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."
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.
They'll push until Microsoft owns them
...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
I'm not sure how to feel about this situation.
Man, you really need that seminar!
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
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??!!
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.
No, I'm sorry... I'm a dj, a musician, and date a girl who worked for years at world-famous nightclub. The music industry as a whole is inherently evil. Those people break violate contracts in a week than microsoft does in a year...
It's a bit disconcerting when it's Apple. It'd be downright frightening if it's Microsoft.
New technology threatens the RIAA's control in all three of these areas. Home music studios are becoming more viable. The internet provides a fresh avenue of promotion. The internet is providing a cheap means of distribution.
Now, the RIAA still has quite a foothold in each of these areas, and is looking to maintain control. Distribution is probably where they're most vulnerable. However, as long as "distribution" still means "physical media shipment", their likelihood of maintaining control is much better. It's expensive to produce all those CDs, and difficult to get them stocked at all the various music chains across the country.
If, on the other hand, people become so accustomed to buying music online that physical media distribution becomes semi-obsolete, then the RIAA will have lost 1/3 of their strangle hold on music right there. Musicians will be able to release directly online, and record companies, even if they maintain the production/marketing areas, will find it hard to claim all the profits from sales (which they pretty much do now).
Call me paranoid, but that's my theory as to why the RIAA seems dead-set on sabotaging online distribution.