Slashdot Mirror
MP3.com, Warner Music Reach Settlement
Roger writes: "The New York Times is reporting that MP3.com and Warner Music have reached a settlement, after a few weeks of rumors that a settlement with the RIAA was near. My.mp3.com should come back soon. NYT; free registration required."
OK. So mp3.com's management hands off a shitload of money to get them out of *this* hole, and they hand off a bunch of money to get them out of the other holes they're in, and the "recording industry" cuts them in on a piece of the action in return.
If you think anybody involved in this is in any way looking out for your interests, you're nuts!
Sony wants $2.00 - $3.00 per track!
Come on!
The people get screwed, and the front offices of all of these damned corporations keep getting richer! (Oh: and of course the investors get rich, too..)
And just wait 'till you read the EULA for one of these downloaded tracks: I'll bet you 10-to-1 that you get to have only the one copy and therefore you (legally) can only load it onto one device at a time!
Want one copy for the car, or one for the Rio, as well as the one on your hdd?
"Hey, asshole! Pay us some more!"
If you think you've seen an EULA you didn't like before now, wait 'till these parasites get done with this one...
t_t_b
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
In a thread about copyright infringement, you go ahead and commit one of your own. I salute you, sir!
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
It's not like MP3.com is just cutting 5 Million Dollar checks to just anyone. It's just like any other big business deal. MP3.com has a lot that the music producers want. Banner Ads, Listening Statistics, and a large community of people. Maybe even a little stock.
Call me naive, but for some reason up until now I was actually buying the bullshit they were feeding me. I actually thought they were going after my.mp3.com because it broke copyright and facilitated piracy. I had my doubts once I'd gone and tried it out myself. Now it makes perfect sense that the more cynical (hell, smart) have been screaming the word money. They don't care about this stuff being done online. They care that they're not making enormous amounts of money on it.
Yet...
A while back, they switched low-fidelity playback from RealAudio to MPEG layer 3:
- MP3 streaming works better on Eunuchs and Mac machines, and
- "Real.com" is already taken.
There are help pages set up at MP3.com for Eunuchs, Mac, and Windows platforms. I don't see them alienating Eunuchs users by going toWill I retire or break 10K?
The biggest problem I have with mymp3.com is their obligatory spam
Spam is defined by most Internet companies as "unsolicited commercial email or newsgroup/weblog postings." You solicited the mail when you signed up for My.MP3.com.
Will I retire or break 10K?
>>Musicians tend to get shafted with Major Label deals, since people are so eager to "sign up" simply don't look closely enough at their contracts
this would be why people hire lawyers and managers. if you are not aware of what you are signing and the implications, then you are a fool.
You're second paragraph is a great idea, but lives in a dream world. To take on the majors, you have to understand their world and the role that they play. MP3.com could and IMHO should get into the label business but its not as simple as you make it out to be:
btw --all contracts are negotiable.
1- How is promotion guaranteed and how will they make money in the online medium?
Promotional slots on MP3.com are limited because they have a responsibility to advertisers that PAY them tangible $$'s. MP3.com is also currently limited to the online world, though they are rolling out to provide music streaming in stores. Don't know if that will work, but HEY give it a shot! Mass amounts of records get sold for 2 reasons: Radio and MTV. Those are the 2 most important avenues that most bands have to work with. Internet, concerts, hype, fanbase, etc all play a part but not nearly as phat as Radio and MTV. Here is where the majors excel - they have whole groups of people who work with outlets to get their artists promoted, played, seen, and read about! Its not cheap.
Fact is, you need offline distribution! Eminem for example-- what, 1.6 Million records sold during the first week? Those are records that were sold in stores -- not online. Online sales were insignificant in the overall sales compared to the sheer number.
2. millions they make off advertisements...
Well, think about the rest of the money that MP3.com pays out. Couple hundred employees, rent, bandwidth, advertising, LAWYERS and Lawsuits, etc.
Bottom line -- MP3.com [according to their Q1-2000 report] sold 71,000 cd's out of a total of 68,000 bands. Not a good sign, especially since this is a PERFECT outlet for a band lacking $$'s to get CD's pressed.
3. couple hours in the studio
Spoken like a true outsider. Listen to random band on MP3 and then random band on Warner. More than likely you will hear a HUGE difference. That difference is costly not only in "more than a few hours" of studio time, but producers/engineers, mastering, equipment, etc.. Don't expect to do a great sounding radio record for under $100k. [studio, producer, lodging/catering, blah blah -- insert rock star rider here]
As a note -- you CAN do a record for much less - but in most occassions you get what you pay for. You mentioned engineer time -- uh, I could never do a record with an in-house engineer mixing and producing. Just think - the top mixers, strictly mixing AFTER you have spent months recording - make upwards of $3,000 plus points PER song.
4. bands pay for their own tours..
They can, but as a new breaking act you really look for sponsors and tour support from your record label. I've done tours where as a support act for a major band playing 3,500 seat venues (sell outs)we made $200 a night. 5 guys, crew, truck rental, food,rent, etc.... doesn't go far BUT it was great exposure and thats why you look for the underwriters. Its great to be able to make money and sell out shows in your hometown but its a different world when you are 2,000 miles away and no one knows who you are!
For a great factual band experience, complete with $$'s and breakdowns - check out http://www.disgraceland.com/there's_this_band.htm its quite enlightening.
A great example of what MP3.com could do is the Farmclub model. Instead of just an "online" model they have combined multiple mediums:
online--seed it with big music stars--draw attention to TV show--showcase unsigned band--sign band to major record label--break band in all forms of media=airplay and record sales.
Works well I think. Sonique [top 20 airplay] and Dynamite Hack [currently 13 on rr air charts] have already been proven to work. Sev will be next.
-f
(1) It came first - mp3.com ripped of their design
(2) You can put any mp3 up there - taken from any source... there's a lot of cool vinyl stuff which I couldn't stick on mp3.com
(3) They Support Unix
(4) You can do 'Dj mixes' or just go and listen to mine.
Yeah, we all know about it by now, EXCEPT THE PEOPLE POSTING THE STORIES, but a link is easier to use... :)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
But at least the pressure for innovation and consumer demand has forced some compromise from the giants.
Really not all that much to see here outside of the headline.
--
+&x
....that mp3.com should've done this originally. If mp3.com had gotten agreements from the "big five" before launching mymp3.com, their wouldn't have been a lawsuit filed. It would've saved mp3.com at least a little bit of money.
On the plus side, assuming that the other four record companies follow suit, mymp3.com and BeamIt should be back up and running. I can't wait!
--- Biffster.org
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
Interestingly, there was an article on the RIAA site about digital music on the Internet. While they went through the usual things about "no one will pay for music they can get online instead", it talked about how online music can be a great help to an artist, especially since it helps him/her produce music without *gasp* a label. They actually sounded admiring.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
http://new s.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2045350.html?tag=st.ne. 1002.thed.ni
That one is more detailed.
Still, it's only 2 of the five record companies that have settled, and this doesn't get to the root of the whole mp3 fiasco. Basically, this story is good news to mp3.com (although not even great for them, still 3 more groups to worry about), but not for anyone else. And again, they're just settling, so apparently mp3.com decided that $100 million was a better deal than having those 2 extra labels.
We've seen something like this before: "Lyrics.ch and NMPA reach agreement"
lyrics.ch used to be the end-all database of lyrics on the net that seemed to contain just about anything you could think of (or at least anything I cared about). It got shut down by the National Music Publisher's Association, then was allowed back up after the NMPA and the site owner reached an "agreement".
It's been shadow of its former self ever since. Look up anything less than a top 40 hit and you're likely to find that your request "is not available at this time", but you will be supplied with links to at least 3 different sites that will be more than willing to sell you the corresponding album.
This is not the same situation, but will the new industry-approved version of mp3.com's hosting be better in any way? To compare quotes:
"[the NMPA's strategy is to offer a] web site to benefit both consumers and the industry, and to develop copyright-licensing policies that will still be effective in a world where consumers can get new recordings through digital downloads"
NYTimes on lyrics.ch (Feb '99)
"The "Big Five" record companies...are tenuously trying to embrace the digital delivery of their coveted music libraries, but through terms that ensure copyright protection of their signed works."
CNET regarding mp3.com
"Last Friday, the Switzerland-based operators of the Web site met with NMPA officials to discuss a proposal that would bring the Internet resource back online as an authorized commercial venture... [NMPA CEO Jack] Murphy acknowledged that he was willing to consider a revenue-sharing plan with the Lyrics Server."
NYT re lyrics.ch again
"Terms of the settlements and licensing agreements were not disclosed. However, the licensing terms could total about $11 million a year based on fees that record companies would charge on a per-play basis, according to one source familiar with the negotiations."
CNET on mp3.com again
My guess is that we won't see any sort of "pay for play" plan developed - just more links to online CD stores.
They should have spinned my.mp3.com off from their other, more sensible and legitimate business. Now, when I buy something like a ShadowKeep CD from them, I'll be wondering how much of my money if going to pay for these settlements. Instead of my money going to the band and the people who made it possible for me to hear them (mp3.com), some of it is also going to Time-Warner. Lovely.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
i was really hoping this would go all the way to the end of the trial..
we really, really need a test case that enshrines in legal precedent the idea that i have the right to download material over the internet assuming i already own it.
in other words, if i buy an album, i am buying the right to use the content, not just the physical media. Therefore i should have the right to download it over the internet, and no copyright violation is taking place if i download mp3s of it because i've already paid.
in other words, all these ROMs i have on my computer are legal since i have the original cartriges gathering dust upstairs.
in other words, if i buy some software and then accidentally drop the package on the way home and a truck runs over it and crushes it, i should have the right to warez a copy because i paid to use it..
you get the idea. this needs to somehow be embedded into the legal system or law or whatever. it's important, i think. but a settlement means that you can't really point to this case as a legal precedent in other cases..
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The major labels can play whatever stupid games they want to try to get $24 per album with no physical media- or even more restrictive things, if they can think them up. They do not force ME to follow suit and I offer one hell of a better deal- in conjunction with the same mp3.com- which has a vested interest in hanging onto people like me, because I can give them quite extensive rights regarding my music (which I still own), and Sony will never give them such a good deal.
It's still the net- don't underestimate the effectiveness of indie content producers in conjunction with something like mp3.com. With them and us it's a real win-win situation- hell, I can buy stuff just retail from mp3.com, resell it at local record stores with the nice covers and all charging the store $5 per CD- the store can sell it at $8.99 and be happy- and in doing so I undercut the major label pricing structure by up to 10$ and _still_ make two bucks a CD.
Try THAT with Sony *g*
Sony artists mostly don't get anything, because they are first put into fancy studios etc. to record the material- the 'advance' on royalties- and then the artist must repay the (already spent on musician stuff) advance out of royalties before seeing any money out of the label. Most bands that go platinum with their CD manage to recoup the advance and might see a few thousand dollars to be divided among the whole band for their work. Bands that don't go platinum? They got to see a fancy studio- and are contractually obligated to stay with the label. Sony is just like any other label in this- they are not particularly bad so far as I know. You have to go platinum to break even- it's not a way to earn any kind of money and in practice the band gets $0 for each CD they sell, because very few bands recoup.
(listening to one of my own CDs, for which I will get paid $2.99 in royalties when they cut checks... ahhhh, the bliss of being past the break-even point without worrying about 'recouping' :) it's the "Dragons" album, fun stuff)
The fact is, the mainstream record labels don't necessarily put out good sounding records, nor is a high priced engineer/mixer a sure ticket to sonic Nirvana. I'm thinking in particular of Bob Clearmountain- he didn't adapt to 80's studios very well, and some of his work since his heyday in the 70s is appalling. You've got guys like Glen Ballard who did Alanis Morrisette's first album- guys like Steve Albini known for his work with the Pixies and Nirvana, and the same one whose glorious rant, "Some Of Your Friends Are Probably Already This Fucked", is often cited in Slashdot threads.
The bottom line is this: professional sound is not about money- it's about technology.
You need geeks to master the technology.
Now, plenty of those pricey studios do in fact have geeks, and put out professional sound- but this is the era where you can get a 20-bit 48K eight-track dedicated recorder for well under $3000. The technology has _roared_ ahead, unbelievably. Particularly with regard to electronic artists, the geeks have followed and established the knowledge needed to deal with the technology. Doing ultimate mixing and mastering is really NOT harder than, say, learning C programming and kernel hacking. It's also not easier than that... you need to spend years, and not believe everything you read, and to be able to deal with the sounds of a musical piece in your head as if you were thinking up a new subroutine or something- there are rules and heuristics and it's a true craft, and not so mysterious as all that.
Ironically, just as people are learning how to do this properly, the mainstream is progressively refusing to do it properly. Ever looked at the difference between peak and average levels on your VU meters? The competition for radio airplay has led to albums' sound being _crushed_ with compression, leaving no dynamics or muscle behind the music at all, the purpose being to make the albums LOUDER LOUDER LOUDER than the next one. It's quite like NT being tuned like mad to kick butt on Mindcraft benchmarks at the expense of realworld performance, and it's long established in the commercial sphere and will only get worse.
Soon you will be able to tell the indie artists from the major label ones because the indie albums will all sound very different and have a lot of air and dynamics and creativity in the mixes, and all the major label ones will sound the same- exhaustingly, maddeningly loud and artificial and hyped-up. You won't be able to tell one major label star from another because they will all sound exactly the same...
Quite frankly, I'm inclined to believe them. The big five and the RIAA weren't interested in messing with the status quo and it wasn't until mp3.com, napster, et. al. started hitting them hard that they decided this phenomenon was here to stay and they'd better come to the table and negotiate.
Good news for everybody! I can't wait for the complete adoption of music formats that will allow me to listen to anything I've purchased, anywhere, without having to carry artifacts around. Rock on, dudes...
It's not funny till someone gets hurt.
You heard it here first kids, the new trend called "merger via settlement".
This is how it works - The record companies get a well known portal for distribution, and the site owners avoid being constantly hit over the head record industry lawsuits.
Can't convince yourself that this is a merger wrapped in a settlement? Read the following quotes from the article and pretend you know nothing about the lawsuit:
"We look forward to working with WMG to expand its boundaries and are grateful to the entire WMG team for the insight and trust they've demonstrated and for making this opportunity possible."
and
"The licensing agreements will allow consumers to store copies of Warner Music Group or BMG compact discs they already own with MP3.com. The record companies will share an undisclosed amount of money received in the settlements with its artists. "
Sounds like a merger to me...
Over the course of the next year we'll begin to see the "lion laying down with the lamb" as both parties figure out that cooperation is more profitable than compitition.
I wonder if any of the $ Warner makes from this (Hundreds of Millions?) will go back to the artists or if they will just keep it for themselves.
Now look at them lawyers, that's the way you do it
.configs
:)
You sue the whole net over the MP3
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Music for nothin' and tunes for free
No, that ain't legal, that's the way they do it
Lemme tell ya them geeks ain't dumb
Hit the Napster site to get a whole album
Leach a few tracks using Gnutella
We gotta block all MP3.COM traffic
Custom firewall
We gotta do it in the name of bandwidth
We gotta stop those MP3s
See that CEO with the torn jeans and the T-shirt
No buddy, he's no MBA
That little punk kid has a million dollar web-site
That little punk kid just went IPO
I shouldda learned to hack the TCP/IP stack
I shouldda learned to rip CDs
Look at Lars Ulrich, man! He's flipping off the camera
Ugh! Metallica is losing fans fast
Hey, who's there? What's that? Downloading noises?
Filling up the next Gig cause the music's free
That ain't legal? That's the way they do it
Get their music for nothin' and your tunes for free
No, that aint' buying, that's the way we do it
We listen to all our music as an MP3
It's not stealing, it's the new way to do it
Music for nothing and your tunes for free
Music for nothing, tunes for free
Music for nothing, tunes for free
Apologies to Dire Straits.
Full rights to reproduce granted exclusively to Weird Al Yankovic.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
"Sir, step out of the car. Do you have a license to listen to that Korn CD?"
dc
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
That's just wrong. When mp3.com first went ahead and bought and ripped and stored 40,000 CD's (at the time), they refused the Big 5's request to pay up! The big 5 wanted royalties on each play of each song. (And wouldn't that add up quick! - I Bet it wouldn't be a free service!)
Mp3.com thought it was rediculous to pay-per-play fees that the radio stations must do. They contended that this was JUST a way for users to listen to their music any way that they want. (anywhere any time). If they can play their music in their car via tape/CD, or listen at work on CD-ROM drives, why not simply allow them to play their music at any computer.
The problem though, is that Mp3.com (through advertising) would be benefiting financially by providing this service. And the problem is, the Big 5 believe that ONLY they should benefit from music copyrights. And since they own the copyright, there's not much you can do unless you get permission. (ala Radio station fees, and now mp3.com's new fees)
It's too bad. I fully agree that mp3.com had many great points. (I read Michael's messages and the message boards that followed since it all started) But when this came out, you could just tell that this time, they didn't have a legal leg to stand on. (Hard to do, when even the artists are slowly losing more rights to their own music to the big 5!!)
Rader
--- Out of Hard drive space again. 114GB of Mp3's.
Aren't they? Just think.. how many servers do they have? what kind of bandwidth? why are they doing any of this in the first place? where did they get the money for these court cases.. they aren't cheap? mp3.com is out to get filthy stinking rich, whether it's off advertising or who knows what later....
To deny that would be silly.