Slashdot Mirror
Music Exec Fires Back At Apple CEO
geniusj writes "Warner Music Group CEO, Edgar Bronfman Jr., has fired back at Steve Jobs in response to the Apple CEO's claim that having variable pricing for iTunes music would be 'greedy.' From the article: 'To have only one price point is not fair to our artists, and I dare say not appropriate to consumers. The market should decide, not a single retailer ... Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more. I don't want to give anyone the impression that $0.99 is a thing of the past ... We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue ... We want to share in those revenue streams. We have to get out of the mindset that our content has promotional value only.' Perhaps iPods combined with iPods are selling music as well, and it's not just a one-way street?"
I don't think so. Why should they deserve a share of iPod sales?
An oil industry spokesman said the oil industry should not have to use its content to promote the sale of vehicles for Hummer or anyone else, and not truly share in the profits.
“We are selling our gas through H2, but we dont have a share of H2’s revenue,” he said. We want to share in those revenue streams.
The cash register industry did not return calls seeking comment, but representatives for the tobacco industry are reported to be participating in high level talks with the AMA.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
So I guess no songs should be LESS than $0.99. Apparantely that is the minimum value for all music clips of any length or quality. Oh, and I like how they want a cut of the "iPod" revenue. Maybe they should go after CD player manufacturers and home stereo's too, by that logic. Classic.
fuck the golden eggs. we demand platinum!
Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more. I don't want to give anyone the impression that $0.99 is a thing of the past ... We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue
:\
So yeah. It will never be cheaper than 99 cents. We don't want to give people that 99 cents is a thing of the past, but we want a piece of the pie, and 99 cents isn't doing it.
Real bright there guy. You suck.
Tell you what. Let's go variable then. Songs older than 5 yrs are 50 cents. More recent non-top 100 tunes are 99 cents, and top 100 are $1.50.
Of course that will never happen.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Let the market decide? Oh give me a freaking break. There is no market, not in the free market economics sense of the word anyway. I can buy petrol, gas, cars, PCs, coal, condoms or even a blowjob from any number of suppliers. This competition drives down prices and forces companies to compete on quality and price. Copyright guarentees as monopoly on your product. If I want to buy the latest white-stripes album I can only buy it from one label: V2 Records. Sure I can go to different stores to try and hunt down a lower prices but V2 set the price. The consumer only has one choice: buy it, or don't buy it. In a real free market economy the consumer has a third, more powerful option, to find a cheaper supplier.
This is terrible for the consumer and almost always leads to disproportionate prices. Rather than supply and demand setting the price of the music, V2 can simply mandate it and then it will be so. The market becomes distorted and everybody loses except the labels. There's this idea that the artist somehow needs to be compensated for his work and that's fine but why not do it off ticket sales for concerts? I don't see why we need these artists need these government granted monopolies to make money!
Simon
Since when does the supplier legally tell you what you can sell a product for?
Generally, that is considered illegal.
But hey, who am I to talk, I haven't been convicted of price fixing, so how should I know?
Oh wait, they have.
Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more.
How about some songs should be $0.99 and some should be less?
Feel the fear and do it anyway.
This only makes them sound even GREEDIER than Jobs painted them.
Sometimes, the best thing to do with a certain type of person is sit back, keep your mouth shut, and let them bury themselves.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
and songs 10 years old should be 25 cents.
songs 20 years old should be 12 cents.
songs 40 years old should be 1 cent.
and the RIAA/MPAA should be burning in hell.
should is a wonderful word. let's show some respect for it.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
I also suggest speakerwire be taxed per foot, since the longer the cables, the bigger the room and thus the more people can listen at the same time.
here's the quick version:
Apple: "You guys are greedy."
RIAA goons like Bronfman: "We're not greedy. We just want all that money Apple is making. We don't want to do any extra work or promotion. Just send us more cash."
Electric Monkey Pants
Let the market decide the price? Well, Napster will let you have access to 1,000,000 for $10 per month. Now, it's not really far to say that $10/1,000,000 is the price, because you can't listen to that many songs in a month. An average month has roughly 44,000 minutes in it. Figure an average person will sleep through a third of that (eight of 24 hours), and (let's through the industry a bone and say that I'm a shallow teenager with no attention span) a poop -- sorry, pop -- song is 2.5 minutes long, that's about 5,849 songs that I can listen to for $10. That means each song is worth $0.0017 -- a tenth of one cent.
The free market rocks!
Wait... wait a second. He didn't say anything about being cheaper than 99 cents, did he? Crap.
That reasoning might hold water if they were actually investing in the bands. In actuality, they’re merely loaning the bands the money. Even if their “investment” tanks the artist is still obligated to repay the loan.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Well....Back to piracy.
Austria: In Austria, the television & radio licence varies in price depending on which state one lives in. All are in euros and are paid annually.
Denmark: The licence fee in Denmark is DKK 2 040 per annum for colour TV, DKK 1 310 for black and white TV and DKK 320 for radio.
Finland: The licence fee in Finland is 193.95 per annum for TV.
France: In 2004, the television licence fee in France (mainland & Corsica) is 116.50 and in the overseas departments (where viewers receive the Reseau France d'Outre Mer (RFO) rather than France 2-France 3-France 5-Arte) it is 74.31.
Germany: The licence fee in Germany is 193.80 per annum for TV and radio, and 66.24 for just radio. It is billed by month, but typically paid quarterly (yearly payments are possible). Unemployed and disabled people do not need to pay the licence fee.
Ireland: In 2005, the television licence in Ireland is 155. It is free to anyone over the age of 70 and to some over 66. The licence fee is the primary source of revenue for RTÉ, the state broadcaster; however, its radio and TV stations also broadcast advertising to supplement this income.
Italy: In 2005, the licence fee in Italy is 99,60 per household with a TV set. It is the primary source of income for RAI, though it also broadcasts advertising.
Norway: The licence fee in Norway is NOK 1 969 per annum (2005). The fee is mandatory for any owner of a TV set, and is the primary source of income for Norsk Rikskringkasting (NRK).
Sweden: The licence fee in Sweden is SEK 1 920 per annum. It is collected on behalf of the public broadcasters by Radiotjänst.
Switzerland: The licence fee in Switzerland is CHF 450.35 per annum for TV and radio.
United Kingdom: In the United Kingdom, these fees are set by Parliament and go directly to the funding of the BBC, enabling it to run without the need for market competition. The licence fee, initially for radio sets (exempt since 1971), was mandated by the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act. The fee was originally 10 shillings (£0.50) and in 2005 was £126.50 for colour TV and £42 for monochrome TV. There are concessions for the elderly (free for over 75s) and blind people (50% off). Only one licence is required per household.
In most cases it's not directly on the television itself and it only goes towards state broadcasters (as opposed to a whole industry like the parent was talking about), but it amounts to the same thing.
There is obviously a transition, albeit slow, at hand. I read and hear more and more often of known musicians doing their own recording and there's a growing number of indie artists doing everything from soup to nuts - meaning recording, producing and marketing their own content. I wish things would speed up. What does it take for this trend to gain momentum? How come I don't see these artist who are involved in producing and marketing their own content banding together and creating their own marketing campaigns to promote purchasing music online? A campaign in direct challenge to these goddamned douche-bag record companies crap anti-piracy/it's not fair to our artists three ring circus?
Here's what things I see needing to happen before everyone can fully give the labels the collective finger
In short. revolt, tear it all down and then all of you people out there in the industry who have an honest and useful talent step up and rebuild it. There's no reason you shouldn't continue making a living and there's every reason to rethink your business and end up making much happier customers and in turn making yourself a really nice living. To hell with fighting the existing recording industry. To hell with them, go around them. What law exists that sa
songs over 14 years should be public domain
He's also forgetting that once there's a disincentive to downloading popular songs, they're going to get downloaded less, and since the music charts themselves are based on the quantities purchased, the top songs will fall down the charts and into a lower price bracket, thus simultaneously making the charts meaningless and ensuring that the music industry won't actually realize the extra profit this move was supposed to give them. Brilliant.
"and I dare say not appropriate to consumers" ????
If this guy thinks that songs should be sold for more than $0.99, then he should go ahead and do so. I mean, really, go ahead and start selling songs for more than that and see how that works out. He is perfectly free to set up his own online music store, and because of the extreme flexibility of the technology involved, this will just involve getting the files on to your portable music player from a URL instead of from the iTunes application.
Once he has done this he can set the songs in his music store to cost $1.99 or $5.00 or $53.00 or absolutely whatever price he likes, and if people choose to buy it then all of that money will go right to him. While of course meanwhile the iTunes Music Store will still be back there offering quality music at $0.99 a song.
Then the market will decide for itself. That's what he says he wants, right?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I think the music industry's problem is that the market has decided, and it's decided it doesn't like the music industry's standard terms. The music industry doesn't like that decision and is trying everything they can including whining like a spoiled brat to get it changed. Unfortunately for them, the market isn't buying it (in several senses).
He's overqualified. ;)
Someone with a wicked sense of humor. If I could moderate the moderation as funny, I would. I've got the points too.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.