Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EMI May Cut Funding To RIAA, IFPI

Posted by kdawson on from the return-on-investment dept.

Teen Bainwolf notes a report that Big Four record label EMI, which is under new ownership, is considering a big cut in its funding for the IFPI and RIAA. Each of the labels reportedly contributed over $132 million per year to fund industry trade groups, and EMI apparently believes that money could be better spent elsewhere. "One of the chief activities of the RIAA is coordinating the Big Four labels' legal campaign, and those thousands of lawsuits have done nothing but generate ill will from record fans, while costing the labels millions of dollars and doing little (if anything) to actually reduce the amount of file-sharing going on."

14 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Tag this by Mike89 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tag this 'commonsense'. Finally a record label who is starting to 'get it'.

    1. Re:Tag this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but the moment of truth will be when more effective TPCA / Vistaids backed DRM becomes feasible to widely deploy ... will they use it and shit all over consumer's fair use rights again? I suspect they will. They're waking up to the fact that their current tactics are counter-productive, not necessarily to the general idea that their consumers should be treated fairly.

    2. Re:Tag this by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Finally a BIG NAME record label who is starting to 'get it'.

      There, fixed that for you. There's lots of smaller labels who have "got it" all along, but they're just smaller ones, and you don't hear their music on the radio, or on the TV. There's plenty of good music on the smaller labels, and if people actually had any convictions, the RIAA would have gone bust many years ago, and their member companies wouldn't have been able to sell any music. The point is that most people don't know or don't care about the RIAA tactics. My biggest question is what happens to EMI now if they do this? Will they still be able to get as much radio play their music on a regular basis? Will their bands still get invited on the talk shows? How far does the power of the RIAA really extend?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Tag this by dgr73 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly what he said :) Plus the fact that it's slowly but surely becoming an "in" thing to be seen to be on the consumer's side. Why fight a fight you can't win and ruin your reputation in the process. Why not make a big hoopla about cutting funding to RIAA and then cut it by 10%, which is invested into other counterpiracy measures. Not only will your company look good (compared to the other 3 major labels), but they may actually see slightly improved results.

      Or it could be that the music industry is turning altruistic in it's old age and they wish to slash their profit margins by condoning free downloads. The next move in this vein will undoubtedly be a repeal of the "work for hire" clauses in all contracts, as well as a large hike in royalties.

    4. Re:Tag this by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't think that "because they can get it for free" has anything to do with it? When I was a teeny-bopper, a CD cost $11 or so, but I only made $3.65/hour. I, too, had to choose between the latest Paula Abdul album or two $6 movie tickets. The difference was that it wasn't so easy to get a free album, and the CD single cost about half of what the full CD did. Sure, I had some Beastie Boys albums on tape from a friend's CDs, but I didn't have anything like Kazaa available. Even iTunes would have been a game changer... how many of those crappy 1-hit CDs did I buy when I could have just spent 99 cents or so for the one or two hit songs on the album?

      I don't buy your argument, I guess. We had video games (Atari, Nintendo, Sega, TurboGrafix), we had movies (on VHS), we had designer clothes, snacks... the only thing that we didn't have on your list is cell phones!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. Change by Jonny_eh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All that's needed for change is for the old generation to die out.

    1. Re:Change by SamP2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the same thing the hippies said back in the 60s. Now that they're the ones with the reigns in their hands and what has changed?
      Them.
  3. "reportedly considering" by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing to see here, move along.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  4. just give it time by walshy007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In other words, it's causing too much bad public relations AND not working, require new methods to screw the consumer with having them actually enjoy it this time. after they come up with something new, business as usual.

  5. Re:one down, three to go! by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's hard to argue with EMI's logic there

    Considering that EMI never said what was in the blurb and it was a blatant misrepresentation?

    perhaps DRM will go the way of prohibition

    The thing is that prohibition really didn't go away and the war on drugs is the remnants of prohibition. You were conned into thinking that we won some great victory when, in fact, we merely gained back the "right" to what they could tax.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  6. Re:one down, three to go! by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, I don't think that's a bad analogy. Making liquor illegal only drove liquor production and distribution underground, brought about the rise of organized crime (remember Al Capone?), and probably increased the amount of alcoholism prevalent at the time. Face it -- if the liquor supply is limited, and you know where to get it, you're going to try and get as much of it as you can. Same thing is happening to music -- making file sharing and ripping illegal is simply driving the illegal file sharing economy, and it's costing the music industry far more money to try and stamp it out than it would be to embrace it and try to work with buyers.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  7. It's not common sense, it's lack of money by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Guy Hands aims to snuff out excesses that cost EMI £100m a year

    Guy Hands, chairman of EMI, has told potential investors the group's former management squandered around 100 million pounds on corporate excesses. Terra Firma, Hands' private equity firm, is expected to make major changes to senior management and transform the culture of a company considered to be stuck in the glory days of the music business. Industry observers say Hands will try to blame previous management for the firm's woes because he has paid over the odds for a business struggling to cope with a dwindling market.

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2963629.ece
    http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/in-winning-emi-is-guy-hands-losing-out-on-other-deals/
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/08/cnemi108.xml

  8. They "may" cut funding? by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They "may" cut funding? Let me know when they *DO* cut funding. Until then, this should be dismissed as PR theater. Perhaps EMI wants to manipulate the RIAA in some way ... maybe reduce their share of the funding, or gain more power within the organization, or something.

    So far it's just talk. And talk is cheap.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  9. Re:Not bad guys by scubamage · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I understand your point, however spelling it out that way will get you nowhere in a court, or board room. The sooner you stop treating them like they're evil, the more responsive they're going to be to your ideas. I agree with you completely, but you have to put things in a business context. They didn't go to war with their customers in their eyes, they used their legal right to sue people who they believed were violating their rights. Their rights are violated, so they sued. Because of it, consumer rights are getting violated. This is making their customers even less likely to buy their music. Its a bad situation for everyone. So, how do we improve things? Compromise. They get a harsh reminder that they can't survive without us, and evolve to take advantage of new business models which will spur them out ahead of their competition. We get to enjoy our media on different platforms (like EMI's drm free music). Everyone wins. They just have to be willing to accept their business model is outdated, and going to cost them their shirts if they don't evolve.