News

Record Labels Want a Piece of iPod Revenues

Friday, September 23rd, 2005 at 1:55 PM - by Staff

After Apple CEO Steve Jobs' comment on Tuesday that record companies were "greedy" for pursuing higher song prices at the iTunes Music Store, Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. on Thursday shot back by saying that not only will the record industry pursue variable pricing for songs, but it also wants a share of iPod revenues.

"Not all songs are created equal -- not all time periods are created equal," Mr. Bronfman told those assembled at Goldman Sachs' Communacopia investor conference. "We want, and will insist upon having, variable pricing." His words were reported in an article on the Red Herring Web site.

Mr. Bronfman then upped the ante by describing his industry as "the arms supplier in the device wars between Samsung, Sony, Apple and others." He insisted: "We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue. We want to share in those revenue streams. We have to get out of the mindset that our content has promotional value only."

As for variable pricing, Mr. Bronfman was quick to point out that "some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more. I don't want to give anyone the impression that $0.99 is a thing of the past."

Joe Nordgaard, managing director of the consulting firm Spectral Advantage, noted: "Instead of spending $15 for a CD, you buy two cuts for two bucks. That's a lot of money left on the table. The traditional model with premium pricing has been so lucrative for the music industry. When they cut the deal with Apple, they did not realize what they had done. Now they want out."

Mr. Bronfman also turned up the heat on the Sirius and XM satellite radio networks, saying that they received "a seven-year license at vastly below-market rate to allow that business model to occur. There is no reason for their content cost to be one-tenth of what everyone else is paying and have this done on the backs of the music industry while they pay market rate to the NFL, Howard Stern, and Major League Baseball."

39 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 1011 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:03 pm

What a whiny, sniveling idiot.

I'm not against the recording industry, but this guy certainly ISN'T their best voice. He just proved Steve Jobs point for him.

Obviously never learned the lesson that it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think your stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

Quote this post ↓

jimothy said:

member since 04 Jun 2004 with 611 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:05 pm

Just when you think record execs can't get any stupider, they prove you wrong.

You ARE getting a piece of the iPod revenue, at least indirectly: They buy an iPod, then buy songs to play on it (whether through iTunes, traditional record stores, or online CD sellers like Amazon).

Do they also think that they should get a cut of the revenue from CD players and stereos? Is it any surprise Jobs accusses them of being guilty?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:09 pm

Wow.... now THIS is the ultimate definition of GREED.

Quote this post ↓

dux5 said:

member since 02 Jul 2002 with 112 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:13 pm

Within a decade, the record lables as we know them will be history. Maybe they'll be history all together.

There's no reason with electronic distribution methods and the physical distribution methods now available to individuals that anyone but the creator of the music needs to hold ownership and rights to the work.

Why have a label as a pimp, when a band could hire an advertising/PR firm to do the same work?

We are watching the death of the labels and the execs like this one are like Saddam's henchmen trying to grasp onto their last bits of power and glory.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:15 pm

I'm gonna say I support an increase in price on only the MOST popular of songs if they will drop the price of old stuff to around $.50/song. I buy a lot of older stuff and it would even out between buying older stuff and newerstuff. However, I would like to see how much they plan to raise prices on newer stuff. I think $1.50 or so would be reasonable but not $3.00 or whatever I heard a while ago. That would kill onthe online distribution of music.

Quote this post ↓

stericult said:

member since 18 Jan 2005 with 18 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:23 pm

Given that the cost of studio-grade recording equipment has plummeted and there is no longer any need for manufacturing/distribution to sell music, the labels role in the music industry is pretty much over. Independant agents/producers can take over the "talent development" role and the labels are SOL.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:31 pm

Bronfman's obviously an IDIOT. If he honestly think he's gonna get Jobs to give him a cut of hardware revenues, he's high. Do record companies receive a cut of JBL's revenue for making speakers, or Magnavox for making CD players? Hell, no. He just wants to try to make Jobs sweat, the guy who's facing down the nastiest of the nasty, Michael Eisner and Disney... not gonna happen.

At least Nordgaard, the analyst, had a insightful (if obvious) comment: ""Instead of spending $15 for a CD, you buy two cuts for two bucks. That's a lot of money left on the table. The traditional model with premium pricing has been so lucrative for the music industry. When they cut the deal with Apple, they did not realize what they had done. Now they want out."

The record companies do NOT GET IT... *THEY* created the above crappy situation for THEMSELVES. They've been producing one-hit wonder acts for a long time now, making people buy $15 CDs to get one or two good songs, with the rest of it being worthless CRAP. Those days are GONE. If they try to embrace it again by killing iTunes, then the P2P networks will flourish, and there's no way the record companies can sue EVERYONE.

Its OVER, guys, you can't go back. Consumers will go around you, over you, or through you to get to the music... better make sure its convenient and cost-effective to do the third option, or you're done.

Quote this post ↓

macsavageg4 said:

member since 02 Oct 2002 with 5 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:35 pm

The RIAA talk about a sad group of greedy jerks. It is like they are trying to kill themselves. Lets take this nice profitable business and jack the prices up as high as we can and fleece these fools (aka consumers) for as much money as we can. Oh yeah the people making the device are also making money hmm... Can't have that we must also make money off of it directly. I hope Apple sticks to its guns and says no. If they are forced to increase prices I hope they tell the public the reason why certain songs are suddenly costing more. Expose the RIAA for exactly what they are. A bunch of spoiled whiney crooks who care nothing about the consumer or the artists they are supposedly protecting.

So if the iPod is being used for holding speeches or audio books is the RIAA still entitled to a cut?

Is the RIAA going to try to do what the other recording industries in other countries have done and lobby (bribe) into law a tax on all media capable of holding RIAA copyrighted material to protect their profits?

What makes them think they have a right to profit from everything? As far as I know profit is never a guarantee in business.

Quote this post ↓

Engine Joe said:

member since 29 Jun 2004 with 413 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:36 pm

I'd love to predict doomsday for the labels, but I don't see how it will happen with so many artists already (and in most cases bound permanently) entwined in the industry's clenches. If you want to hear Eric Clapton, you gotta pay your money to the label (albeit indirectly). It will be a long time before the top flight musicians eschew the label system at anything approaching critical mass.

Quote this post ↓

JimWCB said:

member since 29 Aug 2002 with 301 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:42 pm

jimothy wrote:
Do they also think that they should get a cut of the revenue from CD players and stereos?

They probably do think they deserve a cut of profits from those and probably are in a second handed way since they're getting fees from blank tapes and CDRs.

And I know they wanted the government to tack on fees to MP3 players, but since they are more 'players' than 'blank media' haven't been able to do that.

Basically, they want to get paid for doing nothing and fear that their stranglehold on music is slipping away by independants that don't need them any longer.

Greed.

Quote this post ↓

Al Swearengen said:

member since 10 May 2005 with 339 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:18 pm

I have only so much discretionary cash and these hurricanes are affecting the prices of a lot of things. If it comes down to money for music or money for necessities I am going to opt for the food, and natural gas.

If I want to hear Eric Clapton I will listen to an SBC/Yahoo DSL advert. I am getting so sick of hearing Layla.

Quote this post ↓

acdc1174 said:

member since 16 Apr 2004 with 722 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:19 pm

I hope SJ holds the line here, but the way I see it he has three options. First, allow for variable pricing from the labels. Let the market speak for itself in that sales of "premium" songs would likely decline. Second, he could say to the labels, "You want to charge more for certain songs? Fine. Charge whatever you want, but the iTunes Music store will ONLY carry your $0.99 songs. That way their "premium singles' will get no promotion on iTMS. Third (and what I think the Labels fear most) SJ can say to the ARTISTS, "Come on and sell your songs to the public on iTunes Music Store and keep more of the revenue by SKIPPING a middle-man like your old label." He could make it a deal so that the artist/Apple contract would allow for promotional spots on the Apple iTunes website, teaser podcasts, teaser, video casts, etc. at little cost to the artists I think this battle will get MUCH uglier before it gets settled. Oh, and as for the labels being entitled to a piece of the iPod pie. I would like to know what kind of drugs this guy is on.

Quote this post ↓

Actual Reality said:

member since 16 Aug 2005 with 44 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:21 pm

this does not bode well for musicians. for a couple of reasons.

first, after a while, if the record companies cannot attain the pricing model they want, they will be forced to look for other avenues to generate the kind of revenue they are expecting. Since there are essentially 3 people profiting from that 99 cents, apple, the label, and the musicians- they will simply start taking more away from the musicians instead of continuing fighting apple and risk losing a valuable public relations battle (which they arguably already have.) instead of making, say, 15 cents on that dollar, they may find themselves making 5-10 cents on the dollar, depending on their ability to sell songs (basically taking the variable pricing scheme and applying it to musicians- where they can avoid such intense media scrutiny.)

second, musicians will be more and more likely to start going indy since it is cheaper to record now than it ever has been. even though this is the case, most indy labels will be forced to give up their best acts to major labels for one main reason; touring. touring is a very expensive venture, most indy labels cannot afford it. i would venture to guess that major labels will begin cherry picking bands that have already attained popularity through the digital circuit and simply start touring them. i know this already happens alot, but my worry is that the labels will develop contracts that give them a much bigger slice of touring profits than they already attain because they can't make up for it in record sales. since touring is essentially the money maker for musicians, they'll be getting less and less out of it.

these are just a couple of reasons this is not good for musicians.

if record labels want to price their music their own way, they need to realize that CDs are dying very quickly. we'll just see what happens then.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:00 pm

Whatever Bronfmann is taking, he needs to share.

He's just proving what we all already know, music companies are just as greedy as the studios. I already don't download from iTMS because of the embedded DRM. This changes nothing for me.

Quote this post ↓

Billy K said:

member since 06 May 2004 with 297 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:20 pm

Bronfman: "You owe us, Stevie!"

Jobs: Flicks open switchblade. "You wanna piece a 'da iPod? Come and get it!"

Every time you think the majors can't do anything more to hasten their demise, they find a new way to define stupid. Not surprising here, though. Bronfman has f-ed up everything he's ever touched.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:28 pm

Not to change the subject, but this page is really hard to read. Compressed fonts, light print, small size ... and the green doesn't help all that much either.

Oh yeah, RIAA bad bad bad.

If SJ went directly to the artists, he would be cutting his own arm off. What about all the artists tied to labels now? That includes all the ones that really sell, by the way. I hope he can hold of the labels, but I dunno...

Quote this post ↓

Engine Joe said:

member since 29 Jun 2004 with 413 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 5:43 pm

Al Swearengen wrote:

If I want to hear Eric Clapton I will listen to an SBC/Yahoo DSL advert. I am getting so sick of hearing Layla.

OK... what about anyone established who you aren't sick of hearing?

Quote this post ↓

Al Swearengen said:

member since 10 May 2005 with 339 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:27 pm

Engine Joe wrote:
Al Swearengen wrote:

If I want to hear Eric Clapton I will listen to an SBC/Yahoo DSL advert. I am getting so sick of hearing Layla.

OK... what about anyone established who you aren't sick of hearing?

I wasn't slamming you Engine Joe

It seems to be non-stop and on every TV channel and radio station, getting annoying. Yes I would feel the same way about any artist getting that much repetition.

Sure I have an iPod, but I don't get real news onit because Apple is too stupid to include an FM tuner on the pods (that is a joke).

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:29 pm

I saw this line and had to laugh:

<Joe Nordgaard, managing director of the consulting firm Spectral Advantage, noted: "Instead of spending $15 for a CD, you buy two cuts for two bucks. That's a lot of money left on the table. The traditional model with premium pricing has been so lucrative for the music industry. When they cut the deal with Apple, they did not realize what they had done. Now they want out.">

This idiot obviously doesn't understand business. No wonder he's a consultant. There's NO money left on the table. That's the whole point of this.

1) He fails to understand that if I only want the 2 songs, many times, I wont bother to spend $15 on the CD, which means this new model is MORE profitable.

2) The CD isn't $15 of profit to anyone that's GROSS revenues, not net. The record companies probably charge $10 for said CD to the store. The store marks it up the last $5. So the record company now has to pay for burning the CD, packaging it, stocking it, shipping it, managing it, etc, as well as pay the artist. with iTunes, they pay the artist, and have Apple do the rest. Which means about 75 cents of revenue for each song, which probably cost them less than a dime per song to put out there, and they only have to do it once. To sell 1 million CDs they have to spend $100k to distribute the CDs, to sell 1 million songs on iTuntes, they have to spend $10 to copy it onto iTunes. It's the OLD model that leaves a lot of money on the table. And the full album costs a consumer the same $10 that the label charges for the CD, with almost no additional costs to the label to sell the whole album compared to one song. So, profit for an album goes from $7/cd to $9 per album on iTunes.

3) the people hurt in iTunes are the records stores, not the labels. It's your local record store that can't compete. Which is why Bust Buy also sells the iPod, so they can make some money as well.

I could mention other areas this guy is a moron, but it's over kill.

Shut the moron up.

As for the RIAA, it wont be long before a U2 decides they can go the way of the Beatles, and start their own recording company. And that will be it. Artists will just start signing contracts with labels that care about the artists.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:14 pm

Greedy plain and simple just like Jobs said.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:17 pm

I bought an iPod to listen to my music not a radio. If you want to listen to a radio why buy an iPod?

Quote this post ↓

algr said:

member since 07 Aug 2003 with 296 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:58 pm

If you think about it, the popular songs should cost the LEAST, not the most. The cost of producing a song and putting it on iTunes is exactly the same whether it sells 100 copies or 10 million. So niche markets and special interests are the ones who really need to charge more, since they have fewer fans interested in supporting them.

Charging more for the _popular_ songs has the result of killing off innovation and keeping all the money clumped up in a few hands speaking with one voice and drowning out the alternatives. Gee, who wants that?

Quote this post ↓

Engine Joe said:

member since 29 Jun 2004 with 413 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:10 pm

algr wrote:

Charging more for the _popular_ songs has the result of killing off innovation and keeping all the money clumped up in a few hands speaking with one voice and drowning out the alternatives. Gee, who wants that?

The labels, I assure you, are totally unconcerned about this.

Quote:
I wasn't slamming you Engine Joe

Don't worry, Al, I wasn't feeling hurt - I was just trying to focus on my point, rather than the overexposure of Sir (he is a knight now, right?) Clapton. All I was getting at was so long as, say, The Beatles catalog is owned and thus distrubuted by label-interested parties, you won't be able to kill off the labels. Want to get a copy of "Flowers" by the Rolling Stones? "Boston" (by Boston)? "Who's Next" by The Who? There's no way to legally avoid the labels.

So how can they fail? At least at any point in the foreseeably near future?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:21 pm

Al Swearengen wrote:
I have only so much discretionary cash and these hurricanes are affecting the prices of a lot of things. If it comes down to money for music or money for necessities I am going to opt for the food, and natural gas.

If I want to hear Eric Clapton I will listen to an SBC/Yahoo DSL advert. I am getting so sick of hearing Layla.

Most of his best stuff was done 20 - 30 years ago. Just do what I do: Buy used CDs and rip those onto your iPod and computer. Most used CDs are cheaper per song than iTunes anyway.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:37 am

The record companies thought they should get a piece of the action with DAT equipment too. Label execs are disconnected from the rest of us just like politicians. I don't see an end too this in sight.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:56 am

If he's concerned that people will only buy 2 songs off an album, maybe that should stop signing crap acts and loading up albums with filler. That's the real problem.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:03 pm

I think the RIAA guy has a point. Most folks listen to music in their car - I think the record labels should get a cut of the auto sales. And how about the club scene? All those people dancing to music? I think the record labels deserve a cut from the shoe industry. I listen to music in the shower every day, and here is Dial soap getting a free ride courtesy of the RIAA. This gross injustice has got stop! Come to think of it, my child was conceived to the sounds of The Honeydrippers. I bet I owe the RIAA royalties on my kid! Damn! I hope they don't figure this out, because the private school tuition is killing me already.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:26 pm

Guest wrote:
If he's concerned that people will only buy 2 songs off an album, maybe that should stop signing crap acts and loading up albums with filler. That's the real problem.

EXACTLY. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Quote this post ↓

Rainy Day said:

member since 07 Jun 2005 with 607 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:05 pm

Engine Joe wrote:
I'd love to predict doomsday for the labels, but I don't see how it will happen with so many artists already (and in most cases bound permanently) entwined in the industry's clenches. If you want to hear Eric Clapton, you gotta pay your money to the label (albeit indirectly). It will be a long time before the top flight musicians eschew the label system at anything approaching critical mass.

What you are overlooking is the fact that there is a lot of “undiscovered” talent out there; talent passed-over by the labels. Talent which isn’t bound to contracts with the labels. If Apple were to deal with artists directly, they could by-pass the labels entirely.

And contracts usually expire. Contracts can be broken.

It’s not a question of “if,” but “when” the labels will die. I’ll bet it’s a lot quicker than the labels expect, and if SJ is smart, he holds the upper hand.

Quote this post ↓

Engine Joe said:

member since 29 Jun 2004 with 413 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:25 pm

Quote:
What you are overlooking is the fact that there is a lot of “undiscovered” talent out there; talent passed-over by the labels.

No, I'm not overlooking that; but looking only at the undiscovered talent still leaves the labels with most, if not all, current artists and the entire backlog of popular music which covers over 50 years. Are you saying that people will willingly stop listening to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, and Elvis?

Quote this post ↓

chefDave said:

member since 24 Sep 2005 with 2 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:55 pm

I buy lots of singles from CDs that I wouldn't purchase if not on iTunes and I'm sure many others do the same. That's revenue the labels wouldn't get at all otherwise. Let's hear what the musicians have to say about this. After all, it's their creativity we want and pay for.

I really don't find all the songs on most CD worth my money so I buy what I want.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:23 am

NOTE TO THE RECORD COMPANIES:

Make every or nearly every track on the cd GOOD, and I will be HAPPY to shell out the 15 bucks for said CD.

But continue to do what you've been doing, which is having only one or two good tracks on each CD be good, and the rest be total G-A-R-B-A-G-E, and no, no way will I buy the CD.

Instead, I will go to iTunes and get the tracks that are worth getting. And if you mess with iTunes, I will simply go to the P2P networks and d-load illegally (did it before iTunes, can do it again), and borrow lots more of my friends' CDs and will rip them to mp3.

Do what you like, but I'm not gonna pay through the nose for CDs that have only five minutes of good music on 'em. SCREW that.

Quote this post ↓

DaiMac said:

member since 29 Jun 2001 with 952 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:34 am

Mmmm...you can almost taste their desperation and fear...tastes like sweet sweet candy.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:15 pm

DaiMac wrote:
Mmmm...you can almost taste their desperation and fear...tastes like sweet sweet candy.

I agree, the record companies do indeed sound desperate if they think they're gonna get a cut of iPod revenues.

What's wrong with these guys anyway? They keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over and over again. Its like watching Wile E. Coyote in action.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:26 pm

Would the recording industry like to receive a cut of every 8-track player, Record player, Tape player, and CD player every sold as well?

I don't thing that the recording industry has ever recieved a cut of every recordable media ever sold either, but I'm sure they want it.

This is the nature of greed.

Quote this post ↓

Rainy Day said:

member since 07 Jun 2005 with 607 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:39 am

Engine Joe wrote:
Quote:
What you are overlooking is the fact that there is a lot of “undiscovered” talent out there; talent passed-over by the labels.

No, I'm not overlooking that; but looking only at the undiscovered talent still leaves the labels with most, if not all, current artists and the entire backlog of popular music which covers over 50 years. Are you saying that people will willingly stop listening to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, and Elvis?

Like i said, contracts expire, or can be broken. Artists have been known to change labels.

And pop artists turn over fairly quickly too, so most folks will happily move on to newer artists.

But honestly, some of the best music out there is stuff that is damn near impossible to get through the labels. If Apple ever starts dealing with artists directly, a lot of great new music will be available. I think quality will actually improve; the labels stifle good music.

Quote this post ↓

Rainy Day said:

member since 07 Jun 2005 with 607 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:41 am

Joy of Tech has a great take on this topic.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Oct 08, 2005 5:00 am

Before the ITMS, music listeners had two choices if they wanted a single song:

1. Buy the entire CD that contains that ONE song for a price probably near or higher than $12.99.

2. Pirate the song for free, but ONLY THAT ONE SONG.

Many users before the ITMS opted for option 2. Why? Because at the time, it made more sense than spending the $12.99 for a single song! Most people I've talked to thought literally said it seemed worth the risk to pirate the song rather than spend so much of their hard-earned cash.

iTunes gave listeners the freedom to pay for what they want, not for the rest of the bundle. Essentially it gave them a way to do option 2 LEGALLY. The RIAA's idea that "Instead of spending $15 for a CD, you buy two cuts for two bucks." is crap. It really is no wonder that P2P and piracy became so popular - it gave consumers *what they wanted*. The iTMS truly is fighting piracy! Isn't that what the RIAA wanted in the first place?

The problem here is the RIAA has a solid foundation to work on. They have the backing of the government (DMCA anyone) and deep pockets (which they obviously don't think are deep enough) to use to go after people. This support puts them in a position where they DO NOT NEED to act competitively, and they DO NOT NEED to please the consumer, since the studios are the sole content owners and there's no way to buy the music from, or bargain with, a competing source. I can easily imagine this thought going through an exec's head:

"Raise the prices. If they don't like it, too bad, they don't get the music. If they pirate, we have enough cash to sue their a$$."

We know that the RIAA is more than happy to sue people - pathetically, they even attacked some 12-year-old. They're putting the p2p coders out of business simply because most of them offer the p2p for free and don't have the financial resources to fight for their rights in court.

It is really too bad that the RIAA has the power they do. Apple has been a driving force in putting the RIAA in its place, but truly the RIAA does have the legal ability to give Apple a boot to the head and tell them to go to the land of Satan. The problem is the RIAA is not letting the model work. The iTMS model *WORKS!* Leave it alone! 500 million downloads can't be wrong - PEOPLE WILL PAY if it's reasonable, easy, and GIVES THE CONSUMER OPTIONS!

RIAA, get off your big ego trip, listen to the LISTENERS, the people who REALLY MATTER to YOUR BUSINESS, and WAKE UP. We want our ITMS, and we WANT IT THE WAY IT IS. Let the model work. Leave iPods alone. You're making more money now than you would have without the ITMS.

Music is such a wonderful gift of human existance, and it's a shame to see corporate greed mixed in with that.

Quote this post ↓

macinnerd said:

member since 15 Jun 2005 with 1742 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:15 am

A share of iPod revenues? He's off his rocker! The iPod in an Apple product, marketed by Apple, sold by Apple and serviced by Apple. People don't have to use it to contain the label's music, nore do they have to use it as an MP3 player at all. It also serves as a portable HD, external HD, photo storage device. The fact that Bronfman is whining about wanting a share of the iPod money is really... preposterous. (I'm capable of saying worse)

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.