Slashdot Mirror
Universal Wants a Slice of Apple's iPod Pie
vought writes "According to a Reuters report, Universal is now taking the precendent set by Microsoft's Zune and moving to force Apple to include a royalty payment with each iPod.
In the words of Universal Music's Doug Morris, 'These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it. So it's time to get paid for it.' Does Microsoft's precedent mean the start of a slippery slope that will add a 'pirate tax' to every piece of hardware that touches digital music?"
God, I hope they do this. Because if I have to pay a Pirate Tax, then doesn't that mean I can pirate all the Universal Stuff I want... since I've already paid the tax?
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
IIRC Canada has a system like this, where part of the purchase price of blank media goes to royalties for stuff that is assumed to be copied to it.
If they charged a fee for each device and let us have free, legal file sharing (since we paid for the content with our device fee) it sounds semi reasonable.
Of course that's not what they are talking about so...
"These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it,. So it's time to get paid for it."
Riiiight. So umm... despite the fact that there's absolutely zero proof, a general assumption is being made... which spreads to ALL digital-music listeners... and say that they want money.
So... going by this theory, cable companies should charge everyone who watches TV because they all steal satellite signals?
YES! Everyone on earth is a digital thief, so let's make a profit off of it!
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
What kind of environment do you have to be raised in that instills a sense of entitlement so absolute that it reduces onlookers to standing agape in stunned silence?
These people need to be kept away from sharp objects and heavy machinery until they grow up.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Actually I have no problem with paying a small extra "tax" with the purchase of an ipod. BUT only if that means I can then fill my ipod 100% with pirated music...
If I'm paying the "pirate tax" to help them recover the "losses" they have from piracy, there's no problem then, right? If they are still going to sue my guts if I have pirated mp3s on my ipod, then why I am paying extra money with the purchase of an ipod? I'm paying them protection money and they still come after me? If they are going to act like the mob, they should at least do it properly...
Yes, we do, and thanks to it the courts told the CRIA (RIAA of Canada) to screw off when they tried to start the same litigation idiocy that is going on in the states right now. It's funny, the industry lobbied really hard to get the levy passed in the 1990's when no one had yet realised how the internet would change things. Now they are lobbying as hard as they can to get it removed so they can start suing people. Not having any luck so far from what I can tell.
The record industry is interesting. It is so powerful, that it can make change and introduce new products and formats (like CD), yet ultimately it has a product that people can do without.
And they are 'doing without' in droves. People are buying Wiis and DVDs and getting cable TV and video off YouTube. They are loosing market share and blaming piracy. Blaming the unnameable is truly the last bastion of an industry that is dying. It means that, at AGMs, the directors will have an excuse for bad
profitability, when inaction is their only excuse. If you hold shares in a large music company, time to ask them what product they plan on releasing when they have become irrelevant due to their inaction.
Years ago, they could have made a cheap, effective, simple service. Instead - everyone copied music, found what they like and bought CDs because they felt like they should support the artist. Record sales went up. Then Napster got a sued, Audiogalaxy got shutdown, and the punters should no longer try before they buy.
RIAA continues to sue... people continue not to buy.
It's time to wake up record companies. It's not too difficult. iTunes will save your ass. If you leave it 2 more years - iTunes will own you ass. You will have to bend over and lick Apple's boots. Do you realise that you are 1 freakin step away from having someone like Apple set up a service to post produce 100000 punters Garage Band files and then release them? The only thing you have is radio stations who you collaborate with. The advertising revenues for these are not going too well. Do you feel you owe it to them to ensure they join you in a symbiotic slide into oblivion?
I have bought my last 2 years worth of music though iTunes. I don't need a CD. I don't need all
the wasted plastic and paper. I don't need to waste resources to have music. I don't need the stores,
the transport, the manufacturers. Sound only needs to be touched and felt in 1 way - through bass
pounding in your chest... not through yet another breaking CD container.
In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
No no, the Canadian recordable media levy is *not* related to copyright infringement at all.
The levy is a fee paid to the recording industry to subsidise the industry for the loss of revenue taken from duplicate media sales to compensate the industry for *fair-use* backups of media for personal use. Really a coup for the music industry because they're getting paid every time you exercise your rights, and they still get to take you to court if they can fake enough evidence about your downloading.
But this new one is fantastic, because if Apple accedes to the music industry's wish (and I personally hope they will as quickly as possible), it hopefully (IANAL) creates an circumstance where you have already paid damages to the music industry, and hopefully double jeopardy means they can now not take you to court and say "well you took our music but we weren't compensated" because they will have been (for any music published by Universal at least). Thus making their entire catalog free for download by anyone, anywhere, who owns an iPod.
This is different from the Zune, which pays money to the publisher simply as a gratuity for the favour of their songs being available on the Zune music purchasing outlet. The establishment in this case is not being compensated for copyright infringement.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
"If the music cartels start charging me for music that I haven't downloaded, ripped, or otherwise pirated, then I'm going to have to stop spending money at iTMS and my local funky CD shop, and treat that "royalty charge" as a blanket license to their entire library."
FWIW I was in a band signed to a UK indie label during the 80's which was had licensing deals with pretty much every major label around the World. Then came the 90's and slowly but surely the CD's started disappearing off Tower Records' shelves. Then came the 00's and we get our own section on iTunes.
Needless to say if I'd bought my first MP3 player in the 00's I would have gone straight to iTunes and bought my albums from there, but instead I bought my first MP3 player in the late 90's and had to resort to grabbing un-licensed MP3's of my songs from wherever I could find them, basically because I didn't have the orginal CD's (my entire record collection is just that, records, and stored back in the UK) and I couldn't find CD's in used record stores.
If the record labels had got their shit together to build their own kickass online record store, and made their own kickass players so people could listen to them, Apple wouldn't have seen an opportunity and created iTunes and the iPod.
So FUCK YOU Universal, and every other label that starts crying about lost revenue.
And who's going to lead the lawsuit?
Actually, Apple should lead it. After all...
That sounds more like he's defaming Apple than he's defaming iPod owners, although that comment leaves plenty of room for both. And, of course, Apple makes a pretty stupid target for this kind of statement, having developed the most successful legal music download service there is. (I'm putting iTMS ahead of eMusic, AllofMP3 and the like because iTMS successfully charges more per song, has better selection (than eMusic), and is of unquestioned legality (compared to AllofMP3).)
Or maybe, instead of a lawsuit, Apple should just reconsider whether they want iTMS to sell music released by a record company that defames them and their customers. How much does Universal make from iTMS, I wonder?
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Other possible RIAA plants (this story only):
- #17043086 (User: Man in Spandex)
- #17043272 (User: LO0G)
- #17042814 (User: seriv)
- #17043858 (User: j-beda)
- #17043038 (User: Jerry Rivers)
- #17043474, #17043550 (User: pandrijeczko)
On a side note, the quote in the summary, "These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it,. So it's time to get paid for it," is not from the Reuters press release. It originally appeared in the Billboard article announcing the Zune launch, and was discussed on slashdot.