EMI Threatens To Leave IFPI

from the change-your-strategy dept

Last November, we noted that the "under new management" major record label EMI was discussing the possibility of scaling back its support for the RIAA and the IFPI, after realizing that many of the group's actions were counter-productive and had helped lead EMI and the other record labels down the wrong path. The moment of awakening for EMI appears to have been Radiohead's experiment. Apparently, EMI is quite serious about this. Reader Jon notifies us that EMI has told the IFPI that it will leave the group at the end of March, if it doesn't shift its strategies towards helping the recording industry, rather than its current strategy, which has clearly not been working. Part of the proposal is that the IFPI merges with the RIAA, rather than having the two act as separate groups -- though, the two often do seem to work together. Either way, this could represent a huge step forward, as it appears that at least one of the major labels has finally realized what plenty of people have realized for nearly a decade: the strategy of focusing on protecting an obsolete business model while suing your biggest fans is more damaging than helpful. Getting EMI to pressure the industry to realign and rethink its strategies is a huge step forward -- even if it's happening about seven or eight years late.

Filed Under: recording industry, trade associations
Companies: emi, ifpi, riaa

EMI Might Not Like The RIAA Very Much

from the distancing-yourself dept

Kevin Stapp writes in to point to the rumor making the rounds that EMI is considering scaling back how much it supports the RIAA and IFPI financially. While this is positioned mainly as a cost-savings move, it could have much larger ramifications. EMI, of course, has actually been shifting slowly away from some of the more troubling positions of the RIAA. It was the first major label to sell DRM-free tracks on iTunes. More importantly, it was recently taken private by a private equity firm, whose bosses don't seem beholden to the old way of doing business, and are willing to rethink the business. For example, when Radiohead began its experiment with "name your own pricing," the CEO of that private equity firm used it as a call to action for the company to start thinking creatively about new ways to distribute music -- rather than trying to diminish its importance as the other record labels did.

If EMI lowers its funding of the RIAA and the IFPI it's basically an (all too late) admission, that the strategies of those two organizations are not helping EMI achieve its long term goals. This shouldn't be surprising, as it's been obvious for nearly a decade now that the RIAA's focus was solely on short-term goals at the expense of any long-term vision. Many people have pointed this out over the years, and people would respond that the RIAA was simply doing what the labels wanted it to do (even if those actions, like pissing off a huge number of fans) was incredibly damaging to the labels' own long-term prospects. EMI pulling back funding shows that even it no longer thinks the RIAA's actions are in its best interests.

Filed Under: funding, record labels, riaa
Companies: emi, riaa

The Pirate Bay To Sue Entertainment Companies For Attacks

from the could-get-interesting dept

Well, this could get interesting. Following the leak of MediaDefender's emails, the folks behind The Pirate Bay now believe they have enough evidence to sue many major entertainment firms for "infrastructural sabotage, denial of service attacks, hacking and spamming." Basically, there's evidence in the emails that a bunch of firms, including Universal, EMI, Sony, Paramount and others were using MediaDefender to try to mess with The Pirate Bay's system. Whether or not the lawsuit actually goes anywhere may depend on a lot of factors (including Swedish laws, which I am totally unfamiliar with). There may be some questions about how the emails in question were obtained. And, of course, the entertainment companies will likely counter that they were just trying to protect their own materials -- which could find a sympathetic ear in a courtroom. Either way it would be quite a lawsuit.

Filed Under: copyright, denial of service, p2p, sabotage
Companies: emi, fox, paramount, pirate bay, sony, ubisoft, universal

Piecemeal DRM-Free Efforts Aren't Going To Unseat Apple's Online Music Dominance

from the keep-trying dept

Universal Music announced a couple weeks back that it would begin selling DRM-free music -- but not through the iTunes Music Store, in a bid to undermine Apple's dominance in online music sales. As we pointed out, this wasn't likely to happen, since few people shop for music according to what label it's on, particularly when it's a huge one like Universal. The label now says that its unprotected tracks will be available from a few different sources: a new service called Gbox, and through Wal-Mart's online music store. Both will undercut Apple's price for DRM-free tracks by selling them for 99 and 94 cents respectively, but that's hardly likely to make a difference, particularly in attracting iPod users, nor will it help their businesses since the margins on digital music are already pretty thin. The problem remains that most people don't pay attention to what label their favorite performers are on. Saying "we sell DRM-free songs from Universal/EMI artists" isn't going to have much of an impact in getting people to switch from iTunes, but it does seem to illustrate that labels and other retailers are looking to compete with iTunes on this front, which should be good news for consumers. Still, the iTunes Music Store's dominance will remain until another retailer can somehow convince all the major labels and a wide array of indies to let it sell DRM-free music. As long as Apple's rivals can only use a piecemeal approach to get music they sell onto iPods, it's going to be a long, fruitless, uphill battle. Competing with iTunes on price is only part of the equation. Rivals have to also match its selection; then they have to worry about matching its ease of use as well.

Filed Under: drm, music
Companies: apple, emi, gbox, universal, wal-mart

Universal Music To Test DRM-Free Sales, But Perhaps For The Wrong Reasons

from the nose-cut-spite-face dept

Following the lead of rival record label EMI, Universal Music says it will later this month begin selling DRM-free music downloads through a variety of sites -- but not through Apple's iTunes Music Store. Apple and Universal have a long-running spat which culminated in Universal's refusal last month to to renew its iTunes Music Store contract. While its music is still sold through the store, Universal could yank it at any time. Universal's decision not to give Apple the unprotected tracks seems like little more than an attempt to reduce its influence in the music market -- which is a little ironic, considering that it was the record labels' insistence on using DRM that made Apple so powerful in the space. Making the unprotected tracks available through other retailers is about the only way that Universal can fight back, but it's hard to see the benefit in not selling the product through iTMS, given its popularity. The problem for Universal is that few people pay attention to what label artists' records are on, so they're not going to go, "Oh, 50 Cent is on Universal, so I should go to Amazon to buy his unprotected MP3s." If they're an iTMS user, they're generally just going to look and see if the 50 Cent songs they want are available there, then download them. In that case, they're going to purchase the cheaper, DRM-encumbered track, since it's what's available, and Universal misses out on the chance to sell them a higher-priced unrestricted track. The core of the label's disagreement with Apple is pricing -- but their attempt to strike some sort of blow against the company will, in all likelihood, only end up hurting themselves.

Filed Under: entertainment, itunes, music, record labels
Companies: apple, emi, universal music