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.
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.
...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.
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
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.
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??!!
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?
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.