Warner Music To Last.fm: We're Taking Our Music And Going Home
from the lets-make-life-worse-for-fans dept
There they go again... A few weeks back, I suggested that Warner Music would be smart to promote Ethan Kaplan, who is VP of Technology for Warner Brothers Records (a Warner Music Group Subsidiary), because he seemed to understand that the real trick was improving the overall experience people had around music, rather than focusing so narrowly on getting paid for every single usage. At the same time, however, the folks up at Warner Music, led by Edgar Bronfman (who claimed Warner would no longer be at war with music fans despite being the guy who started that war) were going out and suing all kinds of services that made the musical experience better.As a record label, their job should be to get their musicians' music out into the world in the most convenient way for anyone to enjoy, and to build business models based on that -- just as Kaplan suggested. But, instead, Warner Music continues to be about as anti-consumer as it can possibly be. Its latest move is to have Last.fm remove all Warner Music from its service. Last.fm, which is now owned by CBS, is an exceptionally popular online music listening, discovery and e-commerce site. While it did overstate its "free" music service, it still is rather ridiculous that Warner would decide to take all its music and go home.
Warner should recognize that it needs Last.fm a lot more than Last.fm users need it. There's plenty of music out there, and if they can't find Warner Music on Last.fm, they'll find someone else's music instead.
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
Filed Under: experience, music
Companies: last.fm, warner music group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Buncha dumbasses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
if i cant find warner music on last.fm then i guess ill have to go out and pirate it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other Musicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you expect anything better from a guy who says this? Sad thing is, he thinks he's going to live forever.
Poor Sumner Rothstein. 85 years old, and he's making so much money while not enjoying life. It seems his goal is absolute power in both personal and private life. We all know absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without a succession plan, the company is going to be cut up into many, many pieces when he retires. Viacom won't live forever, just like the East India Trading Company didn't live forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you have an hour to loose, check out:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6RF3Zfkvt10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Appease the Midwestern lifestyle, and well...
You connect the dots. Heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their about to launch the next 'BIG' thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warner Can Afford To Shut Out Last.fm
It's a win-win situation for them.
(this of course assumes that the average last.fm user has heard of imeem, which, judging by the outpourings of adulation for last.fm's inferior "free, on demand" service may actually be the case)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Warner Can Afford To Shut Out Last.fm
"It's a win-win situation for them."
Not really. I don't use those other services (I avoid MySpace because I value my eyeballs, for one thing). I do use other music discovery services but since Warner have jumped ship on Last.fm and were partly behind Pandora blocking my country, they've just made I sure come across less of their products (and hence don't ever feel the urge to buy them).
Leaving one service in favour of another only does them good if the users follow. There's so many different services out there, nobody can use them all and it makes little sense to leave out one of the biggest unless they have a major trump card. I haven't seen exact figures, but does imeem really have that many more users that last.fm? Also, in my experience, most people use either Facebook or MySpace not both at the same time, and iLike is the music app of choice at Facebook...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peeve
Apostrophe's and they're use's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Peeve
Apostrophe's and they're use's."
it's : it is : it has
its : of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action
Congratulations. You just made everyone here a little dumber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interestingly, Last.fm was one of the main services I used to discover the independent artists I was interested in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (indie music)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. MLS, we have never suggested otherwise. But what pains me is your insistence that we should not even be allowed to explain why putting in place a better business model is a better result. You keep accusing us of being "immoral" (and not responding to my direct questions about this). Yet, all we are doing is showing how these better business models work, and encouraging more artists to understand those business models. Because, if they don't, people *will* take their business elsewhere.
The problem, though, is when you accuse us, in explaining these models, of trying to *force* anyone to use this business model or, alternatively, of supporting unauthorized use -- when neither is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When I do speak up it is typically in association with comments made about IP in general that are inconsistent with what the law actually comprises.
I note you have a tendency to use the words "us" and "we", but you have never really defined who falls within their scope.
As for "morality", I likewise do not recall ever having used that in association with either you or your company. However, I have no compunction about using it when I read posts by persons who see nothing at all wrong with copying and using something that they know full well is unauthorized by its creator. They exemplify the type of person I refer to as lacking a "moral compass".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If that were all you were doing, then I would never be troubled by any of your posts or comments. Unfortunately, this statement is simply untrue. You have both implied and explicitly stated that copyright (and at times, IP as a whole), in any form, is an injustice to be fought and abolished.
MLS: However, I have no compunction about using it when I read posts by persons who see nothing at all wrong with copying and using something that they know full well is unauthorized by its creator. They exemplify the type of person I refer to as lacking a "moral compass".
Exactly. If you do choose to argue against copyright (or IP as a whole), that's your prerogative. (Just don't deny that you're doing so later). Arguing against a law and intentionally violating a law because you don't like it are two different things. There's a place for civil disobedience, surely, but the $0.99 charge for a song doesn't qualify unless your ability to weigh social injustice is seriously skewed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
moral compass?
It is morally wrong to steal or devalue another's property, but it is NOT morally wrong to use an infinite resource such as an Idea. I do make a point not to PROFIT from the use of other people's idea's without proper credit or compensation. This satisfies my MORAL obligation.
Morality cannot be legislated, nor will any definition of morality hold true from one man to another, nor one generation to the next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
warner last to come around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meh
Either way, as it was mentioned some where above, labels NEED these services to promote their music. Geebuz, when are these old farts going to die that are up these running the music industry. I had some dumb-ass client ask me what a URL was once, I wanted to die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder...
The views of one category above are worthy of a sympathetic hearing.
The other is just more parasitic lawyering, and needs neither sympathy nor hearing, being quite capable of coming up with more than enough amoral rationalization on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder...
Both, in about equal numbers. Have not, however, represented holding companies, the ones that seem to stir up a lot of emotion as of late. I should note, though, that not all such holding companies deserve the criticism that has been directed their way. Some are actively involved in venture formation and execution, but exist as a holding company for tax and other legitimate business reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was once said that "Violence is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
In 21st century American society, replace "legalism" for "violence". And replace "large corporation" for "scoundrel"...or just leave it as "scoundrel". Or "fucking dirtbags", either way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not interested in arguing anything based on what the law currently says, I'm interested in arguing principles. It is, after all, from principles that the law is derived (whether we agree with the principles the lawmakers choose or not).
I'm saying this and nothing more: given the current law, those who simply violate that law because they don't like it are, by definition, lawbreakers. If you don't want to be labeled a lawbreaker, don't break the law. If you do break the law, be prepared to face current consequences. Anything else is disengenuous.
If you disagree with the law, there are legitimate methods to address those concerns (lobbying, public debate like this blog, lawsuits, etc.).
I would agree that legalism too often is "the last refuge of a scoundrel." Violence (i.e., injury by or as if by distortion or infringement ... ahem) remains a scoundrel's refuge as well.
I'm not on the side of the corporations. I'm not already wed to any business model. I am seriously concerned about creators' potential to generate income from their creations and with the respect society shows those who create valuable content -- respect that could most easily be shown by a simple willingness to pay a small amount for the content deemed valuable. Ahem, ahem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]