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

Universal Music 'Free Music' Plan to Take on iTunes

sounds a bit fishy. We'll see how they do, I don't think Apple really cares, they have iTunes under their belt, and it's a well established method of purchasing.

Amazon may be trouble though...
 
If I could pay $5/month for all the music I wanted, DRM free, I'd take that in an instant.

But, this sounds like they want companies like apple or Verizon to pay that for their customers. Naturally, the cost is passed on to the customer, so in effect everyone who buys a gadget capable of playing music from any of the participating companies is a paying subscriber whether he wants to be or not.

This is little different from imposing a tax that goes directly into the coffers of the record companies. Where is the incentive for them to earn our business?
 
grappler said:
If I could pay $5/month for all the music I wanted, DRM free, I'd take that in an instant.
Click to expand...

yes, but this would be $5/month for all the music on UMG, with DRM... and while there is a lot of music on UMG, theres even more music thats not...
 
zombitronic said:
F the industry. How about an "artist-owned" service?
Click to expand...

What do you mean? Like each artist has his/her own music store? Or each record label? I could see maybe each record label having their own b/c they have the $$ & resources to do this. Individual artists probably don't, or at least the know-how. Plus, do you know how many different stores there'd be if each artist had their own? On the other hand, record labels may have a really weird pricing scheme that screws some of the artists. There probably isn't a single way that'll make everyone happy.

I'm also one of those people who don't think music rentals/subscriptions is a good thing. People tend to listen to songs often and for a long time. Having to pay for a song indefinitely will be too hard for the consumer. Movies & TV shows, on the other hand, aren't watched as frequently and could probably be good on a subscription/rental service.

As for DRM, I can see both sides of the fence. People shouldn't pirate songs and artists should get paid for their work (yet not get too greedy). But people should be able to do whatever they want w/ the song after they buy it (other than copy it to a friend). This would be a lot easier if people were more responsible.
 
DRM Free? None of this is!

One thing I con't understand is why people think subscription service means DRM free? It's not! Once you stop paying, the music stops working! And yes, if you have freinds that subscribe, they can download it too... but you have the same constraints if they dont.

I think Universal is nuts. They should be working with Apple to find a happy medium. Obviously, they see there is money to be made and want more the the pie... so now they want to turn their back on the comapany that helped define the industry and make it a viable business. I don't know what the real answer is to this whole thing, but honestly, I don't mind paying for what I like. Just becasue we now have an all digital world and it's easy to copy things that should not be my free pass to get upset because companies want to continue to sell the music they publish.

I guess we'll see what happens... but I don't think in the long run Universal will go through with it. I think they are trying to make waves and will in the end only shoot themselves in the foot. I just dont see how they can walk away from the entire iPod market???
 
cliffjumper68 said:
This will make it easier to boycott RIAA material and stay with Indies! Go for it and drive your revenues down further!
Click to expand...

What the hell does this have to do with the RIAA.... yes, i think they're an evil organization... but this has nothing to do with them....
 
Like I said over on Engadget comments, the problem with this model is going to be that it's player-based. Meaning that since the cost of the subscription is built into the player cost, they will have to make it so you have to plug in a valid player in order to download songs or keep your subscription (be able to play them on the computer). Then if the player dies or gets lost or you sell it or whatever, the songs are gone and you'll have to start over.
 
zap2 said:
doubt it...if all the major media companies pull the plug on iTunes Music Store, I can't see Apple keeping it around.
Click to expand...

So if for instance of an iTunes demise and one has to go to Universal et al., can we start a class action lawsuit against Universal for iTunes demise and having to use Universal's subscription method? I can hear it now... It's my iPod, I paid for it, I should have the choice of which music store and method (buy or subscribe) I want!

Or is that only for iPhone?:)

iPod owners battlecry song... Sssuuuueeeee (pronounced 'suey' for here piggie, piggie, pig)
 
Rot'nApple said:
So if for instance of an iTunes demise and one has to go to Universal et al., can we start a class action lawsuit against Universal for iTunes demise and having to use Universal's subscription method? I can hear it now... It's my iPod, I paid for it, I should have the choice of which music store and method (buy or subscribe) I want!

Or is that only for iPhone?:)

iPod owners battlecry song... Sssuuuueeeee (pronounced 'suey' for here piggie, piggie, pig)
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA!!! :D:D:D

Anyway, they need to calm down and try to work with Apple. Record labels are dying. If Apple decides to cut the middle man and go straight to the artists, it's over for them.

In other words, this is Universal's last act of desperation.

:apple:
 
It's all a ploy by Universal to negotiate a better deal with Apple... watch... this will be solved in the 11th hour after iPods are again the top selling MP3 player and gadget for Christmas... magically, Universal and Apple will come to terms.

Maybe this will be a good thing in the long run and Apple will implement a choice for people... buy a subscription or but the music... your choice... it would make great business sense for both. Pay $4.95 a month and listen to all you want off of one iPod, or as an option, buy the music with rights to duplicate on up to 5 authorized computers or iPods (like we do now).

Hummm... if I go back to the Universal proposal... does that mean they would need $5 a month for every MP3 player... every XBox, Every Computer that plays music, every AppleTV? Etc... etc.. ???? Hummm... how could they manage that sort of business model????
 
nimbuscloud said:
HAHAHAHA!!! :D:D:D

Anyway, they need to calm down and try to work with Apple. Record labels are dying. If Apple decides to cut the middle man and go straight to the artists, it's over for them.

In other words, this is Universal's last act of desperation.

:apple:
Click to expand...



Yes it is... and EMI's desperation act was offering DRM free music on iTunes... they've been trying to seel themselves to UMG for years but no one wants to buy them....
 
What a joke

This might just be the worst idea ever.

The labels are getting desperate. I downloaded Radiohead's new album last night directly from their website. Nine Inch Nails says "goodbye" to labels and contracts. Throwing Muses/ 50 Ft. Wave/ Kristin Hersh are starting a direct download model. Ani DiFranco has been doing it herself for over 15 years.

What services do the labels perform? Marketing? Distribution? Production? All of these can be done indepentently for far less than it used to cost - and mostly thanks to technology introduced and/or popularized by Apple.

And as for competition - if Universal was truly in favor of competition, they would allow Apple to sell un-DRMed, high quality track through the iTunes store. This move reeks of a combination immature vendetta and death-throes desperation.
 
'The Music Industry' are clueless.
They cant run anything except themselves into the ground

Like the Zune, this is already dead.

There is a trickle in the DIY movement-but watch the floodgates open-when artists realize they have total control-and will make no money. You will see artists site where you can buy the full cd, download it, or buy trinkets, teeshirts etc
And another thing-we can be rid of the large ugly and intrusive part of a CDs cover designwhen they no longer have the FBI or EXPLICIT
warnings as an unremovable part of the artwork.
At least in Europe, they have EXPICIT warning as stickers, easliy removed after the cellophane is broken
 
bellicelli said:
What services do the labels perform? Marketing? Distribution? Production? All of these can be done independently for far less than it used to cost - and mostly thanks to technology introduced and/or popularized by Apple.
Click to expand...

they also provide the contacts to make all those things happen ... and most importantly... money... which is the hardest part for an independent band.... Sure, anyone can get on the radio nationally, if you have a $750,000 national radio campaign. ... the biggest issue is that the majors have a huge overhead, and it takes 700,000 units sold to break even, while it takes an indie label about 70,000 units...
 
Drumjim85 said:
Yes it is... and EMI's desperation act was offering DRM free music on iTunes... they've been trying to seel themselves to UMG for years but no one wants to buy them....
Click to expand...

Maybe Universal is trying to make enough trouble that Apple will buy them to shut them up? The labels have been exploiting artists for decades. Most artists don't see any money beyond the initial advance, so piracy isn't really hurting the bands that much, not that I support it. Thanks to technology, quality recordings can be made on the cheap, and artists no longer need the labels to manufacture and distribute physical copies of their music. This isn't exactly new, but I think the technology has finally matured enough in the past couple of years that the labels are in real trouble. Apple's profits are soaring. Universal's not so much. Universal might want to be bought out by Apple and try to pull off a canibalistic AOL Time Warner sort of thing.
 
Good luck to them...

'industry owned' says it all...

good luck to them, they'll have a hard time agreeing amongst each other, with companies trying to outnasty each other from day one.

I'm sure pretty soon you'll see inconsistencies and other cracks in their shop all over the place.

They want control, but can't even manage to wrangle themselves free from the iTS.. poor bastards..
 
MadIvan said:
Maybe Universal is trying to make enough trouble that Apple will buy them to shut them up? The labels have been exploiting artists for decades. Most artists don't see any money beyond the initial advance, so piracy isn't really hurting the bands that much, not that I support it. Thanks to technology, quality recordings can be made on the cheap, and artists no longer need the labels to manufacture and distribute physical copies of their music. This isn't exactly new, but I think the technology has finally matured enough in the past couple of years that the labels are in real trouble. Apple's profits are soaring. Universal's not so much. Universal might want to be bought out by Apple and try to pull off a canibalistic AOL Time Warner sort of thing.
Click to expand...


ya, piracy doesn't hurt the artist, it actually helps them get their music into the world...but it does hurt the label...
Most of the artist's profit comes from touring, and merchandising... and they hardly ever see money from the album sales... but like wise, they still need album sales to pay off the debt they owe to the label...

- and i doubt apple would want to buy a dying record label... but maybe they'll do what starbucks did and make their own...
 
We need to support these artists efforts!

DarkRail said:
Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) announced earlier this week that he has fulfilled his contract with Universal, and is now leaving the world of major labels forever. A couple quotes from him on the subject:

"As of right now, Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contract with any label. I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit."

And this one from a few months earlier, speculating more on what he'll do now : "I would put out my next album, you could download it from my site at as high a bit-rate as you want, pay $4 through PayPal. Come see the show and buy a T-shirt if you like it. I would put out a nicely packaged merchandise piece, if you want to own a physical thing. And it would come out the day that it's done in the studio, not this "Let's wait three months" bulls---."

Great stuff as far as I'm concerned. Let's hope other artists follow his march away from Universal.
Click to expand...

DarkRail said:
originally posted by slu:

Radiohead is doing this with their new record as well. And Pearl Jam, even though they made a deal with J Records to distribute their last record, are not under contract either.
This is going to happen. You can bypass the studio now...
Click to expand...


We need to really support these guys in doing so. We need a website that lists these guys going alone to show people like me (even if i don't like their music) how to support them.

Also although the anti-DRM campaign/website and that one company has been a good influence, we need more centralized efforts like this to get people so stay away from DRM crap ESPECIALLY the bull**** like this record-lable owned music service will be. We need like a nonprofit organization that people pay member "dues" to each year that works to help artists stay independent and setup a channel for selling their music. with this type of organization, instead of just a few million young people yelling about DRM and big corporation tactics, people would really be able to take these guys down.
how about a 4-week boycott of major labels? that kind of **** is how to make change happen!!
 
Big name artists can pull off the self distribution thing because they already have a following.

Indie labels (like mine) don't have the funds to get their product out in front of people to see if they like it. At least itunes kinda changes that. You can go listen to and buy Kyria -Whispers In The Dark (self plug) almost anywhere in the world now (on itunes, emusic, etc. -Amazon soon!).

The trouble is, I can't get radio play for Feeling Good so that enough people will want to buy it that we can afford to do this full time and come up with more good tunes.

I don't have the payola, er marketing money to do this. Universal does have the marketing money and connections to make 'crap' popular.

I fear the music biz either needs the big bad marketing machine, or will be so filled with cheaply produced, blanched music that music will have lost all value (even though there WILL be killer artists out there, finding out about them will be hard).

Adapt Universal et al, or risk ruining everything!

My $.02
 
studiomusic said:
Big name artists can pull off the self distribution thing because they already have a following.

Indie labels (like mine) don't have the funds to get their product out in front of people to see if they like it. At least itunes kinda changes that. You can go listen to and buy Kyria -Whispers In The Dark (self plug) almost anywhere in the world now (on itunes, emusic, etc. -Amazon soon!).

The trouble is, I can't get radio play for Feeling Good so that enough people will want to buy it that we can afford to do this full time and come up with more good tunes.

I don't have the payola, er marketing money to do this. Universal does have the marketing money and connections to make 'crap' popular.

I fear the music biz either needs the big bad marketing machine, or will be so filled with cheaply produced, blanched music that music will have lost all value (even though there WILL be killer artists out there, finding out about them will be hard).

Adapt Universal et al, or risk ruining everything!

My $.02
Click to expand...

Yes, the reason these guys can be so successfull on their own is because they HAVE had all the major label marketing money to begin with... this is not the same as an indie artist who has always been indie

But, again, an indie artist's break even point is a LOT lower
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back