Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Behind the Scenes In Apple Vs. the Record Labels

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the does-steve-wear-turtlenecks-in-private-too dept.

je ne sais quoi writes "The New York Times recently posted an article describing what really happened between Apple and the Record labels that culminated with the January 6th Macworld Keynote by Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller." Essentially they discuss a bit of a swap: Apple allowed variable pricing for songs and the industry allowed DRM free music. And apparently the iTunes homepage is a huge hit making device. Big shock.

8 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. iMusic industry news by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can we get a special section for iMusic news? Apple did what the music industry should have done and failed to do. Perhaps Apple should start the iMusic label and start signing artists, sort of an effort to put the music industry into perspective with it's current situation. It would be an eye opener for the RIAA.

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    1. Re:iMusic industry news by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apple opening it's own record label would put it at serious odds with the the other labels that it sells. A better solution would be for Jobs to start his own record label completely independent of Apple. The single song electronic sales business model has already been forced onto the music industry, so the only purpose of a new record label would be to explore the other flaws in the system, like constructed pop stars.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    2. Re:iMusic industry news by idobi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apple can't open it's own record label. From Wikipedia: "In 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount had been estimated to be US$50â"US$200 million, but was later revealed to be US$80,000.[1] As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer They got into hot water with Apple Records when iTunes got big. An actual recording label would blatantly go against the agreement.

      This agreement is no longer in effect. Apple Corp has signed over all Trademark for Apple to Apple Computer, Inc (now Apple Inc) in 2007. In return, Apple Corp has a perpetual license to use the Apple name for their label. However Apple Inc. can now do whatever they want with regards to the music business.

    3. Re:iMusic industry news by TimmyDee · · Score: 5, Funny

      It would be an iOpener for the RIAA.

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      Per Square Mile, a blog about density
  2. misleading wording by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Informative

    record companies gave up their demand for copyright protection (called digital rights management)

    No, they gave up DRM, and copy protection is sort of related to that. They did not give up anything even remotely related to copyright protection, unless I somehow missed the part where Apple talked RIAA into releasing works into the public domain.

    That's just plain wrong. Bad reporter!

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  3. No Pity/Sucks to be them. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, the ip0wning that the record guys are now receiving is their own fault(and I, for one, am experiencing everybody's favorite German emotion). They wanted DRM to protect their precious content. DRM is, by nature, inimical to interoperability. Thus, the record labels, by forcing people who wanted to buy music online to choose lock-in to one DRM camp or another, created a situation where the winning DRM "ecosystem" would be extremely valuable, and powerful, and all the others would be near worthless. Shockingly enough, playsforsureexceptonzune wasn't the winner.

    If the online music business were a bunch of generic outfits selling MP3s(or generic AAC) then the relationship between the labels and the retailers would be a lot more like the brick and mortar one. By pushing DRM, the labels created something they can't really seem to handle. Had they just stopped clinging to the nonsense dream of magic interoperable DRM, they might well have been able to avoid this. Idiots.

  4. The music industry is funny by tkrotchko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The gripe that they effectively created MTV, they gripe that the revived Apple.

    If I was a large shareholder, I'd fire the lot of these guys. Because either one of the two is true:

    1) They're lying as an excuse for their failures
    2) They have all this business opportunities that create entire new industries, but they can't get it done themselves, effectively giving up 10's of Billions of dollars.

    I wouldn't want those guys working for me, that's for sure.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  5. Re:DRM free? Apple is late to the party. by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Again, how did Amazon and company do it?

    The Labels used looser terms with Amazon in an effort to rob Apple of some marketing muscle and negotiating "leverage" and it failed, on both counts.