Any record company is free to make their music exclusively available on a service that is incompatible with 75% of the mp3 players owned by those 300 million Americans but I don't think many will.
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
Any record company is free to make their music exclusively available on a service that is incompatible with 75% of the mp3 players owned by those 300 million Americans but I don't think many will.
Don't curse Microsoft. They're just doing what they've always done - try to screw over anyone they see as a threat. They can't defeat Apple, but they can screw up the market so bad that it won't matter if Apple is king of the hill.
Curse the idiots that buy the Zune without even knowing what they are doing. Better yet, pass the word. This isn't about the Zune being a nice device or not, this is about the DRM in the thing, and the tax you pay to the music companies even if you don't buy any of their songs.
In the end, the Zune will fail, because it is big, expensive, and has DRM that isn't compatible with anything anyone has ever bought before anywhere. It isn't even Vista compatible yet! But this isn't about the Zune being successful, and I'm beginning to think it never was. The Zune is more about Microsoft trying to throw a wrench into the music download industry - and if it can make Apple less profitable by doing so, then so much the better.
Stick it
Just tell them that they are getting the same deal they had before, or they can sell their music elsewhere. Apple is not a new comer to the industry like Microsoft.
Standard response from the music industry, "Our customers are thieves, and have iPods full of illigal music". Tell them to Stick it where .......
Just tell them that they are getting the same deal they had before, or they can sell their music elsewhere. Apple is not a new comer to the industry like Microsoft.
Standard response from the music industry, "Our customers are thieves, and have iPods full of illigal music". Tell them to Stick it where .......
i think this would be even more incentive for apple to roll out the video ipod so it would be marketed as a video player and not a music player
thus evading the fees
on a side note whos not to say that every one has record labels on their ipod some may use it as an external harddrive or musicians may have their own homemade songs on it
thus evading the fees
on a side note whos not to say that every one has record labels on their ipod some may use it as an external harddrive or musicians may have their own homemade songs on it
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
My initial reservations about this story (the Zune/Universal payment) was much like eveybody's elses on these forums - very bad for us and screw 'em. But now that I've had time to think it through I actually think it's a fantastic idea.
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
Apple has sold what, 70m (ish) iPods since launch. What's it running at now about 10 a year? That's about $10m in revenue Universal could get a year.
If they walk they are losing a share in over 1bn songs translating to a whatever share they can get (say 10%), which would translate to $65m in revenue (2/3 of 10% of 1bn)**
Universal would be killing the golden goose if they were to try to force Apples hand, and Apple said "feck off then and take yer ***** music with ye"
Apple on the other hand only stand to lose maybe $4-5m.
** the assumptions may be way off, but it's illustrative anyway. Feel free to correct the numbers
If they walk they are losing a share in over 1bn songs translating to a whatever share they can get (say 10%), which would translate to $65m in revenue (2/3 of 10% of 1bn)**
Universal would be killing the golden goose if they were to try to force Apples hand, and Apple said "feck off then and take yer ***** music with ye"
Apple on the other hand only stand to lose maybe $4-5m.
** the assumptions may be way off, but it's illustrative anyway. Feel free to correct the numbers
But do you really think a court will decide that way. Not likely, especially if it's a judge from the wealth maximisation school of thought.
Only if all the lawyers and judges in the room are asleep at the wheel, and even then only if that mass narcolepsy extends to all appellate and supreme courts above that one for the several months it would take to shut down any of the major labels.
So is teleporation, but I'm not camping out in any lines.
Time for Apple to change the paradigm again. I think it's time for Apple to start putting together a music production house. Offer musicians the ability to go direct to iTunes with all the marketing necessary to promote their catalogs. I'm not very familiar with the music industry, but I "think" Apple is quite prepared to create their own studios, handle their own promotion/marketing and already have a HIGHLY efficient distribution system in place. Granted, they are not supposed to be creating music according to their Apple Music agreement, but if they just bought Apple Music outright it would make a great fit, eh?
B
B
The iTunes Store wouldn't be where it is today if Universal Music hadn't been so forthcoming with getting their catalogue on there.
Money for nothing and the chicks for free.
Perhaps we should all get a rebate for every crappy album ever released by Universal. I really want some of the stuff that these record execs are smoking, on top law suits and strong arm tactics now they expect to get money from every iPod not because the have provided any service or contributed in anyway to the product. Rather, they just want it. Hell, who doesn't ... I would also like to get in on this deal. Please Apple/Microsoft/SanDisk I would like to get $0.50 for every unit you sell. Sign me up. I think it is time that artists really evaluated the balance of power. I think it is time that artists should reevaluate the distrubution of wealth in the recording industry. Perhaps that lost money isn't due to pirating like the execs want you to think.
Free money always welcome.
Perhaps we should all get a rebate for every crappy album ever released by Universal. I really want some of the stuff that these record execs are smoking, on top law suits and strong arm tactics now they expect to get money from every iPod not because the have provided any service or contributed in anyway to the product. Rather, they just want it. Hell, who doesn't ... I would also like to get in on this deal. Please Apple/Microsoft/SanDisk I would like to get $0.50 for every unit you sell. Sign me up. I think it is time that artists really evaluated the balance of power. I think it is time that artists should reevaluate the distrubution of wealth in the recording industry. Perhaps that lost money isn't due to pirating like the execs want you to think.
Free money always welcome.
Sure it is. Its just that the everyday Joe isn't the pirate, the music distribution executives are. And there's only room for one pirate ship in this industry.
When Apple have done so much to counter piracy (introducing legal paid-for downloads, music files that cannot be re-distributed freely, generally raising awareness that music piracy is illegal) I hope that they aren't dooped into agreeing a royalty fee on iPods.
Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.
There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.
Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.
There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.
Do they get money from every CD player sold? This is lame, I dont see why Apple should share their profits with any music company just because Microsoft was dumb enough to do it... If they let one company make money off of it, whats to stop the rest from wanting a cut?
Hello Lawyers?
Appologies if this has already been brought up, but there were too many posts to read...
I believe that this is/was the deal in Canada for every hard drive and blank CD purchased (along with other recordable media). read more
I question any law/contract of this type on several grounds:
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
Appologies if this has already been brought up, but there were too many posts to read...
I believe that this is/was the deal in Canada for every hard drive and blank CD purchased (along with other recordable media). read more
I question any law/contract of this type on several grounds:
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
They've missed some items.......
Surely if they want a cut of mp3 players they should also have a cut of:
Hard drive sales in general (my computer has more music on thatn my iPod)
Mobile phones that can play mp3's
PSP's
cd players and hifi's that play mp3 cd's
any SD, memory stick, flash drive etc that could be used to store alleged stolen music.....
the list goes on.
Hope steve, and everyone else, tells them where to go.
Surely if they want a cut of mp3 players they should also have a cut of:
Hard drive sales in general (my computer has more music on thatn my iPod)
Mobile phones that can play mp3's
PSP's
cd players and hifi's that play mp3 cd's
any SD, memory stick, flash drive etc that could be used to store alleged stolen music.....
the list goes on.
Hope steve, and everyone else, tells them where to go.
Ha! I can't WAIT until they sit down to Apple's board and put that proposition on the table.
I haven't bought a piece of major-label music in years (because it's mostly crap), but my guess is Steve is going to absolutely go nuts, then tell them to bugger off and create their own media device.
I haven't bought a piece of major-label music in years (because it's mostly crap), but my guess is Steve is going to absolutely go nuts, then tell them to bugger off and create their own media device.
maybe this was the real reason that MS made the Zune.. just so they could set the standard for future Universal deals. I don't see it doing anything else, other than squirting...
I don't think Universal realizes how many people don't pirate music. On the other hand, I don't think they understand how ridiculously easy it would be for everyone who actually pays for music to go download it illegally and then some. They will end up losing far more than they gain with this one if it's implicated.
I don't think Universal realizes how many people don't pirate music. On the other hand, I don't think they understand how ridiculously easy it would be for everyone who actually pays for music to go download it illegally and then some. They will end up losing far more than they gain with this one if it's implicated.
It depends on the system in place. In Canada, I believe the proceeds are turned over to the CRIA which is then responsible for distribution to its members through a process of their own selection (and not legally specified).
Again, it's up to the labels to decide. Once they get their cut from the CRIA, the label controls distribution within its internal channels. More popular artists on that label probably get a bigger cut than niche artists, but more importantly, individual artists likely never see much in the way of proceeds from this.
No. Most importantly, the royalty does not create a stipulation, or even a fiduciary relationship between you, the customer, and the CRIA. The exchange is between the company (Apple, RCA, Samsung, Microsoft, etc.) and the industry consortium.
Even setting that aside, you have no record of a transaction taking place at all. You can't claim to have paid royalties and have received nothing in return granting you any rights (one way to fight this is to demand that a given label supply you with a written document). Absent consideration, all you've essentially done is paid money for nothing--you didn't send the label a contract with your dollar (and you can't, since you're not paying them the dollar anyway, you'd be paying Apple). Your contribution isn't so much because you're pirating music, but because you could be. It's like putting down a deposit, having to pay insurance, or having a membership in a book club. You pay money, but that's not the end of the transaction. The only thing this royalty grants you is a tacit guarantee that Universal will continue to provide digital content.