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
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
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!
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.
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??!!
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?
WTF are you talking about? That's not what this is about at all.
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 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.
Must... not... make... joke...
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.