Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod More Microsoft Zune BS, Secret Goal=Make Ipod Cost More
- Thread starter IlluminatedSage
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If this is true, then at least in the best case those people sued by the RIAA will have another defensive tactic. "I paid to have these songs when I bought my player" would be nice. Of course, if you get your music legally you should be owed a refund, but that'd never happen. Overall a stupid move my MS that may pose a problem for other players in the future. They just effectively unraveled the RIO case-law. Nice job guys!
Makes sense doesn't it?! David Geffen. Then Maybe pay them for using Final Cut to make their music videos... and send some to Adobe for using CS2
If Zune is even somewhat successful, this can get very bad.
It could lead to software style licenses for hardware.
Imagine TV or VCR manufactures paying money to every TV station?
Basically, you will not own your TV, you just purchased license to watch TV. On top of that, "please pay for any content".
It could lead to software style licenses for hardware.
Imagine TV or VCR manufactures paying money to every TV station?
Basically, you will not own your TV, you just purchased license to watch TV. On top of that, "please pay for any content".
This is totally unreal & unbelievable.
Just goes to show how evil Microsoft is, and how greedy the record industry is. And how NEITHER of them have the consumers' best interests in mind.
As MacDailyNews said yesterday:
"To share hardware profits with the music labels makes no sense. Did phonograph makers share record player profits with music labels? No. Did Sony share Walkman profits with music labels? No. Do AM/FM radio makers share profits with music labels? No. Do TV makers share profits with TV networks and producers? No."
Just goes to show how evil Microsoft is, and how greedy the record industry is. And how NEITHER of them have the consumers' best interests in mind.
As MacDailyNews said yesterday:
"To share hardware profits with the music labels makes no sense. Did phonograph makers share record player profits with music labels? No. Did Sony share Walkman profits with music labels? No. Do AM/FM radio makers share profits with music labels? No. Do TV makers share profits with TV networks and producers? No."
So M$ is paying one label some amount of money for every units sold. How long does it take for the other labels to come to the table with their hands out too.
If M$ think this is going to work they will have to pay every label a cut otherwise it will not work. Think about the negotiations, your Label A and you just found out Label B gets more than you. before you know it M$ is paying everyone money and not making a thing.
If M$ think this is going to work they will have to pay every label a cut otherwise it will not work. Think about the negotiations, your Label A and you just found out Label B gets more than you. before you know it M$ is paying everyone money and not making a thing.
I think the UK use to do that, I beleive people in the UK had to have, I think, an antenna license to watch TV
This is unbelievable. As others have said, should they now get a cut of every radio sold? What about tv? Do the cable companies get a cut of every tv sold? You know, come to think of it, my lamps, tv's, refrigerator, etc, would be useless without electricity. Maybe the electrical companies should get a cut for every item I buy that I can plug into the wall.
If this tactic becomes common place, I will stop buying (you hear that Universal? People BUY music) songs and instead download them.
If this tactic becomes common place, I will stop buying (you hear that Universal? People BUY music) songs and instead download them.
It's called a TV license. Each year, if you want to have a TV, you have to pay around £120. Most of it goes straight to the BBC.
That being said, we have no advertising on the BBC.
I'd rather pay a tenner a month than have a load of baloney at the start, end and middle of my shows...
It's not really comparable to the Zune situation though - in that record companies are asking for money for nothing...
Long Post...
For what it's worth, and as someone in the music industry, let me just try to clarify one thing: From the outside, big labels must seem like corrupt businesses considering the finances involved in making and selling a record. I mean, $50 million to produce and sell a CD? Well the truth is that nearly 90% of all albums produced do not generate enough sales to cover their cost of recording (paying the studio, the session musicians, copyright fees, etc); therefore, it is up to the remaining 10%(ish) to make up for the lost revenue. It is those top few grossing CDs that are relied on to allow the creation of everything else (most likely the music YOU listen to).
Because of piracy, even those top grossing CDs are no longer producing enough revenue to support the vast majority of “small” artists, and so the record labels are forced to cut off the bottom rungs one by one. This, in turn, has caused those lesser known artists to turn to independent and P2P methods of sale, which (in turn) draws even more revenue from the companies.
I recently had the pleasure of talking with Steve Barnett, chairman and CEO of Columbia Records, who acknowledges this very serious problem and desperately seeks change from all parties involved. He explained that back when he was AC/DC’s manager, bands weren’t expected to have a hit record until maybe their 3rd or 4th album. A&R reps would look for bands based on their potential to grow, not their immediate potential to earn profit. However, because record labels can no longer afford to take risks due to low record sales, only those artists who they can guarantee to have a hit record are picked up, and all those potential talents are swept aside. In today’s market, as he explains, little bands like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones never would have made it because no one would have taken a chance on them.
Think of all the wonderful artists we’ll never hear about because no one can afford to take the risk today…
For what it's worth, and as someone in the music industry, let me just try to clarify one thing: From the outside, big labels must seem like corrupt businesses considering the finances involved in making and selling a record. I mean, $50 million to produce and sell a CD? Well the truth is that nearly 90% of all albums produced do not generate enough sales to cover their cost of recording (paying the studio, the session musicians, copyright fees, etc); therefore, it is up to the remaining 10%(ish) to make up for the lost revenue. It is those top few grossing CDs that are relied on to allow the creation of everything else (most likely the music YOU listen to).
Because of piracy, even those top grossing CDs are no longer producing enough revenue to support the vast majority of “small” artists, and so the record labels are forced to cut off the bottom rungs one by one. This, in turn, has caused those lesser known artists to turn to independent and P2P methods of sale, which (in turn) draws even more revenue from the companies.
I recently had the pleasure of talking with Steve Barnett, chairman and CEO of Columbia Records, who acknowledges this very serious problem and desperately seeks change from all parties involved. He explained that back when he was AC/DC’s manager, bands weren’t expected to have a hit record until maybe their 3rd or 4th album. A&R reps would look for bands based on their potential to grow, not their immediate potential to earn profit. However, because record labels can no longer afford to take risks due to low record sales, only those artists who they can guarantee to have a hit record are picked up, and all those potential talents are swept aside. In today’s market, as he explains, little bands like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones never would have made it because no one would have taken a chance on them.
Think of all the wonderful artists we’ll never hear about because no one can afford to take the risk today…
I wouldn't say this did not happen, this concept is not new and has been tried in the past with little success. You know Intel pay Dell money for each processor that goes into a computer and has a Intel inside label on it. So this has been successful
It certainly does. This is, I think, a really dangerous thing the music industry is getting into because it legitimizes downloads without purchase. Similar, if I'm not mistaken, to how Canada operates.
Also, Microsoft is paying UMG - what about the rest of the players. Let's see now... $5 for you, ...and oh, $5 for you, and oh, $5 for you, and you, and um, where did my pile of cash go?
MS stands to lose a big chunk of change by allowing this. I'm glad I don't own their stock any more.
Just one more (as if you really needed one more) reason to pass on the Zune. It's sad to see Microsoft drop so low (I'm kidding - it's just great).
My thoughts exactly. These people remind me of James Taggart and Orren Boyle from "Atlas Shrugged." They think that whenever someone else comes up with a good idea, they deserve a cut of that idea despite doing nothing whatsoever to earn it. I hope every major record label goes under and a direct-distribution music industry arises - these guys deserve it.
Tell UMG what you think
Tell Universal what you think: communications@umusic.com
Not that it will do much good, but the more negative reaction they get from this move, the better. I told them I was digusted by their labeling me a criminal and that I would no longer buy any of their music.
I'm really over corporate greed. We talk about how it needs to change, yet every day there's another example of a company getting greedier - and no one does anything.
This has nothing to do with Zune or M$ in my mind. It's about using "fairness to the artist" as a cover for yet another cash grab by the industry. I used to champion the idea of buying CDs because it is the "right" thing to do. Now I'm no longer certain. Why respect someone (or some company) that does not respect me?
Sorry artists, but (once again) you're the losers.
Tell Universal what you think: communications@umusic.com
Not that it will do much good, but the more negative reaction they get from this move, the better. I told them I was digusted by their labeling me a criminal and that I would no longer buy any of their music.
I'm really over corporate greed. We talk about how it needs to change, yet every day there's another example of a company getting greedier - and no one does anything.
This has nothing to do with Zune or M$ in my mind. It's about using "fairness to the artist" as a cover for yet another cash grab by the industry. I used to champion the idea of buying CDs because it is the "right" thing to do. Now I'm no longer certain. Why respect someone (or some company) that does not respect me?
Sorry artists, but (once again) you're the losers.
Tell Universal what you think: communications@umusic.com
Not that it will do much good, but the more negative reaction they get from this move, the better. I told them I was digusted by their labeling me a criminal and that I would no longer buy any of their music.
I'm really over corporate greed. We talk about how it needs to change, yet every day there's another example of a company getting greedier - and no one does anything.
This has nothing to do with Zune or M$ in my mind. It's about using "fairness to the artist" as a cover for yet another cash grab by the industry. I used to champion the idea of buying CDs because it is the "right" thing to do. Now I'm no longer certain. Why respect someone (or some company) that does not respect me?
Sorry artists, but (once again) you're the losers.
Read my post ^
Well boo-hoo to the record companies. If it cost's so much to record, manufacture and market these CD's then that's their problem.
They should try signing the 'new' Led Zeppelins, Rolling Stones and AC/DC's who will produce music that will sell consistently over decades, instead of the crap that gets released today and is forgotten tomorrow.
Trust me you would be surprise who all gets a cut of things you buy especially when one thing depends on another thing work. Hell, your local government gets a cut of your cable bill every month. Thus, the reason I have Directv, since no one gets a cut of what I watch. Local governments hates DirectV and tries to pass laws to keep the dish off the house so they can get the cut from the cable company.
Few and far are greedier industries than music. As disgusting as this is it doesn't come as a shock.
They aren't corrupt. They are just pathetically greedy. Your argument is a sound one. It's the one I've often used when urging my friends to buy music, not download it. However, this move by UMG has nothing to do with fairness. It's transperantly greedy and has so totally turned me off that I don't think I'll have any trouble stealing music in the future. Not from indies, but certainly from UMG (and any other label stupid enough to make a deal like this).
The problem the music industry has is that they do not control the format. If they were smart, they would have hired a team of programmers five years ago instead of whining and griping and suing kids, and developed their own DRM system. That way anyone making a device would have to agree to use their DRM technology in order to sell content. After all, it's the content people want. The iPod is pretty much useless without the music...
But they have no vision. Just greed, greed, greed.
Indeed. In almost EVERY 'making of the album' DVD I watch from the bands I listen to, I can always spot out the Apple gear... and there's a lot of it.
Maybe they could cut back on the huge amount of money they spend on hyping the crap too!
Since Universal would be getting a cut, does this mean that I can download Universal's music off of torrent sites and limewire legally if I own a Zune?