Universal May Want Money From iPods

[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]

"It would be a nice idea if...

Universal could make their OWN player... one that only plays Universal music, downloads from Universal.com or some sh*t 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

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]

apple does this too

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. 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]

Universal May Want Money From iPods

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?

 

[0007776]

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! ).

 

[pale9]

hope MS collapses soon under its own weight of immense stupidity

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]

why should I have to pay Universal if i dont even listen to their music?

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!