Slashdot Mirror
Music Labels Charge Too Much For Microsoft
Bret540 writes "Yahoo is reporting that Microsoft has ended license talks with four major music labels. From the article: 'The paper [the Wall Street Journal] reported negotiations broke down Friday over what Microsoft considered high royalty rates.' How much more can the music labels demand when even Microsoft won't go to market? With other recent developments, one must wonder how long the music industry can keep pushing."
one must wonder how long the music industry can keep pushing.
The editors must mean the greedy recording companies - the music industry itself is not inherently evil, it will outlive the current system and be there for as long humans inhabit this planet.
They'll fail to agree on this issue, but decide to organise a joint conference next year entitled : "Price Gouging For Fun And Profit : How to make a de facto monopoly work for you"
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
According to several people briefed on the matter, the labels separately were seeking royalty payments of $6 to $8 per user, per month. People close to the labels say that is in line with what existing subscription-music services pay, the Journal reported.
Seems rather high, considering you still have to pay $1 or more for each song you download, and the song is likely to be encumbered with DRM, and the quality is usually less than a rip from a CD. One would get the feeling the music labels don't really want to sell songs via the Internet...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
They say that the current subscription services are being charged in the %6-8/month range, which is what was being offered to Microsoft. If this is true, how is it that Yahoo! can afford such a low subscription rate?
A community-oriented lyrics site
They'll push until Microsoft owns them
Royalty payments of $6-$8 per month? I wonder if they're all colluding on pricing again.
Resistance is futile. They will be assimilated. :)
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
You give people an inch they try and take a mile.
People like that shouldn't complain that others just want to give them a few more inches from behind.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
'The paper [the Wall Street Journal] reported negotiations broke down Friday over what Microsoft considered high royalty rates.'
Is anybody really surprised? Well, maybe a little - MS has shown its willingness to lose billions to get into a market.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
That's not it. More like, "how much more of the cut is MS demanding (compared to others in the market) that the RIAA won't do it?"
And,
"How long is MS willing to let Apple own music before they realize that the music itself is a loss-leader?"
Hard to believe, but they have agreed with His Steveness, and told the cartel to stuff it. Takes one monopolist to know another, or an oligopoly, at least.
...one must wonder how long the music industry can keep pushing.
/.); last I knew, I don't think /. had readership on the scale necessary to effect change.
Indefinitely?
The majority of people are ignorant to these demands. The only informed people are the ones that follow the blogs, and news sites (like
The answer is a simple one to state, but a difficult one to implement. While media is completely different from every product in that it is possible to reproduce (copy) it, I also believe it's longevity implies copies should be permitted. Let's look at CD's, even if you take care of them they wear out. You didn't buy the CD for the plastic disk, you bought it for the music on the plastic disk. Compare that to say, a TV, when it dies, it dies, you have to buy a new one, period. You can't copy it. On the other hand, you didn't purchase what you're going to watch on the TV. And you can't blame the TV's or their manufacturers for crappy TV stations. The TV manufacturers have to make the TV last longer or the reputation is at stake. They can store music on a low quality media, and get away with making you buy it repeatedly... so the media and the music can both suck, and you're screwed.
The point is everything the music industry is involved in revolves around greed, plain and simple. You don't believe there was some greedy bastard at each of the record labels wringing his hands in glee when he realized the recurring income from worn out CD's?
Stop buying it. Or stop bitching about it.
That's what we have to do, present company included...
My ZooLoo
...three cheers for Microsoft!
This represents a stunning defeat for the music industry, and combined with Apple's iTMS success, could indicate the beginnings not only of a change in how music is priced, but also of a change in how music is produced, promoted, and distributed - i.e., without the RIAA and its members.
I'm not sure how to feel about this situation.
Man, you really need that seminar!
This is just my two cents, but I belive the music industry executives to be complete and total morons. When will they realize that people will not continue to buy your product when you're overcharging? This is basic economics. If a dairy wanted to charge $20 for a gallon of milk, do you think anyone would buy it? No. There are better ways to support the artist than buying their music. Steal the music, go to their concerts, but their t-shirts.
And here's a hint to the music industry: Collective Licensing. You will continue to be forced to lower your royalties until you reach this.
Voluntary Collective Licensing
Your time as the bully is over.
Aero
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
it's all about power: the music conglomerates and the riaa exist to control music distribution in a world of LPs, cassettes, and CDs
in a world of cable modems and fiber optics, who controls the music distribution?
the tech companies do
bill gates and steve jobs do
so if their handlers are smart, they will just start signing artists themselves
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
While not the biggest fan of on-line music I have occasionally bought albums via iTunes. However 9.99 is the max I am willing to pay for any downloadable album. So I have skipped four albums in the last two weeks due to their pricing being higher ranging from 13.99 to 19.99 for the downloadable album. That works out to $39.96 in lost sales if you work it out using my max price. Why do they think we are fool enough to pay as much for a downloaded album as we would for a complete packaged CD. I also notified Apple of my decision and why so they could use it as ammunition in their fight against the labels. I am waiting for the price fixing lawsuit and the abuse of copyright claims against the recording labels. Maybe one day. I know I am a dreamer.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
The recording companies will push as long and as hard as they can -- they'll pause when someone pushes back.
Only by continually testing the line will they be able to determine how much the market will bear, which is how they determine their prices. MS breaking off negotiations is a negotiating tactic in itself -- MS has communicated to the recording companies that they are demanding too much.
Wait a month or two, the recording industry will come down in price, and both sides will have a deal they are content with.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Include Kazaa/BitTorrent/eDonkey as part of the operating system?
Embrace and extend baby, MS tried to play nice, but the RIAA wasn't having any of it.
Now its gonna get UGLY!!
A spokesman for the music companies says that talks officially ended after "one of the Microsoft guys started doing chair-hadokens".
In other news, Microsoft puts out a new security update that enables a global Windows-based peer-to-peer filesharing network.
Steve Ballmer was quoted, "F**K THAT RIAA! I'm GOING TO F**KING KILL YOU TOO!! KILL!!! KILL!! KILLL!!!!!!"
Stock prices of major furniture companies went up as well on the news, on forecasts of the increased need for chairs.
What are the odds that some idiot will name his mutex ether-rot-mutex!
You mean I won't be able to buy the latest hit hip-hop album from MSNBCEMIBMG Time Warner Super Mega Corp? Damn.
It's pretty bad when a company that lost $8 billion breaking into the gaming industry says you're charging too much.
FanFictionRecs.net
The problem here is that MS needs to make a significant profit on the venture, as opposed to Apple, who has a music store to sell music players. Apple is content to give away the bulk of the proceeds from its store for market share so they can drive iTunes sales. What does MS stand to gain by giving away the bulk of its profits? More WMA licenses? Those can hardly bring in more than a few dollars per player.
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised to see MS do everything at a total loss just for the sake of controlling the market.
Do they know how *hard* these record labels are trying to make ends meet?
_________
Judge a Man by His Wallet
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
It's smart to stand up to Jobs and Gates. Music doesn't want another MTV dictating to them what to do. iPOD is trying to be the new MTV. Unfortunately for Apple, the new song is "MP3 killed the Video Star" not "I want my DRM". Kiddies are wising up the iPOD scam; there's no reason for the consumer to get locked into one vendor. Same with music companies, there's no reason to get locked into one distributor.
Of course with the internet, bands don't need traditional music companies as much anymore.
You misspelled "copy" as "steal". As in "Microsoft did not steal Lotus Notes, but copied ideas and make a similar product which ultimately unseated Lotus Notes."
That out of the way, are you suggesting that MS will start issuing their own recordings? Uh-huh.
Basically, the industry needs to deal with Apple, not Microsoft. Microsoft is not a player in the game anymore. Microsoft is a a Johnny Come Lately.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
With the huge amount of $$$ M$ has I am very curious why they don't try their old standby...
subvert the market out from under the music labels.
M$ could support 100 times the number of indie artists, publish all their music ala mp3.com and CREATE a new music market.
The kewl part,
ROYALTIES to MS = $$$
ROYALTIES to RIAA = $0
Reminds me of when Cartman had Jennifer Lopez as his pal (and enemy)...
They Live, We Sleep
looks like Microsoft is going with Operation: Shock and Awe on the recording industry. I mean, the big M saying that a price is too high is wild.
Question: does anyone else find it funny that one of the most proprietary companies anywhere is complaining about a price at all?
This has to be the most ironic position either side could possibly be in.
Microsoft - convicted monopolist, one of the richest companys in the world, complaining about being ripped of by
The music industry - convicted price fixers, convicted conspirators, defacto ologopoly.
What's the difference between a record company and Microsoft? I'll tell you: One is a monopolistic leviathan, saddled with an outdated business model and unfairly, perhaps illegally, leveraging a chokehold on one market to try and take over another, desperately afraid of emerging free alternatives and assailed by customers for ridiculously high prices and shoddy quality. The other ... hmmmm, let's try this again.
What's the difference between a record company and Microsoft?
I'll tell you: One will be entirely bankrupt in 10 years, while the other will at least limp along selling a Flight Simulator.
Payback's a beeyotch, INNNIT??!!
wow, even Microsoft dont have pocket deep enough to keep these ravenous hordes at bay. a company that was happy taking 100 million a year loss for a few years kick starting the xbox doesnt have the $ to get into online music retail.
something is ****ed up there.
Surely these RIAA people will either start going broke, or theyll start chaging, or more likely the later as a consequence of the former.
Mabey someone needs to push Indy groups and emerging artits into an online freindly distribution scheme to get some success out there so others follow on their own.
XML - A clever joke would be here if
The labels are greedy bastards. How? What? When did this happen?
Geez.
As for how long they can go on like this, it took a hail of bullets to stop Bonnie and Clyde.
I can't wait until Microsoft unveils its music-download service for 'ermerging markets' -- you know ala 'windows xp starter' style. For only 1/10th of the regular price, they'll sell you 9/10ths of the song.... more than enough for those guys :) Won't the Music industry execs love this one!
They're starting to catch on. I suspect that they demanded a share of MSWindows revenue (same as iPod with Apple). Which, IMHO, was the only thing they could do.
Remember, the RIAA is basically just a bunch of distributors. Apple and now Microsoft are taking that role away; with them holding the DRM key to the store the RIAA has little choice but to do business with (and through) them.
Just like the artists have little choice but to do business with (and through) the RIAA. Indentured servitude. "Work for hire." In other words, the Man owns you, suckah, and unless you give good head you're not singing anywhere for the rest of your life.
Karma is such a bitch -- especially on the "comes around" part.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
somewhere steve jobs is smiling. You would think that due to recent developments that the music industry would love to emanate a "play by our rules or we'll go somewhere else" image.
Well, that is unless microsoft took advantage of that situation and dictated terrible terms, with the message that like it or not, a new distributor is in town.
That's the problem with admitting you are currently in a bad deal while negotiating for another. They come across, on some levels as appearing desperate.
What would it do to iPod sales if microsoft became the leader in music distribution software? Considering the iPod is a cash cow for apple, and microsoft would have to support the iPod to enter the market, would the two of them have to play nice? (I recall reading a theory that apple was hoping to break even on the iTunes music store, if so, then what would the fallout for an MS/music industry from apple's perspective?)
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
The basic questions have all been answered, now they're just arguing over price.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
A little bug in my ear is telling me that Microsoft decided that the online music business isn't worth it and that this is their way of backing out of it without looking like they've failed. Blaming it on the record labels, even though there probably is some justification in it. Just a suspicion.
Yeah. If they stole something, then the rightful owner wouldn't have it. They were copying it, Lotus still had their product to do with as they pleased!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
With developments like these I am begining to think that Dvorak may be on to something in his latest PCMag.com article.
http://pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1862166,00.asp
It certainly seems that the record companies are deliberately trying to sink online music sales...
There are three good reasons why the music industry wants third party online services to fail.
First, imagine if a service such as iTunes became very successful. For example, 50% or more of all music sold was sold via iTunes. Now imagine you're a successful musician and it's time to resign to a label. Do you sign or do you get a marketer and simply sell your tunes on iTunes and keep the vast majority of the profits for yourself? If any third party online service succeeded, the current music industry would be toast.
Second, the music industry has historically cooked the books, i.e., over reported sales of some artists to hype them or under-reported sales of successful artists to screw them out of royalties. With a third party keeping precise track of every song being sold the music industry loses control. Suddenly they can't "fix" the charts and artists are demanding their fair share. They don't want that.
The third reason is that they want ALL profits for themselves. Why should Apple or Microsoft get some of the profits when the music industry can get it all? Let's face it, they are a monopoly. E.g., you can only legally buy a System of a Down CD from Sony, and no one else.
This refusal to negotiation fair rates with third parties certainly shows that the music industry is doing pretty well. If they were as bad off as they claim they would more willing to open new markets and new models.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
The amounts the labels are asking is quite understandable I think.
Selling music online is very 'hot' these days. Lots of self-respecting online mega-corporations are setting up online stores.
Labels notice this (duh) and adapt their price to the market. They know Apple's a big rival of Microsoft, and that MS wants to have the market share Apple has in this piece of the market. And, not the least important, Microsoft has ability to pay the labels such amounts. If only to push Apple out of the market.
Fortunately they (MS) didn't...
Microsoft could cut the music industry out completely, deal directly with the artists and set up it's own distribution network. If it weren't for the DRM and format lock-in that would be a good thing, unfortunately this is Microsoft we are talking about :-(
Which part of the "NEW YORK (Reuters)" didn't you get?
The real question is when Apple or Microsoft will start/buy their own music label. Sounds easier to me than trying to negotiate with any cartel...
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
...an unsigned group makes a smash hit and a few million bucks on tour after releasing their stuff online. No promo required except word of mouth, blog, etc. It will happen.
Then no one will sign up with the record corps anymore.
When will the first i-only true hit song or album happen?
FM will die unless the music biz is *really* transformed to a point where bands license to corps that license groups of tunes to radio stations. Otherwise, FM stations will never get to play any new tunes anymore. This is no biggie since everyone will have their x-pod plugged into their ears anyway...
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Why would MS want to even get into this market? They're the peddlers selling shovels to the 49ers who think they'll get rich in the online music market - supplying them with DRM. Just about every music seller is just using MS's platform. (I don't even know what differentiates them.) Online music will either work and make MS a ton of licensing revenue, or it'll go belly up and MS will have a mature, proven DRM solution to sell someone else.
If any third party online service succeeded, the current music industry would be toast.
I think this is the crux of the issue. The labels currently own the product and the means of distribution. Anyone who has taken macro economics 101 knows enough to see that losing control of the means of distribution is probably a larger threat to music labels than losing ownership of the product - which they sort of have, in their struggle to keep from copying and distributing on their own (which brings us back to the means of distribution).
They are losing control in much the same way Kodak lost control of the photograph market and the same way Microsoft is now losing control. Control becomes more important than product quality because as control increases quality and innovation can decrease.
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
I didn't realize that monopolies could be so incestual. What we have here is a clear example of one trying to fuck another one.
blog |
Leave off Microsoft!
They might be a consumer-raping coorporate giant like you, but they're OUR consumer-raping coorporate giant!
-RadioElectric
If M$ operated it as a loss leader they would probably still pass on the royalties of $6-8 a month or $72-96 per year for what would certainly would be a service overencumbered with DRM. And probably like Yahoos service you can't listen to the songs if you subscription expires.
Compare that with iTMS where it would be the equivalent of buying 72-96 songs per year, with a indefinite period of use, and the right to burn it to CD.
As far as proprietary systems (iTunes or WMA) is concerned it is a tie. No advantage unless you're an iPod fan. iPod market share tells that story.
Makes me wonder if M$ is going to reconsider embedding DRM technology in Vista or Windows Mobile.
As long as they have the Internet as a scape-goat.
This is the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks!
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Everyone's been getting it wrong.
It's not Windows Vista, it's Windows ViSter.
sooner or later, we might even see Microsoft getting into the music biz by starting their own recording label...of course, CD's from them will be buggy.
Heck, they are even getting into the movie biz with the upcoming Halo movie.
is the song. I can't tell you how many different audio devices and computers I've used to play the songs that I only bought once.
I'll just hazard a guess... the recording industry doesn't want MS anywhere near their turf. Not as a client, not as a distributor, not as anything. They would make the barrier to entry to freaking steep that *if* MS took the bait the company would be so financially burdened it could not monpolize them and the PC desktop both.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
If the record companies abandon apple, then apple will be left with a pre-existing user base of music fans, and all the infrastructure it needs to become a major record company itself. It will sign on new bands by promising them 50% of all revenue, and be able to lower the song price to $.50. Apple will make $.20 more per download, as will the artists. The lower cost of distribution and advertizing will enable them to sign more diverse, local bands then would be profitable the way the record companies do business. The fans would get a better selection, for half the price. Incentives could be given to big name bands to switch to apple, and suddenly you have a music industry without greedy, anacronistic record companies.
-DB-
E-mail is like a prison: a prison with no walls... and no toilet. -Strong Bad
The music industry went after Jobs. Right now Microsoft can say "We won't pay more then Apple."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How your post got rated 5 informative is beyond me. Every point you make is wrong. The music companies want on-line services to work because CD sales are declining and they need a replacement. Artists will sign with whoever gives them the most money. Go to Apple and see how much of an upfront payment you'll get. Download sales are already taking off and unless you've been asleep you can't miss the fact that more deals are being done every week. If they didn't want these services to survive why are they doing the deals? If they want all the profit themselves, why aren't they selling direct?
MS and RIAA battling it out. I don't know who I should be hurling the vile invective against. Too...much...for..my...slashdot...brain. *pop*
Since when did operating systems become a religion?
Not really. I just steal whatever music I want. The RIAA and friends don't cross my mind much.
Game... blouses.
How long before content distribution companies such as Microsoft or Apple become the next "record companies". Imagine the shakeup that Apple or MS signing bands and musicians to their own labels might cause among the traditional behemoths. Imagine the "buzz" that emerging talent could create by jumping on board this new paradigm.
I think it is only a matter of time before Apple (or MS) Records is a reality...
It's not quite that simple, but I do expect it will happen eventually and the results will be interesting. The thing is that the music industry as it exists now is to some extent predicated on having a number of extremely high-profile artists; these artists get the benefit of the massive promotional push that the labels put behind them. The other artists toil beneath the spotlight until their time comes or the labels drop them. (Obviously indie artists are part of a different industry)
What's interesting is to imagine the online stores leading artists to leave the labels. If that happens, the results will be catastrophic for:
- Music magazines: no more sky-high ad prices paid by major labels
- MTV: no more $100k videos gracing their airwaves
- Record stores: no more high-priced endcap displays and, eventually, no more stores (some indies will likely survive, but Tower and Virgin?)
Because artists who are self-distributing and self-promoting obviously won't be paying for those things.In reality, I expect the labels will adapt and perhaps fall back to the strategy of yesteryear, promoting singles and not albums. It's the distribution chain that will collapse, obviously -- Warner Music Group, for example, not only distributes their major product themselves, but also operates the ironically-named Alternative Distribution Alliance (ADA), which distributes pseudo-indie labels like 4AD, Matador, and Epitaph. They make plenty of money from that, I'm sure, and would like to keep doing so...
Cue Media talking head:
In todays News, Microsoft announce that it has decided to stop putting DRM into it's product. When asked, and executive at microft said "We decided that it is not are place to force controls on to the consumer because the recording industry doesn't trust there customers."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
However, I will be ZERO tracks for
Am I unique? They've lost out millions because they just don't understand the price point yet.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
AP reports online digital music sales have tripled in the last year, accounting for over 6% of sales. But there's more than meets the eye here. Profit margins on on-line digital sales are rumored to be much higher so that is much more than 6% of profits. Not only did this more than offset the decline in physical unit sales but, more importantly physical unit sales have also declined in price as well as volume, further increasing the advantages of on-line digital sales (6% gross price decline, 3% volume decline). Note that a 6% gross price decilne means an even larger profit margin decline assuming manufacturing, distribution and marketing costs are not decliniing.
The article further points out that there are 500 million iTunes songs sold and 22 million ipods sold. Averaging this gives one only 23 itunes sold per iPod: thus one can hardly say that iTunes sales are the motivating factor for iPod sales but one could neccessarily say the reverse. People are clearly filling those Ipods with their purchased CDs, borrowed and pirated music. The record industry rants about selling music too cheap and iPods leveraging their IP for sales would seem dubious.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I like seeing MS not get what they want, but I feel lots better when it is Google, HP, or Sun.
If Big Oil or Pharma were dishing it out I'd feel similarly conflicted.
Now I'm rooting for a 4-way deathmatch between **IA, MS, Big Oil, and Big Pharma.
I know! Software for DRM on genetically-engineered nanobots vat-raised to extract crude oil!
Man, you really need that seminar!
maybe now Microsoft will stop pushing this stupid Marketing ploy..
y sforsure/default.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/pla
Plays fer sure my ass.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Talk about getting stuck between Office, rock'n'roll and a Hurd place.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
If something ever happend where labels pulled out of iTunes, and for some reason or another couldn't get them back, I would imagine that, just to keep up iPod market share/sales, Apple would license Windows Media DRM for the iPod and allow third party services to utilize their player. Since they don't make much on iTunes purchases anyway, and they would still want a cash cow and WMA on the iPod would be a guarantee. They themselves could partner with a vendor, like MusicNet and bypass the RIAA. I was looking forward to the MSN Music subscription service, in time for the holidays and the release of DRM 10 for the Nomad Zen Xtra. No matter what, when the round table comes together for the contracts next year, I will suprised as to what happends. It won't just affect iTunes, but every other music service whether it be Yahoo Music Unlimited/MusicMatch, Wal-Mart, Napster, Virgin Digital, MusicNow, Real Digital Downloads and Rhapsody, F.Y.E., BuyMusic.com, just to name a few. I disklike Apple right now because they won't license FairPlay. However, I believe in one thing. Nobody at any label deserves 1 G-D A M N cent from iPod sales. Those are Apples, and Apple's alone. Same with the Nomad for Creative, same with iRiver. Nobody in the Recording Industry of America deserves 1 cent from any portable device manufactured with secure music in mind.
...to create their won r3ecod labels and sign up artists away from the RIAA "Rico" merchants?
Some big companies are just getting too greedy. First they wanna raise the price per song on iTune music, then they want revenue for something that they neither designed nor invested in (iPod), and now they are too greedy that even Micro$oft cannot afford?
Desire of trying to maximize profit is generally understandable, but if they are getting too greedy and making everyone unhappy, that won't be too good to them either.
Goombah indeed.
The music companies want on-line services to work because CD sales are declining and they need a replacement.
No. they want CD sales to stop declining.
Artists will sign with whoever gives them the most money. Go to Apple and see how much of an upfront payment you'll get.
Perhaps Apple will spot aniche in the market and cut out the middle man if online music sales become the most popular means of buying music.
Download sales are already taking off and unless you've been asleep you can't miss the fact that more deals are being done every week. If they didn't want these services to survive why are they doing the deals?
Because they feel trapped. They realise their customers want downloaded music. If they don't sell it to them, their potential customers will simply download it anyway. They choose the best deal for themselves.
If they want all the profit themselves, why aren't they selling direct?
Are you suggesting they don't want all the profit for themselves? The problem is, they simply don't have the brand strength to do this. iTunes succeeds because it offers music from everyone. iTunes has market recongnition. Most people don't know who the publisher of their CDs are. Nor do they care. They're certainly not going to go to several different music download sites. And they've never sold direct. The industry isn't set up to do this. They've always sold through record stores.
# Music magazines: no more sky-high ad prices paid by major labels
# MTV: no more $100k videos gracing their airwaves
No... I think these would remain. Perhaps artists will start self-promoting, but that will mean a lot of them will just hire a PR company to promote for them. If a company promotes a lot of artists, it won't be long before they start soliciting, and even manufacturing band to promote. Essentially we'll be back where we were before.
First you have to pay inflated prices just to use it, and you don't actually own anything.
Then you have to rebuy the product every few years due to changes in formats (records->cds->mp3s)
Very little of the profit goes to those who actually write it
Then there's restrictions on how many copies you're allowed to make of the product.
Darn, now I forgot whether I was talking about the RIAA or Microsoft. In conclusion, It's probably good they're not working together, they could learn waayyy too much from each other
The RIAA worked so hard to stop themselves from being owned by the pirates that they have gotten owned by the people they depended on to stop the pirates. Poetic, eh?
Interesting comments, but you make the common mistake of confusing a single source with a monopoly.
A product is not a market.
A monopoly requires a market.
Sony does not have a monopoly on "System of a Down" CDs.
Apple does not have a monopoly on the Macintosh.
Microsoft does not have a monopoly on Windows.
BMW does not have a monopoly on BMWs.
Microsoft did establish a monopoly in PC operating systems, since they eliminated competing products within a market (the desktop PC industry), and prevented the introduction of new competition. Microsoft does not have a monopoly in video game consoles.
If Apple were to gain full control of online music sales, they'd have a monopoly; today there are still several competing products led by powerful interests.
There's also a difference between having a temporary monopoly position (which is common in emerging markets) and acting as a monopolist to destroy competition and create a long term dominating position in a market. Apple is not exercising monopoly control to prevent competitors from doing business.
If Apple began signing exclusive contracts with labels, or if they licensed iPod software to all hardware music player makers exclusive of other designs (excluding competition from WMP or Linux or Sony software, say), then yes, Apple would be a monopolist like Microsoft.
If Microsoft made their own PC, and it was so much better than other PC makers that it cleaned up the market, they would no longer have a monopoly, since they would be selling a product (the WinPC) , not selling within a market (the PC industry). They would, like Apple's iPod, have a very successful product, not a monopoly of a market, since there would not be a PC market.
There is simply no sense in declaring a "monopoly" when a company is the single source of a product. Monopoly means single control, so the word only makes sense in a context where there should be multiple parties sharing control, in a free market. There is no expectation of competition in the manufacture of Xbox, BMWs, iPods, or Rubic's Cubes.
Being successful or having a popular product does not make you a monopolist. Rubic didn't establish a monopoly on the Rubic's Cube, or in hand held puzzle games, despite the fact that it was a hot seller and there wasn't really any effective competing thing with similar sales.
Similarly, Google and Apple both offer popular services/products that don't have much effective competition. But competitors exist, and more effective marketers with better products could compete.
A Monopoly is usually a bad thing in a market, because it distorts the market pressures to innovate and prevents effective competition. Monopolies are useful when competition would hurt consumers. For example in healthcare, transportation or cable TV utilities, competition might end up in service disruption, or providers only choosing to do business in areas that made them money. Governments allow monopolies (or sell the right to be granted a monopoly) in some markets to ensure someone will provide the service.
I'm really tired of all the blathering on about semantics every time there's an article involving the entertainment industry. Call it copyright infringement, theft, robbery....hell call it infanticide for all I care. But I will not give one penny to the media cartels that cannot accept the fact that their corrupt, artist-as-sharecropper business model is under full assault. I now only buy either used media or download outright. I was spending well over $3000 a year on movies and music but now for signed artists I will only spend money at a show or on merchandise that I can get directly from the artist. Then I know that a larger portion of my money is going to actually support the artist and not to the bloated layers of middlemen that comprise the media cartels' obsolete distribution model. I will continue to actively subvert their business in any way I can. I will download music I hate and give it away to friend's kids and younger siblings. I've handed MP3 CDs to complete strangers on the bus when I see they might like something I'm listening to. My goal is to make sure that sales are LOST.
Oh yeah, Apple gets nothing from me either as they're just another blade in the RIAA meat grinder. I'll be happy with my Taiwanese iPod knockoff whose manufacturer doesn't need a "vertical market" that still supports the same artist-abusing business model.
Suing children, suing disabled single mothers who claim the music was planted there, using fraud and extortion as standard business practices and wanting money for things they have nothing to do with.
The RIAA are too evil even for Microsoft to stomach!
I was just watching a show on the Discovery channel about a fisherman who fell overboard and the pointy end of the anchor went into his skull 6".
You, my friend, are equal to the pointy end of the anchor. You cause a lot of pain, and the only use for you is throwing you in the ocean with a chain attached to your feet.
You're welcome!
If Microsoft is so big and scary, why can't they write a decent multimedia application or help design a decent mp3 player?
iPods and iTunes aren't perfect; there are so many subtle things they could do to improve on this model, but nobody seems interested in doing better, only good enough (which ironically, isn't good enough).
Unless MS changes things dramatically, I can't see them ever being a player in the music business.
Microsoft will soon have the music and movie industry by the balls, given that those industries are busy committing to Microsoft-proprietary DRM and Microsoft-proprietary media formats. At that point, such negotiations will be over pretty quickly. If we're lucky, Microsoft, the RIAA, and the MPAA will all just annihilate each other.
Even Microsoft? Even Microsoft? You've got to be kidding. Microsoft doesn't exactly have a history of being willing to pay for things. I'm sure if they could figure out a way of making shoddy covers of currently hot music, they would.
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the
This is one of those times I wish I had mod points.
I'd also add that having a monopoly is not inherently illegal, but using your monopoly in one market to achieve a monopoly in another is. This strikes me as an interesting point today considering the buzz currently running around the "video iPod" and Apple selling downloadable movies. If Apple made this part of the iTunes Music Store, it might lead to monopoly issues. On the other hand, if Apple were to add this to, say, iMovie (and the Windows users had to wait a bit for iMovie for Windows) there would be less of a problem.
Hey Kettle! This is the Pot calling. Dude, you're BLACK!
If Microsoft can afford to lose a billion dollars creating XBox against Sony, maybe the recording industry might be in its sight too. After all, there's no hardware to invest in, and it's all about marketing. Music is as lucrative as video games, and distribution scales as well as software.
The labels are not really being greedy. They are fighting for their survival. They have been in control of who hears what for the last 50 years. In order to remain, they have to be the ONLY place that they can go to, or even through. The internet is a disaster to them. Not so much because ppl are downloading music for free, but because it allows artists to do their own marketing, their own music, etc.. In addition, while the MS world charges top dollars for lousy recording programs, the OSS world is picking up a number of recording type programs from the MOvie industry. It is only a matter of time before making an album is also a no cost. At that point, Concerts are all that a label controls. And they may be losing that as well.
IOW, labels are not being greedy. They are just trying to survive in a market where they are about to become worthless. Can you say BYE BYE sony music?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
and Microsoft is suddenly not so evil...
"It's strange to see microsoft in a relatively powerless position. I'm not sure how to feel about this situation."
There's an old saying: When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.
I can assure you that regardless of whether MSFT wins or RIAA wins, consumers will loose.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
They would complain loudly that the goose must be ripping them off for the amount of food it took to produce each golden egg. They'd put the goose on a strict diet that would result in its inevitable death and explain to the goose that it was only fair since they'd taken the risk of continuing to feed it and you never knew when it would have dropped its last golden egg. And then when the death occurred they'd loudly proclaim that a developer of an evil P2P network had snuck in and poisoned the poor thing. They'd take the carcass and have it stuffed and mounted, then parade it around the country to demonstrate the evils of P2P file sharing. Eventually it would wind up decaying in a land fill somewhere after an employee of the limo company discarded it after finding it lying abandoned in the trunk of a rental limo.
Remember that one?
I'm a model. You know what I mean.
I'm too sexy for my cat.
I'm too sexy for my shirt.
I'm too sexy for this song.
Well, I thought it was cool back then. So sue me. (No! Don't!)
The rest of the album wasn't mere filler. It was completely
unrelated crap.
It was bad enough that Mariah Carrie's "Emotions" was that
one title song and a bunch of unrelated jazz, but at least
I didn't mind the other stuff. It was OK. I kind of got to
like it after a while.
But then there is Right Said Fred. Right.
That was the last bit of music I paid for. I got burned.
Maybe I'd still be a customer if they hadn't misled me into
buying a CD of 90% unrelated crap.
Walmart is making noises about taking on the music industry. Walmart is... well...
Walmart often tells suppliers exactly how to run their business. Walmart demands to see the finances. Walmart demands that an advertising budget be slashed so that the price can be slashed, and Walmart doesn't get "no" for an answer. Walmart drives most suppliers to the edge of bankruptcy, and a good number of suppliers go over the edge. Walmart tells a supplier how much will be produced and when it will show up. Walmart dictates information systems decisions for suppliers.
If there's anything to make RIAA terrified, it's got to be Walmart.
Picture it: "Dear RIAA, all CDs will be selling for $1.37, starting next week."
RIAA can't refuse. Walmart sells about 1/5 of the retail goods in the USA.
Unfortunately, your hypothetical scenario is not legal.
The price of YOUR "freedom" is now (25.00-3.99)*NUM_ALBUMS
And it is only in the RIAA's interest to make YOUR FREEDOM EXPENSIVE TO YOU.
That's the fundamental problem with Corporate America instituting things like DRM, etc. These companies "service" is not the "music" they provide but the "freedom" they allow by not throwing us in jail/civil court (for those passionate about music).
The Little Red Hen would have gone to the RIAA and said "Hey, I've got these cute little ovens that bake bread as people take them back home so they have steaming hot fresh from the oven bread when they get home! And the best part is I'm the only one that can load bread dough into them! If you'll license me your bread recipes I'll sell loaves for $$.99 each and you can have $.65 from each loaf and I'll turn a nickel profit on each loaf."
The RIAA scratched and scratched and scratched their heads then just as the Little Red Hen despaired of them ever saying yes they did so and the Little Red Hen sold 100's of millions of loaves of bread and made the RIAA 100's of millions of dollars in pure profits with no advertising or production expenses for the additional loaves sold.
But after only a year the RIAA came back to the Little Red Hen and they complained that $.99 per loaf was too low for a loaf of bread that arrived freshly baked at the consumers home/office. Why if the RIAA was in charge of setting the price they'd charge consumers double! The Little Red Hen simply stated that it thought it's prices were fair to consumers and went on selling ovens and bread re-fills.
A few months later the RIAA came by to collect its latest check and casually asked if it wouldn't be possible for them to start making bread for the ovens themselves "That way we can make $.70 per loaf and you won't have to spend so much money to only make a nickel, you can spend all your money on your line of ovens! And just think, since we'd be selling the bread ourselves we'd be able to set any price we wanted, so we'd never discuss prices with you again!" The Little Red Hen wisely said nothing.
After two years the RIAA got more vocal and started using it's media connections to release "interviews" in which it stated that the Little Red Hen just wasn't being realistic in it's pricing of the various bread recipes. One prominent member stated during one interview that "There are many recipes for bread, not all of them are of equal popularity with the American consumer, why a good rye sells much better than a pumpernickel! The Little Red Hen is going to have to get more flexible in it's pricing!"
In the two years the Little Red Hen had also been industrious in updating the design and also increasing the models of ovens it had for sale. Since the Little Red Hen had refused to turn control of the bread over to them the RIAA was now heard saying things like "You know the Little Red Hen isn't very fair, it makes a good profit on those ovens it sells but even though its our bread recipes that allow the Little Red Hen to sell those ovens it never gives us even a nickel of the profits from them!!!"
Then one day as the Little Red Hen handed over one more FAT check it finally had had enough and as the RIAA stood admiring its check the Little Red Hen stated: You know I've been reading some of y our statements in the paper lately. Did you all give me one dime to develop the ovens? DId you give me one dime to start up my shops to sell your bread recipes with my ovens? Did you spend one dime to market my stores and their products? And haven't you always been to me exactly as you are now at eactly the agreed upon time, never late, to get your check for $.65 out of each $.99 loaf? And haven't I handed over 100's of millions of dollars for you all essentially doing nothing except letting me use your bread recipes? And now I read you want another check for a percentage of my sales of ovens?
I only have one question for you: didn't your parents ever read you tales about fictional barnyard animals to teach you lessons about team work and ethics when you were young?
Microsoft did not drop negotiations with the music industry because the cost was too high. Microsoft has so far lost 4 billion dollars on the Xbox to compete with Sony. Four billion dollars down the drain merely because it doesn't want Sony winning our living rooms. Clearly Microsoft is willing to spend money in order to compete.
7 16227
So it's my guess that Microsoft dropped out because it realized that Apple doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell remaining in the music industry. Thus, why spend money competing against Apple when it's only a matter of time before Apple is forced out.
Does it really make sense to think that Microsoft would let Apple win the online music wars?! No friggin' way. Microsoft fights the most petty battles tooth and nail. It's just that Microsoft has figured out what Apple hasn't: The music industry does not want third party online services! See my prior post to see why.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164255&cid=13
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
on the cover, it read:
IT'S THE END OF THE MUSIC
BUSINESS AS WE KNOW IT.
citing (then) novel technologies combined such as mp3 and tcp/ip
I think I recall Pink Floyd was on tour, and all the die hards were subscribed to alt.music.pink-floyd looking for some Publius guy. (who eventually appeared on stage)
nothing new under the sun, musicians know better
they just have been trapped in the record business coalmines for 10 years.
Judging by the comments, they are clearly losing the battle. You should support the losing side to even the balance, then near the end, when they're about to be mutually destroyed, we post a story with a largely exaggerated title and a couple of links: http://www.microsoft.com/ http://www.riaa.com/ and watch all our dreams come true (except for a date.. but considering those are both the biggest time-wasters in Slashdot, if they're gone we may get bored quickly and actually *gasp* leave our parents basements!)
The main reason labels and the RIAA won't change their tune is that they *are not* in control -- distributors are. Traditional distributors still produce 94% of total sales, by making, stocking, shipping, and selling CDs. They're the Wal-Marts of music sales, literally and figuratively. Until digital/online distributors are generating enough sales to displace the traditional channels, the latter will be leading everyone around by the nose.
OK, let's take a thought experiment a bit further: assume that the big record labels accept that their current business model will fail in time. They have two challenges right now: firstly to maximise the returns from the existing model while they can, using any means at their disposal (including, it would seem, barratry) to get money from anywhere; and secondly to safeguard their commercial future by creating a role in the new world in which they can make money.
What is at stake here is the wholesale disintermediation of what used to be commercial music. There will continue to be very high profile commercial music: the sort which you buy in Tesco/Walmart/Carrefour. But there are now options for the next generation of potentially "commercial" musicians other than signing with a label on extortionate terms.
Remember that the vast majority of artists who sign with labels never see any royalties: the offsetting of expenses by the label means that the sales threshold is too high. Instead they end up signing away the rights over their music for nothing, their titles are delisted by the label, and they are forced to remain unheard.
As has been stated in this thread, the ability to distribute music independently from the labels has upped the ante: instead of thinking "I must sign with a label to be heard", artists can now think "If I sign with this label will I be more widely heard than if I distribute myself".
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Lovely, just lovely. May they sink together ;-)
Insert
You can record, edit, and press your music to CD's yourself, all with equipment that can be purchased at reasonable prices. You don't need a full studio(especially to record most pop music which uses a couple of chords and a singer who couldn't make their high school glee club) and you don't need a record company's marketing budget.
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
Pressing CDs isn't the issue, it's distribution. How will local musicians find the means to get Tower Records, Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, and all the other chains to carry their music? Not too mention other production costs like album artwork and CD jacket printing. That brings up costs considerably out of the range of struggling musicians.
I agree with you on the fact that musicians can do all their own production from recording to the production of CDs, but that will only get them into local markets. They'll need a distributor at some point unless they plan on selling CDs out of their car trunk and at the door of their gigs for the rest of their careers.
Shameless plug for my band's website.
Hi, slashnot007 here.
Goombah99 is my housemate. I often read his posts and I second them calling for moderation of his intelligent comments. Did you find the one here not so?
Since we share the same computer in the house I did not notice I was logged in as him when I posted the comment. Oops my bad. how embarassing.
However you have now given me my life's mission. I'm going to hunt you down every time I have moderator points and make sure you are moderated correctly.
love,
slashnot007
Howdy pete, slashnot007 here.
Goombah99 is my housemate. I often read his posts and I second them calling for moderation of his intelligent comments. Did you find the one here not so?
Since we share the same computer in the house I did not notice I was logged in as him when I posted the comment. Oops my bad. how embarassing.
However you have now given me my life's mission. I'm going to hunt you down every time I have moderator points and make sure you are moderated correctly.
love,
slashnot007