Record Labels Unveil Greed 2.0 571
theodp writes "Unsatisfied with $2.49 ringtones and as much as 70 cents of each 99 cent iTunes download, Newsweek reports that record labels want a bigger cut of digital music profits. One example: If you type in 'Madonna' - a Warner act - at the Google Video site, and the results are accompanied by ads, Warner wants a share of those ad dollars." Even more ridiculous demands than those put forth in previous stories.
no suprise (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why all new music acts are nothing more than a 'formula'. everything's over-produced and is total crap.
Re:no suprise (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:no suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Wake me up when someone comes up with a good idea which is also practical and likely to occur.
there isn't one shareholder of google (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many institutional and private investors that now consider ethics and politics in their investment decisions and it's completely legal and normal and they contend it's a long range logical view to take. If you as a potential investor read that google had such a "do no evil" policy and it lead to your decision to invest cash when they went public, then you could make a case where they violated that if they started "doing evil", and perhaps file a complaint.
Funny story, friend of mine inherited a really nice portfolio. He divested all (to buy rental properties instead) except for enough shares in this or that company to go to the shareholder meetings and rail on issues about how the companies were run.
Re:no suprise (Score:5, Interesting)
Start by charging people an extra "RIAA Advertisement Fee" to run an ad on "Madonna" or the like. This money goes into a big pool. Then, from that pool, make up a list of services and subtract out 90% of the money for things like "fiscal management" "trademark research" "artist contact costs" or anything else that sounds good but is total contractually-agreed-to bullshit.
Fecal management (Score:4, Funny)
- shazow
How about this (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a suggestion... what about artists each set up their own website (yes yes I know many have, bear with me), and offer simple MP3 downloads for a buck apiece, similar to itunes except they keep all save the bandwidth. Not going to work? If you think about it though, is a person who is going to pay for the music in the first place going to share the music on edonkey or klite? Probably not. But then you run into problems with people who swap their MP3 collections with their friends, friends who have no
Re:How about this (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, my favorite band, The Corrs, were dumb enough to do that when they won their first international award in Spain back in the mid-90's.
In fact, they've been slavishly worshipful of Time-Warner and Atlantic Records, praising them in numerous documentary videos.
Today, guess what? Jason Flom, the head of Atlantic and the guy who discovered them, is out, the Corrs have been relegated to Atlantic.UK and gets no release for their new album, "Home", in the US - and their manager, John Hughes, admits publicly that they're looking for a new record deal.
In other words, having been screwed by Atlantic, they are now looking to sign themselves up for another screwing because they don't have the imagination to see that distributing their own music and live concert broadcasts by subscription - in other words, a return to live performance, the basis of music historically - is the way to go. Even though they're probably one of the best live concert acts in the world and their ticket demand at the end of last year's tour, according to Hughes, is the highest it's ever been.
You just can't save some people from themselves.
Re:How about this (Score:3, Insightful)
artists cannot sell anything they record with a label themselves, so unfortunately, the site idea (which I would love) can't work.
Actually the site idea comes from the mess that various artists have landed themselves in with the record companies. What you'd have to do is get those new bands and artists that aren't yet signed up with a record company on board, and those artists that are well established that have managed to wrestle free of them, and get the ball rolling with them. Its not an overnight fi
Re:no suprise (Score:5, Informative)
That's good. While it might cause higher prices for a while, the more they do this, the more their greed shows, and the closer they get to going too far and finally, through their own actions, forcing the entire industry to collapse -- leaving room for the real artists (not the sex symbols like Spears and such) to actually make a living on the work they create.
Re:no suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
The collapse of the music industry you anticipate would either
a. cause people to look online for free, indie music, which I doubt would happen, because most people are quite content being told what they like, or
b. cause a smaller record company to rise in ranks, which would then take the place of the larger companies.
It's like government. If you knock one bully down, another pops up just as fast.
Inevitably, he'll want his piece of the pie.
Re:no suprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Such "churn" is still a good thing, because it keeps the companies on their toes and forces them to adapt or die. It also weakens them for a time, meaning that things get better temporarily.
Same thing with government. You could argue it doesn't matter if we have elections or revolutions, because whoever we elect will just be as abusive as the previous government. That's true, but it's still a good thing to force some tu
Re:no suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Two comments about that.
First, it's obvious that people have NEVER paid for music - except when the only way to get it was via phonograph records and tape recorders hadn't been invented - and therefore every music buyer is basically paying for CONVENIENCE in obtaining music when they buy a CD. Also, it should be obvious that people are not paying for the MUSIC, but in fact are paying for the advertising and marketing. Certainly that's the way the labels see it, which is why we get crap music - they assume that the music doesn't matter, it's all about advertising and promotion. Which, to a large degree, as any indie artist will tell you, is true.
Second, it should be obvious - but apparently isn't - to artists that, aside from the sports and entertainment industries - where agents are the norm - most industries don't hire themselves out to somebody else for advertising and marketing, and accept a fifteen percent cut of what's left after it's done. Instead, they produce their own content and then hire experts internally or externally to do the advertising and marketing. Just because artists don't know how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done by other people for a specified rate on contract.
Artists need to stop selling their asses out as peons and take responsibility for their own success. They may make less money - but they will be more able to live with themselves by not realizing that they're basically whores working for pimps.
Re:no suprise (Score:3, Interesting)
That's good? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure about that? I'd like to start by mentioning the industry collapsing won't be good for any artists, established or not. High prices and piracy or not, if there's no one to quickly turn performances into CDs in stores and songs on the radio, I don't think anyone's going to be happy.
On another note, I don't think having their 'greed show' is going to stop them. It's been really clear for a long time that they'v
Re:no suprise (Score:4, Insightful)
My point exactly - recorded music should be a LOSS LEADER for live performance.
Music has throughout human history been live performance. When technology enabled the phonograph record, record labels appeared, appropriated the music of live performers and began monetizing it. When they realized they needed more product than currently existed, they set about hiring the artists in peon contracts to produce more. Seduced by the celebrity notion, artists signed up, and benefited to some degree by taking a cut of the recorded music - when they weren't screwed out of the royalties entirely by the record labels - as many of the early artists were. But their cut was miniscule compared to the record labels.
Over the ensuing decades, people bought phonograph records because that was the only way to get the music, aside from the radio which didn't allow control over when you could listen to the music.
But once tape recorders (reel-tp-reel and then cassette) came in, people started taping and exchanging music from the phonograph records and using the technology to control their access to the music.
Then came the CD and the personal computer, which made it easier to record and control and exchange the music.
In other words, the technology now allows the consumer to do to the record labels what they once did to the artist - appropriate the music without compensation.
And the record labels don't like it.
From the artist standpoint, they need to realize that the technology now allows them to produce and distribute music at low or no cost as a LOSS LEADER to entice people to attend their performances - which, depending on their skill at using the Internet to magnify their reach to their potential audience, can be much greater than just touring around to clubs.
And subscription-based access to live concert performances are the way to monetize the live performance beyond anything possible in the past.
Bands who don't follow this approach will either continue to be whores working for pimps or be left behind by bands that do follow this approach.
But most artists - especially those already signed with labels and especially those who are significant successes already under the current system, like my favorite band, The Corrs - don't seem to comprehend the economics and technology or even the history and dynamics of their profession.
In other words, they're afraid - afraid of losing their place in the pantheon, afraid of losing their toys, afraid of losing their pimps, basically.
Typical human reaction.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
If quality were the yardstick for whether or not most people watched something, Star Trek would not have been moved to the 10:00 timeslot (but, after season 3 it would have been dropped), and shows like "The Paper Chase" would never have been axed because everyone was watching shows that had degenerated into inane crap like "Happy Days" and "Laverne and Shirley". If crap were always unpopular and people preferred something of quality instead, Shakespeare would still be outselling most bestsellers and Harlequin romances wouldn't exist.
Re:no suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironic. Shakespear wasn't exactly known for being "highbrow" in his day. Some have speculated that if he were alive today, he'd be writing for professional wrestling.
Re:no suprise (Score:5, Informative)
So, yes, I picked an example that wasn't the best, but I think the point still stands.
Re:no suprise (Score:5, Funny)
Alas poor Hogan, I knew him well....
Re:no suprise (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that once a new type of musician becomes popular, the big labels all try to get a peice of the action which leaves us with a lot of very mediochre music.
Re:no suprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually we get a lot of crap because the labels DO NOT CARE about the MUSIC. What they care about is advertising, promotion, marketing and distribution.
To them, music is a COMMODITY to be hawked. The quality of that commodity is irrelevant to them. The people who run the labels are not musicians or even music lovers - they're businessmen and financiers. They love money, not music. Half of them probably don't even own a CD player or a stereo system. The peons under them have to have some clue, but not the guys running the companies who set the policies and make the decisions.
I'm surprised we get as much good music as we do under the current system.
Under this system, it doesn't matter whether a band is crap or not. The only issue is whether the label thinks they can be SOLD.
Companies exist in all industries that sell crap products - the music industry is no different. Some people who get to run big companies think quality just doesn't matter compared to marketing and price. And there are enough consumers out there who either are forced to agree by not being able to afford quality, or who don't care about it either.
Label bands are basically whores working for pimps. And everybody knows you get lousy sex from whores.
it's true, i know! (Score:5, Interesting)
so many bands nowadays are picked up or formed by majors (RIAA labels) secretly, then they are put on an "indie" label for their first cd. then once the indie/punk/insert_somewhat_underground_genre_here crowd loves them, they release the next album on the major.
then when they are on mtv/radio, the people who just buy into whatever they hear love them, and so does the underground (or at least those who'd like to theink they are) crowd.
it's ingenious, and disgusting.
What's wrong with that? (Score:3, Insightful)
then when they are on mtv/radio, the people who just buy into whatever they hear love them, and so does the underground (or at least those who'd like to theink they are) crowd. "
If a group of people only like a band because it's on an indie label, i
Re:What's wrong with that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which happens to comprise a huge number of Slashdot posters. Every time an article on the RIAA comes up, these immature little assholes pop out of the woodwork to eagerly proclaim how much superior they are to the 'sheep' because they only listen to "indie" stuff. Pathetic, really, but they somehow think that making nasty comments about popular music while extolling the virtues of some shitty no
Re:no suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
-matthew
The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Artists don't even need labels anymore. It's now feasible for composers to do business directly with online music providers... it doesn't cost much to upload a few megabytes of info. After it's been on iTunes, Napster, or whatever; and has made some money, then produce the CD, using profit money from distributing online.
The only reason the RIAA is useful to new artists is for advertising purposes, which is IMO isn't that great anyways. They are increasingly advertising the the artists they think can make the most money, not necessarily the artists that make the best music.
The only thing they're really doing now is desperately holding on for their survival. If they persuade congress to pass enough laws in their favor maybe they'll stick around for a while...
The RIAA today, is like the horse and buggy businesses when the automobile hit mainstream. They're obsolete.
Go away RIAA, nobody likes you.
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
They need to clean up the interface a bit, and get it stable, but the potential for MySpace to become a big player in promotion of music is huge.
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, what you may lost is the ability to play at your local AmphiClearChannelBudweiserSonyTheatre.
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Interesting)
Some day the major labels will be irrelevent, but today is not that day (maybe that's why they're so desperate to maximize their profits in the short term... they know the long term doesn't exist).
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Informative)
So, studio time myth is busted. Marketing though is where the RIAA and Labels could help you....
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Interesting)
requiring musicians to use record company owned resources let's the recod companies control costs without having to pass on the savings to the musicians. i believe the record industry actively fights legislation that would require it to exercise fiduciary responsibility. that would end the party for the muisic companies.
it's no wonder that once an act becomes even a little successful, it then goes on to equip its own recording studio. my guess is that musicians would love to gain control over how they are promoted and distributed, if only to keep the music companies from freely spending the musicians' money.
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
To the guy that replied to parent message saying something about it all coming down to EQs, there isn't a surer way to completely suck the life out of a recording than with over-equalization (besides over-compression that is). I think he was referring to Logic too. Digital EQ. ick.
Ob. Star Wars quote (Score:5, Funny)
"You bet! Why, I -"
"Recording music ain't like dusting crops, boy. Without precise calculations you'd bury yourself in the mix, or sound too close to a pop tartlet, and that would end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"
More like this: (Score:3, Funny)
"You bet! Why, I -"
"Recording music ain't like dusting crops, boy. Without precise calculations you'd bury yourself in the mix, or sound too close to a pop tartlet, and that would end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"
"And who's gonna advertise it, kid - you?"
"You bet I could! I'm not such a bad... Wait, what was the question?"
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Informative)
We don't run a studio anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Paint and brushes are also cheap. Anybody can go out to the local art supply store and purchase some rather high quality brushes and paints and not break the bank. Despite the low cost, it is rare to see any works of art coming out of the local high school that I would want to hang on my wall.
On the flip side, one of my favorite groups [cowboyjunkies.com] actually recorded one of their first albums with a single mic and a two track system. What they lacked in tech they were more than able to make up for in talent.
So while the cost of the technology is going down, the talent to do something with the tech it is still hard to find, and those folks charge a lot. After all, if this was easy to do, folks would not pay big bucks to go and see folks do it.
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:3, Insightful)
Boon for some, bust for others (Score:4, Informative)
That said, I agree that online distribution is a boon for independent musicians that are in fact actual artists.
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:3, Interesting)
And honestly, how much more can they charge per song? I found a lossless online store (finally)
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Informative)
You're confusing the RIAA with organizations such as ASCAP or BMI, among others that do the actual protecting.
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA, once they have your creative fruits in their grasp, will then dole out money to the band as advances (not as gifts) and start advertising campaigns and tours and what have you to make sure people find this band, hear their music, and buy lots and lots of merchandise. Of course, the cost of promotion is all put on the band's tab so that they are more or less eternally indebted to the RIAA label while the RIAA sucks up the vast majority of any income.
It used to be tour money was out of the RIAA's reach, but last I heard they were trying to get a (large) cut of that as well. As a fan, you cannot even send them a check because it will be confiscated by the label and put towards their ever-mounting debt (or maybe just into the label's pocket).
Using the RIAA for IP protection is like asking the Mob for help with your business. Sure they'll help you, but you'll be indebted to them for the rest of your life and will be at their mercy. It's much better to hire your own lawyer to protect your rights than to get involved with the RIAA.
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:3, Funny)
The RIAA, once they have your creative fruits in their grasp...
Awesome! You get the Outstanding Veiled Metaphor of the Week Award. My lit teachers would be shocked, but proud.
Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:4, Informative)
Permission to "cover" not needed ... pay royalties (Score:3, Informative)
You sure as hell CAN! The USA Copyright Act provides for what is called a "Compulsory License", which means that if you follow the steps set forth by statute, you can distribute your recording of that song on a CD or over the internet. The owner of the copyright to the song cannot prevent you from doing so.
Note that "permission" is not required. You just have to notify them and pay the statutory requ
Thats good news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thats good news (Score:4, Funny)
Unsatisfied with $2.49 ringtones [ringtown.com]
We should encourage them to keep marketing these $2.49 Sponge Bob ringtones. That way, they'll run out of money a lot faster.
Stop listening? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stop listening? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stop listening? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stop listening? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stop listening? (Score:3, Insightful)
[1]Number I pulled out of my ass.
Re:Stop listening? (Score:3, Informative)
If anyone is going to stand up to them and make a difference, it's the artist. Without the artist, they have no content.
I think I may be serious that one day, you won't be able to hum or sing a tune without paying a fee.
I mean look at 'Happy Birthday to You'. Royalties have to be paid if it is broadcasted or distributed in any fashion.
Re:Stop listening? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just go ahead and try to get people to boycott anything, I dare you. All a corporation has to do is to pay some TV or radio personality to call you a communist, cancer, zealot, hippie or a radical and boom they have taken care of the situation.
Look at slashdot, look at how often the shills call people who use linux or program in open source zealots and hippies? It happens every day. Your average joe does not want to go through life being called a zealot or a communist, he has been tought to reflexivey hate zealots and communists even though he probably could not define communist if his life depended on it.
Re:insightful? (Score:4, Insightful)
1)Have a hell of a lot more money.
2)Have a power setup where its more likely those in charge are amoral asshats.
Re:insightful? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps because the "record labels" referred to in this article are, ummm, "corporations"? Just a guess.
Re:Stop listening? (Score:3, Insightful)
Particularly in this case; the people who need to join the boycott (jane and joe six pack, the artists) either don't give half a rats' ass or have damned good reasons not to.
Re:Stop listening? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, maybe things will change, but not in the way you intended.
When album sales decline, what does the RIAA say? You know the drill: "Illegal filesharing has severely impacted our Nth quarter sales. We must take action against these pirates!"
If you stop buying albums, the RIAA will use that as another reason to sue some more file sharers. "Voting with our dollars" as it were, will only make the problem worse.
I'm sorry, but the only way to stand up to the RIAA now is the same way they're trying to walk all over us: the courts.
Re:Since you brought it up... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh. What was the question again??? = )
Well, happy to pointificate!
Hmmm.. Boycot Exxon? OK, well, they would just advertize like BP. Sunflowers, responsibility, alternative energy. Bla bla. People would believe it too. All the while they pump that oil...
Prices of gas are increasing faster than crude because they are different markets. Now there are limited amounts of refineries in the US and few companies can invest that much capital to build one... I understand they take a few years to build and get onstream..
Not that Bush's idea (subsidize the building of oil refineries) is a great one. The oil companies are making big bucks: they should do it right? I heard that one made more profit last quarter than any other company in history. Could have been Exxon, I don't remember.
To me, the question is: why are there so few refineries now? Did the oil excecs get to gether some golf game and say: Let's not build any more for a couple years? Was it *really* environmental regulation that quashed them? Collusion in that market would have the benefit of huge profits for them. I remember Cheney had secret meetings with the oil 'boyz' a few years ago, and they collectively decided US energy policy, without ever releasing the minutes of those meetings.. I think that was pre-Iraq so they might make some fun reading in 40 years.. It could have been similar to:
Cheney: Thanks for the donation, boyz. Like the cigars? They're Cuban! Batista! Well, to business then. We agree that you don't make any refineries in the next few years (and collect excess profits), support us in Iraq, and we'll get you those Iraqi drilling contracts, leash the anti-trust hounds. Of course we'll expect future consideration...
Oil barons: No refineries? None of us? We're "Gung Ho" for Oil Contracts! (puff.. puff...) OK, deal.
Well it *could* have been like that! = )
In general, you are better to vote in politicians that support consumers, not oil companies, than attempt to get a boycot organized. Companies (Oil or RIAA members) do not have to adapt to change if they are protected by fiat. And one can buy policy so cheaply these days:
$200M building an oil refinery could get you say a %50 return if you bet correctly on oil prices.
$50,000.00 donation/investment to Cheney's PAC could help get you $8,000,000,000 in return.
Where would you invest? The law requires you to act in the best interest of your share holders, not your country.
http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2005/0429/biz/
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/cheney/c
Katrina and Rita wipes out a few refineries and it all goes to hell for the consumer...
Of course nobody will know what the truth is until these folks are long gone.
Cheers,
-b
2.0? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:2.0? (Score:3, Informative)
Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whats even worse is that some dumbass company is going to capitulate and then they'll all be forced to cave.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ [unhappybirthday.com]
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you sing it they will sue
From us all to Time-warner
A large loud F*ck you
Copyrights already last far far too long , the fact that extensions are given is an insult . Especially in the cases of songs which have become part of the public consciousness
Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the record labels need to get a grip. Their product is music. If someone BUYS music, they should get some profit. If a commerical company uses the music in something (Ad, radio), they should get some profit. If someone uses the music in a remix, they should get some profits. If someone puts it on a Blog or Webpage, and makes money off it, they should get some of the profits.
But to say that if someone types in Madonna, or Backdoor Boys, and they get some of the ad revenue is insane. I suppose FORD motor company would want the same thing. Or Nike, or Coke, or....everyone.
stunned (Score:3, Interesting)
just..wow.
I was about to go out and buy most of Sade's discography.
I wish to hell we could just pay the artist directly.
Desperation (Score:5, Insightful)
Soft of like the definition of a fanatic: they're redoubling their efforts as they lose sight of their purpose.
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm disgusted once more.
People rely too much on TV for information (Score:5, Insightful)
The people in charge of TV are not about to describe accurately what the new copyright laws are doing to the American people, or the extent of greed that the media conglomerates have. When people are spoon fed information on TV, they get information from a biased source.
My suggestion: Get rid of your TV. Get your friends to get rid of their TVs. Go outside or go on the internet to get information.
It's Simple, They Want Everything They Can Get (Score:3, Insightful)
If you sold your car, you'd probably choose to sell it to whoever would pay you the most money. Same with your house.
But at the end of the day, consumers have a choice. Music is a product that you really do not need, and it is a luxury. The way to get the music companies to charge less is to buy less, and let the marketplace force them to charge a price that consumers find more reasonable. That's also part of the equation of 'what the marketplace will bear.'
Re:It's Simple, They Want Everything They Can Get (Score:5, Insightful)
People have found music prices unbearable. They bought less music. Much less music. So much less music that the recording industry has spent millions to reinforce their own delusions. (Perhaps you've heard of a few?)
The music industry chose to believe that the quality and price of current music isn't the problem, rather choosing the belief that the fault lie not with the prices and product the industry produced.
The music industry chose to believe that the problem lie with the consumers, and with 'piracy'.
Apple computer comes along, and begins selling music online -- in an easy to use, relatively fair system. The music industry sings Apple's praises, temporarily dropping their obsession with 'subscription' based online music. Then they start their own music services; Napster, for example, is owned by the recording industry; Sony/BMG IIRC, but that was a while ago.
And the recording industry starts to try to hike up the prices and force a 'subscription' service on its customers. People leave Napster and join the Apple camp, and the Apple store dominates the industry. In spite of the massive amount of profits that iTunes generates for the recording industry (which is pure profit -- it costs them nothing to let Apple do all the work for them), they attack their 'savior', deciding that Apple's current prices are 'too low.'
All the while ignoring these simple facts:
iTunes sells music:
* For a substantially lower cost than the recording industry.
* Music is $5-8 less per album.
* Customers aren't forced to buy an entire album for one song.
Essentially what the music industry wants to do is raise the price of buying music on iTunes to the price point that a CD has: $15-18 per album.
iTunes success isn't about the iPod. Most of the iTunes users I know of don't even have an iPod. They bought their music from iTunes because they got the music at a fair price, and could even burn the music to a CD (and re-rip it to another format) should they choose to. (Interestingly enough, the iPod did just fine before the iTunes Music Store; I'm convinced it would still dominate the industry even if the iTunes store never existed).
iTunes success stems from the fact that Apple offered the product for a price and condition consumers deemed was acceptable; something that is not true of buying CD's from a music store, or from the non-industry owned music services. (ie. Napster)
The music industry just wants to raise prices, and then blame everybody but themselves when consumers (literally) don't buy it. They persist in blaming everybody but themselves, their prices, their policies.
For its faults, the Motion Picture industry has at least admitted ticket sales have been sluggish recently because their product wasn't worth what they were charging for it. (Not that they think they were charging too much -- rather than their product sucked).
So no, the music industry does want more than they can get; when they don't get what they want, they come up with scapegoats and call their lawyers. They try to shut down everybody who disagrees with them. Which is silly, considering the entire American music industry is smaller than some of the companies they are offending (ie. Microsoft, Apple)
absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
By Warner's logic, publishers should be paid everytime one of their books comes up in a search on Google, or Amazon.com, or even in a library catalog. That's ridiculous. The publishers aren't providing the service here. In fact, they're the ones who benefit - they're getting free advertising. This is more than trying to get the most profit from what you own - now they're demanding handouts from their benefactors and customers.
The other way around? (Score:4, Insightful)
SO, if the labels wanted money from the adds, then Google could just drop the adverts that were music related.
Some wierd logic there.
They'll want a cut of the profits from this post (Score:5, Funny)
Lameness filter encountered. Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.
This is great news! (Score:5, Funny)
This will go great with all of the checks the RIAA must be sending to artists from the illegal download lawsuit revenues.
Truly, this is a wonderful time to be a musician.
The value of a brand (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA's business is making people famous. Anybody can make,produce, and distribute music, but it takes a major corporation to sell a gold record's worth of music. Even after carefully selecting the artists that they think will be worth the investment they fail much more often than they succeed, so they feel compelled to milk those artists who do succeed. Not for their music per se, but for the fame of their brand, which is the one thing that they've added to the mix.
It sounds like the RIAA is trying to buy themselves a Supreme Court fight on the subject of fair use. Not about the usual question of whether you can make backups or play it in on your Linux box, but at what point a tiny fragment of a brand (like a name in a search engine) becomes usable by the public without charge. That decision will end up affecting a lot more than the music industry. There are other people-as-brands, as well as more classic product brands. I'm sure other industries will be watching this closely.
Incidentally, that's why they're so zealous in trying to eliminate music sharing. They feel that the reason you want that music is precisely because they created you wanting it. That is, there's lots and lots and lots of music available, but you want the RIAA's music because they spent a buttload of money coaxing you into wanting it: getting it onto radio stations, putting posters in music stores, TV ads, etc.
There are plenty of people who don't like the blandness of the lowest-common denominator music that the RIAA promotes, and in theory the RIAA has no argument with those people sharing the non-label music, except they get caught up in the general sweep of things. I suspect (but don't have any numbers) that most of the P2P-shared music is RIAA-produced music precisely because the RIAA labels have put so much effort into promoting it. Tiny local bands would be thrilled to think that you knew enough about their music to go to the effort of downloading it.
Welcome to US Capitalism 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
The wealth has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the poor below. They talk of trickle economics for the the poor getting money from the wealthy, but it's quite the reverse. Wealth, often in the form of labor, flows from the bottom up. If not, they wouldn't be so rich.
To back this stance, it is worth nothing that the wealthiest wealthy grew wealthier between 2003 and 2004, partially thanks to tax cuts. The poor, however, became poorer. During that time period the number of Americans living in poverty grew by 1.4 million. Source: this CNN article [cnn.com].
I'm not an advocate of pure communism, but what we have today isn't really capitalism, it's a crappy corporate welfare system that intentionally pisses on the poor.
Re:Welcome to US Capitalism 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but what you have really is capitalism. What you don't have is the government doing its job. One of the most important jobs of the government is protecting the interests of the ones that are unable to look out for themselves, because they don't have the power or simply lack the knowledge to stand up to the capitalists on their own.
You see, capitalists are somewhat useful to society because they may generate wealth, but on no account should they be trusted. So, if they propose new laws, the task of the government of a country is to look at the proposal long and hard and with prejudice. Because capitalists don't have the same interests as the people, or the 'publick', depending on the where and when.
That's basically "wealth of nations" stuff (the unread chapters, that is)
Re:Welcome to US Capitalism 101 (Score:4, Interesting)
Taxpayers fund roads, that corporations use to truck their goods.
We pay to educate their workers.
We pay to defend their assets in foreign countries (in the form of wars, and defense spending).
We pay to clean up the environment they pollute.
We pay for courts and prosecutors to jail the white collar criminals.
There is so much public wealth flowing to corporations in this country, and much of it is difficult to measure, but you can tell it's there.
I have one word... (Score:3, Funny)
Which I'd love to tell the music company executives, and all those that might admire them. It's a simple word, at first inoffensive if you don't know the meaning, and can be shouted in anger without losing the basic sound of the word.
The word is "Garn".
It means "Go and get fucked.", from "go and" being said shortly to "go'an", then altered via the australian accent into the word "garn".
The long of it is "garn get fucked", and the shorthand "garn" can used when you just need to say something snappy without being misheard, or offending little old ladies.
So, to the RIAA, and all those affiliated,
"I'm never paying you fuckers a single cent from now on. Those two Ministry albums - Animositisomina, and Houses of the Mole' - I just bought were IT, the end of the line. I am going to download any music I want to listen to, and I'm going to send the purchase price, or import price, directly to the artist via a money order."
"Garn. Garn! GARN! Sideways! With walnuts!"
Madonna a Warner act? (Score:5, Insightful)
And what if I'm searching for paintings of the Madonna? [euroweb.hu] How are they going to differentiate?
This greed is fucking rediculous... If I am searching for their Madonna, well, they will probably make a cut of whatever I find that I might buy from that search. Hell - if I'm searching for that Madonna, I am probably already interested enough in her to own a CD or two, so they already have some of my money in their pockets. Am I going to have to pay them if I mention Madonna in my blog? Isn't that fair use? Why should I pay for any mismatches that might come up? Whats next? Should I pay for the privilege of looking at billboards when I drive along the interstate?
Fantastic (Score:4, Funny)
A musician's perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
A google ad is "adjacent space" (Score:3, Interesting)
The notion that record labels should share in advertising revenue from keyword searches is to confuse the ownership of intellectual property with the concept of "adjacent space".
Adjacent space is frequently sold at a premium in multiple mediums, from supermarket shelf-space, to tradeshow booth-placement, to partial-page magazine advertising. Wherever a premium brand is located, the neighboring advertising- or product-space increases in value. If a record store puts Sarah Q. Smith's album on a shelf next to Madonna's new album, the record store is effectively using Madonna to promote the sale of Sara Q. Smith. But this is very different from capitalizing on Madonna's intellectual property. This is capitalizing on *Madonna's market*, which is something Madonna does not own, control or have rights to.
Likewise Google's use of adjacent space, ie: space neighboring Madonna's relevant links, is Google's own affair. It is Google's effort to target Madonna's market -- which is as old a phenomenon as the outdoor marketplace.
The entertainment industry needs to get a reality check on the scope and limits of IP.
Highly Misleading Summary, Ignorant Comments! (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently the record companies used to allow portals like Yahoo to show their videos for free, since they considered it free advertising for their music. Then, they realized that Yahoo was making lots of money off
the deal through advertising, so they asked for a cut. Yahoo refused, but saw their hits go down, so they negotiated a deal. Basically, an exec at Universal realized what they considered advertising was more like giving away free product. This makes sense: people weren't discovering new music on Yahoo. Most of the time, they came there to see videos and songs they already knew.
I suppose you could say the record companies are being greedy, but they're not doing anything suspect. They realized other companies were making money off their products, and decided to charge for the privilege. Similarly, they're trying to renegotiate with Apple, and we'll see who wins there. They may harm their own market more than they expect by raising the prices, or the market may be happy to pay $1.30 for new hits. We'll just see. They're also renegotiating with satellite radio, now that that industry is pulling in lots of money, again with the RIAA's products.
There's no talk in the article of charging anyone for search engine keywords.
A devil's advocate says... (Score:5, Interesting)
Where did the profits come from? Was there any new value created? Well, the apples didn't change, but the demand did. The demand was created exclusively by Carol.
Bob in the meantime kept his costs low and did not hire any marketers. He did notice something interesting, however - because of all the increased interest in the apples next door, demand for his apples started to pick up as well. Marketing effort paid for by Alice has began to increase Bob's revenues.
Question: does Bob owe anything to Alice?
In the physical world, generally, yes. It's called "location, location, location". Bob can setup a fruit stand out in the middle of nowhere and pay nobody for the privilege. Or he can open a stand in a downtown mall, which will cost him.
Back to RIAA.
Without heavy and expensive promotion by RIAA, the value of, say, 50 Cent would be hovering just above zero (some would argue below). RIAA effectively created the artificial demand for his product, which, supported by copyright laws, fuels a vast ecosystem of businesses. Why shouldn't those benefitting from selling, reselling or otherwise commercially benefitting from 50 Cent's music own portion of profits to RIAA who created majority of the value in the first place?
Disclaimer: I think that RIAA should die and music should be free, but that would be preaching to the choir and, therefore, boring.
Re:A devil's advocate says... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, but it's a false analogy. In your case, Alice and Bob (presumably; I'm inferring here) had independant orchards. In ours, Bob has to buy his apples from Alice; there's no other source for the apples that Alice and Bob are selling. So Bob's increased sales also lead to more revenue for Alice. (Bob might be sell a few bananas too-- they were grown independantly-- but Alice was only advertising the apples.)
But here's another thing: the RIAA doesn't sell anything to consumers. Alice isn't even selling
how is this even remotely sane? (Score:3, Insightful)
The stakes on this are VERY HIGH for Google (Score:3, Interesting)
Google must reject this request and let the RIAA take them to court and subsequently lose. The stakes on this are quite high for all search engine companies. I agree with previous posters who said that Google should delete all RIAA content and have them pay for to get into Google's search database. The result of this would hurt the RIAA worse than it would hurt Google.
Greed 2.0??? (Score:3, Funny)
RIAA Demands Royalties from Slashdot (Score:3, Funny)
An RIAA spokesman today announced "These slashdot stories are related to us and we should have a cut and anyway you could be buying CDs instead of reading this story so you owe me $13.99 and if you don't pay that then I'll take you to court and sue for 20 Million dollars and if you don't pay that then I'll sue your kids and your dog too."
keep it up, fuckers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Newsflash: company seeks to make money (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you don't agree, then you need to take down the dail
Because what they do is expensive (Score:5, Informative)
So the RIAA spends money: they lobby radio stations (and paying them, even though that's illegal) to play your music, they advertise your tour on TV, they give away free t-shirts, etc. All on a national level, because if you want to sell tens of thousands of CDs you need to adverise to many, many people.
What they have in the end is a brand. They've spent a lot of money on you, and 20 artists like you who didn't catch fire. Once they have your name on everybody's lips, they want a cut of everything that makes money from that brand. They didn't create the music, they created the fame, and it's the fame (not the music) that's bringing people to Google to search on your name.
I'm oversimplifying like crazy (of course the music is relevant to make the brand appealing) but you get the idea. More importantly, it's not like they're not already wildly profitable (even accounting for all of their failed attempts), and they're not taking nearly as big a risk as I'm suggesting. For example, a lot of the start-up costs are taken out of your royalties. You the artist don't see squat until you've paid back the immense costs of producing that album. (In addition to marketing costs, RIAA companies own very expensive equipment, managed by very expensive engineers, operated by very expensive producers and mixers. A musician will tell you that those things are critical to making an album you're going to want to buy, and those who aren't with the labels spend a lot of their own money to buy the equivlent themselves.)
But perhaps your real question is, "Why do they risk alienating their customers so much?" That, I can't say for sure, except to say that I assume that somebody in a room somewhere has done a cost-benefit analysis and taken a guess that maximizing the profit on their brand is worth the customers who are alienated. They may be right; Slashdot readers (and posters) are exquisitely sensitive to the sort of manipulation that the RIAA does but many less technologically aware people aren't.
Ultimately it is all about greed; their job is to make the maximum money. They walk a careful line; some industries do very well by appearing to be generous. Instead, they've chosen to try to milk every possible dollar. But that's "greed" in the "trying to maximize your value" sense, not "greed" in the stealing-from-other-people sense. They want the benefit of what they've created, even though it seems awfully miserly of them (and even counter-productive) to go about it the way they are.
I imagine that they get that cynical as a result of manipulating people into buying the music in the first place, music that a lot of people think isn't very good but which a lot of people spend money on and which many go out of their way to download. (The vast majority of bands would love to have you download their music, because it means you've at least hard of them.) Since they think that they can create the desire to buy music (and their CD sales figures show that they can), the seem to think that they've got the formula licked and can risk alienating their customers because they'd rather buy the CDs from the RIAA than risk jail or take a chance on a band they've never heard of.
Re:Straight to iTunes? (Score:4, Informative)
But I've heard very good things about CDBABY. They are distributors and store keepers. You, the independent artist can sell in their store (cdbaby.com). If you do, you can also opt for their digital distribution deal, which almost guarantees placement with iTunes, Napster and a whole bunch of other shops. Their cut is 9% of what you get per sale, and since you don't have a label, that means 91% of 65 cents.
So instead of only getting about 5 cents you get about 59 cents. Which is nice.