Music Industry Threatens to Pull Plug on Apple 733
bacterial_pus writes "First the music industry wanted
more money, by changing Apple's 99 cents per song policy. Now one exec is
threatening to pull the plug on Apple if Steve Jobs doesn't change the iTunes Music Store pricing." From the article: "Nash's comments echoes those made last week by Warner CEO Edgar Bronfman, who called for Apple to adopt variable pricing and share out revenues from iPod sales. The record companies' position is based on the dubious argument that digital downloads sell iPods. In fact all the evidence points to the opposite: that iPod sales have driven demand for downloads. The vast majority of digital music sales are made by iPod owners. Cut off Apple and the labels digital sales will slump." More recently Jobs resisted their pressure, and the execs snarked back. Looks like they're getting more serious.
Quotable quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
*gasp* MORE people might actually BUY your music... NO the humanity, the HUGE MANATEE!
Re:Quotable quotes (Score:5, Funny)
The name's Hugh. Hugh Manatee
Apple gets 4 cents on every 99 cent download (Score:5, Informative)
The record industry is too anachronistic to have the foresight to create this solution themselves and are still obsessed with selling a solid medium (LPs, tapes, CDs), while treating its customers as criminals and artists as expendable commodities that can ignore paying royalties if they can help it
A brief look at the practices of the record industry reveals that they are the dishonest lot:
Apple earns less than a nickel per iTunes track [appleinsider.com]
States settle CD price-fixing case [usatoday.com]
RIAA Continues Distributing Dud CDs to Satisfy Settlement [slashdot.org]
A music industry case study [nydailynews.com] Shows how little the artist makes thanks to middle men like the record industry
Wal-Mart Wants $10 CDs [rollingstone.com]Remember when CDs first came out and people said it was too expensive and the record industry promised that it would go below $10 eventually. Never happened
How Apple saved the music biz [guardian.co.uk]
FTC: Labels charged with price-fixing - again [theregister.com]
Music Firms to Look Harder For Artists Owed Royalties [washingtonpost.com] Spitzer announced a settlement in which the nation's five largest recording companies promised to do a better job of tracking down and paying $50 million in unclaimed royalties to thousands of performers.
Finally, last night 2005-Sep-29 on Nightly Business Review (NBR) was a four part series on the music industry. It shows how iTMS allowed one relatively unknown electronica artist sell directly to her consumers with the iTMS . Her music was featured on NPR and then people all over the world wanted to download and listen to her music. Stores like iTMS are the great equalizer from years of abuse from the greedy record labels. "The Business of Music,"-Part 4: The Down Low On Download Distribution [nbr.com]
Re:Quotable quotes (Score:5, Informative)
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
But what if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right?...
Re:Ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Biting the hand that feeds it. (Score:3)
Stupid stupid stupid.
I hope they get what they deserve.
Six weeks in hell.
Raydude
Re:Biting the hand that feeds it. (Score:5, Insightful)
They bite the vendors, and they screw everyone else, including the artists and the buyers. If this is not monopoly abuse then I don't know what is. I think your average drugs dealers is a bit better than these guys - even they aren't, at least the law knows how deal with drugs dealers.
Re:Biting the hand that feeds it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that should be "at least the law WILL deal with drug dealers."
So far, no one really seems to care about what the music industry is doing. Because if someone says something to them, they will just scream "PIRACY! PIRACY!" and the government turns the other way... "oh, carry on then."
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
At the sale of each iPod in the Apple store, ask the customer to donate $1, $10 or $25 directly to the RIAA. Apple will collect the money and (after assessing appropriate handling charges) send them a check.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:3, Informative)
Just pointing out that a lot of people are acting like the RIAA is its own entity. It's record labels, people.
4th option (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
Does it really matter? The way you put that makes it seem like you think it does, but I can't for the life of me think what the issue is. Sure, Apple will want to keep song prices low to make iTunes more attractive/competitive....but so would any other music store.
The fact they also sell the music player as well....well, so what?
Re:Or like forcing computer makers bundle windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like complaining Gillette has a monopoly on Mach-3 razor blades, except that Apple's razor can also use generic blade cartridges. It just can't be used with the proprietary DRM'd WMA blades of the other razor makers.
And further, I don't need to own an iPod to play DRM'd AAC files. They'll play on the iTunes application on the computer too.
(I'm not analogizing the razor-and-blades marketing strategy to the iPod and AAC.)
Music exces are idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Music exces are idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to see Jobs, who sells one of the most popular audio devices on the m
Re:Music exces are idiots (Score:3)
Keep in mind, though, that this is the same guy who keeps his own shareholders out of the development loop. It's not like he's ever been afraid to gruffly tell the shareholders, "You'll
Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, how many does it get in an hour?
Good luck walking away from that, Mr. Nash...
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
ITunes provides a viable way to get music quickly the moment you want it and it gives you a way to do it that insures the music industry gets paid. If they cut off the air supply to Itunes, all of that file swapping that happened before is going to go up exponentially. So rather than diverting those users back to physical CD's, they will simply lose them as customers all together.
Frankly if Apple's smart they could probably play such a stand off against the labels quite well. Think about the average person's perception of IPod, ITunes and Apple versus their perception of the average music label. Apple can go direct to artists and bypass labels all together. Sure a lot of artists will have contracts that keep them locked into the existing labels, but with people already hooked into ITunes it will be easier to convert people to newer less well known arists.
So please labels, make a stand so we can finally flush you.
Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt he is seriously contemplating it, he would be almost sure to be hit by a class action law suit from his investors if he did and would probably lose such a suit.
LetterRip
He sounds scared (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone is threatening their monopoly.
don't blink, Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Upfront disclaimer: I'm a total idiot, and I have no idea how businesses work, nor do I have any legal background.
So, I wonder if this is a confrontation Apple may welcome, and maybe even brought semi-intentionally. My hunch is the thesis: iPods generate sales, rather than download sales generate iPod sales is the more correct dynamic at work in this market.
There certainly are plenty of alternative sources of music, music that could temporarily replace the current source for iTunes, should the music industry call Apple's bluff. But I think the music industry stands to lose way more than Apple. The music industry could:
- lose revenue
- lose confidence of the consumers
- lose artists
- lose relevance
Apple, on the other hand still offers a sweet product (even a sweet suite of products) and there are myriad ways to get music onto their devices. Sure, a speedbump in iTunes could require a detour, but I think Apple faces little risk. Apple could be the huge winner here. In my opinion, Apple already is at least the winner, they've dared not to blink and the music industry is starting to look silly.Me, I refuse to play one way or the other with any of DRM markets, but I give Apple grudging credit for offering a palatible product and willingness to take on the hand that feeds.
Re:don't blink, Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
"Look everyone, I tried my hardest to make it easy and affordable for you to get music over the internet. We had succeeded at this and we revolutionized the industry. You and me showed the world that if you were given the choice to affordably download music that you'll choose that over pirating. Alas, the music industry has become extremely greedy. Their profit margins are already extremely inflated and they just want more money. The only option they left open for variable pricing was price increases, but where are the price decreases? It costs them nothing to distribute music this way, its cuts out the cost of the CD, the CD case, the label in the case, the cost of shipping, the cost of manufacturing. It is saving them extreme amounts of money, but they are just becoming greedier. As a result I hope we can all band together and boycott the RIAA, Sony, Warner, etc... Obtain your music through alternate channels, rip it off your old CDs, do what you must but please don't support these labels."
He would instantly be praised and supported by millions of teens and twentysomethings, cutting nearly completely into the record label's profits. On the other hand, Apple could also simply start their own music label and really rock the industry.
Regards,
Steve
Re:don't blink, Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
I should go find out what happened between Apple Computers and Apple Records. I'm a little surprised Apple is in the music business, given their original agreement with Apple Records was to stay well the hell out of anything that looked like music.
If Apple were smart enough to have just bought AR outright, they might very well already have a mechanism in place to support artists. And that, my friends, would be the start of the entertainment revolution: independents who can make a good solid living from their work.
Re:don't blink, Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Apple will ultimately cave, but they want to make the labels look as bad as possible before that. Apple's actions to date support that theory, because the longer and more public the battle is the worse the labels will look. Apple can make the labels look bad without actually saying anything that can get them sued.
Towards that end they may be putting up a fight over issues they are ultimately prepared to accept, like variable pricing. I don't think Apple's motives are altruistic (I think they mostly want to rip people off on iPods instead of on music), but if this is a battle for public opinion, an already poorly regarded industry is going up against probably one of the best PR companies there is.
The music industry is stupid enough to do this... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they close iTunes, iPod users will just rip their own music (and share it) leaving 0 revenue.
Re:The music industry is stupid enough to do this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The music industry is stupid enough to do this. (Score:4, Interesting)
Should this happen, Apple will have to find something to do with iTMS - I think shutting it down would be their very last resort. Much more likely, Apple cashes in on what little "counterculture" street cred they might still have, and starts courting independent bands and labels.
Freed of the insatiable greed of the RIAA, they and the indie lables start turning the store into a much better service. The samples will get longer, and you will even be able to download full songs from many bands looking to market their new albums. The iTMS becomes a worthwhile service, and rapidly gains popularity. Pundits declare it the center of the independent music Universe, and hail Apple as the Greatest Company on Earth.
On top of that, Apple starts really capitalizing on the podcast thing. They start arranging agreements with various news and sports radio networks whereby people can subscribe to shows for a price. Apple breaks out of the young technophile music-head market and starts getting the attention of NPR addicts. (However, they will draw ridicule when their ad campaign featuring sillhouettes of people wearing headphones sitting at desks or driving home in traffic and being less bored than normal is launched.)
Through it all, Apple fares fairly well, and may even lose some of the "evil corporation" reputation it's been earning lately, although its profits may take a slight hit as the iTMS becomes more expensive to run. iPod sales will stay where they are, because iPod sales drive iTMS sales, not the other way around. Customers aren't hurt because there are plenty of other places to download MP3s on the internet.
The RIAA, though, ends up with egg on their face as their play at forcing Apple into a position where they can be accused of (and sued for) actively supporting piracy with iTunes and the iPod fails miserably. They also hurt their sales as they close down a small but noticeable source of revenue and it is promptly replaced by the biggest advertisement and point of sale that their competitors have ever had. Their reputation suffers further as a few more people are added to the ranks of those who think the RIAA is a pack of fucking morons with a greed problem.
Re:The music industry is stupid enough to do this. (Score:5, Interesting)
maybe the same thing can happen here with artists backlashing against the riaa (who are supposed to represent the artists themselves but seems more likely they are representing the executives). but i guess that would depend on the character of the band.
Re:The music industry is stupid enough to do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
(mods, go away, use your points where they're needed.)
Legal action for price fixing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Legal action for price fixing? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that other than a couple on-line wanabies and a grey source (allofmp3) the apple store is the only source. The monopoly still exists.
What we really need is another eStore to open, selling comparible (and compatible DRM) music at slightly lower prices (97c anybody). Let the market open and the pricewar evolve. shortly one of the two will pick up the 'variable price per song based on download rate as a measure of popularit
Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)
Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg (Score:5, Interesting)
When you select songs, the song price should be written and additionally the break-up of where the money goes. When they see 9c to apple, 90c to the record company and 1c to the artist, they'll understand something is wrong.
Then they'll see indie labels, 10c to apple, 40c to record comapny, 50c to artist.
And then indie artists, 10c to apple, 90c to artist.
Re:Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with your statement, but consider this:
If the RIAA takes its ball and goes home, Apple will be able to only promote artists who aren't currently under RIAA control. Crap coming from the teen-idol production machine and manufactured "counter-culture" crap that the RIAA promotes (think "St. Anger" *PUKE*) wouldn't be on iTunes. The artist would then have a sizeable captive audience without the RIAA controlling who's popular and who's not. IOW, Apple just might have the needed intertia to compete with the RIAA itself, and give the artists more control over thier destiny.
I say that's a good thing.
Soko
If I were Jobs... (Score:3, Funny)
Jobs should do this in front of Congress, if available.
I'll bet he could disclose how little it costs to distribute the songs, and pose the musical question - "How Much Profit?"
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Price fixing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Price fixing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, it happens all the time, at least in Canada. I recently bought some 33" Goodyear MT/R tires for my Jeep. Vendor couldn't publicly quote a price for them in writing because he'd lose his license to sell goodyear tires.
While I agree it's anti-competitive, it happens in industry all the time.
Re:Price fixing? (Score:3, Informative)
'bout normal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:'bout normal (Score:4, Funny)
Re:'bout normal (Score:4, Interesting)
If Apple gets a big enough market, it can start selling artists directly. That is what the labels are really worried about. All the rest is just rhetoric.
classic example (Score:5, Interesting)
this is 2005.
the fact that people are still paying for downloads at all (including me, I have well over 200 iTunes songs) in 2005, YEARS after Napster started the easy-as-pie method of music aquisition... do the music companies really want to go ahead with this? do they want to return to the days of talking about free tunes on Napster instead of paying for iTunes?
Could be the best thing to happen to Music (Score:5, Interesting)
Price-fixing lawsuit? (Score:4, Informative)
Or maybe they need the money; for all I know, the price of snorting coke off a stripper's breasts has gone up dramatically in the last year or so.
-paul
Don't dream (Score:3, Informative)
The TVs didnt want to pay because they were doing free advertisements for the records, the Record companies wanted money because the TVs were doing money showing the videos.
And yes the sales of records were going up thanks to the music videos. Well, TV channels had to pay anyway. End of the story.
As long as you give money to pay the records or whatever is coming from those record companies, they are controling the market, they are controlling the music, they are controlling the medias.
Give your money to alternative music channels that respect your rights and the music and the artists.
Buy teh music companies (Score:5, Interesting)
I watched a business show about this and tehy said that each of those companies market caps are large enough to buy one company each. then all you need to do is make the tech companies share the catalouges amoungst each other.
Tech companies that are trying to sell their technology will have a friendler stance about copyright and the consumer than the record companies would.
Re:Buy teh music companies (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, that's a great idea! But since there's a fifth big record company, we'll need a fifth big technology company to buy another. Let's see... how about.. yeah! Sony! Since they're a technology company, they'll want to avoid nasty things like DRM and price fixing. I can see it now...
In fairness... (Score:3, Informative)
Not to give the labels too much credit (they certainly give themselves more than enough), but in fairness, I think they do have a bit of a point with this. iPod sales did rise dramatically after the introduction of the iTunes Music Store to levels well above what they'd been immediately before (and they've been going up ever since). That said, it may also have something to do with the boost to the iPod's Windows-friendliness around the same time (the 3rd gen iPods, which introduced dual-platform support in a single box and the ability to use USB as well as FireWire), or simply market awareness and the "fashion" factor building to a head.
In other words, I don't think we (those of us outside the industry, without access to their market research) truly know to what extent iPod sales are driving iTMS sales and to what extent iTMS sales are driving iPod sales, and I think a decent case could be argued in either direction.
That said, the music industry's apparent sense of entitlement to a piece of Apple's iPod revenue, and its threat to pull out of a store offering their product in a medium that both offers them some control over how consumers use it and reduces the costs associated with manufacturing, shipping, storing, etc. physical goods to virtually nothing, are pretty damn ludicrous. They ought to be on their knees thanking Apple for finding a way for them to generate earnings while dramatically reducing their costs; instead they're demanding more slop in the trough. I'd dearly love to see them pull out and then watch their earnings disappear as consumers finally decide they've had enough of this shit and spend their music money on alternative content providers, but I know better than to expect that.
The RIAA has a point. (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The RIAA can't pat iTMS DJs and Producers to force users to download the hot song of the week.
2. The RIAA can't pay iTMS to list the proper version of the Top 40 Charts.
3. The RIAA can't control which markets get their music, heaven forbid a black consumer getting a listen to Kenny G by accident.
[/kidding]
Didn't CD sales increase the sales of CD players? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did the music industry get a cut of Sony's CD player sales? Toshiba's? JVC's?
It's time for the RIAA to have a RICO case brought against it.
good luck (Score:3, Insightful)
What I think we may be looking at is that the labels want their own online music services (and in the case of Sony, also sell their own players) so there is no moody Apple middleman between them and the consumer. Again, Sony is already there, and others may be too. I'm not sure where the trails of Warner's parent and sister companies lead.
I think Apple needs to do a "week without iTunes" (Score:5, Interesting)
Better yet, let's see Steve Jobs say, okay, you want variable pricing, we'll hook up with Magnatunes and CDBaby and sell their tracks for 50-75 cents, or something. Those indy labels could really use the visibility, and the artists might see more revenue even at that lower rate than the ones beholden to RIAA and the big corporations. Some of them might even ask Apple to distribute their tracks as m4as, not m4ps, and would probably volunteer a lot more free tracks of the week.
Also, I can't believe they want some of the revenue stream from iPod sales. They had nothing to do with their creation, sales, marketing, etc. They're just becoming more obviously money-hungry than ever before.
How I'd like it to play out (Score:5, Insightful)
Mark the RIAA songs (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only would this be a good time for Apple to implement this as a sign that they won't back down, it would finally free me of checking RIAA Radar [magnetbox.com] everytime I go to the iMS to download a song!
Why iTunes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are they going after iTunes, which coss 99 cents, while many (most?) other WMA services offer tunes for 89? And why do they care how much the retailer actually changes the consumer for the song? Shouldn't the record company just be concerned about how much money it's getting from each one, regardless of the retailer's price (leave the reatailer to decide how much profit they want after that)?
Re:Why iTunes? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hope Apple holds out, because otherwise we are going to be screwed, ceding all market power to the RIAA.
Music Industry is right .. sort of (Score:3, Interesting)
New tracks should be $0.99
Older tracks should be $0.50
Oh wait -- you actually think that a track is worth more than a buck even as you try to continue to limit how I listen to that track?
I don't think so.
I'm not a huge fan of DRM, but Apple does make it fairly simple and it doesn't really get in your way for day to day uses like some others do.
RIAA's cut on these tracks is PURE PROFIT. They're not paying for the bandwidth to download the music. They're not paying for software changes to showcase the music. They just get a big, fat check. And as is typical with these greedy RIAA execs, they want more. Why not, they've been stealing from musicians for decades without providing real value added services, so they feel they should get a cut of everything. Hopefully they're going to get a dose of reality real soon.
Apple's Contracts with Record Labels (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the record companies (unsurprisingly) underestimated the the kind of sales that the iTMS would do. Now perhaps they're finally waking up to the reality of the situtation, that this is how people WANT to purchase and enjoy their music. I mean, how long ago was the old Napster? More than 5 years. FIVE YEARS. After all the bitching and moaning, the labels STILL don't have their own digitial distribution mechanisms. It just shows that the labels were and are still sooooo dimwitted and clueless. And now, "oh wait look, Apple is making money on this online store that we should have made ourselves 5 years ago to react to market demand. Apple should give us more money. Wahhhhh!" Well I say FUCK YOU record labels. You did this to yourself. You underestimated the market, your customers, the technology, and EVERY OTHER ASPECT of running your businesses. You signed deals with Apple letting them sell your music for 99 cents a track. It must have been a good deal then, right? Why else would you have signed to such a deal? If you're unhappy with the terms now, thats your own fault.
Big mistake (Score:3, Interesting)
If that's what Apple is thinking, and I'd love to see them do that, they'll call their bluff on the threat.
This is great.
Recording Industry, not "Music Industry" (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why I think it is very important to pay attention to the words used. In this particular case, the "music industry" implies that musicians, composers, authors are all lumped together. We need to distinguish between the greedy b****rds who run the music publishing cartel from the rest of the "music industry".
Similarly, we should expand DRM to "Digital Restrictions Management" because that is what it actually is.
It may not make an immediate impact, but over time more and more people will understand what the opponents of DRM and RIAA have been trying to say for a long time now. Education is the most effective weapon against oppression, and using the right words is one part of educating those who "don't get it".
Were I Steve Jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
Were I Jobs or Apple, I'd pull a preemptive strike. Announce "Since Warner Records doesn't feel the agreement with iTMS is fair, we've decided to resolve the problem. All Warner titles have been removed from iTMS and Warner Records has been released from the agreement. They're now free to market their music through a service whose pricing is more in line with their desired price points.". Then sit back and watch Warner scream as their sales plummet.
Textbook case (Score:3, Interesting)
Now "the Association" approaches a major customer of said companies and attempts to dictate an increase in prices with the threat of all of its members shutting off said customer in concert.
Please, please, PLEASE do it, RIAA. I'm begging you, don't chicken out. Jobs and Apple have lawyers and aren't afraid to use them, and this one might even qualify for Section One treatment.
There is a name for this (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't Bronfman descended from Bootleggers (Score:3, Informative)
His daddy was in essence a kosher Pablo Escobar.
Little Bronfy himself presided over the shameful shakedown of Swiss banks in the 90s.
It doesn't surprise me at all that Little Bronfy vants his money.
Here are some references:
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.06.07/news6
http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/reststory/b
http://www.blacksandjews.com/bronfman.html [blacksandjews.com]
Music Industry - Stealing=bad; Extortion=good (Score:3, Funny)
I guess to them stealing is only stealing when it's an individual (usually a minor) who they can then threaten with a lawsuit
(Isn't that extortion also?,)
Record Labels Making Mondo Mistake (Score:3, Interesting)
However, RIAA has also put much effort into distinguishing "analog" from "digital". Enough so, that a good lawyer could argue a case for the artists that RIAA was not granted the right to collect "digital" royalties.
(This actually came up with the lawsuits against "web radio" and the creation of a "digital royalties" collection agency.)
However, it could be pushed by the artists that they are distinct. And they could then license the "digital distribution" exclusively to Apple. Even if the case is lost or held up in court for years of debate. Apple could sign "digital distribution rights" with new bands. Keep the price $0.99 cents and split $0.25-$0.50 with the artist. Artists would see much more profit from Apple's model. While at the same time the record labels would see a loss of revenue. Eventually, the record labels will go bust and Apple will be able to buy their portfolios (just like RIAA did with MP3.com & Napster).
Touche
It's Hertz, not Warner's Nash (Score:4, Informative)
More interestingly, Hertz is a proponent of blanket licenses [xeni.net]:
Peer to peer file sharing is really just interactive radio consumers get to listen to exactly what they want when they want it. This demand is not addressed by the record industry. In fact, it cant be offered legally at any price. And as I think Ive illustrated, technology and reality will insure that supply finds its way to meet that demand...
and
My partner Fred and I therefor support compulsory blanket licensing. The same way restaurants, radio stations and elevators pay for background music, a tariff on communications technology could permit non-commercial file sharing to flourish, and copyright owners to benefit financially. File sharing is NOT piracy. Piracy is big fat guys manufacturing fake CDs in Mexico and selling them at swap meets. File sharing is tens of millions of music fans swapping copies of things they wouldnt otherwise buy. An ASCAP or BMI like pool of money allocated in an equitable way amongst copyright owners is the only solution that could be of benefit to creators, consumers and copyright owners. Compulsory blanket licensing for non-commercial file sharing is the equivalent of loosening a tourniquet tied around the entertainment industrys neck.
- ACLU Bill of Rights Dinner - Thursday, December 12, 2002
Article clarification - not the Warner boss (Score:4, Informative)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: As long as the big name artists all acquiesce to RIAA control of the music industry, they're complicit. A lot of smaller artists understand that the music industry cartel props up a small number of big name artists at the expense of all other recording artists. Unfortunately these smaller players don't have the clout that the big acts do.
Millionare recording artists, wake up and smell the coffee! The system that built you up is crumbling at the foundations. It won't be around forever.
As for the RIAA, the original Reg article indicated that they were feeling full of piss and vinegar supposedly because their profits have been better than expected, and they have a lot of faith in wireless networks to deliver the Next Big Thing in music. Yep, because ringtones are the bellweather of the future and everyone wants to use a cellphone as a music player.
Morons.
Re:The original goal of ITMS.. (Score:5, Informative)
No longer true (Score:4, Informative)
When Apple was dealing with the setup costs, the store was a break-even endeavor. Those costs are now over, and the store is profitable, though with small margins (compared to the 20-30% it makes selling iPods and G5s.)
Re:The original goal of ITMS.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's what Apple needs to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say Sony decides to pull out first. Well, then everytime a customer tries to do a search for one of their artists or songs (like Switchfoot for instance), have a big, HUGE message for the customer about how Sony wants to charge more than anyone else does and that Apple isn't playing. Let the iTunes customers know about what Sony is trying to do and to contact them to protest their decision.
Then when Sony finally comes back to the table, Jobs should demand that Sony's songs go 2 for 1 for a time. Jobs has a lot of power here - iTunes is the number one place to get digital music. I hope he realizes it.
Re:Here's what Apple needs to do... (Score:5, Informative)
The record companies should check with Michael Eisner before they fuck this up badly. You do not renege from a deal with Steve Jobs, and you do not double-cross him at the deal table. Pixar SAVED Disney to a large extent. With the ABC albatross around the neck during the 90s, the only thing Disney made massive revenues from were the box office hits conceived, created, and executed by Pixar.
When negotiating with Jobs beyond the initial five-picture deal, Disney then tried to play cheap. Pixar walked. Disney is now having to learn how to build Pixar-caliber films all by themselves and they're finding that it's, ah, hard.
The record companies had better take a lesson from this; if it's just their own stupidity or some other forces causing them to draw a piston on their own foot, they'd better watch it - building a successful online music store isn't easy, and it won't be profitable for them, as selling music through iTMS currently is.
Re:How about a share of iTunes instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about a share of iTunes instead? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How about a share of iTunes instead? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about a share of iTunes instead? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple had to spend a long time courting the music industry even to get the iTMS off the drawing board. They did it by making predictions that turned out to be true, over and over again, until a few people in the labels started paying attention. It was a hard struggle, though, because there were plenty of other people willing to tell the labels what they wanted to hear: namely that access controls would work, and that they could bolt all the restrictions of their circles-of-plastic business model onto the online distribution model.
Well, time and experience showed that the folks at Apple knew what they were talking about. And so people at the labels gradually came to agree that Apple had some idea of what was actually going on.
Now that the iTMS is big news, though, and the latest iPod gets more press coverage than most of the upcoming movies, ALL the players in the music industry feel the need to haul themselves up on their hind legs and be heard, including the ones who wouldn't have enough brains to poke a stick into an anthill after spending three weeks at a Power Simian business seminar.
Yeah, the music industry would love to get more money out of Apple if it was basically a matter of letting the (pardon the pun) apple fall out of the tree. NOBODY in business passes up a chance at easy money if they can get it. The sensible people in the music industry, though.. and let's all do them the favor of believing there are some.. are willing to live with the script that runs:
MUSIC INDUSTRY: Hey Apple, want to give us more money?
APPLE: No.
MUSIC INDUSTRY: Okay. Just asking.
The ones were hearing about now, in this article, are the sub-chimps who just haven't got the clue. They have yet to realize that having one label pull out of the iTMS will hurt that label a whole lot more than it hurts Apple over the long run.
Apparently game theory is another realm of knowledge the RIIA never bothered to acquire, beause they're now in a prisoner's dilemma they can't escape. The only way the RIAA can hurt Apple is for all the labels to pull out at once, and for all of them to stay out until Apple agrees to the terms of the RIAA as a whole. If only one or two pull out, the ones that remain in will weep crocodile tears all the way to the bank. And sales from the existing catalog don't even begin to touch on the contract concessions the non-participating labels will have to make with artists.. "What do you mean signing with you means my music WON'T go into the iTMS? There ARE other labels out there, you know."
What we're hearing now are the rumblings of soon-to-be-extinct morons who aren't ready to lie down and have someone shovel dirt onto their faces yet. But die they will, and sooner rather than later. There's too much money in iTMS sales to ignore, and if the big labels insist on pretending that it doesn't exist, artists will find other ways to get their stuff listed with Apple.
The only two plausible options in this scenario are: A) the labels shut up and let Apple set its price point where it wants, or B) the people who refuse to do business with Apple suffer enough losses that they get fired. Apple has no reason to budge on this issue, every reason to hold its ground, a whole bunch of cash on hand to sit out a potential RIAA embargo, and a much better PR stance vis-a-vis its customers.. Apple: "hey, we just relased the Nano!" RIAA: "hey, we just sued another 750 twelve-year-olds!"
Re:they want profits from ipod? (Score:3, Interesting)
Worse! Steve Jobs could make HIS OWN RECORDING COMPANY! *GASP*
RIAA, meet your nemesis.
(Boy, these times are getting more and more interesting)
Re:they want profits from ipod? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Deal with the devil..... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are smoking something (Score:5, Insightful)
By definition every single record that comes out is a crap shoot. So, let's say Apple could sign, let's say Paul McCartney. That won't help them with Beatles music, Wings, or McCartney's solo albums from the 80s. The best you could hope for is signing an established artist who is making hit albums currently.
These people either already have gone independent, or else they are probably already in the pocket of the record companies. I don't see this plan working for any established artists.
For new artists, sure they way to go seems like being independent and marketing yourself via the web and via iTMS. I'm not sure how this gets you any radio play, or on MTV, but it probably beats the extremely bad deal that most people get from record labels. Again, I'm not sure what Apple would have to gain by being "their record company". Why not just let independent labels sell via ITMS? Otherwise, Apple would end up funding marketing efforts for thousands of flop albums.
Again, the problem is the existing back catalog that the labels own.
Re:Okay.... (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Apple starts a "record" company.
3. Apple doesn't screw artists and big names flock to them.
4. Apple uses "pod casts" to replace radio air play to promote new artists.
5. Apple cuts out the middle man so artists and Apple now split the profit so each side makes more money.
It is the end of the world as Warner and Sony knows it... And we all feel fine.
This would be such a dream come true for many people and for so many reasons. Imagine an independent (non-RIAA) label with the distrubution clout and exposure of one the majors. It would revolutionize the "biz".
I like STEALING THINGS (Score:5, Funny)
This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Force iTunes out of business and I'll revert to stealing your music.
Downloads on iTunes aren't cheap. On the contrary, at a buck a song, it is only marginally cheaper to buy music on iTunes (though arguably more convenient). So, with no physical product to produce and distribute, we are being charged almost the same amount as if we go into a store and buy a CD? And you want to charge more?
What part of 'greedy fscking assholes' don't you understand?
Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
The greed of the music labels really does know no bounds.
It's just pure greed that they want a slice of iPod sales.
These people are just parasites feeding off the very entity that saved their collective margins from a razor-thin oblivion.
Will they ever learn? Of course not.
I don't see any other alternative than for piracy to rise again and their sales to fall for them to realize the error of their ways. But with their totally blinkered attitude, all that they would do is put on yet more spin on the economics and blame some other nameless / faceless force for their own idiocy...
Step it Up! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I like STEALING THINGS (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that doesn't sound like the old school term "buy" we use when we go to the candy store.
I don't really care if Apple (and the other music stores) change their ways of doing business but I think it's VERY dishonest to call someting "buy" when in fact it's more like renting. I want to really own stuff I buy, as it is now it's "you own it just as much as you need to listen to the music they way we say you are allowed to".
The subscription models is better in this regard since they don't confuse you to think you own the media when in fact you don't.
Re:record industry hold back (Score:3, Interesting)
A lawyer working for Warner said this: (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I have to ask...if very few people buy music from digital downloads according to this suit, then what the FUCK do these guys care what price Apple sells their music at? This is greed. Pure greed. The recording industry is so used to making reams of cash without doing any of the actual work that they're lashing out when someone tries to take that away from them.
And then to turn around and say they want a cut of the profits from the physical iPods themselves shows they have HUGE balls too. I mean, do they get a cut from every CD player sold that plays their music?
Yes, I'd rather blatantly steal all the music from here to the end of my life then have to pay anything to the bastards that run these companies. I'm sorry to the artists but lets face it, they only see a 10th of the actual cash these companies are actually raking in.
Or better yet, I won't even listen to music anymore. I'm so pissed off and disenchanted with the whole industry I'll just sit and listen to the birds outside my window...or laugh like a brook as it trips and falls over stones on it's way. Sorry, was channeling "Sound of Music" there....DAMN!
Re:A lawyer working for Warner said this: (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing I can think is that these fuckwits heard the fable about the goose with the golden eggs and didn't get the moral of the story.
Re:A lawyer working for Warner said this: (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to totally agree with the GP. This will drive me back to p2p and the used record stores. Actually, you know what? Fuck this. I like stealing from corporations. I'm tired of trying to do the right thing when I see the wrong thing being rewarded on a macro level every day. How the hell did we get shamed into being "good citizens" by these bastards? It's like listening to Tony Soprano give a "crime doesn't pay" speech.
Re:A lawyer working for Warner said this: (Score:5, Interesting)
I pay on average $3-$8 for used CDs in "like new" condition, via Amazon.com [amazon.com].
No low-quality downloads, no DRM, no overpriced songs I can't play where I want, on whatever device I want. No bullshit.
Why in the world would I ever even consider paying a dollar per TRACK of the same music, only to have harsh restrictions placed on me as to where I can play it, and how many times I can copy it to other devices?
Screw that. As long as I can still buy CDs used, that's the route I'll take. If iTunes Music Store goes the way of the dodo, I guess it won't bother me.
Between you, me, and the dodo, though, the RIAA's dumber than a sack of hammers to let a potential cash cow like this die.
Free money. For a product they already have. Being sold by someone giving them a cut. For something they otherwise wouldn't be selling at all.
What collossally stupid people must they be, those in charge of the major labels. These are potentially the best years to get in on the ground floor of the internet music revolution, and here they are, trying to stamp it out and drive themselves out of business.
Heh.
And I thought music execs liked money. I guess they don't.
Re:A lawyer working for Warner said this: (Score:4, Informative)
Most modern music is basically the same with some slight variations for marketing purposes (music development has always been based on the development of the supporting musical instrument technology). Even the rebellion aspect of music is over fifty years old (excluding of course any hint of rebelling against the publishers profits).
Recorded music has always been and will always be "dead" music, when it is live and shared it comes to life as part of a shared community celebration, whatever that community may be (create your own music don't buy it because your are just buying advertising 3 minutes at a time).
Re:A lawyer working for Warner said this: (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how much you know about the recording industry, but these people do NOT work incredibly hard. What they did was create the "company store" atmosphere that the mining companies did with the miners. The actual artists are pretty much slaves to these companies after they sign their contracts. Do you know how much the average recording artist makes off of a average CD? It's the ARTISTS that work incredibly hard and face the pressures day, day out and they usually end up owing the company money for their CD.
Case in point, remember a girl group called TLC? They had a number one hit a few years ago with "Don't Go Chasing Waterfalls". The song was everywhere, won awards, millions of CDs were sold. Care to take a guess on how much money they made for those millions of CD's sold? After paying off the company for recording time, the actual printing and distribution of the CD's etc etc(yes, the artists pay for all this) they were left with 50,000 dollars each that year. In TLC's case, nearly a year after the group sold 10 million copies of "CrazySexyCool," they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Their record company didn't lift a finger and they were on to their next conquest.
Also, do I work for free? No. Have I changed jobs to make more money? No, actually the opposite, I moved to a different part of the country and took a substantial cut in pay. I'm actually below the poverty line and yes, I'm barely subsisting...though not in a cave. I still manage to donate my time and what little cash I have left over after bills (bills meaning electricity, heat and food...no car payments, no cable tv, no credit cards) to the community. Yet, I'm very happy.
Also, I said I'd rather steal than line the pockets of these guys...but I never said I'd actually do that. I'd rather make my own music...though some would question if it were indeed music.
And I don't eat Doritos. Any other assumptions you'd like to make about me?