Record Companies complaining 99cents isn't enough so now th...


Nermal

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 7, 2002
18,678
1,183
New Zealand
This is as silly as the comment a few days ago from a game publisher, that the publishers should get paid for second-hand games :rolleyes:
 

mklos

macrumors 68000
Dec 4, 2002
1,896
0
My house!
I may sound like a typical bias Mac User, but Steve Jobs is exactly right when he said that if the price goes up, the people that Apple dragged from stealing music will go right back to stealing it. Then the record companies will start bitching even more because not they're making anything. If anyone should be complaining, it should be Apple as they only make like around .02¢ out of the .99¢/song, but Apple doesn't because they didn't exactly start the store to make money off it, but rather get ITMS buyers to buy the iPod where Apple does make a good profit.

In the end, the record companies will ruin it for everyone, including themselves, and they'll end up making less than they do now. They're greedy SOB's! Heck, they might as well sue Apple, everyone else is!
 

Stella

macrumors G3
Apr 21, 2003
8,273
4,636
Canada
First playing music on your computer is a privilege, now, *if* the interpretation is correct, music companies now want a cut of iPod revenue!

They really are comedians!

Do record companies demand a slice of revenue from other Audio companies, Digital music manufacturers? Nope. I wouldn't be surprised to see them take Apple to court to argue for a slice of iPod revenue.

They are assuming all iPod users buy music from iTMS.. just like all iPod owners are low life music thieving scum!
 

sord

macrumors 6502
Jun 16, 2004
352
0
Get money from iPod sales! Are they @!*$ing insane!!! <sarcasm>Because you know they created the iPod, spend money to market it, and put their latest inovations into it</sarcasm> They don't deserve a single penny from iPod sales - probably not even of music sales but thats a little (and by little I mean little) more justified.

They are really screwed up in the mind.
 

arkmannj

macrumors 68000
Oct 1, 2003
1,551
299
UT
Case and point

Is it just me, or does this totally prove what we all have known for a long time (and Steve Jobs said concerning raising prices)
The record companies are just getting greedier and fatter all the time.
(Did I mention that they just keep getting greedier)

I think you could roll both the RIAA and the MPAA into this with one small exception. The MPAA understands that I'm not paying for and hour of ^@*@#&. I know they still make plenty of crap, but I don't hear them saying "oh you're selling alot of movie tickets, that means we're not making the money we should from other areas, we should get a cut of your popcorn sales to Mr. theatre owner" Don't get me wrong I think both of the **AA's are wielding to much political clout, and all together greedy.

Here's a quote I made on slashdot about DRM'd CD's, I said it being partly serious and partly in jest. take it for what it's worth..
... While we're talking about privileges and rights. You should feel privileged that anyone buys music anymore, and if anyone will in the future. I am hereby revoking your supposed right to get fat off of my wallet.
1) it's a privilege not a right, for you to have my money for services rendered. In other words you are privileged enough to work for us the consumers we pay for your services (content, music etc..) you give the content to us.
2) It's our right to see that you go broke by not paying for your useless "services" that you have been privileged to serve us with in the past. I'm not suggesting stealing your services, but rather lets face the facts:
I) I already got loads of music that's not DRM'd and purchased legally. and what I don't have, our local public library will let me check out for free.
II) Music is not a necessity, so I don't NEED to buy your music. (I'll keep paying my water bill)
III) Even if I do buy the music, someone will always find a way to copy the music whether through breaking the DRM, or just running an audio cable to a line in port and recording it. so give it up.

3) Has anyone even produced a full CD worth buying in the last few years... Lets look at other options, aside from that of buying your DRM'd music: I call them the ABC's of legal free/near free music (all of which are my privilege AND right to do)
A) Listen to the radio, we have enough stations to find decent music here and there
B) Check music out from the local library
C) Listen to the music I already own
D) borrow friends/family member's CD (music) collection
E) listen to my works "hold music"
F) listen to the music in the elevator
G) streamed music (internet)
H) My imagination
I) Garageband (make our own darn music)
J) legal downloaded music (independent artists etc...)
K) Listening booths
L) Radio Shark (recording public broadcast for personal use)
M) 1 free song a week on iTunes
N) iPod swap, trade a friend/Family member iPods for a week. and listen to each others legally purchased music
O) Pod casts
P) Just live without additional music
Q) Listen to other peoples music (friends etc.) created in programs like Garageband
R) Free Local Concerts (Utah has lots of great ones for free, I assume other places do to)
S) A lot of Classical music can be purchased for near free (like a couple dollars) to hear the creations of real masters and geniuses, compared to today's random sampling of rubbish. makes these seem free,
T) The last chapter of most DVD's I buy has OK music during the credits
U) The pan handlers on the street, some play better than the "pop stars" of today. and need the money a lot more, should you choose to donate to the shelter.
V) PBS broadcasts. on TV
W) Social events, Dances, clubs, church activities, free amphitheater civic activities, etc...
X) open my apartment window it's guaranteed someone is blaring there music loud enough for everyone to hear
Y) Disney channel, you can't go 10 minutes without a music video being played. and the kids like it.
Z) Grandma's Vinyls are oooh so good.
 

840quadra

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,091
3,383
Twin Cities Minnesota
I have moved off to mostly "podsafe" music, or free downloads from less known musicians that ask for donations, I then give my money to them. I get a better feeling from this, and I know more of the money goes to the people making the music!

If the record companies get more greedy, Musicians and smaller record companies will start to dominate the market, as the masses will not like the idea of paying more to "play".

Why do they need more then .99 for a song anyway? Are they burning, printing, packaging, or shipping anything? Apple is doing all the work outside of the musician recording the music, editing it, and proofing it. I think the money should go DIRECTLY to the musicians, and not the record company.

I think Steve should go directly to musicians who's contracts are about expire, and offer to pay THEM directly and cut the record companies out of the deal all together.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
Stella said:
Do record companies demand a slice of revenue from other Audio companies, Digital music manufacturers?
Many countries have royalties attached to blank media, digital recorders, or both. In some locales analog equipment is also covered.

iPod gets off the hook because it has its music-quality recording ability disabled, and it doesn't have removable media. The royalties are exactly why most MP3 players have crippled recording capability, it allows them to exploit loopholes that get them classified as computer peripherals.
 

Stella

macrumors G3
Apr 21, 2003
8,273
4,636
Canada
Yes, including iPods, in some countries. The tax on media is very well known, unless you've been living under rock. This assumes everyone one is a criminal and every blank CD etc is going to be used for copying music.

My point was more towards HiFi units and in-car music players etc.

iMeowbot said:
Many countries have royalties attached to blank media, digital recorders, or both. In some locales analog equipment is also covered.

iPod gets off the hook because it has its music-quality recording ability disabled, and it doesn't have removable media. The royalties are exactly why most MP3 players have crippled recording capability, it allows them to exploit loopholes that get them classified as computer peripherals.
 

freiheit

macrumors 6502a
Jul 20, 2004
643
90
California
I wouldn't weep if every major record label went out of business

Simple matter -- even an untrained ear such as my own can often hear the difference between a full, pressed audio CD track and the same track compressed into mp3 or aac format. If I can buy a full, pressed audio CD For $11 at Best Buy, and the noticeably lower quality tracks of the same CD on iTunes cost me $10, there's no way in hell I'd be willing to pay MORE for the same lower quality audio tracks than I'd pay for the full CD. As others have pointed out, there's zero cost involved for the record labels for tracks sold on iTunes. Apple does all the marketing for iTunes. Apple provides all the bandwidth for the downloads from iTunes. The record labels spend zero dollars and zero cents pressing CDs, printing inserts and distributing CDs for tracks sold on iTunes.

Bottom line, tracks on iTunes cost MORE than the average cost per track of a full, pressed audio CD and the record companies are already making MORE money per track sold through iTunes than they are on average for every song sold on a full, pressed audio CD. If they're not happy with that, I can safely say I would not weep if all the major record labels suddenly went out of business tomorrow. For the last 10+ years I haven't heard more than 2 decent albums put out by the major labels. Most of my CDs (all fully legal and paid for) are now from independent artists who the major labels wouldn't even acknowledge because they're not "in style" at this particular point in time.

I'm relatively certain every dollar I've paid for my music in the last decade has contributed nothing to the RIAA. If they're not happy with that, then they can learn to sign decent musicians or suffer the fate of the businessman who fails to change with the times.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
Stella said:
My point was more towards HiFi units and in-car music players etc.
YEs, those do have fees attached, though they are not as visible. For play-only devices the revenue comes directly from the prerecorded music. For radio and TV receivers, the fees are collected from the broadcasters. It's end-user recording where the hardware and media have historically been encumbered.

The spat over MP3 players stems from special exemptions that have been made for general purpose computers; those have typically been allowed to record music without royalties attached based on the theory that their recording capabilities aren't primarily designed to be used for capturing recorded music.

And that's where all this really comes from. The question of how to treat computers was basically left for another day and remains unresolved, and meanwhile computers started sprouting these accessories that were specifically made to work with recorded music. That essentially undermined the compromise the electronics and entertainment industries had reached, and all the posturing from both sides amounts to a reopening of that debate. Each is setting the other up to say and do things so that fingers can be pointed when the issue inevitably returns to national legislatures.
 

nbaker756

macrumors member
Aug 18, 2004
41
0
crazy theory

what if the record companies want to have Steve Jobs raise prices for songs. then they tell napster and all the others to keep prices the same, effectly giving the others an upper hand. this could detract from ipod sales and cause apple to maybe open up their tech to others. just a theory, thats all.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
freiheit said:
As others have pointed out, there's zero cost involved for the record labels for tracks sold on iTunes. Apple does all the marketing for iTunes.
When Jobs says "There are no marketing costs for them" he simply isn't telling the truth. The best selling CDs are rarely the best or most interesting, they're the ones that receive the best label marketing. See that Ashlee Simpson track at #9 on the US store and #1 in the pop section? How did that get there when it's not even advertised on the iTMS front page, or the pop front page? It's because the giant "Download Now!" link Universal put in the center of the front page of ashleesimpsonmusic.com points straight at that track on iTMS. And people were visiting that Web site because Apple pointed them there? No way.
 

sparkleytone

macrumors 68020
Oct 28, 2001
2,307
0
Greensboro, NC
Simple matter. Most people leave default settings that alter the sound of an audio file in place. iTunes has things such as Sound Enhancer turned on by default. Some people think its a good idea to turn things such as 'Sound Check' on, and then complain about iTunes 'flattening' the sound. In fact, I know a few studio producers that have had to have these settings pointed out to them. Once the settings were off, the difference became MUCH less noticeable, if not nonexistent.
 

SilvorX

macrumors 68000
May 24, 2002
1,701
0
'Toba, Canada
heh, the bronfman family, what do you expect, they've always been very greedy, when they were THE family of my town, they were greedy, and after they made their first millions (through selling booze to al capone), they packed their bags and moved east, they've always been greedy and always will be, they're the bronfman's
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,201
quae tangit perit Trump
Stella said:
Do record companies demand a slice of revenue from other Audio companies, Digital music manufacturers? Nope. I wouldn't be surprised to see them take Apple to court to argue for a slice of iPod revenue.
Good luck on that, the precedent has been set since the Victrola that the media companies do not get to profit from hardware manufacturers. Frankly, the creation of such a system would be so detrimental to the economy that I can't imagine how it could be put in place.
Would Exxon would get a cut of Ford's profits; maybe MGM gets a little bit of Sony's—would Sony Music and Sony Pictures get money from VAIO?—not to mention CNN should get a chunk of Panasonic, etc.
Think of how this system would work—couldn't bloggers charge Microsoft for profiting from selling an OS that reads websites?
Total anarchy for a single failing business model.

Apple's lawyers should saddle-up for this fight, chasing ThinkSecret for Asteroid is a non-issue compared to this ridiculousness.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,201
quae tangit perit Trump
nbaker756 said:
what if the record companies want to have Steve Jobs raise prices for songs. then they tell napster and all the others to keep prices the same, effectly giving the others an upper hand. this could detract from ipod sales and cause apple to maybe open up their tech to others. just a theory, thats all.
That would be collusion which is illegal and morally corrupt to boot. This issue is entirely different from Apple's adherence to a well-defined standard (with their own DRM attached) and the rest of the industry's adherence to Mr. Softy. This issue centers on how far a single business model should extend, to the ability of new industries to grow around old ones and allow our economy to create and innovate. The music studios own greed and their sudden and irrational fear of Apple's success with iTMS could create a legal situation that would be devastating to new media.
Think of it, the early RCA would have paid their profits to the nacent-RIAA, Sony would have owed money to the major studios. When the VCR was just an idea a legal contract would have to be created between Sony and all the movie studios for the right to make such a device. The same thing would have happened with the Walkman and even the first computers that could play music or view movies or games.
The music studios get to make money by making music, they get to set the prices for CDs—and they can renegotiate with Apple—and they can set their budgets for studio time and advertising. If their business model cannot survive without leeching Apple's then it is due time for that model's collapse.

RIAA RIP what a damned shame.
 

California

macrumors 68040
Aug 21, 2004
3,766
40
The record companies need to start doing their jobs. (No pun intended).

Their job, ostensibly, is to seek out excellent talent, develop that talent and put that excellent talent together with other excellent talent to push music forward.

Because they can't do that right - lazy, corrupt, inept, uneducated, slothful, foolish or downright tin-earred - like all glommers and parasites, they want to feed off the easiest gravy train.

It's just like the film business. The studio/talent agent model for developing talent and story has fallen apart due to elitism, arrogance, corruption and the ineptitude of lazy tyrants. No wonder they can't tell good stories anymore -- bad box office proves it -- they exist just to try to glom on to and squeeze talent.

Sony's idea in their recent acquisition of MGM/UA is that since DVDs have reinvigorated the business, with people converting VHS to DVD, now they are going to introduce HiDef DVDs so people spend more money on the films that they converted from VHS to DVD and, then like dumb sheep, to HiDef DVDs. Their arrogance in thinking that people will rush to spend money like that on new formats instead of GOOD FILMS is insane.

Both dinosaurs have fallen on their harikari swords and don't even know it yet.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
hulugu said:
Good luck on that, the precedent has been set since the Victrola that the media companies do not get to profit from hardware manufacturers.
Back then, the big labels were the hardware companies! Victrola were the forerunners of RCA, their label is now part of Sony/BMG (Sony of course today do hardware). The Victor licensee in the UK was Gramophone, which became EMI.

Columbia were much the same, initially building offshoots of the Edison hardware and then settling on disc players. US Columbia became the core of Sony Music, the UK arm ended up with EMI.

Universal Music also started in the hardware business, by way of Decca (originally affiliated with Philips) and PolyGram (formerly a Philips subsidiary).

Warner Music didn't have the same hardware relationship, but only appeared much later after the present royalty system was entrenched. The same holds for the Bertelsmann recording interests (both 1958).
 

Deepdale

macrumors 68000
May 4, 2005
1,965
0
New York
Their creed is greed

Recording companies: So 99 cents just isn't cutting it?

OK, I am willing to spring for a dollar per song, but not a penny more. Happy now?