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...
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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 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?
Because Apple's contract is up. They negotiated a contract for 2 (or has it been 3?) years and now they have to re-negotiate the contract. Then the record companies can use this to force the next contract re-negotiation to raise prices (kind of like IP "parity" - Australia grants 200 year copyrights so now we have to too stay even - except we tack on an extra 50 years and now Australia...). Also, iTMS has like 85% of the market, so the recording companies have to take them down a peg. They want competition amongst distributors, a typical divide and conquer strategy. If they were solely reliant on digital distribution, they would be fucked, because Apple could basically dictate terms to them. They want a bunch of digital distributors with small percentages of the market so that if any of them get out of line, they can destroy them with out affecting their bottom line. It is very similar to Microsoft, in that they encourage fierce competition amongst hardware manufacturers, leading to lower prices and razor-thin margins, while maintaining a monopoly on the software needed for that hardware, ensuring they can enforce high prices and even higher margins.
I really hope Apple holds out, because otherwise we are going to be screwed, ceding all market power to the RIAA.
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."
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?
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.