“Warner Music Group, the world’s fourth largest music company, said on Thursday it will keep anti-piracy copy protection for digital songs sold on services such as Apple Inc.’s iTunes Music Store,” Reuters reports.
MacDailyNews Note: Apple CEO Steve Jobs on Tuesday called for DRM-free music sales online in an open letter posted on Apple’s website.
Reuters reports, “Warner Music chief executive Edgar Bronfman Jr. said in a call with analysts that the argument to drop copy protection also known as digital rights management (DRM) is “without logic and merit. We will not abandon DRM.”
Full article here.
The situation is crystal clear: Apple is anti-DRM and at least one major music label, along with their partner in crime, Microsoft, favors DRM.
Warner’s Middlebronfman has in the past also expressed his desire for a cut of Apple’s iPod sales; a desire that defines the phrase “without logic and merit,” not only because such a deal is unprecedented in the history of music playing devices (besides Microsoft’s desperate deal with music labels and the failing Zune), but because Warner would presumably get a cut of all iPod sales regardless of whether any Warner music is actually on each device.
Note also that the vast bulk of Warner’s music profits comes from selling DRM-free CDs. Talk about illogical! DRM is so easily removed, that it’s pointless. The mass pirates, about whom the music labels are supposedly worried, aren’t going to let a little DRM get in their way, so the only people that DRM is affecting are regular, law-abiding consumers who just want to listen to their music. Thankfully, Apple’s iTunes Store does allow music to be burned without DRM to music CD to be played in CD players and/or transferred to any device they desire. We are all for selling music without DRM.
It is time to eliminate the Middlebronfman and allow the artists to go directly to their fans via iTunes; no more outdated ideas like making an album a year (you write a song, record it and release it via iTunes whenever the creative urge hits) and no more DRM. With The Beatles’ Apple Corps settlement behind them, Apple is free to do just that.
[Note: MacDailyNews coined the term “Middlebronfman,” a combination of “middleman” and “Bronfman,” in an article on Monday, October 03, 2005 with the sentence, “Eliminate the middlebronfman.” Full article here.]
Related articles:
Dvorak: Apple CEO Steve Jobs is dead right about DRM – February 07, 2007
Apple’s Jobs jolts music industry; Zune exec calls Jobs’ call for DRM-free music ‘irresponsible’ – February 07, 2007
Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ posts rare open letter: ‘Thoughts on Music’ – calls for DRM-free music – February 06, 2007
Apple Inc. and The Beatles’ Apple Corps Ltd. enter into new agreement – February 05, 2007
Norwegian Ombudsman: Apple’s FairPlay DRM is illegal in Norway – January 24, 2007
Major music labels ponder DRM-free future – January 23, 2007
Clash, Pink Floyd manager: ‘DRM is dead’ – November 06, 2006
Study reports the obvious: most music on iPods not from iTunes Store – September 17, 2006
Warner’s Middlebronfman: ‘We sell our songs through iPods, but we don’t have share of iPod revenue’ – October 05, 2005
Warner music exec discusses decapitation strategy for Apple iTunes Music Store – September 28, 2005
Warner CEO Bronfman: Apple iTunes Music Store’s 99-cent-per-song model unfair – September 23, 2005
apple irecords 2007
first signing : the beatles
All those people (record label execs) are concerned about is keeping their fat paychecks and excessive lifestyles.
Is it stubbornness? Are these music exec’s just plain stupid?
I feel like the DRM thing is like trying to convince an old man to change his ways.
I suggest everyone go to eMusic. They’re DRM free and have some great undiscovered musical talents. Just my thought.
I wish I could see the full text of Bronfman’s response. How does he dispute the logic of no more DRM? Can he show that it’s working? I just can’t understand it. If there’s no DRM on CDs then what’s the point of DRM for online files? Where’s his logic?
I’ve said it before, this mess is all the labels fault. They have to lower the price of music. That gravy train has left. CDs cost way too much and truth is so do online files.
They would make up in more sales what they would get in profit margin by lowering the price. What’s better? Zero sales for a $17.99 CD, 1 sale for a $9.99 download or 10 sales for a $4.99 CD/MP3?
Do you think we should all write Edgar Bronfman Jr. and call him a brainless dork that has got to get with the 21st century?
Allow or cancel?
Greed is good.
Jobs did in fact invite people to envision a DRM-free world… but he was not trying to threaten anybody or act like a bully or put a gun to people’s heads. Jobs said that if it would ever happen, Apple would embrace it. They’re taking his manifesto out of context.
Don’t make Jobs the villain record labels… or call him irresponsible… he just wants the customer to also win. But then again… that would sound like villainy to Warner.
Apple needs to get some DRM-free Independent music on the iTunes store for Jobs’ claim to have more validity. He should have launched a DRM-free section on iTunes in conjunction with his open letter. While he’s at it, let’s get a Lossless option. Even without the DRM, I’m not buying anymore iTunes content (music or video) until the quality improves (lossless and HD video).
Famous last words. Yup, it’s time for a new Apple Records.
@flappo
Awesome concept….any Joe on the street can currently post a podcast with artwork on iTunes…why not DRM free Music from both established artist as well as 3 guys in a garage….artist get direct and higher % payment from Apple iTunes sale.
Dear Recording Industry,
This is why people hate you.
Thank you,
Christina Wiley
What Warner provided is Apple’s answer to the European call for removal of DRM from songs purchased from iTunes. Actually this is part of the answer as Europe is calling for Apple to license Fairplay to it’s competitors. Steve Job’s letter and Warner’s response together explain why Apple must use DRM and why it chooses not to license Fairplay. Seems to me if the European countries who are calling for Apple to license Fairplay do not accept this answer, then Apple must stop selling songs in those countries in order to avoid breaking the law in those countries.
Gotta love the big 4 $&%&BS; music companies. <sigh>
Peace.
It is getting to a point we do not need a CD, so we don’t need companies like Warner Music Group. The artists should start thinking about the future and go directly to their fans via iTunes, and or others to distribute music.
I need a CD like I need an eight track tape.
More from Bronfman/Warner conference call:
Bronfman rejected Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs’s public plea to drop digital-rights management coding on versions of songs sold online.
“We advocate the continued use of DRM in the protection of our and our artists’ intellectual property,” Bronfman said on a conference call with analysts. “The notion that music does not deserve the same protections as software, television, films, video games or other intellectual property, simply because there is an unprotected legacy product available in the physical world, is completely without logic or merit.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aNqshMobYvAg&refer=news
(Replays of the conference call are on http://www.wmg.com .)
Net income dropped 74 percent to $18 million, or 12 cents a share, from $69 million, or 46 cents, a year earlier, New York- based Warner Music said today in a statement. That missed the 26 cent average estimate compiled by Bloomberg. Sales declined 11 percent to $928 million.
Maybe Bronfman is looking for a way to deflect attention
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Jobs placed the onus for DRM on the music industry where it belongs and that’s good enough for me. Hopefully, Norwegian ombudsmen et al can read English or, at least, find a useable translation of “the letter” in their native language.
“I’ve said it before, this mess is all the labels fault. They have to lower the price of music. That gravy train has left. CDs cost way too much and truth is so do online files. “
Actually, I don’t think the industry’s problems have anything to do with DRM or even the cost of music.
The real problem is that they put out complete crap.
If there was actually good music, people would buy it.
who owns emusic?
Apple should buy them and then offer a hefty amount of independent DRM free stuff.
Then they shall do what they never did before, break down the sales figures of their Itune sale just to prove to the big four that DRM is burden on music sales.
Question: What would DRM-free music do to the music download industry?
Answer: INSTANTLY KILL the “all you can eat” subscription plans on day one. People would sign up. Download 10,000 songs. Cancel after one month.
I for one, wouldn’t mind a subscription service. I download LOTS from iTunes, and I’d save money.
For this reason, among others, I don’t think that DRM is “all bad” for consumers.
This is it, folks. This is what I’ve been waiting for since the iPod was released, the REAL Apple records, the one that eliminates the big 4 all together, and lets artists market their music directly to consumers.
The big labels are dead. So utterly redundant and unnecessary, they have their giant back-catalogs to protect, but no value to attract the new or emerging artist. They are the lumbering corporate behemoths, the faceless powers, that so many artists profess to loathe. But until today (or maybe a couple of Tuesdays from today) they were the only game in town. And to play that game, artists had to give up control of their work and much of the profit derived from it. It’s exploitive, it’s anti-creative, and it’s just plain sleazy, and it gives us nothing in return for its existence but endless reincarnations of The New Kids on the Block and Madonna.
They sell shit. And shit-sellers never last, because after a while people get tired of their shit.
So yeah, this is going to change the whole game. The recording industry should be collecting moving boxes in their spare time, because it’s not going to be long before they close up shop. Goodbye payola, goodbye sleazy A&R douchebags, goodbye crappy royalty deals. The vast army of people in the music business who don’t make music for a living are about to get shaken to the ground.
-c
Another reason that Bronfman may be pissed
A judge has noticed that the purpose of Copyright Law isn’t just to protect the music industry. The purpose of the law is to enrich the public by access to creative works. That judicial insight led this judge to think about the defendant’s situation, what she had been through, what she was facing, and what Copyright Law would end up like if he didn’t make it a little bit less one-sided in his courtroom.
This is a significant development; the landmark case could have dramatic repercussions for the RIAA’s legal campaign against file sharers, since a precedent now exists for the RIAA to compensate wrongfully-sued defendants for their legal costs.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070208021454284
A judge has noticed that the purpose of Copyright Law isn’t just to protect the music industry. The purpose of the law is to enrich the public by access to creative works. That judicial insight led this judge to think about the defendant’s situation, what she had been through, what she was facing, and what Copyright Law would end up like if he didn’t make it a little bit less one-sided in his courtroom.
This is a significant development; the landmark case could have dramatic repercussions for the RIAA’s legal campaign against file sharers, since a precedent now exists for the RIAA to compensate wrongfully-sued defendants for their legal costs.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070208021454284
THis is an edited copy of my post from a dead thread. My apologies to any who read it there:
The CD is far from dead and many are sold via stand-up displays at Wal-Mart, Target etc. Getting on Leno and MTV doesn’t happen by accident, nor does inclusion on movie soundtracks. Print advertising doesn’t come cheap and the labels support tours. This stuff is still important for keeping the talent happy and breaking new acts on a large scale. The labels pay millions, sometimes tens of millions, of dollars in advance to fund future recording, many of which will bomb and have to be covered by the hits.
This stuff is paid for by $13 – $17 list prices — Apple can charge $10 since all the other stuff is on the labels’ tab. Plus, comparing $10 to $17 isn’t apples-to-apples. Of the $17, approximately 35% stays with the retailer ($5.75). The list price of a disc at Wal-Mart has to be at least $15.37 for Apple to net $10.
People complain that the labels are greedy, and they are, but what most don’t realize is that after marketing, copyright and union royalties, mfg and distribution they make less per unit than iTMS. (you don’t have to believe me but I am an ex-insider and know what I’m talking about)
So the record industry has to adapt to these changing times but simply saying that CD prices are too high is ignoring the business model that still sells a very large lion’s share music.
I don’t agree with him but I understand Bronfman’s frustration. Jobs could sell his product without copy protection but he doesn’t, at least for most items.
And please, don’t complain about how all the music people care about is their fat paychecks. It’s really only the top execs who get them and I suspect the top people at Apple and elsewhere do too. Perhaps they should all take huge cuts so my next iMac will be cheaper.
Oops!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
OMG Jobs is Brilliant!!
Apple has been telling commissions across Europe, “It’s not us, it’s the record labels.”
Now Jobs has the labels lining up to confirm it to the press! Genius, pure genius!
MDN Magic Word: Past. “They are so living in the past.”
Eventually this will come to a head. The record companies are the ones that hold all of the cards. They are the ones with the rights, plain and simple. Apple can go into the record business if it likes, and my guess is that they will now that they have the rights to the Apple name from the Beatles. They need some leverage against these guys and an Apple iRecord company would go a long way towards wresting some big names away from the record companies.
Let’s face it. What we are seeing is the death throws of one music industry and the birth of a new way of recording and listening to music. The current music industry, of course, will fight to the death to protect their gravy train. They will use whatever means they can. But it will be to no avail. If I was Apple right now, I would play nice with them for a little while longer. Hell, open up Fairplay but tell them to go scratch on their iPod tax. Then open up a new Apple records. Start signing some big names to sweetheart deals. Hurt them that way. When all of the other artists begin to sign on then you stick the knife in. You know, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
90% of the music they sell has no DRM – the music they sell on CDs.
this is just asinine. We need to start POUNDING this FACT home – that all the CDs they sell are without DRM (or the DRM is passable without much effort). So if they can sell all those CDs without DRM, what is the point of selling that remaining percentage without DRM?
i don’t think i pounded that message home well enough.
@Not evil…
I don’t know the numbers for sure but I’m pretty certain that Apple doesn’t net the full price for their downloads as you’re stating. The music store doesn’t make that much profit a lot of it goes to the music labels.
The RIAA web site has a document that reiterates your argument about the price of CDs here: http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/cost.asp but I still take issue with it.
They say part of the reason CDs cost so much is to pay for studio costs, marketing, printing, etc. etc. My question is, why should I have to pay for all that stuff for bands that I don’t like?
Why should my purchase of a CD by someone that the labels aren’t doing as much for cost actually MORE than the bigger names? There’s more money behind a release from for example Justin Timberlake than Yo La Tengo. You’ll see JT posters in stores and bus shelters, bulk discounts to retailers to keep the price of the CD more attractive, commercials and the cost of his studio time was probably huge thanks to the big name producers he uses. So thanks to the labels a JT CD will cost $12.99 because they believe he’ll move more units and make money. The Yo La Tengo release, which probably cost less to record and has little or no push behind it willl cost $18.99–if you can find it!
That business model is faulty. It’s been around for years but it’s deeply flawed. So is DRM. DRM doesn’t really affect me. I find Fairplay to be pretty fair (and easy to get around if need be), but DRM just doesn’t work. It actually impedes the success of online distribution. Without it I’ll bet online music sales increase. People who pirate will still pirate unfortunately but they’re doing that now DRM or not. So remove the DRM an let the people who are actually paying have their music without restrictions.
The record companies have shot themselves in the foot more than once with them. There is a small number of lawyers who represent a large number of music superstars and when one artist gets an extraordinary benefit everyone else lines up for it too. It’s not like satellite radio where there was only one Howard Stern.
If the record company’s did charge for every iPod sold, it would give us permission (a bill of sale) to steal all the music from them I want.
They set the price, I pay it, I get the music.
If the cost is only $1, that’s their problem.
“Note also that the vast bulk of Warner’s music profits comes from selling DRM-free CDs.”
Dont you see, they want to put this genie back in the bottle. Put DRM on CDs.
Cant let that happen.
Peter J – You’re right, Apple doesn’t keep most of what they charge, I’m just saying that they don’t have many of the expenses. And they don’t have to give 35% away off the top.
One of the reasons you’ll see so much advertising for a JT release is that the stars demand that the labels support the release w/marketing dollars. The labels can slash the price since they know they’ll make it up in volume but I suspect that at any price Yo La Tengo won’t sell like JT. Many people say that the labels only sell shit but it’s just as fair to say that many people buy the shit. Sad but fair.
They CAN’T put DRM on CDs. They tried. Phillips won’t let them call it a “CD” if it doesn’t fit the CD spec, and DRM does not. That is the ONLY reason it’s not there.
-c
ChrissyOne – you’re 100% correct and that’s why they so desperately want DRM on downloads. They know CDs are going away over the next decade so in a rare show of thinking ahead they want protection in the next business model where they have none now.
Well dudes, the way I see it is this: Apple can sign up artists themselves to sell direct on the iTunes store (without DRM). And when each of the big fat four record companies eventually cave in one at a time they can mix and match DRM and DRM free music files. If they put [protected] or [CP] or [drm] next to the song names with DRM we can choose whether to go for the stuff that makes life a little awkward or the nice easy to use music.
I realize I’m preaching to the choir, but:
1) There’s “logic” in getting a cut of the iPod revenues? Did music labels get a cut of the Sony Walkmans and tape decks that were sold? NO!!
2) There’s “logic” in making sure digital music is “protected,” yet I can create THE SAME digital music from CD’s without protection (and proceed to share with the world if I really wanted to)? NO!!!!
This is why I will never buy music CD’s ever again (with the exception of artists I like, and even then I sometimes get them from iTMS). I believe in supporting the musicians (except Metallica), but I do not believe in support the Record Labels, who are obsolete.
Oops – I forgot –
Peter J – you say “thanks to the labels a JT CD will cost $12.99” which actually isn’t true. It’s thanks to the *retailers* that it costs this. The labels will discount a new release by 3-7% of wholesale or 30 – 90 cents. All the rest of it comes out of the retailers pocket and marketing budget.
BTW – I don’t mean to be supporting the big 4 – just explaining a bit. I buy quite a bit of music, 90% from iTMS.
How cool would that be if Apple did create its own music label? They could then split the profits directly with the artists. At that point, it could be up to the individual artist to consider DRM-free music, which then could be purchased at iTunes and technically played anywhere.
why the outrage? THe labels didn’t get a cut from Walkman sales, they got something better. A new product line that was more profitable for them than vinyl and a way to crank out scads of back catalog. The walkman greatly increased label revenues which at least so far is not true for iPods and downloads. It’s not a valid comparison.
Look, I hate the labels for other (better?) reasons but they gave a lot of nobody bands a shot at making it. Yes, they only did it to make money and yes they cut the kind of deal you can cut when you hold the cards but they still gave money to lots of acts knowing they were flushing it down the drain.
Don’t read too much into any of my online comments. I never expected DRM to go away, I just wanted to set things straight about why they’re like they are. That’s all.
Apple is not the bad guy here.
Seriously, take 20% of the cash pile that Apple has, mix in some new AAPL paper and buy Bronfman’s private equity partners out of WMG.
Apple could buy the whole piss-ant operation for less than $4 billion and put this c**ksucker out to grass once and for all. Seriously, I don’t know how much of the family product Bronfman Jr. consumed as a child but it was too much.
Doesn’t this guy realize that pronouncements from Lord Jobs become the gospel? So it is written, so it shall be done. Hell fire awaits those who do not bow down.
Of course they will not stop DMR. The Music Industry are Robber Barons. They are the worst of any Industry.
They are monsters and I think EVERYONE should steal music until they realize that the consumers come first, not them at the cost of the consumer.
I’m done with paying for music.
DRM doesn’t stop piracy. Nothing stops piracy. Give it up, Mr. Warner. It’s a lost cause.
@not evil
OK, so the retailers are also part of the whole unfair model of distribution. I’ll give you that. But it doesn’t change the fact that basically the labels take risks with acts but want those risks to be subsidized by the consumer. I have no say in what they decide to push on me but I have to carry some of the cost by way of higher priced CDs. Sure they’ve given nobody bands a shot but they’ve also pushed what they deem to be viable ad nauseum. I don’t have to like the latest pop idol, but I’ll know their name and their song and their video because it’s being hammered into me. Meanwhile a band that I do like I may not even find because they don’t have the support.
As for your comment that labels were happy with Walkman’s–maybe they were eventually happy but initially they were afraid of cassettes claiming it would be the end of the recording industry because people could copy the music and distribute it. It’s the same thing with MP3s now (only amped up for the 21st century with no loss of quality and the sheer ease of distribution).
They’re fighting the future and they should be figuring how to embrace it and make it work for them. Will their profits be as much as it used to be? Don’t know. Maybe not but, and this gets back to the DRM issue, trying to put restrictions on what’s already out there won’t work. They need to look ahead.
You sound pretty intelligent and I think you’re just trying to see things from a Bronfman’s business perspective, but, as far DRM goes, I’m sure he’d think a little differently about DRM if he looked to the future and was a little less afraid
I like how this music-exec moron says it’s “without logic and merit” without ever explaining why.
…
Jobs is a sneaky scumbag.
1. he knows studios won’t go no-DRM
2. so he says only way is no-DRM or Fairplay DRM monopoly
3. Fairplay DRM monopoly remains, he washes his hands
4. profit
5. dumbass Maczealots cheer their “hero”
LOL
Cue NOFX please, here are the lyrics:
“Dinosaurs Will Die”
(This is not a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. This is the real thing)
Kick back watch it crumble
See the drowning, watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it
That’s sarcasm, let it burn
I’m gonna make a toast when it falls apart
I’m gonna raise my glass above my heart
Then someone shouts “That’s what they get!”
For all the years of hit and run
For all the piss broke bands on VH1
Where did all, their money go?
Don’t we all know
Parasitic music industry
As it destroys itself
We’ll show them how it’s supposed to be
Music written from devotion
Not ambition, not for fame
Zero people are exploited
There are no tricks, up our sleeve
Gonna fight against the mass appeal
We’re gonna kill the 7 record deal
Make records that have more than one good song
The dinosaurs will slowly die
And I do believe no one will cry
I’m just fucking glad I’m gonna be
There to watch the fall
Prehistoric music industry
Three feet in la brea tar
Extinction never felt so good
If you think anyone would feel badly
You are sadly, mistaken
The time has come for evolution
Fuck collusion, kill the five
Whatever happened to the handshake?
Whatever happened to deals no-one would break?
What happened to integrity?
It’s still there it always was
For playing music just because
A million reasons why
(All) dinosaurs will die
(All) dinosaurs will die
(All) dinosaurs will die
(So good an idea, I posted at tuaw as well)
NEW SOLUTION FOR APPLE!!!!
Now that they have the the Apple Corps. Apple Inc thing all worked out…
Apple now has “rights” to sell music. For EVERY iTunes sale — consumer can buy and have shipped the retail CD at a reduced price (probably plus shipping and handling) and the user gets the instant gratification, RIAA gets back some CD sales, Apple makes more money to bottom line — investors get richer ROI and the EU can tackle the music oligopoly that is the RIAA for their continued stupidity in sticking to DRM!
So the postal services around the world can expect an additional million mailings; technologists can sell a “burn a single” on demand with a shipping process, ECOMMERCE LIVES! And everyone benefits that cares to.
Simple solution now.
PS — I could see Apple now selling singles, albums and “load your iPod here” through ALL their retail stores. You buy the music there, download to the iPod in your pocket, or buy a new one, and you can purchase the DRM Free version burned, and stamped, right there, or have the retail version shipped to you.
AWESOME!!! Now… how do I make a few bucks off of this?
You gotta wonder what Jobs is really up to? It’s not like he didn’t know that the music labels would reject his call for DRM free music.
He can’t cut them out and it appears that he would rather not license Fairplay and now he’s become the defender of the consumer. Looks like distraction.
While everyone is looking over here, Jobs is doing something over there. It’ll be interesting to see where this goes.
I think he’s going to license Fairplay. Jobs can say he tried, governments are pressuring Apple to do so and now he has the nasty music companies committing themselves to DRM and which one are you going to go with? Since Fairplay is the defacto standard, Apple holds all the cards and can now dictate the terms because that’s what everybody wants. Everyone wants DRM – even if it doesn’t work – except the consumer.
I am the real Reality_Check, and Jobs is no scumbag, and there is no Fairplay monopoly you dolt. STFU..
The record companies point will be that although CDs are DRM-free you have to physically rip the music with an MP3 software before you can illegally distribute it on the net.
With DRM-free MP3 or the like songs, that one barrier is removed.
That barrier is not present for those that already listen to their music via MP3 players since they have to rip by default.
However, a lot of people still use CD players and for them that barrier still exists.
The argument then goes that any barrier however weak will reduce the level of pirating. Selling DRM-free songs therefore will allow anyone who buys those songs online to easily distribute songs.
I believe that removing DRM from online songs will increase the potential of piracy by the average user. However I also feel that that number will be pretty insignificant, since some much pirating or free distribution is already occuring.
It is however also not the Music industry’s problem if different players and systems are incompatible. Jobs tried to throw that issue onto the Music industry but clearly that won’t fly.
The best outcome is for artists to use independent labels that are willing to take a risk with DRM-free songs. Then the power of the big 4 will diminish significantly.
The Dog has spoken
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Toonie, The iTunes contracts expire in May. Jobs is leveraging a better position on DRM so they can license it as he knows the MAFIAA will never go DRM free.
At the same time I expect an iTunes “Music label” to be announced soon. iTunes direct? artists selling their works directly through iTunes without the MAFIAA taking a cut. With new media the MAFIAA ways are dying, artists do not need them to get noticed by the consumer.
The only big music tours that work are funding by corporate sponsers nowadays anyway, just look at Vans Warped Tour and Ozzfest for validation.
Artists can produce their music and videos on macs, sell their songs on itunes and distribute videos via you tube. Add in the myspace marketing factor and show me where you need a record label.
Seems like a win win to me for everyone except the robber barons..I say good riddance to them..
Since DRM is so easily circumvented, and most music is sold without it, why are the labels so attached to it? The answer has to be that it makes it much easier to get a conviction in court against an illegal downloader. DRM and the DMCA work together to protect online music and video. If you bypass the DRM, you have broken the law (the DMCA) that the labels paid so much to buy.
What’s wrong with DRM?
All you bozos who get excited about DRM are smart enough to circumvent it, right?
So STFU and get a life!
Thank you, Edgar for speaking up. Soon everyone except Apple-haters will know for sure that it’s only the labels who want DRM, and that MS will be the willing lackey to do their bidding.
Then Cory Doctorow can stop his anti-Apple tirades and start pointing in the correct direction. (But of course, he won’t…)
LEgacy Product? CDs are a legacy product? WTF? They are most of the market. Who is this idiot? No wonder sales are down if that is how he thinks.
Anti-piracy and fair use are just smokescreens. The real issue is who controls emerging media distribution channels. The dinosaur music industry relies on control, in order to continue influencing music tastes as the gatekeeper for what gets heard, while extracting a financial cut from as much media consumption as possible. They don’t like it when consumers are able to bypass them when buying music.
Unfortunately, the misguided Home Recording Act of 1992 set the precedent for taxing digital media devices regardless of usage. This so called “DAT Tax” approved by a voice vote of Congress imposed a 2% transfer royalty on Digital Audio Tape recorders and a 3% tax on blank media. As a composer, I was required to pay this tax every time I bought a blank DAT tape on which to record my own original music. Through legislative action, the music industry succeeded in muting entire media recording technologies that they otherwise could not control – DAT and minidisc come to mind.
Now Microsoft’s misguided decision to offer hardware royalties for Zune extends this precedent into the realm of media players and not just recorders.
After decades of such nonsense, things are about to change. Microsoft is on record as pro-DRM, and Apple has clarified its anti-DRM stance. Microsoft believes they have clout as allies of the content suppliers, and Apple clearly has the advantage with content consumers. This is going to get interesting.
Middle Bronfman,ah yes the ex-Canadian jewish family who made their fortune smuggling poor quality whisky into the States during prohibition, the same family that owned the company that allowed Gerald Ball to invent the big gun for Sadam to fire on Israel, the same family who for years didn’t pay their fair share of taxes in Canada, paid off some politicos and moved all of their trusts (without penality) out of the country, and then bought a record company so bozo could live the dream in California. Oh Yeah!
God forbid anybody should play DRM free music.
@ Not Evil…
“They know CDs are going away over the next decade so in a rare show of thinking ahead they want protection in the next business model where they have none now.”
…and having none now, why don’t we look at how much money they make? Is it not enough? Is it unfair? Are there starving record execs?
No, but there are starving bass players.
So we’re to believe that these poor, starving record execs are just this side of Chapter 11, and they need protection for their next media format. Ah. Like they tried with EVERY PREVIOUS media format, maybe?
They didn’t have the technology to stop us from dubbing tapes.
BUT THEY TRIED.
We won, and yet still they made money.
Now again, all is lost unless media can be ‘protected’.
How is it different now?
Why should I suddenly think this is a good idea?
-c
I’m not talking about record execs, I’m talking about the record industry. 1% of the employees of record companies are fat and happy but the industry is on life support.
Yes, there are starving bass players and those that are in the musician’s union have their health insurance paid for by union royalties. People who download (steal) music are doing so at the expense of these bass players.
The record labels do NOT MAKE ANY MONEY on US operations and they haven’t for more than a decade. It’s their own damn fault but they don’t. (BTW – I’m talking real dollars, not any accounting tricks) They only stay in business because the international operations are still profitable. (BTW – international is profitable because CDs are MORE expensive overseas) If they were rolling in dough you can bet there would be more companies trying to get in the game but there aren’t. You’ll note the record companies are part of conglomerates with profitable divisions that prop them up. I’ll say it again:
The Record Companies Lose Money!
The real reason that DRM is an issue at all is that cheap bastard have made it appear necessary. People make statements like I’ll never pay for music again and this makes them robbers who aren’t good enough at it to be barons.
Music has value and most people recognize that. But some of those same people think that they shouldn’t have to pay for it. They rationalize it by claiming the record companies are evil and don’t deserve their money but that’s crap. The law doesn’t only apply to businesses you respect. The freely downloaded track was paid for at some point and people seem to think its OK to freeload.
If you think the labels sell shit than don’t buy it. If you think they sell something worth listening to, buy it. If you steal it be honest with yourself and know that you’ve done something wrong.
BTW – I don’t think there’s anything wrong with file-sharing as long as there is actually sharing. If no one took more tracks than they uploaded there wouldn’t be a problem. THe record companies would still whine but it wouldn’t be any worse than borrowing an album from a friend, making a copy and returning it. The issue is with people who download tons of stuff but never buy any. They have spoiled it for the rest of us.
Bronfman’s brain is full of Seagrams. Too numb to know he is on the Titantic Warner. Its goin down. Stay onboard the ship please.
Number one, first and foremost: Copying is not stealing. It never has been, it never will be. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, you can’t make it true.
If you have a car, and I steal that car, you don’t have a car.
If you have a recording, and I steal that recording, you don’t have a recording.
If you have a recording, and I copy that recording, you still have a recording.
NOT STEALING.
And as far as record companies not making money – I believe you are either an idiot or a liar. Sure, they may use nifty accounting tricks to make it look like they make no money, but I’ve seen how accountants can operate… that’s not hard to do.
So, THE RECORD INDUSTRY MAKES MONEY. LOTS OF IT.
And while CDs may cost more in parts of the world, they cost much less in others. Try to sell a $17 CD in China and see how far you get.
And considering how the record companies are behaving, fuck them. I haven’t given them a dime since the Napster lawsuit, and I’m not about to start now.
Number one, first and foremost: Copying is not stealing. It never has been, it never will be. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, you can’t make it true.
If you have a car, and I steal that car, you don’t have a car.
If you have a recording, and I steal that recording, you don’t have a recording.
If you have a recording, and I copy that recording, you still have a recording.
NOT STEALING.
And as far as record companies not making money – I believe you are either an idiot or a liar. Sure, they may use nifty accounting tricks to make it look like they make no money, but I’ve seen how accountants can operate… that’s not hard to do.
So, THE RECORD INDUSTRY MAKES MONEY. LOTS OF IT.
And while CDs may cost more in parts of the world, they cost much less in others. Try to sell a $17 CD in China and see how far you get.
And considering how the record companies are behaving, fuck them. I haven’t given them a dime since the Napster lawsuit, and I’m not about to start now.
Number one, first and foremost: Copying is not stealing. It never has been, it never will be. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, you can’t make it true.
If you have a car, and I steal that car, you don’t have a car.
If you have a recording, and I steal that recording, you don’t have a recording.
If you have a recording, and I copy that recording, you still have a recording.
NOT STEALING.
And as far as record companies not making money – I believe you are either an idiot or a liar. Sure, they may use nifty accounting tricks to make it look like they make no money, but I’ve seen how accountants can operate… that’s not hard to do.
So, THE RECORD INDUSTRY MAKES MONEY. LOTS OF IT.
And while CDs may cost more in parts of the world, they cost much less in others. Try to sell a $17 CD in China and see how far you get.
And considering how the record companies are behaving, fuck them. I haven’t given them a dime since the Napster lawsuit, and I’m not about to start now.
On what basis do you think the record industry makes money?
What if I go to the local coffee house where local musicians play on weekends and buy a self-produced CD at the register. I tell the guy that I’m going to bring it back tomorrow after I burn copies for the 14 friends who split the cost with me. I just want to confirm I can get a full refund.
I’ve done nothing but make copies – nobody is out anything. I’ll even put new shrink-wrap on it.
So it’s not stealing, it’s just copying. And perfectly legal. Is it right? Would you object if you were the musician?
Imagine how you would feel if you were the founder of Napster, having been vilified, sued, prosecuted out of business, only to have the big labels grab the DRM free download market again, this time calling it legal.
[I don’t know if anyone is still reading this thread but…]
@ Brau – The Napster thing went down badly for everyone and this would make it worse but there’s still a difference – with Napster, the artist, writer and starving bass player get nothing. My concern is with them, not the labels. In lots of cases the labels have taken (are taking) unfair advantage of the creators but that’s not the issue. That will still be true w/ or w/out downloads. When we buy music the creators get something but when we download it they don’t.
I understand vilifying the labels and wishing them ill. I can’t understand treating the songwriter in the same fashion. At least a guitar player can play at a bar to earn some money, free drinks and the chance to meet girls (or guys). The songwriter generally has one source of income and that is from copyright royalties earned on the sale of albums. Unlike the band, they didn’t get an advance on future royalties and need their x pennies a unit to pay the rent. (big deal writers may get an advance from their publishing company)
I don’t mean to sound holier-than-thou but when many (most) people say they want to screw the labels they are using it as a justification for getting something for free. If they said they wanted to screw the labels, the artists, the writers, the studio musicians and independent producers at least they would acknowledge the result of their actions.