Jobs Resists Music Industry Pressure 634
Drew writes "Steve Jobs is opposed to raising the price of online music sales, calling the music industry greedy, and
implying that price increases will bring about more piracy." From the article: "It may not seem like it, but it has been more than two years since the launch of the iTunes Music Store, and that alone has the music industry brimming with hopes for price-adjustments. They also don't buy Jobs' argument that a price increase will result in more piracy, but probably not for the reasons we might assume. I've long been of the conviction that piracy is not nearly as large of a problem as the RIAA makes it out to be." Also covered at Macworld.
Apple team w/ Google (Score:5, Interesting)
SONY Walkman (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Paradigm Shift (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:WTF!?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably around 10 cents. The group that gets the largest cut (supposedly) from each song sold on iTunes at 99 cents is the RIAA. Reportedly, the RIAA gets 30 cents, which is even more than the actual music label.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Good Luck With That (Score:2, Interesting)
Why, perchance, they doth protest too much. (Score:4, Interesting)
Industry associations like the MPAA (and, I presume the RIAA), take a cut off the top from producers. About half of that cut goes, supposedly, to anti-piracy efforts.
So, they need to make it look like they're fighting piracy. What better way to get headlines proving you're fighing piracy then to go off suing a bunch of 13 year-olds??/
Then, of course, there's the fact that, if they can legally squash fair use, then they can ultimately charge and track people for each time they listen to a song. More money for less work. It's almost like printing the stuff.
No, piracy is a problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
However, organized crime (particularly in Asia, former Soviet Union and now offshore on boats in international waters [read: no law], there is a very large problem. Anything that exists on disc (music, games, software, movies) is subject to theft and distribution. Traditional Organized Crime via physical goods is still more profitable than electronic business.
I believe the RIAA could make a great deal of headway in its piracy campaign if they would focus attention on the real problem. They would "pick up" the little guys they claim to be the problem and would sway public opinion (who dispise organized crime other than the Soprano's).
I'm hardly advocating for the RIAA here or suggesting that increasing levels of encryption is the way to go (this will never will work with any media that can be heard or seen imho) but don't ignore the fact that you can find any movie (including ones that have never been released to DVD) on the street in NYC. That guy with the blanket full of discs isn't a small businessman - he's working for organized crime.
Re:A different approach to the online music market (Score:2, Interesting)
From that article:
Allofmp3.com is an on-line music service based in Moscow, Russia. The service started in 2001.
When we first discovered this site we were convinced that Allofmp3 is some kind of illegal operation. But by investigating this service further we came to a surprising conclusion.
Allofmp3 has signed agreements with Russian copyrights holders. They can legally offer music by all artists and from all labels.
In the past few months Allofmp3 has finally been discovered by the media. Smh.com, The Register and G4Techtv and the Wall Street Journal have published articles covering Allofmp3.
Allofmp3 is (or should we say was?) one of the best kept secrets of the internet. A music service with unique features. It sets an example for every other music service.
Awarded in Europe as the best Music Service
No wonder it has been awarded as the best Music Service by the leading German computer magazine C't. Even the official Consumers' Organization in The Netherlands has chosen Allofmp3 as the best place to download music. "The best service by far" was their surprising conclusion after testing seven services available in The Netherlands.
Heres another link. Read this too, and then try again.
http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm [museekster.com]
Re:Instead of raising rates.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the whole music industry needs a shaking up, and a Apple + Apple thing could be the key. Music, done right. Supporting the artists who make the music.
Re:Paradigm Shift (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait a second. (Score:3, Interesting)
Holy crap. Somebody who actually understands Basic Economics. Never thought I would see that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Jobs and Apple don't have a leg to stand on... (Score:4, Interesting)
Second, the music industry does NOT want iTunes to succeed. Let's assume that iTunes took 50% or greater of the total market of music sold. Why would an established artist re-sign to a label when he or she could simply hire a marketer and sell directly via iTunes and keep more of the money?! iTunes would BECOME the new music industry and the RIAA and its bosses would go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers.
Jobs and Apple is in a very lopsided relationship with the music industry, and I'm not sure whether either side knows it.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
The issue, as always, isn't about money (Score:5, Interesting)
Right now, the RIAA can pretty much dictate terms to a new artist. You want to get into Wherehouse Music stores, Borders and the rest? Then you're going to have to sign a label with us. Sure, you won't get much money, but we're providing this big service for you, right? So you have to take the terms we give you!
Now along comes the music stores, and the RIAA is hoping for the same thing. Between Napster and WalMart Music and MSN Music (whenever that opens) and Rhapsody and iTunes, if you want your music on their, you're going to have to go through the RIAA who will do the cheerleading, spend the money on advertising, and make you a star!
Except there's a problem; only iTunes is being used. Oh, sure, there's *some* people using Napster like my Dad (until he got a free Shuffle at a CIO conference and switched to Apple, then all of his music to MP3 format from WMV by reripping the CDs and now he's just buying music from the iTunes store) - but far and away, iTunes is the #1 player, not with monopoly power, but certainly with a huge level of influence.
Which means that, as more people have portable MP3 players and less have CD players, the shift of power goes from "If you want your music in 5000 stores across the United States and worldwide markets, you have to talk to a big record label", to "Want your music on the iTunes store? Sure - it costs this much, and we get X amount of every CD sold". Apple, for example, could charge people $100 - $200 to get a new band onto the iTunes store (currently, I'm not sure how their deals with Indie bands are), and give them 50% of the profit per song sold after that point. A new band could pretty cheaply get their music distributed across the nation without having a single major publisher help them out - and if they get popular, they can, like the Lascivious Biddies, do their own thing and be profitable, and if they get famous, then even better.
Which scares the RIAA major publishers to death. As with any major shift in technology (sheet music to player pianos, player pianos to radio, radio to cassette, cassette to CD), sometimes the old winners vanish and are replaced with the new winners. In this case, the RIAA members are hoping to have the same situation as they have now in the future: several online stores that carry their music, with the RIAA as the gatekeepers for getting new artists in.
But if iTunes is practically the only game in town - a situation that Jobs is helping along with the DRM only working with iPods, and there's nothing on the horizon that's going to replace iPods for the next 2 - 4 years (barring some incredible technological advancement), that puts Apple in a huge position in power. RIAA members can huff and puff about taking their ball and going home and not being on the iTunes store anymore if Jobs doesn't do what they want.
Except they don't dare. Remember when the iTunes Music Store finally opened up in Japan just a few months ago? You had artists who's publishers weren't putting them onto the iTunes store doing an end-around and doing it themselves. Granted, most artists aren't technologically savvy, but how long would it take for Artist X to hear his label is pulling him off the iTunes store (and all of those iPod potential sales) before they get pissed and threaten to change labels or some such? Maybe one or two isn't a problem - but it could add up.
So the RIAA is hoping by jacking up the price they can make online music unpopular enough that CD's will be more popular for awhile, until a good iPod competitor can kick Jobs off the top of the heap and make the market more even and they can keep playing the game.
Granted, this is all my opinion, so I could be wrong. Either way, I'll probably work to listen to Podcasts (which is where I'm hearing new music from thanks to shows like "Coverville" (which got me turned onto a new Tori Amos CD I didn't know I wanted, a Will Shatner singing "Common People" that kicks ass, and a few other tracks), "Insomnia Radio", and a few others), or just support artists directly (like buying songs from thier website instead of a store).
John Hummel
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
You gain granularity in that you can buy only the songs you want. You gain instant gratification in that you can get the song immediately without going to a store. You gain selection since many songs available in the iTunes store are not available in most record stores. Also, your comment about album art is no longer correct. Most albums sold there come with the artwork, and some with music videos. I'm also not sure about price. In some cases the iTunes store costs more and in some less than buying the physical album.
Personally, I only buy music from there if I really want it and can't find it anywhere else. Used CD's are my normal purchase, as well as small indy CD's from band performances.
Anyway, there are advantages to the iTunes store as well as disadvantages. Most of the disadvantages you mention are meaningless gibberish to the average consumer. Price, however, is not.
Re:I'm with you, Steve (Score:3, Interesting)
Web applications don't build themselves (Score:2, Interesting)
Because the music publishers do not have any media costs other than bandwidth and royalties.
I'm not going to defend high prices, but it's a straw man argument to say that the marginal cost of delivering songs via the web is just bandwidth. I'm not the only one here who knows first hand how much work goes into building and maintaining web applications.
Yes, you can have amateur musicians upload their songs to a volunteer-created site and download them for free. iTunes, ITMS and the iPod are successful because a lot of design time was invested so that everything works smoothly.
The myth that everything on the web should be free because you're not getting any "stuff" from the content provider is hurting the adoption of high-quality pay-for-service sites. Not everything valuable comes wrapped in plastic.
Re:A different approach to the online music market (Score:3, Interesting)
But if you're in America, then American copyright applies. So if a song is owned by a copyright holder in America, and they don't give permission for Allofmp3 to distribute a song, and you download it in America, then don't complain when a court summons appears through your letterbox.
Is Russia part of the Berne convention?
Price fixing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Am I wrong?
Re:Paradigm Shift (Score:4, Interesting)
yes because we all know bandwidth costs are free, and no one would try to download their same song every morning because they want to make sure they have the latest 'version'
CDBaby.com (Score:4, Interesting)
These guys are exactly what you're talking about. They stock your CD, process transactions, and send the CDs out for a small fee per disc. They also sign you up for digital distribution. My band's only sold 20 CDs but we're on iTunes.
Re:No worries. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Greed. (Score:3, Interesting)
Our files are in the Ogg Vorbis format as well. Check us out.
http://ind-music.com/ [ind-music.com]
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether you consider the extra steps to do this to be a valuable use of your time and a blank CD are obviously your choices, and I don't presume that everyone will find Apple's solution suitable [free market, and all]. I'm sure we could also re-visit some of the myriad discussions/arguments about open/proprietary formats of IP, but we've all been there before. Again, for now, Apple's solution IMO is the best out there right now. You disagree.
To your point about whether the iPod will exist in 20 years, well, I don't know if you've kept your 78/45/33-rpm turntable, reel-to-reel, 8-track and cassette recorders in working condition to listen to your old music, but it's too much work for me. I still have my cds around as backup, though [which should last me only about 50 years, given proper handling].
Consider this: before computers enabled ripping and burning, no one even grumbled too much when we moved from one format standard to the next. We just replaced as we went. Now that it's possible, we're claiming that we want unfettered access via any means that we determine. That's like demanding your CDs can be played on an analog turntable as well as in your cassette machine.
As to whether the iPod is an overpriced player, again, it's what the market [and individual] will bear. But when single-cd players hit the market in the '80s, what do you think the answer would be if you had asked anyone if they would rather have a device that fit in their pocket that held their entire record collection, in digital format?
Re: Who owns? (Score:3, Interesting)
People still buy music, just not all the same... (Score:3, Interesting)
Piracy isn't the big problem. Educated music listeners are the problem now. The music industry can no longer sell 10+ million copies of Britney Spears/N'Sync type garbage, because people have access to many more types of music. Music buying appetities are now fragmented and specialized, which means instead of a label selling a gazillion records of one artist, chart topping artists many not even sell a half-million. The labels have to do more research and advertising than ever and as a result, profit margins are smaller.
Besides, albums with only one or two good tracks won't sell like before. The music buying public samples the music beforehand and the RIAA hates that!
Re:Greed. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not about the cost of his house. Its respect for his taste.
I don't have a problem with Bill Gates having a mansion - its that I think his mansion is tacky.
I also respect Steve Jobs for being able to save Apple when everyone counted him and Apple as both being irrelevant to our industry. I respect him for the fact that he has great taste and an intolerance for poor quality.
I am not under any illusions that Steve Jobs is a "nice guy", or "morally better" than anyone else. I don't personally know him and I'm not entitled to an opinion about it.
And I'm not saying that I don't also respect Bill Gates for his philanthropy.
Question. Who misses real albums? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Greed. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Question. Who misses real albums? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, those were the good old days.
The biggest obstacle to good sound is good engineering. Good sound is a rare find in the industry, regardless of media. I am pleasently surprised by the clean sound on the Dave Matthews Band Live From Chicago CD. My ears tell me a talented team did a great mix live, went direct to disk bypassing compression and other tricks, and that is what shipped. Raw, clean sound. It can be done.
Re:Greed. (Score:2, Interesting)
As for Labels and Musicians...depends on your contract. I know a lot of musicians that make a lot more than that. As I said in another post (though this will make no sense now that I decided to hit anonymous), I have a close friend that left the labels and after trying to find a new contract set up shop himself...he makes $0.66 a song. He claims its far more money than if he left a stack of CDs at the local Tower records. Other friends that didn't sign restrictive contracts thinking they were going to be rich overnight (some musicians actually read contracts -- though the guys at Downhill Battle like to pretend we are all a bunch of fucking dumbasses -- its not hard to get a better deal just by asking for specific clauses stricken) -- well, I know others that are making around $0.25 a song...and others that each download is COSTING them a nickle.
But the Downhill Battle site is a bit deceptive...it exposes the worst that can happen (and in some ways, it does a music a favor by getting them to ask questions...but mostly its there to convince people that piracy is good...I've been on one of the DH's blog torrent mailing list since day one -- good guys...but they are VERY full of themselves and don't even realize they are just throwing out just as much propoganda as the industry they oppose).
Not lying...just putting out the worst case scenario.