What is Digg?103 Comments
- AmishRefugee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+110If it weren't for piracy, i would have no idea about 3/4 of the bands i listen to now, and would not have bought their merchandise or seen them live, something that gives the artists some real money. And of course, the RIAA and friends don't take into account that if people like me didn't download music, we would simply choose not to have certain music, free or not. Like I may download the new Incubus album but if i didn't have the chance, i would just go without it, so they're not losing money from me, essentially
- Dr.Gonzo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+49I totally agree. I'm a musician myself, I feel proud when people download my songs, it means people like the art you create. And without downloading you can't get people to listen to you.
- TheCheeks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1395% of all the artists I now listen to are super underground and if it wasn't due to piracy I would have never learned about them. Now I try to stay on top of their tour dates so I can support them at a concert or two.
- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Exactly. Free music can work as advertising for a concert... which is where the artist will make the bulk of his money. Not just from the performance, but from merchandise. They make a splinter's worth of money from the actual CD (or vinyl, cassette, 8-track, et cetera). The labels have made sure of this, and now their greed is working against them. Their grip was a little too tight.
- CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"Frustrated as they are, the music industry claims that they lose millions a year due to piracy, but is this really the case?"
Definately not. Most things that people download they wouldn't purchase anyways. The RIAA counts every download as a sale lost.. when in reality, that is not the case. - rayishu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10the RIAA is the ones mostly complaining about piracy not the artists
- MrDarkSim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Don't bring Fruit Loops into this.What did Toucan Sam ever do to you?Why do you hate breakfast?
- MrTea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I thought everyone knew that. In addition, the industry throws a ***** storm over piracy not for artists, but for the recording the companies and labels (production, etc). As a matter of fact, I heard that the artists actually get the smallest cut.
- shark72, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"Can anyone recommend any good bands then?"
Just go to pandora.com, type in the names of a few artists or bands that you like, and it will do the rest.
Then, when you hear what you like, go ahead and pirate them, for a couple of reasons:
1. If they're a struggling band, they would probably appreciate your downloading them for free, just so that they can get the exposure. Plus, you might buy a t-shirt or go to a concert one day.
2. If they're not a struggling band, then hey -- they already have enough money. They don't need any from you!
Seriously, dude. pandora.com is great for discovering new music. - farazyashar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Try before you buy.
- Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It's not losing money if the person wasn't going to give it to you anyways. It's not like the music industry is entitled to a certain percentage of my money, and by me not giving it to them, I'm making them "lose money".
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7yeah, i've personally bought several cds in the past few months (and i hate buying cds) after hearing a song somewhere (an ad, some random clip, music blog, ..) than downloading the album the song belongs to and deciding i like it a lot.
i probably would have -never- bought these (or even listened to them outside of the single song that grabbed my interest) because it seems few people know about a lot of the new (as in, new to me) bands i've heard and most of them weren't even in store so i had to order them, etc and i'm not in the mood for blindly ordering a cd i -may- or -may not- like.
.. but than again, i pirate a hell of a lot of music i don't particularly like enough to buy but that wouldn't be a sale lost because i never intended on buying it so the only person missing out is me (i think i'll survive if i don't have any the generic pop music though).
i'm sure i'm somehow at fault though, especially after reading geekee's comment below. ;) - vhold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Ambiguous statements are the crutches of the Feeble minded."
And sweeping generalizations are the gauss bandages of the Obtuse brain. - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Exactly. Thats what they are MOST afraid of. No longer do we have to buy a CD because we heard 2 good songs on the radio and went out, bought the CD and found out the rest of the album sucked. Now we download it. Listen to it. Then buy the songs we want of something like iTunes. So the RIAA is losing the huge markup they had on the CD sales.
- CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And while you may have a valid point, it still doesn't change my mind about theft.
- MrObjectional, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Why Most Artists Profit from Piracy"
Well MOST artists (the small up and comers) are NOT the ones people are downloading. - africanherbsman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The RIAA need not even exist, they don't really do anything productive at all. Anyone who thinks the RIAA is protecting musicians is wrong, the only reason they even give a ***** about online music sharing networks is because it's stealing THEIR money, which should be going to the artists anyway. I'd feel a hell of a lot guiltier if i knew that pirating the album was stealing from the musicians, but at the end of the day it's just stealing something from the RIAA which they shouldn't even own. I actually feel a lot guiltier if I don't pirate the album, all I'd be doing is supporting a corrupt organization.
- grazie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The problem is, that illegal or not, it's still going to happen. Without effectively shutting down the internet altogether it's impossible to stop file sharing, considering that's pretty much what the internet is. The labels now need to realise that their business models are becoming redundant. It's a cold hard fact. We can argue about the legalities of it until Britney Spears goes broke, but in a supply and demand situation, where they no longer control the mode of supply, they need to adapt.
I think we'll see a radical shift in the movie/music industries (duhh). The big labels are becoming redundant. In an industry where global distribution is now a mouse click away, more and more artists are beginning to realise they can control their own production and distribution, maintaining creative control and pocketing all of the profits themselves. I think there'll be a shift away from big budget productions, because labels will need to offer music and movies at a price that people are willing to pay, and there will be a greater diversity of projects because there will no longer be the barriers of major label acceptance to up and coming artists. To be honest I think this is a great thing. - spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not only that, but the RIAA is trying to reduce royalties paid to the artists and demanding a cut of concert and merchandise sales.
- shark72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I know that AllofMP3 are essentially stealing music and keeping the money they collect, but there is a serious lesson for RIAA & Co to learn. There is money to be made if you give the people what they want."
I hear this a lot: "If only the record companies would see that they can just do what allofmp3.com does, everybody will be happy!". Or, words to that effect.
The sad fact is this: by law, record companies must pay mechanical royalties that can be as much as $0.16 per track. Even if you think that artists "don't deserve to be millionaires" (as somebody put it here) and only pay them $0.09 per track, you've hit $0.25. Say there are no other costs associated with making the music possible (ie. you find volunteers to work as session musicians, engineers, mixers, etc.) and you spend no money on advertising, you can't meet the allofmp3 pricing and make money.
Here's the really funny part: a few weeks ago when there was a news item going around about the record labels trying to reduce those statutory mechanical royalties, Digg users were all like "OMG the RIAA is killing kittens!". Well, which is it, guys? Keep paying mechanical royalties as defined by law, or sell tracks at allofmp3.com prices? You can't have both. If you want a legit service in the US to sell tracks for $0.25 each, then the composers and songwriters will have to take less money, and for that to happen, the law will have to be changed, as they are guaranteed those minimum payments by law. But a few weeks ago, when news went around that the record companies wanted to change the law, that notion was HIGHLY unsatisfactory with Digg readers.
For the record, I DON'T think that the law should be changed to lower mechanical royalties. $0.08/track is already ***** pay. If this means that the record companies won't be able to sell tracks at $0.25 each, I'm fine with that. - patsfan456, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The RIAA is all like "Wahhhhhhh."
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.jinx.com/scripts/details.asp?productID=232
forever. - CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Except for the fact that the author cites his sources.
- lifewithout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5File sharing does not mean the end of music, or even commercial music, but it certainly does pose a threat to ***** music. I'd love to see other industries go through similar revolutions.
- LecherousVenom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hate the freedom that comes with breakfast.
Hey, after seeing Max Hardcore's "Proboscis Porn 7: Revenge of Toucan Sam", I got nuthin' but love for the Sam.....there's some things even Ron Jeremy won't do.... - gr00vy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6This is a tired argument that keeps getting rehashed what seems like monthly.
Yes, piracy is an excellent marketing tool. But too much piracy is a bad thing. Napster was bad. Because it was easier than buying a new song, and you tended to pirate what you knew.
Local Piracy is good, because your friends who you presumably think like, or follow, introduce you to new music, which inspires you to find music, which you share, and ultimately buy, and go to concerts etc.
So napster bad, but generally Apple's model ok. It wasn't that big a deal until napster, which ruined the model. It doesn't mean torrents are good either. But getting something from your friend. Ok. - ddh1969, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The music industry loses millions of dollars a year because IMHO 95% of all new music SUCKS! Most of it isn't worth the time it takes to download it for FREE! Quit signing CRAP to recording contracts and you will stop losing millions! Maybe I am just old school since I'm in my mid 30's but back in the day you had to be a little bit TALENTED (at least in MOST cases) to get a recording contract. NOW anyone and their mom can get a CD out. In a day and age where there isn't much distinction between Band A and Band B you just don't have enough demand for the crap anymore...
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Frustrated as they are, the music industry claims that they lose millions a year due to piracy, but is this really the case?"
No, they lose millions a year because of their shoddy product. - LecherousVenom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This article has some semantic problems. The phrase "profit from piracy" or "profit from filesharing" are untrue, taken literally. While I understand the article's point is a larger one - that filesharing is a *part* of a profitable business model - they don't actually say that. They say "profit from filesharing" but there really is no way to profit from filesharing as it has no payment mechanism.
Fruit Loops can be part of a nutritious breakfast....it's just that Fruit Loops aren't the "nutritious" part. Same with filesharing...it's part of a profitable business, but it's the part that taken by itself is unprofitable.
PS - RIAA's claims are at odds with BMI and ASCAP's own numbers:
http://www.jeremiahjacobs.com/blog/archives/000217.html - ch33zm0ng3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.pandora.com and http://www.last.fm
...for those of you that prefer to click. - Pix869, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well, Piracy good for artists or not, It's still illegal. If an artist wanted to profit from free access to the songs, they would release a few to the public domain.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good thing the RIAA is still objective....
The article has a point. We need pieces like this for people to see the light. - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The "losses" that the RIAA says they take every year is mostly because they inflate their projected sales figures to such a insane level that they really never had any hope of reaching. So at the end of the year or quarter they can go crying to anyone that will listen and say how much of a loss they took from those evil music pirates and their ipods....
- MrObjectional, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2People say they never would have heard this band without downloading, but the real question is this:
If there was no other free alternative, would you have eventually bought the CD to try them out? I mean, if you knew there was no other way, and you wanted to check them out? If an artist wants to put there stuff up for download, great! But unfortunately there's this idea that "I can always get it for free" which has made me think twice about CDs I was on the edge about. - raindogmx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They calculate losses by guessing the total of pirated copies sold or downloaded plus a convenient safety margin upwards then multiply it by unit costs.
Of course they don't substract the quantity of copies that wouldn't sell if there wasn't any piracy so they are way over the top in their calculations.
I really hope they're very aware of this because if they're not they're gonna loose the great market share that piracy represents -as they are doing now.
In sum they're blind. - shark72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"You are taxed for each blank CD so that money can go to the recording companies."
That's only on special MUSIC CD-Rs (pretty hard to find nowadays) and the majority of the tariff goes to performers, composers, and the like. - davidsmero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I will be honest. I download music. However if the CD is great, I have no problem purchasing it. But then again only a small fraction goes to the artist.
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Shark72 is just trying to point out that mikesbaker doesn't know what he's talking about. (And succeeding, if you listen to the facts rather than the flames.)
Check this part of the quote mikesbaker posted;
"[...] that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device"
Think about that for a moment. Are the CD-Rs I buy from a computer shop to save data onto being marketed for "making digital audio copied recorgings by use of a digital audio recording device"? No.
If the legalese is too complicated for you guys to follow (assuming that you don't just google, copy & paste, but actually read the stuff that's linked), then try this one;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax#Blank_music_CDs_and_recorders
Quote:
"This only applies to CDs which are labeled and sold for music use; they do not apply to blank computer CDs, even though they can be (and often are) used to record or "burn" music from the computer to CD."
Jesus, some of you anti-RIAA guys are worse than Michael Moore. Yes, you've got a point, but by consistently misquoting the facts to make your argument look stronger, you make yourselves and everyone who agrees with your principles look stupid. - shark72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"what ever you must work for the RIAA and you are wrong."
You're a funny guy. I'll address both your points in one post. I work for a company that makes, among other things, MP3 players. The Canadian tariff caused us some grief, and our sales went up when it was rescinded (it amounted to something like $25 per player, which can really affect your decision to buy). A DMCA tariff is not collected on MP3 players in the US.
Sorry if your reading of the law gives you the impression that there's a DMCA tariff in the US on MP3 players or data CD-Rs. The only advice I can give here is to check your assumptions, or to ask somebody who knows more about the industry.
You're correct that it's collected on DATs and DAT players (and on music CD-Rs, as we've discussed). I wouldn't recommend using any of those for data backup, anyway. - davidsmero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Indie is some of the best music. Support your local bands.
- rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've done so a couple of times in the past, only to be disappointed by everything on the album. So to answer your question: Yes, but only a couple of times.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Inaccurate : Written by kids trying to justifying ripping off the artists they love.
- TheDude213, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the problem is, the huge labels aren't dumping millions into less popular artists that don't need the money to generate an image or give them a reality show to advertise them and to try and justify why you should buy their album. These less popular artists survive on a lot of word of mouth advertising, whether it be myspace or piracy sites, and their talent, not advertising dollars and digital vocoders to make their music sound better than it is.
- rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By most, I take it they meant, non-pop bands who are not singed (re: enslaved) to the big labels and don't suck at music.
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I own most of my music, and bought several albums after first downloading parts of them. Once I downloaded something _after_ buying it, because they sold me a defective/warped CD, and I didn't want to drive 20 miles back to the store to exchange it. The bulk of the stuff I have left to buy must be shipped overseas from Japan. :)
The people who pirate the most are usually kids who don't have money to buy a lot of music anyways. If they weren't downloading thousands of songs to their computers, they'd be listening to thousands of songs on the radio. - polypropglop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nine O'clock News Flash: *** koregaonpark was gunned down by the Metallica Mystery Van ***
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uh, "gauss" bandages, magnetic field, "bipolar"...awww never mind.
Really its the best joke "tech" joke in a while... - despisedIcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i find last.fm better than pandora for finding similar artists
- nicerobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@mcatrage
I use http://www.last.fm to find new music. I just traverse my neighbors or click bands and then click through the similar artists. There's lots of wonderful music coming out. There's just so much to filter through, it can be very time-consuming. - lifewithout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is technically true, but I'll never give up my hard copies. I like having the artwork, occasionally special packaging. Also the chances of losing your entire collection at once are much lower.
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is