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."

25 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 Calinous · · Score: 5, Interesting

      RIAA is a puppet, paid by the big music companies. It doesn't have much power, and no power over what their masters allow it.
            RIAA's power will decrease after this.

            How about radio play, talk shows? I think it will be business as usual - if the other big music corporations will ignore this. If they will lobby the radio stations, it might be possible that EMI loses some air time.

    4. Re:Tag this by cbreaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have to disagree that "most people don't know or don't care about the RIAA tactics." Everyone seems to know about kids getting sued, and everyone is pretty annoyed by the whole thing.

      Try to think of one person you know that isn't aware of the RIAA's lawsuit campaign. Then ask them, and you'll probably be surprised.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    5. 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.

    6. Re:Tag this by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      Advertising isn't altruistic. Giving out free samples isn't altruistic. These dumbasses need to realise that they are RECORD companies and start selling RECORDS again - physical media with full fidelity music on them. Give away the MP3s.

      Of course, this will be the death knell of losers who put out a CD's worth of crap that has one decent single they play on the radio. But with some bands it's the opposite. By the time Aerosmith came out, I'd given up buying an album on the strength of a song on the radio, and I REALLY was unimpressed with the minor key whiney Aerosmith song they played on the radio, Dream On. It turned out that that was the only sucky song on the album! But if you had liked that song, you likely wouldn't have liked the rest of the album. I bought it after I heard the LP at a friend's house.

      It it was today, and the songs were posted in the internet, I'd have bought it right away.

      I always liked Santanna, and when Supernatural came out they weren't playing any of it on the radio here. So I went to CD NOW and listened to the 30 second clips of its songs, and was incredibly unimpressed. "When did they start sucking?" I asked.

      Well, my daughter didn't know this but knew I liked Santanna, and bought tha CD for me for Christmas. It was a great CD! Had she not bought it, they would have lost a sale. But had she not bought it and they had posted full MP3s on the internet, I would have bought it.

      Advertisers will tell you "sell the sizzle, not the steak". If brains were dynamite, record company execs wouldn't have enough to blow their noses. If they had any brains they would post MP3s and make sure everyone believed in MP3's inferiority to CDs.

      That said, the RIAA labels have pissed me off to the point where I only buy indie; the last dozen CDs I've bought have been from bar bands.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    7. 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. Deceptive Summary by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary makes it look like the blockquote is someone from EMI, when in reality it is editorializing by some dude at Ars.

    -Peter

  4. Bailling out? by joaommp · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Let's get away before we begin making fools of ourselves."

    Too late.

    --
    Onda Technology Institute
  5. "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
    1. Re:"reportedly considering" by leonbev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure why this was tagged funny, since it's true.

      "Considering" cutting RIAA funding is nothing more than a slick PR move. Until they actually reduce their contributions, they're just as guilty as any of the other big players in the music biz.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. Okay, time to 'fess up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...who of you replaced the key decision makers at EMI with androids under your control? Come on, out with it!

  10. Don't start patting ourselves on the back yet. by Steauengeglase · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't see the RIAA keeling over any time soon, instead I imagine it shrivel up into something like one of those debt collection agencies out of Buffalo NY. It will act as a "free agent" for (mostly fake or bought out) music publishers and survive on constant lawsuits on those who will be only more than happy to pay $800 to keep from getting sued for $15K.

    Never underestimate the tenacity of unemployed lawyers.

  11. 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

  12. Actually I think EMI may have gotten it! by RaigetheFury · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wasn't EMI the one who started letting Itunes sell NON-DRM versions of their music selection? Maybe they're trying to be the front runner and testing the waters. Maybe they have someone who is able to explain to the big guys just how fruitless it is to try and stop illegal file sharing. Do your part in reminding people it's illegal, but don't go the path the RIAA has.

    I also think EMI has realized that they no longer need the RIAA because of the power of the internet. It's good business to rid yourself of a marketing company who does nothing but put your company in the bad light. Publicly decry them, and embrace the way people want things.

    Right now that is GOLD. People are starting to look for Non-DRM (and I mean the average consumer, not you and me). The average person buying their music is buying it for an Ipod and noticing how much of a pain in the ass it is to rip it just to get it on there.

    Maybe EMI, is realizing that the people who are stealing weren't going to buy it anyway and that there's a tremendous opportunity for the first major record label who steps forward and waves off DRM laden music. Cost of doing business in the digital world is that people will always steal your product. Microsoft learned this by trying to lockdown windows and that failed. People just manually downloaded the patches around the "automatic update".

    The problems their "DRM" did by checking new installs of windows if you reformatted and had to deal with the hassle of speaking to an indian who couldn't speak english... you get the idea... it just wasn't worth it financially. It hurt them.

    Maybe they realize that the power is no longer in their hands once they release a product. Perhaps they realize it's better to encourage people to buy it, who WANT their music.

    If I was a record label I'd offer the music in several different formats. Typically CD quality download, mp3 (slightly cheaper), HD (for the audio connoisseur, and then on physical media still. Some people love their physical media.

    That's what people want. Make it available like that, without some DRM scheme. You'll win in the end because the people who are stealing your product, weren't going to buy it in the first place. You need to target the people who are willing. Because... you know? The people who are stealing it... will always find a way. It only takes 1 copy to hit the internet... and you can't stop that from happening, no matter what you do.

  13. I know there were a few lawsuits but this? by guruevi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to the article:
    including the close to 30,000 file-sharing lawsuits filed by the record labels in the US alone.

    I mean, this is way worse than what I thought it was. I thought it was a handful, you know the ones you hear about in the news. But 30,000 means a lot and a whole lot of work for the legal system (this means that 1 in every 500 lawsuits in the US or 0,2% comes directly from the RIAA). This could be used for other cases we are already overloaded with like drugs, robberies, fraud (identity theft for example), money laundering and other crimes that affect more people than a few copied cd's.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  14. 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!
  15. Re:Ethically responding to RIAA companies. by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Informative

    Personally, I'd like to see the Radiohead model become widespread as more and more bands opt out of the current RIAA company business model.
    I know two other nice ones. Saul Williams' The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust! (rap/industrial) and Phenom's Unbound (prog rock).
    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
  16. 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.