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.
Universal May Want Money From iPods
- Thread starter Motley
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is the future
1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
Where are the recording studios in this future? Nowhere. Artists might still need them for promotions, music videos etc... but that is all bells and whistles. You don't even need the studios for a good music video, just look at how famous this video has become, its even on MTV. It all comes down to the music, and if its good, people will buy it. Artists provide the content, iTMS the distribution. Record labels' presence will be greatly diminished. They are scared to death.
1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
Where are the recording studios in this future? Nowhere. Artists might still need them for promotions, music videos etc... but that is all bells and whistles. You don't even need the studios for a good music video, just look at how famous this video has become, its even on MTV. It all comes down to the music, and if its good, people will buy it. Artists provide the content, iTMS the distribution. Record labels' presence will be greatly diminished. They are scared to death.
Asshat record exec said:
Nice. idea. For whom, you greedy scum?
**** them and their greed. I shall say no more.
i would love if the government changed the royalty law to extend only to the artists and not the record companies.....
i.e. "okay, we'll extend the copyright to 50 years or the life of the artist, but the catch is that only the artists gets the royalties"
i'd love to see the big record companies cut out.....
it's totally possible for artists to get more and for us to pay less.....
i'd include the mastering technician in there too.... they are very important as well
i.e. "okay, we'll extend the copyright to 50 years or the life of the artist, but the catch is that only the artists gets the royalties"
i'd love to see the big record companies cut out.....
it's totally possible for artists to get more and for us to pay less.....
i'd include the mastering technician in there too.... they are very important as well
Great mess
Perhaps the pencil makers should demand a payment from the pen makers... and if you have a pen and paper you must be copying documents so paper producers should pay book dealers... I could live never buying another Universal song on iTunes... thank you very much Bill Gates... his check to Universal is what may be $900. for all Zunes sold... what a joke...
Reuters reports that Universal Music Group Chief Executive said on Tuesday that they may seek a royalty from Apple for iPod sales:
Universal made news earlier this month when it was reported that Microsoft had agreed to pay Universal Music a fee for every new Zune Music Player sold. Music studios, of course, currently get a cut from every song sold, but do not get any percentage of iPod sales.
Perhaps the pencil makers should demand a payment from the pen makers... and if you have a pen and paper you must be copying documents so paper producers should pay book dealers... I could live never buying another Universal song on iTunes... thank you very much Bill Gates... his check to Universal is what may be $900. for all Zunes sold... what a joke...
Actually, in the United States we don't pay a "music tax" for blank CD or DVD media. That proposal failed in Congress primarily because CD and DVDs can be used for other purposes (like backing up data). However, the RIAA managed to get a tax on DAT tapes.
I believe that UK also struck down a similar music tax on CD and DVD media.
Many of the major CD and DVD manufacturers introduced the specially-labeled "audio cd" which costs more, and a percentage of those sales go to the recording industry. However, there are no differences between the two types of media.
Why should we care? Because if taxes (or royalties) are imposed, common sense will tell you that Apple will adjust their prices (or price drops) to reflect those additional costs. Simple economics.
I believe that UK also struck down a similar music tax on CD and DVD media.
Many of the major CD and DVD manufacturers introduced the specially-labeled "audio cd" which costs more, and a percentage of those sales go to the recording industry. However, there are no differences between the two types of media.
Why should we care? Because if taxes (or royalties) are imposed, common sense will tell you that Apple will adjust their prices (or price drops) to reflect those additional costs. Simple economics.
Great argument, except that OK Go are signed to a major label, Capitol Records, only one of the most histroically great labels!! Please see: The Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Nat King Cole, etc.)!
YouTube doesn't sell music; just look at OK Go's numbers, they are mediocre at best. One hugely popular viral video is not going to move that many CDs.Also, as an aside, they are not "recording studios," they are "recording labels," or more commonly, "record labels."
Jeez... I don't think it will happen. The music companies need to keep their grubby fingers off the iPod.
I would assume that Microsoft agreed to pay Universal just because it could cause Apple problems, not because they felt any need to pay.
Universal tried to sue Sony back in the 1970s over videocassette recorders. They were somewhat successful in scaring people from buying Sony VCRs, even though they weren't really successful in court.
I can't see as how they'll be pushing Apple too far. It seems every day, Universal and its subsidiaries lose ground to competitors.
Universal tried to sue Sony back in the 1970s over videocassette recorders. They were somewhat successful in scaring people from buying Sony VCRs, even though they weren't really successful in court.
I can't see as how they'll be pushing Apple too far. It seems every day, Universal and its subsidiaries lose ground to competitors.
This is ridiculous. The record companies are obsessed with money. They didnt seek royalties on CD players but iPods are somehow different. They are MUSIC PLAYERS. They record industry should have no part in music hardware, its just ridiculous.
This is ridiculous. The record companies are obsessed with money. They didnt seek royalties on CD players but iPods are somehow different. They are MUSIC PLAYERS. They record industry should have no part in music hardware, its just ridiculous.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesnt understand why they would want money for every iPod sold. Is this how Microsoft plans to "kill" the iPod with their Zune? By distorting the mp3 market with such kind of BS
Idiots
The full article is very funny.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
Universal Music Group Chief Executive Doug Morris said:
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
Reuters reports that North American Beef Congress Chief Executive said on Tuesday that they may seek a royalty from Best Ceramic Houseware Co., Ltd. Ceramic Plate sales:
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way,"
NABC made this decision earlier this month when it was reported that Microsoft had agreed to pay Universal Music a fee for every new Zune Music Player sold. Cattle farmers, of course, currently get a cut from every head of beef sold, but do not get any percentage of plate or silverware sales (which of course is necessary to eat beef).
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way,"
NABC made this decision earlier this month when it was reported that Microsoft had agreed to pay Universal Music a fee for every new Zune Music Player sold. Cattle farmers, of course, currently get a cut from every head of beef sold, but do not get any percentage of plate or silverware sales (which of course is necessary to eat beef).
This Is So Huge!
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net. I would no longer buy anything from iTS that is Universal!
Wow, is the Music label the same as the Movie label. I could get all the movies too (to play on my iPod)!
I mean if the royalties are paid when the device is manufactured, there is no need for them to double dip and collect royalties again when I pay for content right? I think it would hold in court!
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net. I would no longer buy anything from iTS that is Universal!
Wow, is the Music label the same as the Movie label. I could get all the movies too (to play on my iPod)!
I mean if the royalties are paid when the device is manufactured, there is no need for them to double dip and collect royalties again when I pay for content right? I think it would hold in court!
I was just reading some of the Zune comments on Amazon. Wow. Sounds like a really GREEEEAAAAT product.
Here is another little tid bit about Universal Music you may not be aware of. The original MP3.com was bought out by Universal Music a few years back. Prior to Universal, MP3.com was privately owned and had music from thousands of indie artist from around the world and no major label artist. You could listen to the artist music for free, but you could also purchase their music for download or actual CD. There was a lot of really awful music there but there was a lot of very good music there also. Some unsigned artist sold thousands of CD around the world like my band. After Universal bought MP3.com they destroyed the catalog even though the original owner offered to purchase it. Economics would lead me to think that Universal believed that the millions of indie songs sold on MP3.com was a direct threat to them not meeting their year over year projections, and it was. Get rid of the competition and get money for nothing.........sounds like big business trying to please their share holders. It is no wonder that our culture is going to hel#, when fair play and morals give way to profits. And yes most labels are pimps and you know who their hoes are.......our favorite artists. I hope Apple does not cave to this type of extortion!!!
Do CD player and tape deck and car stereo companies pay music studios for every piece of their equipment sold? What about computers which can play the CDs and downloaded songs?
Do they pay Apple and Microsoft to subsidize the R&D costs for each generation of the players that they put out and develop each generation of the music software or player software updates? Do they pay Apple to help the cost of running the ITMS when they still take the lion share of the price per song?
W
H
A
T
E
V
E
R
Do they pay Apple and Microsoft to subsidize the R&D costs for each generation of the players that they put out and develop each generation of the music software or player software updates? Do they pay Apple to help the cost of running the ITMS when they still take the lion share of the price per song?
W
H
A
T
E
V
E
R
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
YEAH RIGHT... here you go EMINEM... here is your .00000000000000017 of a cent you get for this ZUNE. Just trying to share the wealth with ALL THE ARTISTS. Those artists will never see that money. PLEASE. HOW naive could you be?
Microsoft's lack of backbone is going to make us all pay... wait and see.
Royalty for every iPod is a no-brainer: Do It!
I think having Apple (which of course gets passed on to us users) paying a royalty per iPod is a no-brainer, let's do it!!! The logic is that people are playing illegal copies of Universal Studios songs, therefore, Apple should pay a royalty for every iPod to cover.
So, Apple, pay the royalty, which should logically imply that there is no need to EVER buy music from Universal since the royalty is now covered.
HEY UNIVERSAL... can't have your cake and eat it too.
jp
I think having Apple (which of course gets passed on to us users) paying a royalty per iPod is a no-brainer, let's do it!!! The logic is that people are playing illegal copies of Universal Studios songs, therefore, Apple should pay a royalty for every iPod to cover.
So, Apple, pay the royalty, which should logically imply that there is no need to EVER buy music from Universal since the royalty is now covered.
HEY UNIVERSAL... can't have your cake and eat it too.
jp