PDA

View Full Version : Universal Music 'Free Music' Plan to Take on iTunes




clevin
Oct 12, 2007, 11:11 AM
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/music/universal-plans-total-music-anti+itunes-initiative-with-free-all+you+can+eat-music-310214.php
I don't like
1. subscription
2. DRM

but it IS Cheap, $5/month, all music you want, pay through phone bill or something else..

anyway, I will just goto amazon mp3 download, 89c, and DRM-free.



Piarco
Oct 12, 2007, 11:20 AM
Just read this on engadget and iLounge too. Subscription models just aren't for me, I like to own my music so I can move it to whatever player I choose.
Amazon MP3 has got it right IMHO, but any competition is good. But why are they choosing to go down a well trodden path that only have ever led to the sheer drop of doom? Have any subscription based models worked?? :confused:

clevin
Oct 12, 2007, 11:27 AM
Amazon MP3 has got it right IMHO, but any competition is good. But why are they choosing to go down a well trodden path that only have ever led to the sheer drop of doom? Have any subscription based models worked?? :confused:

only cable tv/cellphone/car/electricity/water subscription works.

they are probably thinking that adding $5 to the cellphone bill is less noticeable vs. blatantly asking for $5 on website. Which might be true. but again, DRM is a line I can never cross.

Stampyhead
Oct 12, 2007, 12:18 PM
Man, these companies just don't get it. If it doesn't work on the iPod then a large majority of mp3-player owners just won't use it.

mkrishnan
Oct 12, 2007, 12:22 PM
How would Universal get hardware makers to defray their $5/month cost as proposed? I could see cell companies bundling it into their service fees, but if you buy a Zune for $200, how can Microsoft pay Universal $5/month indefinitely for you to have access to their music on it?

Peace
Oct 12, 2007, 12:23 PM
Man, these companies just don't get it. If it doesn't work on the iPod then a large majority of mp3-player owners just won't use it.

I wouldn't be so sure.If most of the music content leaves iTunes for other pastures people will start buying a product that can use the other service.That's what this conspiracy hopes.

Makes me wonder if the FCC or some other Fed watch-group will start looking into this could-be-illegal practice.

MacRumors
Oct 12, 2007, 12:35 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Businessweek details (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_43/b4055048.htm?chan=search) the plans of Universal chief Doug Morris to take on Apple's iTunes music service.

Morris was once a proponent of Apple's iTunes music store, but has since changed his tune. According to Businessweek sources, Morris is joining forces with other record companies to launch an "industry-owned" subscription service.

Representing 75% of music sold in the U.S., they would ask hardware makers or cell carriers to pay them a $5/month subscription fee. In exchange, consumers of their products would get unlimited music at no additional cost to them ("free"). Music companies would get the $5/month and hardware companies would theoretically sell more units.

Of interest, Businessweek notes that despite these efforts to undermine iTunes, Universal can't afford to simply pull their music from iTunes, which holds a 70% marketshare in music downloads.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/12/universal-music-free-music-plan-to-take-on-itunes/)

DMann
Oct 12, 2007, 12:37 PM
The more competition, the better... this seems to be true regarding iTunes..

zombitronic
Oct 12, 2007, 12:39 PM
F the industry. How about an "artist-owned" service?

dr_lha
Oct 12, 2007, 12:39 PM
When are these 'tards going to realise: Consumers don't want subscription music services.

xJulianx
Oct 12, 2007, 12:39 PM
This sounds like an absolutely huge operation and definitely for the good of the industry and end consumer. iTunes will always be there for smaller bands on indie labels by the looks of it though?

Yateball
Oct 12, 2007, 12:39 PM
Great idea as far as I'm concerned

And the more competition the better everyone's products get!

Stampyhead
Oct 12, 2007, 12:40 PM
Representing 75% of music sold in the U.S., they would ask hardware makers or cell carriers to pay them a $5/month subscription fee.

MY cell provider had better not even think about charging me a fee for a service I don't ever plan on using.

Morky
Oct 12, 2007, 12:40 PM
How would Apple charge $5/month for an iPod? An iPod contract? What if the iPod breaks? Why don't the record companies just charge end users of the service $5/month directly? Now that might not be too shabby.

lanray
Oct 12, 2007, 12:41 PM
Would I be able to download music to use from now on? What I could see happening is that I get access to my music as long as I have the subscription; after that, after I'm tired of paying $xx a month, I don't get to use it anymore.

If you could just go crazy with the cheese whiz and download what you like, then this would be great (but, then, kind of dumb on the label's part).

zap2
Oct 12, 2007, 12:42 PM
"industry-owned"

Thats the worst thing I've heard to date...more DRM, more stupid record labels....hopefully mainstream artist begin to go indie...

morespce54
Oct 12, 2007, 12:42 PM
LOL!
Yeah...
The coolest part is that hardware makers and cell carriers won't ever pass the $5 to the end user... :eek:
sure... whatever...

mac 2005
Oct 12, 2007, 12:43 PM
F the industry. How about an "artist-owned" service?

Always a good sentiment. I'd love for the industry to get more of a "direct-distribution model" so that the talent gets the proceeds and the overpaid execs have to earn an honest's day pay the old-fashioned way; by doing their own work and not sponging off another's creativity.

With respect to the $5/month, I don't understand how that will help the record labels. I spend more than $5/month now on iTMS and most of that money goes to the labels. Also, I don't want a subscription!

twoodcc
Oct 12, 2007, 12:43 PM
The more competition, the better... this seems to be true regarding iTunes..

if you say so. i personally don't like subscription stuff though

samh004
Oct 12, 2007, 12:43 PM
Of interest, Businessweek notes that despite these efforts to undermine iTunes, Universal can't afford to simply pull their music from iTunes, which holds a 70% marketshare in music downloads.

Perhaps they could start rolling out unprotected music on iTunes (or was it them that already did it and the others should follow suit).

I think competition is good, however they've got the wrong idea, which is to "beat" iTunes right now, and not serve their musicians correctly. I can imagine the musicians making even less money from this deal than they do on iTunes, how is that helpful ?

Bearing in mind I don't think they should be reaping huge profits, but they have to live somehow.

Lastly the obvious question is which format will they choose ? Surely it wont be mac-compatible, that'd just be silly... as usual. :rolleyes:

nateco
Oct 12, 2007, 12:44 PM
I wonder how many different uses you'll get out of this service.


My guess.....none.....it'll be locked down like you couldn't imagine.



It'd be funny once they crack the DRM and you keep the songs.




What a bunch of idiots.

zap2
Oct 12, 2007, 12:44 PM
iTunes will always be there for smaller bands on indie labels by the looks of it though?

doubt it...if all the major media companies pull the plug on iTunes Music Store, I can't see Apple keeping it around.


I'd much rather see artist leave the record labels, and Apple let them sell/give their music away in iTunes Music store....to bad Apple's won't ever allow that

Consultant
Oct 12, 2007, 12:46 PM
Subscription services had been tried for many many years, none has been successful. The main thing is that people know the companies can change the price of the subscription at any time, and thus any money so far put into the subscription would vaporize if you choose not to stick with that subscription anymore. Therefore it will not impact iTunes / iPod combination.

Ask Virgin's online subscribers how great subscription music is. They're shutting down and now their users find they've been paying $$ a month and don't have any music out of it.

morespce54
Oct 12, 2007, 12:46 PM
LOL!
Yeah...
The coolest part is that hardware makers and cell carriers won't ever pass the $5 to the end user... :eek:
sure... whatever...


Oh, I forgot that they won't pass the bill to the end-user because they'll sell more units, therefore covering their $5... And since every cell carriers will follow, you'll be able to use any cell carriers you wish... therefore... oh wait a minute...

bretm
Oct 12, 2007, 12:47 PM
LOL!
Yeah...
The coolest part is that hardware makers and cell carriers won't ever pass the $5 to the end user... :eek:
sure... whatever...

Well, yeah, I imagine they would most likely charge $10 to the end user. It's called business. Then Verizon or Sprint or whoever would charge $7 and eventually someone would give it away, making up for it somewhere else no doubt.

Consultant
Oct 12, 2007, 12:48 PM
doubt it...if all the major media companies pull the plug on iTunes Music Store, I can't see Apple keeping it around.


I'd much rather see artist leave the record labels, and Apple let them sell/give their music away in iTunes Music store....to bad Apple's won't ever allow that

Actually, iTunes DOES allow artists without labels to publish, hope more artists do that to bypass the greedy labels.

paja
Oct 12, 2007, 12:51 PM
Ugh, I hate subscription music services. I want to own my music not rent it.

I'm guessing Microsoft will be involved somehow since they are already paying rent to Universal on every Zune they sell.

Probably no Mac support just to kick Steve Jobs in the nuts.

roxnadz
Oct 12, 2007, 12:52 PM
This is nothing but a brazen money grab, plain and simple.

As the owner of a small record label, I can tell you right now: there is no way that this or any other label that hasn't already been made, will benefit from this move.

Morris oughta put his d**k back in his pants and wake up. iTunes is the best thing since sliced bread for him AND his cronies.

There's a reason The Steve wants to keep songs priced at 99 cents, people. THINK about it.

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 12:54 PM
Step by step the big 4 start to fall. They're so desprate to try to stay alive that they pull crap like this out of their ass'.

atropos
Oct 12, 2007, 12:55 PM
Thats the reason why people still preferring illegal download over the net... they just like "they think they can get a dollar after we give them 1 cents".....

Zoboomafoo
Oct 12, 2007, 12:56 PM
Explain to me how this isn't anything more than a thinly veiled "hardware tax." And by "hardware tax" I mean a 90 dollar surcharge that the hardware companies will *certainly* relay to the consumer or else forfeit their entire profit margin or more. And by that I mean "the worst idea ever in the long, sad history of bad ideas."

inkswamp
Oct 12, 2007, 12:59 PM
The more competition, the better... this seems to be true regarding iTunes..

I would agree in this case if I thought for an instant that the music industry were interested in competition. I think they're more interested in maintaining their dominance and cutting Apple (and other competitors) out of the picture. I suspect that in their perfect world, prices are kept artificially high, much worse than anything they accuse Apple of doing.

Rustus Maximus
Oct 12, 2007, 01:04 PM
- Apple assumes the Matrix 'I know Kung Fu' pose...flicks hand in a beckoning fashion at Universal -

"Bring it."

:cool:

pagansoul
Oct 12, 2007, 01:05 PM
I think in future years more artist will bypass the studio to keep ownerhip of their work. It's come to a time where they can afford their own equipment and do their own producing. The record companies are not seeing any where the same action they used to. They have to look for other options. All business would rather see a constant revenue stream as opposed to a flash in the pan. This is one way to do it.

I have always preferred to own my music, even if I simply tape off radio. I also almost always buy used/discounted CDs. I sometimes use e-music (30 songs monthly), I have only purchased about 6 songs from iTunes, about 9 TV shows, 4 music videos, 2 Disney shorts over the last 3 years. Everything else is ripped off my home collection of CDs and DVDs.

I don't think this will work but I understand that they have to try...money is running out. I also heard that they are trying to get money off the re-sale market, good luck. I wonder if music, like movies, fall into public domain after a few decades?

thomasfxlt
Oct 12, 2007, 01:13 PM
The record companies better be careful. Anything that could be determined to be price fixing to the end user is called "collusion". If they were to build some joint venture website and collectively fix the price of services to all carriers, there is no doubt in my mind that that would be illegal as hell.

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 01:13 PM
I think in future years more artist will bypass the studio to keep ownerhip of their work. It's come to a time where they can afford their own equipment and do their own producing.

Bypass the studio??? you have no idea how the industry works ...

samh004
Oct 12, 2007, 01:14 PM
I'd much rather see artist leave the record labels, and Apple let them sell/give their music away in iTunes Music store....to bad Apple's won't ever allow that

They couldn't operate a solely free service even if they wanted to, think about the bandwidth costs and paying people to add it all in there etc... :p

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 01:18 PM
They couldn't operate a solely free service even if they wanted to, think about the bandwidth costs and paying people to add it all in there etc... :p


sure they could, how do you think this site runs?? advertising... and if you don't think it can be profitable, take a look at Google's stocks...

Doctor Q
Oct 12, 2007, 01:22 PM
Of interest, Businessweek notes that despite these efforts to undermine iTunes, Universal can't afford to simply pull their music from iTunes, which holds a 70% marketshare in music downloads.So the question is, under what conditions would Universal pull out of iTunes?

DarkRail
Oct 12, 2007, 01:22 PM
Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) announced earlier this week that he has fulfilled his contract with Universal, and is now leaving the world of major labels forever. A couple quotes from him on the subject:

"As of right now, Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contract with any label. I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit."

And this one from a few months earlier, speculating more on what he'll do now : "I would put out my next album, you could download it from my site at as high a bit-rate as you want, pay $4 through PayPal. Come see the show and buy a T-shirt if you like it. I would put out a nicely packaged merchandise piece, if you want to own a physical thing. And it would come out the day that it's done in the studio, not this "Let's wait three months" bulls---."

Great stuff as far as I'm concerned. Let's hope other artists follow his march away from Universal.

rockosmodurnlif
Oct 12, 2007, 01:24 PM
All I see is the hardware and cell companies have to pay $5/month. How does that translate to the consumer? And how do you take a subscription on the road?

Seems confusing to me. Maybe I should read the article.

mrkramer
Oct 12, 2007, 01:33 PM
I wonder if music, like movies, fall into public domain after a few decades?

Everything eventually ends up as public domain, I think right now though it is under copywright for the life of the creator plus 70 years, so any current music will not be public domain during your lifetime.

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 01:33 PM
Great stuff as far as I'm concerned. Let's hope other artists follow his march away from Universal.


He's not the first one to do this.... Prince was very influential in how to be successful apart from a major label... But just the same, I wish NIN well and hope they help in the collapsing of the big 4

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 01:36 PM
Everything eventually ends up as public domain, I think right now though it is under copywright for the life of the creator plus 70 years, so any current music will not be public domain during your lifetime.

Correct! (although i think its 60 years... not that that really matters)
But this isn't really for the master recordings, as much as the copyright of the song... So people will be able to play, record, and do what ever without having to pay anyone in royalties.

slu
Oct 12, 2007, 01:40 PM
Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) announced earlier this week that he has fulfilled his contract with Universal, and is now leaving the world of major labels forever. A couple quotes from him on the subject:

"As of right now, Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contract with any label. I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit."

And this one from a few months earlier, speculating more on what he'll do now : "I would put out my next album, you could download it from my site at as high a bit-rate as you want, pay $4 through PayPal. Come see the show and buy a T-shirt if you like it. I would put out a nicely packaged merchandise piece, if you want to own a physical thing. And it would come out the day that it's done in the studio, not this "Let's wait three months" bulls---."

Great stuff as far as I'm concerned. Let's hope other artists follow his march away from Universal.

Radiohead is doing this with their new record as well. And Pearl Jam, even though they made a deal with J Records to distribute their last record, are not under contract either.

This is going to happen. You can bypass the studio now...

La Porta
Oct 12, 2007, 01:41 PM
It'tl never work....again. How many subscription services do we need to see fall under before they get this?

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 01:43 PM
This is going to happen. You can bypass the studio now...


Quit saying that!!! you can't bypass the studio. you can bypass the major labels.... but not the studio... very very different things...

mrkramer
Oct 12, 2007, 01:45 PM
It'tl never work....again. How many subscription services do we need to see fall under before they get this?

It will probably take how ever many they can fit in until all of the major artist's contracts expire.

orbital
Oct 12, 2007, 01:48 PM
So wait let me get this strait, $5 per month, assuming that they keep the player for 18 months, = $90. What if they keep it for 5 years? does that mean the music company will keep paying or will they just drop you and tell you to fork up again?

phytonix
Oct 12, 2007, 01:50 PM
follow the Radiohead!

TurboSC
Oct 12, 2007, 01:52 PM
sounds a bit fishy. We'll see how they do, I don't think Apple really cares, they have iTunes under their belt, and it's a well established method of purchasing.

Amazon may be trouble though...

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 01:53 PM
Amazon may be trouble though...

IF they can advertise it well enough .... which is something that Apple has done really really well...

grappler
Oct 12, 2007, 02:05 PM
If I could pay $5/month for all the music I wanted, DRM free, I'd take that in an instant.

But, this sounds like they want companies like apple or Verizon to pay that for their customers. Naturally, the cost is passed on to the customer, so in effect everyone who buys a gadget capable of playing music from any of the participating companies is a paying subscriber whether he wants to be or not.

This is little different from imposing a tax that goes directly into the coffers of the record companies. Where is the incentive for them to earn our business?

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 02:08 PM
If I could pay $5/month for all the music I wanted, DRM free, I'd take that in an instant.


yes, but this would be $5/month for all the music on UMG, with DRM... and while there is a lot of music on UMG, theres even more music thats not...

guzhogi
Oct 12, 2007, 02:14 PM
F the industry. How about an "artist-owned" service?

What do you mean? Like each artist has his/her own music store? Or each record label? I could see maybe each record label having their own b/c they have the $$ & resources to do this. Individual artists probably don't, or at least the know-how. Plus, do you know how many different stores there'd be if each artist had their own? On the other hand, record labels may have a really weird pricing scheme that screws some of the artists. There probably isn't a single way that'll make everyone happy.

I'm also one of those people who don't think music rentals/subscriptions is a good thing. People tend to listen to songs often and for a long time. Having to pay for a song indefinitely will be too hard for the consumer. Movies & TV shows, on the other hand, aren't watched as frequently and could probably be good on a subscription/rental service.

As for DRM, I can see both sides of the fence. People shouldn't pirate songs and artists should get paid for their work (yet not get too greedy). But people should be able to do whatever they want w/ the song after they buy it (other than copy it to a friend). This would be a lot easier if people were more responsible.

cliffjumper68
Oct 12, 2007, 02:22 PM
This will make it easier to boycott RIAA material and stay with Indies! Go for it and drive your revenues down further!

morespce54
Oct 12, 2007, 02:22 PM
follow the Radiohead!

Makes me want to buy both NIN and RH albums... Even if I'm not such a big fan of them, sometimes, the idea alone worth the cost...

Popeye206
Oct 12, 2007, 02:26 PM
One thing I con't understand is why people think subscription service means DRM free? It's not! Once you stop paying, the music stops working! And yes, if you have freinds that subscribe, they can download it too... but you have the same constraints if they dont.

I think Universal is nuts. They should be working with Apple to find a happy medium. Obviously, they see there is money to be made and want more the the pie... so now they want to turn their back on the comapany that helped define the industry and make it a viable business. I don't know what the real answer is to this whole thing, but honestly, I don't mind paying for what I like. Just becasue we now have an all digital world and it's easy to copy things that should not be my free pass to get upset because companies want to continue to sell the music they publish.

I guess we'll see what happens... but I don't think in the long run Universal will go through with it. I think they are trying to make waves and will in the end only shoot themselves in the foot. I just dont see how they can walk away from the entire iPod market???

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 02:30 PM
This will make it easier to boycott RIAA material and stay with Indies! Go for it and drive your revenues down further!

What the hell does this have to do with the RIAA.... yes, i think they're an evil organization... but this has nothing to do with them....

freediverdude
Oct 12, 2007, 02:36 PM
Like I said over on Engadget comments, the problem with this model is going to be that it's player-based. Meaning that since the cost of the subscription is built into the player cost, they will have to make it so you have to plug in a valid player in order to download songs or keep your subscription (be able to play them on the computer). Then if the player dies or gets lost or you sell it or whatever, the songs are gone and you'll have to start over.

Rot'nApple
Oct 12, 2007, 02:37 PM
doubt it...if all the major media companies pull the plug on iTunes Music Store, I can't see Apple keeping it around.

So if for instance of an iTunes demise and one has to go to Universal et al., can we start a class action lawsuit against Universal for iTunes demise and having to use Universal's subscription method? I can hear it now... It's my iPod, I paid for it, I should have the choice of which music store and method (buy or subscribe) I want!

Or is that only for iPhone?:)

iPod owners battlecry song... Sssuuuueeeee (pronounced 'suey' for here piggie, piggie, pig)

princealfie
Oct 12, 2007, 02:40 PM
may this venture fail admirably :)

nimbuscloud
Oct 12, 2007, 02:54 PM
So if for instance of an iTunes demise and one has to go to Universal et al., can we start a class action lawsuit against Universal for iTunes demise and having to use Universal's subscription method? I can hear it now... It's my iPod, I paid for it, I should have the choice of which music store and method (buy or subscribe) I want!

Or is that only for iPhone?:)

iPod owners battlecry song... Sssuuuueeeee (pronounced 'suey' for here piggie, piggie, pig)

HAHAHAHA!!! :D:D:D

Anyway, they need to calm down and try to work with Apple. Record labels are dying. If Apple decides to cut the middle man and go straight to the artists, it's over for them.

In other words, this is Universal's last act of desperation.

:apple:

Popeye206
Oct 12, 2007, 02:54 PM
It's all a ploy by Universal to negotiate a better deal with Apple... watch... this will be solved in the 11th hour after iPods are again the top selling MP3 player and gadget for Christmas... magically, Universal and Apple will come to terms.

Maybe this will be a good thing in the long run and Apple will implement a choice for people... buy a subscription or but the music... your choice... it would make great business sense for both. Pay $4.95 a month and listen to all you want off of one iPod, or as an option, buy the music with rights to duplicate on up to 5 authorized computers or iPods (like we do now).

Hummm... if I go back to the Universal proposal... does that mean they would need $5 a month for every MP3 player... every XBox, Every Computer that plays music, every AppleTV? Etc... etc.. ???? Hummm... how could they manage that sort of business model????

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 02:58 PM
HAHAHAHA!!! :D:D:D

Anyway, they need to calm down and try to work with Apple. Record labels are dying. If Apple decides to cut the middle man and go straight to the artists, it's over for them.

In other words, this is Universal's last act of desperation.

:apple:



Yes it is... and EMI's desperation act was offering DRM free music on iTunes... they've been trying to seel themselves to UMG for years but no one wants to buy them....

bellicelli
Oct 12, 2007, 03:01 PM
This might just be the worst idea ever.

The labels are getting desperate. I downloaded Radiohead's new album last night directly from their website. Nine Inch Nails says "goodbye" to labels and contracts. Throwing Muses/ 50 Ft. Wave/ Kristin Hersh are starting a direct download model. Ani DiFranco has been doing it herself for over 15 years.

What services do the labels perform? Marketing? Distribution? Production? All of these can be done indepentently for far less than it used to cost - and mostly thanks to technology introduced and/or popularized by Apple.

And as for competition - if Universal was truly in favor of competition, they would allow Apple to sell un-DRMed, high quality track through the iTunes store. This move reeks of a combination immature vendetta and death-throes desperation.

seashellz2
Oct 12, 2007, 03:07 PM
'The Music Industry' are clueless.
They cant run anything except themselves into the ground

Like the Zune, this is already dead.

There is a trickle in the DIY movement-but watch the floodgates open-when artists realize they have total control-and will make no money. You will see artists site where you can buy the full cd, download it, or buy trinkets, teeshirts etc
And another thing-we can be rid of the large ugly and intrusive part of a CDs cover designwhen they no longer have the FBI or EXPLICIT
warnings as an unremovable part of the artwork.
At least in Europe, they have EXPICIT warning as stickers, easliy removed after the cellophane is broken

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 03:07 PM
What services do the labels perform? Marketing? Distribution? Production? All of these can be done independently for far less than it used to cost - and mostly thanks to technology introduced and/or popularized by Apple.

they also provide the contacts to make all those things happen ... and most importantly... money... which is the hardest part for an independent band.... Sure, anyone can get on the radio nationally, if you have a $750,000 national radio campaign. ... the biggest issue is that the majors have a huge overhead, and it takes 700,000 units sold to break even, while it takes an indie label about 70,000 units...

MadIvan
Oct 12, 2007, 03:14 PM
Yes it is... and EMI's desperation act was offering DRM free music on iTunes... they've been trying to seel themselves to UMG for years but no one wants to buy them....

Maybe Universal is trying to make enough trouble that Apple will buy them to shut them up? The labels have been exploiting artists for decades. Most artists don't see any money beyond the initial advance, so piracy isn't really hurting the bands that much, not that I support it. Thanks to technology, quality recordings can be made on the cheap, and artists no longer need the labels to manufacture and distribute physical copies of their music. This isn't exactly new, but I think the technology has finally matured enough in the past couple of years that the labels are in real trouble. Apple's profits are soaring. Universal's not so much. Universal might want to be bought out by Apple and try to pull off a canibalistic AOL Time Warner sort of thing.

svenas1
Oct 12, 2007, 03:20 PM
'industry owned' says it all...

good luck to them, they'll have a hard time agreeing amongst each other, with companies trying to outnasty each other from day one.

I'm sure pretty soon you'll see inconsistencies and other cracks in their shop all over the place.

They want control, but can't even manage to wrangle themselves free from the iTS.. poor bastards..

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 03:21 PM
Maybe Universal is trying to make enough trouble that Apple will buy them to shut them up? The labels have been exploiting artists for decades. Most artists don't see any money beyond the initial advance, so piracy isn't really hurting the bands that much, not that I support it. Thanks to technology, quality recordings can be made on the cheap, and artists no longer need the labels to manufacture and distribute physical copies of their music. This isn't exactly new, but I think the technology has finally matured enough in the past couple of years that the labels are in real trouble. Apple's profits are soaring. Universal's not so much. Universal might want to be bought out by Apple and try to pull off a canibalistic AOL Time Warner sort of thing.


ya, piracy doesn't hurt the artist, it actually helps them get their music into the world...but it does hurt the label...
Most of the artist's profit comes from touring, and merchandising... and they hardly ever see money from the album sales... but like wise, they still need album sales to pay off the debt they owe to the label...

- and i doubt apple would want to buy a dying record label... but maybe they'll do what starbucks did and make their own...

GSMiller
Oct 12, 2007, 03:25 PM
Free? Riiiiight. Like the cell carriers wouldn't raise your bill $5 :rolleyes:

winterspan
Oct 12, 2007, 03:42 PM
Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) announced earlier this week that he has fulfilled his contract with Universal, and is now leaving the world of major labels forever. A couple quotes from him on the subject:

"As of right now, Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contract with any label. I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit."

And this one from a few months earlier, speculating more on what he'll do now : "I would put out my next album, you could download it from my site at as high a bit-rate as you want, pay $4 through PayPal. Come see the show and buy a T-shirt if you like it. I would put out a nicely packaged merchandise piece, if you want to own a physical thing. And it would come out the day that it's done in the studio, not this "Let's wait three months" bulls---."

Great stuff as far as I'm concerned. Let's hope other artists follow his march away from Universal.


originally posted by slu:

Radiohead is doing this with their new record as well. And Pearl Jam, even though they made a deal with J Records to distribute their last record, are not under contract either.
This is going to happen. You can bypass the studio now...



We need to really support these guys in doing so. We need a website that lists these guys going alone to show people like me (even if i don't like their music) how to support them.

Also although the anti-DRM campaign/website and that one company has been a good influence, we need more centralized efforts like this to get people so stay away from DRM crap ESPECIALLY the ************ like this record-lable owned music service will be. We need like a nonprofit organization that people pay member "dues" to each year that works to help artists stay independent and setup a channel for selling their music. with this type of organization, instead of just a few million young people yelling about DRM and big corporation tactics, people would really be able to take these guys down.
how about a 4-week boycott of major labels? that kind of **** is how to make change happen!!

studiomusic
Oct 12, 2007, 03:42 PM
Big name artists can pull off the self distribution thing because they already have a following.

Indie labels (like mine) don't have the funds to get their product out in front of people to see if they like it. At least itunes kinda changes that. You can go listen to and buy Kyria -Whispers In The Dark (self plug) almost anywhere in the world now (on itunes, emusic, etc. -Amazon soon!).

The trouble is, I can't get radio play for Feeling Good so that enough people will want to buy it that we can afford to do this full time and come up with more good tunes.

I don't have the payola, er marketing money to do this. Universal does have the marketing money and connections to make 'crap' popular.

I fear the music biz either needs the big bad marketing machine, or will be so filled with cheaply produced, blanched music that music will have lost all value (even though there WILL be killer artists out there, finding out about them will be hard).

Adapt Universal et al, or risk ruining everything!

My $.02

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 03:47 PM
Big name artists can pull off the self distribution thing because they already have a following.

Indie labels (like mine) don't have the funds to get their product out in front of people to see if they like it. At least itunes kinda changes that. You can go listen to and buy Kyria -Whispers In The Dark (self plug) almost anywhere in the world now (on itunes, emusic, etc. -Amazon soon!).

The trouble is, I can't get radio play for Feeling Good so that enough people will want to buy it that we can afford to do this full time and come up with more good tunes.

I don't have the payola, er marketing money to do this. Universal does have the marketing money and connections to make 'crap' popular.

I fear the music biz either needs the big bad marketing machine, or will be so filled with cheaply produced, blanched music that music will have lost all value (even though there WILL be killer artists out there, finding out about them will be hard).

Adapt Universal et al, or risk ruining everything!

My $.02

Yes, the reason these guys can be so successfull on their own is because they HAVE had all the major label marketing money to begin with... this is not the same as an indie artist who has always been indie

But, again, an indie artist's break even point is a LOT lower

winterspan
Oct 12, 2007, 03:49 PM
If I could pay $5/month for all the music I wanted, DRM free, I'd take that in an instant.

You think this is going to be DRM free? HAHAHAHAHA. this music will be more
locked down and chained than Ann Coulter's chastity belt!

This is nothing more than another pathetic attempt to hoard money before the ship goes down...

mac 2005
Oct 12, 2007, 03:53 PM
What the hell does this have to do with the RIAA.... yes, i think they're an evil organization... but this has nothing to do with them....

The RIAA is the lobbying organization for individual record companies. Maybe it's simplistic to associate the actions of individual record companies to the policies and procedures of the RIAA but the person's comment is by no means an apples-and-oranges comparison. UMG is a ginormous organization, one that drives significant influence on both the direction of the RIAA and the entertainment industry. One has a helluva lot to do with the other.

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 04:02 PM
The RIAA is the lobbying organization for individual record companies. Maybe it's simplistic to associate the actions of individual record companies to the policies and procedures of the RIAA but the person's comment is by no means an apples-and-oranges comparison. UMG is a ginormous organization, one that drives significant influence on both the direction of the RIAA and the entertainment industry. One has a helluva lot to do with the other.

yes, i understand that... but you have to agree that his comment made no sence... indie labels can have the "protection" of the RIAA too....

chuckiej
Oct 12, 2007, 04:05 PM
The more competition, the better... this seems to be true regarding iTunes..

Only if they are pushing things forward. Competitors showing up and sucking only emboldens the market leader to stick to the status quo. iTunes is still the best system around (to me) but doesn't seem to be improving at all. :mad:

chicagostars
Oct 12, 2007, 04:12 PM
Radiohead is doing this with their new record as well. And Pearl Jam, even though they made a deal with J Records to distribute their last record, are not under contract either.

This is going to happen. You can bypass the studio now...

Radiohead. Pearl Jam. NIN. Hopefully the list of artists who are in the position to buck the system and still get paid grows. When Prince was going by that unpronouncable symbol and writing 'slave' on his cheek people thought he was crazy, but he was telling the truth. The labels see their artists as slaves or at the very least as prostitutes. And if they're artist are whores and we are their customers, what do you think the labels think about us?

Here's hoping the major labels' latest scheme blows up in their collective faces.

quinney
Oct 12, 2007, 04:16 PM
may this venture fail admirably :)

I would rather it failed ignominiously;)

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 04:20 PM
Radiohead. Pearl Jam. NIN. Hopefully the list of artists who are in the position to buck the system and still get paid grows. When Prince was going by that unpronouncable symbol and writing 'slave' on his cheek people thought he was crazy, but he was telling the truth. The labels see their artists as slaves or at the very least as prostitutes. And if they're artist are whores and we are their customers, what do you think the labels think about us?

Here's hoping the major labels' latest scheme blows up in their collective faces.

hey... someone who actually understands! congratulations!

CommodityFetish
Oct 12, 2007, 04:29 PM
We need to really support these guys in doing so. We need a website that lists these guys going alone to show people like me (even if i don't like their music) how to support them.

[...] We need like a nonprofit organization that people pay member "dues" to each year that works to help artists stay independent and setup a channel for selling their music. with this type of organization [...], people would really be able to take these guys down.
how about a 4-week boycott of major labels? that kind of **** is how to make change happen!!

This all sounds good to me. I just bought the Radiohead record directly from them. (Did you hear that, Universal?) I'm following the Throwing Music / Kristin Hersh developments as well. Good to know about NIN, Prince, and Pearl Jam's plans/efforts.

The coup would be to provide an online store/service for artists to sell their music (like Radiohead have set up), so that each artist doesn't have to spend the overhead to do this themselves. Radiohead should offer their setup to other artists.

iTunes already does this to some extent, right? (Or perhaps CD Baby?) But iTunes won't let the indies sell DRM free music (what gives, Steve?!?!?!), or set their own prices...

I sympathize with indies who don't already have the recognition of Radiohead, et al. But I think the whole business is ultimately going to go to more word-of-mouth based discovery and promotion of artists. And all the better for it. I trust my friends' opinions much more than I do a record exec, or radio station (basically the same guy, right?). Bring on the future.

CommodityFetish
Oct 12, 2007, 04:36 PM
http://www.throwingmusic.com/

Check this out...

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 04:38 PM
The coup would be to provide an online store/service for artists to sell their music (like Radiohead have set up), so that each artist doesn't have to spend the overhead to do this themselves. Radiohead should offer their setup to other artists.

You can kidna do the same thing from your site...
Offer Links to Download the music and next to it put a donation link through paypal or google money.... The current project I'm involved in is going to set things up like this... "hey, our music is free and under a creative commons copyright, but if you want to support us you can donate some money for your downloads"

surferfromuk
Oct 12, 2007, 04:48 PM
apple should buy universal and have done with this nonsense.

Dustman
Oct 12, 2007, 04:49 PM
Doesn't look like the iTunes Music Store has much life left.. Kind of a scary thought.

Drumjim85
Oct 12, 2007, 05:09 PM
apple should buy universal and have done with this nonsense.

They won't buy UMG....


Doesn't look like the iTunes Music Store has much life left.. Kind of a scary thought.

They still have %70 of the market..... its going to be a while before you can say goodbye to the ITMS... even if it drops to only %30, thats still enough money to make it worth it... hell, most companies are lucky to get %2

MadIvan
Oct 12, 2007, 05:43 PM
Big name artists can pull off the self distribution thing because they already have a following.

Indie labels (like mine) don't have the funds to get their product out in front of people to see if they like it. At least itunes kinda changes that. You can go listen to and buy Kyria -Whispers In The Dark (self plug) almost anywhere in the world now (on itunes, emusic, etc. -Amazon soon!).

The trouble is, I can't get radio play for Feeling Good so that enough people will want to buy it that we can afford to do this full time and come up with more good tunes.

I don't have the payola, er marketing money to do this. Universal does have the marketing money and connections to make 'crap' popular.

I fear the music biz either needs the big bad marketing machine, or will be so filled with cheaply produced, blanched music that music will have lost all value (even though there WILL be killer artists out there, finding out about them will be hard).

Adapt Universal et al, or risk ruining everything!

My $.02

Who even listens to radio anymore? It may be difficult if not impossible to become a superstar without big money, but I think it will be much easier for bands to do well enough to make a living, provided that the music is good enough.

No doubt dreams of fame and fortune are powerful motivating factors for a lot of young people who take up music, just as this same fantasy is the hook the labels use to exploit them. A few bands become famous, some very few musicians make it big, but most stick with it out of love, love of the music. Being able to make a living doing what you love, isn't that enough? Or is that just another dream?

irun5k
Oct 12, 2007, 05:52 PM
I suspect this would be more of a "tax" that any type of optional subscription. The industry would LOVE to rake in $5/month for every device sold for as long as it is ever used.

I echo the sentiment of the poster who said we should instead have an artist operated service instead. The record labels are adding VERY LITTLE value at this point, in my eyes anyway. Their major accomplishment is getting the same 5 songs played over and over again on all the corporate radio stations in the country.

No reason why I can't find out about artists online and do business directly with the artist on their web site, or via some lightweight, low-overhead store that is selling their music. I think iTMS would be pretty low overhead if they were dealing directly with artists and no labels.

studiomusic
Oct 12, 2007, 05:57 PM
Being able to make a living doing what you love, isn't that enough? Or is that just another dream?

I love producing music for films and video games/software, and make a good living doing it... but I would double love being a rock star (or just make what I make now, performing)! On stage is where it's at for me personally.;)

studiomusic
Oct 12, 2007, 06:05 PM
No reason why I can't find out about artists online and do business directly with the artist on their web site, or via some lightweight, low-overhead store that is selling their music. I think iTMS would be pretty low overhead if they were dealing directly with artists and no labels.

The big labels were just a filter up until now... weeding the millions making music down to the few who made relatively good music that lots of people liked.

Now there's more content than ever out there, and they just aren't filtering it like they used to. So you get copies of 'what works now', not 'what will work well for a long time'.

Make an easy to use filter that finds what music someone wants to hear effectively and you will make millions from that program (as long as people are looking, not liking what is fed to them).

There is nothing like turning a dial until you hear something you like! No searching, no key words... instant feedback.

512ke
Oct 12, 2007, 06:29 PM
Is it really a business thing? Did they really do research and conclude that this business model will kick?

Or is it a personal thing? Are they pissed off because Apple, and not Universal, has control?

juxtaposer
Oct 12, 2007, 06:53 PM
Personally, there is no way that I would pay $5 or whatever that would end up as in Pounds Sterling, just for the privilege of my own personal radio station. Yes, maybe I could listen to whatever music I felt like at the time, but owning my own copy of an album is a totally different thing.
The people I feel sorry for are the Bands/Artists. If this happens then how could I feel I have properly supported my favourite band? Because a fraction of a penny of my monthly subscription goes to buy them a new pair of shoes or happy meal? Not a chance. Get lost all you Record Company Fat-Cats, and stop draining the life out of people's art! Makes me sick.
[/rant over]

megfilmworks
Oct 12, 2007, 08:51 PM
If Doug Morris owes you any money I would collect it ASAP.
What a backward thinking, boneheaded idea.

paja
Oct 12, 2007, 10:20 PM
Could this be collusion?

“In the study of economics and market competition, “collusion” takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit. Collusion most often takes place within the market form of oligopoly, where the decision of a few firms to collude can significantly impact the market as a whole. Cartels are a special case of explicit collusion. Collusion which is not overt, on the other hand, is known as tacit collusion.”

Of course with our current Department of Justice I doubt anything would be done.

MacinDoc
Oct 12, 2007, 11:40 PM
So $60 per year to download all the UNIVERSAL music I want to, rental only. I have a few problems with this:

1. I don't get to keep it if I cancel the subscription
2. Universal is only a small portion of the music I listen to.
3. I don't spend $60 a year on music. I doubt I spend $20 a year on music from Universal.

Not for me, then.

DMann
Oct 13, 2007, 12:03 AM
So $60 per year to download all the UNIVERSAL music I want to, rental only. I have a few problems with this:

1. I don't get to keep it if I cancel the subscription
2. Universal is only a small portion of the music I listen to.
3. I don't spend $60 a year on music. I doubt I spend $20 a year on music from Universal.

Not for me, then.

It is sad to watch a label put so much capital and effort into launching a service which has already failed miserably. Admire them for taking another stab at re-inventing the wheel? ................. not.

DMann
Oct 13, 2007, 12:11 AM
Personally, there is no way that I would pay $5 or whatever that would end up as in Pounds Sterling, just for the privilege of my own personal radio station. Yes, maybe I could listen to whatever music I felt like at the time, but owning my own copy of an album is a totally different thing.
The people I feel sorry for are the Bands/Artists. If this happens then how could I feel I have properly supported my favourite band? Because a fraction of a penny of my monthly subscription goes to buy them a new pair of shoes or happy meal? Not a chance. Get lost all you Record Company Fat-Cats, and stop draining the life out of people's art! Makes me sick.
[/rant over]

And at the other end, of the 99c iTunes song charge, 80c goes to the artist. Universal is a sinking ship, grabbing at yesterday's failed strategies, and blaming internet downloading for their demise. Sad.

Uragon
Oct 13, 2007, 03:39 AM
I don't think they are doing this for the sake of competition or what's best for the consumer. They are doing simply against Apple. What's wrong with the "iTunes Model", none, except its from Apple. And yes iTunes is not perfect, but its the next best thing and Apple simply refused to follow what this Music Industries wants.

One thing for sure, no matter how beautiful a Zune is, I will never buy it, they give USD1 for every unit purchased to Universal because Universal demanded it. And this is the same company that said that most MP3 players contains pirated music.

Funny quote:

"We got rolled like a bunch of puppies," And this presumably is coming from the CEO of a big firm. (Unless of course all along they wanted ....Apple alone should be the puppy).

surferfromuk
Oct 13, 2007, 04:00 AM
I wonder if Sony are going to self-impose a $5 a month 'media' charge to their own hardware - maybe release a Sony Bravia with free unlimited movie access. It's just a stupid idea.

Mac Kiwi
Oct 13, 2007, 04:26 AM
Makes me wonder if Universal are really that scared of Itunes.It still makes them money right? So I wonder if its more what it {Itunes etc} represents to the record companies,ie freedom for the artists from "them".


If there was ever a huge backlash at all the recording companies {from the artists} having control over music downloads could hinge on their survival.I mean if that happened and Itunes still had all the cards so to speak they would be screwed.

color guy
Oct 13, 2007, 08:55 AM
Not that i have any particular knowledge or insight here , but...

I think it's becoming more and more obvious that "record companies" and
the " music industry" are unnecessary.
For years they blurred the lens so you couldn't see what they were doing.
or in this case, not doing. I mean, "promotion" can mean anything, and usually means stuffing money in little accounting holes to avoid paying
the "artists"
I don't think the average person realizes, only one percent of all the recording
artists actually see any money from their sales.
I think these big multi tentacled media conglomerates are afraid of being exposed and
can see the writing on the wall.
No one wants to see their company become obsolete on their watch.

On the other hand, lots of people get indignant at the idea of paying for any works of art. They feel entitled to have it all now for free. Anyone who has invested years and tons of money to create a book, movie, or song,
only to have it torrented the next day knows that kicked in the gut feeling.
I mean, why bother creating anything other than a blog, if there is no
remuneration. It's not like we have free health care, food, and education here.

sanford
Oct 13, 2007, 09:09 AM
How would Universal get hardware makers to defray their $5/month cost as proposed? I could see cell companies bundling it into their service fees, but if you buy a Zune for $200, how can Microsoft pay Universal $5/month indefinitely for you to have access to their music on it?

This is just an RIAA -- really let's just say it's Universal; the whole industry will jump on if it works -- grab to take control not only of production and distribution of music but sales as well. With the demise of small, mid-size and even large music-only shops, they see digital distribution as a why to grab the whole enchilada. With physical distribution, overhead costs, the whole learning of retail thing, etc., running storefronts for their own catalogs was not as easily undertaken as with digital distribution.

In general, with Universal, making HD DVD-exclusive agreements, pulling NBC programming from iTunes -- which was making them money over and above ad revenue from this programming -- now this, while still admitting they can't just walk away from iTunes sale, look at these decisions. Hubris and power-grabs. Ignore them, avoid their products at all costs, do not buy an HD DVD player if you prefer BD just so you can own Universal HD films, buy CDs of their music and not this device-dependent mess, stop bothering with their TV programming if you miss catching it on-air or recording, they will go away.

Thomas2006
Oct 13, 2007, 11:49 AM
I suspect this would be more of a "tax" that any type of optional subscription. The industry would LOVE to rake in $5/month for every device sold for as long as it is ever used.
I believe Steve said there were 100,000,000 phones in use when he showed the iPhone this past January. Multiply that times $5.00/month and you can see why Universal Music thinks their idea is a good one.

If the phone companies' do this their options are to (1) eat the cost, (2) pass the cost onto all the customers, or (3) charge just the customers that want this service. I seriously doubt option #1 will happen, option #2 will anger too many people, and option #3 will require programmers to modify code, (i.e. work flow). This is a lot of trouble, and for what, to put money into another companies pockets? I don't think so.

What the phone companies should do is develop an application that will transfer music from a computer to the phone, and let people deal with where and how they get their music. The only formats needed are MP3, AAC, and WMA, but there is no reason why other formats can't be included.

S_S
Oct 13, 2007, 12:47 PM
Wow. Universal assumes when I buy a cell phone I want to put their music on it? I really hope we don't start going down that path of dirty capitalism.

Tricking people into buying your product? That's not fair competition. Competing with iTunes would best be done by making an intuitive, attractive, and convenient online store. If it's better people will go. Apple would have to step up it's game and it would be a win win. Propping up competition by handy-capping Apple is just plain wrong. You get a store that may have selection but is in no way an improvement that will drive progress.

Amazon's store is okay but it's buried in a heap of all the other products Amazon sells (cookware, lawn mowers, etc). I don't feel like it's focused on selling music. It doesn't have all the networked links that help you discover new music. It's just not as attractive. I'm sure it will improve. But iTunes is better right now. The only thing better about Amazon is that they sell DRM free Universal music. That superiority is completely artificial and created by Universal to weaken iTunes. Now Universal considerers a $5/month music tax!!

They screwed up. They could of had a store like iTunes open years ago for them selves. They should have seen that digital music distribution would eliminate their dependance on retailers. Instead they freaked out about people "stealing" music. Now they are so behind they are stealing ideas from Microsoft's playbook. Trick and force people to buy your product, because actually competing on level ground takes too much effort. I hope they don't get away with this.

phelix_da_kat
Oct 14, 2007, 07:36 AM
Haha, they are just crazy..

If there are 4 big record labels (Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony BMG, and Universal Music Group = controlling 70% of the worlds music), all charging $5 a month.. that's $5 x 4 lables x 12 months = $240 a year to listen to what if effectively "radio".

Plus your broadband/cell phone charges on top..
Plus whatever the "service provider" may add as his middle man fee...

In the US, non-DRM singles are say $0.89 - $0.99, OK lets say a nice round $1.00 for easy of mental calculation.. thats 240 songs!! or say on average 24 albums a year! (Think how much it will cost once this model gets over to the UK)

As a long time CD buyer, this model does not work. I do buy downloads quite often as well now, but I definitley do not spend $240 on music a year. (Probably also due to the fact that I would find it difficuolt to "find" 240 new songs a year.. thats like buying 1 song every week day). Of course it will be marketed as... "$5... well thats either 5 singles that you OWN, or unlimted music from Universal for 1 month!"

On a side note - This may model may work for a "younger" subscriber - but how would they afford to pay $240 on top of that mp3 player or music enabled cellphone (and monthly charges). Its still alot of "singles" you could buy instead.

mozmac
Oct 14, 2007, 09:21 AM
Two reasons why I love hearing about iTunes competitors:

1. They keep Apple on their toes, (hopefully) forcing them to treat their customers (us) better.

2. Apple makes their money sell the best music hardware. Who cares if people don't buy their content from the iTunes store. If they buy DRM-free music, it's going on an iPod. Why we make it like music stores were for the past 40 years? Everybody sells the same format, and then you play it on your hardware. How ludicrous would it have been if you could only play CDs bought at Tower on a Tower CD player. Give me a break.

3. (Yes, I can count) I love Amazon MP3. Cheaper and no DRM.

shikimo
Oct 14, 2007, 10:16 AM
Radiohead. Pearl Jam. NIN. Hopefully the list of artists who are in the position to buck the system and still get paid grows. When Prince was going by that unpronouncable symbol and writing 'slave' on his cheek people thought he was crazy, but he was telling the truth. The labels see their artists as slaves or at the very least as prostitutes. And if they're artist are whores and we are their customers, what do you think the labels think about us?

This is spot-on. If as consumers we could wake up and realize how much power we have--in today's world we vote much more effectively with our dollars/euros/pounds/kroners/zlotis etc. than with ballots--we could collectively prevent giant companies from treating artists (and other productive employees) like they're expendable and customers like our opinions are irrelevant. This is no hippie spread-the-love-skip-the-deoderant BS: it's a market reality and it's time for us to flex some commercial muscle.

exothermic
Oct 14, 2007, 10:25 AM
This model is absolutely anti-consumer.

For the recording companies, this guarantees an income stream without having to do anything. They are under no obligation to output any new music whatsoever, and are likely to continue the signing of "artists" who are the least capital intensive to sign, record and promote. Or in other words, you'll get more of the same, if you're lucky.

The $5 per month subscription length isn't stated, which means that if you buy one of these devices, your subscription might be a year, might be two years, but it certainly isn't for the life of the player. And what is likely to happen is that the $5 is for the first year, or even first few months, where the subscription suddenly jumps to $10, $15...you name it. True to the thinking of these executives, if you don't resubscribe, the entire device will be an expensive paperweight.

For the device manufacturers (and likely, Microsoft), this is attractive because I believe the subscription will run out after one year. The cost to renew a subscription will be prohibitive enough that it's more attractive to just go out and buy a new MP3 player with the attached subscription.

On general principles, I'm tired of being accused of stealing their music. This is just a back door approach to hardware taxes and is likely to be extended to anything that plays music. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of tying contracts and corporate America's attempts at picking my pocket for their addiction to unearned income.

It is a frightening thought that this issue will end up before Congress. Universal will plead for help in combating diminishing profits, and its lobby and broadcast outlets (NBC) will smooth way to some sort of legislation that amounts to a hardware or blank tape tax. At what point does the consumer just throw up their hands and quit buying?

CommodityFetish
Oct 14, 2007, 10:51 AM
Good point! I hadn't thought of this. [duh...]

It would be nice to eventually have one centralized vendor though, where you knew the $ was going to the artists. Maybe someday iTunes will become this?

It looks like SnoCap is offering a web module that will sell tracks directly from the artist. Works with MySpace or your own website. Not sure how fair their deal is, but it's encouraging.

http://www.snocap.com/
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=90929326

You can kidna do the same thing from your site...
Offer Links to Download the music and next to it put a donation link through paypal or google money.... The current project I'm involved in is going to set things up like this... "hey, our music is free and under a creative commons copyright, but if you want to support us you can donate some money for your downloads"

CommodityFetish
Oct 14, 2007, 10:53 AM
Make an easy to use filter that finds what music someone wants to hear effectively and you will make millions from that program

try http://www.pandora.com/ :D

Drumjim85
Oct 14, 2007, 12:53 PM
Good point! I hadn't thought of this. [duh...]

It would be nice to eventually have one centralized vendor though, where you knew the $ was going to the artists. Maybe someday iTunes will become this?

It looks like SnoCap is offering a web module that will sell tracks directly from the artist. Works with MySpace or your own website. Not sure how fair their deal is, but it's encouraging.

http://www.snocap.com/
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=90929326

Snocap's contract is HORRIBLE. after reading just the first page i refused to be a part of it.... That, and myspace is on the way out

studiomusic
Oct 14, 2007, 01:01 PM
try http://www.pandora.com/ :D

Very cool! I am going to see how I can get on that one!
Thanks!!

MacinDoc
Oct 14, 2007, 01:16 PM
Haha, they are just crazy..

If there are 4 big record labels (Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony BMG, and Universal Music Group = controlling 70% of the worlds music), all charging $5 a month.. that's $5 x 4 lables x 12 months = $240 a year to listen to what if effectively "radio".

Plus your broadband/cell phone charges on top..
Plus whatever the "service provider" may add as his middle man fee...

In the US, non-DRM singles are say $0.89 - $0.99, OK lets say a nice round $1.00 for easy of mental calculation.. thats 240 songs!! or say on average 24 albums a year! (Think how much it will cost once this model gets over to the UK)

As a long time CD buyer, this model does not work. I do buy downloads quite often as well now, but I definitley do not spend $240 on music a year. (Probably also due to the fact that I would find it difficuolt to "find" 240 new songs a year.. thats like buying 1 song every week day). Of course it will be marketed as... "$5... well thats either 5 singles that you OWN, or unlimted music from Universal for 1 month!"

On a side note - This may model may work for a "younger" subscriber - but how would they afford to pay $240 on top of that mp3 player or music enabled cellphone (and monthly charges). Its still alot of "singles" you could buy instead.
And you still don't get independent artists, or smaller labels...

Drumjim85
Oct 14, 2007, 02:33 PM
Very cool! I am going to see how I can get on that one!
Thanks!!

just email them and then send them a cd.
I got to meet the creator of pandora about a year ago, and he is very supportive of local and indie artists.

MattInOz
Oct 14, 2007, 04:16 PM
So wait let me get this strait, $5 per month, assuming that they keep the player for 18 months, = $90. What if they keep it for 5 years? does that mean the music company will keep paying or will they just drop you and tell you to fork up again?

Reading there model it seems the hardware producers pay $5/month for each piece of hardware sold. regardless of user activation of the service.
If a mobile phone includes the service it doesn't matter if a teenager or a grandma Universal want $90.

Time of death= stillborn

MattInOz
Oct 14, 2007, 04:22 PM
Yes, the reason these guys can be so successfull on their own is because they HAVE had all the major label marketing money to begin with... this is not the same as an indie artist who has always been indie

But, again, an indie artist's break even point is a LOT lower

Nope, the reason they are so well off now is that they make great music, and play a hell of a great live show. If a band gets those two right the Interweb of music fans will take care of the rest.

These artists where known to most of there fans before they even signed with a label.

Drumjim85
Oct 14, 2007, 07:00 PM
Nope, the reason they are so well off now is that they make great music, and play a hell of a great live show. If a band gets those two right the Interweb of music fans will take care of the rest.

These artists where known to most of there fans before they even signed with a label.

so the multi-million marketing machine didnt do a thing to help them.... Right...
You're so off base.

megfilmworks
Oct 14, 2007, 08:17 PM
It is a frightening thought that this issue will end up before Congress. Universal will plead for help in combating diminishing profits, and its lobby and broadcast outlets (NBC) will smooth way to some sort of legislation that amounts to a hardware or blank tape tax. At what point does the consumer just throw up their hands and quit buying?
If you are against the right of an artist to earn income, then I don't agree with you, and that horse has been beaten to death,
BUT, I do think it is interesting that France, which is battling Apple over the length of the unlock DOES charge a royalty on blank media (CDs, DVDs) to "recoup" lost income due to pirated downloads. Seems like they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

MattInOz
Oct 14, 2007, 09:36 PM
so the multi-million marketing machine didnt do a thing to help them.... Right...
You're so off base.

In between their first single and their first album, Radiohead played a rock pub here in sydney that just up the road from my house. I know a couple of people there who still talk about that night. I still here random people on the bus talk about that night.

I understand that night was booked on reputation of the band playing live in england, and while the record companies where in early stages of signing.

Their music isn't commercial by any means so getting radio airplay or print ad's or any of the trick of those multi-million marketing isn't going to push them much.

But I'd put money on idea that anyone in sydney who own more than two album having a small degree of seperation to some at that gig.

The distribution that a big company offers has done them many a favor.

But these days you don't need the record companies distribution.
Or you do, but at least understand what it is they offer.

elgruga
Oct 14, 2007, 11:37 PM
Apple dont 'need' iTunes to sell music - it happens to be a piece of SOFTWARE that links between servers and computers to facilitate the ease of use, software updates, ripping your cd's to your computer and iPod, etc.

Who cares if iTunes sells ZERO music? Not Apple - they sell hardware and maintain it with software. The average iPod owner buys 22 tracks from iTunes.

$22. Thats because so MUCH music is wandering FREE in the wild being shared by friends and family, copying old record and cd collections, people handing over dvd data copies of all their music to friends and strangers or girls they want to impress etc.

Music is FREE and WILD, and it will NOT go back into the Jail - ever.

The record biz should stick with iTunes, try to assist smaller bands to sell a few songs and make a few thousand off MANY thousands of new artists and amateurs with a few good songs.

Itunes is also a great FREE advertisement for the record labels - where else can you preview any song at home, and then buy it, or go to a store and buy the CD?
Itunes helps you FIND the music - an indispensable part of the music buying process. Cant find it and check it out, you WONT buy it.

Are the record labels going to give that up? Access to maybe 150 million iPod users by this Xmas?
I think not.

I used to work in the foul music biz, and there MANY songs out there - as good as the best in the biz - that you will never hear because the writers/performers dont want to play the nasty game.

What a joke this vapourous rumor is - the record companies are DUMBER than I thought if they think that a subscription service will work.

And no, I dont want to play music on my frickin' cell phone - unless its my iPhone!

Has anyone ever heard of building a company by having GOOD products, instead of attacking the competition?
Bill Gates has a lot to answer for.....

Also - Apple has a huge server farm to run iTunes music store, and the infrastructure for this isnt done overnight. It costs a few billion, too.
And its in many countries. Its a BIG setup.

Are the somewhat non-techy Music labels going to be able to even DO this?
Can they even AFFORD it?
I doubt it.

d_saum
Oct 15, 2007, 12:20 AM
Bravo to Trent Reznor, Radiohead, and Prince! I hope more artists follow their lead!

synth3tik
Oct 15, 2007, 12:32 AM
Really it is total crap. It's not free if you have to pay $5 a month for it. Hell, I work hard to make sure I don't download music owned by these companies. Really I have no desire to give them money.

These record labels have been making the past time of buying music less and less fun. I used to get a real kick out of going to the record store and buying music. Now it is just such a pain in the ass that it is no longer fun. I no longer enjoy my music, and isn't that the point? To fickin' enjoy it?
:mad:

JGowan
Oct 15, 2007, 12:54 AM
Music execs put this service up and cut Apple out completely. They get majorly greedy and end up screwing over all the customers. Service dies.

It's kind of hard to believe the music industry isn't grateful to Apple for putting this all into place with the music store. They've made hundreds of millions that they never would've realized without Steve and his vision.

shikimo
Oct 15, 2007, 06:29 AM
...I do think it is interesting that France, which is battling Apple over the length of the unlock DOES charge a royalty on blank media (CDs, DVDs) to "recoup" lost income due to pirated downloads. Seems like they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Any chance you could slip us a reference for this practice? It is certainly believable, but it's not marked as such in the stores here--or with online dealers--and I can't find any evidence of it in the media. It's TOTALLY possible they slipped a little charge in without telling us--French consumers are not the most well-informed bunch on the planet--and if so I'd love to learn more about it. Particularly, I'd like to know who's getting the money and how it's getting to them when I buy blank media at a giant grocery store.

Drumjim85
Oct 15, 2007, 11:05 AM
In between their first single and their first album, Radiohead played a rock pub here in sydney that just up the road from my house. I know a couple of people there who still talk about that night. I still here random people on the bus talk about that night.

I understand that night was booked on reputation of the band playing live in england, and while the record companies where in early stages of signing.

Their music isn't commercial by any means so getting radio airplay or print ad's or any of the trick of those multi-million marketing isn't going to push them much.

But I'd put money on idea that anyone in sydney who own more than two album having a small degree of seperation to some at that gig.

The distribution that a big company offers has done them many a favor.

But these days you don't need the record companies distribution.
Or you do, but at least understand what it is they offer.


Ok, thats just radiohead, a very different genre and very brilliant guys. But i still doubt half of the people in the US would know of them if it weren't for Creep... I mean, they were on SouthPark for crying out loud...

But also, the people were talking about more than just Radiohead.... NIN and Prince are both very mainstream...

mr.666
Oct 15, 2007, 11:29 AM
bwahahahah. very funny. "nurturing the likes of Microsoft's Zune media player" OMG the greed of these idoits. they are doomed. and subscrip's are doing SO well these days right? people when given the choice will want to own rather than rent.

it's like telling the driver that the quickest way to get there is to make a right, but their stubborn a$$ makes three lefts cuz they gotta be correct.

cant stand rediohead but... BRILLIANT on thir part. and i do hope more artist follow on their own sites.

studiomusic
Oct 15, 2007, 12:31 PM
Any chance you could slip us a reference for this practice? It is certainly believable, but it's not marked as such in the stores here--or with online dealers--and I can't find any evidence of it in the media. It's TOTALLY possible they slipped a little charge in without telling us--French consumers are not the most well-informed bunch on the planet--and if so I'd love to learn more about it. Particularly, I'd like to know who's getting the money and how it's getting to them when I buy blank media at a giant grocery store.

Yep, France taxes blank cds, blank dvds, external hard drives... anything they can (although you can buy an external case and an internal hard drive and put the two together sans tax).
I used to live close to Belgium in France, we would go there for gas (I brought over a 5.0 Mustang GT Convertible!) and cdrs. MUCH cheaper!

djlu
Oct 15, 2007, 12:46 PM
I guess I don't understand the business model for this at all.

Let's say I'm Microsoft selling a zune at if I'm lucky $199 with a 30% margin. I make $60. I pay this new service $5 a month, and all the music is free to my end users. After a year I used up all my profit margin and am making nothing. Anyone using my device for over a year is now causing me losses.

Why would I ever want to do this?

Peace
Oct 15, 2007, 12:49 PM
Still sounds like illegal anti-competitive price fixing to me.:confused:

Jefe
Oct 15, 2007, 01:38 PM
I wouldn't be so sure.If most of the music content leaves iTunes for other pastures people will start buying a product that can use the other service.That's what this conspiracy hopes.

Makes me wonder if the FCC or some other Fed watch-group will start looking into this could-be-illegal practice.

The iPod existed and flourished long before the iTMS. People aren't going to bail on the iPod just because they can't get music for it on iTunes. Assuming Apple continues to innovate.

megfilmworks
Oct 15, 2007, 02:50 PM
Any chance you could slip us a reference for this practice? It is certainly believable, but it's not marked as such in the stores here--or with online dealers--and I can't find any evidence of it in the media. It's TOTALLY possible they slipped a little charge in without telling us--French consumers are not the most well-informed bunch on the planet--and if so I'd love to learn more about it. Particularly, I'd like to know who's getting the money and how it's getting to them when I buy blank media at a giant grocery store.
Here is a link to an article announcing it in 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1120199.stm
It's a personal copy tax.
I believe there is an online exemption for sellers outside of France.
Here, I found a link to the exemption:
http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/ecd.nsf/125731d8816a84d385256297005f336a/6f6116f9051d5c1a852572ad007ebaa4?OpenDocument

shikimo
Oct 16, 2007, 04:35 AM
Here is a link to an article announcing it in 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1120199.stm
It's a personal copy tax.
I believe there is an online exemption for sellers outside of France.
Here, I found a link to the exemption:
http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/ecd.nsf/125731d8816a84d385256297005f336a/6f6116f9051d5c1a852572ad007ebaa4?OpenDocument

Right on...thanks for the links. It's great, because I've been going around asking French people about it for two days and each of them looked at me like I had grown a second head. Not one person had heard of this, including a friend who works for a store that sells storage devices. Makes me wonder what other taxes are built into some of the rather inexplicable prices around here.

EDIT: Looks like Germany is in on the game too...

elbruelsio
Oct 17, 2007, 12:18 PM
MY cell provider had better not even think about charging me a fee for a service I don't ever plan on using.

Strongly seconded! My cellular bill is already too high as far as I'm concerned. The scary thing would be if this subscription service actually caught on. When that happens I'm sure the next thing they would want to do is to have a tiered service. Alternative Package $5.99/month. Alternative / Classic Rock / Pop Package $14.99/month. Etc, etc. This business model works for Netflix, not for the music industry.