I refuse to buy CD's anymore. If it isn't available on iTunes, I simply do not buy it.
So when Universal pulls their artists from iTunes, I hope every iTunes user joins me in refusing to buy Universal products.
If they increase the price of their products without DRM-free music, then I will also refuse to buy their songs unless they mail me a free CD.
The recording industry thinks they are above the law, and they're like the mafia trying to extort money out of people. It's time we make a stand against them.
Isn't it tradition at this point for the labels to make wild claims about what concessions they are going to extract from the iTMS shortly before contract re-negotiation, followed abruptly by complete capitulation?
The fact is, if the record labels think they can charge $1.29 (or some other price point more than $0.99 for DRM-ed music, they are sorely mistaken. People will just download their music illegally.
As for Apple starting a label, that would be a very, very bad idea. But, if they were to create an independent bizarre, which would provide a published set of fees for any independent artist who wants to sell their music through iTunes that would be very interesting indeed. Then Apple is only selling music--just like they do now--without getting into competition with record labels.
Very good suggestion that I am sure Apple have been considering for some time. Just not quite yet; more of a nuclear option.
I can't see how Universal can justify pulling out of the #3 music retailer, and the largest online music store to their shareholders. In fact, it's totally conceivable that they'd be violating securities regulations. A corporation, by law, must do everything possible to ensure profitability. Mistakes are tolerated, but a decision to deliberately reduce short-term profitability on this scale would be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit.
If Universal does this, their lawyers won't be too happy.
I can't see how Universal can justify pulling out of the #3 music retailer, and the largest online music store to their shareholders.
They're not considering pulling out of the iTunes Store altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
A corporation, by law, must do everything possible to ensure profitability. Mistakes are tolerated, but a decision to deliberately reduce short-term profitability on this scale would be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit.
Precisely, in my opinion they may want to maximise their profits.
They think that enough music fans will buy a blockbuster hit for, say, $1.50. Universal may lose some sales but the price increase could more than make up the difference, like 300,000 people buying at $1.5 instead of 400,000 people buying at $0.99. Tadaaa! Revenue and profits increase of almost 15 percent.
From their point of view, why should they sell this very valuable (in high demand) track for $0.99? Universal wants to maximise profits, and Apple's flat-pricing is in the way.
They're not considering pulling out of the iTunes Store altogether.
They're threatening to.
Quote:
Precisely, in my opinion they may want to maximise their profits.
Not by carrying out their threat to pull out.
Quote:
They think that enough music fans will buy a blockbuster hit for, say, $1.50. Universal may lose some sales but the price increase could more than make up the difference, like 300,000 people buying at $1.5 instead of 400,000 people buying at $0.99. Tadaaa! Revenue and profits increase of almost 15 percent.
Nice theory. There's also the theory that if you remove DRM, more people will buy tracks at the current price or even significantly higher. Universal doesn't seem to abide by the latter theory of profitability.
Quote:
From their point of view, why should they sell this very valuable (in high demand) track for $0.99? Universal wants to maximise profits, and Apple's flat-pricing is in the way.
From their point of view, why should they sell their all of their music DRM-only? As the EMI experiment shows, demand for non-DRM downloads is huge!
There is not much stopping artist from creating their own music. Some hardware and software from Apple for those just starting out, or rent some sound time and do a professional job. This and other moves like it could usher in artist taking that next step.
People could open sound stages like gyms and rent time and producers like trainers and equipment. Could very easily be done. Just upload your music to iTunes like a Podcast and do some self promoting until you get started then hire a promoter or manager.
Just imagine if the artist received 100% of the non-Apple portion of the $99/$129 price tag. Artist could get sponsors like start ups get revenue. Sell stock in the artist or group to raise money. Plus the artist would own the rights to their music or lyrics.
a decision to deliberately reduce short-term profitability on this scale would be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit. .
A Shareholder/Class Action Lawsuit against universal... : well deserved and way overdue, for some kind of delinquency of contractual obligation if they indeed continue on this path.
There is not much stopping artist from creating their own music. Some hardware and software from Apple for those just starting out, or rent some sound time and do a professional job. This and other moves like it could usher in artist taking that next step.
People could open sound stages like gyms and rent time and producers like trainers and equipment. Could very easily be done. Just upload your music to iTunes like a Podcast and do some self promoting until you get started then hire a promoter or manager.
Just imagine if the artist received 100% of the non-Apple portion of the $99/$129 price tag. Artist could get sponsors like start ups get revenue. Sell stock in the artist or group to raise money. Plus the artist would own the rights to their music or lyrics.
I made this point over at Ars. Why do artists need the big labels nowadays? What service do they actaully provide? Couldn't you negotiate with Apple and distribute your music on iTunes? All it would take to kill the big labels is for one major artist (U2, John Mayer?) to drop their label and distribute their music on iTunes and MS Zune marketplace directly. I think the studios would then have a difficult time justifying their existence.
You think that Universal would have realized that their greedy gluttonous ways of the past just don't work in today's world. Don't they remember why Lars of Metallica was so upset? People steal music. If the price is too high and the consumer feels ripped off, they will steal it. Everyone has a line somewhere they will cross. Apple seems to have found that magic line that many people felt was fair and so they bought instead of stole music. Universal is stupid if they think that they will bring Apple to it's knees. Everyone has an iPod. Apple is growing it's market share. ITMS is the 3rd largest seller. The iPhone is only going to help. I will not go to a Music store to buy a CD anymore. I certainly won't for Universal. I am not saying I will steal, but I am sure many will. I will just buy from the other labels. I thought someone had an interesting idea of Apple having it's own label. Of course we can all imagine the problems a certain label in England might have with it.
They don't want to pull out altogether, the iTunes Store makes up the bulk of UMG's digital music sales revenue. UMG have declined to sign a new long-term deal and they are threatening to offer new releases exclusively to other music stores. See Wall Street Journal, NYT, Reuters…
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
From their point of view, why should they sell their all of their music DRM-only? As the EMI experiment shows, demand for non-DRM downloads is huge!
As far as I know Universal is not a proponent of DRM-free tracks. Unlike EMI, Universal is #1 and they have a lot more to lose. EMI was becoming increasingly desperate. Besides, the results are not yet conclusive, Universal will likely be sceptical and resist the change. And last February the RIAA still wanted Apple to license its proprietary DRM scheme.
Online music sales are increasing but only account for about 10 percent of the music industry's sales and they are not making up for declining CD sales. The labels would like to bypass Apple's flat-pricing to increase profits as rapidly as possible and to lower their dependency on iTunes. If a new track is sold exclusively through Napster for some time, and protected with Microsoft's DRM, tens of millions of iPod owners won’t be able to buy, once again the labels are dependent on Apple, from their POV Apple is always in the way and has too much leverage. If Apple was to license FairPlay, Universal could sell hits through Napster or some other iTunes competitor at a higher price point during 3 or 6 months (while it's hot). It's no wonder there's tension between Apple and Universal.
Universal has now chosen to refuse to sell its product in a specific marketplace that is growing.
This is wrong, both for the artists and shareholders - unless of course they can offer proof that sales will increase once they pull out of iTunes... but I didn't think so...
Universal hasn't actually refused to sell its product on iTunes; it has just taken a step in that direction. HUGE distinction.
Comments
So when Universal pulls their artists from iTunes, I hope every iTunes user joins me in refusing to buy Universal products.
If they increase the price of their products without DRM-free music, then I will also refuse to buy their songs unless they mail me a free CD.
The recording industry thinks they are above the law, and they're like the mafia trying to extort money out of people. It's time we make a stand against them.
As for Apple starting a label, that would be a very, very bad idea. But, if they were to create an independent bizarre, which would provide a published set of fees for any independent artist who wants to sell their music through iTunes that would be very interesting indeed. Then Apple is only selling music--just like they do now--without getting into competition with record labels.
Very good suggestion that I am sure Apple have been considering for some time. Just not quite yet; more of a nuclear option.
The word is Bazaar by the way (Iranian)
I know it's chic to blast Universal over this, but their stuff will still be available. It's the long-term with Apple that changed, nothing else.
The current contract is 12 months. What does Universal want, six months? Three? Might as well just keep negotiating year round.
12 months as long-term is relative - just ask at&t. Five years isn't long enough.
---
I'm not directing this at you Spam, more at the weirdness of Universal.
I know it's chic to blast Universal over this, but their stuff will still be available. It's the long-term with Apple that changed, nothing else.
Ah, but I think it won't sit too well with Steve. There are, after all, two parties in this.
/Adrian
S
2. Steve Jobs - Remeber Michael Eisner's outcome him when he played power games with Jobs
I've probably been living in a cave, since I'm not aware of the Eisner-Jobs spat. What was the story? I'm genuinely curious.
If Universal does this, their lawyers won't be too happy.
I can't see how Universal can justify pulling out of the #3 music retailer, and the largest online music store to their shareholders.
They're not considering pulling out of the iTunes Store altogether.
A corporation, by law, must do everything possible to ensure profitability. Mistakes are tolerated, but a decision to deliberately reduce short-term profitability on this scale would be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit.
Precisely, in my opinion they may want to maximise their profits.
They think that enough music fans will buy a blockbuster hit for, say, $1.50. Universal may lose some sales but the price increase could more than make up the difference, like 300,000 people buying at $1.5 instead of 400,000 people buying at $0.99. Tadaaa! Revenue and profits increase of almost 15 percent.
From their point of view, why should they sell this very valuable (in high demand) track for $0.99? Universal wants to maximise profits, and Apple's flat-pricing is in the way.
They're not considering pulling out of the iTunes Store altogether.
They're threatening to.
Precisely, in my opinion they may want to maximise their profits.
Not by carrying out their threat to pull out.
They think that enough music fans will buy a blockbuster hit for, say, $1.50. Universal may lose some sales but the price increase could more than make up the difference, like 300,000 people buying at $1.5 instead of 400,000 people buying at $0.99. Tadaaa! Revenue and profits increase of almost 15 percent.
Nice theory. There's also the theory that if you remove DRM, more people will buy tracks at the current price or even significantly higher. Universal doesn't seem to abide by the latter theory of profitability.
From their point of view, why should they sell this very valuable (in high demand) track for $0.99? Universal wants to maximise profits, and Apple's flat-pricing is in the way.
From their point of view, why should they sell their all of their music DRM-only? As the EMI experiment shows, demand for non-DRM downloads is huge!
People could open sound stages like gyms and rent time and producers like trainers and equipment. Could very easily be done. Just upload your music to iTunes like a Podcast and do some self promoting until you get started then hire a promoter or manager.
Just imagine if the artist received 100% of the non-Apple portion of the $99/$129 price tag. Artist could get sponsors like start ups get revenue. Sell stock in the artist or group to raise money. Plus the artist would own the rights to their music or lyrics.
http://www.RichGetz.com
a decision to deliberately reduce short-term profitability on this scale would be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit. .
A Shareholder/Class Action Lawsuit against universal... : well deserved and way overdue, for some kind of delinquency of contractual obligation if they indeed continue on this path.
There is not much stopping artist from creating their own music. Some hardware and software from Apple for those just starting out, or rent some sound time and do a professional job. This and other moves like it could usher in artist taking that next step.
People could open sound stages like gyms and rent time and producers like trainers and equipment. Could very easily be done. Just upload your music to iTunes like a Podcast and do some self promoting until you get started then hire a promoter or manager.
Just imagine if the artist received 100% of the non-Apple portion of the $99/$129 price tag. Artist could get sponsors like start ups get revenue. Sell stock in the artist or group to raise money. Plus the artist would own the rights to their music or lyrics.
http://www.RichGetz.com
I made this point over at Ars. Why do artists need the big labels nowadays? What service do they actaully provide? Couldn't you negotiate with Apple and distribute your music on iTunes? All it would take to kill the big labels is for one major artist (U2, John Mayer?) to drop their label and distribute their music on iTunes and MS Zune marketplace directly. I think the studios would then have a difficult time justifying their existence.
PS I wish Bronfman would go back to liquor.
The only surprise here is that it took so long.
Off topic, but your sig is hysterical. Is that from a movie?
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=EPA%3AVIV
They're threatening to [pull out].
They don't want to pull out altogether, the iTunes Store makes up the bulk of UMG's digital music sales revenue. UMG have declined to sign a new long-term deal and they are threatening to offer new releases exclusively to other music stores. See Wall Street Journal, NYT, Reuters…
From their point of view, why should they sell their all of their music DRM-only? As the EMI experiment shows, demand for non-DRM downloads is huge!
As far as I know Universal is not a proponent of DRM-free tracks. Unlike EMI, Universal is #1 and they have a lot more to lose. EMI was becoming increasingly desperate. Besides, the results are not yet conclusive, Universal will likely be sceptical and resist the change. And last February the RIAA still wanted Apple to license its proprietary DRM scheme.
Online music sales are increasing but only account for about 10 percent of the music industry's sales and they are not making up for declining CD sales. The labels would like to bypass Apple's flat-pricing to increase profits as rapidly as possible and to lower their dependency on iTunes. If a new track is sold exclusively through Napster for some time, and protected with Microsoft's DRM, tens of millions of iPod owners won’t be able to buy, once again the labels are dependent on Apple, from their POV Apple is always in the way and has too much leverage. If Apple was to license FairPlay, Universal could sell hits through Napster or some other iTunes competitor at a higher price point during 3 or 6 months (while it's hot). It's no wonder there's tension between Apple and Universal.
Universal has now chosen to refuse to sell its product in a specific marketplace that is growing.
This is wrong, both for the artists and shareholders - unless of course they can offer proof that sales will increase once they pull out of iTunes... but I didn't think so...
Universal hasn't actually refused to sell its product on iTunes; it has just taken a step in that direction. HUGE distinction.