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.
WTF.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.