What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
52 Comments
- abbathdoom, on 11/05/2009, -0/+54Any politician who supports 3 strike laws and getting tough on piracy should be made to read this article.
- Junkyarddawg, on 11/06/2009, -0/+39Do you guys know that it's forbidden to *legally buy* MP3's for download between countries inside the European Union? If I'm in, say, Italy, I'm not allowed to buy MP3's from www.amazon.co.uk. Even though hindering trade between countries is illegal. Such is the power of the record company lobby.
***** the record companies. They're obstructing even though companies like Pandora, Apple and Spotify have already shown that people will gladly pay for music if it's made simple and affordable for them. Spotify etc are where the future of the music industry is, not with record companies desperately trying to stifle competition. - jakewobegon, on 11/05/2009, -1/+31If not for file sharing, I'd still be listening to classic rock and not spending a dime on music as opposed the the thousands of dollars I've spent on exploring new music. Amazing how the RIAA will sue your children for sharing music, but I bet they all had dual cassette recorders when they were kids.
- Kuci06, on 11/05/2009, -1/+27***** YOU RIAA!
- jeremiahjw, on 11/05/2009, -0/+23I don't use P2P to download music, but I will sample it on YouTube to see if I like it, and if it's the song I want. I can't tell you how many times I've downloaded a song on iTunes based on the sample preview that I didn't like past that sample.
- thumperings, on 11/06/2009, -1/+22Good. The longer they don't "get it", the quicker they die permanently
- Awesomebox5000, on 11/06/2009, -0/+20In America, RIAA ***** you too...
- Langford, on 11/06/2009, -1/+19It's not about sales lost to pirates, it's never been about that. The idea of piracy as the villain is just a tool they are using to alter copyright law. It's a scam and they know it. Their real goal is to make a form of copyright that lasts forever. What they hope for is that as long as it's illegal to remove media from it's special container formats, there is no way to legally get a copy of something, even if it's copyright has legally expired.
- Ninh, on 11/05/2009, -0/+15And have his pension stripped.
- clippclop, on 11/06/2009, -1/+16You know what i think the biggest reason is? Because back in the day when i bought a CD, i HAD to buy a full CD. Even if i only wanted 1 song, I had to get all 10-25. These days, if i only want to buy 1 song, i am only going to buy one song. That probably accounts for 99% of the figured these people are somehow coming up with. If you want to sell more music, then make good music. It isnt a hard concept.
On top of that, Music i download is stuff that i NEVER would have purchased otherwise. This is NOT a lost sale. - Travelsonic, on 11/06/2009, -0/+13Rhapsody allows you to do that, so..... why not?
- DOCNM, on 11/06/2009, -0/+10Music business executives must have been in denial (or as all other executives they didn't really give a damn about how the company was actually doing).
Is not that you need to have a special insight to figure out what the problem is. And that it won't simply go away.
If your album is 1 good song that I will listen and 13 ***** song that I will skip, and you are selling it for $14, don't be surprised if I only buy that song for $1, if I have an opportunity. And if you don't give me that opportunity, don't be surprised if I go peer-to-peer and don't feel bad about it. After all, I'm just "stealing" $1 from you whereas you were trying to overcharge me $13. - palmer, on 11/06/2009, -0/+9It's not piracy that's killing music. It's the way the labels are destroying music with dynamic compression (to make it "louder") and making it intolerable to listen to, regardless of your tastes.
The destruction they're wreaking on music and our entire musical heritage (as they go through their archives and "remaster" every recording) can't be overstated. When you turn music into a wall of noise, the result is listener fatigue. Have you noticed that it's no fun to turn music up anymore? That it's hard to find the right volume; one click down is too soft, the next click up is too loud? That mashups always rely on older tunes, because there's no room in current recordings to mix another song into? That you just don't get into really catchy songs the way that you used to?
Yep, that's what's killing music. FOR NO REASON AT ALL.
Look up the "loudness war": http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/th ... - sloeffer, on 11/06/2009, -0/+8EU offers hope to file-sharers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8344174.stm
Basically this new proposed law would, if it passes, make it illegal for people to be disconnected from the internet( aka 3 strikes law) unless they were selling copyrighted pirated material. - Twinnie, on 11/06/2009, -0/+7All I can add is that since I discovered P2P music sharing and started finding bands I really like I have spent a ***** load more on music than I ever did before. I probably wouldn't listen to anything nowadays if it was solely up to the industry to feed me whatever they want to sell.
- DaFoxx, on 11/06/2009, -1/+7I work in retail. If I didn't pirate music, movies, and video games I wouldn't be able to sell the product as well as I can right now.
***** YOU RIAA! I make you money by pirating! - Travelsonic, on 11/06/2009, -1/+6In Soviet Russia, RIAA ***** you!
- bdbr, on 11/06/2009, -0/+5I don't know why the article says, "you do the math". The math isn't that hard.
First off, music is still selling, big time. Over 1.5 BILLION "units" (meaning album or single) were sold last year in the US alone. Its the fourth year sales exceeded a billion. Over a billion digital singles were sold.
Now here's the math: 226 million more digital singles were sold last year vs the previous year; 72 million fewer albums were sold. This accounts for 3.14 added singles for every lost album sale. This is what happens when record companies focus on just a couple songs per album...some people will still buy the album, but a lot of people will just buy those one or two hit songs.
(all data from Soundscan 2008) - Apex3, on 11/06/2009, -1/+6"In my view, growing Internet piracy is a vote of no-confidence in existing business models and legal solutions. It should be a wake-up call for policy-makers."
Well put. Legal music prices are ridiculous. I have 7200 songs, which isn't all that much compared to some people, is my collection worth $7,200? Hell no it's not. If it actually cost that much to make a song it would be one thing, but since the musicians are only getting a very small fraction of it, and the people that do nothing are getting almost all the money, it's just ridiculous.
The only legal way that makes sense to get music now IMO, and I'm using it, is things like the Zune pass, unlimited downloads plus 10 to keep every month for $15. I'm honestly not sure why the record companies are okay with it. - deadguysleeps, on 11/06/2009, -0/+5unheard music is unbought music
- rocknog, on 11/06/2009, -0/+4Hey, you're sick of me not buying your ***** music? QUIT RELEASING ***** MUSIC!!! Jesus ***** Christ on a Stick, it's not that ***** difficult.
- HonoredMule, on 11/06/2009, -1/+5I couldn't imagine a more sideways step. Thankfully, that's /not/ where we're headed.
- Khast, on 11/06/2009, -0/+4RIAA should sue Apple, Amazon and other outlets that allow users to purchase only the songs they like. I mean they really aren't selling whole albums anymore...if someone wants that one song, they can just buy that one.
Hell, I think the last time I actually bought a CD in a record store was in 2000. I buy them in thrift stores all the time though. (I feel that $2.99 is more like the actual value of the CDs.) - ducttape36, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3Free music is the way its supposed to be. My band just finished recording our deut album, and were giving it away for free. ***** the RIAA. they dont represent musicians, just corporate fatcats. real musicians make their money by paying concerts and selling merch like t-shirts and stickers. They never make enough money from records. so just give it away for free. ***** it.
p.s. http://digg.com/music/F_K_THE_RIAA_Band_Gives_Away ...
sorry for whoring, but i just want to give away as much of my band's music for free as i can. please help? Or at least listen. - pigfister, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate Orwellian hardware DRM designed to take away rights not to stop piracy anymore.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the corporate globalists from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, PRS, IFPI, ASCAP, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
====================================================================
If Sony payola (google it) wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm ...
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/14132 - nyxerebos, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2FTA: "People who are our hardcore fans like music and want to support the artists and labels that put out records they like." - actually I just want to support the artists. The labels can go rot for all I care, they're a middleman that technology has made unnecessary.
- the8thbit, on 11/06/2009, -1/+3Less, apparently.
This makes sense, really. Why would you invest in something if you're not interested in it? And what better way to gain interest in a field than in a zero loss environment? - bdbr, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2Rhapsody and Napster only allow you to sample 25 songs a month.
- pigfister, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate Orwellian hardware DRM designed to take away rights not to stop piracy anymore.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the corporate globalists from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, PRS, IFPI, ASCAP, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
====================================================================
If Sony payola (google it) wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm ...
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/14132 - surferjoemaui, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2Thanks for the link.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2Piracy slowed with iTunes -- it's something the Major labels were kind of peeved about. They can't wage their war on piracy and NOT have a digital download service -- so iTunes kind of forced them into it.
Now they do deals with other online providers -- hoping that iTunes won't get too strong. They only think monopolists hate more is competition from another monopolist.
But iTunes is repeatable -- and it will at least save the newspaper industry.
"I don't see iTunes lasting once artists begin to realize that it's NOT the holy grail of music distribution," -- I agree with that in part. But by that time, iTunes will be delivering digital Magazines, books, and will be streaming most of your videos in competition with people like Dish Network and Cable for about $30 a month.
So iTunes/Apple will be THE entertainment behemoth -- not just music. Don't worry, they will be benevolent dictators for some time yet. - Engival, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2They won't care.
They don't make laws based on the good of the people, or what's right and just. - the8thbit, on 11/06/2009, -1/+3***** iTunes.
- PinkyTheWinky, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2The sad thing is that the RIAA ruined Seether(formerly known as Saron Gas). They were an awesome band back in South Africa but then they went over and even their first album was respiced and ruined. Sad really.
- Culyt, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1@sloeffer: "Basically this new proposed law would, if it passes, make it illegal for people to be disconnected from the internet( aka 3 strikes law) unless they were selling copyrighted pirated material."
It doesn't quite say that, it just says you need to be taken to court first. Chances are they will just setup railroad courts. I believe even the France law is done through a court, it's just that the judge makes the decision in about 5 minutes. It will be hard to argue your case when the judge has no idea about the technology involved, has had 100's of the cases already and the lawyers have also had the same practice.
In addition to that, in most cases people will have probably downloaded pirated mp3s or some such. This only really protects people being accidentally disconnected without reason (and even then they have to go to court, and then they also have to be heard rather than the judge just assuming that its the 100th person this week claiming they are innocent). The point is people shouldn't be disconnected for such crap.
Also the law doesn't mention how many 'strikes' are required, it might have made the situation worse, by allowing disconnect on one confirmed infringement. I see no information regarding what is considered evidence, if 3rd party anti-piracy groups that get paid to get people disconnected are considered unbiased, if their evidence is legal. As the article said "So far it is also less than clear exactly what will constitute a "fair and impartial" procedure.".
The Internet is now way to important too allow for disconnecting. It would basically stop people from being able to function in society, work and so on. And that is going to progressively get more so. It should be a basic human right. I wonder what will happen when landlines disappear and people need emergency VOIP phone service.
In some ways the law is a move in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough. - inactive, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1I think what you're looking for is like a "greatest hits" album..most bands would be lucky if they have more than a few "hit singles"...they aren't easy to make.
- thedudex213, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1Iroincally I use P2P to download stuff you can't find in stores, because the stores and radio are too busy trying to shove ***** acts like creed, nickleback and seether down my throat.
- Thistlejack, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1Shhh.. Don't say this in public. They'll want to go back to the "good old days" when you had to buy the whole album.
- azubi, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1I must be sheltered or out of touch, I haven't heard anything on a major label that was worth buying in some time.
- sloeffer, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1The part you quoted from my post is from an interview I watched with my local EU parliamentarian on the 7 hr news, it's literally what he said. All he did for 5 minutes was ramble on about how ingrained the internet is in all our lives and how we really can't survive in the current school/business enviroment without it anymore and unless malicious intent was proven people should not be deprived of the internet. Somewhat of a fair use doctrine if you will. Granted, the BBC article is a bit lacking but it's a bill in progress so we'll just have to see how it goes.
- sirloxelroy, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1I only buy used CDs. Why buy a $1 song, or a brand new CD when on average I can get a used CD for $4-$5. I also have tapes, and vinyl records I have encoded for my iPod (I am not going to re-buy what I already have, sorry RIAA), and yes everything I have on my iPod, all 13GB I have a CD, Tape, or Record for, 99% of which were bought used, or inherited(Records part).
- evilgourmet, on 11/06/2009, -1/+2If the music is not released under the creative commons license, I am not interested.
- HonoredMule, on 11/07/2009, -0/+1Sure, because there aren't dozens of other online places that distribute, promote, and/or produce music in vast quantities already--all of which being actually open and accessible without proprietary software like normal websites. No, Apple's going to establish a monopoly where it once had and *already lost it,* and all the places that started promoting indy music long after iTunes monopolized distribution will just disappear because Apple does it so much better.
The thing is, they don't. Apple's only claim to fame in music is their distributing convenience within the iPod ecosystem, and their only merit as promoters is product placement which is limited and hard to achieve. Production and financing doesn't even enter the picture. Places like Aime Street, last.fm, Spotify and thesixtyone blow Apple out of the water when it comes to music promotion/discovery, and distribution follows that much more naturally than the other way around.
None of these services (Apple's included) are even trying to handle the production and financing issues that labels traditionally did, but plenty of other organizations do, and they come in all shapes and sizes.
When I say iTunes won't take over promotion or production of music, I'm not being ignorant. Quite the opposite, I'm actually looking around and noticing that there's already a great big world outside iTunes. You would have to live a very Apple-sheltered life to miss it, and /that/ would be ignorance. In the end the iTunes Store is just another music store popular enough that artists will always be happy to get featured on the front page. And I really can't see it recovering any lost market share in online distribution while it's the only such store I *can't* visit with a standards-compliant browser. - the8thbit, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1I'm not saying it's not going to happen.
I'm saying, '***** iTunes', just as when I say '***** the RIAA' I'm not denying that they exist or that they control a cartel over the music industry- infact, I'm implying acknowledgment of this.
Though, even with the growth in iTunes I doubt piracy will slow, both from an ethical standpoint (DRM, centralization of the industry, high prices, etc...) and from a practical standpoint. (It's still easier, cheaper, and more beneficial to one's self to pirate.)
Because of this, I don't see iTunes lasting once artists begin to realize that it's NOT the holy grail of music distribution, and that they can make more money giving their music away for free through peer to peer distribution networks (such as bit torrent) while releasing their art under Creative Commons or other Copyleft licenses, and at the same time, accepting donations, payment for the music (or for the link to the torrent, really) and collecting from ad-revenue on their web site. - gkiltz, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1They are stuck on a business model that's obsolete!
- markusfarkus, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1The record companies are ok with it because they like the subscription model. Instead of trying to sell you a physical or digital product here and there, they are much happier getting people to pay monthly to listen to music. Why scramble to try to get you to spend $50 today when they can get you to pay $15 a month for the rest of your life?
I think most people still prefer to own the music, whether it's a physical medium or digital. And I'm sure most would be willing to pay for what they really want. They just need to have more options. We should be able to choose the songs we want in the digital format we want with no DRM at a reasonable price. I understand that it costs a lot of money to produce and market music, but if they focused on developing artists for the long term instead of trying to make something hot that they can sell as a ringtone, maybe they'd start making money again. However, I do think the big money making days for musicians is gone as far as music sales go. But if you can put on a good live show you'll be just fine. - rrwest, on 11/06/2009, -0/+0Music labels have created their own mess by bad contracts to artists and offering bad to worse products.
One word will suffice: Nickelback. - VitriolAndAngst, on 11/06/2009, -1/+1I don't know why I bother trying to inform people on Digg. It seems you guys are clueless.
>> it's not about "sideways" it's about how things are going to be. Likely in 2 years, when what I say comes to pass -- you won't remember that you were dugg up for dismissing it, or that someone told you.
That's a cycle of ignorance right there. -
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is