EMI May Cut Funding To RIAA, IFPI 158
Teen Bainwolf notes a report that Big Four record label EMI, which is under new ownership, is considering a big cut in its funding for the IFPI and RIAA. Each of the labels reportedly contributed over $132 million per year to fund industry trade groups, and EMI apparently believes that money could be better spent elsewhere. "One of the chief activities of the RIAA is coordinating the Big Four labels' legal campaign, and those thousands of lawsuits have done nothing but generate ill will from record fans, while costing the labels millions of dollars and doing little (if anything) to actually reduce the amount of file-sharing going on."
Tag this (Score:5, Insightful)
Change (Score:4, Insightful)
"reportedly considering" (Score:5, Insightful)
just give it time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tag this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tag this (Score:5, Insightful)
There, fixed that for you. There's lots of smaller labels who have "got it" all along, but they're just smaller ones, and you don't hear their music on the radio, or on the TV. There's plenty of good music on the smaller labels, and if people actually had any convictions, the RIAA would have gone bust many years ago, and their member companies wouldn't have been able to sell any music. The point is that most people don't know or don't care about the RIAA tactics. My biggest question is what happens to EMI now if they do this? Will they still be able to get as much radio play their music on a regular basis? Will their bands still get invited on the talk shows? How far does the power of the RIAA really extend?
Re:one down, three to go! (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that EMI never said what was in the blurb and it was a blatant misrepresentation?
perhaps DRM will go the way of prohibition
The thing is that prohibition really didn't go away and the war on drugs is the remnants of prohibition. You were conned into thinking that we won some great victory when, in fact, we merely gained back the "right" to what they could tax.
Re:one down, three to go! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I don't think that's a bad analogy. Making liquor illegal only drove liquor production and distribution underground, brought about the rise of organized crime (remember Al Capone?), and probably increased the amount of alcoholism prevalent at the time. Face it -- if the liquor supply is limited, and you know where to get it, you're going to try and get as much of it as you can. Same thing is happening to music -- making file sharing and ripping illegal is simply driving the illegal file sharing economy, and it's costing the music industry far more money to try and stamp it out than it would be to embrace it and try to work with buyers.
"considering" (Score:3, Insightful)
You know "Mr. Overpaid Exec #1" at RIAA will call "Mr. Way-Overpaid Exec #2" at EMI and say something like 'Hey Bill, we'll try to fuck you guys up a little less next year. Promise. Besides, I my kid's going to for her degree in basket weaving and I need to make sure I get my raise to pay for that and the new ferrari'
So instead EMI coughs up extra cash this year for the MAFIAA to "change tactics" whereby they sue...everyone!
Re:Change (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not common sense, it's lack of money (Score:3, Insightful)
Guy Hands, chairman of EMI, has told potential investors the group's former management squandered around 100 million pounds on corporate excesses. Terra Firma, Hands' private equity firm, is expected to make major changes to senior management and transform the culture of a company considered to be stuck in the glory days of the music business. Industry observers say Hands will try to blame previous management for the firm's woes because he has paid over the odds for a business struggling to cope with a dwindling market.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2963629.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/in-winning-emi-is-guy-hands-losing-out-on-other-deals/ [nytimes.com]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/08/cnemi108.xml [telegraph.co.uk]
Re:Tag this (Score:5, Insightful)
Or it could be that the music industry is turning altruistic in it's old age and they wish to slash their profit margins by condoning free downloads. The next move in this vein will undoubtedly be a repeal of the "work for hire" clauses in all contracts, as well as a large hike in royalties.
They "may" cut funding? (Score:5, Insightful)
So far it's just talk. And talk is cheap.
Re:Tag this (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't bought any of the big labels' music in a long time, nor have I downloaded it. The rare occasion that I listen to the radio (usually in someone else's car), I realize I haven't missed much...
I wonder how much percentage of the drop in record sales is due to people who simply stop listening to the music these record companies produce. The RIAA is always shouting that it's because of piracy, but how much is due to other reasons? I doubt they've done any research about that.
Re:Tag this (Score:3, Insightful)
Promotional bookings. No change. Not one dollar to RIAA goes to artist development and support. Bookings relate to popularity, availability, and when all things are equal, if the program is a booking agency's package, then musical artists represented by that agency move to the front of the line.
Radio is a more complex question. Do the radio stations believe that digital music increases or decreases their listenership? How much radio programming is actually based on the artists the big labels sell? While the radio stations leverage the fact that they can make songs hits and there are more good records than airplay slots, they are constrained by having to do some amount of giving the listeners what they want. As they are also promoting local concerts (well, ClearChannel is), they can't afford to base every decision on back room deals and accommodations. I guess it comes down to how they felt the record companies suing grandmas helps or hinders their business and how significantly. I tend to believe radio will sit out this one: it's really hard for me to expect that the other record companies could make a compelling case as to why a radio station should stop playing Beatles music.
Re:Tag this (Score:3, Insightful)
Congrats to EMI for waking up, but it's too little too late. Their business model is dead.
Re:one down, three to go! (Score:3, Insightful)
They still can be used to make a decent living, but it will be ordinary commerce because of much reduced profit margins. No shooting or gangs involved. But I guess this "war on drugs" is basically a PR thing, just as the "war on terror". Both do increase the problem while pretending to decrease it.
Re:Tag this (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, piracy is one of the biiggest reasons I stopped buying RIAA music - I'm boycotting the majors because of their suits against their "pirate" customers. Of course, since I don't like much of what's on the radio these days either that nmakes boycotting that much easier. I've found that the local bands and their CDs are hgeads and shoulders above the RIAA dreck, while 1/4 to 1/2 the price.
The indies are the "pirates" who are eating away at "their" profits.
-mcgrew
Re:Change (Score:1, Insightful)
Much more likely is the simple fact that there are more people in this world who believe in employing coercion as a means (i.e. government) rather than voluntary association (i.e. freedom).
Fortunately for those in the business of government, the average individual finds it quicker and easier to just swallow the propaganda than actually spend the time educating himself.
Re:Not bad guys (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tag this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tag this (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't buy your argument, I guess. We had video games (Atari, Nintendo, Sega, TurboGrafix), we had movies (on VHS), we had designer clothes, snacks... the only thing that we didn't have on your list is cell phones!
Re:Tag this (Score:2, Insightful)
I like that EMI finally has 1) admitted that the lawsuits were a bad idea and 2) are actually planning to do something about it.
I do feel EMI should go a step further, though - and cut ties to the RIAA outright. If they were to form a separate legal group to represent their interests, it would really drive the point home that they've learned their lesson. Right now, I still suspect what they're saying is merely rhetoric intended to repair their tarnished image.
Re:Tag this (Score:3, Insightful)
I pity people with that attitude. Most people really ARE honest, at least with people who are honest with them. But if you make them think you're trying to get one over on them, look out! That's the biggest problem the record industry faces - they're thievs and scoundrels who think that everyone else is a thief and scoundrel.