Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Threatens to Pull Plug on Apple
bacterial_pus writes "First the music industry wanted
more money, by changing Apple's 99 cents per song policy. Now one exec is
threatening to pull the plug on Apple if Steve Jobs doesn't change the iTunes Music Store pricing." From the article: "Nash's comments echoes those made last week by Warner CEO Edgar Bronfman, who called for Apple to adopt variable pricing and share out revenues from iPod sales. The record companies' position is based on the dubious argument that digital downloads sell iPods. In fact all the evidence points to the opposite: that iPod sales have driven demand for downloads. The vast majority of digital music sales are made by iPod owners. Cut off Apple and the labels digital sales will slump." More recently Jobs resisted their pressure, and the execs snarked back. Looks like they're getting more serious.
Couldn't they just find out a way of making their on money on digital media stores instead of trying to prosectue people who download or trying to threat iTunes store. Or is this thier new way?
Beats me.
*gasp* MORE people might actually BUY your music... NO the humanity, the HUGE MANATEE!
"As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue." ~A. Einstein
To echo comments in the previous article, asking Apple to share iPod profit is like an electric company asking Maytag to share their profits from selling washing machines. (Or like oil companies asking automobile manufacturers to share their profits.) And so on...
If the execs really want to see what drives people toward digital downloads then they should look at iTunes. iTunes is what makes this all so easy so let's give the execs %100 of the profit from iTunes.
Oh! That's right... iTunes is FREE!
Q: I am short, useless and provide no value. What am I? A: a sig
According to Apple, the original goal of the iTunes Music Store (ITMS) was to sell more iPods. In fact, they didn't expect it to be profitable at all - but now it commands a sizable share of Apple's quarterly revenue.
PayPal $$ if you sign up for free offers (eBay, cred cards, e
and i wonder who will be blamed....
Blog via SMS text messaging
This just another attempt of theirs to eschew their customers and get a bigger slice of the pie. Methinks their egos have grown too big for their britches.
Forecast for tomorrow: A few sprinklings of genius with a chance of DOOM!
How many hits does the iTunes Music Store get in a day?
Hell, how many does it get in an hour?
Good luck walking away from that, Mr. Nash...
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
'What if Jobs says 39 cents or 29 cents per download - what then?
Someone is threatening their monopoly.
Apple/iTMS to become a ``record label.'' Maybe they'll just buy Apple Records and get it over with. :)
Are you BioCurious?
Upfront disclaimer: I'm a total idiot, and I have no idea how businesses work, nor do I have any legal background.
So, I wonder if this is a confrontation Apple may welcome, and maybe even brought semi-intentionally. My hunch is the thesis: iPods generate sales, rather than download sales generate iPod sales is the more correct dynamic at work in this market.
There certainly are plenty of alternative sources of music, music that could temporarily replace the current source for iTunes, should the music industry call Apple's bluff. But I think the music industry stands to lose way more than Apple. The music industry could:
- lose revenue
- lose confidence of the consumers
- lose artists
- lose relevance
Apple, on the other hand still offers a sweet product (even a sweet suite of products) and there are myriad ways to get music onto their devices. Sure, a speedbump in iTunes could require a detour, but I think Apple faces little risk. Apple could be the huge winner here. In my opinion, Apple already is at least the winner, they've dared not to blink and the music industry is starting to look silly.Me, I refuse to play one way or the other with any of DRM markets, but I give Apple grudging credit for offering a palatible product and willingness to take on the hand that feeds.
If they close iTunes, iPod users will just rip their own music (and share it) leaving 0 revenue.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Perhaps legal action could be taken on the basis of price fixing/gouging if they were to actually drop Apple because Apple would not sell at the price the industry demanded?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
If they did that, jobs would give the RIAA a big "go fuck yourself" and sell ipods at cost for a while...
The recording industry is 'picking on someone it's own size'. Apple may not be able to really compare equally with the entire industry, but it has enough notoriety, money, marke share, and general influence that I don't think the RIAA or anyone else is really going to want to get into a legal / PR brawl with them.
I know nothing
It's probably just a bluff, but if the Music Industry does go through with this it would be incredibly stupid of them. I know it would be contrary to their agreements with Apple Records, but if the music execs do go ahead with this, I think Apple should start selling music directly from the musicians rather than going through the labels. They could simultaneously reduce the prices and give the musicians much more than they get under their current contracts.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
a nice move would be to call for price cuts - about 50% would be about right.
Jobs should do this in front of Congress, if available.
I'll bet he could disclose how little it costs to distribute the songs, and pose the musical question - "How Much Profit?"
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
I feel for Jobs and Apple, but he had to know when he got involved with these guys, he was making a deal with the devil.... Now the devil wants his soul, or in this case a large chunk of the profits from Apples' iPods.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Ford and GM announced today that unless Exxon and Shell start sharing gasoline revenues, future SUVs will run on ethanol.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
12 songs, with album cover art and liner art, about 15$. A little more than a dollar a song.
1 song, no art or media, a dollar a song. Sounds fair to me.
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
now, IANAL, but isn't attempting to force pricing schemes on the retail end illegal? aren't they only allowed to change their wholesale price to the retailer?
Obviously the music industry is not very interested in changing their music pricing system. Look at there handling of the music distribution system! The music industry is fighting to keep their revenues at the same rate as their golden years. For apple this means they have to bow down to the music industry. The music industry will not back down. Given that Ipods and selling music is a big thing for apple they will bend over and take it from the music industry. Right or wrong, that is the way it will probably go. Apple needs to create a new innovative product anyways. That is their strength. The should ride out the ride of the Ipod and Itunes as long as possible, but have the next cash cow ready by the time the party is over for Ipod/itunes.
Especially when I can get it in a much friendlier format for free.
Now, I'm not trying to advocate piracy of any sorts in this post. But EVERYBODY knows about the popular P2P networks. If you raise the prices, more people will stop buying.
It is like the classic supply and demand scenario, but there isn't much demand, and the guy next door is handing out stuff for free.
The recording industry never saw a cash cow they didn't want to kill.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
I say let them pull the plug, let his lable get less exposure. How can iTunes be giving less money to the music industry than Napster or the other monthly paying services. Im sure i f you average their sales out it is less than a dollar a song. If the music execs want a piece of the iPod market, tell them to go make their own iPod and sell it.
of giant businesses who seem to have no idea just how good they've got it.
this is 2005.
the fact that people are still paying for downloads at all (including me, I have well over 200 iTunes songs) in 2005, YEARS after Napster started the easy-as-pie method of music aquisition... do the music companies really want to go ahead with this? do they want to return to the days of talking about free tunes on Napster instead of paying for iTunes?
MORTAR COMBAT!
I'd love to see Jobs tell the RIAA members to go screw themselves and open up iTunes as a 'label' for independent artists most of whom would probably be happy to take a much smaller cut then the leaches at the labels do. Talented muscians don't need multi-million dollar marketing campaigns to be successful, they just need an audience. And iTunes could deliver that audience much more efficiently than Warner or Sony/Columbia ever could.
Or maybe they need the money; for all I know, the price of snorting coke off a stripper's breasts has gone up dramatically in the last year or so.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
Did I miss something? What is the motive for all this greediness? Are the record labels losing money? Are they about to go out of business?
If they keep up this behavior, its only a matter of time before Apple starts dealing with the artists directly. Why not?
I read
Oh man. I hope you've printed that comment out at least 20 times and deposited each copy in the bank vaults of the world's 20 richest Sultans, Sheikhs and casino owners for safe keeping.
Because, should the unspeakable happen, and Slashdot's comment database (and all backups) be destroyed, the loss of such comedic gold would be a true tragedy for all mankind.
I salute you, Sir!
Buy what if i own a company that made most of the clothes that are washed in Maytag washing machines I should get a bit of the profit then...
Right?...
Although they will likely cave in eventually, it would be fun to see Apple resist, and somehow pull out a victory in the end.
I don't see them closing iTunes Music Store. If all of the labels backed out, Apple would probably start focusing on indie bands, and put more focus on the podcasts. I can see them allowing indie bands to set their own pricing on their songs, and providing for "premium podcasts" that require either a subscription, or purchase of individual podcasts. In fact, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they start doing that anyways.
1. Apple needs to make a deal with Apple Records to free themselves from any restrictions.
2. Apple starts a "record" company.
3. Apple doesn't screw artists and big names flock to them.
4. Apple uses "pod casts" to replace radio air play to promote new artists.
5. Apple cuts out the middle man so artists and Apple now split the profit so each side makes more money.
It is the end of the world as Warner and Sony knows it... And we all feel fine.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The execs would have been right had the iPod been a total flop when it was released (prior to all of the digital download services), and then magically transformed into a goldmine as soon as the iTunes Music Store opened.
Obviously that's not the case. While I'm not 100% against a more structured pricing scheme, I do think it takes away from the simplicity offered by iTMS. Doing this will probably just push a lot of people back to P2P for their music needs.
Oh my God. The Music Industry is even more evil than I had thought. Atleast now, they are fighting with a giant who can fight back. I have never been a fan of Apple. But this has given me a new respect for Apple and Steve.
Clearly, Google is the next Microsoft.
There was a fight years ago between TV channels and Record compagnies about Videos.
The TVs didnt want to pay because they were doing free advertisements for the records, the Record companies wanted money because the TVs were doing money showing the videos.
And yes the sales of records were going up thanks to the music videos. Well, TV channels had to pay anyway. End of the story.
As long as you give money to pay the records or whatever is coming from those record companies, they are controling the market, they are controlling the music, they are controlling the medias.
Give your money to alternative music channels that respect your rights and the music and the artists.
I believe that 99 cents per song is just about right, since I can pick and choose the songs I want, without paying for the fluff of filler music I don't care for. I'm not a huge Apple customer, but I've always been a fan of what they do. They have always tended to pay more attention to their customers than to their industry partners, and my hat's off to them for that. I'm also impressed with their initial strong stance against changing pricing policies. I hope that Apple continues to move technology forward, even in the fact of the recording industry and their constant attempts to drive technology backwards and fair use into the ground entirely. Huzzah for Apple!
It is like Oil Company's demanding a share of all gas powered vehicles.
As with out gas the vehicles would not run.
The same linkage between music sales and ipods can be made for vehicles and gas.
Maybe the record company needs to be hit with a racketeering charge or two before they smarten up. After all they are acting like a criminal organization.
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
What Michael Nash said: "What if Jobs says 39 cents or 29 cents per download - what then? The industry can say, 'OK we'll cut him off - very few people buy music from digital downloads.'" What we heard: "DAAAAAAAD! *sniff!* Steve isn't sharing enough! *sniff!* I want you to make him share or take away his toys!"
The arrogance of the music industry is just plain sickening. I'm coming at it from so many different angles. I've got loads of friends in bands, technology, law, and business. The labels will rape the poor artists blind if they don't have a good lawyer. The fact the artist barely sees any money from a CD sale is sad. Then you've got the RIAA who is still stuck in the Bronze Age, dragging their clubs around thinking they can do business now as they have in the past. If they don't see what they like, they sue instead of changing their business practices.
I almost want the labels to pull out. I want their arrogant plan to blow up in their face as they watch iPod owners burn the CDs they already own and purchase less music online. You know piracy will go up again and the labels will see 0% profit as opposed to the hundreds of thousands they've made BECAUSE of Apple and iPod sales. As Red from "That 70's Show" so eloquently states..."dumbasses".
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Okay, what did he actually say and in what context? This reeks of sensationalist journalism. Of course, I'm sure I'll be modded down for not going along and saying "WTF EVIL RIAA!!" along with the rest.
That is wht the Tech big wigs need to do. Google should buy one, yahoo, MS and Apple.
I watched a business show about this and tehy said that each of those companies market caps are large enough to buy one company each. then all you need to do is make the tech companies share the catalouges amoungst each other.
Tech companies that are trying to sell their technology will have a friendler stance about copyright and the consumer than the record companies would.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
This will only be the music execs(tm)(R)(C)(asdfghjkl;)(OMG-DMCA-WTFLOLBBQ) shooting themselves in the foot. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, they probably think they hava a patent on music too, best not to risk a lawsuit.
Patent Pending, no. fiftybajillion
I am Spartacus
One first step would be to make it illegal for anyone to receive financial renumeration for lobbying a congress critter. Why should a group or individual with money be able to hire someone to go lobby when we working stiffs have to juggle career, family, and fun with any political activities that can be fit in?
Let's level the playing field and return government back to the citizens instead of the highest bidder.
So what about it Apple?
Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
I hope Apple doesn't budge as I would like to see how this plays out. I think it would do nothing but make the music industry look like bigger scumbags than they already are. Plus Apple is already working with indy artist to get their stuff in iTunes. I am sure that pisses off the labels too.
'Same speed C but faster'
The PCPro article is apparently* citing an article on The Register that was later corrected. The Register's correction is here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/29/warner_mus ic_sorry/
*: I say apparently because after viewing it once, I got a registration page, and it's too late on a Friday to bother with BugMeNot.
This sig intentionally left blank.
This has all got to be pretty disillusioning for Steve, such a child of the 70s and an avid music freak. I keep wondering when the big backlash against the music industry is going to happen. Does anyone else get the feeling that they just keep pushing and pushing only to see how far they can go before the consumer says, "oh, screw this." I would LOVE to pay money directly to an artist I like for the music he or she produces. Buying CDs now just makes me feel dirty.
I quit buying cd's when the ipod came out. I'm on windows, so I had to wait a while with no cd purchases until the PC ipod units came out. Now I buy music online all the time.
So yes, ipod sales drive online music sales. The prices aren't out of line either, especially for whole albums, which is what I tend to buy.
What miffs me are albums that are only partially available. Why do they do this when they also have the option of making the song available on the album only? I don't get it.
Also, doesn't this mean that as a song rises in popularity, it gets more expensive? That's kinda what they want, right, so wouldn't that drive demand down? Economics 101, HELLO!
in order to broker an agreement later on. Apple needs to make the case the iPods help sell music, and the music industry needs to insist that they are more than promotional material to sell iPods. In a sense, this conflict is a no brainer. Apple will eventually sell music at variable pricing, but they probably want to set the terms and get more profit in turn. In addition, with the music labels demanding variable pricing, Apple can deflect the criticism that it isn't them that are being greedy; the music industry is the boogie man and they are already the boogie man so might as well let them hold the mantle. But I don't expect Apple to give up the iTunes Music Store because it has brand recognition and business value probably way into the future as a content deliverer. They are also not going to cut off there nose to spite their face; in other words, they are not going to get rid of a revenue stream they control. Revenue is the life blood of any company and this is one that has developed quite successfully. So, why take a position that might threaten the loss of this lifeblood? Only to be able to come to the table and broker a sweet deal; it is part bluff, part truth.
This is just my opinion.
If I were Jobs, I would call their bluff. I would find the most offending label and preempt them. I'd cut them off completely. As a double entente I would also call for all Ipod users to boycott any music from said label for the span of one month. Typically in history, the only thing that gets results in any battle is when you hit them in the pocket book. Similar tactics helped in the Cold War, the Civil Rights movement, and the ERA. Its all words and gesturing usually, but the real results come from the almighty dollar and its influence.
End Opinion
I couldn't fail to disagree with you any less.
Recording Industry execs prove their own stupidity! I mean, threaten the biggest online music store over pulling your music? Don't want that extra revenue stream, eh? If you say so...
I'm sure Mr. Jobs will respond with something resembling laughter, or perhaps a "Sure, go ahead, see if we care." At least they'll look like the bad guys.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
The utter and total hypocrisy of the record and movie companies is getting so far out of hand there aren't even words for it. These past two attempts to extort money (extort |ik?stôrt| verb obtain (something) by force, threats, or other unfair means) from Apple are undoubtedly some of the most inane that I've read in a while. I for one hope that more people begin voting with their wallets and stop supporting the money grubbing assholes at the major labels.
1. Help build largest music store. ...
2. Make lots of money selling music in store.
3. Argue with owner of store.
4. Leave store.
5. Profit!!!
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. - Douglas Adams
last week, what was to really stop the RIAA from changing the terms of the deal when their contract is renewed. They own the content, so they can most likely make the rules. Its a valiant effort on Apple's part to try and keep music cheap, but in the end I think Jobs will have to fold and charge more.
www.samuraidreams.com - My Blog
www.samuraifiles.com - Get Some Videos Here
I'm curious on how binding contracts are between artists and labels. I wonder if artists are able to simply go directly to iTunes instead of the big 3 music distributors to get their music out. Of course the downside of that would be that their distribution would be primarily digital and they wouldn't get all the marketing and leverage of a big distribution company.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
[X] Another: [ ] Dupe [X] Apple iTunes Article [X] WTF [ ] $editor is a dork
[ ] Frist psot [ ] link to GNAA [ ] Link to goatse [ ] $random_drivel
[X] I Haven't RTFA, but... $random_opinionated_comment
[ ] Slashdotted already!. I bet their server runs on $topic_item too
[ ] Soul_sucking registration required
[ ] Mod Parent [ ] up [ ] Down
[X] Fsck: [ ] SCO [ ] Micro$oft [ ] DMCA [ ] DRM [ ] MPAA [X] RIAA [ ] Google [ ] Bush [ ] You all
[ ] I for one welcome our new $topic_item overlords
[ ] Imagine a beowulf cluster of those
[ ] In Soviet Russia, $topic_item owns you!
[ ] Meh!
[ ] Netcraft confirms $topic_item is: [ ] dead [ ] dying
[ ] But have the inventors thought of what will happen if $random_amateur_insight
[ ] Once again the USA is clamping down on my [ ] Amendment rights.
[ ] You insensitive clod
[X] But people who download music from P2P networks are more likely to buy the album
[ ] Cue DVD Jon-type crack in 3..2..1
[ ] Torrent, anyone?
wasn't it in japan a few months ago where sony artists were tired of the bickering between sony and apple in regards to itunes that they just said kcuf it and started releasing their songs on itunes in spite of their contracts?
maybe the same thing can happen here with artists backlashing against the riaa (who are supposed to represent the artists themselves but seems more likely they are representing the executives). but i guess that would depend on the character of the band.
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
Not to give the labels too much credit (they certainly give themselves more than enough), but in fairness, I think they do have a bit of a point with this. iPod sales did rise dramatically after the introduction of the iTunes Music Store to levels well above what they'd been immediately before (and they've been going up ever since). That said, it may also have something to do with the boost to the iPod's Windows-friendliness around the same time (the 3rd gen iPods, which introduced dual-platform support in a single box and the ability to use USB as well as FireWire), or simply market awareness and the "fashion" factor building to a head.
In other words, I don't think we (those of us outside the industry, without access to their market research) truly know to what extent iPod sales are driving iTMS sales and to what extent iTMS sales are driving iPod sales, and I think a decent case could be argued in either direction.
That said, the music industry's apparent sense of entitlement to a piece of Apple's iPod revenue, and its threat to pull out of a store offering their product in a medium that both offers them some control over how consumers use it and reduces the costs associated with manufacturing, shipping, storing, etc. physical goods to virtually nothing, are pretty damn ludicrous. They ought to be on their knees thanking Apple for finding a way for them to generate earnings while dramatically reducing their costs; instead they're demanding more slop in the trough. I'd dearly love to see them pull out and then watch their earnings disappear as consumers finally decide they've had enough of this shit and spend their music money on alternative content providers, but I know better than to expect that.
iTMS is destroying the RIAA's right to speech:
1. The RIAA can't pat iTMS DJs and Producers to force users to download the hot song of the week.
2. The RIAA can't pay iTMS to list the proper version of the Top 40 Charts.
3. The RIAA can't control which markets get their music, heaven forbid a black consumer getting a listen to Kenny G by accident.
[/kidding]
Why should Apple be treated differently than all the other music player manufacturers in history?
Did the music industry get a cut of Sony's CD player sales? Toshiba's? JVC's?
It's time for the RIAA to have a RICO case brought against it.
I don't think there are many who love the iTunes music store so much that they run out and buy iPods. Sales may take a hit if the store is brought down, but the iPod won't lose its status any time soon. Anyway, there are so many other ways to acquire music for it-- and more importantly, most of us already have the collection to fill it.
What I think we may be looking at is that the labels want their own online music services (and in the case of Sony, also sell their own players) so there is no moody Apple middleman between them and the consumer. Again, Sony is already there, and others may be too. I'm not sure where the trails of Warner's parent and sister companies lead.
The music industry needs to see what would happen if they kill this cash cow by trying to milk it too hard. One day would probably not be sufficient, so let's have a week, or maybe just 5 days, where you can't buy anything from the iTunes store. Make it be the last week or 5 days days in a reporting period, because a lot of the pent-up demand will recover the next week, probably.
Better yet, let's see Steve Jobs say, okay, you want variable pricing, we'll hook up with Magnatunes and CDBaby and sell their tracks for 50-75 cents, or something. Those indy labels could really use the visibility, and the artists might see more revenue even at that lower rate than the ones beholden to RIAA and the big corporations. Some of them might even ask Apple to distribute their tracks as m4as, not m4ps, and would probably volunteer a lot more free tracks of the week.
Also, I can't believe they want some of the revenue stream from iPod sales. They had nothing to do with their creation, sales, marketing, etc. They're just becoming more obviously money-hungry than ever before.
Entertainers are so damn greedy. They're just a bunch of working-class fools like the rest of us -- what makes them think they deserve so much money for their simple little melodies?? 90% of their music these days sucks so bad: if you ask me, getting folks to pay pennies for it is a phenomenon to behold.
Music ain't like gas; I can live without that extra Paul McCartney track that nobody likes anyway. Shucks, I'll get lame tracks off my gnutella client long before I'll pay a dime over 39.
Ten points goes to the first comedy "Isn't Steve just great fighting for our rights this way? This is what makes Apple so different. I love my iPod..." post.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
EOM
Let the increase in file sharing commence!
End transmission.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
No. In the case of "Big name artists", who cares about their new Albums? You only care about their back catalog (i.e. albums they have already recorded.)
By definition every single record that comes out is a crap shoot. So, let's say Apple could sign, let's say Paul McCartney. That won't help them with Beatles music, Wings, or McCartney's solo albums from the 80s. The best you could hope for is signing an established artist who is making hit albums currently.
These people either already have gone independent, or else they are probably already in the pocket of the record companies. I don't see this plan working for any established artists.
For new artists, sure they way to go seems like being independent and marketing yourself via the web and via iTMS. I'm not sure how this gets you any radio play, or on MTV, but it probably beats the extremely bad deal that most people get from record labels. Again, I'm not sure what Apple would have to gain by being "their record company". Why not just let independent labels sell via ITMS? Otherwise, Apple would end up funding marketing efforts for thousands of flop albums.
Again, the problem is the existing back catalog that the labels own.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
But iTunes Japan thing might have been a rumor since I don't remember hearing any followups on that story.
This leads to one conclusion, i guess i will continue to use P2P hahahahaha. !Creative Commons!
Not only would this be a good time for Apple to implement this as a sign that they won't back down, it would finally free me of checking RIAA Radar everytime I go to the iMS to download a song!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Why are they going after iTunes, which coss 99 cents, while many (most?) other WMA services offer tunes for 89? And why do they care how much the retailer actually changes the consumer for the song? Shouldn't the record company just be concerned about how much money it's getting from each one, regardless of the retailer's price (leave the reatailer to decide how much profit they want after that)?
R.Mo
This is monoply versus monopoly. The RIAA is acting as a cartel and Apple owns the Digital Rights Managed player market. I know there's a lot of love for Steve Jobs around here, but he's a monopolist at least as far as iPod goes.
I hope they both lose.
And I hope Microsoft doesn't win after these guys beat each other up.
If they want to kill the goose...then they don't deserve the eggs.
Fine with me, I'll just go back to stealing music.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
the real story is that now w/itunes there is a 3d party who has real life numbers on music sales. guess who doesn't want that info out of their control? the companies. why you ask? because the artists now have the ability to verify the companies audits. hmmmm whoz getting fsckd
The record labels are biting the hand that feeds them. Talk about choking the goose that laid the golden egg, and now they want to break its neck to get the gold out all at once.
Stupid stupid stupid.
I hope they get what they deserve.
Six weeks in hell.
Raydude
I don't see why they care what Steve Jobs charges. If they want profit variation per song, they have complete control over the wholesale prices they charge Apple.
The Music Industry is right about the need for variable pricing.
New tracks should be $0.99
Older tracks should be $0.50
Oh wait -- you actually think that a track is worth more than a buck even as you try to continue to limit how I listen to that track?
I don't think so.
I'm not a huge fan of DRM, but Apple does make it fairly simple and it doesn't really get in your way for day to day uses like some others do.
RIAA's cut on these tracks is PURE PROFIT. They're not paying for the bandwidth to download the music. They're not paying for software changes to showcase the music. They just get a big, fat check. And as is typical with these greedy RIAA execs, they want more. Why not, they've been stealing from musicians for decades without providing real value added services, so they feel they should get a cut of everything. Hopefully they're going to get a dose of reality real soon.
First of all - this is a power struggle, plain and simple. The recordcos are, once again, shooting themselves in the foot. They seem to think they're still in charge - Apple should show them otherwise. The first record company to pull out of iTunes should be made an example of.
Let's say Sony decides to pull out first. Well, then everytime a customer tries to do a search for one of their artists or songs (like Switchfoot for instance), have a big, HUGE message for the customer about how Sony wants to charge more than anyone else does and that Apple isn't playing. Let the iTunes customers know about what Sony is trying to do and to contact them to protest their decision.
Then when Sony finally comes back to the table, Jobs should demand that Sony's songs go 2 for 1 for a time. Jobs has a lot of power here - iTunes is the number one place to get digital music. I hope he realizes it.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
ITunes is doing a lot to keep the money rolling in. While they may not make as much per track I guarantee that the labels are overall selling more music per listener through ITunes than they do through physical CD's. It's much better suited to impulse buys and it's less noticeable when you buy a lot of music because the bill doesn't show up til the end of the month.
ITunes provides a viable way to get music quickly the moment you want it and it gives you a way to do it that insures the music industry gets paid. If they cut off the air supply to Itunes, all of that file swapping that happened before is going to go up exponentially. So rather than diverting those users back to physical CD's, they will simply lose them as customers all together.
Frankly if Apple's smart they could probably play such a stand off against the labels quite well. Think about the average person's perception of IPod, ITunes and Apple versus their perception of the average music label. Apple can go direct to artists and bypass labels all together. Sure a lot of artists will have contracts that keep them locked into the existing labels, but with people already hooked into ITunes it will be easier to convert people to newer less well known arists.
So please labels, make a stand so we can finally flush you.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
If slashdot didn't post the story at least twice, then it probably isn't true.
That's how I fine tuned my bullshit detector.
How exactly is the relationship between Apple and the large record companies defined? Surly there is some kind of contract in which Apple pays X% of of an iTunes sale to the song's owning record label. If they record labels back out, won't it result in some sort of contractual breach? (Anyone who knows more, please reply)
I think the record companies (unsurprisingly) underestimated the the kind of sales that the iTMS would do. Now perhaps they're finally waking up to the reality of the situtation, that this is how people WANT to purchase and enjoy their music. I mean, how long ago was the old Napster? More than 5 years. FIVE YEARS. After all the bitching and moaning, the labels STILL don't have their own digitial distribution mechanisms. It just shows that the labels were and are still sooooo dimwitted and clueless. And now, "oh wait look, Apple is making money on this online store that we should have made ourselves 5 years ago to react to market demand. Apple should give us more money. Wahhhhh!" Well I say FUCK YOU record labels. You did this to yourself. You underestimated the market, your customers, the technology, and EVERY OTHER ASPECT of running your businesses. You signed deals with Apple letting them sell your music for 99 cents a track. It must have been a good deal then, right? Why else would you have signed to such a deal? If you're unhappy with the terms now, thats your own fault.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
I will boycott whichever record companies decide to pull the plug on apple for not adopting variable pricing. There is plenty of music to go around, I don't need to follow the current radio trend.
And if the record companies want to make it that much trouble for me to purchase a song I'll just head back to P2P.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
What, can't they say fuck like ordinary people?
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
in the world. I personally like to see the death match between Apple lawyers and the RIAA. In any rate, now that Apple has build the mountain of gold in the form of the iPod and iTunes. The music industry wants to exert control with the same brilliant management that led to piracy in the first place. Competitors are now throwing in the towel and are metamorphing into patent leeches. In the end, if Apples lawyers fail, they may succeed in bringing everything down and leaving us with another Microsoft monopoly and cheap commodity mp3 market.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Well said. Using iTunes is a whole lot easier and safer than filesharing (I have a friend who has done it). I mean, I don't mind 99 cents a song because I don't buy a thousand songs, I buy like 4-5 a week.
I don't think the music industry is thinking this all the way through. They don't seem to have realized that the CD is basically dead. We had the SanDisk DRM flash-card article on here two or three days ago. It seems to me that that is an attempt at reviving the CD. Most music buyers have realized that bands tend to only have 2-3 songs per CD that are worth listening too. If a CD was the price of 4-5 iTunes songs, I still wouldn't buy the CD unless I wanted 4-5 of the songs, so it seems to me that raising the price of iTunes won't sell more CDs.
However, at $2-$3 for the good songs, many new people would be tempted to try filesharing, because the songs that will have the price increases will be the easiest ones to find on a sharing network, because they are the "popular" songs.
So why can't Apple simply license content from new/indie music sources? If apple funded a marketing site that let people podcast slightly-lower-quality new music, then giving folks a bunch of funky search capabilities (sounds like, reminds one of, from the makers of) they have a sweet engine to pump new music into their iPods.
Shit, they should simply gather together local radio shows that debut music. I'd love to see a "what's new in [location]" podcast search.
I know quite a few startups are trying this, but without the market share of Apple, the resources aren't going to be there to collect all this.
Finally, they funnel the bands to the indie labels that are on their iPod preferred-vendor list, and voila, we're off to the races to skip the RIAA. Perhaps I'm missing something?
Just who do these bozos think they are? My 30Gb iPod is stuffed to the gills with music, but not one track was downloaded from anywhere: every single one was ripped from CDs which I have bought over the past twenty years. These parasites have had my money once (and twice in many cases, since I bought many things on CD that I already had on LP) and I'll be buggered if they're going to get it again if and when I buy another iPod. It's enough to make me think thrice about buying anything else from them.
The iPod phenomenon is not synonymous with downloaded music: it's the Walkman of the 21st century, dammit, and how the music gets on there is entirely secondary. Did the music cartel get money from Sony for every Walkman sold?
The fatcats are pissed because they're still using an old model for handling the sucess of an album. Lets say they were making 6 dollars per album selling in retail (I'm not sure how it all works out), but on itunes, users are only buying 3 songs off that album, that translates into less money per album. We're in a diverse time for music creation. The record labels aren't ready to switch to per song contracts for bands, and they don't know how to fit per song downloads into their grand scheme, so they want to price fix songs to make as much money "per album" online as in retail.
Change has to come from outside, from a new label, where per-song contracts can create rock stars.
If that's what Apple is thinking, and I'd love to see them do that, they'll call their bluff on the threat.
This is great.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
bears make money and bulls make money, but pigs only make shit.....
This isn't really a problem--it just means they can't become a music distributer under the Apple name. Nothing prevents them from forming a shell company ("Appleskin"?) and promoting it though iTMS. I don't think that would create any serious brand confusion, especially if they make it clear why it's being done.
I haven't even downloaded the free songs. All I want it for is to listen to my music. If I get another CD ... I pick the songs I want off of it and make another compilation.
... like buy a song or 2 to add to their personal compilations and such.
People never buy the hardware so they can download music. They may find that after they have the hardware they can do things they hadn't really thought about
btw... I rarely buy a cd at the store. I get then after seeing the artist if I like them at a concert or I buy from the artist's website if I like what they sound like.
Sometimes I use amazon to listen to more tracks....
Sorry for the anonymous coward, but I don't need a public record of this.
I saw *screw* the music industry. I love my iPod, and I love iTunes. Most of my music is older, cause the RIAA can't seem to put out a decent record since the early 90s. The new stuff I've bought has been via iTunes. Sure, there are alternatives, but they can kiss my lily white butt if they expect me to use another more inconvenient service. Besides, much of the music I get now, I record on my computer myself off free and legal internet radio "waves". I have no problem going back to file sharing for the occasional tune that pops into my head that's not in my collection already. I'd rather be honest, but if they take away the most convenient method all in the name of profiteering, I'd rather take the risk and P2P it.
They're not just stupid, they're stuck on stupid.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
As a member of the Internet Elite, I get all my music through bittorrent and forgo such arbitrary things such as 'legality'.
It's so obvious. Why are all of you so stupid.
haha, oops... im so used to forums/sites that censor out cuss words... a tragedy that censoring has affected what i type like that.
fuck it
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
More fodder for the you can be an idiot and still be an executive files. Music industry ignorance is perfect.
--- Location Unknown
Better yet, let's see Steve Jobs say, okay, you want variable pricing, we'll hook up with Magnatunes and CDBaby and sell their tracks for 50-75 cents, or something.
I've always wondered why iTunes Music Store never did that. Or, even better, since they've got music files with ratings, use an iRate Radio type of program integrated into iTunes. Get tons of free music that you're predicted to like. The only reason I stopped using iRate radio was that the poor player wasn't iTunes integrated (and difficult to get files integrated) and a lot of the files had ambiguous file names ("Oooh! Unknown Artist, 'song 3'! This track rocks!"), something I'm sure Apple could fix.
I strongly believe that the way things are presented, including the exact words used, has a great impact on our perceptions. George Orwell built on that with "Newspeak" in his "1984". We are seeing this every day to a greater and greater extent from politicians and people in power (PATRIOT act, for example).
This is why I think it is very important to pay attention to the words used. In this particular case, the "music industry" implies that musicians, composers, authors are all lumped together. We need to distinguish between the greedy b****rds who run the music publishing cartel from the rest of the "music industry".
Similarly, we should expand DRM to "Digital Restrictions Management" because that is what it actually is.
It may not make an immediate impact, but over time more and more people will understand what the opponents of DRM and RIAA have been trying to say for a long time now. Education is the most effective weapon against oppression, and using the right words is one part of educating those who "don't get it".
In fact all the evidence points to the opposite: that iPod sales have driven demand for downloads.
/. about Microsoft and the record industry and help shutdown all of the p2p filesharing networks that compete with iTMS. Oh wait, that means you have to spend money and this is /. --nevermind, go back to pissing and moaning (and steeling)...
So what. There is a pool of money coming in related to the combination of music sales and iPods. It does not really matter which is driving the growth of that pool. If it is true that iPod sales are driving the sale of more music, does that give Apple some kind of "upper hand" on the music people? I think not. AAC+FairPlay is a double edged sword. The music companies can, with the stroke of a pen, prohibit their content from being encoded in that proprietary scheme by Apple. Likewise, Apple can refuse to sell music from specific labels, which will increase profits to other labels (and independents). Unless these bastards all learn to work together and stop trying to get leverage over each other, Microsoft will just win (again) by default. If you care at all about this issue, then you should stop pissing and moaning on
who controls what?
in the ongoing struggle between those who control the media, and those who control the technology that plays the media, in a world where there simply isn't ANY media, the tech guys win
the point is that disruptive technologies: p2p/ the internet, has stolen power from the traditional music distributors
permanently
but the execs at the music distributors are in denial over the fact
steve jobs simply represents a compromise between the old way of doing things and the new, and so has realized massive profits for that
but the cranky old men in the executive chairs who are fighting him on that are used to the days of LPs and analog cassettes and CDs
they are still thinking in that model
so while in their wrath and their denial they may bring down steve jobs, they aren't going to revive the distribution model they are used to
they are just going to drive online music exchange underground again, and reap no profits, rather than reap some profits, simply because they don't want to at steve jobs as their new boss
that angers them
unfortunately for them, steve jobs is their savior, not their enemy... their position in the new online world is permanently junior underboss, or boss of nothing
and some of them would rather be boss of nothing than report to the tech head
they are just too much in denial of the death of their business model to see that
it's emotional
but unfortunately for them, tech heads win no matter what in the onine world of music distribution
because there is no media to control
only technology
sorry music execs
go out kicking and screaming if you must, but you are simply obsolete no matter what you do
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Of course, that could be inconvenient, when the Beatles Apple Corps v. Apple Computer lawsuit (version 3.0) over Apple Music goes to trial in British court next March. "Um, yeah, we're now in the music business, and we signed a consent agreement saying we wouldn't get into the music business, and we're making money at it, but we thought we'd lose money running the ITMS...."
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
It's official, the music industry IS run by the STUPIDEST people possible. (Obviously anyone who is STILL investing in the music industry is completely retarded) It's one thing to sue potential customers, another not to have capitalized on compressed music formats in the first place (10 years ago)... But to sever your only remaining tie to revenue?!! Seriously. Everyone stop buying music already, then maybe they'll all just go away and we won't have to listen to those babies cry anymore.
Were I Jobs or Apple, I'd pull a preemptive strike. Announce "Since Warner Records doesn't feel the agreement with iTMS is fair, we've decided to resolve the problem. All Warner titles have been removed from iTMS and Warner Records has been released from the agreement. They're now free to market their music through a service whose pricing is more in line with their desired price points.". Then sit back and watch Warner scream as their sales plummet.
They have, on more than one occasion, been convicted of price fixing. Hasn't stopped them yet. The problem is, probably because of all the lobbiests and money being handed to congress, there is an unwillingnedd to really drop the hammer on them.
Now "the Association" approaches a major customer of said companies and attempts to dictate an increase in prices with the threat of all of its members shutting off said customer in concert.
Please, please, PLEASE do it, RIAA. I'm begging you, don't chicken out. Jobs and Apple have lawyers and aren't afraid to use them, and this one might even qualify for Section One treatment.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I think the name for this kind of request is "Protection Money." The record companies are used to being the biggest kid on the block, they are used to winning unbalanced cases with hoards of lawyers, if the gloves really come off in this fight Apple will be more than they can handle. Steve has already publicly called them greedy - but what if built into the iTunes music store when you went to buy music was a brief explanation of why people can't buy their music, and a signup page for a CD sales boycott? How about a link to lime-wire? What if through iTunes, I can start a musician account with Apple, upload my music to them and make 15 cents a download? The record companies need to realize just how much backlash there could be.
Lets see if I have this right...
1) Stop people from using a easy, likeable, means to legally buy music.
2) Force people to seek other sources of music... most likely illegally.
3) ????
4) Profit
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
hmmm... typical of the dumbass /. posters, everyone here seems to be discussing who is making money for whom, and how dumb the music industry is, and how small their penis was before they took the pills. all completely irrelevant
It is absolutely, positively, w/o a doubt illegal for a record company to tell apple "share in ipod sales or I will not allow you to sell my music." no company can single out a reseller like that. that's why we do not have pure capitalism, but one with governmental controls. it is also illegal for them to tell apple how much to charge its customers for the songs. they can only charge Apple more for the songs.
oh, to maintain my recently bad karma - everyone who read this sucks donkey balls and is ugly and is a loser and la la la la la my dick is so big and i am super awesome and your butt smells and you like to smell your own butt. there.
Although I'm not too sure it's something even Steve Jobs would consider (given the fact he's C.E.O. of Pixar, and *might* view this as a conflict of interests), it seems like Apple is in a great position to retaliate if it came down to it.
.... make it easy to do, while pointing out the legal uses of the new feature at the same time.
Simply change the iTunes music store to a "portal" to independent artists and music, and start a program allowing anyone to sell their independent music on the store, similar to the way people post auctions on eBay today. Perhaps offer the option for any artist to submit a free selection from whatever uploaded album of songs they want to sell, which would be put into "rotation" as the "free download of the week" - helping them promote themselves that way if they wish.
At the same time, maybe even incorporate a BitTorrent style feature for users to share any other music they happen to wish to share with fellow iTunes users for free, and make sure IPs are anonymized as part of the functionality. Not saying they'd actively promote illegal music sharing from the other commercial entities, but you know
Not only that, but cheap and convenient downloadable music has probably diminished piracy (which the RIAA is all freaked out about). So, in return for this boon for the RIAA, they threaten to pull out of and shut down the big wildly successful online music distributer.
Hmmm... it's almost as if they *want* online music distribution to fail.
If I recall correctly, Bronfman (the name refers to making brandy, in German -- but Bronfman is as kosher as gefilte fish), is from a long line of alcohol makers. They supposedly made their fortune dealing in liquor illegally during Prohibition by making a huge fraction of the illegal alcohol sold in the US.
. htmlr onfmanking.html
His daddy was in essence a kosher Pablo Escobar.
Little Bronfy himself presided over the shameful shakedown of Swiss banks in the 90s.
It doesn't surprise me at all that Little Bronfy vants his money.
Here are some references:
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.06.07/news6
http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/reststory/b
http://www.blacksandjews.com/bronfman.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Apple deserves it for screwing over companies like Real with their proprietary DRM scheme. Apparently, it isn't so fun when they're on the receiving end of getting screwed by a monopoly.
Vote for Pedro
If you think about it. Apple has this huge profit from iTunes. The record companies are getting some large percentage of it.
Threatening to cut Apple off is like threatening to shoot yourself in the foot unless someone puts down their gun.
Jobs is probably sitting in his home/office, laughing.
The RIAA isn't supposed to represent the artists. It represents the Recording Industry Association of America, i.e the record companies, i.e the executives. They don't give a fuck about the artists.
(mods, go away, use your points where they're needed.)
^_^
Apple has managed to snap up most of the available flash memory being produced by Samsung and the other manufacturers. They have also arranged sweetheart pricing deals with the same manufacturers. This leaves almost no flash memory left in the supply chain for other portable player makers to use in their units. And even if they can get them, the prices Apple is paying for their supply allows them to price their products lower than the competition. If the labels want ANY kind of digital music sales (which remains to be seen) they'll have to work with Apple somehow.
Read this article for more details on why Apple will remain in the driver's seat when it comes to iTunes pricing. Here's a key excerpt:
Y'all heard of Apples and Oranges, eh?
Here ya go folks.. Apples and Lemons.
^.^
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
So when are the hearings to break up the music industry's monopoly going to take place? Ahh, that's right, the government doesn't have the balls to break up such a big money maker. They're too busy helping to track down those evil movie and music pirates who are the downfall of our society... right... downloaders, not those scum sucking every last penny they possibly can out of the economy...
/rant off
If the music industry forces Apple to close down iTMS via extortionate pricing, what incentive is left for Apple to maintain DRM controls in their music players or iTunes software? If all apple is doing is selling hardware and software to enable their customers to listen to music, but have no investment in selling music itself, they gain competitive advantage by removing barriers to their customer's enjoyment of music. Hello, alternate formats, open music transfer via hardware devices, the return of streaming from iTunes to all and sundry, and goodbye any DRM. Imagine if iTMS was reborn as a free collaborative service where registered Apple music storage devices users could trade music as a giant "fuck you!" to the music industry. You know Jobs has the personality to be tempted by something like that...
*shrug* I love my PowerBook, but I haven't bought into the whole iTunes/iTMS/iPod shebang precisely because I don't feel like supporting the music industry in any fashion or dealing with the DRM shit that Apple has to maintain to please them. The music industry pissing off Apple sufficiently to break the relationship sounds, well, kind of fine to me. If they (the music suits) want to cut off their nose to spite their face, then I'll buy a ticket to watch.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Not to sound like a broken record, but I think Mr. Nash's comments are only a bluff to try to direct some negative press towards Apple and iTunes.
His whole argument doesn't make any sense when you have services like Napster, Rhapsody and Yahoo Music offering -FLAT RATE- monthly subscriptions for UNLIMITED DOWNLOADS. If a user downloads enough songs, the average cost per song could EASILY drop below $0.05 each.
I think record companies are seeing the cash flow POTENTIAL of raising the price of iTunes songs, by even $0.10, could results in MILLIONS of dollars yearly in increased earnings.
My hat goes off to Steve Jobbs and Apple for not sticking it to their users just to make a buck.
I guess they don't consider extortion by big business stealing
I guess to them stealing is only stealing when it's an individual (usually a minor) who they can then threaten with a lawsuit
(Isn't that extortion also?,)
apple will form it's own music company(industry).
apple has it all, software, hardware, platform.
the old music industry will crash on it's own term.
From the past 1 year I have stopped downloading ileagal music. Seems like I have to resume it againg. The moment they increase the price of a song in ITunes, I pledge that I will never ever legitemately buy a song and I will find new ways to download a song. Rightnow they are targeting on torrents and emule. So, the best bet is downlooad from file hoasting sites. The big stealer
Kenneth Hertz, partner at Goldring Hertz and Lichtenstein LLP, a law firm representing major recording industry artists said "What if Jobs says 39 cents or 29 cents per download - what then? The industry can say, OK we'll cut him of - very few people buy music from digital downloads... [Jobs] will figure out another model ... The industry got together and said 'We don't want another MTV'. Well, now we've got another MTV, in Apple. And we have to deal with it."
So, I have to ask...if very few people buy music from digital downloads according to this suit, then what the FUCK do these guys care what price Apple sells their music at? This is greed. Pure greed. The recording industry is so used to making reams of cash without doing any of the actual work that they're lashing out when someone tries to take that away from them.
And then to turn around and say they want a cut of the profits from the physical iPods themselves shows they have HUGE balls too. I mean, do they get a cut from every CD player sold that plays their music?
Yes, I'd rather blatantly steal all the music from here to the end of my life then have to pay anything to the bastards that run these companies. I'm sorry to the artists but lets face it, they only see a 10th of the actual cash these companies are actually raking in.
Or better yet, I won't even listen to music anymore. I'm so pissed off and disenchanted with the whole industry I'll just sit and listen to the birds outside my window...or laugh like a brook as it trips and falls over stones on it's way. Sorry, was channeling "Sound of Music" there....DAMN!
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
You have to get some background on Bronfman to fully understand what a raging idiot he is. He is a a stupid son of the very successful Bronfman empire. Like the Rockefellers, the Bronfmans made their fortune during prohibition, building Seagrams. Once Edgar rose to the helm (earned only by name, not talent), he decided that profitable booze was just too boring for him. He started getting into the entertainment business, eventually making a horrible deal with Vivendi to save his skin and destroying the great Seagrams company. It was a massive shame.
He has always been a huge opponent of digital music. He has never understood it, nor will he ever. He is an arrogant moron. Steve must just roll his eyes everytime he sees his number on caller ID.
I wish the RIAA and MPAA arguments could be wrapped up siply. Something like 'We need to charge more because it now costs us more to produce our quality (dubious) product...' (even though it doesn't but you get the point) would be a nice change and also a starting point for intelligent debate. Instead all they ever seem to say is 'we want more money' becase, well, 'we want more money'. I can understand that argument, I too 'want more money'. But until the RIAA or MPAA produces something to warrant that, the price should remain the same. I wish more artists would speak out about how they feel about this whole debacle. While the music and movie companies are shelling out millions to produce this stuff it's the Musician's, Directors, Writers and, I guess, Actors that should be controlling the direction of their respective industires (not sure if that made any sense). Music and Movies have always been about entertainment but it almost feels like they are trying to take even that most intrinsic part away...'Buy it because it is there and because we say so at the price we want'. Maybe they should adopt a model similar to how public companies are traded. You can only charge as much as the market will bear. There will be low prices and high based on how much people like the 'product'. Things should reach a 'natural' equilibrium. It's got a lot of flaws but at least then we wouldn't have to hear about how greedy these damn industries have become. The consumer would tell these industries how greedy they can be. Well, that was a pretty eclecktic set of rants. I just find it really frustrating and disappointing to see what our society has become and is heading toward. Neither side seems to want to present a good solution that would be amicalbe and acceptable to consumers, who are by the way, the people that buy most of their crap.
The gates in my computer are AND, OR and NOT; they are not Bill.
that would be a fun scenario : ... or turning to less legal alternatives for their restrictions-free music.
greedy music execs says 'raise price or we won't sell to you anymore'.
Now if apple only said 'OK, get lost. We close Itunes and won't sell your music anymore, but from now on all new ipods will ship without DRM support. They'll only play mp3, ogg, unencrypted AAC, and similar formats'.
Now that'd put the music execs in a very delicate position, with lots of people buying ipods (more than before, I reckon - I'd buy one for one), then either demanding to have drm-free music for legal download
Smart move, really....
Apple doesn't hardly make any money on their music store right?
But someone this is a golden cash cow for the music industry, who have got to be the stupidest people in the world to shut it down?
Does anyone have any numbers on percentage of online music sales versus total sales?
Sorry, but did they lose their mind, completely?
I do not get it. They get more money out of ITMS than they get from their cd sales and still they demand more? Did their greed for money already ate their brains?
How stupid can one be? It's idiotic, they are already digging their own graves and now they literally demand that one of their biggest supporter has to switch sides to help digging?
Every shimp has more intelligence than those managers!
tell the execs to shove off and get a number of artists under them, I bet it would put quite a porcupine in the RIAA's pouch. And I'd be loving every minute of it.
In different European coutries, music industry (and thus Us majors) gains some money on every MP3 player sold. This is a tax, depending on the actual capacity of the harddisk in the MP3 player. In France this tax is called Sorecop. This is a shame, because I already pay this "Music Tax" because of every harddisk in my PC. and every memory media I have (such as CD-R, DVD-R). So how many times should I pay the tax to please the RIAA?
RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
We don't have iTMS as the record companies will not agree on a deal with Apple - and iPod sales have followed the same growth curve as they have everywhere else. I don't think the record companies could sustain that argument.
(Most people here fill their iPods with music they've ripped off their CD's, which is against Australian law but none of the record companies have tried exercising yheir legal rights - yet.)
Though I think the music industry is acting in an exploitative and short-sighted way, I'm not terribly worried. The general consensus from the tech crowd seems to be that $3 a song is gouging. Supposing Apple caves and lets labels price their songs higher, consumers will reject price gouging and go back to piracy. After all, the labels aren't just competing with each other, they're competing with illegal P2P. Consumers have shown that they'll pay $1 for a song legally, but my guess is that if $3 is too much, the labels'll know it pretty quickly through lost revenue and prices will drop again. To play devil's advocate, though, consumers may actually be willing to pay more $ for certain songs. All songs, after all, aren't created equal, and I'd rather pay $5 for one good song than $1 for 20 bad ones. In any case, I'm guessing prices will be exactly where they should be in several years.
My dream scenario for this starts with the RIAA following through and yanking the rights to all of their music from Apple.
Should this happen, Apple will have to find something to do with iTMS - I think shutting it down would be their very last resort. Much more likely, Apple cashes in on what little "counterculture" street cred they might still have, and starts courting independent bands and labels.
Freed of the insatiable greed of the RIAA, they and the indie lables start turning the store into a much better service. The samples will get longer, and you will even be able to download full songs from many bands looking to market their new albums. The iTMS becomes a worthwhile service, and rapidly gains popularity. Pundits declare it the center of the independent music Universe, and hail Apple as the Greatest Company on Earth.
On top of that, Apple starts really capitalizing on the podcast thing. They start arranging agreements with various news and sports radio networks whereby people can subscribe to shows for a price. Apple breaks out of the young technophile music-head market and starts getting the attention of NPR addicts. (However, they will draw ridicule when their ad campaign featuring sillhouettes of people wearing headphones sitting at desks or driving home in traffic and being less bored than normal is launched.)
Through it all, Apple fares fairly well, and may even lose some of the "evil corporation" reputation it's been earning lately, although its profits may take a slight hit as the iTMS becomes more expensive to run. iPod sales will stay where they are, because iPod sales drive iTMS sales, not the other way around. Customers aren't hurt because there are plenty of other places to download MP3s on the internet.
The RIAA, though, ends up with egg on their face as their play at forcing Apple into a position where they can be accused of (and sued for) actively supporting piracy with iTunes and the iPod fails miserably. They also hurt their sales as they close down a small but noticeable source of revenue and it is promptly replaced by the biggest advertisement and point of sale that their competitors have ever had. Their reputation suffers further as a few more people are added to the ranks of those who think the RIAA is a pack of fucking morons with a greed problem.
Reord companies own the music. They should be able to decide what it costs Apple to sell a song. Apple then can add whatever cost they want on top of that. Why is this even an issue?
Vote for Pedro
How long until Apple simply approaches all of the musical artists and licenses "direct" for digital. RIAA actually has made a mondo mistake. They have licenses to distribute the recordings. Correct.
However, RIAA has also put much effort into distinguishing "analog" from "digital". Enough so, that a good lawyer could argue a case for the artists that RIAA was not granted the right to collect "digital" royalties.
(This actually came up with the lawsuits against "web radio" and the creation of a "digital royalties" collection agency.)
However, it could be pushed by the artists that they are distinct. And they could then license the "digital distribution" exclusively to Apple. Even if the case is lost or held up in court for years of debate. Apple could sign "digital distribution rights" with new bands. Keep the price $0.99 cents and split $0.25-$0.50 with the artist. Artists would see much more profit from Apple's model. While at the same time the record labels would see a loss of revenue. Eventually, the record labels will go bust and Apple will be able to buy their portfolios (just like RIAA did with MP3.com & Napster).
Touche
There are alternatives to iTunes, many people already use them, but they often don't have the major labels on board. I like Emusic.com and have found a ton of stuff there that iTMS would never touch. The cost per download is well below $.99 per song but they don't have much in the way of "top 40" stuff or whatever crap the major labels spew out. If the major labels want to setup their own service and charge twice as much per song as iTMS they will still have a market: that range of people who buy into the promotion and the folks who can't let go of the hits catalog back to the 60's. If the bulk of the sales at iTMS are from these major labels the traffic will follow the product. The major labels are not stupid enough to try to force people back to the record stores, but they are willing to maximize their profits from the online market. The smaller labels are simply trying to get their product out there and are happy with service that ends up costing the listener less than $.30 per song but the major labels want profits for their corporate empires.
This is great news for Apple and artists.
:) Digital music is the way of the future, and this is Apple's big opportunity to capitalize on it...
If the music distributors would drop iTunes, Apple could contract with artists to drop their labels and use Apple as their sole distributor. This would allow artists a larger share of the pie while keeping tunes at the $0.99 rate.
Everybody would win... except the big labels.
More interestingly, Hertz is a proponent of blanket licenses:
Peer to peer file sharing is really just interactive radio consumers get to listen to exactly what they want when they want it. This demand is not addressed by the record industry. In fact, it cant be offered legally at any price. And as I think Ive illustrated, technology and reality will insure that supply finds its way to meet that demand...
and
My partner Fred and I therefor support compulsory blanket licensing. The same way restaurants, radio stations and elevators pay for background music, a tariff on communications technology could permit non-commercial file sharing to flourish, and copyright owners to benefit financially. File sharing is NOT piracy. Piracy is big fat guys manufacturing fake CDs in Mexico and selling them at swap meets. File sharing is tens of millions of music fans swapping copies of things they wouldnt otherwise buy. An ASCAP or BMI like pool of money allocated in an equitable way amongst copyright owners is the only solution that could be of benefit to creators, consumers and copyright owners. Compulsory blanket licensing for non-commercial file sharing is the equivalent of loosening a tourniquet tied around the entertainment industrys neck.
- ACLU Bill of Rights Dinner - Thursday, December 12, 2002
Personally, I'd like to see them pull the plug, then Apple to offer to bail all of the artists out of their stinking contracts in return for dealing direct with them. Hehe, that would be the recording industries worst nightmare.
Auto-check your UK lottery lines
If I remember correctly, didn't Apple computer have a spat with Apple Records (the ones the Beattles started) but settled by saying they will stay out of the sound business and even later having a fight over the sound card on a mac?
Although, I guess apple could call the label "iTunes Records"
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
if they don't want to sell legally to podheads, screw em. I wouldn't buy anything on CD from them if I couldn't get it direct to pod. that would make warner music the first big label to crash as the business is changing, because they're cutting off the growing segment of the market because they don't own the channel all the way up, down, and sideways. the first dinosaur has roared from the tar pit.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Include a EULA:
"Apple Computers may not be used to produce or modify or effect in any way, any recordings to be licensed to RIAA members. Any use of Apple computers to do such is a violation of the Mac OS and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as applicable in the DMCA. Including, pursuit of the right to distribute said creative works."
*ha ha*
That'd be funny as 90% of music studios utilize Mac's.
Dear RIAA,
Please pull your music from iTMS so I can go back to downloading all my music from P2P sources like I did before. I always said that I used P2P because there wasn't a single online music store that was actually worth using. When iTMS came along, I couldn't justify it anymore, so I went legit--but with your help, I can go right back to Bittorrent with a clean conscience!
Much obliged,
A Music Lover
I have been through three ipods (because i'm stupid enough to never buy the apple care plan).. and every time I've ripped my own albums and sent them down through gtkpod. i've never infact purchased anything other than the basic ipod and some nicer earbuds (the apple ones just plain suck).
DRM and me never got along, and the idea of people having ipods to do whatever with? (given all the open source alternatives) is the great appeal for me.
i've taken great care to make sure that quicktime nor itunes ever touch my harddisks.
I think it would be funny were Apple to cause an SPA audit to happen to all these record companies. Lots of Macs in the industry. Lots of pirated MacOS, Logic..
It wouldn't help their cases against filesharer's if they were known as notorious software pirates. And of course, there's the licensing fees, which could be waved if the record companies dropped their pricing demand.
As I said, MP3s play just fine on my iPod. If one major music distributor channel doesn't like Steve selling their tunes when the public would have been happy to buy them, there are other major labels and lots of indies who will let Steve sell their music. If all the major labels gang up to illegally price-fix their tunes by not selling to Steve or by raising their prices, well, they know that MP3s of their music plays just fine and there are lots of places to download them, Yarrrr!!!!, and meanwhile we can still get smaller labels' music from iTunes and lots of jam-band stuff off eTree.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
As a result, recording companies can ream new artists in exchange for the promotion and distribution that only they could offer.
The iTunes music store destroys the first advantage. No longer does a musician have to sell their soul (in the form of the rights to their creative output) to a record company in order to sell their music to you: they only have to talk to Apple now in order to sell their music (in fact, I have a number of indie friends who have done just that).
The second advantage will fade on its own, hurried on by payola scandals. The internet has taken the popularity of music out of the hands of recording industry executives, since fans can now communicate with each other.
The iTunes Music Store is driving a stake through the recording industry's dead, desicated heart. This was all largely inevitable, but now that they're starting to realize that they're doomed they're going to fight Apple in increasingly shrill manners.
I hope that someday the same structural shift will kill the deadlock television executives have over TV content.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
The Music Store has been solidly profitable for years now, according to the quarterly conference calls.
When Apple was dealing with the setup costs, the store was a break-even endeavor. Those costs are now over, and the store is profitable, though with small margins (compared to the 20-30% it makes selling iPods and G5s.)
So, let me get this straight... The digital audio player industry, essentially created by Rio in product and law, has allowed the record industry to get rid of manufacturing, get rid of distribution, bypass the B&Ms, create a whole new revenue streamand... They want an album to still cost the same as a CD, which is already artificially inflated by an oligarchy of greed. So much for anti-trust laws. These people are G-L-U-T-T-O-N-S!!!
CDBaby already put a lot of their artists' catalog on iTunes...but there is some paperwork the artists need to fill out before they can do that. (i.e. assurring that the material is original, etc.) CDBaby even has its own ISRC identifier that it tacks on all the digital tracks that they sell. Check out their digital distribution info here: http://www.cdbaby.net/dd They also don't limit themselves to iTunes...and they take a 9% cut of whatever they get after fees. Not too shabby.
Magnatune goes direct...and lets the listener set the price per disc...which is an entirely different concept. Very cool indeed, but they're more selective about what goes up on their site. Plus, you can play the stuff before you buy it. Once it's bought...pick your distribution format.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
Will some of the indie labels let Steve buy their tunes for less and sell them for less than 99 cents? It could happen, especially if the major labels conspire to raise their prices in an attempt to deal with the fact that they're doomed anyway.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It's an issue because if the big labels dictate the price it's called price fixing. They can recommend a price but it's up to the retailer to decide how much they want to sell it for.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
I stated before in a discussion about lawsuits that one company will force the record labels to lower there cost. That company will be either google, Microsoft or Yahoo. It won't be Apple, Steve jobs did a great job of starting the trend. However, Google and Yahoo can reach more people with their website - advertise online at their sites for free, and target users based on different areas they visit (i.e most people that visit Google blog search my like a certain music so you promote that genre of music on that site). The price of a song is worth less then a dollar. We have to pay for the marketing-producing-potential profits of the album thats why a cd is 10 bucks. Ahh but once the system is in the hands of a Super power like Google the ITune model will explode and revenues will be up as downloads will increase 3 fold. DO I have proof no! But the download trend is keeping the record labels alive. Now they are looking at greed to get back to the old days of multi-million dollar album sales.
I guess one could argue that iTMS underscores music piracy ($10K to fill this thing? Fuck that, I'll just steal it) but isn't it better than the iPod just being an MP3 player?
Schnapple
Apple scares the industry. For years the music industry has not had to do anything. They find musicians and force music onto the masses through politics and marketing. The musicians create, the consumer buys, the music industry profits.
Apple has removed several key parts in the industry - media, and distribution. With iTunes, the artist can ideally record music, put it on iTunes, and then promote it. The music industry will see nothing, and Apple will see everything.
Please Apple, do not cave in and accept these demands. Given enough time, the non-evolving leaders of the current industry will dissolve and people will forget that they ever dealt in music.
Warner Music: iTunes Statement False
p le_decapitation/>, which had quietly removed the story by Thursday morning. The spokesperson would not comment on the status of any negotiations with Apple.
By Ed Oswald , BetaNews
September 29, 2005, 12:20 PM
BetaNews has learned that a quote widely attributed to Warner Music's digital music strategy chief Michael Nash, which received a lot of attention in the press, never actually occurred. Nash was quoted as saying they'd "cut him off," referring to Steve Jobs and iTunes if discussions were not favorable to Warner Music Group, and that "very few people buy music from digital downloads."
"He was misquoted in a lot of different sources," a Warner Music spokesperson told BetaNews. The comment first appeared on British technology site The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/27/warner_ap
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, and I don't know if it's exactly analagous, but what about Apple's hardware sales? My understanding is that Apple resellers cannot sell below the price Apple sets without Apple rejecting their license to be a reseller. Is this not at least faintly similar behavior?
..Steve told em to go fornicate themselves and dropped their music the instant they complained. I don't think they (The Music Industry) understand how much Apple adds to their profits. Apple is a whole new distribution channel for them.
separate music stores: I was born in Italy, and I'm sometimes interested in Italian music which, although present on the Italian iTunes site (obviously), is nowhere to be seen in the North American ones. I also like Queen, say I wanted to buy "hot space", no way, that's available only in the US store, but not in the Canadian one (why?). I sometimes also listen to world music, plenty of artists available from the Japanese, the UK, the Swedish stores are nowhere to be seen in the USA one.
As of now I can order an "import" CD from Amazon.ca whenever I want or heck, even order directly from amazon.co.uk or amazon.com, but for some reason I am not allowed to do that on the internet: where's the logic in this state of things? Just because I live here in Canada it doesn't mean I should be interested only in "approved for Canada" music/books and so on.
It's like the US customers not getting a lot of British fiction commonly sold here, and getting "translated" versions of Harry Potter without having a say in it: this is just ridiculous.
-- the cake is a lie
I have a $50 Gift card which you can bet I will be using tonight or tomorrow. No way I'm going to buy less songs because of this.
... wait I already am buying less because the new ones usually suck. I mostly buy late 80s' early to mid 90's rock, jazz and blues because I haven't found many new rock bands I like. Most POP music blows too. I'm buying 'new-age' country female vocalists' CDs because they have great voices and the lyrics are pretty good too.
And if the labels want to rasie the prices then I'm going to keep buying less new albums
used to be way back in the old days when records were 78s and radio announcers had to announce, "The following program is a transcription," before playing a record... that ASCAP artists would not allow their music to be played over radio. shock! and! awe!
well, that was the ASCAP board talking, and a bunch of artists walked on down the street, rented a lawyer and a space, and established BMI as a music licensing agent. BMI has beated the schytte off ASCAP's pants in business almost every year since.
if RIAA is ready for a schism, there are plenty of great musicians that are not getting contracts or are being screwed over on royalties that are ready for an alternative. lots of musicians don't want into the present star-maker machinery and are trying everything from PatroNet to burning their own "greenies" and trying to sell them at bars and gas stations.
mp3.com was a place where a lot of them tried to get it done. iTunes could be a much hotter eMarket.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
One of my friends is on the iTunes staff, responsible for keeping the iTunes download system running. She spent New Years Eve party glued to her pager/palmtop watching the server stats instead of paying attention to the cute guy she's been seeing, because it was her turn to make sure everybody who got an iPod for Christmas could keep buying tunes. Shutting down iTunes for a week would mean that she and her co-workers could go on vacation....
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This ploy will go nowhere. He'll most likely run Warner into the ground with his hair-brained schemes.
It's own label! Look, with artists like U2 and Madonna collaborating with them why don't they spin off their own label. Could be huge!? And, considering Apple's sales I'm sure there will always be smaller labels that would happily distribute their stuff through Apple.
Join emusic.com. High quality drm-free mp3s, great selection of independent artists, fast downloads, much cheaper than itunes.
Addicted to the major labels and couldn't possibly live without their music? Yourmusic.com, $6/CD. It's a music club, so they're not going to have everything, but almost everything that's popular enough they'll have a few months after the retail stores do.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
Maybe instead of seeing the Top 10 list filled with crap from Nickelback, Kanye West, Ashlee Simpson, Fittycent, and Kelly Clarkson we could start seeing something listenable, for example from any (or all) of the following:
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx
The record industry is too anachronistic to have the foresight to create this solution themselves and are still obsessed with selling a solid medium (LPs, tapes, CDs), while treating its customers as criminals and artists as expendable commodities that can ignore paying royalties if they can help it
A brief look at the practices of the record industry reveals that they are the dishonest lot:
Apple earns less than a nickel per iTunes track
States settle CD price-fixing case
RIAA Continues Distributing Dud CDs to Satisfy Settlement
A music industry case study Shows how little the artist makes thanks to middle men like the record industry
Wal-Mart Wants $10 CDsRemember when CDs first came out and people said it was too expensive and the record industry promised that it would go below $10 eventually. Never happened
How Apple saved the music biz
FTC: Labels charged with price-fixing - again
Music Firms to Look Harder For Artists Owed Royalties Spitzer announced a settlement in which the nation's five largest recording companies promised to do a better job of tracking down and paying $50 million in unclaimed royalties to thousands of performers.
Finally, last night 2005-Sep-29 on Nightly Business Review (NBR) was a four part series on the music industry. It shows how iTMS allowed one relatively unknown electronica artist sell directly to her consumers with the iTMS . Her music was featured on NPR and then people all over the world wanted to download and listen to her music. Stores like iTMS are the great equalizer from years of abuse from the greedy record labels. "The Business of Music,"-Part 4: The Down Low On Download Distribution
consider what a "music company" is. a tower full of suits running drugola and payola, seeing and being seen in expensive fancy places, and in the case of rap imprints, the odd gangland style shooting in an expensive fancy place. there are a couple dozen A&R guys around signing acts and leading them into the studios to cut "acceptable quality" masters, at the industry's highest rates, on credit against receipts from sales. so big-hit artists start out broker as the record goes higher, due to label-paid publicity tours and the like they have to pay back.
apple doesn't need any of that. they have an eMarket that is instantly recognized and considered grade-A, they have a track record of paying their artist revenues in full and on time (which the big labels shockingly have never had,) and they have giant media buzz as well as street cred.
no, apple doesn't need any steenkin' labels. the steenkin' labels need apple. the artists can always re-contract with iTunes music service and be done with big label bullshit. ITMS needs to get an office, phone, and a couple more dealmakers, and the "major record labels" are all dead as doorknobs.
the artist as their own label, with a distribution network of millions of hits daily... that's what ITMS could be.
the line forms at One Infinite Loop, please don't block the bus stop as you snake around the block......
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Please Please PLEASE cut Air Supply out of iTunes.
Apple will start signing artists. In 10 years music CDs are going to be more antiquated than LPs are now.
Or better yet, I won't even listen to music anymore. I'm so pissed off and disenchanted with the whole industry I'll just sit and listen to the birds outside my window...or laugh like a brook as it trips and falls over stones on it's way
The more you create on your own, the broader and better your taste in music/art/etc becomes.
Fuck the music industry, humanity has created great music for thousands of years without their nonsense..
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
Apple owns the iTMS. They should be able to decide how much they want to charge for items in their store. The RIAA supplying the songs can accept it or get lost. See WalMart.
Force iTunes out of business and I'll revert to stealing your music.
Downloads on iTunes aren't cheap. On the contrary, at a buck a song, it is only marginally cheaper to buy music on iTunes (though arguably more convenient). So, with no physical product to produce and distribute, we are being charged almost the same amount as if we go into a store and buy a CD? And you want to charge more?
What part of 'greedy fscking assholes' don't you understand?
I just exhausted the extras on the re-release DVD of Toy Story. Amazing. It's a brass tacks film school education in a can. Watch the round-the-coffee-table recap of their experiences. Disney was clueless at that time about how to do this. From the looks of the Chicken Little trailer, they still are. Chicken Little's finished trailer looks like the first rough concepts of Toy Story - the ones where you gasp and ask how they ever thought they could succeed with their first ideas. The fact is they didn't really. It's a place to start - you shape it in the directions that succeed and make your eyes light up a little more each time and you ignore everything that doesn't make it a great story and great characters. When Randy Newman calls your rough cut a trainwreck, you forget the fact that Disney Wants It That Way and you reshoot and recut.
You end up with something that's new and seems familiar - each of the Pixar movies have done that, and it works magic. Chicken Little takes familiar stuff and tries to make it new. The trailer and site - from the beating-us-over-the-head with "Signs" gag to the character names (OK, Ugly Duckling and Turkey Lurkey we remember, but Morkubine Porcupine? You have now officially run out of original ideas.)
They may have had to drag themselves into the digital age to do all the things they can't do with pen and paint, but they seem to not be able to do this and good story simultaneously. The last worthy Disney animated feature was Lilo & Stitch, before that was Emperor's New Groove. They were new, they were well written and character'd, they were smart and funny and endearing.
It's all about the story. Long way around - but here's the loop:
It's all about getting good music into my ears. It;s a new delivery system and player, but it's my good old familiar music. If I can press a button on my screen and minutes later I'm getting Beethoven's Emperor Concerto and Let's Get It Started and Blame The Vain through a Shuffle I have to remind myself I'm carrying, I'll do it and maybe never set foot in a record store again. And 99 cents per experience is a sweet spot for a whole lot of people. Don't screw with the pricing. Make the experience better. If a sales floor full of jewel cases ends up being the next buggy whip shop, I think WalMart will find something to fill the floor space. They always do.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Let's see...
The RIAA claims music "piracy" is the great satan costing them billions in profits a year. Enter Steve Jobs, their great savior with a plan to legally distribute their merchandise over the Internet. He has the resources and has seen the light in the attractiveness of the 99c menu. He has software created to work with his company's media player, a good idea for him, the iPod promotes iTunes and supports the legal sale of songs owned by the RIAA. The plan works for years until someone gets greedy and threatens to pull the plug. I'm sure they know an end to iTunes will force people back to "piracy." Since the RIAA knows this, it is safe to conclude that "piracy" really isn't costing them as much as they claim. Now they want some variety in pricing, no not a drop in prices, only price increases. I guess they like suing people because that is soon going to be their main source of income. Remove people's ability to do something legaly and sue them, makes perfect sense.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Usually these fight are so one sided. I.E. the RIAA vs. 13 year old. Now we have Jobs, master of the temper tantrum vs. record label CEO's. This is a case of pure greed, but at least this match up could be interesting. IMHO what we need here is someone to figure out a way to turn it into a steel cage match. I would actually pay the PPV fee for that.
RIAA
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
I have nowhere near ripped my whole CD or vinyl collection, not even close. but I have lots of stuff in my iPod that has not been made availiable for sale, and that is not availiable even on cd. always will be that way. but I do find nice things I lost track of or couldn't afford when they came out on Da Service, and like being able to two-self-divided-click them to my life. (don't want any lawsuits from amazon by using a "one-" in print where others can see it.)
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I just emailed the following to a friend of mine who works at Apple.
I've been avoiding buying an iPod because it means I'd have to turn on my Windows machine (something I've avoided entirely in the 3 months since it was handed down to me). However, I'd like to make a pledge, and hope you can pass it up the chain to someone who can get it to the appropriate hands:
The labels have not earned a share of iPod profits, and they fought digital music tooth and nail. Apple put in the time, research, and manpower to make iTunes work, and negotiated a price with the labels that is fair to the fans, the musicians, Apple, and the labels. Now the labels are using their fiat monopoly to try to steal the wealth Apple is creating.
If Apple refuses to knuckle under, and any of the four big labels pulls out, I will buy a 60 gig iPod, and turn on my Windows machine (that last part should show how serious I am).
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Indeed, Apple, with their iPod and iTunes popularity, could probably set up shop to... wait for it... market the artists themselves! If artists go straight to Apple, it cuts out the middleman, saves both a few bucks, and benefits the end-user.
Hell..why doens't Apple just start its own freekin label. Maybe they can buy out Apple Records (UK) so that they can use its legendary logo (Beatles). Apple can sign all the happenin talent and maybe not conform to the bullshit corporate music that these pop record companies are shoveling.
START A NEW MUSIC REVOLUTION!
This might even put an end to EMO rock...fer gawd sakes save us!!!
I personally have a thing against Technology Companies controlling Content.
Other than that it is a good idea.
A Better Idea would be for the Indie Record Companies to rise and Usurp the Recording Behemoths. The Back Catalogue of the Big Companies would still exist, but eventually it would become less and less relevant, and the music of Newer Indie Artists would envelope a larger and larger proportion of the Music Mindshare.
Let the RIAA dictate less and less of the Music, until their entire Catalogue is relegated to the Bargain Bin.
You North Americans clamour about a Free Market, but are still lapping up to Popularist Marketing Schemes, rather than promote good quality Local Music. In a Free Market, the only people who can break a Monopoly are the Consumers and the Independent Producers. You can't expect Large Corporations (even those as Altruistic as Apple, Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft) to act in the best interest of Market Diversity.
Edgar Bronfman, Edgar Bronfman Overrated father, misunderstood son.
"Music Industry Threatens to Commit Suicide"
I'm sure some artists (Indies) will continue to sell through ITMS, and I already have tens of GB of music. I will listen to that and not purchase a CD unless I like most of the songs and can rip them to my iPod. I had not purchased any new music for years until ITMS came along. I was not stealing it either. I just stopped paying $15 for a CD with one good song.
My iPod revolutionized how I listened to music I already owned, ripping CDs I had purchased over the years. ITMS got me buying music again. I have purchased 326 songs from ITMS since its inception. That is up from zero per year for several years. If the music industry wants to cut its own throat, I'll let them. Piss on them. I can't stand those greedy bastards. The RIAA and MPAA are some of the worst scumbags on the face of the earth. They have no respect for the rights of others, and they are totally consumed by greed. How many cars and multi-million dollar homes do you need?
I'm curious about who's running the bigger risk... While ITMS sells a lot of tracks, it doesn't contribute *that* much to Apple's bottom line (5% of revenues is the last I heard).
The record companies aren't making that much off selling digital tracks either, compared to CD revenues.
So what's going on is not about the current scene but jockeying for the best position in the long run, assuming that downloads will eventually outstrip CD sales.
That way apple could have its cake and eat it too.
Pixar isn't beholden to Apple records for non-compete. But if labels pull out, Jobs could create his own label and fill it with artist who jump ship from RIAA and they would get awesome exposure?
Hell, Jobs could do it alone, he is worth about 3 billion.
but i dont think thats what Jobs wants, as he wants everything to be easy for his customers to a fault. For people to go to different places to get their music, even if they could get it in a mp3 form, wouldn't make sense to him.
he would sell iPods at loss to break record companies will before he would allow them to leave his pull. Or he would let Warner leave by itself and eat it.
Then iPod owners will no longer support this absurd DRM scheme. And the whining RIAA can keep complaining that they are losing money from "filesharing", when they are really losing it because they are stupid businesspeople. They just love digging their own grave if it lets them take someone else with them (Apple).
The finger
I believe the RIAA is too used to being able to bully around companies into doing business their way. This isn't going to work with Apple though. Apple has gone toe-to-toe with the ultimate evil empire monopoly and *survived*, Microsoft. Do you think Job's ego is going to say 'Hey, we survived microsoft, but ooooh nooo the RIAA is scary!".
Goodluck RIAA, you have been screwing artists for 50 years, but this time you fucked with the wrong industry.
Apple has stated time and time again, in full public record (if they were outright lying, it would be an SEC violation, plain and simple) that the amount of money they make from iTMS is negligible at best. They think of it as a value-added to owning an iPod, but it is not driving revenues. What this means is, Apple is in a COMPLETE position of power when it comes to online music distribution (which they almost completely control, despite it not making them huge money). Only the labels themselves have something to lose, if they stop selling through iTunes. These threats are ridiculous. Why does Apple have any desire to lower prices to 30 cents a track, when the precedent is that ALL tracks are 99 cents each? I think the labels release statements like this purely to generate press, and remind people of their existence (which is likely doomed).
The music industry better step it up! If they want to stay afloat, they should allow the 99 for all policy to stay! What is better, getting a little under a dollar per song ($10 for an album), or having everyone just pirate and take it all for free? Actually, if they played their cards right, it would be more profitable to lower the price. I would buy a lot more music if it were less than a dollar. In fact, anything 75 or lower, if I heard it, and didn't think it was terrible, I'd buy it. It's time they started realizing that they work for us. We pay them for entertainment. Well, you know what? Screw them. I can live without legal music. I can live with what I've got, or just acquire music from others. By the way, I do not in any way condone or approve of stealing music. Remember that every time you download a song, God (or Buddha, or whatever) kills a kitten!
---Without electricity, we'd all be surfing the net by candlelight.
Only one problem with this. We're not talking about TWX, we're taling about WMG. TWX spun off WMG earlier this year. Unlike TWX, WMG is about a $3B revenue company that is losing money, or to be generous is breaking even. They lost $90M in their last reported quarter. B
"Fuck the fucking fuckers!"
I think I'll just listen to AM sports talk radio stations from now on...
This space for rent
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: As long as the big name artists all acquiesce to RIAA control of the music industry, they're complicit. A lot of smaller artists understand that the music industry cartel props up a small number of big name artists at the expense of all other recording artists. Unfortunately these smaller players don't have the clout that the big acts do.
Millionare recording artists, wake up and smell the coffee! The system that built you up is crumbling at the foundations. It won't be around forever.
As for the RIAA, the original Reg article indicated that they were feeling full of piss and vinegar supposedly because their profits have been better than expected, and they have a lot of faith in wireless networks to deliver the Next Big Thing in music. Yep, because ringtones are the bellweather of the future and everyone wants to use a cellphone as a music player.
Morons.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Or rather, Apple should call their bluff and start signing artists/agents directly. Maybe that will put an end to this Music/Movie/Entertainment/Media raquet for once and for all.
On that note, we don't need new legislation for "new media." The only thing that has changed is how quickly and the granularity of information delivery. Don't support any politician who claims that we need new laws.
They don't really want a cut of iPod revenues. It's just a negotiation tactic to have leverage when they ask what they really want, which is to have more control over pricing in iTunes.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
The music industry needs to realise that iTunes - perhaps the most popular legal song trading network. Might actually be beneficial to them.
In response to this Apple should quit playing fair and its DRM game and just concentrate on selling the thing that makes the money - the iPod. Remove the DRM from the player and add the functionality to play other formats such as ogg.
Quite frankly Apple shouldnt allow themselves to be bullied like this when they are one of the few legal music distribution networks out there playing fair.
nick...
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Or maybe "iRecs".
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Which brings up a big question. Why are we not doing on demand publishing for CDs?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The Long Tail (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.htm l)
I don't think Apple has anything to lose here. Steve Jobs _shouldn't_ back down because he has the upper hand at the moment. He _won't_ back down because of his ego. So what if Apple's shares are down for a quarter or two while this gets resolved? Apple is not _all_ about the stock price (unlike other companies) and he seems to have a strong sense of what is right for technology & what is right for the industry, regardless of how it may temporarily impact sales.
Besides, I'm sure they've had contingency plans for this worked out ages ago--the current music industry execs are clearly strictly reactive--they didn't exactly see this coming years ago and now they can only resort to threats and force to try to stop this from changing the status quo. Apple is very different from this--they think, plan, and anticipate things well ahead of the curve.
Each side is waiting for the other to blink. My hope and guess is it won't be Jobs. Why should he? You think the RIAA is going to screw with their best / only real online revenue stream? Then again, their suing 12 year old girls, so why not?
I HAVE SAID THE OBVIOUS UP THERE. It was there just to show a small point that most people know already, but it's there for those who don't.
I don't need the fucking karma, others do.
Try reading at -1, you'd be amazed what informative/insightful posts get modded down on a whim of a moderator, sometimes causing new posters to have negative karma, lose the will to post and stop posting. And by that leaving the forum to old posters that post the same inane jokes and redundant opinions. It's rare to have one that actually SAYS something.
Seriously, whoever gets to metamoderate my above post, please mod it unfair.
The moderation system is broken, and the above post proves it.
^_^
The only reason why physical CD sales is higher is because it's there, and it's tradition. If tomorrow, your favorite artist (or an artist you've followed for a while) stopped selling CDs and went to digital, I bet you'd get on iTunes and buy it there. Sure, there'll be a few who don't know about iTunes, but also consider this, artists would make something like 65% on their music without a CD distributer, instead of the measily %5 they do now, meaning that even if they held onto 1/13th of their audience (not a problem for an established band with an audience), they wouldn't lose money. Furthermore, even though musicians are humans, they're also artists, and many artists already sacrifice a lot of their money for social causes. I could imagine an artist like R.E.M or Springstein (if those particular musicians weren't already on indy lables that they have good relationships with), jumping at the chance to break loose from the chains of the physical music industry.
And I agree, Apple should just start their own label, "iMusic Inc." or, "iTunes Records", or be done with it and buy out Apple Records once and for all. There's a lot of money to be had in the music industry, even if you're better to your artists than most companies are, and even if they broke even on a record company, the enormously possitive PR it would generate would easilly sell many iPods. I have no question that they'll start a record company fairly soon, it's only natural since getting their foot into the music market.
--EricMultiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
But how will I get my music? The same way that I get the majority of my music now: Buy Used CDs. No (new) revenue for the labels, no DRM on my music and I am supporting a local business that buys and sells Used CDs. I could use P2P for anything I can't find used, but I really can live without it; I have way more music right now than I have time to listen to.
One more point: The used CD market really sets the value that I'm willing to pay per song. Most used CDs are available for $6.99 to $7.99 (sometimes even less). So if there are 10 tracks on a CD, they are only really worth $.80 max / track. I may pay $.99 for certain songs if I don't want the whole album, but no way would I pay more than that.
Call it, iEntertain
He could with his billions buy a smaller record label for 500-800mill. Then change its structure to be 100% online.
And give artists 30% not 2%. And start signing up all the majors , get them all to dump the BMC/SONYs/*.*
He already has a 'movies studio' as such, dumped Disney. He has the balls and guts to stick it up em. And is friends
with Bill Clinton.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I really don't have a problem with the RIAA shooting themselves in the foot.
;-)
Although, I do sometimes wish they'd aim a bit higher...
Hmmm... crap for music - can't sell crap... go after those that can.
Movie industry is starting to think... hmmmm... put crap on screen - "no make money we do".
When will the RIAA learn ?
iTunes is a nice place to buy music, but at $20,000 to fill a 20 gig iPod - NOT !
How much does it cost to pawn stuff on the iTune store vice pressing Cd(s) / shipping / marketing - pull your head out here guys.
Once upon a time, a soon to be mommy and daddy loved each other very much (the lust was strong as well as the drinks)
re:"Warner CEO Edgar Bronfman". Anyone think he will fare as well as the CEO now leaving Disney after fucking with Jobs/Pixar (amongst other failings)? I love a good corporate spat, even if the end will be the same. Re-run schmeerun, let's see some BLOOD!
Obviously the RIAA has the upper hand here. If they wish to charge more for music Apple's Itunes will comply, and if they don't Napster will win our or Yahoo music or someone else.
Apple's Itunes can't live without the recording industry, the recording industry can live without Itunes and the Ipod.
Not really. Losing one music publisher from iTMS gets iTMS lots of street cred when they put the inevitable banners up saying why, while shafting that music publisher. Empty iTMS implies that all the music publishers walked at once. While that may make Steve a very upset honcho, he'll be a very upset honcho with just about crystal clear evidence that the major recording studios are engaging in an illegal price-fixing agreement and a whole army of lawyers.
Of all the battles they could choose to fight, that's the big one the major players in the music industry really, really can't afford to pick. They moment they do, their shares will be down 30% in a day, heads at the top will roll shortly afterwards, and their entire business model will start to collapse under the weight of a legal system that's finally woken up. I'd be very surprised if all of the big studios survived the fall-out, and those that did would be dramatically less powerful afterwards whatever happened. Are they really going to risk opening Pandora's box over a silly little thing like Steve Jobs wanting them not to make even more money from a scheme that's already making a decent profit? I think not.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That's like complaining Gillette has a monopoly on Mach-3 razor blades, except that Apple's razor can also use generic blade cartridges. It just can't be used with the proprietary DRM'd WMA blades of the other razor makers.
Remember, the other razor makers tried to make replacement blades that would fit in Apple's razor, but Apple shut them down with legal threats. And while you can buy generic blade cartridges, they're generally perceived to be poor quality - the only way to get a good shave from your Apple razir without buying Apple's blades is to buy a different proprietary blade and file it down by hand so it'll fit.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
If Apple does get locked out, they could get back at the other labels by creating their own label. Of course they'd have to deal the Apple Records and past legal agreements. But imagine what would happen if Apple said, We'll distribute your album, foot the bill for recording and promoting it, and we'll give you(the artist) 50% of the profit. That would still increase Apple's profits by 45%, and it would increase profits to the artists by about 300%. Even if the iTMS sells a fraction of the volume of conventional CD sales, if the total proceeds are divided between only two parties, those two parties may come out ahead of the game as it stands now. Artists might jump ship left and right. Suddenly Apple controls all the best names and the labels are left with a bunch of worthless CDs that the 14 year old kids consider so obsolete they might as well be 8-track tapes or 78 RPM records.
Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
music labels today are all about pumping out one hit wonders and pushing retards like jessica simpson. doesn't it occur to anyone that the reason people like her need to be on tv, is that without seeing her no one would listen to her music.riaa pay to play certain tracks over and over on popular stations, in order to advertise and boost sales. and for that matter noticed how old songs are getting covered more and more often? it's a sign of a music industry in crisis
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Since the recordcos are releasing crap anyways, I get my music like this:
1. Support my local CD trader shop by searching his online store for a used CD that is in nearly brand-new condition and that costs about 1/4 of what it would at SamGoody. That way, I get the older (better) music I want and I have an instant hard-copy backup should my hard-drive die with all my songs on it.
2. I search iTMS for what I want, and if they don't have it...
3. I give up because there's no way I'm paying what the recordcos charge!
There, nice and simple, and no laws broken!
I think what a lot of people are glazing over is the fact that the shitheads in congress may well make things like Ipods and dvd burners a thing of the past.. With perhaps DRM embedded in the firmware or outlawing this stuff altogether. And now with the supreme court leaning heavily tward the fascist end of the scale, I'm afraid the music industry is going to have quite a few allys in the government, and so don't think an MP3 player is nessessarily a permanent fixture.. It sucks, but you can see it. The government loves it's contributers and if the entertainment industry says jump, you know the feds will.. Just something to think about..
WMG's market cap is currently $2.75B. Apple could afford a hostile stock take over using cash reserves and still have enough left over to possibly buy the EMI group ($3.4B)
The RIAA is afraid of Apple. They know in today's world, music labels aren't as necessary. And iTMS may be making them useless. Why should a major act re-sign with a label when they can go straight through iTMS? Dvorak has a great article on it.
s p
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1862166,00.a
It is unfortunate that these record industry crusaders don't allocate a small percentage of their yearly litigation budgets to research the price points that tilt the average consumer to the point of piracy. If they could yield certain figures with relevant data, it would make their argument much more powerful when attempting to sway the likes of Apple. At this point they are loud, obnoxious, and baseless in fact.
Well, in order for the record industry to even function, they need to use my ears to deliver their music to me. I'm not getting paid. I think if the record industry wants to continue to charge for music, that I should get a some reasonable cut of that as my ears are irreplacible assets that they have used for free for long enough.
The Admin and the Engineer
Let them raise the prices to the sky. $5 a track, $10, higher. At that point the record companies literally become a racketeering enterprise just like the mafia.
This post was fucking hilarious and I'm kinda sad I couldn't mod it up.
"I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
bitme and who thinks big corp should rule the world ?
They are playing with fire here, they need to apologize quickly to Apple and act like they never said anything at all. I see a few scenarios that can evolve from this:
RIAA Wins
1) Apple bows to the RIAA and begins charging more for songs and sharing profits on devices themselves with them. I find this one the most unlikely to happen.
2) Apple takes RIAA to court and loses; it's possible, but I doubt they would lose.
Apple Wins
3) Apple denies the RIAA, and the RIAA drops Apple's iPOD. Apple starts its own publishing company and uses the iPOD's ubiquitous nature to rake in many artists and privateers. Now the RIAA has a fight on its hands for the domination of the music industry, where before there was only a medium for them to make money.
4) Apple takes the RIAA to court and wins ruining all possible chances in the future of the RIAA being able to racketeer companies out of their own revenue. And, the settlement would probably require they drop the price per song and/or give Apple even more % of the profits, instead of raising it.
They should probably be happy with the billions they're already making and not try and ruin a good thing. Steve Jobs doesn't take threats lightly.
These deals rarely work out the way you expect them to.
Sony Electronics corporation bought its way into the music and movie market, and everyone expected that this would mean Sony would apply their technology muscle and hustle to bring content to new markets faster.
But instead, the opposite happened: the hollywood side of Sony ate the rest of the company like a cancer. It's common knowledge among ex-SEL people that Sony had a "digital walkman" product ready to ship at least a year before the iPod, but that Sony Music's execs strangled it in the crib. It's said that Nobuyuki Idei still has to take sleeping pills because the sound of Steve Jobs cackling keeps him awake at night. But hey, Tommy Mottola got to do Mariah Carey on that big boardroom table from "Wall Street", so you win some and you lose some.
More seriously here: the problem is that music labels make INSANE amounts of money, and once you've acquired one, it's really, really, really hard to argue with the business practices of a PROFIT CENTER. Plus, even if you're a complete maniac like Steve Jobs and are personally willing to swing the axe around once you've acquired a major label... you can't do it, because a music label is, in the end, comprised of nothing but very canny salesmen with very expensively cultivated rolodexes, and if you make them uncomfortable, they will leave... and take their rolodexes with them. Then all you have in hand is a bunch of worthless contracted artists that nobody expected to get a second album out of in the first place, and nothing in the pipeline to replace them. Oh, and a very large bill for Cristal, Moet and cocaine. And some very pissed-off shareholders.
Apple has to play the cards in their own hand. Which, luckily for them, are pretty damn strong: hence Bronfman and Nash whining like pussies in the national press.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
They're on the other side of the world so it comes out backwards sometimes.
...if very few people buy music from digital downloads according to this suit, then what the FUCK do these guys care what price Apple sells their music at?
Jake Gittes: I just want to know what you're worth. Over ten million?
Noah Cross: Oh my, yes.
Jake Gittes: Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What can you buy that you can't already afford?
Noah Cross: The future, Mr. Gittes, the future.
(Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown...)
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Fine
So now what happens?
They have to pull the same stunt on every other joint that is distributing music on-line, Rhapsody, Napster, the Windows Music box or whatever they will call it, Wal-Mart, etc etc
So all of a sudden no more 99 songs at ITMS and the price is $1.99 everywhere else!
And the subscription prices will probably Double! How many people will just CANCEL their subscription services?
Guess who loses? (you already know)
Oh, and if they pull this on Wal-Mart, they'll just pull the plug, Wal-Mart won't play along.
I like microcars
The labels believed that once one company forged a path, everyone else would follow leaving them king of their little fiefdom. Unfortunately for them, Apple was more like an ice breaker in the Arctic. They made their own path and the sea froze behind them. I was of the opinion that they were trying to kill iTunes because they see it as a genuine threat. After reading this article, I am convinced the labels are genuinely too stupid to realize their extremely precarious position. This is, in fact, not a strategy to kill iTunes because of the threat it presents. This is just greed. They really are that stupid. Too bad they don't see the end coming. It'll be like they've been shot in the back of the head. No crys of "Please, please don't kill me! I'll do anything you want! Just don't *BANG*" kind of thing you'd get if you shot them in the face. It's a shame too, because they really deserve to be shot in the face.
There will be no labels for new music soon. Bands will go direct to fans through iTunes, keeping the copyrights to their creations, and making six times the profit margin the old labels would have paid them. They will make the same money going 'gold' as they would have going 'platinum' the old way. You are witnessing a turning point in music history. Music is about to become very diverse and interesting again. Get ready for something besides the same old cookie cutter 'alternative' crap you've been hearing for the last 15 years.
Boycott? Boycotts are for idiots because they DO NOT WORK. You need a rational and slightly guilty party on the receiving end of a boycott for it to take effect, not the insane wankers in the music biz. They already have shown they care nothing for how much money they loose due to stances they take.
Want to institute REAL change? If the studios back out keep selling indie stuff on ITMS for $.10 a track, then proceed to ship every computer with iP2P (and let Windows users download it as well). Ahh, P2P made easy for the masses. That would be sticking it to the man in places the sun dont shine.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe Apple should turn into a record company and split the profits 50/50 with the artists them selves...
Aren't traditional record companies becoming/already obsolete?
Everyones got a home studio to a certain extent anyway... Imagine what kind of home studio a Rock Star would have...Hire an engineer. DIY... unlimited freedom of creativity. Apple bought Logic Audio....iTunes for ultimate distribution. Seems like its not long before something like this happens.
Record Companies realize the are going out like the dinosaurs.... and fast. The MIddle man is no longer nessessary.
1) Endorse piracy outright if the industry does this.
2) Wait for the talents contracts to expire with the labels. Apple becomes the next music producer/distributor they already are/can be by directly going to the artists. They start producing their own labels, maybe with a influx of cash from MS and or Google the AMG Cartel/label. So your out of the whole back catalog of songs controlled by the old labels but everything from that date on is yours and theirs, Apple etal has the catalog from there on out along with all the artists with a direct input to the distribution of their music. Old industry withers up and dies while thinking wtf did we screw that up for. pp
Well I can happily say that I would be just fine with both Apple and the music industry being destroyed. Both put out mediocre yet overpriced products, and take every opportunity to tighten their stranglehold on their own customers. They both fight innovaton and litigate against their own customers. Yes I'd be just fine with their collapse, but I'm also not holding my breath.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Seriously, I do not care anymore. Crazy? Perhaps! Pick up a guitar and learn how to play your own music. We'll get a hell of a lot better music out there with more people playing then the current slop that's out there. That is, until they start figuring out how to make us start paying to write our own songs. =P
If you choose to not make your music available on iTunes, I will not stop using iTunes. I will just stop paying for your music... again. Sincerely, Joe Consumer
You know iPod works with MP3 too. Good old fashioned, grab from and play.
iPod has over 80% of the player market.
You might like to think about that before removing your only avenue for a DRMed version of your product that works with iPod.
The Artists should publish their recordings, and set up a PayPal account to receive donations. We could cut off that way most of the recording company's revenues and still get the cash to our favorite bands.
Neat post, but that last part will never happen. At least, not until Apple Records no longer holds the Apple trademark, which by the way is still involved in litigation with Apple.
fine.. F the RIAA.. after spending 2k in the last year at itunes for the music I want, I guess i'll have to revert back to using questionable services.
Pull the plug and on iTMS and I'll pull the plug on your revenue. You will not see a dime from me. Have fun on the unemployment line when sales tank.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Apple Sells music over iTunes.
Slashdot Response:
"Bah, I'm just going to steal music anyway! Total device lock-in, the iPod is monopolistic! $.99 is too much! Why not $.50, I would buy it then! iTMS just doesn't work for me as a concept. Apple is greedy."
Steve Jobs tells Record Labels he refuses to increase the price.
Slashdot Response:
"iPod is fantastic. $.99 is the perfect price point, any more and I will steal. iTMS works great. Labels are greedy, apple gets such a small cut!"
ahh.. slashdot.
or maybe they can just buy Apple Records...
Exactly what value does the "recording industry" now add to the transaction between musicians and consumers? Time for Steve to start signing bands.
The thing is, Music execs would be more willing to go through with cutting Apple off (and rightly so, I mean the music _should_ have variable pricing relative to market demand) but Apple so has them by the balls.
If the music companies stop suppling Apple with their tunes, Apple will issue a statement that "due to the demands of the record companies to increase pricing beyond $0.99 per song, foobar has not renued their contract." People would go ape shit. Some would certainly start poycotting Foobar Records all together. Others would vow to only download illegally and music Foobar Records ever puts out just to "show 'em".
The only possibility I see is that they insist on the ability to lower prices, not raise them. That would win over the hearts and minds of the people. But then Apple might just call them on it and go along.
It's a no win situation for Foobar Records.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Any correlation? September 21, 2005: "Recent reports have claimed it [Warner Brothers] may sell a stake in AOL to Microsoft." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4268864.stm September 23, 2005: "Bronfman Fires Back at Apple" http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=13702&hed =Bronfman+Fires+Back+at+Apple
Maybe... maybe not.
I have stated several times that I buy CDs, burn them and ditch the shell. I get called a thief, yet I am not a thief. Simply a copyright abuser. And, this is why. How can I buy music from services who may not exist in a couple of years?
Copyright also gives me the right to copy something at a lower resolution as a copy--fair use--regardless of what happens to the original. Dear RIAA, go f yourself.
Apple should work with some famous artists and form their own record label. Imagine the marketing potential... then Apple can charge what ever they want, just to upset Warner and the RIAA. I'm sure U2 and a few others would like to play that game.
And all those people who decided it was worth it to pay $.99 for a song can go back to bearshare and get them for free again.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
Why cant I download music from such paysites such as iTunes and oters and get the song in Ogg Vorbis format?
Do I have to pay for all songs on iTunes?
Cant I easy find and download from less-known artists or copyleft artists for free?
If I buy many songs from iTunes cant I get an discount or a free song for every 10 songs I buy?
Let's vote for some protest playlists to bring this to the iTMS forefront. Here are some iMixes that I found: 100% RIAA-Free http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewPublishedPlaylist?id=94403&s=143441
100% Riaa-Free 2
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewPublishedPlaylist?id=215628&s=143441
Boycott RIAA
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewPublishedPlaylist?id=37228&s=143441
If they want more $$$, give us Lossless!
... I wouldn't mind having the choice between a box set that cost aprox $0.99/ea track and the same box set in lossless that cost $1.50/ea - $1.99/ea track... Choice is good.
;-)
A compromise so simple, it's guarantied it'll never happen!
(This assumes that this is all about $$$, not control as most of us believe...)
May I suggest a solution that could possibly make *everyone* happy? Users, Jobs, and the record labels alike?
If they (record labels) were talking $1.50 for *lossless* tracks.. I could see myself buying that.. If they want to charge more than $0.99/ea for some tracks, offer the pre-release and top 10 songs in loossless for $1.50/ea. Offer the same songs at the current 128bit aac, for $0.99/ea.
I would see that as a fair compromise. They get their $1.50/ea for some tracks.. we get the choice of high quality or same old $0.99/ea price.
Hell for a lossless recording of the CMT Outlaws concert, or a few Jimmy Buffett concerts.. I'd go as high as $1.99/ea.. (as long as I can still buy the songs ala carte.. )
Lossless box-sets would also be a nice offering... include some exclusive videos (not available on MTV, VH1, the local video store, etc)
It's so simple, they'll never do it.
But it does seem like the kind of compromise that everyone could be happy with... If it were really about the $$$... It isn't, it's about control.. of the money.. They already make more off each iTunes sale than they do from wholesale CD sales (per unit).. They get about $0.70 off each track Apple sells.. No material costs, no shipping costs, no warehousing... They should be offering Jobs their 1st born and shuting the Hell up, if they were smart.. if it were about the $$$... It's not.. it's about the fear that sooner or later, artists won't sign with record labels.. they'll sign with Apple. They want enough control that they can keep that from happening.
If it were just the immediate income/profits right now, and the near future, they'd be much more quiet than this...
Just my $0.02.. Or is that $1.50?
There are quite a few online radios playing my favourite kind of music (trance), so maybe you can also find something like this to enjoy. A few months back while I was still in Norway, and connection speeds were decent, I enjoyed listening to one of those stations all the time. The music was varied and it was all good. No fees, just whatever you pay for your broadband.
At the risk of being here too little/too late, a day late/dollar short, and a little bit drunk, but didn't Jobs sign any contracts with the music industry calling for the pricing of the music?
They seem to do alright with commercials, if the RIAA pulls this bullshit, I would LOVE to see Apple start a production company, and cut the RIAA out entirely. This is VERY wishfull thinking,but it is what I would do.
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
= 9J =
Believe it or not, I have actually never burnt any illegal CDs, or downloaded music from an illegal site. I am however a very happy iTunes customer. If Warner Bros. pull the plug in iTunes selling their music, they can forget about earning my money, as it's unlikely I'll go back to a retail store and buying a CD there again. Like most on the site, considering the music companies have minimal distribution costs for music on iTunes, I have little sympathy for what is essentially transparent greed. Actually, considering how CD's are *CHEAPER* to produce than tapes, it also seems amazing that CD's sell for more than tapes (at the same time, I can't argue with supply and demand). It's amazing how some of the big media companies have resisted many of the most lucrative new technology to come along (video tapes anyone?). They just don't know when they have got it good.
ITunes is proof that Steve Jobs is both brilliant and a fantastic liar.
See, the Big 5 are deathly afraid of suffering from the "MTV syndrome" when it comes to digital downloads. See, originally music videos were seen as an interesting way to promote and "package" artists which proved incredibly sucessful through the 80's and early 90's through the partnership of the big labels and MTV, which initally was desperate for content for it's PAID service, then they switched to an advertising model with the videos as content, and the station took off. Eventually of course, the MTV people realized that the videos THEMSELVES were advertisements and started charging for airplay (no payola laws for music videos afaik). The labels didn't like being held hostage this way and it's one of the big reasons for the decline of actual music videos on MTV and MTV2.
iTunes was sold to the Big 5 essentially as an experimental system for devoted Mac fans. The software would ONLY run on Macs and the iPod (which would only work with Macs). This was a critical sales point because the Big 5's other major concern was widespread piracy of digital music tracks (not that that wasn't happening already). The Big 5 recognized that Apple is a relatively small player in the PC space so that even if their DRM protection was cracked, if the software/player only worked on Macs there couldn't be THAT much piracy since only a relatively small market used Macs. They also didn't have to worry about the "MTV syndrome" because incompatibility with Windows, Linux, and other big MP3 player vendors (Rio, Creative, etc.) would keep iTunes confined to a niche market.
Hasn't turned out that way has it?
And cut out those greedy bastards.
Seriously, an artist-friendly innovative company like Apple would be a natural for music artists to flock to.
It would be awesome if Apple could buy Apple records.
Should he ever be on a jury in an extortion-infringement case, RIAA and its bootlicks may find "preponderance of evidence" somewhat of a burden - closely related to the immovable object. Voir dire? Forget it, you won't see him coming, your lawyers will beg for him. (Well, usually both sides do...). And afterwards, you may not even find the fingerprints on the bulge growing between your shoulder blades.
The RIAA is getting way, way, way out of control.
We need to send them a message directly to where it hurts the most.
No more CD's will be bought by me and I would like to see a website
to spread the latest information on what the RIAA is doing and spread
the message of not buying music off of CD's.
I am not advocating piracy, but if you need to buy music, buy it off EBAY
or from a friend. Make the RIAA pay, that is the only way they will learn.
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
I've been RIAA free for over four years now, and believe me, there's precious little out there from RIAA represented musicians that you can't live without (as in none.) On the other hand, there is a TON of excellent, heartfelt, meaningful music out there not represented by the RIAA. I hope everyone here complaining about the RIAA is putting their money where their mouth is and not supporting a group whose policies you disagree with.
It seems to me that the RIAA are in the same situation but with one major difference - we will always need to send stuff via the postal service but who will be buying music on physical media in say 10 years ?? - none I would bet. No wonder the RIAA are sounding so desperate. The music industry could have seen the Internet as a wonderful new opportunity and started a world-class online music industry but instead we find them suing little old ladies, 13 year old girls and starting a "Jihad" against any new technology.
I think, deep down, they know they will be totally irrelevant in 10 years and are simply playing for time.
They are just paying the price for their astonishing lack of vision.
Art Makers Just an excuse to show photos of naked women !!
Hi Bill, Steve here. Say, I know we've had a few differences in the past but how would you like to OWN THE FUCKING MUSIC INDUSTRY with me. I'll spin off iTunes into joint venture that we'll share and you and your $27.87 Billion will be used for financial backing. I have the disturbution you've got the cash to burn. And, hey, calling it itunes means apple records(assholes) can't sue me any longer.
If just one music company cancels the deal on Apple, then it will lose lots of revenue compared to all the other labels, plus customers won't be too happy (and the artists on that label!).
But even if all labels would quit iTunes, that would be *incredibly* stupid. How much money does a label make on selling one CD, with high-cost distribution? And how much do they make on selling it on iTunes, even if Apple shaves off a couple of cents?
This whole complaining that iTunes is too cheap is pure rip-off planning.
If the Liberal party stays in power much longer, you'll only be able to get "approved in Canada" art and media. Anything else would damage our national identity and weaken our culture.
Check out my foes list to see who is so retarded that they can't use the signature line!!!
Well I'm a musician (never signed anything with any recording company though) and am currently in the process of making an album with a band that used to be on a large, Manchester based, British "independent" label.
When it's finished we'll be pressing and publishing some CDs ourselves and I think we'll also go direct to Apple and see if they want to sell in in iTunes. This is a far better business model to me than dealing with the major labels who will always try to to mould you into "product" (thereby killing off any inspiration you may have). I can only hope that many other artists will do the same.
Fuck the recording "industry". They're now irrelvant and their mafia protection racket behaviour is there for all the world to see. In these days of the internet any band potentially has direct access to the entire population of the wired up world. Who needs some crappy pimp in a suit taking huge cuts from your efforts ?
Anyone still buying "product" from the major labels should stop now. You might as well be giving your money to the mafia/the IRA/Al Qaeda/"Giblo the child strangler" etc.
RIAA members have probably realised that they are no longer needed in the music food chain. Any good artist can get his song recorded at the a studio and put it up at itunes. Consumers will pay and download, if they think the song is good, This is what is pissing RIAA MBAs off, they will probably shout for sometime and then negotiaite with Jobs to continue with 99c, but on the condition that he will not sell music from independent labels and artists. In short, they want to maintain the monopoly they had for so many years..... Using precisly two words lets tell them, what we think -- "F&$k off" -- This showdown will tell us what stuff Jobs is made off...
I certainly hope Apple will resist the effort at corporate blackmail on the part of RIAA members. It does own its own sizeable chunk of recording rights, which it bought a couple of years ago for a few cool billions, and I'm sure that 600,000 title catalog has gown.
However, in Japan Apple did ultimately cave-in on the matter of variable pricing. The Japanese labels refused to budge, and Apple wanted to get that iTMS Japan store going. The tunes it sells are roughly at parity with the prices charged at other Japanese download stores. iTMS is still, however, wildly more popular than any other store here, which has Sony frothing.
It would be interesting to see if iTMS could implement a model similar to that used by AllOfMp3.com (but with no doubt watever as to legality).
The prevelant wisdom here, that Apple has the labels by the royal jewels, is wrong, though. These people have incredibly deep pockets, collectively far deeper than Apple's, and could quite easily weather an losses in revue incurred if dropped by iTMS. There are still plenty of other download services that they sell through.
The issue is whether Apple feels spunky enough to be a maverick, kiss the the big labels good-bye (and along with them the major acts), and risk making a go with smaller labels and independent artists. If it is, then it can deal with the labels on its own terms by simply ignoring them. The recording industry as represented by RIAA members is just one--admitedly very large--dimension among many. As it has demonstrated its fortitude in being a maverick computer company, bucking the odds in a more-or-less Microsoft/Windows universe, so might it equally succeed with music.
The other thread of wisdom, that the buying public will cheer at this Apple toughness, is also a bit too optimistic. Most of the downloading public doesn't give a mouse fart in a hurricane. They want their popular tunes, and it doesn't matter that few folks here think most of that popular stuff is shite. Call them Philistines if you wish, but they buy the music that's popular.
Someone else has noted here that the real issue is control of distribution, and there of pricing and who gets the lion's share of profit. This is entirely the case: RIAA members see their distribution networks under threat if not under seige, and they are willing to dig in and take whatever immediate financial losses may be incurred to assure their longrange control of the distribution network. Control of that in turn assures that they can charge whatever they wish.
So the further question facing Apple is whether the iPod would continue to be a hot seller if the major labels were out of the picture, and if th iPod would continue to drive music sales for alternative independent arts and small labels.
I did read the date of the article -- that's really, honestly, truly the last update on the situation.
The wheels of the court system grind really slowly, especially when the issue under consideration is a highly contentious piece of international trademark and contract litigation between two exceedingly well-funded companies that are ill-inclined to settle. The discovery phase of the trial alone could take years, and in this case almost certainly has.
(You'd think that the SCO-vs-Linux thing has been dragging on since 2003 would have clued people here in about this, but apparently not.)
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Jobs should encourage artist to defy the RIAA and demand that their music sold on iTunes. The artists have the power, if they would only stop sucking the RIAA balls.
Having observed their behavior in the past, I fully believe that the music industry really believes that they are doing Apple a favor and that they can cut Apple off. If they close iTunes, iPod users will just rip their own music (and share it) leaving 0 revenue.
I think you're exactly right. I refuse to pay more than $0.99 per track. The minute the labels begin messing with that number.. i'm done with them.. permanently. They can choose to continue receiving thousands of my dollars, or they can choose to see none of it. Since the iTMS store opened i've bought over 3000 tracks.. i don't buy discs anymore. I support the ITMS model because it works. I vote with my wallet to tell the labels (and Apple) that they/somebody findally got it right. If the labels reward that support by trying to extort me.. fuck 'em.. everything stops. I wont get angry and throw a fit about it, i'll just stop buying. I'll remove the store icon from iTunes, and get all of my music from Usenet, or from ripping friends/family CDs. Their response to this over the next couple months will decide their fate with me. I don't care anymore which way it goes.. really, i'm tired of it.
X] Another: [ ] Dupe [X] Apple iTunes Article [X] WTF [ ] $editor is a dork
[ ] Frist psot [ ] link to GNAA [ ] Link to goatse [ ] $random_drivel
[X] I Haven't RTFA, but... $random_opinionated_comment
[ ] Slashdotted already!. I bet their server runs on $topic_item too
[ ] Soul_sucking registration required
[ ] Mod Parent [ ] up [ ] Down
[X] Fsck: [ ] SCO [ ] Micro$oft [ ] DMCA [ ] DRM [ ] MPAA [X] RIAA [ ] Google [ ] Bush [ ] You all
[ ] I for one welcome our new $topic_item overlords
[ ] Imagine a beowulf cluster of those
[ ] In Soviet Russia, $topic_item owns you!
[ ] Meh!
[ ] Netcraft confirms $topic_item is: [ ] dead [ ] dying
[ ] But have the inventors thought of what will happen if $random_amateur_insight
[ ] Once again the USA is clamping down on my [ ] Amendment rights.
[ ] You insensitive clod
[X] But people who download music from P2P networks are more likely to buy the album
[ ] Cue DVD Jon-type crack in 3..2..1
[ ] Torrent, anyone?
[ ] Clever Sig [X] Lame Sig
[ ]Clever sig [X]Lame sig
There are many comments here about Apple starting their own label, and how they can't right now because of the Apple Records lawsuit. Why not leverage the Pixar name and start a label under that? Promise the artists something insane, like a 70% cut of all sales on it for switching from a RIAA label to Pixar. We already know that artists are getting some insanely low 1-2% cut, or even lower in some cases now. If they buyout their contract, or fulfill the contract by releasing the remainder of their albums, there is nothing to stop them from moving.
Apple/Pixar are currently in a perfect position to really shake things up in the Music industry, and if I were any of the major labels, I'd be really careful not to piss off Jobs. The only thing the labels are bringing to the table right now is their contracts with artists, and if Apple owns their own label and those contracts expire, there could be plenty of incentive for artists to give the finger to RIAA labels and switch over.
Online music distribution is where everything is currently heading, I would venture to guess that purchasing a CD in 10 years from a retailer will be next to impossible. I also think that it is in Apple's best interest to form their own label (or buyout Apple Records) and use that to distribute their music. If the big moneymaking artists signed with the dinosaur labels start leaving and going with another label that treats them right, those labels will be screwed. It's a realistic situation, and it's going to happen at some point (even if it's not with Apple).
Another thought on this, the label could not initially rely on online distribution only. They need to have some way for people to buy their albums at traditional retailers. Do they print and press CD's and distribute them, or do they use some of the on demand CD duplication technologies that are out there? It certainly would be nice to be able to walk into a store, select 10 different songs from 10 different albums, hit Print and have a CD with a nice printed cover in my hand in a couple of minutes. Not only does this provide some novelty and convenience, but it greatly increases the amount of different music that a retailer sells. I know when I go into Target and look for something that's not mainstream, I can't find it. Having a Kiosk like this would be able to provide me with literally everything I was looking for (since it would be connected to the net and have full access to the iTunes music store library).
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Uh oh!
Looks like members of the RIAA and other music industry execs have mod points. Zoiks!
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
*No, it's not retroactive, unless you suddenly have to pay more for the time you've already used it, or something like that. The original deal can be that you can play the music on five computers, and then they change that to three so on two of the computers you've copied it to it doesn't work anymore, but that means that you can only play the music on three computers from now on. It doesn't mean that you never heard the song on those two computers.
**Which I stopped doing years ago anyway, when the price touched 30USD (in Norway), but hey...
They'd rather not piss off Steve Jobs too much! If the Labels really pull the plug on iTMS, an appropriate answer would be to seamlessly integrate a P2P client into the next version of iTunes just the way iTMS is integrated now. (Or, a little more elegant: Creating a hook for iTunes *plugins* and let other people to do the dirty work...)
would be like a cut of every CD player, tape player, or record player sold. If the RIAA doesn't get a cut of those, then it obviously shouldn't get a cut of iPod.
It is also an insipid argument that their digital downloads made the iPod. It is completely bass-ackwards to the real truth. There were digital music players, and even digital music stores, before iPod/iTMS. It wasn't until Apple made it simple to buy music that digital downloads took off.
The RIAA labels really show how they feel about Intellectual Property with this move. "What's ours is ours, and anything ours touches is ours."
This might even resolve the conflict with Apple Music to the point that they agree to release the Beatles collection, prompting millions of dollars in (re)sales overnight!
The CB App. What's your 20?
If you're going to make statements like this, please back it up with facts and not opinion.
Pooty tweet
Go Steve! Kick those greedy bastards in the balls!
Simple, shut ITMS down for a year, lets see 'm crawling back when they realize the hughe drop in profit they already get ...
Apple needs to just make their own music label. They have the stockpiled cash and the means of distribution to do it. Just put the whole damn record industry out of business and see if they cry to work for Apple in 5 years.
i always thought that a buck a song was resaonable, if it gets raised that means the record companies are beeing greedy, its still costs you the same to dl an entire album vs buying i in the store, i would think the companies would preffer the dl due to the fact they save $$ by not having to put music to media
--I am still wating to be impressed--
New CD is purchased. Store gets their cut, recording company and artist get their cuts. Used CD is purchased. Store gets their cut. If you want a legal way to buy music without dumping more $$ into the greedy hands of the recording corporations then buy used music. They make an initial profit on the disk when it's new. But every time it is re-sold it's denying them a sale and dammit that feels good.
Oh, and if they pull this on Wal-Mart, they'll just pull the plug, Wal-Mart won't play along.
So the solution to corporate assholery is....corporate assholery?
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
if Sony, Toshiba, Philips... don't agree to split their revenues from their TV sets, VCRs and DVD recorders. Sheeeesh!!!
Pushing the issue will just force people back onto p2p networks, and with the RIAA/MPAA crusade to have them shut down - its only going to spawn the next-generation of p2p networks sooner.
Using the word "force" here I disagree with. Nobody forces anyone to listen to any music -- well, outside of the whole Noriega siege. What I mean is, people would still have the choice of copyright infringement downloads, legal downloads, and/or no downloads.
MORTAR COMBAT!
That's not quite the point: a good music store has expert staff who can advise, recommend, let you hear stuff you've never heard of, and tell you why Maria Callas' O mio babbino caro is better than Leontyne Price's.
Slashdot entertains. Windows pays the mortgage.
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005 /10/oregon-riaa-victim-fights-back-sues.html
1a) Apple has sued a multitude of fan sites for distributing information ahead of schedule.
1b) The RIAA has sued fans, (many with no facts to back up their case) for activity that, while likely illegal certainly fits in a legal grey area at the moment.
2a) Apple has a long and tragic history of half-baked products and recalls of defective or just plain crappy parts. (laptop batteries, ipod batteries, ipod screens, superdrives, etc. They have alienated their developers and driven just about everybody off the platform except themselves.
2b) Te music industry put out a constrant stream of low-quality products. Yes this is my opinion, but declining sales and concert attendance can be interpreted as market agreement.
3) Apple computers routinely cost 1.5 - 2 x as much as a comparable PC, and have a library that is tragically limited in scope. They use their "monopoly" over their niche to charge premium prices. 3b)The record company has inflated prices far faster than inflation for no reason other than that they can and nobody is competing with them.
Sure, there is a healthy dose of opinion here, but I like to think that I'm not off on some wild tangent where a reasonable person can't follow.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
That's a much better argument than what you originally posted. I still don't agree on most of it, but at least it's more than a kneejerk reaction which the original post was.
/. is so high that the only way to make reading it bearable is to read intelligently written stuff rather than the old "Mac's suck, they're too expensive, they're abusing they're "monopoly" to inflate prices (which is patently wrong by the way. economies of scale is all I have to say)... yada yada yada." Go ahead, dislike Apple all you want. If you're going to post how much you hate them, at least put some thought into it like you did this last time.
The signal to noise ration on
Pooty tweet
Steve's Money > Record Exec's Money
Steve's Karma > > RIAA karma
What I want to see record companies do is film Paris Hilton having sex with all different kinds of iPods. That might make them more money than saying, "Screw you Steve- I'm going home."
... in Sweden they do.
More specifically there's a "tax" on blank media such as harddrives and blank compact discs that goes directly to the recording industry.
=o)
-----
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
And BTW:
In Spanish you just say "ganar por negocio" you do not use the preposition "a".
Cheers,
Omar
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
(excluding of course any hint of rebelling against the publishers profits)
Now I've always had a deep respect
And I mean that most sincerely
The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think
Oh, by the way, which one's Pink?
Tell me that is not rebelling against the publisher? The sarcasm drips thick off of that song. (For the unfamiliar, the song is Have a Cigar from the album Wish You Were Here
www.wavefront-av.com
They'd build their own, but they're not into blackjack and hookers. :>
We had this at o ne time. It was called mymp3.com.
Artists uploads mp3's of their work and had links to where to buy, news on the artist, etc. It worked great until they were bought up.
The music industry would be singing a new tune if Wal-Mart & Apple said our price or no sales. CD/DVD sales are 1% of Wal-Mart's profits so they could care less, and have already used that stance to gain favorable pricing from labels.
I've been able to buy things on opening day from walmart cheaper than best buy.
Do FM stations get a piece of every FM radio sold? Using this logic, they should.