Having the trial for Pirate Bay just going on in Sweden this is indeed an interesting view of things. ... the topic in the Swedish court room ... the music industry argues that they are badly hurt by pirated music by lower CD sales. But the music industry as a whole is reported to turn over more money than ever. They get their revenue from other activeties. Maybe even pirating drives the sale in other areas than CDs?...
This is a bit off topic but this Pirate Bay argument is flawed.
What they don't take into account (and deliberately fail to mention), is that while this effect of pirated music promoting sales is relevant to the way the market is *today* (with pirating being illegal and therefore marginalised), it's not necessarily true once pirating is legalised as Pirate Bay wishes it to be. There is no evidence one way or the other really, but common sense argues against it.
Right now it's difficult to rip off things or find places to download them from, the quality is dodgy and the fact that one can cheaply and legally buy something from iTunes means that the majority of folks will just buy it there. Thus the pirates remain a dedicated, but marginalised minority. Now, it *might* be that making it legal to rip off anything you want whenever you want without hiding in the shadows like Pirate Bay or LimeWire users, will not change things appreciably, but it's far from certain and a bit counter intuitive.
It's also possible that making it legal to do stuff like Pirate Bay will drive a commercialisation of the stolen material. If you knew couldn't get arrested for it, wouldn't a *lot* of people set up Pirate Bay like sites all over the world overnight? Wouldn't they also be rather heavily publicised instead of a well kept secret? Wouldn't users flock to them instead of being scared to get caught as they are now? It seems to me they might.
Pirate Bay's arguments are mostly just defensive justifications for stuff that they simply "want to do." They are the arguments of a privileged teenager, not a noble libertarian thrust. If no one had arrested them or if it wasn't illegal, they would not even be making them. I mean the main Pirate Bay guy is hardly a genius or anything and has been very consistent in stating his case along the lines of "I do this because I want to, and I should be allowed to do what I want."
This is not exactly a heady intellectual argument.
Whether there is DRM or not, and whether you can pass it on or not is not relevant. And when you purchase non-DRM tracks, Apple still makes you agree to a license for their use.
(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. "
When you walk into a physical store to buy a CD, nobody tries to make you agree to anything, much less an agreement that dictates what you can do with the CD.
That, according to Eminem's lawyers is what makes the transaction on iTunes a license. I.e., the user has to enter into a license agreement.
What I don't understand is why do artists even bother with the old music companies anyway? Why the hell doesn't a mega-rich dude like Eminem just set up his own operation and sell direct to iTunes and off the web?
Even if he personally is locked into some multi-year bad contract, the same theory applies to other artists. These guys are all millionaires anyway and you can buy the recording equipment for peanuts. All they need is one smart guy or girl to stand up and start the revolution and it will be over in a couple of years.
I think that's where we're headed. I for one think this case is great and exactly what we need right now. Artists are typically under contract and a good portion of that contract covers recoupables for the studio. Digital downloads should not let the studios profits from the virtualizing of warehouses and packaging at the expense of the artist. The raison d'etre of the studio is to promote the artists and distribute the music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinney57
Eminem is providing a valuable service in taking this to court, The result will serve as precedent going forward. Clearly the deal on digital sales is not equitable and the Labels know it.
Yes I see the future shaking out like this.
New artists are under the wings of the distributors. They get the smallest cut.
Established artists have more "brand" recognition and will be able to negotiate far better rates for digital distribution or even go it alone (though with the radio still a significant force self distributorship would be difficult with regard to getting broadcast attention).
We're coming to a point where established artists need the studios less and if I'm a Prince or Eminem or Radiohead I'm looking at the potential of 70 cent profit or more per track and it's a lot more appealing than going the studio route.
Keep in mind studios also swipe up copyright and can make a mint off of licensing hit songs for commercial and movie usage.
I hope the studios lose. Their stranghold is waning and for good reason.
Generally?!? What kind of goddam weasel word is that? No, it's not 'Generally', it's fucking 'Absolutely' true, you shitbag record 'executive'.
Relax - the record company still needs pay people to do the grunt work - distribute millions of tracks to Apple, keep records, balance the books, etc. You think they just flip a switch and everything falls into place?
Yes, he's a weasel - but don't pop a vein over it.
I think Apple are afraid that the labels would pull their catalog of music from iTunes. That's the only reason I can think of.
But yeah what a great deal for Apple and the artists under the scenario you propose. I think its called a 'win-win' deal for both sides.
It's not a win for the consumer though. You've then a got a monopoly situation where you can only get that artist via iTunes. And you're at Apple's whim at that point in regards to pricing. If Apple decides that new album should be $19.99 despite only having 12 tracks and decides that 4 of the tracks are Album Only, what recourse do you have? You can't go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart and hunt for it at a lower cost.
I guess you could make the same argument about the few albums that Wal-Mart has exclusive distribution over, but they at least have pressure to keep the price low and offer sales. They can be used as loss leaders hoping to draw people in to purchase other merchandise. Also, those physical albums take up valuable shelf space so if they sit too long, there's an incentive to discount them to make them go away. iTunes has no such pressures associated with it. Whether a million or only 12 copies of an album are sold, it takes up the exact same space on the iTunes servers.
I think apple has a chance here, they could make itunes a open market for all artist of music. Like how the app store works. It is almost already set up with pod casting. Just merge the formats of paid music and universal access. Maybe even let the artist set the price. ( I don't know if maybe they would get too greedy, but that is free market. ) I am sure many well know bands would join if they could make 70 -+ cents a song, compared to 20 cents.
Eminen isn't saying end-users license the music, he is saying that Apple does because they create multiple copies from a single original file. I think he is spot-on; it would only be distribution if the music lived on UMG's servers and iTunes only brokered the transaction.
As noted by a previous poster, the Apple App Store is probably being eyed by a lot of music artists as an example of the greater percentage of profit they could be reaping for their work.
I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet but I look forward to the emergence of new company models for music promotion that is more artist centric and functions more like a guild or co-op.
The internet provides the new means of both promoting and distributing new music and the social networks and countless blogs are in place to help spread the word of new talent and reviews.
I don't get what the labels provide anymore. Dinosaurs with buggy whips.
Whether there is DRM or not, and whether you can pass it on or not is not relevant. And when you purchase non-DRM tracks, Apple still makes you agree to a license for their use.
(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. "
When you walk into a physical store to buy a CD, nobody tries to make you agree to anything, much less an agreement that dictates what you can do with the CD.
That, according to Eminem's lawyers is what makes the transaction on iTunes a license. I.e., the user has to enter into a license agreement.
I see. But your assertion that the license only allows you to play it on "certain devices," etc. made it sound like you were talking about FairPlay, and couldn't this licence simply be a hold over from FairPlay since so many tracks in the iTunes store are still DRM'ed?
Perhaps this suit will do it, but it seems to me that this "license" could be invalid as structured and will fall on the first challenge. Seems Eminem is right to challenge it, if only to clear things up.
It's not a win for the consumer though. You've then a got a monopoly situation where you can only get that artist via iTunes. And you're at Apple's whim at that point in regards to pricing. If Apple decides that new album should be $19.99 despite only having 12 tracks and decides that 4 of the tracks are Album Only, what recourse do you have? You can't go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart and hunt for it at a lower cost.
I guess you could make the same argument about the few albums that Wal-Mart has exclusive distribution over, but they at least have pressure to keep the price low and offer sales. They can be used as loss leaders hoping to draw people in to purchase other merchandise. Also, those physical albums take up valuable shelf space so if they sit too long, there's an incentive to discount them to make them go away. iTunes has no such pressures associated with it. Whether a million or only 12 copies of an album are sold, it takes up the exact same space on the iTunes servers.
Those are good points.
Having the old physical distribution model survive as competition for digital model would be good for consumers but appears unlikely. When I visit Wal Mart or Target they have fewer and fewer cds for sale. And forget about anything that isn't on the top 40 playlist or isn't an older artist greatest hits cd. They won't carry anything they don't think will sell quickly.
While he has fell off the radar (like most artist's do) he will be back.
I personally feel he is the greatest rapper alive....next to Tupac and Big E Smalls of course.
On the basement beats comment....all of Em's beats have been produced by the great producer Doctor Dre. A legend in the game. A game you are not part of.
Go get Em!.....Do it just to do it.
Ummm - you do realize that both Tupac and The Notorious B.I.G. are dead right? So your assertion that Eminem is the greatest rapper alive NEXT to Tupac and Biggie is inherently flawed. Greatest rapper EVER next to Tupac and Biggie would be a better way of wording it...
Secondly ... produced by Dre or not, Eminem's been on the decline for a while now. It's natural - it happens to everyone. He's still relevant, but not as much as 50 Cent or Kanye - but anyway, I digress...
This case could prove very interesting for a couple of reasons:
1) It might just wrestle away some control the labels have over the pricing structure of content. Digital media SHOULDN'T cost as much as the physical media. The manufacturing and distribution costs just aren't there. If Mr. Mathers is able to obtain greater royalties from digital distribution, you may just see the slow death of the record companies really begin...
2) It could prove that Apple is far more important to the music industry than anyone is willing to admit. Apple doesn't need to become their own label - at least not in the traditional sense. Right now the only job they have is to negotiate contracts with the labels, and distribute content digitally. Why would they want to take on the added burden of representing, promoting and signing artists? It's a conflict waiting to happen with not only the artists, but the songwriters and other rights holders of the content.
Now, what I think Apple might be able to do is create a consortium with Amazon, Wal-Mart and other online distributors and flat out BUY the digital rights to the content so that any online distributor in the group can sell the content. The digital rights are then managed by the consortium but each company still operates their own independent stores at prices agreed upon via individual contracts with the artists. Kinda like an car group. GM owns Chevy, GMC, Saturn etc., and any GM dealer can sell new GM group cars, but they operate independently and sell at their own prices ... I know there are some problems with this approach, but it's a pipe dream I'll gladly keep.
I think apple has a chance here, they could make itunes a open market for all artist of music. Like how the app store works. It is almost already set up with pod casting. Just merge the formats of paid music and universal access. Maybe even let the artist set the price. ( I don't know if maybe they would get too greedy, but that is free market. ) I am sure many well know bands would join if they could make 70 -+ cents a song, compared to 20 cents.
Are you nuts? Every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo would be up there. By all means, there should be, (and there are) forums where fledgeling musicians can post their work to share and possibly even sell their work, but open iTunes to that and the app becomes a gateway to hell. Listening to people's demos is the aural equivalent to sitting through people's unedited home movies. I'd rather be shot slowly. I have not given this any thought so don't take it as my confirmed pov but maybe this is one of the better functions of the music labels - to act as a filter. I know that most of the music that comes out of the record labels is garbage (that is my confirmed opinion!) but at least it is easy to filter. generally I can just look at the accompanying artwork and I already know whether I will like the music or not.
Are you nuts? Every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo would be up there. By all means, there should be, (and there are) forums where fledgeling musicians can post their work to share and possibly even sell their work, but open iTunes to that and the app becomes a gateway to hell. Listening to people's demos is the aural equivalent to sitting through people's unedited home movies. I'd rather be shot slowly. I have not given this any thought so don't take it as my confirmed pov but maybe this is one of the better functions of the music labels - to act as a filter. I know that most of the music that comes out of the record labels is garbage (that is my confirmed opinion!) but at least it is easy to filter. generally I can just look at the accompanying artwork and I already know whether I will like the music or not.
What is wrong with that. If they suck no one will buy their work, hence: free market.
I totaly agree with you that so much of the music put out by the labels, but wouldn't you like to decide what is good to you as a individual, rather than it being pushed down your throat by the music companies.
Relax - the record company still needs pay people to do the grunt work - distribute millions of tracks to Apple, keep records, balance the books, etc. You think they just flip a switch and everything falls into place?
Yes, he's a weasel - but don't pop a vein over it.
It was keyboard venting. What irks me is the attorney phrased it as unambiguously as possible, yet
the Universal exec went out of his way to instill doubt in the characterization that the manufacturing costs were completely absent from online distribution.
"When you walk to work you eliminate the cost of fuel from your commute, correct?"
"Generally, that's true, but it has costs. You don't call them fuel costs the way that term has been used traditionally. Fuel costs are for the energy sources you put in your vehicle, and that has gone away."
Admit that your manufacturing costs have dropped to zero - there is no other way to answer the question. Trying to still milk that from the artist or the consumer is like the railroad union insisting there be an extra 'fireman' on every train even when they have all switched from coal to diesel.
What is wrong with that. If they suck no one will buy their work, hence: free market.
I totaly agree with you that so much of the music put out by the labels, but wouldn't you like to decide what is good to you as a individual, rather than it being pushed down your throat by the music companies.
It is a free market and you can start a company that will allow anyone and everyone to put up any "music" they create, but for a free market to actually work it has to be a place where people can find what they want. A confusing cluster of really bad music will not be where people will shop. Having a great voice or being able to play an instrument does not a good musician make. There also needs to be good written music and lyrics and production. As you agreed, most of the music from the labels is garbage. How would that get better if the filter were to go away completely? It would make it even harder to find good music. What you propose would not work because the free market would not want it.
Having the old physical distribution model survive as competition for digital model would be good for consumers but appears unlikely. When I visit Wal Mart or Target they have fewer and fewer cds for sale. And forget about anything that isn't on the top 40 playlist or isn't an older artist greatest hits cd. They won't carry anything they don't think will sell quickly.
My argument really wasn't for keeping physical media around (though I still prefer physical media since downloads have yet to match it quality-wise). It was against one source being the only point of sale for music from a particular artist or album. If an album is available on iTunes, Amazon, Zune Marketplace and whatever other digital distribution points, they can all jockey for sales by lowering prices, trying to get exclusive material, etc. If, for example, U2's next album was only going to be on iTunes, Apple has no real incentive to not price the album at something that most would consider egregious.
Comments
Having the trial for Pirate Bay just going on in Sweden this is indeed an interesting view of things. ... the topic in the Swedish court room ... the music industry argues that they are badly hurt by pirated music by lower CD sales. But the music industry as a whole is reported to turn over more money than ever. They get their revenue from other activeties. Maybe even pirating drives the sale in other areas than CDs?...
This is a bit off topic but this Pirate Bay argument is flawed.
What they don't take into account (and deliberately fail to mention), is that while this effect of pirated music promoting sales is relevant to the way the market is *today* (with pirating being illegal and therefore marginalised), it's not necessarily true once pirating is legalised as Pirate Bay wishes it to be. There is no evidence one way or the other really, but common sense argues against it.
Right now it's difficult to rip off things or find places to download them from, the quality is dodgy and the fact that one can cheaply and legally buy something from iTunes means that the majority of folks will just buy it there. Thus the pirates remain a dedicated, but marginalised minority. Now, it *might* be that making it legal to rip off anything you want whenever you want without hiding in the shadows like Pirate Bay or LimeWire users, will not change things appreciably, but it's far from certain and a bit counter intuitive.
It's also possible that making it legal to do stuff like Pirate Bay will drive a commercialisation of the stolen material. If you knew couldn't get arrested for it, wouldn't a *lot* of people set up Pirate Bay like sites all over the world overnight? Wouldn't they also be rather heavily publicised instead of a well kept secret? Wouldn't users flock to them instead of being scared to get caught as they are now? It seems to me they might.
Pirate Bay's arguments are mostly just defensive justifications for stuff that they simply "want to do." They are the arguments of a privileged teenager, not a noble libertarian thrust. If no one had arrested them or if it wasn't illegal, they would not even be making them. I mean the main Pirate Bay guy is hardly a genius or anything and has been very consistent in stating his case along the lines of "I do this because I want to, and I should be allowed to do what I want."
This is not exactly a heady intellectual argument.
Not true.
True if the music is DRM'ed, not so otherwise.
Whether there is DRM or not, and whether you can pass it on or not is not relevant. And when you purchase non-DRM tracks, Apple still makes you agree to a license for their use.
Apple posts a copy of the license here: http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html
And on that page, we see:
"Usage Rules
(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. "
When you walk into a physical store to buy a CD, nobody tries to make you agree to anything, much less an agreement that dictates what you can do with the CD.
That, according to Eminem's lawyers is what makes the transaction on iTunes a license. I.e., the user has to enter into a license agreement.
What I don't understand is why do artists even bother with the old music companies anyway? Why the hell doesn't a mega-rich dude like Eminem just set up his own operation and sell direct to iTunes and off the web?
Even if he personally is locked into some multi-year bad contract, the same theory applies to other artists. These guys are all millionaires anyway and you can buy the recording equipment for peanuts. All they need is one smart guy or girl to stand up and start the revolution and it will be over in a couple of years.
I think that's where we're headed. I for one think this case is great and exactly what we need right now. Artists are typically under contract and a good portion of that contract covers recoupables for the studio. Digital downloads should not let the studios profits from the virtualizing of warehouses and packaging at the expense of the artist. The raison d'etre of the studio is to promote the artists and distribute the music.
Eminem is providing a valuable service in taking this to court, The result will serve as precedent going forward. Clearly the deal on digital sales is not equitable and the Labels know it.
Yes I see the future shaking out like this.
New artists are under the wings of the distributors. They get the smallest cut.
Established artists have more "brand" recognition and will be able to negotiate far better rates for digital distribution or even go it alone (though with the radio still a significant force self distributorship would be difficult with regard to getting broadcast attention).
We're coming to a point where established artists need the studios less and if I'm a Prince or Eminem or Radiohead I'm looking at the potential of 70 cent profit or more per track and it's a lot more appealing than going the studio route.
Keep in mind studios also swipe up copyright and can make a mint off of licensing hit songs for commercial and movie usage.
I hope the studios lose. Their stranghold is waning and for good reason.
Generally?!? What kind of goddam weasel word is that? No, it's not 'Generally', it's fucking 'Absolutely' true, you shitbag record 'executive'.
Relax - the record company still needs pay people to do the grunt work - distribute millions of tracks to Apple, keep records, balance the books, etc. You think they just flip a switch and everything falls into place?
Yes, he's a weasel - but don't pop a vein over it.
+++
I think Apple are afraid that the labels would pull their catalog of music from iTunes. That's the only reason I can think of.
But yeah what a great deal for Apple and the artists under the scenario you propose. I think its called a 'win-win' deal for both sides.
It's not a win for the consumer though. You've then a got a monopoly situation where you can only get that artist via iTunes. And you're at Apple's whim at that point in regards to pricing. If Apple decides that new album should be $19.99 despite only having 12 tracks and decides that 4 of the tracks are Album Only, what recourse do you have? You can't go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart and hunt for it at a lower cost.
I guess you could make the same argument about the few albums that Wal-Mart has exclusive distribution over, but they at least have pressure to keep the price low and offer sales. They can be used as loss leaders hoping to draw people in to purchase other merchandise. Also, those physical albums take up valuable shelf space so if they sit too long, there's an incentive to discount them to make them go away. iTunes has no such pressures associated with it. Whether a million or only 12 copies of an album are sold, it takes up the exact same space on the iTunes servers.
Good luck to him!
I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet but I look forward to the emergence of new company models for music promotion that is more artist centric and functions more like a guild or co-op.
The internet provides the new means of both promoting and distributing new music and the social networks and countless blogs are in place to help spread the word of new talent and reviews.
I don't get what the labels provide anymore. Dinosaurs with buggy whips.
It's all about getting the traditional record companies out of the way, so that bands can sell directly to the people in the best medium possible.
Whether there is DRM or not, and whether you can pass it on or not is not relevant. And when you purchase non-DRM tracks, Apple still makes you agree to a license for their use.
Apple posts a copy of the license here: http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html
And on that page, we see:
"Usage Rules
(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. "
When you walk into a physical store to buy a CD, nobody tries to make you agree to anything, much less an agreement that dictates what you can do with the CD.
That, according to Eminem's lawyers is what makes the transaction on iTunes a license. I.e., the user has to enter into a license agreement.
I see. But your assertion that the license only allows you to play it on "certain devices," etc. made it sound like you were talking about FairPlay, and couldn't this licence simply be a hold over from FairPlay since so many tracks in the iTunes store are still DRM'ed?
Perhaps this suit will do it, but it seems to me that this "license" could be invalid as structured and will fall on the first challenge. Seems Eminem is right to challenge it, if only to clear things up.
It's not a win for the consumer though. You've then a got a monopoly situation where you can only get that artist via iTunes. And you're at Apple's whim at that point in regards to pricing. If Apple decides that new album should be $19.99 despite only having 12 tracks and decides that 4 of the tracks are Album Only, what recourse do you have? You can't go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart and hunt for it at a lower cost.
I guess you could make the same argument about the few albums that Wal-Mart has exclusive distribution over, but they at least have pressure to keep the price low and offer sales. They can be used as loss leaders hoping to draw people in to purchase other merchandise. Also, those physical albums take up valuable shelf space so if they sit too long, there's an incentive to discount them to make them go away. iTunes has no such pressures associated with it. Whether a million or only 12 copies of an album are sold, it takes up the exact same space on the iTunes servers.
Those are good points.
Having the old physical distribution model survive as competition for digital model would be good for consumers but appears unlikely. When I visit Wal Mart or Target they have fewer and fewer cds for sale. And forget about anything that isn't on the top 40 playlist or isn't an older artist greatest hits cd. They won't carry anything they don't think will sell quickly.
You give me a break......
While he has fell off the radar (like most artist's do) he will be back.
I personally feel he is the greatest rapper alive....next to Tupac and Big E Smalls of course.
On the basement beats comment....all of Em's beats have been produced by the great producer Doctor Dre. A legend in the game. A game you are not part of.
Go get Em!.....Do it just to do it.
Ummm - you do realize that both Tupac and The Notorious B.I.G. are dead right? So your assertion that Eminem is the greatest rapper alive NEXT to Tupac and Biggie is inherently flawed. Greatest rapper EVER next to Tupac and Biggie would be a better way of wording it...
Secondly ... produced by Dre or not, Eminem's been on the decline for a while now. It's natural - it happens to everyone. He's still relevant, but not as much as 50 Cent or Kanye - but anyway, I digress...
This case could prove very interesting for a couple of reasons:
1) It might just wrestle away some control the labels have over the pricing structure of content. Digital media SHOULDN'T cost as much as the physical media. The manufacturing and distribution costs just aren't there. If Mr. Mathers is able to obtain greater royalties from digital distribution, you may just see the slow death of the record companies really begin...
2) It could prove that Apple is far more important to the music industry than anyone is willing to admit. Apple doesn't need to become their own label - at least not in the traditional sense. Right now the only job they have is to negotiate contracts with the labels, and distribute content digitally. Why would they want to take on the added burden of representing, promoting and signing artists? It's a conflict waiting to happen with not only the artists, but the songwriters and other rights holders of the content.
Now, what I think Apple might be able to do is create a consortium with Amazon, Wal-Mart and other online distributors and flat out BUY the digital rights to the content so that any online distributor in the group can sell the content. The digital rights are then managed by the consortium but each company still operates their own independent stores at prices agreed upon via individual contracts with the artists. Kinda like an car group. GM owns Chevy, GMC, Saturn etc., and any GM dealer can sell new GM group cars, but they operate independently and sell at their own prices ... I know there are some problems with this approach, but it's a pipe dream I'll gladly keep.
I think apple has a chance here, they could make itunes a open market for all artist of music. Like how the app store works. It is almost already set up with pod casting. Just merge the formats of paid music and universal access. Maybe even let the artist set the price. ( I don't know if maybe they would get too greedy, but that is free market. ) I am sure many well know bands would join if they could make 70 -+ cents a song, compared to 20 cents.
Are you nuts? Every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo would be up there. By all means, there should be, (and there are) forums where fledgeling musicians can post their work to share and possibly even sell their work, but open iTunes to that and the app becomes a gateway to hell. Listening to people's demos is the aural equivalent to sitting through people's unedited home movies. I'd rather be shot slowly. I have not given this any thought so don't take it as my confirmed pov but maybe this is one of the better functions of the music labels - to act as a filter. I know that most of the music that comes out of the record labels is garbage (that is my confirmed opinion!) but at least it is easy to filter. generally I can just look at the accompanying artwork and I already know whether I will like the music or not.
I personally feel he is the greatest rapper alive....next to Tupac and Big E Smalls of course.
explicitly state the terms for online sales. I imagine (and hope) that any artist
signing a contract with a label these days would have explicit terms for every
possible mode of distribution of their music.
If eminem winning this suit would serve to make the labels less relevant and
lead to artists signing distribution agreements directly with Apple, I also think
that would be a huge positive.
Are you nuts? Every Tom Dick and Harry's garage Band Demo would be up there. By all means, there should be, (and there are) forums where fledgeling musicians can post their work to share and possibly even sell their work, but open iTunes to that and the app becomes a gateway to hell. Listening to people's demos is the aural equivalent to sitting through people's unedited home movies. I'd rather be shot slowly. I have not given this any thought so don't take it as my confirmed pov but maybe this is one of the better functions of the music labels - to act as a filter. I know that most of the music that comes out of the record labels is garbage (that is my confirmed opinion!) but at least it is easy to filter. generally I can just look at the accompanying artwork and I already know whether I will like the music or not.
What is wrong with that. If they suck no one will buy their work, hence: free market.
I totaly agree with you that so much of the music put out by the labels, but wouldn't you like to decide what is good to you as a individual, rather than it being pushed down your throat by the music companies.
Relax - the record company still needs pay people to do the grunt work - distribute millions of tracks to Apple, keep records, balance the books, etc. You think they just flip a switch and everything falls into place?
Yes, he's a weasel - but don't pop a vein over it.
It was keyboard venting. What irks me is the attorney phrased it as unambiguously as possible, yet
the Universal exec went out of his way to instill doubt in the characterization that the manufacturing costs were completely absent from online distribution.
"When you walk to work you eliminate the cost of fuel from your commute, correct?"
"Generally, that's true, but it has costs. You don't call them fuel costs the way that term has been used traditionally. Fuel costs are for the energy sources you put in your vehicle, and that has gone away."
Admit that your manufacturing costs have dropped to zero - there is no other way to answer the question. Trying to still milk that from the artist or the consumer is like the railroad union insisting there be an extra 'fireman' on every train even when they have all switched from coal to diesel.
What is wrong with that. If they suck no one will buy their work, hence: free market.
I totaly agree with you that so much of the music put out by the labels, but wouldn't you like to decide what is good to you as a individual, rather than it being pushed down your throat by the music companies.
It is a free market and you can start a company that will allow anyone and everyone to put up any "music" they create, but for a free market to actually work it has to be a place where people can find what they want. A confusing cluster of really bad music will not be where people will shop. Having a great voice or being able to play an instrument does not a good musician make. There also needs to be good written music and lyrics and production. As you agreed, most of the music from the labels is garbage. How would that get better if the filter were to go away completely? It would make it even harder to find good music. What you propose would not work because the free market would not want it.
Those are good points.
Having the old physical distribution model survive as competition for digital model would be good for consumers but appears unlikely. When I visit Wal Mart or Target they have fewer and fewer cds for sale. And forget about anything that isn't on the top 40 playlist or isn't an older artist greatest hits cd. They won't carry anything they don't think will sell quickly.
My argument really wasn't for keeping physical media around (though I still prefer physical media since downloads have yet to match it quality-wise). It was against one source being the only point of sale for music from a particular artist or album. If an album is available on iTunes, Amazon, Zune Marketplace and whatever other digital distribution points, they can all jockey for sales by lowering prices, trying to get exclusive material, etc. If, for example, U2's next album was only going to be on iTunes, Apple has no real incentive to not price the album at something that most would consider egregious.