Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Record Labels Unveil Greed 2.0

Posted by Zonk on from the pac-man-like-action dept.

theodp writes "Unsatisfied with $2.49 ringtones and as much as 70 cents of each 99 cent iTunes download, Newsweek reports that record labels want a bigger cut of digital music profits. One example: If you type in 'Madonna' - a Warner act - at the Google Video site, and the results are accompanied by ads, Warner wants a share of those ad dollars." Even more ridiculous demands than those put forth in previous stories.

6 of 571 comments (clear)

  1. The RIAA is irrelevant. by bburton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Artists don't even need labels anymore. It's now feasible for composers to do business directly with online music providers... it doesn't cost much to upload a few megabytes of info. After it's been on iTunes, Napster, or whatever; and has made some money, then produce the CD, using profit money from distributing online.

    The only reason the RIAA is useful to new artists is for advertising purposes, which is IMO isn't that great anyways. They are increasingly advertising the the artists they think can make the most money, not necessarily the artists that make the best music.

    The only thing they're really doing now is desperately holding on for their survival. If they persuade congress to pass enough laws in their favor maybe they'll stick around for a while...

    The RIAA today, is like the horse and buggy businesses when the automobile hit mainstream. They're obsolete.

    Go away RIAA, nobody likes you.

    --
    Slashdot = ((Technology + Politics) / Trolls) % Grammar Nazis
    1. Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. by arpk4n3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an indepedent recording artist, this is an exceptionally valid point. Mastering and mixing does more to make a mix rich than throwing in a $2000 microphone. A less than stellar musician recorded using the world's greatest mic will still sound less than stellar, just as a prodigy will sound like a prodigy recorded with a Shure SM-57. With modern digital technologies studio environments can be replicated in one's own home, or in my case, dorm room. I recorded my album using a $200 drum mic set from CAD and mastered it myself in Logic Express (and note, 96khz input through my Presonus Firepod--total cost of setup: $1200) and it came out sounding better than many studios available.

    2. Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. by varkatope · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I completely agree that you can make great records with any gear. Hell, there are some records that I really like that were recorded on a 4-track portastudio. The thing is, great gear does not a great record make. I'll be damned if it doesn't help but people do get all wrapped up in it. The most important parts of the equation are the musicians and the engineers. Any jackass can throw up a Neumann U-87 and have it sound decent. A great engineer can throw up any (much cheaper) Audio Technica condenser mic and knock you on your ass. It all depends on what you're going after of course but the main reason to go to a pro studio is the engineer followed by the quality of the rooms, THEN the gear. Recording in your dorm room is just peachy but if you don't know much about engineering, your record's going to sound like it was recorded in a dorm room. Here's the point: Know your gear. If you don't, you need to pay someone that does and can make a great record with a pair of shit radio shack mics.

      To the guy that replied to parent message saying something about it all coming down to EQs, there isn't a surer way to completely suck the life out of a recording than with over-equalization (besides over-compression that is). I think he was referring to Logic too. Digital EQ. ick.

      --
      I got a fever...and the only cure is more cowbell!
  2. People rely too much on TV for information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason why the RIAA/MPAA are able to get away with this (and with draconian copyright laws) is because people rely too much on TV for information. Al Gore this week did a speech explaining that Americans watch television, on average, 4 hours and 28 minutes every day--90 minutes more than the world average. Americans base their opinions on what they see on TV--not what they hear on the internet, not what they read in the newspaper (since they generally don't read the newspaper).

    The people in charge of TV are not about to describe accurately what the new copyright laws are doing to the American people, or the extent of greed that the media conglomerates have. When people are spoon fed information on TV, they get information from a biased source.

    My suggestion: Get rid of your TV. Get your friends to get rid of their TVs. Go outside or go on the internet to get information.

  3. Re:Stop listening? by killjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because the people are stupid and weak. I know that sounds harsh but it's true. The corporations know how to make you want things, they know how to manipulate you down to the last detail. They don't spend billions of dollars in advertising and research for nothing.

    Just go ahead and try to get people to boycott anything, I dare you. All a corporation has to do is to pay some TV or radio personality to call you a communist, cancer, zealot, hippie or a radical and boom they have taken care of the situation.

    Look at slashdot, look at how often the shills call people who use linux or program in open source zealots and hippies? It happens every day. Your average joe does not want to go through life being called a zealot or a communist, he has been tought to reflexivey hate zealots and communists even though he probably could not define communist if his life depended on it.

    --
    evil is as evil does
  4. there isn't one shareholder of google by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And any shareholder can have an opinion on what is the best way to run a company. Some hold a very long term view, that by consistently "doing no evil", the company will last a long time and be even more profitable than doing everything they can to maximize profits in the "this quarter" mentality that so many other corporations have. In fact, perhaps more than a few people invested in google for that reason.

    There are many institutional and private investors that now consider ethics and politics in their investment decisions and it's completely legal and normal and they contend it's a long range logical view to take. If you as a potential investor read that google had such a "do no evil" policy and it lead to your decision to invest cash when they went public, then you could make a case where they violated that if they started "doing evil", and perhaps file a complaint.

    Funny story, friend of mine inherited a really nice portfolio. He divested all (to buy rental properties instead) except for enough shares in this or that company to go to the shareholder meetings and rail on issues about how the companies were run.