Music Business Blames Apple Again
from the it's-not-me,-it's-you dept
Major record labels have been annoyed with Apple for the way it prices music in the iTunes store, but with its power in the market, there's not a lot they can do. They will, however, continue to point the finger, now blaming Apple for flat download sales, saying its insistence on an across-the-board price of 99 cents per song is stunting growth. Other "critics" -- or rather a single critic, with BusinessWeek quoting the CEO of Apple rival Napster -- cite Apple's copy-protection technology and its refusal to let anybody else use it, which locks competing services out of iPods. What's slightly amusing is that, again, it was the big record labels' obsession with copy protection that gave Apple all this power. The labels act like there's nothing they can do if Apple tells them no, other than pull their music from iTunes, which they won't do given its role as market leader. There is something they can do -- open up their own store, and sell unrestricted MP3 files at whatever price they want. iPods, and and pretty much any other digital music player, can play those files. The labels' insistence on trying to control what people can do with the music they buy has gotten them into this mess, and it will take a reversal of that position to get them out.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lack of control
Word to the music industry; I'm buying more music now, specifically due to iTunes, than I was before. Take the hint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lack of control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content is king
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Content is king
Oh and 44.1 is not "compression" it's samplerate which reproduces accurately frequencies up to 22050 Hz. And no human can hear above that (unless maybe toddlers can, dunno).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wake Up To "The Establishment"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
other vendors can sell unrestricted MP3s, AACs, Ap
All these stores could be selling more and more music, that could go on the iPod, just don't use DRM.
Most importantly, it's the label's insistence on DRM that is the issue. I have more than 5 computers in my home, and Fairplay gets to be annoying at times.
I find it funny that there is free water available, but people still buy bottled water (without DRM mind you).
Peace,
gthomas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: other vendors can sell unrestricted MP3s, AACs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: other vendors can sell unrestricted MP3s, AACs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: other vendors can sell unrestricted MP3s, AACs
Sounds like you're getting ripped off. Water costs me about $1 per week.
I switched to metered water about 3 years ago, which is so so cheap, compared to the way I used to buy it, that the water company still owes me money and I haven't paid a penny since. I'm an environmentalist, so I do a few simple water-conserving things, like taking daily showers rather than using the bath, and collecting rain in a barrel for my garden, and I end up using about 1 ton (1 cubic meter) of water each week, which costs about 1 dollar per week
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: other vendors can sell unrestricted MP3s, AACs
last I checked you can't copy and paste water
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: other vendors can sell unrestricted MP3s, AACs
yes you can. it's just not called water anymore... :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: other vendors can sell unrestricted MP3s, AACs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unrestricted MP3s
Thing is, I'd say the majority of music enthusiasts now who are likely to use their computer for any sort of music usage are also savvy enough to know how to get a pirate release of an album or re-record their protected media and encode it unrestricted (for traditional use, an analog recording of an MP3 fed through the phono jack is really good enough.. This is generally pop, not Tchaikovsky we're talking about).
One day corporations might take a chance and see how things go when they try to be your friend instead of legal ramparts against the unwashed masses.
If Google had a music service where you could just download MP3s and then click a "please pay $1 for the download you just made", how many people would click it? I would. How about if Sony BMG did that? Not a chance - I hate those fuckers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about control - of the artists
I think Spolsky got it right. It's about labels wanting control over artists. Why else complain about what to everyone else appears to be quite successful.
I don't think record labels will be around in 10 years. There will be more choice for consumers, it will be easier for new bands to get heard and suceed, music will cost less, and artists will make more money.
I guess by inference you could say: labels limit consumer choice, make it onerous for new bands to get a break, make music prices higher than they need to be, and take money directly from artists pockets with no clear value add. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all about control - of the artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jerk squad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I Missing Something
If so, then what good does making i-tunes protected? and why not sell non-DMR songs over the internet, if you are selling them in stores?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Am I Missing Something
MOST CD's don't have any type of copy protection. But surely you must have seen all the fuss about the Sony rootkit debacle (see boing boing round up if somehow you've missed it).
Point being, most CD's may not have copy protection (or DRM) BUT the music industrial will go to almost any (possibly even criminal) lengths to try to keep you from being able to enjoy what you purchased.
Heck of business model. Punish your customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bottom line.....money
It's all about money. They don't want people to copy music-they want people to buy copies of cds. They want people to buy copies for all types of uses. Buy one for the car, one for the home, one for work-ect. This is what they want.
You really have to be a millionare(Which I'm not)to be able to afford this.
I think it's time for a little common sense here-the music industery will continue to go downhill as long as they keep the nonsense up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]