What is Digg?54 Comments
- Bricks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+47Dear RIAA,
Your rust continues to spread, and with each of these offenses, you and your constituents speed your way to the junk heap.
Make real efforts - find the young, intelligent music fans that are sneaking into your companies, and give them more say. Embrace new online paradigms before they're supersaturated and obvious. Otherwise, you are toast, and we will continue to celebrate every moment of your slow death.
Thanks,
The People that Used to Pay You - blorc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19***** the collusive competitors?
Doesn't have the same ring as "***** the RIAA." - Alphateam, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Someone at the RIAA needs to read Atlas Shrugged. They keep grasping at what they are loosing and take from others what doesn't belong to them. It is just a long slow death, but a death non the less. We all see the end in sight, I know they do. They just won't change.
NA NA NA NA HEY HEY GOODBYE.
***** I hope I don't get sued for using a line from a copy written song. - thetanbark, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18It's no surprise that every large corporation is in cohorts with somebody else to make a buck. If the most authoritative corporation (US Government) does it, you can bet everybody else does. Is there no-one unaffected by greed in the upper-level management in this country?
Yes, there is! Vote Ron Pa... oh wait, this isn't one of those type of posts. - baalzebub, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13the RIAA needs to hurry up and die already...
- StarlessKnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Dear Actorboy,
If the RIAA can afford to take people to court over piracy while simultaneously employing more than just their legal department on their payroll, they can afford to do their own work in figuring out how to stay competitive in the marketplace. That is their job, after all, to stay in business.
Not that constructive criticism is bad, mind you. If the company wants to know what we think, maybe it's time they started asking us, instead of trying to drill us into the ground as they Valiantly Fight the Evil Forces of the Menacing Pirates from Outer Spa-a-a-ace!
PS: Bricks said find the people already on their payroll with the familiarity with today's media/Internet culture, not some random fan off the street. - frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I would be very interested to see how much they have collected in "damages." I'd also like to see how much of the money collected goes to artists who have been shorted by music sharing...
- flxstr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8are you for real? every time somebody comes up with a unique or interesting way to spread music, the RIAA stomps their collective a$$ into the ground. anything that threatens their current model is viewed as illegal, immoral, and infringing. it wouldn't matter if you showed them a way to make 10x times more money, they don't want to see it. apple (for example) has shown a great way to deliver music in a fast, efficient, friendly way to keep consumers interested in music, yet the various music (cartels) spend the majority of their time bitching and moaning and trying to raise prices back to what they were (or higher) in their antiquated cd manufacturing ways.
which, is why digg users say screw the RIAA. - Azuroth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6$2500 per song (or whatever the going rate is, much higher than $.99 in any case)
- arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why they're called Apple Jacks but don't taste like apples?
- kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3compete with free
what if when you got a cd you also got a discount on a concert ticket for that band
it wouldn't have to be huge or expensive but rewarding people for buying legally is to obvious solution - yodaj007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That Mark Hamill really can use the Force?
- arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, the point was that the RIAA bitches about losing CD sales and the sharp decline that CD sales have taken in the last 5-10 years. What I'm trying to say is that it's no wonder why they're declining. They are overpriced and you get 2-3 tracks of anything decent on a disc of 10-15 tracks. That is the model they are trying to protect.
Yes, now you can buy the individual tracks for a buck or so and that's what the RIAA hates. They don't want you to be able to do that. They want you to spend the $20 to get those two tracks you want.
I'm not making excuses for anything. I'm willing to pay for what I want. But i don't want to pay for what I _don't_ want and I don't want to be bullied by someone who says that I should. I want to buy what I want and that alone and I want the RIAA to stop bitching because I'm not flushing my money away. - geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5You obviously didn't understand Atlas Shrugged. Rand would side with the RIAA and criticize people who download stuff for free as leeches.
- tehnico, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's okay, there's three HEY's in the original, so it is clearly your own ip. And some would argue that it's a WAY followed by two HEY's.
- kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2in addition to their tactics, they are facing more and more competition from other media forms such as gaming
- mrmatchgame, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I smell $100 pants on fire
- smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If that woman's suit doesn't point out what collusion and monopolistic practises are then I don't know what use those words have anymore.
- arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But the latter is not the reason. The reason is their overpriced control-every-outlet model. Who the hell wants to pay $20 for a CD of music that is only worthwile for 2-3 of it's tracks? Who wants to be bullied into only playing thier music that _they bought_only where and how the RIAA tells them to? Who wants to be called a criminal simply because they ripped a CD so they can play it on their iPod? No one wants any of that, but that is exactly where we are. The RIAA judges all consumers as criminals by default. They are losing sales because they are bullying people and ruining innocent people's lives with these non stop lawsuits. That in turn destroys their PR which makes people stop buying thier product. They are losing money and pitching a fit, but it's their own fault.
I want artists to succeed. I saw an earlier comment where you said you were an artist. If I enjoyed your product, I would like for you to profit from it, not some bully knee-breaker who wants to force me to partake of your product how and where they tell me to. I want you to succeed as an artist and I would be happy to pay you directly for your product. Yes, sometimes you need a third party to help you distribute your product, and that third party should receive compensation for their part. However, that third party should not take control of your work, they should not receive almost all money from the sale of your product, and they should not be allowed to control the market. - actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They do not have legal protection to stop them from going out of business because no one wants their products. They do, however, have legal protection to stop people from taking their products without paying for them. If the latter is the reason their business is faltering, then, yes, the law is on their side.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4You've got an answer (troll) for everything don't you?
- pglowiak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What about racketeering? There is a Federal Statue called the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act that has been used against the Cosa Nosta in the past. Isn't this getting real close to the tripwire?
It's no longer an issue to me what they are trying to accomplish at the RIAA/MPAA with these lawsuits, it's a matter of how they are going about it that I take offense to. - StarlessKnight, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3car·tel (kär-těl') Pronunciation Key n.
1. A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members.
2. An official agreement between governments at war, especially one concerning the exchange of prisoners.
3. A group of parties, factions, or nations united in a common cause; a bloc.
"cartel." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 31 Aug. 2007.
Yes? No? Why don't you think so? - arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2How about stop suing people when your business model is failing? The RIAA cannot accept the fact that they are on the way down and that their model has failed. But since they can't get the money from the people in the marketplace, they go around suing everyone. They're going to get money one way or another, legitimately or not.
Because they think that the have some sort of right to be legally protected from going out of business. They think that there should be some way that will prevent them from shutting down. Well guess what: there are business that start up and fail all the time. No business is guaranteed to survive, nor should they be. If the RIAA is dying, then it's their own fault for not adapting to the times. It's not their right to go suing people and destroying people's lives just because they want to throw a tantrum because they failed. - blacklilyninja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1artists stop using riaa
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Double post.
- XMalvolio, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3So how about we call the "settlement" money they extort to avoid an innocent person having to pay a lawyer to defend them against a major lawsuit the thing they 'take from others' that doesn't belong to them.
- Meep3D, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"breaking the DMCA is pretty easy"
Aren't the penalties for violating the DMCA stiffer than copyright infringement. Since 'copyright infringement' - it's not stealing - is just as illegal as breaking the DMCA then I seriously don't see why I should pay money for something only to have to break the same laws and in the process spend a lot more time and effort when I can get the same thing, of better quality, for free, and be just as much a criminal.
Artificial scarcity as a part of content delivery is dead. This is the problem. The internet has ushered in the era of plenty yet the industry still wants to charge top dollar for something people are now too used to getting in massive quantities. - actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4"....and take from others what doesn't belong to them"
What are they taking that doesn't belong to them? - netvalar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The term she needs to have isn't monopolistic but polyopolistic. A monopoly is 1 company controlling an industry the other if I spelled it right is a small number of companies working in collusion with each other to control an industry. It is the polyopolist term that was used against the oil companies several decades ago. I like this article mainly because I have been expecting someone to not only work with the rico laws but grab onto the polyopolism that the major labels are doing. I nowadays am waiting to see what happens with this class action lawsuit that was brought against the RIAA this year in regards to all the lawsuits filed over the last 4 years.
- XMalvolio, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yes, probably, but Rand wouldn't side with the RIAA either, who takes the talented music artist and screws them with long-term contracts that pay very little and hoard all the money for themselves, while aggressively trying to shut down other avenues of music distribution.
- Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2geekee, stop grasping at straws just because the idea of people having legitimate concerns bothers you so much.
- kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1a lawyer
- kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2not necessarily. many artist are very lenient about copyright infringement with some bands giving out parts of cds at concerts to of montreal releasing their entire new album online before it sold in stores
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4It's about $750 per song and that's because they're going after people who distribute. Seeding while you download is distribution. Regarding the 99¢ comment, those found guilty and responsible for large fines have broken the law, they had their chance to pay 99¢ earlier. If I broke into your house and took your computer, should I only have to reimburse you for its cost, or should I go to jail? It's meant as a punishment and deterrent, not a simple reimbursement.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Artists agree to the terms and sign those contracts willingly. If they wanted to go the online distribution route under their own label, they easily could. But there's something to be said for having an entire industry supporting you, and many artists choose it over self-promotion.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2To geekee's point, if there were no piracy, there would be no reason for the lawsuits or their gathering of forces. If the RIAA are a cartel, then that makes the copyright infringers who complain about them tantamount to a coke head calling the cops because his dealer ripped him off.
- alex1015, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2170 diggs in 10 minutes tells you everything you need to know
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1hagnar: My post never says copyright infringement = theft. It only uses theft as an example to illustrate my point. How about: If I was stopped for driving my car 100 mph on a sidewalk while drunk, should I be able to sober up, drive the neighborhood safely and walk free, or should I be arrested and prosecuted? Does that mean, by your reasoning, that I'm now the first "*****" to believe copyright infringement is a form of drunk driving and public endangerment? Nope, it just means that you are either reading what you want into my post or you possess very poor comprehension skills.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Yes, and the iTunes music store is up, running and powerful as ever. So why, when Apple offers a great way to deliver music in a fast, efficient, friendly way to keep consumers interested in music, do most of the people who post on these submissions still pirate? iTunes' Fair Play is pretty open in regard to usage, and if you're still inclined to get it on that one device not recognized, breaking the DMCA is pretty easy and doesn't leave tracks like downloading.
All of which makes my first point seem the case: People really don't want a solution. They would rather bitch about the problem so they can justify their piracy to themselves. - oriondarkwood, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4And people think the RIAA/MPAA is just going to die, like all other big corps they will never die because they have purchased the US Goverment while you where asleep at the wheel WAKE UP SHEEP AND BURN IT DOWN
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1The point being that Digg is full of intelliigent, tech-savvy people, many of whom spend an awful lot of time writing about why the industry should change, but never offering any viable solutions as to how. If this matter is important to so many people, why not spend that energy trying to come up with an idea that works for the consumer as well as the entertainment industry? It only would be to your benefit, and plenty of development energy is certainly already being put into ways to circumvent them.
I suspect the reason this hasn't happened yet is one of two, or both:
1. People really don't want a solution. They would rather bitch about the problem so they can justify their piracy to themselves.
2. The solution is not as easy as you would like it to be.
If you recognize the first as the problem, more power to you, at least you're finally being honest with yourself and others. If you recognize the second as the problem, then you can either do something about it yourself or wait patiently until someone capable of solving the problem comes to the rescue. Otherwise, you're just complaining to complain. - actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2That diggers want stuff without paying for it?
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4Banding together to solve a common legal problem does not make you a monopoly or a cartel. Here's an idea. Stop violating their copyright or stop whining when you are caught.
- actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -17/+4Dear Bricks,
Why not suggest how the RIAA might embrace new online paradigms rather than defer it to other young, intelligent music fans? Asking them to listen without saying anything does them as little good as it does you.
Sincerely,
An artist who relies on entertainment sales to eat and pay bills.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is