minstrels of the time had an organization to protect their rights, say, the Minstrelling Industry Association of AgesAgo (MIAA), they'd immediately sue and require the sell of music recording and playing equipment to stop. And if they had their way, we'd still be going with live music only today.
That's not to say pirating is bad. But that's to say that it's just an effect of the clash between the old and the new paradigm. P2P is here to say, and the more RIAA and other associations fight it, the more it'll just entrench and the more "safer" it'll become. The recording industry in the format we have now is doomed, and not because of a few pirates or whatever, but because of the very changes Internet has introduced.
Money and power can create a long inertia, so I don't expect them to vanish tomorrow. But given time, we'll look back and see how fool they as well as we were, trying to live by our old models in a new reality instead of changing with it.
Goodbye, RIAA. You're dead, you just don't want to see it. - sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10RIAA has nothing to do with Artists, only with Labels.
- seneyr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11So piracy* is what's costing them millions? Bout time someone finally cleared the air.
* lawsuits - Lorddias, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10RIAA can't seem to successfully sue anybody so they try to sue randoms for tens of millions, what a waste, the RIAA probably costs more to keep failing than music piracy itself.
- Ryosen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9What does the RIAA care? Remember, they're a group of attorneys representing the labels. They get paid regardless of the outcome.
- barureddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8 While the anti-P2P campaign is a real money pit, I believe their main lost is the consumer good will towards them. It is virtually impossible to find a single person who has a positive opinion on the record industry. Who makes up the record industry's customer base? People like us.
Many of us, when given a choice whether to buy music, would rather not due to our disgust with the whole industry. Right now many of us would rather buy a single or go to a concert to meet our needs of music rather than drop $10-$20 on a album of crap (which is another issue). What good will the the record industry took many decades to build in consumers has been almost completely lost in the last few years.
They are slowly changing though with their recent reluctant plan of accepting DRM-free digital music distribution, but this is occurring at a too slow of a pace. If they hope to survive in the next few decades, they will have to adopt more of these kind of measures and stop assuming their customers are criminals. - keozen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7In other news Water is wet and fire is hot.
It really is about time that the RIAA got in gear and tried to figure out that it will be more profitable for them in the long run to figure out a way to make us WANT to pay for music again. The age of digital music is one that should be embraced, it spreads their media to millions more than it ever would.
They need to change with the industry they run and listen to the customer for a change rather than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing as progress passes them by. - BlueYetti13, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Awww, just a little while longer and the RIAA will RIP
- darkened, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Sadly not so in the case of copyright infringement which carries mandatory punitive damages that require no proof of actual damages which is where that $750 - $300,000 per violation number occurs from.
- Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Heh. If that's really the case, then it sounds like the RIAA is screwing over the record labels as much as any p2p downloader.
It actually makes me hope the RIAA continues its lawsuit program. They're more likely drive the big labels into bankruptcy than "illegal" downloaders. - SvenGeiss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7best question of the day... "how many dead people have you sued?" classic!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Invest the money into signing some quality musicians, rather then suing people for stealing their precious R&B/Radio-Pop trash.
- donte, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5What surprises me about this failing attempt at a money-grab is that if they just stopped all this stupid, frivolous litigation, they would find themselves with millions upon millions of dollars in their pockets that could be used for all sorts of undeserved gratification. But what do I know... I go through life blindly adhering to logic and reason.
- SteelChicken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Fear. They are trying to scare people into stopping downloading. They are not doing this for the money.
- howser2007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I like how it says "music sales have slumped in recent years..." Yeah right, music sales are hitting record levels with services like iTunes along with the traditional CD.
- Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wow. Now I see why the RIAA has been reluctant to bring any cases to trial. Even if the RIAA wins this case, a lot of embarrassing secrets are going to come out into the open about how they operate and whether their lawsuit tactics are really worthwhile or not.
- bbp9857, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4using the unsecured wireless router defense is perfect, except for the fact that the same screen name was used by the same person for other things as well as the p2p app. now you have to somehow convince the jury that she had an unsecured wireless router, that someone knew that she had the unsecured wireless router, that the person knew what her screen name was, and that the person masqueraded as the victim. good luck with that :(
- nobogeys217, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think that (unfortunately) the defendant is screwed because the jury is a made up of computer illiterate people. But, we will see tomorrow.
This case makes me hate the RIAA even more than I already do. - D3IM0S, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Courtesy of FindLaw.com: http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1755781_1
Jennifer L. Pariser
Firm: Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. Law Dept.
Address: 550 Madison Ave 15th Fl
New York, NY 10022-3211
Phone: (212) 833-7362 - rhinocero, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5They hope to get less people to download music. That seems pretty obvious to me.
- nobogeys217, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I would not have as much of a problem with the RIAA if they would stop illegally suing people for ridiculous sums of money. It does not cost the record industry $750 when a person downloads one song. Last time I checked a CD cost a little under $20 for about 10 songs. I suck at math but even I know that doesnt equal $750 per song.
- terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2All music fans are potential customers. If the record companies weren't such greedy morons, more people would be purchasing what they're selling.
- Phyltre, on 10/14/2007, -1/+3Unfortunately, the legal system is incredibly expensive for anyone, so it' no surprise that a protracted legal campaign would cost more than it's worth. Of course, this works in our favor occasionally in situation like these, even if it also opens up poorer people to the extortionary tactics the RIAA is currently using.
- lazyfisherman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If the RIAA was once a useful, helpful organization, it doesn't seem that way anymore. People share music. People share data. It looks like the RIAA are a bunch of greedy old dinosaurs who don't want to change with the times. The music industry needs to develop new business models and stop trying to annihilate everyone they perceive as threats and competitors.
I didn't know about the "RIAA Equalization Curve". And I'd love to know more about the good things the RIAA does for musicians and music lovers. Really. If they are in fact doing more than threatening people, suing kids and grandmothers, trying to ruin the Internet just so they can continue their outdated business model and wasting money on useless DRM schemes, people should know. - Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2***** the RIAA:
http://www.emusic.com/ - LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Let us help RIAA :
http://www.apple.com/itunes - caupolixan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Suing their own customers was never about recuperating losses due to file sharing, but to scare people into not sharing. But like my kinder garden teacher used to say sharing is caring.
- ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This news just made my day. RIP RIAA. First make some good music (I have said it many times, I'm willing to shell out money for good music and CDs), second let's do what Apple has done: embrace today's digital technology
- heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually this curve was created in fact due to the physical limitations of the cutting equipment lathes, to limit the excursion displacement of the needle to track width at very low frequencies sounds below 100 Hertz , and just plain common sense !
For prior to that point in time, the old 78 nominal RPM shellac records , the equalization curve varied both in year of manufacture , country of origin and even who made the record as well , and even then pitch control was required too , for such was the wide variation this particular product !
Pick up a good audio history book about records , you have much to learn young master ! - heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not a very bright person for law , the Judge even told her point blank do not generalise or wander from the point of the question , but answer plainly and direct !
Actually , the legal team at SONY central including her lost all 3 out of 3 when they tried to go head to head with Eliot Spitzer in New York and another case in Canada too !
One would have to wonder , why SONY chose to keep these losing mindless legal wankers on the payroll after costing them so much money in less then three years ? - heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Looking at this case who ever started this fight , was neither a good general or real strategist in any sense of the word , have no back up , contingency or even forward plans !
Thus everything was built on basic ***** piled on swampy foundations , it was always reliant of the game of blind man's bluff using jokers and deuces in your hand and then claiming you are holding all the aces in the deck , to force the other party to run up the white flag on your terms!
Oh , what a tangled web they weave , by sending in a bunch single brain celled one track a time contract lawyers into a real court of law , let the fun continue ! - SocialPoison, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
Thread over. - hansonc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Here's the problem.... the case is taking place in Duluth, MN. If you're familiar with the area you'd be a bit more worried. It wouldn't be hard to find a dozen people who can easily be snowballed by the RIAA's arguments. No matter what you think, this case isn't over until we find out if it's 12 dumbasses on the jury or not.
- Matri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just give it up. You really think they're interested in logic and reasoning?
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Doesn't matter. They have contracts with the artists, producers, etc. Not only do the studios have to protect their own potential sales, but also the potential royalties/residuals they've promised to protect for artists. If they do not protect those, they sued for breach of contract.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The point is to deter piracy, which encourages a portion of downloaders to buy, a portion to do without, and another portion to keep playing the odds.. The first puts money in artists' pockets, the second doesn't matter because they wouldn't have bought anyway, and the third offers more opportunities for deterrent.
- heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's an easy one , just call the Head of the FBI Computer Section to the stand as an expert witness , it is on public record as to his comments why they abandoned wireless links !
- Matri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The entire jury is either computer illiterate or computer incompetent. Forget worry, go to Panic mode.
- hansonc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You're speaking the truth. but it's not the hivemind opinion so you'll get dugg down to oblivion... well so will I but that's another matter.
- nobogeys217, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Agreed, but then there would be even more people who will have to pay out ridiculous and unfair sums of money for downloading a few songs.
- Matri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, you are right. The RIAA is already bombarding the jury with worst-case scenarios without letting them know the true facts.
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is