Slashdot Mirror
Zune Profits Go To Record Label
genegeek writes, "The New York Times reports that Microsoft has a new deal with Universal to share profits from Zune player sales. David Geffen, the media omniboss, is quoted: 'Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material...' The new business rationale is that stolen music should be paid for by profit sharing of newly sold Zune music players. Does that mean if you are not stealing music, you should get a discount on the players? Universal expects a similar deal from Apple when their current contract expires." Reader Gallenod adds, "Microsoft appears willing to spend millions and defer any potential profitability of the Zune simply to weaken Apple's bargaining power with recording companies and set a precedent for hardware manufacturers paying music companies."
"set a precedent for hardware manufacturers paying music companies."
Yeah, remind me to thank Microsoft for all this 'innovation' they've done for the customer the next time I'm up in Redmond.
A blog about stuff.
This is a step in realizing they will never be able to stop piracy. It won't be long until Apple is forced into this as well. Who after that, PC manufacturers/distribuitors? When there's a will there's a way, they say. In this case, when there's power, there's gonna be a way.
WTF.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Didn't the record labels try to "alter the deal" the last time their contracts were up?
Didn't Jobs spank them back into submission?
Can't see it any different this time.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Microsoft pay Universal money for each Zune sold. Maybe that helps them get a better deal with Universal songs on the Zune Marketplace. The songs will still be $0.99 though.
The other record labels don't get any money so they seem to be losing out.
What about European/rest of world customers? Does this mean that the Zune will be a different price in each country due to licensing requirements? What about not available?
To me this looks like honest customers being charged for music twice. The RIAA has been quite vocal about p2p piracy. Does this mean they won't go after Zune owners? I don't think so.
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
They're trying to charge me (indirectly) for stealing their music (which I don't, never have, and never will) -- so I'd want my money back. Greedy bastards. How dare you treat customers like presumed crooks?
"Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material..."
should read
"Each of these record companies promotes unpaid-for material..."
so, lower your profit margins and start paying the bloody artists and we as consumers will start buying CDs and music again...
I can't wait for Apple's contract to come up, and for Steve Jobs, still owning a good 85-90% market share, to bitch-slap these new Zune-happy CEO's to the ground like the little greedy trolls they are.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
So how much will MS be paying all the unsigned bands who are duping their own discs without the "benefit" of a label?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
"Microsoft appears willing to spend millions and defer any potential profitability of the Zune simply to weaken Apple's bargaining power with recording companies and set a precedent for hardware manufacturers paying music companies."
This will go over like gangbusters with Apple and consumers alike. To think that the record industry will try to leverage a deal with another business with regards to consumer goods (music) is ridiculous. Nevermind the fact that Apple will simply leverage their massive iPod fan base against the labels, customers just won't stand for it. Especially when the market for digital media players is already supported by people who have proven they are willing to pay for music, a label-imposed "tax" on those players to cover "stolen content" won't fly.
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
So, does this mean that if I own a Zune, that I'm then entitled to pirate enough music to fill it? And if not that much, then where do they intend to draw the line? After all, if I've already effectively paid for the lost profits from pirated material, why would I want to pay twice?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
This is kind of amusing. So does this mean if we pay a "piracy tax" up front, that we can then pirate music? And how can a music company possibly expect Apple to make some sort of deal like this. Are they going to boycott Apple if they don't? Haha.
This is not a good precident. I know other countries already have a blank media tax, and I always thought this was ONE way the USA was better off then said countries.
The concept of paying RIAA companies because they are selling something that COULD be ussed to infringe on their copywrites is just a horrible idea.
Even assuming that this is a good idea, the problems are still obvious:
Do unsigned bands get a share? what about companies not part of the RIAA?
Do gun manufacturers have to proffit share with police (after all, guns could be used to commit crimes), what about with regular citizens, quikymart owners (after all, they are at a higher risk)?
Just because somethign CAN be ussed to to commit an offence does not say that it WILL be.
and as TFS says, if I only use my MP3 player for legitamite purposes, can I seek a refund? (as I am sure that MS is not going to just hand over part of their proffits, they will just include the price in the player).
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
Ok, who invited Micrsoft, their pissing in the pool again.
Great strategy, if you lose, then wreck it for everyone.
Should realize the value of "innnocent til proven guilty".
Or did he forget all that blanket isolation and persecution of gay men as little more than disease vectors.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
If I'm paying for pirating music before I do so, it's now ethical for me to pirate however much music I want.
The amusing thing here is that the 'prepaid pirating fee' doesn't go anywhere near the artists. Ever. It's just an inter-company corporate bribe. Between monopolistic organisations. Man, can't you feel that capitalistic efficiency?
My little site.
If it means I no longer have to pay for any Universal CDs because Microsoft is doing it for me then I'm getting a Zune right now! Woo hoo!
But I suspect that just like with the "blank cds tax" it means you are paying for being suspect of doing something that's still illegal and which you might get sued for. Brilliant... a tax that you shouldn't be paying, either because you don't download illegal MP3s or because accepting the tax as rightful means admitting to doing "copyright violations".
As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
Not only what about no theft... I don't listen to music on my portable player!!! Why should I pay a premium?
I do have a few MP3s on my portable player, even though I rarely listen to them. So the real question is:
But what if the music you listen to isn't on Universal? Why should they get money? I can't think of anything I own that's on Universal, although with the constant buy-outs and catalogs moving, something I bought in the mid 90s. I would never knowingly buy something from them. (If I did steal music, I would not steal music from them!) Why do they get a cut from the purchase of these portable players unless someone is actually going to play Universal music on them? Even if I did buy something on Atlantic, A-and-M, or one of the other labels that have been swallowed up in the 90s or 2000s, why should anyone have to pay a premium to use a device?
Either third-party MP3 players like the Muvo (yes!) or SanDisk will be doing brisk sales, or D.I.Y. music player kits will become common at newegg.com (how hard could it be to solder an earphone jack to a USB keychain?)
Have you ever watched people shop? They buy what appears to be a good deal they don't look into whether it is or not. Consumers in general are idiots, and I don't know where the idea that they aren't came from.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
"Microsoft appears willing to spend millions and defer any potential profitability of the Zune simply to weaken Apple's bargaining power with recording companies and set a precedent for hardware manufacturers paying music companies."
Selling at cost or a loss to gain marketshare is hardly anything new, we're talking Econ 101. Apple basically did so with their on-line store, they wanted to spur use of the iPod. Microsoft is doing pretty much the same thing except they are discounting the hardware to spur use of their on-line store. On-line sales is where Microsoft sees the future, take a look at XBox Live, micropayments of add-ons, etc.
With regard to "setting a precedent", more Econ 101. Using a low price point to establish a barrier to entry. Another predictable move as digital music players become mass market commodity items. iPod dominates the current market, but the current market is a small fraction of the potential market. We are only now leaving the early adopter phase. iPod's current success is not unlike Apple's success with the Apple II when the personal computer market was in it's infancy. Apple pioneered the way then and now, but back then failed to capitalize on that early success to dominate the emerging market. Has Apple learned, or will history repeat itself? I don't know. I tend to think Apple has learned, however I think that this will translate into Apple being one of several major players in the future mature digital music player market. I don't think anyone will be able to dominate as IBM did with PC hardware and Microsoft did with PC software.
I'll tell you what, Apple. You don't renew your contract with Universal. I'll buy an iPod. I'll buy any conent I like from iTunes (i.e. the content from studios that AREN'T asshats) and I'll pirate Universal content. Zune sales (all three of them) can salve Universal's wounds. So basically, everything is square. I purchase content I can get legally, but pirate content that I can't or has DRM that is too restrictive for me. Everyone (except Universal) will be happy.
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
1) Could this be construed as predatory practices? Not that it matters with Bush in the Whitehouse
2) OK, so a hardware sale is a one time event compared to actual music sales. It occurs to me the better revenue stream may be in the music. And who decides what the profits are? Microsoft? I think the phrase 'It's a trap' may be appropriate here. Once Apple is crippled watch for the profits to disappear, MS making money on side products and Universal getting screwed.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I'm not so sure if it's "set a precedent for hardware manufacturers paying music companies," so much as it is set a precedent for hardware manufacturers paying content providers. Let's not forget what it is that Microsoft does for a living. This could be useful precedent for them in the future.
Hands up those who think that Microsoft created the Zune specifically for this purpose...
What a jerk move, setting the bar lower so Apple will have to stoop.
Way to be a team player.
I hate to repeat this annoying phrase, but: "And this benefits the consumer, how?"
Porsche AG announced it will be sharing part of the profits of its sports-car sales with local police forces everywhere. "It's well-known them por-shees is just too damn fast for us to ketch 'em, so anybody drivin' one is a CRIMINAL!", Sherrif Roscoe P. Coltrane explained.
Just junk food for thought...
"Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material."
The only way he could be sure of this is if Microsoft is delivering Zunes with something pirated... Hmmmm.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
sell a whole lot of Zunes for this to be relevant when Apple's contract comes back up. MS is a joke when it comes to consumer issues, showing once again all of their media products are about protecting greedy publishers first and user convenience somewhere much further down the list.
Since I'm not buying a Zune, I don't care where Microsoft sends its money.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I can't wait for Apple's contract to come up, and for Steve Jobs, still owning a good 85-90% market share, to bitch-slap these new Zune-happy CEO's to the ground like the little greedy trolls they are.
Apple's current marketshare won't last, we are at a very early stage in the development of the digital music player market. I'd say we have barely progressed beyond the early adopter stage, the bulk of the potential market has not committed. I'd say Apple's current iPod position is not unlike their Apple II computer position when the personal computer market was at a very early stage before the bulk of the population entered the market. Personally I think Apple has learned from past mistakes and won't become a niche player again, but I do expect them to be one of several major players. Microsoft's positioning also fits in pretty well with basic theory of how a market evolves, I would say they are positioning themselves for digital music players becoming commodity items.
Since I expect responses regarding the lock-in myth I'll address that now. iPods are predominantly used to play music that is completely portable, MP3s and non-DRM'd AACs. iTunes rips to non-DRM'd AACs or MP3s. The only non-portable music files are the purchases from Apple's iTune Music Store (iTMS). iTMS purchases are easily replaced given file sharing, add to this the fact that the psychological barrier to downloading is far lower given that a person "paid for that song" in their mind. Even if that were not the case the music market has a history of abandoning their current investments when moving from one format to another. However this format transition is even easier to make, iTunes and whatever comes next can happily coexist on your computer.
Setting: a courtroom somewhere in the US
...
RIAA Attorney: Your honor, the defendant admits pirating music
Defending attorney: Excuse me your honor, but the defendant owns a Zune.
Judge: Case dismissed.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Apple already operates the iTunes Music Store at close to zero profits. It only exists to spur sales of iPods. They're not going to forgo iPod profits to please overly greedy record companies.
Apple has stood up to far less ridiculous demands before, like price increases. They're not going to cave on this one.
Does this mean that if I buy a Zune player, I can no longer be held accountable for any music on said player even though it might be illegal, because the music industry got their cut?
Really tired of being preached at by rich guys, be they politicians or moguls. Blow me, Geffen.
Microsoft has just done the unthinkable: they have acknowledged some "social responsibility" to police themselves, genuflect before the Altar of Starving Musicians and Aggrieved Businessmen and generally do the bidding of another industry. It's as f$%^ing stupid as a gun manufacturer agreeing to whatever Handgun Control Inc wants in the name of "keeping guns out of criminals' hands."
Policing bad behavior is for the courts. People who make perfectly valid tools don't owe jack to those who are hurt by their misuse. Get a damn grip, Microsoft. You aren't hurting Apple's marketshare, you're hurting your lobbying efforts and things like that.
the whining record/movie execs. "Oh, people are steeeaaaling! Pirates! Go to jail!" GET WITH THE FREAKING PROGRAM, PEOPLE!!! Technology has found a way around your business model, and IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR YOU TO ADAPT TO IT.
The more you resist, the more 'old-school' you'll become.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
the customer is going to end up paying for this directly.
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
Under the deal, Universal, the world's largest music corporation, will receive a percentage of both download revenue and digital player sales when the Zune and its related service are introduced next week.
So let me get this straight: you pay Universal when you buy the device, and then you pay them again for the music you load on to it?
What if I never listen to any of Universal's music?
What really strikes me as ridiculous is that Universal's terms seem to imply that even a legitimate music purchase is still piracy .
At this point, the only moral thing to do is to stop buying music. You aren't going to appease the record companies - they'll call you a pirate no matter what. If we all stopping funding the RIAA lawsuits, maybe they would go away.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Actually, the Zune is designed to store "unpaid-for material..."
We haven't already forgot about the "feature" that allows you to send your songs to your friend's Zune, which stores them for 3 days (even if it's stored in a DRM lockbox), have we? I think that case may be harder to make with an iPod.
Also, the author's logic is a bit flawed. To say that because Apple did not sell me every song on my iPod means that the rest were either stolen or ripped from CDs is not a valid argument. For example, much of the music on my iPod was purchased through other services, such as eMusic.
I'm also wondering if taxing devices will help to invalidate the consumer lawsuits that labels such as Geffen, through the RIAA, have been launching for the last few years. Or maybe the labels / RIAA have figured out that they can't get away with extorting their customers too much longer.
The Zune is so DRM laden and an example of "This is what we tell you that you want" that sales will only be great for a month before people regret their purchase and return them.
Case in point, their Wi-Fi "borrowing" crap. Instead of using Wi-Fi to do something useful, they simply use it as a reminder that they control what you do with the device.
Universal, the profit on no sales is $0.
Beny
"I'm a humble person really,
I'm actually much greater than I think I am"
This is brilliant. Kudos for MS!
Get the labels to bid on fool's gold.
MS just had to drop 50 bucks on Zune price to be competitive with iPod.
What is the profit? -$50? or maybe -$100.
So, maybe Universal will be giving 25 usd to MS for every Zune sold.
That should read "sales", not "profits", as the Slashdot editors would have realized had they read the first sentence of the article linked to.
Initially, reading the Slashdot headline, I thought "joke's on you Universal -- there won't be any profits for you to get a cut of!". But it turns out it's actually a royalty for every sale that Universal received. I wonder how much it is, and how bad Microsoft's losses on these things will get when all the other labels make the same deal.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
So, what this technically tells me is that everyone who buys a Zune already pledges guilty of being a criminal, infringing copyright? Because, well, at least in my country, there should be no punishment without verdict, no (positive) verdict without crime.
So either lift that or I will not even go near a Zune. I am NOT infringing copyright, and anyone who says otherwise should either put proof on the table or face me in court.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
..if the cost of my product already goes to pay for the music I steal on it, does that make stealing music on a Zune device legitimate?
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
1. Microsoft are yet again using their "illegal monopoly money" (from Windows, Office) to force their way into other markets and destroy the competition. If the USA legal system was really about justice and not bribes, they should never be allowed to do this.
2. If this passes, expect movie studios to sue Sony, JVC, Toshiba, Hitachi, Panasonic, etc. Also expect publishers to sue Xerox, Brother, HP, etc.
So either Microsoft are willing to lose money AND get thrown in court yet again and/or the RIAA expect to be the only one to be able to extract money from hardware vendors without paving the way for a huge precedent that will make the whole "media" economy go down the drain (or at least throw everyone in court).
Microsoft has too much money from illegal business practices, the RIAA is too greedy and stupid, and the lawyers are about to get a lot richer.
I used to have a lot of respect for David Geffen, being the guy who helped support John Lennon's "Double Fantasy" album when no one else would touch it, and supporting quite a few other music artists I enjoy.
Now the guy has branded myself and anyone else with an MP3 player as a thief.
Cheers David.
You know what? I don't pirate music but maybe I should, after all it looks like you believe I do and you're even getting companies to pay for music that may or may not be stolen.
Seems like Microsoft is a pussy whipped bitch if its going to pay money to the record labels because people who buy Zune might unauthorizedly store copyrighted music on your device.
This is a great opportunity to help send a consumer message to the industry: Stupid anti-consumer deals equate to zero sales.
Microsoft is poisoning the market because they can't compete. Don't support them by buying their products! Make Zune fail and punnish Microsoft!
By all reports they've spent 10's of millions on development and allocated somewhere north of $300m for marketing - on standard consumer electronics margins they'll have to sell 16 million players to approach making back their investment, probably more due to the deal they're cutting. Wouldn't it be nice if they only sold a couple hundered thousand and ate $390m in development costs?
Spread the word: Boycott Zune!
Getting a discount shouldn't be joke. I don't pirate music. Period. All of my music currently has a corresponding CD in a cabinet on the wall in my living room. There are over 400 of them. This is a great reason not to buy a Zune. I don't want to be giving more money to the record companies than I need to. And I'm sure the profits this generate will not go to artists in any way.
Have any of you checked prices? You'll be paying the same amount of money for the Zune as you will the Apple 30gb. The Zune, imho, will already be a better device than the crApple iPod to begin with, and its at a competitive price.
In any case, with or without the tax, you can bet Microsoft would have the same price (BestBuy has CL, iPod and Zune (all 30gb) for the same price: $250). So by including the tax, they're losing profit, not you. You'd still be paying the same amount for a 30gb mp3 player, so it doesn't even affect you. Why are you complaining?
Praise His Noodliness. RAmen.
Which are the evildoers now?
a) Apple - For pioneering the DRM model of "buying something doesn't really mean you OWN it"
b) MS - for partnering up with this music company and cutting them in for considerations.
c) The music industry - for general asshattery and the RIAA
d) All of the above?
e) CmdrTaco
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
tells Universal to fuck themselves if they try to bring this to the bargaining table. Just rip them out of the iTunes store, I don't care. My only interest in that store is the TV shows and movies.
"The new business rationale is that stolen music should be paid for by profit sharing"
Since nothing can be stolen via file sharing or p2p, why even mention "stolen music"?
Where were you when the voynix came?
If i pay RIAA by blank cd or Zune, then it means i can download anything i want, it already paid !
Why should i buy some audio album compact disk then ?
If i am not supposed to download something that i did not pay, then that fee to RIAA is not very legit.
When will police fine you for excessive speed just because you can over speed with your new car ? That is plain stupid and i wonder if that can be defended in court.
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
"The new business rationale is that STOLEN music should be paid for by profit sharing of newly sold Zune music players"
This pisses me off. They automatically assume that every motherfracking MP3 player is playing full albums ripped from Teh Piratebay. 99% of my 25GB of music is legally obtained. Bought and paid for via HMV and Futureshop i've even got the two massive CD folders to prove it. Just by buying the Zune in their eyes brands you as a criminal. Looks like We have another product to boycott.
(Although I wouldn't have bought it anyways. Microsoft...*shudders*)
Hee Hee The drinking bird does all the work!
This reminds me of my old pa. Whenevers we'd get to misbehavin and all that, he'd take us out back and whip us real good for what we'd done wrong and gotten caught fer. Then he'd whip us again for the stuff we'd done wrong he didn't catch us fer. And then he'd whip us again for the stuff we wuz gonna do wrong later.
I'm glad old Billy Gates and Stevie Ballmer lerned themselves sim'lar lessons from their daddys too.
'Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material...'
Yeah, they're called podcasts, pal. That and selections from my legitimately and legally ripped CD collection. Apparently Zune is not for honest people, only for thieves.
Ever notice when a prominent public figure rails on and on about the sins of the people? It's amazing how often they themselves have trouble with that evil. Take a deep breath, music industry, and look in the mirror.
oh great,
...we don't care we'll make you pay either way, in fact, we'll make you pay double if you do pay for your songs...
first they tell us : don't download illegal songs
then they tell us : do download illegal songs
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
In France, we already have to pay a tax (The Tasca Tax) for each storage medium like CD-Rom, mp3 players. The money collected by that tax is supposed to be given to artists.
You have to pay that tax even if you buy a CD-Rom to archive your personal data. At some point, it was even proposed that that tax should be paid for a hard drive in a PC. IIRC, this is currently not the case.
What will be the practice in France? Shall we pay twice?
I usually try not to hate on Microsoft too much. They're a huge company with both good and bad sides. This, however, is unfortunately typical Microsoft behaviour: Help your smaller enemies so they can go after your larger enemies. It's similar to their patent strategy: Lose a patent dispute so the patent holder can go after other companies who can't just give away money like Microsoft can.
This sets a really bad example. I don't like paying for music I won't listen to. I don't like giving money to the major labels. I won't ever buy a Zune.
It will happen. It is Microsoft's strategy to anger Apple.
NOT!
It is lame and stupid, next they'll try to tax CD burners and HDs because they could potentially use them for copying music (they did that in Mexico for one year, believe it or not).
It won't work, even if they do it. People just won't tolerate it.
a label-imposed "tax" on those players to cover "stolen content" won't fly.
They're just mad because the Cdn courts ruled that "blank media" taxes to compensate recording companies (which applied to CDs, DVDs, and mp3 players like iPods), wasn't legal, and they had to give the money back. So now they're trying to impose it through browbeating mp3 player manufacturers.
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
In the reach of short-term profits and obvious attempts to damage Apple, Microsoft has done a huge disservice to consumers overall. And they don't even fsking care!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
In Canada the CD levy was successfully argued in court that downloaders were protected since they'd already paid for the music on their overly taxed CD's.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
There could be an article about there being a downloadable update for the Xbox 360 that will cure your cancer, and 90% of Slashdot would be flaming Microsoft for not coming out to your house to install it themselves.
"YOU MEAN I HAVE TO USE THE INTERNET TO DO IT? I KNOW MANY PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE INTERNET WHO WANT THEIR CANCER CURED, REDMOND IS FULL OF BULLSHIT."
I personally think that this isn't such a bad idea. Personally, I won't even lie and say I don't pirate music, as I do. TFA also states that artists would get half of what the label gets, which is awesome. The players are already cheaper than iPods, so it's not like we're paying a premium for this, it's Microsoft sharing something totally on their end. They're giving $1 for every player sold to Universal folks, they're not charging you $50 extra for some "evil corporation" tax. Artists are getting part of this money too, which is something I'm not at all complaining about.
How much of the payment to Universal will go to the artists and songwriters? If this and the YouTube deal don't show artists and songwriters what their future looks like, I don't know what more can be done. The labels are making all the deals, taking all the proceeds of those deals, threatening and suing music listeners as artists stand by silently letting all this take place. Artist complacency today will guarantee them a future as wage slaves for the labels.
What do the labels actually DO anyhow? Apple should approach artists, offer them double what they last got from an old-school record label, and tell them, "We'll sell your music in the form consumers actually prefer". They don't need shelf space (who sees these alleged "shelves", anyhow?), and offering double the cut to artists will resonate and be cheap to offer, given Apple's ITMS overhead.
tone
#16787089
These 2 posts state contradictory court decisions about the Canadian blank media tax.
any one have a link to an article?
or can explain it a bit better?
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
Nobody wants the Zune! If kids get one for Christmas, they will return it and get an iPod. Universal will get a whole lotta nothin'!
How ya like dat?
The *AA tried to force Canadians to pay a "royalty" for pirated music when buying any media player, on the theory that their primary use is to play pirated media.
It was knocked out as unconstitutional, and justly so. How insane is it to charge the general public with fines and penalties for crimes they haven't even been accused of, much less convicted?
Microsoft is setting a horrible precedence here for the sake of short-term market gain. Typical insane American greed -- to hell with long term stability, as long as I can get my undeserved cut now. :(
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
awesome. You know what this means?
This means that you can buy a Zune and Pirate all damn day long because when they come to nail you you have proof that a fee has already been paid for this music and as such is not pirated music. NICE.
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
Now music majors are going to be compensated for illegaly unpaid for music by :
1. A tax that a lot of country (like France) already have on blank medias (CD-R, DVD+-R, Flash memory, players)
2. A tax on internet connextions that some countries (like Germany) have introduced to account of P2P networks
3. An arangement with device manufacturer (Like the Microsoft / Universal deal)
4. The price for the song from the online store
5. The price for the song from the *other* online store on which user was but couldn't transfer he's music due to DRM incompatibility between proprietary formats (Apple AAC, Sony ATRC, Microsoft Play-for-Sure WMA, Microsoft Zune WMA)
6. The price of the original media (CD, Tape, LP) that the user paid some time ago but couldn't import into his digital library because it isn't DRM-blessed.
And with all this money, majors will continue to whine, to prove they're victim of piracy by comparing their actual ernings with expected projection they pulled from their arses (as mentionned in several article featured on slashdot), and continue to crack down on *evil* eitgh years old ?
And I'll be taxed to the bone because I want to burn on CD, OS install image I pull from bittorrent (2 tax targets) just because I use some open-source OS which is likely : 1. Not to be available in boxed edition 2. Change each 6 months awnd must be therefor burned more often (not like some closed source project that took over 5 years to develop a result that delivers the exact same expirience as before, only with couple of additionnl DRM locks).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Yes, the "tape tax" bill/law from the early 1990's is a tax on blank cassettes sold commercially, and (some of) this money goes to commercially recorded music artists (through their recording labels). This same tax applies to "Music CD-R's" which have the bit set needed for stand-along CD-R recorders to record on them. Of course, "data CD-R's" used on computers were mainly used for backup and legitimate data transfer way back when, and so are exempt from the tax, but now these are surely used mostly for making unlicensed copies of commercial music.
Hardware and media taxes are luducrous, and are unfair to those who use such items legally (podcasts, paid-for downloads from Itunes and similar sites, and musicians recording their own songs). The bad news is such taxes are here to stay. This story of a hardware manufacturer paying a "license fee" to a recording label isn't technically a tax, but with the other already existing taxes, this sets an informal precedent and paves the way for REAL taxes on such devices and blank media.
Tag lost or not installed.
Sorry, my earlier post was slightly incorrect. A judge ruled late 2004 that applying the levy to mp3 players wasn't legal. Only blank recordable media could be taxed (although some stores still consider it "unjust" and refuse to collect it from the consumer).
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
...will I buy a Microsoft product.
Well, no matter how bad Microsoft looks, it has -nothing- on the big record companies for bare naked greed.
At least there are people at Microsoft who actually labor to produce the product, and who profit from the results (but how many, and the relationship between contractor contributions and MS employees has been a topic of much discussion...) The big record labels serve only to market the products of others on a contract basis.
dave
Looks like MS is turning that tide.
Some of you already have those cute little shirts on that say disco sucks, right? That's not all that sucks.-Frank Zappa
I am not much of a music person and won't get one of these, but where does this leave RIAA if you are paying for copied music already?
As I already believe that MS is uploading information about the contents of my hard drive when Windows phones home (that's a separate debate), it wouldn't surprise me if the Zune/MS music service was set up to do the same thing. That is, MS tracks the amount of tracks stored on each Zune that were not purchased through its store. Then they report this to the RIAA for statistics. Then the RIAA brings "real" numbers to Apple, claiming that 30% of all music on all Zunes is of dubious origin. Not that this would work, but I just don't trust MS with my data.
If I owned stock in Microsoft (I don't), I would be very upset right now that they're taking my shareholder value and giving it to a third party for no perceived benefit.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Sure. As opposed to merely people who say they don't steal it, they just trade around the original CDs with their friends.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
A couple of days ago, a lot of people voted against an "arrogant" majority party. This latest maneuver by Microsoft is another example of how they arrogantly use their majority position to eliminate smaller companies by using big bucks made from their crappy OS to "buy" record labels and kill off smaller DMP companies who can't afford to do this.
I sincerely hope people will "vote" against this arrogance by spending their money with competing companies.
They were going to get a cut of the profits on Internet Explorer. Sucks to be them!
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
By unpaid-for material, he probably means music you've ripped off of your own CDs.
Make love, not reality television.
Clearly, Universal stood up to MS, saying "Who do you think you are, Apple? Unless you want your music store to suck and for Zune to be DOA, make with the moolah!"
--
As was pointed out on the macrumors.com discussion, one can e-mail Universal directly at:
communications@umusic.com
If you'd like them to know the intensity of negative feelings they are generating, this would probably be the most direct approach.
Sounds like a nice setup for a class action libel lawsuit.
Looking at my own collection of CDs, LPs, and tapes that I either purchased (new or used) or received as gifts over the years, a collection that I later ripped and / or digitally recorded to load onto my iRiver, I take some amount of offense in this asshat accusing me of stealing what I had already legally acquired. This is assuming that the phrase "each of these devices" is referring to all portable media players, and not just the Zune.
Not quite as annoying if you change it to something that shows a bit more respect for the buyers. How about: "And this benefits the customer, how?"
This space unintentionally left blank.
I guess that means I'll just have to steal a Zune.
No. CDs are paid for and under fair use, it is perfectly reasonable to create MP3 versions from the CD.
"Unpaid-for" was just a fancy euphemism for "stolen".
By the way, does anyone really care? Who's going to buy a Zune anyway?
There were allready plans for this, the so-called Ipod-Tax.
Seems that microsoft would rather beat local legislation introducing this, instead of putting the customer first. Time will tell if this was a good move. I for one, won't be buying this zune crap.
On the other hand, I've never purchased a Microsoft product and they seem to be doing just fine without me.
--> Insert Funny Sig Here
They are assuming that I would be using it for pirated music - sort like assuming someone is guilty before the trail.
Secondly, since I paid for the right to copy music (as it is included in the cost of the Zune) then I should be legally allowed to copy music with out the risk of being sued. IE: I would have already paid the required royalty fees. It would be interesting to see the first case using the defence that they inherited the licence agreement via the Zune and hence do not to pay the RIAA. I think the RIAA would have to go after Microsoft. The RIAA would have to go after for not purchasing enough licences the Zune customers.
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
Back in the late 90's, MS gave away IE to remove the profits from browser products.
Now, they'd like to remove the profits from DAPs by giving away Apple's margin on iPods.
All of this made possible because MS ain't giving away Windows/Office.
With the billions of stockholders' money MS pours into non-Win/Off ventures that the company couldn't visualize profits from if they used the Hubble, at what point will said stockholders tell the board of directors to stop pour money down ratholes and distribute a worthwhile dividend?
Luke, help me take this mask off
"GET WITH THE FREAKING PROGRAM, PEOPLE!!! Technology has found a way around your business model, and IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR YOU TO ADAPT TO IT."
This is precisely what they are attempting to do. This is exactly why Messr. Geffen is quoted in the article as saying "It's a major change for the industry" and "It certainly changes the paradigm." In short, rather than waiting to make profits on sales via the Zune Store (since buying music is so 20th Century, according to many Slashdotters), they are getting some of the money up-front on the sale of the player. I think that is pretty clear.
When Slashdotters exhort the record labels to change their business model, I think they mean this in terms of "be content with less money" or "don't attempt to make a profit" or similar strategies that one should not realistically expect from a for-profit business with shareholders. The record companies are indeed changing their model... it's simply not in a fashion that many Slashdotters would like.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
I did. Went out and just got my very first iPod, and lovin it! No worries with this thing. I don't have to subscribe to the ever morphing way of thinking and greedy ways of cheating folks out of their money.
I have absolutely no problem with the Apple iTunes way. And this pretty much describes my library. A lot of these tracks are replacing stuff that was taken by an ex-wife years ago, and where possible, CD's were purchased and then ripped back into iTunes. I even just dropped Napster because the cost of everything has become obscene and the ever-changing DRM in Microsoft and Napster just finally caused me enough grief that;... well, we're done.
Won't be buying anything else from Microsoft at this point. My last experience with the XBox kind of solidified that!
iPod Rules!
Cheers
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Selling bellow or at cost is considered anti-competitive. A small company could not do this and survive, so predatory pricing or pricing based on market position need to be considered.
. cfm?itemID=1256&lg=e
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/internet/index
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
In a recent inteview with the Register, Peter Jenner declared that DRM is dead because it runs counter to the interests of record companies:
n er/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/03/peter_jen
People like me are signing up to legal paid mp3 download services like emusic.com . Other people signed up to allofmp3.com to pay for non-DRM'd music. The message these two developments is sending to the big record labels, a message that's starting to get through their thick skulls, is that DRM doesn't work and that it's actually counter-productive from the point of view of their business.
DRM does have one unchallenged beneficiary, though: The software companies that sell DRM "solutions" to fictitious problems.
Enter Microsoft. Redmond sees the writing on the wall for their DRM business, and will do anything to head it off at the pass. The tactic du jour seems to be to keep repeating ad neuseum to big record company execs that any music consumer that listens to mp3 files is "stealing" their music. This, in turn, is meant to re-enforce the message that DRM is essential to "prevent theft". It's a fallacy of such monumental proportions that I can't even qualify it as specious.
So, it breaks down like this: DRM is bad for everybody (record labels included). Open music formats like mp3 and ogg are good for both record companies and customers alike because it means more sales for record companies and more music in the format their customers want. Open formats are bad for Microsoft because the more music in open formats are sold, the more the "problem" of "theft" becomes a non-existant red herring. Microsoft loses business selling solutions to problems that are proven to be non-existant.
If the Jessica Simpson mp3 track sale is any indication, the record companies are coming around and the end is in sight for Microsoft DRM. Microsoft is trying to delay the inevitable.
This space left intentionally blank.
I'll commit the crime.
Read the article! "Universal Music will receive a royalty on the Zune player in exchange for licensing its recordings for Microsoft's new digital music service..." This is basic business, folks. Microsoft needs Universal on-board for their music store and Universal wanted a bigger cut of the pie that isn't dependent on actually selling music. So they strike a business deal. Nowhere does it say that this additional charge is to cover lost revenue from illegally copied music. Geffen implied that relationship, but I'm sure you won't find that stated in the contract.
If Microsoft had had the upper hand, it could have gone the other way--Universal paying a fee for each Zune sold in exchange for the privilege of selling music for it.
that since I'm already paying for the music when I buy a Zune, that I'm not allowed to pirate music?
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
Is it just me or have all the "reply" links disappeared? Also, no posts appear to have a "parent" link either
that since !'m already paying for the content if I buy a Zune, I'm now allowed to pirate music?
damn no editing posts and damn borked threading...
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
And they'll really like it when the HW automatically informs ASCAP what's been played on the machine. A lot easier than reading in radio station playlists...
Really, an unpaid music tax, can't wait for the first case against the RIAA where the defendant is a Zune holding customer; your honor, they all but condoned it and most certainly were compansanted well before my 'crimes' were commited. They tried this crap with blank CD's, hard drives (what exactly do you need a TB of spinning disk for anyway?)....
How about paying a small tax on the case of bullets I just bought, pretty sure I'll find something to shoot at and moving targets are so much more fun.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
Seriously though, Won't every label want a cut of the action too now?
I don't get how this helps MS? Didn't they already have a licence for plays-for-sure?
So now they've pissed off their plays-for-sure partners AND are going to pay more for to the musicorps?
Worst negotiation ever?
"designed" !== "used to"
/>
<grrr
Should I then assume that since I've PRE PAID for it, music from Universal that I download on Kazaa for use on my Zune is exempt from lawsuits by the RIAA?
I didn't think so..........If it comes to pass that there is an "unpaid media" tax on anything capable of playing digital media, the RIAA and MPAA and member companies should all have their butts hauled into court under the RICO act.
so if universal is already assuming that every mp3 device is used to pirate music, then why even allow their music to be made digital?
doesn't universal's statement that every one of these devices will be used to store unpaid material, alongside their participation with the zune program, and also collecting realy money per sale constitute indirectly accepting stealing music?
and if every one of these devices will be used to store unpaid for music, then why not have a policeman standing next to every checkstand arrecting everybody who purchases a zune?
and then you can go so far as saying that microsoft is now encouraging pirating music, given they're selling a device where everybody is going to store stolen material on it.
So along that same topic:
/. poster never reads the f'in article.
Every gun owner has killed people...
Every teenager is a pot smoking crack addict...
Every gamer is planing to shoot up his school...
Every driver speeds...
Every
Every thing I've written is true.
Zune is crap, Microsoft's handling of this music deal is crap, and the RIAA is crap.
It's a craptastic day!
This is really just a replay of the format wars that crippled earlier media/player ventures. Its a bit harder to see because its technical incompatibility based on DRM rather than on physical design. But it will have the same effect: it will slow down adoption. What made the CD work was the standard. That's also what made the DVD work.
In a way, those of us with a deep interest in intellectual freedom should applaud this. The only thing likely to destry DRM'd media is consumer resistance, and that is only likely to come from perceived inconvenience. The greatest contributor to a perception of inconvenience is multiple incompatible coding schemes.
So, good for MS for introducing not one but two. More power to them! Lets hope they make a real dent in iPod/iTunes. Enough to make people stop trying to tie media to their own hardware and move into the present century.
If the Zune can be used to capture illegal material, so can all of our computers, flash drives and anything else that stores digital media including cell phones and game consoles. Will the media companies wish to exact a tax on all of them? What about Adobe and other companies whose software may be pirated? Where does it end?
1. MS introduces unprofitable business model to light a fire under Apple's ass.
2. Unprofitable business model sinks Zune (ill-conceived hardware design/UI notwithstanding).
3. MS pulls Zune, retreats to XBOX and Windows Bloatware Caves of Profitability.
4. Non-Existent Zune = Profit???
5. Jobs laughs maniacally. Deadpans, "No," when RIAA attempts feebly to re-negotiate on the basis of a ludicrous business case built on an eleventh-hour all nighter fueled by energy drinks, Chinese takeout and heavy doses of THC.
Lesson to RIAA: When MS strongly encourages you to drink their Kool-Aid, don't.
Consider this: If Microsoft (or Apple) must pay the music studios a portion of the profits from each music player sold, then clearly that indicates that the users of those devices are implicitly expected and allowed to share music originating from the studos that have so been payed. In other words: Downloading and music sharing will be essentially legal. Universal can't exactly expect successful lawsuits against consumers who have already paid the studio tax, can they?
I agree that this looks like warfare from Redmond, they are trying to undermine Apple's business model. However, I actually think this may be an excellent idea - the end result would be to rid consumers of RIAA intimidation and allow people to share music.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
The one they used to knock everyone else out of the DOS market...
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_DOS#Legal_
Microsoft does this so it can point to the miserly Apple, which insists that tunes stay at .99.
It's ironic that there have been proposals that there be a tax on each player to compensate the RIAA for stolen or ripped music, but these were rejected in our "free market," but Microsoft is in effect proposing a monopoly tax. How far is this from licensing the OS to manufacturers under the condition that they install only Internet Exploder? Is there a hidden codicil here? Will the labels start withdrawing their music from the iTunes store unless they get a piece of each iPod?
In which case, we would have a "tax," and be paying higher prices, without the benefit of legalizing downloads. Regulation for the wealthy, pocket lint for the people.
What's next, the record companies demanding a tithing from Sony, Phillips and Denon on CD players ? Me thinks Zune will go the way of Microsoft Barney..
What else is wrong with the Zune? http://gotzuned.com/
"share profits from Zune player sales" - This statement is ludicrous on so many levels.
It's MicroSoft and the chances of their getting it "right enough" to be a success before Zune 7.1 are small, by which time the agreement will have lapsed.
The words "Microsoft" and "Share" should only be used in sentences about Hard Drive Directories or NASDAQ.
If through Divine (or Satanic) intervention they made $10,000,000.00 that they would hire Hollywood accountants to make sure that they don't show a profit.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.