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.
*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...
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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?...
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.
They don't want it to succeed. The recording industry actions over the last few years have pointed to a common goal: stop online music distribution. It could never be as profitable for the music cartel as physical distribution. I think they allowed iTunes to temporarily succeed with this plan in mind all along so they can later kill it, to establish that there is no market for online music distribution and people can now go back to paying $20 for a CD with 2 good songs on it. But it's too late for that to happen now. The only thing that will ultimately pull the music industry's collective head out of it's collective ass is when well-known artists bypass them altogether. When things like this happen, that day will come sooner rather than later.
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 feel for the music industry, because they were stupid enough to challenge Jobs to a Mexican standoff.
To finish your sentance: as opposed to the price that the market sets.
The problem is that other than a couple on-line wanabies and a grey source (allofmp3) the apple store is the only source. The monopoly still exists.
What we really need is another eStore to open, selling comparible (and compatible DRM) music at slightly lower prices (97c anybody). Let the market open and the pricewar evolve. shortly one of the two will pick up the 'variable price per song based on download rate as a measure of popularity' method on their own. At that point the RIAA's attempts to shut down either become clear anti-trust.
What I don't know is why can't this happen? Apple licencing of DRM? or record execs (RIAA) being a PITA?
Why can't I start selling music on my own, just set up shop and go?
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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.
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
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
Your comment makes it sound as though the RIAA does not already employ price gouging on CDs. When they all work together to set a price, and then complain that people aren't buying, that's a price fixing at it's finest.
If the RIAA had their way, they'd have a cut of everyone's taxes go towards "artist appreciation" (i.e. their pockets) to offset their estimated losses from pirating. And they'd still charge for CDs, downloaded songs, etc.
Cute, but a more accurate analogy would be, "Exxon and Shell announced that unless Ford and GM gave them a share of SUV revenues they'd stop selling Gas to SUV owners."
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
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
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
yes, of course it would boost iPod sales, but it doesn't make a profit on its own.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
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".
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.)
^_^
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'd have a lot of trouble convincing a judge that the Apple enjoys a monopoly on MP3 players and online music stores.
Its like saying Ford has a monopoly on Ford automobiles when there are plenty of competitors.
There is no monopoly without a relevant product market. There is no "iPod" market. There is only an MP3 player market.
I daresay Apple could fully well step right into RIAA's territory and sign up artists for exclusive distribution. I know if I were choosing a rep, it'd be someone like Apple, which would very likely strike a win-win deal that enables me to make a good living as an artist; than someone like RIAA, which I know will do everything in its power to fuck me over and leave me indebted to them.
I should go find out what happened between Apple Computers and Apple Records. I'm a little surprised Apple is in the music business, given their original agreement with Apple Records was to stay well the hell out of anything that looked like music.
If Apple were smart enough to have just bought AR outright, they might very well already have a mechanism in place to support artists. And that, my friends, would be the start of the entertainment revolution: independents who can make a good solid living from their work.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The record labels are biting the hand that feeds them.
They bite the vendors, and they screw everyone else, including the artists and the buyers. If this is not monopoly abuse then I don't know what is. I think your average drugs dealers is a bit better than these guys - even they aren't, at least the law knows how deal with drugs dealers.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I don't know if you're an idiot or not but it doesn't look like it from your post.
I think Apple will ultimately cave, but they want to make the labels look as bad as possible before that. Apple's actions to date support that theory, because the longer and more public the battle is the worse the labels will look. Apple can make the labels look bad without actually saying anything that can get them sued.
Towards that end they may be putting up a fight over issues they are ultimately prepared to accept, like variable pricing. I don't think Apple's motives are altruistic (I think they mostly want to rip people off on iPods instead of on music), but if this is a battle for public opinion, an already poorly regarded industry is going up against probably one of the best PR companies there is.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
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.
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.
And further, I don't need to own an iPod to play DRM'd AAC files. They'll play on the iTunes application on the computer too.
(I'm not analogizing the razor-and-blades marketing strategy to the iPod and AAC.)
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I think that should be "at least the law WILL deal with drug dealers."
So far, no one really seems to care about what the music industry is doing. Because if someone says something to them, they will just scream "PIRACY! PIRACY!" and the government turns the other way... "oh, carry on then."
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?
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?
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
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.
"On the other hand, Apple could also simply start their own music label and really rock the industry."
They can't, there's already an Apple record label, and they own the IP that was produced by the Beattles.
Apple (music) sued Apple (computers) when they first attached speakers to their computers, claiming that people could mistake the two companies. The settlement was that Apple (music) would stop being so whiney, and Apple (computers) would not get involved into the actual music industry.
Now, with Apple (computers) running iTMS, and the iPod, you can argue that they've gotten into the music industry. In fact, Apple (music) sued (is suing?) Apple (computers) again over this. Apple (computers) still has a leg to stand on, because they're not producing or owning music, they're just distributing it for the Music Industry.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Apple (computers) started their own label, that they'd have absolutely no legal leg to stand on, and would be either a) screwed, or b) forced to change the name, so it doesn't conflict with Apple (music), in which case they lose the brand name, and lose.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
* Haul users into court and get settlements to hope a 'problem' in piracy results in more physical sales.
* Try to get extra revenue (because 80% isn't enough) from individual iTMS music sales, it's not like they actually pass on the 80% to the artist.
* Put up the individual cost of music where ever possible.
Never do they actually bother try to increase the quality of music available to the public or actually give them more of it. They have a culture of pushing celebrity status apon a few single artists and micromanaging their actions into the press hoping for follow on success.(britney/etc) When they know perfectly well that they can make a lot of money out of promoting (but not to gigantic international celebrity level.) smaller local artists who sell in smaller volumes. But this effort requires a lot of work that they aren't interested in, so they think suing you instead will help britney's sales.
Right or wrong, it's not about the money, per se. It's about control of distribution, which they do not have with Steve Jobs and Apple. And that's just torquing them into pretzels.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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
Why exactly would Warner's sales go down the toilet? Music isn't a commodity market; there's only one supplier for the desired product. If someone wants to purchase music created by an artist signed to one of Warner's labels, they have to go through Warner's distribution channels. Let's say Warner sells their music through the Warner Music Store (tm) for a buck fifty a song. The number of units sold may go down due to the higher price point and the slightly more difficult process of buying Warner music (i.e., not via iTMS like everyone else), but their total profit would stay about the same as before.
the coolest club on
Before I would buy from a website that registers its name with bogus info (mp3search.ru) or send my credit card info to Russia (both sites are Russian, do a whois) I would explore some options a bit closer to home.
If you LIVE in Russia, fine, but I won't be giving my credit card info to companies out of the US, Canada and western Europe.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
They bite the vendors, and they screw everyone else, including the artists and the buyers. If this is not monopoly abuse then I don't know what is.
But they don't have a monopoly over Apple. Apple would still be selling oodles and oodles of iPods if they never had iTunes, iTMS just gives them respectability. If the iPod was MP3-only, it would still rock as a player. After all, you're not going to fill a 40GB player without at least doing some major CD rips.
Jobs could tell the record industry tomorrow to screw, and the dip might not even register in Apple's revenue stream. iTMS is good for Apple's future, but it isn't as important to Apple as creating a legitimate online revenue stream is to the music industry.
The ______ Agenda
Exactly. And this is where the record labels screwed up big time. How many years did they fight Napster when they should have been setting up their own legal download shop? Instead, Apple took the initiative and presented it to the labels when they were desperate. Now Aple has the control and the labels are realizing that iTMS doesn't need them in the future. They SHOULD be very scared. If I have a band, and my contract is up with a label, I'd be crazy to re-sign. I could easily go straight through iTMS and get a much larger percentage of the profits.
Rest in Peace, RIAA.
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.
Speaking of wrong terms. You don't buy things from iTunes. You licence the media to be played on max 5 authorized computers at a time. As soon as you licence the media the economic value of the media is zero since it's illegal to resell the licence to any other part. The licence for your old media sometimes changes retroactively as Apple makes new deals with the record companies. If Apple should decide for whatever reason to take away their licence servers your music is gone forever.
No, that doesn't sound like the old school term "buy" we use when we go to the candy store.
I don't really care if Apple (and the other music stores) change their ways of doing business but I think it's VERY dishonest to call someting "buy" when in fact it's more like renting. I want to really own stuff I buy, as it is now it's "you own it just as much as you need to listen to the music they way we say you are allowed to".
The subscription models is better in this regard since they don't confuse you to think you own the media when in fact you don't.
You won't be the only one. Personally, I'd still purchase mine, though, as I don't get my music from iTunes. I certainly find it more than just a bit disappointing to know that the music industry would sink so low as to demand revenue for a product whose sales they had no part in.
What's even sadder about their attempt is that not everyone who purchases an iPod isn't necessarily purchasing new music. Many people rip their existing collections and import them to their iPod, so how does that entitle anyone in the music industry to a cut of iPod sales? Parasites.
As others have stated, artists can connect up with iTunes and similar online distributors directly. They can also record their material themselves or use one of the many low cost independent recording studios.
The whole "economy of scale" argument the record companies have been using for years to rip off artists and listeners alike is now obviously absurd. That argument was the last fig leaf they had left to hide their greed and corruption.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Not quite..
Apple had to spend a long time courting the music industry even to get the iTMS off the drawing board. They did it by making predictions that turned out to be true, over and over again, until a few people in the labels started paying attention. It was a hard struggle, though, because there were plenty of other people willing to tell the labels what they wanted to hear: namely that access controls would work, and that they could bolt all the restrictions of their circles-of-plastic business model onto the online distribution model.
Well, time and experience showed that the folks at Apple knew what they were talking about. And so people at the labels gradually came to agree that Apple had some idea of what was actually going on.
Now that the iTMS is big news, though, and the latest iPod gets more press coverage than most of the upcoming movies, ALL the players in the music industry feel the need to haul themselves up on their hind legs and be heard, including the ones who wouldn't have enough brains to poke a stick into an anthill after spending three weeks at a Power Simian business seminar.
Yeah, the music industry would love to get more money out of Apple if it was basically a matter of letting the (pardon the pun) apple fall out of the tree. NOBODY in business passes up a chance at easy money if they can get it. The sensible people in the music industry, though.. and let's all do them the favor of believing there are some.. are willing to live with the script that runs:
MUSIC INDUSTRY: Hey Apple, want to give us more money?
APPLE: No.
MUSIC INDUSTRY: Okay. Just asking.
The ones were hearing about now, in this article, are the sub-chimps who just haven't got the clue. They have yet to realize that having one label pull out of the iTMS will hurt that label a whole lot more than it hurts Apple over the long run.
Apparently game theory is another realm of knowledge the RIIA never bothered to acquire, beause they're now in a prisoner's dilemma they can't escape. The only way the RIAA can hurt Apple is for all the labels to pull out at once, and for all of them to stay out until Apple agrees to the terms of the RIAA as a whole. If only one or two pull out, the ones that remain in will weep crocodile tears all the way to the bank. And sales from the existing catalog don't even begin to touch on the contract concessions the non-participating labels will have to make with artists.. "What do you mean signing with you means my music WON'T go into the iTMS? There ARE other labels out there, you know."
What we're hearing now are the rumblings of soon-to-be-extinct morons who aren't ready to lie down and have someone shovel dirt onto their faces yet. But die they will, and sooner rather than later. There's too much money in iTMS sales to ignore, and if the big labels insist on pretending that it doesn't exist, artists will find other ways to get their stuff listed with Apple.
The only two plausible options in this scenario are: A) the labels shut up and let Apple set its price point where it wants, or B) the people who refuse to do business with Apple suffer enough losses that they get fired. Apple has no reason to budge on this issue, every reason to hold its ground, a whole bunch of cash on hand to sit out a potential RIAA embargo, and a much better PR stance vis-a-vis its customers.. Apple: "hey, we just relased the Nano!" RIAA: "hey, we just sued another 750 twelve-year-olds!"
What about Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Japan? :P
Their sales won't plummet because the ITMS is tiny compared to the CD business. The RIAA is frightened by the possibility of that changing in the future.
Well, coming from an anonymous coward, then I have to believe this....Not exactly an endorsement when you won't even log onto as a user.
Or I could just do business with reputable companies, which is a whole lot easier. Why would I do business with a company that will not provide their real address? Throw away credit card or not, I am just not interested in dealing with companies like that.
Do you buy Rolex watches from guys hanging out on the street?
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
You live more than 100 miles from a computer? Amazon dot fucking com, motherfucker.