The Music Companies are unbelievable. This could be thought of as extorition.
That was my initial reaction too.
It's an industry of spoiled rich kids. The money is huge. Compare the record industry to Boeing or Cisco or some company that makes a complex product. All the record companies have to do is promote. They have a simple distribution network and in-place deals. A company like Boeing has to develop and support a network of thousands of vendors and millions of parts. They have to deal with compliance issues. They have to negotiate every sale. When they see how easy the record industry has it they must be kicking themselves.
It's surprising more companies don't enter the industry, like Sony did.
You think baseball players make a lot of money? Talk to a true rock star or a record executive.
The way I see it, if someone charges you for piracy then you are legally entitled to pirate.
The fact that music companies haven't caught on to the fact that many people will think like this is ridiculous. This arrangement doesn't make piracy "legal", but it certainly does serve to legitimise piracy in the eyes of many. It pisses me off how dumb some music execs can be.
Do you have any idea how many record labels there are? If it's so easy, why don't you do it?
How do you know I haven't.
If you need me to clarify my point, I meant companies with working capital. I have lots of ideas. I don't have any money. Sony did. I didn't mean private citizens, I meant companies with resources. Are you one of those people that needs everything spelled out? Or were you just taking a pot shot at me?
Certainly sounds like blackmail to me... If Universal get a deal, surely all the other record companies will want a deal too... I don't see Apple giving in, and I imagine that Universal quite like the existing money they're getting from the ITS...
It's true, I don't know you haven't tried it. I did think of adding a "maybe you have?" at the end of my post…
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj
If you need me to clarify my point, I meant companies with working capital.
Whilst I did quote just one part of your post, I was responding more to the idea behind your post as a whole. You refer to the record industry as an industry of "spoiled rich kids", but that serves to ignore the hundreds, possibly thousands of smaller "independent" record labels, and to diminish the large amount of hard work done by the "normal" employees, sub-contractors and artists of major record labels. I don't think that it's quite as easy as you think it is to create a successful record label.
Consumer backlash? It took nearly four years to American voters to backlash against Congress! Technology is too complicated for most consumers (as politics and world events is for voters) we are all just a bunch of sheep that craze our way to any slaughter house corporate America points us to.
There is not any stolen music on my 4GB iPod. Why should my money go to pay Universal for nothing? Does this give me the legal right to steal a Universal album for every iPod I buy?
"Hi. I just read an article about your CEO, Doug Morris wanting Apple to pay your company royalties because in his words, "Ipods are just repository for stolen music, and they [Apple] know it"
I am offended that your CEO called me a thief. I do not steal music. Your company should be paying Apple, because I only buy your CD's to feed my ipod. Doug Morris is a pompous fool, and I am offended and angry.
My family will be visiting Orlando next week, and I think we will cross off Universal from our list of places I'll spend money in. I hope Steve Jobs stands up to your bullying. A company does not deserve to make money when they call their customers thieves."
i'm sure it will do no good, but I feel better about it. I'm sure no one with any power will ever read it, and I may not have gotten everyting right, but they should get the jist of it, even if it just goes to some lowly e-mail reader......
This is actually great! If it happens I would be acquiring a license for every bit of intellectual property that could fit my Ipod! And only for a dollar?!?!?! I mean, how can universal dispute the licensing of what you have in your Ipod if you already payed them in that matter when you acquired the device.
There are lots of places where you pay some fee for xeroxing and that covers intellectual property you would be infringing otherwise.
I don't see why so many are pointing the finger at UMG. Sure, they were bad for accepting the offer made to them by microsoft. But UMG didn't come to microsoft, microsft went to them. As indicated here, http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seatt...l?surround=lfn
Microsoft is the bigger villain here, NOT UMG.
So UMG accepted Microsoft's offer, and they think, "hey, if microsoft is wants to pay us, let's see if Apple will do the same thing"
This is actually great! If it happens I would be acquiring a license for every bit of intellectual property that could fit my Ipod! And only for a dollar?!?!?! I mean, how can universal dispute the licensing of what you have in your Ipod if you already payed them in that matter when you acquired the device.
There are lots of places where you pay some fee for xeroxing and that covers intellectual property you would be infringing otherwise.
You are demonstrating very well why these initiatives are totally counter-productive. They are not providing you with a license. The measures are intended to help alleviate the financial impact of piracy.
The fact that most people view these sorts of levies and taxes as a legitimisation of piracy demonstrates that record companies really didn't think things through properly.
If you buy a Zune, that doesn't mean you've bought the right to everything Universal have published. If you buy a blank CD in a country that taxes blank media to compensate publishing companies, that doesn't give you the legal right to pirate music. The existence of the tax doesn't obviate copyright law.
You are demonstrating very well why these initiatives are totally counter-productive. They are not providing you with a license. The measures are intended to help alleviate the financial impact of piracy.
The fact that most people view these sorts of levies and taxes as a legitimisation of piracy demonstrates that record companies really didn't think things through properly.
If you buy a Zune, that doesn't mean you've bought the right to everything Universal have published. If you buy a blank CD in a country that taxes blank media to compensate publishing companies, that doesn't give you the legal right to pirate music. The existence of the tax doesn't obviate copyright law.
In some cases like photocopying it is actually legalizing the copy of copyrighted materials (for academic purposes) at least in some countries. In those cases the state collects the tax and redistributes it among publishers.
This is a deal between the company that owns a bunch of intellectual property and the one that sells you a device that could play that material. I am shure it is not their intention to legitimate piracy in this case but it is still an argument. After all you would be apying a fee to compensate for piracy when you buy the device.
These thing stinks if you look it in the perspective of someone who is never going put illegal music in their players. Why should they pay for what others do? What value is he getting from that dollar?
In my original post I was trying to be ironic. I know it's not their intention, It may hold for nothing in court but as well it might, and the argument has some merit.
Personally I wouldn't do any illegal downloading if music was easily available for purchase. When it is easier to pay to allofmp3 or using limewire than buying legal music. I live outside the states (and ITMS coutries) and have several times payed in ebay overpriced music itunes cards.
Make it easy, people will buy while they can afford it.
Comments
haha.
The Music Companies are unbelievable. This could be thought of as extorition.
That was my initial reaction too.
It's an industry of spoiled rich kids. The money is huge. Compare the record industry to Boeing or Cisco or some company that makes a complex product. All the record companies have to do is promote. They have a simple distribution network and in-place deals. A company like Boeing has to develop and support a network of thousands of vendors and millions of parts. They have to deal with compliance issues. They have to negotiate every sale. When they see how easy the record industry has it they must be kicking themselves.
It's surprising more companies don't enter the industry, like Sony did.
You think baseball players make a lot of money? Talk to a true rock star or a record executive.
The way I see it, if someone charges you for piracy then you are legally entitled to pirate.
The fact that music companies haven't caught on to the fact that many people will think like this is ridiculous. This arrangement doesn't make piracy "legal", but it certainly does serve to legitimise piracy in the eyes of many. It pisses me off how dumb some music execs can be.
It's surprising more companies don't enter the industry
Do you have any idea how many record labels there are? If it's so easy, why don't you do it?
I've got 932 songs from the iTunes Store. And if iTunes doesn't have it, I download it semi-legally from the Russion based allofmp3.com
There's not much legal about allofmp3. It looks like the site is going to be shut down.
Do you have any idea how many record labels there are? If it's so easy, why don't you do it?
How do you know I haven't.
If you need me to clarify my point, I meant companies with working capital. I have lots of ideas. I don't have any money. Sony did. I didn't mean private citizens, I meant companies with resources. Are you one of those people that needs everything spelled out? Or were you just taking a pot shot at me?
How do you know I haven't.
It's true, I don't know you haven't tried it. I did think of adding a "maybe you have?" at the end of my post…
If you need me to clarify my point, I meant companies with working capital.
Whilst I did quote just one part of your post, I was responding more to the idea behind your post as a whole. You refer to the record industry as an industry of "spoiled rich kids", but that serves to ignore the hundreds, possibly thousands of smaller "independent" record labels, and to diminish the large amount of hard work done by the "normal" employees, sub-contractors and artists of major record labels. I don't think that it's quite as easy as you think it is to create a successful record label.
Agreed
Well, consumer backlash here we come
Consumer backlash? It took nearly four years to American voters to backlash against Congress! Technology is too complicated for most consumers (as politics and world events is for voters) we are all just a bunch of sheep that craze our way to any slaughter house corporate America points us to.
Is anyone aware of any type of organized protest against this moron? It doesn't take too much publiciity these days to force a retraction.
Personally, I'm pretty offended by Morris' comments. In fact, I'm outraged. How dare he call me a thief.
Agreed. The problem is, that this kind of "royalty"/"piracy tax" is quite common around the world.
Read My Lips...
* * * F U C K O F F * * *
"Hi. I just read an article about your CEO, Doug Morris wanting Apple to pay your company royalties because in his words, "Ipods are just repository for stolen music, and they [Apple] know it"
I am offended that your CEO called me a thief. I do not steal music. Your company should be paying Apple, because I only buy your CD's to feed my ipod. Doug Morris is a pompous fool, and I am offended and angry.
My family will be visiting Orlando next week, and I think we will cross off Universal from our list of places I'll spend money in. I hope Steve Jobs stands up to your bullying. A company does not deserve to make money when they call their customers thieves."
i'm sure it will do no good, but I feel better about it. I'm sure no one with any power will ever read it, and I may not have gotten everyting right, but they should get the jist of it, even if it just goes to some lowly e-mail reader......
Frank D.
Ya, there is no stolen music on my 4GB Nano or my shuffle.
There's no stolen music on my 2 - 2GB nanos either.
Maybe I'll just stop buying Unversal lables. Maybe that will make me feel better.
Now I do know a person who uses a sandisk sansa... I don't believe his music is all purchased. Go after sandisk universal!
...PS.If you think its unmoral or unethic, well you might be right, but business is not moral or ethic, its about win and lose, like our lifes.
Reading your post just made me retarded.
Ugh.
There are lots of places where you pay some fee for xeroxing and that covers intellectual property you would be infringing otherwise.
Excuse my non native english.
Microsoft is the bigger villain here, NOT UMG.
So UMG accepted Microsoft's offer, and they think, "hey, if microsoft is wants to pay us, let's see if Apple will do the same thing"
This is actually great! If it happens I would be acquiring a license for every bit of intellectual property that could fit my Ipod! And only for a dollar?!?!?! I mean, how can universal dispute the licensing of what you have in your Ipod if you already payed them in that matter when you acquired the device.
There are lots of places where you pay some fee for xeroxing and that covers intellectual property you would be infringing otherwise.
You are demonstrating very well why these initiatives are totally counter-productive. They are not providing you with a license. The measures are intended to help alleviate the financial impact of piracy.
The fact that most people view these sorts of levies and taxes as a legitimisation of piracy demonstrates that record companies really didn't think things through properly.
If you buy a Zune, that doesn't mean you've bought the right to everything Universal have published. If you buy a blank CD in a country that taxes blank media to compensate publishing companies, that doesn't give you the legal right to pirate music. The existence of the tax doesn't obviate copyright law.
You are demonstrating very well why these initiatives are totally counter-productive. They are not providing you with a license. The measures are intended to help alleviate the financial impact of piracy.
The fact that most people view these sorts of levies and taxes as a legitimisation of piracy demonstrates that record companies really didn't think things through properly.
If you buy a Zune, that doesn't mean you've bought the right to everything Universal have published. If you buy a blank CD in a country that taxes blank media to compensate publishing companies, that doesn't give you the legal right to pirate music. The existence of the tax doesn't obviate copyright law.
In some cases like photocopying it is actually legalizing the copy of copyrighted materials (for academic purposes) at least in some countries. In those cases the state collects the tax and redistributes it among publishers.
This is a deal between the company that owns a bunch of intellectual property and the one that sells you a device that could play that material. I am shure it is not their intention to legitimate piracy in this case but it is still an argument. After all you would be apying a fee to compensate for piracy when you buy the device.
These thing stinks if you look it in the perspective of someone who is never going put illegal music in their players. Why should they pay for what others do? What value is he getting from that dollar?
In my original post I was trying to be ironic. I know it's not their intention, It may hold for nothing in court but as well it might, and the argument has some merit.
Personally I wouldn't do any illegal downloading if music was easily available for purchase. When it is easier to pay to allofmp3 or using limewire than buying legal music. I live outside the states (and ITMS coutries) and have several times payed in ebay overpriced music itunes cards.
Make it easy, people will buy while they can afford it.