Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Boycott Universal

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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...
 
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.
 
Double dipping

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.
 
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.
 
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: “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.”
 
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?
 
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.
 
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 recently.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
the good old music industry once again....

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
 
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 !
 
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.
 
steve jobs replied earlier this year to such nonsense


"the music companies are trying to be greedy"


I approve this messsage
 
"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.
 
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:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.