Universal May Want Money From iPods

[Motley]

Hadn't seen it posted yet:
Coming off of their deal with Zune, Universal is now considering getting money for each iPod sold.

Why Thank you Microsoft! (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyid=2006-11-28T213349Z_01_N28267036_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-SUMMIT-UNIVERSALMUSIC-IPOD.xml):mad:

[NATO]

I think they'll be a long way off getting money from every iPod sold. For a start its such an illogical thing to ask for (Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope), plus I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.

If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Reuters reports (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-11-28T213349Z_01_N28267036_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-SUMMIT-UNIVERSALMUSIC-IPOD.xml&WTmodLoc=TechNewsHome_C2_technologyNews-1) that Universal Music Group Chief Executive said on Tuesday that they may seek a royalty from Apple for iPod sales:

"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way,"

Universal made news earlier this month (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061109124909.shtml) when it was reported that Microsoft had agreed to pay Universal Music a fee for every new Zune Music Player sold. Music studios, of course, currently get a cut from every song sold, but do not get any percentage of iPod sales.

[DeBeere]

And I don't understand why they should...Can somebody explain it?

[hyperpasta]

Won't happen.

[Fearless Leader]

dang it microsoft.

[Blue Velvet]

Announcing their hand before negotiations even start indicate a degree of flexibility in their position... this is just posturing at this stage.

[mdntcallr]

it's ridiculous for Universal to even be thinking this. NONE of the money would get to artists or anything like that. it would just go to the company.
also. i dont pirate music.

alot of itunes people don't. we are the people actually paying for it. so screw that.

[lorductape]

it's as I feared would happen after microsoft was stupid with the zune marketplace. but honestly, who didn't see this coming?


death to microsoft. this just adds another reason.

basically, this is something that microsoft probably did on purpose. It set a precident in the recording industry that companies will be required to match in order to get recording deals. its only $1 in the zunes case, but that's a significant amount when you think of the iPod's popularity. now it will be expected that EVERY online music store will do this.

it would just go to the company.


exactly! who does universal think they are???

what does microsoft think they were doing???

[hyperpasta]

And I don't understand why they should...Can somebody explain it?

The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).

[SRSound]

here we go again

[nitynate]

No thanks.

I pay for my music.

[Texas04]

That would add already to the money that they get from the purchased music.. Apple will not allow this... at least they shouldnt, and wouldnt Universal be happy as is?

Microsoft started this and it is a good hit into Apple... but Apple has a agreement and will not break that agreement... especially to get rid of the ease of 99 cent standard pricing

[Spanky Deluxe]

They can **** right off, the greedy *******s!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Multimedia]

I would make sure to NEVER buy another piece of music published by them if they were to extort this from Steve which I highly doubt. If I were Steve I would laugh in their face and call them INSANE to their face as well. Like setting up a toll booth on the railroad tracks of a 200MPH MagLev Train.

[jonharris200]

They'd be lucky.

[mandoman]

Universal can take their catalog of music and shove it where
the sun don't shine.

[iris_failsafe]

Those idiots never learn...

They will bring their industry to its knees until one day noone will use them...

I don't think Stevo we'll even or should discuss the subject...

[superleccy]

No no no no no no NO. For all the reasons that everyone has already said.

:mad:

[rockthecasbah]

There's a reason and i pay for my music and don't just steal off of P2P sites!!! I doubt this would ever happen since the iTunes Music Store / Apple is so powerful that having Universal not be hosted would hurt them more than Apple. Record labels are just sickening. Someone who buys an iPod isn't even necessarily going to buy music in general (or at least from Universal) anyway, so their idea that they are entitled to a cut of the profits is just unfounded.

[lorductape]

I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that microsoft suggested it in the first place to universal.

[gugy]

it won't happen. This Universal dude is just trying to be smart ass.
Steve just will say F••• off!
I look forward to the day artists will be their own labels and ditch those huge greedy companies. It's amazing that they don't learn. CD's should cost $5 bucks by now, but because their greed is almost $20. Manufacture costs are so low and it's just the price we pay to fill the pockets of those bastards.:mad:

and they wonder how unfair is people downloading illegal music. If they listened the consumer this would be not a big deal.

[wordmunger]

They already get 79 cents out of every 99-cent song sold, and they don't have to pay a penny to produce or distribute the music, as they would with CDs. Apple has given them a more efficient way to distribute music, and they come begging for a share of iPod profits. Ridiculous.

[JMax1]

"It would be a nice idea."
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.

By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?

Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:

[dougny]

(Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope)

Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?

It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.

[McGarvels]

I can't wait until Steve laughs in their faces. Who the hell do these guys think they are?

[Bob Knob]

While I usually don't go for boycotts this time I would make an exception, if this was to go through I'd boycott buying anything from Universal. It wouldn't matter if it was an artist I had listened to for years, I'd simply never buy anything they release from that point on.

[DTphonehome]

Hahahahahahahahahaha(breathe)hahahahahahahahaha!

As if Apple would ever agree to this! Back when the iTMS was in its infancy, I could see Universal making a demand like this. But now, what leverage do they have? "If you don't pay, we're going to pull all Universal songs off the iTMS!" Um, ok, great, lose one of the only profitable revenue streams the music industry has these days? Right.

[Highland]

it's ridiculous for Universal to even be thinking this. NONE of the money would get to artists or anything like that. it would just go to the company.
Yep. I haven't seen any plans for any of the cash to be distributed to the Universal artists. This is appalling behavior.

Btw, Universal (unfortunately) own a pretty massive music catalogue. So if they did threaten to pull out of iTS, Apple might listen. You'd hope it's way too late for that though. I think iTS has enough of a head start that even Universal etc couldn't threaten Apple.

[840quadra]

Adds universal to the list of Companies I do not buy from..



Wait..

They are already on that list!


GTH Universal! I bought my iPod, Every song on it, and will continue to do so. Stop Extorting the public, and possibly you may actually have some fans, or people that want to deal with your crappy company!

[shawnce]

Many years ago a media levy was passed in the United States that applies a "tax" to "consumer digital audio" media (CD-R blanks, DAT, etc.) with the proceeds going to music industry/artists. The justification was to offset losses due to illegal copying of music in digital form (generational loseless copies). This to date hasn't been expanded to include devices like the iPod (at least I don't recall that taking place).

This appears to be an attempt to expand that levy...

Note in Canada they have a similar levy that "taxes" all digital media that could store audio (not just "consumer digital audio" media) but IIRC it fell short of being applied to the iPod as well. Also many many other countries have similar laws.

In my opinion these types of levies should never have been enacted into law... they presume customers will engage in criminal activity and punish them before hand. :(

To bad the wrong precedent was set...

[Bob Knob]

Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?

It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.

I work in a related industry...
You're wrong, this is 100% greed. Apple does not make squat off music sales. The artists would get none of the "new iPod money" because it is not in their contracts... just like the blank tape royalties, no artist will see a dime from this.

Why are the big labels failing? They sign artists that suck, and the dozen or so executives at the top are way over paid.

Everything is passed on to the consumer level, you obviously need a business/economics lesson.

[LordJohnWhorfin]

If Apple pays Universal to compensate it for their losses due to iPod users being pirates, I will make sure I only procure pirate copies of Universal music and movies, since Universal has already been compensated. No need for them to get paid twice.

[NATO]

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that microsoft suggested it in the first place to universal.

So they say.... :rolleyes:

[JMax1]

Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big.

I didn't know that. I'm glad I do now, it kind of makes a little more sense now, and that this idea isn't completely out of nowhere. You make a very good point. Especially with the stale-ness.

[Westside guy]

And I don't understand why they should...Can somebody explain it?

One of the Universal powers-that-be said a week or two ago (my paraphrase until I can locate the original) "Everyone knows that those devices are all about storing stolen music. This is our way of getting some of that revenue back."

I realize there are a lot of people that use bittorrent and the like, but I'd like to believe there are also a lot of people like me. My music is pretty much all legal. After ITMS came online I went and purchased copies of the (reasonably few) songs that I had at one time obtained illegally. The vast majority of my music is actually ripped from my CDs, which were all purchased legally.

Edit: From a NY Times article about the Zune (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/technology/09music.html?ex=1164862800&en=12038e7b077c3762&ei=5070): “It’s a major change for the industry,” said David Geffen, the entertainment mogul who more than a decade ago sold the record label that bears his name to Universal. “Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material. This way, on top of the material people do pay for, the record companies are getting paid on the devices storing the copied music.”

[bonehead]

It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.

Two things.

1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?

2) Digital distribution is more profitable per unit than CDs. There are no manufacturing or shipping costs.

Now who is it that wants something for nothing?

[shawnce]

I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth? Huh?

Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).

Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.

As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.

[asterizk]

I think they'll be a long way off getting money from every iPod sold. For a start its such an illogical thing to ask for (Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope), plus I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.

Yup.. Gruber made a similar statement (http://daringfireball.net/2006/11/buy_that_for_a_dollar) recently.

[Superdrive]

Make quality music and I'll buy it.

Perhaps my iPod doesn't even play Universal's music. Why should they get a chunk? Greedy bastards. Apple should just go ahead and open up the iTMS to artists and eliminate the middle man.

[Whyren]

Sounds like trying to get royalties off of blank CDs by selling "Music CD-Rs" at a higher cost.

Apple could just let them distribute Universal-branded "Music-Ready" iPods that are set at $50 more than any standard iPod. See how well that'll go for 'em.

[spicyapple]

All the more reasons to boycott the buying of Zunes. Consumers need to vote with your wallets and send a message to companies like Universal who treat customers as pirates. Ugh.

[Sabenth]

i can only but laugh at this as some one mentioned ealier ipods or zunes or cd players play music its up the indvidual who puts the music on them to use legal or iligal sounds and the player makes no diffrance so lables shouldnt get a cut from sales

[k2k koos]

What on earth are these people at music studio's thinking!!! Did they get royalties for every stereo sold? NO, so neither should they get anything for iPod or any hardware sales. Only for the products THEY supply, should they get money, being the music and movies/ video's, in other words the content.
This is typical behaviour of music studio's and I sincerely hope that Apple will not budge, nor should any other company. Of course MS is eager to pay as they need their Zune to succeed, and Universal is riding along for a slice of the pie, but who will loose out in the end is the consumer, as these royalties are eventually going to get calculated such that we will pay them......
We should all start protesting all record companies to clean up their act, in the mean time, the general consumer should to, copying of music is stealing, the prices on iTunes are fair and reasonable, so lets be nice and buy them properly, and the record companies can then make sure there is more for us to buy (some real refreshing new music would be nice, instead of all this "X factor, American idol, etc etc manufactured stuff....) , and not just fill their pockets as they are trying to do all the time

[samh004]

I was under the assumption that the money paid to Universal was to allow the streaming of music from one device to another. I assumed that was the real reason behind the payment.

Seeing as Apple does not stream music to random devices, they shouldn't have to pay a royalty.

I don't think I voiced my opinion about this last time it was brought up, but I reckon although the iPod makes enough profit so as not to pass that royalty onto the consumer (in price), I would still feel like I was paying that royalty, were I to buy an iPod.

If I felt like I paid a royalty, and was already downloading songs legally from iTunes anyway, I'd want to download more stuff illegally than I have before, just to make use of that royalty.

That's what I will do if I have to buy an iPod in the future with a pre-paid royalty. You heard me... this tactic will only encourage more piracy. Stupid really !

[thadgarrison]

I guess Universal is bummed that nobody is buying Zunes and so that revenue stream dried up before it gained any ground.

They should impose royalties on shoe sales, since people wear shoes while they're dancing to their music.

[easy4lif]

steve jobs replied earlier this year to such nonsense


"the music companies are trying to be greedy"


I approve this messsage

[swingerofbirch]

This would be like Ford paying Exxon a fee because some car drivers syphon gas....pretty weird!

[cloudnine]

"It would be a nice idea."
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.

By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?

Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:


My thoughts exactly... "oh, well this ipod thing plays music and it's the best mp3 player out there... how can we get this to benefit us for absolutely no reason?"

asinine.

[fblack]

it's ridiculous for Universal to even be thinking this. NONE of the money would get to artists or anything like that. it would just go to the company.
also. i dont pirate music.

alot of itunes people don't. we are the people actually paying for it. so screw that.

Actually I read that Universal is planning in giving some royalties to artists from their zune deal (I believe it might have been businessweek). This of course would be a ploy to get some major acts, U2 maybe, on the side of the recording industry to pressure Apple to give up a piece of ipod sales.

Greed is too small a word for all of this. Evil comes closer and this has Microsofts' stink all over it. They gave IE away free in order to destroy Netscape, they operated xbox at a loss in order to gain market share, and now they will give up profits for market share and try to lure labels away from apple (or at least hurt apple's bottom line). What happens when all labels even indies want a piece of ipod sales? This is M$ making everyone greedy and that's evil.:mad:

[cecildk9999]

I agree with pretty much everyone else here; this royalty notion won't fly with Apple being (for once) in the dominant market position. If Universal pulls their music/content, it'll all be downloaded illegally, since the Zune isn't about to replace the iPod as the must-have 'cool' item (even if Zune marketplace does offer the Universal catalog). Universal just wants Apple to throw them a bone.

[k2k koos]

This would be like Ford paying Exxon a fee because some car drivers syphon gas....pretty weird!

Not quite, the car you syphon it from will still need to go back and refill... it's not duplicating the fuel....

The music industry needs a wake up call, there is probably no more complicated industry than this, with various copyright issues and loads of 'official bodies' legislating all kinds of stuff, and all because you thought of a song, recorded it with your 100 dollar acoustic guitar and want to sell it to make a living.. Try it, you can't. Once you have to go through all the above, your inspiration and will is flushed straight out....

[Teddy's]

Universal could make their OWN player... one that only plays Universal music, downloads from Universal.com or some ***** like that, rips cds from universal only, and charge$$ for EVERY TIME an individual plays the song"
OH, I think that would be the dream of those CEO's.
Yeah, a dream made in HELL!!! (by lawyers)
I'm really :mad:

Edit: I thought that universal would be that label that has less control over musicians creativity... I know some indie bands who have stated that once in while...

[bigwig]

1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?

My bet is that artist's contracts only pay out on music sales, not hardware royalties. Thus the cdrom tax and ipod royalties are profits they don't have to share with artists despite their pious rhetoric about how they need these revenues because piracy hurts recording artists.

[eggstone]

It seems that Universal shouldn't get benefit at every iPod sold, and the idea is just as ridiculus as they are asking each CD-player and casette player sold for money. However, big companies are always greedy. Apple does this too, for example, they charge a fee for every iPod accessary! Although cosumers do not pay this fee directly, they add up to the price we pay!

[kingconsulting]

Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?

It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.

What your saying is totally obsurd. Who's fault is it the record companies are getting "squeezed"? Apple makes computers that can play the music also. Maybe they record companies should get a cut of that also?

The record companies are the ones who want something for nothing!

[benthewraith]

Many years ago a media levy was passed in the United States that applies a "tax" to "consumer digital audio" media (CD-R blanks, DAT, etc.) with the proceeds going to music industry/artists. The justification was to offset losses due to illegal copying of music in digital form (generational loseless copies). This to date hasn't been expanded to include devices like the iPod (at least I don't recall that taking place).

Which makes no sense. If they get compensated by blank CD/DVD sales to offset the money loss from pirating, then why the hell are they suing consumers for P2P?

Actually, I suspected Universal was going to do the same with the iPod, regardless of whether the Zune debuted or not. They obviously can manipulate Microsoft, they'll try and do the same with Apple.

And lets not forget, these are the same people who wish they could sue people for ripping their cds (and burning them again so as to do away with all the DRM **** they put on them).

As to why their music sales have been dropping, if half the songs on the market weren't about pimps and beating hos', probably a lot more people would buy it.

[rdrr]

Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?

It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.

If the record labels would stop forcing artist to pump out albums with ten bad songs and only one or two good ones, then maybe I would consider spending more than 15 dollars for a CD.

I don't expect something for nothing, but I do expect quality for every dollar I spend.

[chimerical]

(Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope)

Actually, yes. I believe that CD-R/CD-RW blank discs and recorders have had some type of royalties fee added to the price, which gets passed down to us consumers. It's frustrating.

[AmbitiousLemon]

This reminds me of this article from BBspot: http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/11/home-theater-regulations.html


MPAA Lobbying for Home Theater Regulations
By Scott Small

Los Angeles , CA - The MPAA is lobbying congress to push through a new bill that would make unauthorized home theaters illegal. The group feels that all theaters should be sanctioned, whether they be commercial settings or at home.

MPAA head Dan Glickman says this needs to be regulated before things start getting too far out of control, "We didn't act early enough with the online sharing of our copyrighted content. This time we're not making the same mistake. We have a right to know what's showing in a theater."

The bill would require that any hardware manufactured in the future contain technology that tells the MPAA directly of what is being shown and specific details on the audience. The data would be gathered using various motion sensors and biometric technology.

The MPAA defines a home theater as any home with a television larger than 29" with stereo sound and at least two comfortable chairs, couch, or futon. Anyone with a home theater would need to pay a $50 registration fee with the MPAA or face fines up to $500,000 per movie shown.
Related News

"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too. That's a violation of copyright and denies us the revenue that would be generated from DVD sales to your friends," said Glickman. "Ideally we expect each viewer to have their own copy of the DVD, but we realize that isn't always feasible. The registration fee is a fair compromise.

The bill also stipulates that any existing home theaters be retrofitted with the technology or else the owner is responsible for directly informing the MPAA and receiving approval before each viewing.


Unfortunately the BBspot article is a joke, and Reuters story isn't.

[swingerofbirch]

If we're already paying a royalty on blank CD-Rs because they say we are using Limewire, then aren't those of who aren't using Limewire essentially paying to use a service which we are not using?

By my logic, if we are already compensating the music industry through our purchases, we should then be entitled to use the services I just found out from these posts that we are paying for!

[benthewraith]

If we're already paying a royalty on blank CD-Rs because they say we are using Limewire, then aren't those of who aren't using Limewire essentially paying to use a service which we are not using?

By my logic, if we are already compensating the music industry through our purchases, we should then be entitled to use the services I just found out from these posts that we are paying for!

They'd have us go back to CD-format if they could, and impose whatever restrictions necessary to control whatever we do.

[psionic001]

Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?

It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.


Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
That's it!.... I'm not buying any more tapes...

Actually I think two things should happen:
1) Universal should pay an anual feel to be on ITS.
2) Universal should pay a further industry fee to Apple (or DAP manufacturers) to go towards DRM R&D.

[intlplby]

i agree with this on one condition:

Universal agrees to give up its right to prosecute anyone who owns an iPod for piracy.

i.e. if I buy an iPod, then I can pirate Universal's catalogue all I want because I have effectively already paid for their content.

a few bucks is a small price to pay to get access to everything they got

[joemama]

Jobs should walk into negotiations with the attitude of - "We would like more of a royalty for every song sold because if we didn't sell them on iTunes, people would simply download them illegally."

"...And if you don't adhere to this, we will stop selling Universal music and this is exactly what will happen."

Apple may be out 20 cents a song, but people will still buy iPods.

Think how much Universal will be losing.

[benthewraith]

i agree with this on one condition:

Universal agrees to give up its right to prosecute anyone who owns an iPod for piracy.

i.e. if I buy an iPod, then I can pirate Universal's catalogue all I want because I have effectively already paid for their content.

a few bucks is a small price to pay to get access to everything they got

One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law. :p Stress that the same law that applies to cassette tape players and the record function should be the same as downloading music to use on cds (to which they paid for, and to which money is added to CD/DVD sales to make up for pirated music).

[Dicx]

Was trying for a long time to find this article:

http://db.tidbits.com/article/8751

A good story of how Microsoft got screwed into paying the $1. Long story short, because of them not controlling a market for once and not having the largest publisher of music to get tunes from, Universal held MS's feet to the fire and said pay up or forget it.

Good read nonetheless.

[babyj]

This isn't a new story - at least one of the major labels was talking about wanting a payment for every iPod sold prior to the last round of contract deals.

Their reasoning was nothing to do with the blank tape / copied music argument - they said that their music was driving sales of iPods so they deserved a cut of iPod profits from Apple.

How they said it with a straight face I'll never know.

This isn't about getting money to the artists that deserve it, this is all about increasing the profits of the major record labels. They don't give a damn about anything, certainly not their artists, they just care about their own profit.

Though I think their biggest problem is that they have looked in to the future and have realised that it doesn't include them and they are worried. Who needs record labels with digital distribution? How long before a major artist signs a deal directly with a digital shop or distributor and cuts out the record label?

[mrkramer]

I agree with the people here who have said that if this happens they would pirate all of the Music that they wanted from universal. If this happens and I buy a new iPod after that I will just go and pirate the Music that I want since the record labels have already been paid.

[benthewraith]

they said that their music was driving sales of iPods so they deserved a cut of iPod profits from Apple.

What if I don't use my iPod for their crap? What if everything on my iPod was made by independents or music labels independent of the RIAA/MPAA fascists?

[Digitaljim]

So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.

[benthewraith]

I agree with the people here who have said that if this happens they would pirate all of the Music that they wanted from universal. If this happens and I buy a new iPod after that I will just go and pirate the Music that I want since the record labels have already been paid.

You could have a subpoena on you the moment you do (and it would not be an effective defense if you had posts such as these in public forums. Did you know that bots go to forums?).

I just wouldn't buy anything more from Universal. There are plenty of bands in Jacksonville to fill my iPod up (and Yellowcard isn't contracted with Universal! :D).

[pale9]

lets face it. at this point MS can't get anything right, except, maybe the xbox. vista is a joke, the tablet pc a failure, zune a real loser, on and on and on...

but now some of their insane actions will cause harm to others, like simply handing money to universal for every zune sold (which will turn out to be close to nothing anyway), as all labels will now expect to be paid off in this manner. i hope jobs will tell them to shove it if it gets to this point.

[tribulation]

what if i have no artists distributed by universal? if this takes effect then the ipod price will just go up and we all will be paying for it. what makes them think that i am even listening to any of their artists on my ipod and why should they get a cut if i dont >> or even if i do. ridiculous and better not happen.

[Belly-laughs]

I give Universal $1 to compensate for downloading their whole library illegally? Now, that´s a good deal!

[MovieCutter]

**** em, that's all there is to say. And **** anybody who says otherwise.

[iAlan]

I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.

However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.

If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.

Same logic me thinks…

[puckhead193]

well their not getting a dollar from my sale cause i don't plan on buying an ipod for a while :D :rolleyes:

how many ipods does apple sell a year..times a crap load of money

[agentmouthwash]

If this happens, I will proudly use Bit Torrent and pirate all Universal music that I want. Right now I use itunes because the price scheme is perfect. Universal is making a big mistake.

[twoodcc]

Won't happen.

yeah, i hope you're right. just doesn't seem right

[benthewraith]

I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.

However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.

If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.

Same logic me thinks…

It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.

[stephenli]

If this happens, I will proudly use Bit Torrent and pirate all Universal music that I want. Right now I use itunes because the price scheme is perfect. Universal is making a big mistake.

Yes, ppl pay for their music, how come we should also pay them by purchasing an iPod?!
by the way, I still havent purchase any song in iTunes Store under Universal music label....then WHY SHOULD THEY CHARGE IT ON IPOD?!

[orthodoc]

Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?

It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.

Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.

[miketcool]

Something is fishy, very very fishy.

Anyone remember the MS Zune being compared to a 4G iPod on the Today show? Matt Lauer said NBC and MS were business partners as a kind of disclaimer and Roker praised the iPod.

Watch Conan O'Brien. Chuck Norris lever is the giveaway here! NBC owns Universal, right? NBC-UNIVERSAL

So Microsoft says, hey, well pay you "wink wink" and then Universal pulls the rus out from Apple because Microsoft thinks it is in a position to topple Apple by denying them content. There is much more at stake here and someone is realizing Apple's angle.

[SeaFox]

The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).

What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music. They wouldn't be able to sue people for having stolen music on their iPods if this fee is supposed to cover losses from piracy.

[QCassidy352]

"It would be a nice idea."
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.

my thoughts exactly. I think it would be nice if apple should give ME a percentage of the proceeds from every ipod sale, but that doesn't mean I deserve it. :rolleyes: Greedy ****s.

[jordo]

I think we all saw this coming with Microsoft setting Apple up for this with their feeble Zune; I'm not surprised. I mean it is not like Microsoft is actually going to pay up, as they would have to actually sell a unit before they did that, ha!

Universal has it coming if they think that the leading digital media player manufacturer is going to dish out money to them for a product whose production/ingenuity they have nothing to do with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that Sony ever paid $10 to each music company for each CD player they sold. This is like forcing Apple to pay a fee to the manufacturer of my desk because my iBook sits on it. Jobs has no reason to give in. Apple holds 75% of the cards in the US market alone, and if other people want in on the action, they should consider themselves lucky if they are chosen. I smell a boycott...

[ducttape]

So stupid. Not even the Zune players should have to deal with royalties. iTunes is where a lot of people get legal music. Like Universal's. So why should Universal make Apple pay them for a product Apple sells that helps Universal's business anyway? We could go into the debate about illegal Universal music on iPods, but Apple (nor any other company) should be held responsible for how customers 'abuse' their products. That's the customers' problem.

[sachamun]

While I usually don't go for boycotts this time I would make an exception, if this was to go through I'd boycott buying anything from Universal. It wouldn't matter if it was an artist I had listened to for years, I'd simply never buy anything they release from that point on.

I'd boycott Apple ipods too. I wouldn't touch a zune either but...that's for a whole lot of reasons.

[intlplby]

the way i see it, MP3 players have been the single biggest factor in increasing sales of music (as well as song piracy) so in a way the ipod is driving the purchase of CDs, not CDs driving the purchase of iPods

both items feed each other

Music increases iPod sales and iPod sales increase music sales... it's a feedback loop

Universal owes Apple money on the same logic......

[Stridder44]

No guys, this sounds like a great idea....*cough*.....

[mmmcheese]

Anyone who didn't see this coming is a complete idiot...

[notjustjay]

If can prove to the record companies that all the music on my iPod is legitimately sourced, I expect them to send me a refund of this fee.

Seriously, name me ONE other industry where the sales and marketing people blatantly call their customers liars, cheats and thieves, while we just sit there and take it.

[TheBobcat]

The record companies know that their business model is archaic and unnecessary. With computers and MP3, and online stores like iTunes, artists no longer need labels. This is their death rattle trying desperately to make themselves more money as it slips through their fingers.

Besides, artists always have made most of their money from merchandise and tours, the labels are just a middle man that got bypassed by technology. Instead of adapting, they're fighting it, and that's why they will cease to exist in the future.

[joeboy_45101]

It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.

Wow! Where did you ever learn that from the MYASS School of ********! Hey here's an idea, since most of the music these companies produce is mastered and remastered on Mac workstations then why shouldn't Apple be able to come back and get some extra dough off of that. I mean you wouldn't want these record labels making something for nothing, now would you?

[tk421]

I'll just say what I said here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3036851#post3036851) again:

“It’s a major change for the industry,” David Geffen told N.Y. Times reporter Jeff Leeds, who broke the story. “Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material. This way, on top of the material people do pay for, the record companies are getting paid on the devices storing the copied music.”

"This agreement with Microsoft around Zune is a significant milestone for our company and our artists," said Morris in a statement. “This move demonstrates there can be a win-win situation where consumers have a great experience while labels and artists are also fairly compensated. We applaud Microsoft for its innovative and consumer-friendly Zune store and device."

Microsoft Corporate VP of Entertainment & Devices Bryan Lee chimed in: "This is an industry in transition, and we at Zune feel that artists should be paid fairly. The agreement we are announcing today is one of many innovations we plan on introducing to the entertainment industry with our partners and highlights our commitment to growing the digital music space. We believe that the music consumer will appreciate knowing that when they buy a Zune device, they are helping their favorite artists get paid."


It sounds to me like they are saying anyone that buys a digital music player is a thief. They are broadly accusing each of us of stealing from artists. I don't appreciate that, and I think we should all voice our disapproval.

Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000

feedback_fr@vivendi.com

Phone calls are more effective than email, but feel free to do either.

Do we really want the music labels getting a cut of our hardware purchases?!?

[jjthomps]

When is there going to be a tell all book/movie about how the media giants are run like mafias?

Oh yeah, there won't. Nobody wants to sleep with the fishes.

So does this mean that 10 years from now your pianos will come with a $1.00 vend so that you can play a song that may have been produced by Universal, or maybe not produced by them.

These people who don't actually create anything, never lifted a brush, never sang a song, never hammered a nail, have their pale thin hands out for everything and everyway their content can be played. They have their fingers into everything. Look at the way that strores have to pay them off just to play their music over their speakers. Isn't that good old fashion advertising, and the fees should be reversed?

I'm really happy to say that I am not directly involved within such a corrupt industry.

[freebooter]

Just greed, plain and simple.

[kansast]

yea no thanks. i pay for my music anyway. got to support the "band" you know :)

Who's to say that if I buy an iPod that I would ever want to put any of Universal's music on it //

[sehix]

Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams.

Actually, they aren't. They're making noises like it's happening, which isn't the same thing.

So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site,

You might want to take another look at the distribution of the $.99 per track that goes to Apple. Most of it, about 2/3, continues right along to the record company. They're doing quite well, thank you very much.

And most of that stops right there, with very little continuing on to the artist(s).

and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?


They're getting a cut from their property each time it sells; you expect that they should get a cut from someone else's product?

How long have you been working for the industry, now?

It doesn't cost the consumer any more,

Of course it will; it will be factored into the price of the iPod.

why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?


Talk to the labels; they're the ones deciding on how much of the take goes to the artists.

And they're not known for being particularly generous, with a very few notable exceptions.


This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.

And there you are, arguing that the labels should be getting something for nothing.

Think about it.

[stefman]

What kind of ridiculous Mafia tactics are those? This is so stupid, what if I don't buy a single Universal song? Why should they get any money?

:mad:

[jmbear]

1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution

Where are the recording studios in this future? Nowhere. Artists might still need them for promotions, music videos etc... but that is all bells and whistles. You don't even need the studios for a good music video, just look at how famous this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=okZwbxi7p0A) video has become, its even on MTV. It all comes down to the music, and if its good, people will buy it. Artists provide the content, iTMS the distribution. Record labels' presence will be greatly diminished. They are scared to death.

[Lord Blackadder]

It would be a nice idea.

Nice. idea. For whom, you greedy scum? :mad:

**** them and their greed. I shall say no more.

[intlplby]

i would love if the government changed the royalty law to extend only to the artists and not the record companies.....

i.e. "okay, we'll extend the copyright to 50 years or the life of the artist, but the catch is that only the artists gets the royalties"

i'd love to see the big record companies cut out.....

it's totally possible for artists to get more and for us to pay less.....

i'd include the mastering technician in there too.... they are very important as well

[vansouza]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Reuters reports (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-11-28T213349Z_01_N28267036_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-SUMMIT-UNIVERSALMUSIC-IPOD.xml&WTmodLoc=TechNewsHome_C2_technologyNews-1) that Universal Music Group Chief Executive said on Tuesday that they may seek a royalty from Apple for iPod sales:



Universal made news earlier this month (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061109124909.shtml) when it was reported that Microsoft had agreed to pay Universal Music a fee for every new Zune Music Player sold. Music studios, of course, currently get a cut from every song sold, but do not get any percentage of iPod sales.

Perhaps the pencil makers should demand a payment from the pen makers... and if you have a pen and paper you must be copying documents so paper producers should pay book dealers... I could live never buying another Universal song on iTunes... thank you very much Bill Gates... his check to Universal is what may be $900. for all Zunes sold... what a joke...

[jaw04005]

Actually, in the United States we don't pay a "music tax" for blank CD or DVD media. That proposal failed in Congress primarily because CD and DVDs can be used for other purposes (like backing up data). However, the RIAA managed to get a tax on DAT tapes.

I believe that UK also struck down a similar music tax on CD and DVD media.

Many of the major CD and DVD manufacturers introduced the specially-labeled "audio cd" which costs more, and a percentage of those sales go to the recording industry. However, there are no differences between the two types of media.

Why should we care? Because if taxes (or royalties) are imposed, common sense will tell you that Apple will adjust their prices (or price drops) to reflect those additional costs. Simple economics.

[mattpol]

Where are the recording studios in this future? Nowhere. Artists might still need them for promotions, music videos etc... but that is all bells and whistles. You don't even need the studios for a good music video, just look at how famous this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=okZwbxi7p0A) video has become, its even on MTV. It all comes down to the music, and if its good, people will buy it. Artists provide the content, iTMS the distribution. Record labels' presence will be greatly diminished. They are scared to death.

Great argument, except that OK Go are signed to a major label, Capitol Records, only one of the most histroically great labels!! Please see: The Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Nat King Cole, etc.)! :rolleyes: YouTube doesn't sell music; just look at OK Go's numbers, they are mediocre at best. One hugely popular viral video is not going to move that many CDs.

Also, as an aside, they are not "recording studios," they are "recording labels," or more commonly, "record labels."

[Billicus]

Jeez... I don't think it will happen. The music companies need to keep their grubby fingers off the iPod. :mad:

[SPUY767]

Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?

It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.


Just so you know, flame bait is almost always ignored. So don't bother.

[bousozoku]

I would assume that Microsoft agreed to pay Universal just because it could cause Apple problems, not because they felt any need to pay.

Universal tried to sue Sony back in the 1970s over videocassette recorders. They were somewhat successful in scaring people from buying Sony VCRs, even though they weren't really successful in court.

I can't see as how they'll be pushing Apple too far. It seems every day, Universal and its subsidiaries lose ground to competitors.

[bluedevil14]

This is ridiculous. The record companies are obsessed with money. They didnt seek royalties on CD players but iPods are somehow different. They are MUSIC PLAYERS. They record industry should have no part in music hardware, its just ridiculous.:mad:

[PODshady]

I think they'll be a long way off getting money from every iPod sold. For a start its such an illogical thing to ask for (Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope), plus I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.

If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...

I agree

[brepublican]

This is ridiculous. The record companies are obsessed with money. They didnt seek royalties on CD players but iPods are somehow different. They are MUSIC PLAYERS. They record industry should have no part in music hardware, its just ridiculous.:mad:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesnt understand why they would want money for every iPod sold. Is this how Microsoft plans to "kill" the iPod with their Zune? By distorting the mp3 market with such kind of BS :mad:

Idiots

[puuukeey]

https://home.comcast.net/~puuukeey/evil2.gif

[Porco]

The full article is very funny.



"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.

"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.


"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?

And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.

As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.

Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.

So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.

If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.

Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.

[donlphi]

Reuters reports that North American Beef Congress (http://www.northamericanbeefcongress.com/) Chief Executive said on Tuesday that they may seek a royalty from Best Ceramic Houseware Co., Ltd. (http://bestceramic.en.alibaba.com/) Ceramic Plate sales:

"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way,"

NABC made this decision earlier this month when it was reported that Microsoft had agreed to pay Universal Music a fee for every new Zune Music Player sold. Cattle farmers, of course, currently get a cut from every head of beef sold, but do not get any percentage of plate or silverware sales (which of course is necessary to eat beef).

:mad:

[kresh]

If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net. I would no longer buy anything from iTS that is Universal!

Wow, is the Music label the same as the Movie label. I could get all the movies too (to play on my iPod)!

I mean if the royalties are paid when the device is manufactured, there is no need for them to double dip and collect royalties again when I pay for content right? I think it would hold in court!

[Spagolli94]

I was just reading some of the Zune comments on Amazon. Wow. Sounds like a really GREEEEAAAAT product.

[intlplby]

i'd love to see this work as a defense in court, but it'd never happen

[Midirose]

Here is another little tid bit about Universal Music you may not be aware of. The original MP3.com was bought out by Universal Music a few years back. Prior to Universal, MP3.com was privately owned and had music from thousands of indie artist from around the world and no major label artist. You could listen to the artist music for free, but you could also purchase their music for download or actual CD. There was a lot of really awful music there but there was a lot of very good music there also. Some unsigned artist sold thousands of CD around the world like my band. After Universal bought MP3.com they destroyed the catalog even though the original owner offered to purchase it. Economics would lead me to think that Universal believed that the millions of indie songs sold on MP3.com was a direct threat to them not meeting their year over year projections, and it was. Get rid of the competition and get money for nothing.........sounds like big business trying to please their share holders. It is no wonder that our culture is going to hel#, when fair play and morals give way to profits. And yes most labels are pimps and you know who their hoes are.......our favorite artists. I hope Apple does not cave to this type of extortion!!!

[roland.g]

Do CD player and tape deck and car stereo companies pay music studios for every piece of their equipment sold? What about computers which can play the CDs and downloaded songs?

Do they pay Apple and Microsoft to subsidize the R&D costs for each generation of the players that they put out and develop each generation of the music software or player software updates? Do they pay Apple to help the cost of running the ITMS when they still take the lion share of the price per song?

W
H
A
T
E
V
E
R

[dougny]

Universal has already stated that half of the money will be going to the artists.

[Billy Boo Bob]

1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution

See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.

The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.

Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.

Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.

In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.

[donlphi]

Universal has already stated that half of the money will be going to the artists.

YEAH RIGHT... here you go EMINEM... here is your .00000000000000017 of a cent you get for this ZUNE. Just trying to share the wealth with ALL THE ARTISTS. Those artists will never see that money. PLEASE. HOW naive could you be?

Microsoft's lack of backbone is going to make us all pay... wait and see.

[heyjp]

I think having Apple (which of course gets passed on to us users) paying a royalty per iPod is a no-brainer, let's do it!!! The logic is that people are playing illegal copies of Universal Studios songs, therefore, Apple should pay a royalty for every iPod to cover.

So, Apple, pay the royalty, which should logically imply that there is no need to EVER buy music from Universal since the royalty is now covered.

HEY UNIVERSAL... can't have your cake and eat it too.

jp

[Erasmus]

So, this proposed cost is to counter profit losses due to piracy?

Well... If that's so, we all know what we must do if this occurs...

PIRATE PIRATE PIRATE!!!

:)

And pirate Microsoft products because they made this happen... Wait... We were all already doing that, so... Pirate More? I dunno.

The music industry is just desperate because they know that they won't be around much longer. Once big music groups start putting their songs straight on iTMS instead of going through big companies like Universal, well they are screwed, and everyone else wins.

Then again, you could look at it this way... Universal is becoming redundant, and they want their redundancy payment, as we all would.

[tumblebird]

That Doug Morris is a slimeball. Who's to say I even own any Universal music. I listen to Indie, primarily. I buy all my music, most of it on CD which I digitize, or via the iTunes Music Store. Who is Universal to demand my dollar? Or three for that matter, one for each iPod I have purchased. There are a lot of labels out there. They can't all get a portion. Apple owes them NOTHING. Did they get music from Sony for the Walkman? How many of us listened to mix tapes from friends on those? I know that most of my tapes were mixes from records and CDs. Universal is off base and greedy. Don't let this happen, Mr. Steve Jobs! You're in the right.

[rock6079]

universal and the whole riaa are so damn greedy. it all just makes me want to start downloading tons and tons of music in spite.

they cant seem to understand the concept the business is rapidly changing and evolving and they have to accept the future and find new innovative ways to sell and obtain revenues rather than sueing people and feeding off the success of others.

this is proof of what happens when ustand still for too long in the business world

[Metatron]

Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?

It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.

You my friend, sound like a socialist...

[FelixGV]

Aren't you tired of companies trying to have it their way? Here's what we, as consumers, should do, if that stupid policy happened:

We should create a website, where iPod buyers could subscribe by providing a proof of their iPod purchase. The website would then declare that until Universal pays back what they have taken from every member, those members will steal Universal's music instead of buying it off of the iTS. That's what the tax is there for, right?

Sweet deal! We now have the moral justification to download all of Universal's music for 1 buck. Bring it on!

[mmmcheese]

Universal has already stated that half of the money will be going to the artists.

Do you work for Universal, or the RIAA?

[iMikeT]

Stupid Microsoft!:mad:

[notjustjay]

i would love if the government changed the royalty law to extend only to the artists and not the record companies.....


Not only would I support this, I would GLADLY pay an "iPod levy" if somehow it was guaranteed to land in the pockets of the artists who I listened to.

It's corporate greed that I refuse to bow down to.

[sachamun]

In the words of Tony Montana...

"Shu know wha' Capitalism is? Ge' *********"

http://www.blknblu.com/voxart/lts/img/tony3.gif

[kupua]

No way Jose...hahahahahahahaha

How much did they invest in the development in the iPod. Yah right just as I though, zip. If MS is that stupid, it just shows what leverage they have on the market for their Zune

[ifjake]

here's my 2¢ without reading the rest of the thread:
maybe if they set aside the funds for cultivating new, compellingly good music from upandcoming artists. kinda like how the big movie studios own independent-esque branches. something nice. something a little more risky than your usual cookie-cutter pop-hit. i dunno maybe that's already there sort of. maybe.

[donlphi]

I teach high school kids and I hear them talk about stuff all the time. I know one thing for sure, if kids can't find what they want on iTUNES, they will download it illegally. My thoughts are, if a record company doesn't want to sell their music at iTunes, it's their loss at this point. They could sell some or none. If it isn't available at iTunes, then people only have a few other options.

1. Buy the CD at a retail store (if there is one nearby and stock is available)
2. Go without completely
3. Download a copy from ____________ (fill in the blank)

If I spend $300 on a media player, I will (as will others) find a way to get any music on there.

I don't see Apple giving in unless they TRULY feel the record companies are deserving... which they are not.

[donlphi]

I also wanted to add... go onto UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP (http://new.umusic.com/flash.aspx) and see how many groups you would be missing if ITUNES didn't offer Universal.

If you need "98 DEGREES" on your iPOD, then you better start freaking out...

Otherwise, don't sweat it. Universal has nothing to threaten Apple with. No worries here.

[mahonmeister]

Heeeeeeell Nooooooo.

Eat my shorts Universal.

[wnurse]

I can't wait until Steve laughs in their faces. Who the hell do these guys think they are?

Hmm, the people that can tell apple to go screw themselves and take their music of itunes, that's who. One studio threatening to ask for a piece of ipods is not as threatening if they all do... what you gonna do, not buy music at all?.. of course you will buy music. You'll curse the studios but you'll buy music (and if not you, mom and pop will still buy music even if not available on itunes).

Wil universal get what they want?.. Apple is not totally powerless in this potential negotiation but i doubt steve has the power to laugh in their faces. Apple does not make music, it sells it. A seller can hardly laugh in the face of the producer of goods (or the gatekeeper of those goods). Want proof?.. walmart vs apple. Apple makes ipods.. Walmart refused to deal with apple the way apple wanted.. guess who lost in that battle.. walmart of course.. they are merely a seller, apple is the gatekeeper of ipods. The same is with the music studios.. apple is a seller, music companies are the gatekeepers. They can dictate who can and can't sell their music and while every corporation is motivated by profits.. they can always take their music and go home. Sure they lose but so does apple or they can make their music exclusively available only on microsoft service. You might not buy the music but you aren't 300 miliion americans. I gurantee apple does not want to be sitting by idly watching microsoft steal a market they grew. Naw, steve is not laughing in anyone's face.

[mgargan1]

anyone remember this show?

[JoeG4]

In other news: universal thinks they're god.

[princealfie]

******* Universal. May the b****** lose foreva.

[princealfie]

You my friend, sound like a socialist...

I'm a Poststructuralistmarxist so perhaps that will help you guys out :cool:

[Backup15andpunt]

Here an idea. Have Apple buy Universal. Then Microsoft and pay Apple for every Zune it sells. Of course the government might frown on this kind of purchase.

[elgruga]

If Universal get cash as 'compensation' for stolen music, then presumably once you have paid the 'compensation' money, you can steal as much music as you like. Cool.

Apple doesnt really sell music - it sells iPods and offers the music at cost (or close to it) to support the iPod. Its a smart move , and its a pity that almost ALL of the iTunes cash goes direct to the record companies.

I used to work in the music biz, and a bigger bunch of thieving clowns you have yet to meet.
Most artists get 6-8% of the CD sales. Yes folks thats a big fifty cents or so on an average CD sale.
But because they give you an advance against royalties, which you spend on recording and PR etc. etc, only the very successful (a huge 0.5% of bands) ever make any money. Its a losing gamble and it turns music into a commodity - which it shouldnt be.

This battle will run for a while yet, but there is hope that the DEMISE of record companies is on the horizon.
With computer recording etc., its not necessary to get a record deal - good music does exist outside of the music industry machine.
Maybe Micro$oft will implode too - the zune fiasco suggests that they are up their own arses as far as common sense goes.....

[sirgant]

What on earth are these people at music studio's thinking!!! Did they get royalties for every stereo sold? NO, so neither should they get anything for iPod or any hardware sales. Only for the products THEY supply, should they get money, being the music and movies/ video's, in other words the content.
This is typical behaviour of music studio's and I sincerely hope that Apple will not budge, nor should any other company. Of course MS is eager to pay as they need their Zune to succeed, and Universal is riding along for a slice of the pie, but who will loose out in the end is the consumer, as these royalties are eventually going to get calculated such that we will pay them......
We should all start protesting all record companies to clean up their act, in the mean time, the general consumer should to, copying of music is stealing, the prices on iTunes are fair and reasonable, so lets be nice and buy them properly, and the record companies can then make sure there is more for us to buy (some real refreshing new music would be nice, instead of all this "X factor, American idol, etc etc manufactured stuff....) , and not just fill their pockets as they are trying to do all the time

It's not music studios, but record companies, they are not the same entities.

A couple of things to clarify. I am actually a producer, who has a pre-existing deal with MCA/Universal Music Publishers.

1. Doug Morris, Chairman of Universal is a greedy bastard, who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him.

2. Artists, Songwriters & Producers are already getting screwed by major labels, not accounting properly, holding millions of dollars, using creative accounting practices etc.

3. The percentage breakdown with ITMS and labels is basically 65/35 as it is rounded off to the 100 in favor of the labels.

4. The real culprit here is Microsoft, who is whoring out Zunes in order to get a foothold on the marketplace. Consumers can speak with their pocketbooks, don't buy the crappy Zune players, but support your artists & songwriters who make a living off of sales, by purchasing music.

Thanks

[artistry]

I can't see this standing up in the EU - it would be knocked down at first attempt in the European Court I'm sure.
Whatever, if someone with no Universal Music on their iPod wants to I bet they'd be able to cause a stink by asking for the 'tax' back.

I'm surprised no one's sued Universal for libel since the 'all iPod owners are thieves' thing.

[pixelpp]

I heard about this.
This garbage is making me furious.
Microsoft, get your butt out of the music business, you're lame, so very lame.

[MacBoobsPro]

Apple should ask for royalties for every song Universal produce! :D

Or just drop Universal.

[bonehead]

Wil universal get what they want?.. Apple is not totally powerless in this potential negotiation but i doubt steve has the power to laugh in their faces. Apple does not make music, it sells it. A seller can hardly laugh in the face of the producer of goods (or the gatekeeper of those goods). Want proof?.. walmart vs apple. Apple makes ipods.. Walmart refused to deal with apple the way apple wanted.. guess who lost in that battle.. walmart of course.. they are merely a seller, apple is the gatekeeper of ipods. The same is with the music studios.. apple is a seller, music companies are the gatekeepers. They can dictate who can and can't sell their music and while every corporation is motivated by profits.. they can always take their music and go home. Sure they lose but so does apple or they can make their music exclusively available only on microsoft service. You might not buy the music but you aren't 300 miliion americans. I gurantee apple does not want to be sitting by idly watching microsoft steal a market they grew. Naw, steve is not laughing in anyone's face.

Any record company is free to make their music exclusively available on a service that is incompatible with 75% of the mp3 players owned by those 300 million Americans but I don't think many will.

[dernhelm]

dang it microsoft.

Don't curse Microsoft. They're just doing what they've always done - try to screw over anyone they see as a threat. They can't defeat Apple, but they can screw up the market so bad that it won't matter if Apple is king of the hill.

Curse the idiots that buy the Zune without even knowing what they are doing. Better yet, pass the word. This isn't about the Zune being a nice device or not, this is about the DRM in the thing, and the tax you pay to the music companies even if you don't buy any of their songs.

In the end, the Zune will fail, because it is big, expensive, and has DRM that isn't compatible with anything anyone has ever bought before anywhere. It isn't even Vista compatible yet! But this isn't about the Zune being successful, and I'm beginning to think it never was. The Zune is more about Microsoft trying to throw a wrench into the music download industry - and if it can make Apple less profitable by doing so, then so much the better.

[EagerDragon]

Just tell them that they are getting the same deal they had before, or they can sell their music elsewhere. Apple is not a new comer to the industry like Microsoft.

Standard response from the music industry, "Our customers are thieves, and have iPods full of illigal music". Tell them to Stick it where .......

[Old Smuggler]

i think this would be even more incentive for apple to roll out the video ipod so it would be marketed as a video player and not a music player
thus evading the fees

on a side note whos not to say that every one has record labels on their ipod some may use it as an external harddrive or musicians may have their own homemade songs on it

[matticus008]

One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.

What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.

You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.

If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...

Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.

[BoyBach]

My initial reservations about this story (the Zune/Universal payment) was much like eveybody's elses on these forums - very bad for us and screw 'em. But now that I've had time to think it through I actually think it's a fantastic idea.

Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.

Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.

Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.


D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!

[j26]

Apple has sold what, 70m (ish) iPods since launch. What's it running at now about 10 a year? That's about $10m in revenue Universal could get a year.

If they walk they are losing a share in over 1bn songs translating to a whatever share they can get (say 10%), which would translate to $65m in revenue (2/3 of 10% of 1bn)**

Universal would be killing the golden goose if they were to try to force Apples hand, and Apple said "feck off then and take yer ***** music with ye"

Apple on the other hand only stand to lose maybe $4-5m.


** the assumptions may be way off, but it's illustrative anyway. Feel free to correct the numbers

[j26]

My initial reservations about this story (the Zune/Universal payment) was much like eveybody's elses on these forums - very bad for us and screw 'em. But now that I've had time to think it through I actually think it's a fantastic idea.

Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.

Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.

Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.


D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!

But do you really think a court will decide that way. Not likely, especially if it's a judge from the wealth maximisation school of thought.

[EGT]

I was waiting for this to happen. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. (Go Steve!)

Bloody Universal. :rolleyes:

[BoyBach]

But do you really think a court will decide that way. Not likely, especially if it's a judge from the wealth maximisation school of thought.


It would be an interesting case, and yes, it is possible.

[matticus008]

It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune.
Only if all the lawyers and judges in the room are asleep at the wheel, and even then only if that mass narcolepsy extends to all appellate and supreme courts above that one for the several months it would take to shut down any of the major labels.

It would be an interesting case, and yes, it is possible.
So is teleporation, but I'm not camping out in any lines.

[rxse7en]

Time for Apple to change the paradigm again. I think it's time for Apple to start putting together a music production house. Offer musicians the ability to go direct to iTunes with all the marketing necessary to promote their catalogs. I'm not very familiar with the music industry, but I "think" Apple is quite prepared to create their own studios, handle their own promotion/marketing and already have a HIGHLY efficient distribution system in place. Granted, they are not supposed to be creating music according to their Apple Music agreement, but if they just bought Apple Music outright it would make a great fit, eh?

B

[orkle]

The iTunes Store wouldn't be where it is today if Universal Music hadn't been so forthcoming with getting their catalogue on there.

[misterniall]

Perhaps we should all get a rebate for every crappy album ever released by Universal. I really want some of the stuff that these record execs are smoking, on top law suits and strong arm tactics now they expect to get money from every iPod not because the have provided any service or contributed in anyway to the product. Rather, they just want it. Hell, who doesn't ... I would also like to get in on this deal. Please Apple/Microsoft/SanDisk I would like to get $0.50 for every unit you sell. Sign me up. I think it is time that artists really evaluated the balance of power. I think it is time that artists should reevaluate the distrubution of wealth in the recording industry. Perhaps that lost money isn't due to pirating like the execs want you to think.

Free money always welcome.

[dernhelm]

Perhaps that lost money isn't due to pirating like the execs want you to think.

Sure it is. Its just that the everyday Joe isn't the pirate, the music distribution executives are. And there's only room for one pirate ship in this industry.

[bilbo--baggins]

When Apple have done so much to counter piracy (introducing legal paid-for downloads, music files that cannot be re-distributed freely, generally raising awareness that music piracy is illegal) I hope that they aren't dooped into agreeing a royalty fee on iPods.

Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.

There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.

[antdfsc]

Do they get money from every CD player sold? This is lame, I dont see why Apple should share their profits with any music company just because Microsoft was dumb enough to do it... If they let one company make money off of it, whats to stop the rest from wanting a cut?

[boringName]

Appologies if this has already been brought up, but there were too many posts to read...

I believe that this is/was the deal in Canada for every hard drive and blank CD purchased (along with other recordable media). read more (http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol2/a016Fkiaras.html)

I question any law/contract of this type on several grounds:
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".

[djchristie]

Surely if they want a cut of mp3 players they should also have a cut of:

Hard drive sales in general (my computer has more music on thatn my iPod)
Mobile phones that can play mp3's
PSP's
cd players and hifi's that play mp3 cd's
any SD, memory stick, flash drive etc that could be used to store alleged stolen music.....

the list goes on.

Hope steve, and everyone else, tells them where to go.

[e-coli]

Ha! I can't WAIT until they sit down to Apple's board and put that proposition on the table.

I haven't bought a piece of major-label music in years (because it's mostly crap), but my guess is Steve is going to absolutely go nuts, then tell them to bugger off and create their own media device.

[Dunepilot]

Stopping short of a foul-mouthed tirade against Universal and the other majors ... just.

Vinyl and FairplayAAC only for me these days. Screw these jokers.

[mhagerman]

maybe this was the real reason that MS made the Zune.. just so they could set the standard for future Universal deals. I don't see it doing anything else, other than squirting...

I don't think Universal realizes how many people don't pirate music. On the other hand, I don't think they understand how ridiculously easy it would be for everyone who actually pays for music to go download it illegally and then some. They will end up losing far more than they gain with this one if it's implicated.

[bigandy]

Universal can want all they want.

Steve ain't giving up $10 to $16 million a quarter to some music bully.

My thoughts exactly. Apple would laugh this out of the building.

[Koadoc]

Just goes to show you how corrupt the music business really is!:mad:

[matticus008]

I question any law/contract of this type on several grounds:
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
It depends on the system in place. In Canada, I believe the proceeds are turned over to the CRIA which is then responsible for distribution to its members through a process of their own selection (and not legally specified).

2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
Again, it's up to the labels to decide. Once they get their cut from the CRIA, the label controls distribution within its internal channels. More popular artists on that label probably get a bigger cut than niche artists, but more importantly, individual artists likely never see much in the way of proceeds from this.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
No. Most importantly, the royalty does not create a stipulation, or even a fiduciary relationship between you, the customer, and the CRIA. The exchange is between the company (Apple, RCA, Samsung, Microsoft, etc.) and the industry consortium.

Even setting that aside, you have no record of a transaction taking place at all. You can't claim to have paid royalties and have received nothing in return granting you any rights (one way to fight this is to demand that a given label supply you with a written document). Absent consideration, all you've essentially done is paid money for nothing--you didn't send the label a contract with your dollar (and you can't, since you're not paying them the dollar anyway, you'd be paying Apple). Your contribution isn't so much because you're pirating music, but because you could be. It's like putting down a deposit, having to pay insurance, or having a membership in a book club. You pay money, but that's not the end of the transaction. The only thing this royalty grants you is a tacit guarantee that Universal will continue to provide digital content.

[nplima]

What Universal really wants is someone to sue them for slander. Stating in public that all iPod owners are thieves is rude to say the least. I bet that if I had similar public attention and went on to say that all RIAA members are mobsters, I'd be in trouble.

[orkle]

Just goes to show you how corrupt the music business really is!:mad:

And how little the average user actually knows about it.

[rickag]

This is a dangerous game Universal is playing. If Apple refuses and Universal pulls their songs, who wins?

How many of the artists might bolt from Universal, how many might become indie producers online?

Will consumers abandon the iPod? Especially considering most of the music on their iPods is from ripped CDs. Or if you're to believe the record executives it is stolen music? Where's the incentive for the consumer to abandon the iPod?

just saying

[princealfie]

EMUSIC wins! :) ;)

All indie music and sweet. I find it more convincing in price structure than iTunes too!

[princealfie]

2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
3

Well, we should base it on quality then. Since Jay-Z sucks compared to Isaac Stern or Yo-Yo Ma, shouldn't Ma be a millionaire?

Hmm... we need an official rating system to compensate artists that way. So that Paris Hell-ton never signs another record deal.

[dougny]

Do you work for Universal, or the RIAA?

No actually, I represent recording artists, songwriters and producers. I am on the other side usually trying to fight the labels for every nickle an artist can try to get. However, because of that, I am on the same page with them in trying to get my artists and writers compensated from a digital marketplace that only pays for a small percentage of the material transferred. My artists only get paid for between 10 - 20% of the digital material out there (the rest pirated), so, anywhere we can get some income, even if through this flawed iPod royalty, I support.

I am just sick of people who think that they have a right to free music. Why don't you all think you have a right to free computers, or free software. How dare Apple charge you for iLife?

If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.

[princealfie]

Time for Apple to change the paradigm again. I think it's time for Apple to start putting together a music production house. Offer musicians the ability to go direct to iTunes with all the marketing necessary to promote their catalogs. I'm not very familiar with the music industry, but I "think" Apple is quite prepared to create their own studios, handle their own promotion/marketing and already have a HIGHLY efficient distribution system in place. Granted, they are not supposed to be creating music according to their Apple Music agreement, but if they just bought Apple Music outright it would make a great fit, eh?

B

Perhaps we need to have a iTube website eh?

[edeloso]

It would be a nice idea, if people would just give me $1 for talking to them.

[KipCoon]

Lame. As if they aren't gettign enough money as it is. And as someone else said, they just exposed their stance on the subject. So it's not going to happen.

[dougny]

Lame. As if they aren't gettign enough money as it is.

They aren't. The entire music business revenues are down 40% since 2001. Sales are down hugely. I can tell you from representing these artists that all the money is down too.

Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?

[princealfie]

No actually, I represent recording artists, songwriters and producers. I am on the other side usually trying to fight the labels for every nickle an artist can try to get.

Really? Or the music execs. People often think that they are supporting the artists when they are basically shafting them instead.

In fact, the same way like art dealers too. I have seen the best galleries ream their clients like there is no tomorrow.

We have good reason to be suspect indeed. The mediator often is the kingpin for the troubles to begin with.

[notjustjay]

If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.

You're welcome to audit my iPod. I guarantee you'll find nothing but legal tunes.

Given your stance, I wonder how you feel about public libraries offering whole collections of CDs for patrons to "borrow". I think we all know what (many, not all) people are really doing with those CDs when they borrow them. Shouldn't we be doing something about these public institutions turning a blind eye to what is essentially sanctioned piracy?

[princealfie]

They aren't. The entire music business revenues are down 40% since 2001. Sales are down hugely. I can tell you from representing these artists that all the money is down too.

Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?

Of course not. Most of the music sucks to be honest nowadays. I prefer the underground stuff from emusic, not big label stuff.

For example, Jay-Z's new album sucks compared to Reasonable Doubt.
The same with Nas nowadays compared to Illmatic.
The same with Mobb Deep.
etc. etc.

Get the picture? Artists who are hungry in the beginning put out a good album. Then they fall off the earth.

It's only the music industry that is losing quality. The only album this year that's from a major label that's any good this year is DJ Primo's production on Christina Aguilera's album and that's it period.

Sad, isn't it?

[princealfie]

You're welcome to audit my iPod. I guarantee you'll find nothing but legal tunes.

Given your stance, I wonder how you feel about public libraries offering whole collections of CDs for patrons to "borrow". I think we all know what (many, not all) people are really doing with those CDs when they borrow them. Shouldn't we be doing something about these public institutions turning a blind eye to what is essentially sanctioned piracy?

It is not piracy. We pay state taxes to support the library, so there! :mad:

[dougny]

Given your stance, I wonder how you feel about public libraries offering whole collections of CDs for patrons to "borrow". I think we all know what (many, not all) people are really doing with those CDs when they borrow them. Shouldn't we be doing something about these public institutions turning a blind eye to what is essentially sanctioned piracy?

Yes, I think those copies should be copy-protected.

[j26]

You're welcome to audit my iPod. I guarantee you'll find nothing but legal tunes.

Given your stance, I wonder how you feel about public libraries offering whole collections of CDs for patrons to "borrow". I think we all know what (many, not all) people are really doing with those CDs when they borrow them. Shouldn't we be doing something about these public institutions turning a blind eye to what is essentially sanctioned piracy?

Put all of 'em on a Zune and "Squirt" 'em to borrowers?

[Buschmaster]

No thanks.

I pay for my music.
Oh, according to them, you must have a Zune. Because everyone who doesn't use a Zune steals music.

This news makes me want to go steal Universal junk I don't even like.

[mozmac]

Dirty mother farters. How dare you try to claim a share of the music players. You see, they do more than just music. Would if someone bought one without putting any music on it!

[Eraserhead]

This news makes me want to go steal Universal junk I don't even like.

Same here, paying a levy on iPod's is like paying one on Hard drives as many of them contain copyrighted material, except they could never do that as the business world would go insane if they had to pay a levy to the music industry.

[princealfie]

Same here, paying a levy on iPod's is like paying one on Hard drives as many of them contain copyrighted material, except they could never do that as the business world would go insane if they had to pay a levy to the music industry.

Anyone interested in creating an Universal blacklist of albums then?

[Stella]

Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?



Definitely not! Because a lot of music is pure crap. Simple. I'm not spending $1 on music I don't like.

Dump the manufactured bands and the quality may rise again.

Universal already get payments from blank CDs et al - there is no need for them to start getting payments per iPod sold. Pure utter greed.

Apple could argue by having the iPod on sale, it is Apple who are in fact driving music sales. However, I would NOT like Apple to start having a cut of music company profits. That would be wrong too.

[ziwi]

Just nuts - this would be a real bummer if it went through. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[tralala]

I only registered to respond to this idiot "dougny". I usually just lurk and read what everyone else has to say on here.

You have no clue what your talking about, all your statistics are wrong and I feel really sorry for whatever artists you represent.
Your a f_ck_ng moran.


Anyway, to everyone else....
Here is the deal. The money Universal got Microsoft never EVER touched the hands of any artists.. it went straight into some very deep pockets. This is exactly what is going to happen with Apple's loot if this little deal goes through.

Total revenues in the MI (music industry) have actually been UP, and consistently so. More people are going to concerts than ever before, download sales are so large that they are numbing, and BEST OF ALL indie labels are thriving. Yes, people do still buy CD's, and DVD's.

[princealfie]

http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000516.php

[boringName]

The only thing this royalty grants you is a tacit guarantee that Universal will continue to provide digital content.

Yes, that's the irritating part - Universal isn't providing anyone with anything, here. It seems much more like blackmail to continue offering their music library on iTunes (should this "deal" go through) and the Zune store.

To address another item - I'd like to point out that, while not an angel, I "ripped" far more of my friends' music back in the old-days of cassette tapes.

[tumblebird]

Anyone interested in creating an Universal blacklist of albums then?

YES AND YES... oh, wait, I don't listen to any of their artists. But YES anyways. Has anyone bought a domain name yet?

[starflyer]

WAIT! WAIT!

This could be a good thing!

I would pay a dollar to fill up my new iPod with music. :D

"These [digital music player] devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it," Morris was quoted as saying at the time. "So it's time to get paid for it.

[mlrproducts]

I think it is a Great idea!!!

Apple will give Universal $1 from every iPod sold, since the iPod is used to store stolen Universal tracks.

In turn, Universal will give Apple $5 from every overpriced CD sold because they're only buying that CD so they can rip it into iTunes/iPod ecosystem.

[KipCoon]

They aren't. The entire music business revenues are down 40% since 2001. Sales are down hugely. I can tell you from representing these artists that all the money is down too.

Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?

Actually, moreso, as I've been picking up more small time bands and getting legal copies of my older stuff pre-iPod ownership.

But honestly, like many have said, most of the new stuff out sucks.

[gauriemma]

Sounds like Universal is realizing that their anticipated cash influx they were hoping to see from Zune sales isn't going to materialize, so they're looking to leech off a player that will actually be AROUND in 2007.

[gkarris]

In the 70's:

Universal makes "Battlestar Galactica", and "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century", fun Sci-Fi shows.

In the 90's and early 00's:

USA Networks launches the Scifi Channel. They get great shows such as "Stargate SG-1" and "Farscape". USA Network has some great shows as well, "Monk", "The Dead Zone", "Peacemakers"

That was then....

This is now...

NBC has nothing but crap and gets jeleous of cable networks such as USA.

NBC/Universal buys USA Networks.

NBC/Universal cancels the last season of "Farscape", and the new western, "Peacemakers". They attempt to cancel "Monk" and "The Dead Zone", but to no avail. They also attempt to cancel "Stargate SG-1" and replace it with "Stargate Atlantis", this fails too.

NBC/Universal "retells" "Battlestar Galactica" - sorry, it's all about skin and a drunk Col. Tigh - junk.

NBC/Universal now is "cleaning up" the Scifi Channel by putting on on its own shows, "Eureka" (it is good though).

NBC/Universal is cancelling "Stargate SG-1", at a con, one of its actors did mention that "Universal did let it go on for another 5 seasons".

NBC/Universal's #1 show on the Sci-Fi channel is Wrestling....

Universal is good for what again???

(note: I might have my timing off, like the Farscape cancellation, but I think Scifi might have seen it coming with that series cancellation).

[starflyer]

most of the new stuff out sucks.

I agree. I am SICK AND TIRED of the music industry blaming lack of sales on piracy! Piracy is actually down from what it was a couple years ago but they still claim profits are worse now than ever.

Maybe if they didnt put out the same cookie-cutter bands year after year, album after album, put out albums with 9 good tracks instead on 1 good one with 15 filler pieces of crap sales might improve!

my $0.02

[tk421]

If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.

I guess I understand this. We all pay a little more on purchases to make up for shoplifting. But all of my music is legal, and I think this is a very bad move.

As others have pointed out, I doubt any of this money will actually end up in the hands of artists. And who decides which artists? And what about smaller labels? Nobody will be compensating them. My brother is unsigned. Who will pay him for the illegal copies of his music that I know exist? It seems to me, the artists getting the money (if any do) will be the ones that already sell the most and therefore are struggling the least.

To be clear, I strongly oppose stealing music. I also strongly oppose calling all music listeners thieves and charging us all for it. And I'm all for the blacklist, and I'll gladly tell Universal I'm through with their music!

Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000

feedback_fr@vivendi.com

[whatever]

So they say.... :rolleyes:

Yes, Microsoft went to Universal, because Universal refused to allow their music to be added to the Microsoft Marketplace. Microsoft then offered the dollar to other companies.

Boycotting Universal and these companies is not the answer.

I recommend that we buy more music from the iTunes Music store and when it comes time for the new iTunes contract, Jobs will be able to present the numbers and then threaten to walk away from the table (I hate to call this the Walmart model, but when you selling more product than anyone else, you'll have to play ball). The industry will not risk losing a growing revenue strain.

There are currently over 67 million iPods out there. The music industry's accountants (notice that I specify their accountants) are not that stupid. They now that if 10% of those people buy one .99 song from iTunes a year, they'll make more money than they would if they imposed a $1.00 tax on every new media device sold.

And those are the numbers that Apple will present to them.

[hayesk]

If Universal gets a royalty from every iPod, then I will help myself to Universal's music library. After all, isn't that what the fee is for?

[Dunepilot]

No actually, I represent recording artists, songwriters and producers. I am on the other side usually trying to fight the labels for every nickle an artist can try to get. However, because of that, I am on the same page with them in trying to get my artists and writers compensated from a digital marketplace that only pays for a small percentage of the material transferred. My artists only get paid for between 10 - 20% of the digital material out there (the rest pirated), so, anywhere we can get some income, even if through this flawed iPod royalty, I support.

I am just sick of people who think that they have a right to free music. Why don't you all think you have a right to free computers, or free software. How dare Apple charge you for iLife?

If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.

I suspect you may be trolling, but this is the most moronic statement I've seen on a board for some time now.

If you actually knew anything about the ethos of MacRumors and its forums, you'd know that people who post here are quite vehemently anti-piracy. What's the betting you actually work for Universal or Microsoft and are being paid to post this nonsense? Pretty likely, I'd say.

Oh yeah - for anyone who thinks most music these days sucks, you're just looking in the wrong place. Major labels ceased to produce anything of worth quite some time ago. Dig a little deeper and there's a wealth of wonderful music being made right now (and over the last 10 years specifically).

[Unspeaked]

To those saying they'll boycott, I'd just like to point out...

...Universal is by far the largest record label in the world, and those of you that say you don't listen to anyone of their artists might need to dig deeper into their subsidiaries, as just a few of the musicians in their stable are:


The Carpenters
Jimi Hendrix
Nikelback
Carole King
Andrea Bocell
Four Tops
Lionel Richie
Cat Stevens
The Jackson 5
The Andrews Sisters
Cradle of Filth
HIM
The Temptations
Diana Ross
Scissor Sisters
Boyz II Men
Patsy Cline
Joan Baez
Stevie Wonder
The Police
Bee Gees
Hanson
Marvin Gaye
Count Basie
Louis Armstrong
John Cale
The Roots
Elliott Smith
Frankie Valli
Beastie Boys
Roxy Music
Duke Ellington
Fairport Convention
John Williams
Anthrax
Cream
Hank Williams
Bananarama
Black Sabbath
Public Enemy
The Righteous Brothers
Jethro Tull
Jay-Z
Ella Fitzgerald
Prince
Judy Garland
James Brown
Buddy Holly
Bing Crosby
Bryan Adams
U2 (with their close ties to Apple...)
The Fat Boys
Peter Frampton
Elvis Costello
Billie Holiday
Mel Torme
Janet Jackson
Kraftwerk
Dresden Dolls
Willie Nelson
Soundgarden
Luciano Pavarotti
Megadeath
TV on the Radio
Van Morrison
Kanye West
The Killers
The Orb
Slayer
Bon Jovi
Aerosmith
Beck
Mariah Carey
Emerson, Lake and Palmer
Nine Inch Nails
Keane
MIA
Primus
Wolfmother
Patti LaBelle
Get Up Kids
Paul Westerberg
Garbage
Dr. Dre
Cher
The Cure
...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead
Blink 182
Peter Gabriel (a big Mac user!)
The Eagles
Guns 'n' Roses
Eminem
John Lennon
Elton John
Joni Mitchell
The Misfits
50 Cent
Marilyn Manson
Sigur Ros
Gwen Stefani
Nirvana
Snoop Dogg
Siouxsie and the Banshees
The Who
XTC
Neil Young
Weezer


So I'm sure there's someone in that last that nearly all of us listen to regularly...

[starflyer]

Oh yeah - for anyone who thinks most music these days sucks, you're just looking in the wrong place. Major labels ceased to produce anything of worth quite some time ago. Dig a little deeper and there's a wealth of wonderful music being made right now (and over the last 10 years specifically).

I'll help you dig...

www.sf59.com
www.toothandnailrecords.com
www.themilitiagroup.com
www.velvetbluemusic.com
www.jadetree.com

[gkarris]

To those saying they'll boycott, I'd just like to point out...

...Universal is by far the largest record label in the world, and those of you that say you don't listen to anyone of their artists might need to dig deeper into their subsidiaries, as just a few of the musicians in their stable are:
So I'm sure there's someone in that last that nearly all of us listen to regularly...

You posted a list of artist people will start to illegally copy if Universal starts to tax iPods....

[milo]

"I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way"

Well, I can't see why Universal wouldn't do that...getting paid money for doing nothing? Sure, I'll have some too.

But I can definitely see why Apple wouldn't do that. Universal could threaten to yank all their content from iTunes if Apple refuses but at this point that might hurt Universal more than Apple.

[Teddy's]

...Major labels ceased to produce anything of worth quite some time ago.

Oh yes! some major label releases:
Grwen Pstefanny, Perris Hill Tong, Christeena Aguelara

*choking*

[Unspeaked]

You posted a list of artist people will start to illegally copy if Universal starts to tax iPods....

Hey, what they do with the list is their business...

All I was doing was letting the thread know the breadth of Universal's stable!

;)

[tk421]

Oh yeah - for anyone who thinks most music these days sucks, you're just looking in the wrong place. Major labels ceased to produce anything of worth quite some time ago. Dig a little deeper and there's a wealth of wonderful music being made right now (and over the last 10 years specifically).

Ain't that the truth!! Here's quite a few recommendations (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=126692).

[princealfie]

I prefer my Count Basie off the Pablo label not Decca (Universal argmmm)... so there.

[studiomusic]

Here's my take.
I started a small record label with 3 signed artists. 2 have gone nowhere and probably won't. 1 has finished her debut release (look for Kyria -Whispers In The Dark on itunes!) and we are working on a follow up.
I write/perform the music and she writes lyrics and sings. We split ANY money coming in 45/45/10. 45% for her, 45% for me and 10% for the label.
We've sold a few hundred songs on itunes and have made a few hundred bucks from it.

I think that itunes is a boon for the music biz. But, now you have to have good songs and good artists to succeed. People will not buy 1 hit and 9 loads of crap anymore. Make the very best music, and people will buy it.

I don't want any tax on what might happen with something. What if the State gave you 25 speeding tickets and 40 parking tickets when you bought a new car? We all know that cars are just used for speeding and parking violations.

NOW, if Universal get's a cut from every ipod sold, we would want a cut too (not as big of a cut, but still). Not to be greedy, but to be fair to my artists.
This is why it won't work. Too many independents that would want their piece too.

Oh ya, go buy Kyria's album on itunes! (If I was a big label, I could charge her for the time I took to post that as advertising expenses... broken is the music industry!)

[Unspeaked]

But I can definitely see why Apple wouldn't do that. Universal could threaten to yank all their content from iTunes if Apple refuses but at this point that might hurt Universal more than Apple.

I don't know, see the list up above and tell me that it wouldn't hurt Apple to not have those artists available on the iTunes store (um, U2, anyone?).

Plus, if Universal pulled out, it would probably open the floodgates for other labels to threaten the same thing...

We might hate to admit it as Apple fans, but Apple needs the labels for the iTunes store to work just as much as the label needs Apple.

[kresh]

Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.

I really don't harbor any hope that this could really be considered as royalty payment by the courts, it was just a little fantasy.

The real implication is on the moral front. You mentioned "group think" and I think that is the real danger for the record labels. If enough people were to convince themselves that the record label has grabbed enough money upfront, then they could step across the moral line that keeps them from piracy.

It's not law enforcement, or the actions of RIAA, that prevents the vast majority from crossing the line into piracy, it's their own built-in moral objection to it.

If the record labels remove this moral hurdle through their own actions, then there are not enough police officers, federal agencies, or private enforcement groups to even begin to stem the resulting piracy wave.

[princealfie]

Here's my take.
I started a small record label with 3 signed artists. 2 have gone nowhere and probably won't. 1 has finished her debut release (look for Kyria -Whispers In The Dark on itunes!) and we are working on a follow up.
I write/perform the music and she writes lyrics and sings. We split ANY money coming in 45/45/10. 45% for her, 45% for me and 10% for the label.
We've sold a few hundred songs on itunes and have made a few hundred bucks from it.

I think that itunes is a boon for the music biz. But, now you have to have good songs and good artists to succeed. People will not buy 1 hit and 9 loads of crap anymore. Make the very best music, and people will buy it.

I don't want any tax on what might happen with something. What if the State gave you 25 speeding tickets and 40 parking tickets when you bought a new car? We all know that cars are just used for speeding and parking violations.

NOW, if Universal get's a cut from every ipod sold, we would want a cut too (not as big of a cut, but still). Not to be greedy, but to be fair to my artists.
This is why it won't work. Too many independents that would want their piece too.

Oh ya, go buy Kyria's album on itunes! (If I was a big label, I could charge her for the time I took to post that as advertising expenses... broken is the music industry!)

Does she appear on emusic?

[princealfie]

I really don't harbor any hope that this could really be considered as royalty payment by the courts, it was just a little fantasy.

The real implication is on the moral front. You mentioned "group think" and I think that is the real danger for the record labels. If enough people were to convince themselves that the record label has grabbed enough money upfront, then they could step across the moral line that keeps them from piracy.

It's not law enforcement, or the actions of RIAA, that prevents the vast majority from crossing the line into piracy, it's their own built-in moral objection to it.

If the record labels remove this moral hurdle through their own actions, then there are not enough police officers, federal agencies, or private enforcement groups to even begin to stem the resulting piracy wave.


Uhhh... right. :eek:

[Nym]

I don't listen to anything that comes from that Universal Artists list shown above :)

So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.

AHAHAHAHAHA

You my friend, sound like a socialist...

More like a Capitalist, he thinks they should get money, profit logic.

Universal is being greedy, they are entitled to 1$ per iPod the same way as I am, because after all, I'm advertising for Apple when I'm holding it in my hand right? It's just stupid beyond everything I've heard! And the artists will be the last ones to get even a glimpe of the money that M$ is gonna pay Universal (7$ ??).
If by any chance Apple would give in to Universal, every crap Record Label would start requiring the same fee and one day we'll have "the new iPod Nano, starting at 500$" :)

iPoop on Record Labels :D

[Jamvan]

I apologize as I have not read through all the comments as yet but if this goes through, how long before we see the request for these types of fees for all PC/Mac sales as those are used to download and listen to music as well?

[bigandy]

Same here, paying a levy on iPod's is like paying one on Hard drives as many of them contain copyrighted material, except they could never do that as the business world would go insane if they had to pay a levy to the music industry.

i agree too. it's kinda making you want to rip off their music seeing as you'd be paying for it already :rolleyes:

[tk421]

I apologize as I have not read through all the comments as yet but if this goes through, how long before we see the request for these types of fees for all PC/Mac sales as those are used to download and listen to music as well?

May as well add the fee to headphones. Don't forget speakers, receivers, cables, speaker wire. And cars, since many people listen to pirated music there. Oh, and add the fee on the monthly electricity bill (can't pirate music without electricity!) and any medical procedure involving the ears or hearing.

[donlphi]

To those saying they'll boycott, I'd just like to point out...

...Universal is by far the largest record label in the world, and those of you that say you don't listen to anyone of their artists might need to dig deeper into their subsidiaries, as just a few of the musicians in their stable are:


The Carpenters
Jimi Hendrix
Nikelback
Carole King
Andrea Bocell
Four Tops
Lionel Richie
Cat Stevens
The Jackson 5
The Andrews Sisters
Cradle of Filth
HIM
The Temptations
Diana Ross
Scissor Sisters
Boyz II Men
Patsy Cline
Joan Baez
Stevie Wonder
The Police
Bee Gees
Hanson
Marvin Gaye
Count Basie
Louis Armstrong
John Cale
The Roots
Elliott Smith
Frankie Valli
Beastie Boys
Roxy Music
Duke Ellington
Fairport Convention
John Williams
Anthrax
Cream
Hank Williams
Bananarama
Black Sabbath
Public Enemy
The Righteous Brothers
Jethro Tull
Jay-Z
Ella Fitzgerald
Prince
Judy Garland
James Brown
Buddy Holly
Bing Crosby
Bryan Adams
U2 (with their close ties to Apple...)
The Fat Boys
Peter Frampton
Elvis Costello
Billie Holiday
Mel Torme
Janet Jackson
Kraftwerk
Dresden Dolls
Willie Nelson
Soundgarden
Luciano Pavarotti
Megadeath
TV on the Radio
Van Morrison
Kanye West
The Killers
The Orb
Slayer
Bon Jovi
Aerosmith
Beck
Mariah Carey
Emerson, Lake and Palmer
Nine Inch Nails
Keane
MIA
Primus
Wolfmother
Patti LaBelle
Get Up Kids
Paul Westerberg
Garbage
Dr. Dre
Cher
The Cure
...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead
Blink 182
Peter Gabriel (a big Mac user!)
The Eagles
Guns 'n' Roses
Eminem
John Lennon
Elton John
Joni Mitchell
The Misfits
50 Cent
Marilyn Manson
Sigur Ros
Gwen Stefani
Nirvana
Snoop Dogg
Siouxsie and the Banshees
The Who
XTC
Neil Young
Weezer


So I'm sure there's someone in that last that nearly all of us listen to regularly...

Yeah... I listen to some of those... but of those artists, which of them are putting out new material that I don't already have. Some of these artists depend on internet sales because Virgin Mega Stores and Best Buy do not carry older CD's.

You are also forgetting there are a lot of Jazz Labels, Rap Labels, Country Labels, and even Classical Labels that are not related to Universal in any way. Those are the labels that have benefitted the most from digital sales because they have less PR, less radio time, and less store space than a lot of this oversaturated POP market that floods the isles of a typical music store.

If Apple pays 1 cent to the recording companies, these companies will be nickle and diming them until the end of time... or just long enough for us to want to switch back to RECORDS or CASSETTE TAPE.

[studiomusic]

Does she appear on emusic?

Why yes, she does!
Got a few people from the SLC here I see...

[Unspeaked]

I'm certainly not on the record label's side on this, and I'm someone who almost never downloads anything online (not even free, MP3 of the week type tracks), but I think two important things we're glossing over are:

1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.

2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.

I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.

And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.

On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...

[mazola]

Why just the other day I was thinking to myself, 'There ought to be an easier way to get my money to UMG.'

This sure beats taking out a fin, finding an envelope and stamp, digging out an address, and making the trek out to the mailbox.

Let's face it, the Universal Music Group DESERVES our money. Sure I don't listen to Ashlee Simpson, Lindsay Lohan, or the Doggy Style All Stars but who am I to say where my money should go?

And why on earth should an independent society for artist rights like ASCAP, BMI, or SOCAN be responsible for distributing money collected from what amounts to an MP3 tax? They'll just divy up the money to artists and music publishers according to boring criteria like record sales/radio play, etc.

I want my money going directly to the LABEL to do whatever they see fit with no public oversight! Maybe the artists don't need the money this month and the coke-head A&R guy needs it instead? Did you ever think of that?

Thank God UMG is FINALLY standing up for its rights and Microsoft had the good sense to listen when it agreed to implement a UMG tax in the Zune!

Apple, pay attention, or I'll just have to mail my money to UMG instead of buying an iPod!

[godrifle]

... Is Ford going to start asking for a share of the groceries I haul in the trunk?

[princealfie]

Why yes, she does!
Got a few people from the SLC here I see...

I promise to buy her album then. Spasiba!

[princealfie]

... Is Ford going to start asking for a share of the groceries I haul in the trunk?

Alas, Ford is nearly bankrupt too.

[jmbear]

See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.

The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don´t I delete them. You don´t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn´t kill it. But its importance will diminish.

The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..

iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It´s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ´s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.


Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..

I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels´ business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.

Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.

Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.

Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can´t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.

In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.

I agree, they won´t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.

Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don´t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)

[whatever]

I'm certainly not on the record label's side on this, and I'm someone who almost never downloads anything online (not even free, MP3 of the week type tracks), but I think two important things we're glossing over are:

1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.

2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.

I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.

And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.

On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...

For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.

I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.

[jmbear]

Great argument, except that OK Go are signed to a major label, Capitol Records, only one of the most histroically great labels!! Please see: The Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Nat King Cole, etc.)! :rolleyes: YouTube doesn't sell music; just look at OK Go's numbers, they are mediocre at best. One hugely popular viral video is not going to move that many CDs.

Also, as an aside, they are not "recording studios," they are "recording labels," or more commonly, "record labels."

Those bands became what they are in different times my friend.

And sorry about the recording studios thing, I am not a native english speaker.

[zac4mac]

I also wanted to add... go onto UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP (http://new.umusic.com/flash.aspx) and see how many groups you would be missing if ITUNES didn't offer Universal.

If you need "98 DEGREES" on your iPOD, then you better start freaking out...

Otherwise, don't sweat it. Universal has nothing to threaten Apple with. No worries here.

I went there, made it thru the "D"s and came up with these artists in my digital collection:
Aaron Neville
Al Jarreau
BB King
Big Bad Voodoo Daddy
Blues Traveller
Bob Marley and the Wailers
Cardigans
Counting Crows
Cowboy Mouth
Cranberries
David Benoit
Def Leppard
Del Amitri

There's a boat-load more there, yes they're a BIG label.

Z

[BoyBach]

To those saying they'll boycott, I'd just like to point out...

...Universal is by far the largest record label in the world, and those of you that say you don't listen to anyone of their artists might need to dig deeper into their subsidiaries, as just a few of the musicians in their stable are:...


That's a nice back catalogue, but how many new albums has The Carpenters, Jimi Hendrix, Carole King, John Lennon, etc released recently that weren't 'Greatest Hits' and 'Best of's? The challenge for the "Big Boy's" of the record industry is to find the next group of artists that will still be selling in 20-30 years time. I don't think my children and grandchildren will be buying Pussycat Dolls and Britney Spears albums in thirty years time. This is reason that their music sales have been falling, it's not exclusively piracy.

[BoyBach]

We might hate to admit it as Apple fans, but Apple needs the labels for the iTunes store to work just as much as the label needs Apple.


Not true. Apple doesn't need the iTunes Store since all iPods are full of stolen music! ;)

[Unspeaked]

For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.

Of course not all music is illegal to download, but for the sake of the conversation, which is full of 10 pages of posts concerning Universal's copyright protected cataloge, I assumed a qualifier wasn't necessary in my post.

To make myself clear, it's illegal to download copyrighted music which the artist and/or label has not explicitely made available as a free, promotional download.

[technocoy]

I can't get over the blind greed of these companies.

I'm waiting on Apple to get "threatened" by the bastards one time too many and then Apple says "ok" then approaches all the artists and opens the store to them paying part of their production costs and then giving them 80 percent of the profit off every song sold. Let's see how long the record companies KEEP their artists after that.

They better wake up to the new century before their artists do.

With most music savvy artists able to produce an album for less than a few thousand bucks now, Apple could turn on the industry and just blow it out at any moment. the industry could fragment into producers and mastering studios that get only for the service of producing and then it goes up to iTunes where it's subjected to reviews by peers and by a DIGG type system to promote it.

Browsing and sampling does a lot to increase ones musical library.. I found 80 percent of my new music by just searching and browsing on napster back in the day... I would find a new artist by chance and then go and by their CD. If apple would make their previews longer you would have the same type environment.

I'm not against a company making billions, but those billions should be made from giving the people who put them there what they want.

ugh. sorry, rant over.

[Unspeaked]

I agree, they won´t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.

Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don´t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)

Dude, I think you're right on, and your English is fine (better than some native English speakers who post here, in any case!).

Distribution methods like iTunes make the middle men - the labels - obsolete. It puts artists on a level playing field and coupled with viral marketing like MySpace and such it really spells the end for record labels as we know them.

If anything, all a "record label" might hope to be in the future is a marketing branch that works with an artists and takes a small cut of their sales, not the eight headed monster who controls ever aspect of an artists career - from where they record their album to what sizes their t-shirts come in - that we find today.

And as far as radio goes, it's totally done as a means of making hits. Heck, even next generation satellite radio is struggling - you're telling me terrestrial radio, which is nothing more than 15 minutes of talk and 20 minutes of commercial per hour is deciding what's popular today? Nuh uh. Try: MySpace, commercials, blogs, television series background music, etc. THAT's where today's hits come from.

FM radio and MTV lost all significance ages ago. If you're using them to find hits, maybe you should get off your PowerMac 6100 and upgrade your 14,000 baud modem to a DSL connection so you can visit the real world...

[oregonmac]

see http://www.tunecore.com/

Universal is simply increasing the rate of their own demise. And why do they think artists find them necessary?

[guzhogi]

Just thought of something, maybe Apple could charge the record company for each song released by means of "Oh, you used a Mac to make this song. Give us this amount of money for each copy of the song you sell."

[tripleanica]

real music lovers buy their music in order the support great artists. i don't buy crap from the people at universal. nor do i expect to give them money when i buy an ipod.

[tk421]

Not true. Apple doesn't need the iTunes Store since all iPods are full of stolen music! ;)

No kidding! Hasn't Apple done enough to promote legal music purchases?

[DoogieWoogie]

I don't usually rate threads negative or positive but this time I'll make an exception - NEGATIVE. This is bad news.

[dougny]

I only registered to respond to this idiot "dougny". I usually just lurk and read what everyone else has to say on here.

You have no clue what your talking about, all your statistics are wrong and I feel really sorry for whatever artists you represent.
Your a f_ck_ng moran.


Anyway, to everyone else....
Here is the deal. The money Universal got Microsoft never EVER touched the hands of any artists.. it went straight into some very deep pockets. This is exactly what is going to happen with Apple's loot if this little deal goes through.

Total revenues in the MI (music industry) have actually been UP, and consistently so. More people are going to concerts than ever before, download sales are so large that they are numbing, and BEST OF ALL indie labels are thriving. Yes, people do still buy CD's, and DVD's.

Wow, you logged on just to show everyone you are an idiot. You actually think because paid downloads are on the rise that record companies are making more money? You are flat out wrong. Also, record companies don't share in concert ticket sales (which are also down BTW).

Dumbass