ANY song "squirted" to someone else via wireless gets the 3-play/3-day DRM wrapper added to it. You can't even share that crappy GarageBand track you threw together.
So, while this may be the "reason" for the bribe, it's not the reason.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod More Microsoft Zune BS, Secret Goal=Make Ipod Cost More
- Thread starter IlluminatedSage
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ANY song "squirted" to someone else via wireless gets the 3-play/3-day DRM wrapper added to it. You can't even share that crappy GarageBand track you threw together.
So, while this may be the "reason" for the bribe, it's not the reason.
Not trying to be redundant, but the only way for this initiative to really work is if M$ can market the Zune (imagine them trying to do an 'iPod' style commercial --a la the latest Nano-- with a brown Zune). In the end, market trends are going to be driven by sales; Universal can tell Apple that they want a cut of iPod sales in renegotiating their contract, but they lose bigger if Apple says no (and at this point, pulling content from the iTMS makes people angry at the label, not the retailer). Money is really Microsoft's only leverage tool at this point, and unless they start handing out $250 rebate checks to buyers, I can't see the MS music initiative really taking off.
That's the point! The "GOOD" music doesn't appeal to the majority of CD-buyers (physical music consumers). They did try, and failed to get enough interest in people who still know how to play real instruments and sing. Those who buy the most CDs only want to hear Fergie "talk-sing" to regurgitated samples, so that's what the labels are forced to produce. Talk to MTV, VH1 and all of the music advertising companies if you want to change the influence of popular-genre; not the labels.
robbyx said:
Yeah, if only... But since that didn't happen, they're struggling to keep their heads above water until they do figure out a solution. In fact, Columbia records is recruiting a "task force" of 80 or so of the brightest college students in Business, Law and Music and sending them away for the summer in hopes of devising a solution. If you have any feasible ideas, Barnett & Co would be more then happy to hear them and I would gladly forward them to him...
That's now, but advertising can change a lot. I have no doubt that Microsoft will use gazzilions to promote this thing.
Silly me for thinking that the reason for MP3 players, CD players, etc was to provide a way for people to listen to music. And thus maybe BUY music. It seems that without these players, there would be no music industry. 
Further, I could see Apple, at this point in time, cutting off the major labels if they tried to push this type of arrangement. Apple could probably work directly with artists and open up their own music label, provided they sign a deal first with Apple Music.
Further, I could see Apple, at this point in time, cutting off the major labels if they tried to push this type of arrangement. Apple could probably work directly with artists and open up their own music label, provided they sign a deal first with Apple Music.
i have my own label, i think microsoft, apple, and sony should pay me 1% on every zune, ipod, or walkman sold. i'm sure someone's going to illegally download the music on my label.
I think the record labels have forced this situation on themselves! They went for the fast buck in the 80s but unfortunately they can't find they way out. Spending millions on promoting one hit wonders isn't good business sense. No wonder f**K all artists make the money back!
so the music industry is not profitable enough. then they should do what all other companies do: cut costs, reduce salaries and bonusses, lay off people, focus on profitable business oppurtunities, restructure, have less million dollar costing music awards, don't pay the hosts of those awards huge money.....
why should I pay more for my mp3 player? i don't even listen to new music and the little music i listen too i have paid already 10 years ago.
and those small independent artists will have to find a way to publish their music like any other small business owner. why should I pay for them?
Think of all those other wonderful artists not picked up by the labels today that we have never heard about because the label has a formula for signing an artist.
As with most industries, times are changing. Companies need to innovate. If the past formula doesn't work for the record labels anymore, perhaps they need to look into who they are signing.
Another analogy for this will be that, on average, today's collegiate athletes are probably as good as most of pro athletes from 20 years ago. Does that mean every collegiate athletes should be signed by the pro teams? Teams make mistakes signing potentials athletes who turned out not producing any results. Yet they move on. If the team is producing result, people come and see the game. If not people don't. Teams (and record labels) need to make smarter decisions on who they pick. There will always be concerns from fans (consumers) about a potential wrong pick. As long as the team (record label) is producing good result, no one will care about a sour pick.
I think mutual fund vs. record label is another good analogy. ;-)
You'd think that after all these years, the record companies would START to get a clue....
I can just imagine Steve Jobs quoting Napoleon Dynamite while negotiating with the record companies, "Idiots!". Seriously, he's dragging their butts into the digital age and still they just act like greedy children.
I can just imagine Steve Jobs quoting Napoleon Dynamite while negotiating with the record companies, "Idiots!". Seriously, he's dragging their butts into the digital age and still they just act like greedy children.
Or, think of all the wonderful artists we NOW hear of thanks to youtube, myspace, P2P clients, etc. The record companies have an outdated business model. It happens in all kinds of industries, and they can fight tooth and nail to try to stay afloat...or they can adapt. Those companies that adapt have better long term success.
Web content is hear to stay, its incorporated in the culture. People now expect video, music, rich media in their web content, and when they don't get it, they'll go elsewhere. The music industry keeps burying their head in the sand saying no no no no no no no, we want to sell CDs! Buy our CDs! But they fail to realize, consumers are now interested in discussion, communities, and active content that CDs don't provide.
The music industry is sinking because they are alienating their core audience of music listeners.
Good point!
More like: eBay here I come = no money for the music companies. (But I'll have to use the monstrosity that is Paypal. D'oh!
)
I think people are confusing the topic here. It did not say M$ was going to pay Universal money to make up for losses due to pirated music. It a payment to get them to promote their product over anyone elses products.
This Could Be A Good Thing!
Now I'm no lawyer, but it would seem to me that if they are charging a licence for the player because the player has unlicenced music on it, that would seem to make anything on the player legal because the player would then be licenced. There is no way that Vivendi or anybody else could preemptively charge for potential pirated music and get away with it long term. They could certainly say "we expect a certain number of players will contain unlicensed music, therefore we will make manufacturers bare the burden of those lost licencing fees when they sell the players."
I think if they do this, then in effect the consumer pays for the songs when they buy the player??
Or am I way off.
Now I'm no lawyer, but it would seem to me that if they are charging a licence for the player because the player has unlicenced music on it, that would seem to make anything on the player legal because the player would then be licenced. There is no way that Vivendi or anybody else could preemptively charge for potential pirated music and get away with it long term. They could certainly say "we expect a certain number of players will contain unlicensed music, therefore we will make manufacturers bare the burden of those lost licencing fees when they sell the players."
I think if they do this, then in effect the consumer pays for the songs when they buy the player??
Or am I way off.
So now that Microsoft's Zune is DOA based on results and polls, they are simply adding "innovative" policies to try to suck down Apple at minimal additional impact to their bottom line, beyond the huge loses Zune has already promised to generate.
Isn't that "restraint of trade"?
Rocketman
Isn't that "restraint of trade"?
Rocketman
Further, I could see Apple, at this point in time, cutting off the major labels if they tried to push this type of arrangement. Apple could probably work directly with artists and open up their own music label, provided they sign a deal first with Apple Music.
The only people to make any money then would be the lawyers! Apple Computers vs Apple Corps all over again.
Actually, this is a great idea
I'd pay an extra $50 for my iPod if it came with a license for every song ever published. Then we can get out of this stupid DRM business, stop paying for the same music in different formats, download in whatever bitrate we want.
Of course the music companies will lose out since I buy way more music than iPods, but hey, they chose their strategy.
On a serious note, this gives MS a very limited window to be successful. If the Zune doesn't pick up significant market share by the next time Apple's contracts with the music companies expires, there will be no leverage to use against Apple in contract re-negotiation, and all MS accomplished was making the Zune a bigger loss than before. Would you rather make 50 cents per song when hundreds of millions of songs are being sold each year ($50 million+), or $5 per unit when you are only selling 2 million units a year (10 million). I don't how they work the song royalties since most Zune users will be subscribers that don't buy music all, but just pay a monthly fee for everything.
End result, unless the Zune is a runaway success, the music companies will not be able to afford to walk away from Apple.
I'd pay an extra $50 for my iPod if it came with a license for every song ever published. Then we can get out of this stupid DRM business, stop paying for the same music in different formats, download in whatever bitrate we want.
Of course the music companies will lose out since I buy way more music than iPods, but hey, they chose their strategy.
On a serious note, this gives MS a very limited window to be successful. If the Zune doesn't pick up significant market share by the next time Apple's contracts with the music companies expires, there will be no leverage to use against Apple in contract re-negotiation, and all MS accomplished was making the Zune a bigger loss than before. Would you rather make 50 cents per song when hundreds of millions of songs are being sold each year ($50 million+), or $5 per unit when you are only selling 2 million units a year (10 million). I don't how they work the song royalties since most Zune users will be subscribers that don't buy music all, but just pay a monthly fee for everything.
End result, unless the Zune is a runaway success, the music companies will not be able to afford to walk away from Apple.
That's the great bit, the recording costs all come out of the artist's share. So that's a big chunk of cash they save right there.
Prince had it right when he used to right Slave on his cheek.
The TV license is already required for the above devices if you watching TV on them in the UK. I've just renewed my license and they've changed the wording and even mention PCs explicitly.
Agreed. If we are going to pay a 'pirate tax,' and we're all assumed pirates for simply purchasing a music storage device, no one should have to pay for music *from those labels who participate in this practice*.
Business, Law, and Music? What about TECHNOLOGY?!!! The labels just don't get it. The only solution is technology. Here's what they need to:
CONTROL THE FORMAT!!!
The big five need to put their heads together and develop a DRM format. Don't get greedy, but allow anyone --- from the iTunes Music Store to some guy in his basement --- to sell tracks protected by DRM.
Let anyone --- hardware company, software company, content creator ---license the DRM technology for free.
Make the DRM interoperable so that we don't have a player war and so that for once the consumer actually benefits.
By creating a standard format and DRM technology, everyone benefits. I can buy songs online and not worry about whether or not they will play on my iPod as well as my phone or stereo or whatever. I can buy a new device and not worry about losing all of the music I've bought. That's why I still buy CDs. Music from the iTunes Music Store won't play on my SlimDevices SqueezeBox. Too many formats and incompatible products just make consumers angry - and that leads to piracy.
If the industry came up with its own format and said "Apple, Microsoft, Creative...and everyone else out there...if you want to sell music online, you have to implement our format", the tech companies would have no choice but to adopt the format. They'd hate losing control, but what choice would they have? Not sell music? Have no content for their devices?
The industry needs to stop outsourcing bad technology (Sony's copy-protected CDs...ugh!) and start rolling its own. The landscape has changed and, like it or not, content companies are going to HAVE to become tech companies too. Start now, create a fair DRM system shared by all major labels and open to anyone, and give away the DRM technology to anyone wishing to implement it.
But I'm sure all of the Business, Law, and Music wonks will simply suggest more lawsuits, more greedy deals like the one between Micro$oft and UMG, and more hardship for the consumer.
I've been in the tech industry for a long time. I (fondly) remember the days of "cracked" games on my Apple II. The simple fact of the matter is, piracy cannot be stopped. There's always someone who is one step ahead. It's a fruitless battle. So you must make it easier for the consumer to not become a pirate. Apple has done this with the iTMS to a limited degree. However, if the industry truly wants to address this issue, it will innovate, not litigate, it will think outside the box, not make stupid deals like the one between UMG and M$.
The industry needs to work together...or it's Hello BitTorrent!
Microsoft has plenty of a window, they have lost 4 billion dollars on xbox and they continue it.