What is Digg?168 Comments
- MikeF2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If ''very few people people buy music from digital downloads'' Then what the hell is he worried about?!?!
- Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The guy is right in one aspect. If Warners refuses to sell their tracks through iTunes, there will be less online purchases of their tracks because those very same iTunes users will get their tracks for free elsewhere.
This is yet another example of the stupidity of Edgar Bronfman (sic). The heir to the Seagram's fortune who convinced the rest of the family to part ways with their DuPont stock holdings to fuel his ambition to become a player in Hollywood. He first had Seagram's buy into TimeWarner, and later in MCA/Universal. When the company merged with Vivendi, he became irrelevant.
Since that time, he gathered private investors together and convinced TimeWarner to part with the Warner Music Group division (I believe TimeWarner still has a 20% stake, if that, and definitely not control). This tard is trying to convince the market that his new toy (Warner Music) is worth more than $1 billion so he's trying to posture to get some *value* back to save the IPO.
Steve Jobs is right...increase the price of songs online and sales will fall and piracy will rise again. Truth be told, as that Canadian study showed, the right price for downloaded songs (in order to make profit and kill illicit P2P) is $0.05 per song, but try telling that to the RIAA and the labels/publishers themselves that are accustomed to $3 ringtones. I really wish Apple, Google, Yahoo, and yes, even Microsoft would conspire to buy up the labels, sign a licensing agreement between all parties, completely kill off the RIAA by pulling each label out of it, and agreeing to dropping the price per downloaded song to $0.25 or less. Heck, even $0.50 would be better than $0.99 and would generate more interest from broadband enabled consumers. - craigtheguru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I feel this will have greater implications for WBR than Apple. Most iPods are not filled with tunes purchased on the iTunes Music Store and all WBR is doing it pissing off users. I'd consider boycotting WBR music and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I can't wait for artists to start going at it alone, publishing their own music and bypassing the labels entirely.
The comments about "iTunes being another MTV" are completely ridiculous. I've heard this from various labels over the past few years and they're just whining about not having complete control. Because if they had complete control they'd charge you $30 per CD and $5 per track.
I'm glad Steve Jobs is willing to take a stand for the consumer because nobody else seems willing to do so. - DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"If you have a band, a computer and an internet connection, you don't need a big bloated record company."
I love that statement, and fully believe in most of it, except one tiny thing, the recording process. I'm not about to say you need to go to a million dollar studio to record an album that is any good, most of what makes an album good is the writing/performing talent of the artist, but the sad fact is, you do need to know a ton more than the average band about audio production to record an album, unless you are an electronic musician of some sort, then you can probably pull it off. But as a recording engineer, I can tell you that the average band has almost no chance of recording anything decent without the help of an engineer. I spent years and years learning how to make things sound polished and professional, it's not something the average guitarist can just learn in his spare time and start recording his own band. Oh, and another big problem, garageband is about 10 light years away from being capable of making a professional recording. Many of the necessary tools are just not there. It is a toy, and that's all, and all it probably will ever be.
Having said that, I would like to see Apple come out with the Pro-Tools killer they have been rumored to be working on, because as much as everyone likes to talk ***** about Apple, Digidesign is a million times worse, and I for one want to be rid of them...
Anyway, I refuse to work with any bands that have even a notion of wanting to record for a major label, and luckily, I own the copyright to my recordings, so I can refuse to allow the big labels to release anything I have recorded (haven't had the chance yet, but I'm sure I will eventually.) The bands I record have the opportunity to try to convince me to sign away my copyright, but I dislike the major labels so much it is unlikely that I will ever agree to do it if they ask.
Anyway, I hope the majors all suffocate themselves once and for all. And by the way folks, please don't say you won't buy any CD's, the record stores are dying left and right, and need our support, what I suggest is that you buy used, that way you ***** the labels real nice, but support your local record store, and therefore local economy...
Peace - AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Record labels should stop letting their CEO's talk, it seems like they never say anything intelligent
- hawks5999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2this is all just posturing by WBR since they are starting their e-label.(http://beta.news.com.com/Warner+Music+readies+CD-free+e-label/2100-1027_3-5841355.html)
I'm guessing that they will leverage this move to threaten moving all their music through their own online marketplace. I don't think Apple will budge. - samk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Every company has the right to decide how to price its products.
Every customer has the right to decide whether to walk away. - Dataplume, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well said Weareglass! I made the mistake of placing my comment with out actually reading the story and making my judgement based on the headline. Shame on me! Needless to say I do feel that way if the argument was that the record labels would be willing to do such a thing.
Ultimately I want to be in control of my content! Once I purchase it, and though I'm not fond of DMR I tolerate it so that I can obtain media in the form that I want it. So long as the industry wants to quibble about theft and distribution I feel strongly that people should just steal there stuff. They are not supplying things to the consumers in the fashion that they request so why should any one pay for something that they are not getting?
I'm willing to pay for convenience, mobility, and compatibility. This makes CD's the best option but that also requires me to go to the store where I have to be assaulted by marketing and annoying sales clerks that make me all the more grumpy and hermitic.
We really need to fight hard to get stuff in the fashion that best suits us and as of yet there is no such thing. All media must be available in multiple formats and playable on all devices. The first person to do this wins. - archer75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1.99 per song is too much to have to pay anyways considering how much they save by not having to pay people to create the CD's, cases, shipping, store profits, etc.
And it's way too much to pay for a song with copy protection. I prefer allofmp3.com as it allows me to get songs without DRM of any format and bitrate I want. If the record companies would allow that in the U.S. i'd be all over it. - craigtheguru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wanted to add more about the labels' "not another MTV" comment. They are whining because MTV controls what content is played. There claim is that they basically give the content to MTV for free for MTV to profit on. Once MTV got big it could start calling the shots and the labels had no choice but to get in line or else they wouldn't have a place to whore their new acts. Next comes iTunes. Most labels use Macs so they were using iTunes from the beginning. They loved it and wished there was a store. Then a store came and all was good. That was until the iPod was a runaway success and Steve Jobs was willing to stand up to the labels' demands for more money. Now again they are upset because they can't dictate the terms.
I mentioned a boycott earlier and I'll stick to it. I still buy most of my music on CD so it is DRM free and I can always encode it in a better format. Some tracks and albums I'll buy on iTunes, but only when I don't care so much about the DRM. But if Warner tries to take a stand I'll show them what I think of it with my wallet. I will not purchase another album from WBR. I encourage others to do the same to show that they can't strong arm consumers!
Meanwhile, I expect other online music stores will be happy to charge whatever the labels demand. The key here is that artists themselves like iTunes and know that Apple is sticking up for them and not the labels. - eleven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, what the hell are they trying to do?
This does nothing for their case, all it does is piss their potential customers off (digital or not). If they really were negotiating they should keep quiet, no matter how they position something like this, they come off looking like complete asses. - neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1screw Apple Records.. stupid company doesn't know Apple computer is doing them a favor... saving their little ass...
go steve go. - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1who cares what the record companies do? any legal method of obtaining music is far more expensive than the value. whatever music you want will always available for p2p download. so why pay?
i'm a fan of the artists, not the record label. screwing the label seems sweet, sweet justice. when they act like WB is acting, bitching because it wants MORE MONEY, that just makes me less likely to buy from them and more likely to steal. because, amazingly enough, even a thief has a moral high ground to these disgusting record labels. - Denjira, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wha? Warner makes music?!?!
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Lables were just that, the produced a record and put a label on it. There is 100%, absolutly NO need for that anymore. With the proliferation of technology to the masses, the digitalization of music, record lables are as usefull as a square wheel these days and they know it!"
I have to disagree. As much as you want to believe that technology has been proliferated to the masses, and that record labels "are as useful as a square wheel", the fact remains that the majority of music listening mass buys their music as a CD. Yes, digital or online music sales are growing, but represent a small percentage of sales - approximately 1.5%. In 2004, global sales of physical format music was US$33.6 billion. Digital sales - fef560, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Personal Message to Michael Nash! Please do cut off iTunes, the sooner you do, the more people will pirate, and the more the people pirate, the sooner your company dies.
- Lebowski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2record label Idiots!!!!!!!
- sharedferret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If they do cut off iTunes, many people who usually legally buy music through iTunes and not through record stores will start illegally downloading music, like the other people have said. I'm almost positive that none of the iTunes users would start buying actual CDs again if iTunes got cut off.
- giant.robot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Only record labels make money in the music industry, or that is what the record labels would like to happen. Artists, engineers, performers, and even broadcasters make a fraction of the money the labels do. This is because record labels work like a organized crime racket. In trade for an artist's work they loan them money to have it recorded and produced. The artist then has to make X number of records per their contract. Selling those records makes them next to nothing unless each one goes gold (500,000 copies sold). Artists have to pay back their label loans which means until their royalties from record sales or revenue from touring/merchandising allows them to pay back the label they're indentured to them.
So along comes iTunes with a successful online distribution model. Songs aren't rented and are all sold at the same price. What worries companies like Warner Music is iTunes might at some point offer artists the ability to distribute their music without a label getting involved, or at least a major label getting involved. Big labels are deathly afraid of the "long tail" effect.
The long tail happens when a distributor with a wide selection of products can make money selling thousands of relatively unpopular products rather as well as a thousand copies of a popular product. With iTunes storing a thousand songs is ridiculously easy. It doesn't matter if they're the latest Shakira album or Don's Worldly Farts Vol 3. Selling a thousand songs on iTunes makes the same amount of money for Apple no matter what thousand those are. So a bunch of bands on indie labels selling their music on iTunes means they're on equal footing with bands on major labels as far as iTunes is concerned. Brick and mortar stores don't have this capability for the most part. They have finite amounts of storage space, they can't afford to stock thousands of unpopular albums hoping to unload them.
This effect is compounded by social networking. Record labels pay promoters and radio stations lots of money to get songs heard so people will buy them. There's sometimes word of mouth campaigns but most of the time its promoters and their network of contacts. With iTunes there's iMixes and "Listeners also bought..." recommendations. This sidesteps all of that money labels spend to make people buy music. This means a band can be found and heard without a million dollar marketing scheme. When bands don't need millions of dollars to market their music they won't need to head to the loan sharks in shiney corporate offices anymore. The record labels don't want distributors (iTunes etc.) or artists making money in the music business. - Linuxrocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1NO ONE BUYS MUSIC ANYMORE, WHAT THE HECK IS THIS GUY COMPLAINING ABOUT? You can easily get music from p2p or bittorrent
- globeboxxr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The link now takes you to a correction at The Register... they attributed the quote to the wrong person, it wasn't the dude from Warner.
- mikeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1.99 per song is too much to have to pay anyways considering how much they save by not having to pay people to create the CD's, cases, shipping, store profits, etc.
-----
Well, isn't .70 cents of that going to the record lables?
What I want to see is Google to go start up advertising for independent artists and partner up with Apple. It could be somone searches for some genre of music in google, the ad's along the right side will list some bands that the person might be interested in based on their past search history and lead the person to iTunes. - SpeedyG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They can't cut off iTunes. iTunes has become practically synonymous with "online music store". The negative, national press that they would see as a result of an abrupt cutoff would be tremendous, and no amount of spin in the world would help. Their bluff is getting called, and there's nothing they can do about it but shut up, so people don't find out they tried to strongarm Apple into raising prices.
- NoUse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a perfect storm.
iTunes will soon allow artists to click a button in Garage Band and selling their music on iTunes. Combine that with PodShow and podsafe music and I'm not sure anyone will miss the big record companies. But I'm sure they'll miss us. - neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hold stern Seve!!! Kick their asses!!!
i would sooo love Steve to personally slap all those greedy CEO's of Warner. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Apple should just be a Record Label itself by signing artist and doing the promotion for them.. IMHO"
Apple is already on VERY shaky legal grounds with iTMS. They were sued for trademark infringement by Apple Records and in 1981 settled on the condition that they stay out of the music business and paid $80,000 US dollars.
They were sued again by Apple Records in 1989 for adding MIDI to their Mac's because that was a violation of the previous settlement. They settled THAT suit in 1991 costing them another 26.5 Million US dollars!
They are now in the process of yet another suit started in 2003 over iTMS that is still to be resolved. They may prevail due to a technical issue with the wording of the previous settement since they are not distributing physical goods.
In other words, every time they do anything that might look like they are getting into the "Music Business", they have a litigious monkey on their back with the funds and the inclination to nail them to the wall over and over again!
Just imagine if they NOW actually started to compete head-to-head with Apple Records?
See Wikipedia for the full story : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer
under the category : Trademark dispute with Apple Corps - vapidsquid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1apple computer /can't/ start their own record label.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_computer#Trademark_dispute_with_Apple_Corps - crash331, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok, first all the Apple Zealots will be super pissed if iTunes no longer had major label music. When they go to the website to read why, they will see it is the record company's fault. On principle alone, I think they will pirate just to side with Apple and stick it to the man.
I know I will, even though I am no Apple Zealot. - cessax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0all the power certainly lies in the distributor (itunes), not the records labels. down with major labels! start listening to homebrewed music people...you'd actually find something new and interesting...even if an artists hasn't "blown up" or gained media publicity...now go listen to my music! =P www.high-flow.com and www.sisterdomatilla.com
- doafhat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I doubt it would ever happen, but I would like to see Apple, Yahoo, and the other major players in the legal downloading biz form an alliance to help represent the consumer and challenge the power of the RIAA. Right now, the RIAA has the upper hand in that they can dictate to Apple what the price per download should be, and if Apple disagrees the RIAA can cut them off and take their content to Yahoo or any other vendor that agrees to their terms.
If you had a Digital Downloading Association of America, or whatever else you'd like to call it, the RIAA's power is greatly diminished. If all downloading companies were allied together, the RIAA would be forced to play by Apple's rules or run the risk of having piracy rule the online music business once again.
Of course, the record companies could create their own download services, but odds are, they'd hike the prices up to an unreasonable rate, and few would be willing to buy into the RIAA-controlled service. I don't think Apple would be willing to tie iTunes in with others in the download biz, but I think it would definitely help keep the RIAA in check. - DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Lesser of two evils.
Apple = More expensive, less hassle
Windoze = Less expensive, more hassle
Time is money, unless all you have is time. - omnithrope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I still prefer to support my local indy music store.
Waterloo Records for the win. - ArthurSucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0First off, anyone who says a song should cost five cents is probably never recorded music. 99 cents for a single is a fair drop in the hat, and there's a reason the songs are cheaper in an album. THEY WANT YOU TO BUY THE ALBUM. As a musician (a crappy one at that) I know and understand that there is a lot of work that must be done to make a good recording. Unless you are using Linux with Ardor you are probably going to need expensive software. Not everyone is smart enough to use it correctly once they've dropped $400 dollars. My ex-girlfriend recorded her album with a $30 radio shack microphone and a copy of audacity. Does it sound good? Yes. Does it sound as good as a major label recording? No. I happen to be a computer geek, and a huge fan of the recording process. Her album would have never been made if not for my help. She's a musician, not a geek. As for Warner music, I think the correct song here is the funeral march. It will take a long time, but more and more artists are dropping their labels for more reasons that money, but that is a big part of it. As for me, I like AudioLunchbox.com. I have also been known for buying an album from the artists personal paypal store. Once in a while from artist face to face. Support your local musicians!
For all who are interested:
http://www.noseygoes.com - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Goooooood! I hope all the record companies pull out.
Then Jobs will have no excuse for supporting their DRM crap and OS X86 can truely dominate Windblows Visa!
Make the mistake RIAA *****. MAKE THE MISTAKE and turn Darth Apple back from the dark side. - cessax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ps - if warner was ever boycotted, you sure as hell would have to boycott a LOT of artists, considering the number of major labels and sub-record labels underneathe Warner's media monopoly, which one of your favorite bands is likely to be on...these included Time Warner Music, Atlantic Records, Rhino, Elektra, and 49 other music production companies - good luck boycotting easily!
- heavyness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0what a great way to make everyone go back to dl songs illegally.
- DrMerle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Has anyone else noticed what a ***** jackass jkfan87 is? Never an intelligent comment from the guy.
Example: "at least what you ***** THINK is screwing over customers" followed by: "Apple is ALL about price gouging dumb ass fan boys who have no other alternative but to try to BUY social acceptance"
I like how the free market applies to everything but Apple, did you think for a second jkfan that most of us couldn't give a rat's ass about social acceptance and we just want a machine (OS) that works properly, if it costs more, who gives a *****, when in the long run the hassle of running Windoze costs me much more in my own wasted time. If we wanted social acceptance then we would be trying to make friends with a cool guy like you... - greatdevourer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does Nash realise that out of every $0.99, he gets about $0.80-0.90? That might be less than a CD, but it's more than if I were P2Ping it. And, tbh, that is what I shall do for Warner artists. Yet he wants the prices to go up... he's one stupid *****, isn't he?
- computrholic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If I were him I would SHUT UP! What, would he rather we get songs from P2P were they go no money or on iTunes were they get some?
- exobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ Headline: o rly?
- tannewt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Pre-CD recording costs are a definite hurdle. With a fan base, established with less spectacular recordings, one/a group could pre-sell CDs and/or start a http://www.fundable.org group action to fund the recordings.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh the ignorance and arrogance with record companies. They are simply unnecessary middle men who have no idea their time is quickly coming to an end. They simply cannot bully like this anymore.
I certainly hope digital music makes them irrelevant. Artists can now sell their own music without having to enter into arrangements that screw them out of money.
So, hey, I say go ahead and pull your music. Take your toys and storm off like a child. If I want your song, I will just steal it now off the net. If I see an independent artists, I will support them online.
Labels are going the way of FM radio.
I say f**k these greedy bastards. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wish they *WOULD* cut off iTunes.
I'll be at allofmp3's doorstep so fast it'll make both Jobs and every ignorant record company executive on the planet heads spin.
If they shutdown allofmp3, I'm going back to pirating. - dhoefler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Google and Apple should start their own record labels. Microsoft will then follow. I never thought I'd say this, but I like Microsoft more than those record labels.
- SoulRebel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0cough*ebay*cough
cough*usedCD's*cough - umdzig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmmm.... Ok lets charge more for song downloads so more people resort to illegal downloading. Great business skills, just make em pay more so they stop stealing. MICHAEL NASH is a worthless ceo i dont even know why he is paid to say things like that.
- Odo08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oops, html links didn't work.... here are actual urls
Conference: http://www.memasia.com/
1995 Wired article: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.03/scans.html?pg=3 - procras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0''very few people people buy music from digital downloads''
yeah, 500 million songs is just a drop in the bucket. if 50 platinum records' worth is "very few" - Gringo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0When will these bands wise up and realize they don't need the record company. If you don't have the money to produce and promote your own CD as I am sure they don't.
Get some software i.e Premiere or even Garage Band, record your music and then have someone build you a website that accepts paypal and sell your own music. - Odo08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nash is such a dorky *****, too. Here is a Link to a conference where he'll be featured. Picture goodness included!
Also, he is typical talking head that has never producd a real working product while cashing big paychecks. See Wired from 1995 -
Show 51 - 100 of 168 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is